User talk:Tryde/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Tryde/Archive 1, 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

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

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)

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.



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) ~~

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)

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)

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)

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)

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) ~~

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)

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)

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)

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) ~~

Earl Jellicoe

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

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)

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) ~~

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) ~~

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)

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)

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)

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) ~~

Wodehouse family

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

Mary Hill, 1st Baroness Sandys

You ask why give UK title to younger branch of the Hill family?

I can't give you the certain answer but I can give you the likely answer. It's not uncommon in the c17-19 for recently extinct peerages (of great history, prestige or power and influence) to be re-conferred upon the closest heir male/female of the last holder. You see many changes of names to that of the father in law either as a requirement of Name and Arms clauses in wills (to inherit land) or because that name is more prestigious or occasionally because it seems a clear attempt to aid a bid to get a title re-granted.

As the estates of the Lords Sandys fell to a female and she was a descendant of peers paternally and maternally it looks probable that it was felt proper to keep the title alive. If the title had been created with the normal remainder it would have been subsumed within the marquisate which would have defeated the purpose. (I note the 3rd baron did change the name to Sandys but that line died out.) After 200 years the title is anyway soon returning to the main line

Btw the barony is an oddone:

The King has been pleased to grant the Dignity of a Baron of the Kingdom of Great Britain unto the Right Honourable Samuel Sandys, Esq; by the Name, Style and Title of Lord Sandys, Baron of Ombersley in the County of Worcester. [2] Alci12 14:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, tbh providing the estates inherited are sufficiently valuable they don't seem to have had to do anything to 'merit' the title. The pattern seems to be who inherited the estates of the peer. You see the nearest heir male (or male whatsoever) fail or succeed pretty much in line with whether they gained the estates. (See 3rd Marquess of Londonderry who gained an extra earldom due to his second wife's immense inheritance which was remaindered to her children in preference to his eldest.)While I'm not saying being popular or a politician doesn't help your case the reality is the latter was pre 1832 little more than a measure of wealth anyway. As the original title was UK downgrading it to an Irish title would have been almost a slight. I've never found an official explanation for the patent form though it may reflect a surge in anti-French feeling. The use of Lord not Baron to this day is often claimed to be of the same basis. Both Proteus and I certainly make the first line of the article follow the patent form as for that matter do many peerage sources.[3] or burkes LG and so on. Most of the titles in question are subsidiary and I can't think offhand of one to check it against. Alci12 13:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I strongly suspect that the objective was to revive the previous title for the benefit of members of the family on whome the estates were settled. It sometimes happened that the mother's estate was settled on the second son, where the eldest was going to inherit a large estate from his father. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Move

Hello Tryde. Please be aware that it is highly frowned upon to copy and paste contents from one page to another (the subsequent article history gives unfair credit to the author of the move, rather than the author(s) of the content), as you did today regarding Earl of Carrick. I have reverted your move and created a regular dab page. It is my view that the ancient Scottish earl is clearly primary usage. If you disagree, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_potentially_controversial_moves to request a move vote. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

On the one hand, your argument that the Earl of Carrick is in current use for the Irish peerage is relatively good. On the other hand, a modern earl is a relatively unimportant figure in society, not of much importance per se. The medieval earl was a semi-autonomous provincial ruler one of whose holders is one of the most famous people in British history. Sufficient to say, none of the Irish earls currently have articles, whereas 10 of the 12 Scottish earls do. Having to find your way to the Irish earl via the Scottish one is admittedly unfortunate, but is an inevitable feature of wikipedia, hence why {{otheruses}} exists for the top of pages. The Scottish Earl of Carrick is clearly primary usage. This is obviously just my opinion, however. Feel free to pursue whatever of those two courses you deem best. - Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
BTW, was "hundreds" really an exaggeration? Did you check? It is after all contained in most articles about Robert I of Scotland, as well as the other holders of that office. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing nobility topics

I wonder if you could help with my list of missing topics related to nobility and royalty ? I do not know how many of these would be just worthy of redirects and the like . - Skysmith 09:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

- Thank you - Skysmith 18:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Earl of Portarlington

Hello Tryde, I see you have added substantially to the Earl of Portarlington entry. Firstly my thanks, it was very interesting. Secondly, you say at the end that the incumbent Earl lives in Australia. This is of interest to me since I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to find him. May I ask where you have found this information and if you have any further contact details? My intentions aren't malicious I assure you. Any information would be greatly appreciated.

Markopopulous 12:15, 29 May 2007

Thanks for the reply. I've discovered that the Earl actually lives in Scotland, not Australia as you have in the article. It was his (now deceased) brother who lived there.

