User talk:Tryde

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Tryde, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Page Blanking

On 19-Mar, you blanked Baron Hervey. Blanking pages is generally considered a bad idea. I've reverted it to the previous version. If this was the result of a broken edit, you may wish to make the correct edits. If you believe the redirect should be deleted, please follow the redirect portion of the deletion procedures. If you believe an article should be written instead of the redirect, please write a stub. If you have questions, please let me know. Thanks! -- JLaTondre

[edit] Removing Dates

When you are adding information to peerage pages, could you please not remove the actual date that the peerage was created and just leave the year like you have been doing. I have put most of these dates in and I don't see why you need to delete them? --Berks105 13:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Besides which, dignities such as baronetcies, rank against each other in order of date of creation, not year of creation. - Baronetcy project 17:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baronetcies

Please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Baronetcies - Baronetcy project 17:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Great. Please would you take on the peers who are shown on Unproven baronetcies? I have added to your response on the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Baronetcies-- Baronetcy project 09:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
This user is a member of Team Baronetcies.

[edit] Moves

Hi Tryde, good work! However could you please in future if you move articles correct also the redirects (to avoid double or wrong redirects)? Thanks and Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 22:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC) ~~

[edit] Re:Baron Lucas of Crudwell

Hello. I have access to Burke's which lists the present baron as the 12th (as does Cracroft's, which I admit is a bit of a carbon copy of Burke's anyway) but unfortunately I haven't got access to Cockayne's either. He's rightly listed with the 12th ordinal due to Anthony, Earl of Harold being called up the Lords in 1718, thus making him the 3rd baron (I assume you're familiar with writs of acceleration, so won't go into them). The Marchioness Grey was thus the 4th baroness and the Countess de Grey the 5th baroness and so on and so on. Interestingly, on Lord Harold's death in 1723, the barony passed back to his father, the Duke of Kent and wasn't inherited by Lord Harold's neice (later the Marchioness Grey) until the duke's own death in 1740 - due to the slight complexity of writs of acceleration combined with the even more complex nature of the terms of the barony's patent, this totally confuses me as to why it didn't just pass to the duke's eldest daughter, the Countess of Breadalbane and Holland (mother of Lady Grey). That aside, I believe we can definately count Lord Harold as the third baron simply by the fact that every other eldest son of peers that were called up and didn't succeeded to their father's higher peerage, have also been given an ordinal. Thanks, Craigy (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Proteus has access to Cokayne's. I suggest you alert him. - Kittybrewster 18:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The CP calls him the 3rd Baron (well, technically, it puts the numeral "III" next to his entry, and the numeral "IV" next to the Marchioness Grey's entry, and so on, since it doesn't use the same numbering system as most other works). However, there does seem to be some variation here: William Howard, Lord Howard of Effingham, eldest son of Charles Howard, 1st Earl of Nottingham, was summoned to Parliament as Baron Howard of Effingham and died childless in his father's lifetime, the Barony reverting to his father, and is not included in the numbering of the Barony of Howard of Effingham, whilst Oliver St John, 5th Baron St John of Bletso, eldest son of Oliver St John, 1st Earl of Bolingbroke, who was similarly summoned to Parliament as Baron St John of Bletso and died childless in his father's lifetime, the Barony reverting to his father, does seem to be included in the numbering of the Barony of St John of Bletso. Forced to choose (which of course we are), I'd be inclined to go with "12th" here, since my instinct says that the Howards are wrong and the St Johns right. Proteus (Talk) 20:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Please would you paste craigy's and proteus's statements (edited by you) to baron lucas talk? - Kittybrewster 23:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viscount Hanworth

I based the edit on this [1] Alci12 11:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

By all means though I'm not sure where you are going to add it. It would normally only get a mention under children of the 2nd Viscount in his article. Certainly it's not right to add it at the end of the holders list by the Heir apparent/presumptive Alci12 11:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viscount Exmouth

I haven't check the details as yet but what you've added looks great. One thing though, if you could try to break the text up with paragraphs it would make it much easier for readers. Alci12 17:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Earl of Egmont

I believe there's an adopted child somewhere, which might be him (which, of course, means that he isn't an heir). Proteus (Talk) 17:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The usual sources list it as an earldom without any heirs heading for extinction Alci12 10:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Succession boxes

Hi Tryde, I've seen that you corrected some parliament succession boxes, I had added. It might be interesting for you that there is a special style for them which you can see at Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Guidelines. Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 19:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC) ~~

[edit] Baron_Strathclyde

Ok thanks for that, I'm not sure why I hadn't added the brother before, perhaps I previewed the change but never sent it. Alci12 12:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Earl of Seafield

"On Lord Findlater’s death they held the the earldom jointly."

