Talk:Sir Richard Strachan, 6th Baronet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage.
	This article is supported by the Military work group.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
Low	rated as low-importance on the assessment scale

A fact from Sir Richard Strachan, 6th Baronet appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 21 February 2008.

[edit] 6th baronet

I'm confused, why is he listed as 6th Baronet at the start of the article when the ODNB lists him as 4th Baronet, and just to increase the confusion the Clan Strachan website seems to say he was 8th Baronet. Is it something like Lord Lovat where members fo the family were attainted for their part in the Jacobite rebellions, so the family considers them to have held the title even though legally they did not do so? David Underdown (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I originally named the article as 4th baronet, following the ODNB. Dabbler found a source saying he was the 6th baronet and duly moved the page. I then looked a bit closer and found the discrepancies as you have noted, plus another source which lists him as the 10th baronet. All rather confusing really. Benea (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the sources: There is a discrepancy over when the baronetcy was created. Clan Strachan claim it was in 1685, most other sources say 1625. Clan Strachan indicates that Richard's predecessor, by their reckoning was the third baronet, but later claim that Richard was the 8th. Some confusion about this may be the reason why 4th and 8th are mentioned. Moving on to the possibility of 6th and 10th. Thomas Wise's largely follows the family tree set out in the Burkes' list, but adds in a few members here and there, but in a rather confusing way. Since the two leading authorities on the British peerage, Burkes' and Debretts' seem to concur he was the 6th baronet, I suggest we go with that. Benea (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth giving some sort of overview in the article at least for 4th v 6th - ODNB is normally considered pretty standard reference too (though not in that specific area). David Underdown (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note, explaining the different listings. Hopefully that should suffice. Benea (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

I've attempted to clarify a few things by reference to the contemporary London Gazettes promotion to flag rank and beyond was at this time almost entirely on the basis of seniority, so we need to be very careful in drawing conclusions about the timing of promotions. Though some ranks contained modern looking designations such as rear-admiral, vice-admiral etc, the distinction of the squadron was alos very important. David Underdown (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1.95?

Not to be diffucult here, but I still don't understand the meaning of "1.95" in connection with the Creevey Papers edited by Maxwell. It isn't a page reference, so what is it? Manxruler (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a document reference. The Creevy papers are a collection of letters, manuscripts, journal entries and many and varied other forms of documents that have been edited into the editions eventually published by Maxwell. In this case, document 95 (a letter(s) or similar from Graham Moore to John Moore, in which the former discusses Strachan), which is to be found in volume 1 of the 2 volume set published in 1904. Like a page reference but not, and not usually encountered outside of an academic environment. Benea (talk) 02:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Right. But is Wikipedia really an academic environment? Manxruler (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's the best we can do as a way of referencing, unless you have an alternative. We could leave it as just pointing to the papers, which sacrifices precision for clarity, I don't particularly mind. Benea (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Volume 1, No. 95? David Underdown (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking about something more in line of that. Much clearer, just as precise. Manxruler (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)