Notability of Prescott Baronets

A tag has been placed on Prescott Baronets, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SamBC 03:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Henry Kenyon Stephenson date of death

Hi - I was interested to see that you changed Stephenson's date of death. I assume you have a reliable source for this, and would be interested to know what it is, so that we can determine which is more likely to be accurate. The date I used is the one from Stenton and Lees, who are generally pretty reliable on these things, but not infallible. Warofdreams talk 18:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I've found some definite inaccuracies in Rayment's pages, although they are a very useful and comprehensive resource. If that was the only evidence, I'd be tempted to stick with Stenton and Lees, but the other evidence you've found makes it pretty clear that your date is right. I'll re-update the article. For the reference format, just put your reference between <ref> and </ref> tags, and it'll appear in the list at the bottom. Warofdreams talk 23:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Unproven Baronetcies

  • Balfour of Albury Lodge - Extinct
  • Bates - succeeded but now Dormant, 6th Bt having died
  • Campbell of Barcaldine - succeeded
  • Clegg-Hill – succeeded 2003
  • Colthurst - succeeded
  • Cooper - succeeded
  • Critchett - succeeded
  • Dupree – previous Baronet failed to proved succession
  • Eve - succeeded
  • Hagart-Alexander - succeeded
  • Head - succeeded
  • Keith - succeeded
  • MacGregor - succeeded
  • Nugent of Donore - succeeded
  • Pasley - Dormant
  • Perrot - Extinct
  • Stewart - Extinct
  • Thomas - succeeded
  • Vyvyan - succeeded
  • Warmington – succeeded
  • Wigram – succeeded 2003
  • Younger – succeeded 2003

An updated "succession" list should be on the website shortly; however, as the list runs from the beginning of 2004, the 2003 successions will not appear.

Please would you email me direct.

- Kittybrewster (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have access to www.baronetage.org members' area? - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I am happy to email you my reply. - Kittybrewster (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Earl Vane

As far as I'm aware, yes, that was the case. He was, after all, heir apparent to the Earldom of Vane, and heirs apparent are entitled to courtesy titles. Due to the special remainder, I suspect this (two brothers both holding courtesy peerages simultaneously) probably was indeed a unique event in the history of the Peerage — at any rate I can't think of another example. Proteus (Talk) 13:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The Editor's Barnstar

The Editor's Barnstar
I noticed that your edits were impressive and so I've decided to award you this Editor's Barnstar! Wikidudeman (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Baronetcies

When writing of Baronets should the name of the Baronecy in question not be included ?. For example Sir Robert Munro, 6th Baronet of Foulis. It helps to identify which baronecy. Thanks. Psycotics1454 20:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


Sir Ernest Tritton, 1st Baronet

Hi, I see you've removed the link to the Tritton Baronets from Norwood (UK Parliament constituency). Does that mean we can expect to see an extry for Sir Ernest Tritton, 1st Baronet? in anticipation, Ephebi 17:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. It's very annoying for a reader who expects to find an article on the the the politician Sir Ernest Tritton, 1st Baronet, to end up at the article on the baronetcy. That's why I altered the link. Tryde 18:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
that's all WP has on him on the moment. And the Baronetcy was founded for him. So I guess it will have to do until someone gets bold (IIRC there might be a biog in the Dictionary of National Biography.Ephebi 08:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh for goodness sake. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


Sir Stephen Arthur, 6th Baronet

When you redirected that page you created a redirect loop from that page to the Arthur Baronets pages and back again, which I have corrected. Just a heads up mate The Sanctuary Sparrow 06:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

John Stronge

I consider it polite to discuss redirects before executing them. --Counter-revolutionary 17:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

As with Sir Walter, given the present political climate within Wikipedia it may be most sensible to slow down. --Counter-revolutionary 17:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The process of "condensing" and merging articles on baronets has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baronetcies (see for example Dashwood Baronets). I presume by "present political climate within Wikipedia" you are referring to the "Anglo-Irish tensions" involving user:Vintagekits and others. I am no part of that. To me it is clear that the articles on John Stronge and Sir Walter Stronge, 6th Baronet, did not meet the criteria for WP:BIO, and that is why I have merged the contents into the Stronge Baronets article. Tryde 07:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
As I say; in my opinion politeness dictates a discussion on the relevant article's talk page. --Counter-revolutionary 08:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I have been a Wikipedia editor for about two years now and that's the first time I have been accused of being impolite. The policy suggested by user:BrownHairedGirl at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baronetcies for merging articles on baronets was Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I have identified around 100 articles on baronets that in my mind don't meet the criteria for WP:BIO, and it would be very difficult to have a discussion on every single one of these. You have of course every right to revert the changes I made. Do you disagree with my opinion that the articles on John Stronge and Sir Walter Stronge, 6th Baronet did not meet the notability criteria, or are you just objecting to me not initiating a discussion before merging? Tryde 09:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sir William Bass, 2nd Baronet