Your source for this is? It's not uncommon in Scotland pre c18 for the husbands of female peers to be granted the style and title for life as though they held the title but that's not in any sense sharing it. Alci12 22:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

They don't say explicitly that they held the title jointly, but I presume this was the case (although my knowledge regarding the legal aspects of peerage titles is very limited, so I don't know if it is legally possible for a husband and wife to hold a title jointly). However, there is no doubt that Patrick was a peer in his own right.
Exactly, you can't to my knowledge jointly hold a peerage. To the extent that google and the clan related sites can be trusted for answers they suggest the title was remaindered from the first earl to his son in law. I will try to see what else I can find with any luck proteus will be back and he has access to most sources. Alci12 11:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baron_Methuen

Sadly unless you buy updated versions of several references works (as not all are anyway accurate even when up to date) each year mistakes will happen. Re-searching quickly I couldn't find a death notice for Christopher Paul Mansel Campbell etc which probably explains why he slipped though the cracks as I usually catch missing hard copy entries that way. The hp will as you say be his eldest son - who I can't quickly find listed with children. Good catch please add the hp title page Alci12 11:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Coleridge, 1st Baron Coleridge

Hi Tryde, may I ask you to put a short notice on the article's talkpage to give your reasons for removing so much text? I think at such big interventions the behaviour should be explained so that people (especially these who had added the texts) can comprehend it. Greetings and thanks ~~ Phoe talk 11:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC) ~~

There isn't a policy but a kind of guideline concerning the Encyclopaedia Britannica (see Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica). Your reasons are very plausible and are also covered by the "guideline". Of course this cannot know everybody, so your explanation at the talkpage is extremly useful. Thanks for your work ~~ Phoe talk 13:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC) ~~

[edit] Earl Jellicoe

re. JELLICOE: Hi Tryde, why do you keep removing the picture of Tidcombe? Rodolph 13:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] baron of Inverforth

"Hello. You have added that Hon. Benjamin Andrew Weir (b. 1997) is the Heir Apparent to the barony of Inverforth. What is your source for this? According to my own notes (taken from Who's Who) the present baron has only one daughter and the heir presumptive is his uncle Hon. John Vincent Weir (b. 1935)."

Offhand I can't remember, my own books are too old for that so it must be from another source. Goggling around quickly finds at least one BB reference to Debrett's 2003 with 2 children of the 4th Lord inc one son with that name. I do look in debrettes from time to time so that could be the case here. If your source is ~97-2003 giving the 1935 heir then edit the article accordingly as it's better to be wrong an have a referenced source than be right without. Alci12 12:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Vernon, 1st Baron Lyveden

I agree with you, I was overhasty and your reason is comprehensible, so I have arranged it. By the way you can let do such moves on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 11:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC) ~~

I hope you have seen that it was taken care of meanwhile. ~~ Phoe talk 16:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC) ~~

[edit] Succession boxes

Heja Tryde, I have a tiny request. Could you also indicate the dates, if you add succession boxes for titles or baronetcies? Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 16:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC) ~~

It isn't a policy, but rather common practice. Personally I think the dates are important also for peerage titles or baronetcies, since they show when somebody inherited his title, resigned or disclaimed it. This is particularly the case if the person has several titles. Of course this is usually in the article, however for the pure summary the boxes are more suitable. If you do not see this so, I will not insist on it, though. Best wishes! ~~ Phoe talk 20:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC) ~~

[edit] Formatting

Hi, I'll just explain my rationale, if that helps. The problem I have with the bolding is that I assume you're using it for emphasis (to make the grantee stand out), but in WP articles it's only supposed to be used for the subject of the article, which in the case of these articles is the peerage itself (and by association all the other peerages held with it, because most of the time they redirect there and it's essentially a shared article named after the most appropriate one). The people who held them have their own articles, and are obviously appropriately bolded at the beginning of them, so I don't think it's appropriate to bold them in the peerage article. I agree that the names need emphasising, which I why I normally link them (even though they're in the lists anyway), because links stand out. Re the numbers, "the 2nd Earl" is essentially a contraction of "the 2nd Earl of Somewhere" (with the title itself left out because it's cumbersome to keep repeating it), and it's definitely our style to write the latter in articles, and so I feel it's inconsistent to change the formatting when it's shortened. But I definitely agree with your last point – there are far more important things to be worrying about. Proteus (Talk) 21:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duff Baronets

The additional infois great but the page is now very hard to read dont you think? - Kittybrewster 21:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Dukes of X and User:Heavens To Betsy

I am bipartite: on one side I find it absolutely sensible with titles who have a large number of incumbents to have subcategories, which provide a better subdivision. On the other side subcategories are of course totally unnecessary, if a title was only created for one subject or was inherited by a few. Also in these cases, in which a title has different creations in different peerages, we should rather use the old system, since otherwise titleholders would sometimes appear in categories they don't belong into. By the way if you did not know it yet, discussions about categories can be started on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 20:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC) ~~

PS: I have just seen your question on Kitty's talkpage. The wikisoftware will change automatically all # signs to numbers, if they appear at the beginning of a line (It is the same principle as in the case of the * signs). The numbers are ongoing and are always as many as # signs. Taken briefly to the point: if you delete an entry, the other entries are amended automatically. ~~ Phoe talk 20:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC) ~~

Absolutely right but it won't work here because we are not starting at 1. - Kittybrewster (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lewis Vernon Harcourt, 1st Viscount Harcourt

Now after you have said it, I am a little bit insecure. The Britannica, the ODNB, the NPG, JSTOR as well as the Peerage, the Telegraph and the LG have him as Lewis Harcourt, so it is possible, that Debrett (I presume it is your source) is wrong? ~~ Phoe talk 20:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC) ~~

It seems, it is like you say. Concerning the categories I have added a reply on User:Heavens To Betsy's talkpage. Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 15:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC) ~~

[edit] Wodehouse family

Good show! —Tamfang 21:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/r/y/User_talk%7ETryde_91f4.html"