Sorry - I am afraid I don't understand the rationale for burying the entire details of a Baronet, under the heading of a Baron with a different name (even though related)? Motmit 20:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said above in my reply to Counter-revolutionary this has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baronetcies. The policy is, when an article on a baronet does not meet the criteria for WP:BIO, to merge the content into the relevant baronetcy article (and in this case the information on the Bass baronetcy is located at the Baron Burton article). Tryde 07:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I commend your commitment in spending a lovely weekend (if you are UK based) going through the drudge of merging these articles. Nearly all your edits merge the baronets to the baronetcy and are simply dealing with articles that say B son of A, father of C. This is sensible. However, in this particular case as you say there is no separate Bass Baronetcy page - perhaps there should be and the problem might be assuaged. Being an MP seems to be the main qualification for a separate entry but several people seem to have added information on Bass because of his significance in the horse racing world - nothing to do with brewing or the Burton Barony.
The Burton Barony page is frankly a mess - it has the 1st Baron Burton's entry copied in, even though he has a separate entry, and this confuses things from the start. Anyone intersted in Bass 2nd Baronet has to work through a lot of irrelevant information and is likely to end up totally confused. Moreover the Baron page now has to have horse categories linked in - nothing to do with the Burton family. I am concerned that the imperative to get through a specific project is overriding the higher aim of Wiki being a useful and accessible source of information. Having a separate Baronetcy page would fit in with the logic, but as there were only two baronets and one already has a separate page, why not leave things as they were? Motmit 12:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I congratulate you on having such fine weather! Unfortunately, I am not UK-based and have enjoyed dreadful conditions over the weekend... The crux of the matter is that the article on Sir William Bass, 2nd Baronet, would in all likelihood fail an Afd-vote. The article simply does not fulfil the criteria for WP:BIO. The only information I could find on him on the internet was this. You are of course welcome to provide evidence that he is more notable than the average wealthy UK horseracing enthusiast. I don't know if you are aware of it, but the Baronetcy project has been under attack in recent months, most of the criticism has been politically motivated (based on an anti-establishment agenda and personal animosity between editors) but some criticism has been fair. There have been a lot of articles on non-notable baronets around. The merging policy is a way of being proactive and to avoid risking losing information in Afd-votes.
Regarding the Baron Burton page, I don't agree with your criticism. I think it gives a good introduction to the Bass family and the information certainly isn't irrelevant. The article becomes somewhat complicated because of the three different remainders for the two baronies and the baronetcy. To have a separate article on the baronetcy would in my mind complicate the whole thing further, especially as the baronetcy was created in honour of the first Baron's father and the second baronet's grandfather (hence the special remainder). If you check the edit history of the Baron Burton article you can see that I updated the article greatly in June 2006 and I made an effort to explain things as clearly as I could. If you think the previous version was clearer I suggest you revert my edits.
These are my views on the matter. I think a good solution is this: If you feel strongly about Sir William Bass having his own article, then please revert my changes. That's fine with me. However, I think you should be aware of the article being the possible subject of a future Afd-vote. Tryde 13:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Government / ministry

Hey, I notice you've been redirecting ministry articles (e.g. Second Peel ministry) into government articles (Conservative Government 1841-1846). I don't think this is a good idea. Ministries are subsets of governments--in some cases more than one ministry may come out of the same government (Third Derby ministry and First Disraeli ministry from Conservative Government 1866-1868, for example). It's been my intention for the ministry articles to actually discuss the ministry, while the government articles provide an exhausting listing of all members of the government--under-secretaries, members of the household, and so on. Maybe this is unnecessary, but there should be some discussion of the merits first. Best, Mackensen (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I thought it would be best to keep the information in one place. I moved some comments before redirecting the articles. However, after redirecting a few articles I became a bit doubtful and thought I had been to hasty (especially as you have put in a lot of effort in creating the articles in the first place). I stopped redirecting and have now reverted the changes I made. But I still think its unnecessary to have two separate articles – one on the cabinet and one on the government as a whole (I assume by ministry you mean the cabinet). Some changes are needed though. I believe there should be a separate article on each PM's administration, for instance Churchill's 1951-55 administration should be split from Eden's 1955-57 administration. This will of course take a lot of effort in changing the formatting. Each article should also contain a good introduction on the major political events during the period and on notable office holders. I have tried to do this with Labour Government 1945-1951 and Conservative Government 1951-1957.
Please let me know your thoughts. Regards, Tryde 19:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
What you describe has been my intention--that the ministry (cabinet) articles describe the government in detail, while the "government" articles are a glorified list. In practice, the description hasn't happened, but that's a fault of execution and not concept. That way, we can keep the two-article system. Mackensen (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Earl of Egmont

Hi. I just discovered that Mount Egmont on New Zealand was named after ones of these earls by Cook, and not, as I'd expected, after Lamoral, Count of Egmont or his family by Abel Tasman who sailed by this very mountain a century and a half before and who, still during the 80-year war, had the nation-building heroics of the count still in mind. Surprising. You'll notice that the earlage isn't even mentioned yet on the Egmont disambiguation site. As you seem to know a lot about this family, could you add to the history how John Perceval or anyone else chose the name "Egmont"? He may have picked it up from the count, so that the mountain is named, via, via, after him after all. Thanks. Afasmit 00:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

According to this source he claimed descent from the Egmonts of Flanders although the title of the earldom was taken from a place in County Cork, Ireland. I will add something about this to the article on the earldom and also update the Egmont disambiguation page. Do you have a source for the claim that the mountain is named after the 2nd earl? Regards, Tryde 18:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. That what it seems to say in the Dictionary of National Biography as well. My suspicion is that he adopted the name by that claim. I suppose the 7-letter name could appear twice at different places, but the Britannica's 1911 writers also could have copied it from the 1895 dictionary and the town land in Kanturk/Churchtown is named after the earls instead. I've found so many mistakes in Britannica 1911 that I take much what it says with a grain of salt. Robert Beatson in his 1806 "A political index to the histories of Great Britain and Ireland" calls him "John Perceval of Kanturk (earl of Egmont)", and I don't see any mention of Egmont in Cork before or without the earl. Mount Egmont#The mountain's Wikipedia was my source for the naming. Afasmit 19:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Article naming

Hello. You have recently moved two articles I have worked on (Donald Macmaster and Ion Hamilton Benn) to Sir Donald Macmaster, 1st Baronet and Sir Ion Hamilton Benn, 1st Baronet. Whilst I have no specific objection, I do wonder why you have done this, since Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) still specifies:

"Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives, follow the same practice as hereditary peers and should have their title noted in the beginning of the article. The format is Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet. For the article title, this format should only be used when disambiguation is necessary; otherwise, the article should be located at John Smith. John Smith, 17th Baronet should never be used with the postfix and without the prefix." (my bolding)

Since we have no other articles on people with these names I can see no reason why disambiguation should be necessary. -- Necrothesp 09:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Mainly because I believe that the current naming conventions are flawed, a baronet is after all legally entitled to use the style of "Sir John Smith, Bt". There is also a problem with consistency. To have the article on Sir Robert Peel, 1st Baronet located at this article title while the article on his son is located at Robert Peel, is absurd. The most simple and easy solution is of course for all articles on baronets to be in the form of "Sir John Smith, X Baronet". In my mind this is also more stylish. I also can't see that there would be a problem with categorization as the baronets are still categorized under their surname. Regards, Tryde 18:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
A knight is entitled to use the style "Sir John Smith", but we don't name articles in that way (and shouldn't in my opinion). Robert Peel is a single case, and in any case is trumped by the most common usage guidelines (I've never heard Robert Peel referred to as "Sir Robert Peel, 2nd Baronet" - have you? You will note that few prime ministers' articles have been named using their peerage titles either.). I note there is an ongoing discussion on this subject and I really do feel you should not be going against the naming guidelines until this has been resolved - Wikipedia works through consensus, not unilateral action on obviously controversial subjects. -- Necrothesp 08:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I also don't think we should use the "Sir" part in articles on knights, but there is a difference between a knighthood and a hereditary title like a baronetcy. And no, I haven't heard Robert Peel referred to as Sir Robert Peel, 2nd Baronet, but I have heard him referred to him as Sir Robert Peel, in fact I think this is the most common usage.
I have always been wary of naming conventions on Wikipedia. A single or just a few editors can decide on a certain policy and then this is supposed to be followed by every other contributor. The opinions of a few has a tendency to become policy and consensus on Wikipedia.
The Baronetcy project has come under attack from a number of editors pursuing an anti-British and anti-establishment agenda. I have thought of proposing a change in the naming policy but have refrained from doing so for fear of being attacked by certain editors. I also don't think I have disrupted Wikipedia in any way by moving articles on baronets (I am careful of avoding double redirects and so on). We now have the situation where hundreds of article on baronets are in the firm of "Sir John Smith, X Baronet" and hundreds in the form of simply "John Smith". The easy solution to this inconsistency problem is for all article on baronets to include the title (except when the person in question is never known under his title).
I will try to propose these changes later on. I appreciate your comments and will be very cautious of moving articles on baronets in the future. Regards, Tryde 18:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I am in agreement with User:Tryde on this issue. I tried to explain it all on the namings conventions page, to no avail. In my view you either do something correctly, or you don't. I don't see where POV enters into it. This is what is wrong with Wikipedia. Too much WP:POV and not enough Correct Form. Regards, David Lauder 09:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
As I said, I am not really objecting to the naming and would be happy to adopt it if it was mandated. But until the convention is actually changed I think we ought to keep the articles as they are. -- Necrothesp 13:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Earl of Carrick (Ireland)

Lodge, in his 1789 Peerage of Ireland, calls Sir Edmund Butler "later Earl of Carrick" in the first half of the 14th century. But in your article on Irish Earls of Carrick you have them commencing much later. I am not saying you are wrong, but it seems unlikely Lodge is wrong. Where do you think the discrepancy lies? Regards, David Lauder 09:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard of this. What does Lodge say specifically? When was was this earldom supposed to have been created? Perhaps he styled himself "Earl of Carrick" for some reason although the title was never formally created. I don't think there is any doubt that the current earldom was created in 1748 and that the information in the article is correct. However, if someone in the family used the title earlier we should of couse add this. Regards, Tryde 07:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
On p.79 of his 1789 edition he states that Joan, daughter of the 1st Earl of Kildare, married "in 1302, Sir Edmund Butler, created Earl of Carrick". Lodge even has engraved Arms for Carrick amongst the plates. My problem is I can only find volume one of the four volumes here. God knows where the others are. Probably boxed up somewhere. I shall search on. Regards, David Lauder 09:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I realise now what it is. What Lodge is saying here, rather clumsily, is that Sir Edmund Butler's descendants were later created Earl of Carrick. It can't be anything else, can it? I cannot find an Irish Earl of Carrick earlier than the 1748 creation. Regards, David Lauder 09:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


Speedy deletion of Claud Heathcote-Drummond-Willoughby

A tag has been placed on Claud Heathcote-Drummond-Willoughby requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ZacBowlingtalk 13:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Peterborough

I have reverted your changes at Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency). Please do not remove information from the article. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll double check. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


Notability of Robert Ward (MP)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Robert Ward (MP), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Robert Ward (MP) seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Robert Ward (MP), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot 11:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


Tyrde, I retracted the tag, as you requested, because it was fairly obviously contrary to the Wiki policy in the sentence you quoted. I'm more interested in adding information to Wiki than debating endlessly about it, however this might be one of the situations where I chose to take a stand, so to avoid being overlooked in the Robert Ward article talk, here's a copy of those comments:

I wonder why articles like this should be in Wikipedia.

1) If it wasn't that this person was elected to an office, nothing in the article reported about them would be significant enough to write about. I.e., this page would be immediately deleted if Robert Ward hadn't held office.

2) The authors of such Wiki articles are plainly copying (in some sentences practically verbatim) from sources which are largely almanacs, such as Leigh Rayment's Peerage Page and www.thepeerage.com.

3) The Wiki article adds no new information. The authors of the page don't evidence knowledge of the background of the politician. There's no presentation of the history events which surrounds his office.

4) Editing such articles, and checking them for factual content places a burden on Wiki editors. There should be some commensurate value for the effort. Here, it's not clear what that might be. I've been a Webmaster for a major company, in charge of the content. It would not be surprising if such an article such as this got no hits at all in a year — except perhaps those doing maintenance or users coming by accident.

These articles about politicians could be important, but now they tend to lack even the content that a university student of history would put in a book report.

Regards

24.6.67.7 12:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


Thomas Brunton (another redirect)

Is there a particular reason that Thomas Brunton's article has been redirected? Is there a particular reason, such as based on rank, nobility, etc., that Brunton should be directed and folks like Isaac Newton, Edward Frankland, and Humphry Davy should not? I don't know. -- Astrochemist (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Page moves and disambiguation

Hi - I recently moved a few pages to their undisambiguated, common names, as per the policy at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other non-royal names #4, which states "For the article title, this format [i.e. Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet] should only be used when disambiguation is necessary". I noticed that you later moved them back, citing "Proper name". Have I overlooked an alternative policy, or are some of these names ambiguous? I tried to avoid moving any articles which seemed to have names requiring disambiguation. Warofdreams talk 18:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell

Why the removal of Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom from Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell? --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. He should only be categorized under his higher title, that of a baron. Peers are only categorized under their highest title, for example an earl that is also a viscount is not categorized as a viscount, and so on. Regards, Tryde (talk) 07:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we (certainly I) need evidence for this. A Baronet is not a Peer, for a start. It is more a hereditary knighthood. There are examples of people who are Barons as a Life Peer, but also a Baronet which will be passed on to their son or whoever. They are different. You are right about Earls' who are also Viscounts, but not I think here. Please give a source for your assertion. --Bduke (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I am well aware that a baronet is not a peer. But a baronetcy is a junior title to that of a baron. Lord Baden-Powell was at first made a baronet, then he was considered to have given further public service in order to be elevated to the peerage. In British history there have been hundreds of dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts and barons that have also held baronetcies but they are never categorized as baronets on Wikipedia, with the exceptions that a few barons are (erroneously in my mind) categorized as baronets, something I am currently trying to correct. For example, the Dukes of Northumberland are the holders of a baronetcy created in 1660 but are never categorized as such. It is also not the case that a baronetcy is an honour given to a person that is already the holder of much higher titles, for example an earldom. This is in contrast to the different orders of chivalry in existence. For example, it is common for the holder of a peerage to also be made a Knight of the Garter, a Knight of the Bath, et cetera. A baronetcy is linked to the peerage in the way that a baronetcy is considered to be the level of dignity under a baron, although it is not part of the peerage. The procedure whereby we categorize a person under their highest honour also applies to the article on Lord Baden-Powell. Apart from his barony Baden-Powell was also a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George (GCMG), the highest class of this order. I believe (although this is not made clear in the article) that he was also a Knight Commander (KCMG) of the order, the second class of the order. However, he is correctly categorized only as a Knight Grand Cross. To follow your logic he should also be categorized as a Knight Commander which I think would be inappropriate. The same should in my mind also apply to categorizing peers that are also baronets. Regards, Tryde (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
From the little I understand of this, the two titles are separate and distinct. See Talk:Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell/ArchiveToJuly2007#Barony v. Baronetcy for previous discussion. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 11:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely agree. Ian Anstruther had two baronetcies which were inherited by different sons. As it happens they were both Baronetcies of Nova Scotia; had one of them been of [another place], both categories would be shown. Numerous baronets are also peers (inherited or otherwise) and it is customary here to record all relevant categories even if one is (maybe temporarily) invisible. It occurs to me that the Viscount Gough and the Duke of Fife and the Earl of Erroll wear their Baronet's Badge at a formal dinner, notwithstanding the baronetcy is trumped by the peerage. Incidentally, Tryde, good call on Sir Matthew Brown, Bt.. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Edmund Beckett, 1st Baron Grimthorpe

As this person was a baronet and then 12 years later a baron, why does he not get both categories "Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom" and "Baronets in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom"? It seems logical to me, and neither seems to be a subset of the other, but you have deleted the baronet category. I'm puzzled. PamD (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A person should only be categorised under his highest title. Just like a duke that is also a marquess should only be categorised as a duke a baron that is also a baronet should only be categorised as a baron. There were a number of barons that were categorised as baronets and I have removed these to make the category clearer. See also my reply to Bduke above. Tryde (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
That is not correct, Tryde. It is true that someone who is CBE and KBE is only categorised under KBE, but a KBE who is a Baron is categorised under both. Similarly a Baronet who is a Baron. - Kittybrewster ☎ 19:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
If we follow this policy we will end up with an awful mess. The baronet categories will be completely cluttered with people that held much higher titles and will consequently lose their purpose. The reason a user looks at the category is to see a compilation of people that held this title as their highest honour. Just like, for instance, Category:Viscounts in the Peerage of England, only lists people that held viscountcies as their highes title, the baronet categories should list only people that held baronetcies as their highest title. The only solution to this is in my mind to create completely new categories, such as [[Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom that were also Barons]]. Tryde (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I prefer that solution to the wholesale culling of baronets from the category in which they certainly belong. But I don't agree with your statement that "the reason a user looks at the category is ..." It seems to me you have been acting without first seeking a consensus and it would have been better to discuss it first. - Kittybrewster ☎ 22:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Lord Mayor of London

Kbthompson has started a discussion at WT:WikiProject London, your input there would be appreciated. Xn4 19:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Peers who were also baronets

Your views are sought at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baronetcies#Peers_who_were_Baronets - Kittybrewster ☎ 23:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Deane Baronets

GB or Ireland? - Kittybrewster ☎ 18:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ireland, surely. Rayment and hereditarytitles.com say so, and the peerage is in the Peerage of Ireland. Will have a look in Debrett's tomorrow to confirm it. Tryde (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Page moves

As you have now resumed editing Wikipedia and moving pages, can I draw your attention to my query at #Page moves and disambiguation above and request your comments. Warofdreams talk 01:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are my reasons for moving the articles.
  • According to British law a baronet is entitled to be styled "Sir John Smith, 1st Baronet". We should use legally correct names in article titles. This is also the correct form as well as the conventional way to adress or refer to a baronet.
  • Consistency within Wikipedia. The only logical step would be for all articles on baronets on Wikipedia to be in the form of "Sir John Smith, 1st Baronet". The way it is now, where the so called naming conventions state that the correct form should only be used for disambiguation, is illogical and somewhat absurd. You can also draw a comparison with articles on peers, where the peerage title is almost always included in the article title. If we include peerage titles in article names, we should use the correct form for the holder of a baronetcy.
  • This is the standard used by other encyclopedias. The Dictionary of National Biography and Encyclopaedia Britannica both refer to, for example, Sir Robert Peel, 2nd Baronet, as Peel, Sir Robert, 2nd Baronet.
Tryde (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand that this is your opinion, but extensive discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) has not produced a consensus to do this. If you believe that this format should be used, could you please raise it again there. In the meantime, the guideline clearly states that this should not be done. Warofdreams talk 04:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Baronets

Could you please explian why you are removing the abbreviation "Bt" and "4th Bt" after people's names? This is useful for identifiying people's status in society and in the case of the Packingtons for showing that there was a succession of people with the same name, who successively held a county seat. It is also useful for identifying (briefly) titles to which MPs subsequently succeeded. This is purely destructive work, which I will be reverting later unless you can give a good reason for notding so. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the use of "Bt" is very widely used in lists like these and I have never seen the style of "4th Bt" used after the name of a Baronet MP. The reason I removed the abbreviations is that I think they make the lists look untidy and cluttered. It would be a different thing if this was published in a paper encyclopedia. As it is now a Wikipedia user can click on the link he's interested in (or hover of a link). If you feel strongly about having these abbreviations in the lists feel free to add them back on, but I don't think you should revert the changes I have made as I have corrected a number of links in the articles. I also find it offensive that you accuse me of being destructive to Wikipedia, something that is certainly not true. Tryde (talk) 06:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe this should go to an RFC/peer review for wider comment? I myself somewhat prefer the "Bt" in the MP lists — it tends to show Sir Vavasour was right about the baronets — but my feelings are hardly cast in stone. Choess (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the "Bt" part is necessary but I can accept it. The nominal as well as the title to which an MP later succeeded are completely unnecessary in my mind. We have to consider how we present information in articles. Tryde (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1874

Do you think it was a wise move on your part to remove a whole section of this article? Tryde (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Fell free to add the information by providing reliable source. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
That hardly answers my question. Perhaps you should have left a message on my talk page requesting a source or added a ref-tag to the page instead of just removing a section I had just spent a good deal of time editing. I have been editing Wikipedia for three years now and this is the most unconstructive and disrespectful edit I have seen by another user. Most other users would probably consider it plain vandalism. Tryde (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
See WP:V. "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." I just did this. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
This article is a work in progress. I would have added a source when the article was finished as I always do. I suggest you communicate with other users or add tags to articles, instead of just removing information. References are extremely important but by simply removing information you are only going to annoy other users. Tryde (talk) 08:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
If you are still working on the article, then use an "underconstruction" template so that other users can understand that the are is not finished till now. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Otolemur crassicaudatus

Hi, Tryde.

User:Otolemur crassicaudatus is a very square-headed type of guy, who's caused trouble for a lot of editors, you're not the only one. He deleted 40 % of an article I created, instead of just posting a message to me (as one of the most active editors on the article) or a citation-needed-tag on the article itself. I had a lengthy exchange of arguments with him. He didn't get it. I don't know if he is stupid, or if he just pretends to be.

Maybe we should scrutinize his articles (the ones he says he has created), and see if we can find any unsourced material? We'll know what to do with that, don't we?

LarRan (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. He's certainly one of the more curious people I have met on Wikipedia. I sort of guessed I wasn't the only one having trouble with him. He seems to be engaged in some kind of refined form of vandalism. His talk page is from what I can see one of the busiest on Wikipedia. I also noticed that he removed my comments from his talk page so I guess he didn't want others to see them. I don't know how he stumbled upon the article I was editing above but hopefully I won't encounter him again. I try my utmost to stay away from any kind of controversy on Wikipedia so I have no interest in starting a spat with him by scrutinizing his articles. My advise for you is to avoid him and go on adding constructive material to Wikipedia. Hopefully an administrator will soon deal with him. Regards, Tryde (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
He has deleted the exchange of arguments with me too. Either it's because he doesn't want others to see old disputes he's been involved in, or it's that his talkpage just grows too big if he doesn't delete old stuff. By the size of his talkpage, he must be busy 24/7 deleting stuff from others' articles. Why doesn't he get a life? LarRan (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: User:Otolemur crassicaudatus

He seems a little trigger-happy, that's for sure. He's probably right about the inline citations, but I'm doing mass article creations on one subject, and I plan to tidy up things at the end. - Dudesleeper / Talk 19:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sir John Pakington (1549-1625)

Hello. There was already an article for this person incorrectly located at Sir John Packington. I suggest we move this article to John Pakington (d. 1625) and incorporate your information into it (it's also in dire need of a cleanup, he wasn't a baronet for a start and it's hardly likely that he received the translation of a French treatise in 1640 as he died in 1625). Your article should then be made into a redirect. I think we should also create a disambiguation page of "John Pakington". Please let me know your thoughts (you can answer here if you like). Regards, Tryde (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As suggested, I have merged the two articles on the above, using this title. The older duplicate is now a redirect to a disambiguation page. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Just be aware that it's not very popular to make cut-and-paste moves on Wikipedia. The correct approach here would have been to move "Sir John Packington" to the new article name. This way the previous editing history would be included. Tryde (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought carefully about what I did, becasue it was not a straightforward merge. I did some cut and paste, because it was a merge, not a move: I moved my own article to the new title and then added unduplicated material from the older. I did it this way because I wanted the old page to redirect to Sir John Pakington, a disambigation page including the subjects descendants, since it is an alternative spelling fo the surname. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

References

Please would you use Rayment-b rather than [:http://www.angeltowns.com/town/peerage/ Leigh Rayment's Peerage Page] - Kittybrewster ☎ 23:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I will do that. But isn't there a way of making this template look a bit prettier, like for example Leigh Rayment's Baronetage Page? Tryde (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
That sounds fine to me - but I would think it should refer to his baronetage index rather than his general or peerage page. - Kittybrewster ☎ 18:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
That looks much better! Tryde (talk) 09:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Nicolson Baronets

This article is muddled with Baron Carnock. - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Same problem with Aylmer Baronets, Aylmer Baronets of Donadea, Baron Aylmer. - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The Debrett's edition I have access to have conflicting information regarding the Nicolson Baronetcy. In the article on the barony of Carnock they say that the fourth Baron is also the 16th Baronet of Lasswade. "Although this title was thought to have become extinct upon the death of the 7th Bt in 1743, the 4th Baron Carnock successfully petitioned the Lord Lyon to be recognised in the baronetcy and as Chief of Clan Nicolson, and was so recognised in an interlocutor dated 3 Sept 1984". However, in the Baronetage section, in the article on "Nicolson (1629), of that Ilk, and of Lasswade, Midlothian (Dormant 1961)", they state that "On the death of Sir James Nicolson, 7th Bt, 1743, the baronetcy became dormant. Arthur, de jure 8 Bt (d. 1793), was a great-grandson of James, Bishop of Dunkeld. In 1826, Sir Arthur de jure 10 Bt, grandson of Arthur, was served heir male. The Baronetcy again became dormant on the death of the 14th Bt in 1961." Is the 4th Baron Carnock listed on the Official Roll of the Baronetage as the 16th Baronet of Lasswade? I also wonder if the Lord Lyon has the right to determine the status of a baronetcy, or is it only the Committee for Privileges of the House of Lords that has the right to do so? Tryde (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The Committee for Privileges has no authority over this. From memory it is the Lord Chancellor who defers to the guidance of the Lord Lyon in the case of Scottish baronetcies. Yes/no - "Nicolson of that Ilk and Lasswade, Sir David Henry Arthur, Baron Carnock". "Sir David Henry Arthur Nicolson, 13th Baronet also 14th Baronet of Carnock, 4th Baron Carnock"- Kittybrewster ☎ 17:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Duke categories

Instead of adding every Scottish/English duke to the category "Dukes of the peerage of..." Why not just add the sub-categories, "Dukes of..."? So, instead of Prince Charles being in the category Dukes of the peerage of Scotland he would be in the category Dukes of Rothesay, which would be a sub-category of Dukes of the peerage of Scotland. DrKiernan (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"Category:Barons in the Peerage of England", "Category:Viscounts in the Peerage of Great Britain", "Category:Earls in the Peerage of Scotland", and so on. This is the norm. About a year ago a user decided, without any prior discussion, to remove the Dukes in the Peerage of ... categories and replace them with Category:Dukes of X. These pages are in my mind redundant. The holders of a certain title are already listed in the article on the peerage. For example, the holder of the dukedom of Wellington are listed at Duke of Wellington, hence "Category:Dukes of Wellington" is superfluous (to have the category Dukes of Wellington at the Duke of Wellington article is plain stupid). The Dukes in the Peerage of... categories also gives the reader a much better overview. If the reader is interested in who else held a certain title he/she can go to the peerage article where the history of the title is explained in detail. Tryde (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Baronetcies

I was very much in favour of your recent practice of deleting stub articles about non-notable Baronets and transferring the info to the main body of the Baronetcy article under the individuals headings. You now appear to have departed from that logical method and are now producing long introductions (eg Broughton Baronets) which include info relevant to the individuals named in the succession list. Your current method seems to me to create overlong and cumbersome introductions which can be confusing. The timeline appears in the list, but the events are in the intro making the whole less easy to follow. My main grouse is however that the addition of further information into the article is now almost impossible without adding confusion to the already over burdened intro. Could I persuade you to revert to your earlier practice, thus leaving me space to add my bits and pieces in a manner helpful to the reader. Many thanksOrdyg (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have always added information on the descent of the title and small biographical information on the holders in the introduction. This should be seen as an introduction to the family and clarify the descent of the title. I don't think this is in anyway cumbersome or difficult to follow. The list of holders should in my mind preferably be clean of any additional facts and just contain the name of the holders plus birth and death dates. The exception is where biographical details are given of a baronet that does not meet the criteria for Wikipedia notability guidelines but may still be of interest. I can't see how a substantial introduction (like in Broughton baronets) should be in conflict with adding biographical details in the list of holders, instead they complement each other. I think the Broughton baronets article was more informative in my last edition than your version, so I have reverted to the version of 9 April. Tryde (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I could ask you to compare Blackett Baronets,which works well because you have supported the concept of seperate paragraphs in the list, with one or two others Boughey Baronets now has a long intro' and any additional data added can only serve to lengthen and complicate it, leaving the reader with dense prose. Cradock-Hartopp Baronets suffers from the duplication of info both in the intro' and in the body, and is also not easy to read.Boothby Baronets is an example of where you have specifically removed details out of the body into the intro'. I would make three points;-a)It becomes difficult to follow the chronology of the succession when all the detail is in the intro' and the dates are in the list b) The addition of any substantial amount of extra detail will make for difficulties if it has to go into an already overlong intro c) Any reader will have to read thro' the whole intro' in order to pick out info on any individual. I have read all your comments in the Baronetcy Project discussion and have largely agreed with you. You certainly at one time argued for non notable articles to be removed and the detail transferred to the succession list for each individual. Has something changed since then? . For these reasons I much prefer your earlier treatment. Wikipedia is presumably intended to benefit the readers and we owe it to them to make it as user friendly as possible. I hope that you will be able to give the matter some thoughtOrdyg (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused, as I am adding information to baronetcy articles as I always have. I simply don't understand what you're objecting to. The introduction is an overview and explains the succession and gives information on any notable achievements by the holders. It is not intended to give detailed information on every holder. This is the system I have used for every baronetcy and peerage article I have ever edited. Boughey Baronets looks neat and tidy and gives the reader an overview of the family. The way you have been deleting information from Blackett Baronets makes it harder for the reader to follow the descent of the title. Cradock-Hartopp Baronets and Boughey Baronets are now fine articles which gives the reader an overview of the family, especially compared to their earlier versions. I actually can't believe that you're criticizing me for the way I have expanded these articles. Tryde (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear, it seems I have offended you - not my intention at all. I had hoped to avoid this becoming personal as I am not in any way criticizing you. (Your contributions are great) My only objective is to improve the user friendliness of the articles. Could you spare a few minutes to reread Blackett Baronets, an article in which I have an interest. We now have info in three different parts of the whole, in the intro', in the list and in seperate Baronet stubs, and several instances of duplication.( It was this duplicated info, and nothing else which I removed and which you have since reinstated). I believe that basic info' about Baronets ( other than the first) should generally speaking, appear not in the intro' but in the Succession list ( or in a seperate article if notable) . So , no problem with the detail, only in where it appears. As to Broughton Baronets and Cradock-Hartopp Baronets frankly we have the same problem so please reread them in the light of what I have said. I believe ( having read a lot of your comments) that we are generally like minded, and I assure you that you have no reason to be offendedOrdyg (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the Blackett Baronets article is fine. It gives a good overview of the family. This version is better than your version. The only thing I would change to the article is to insert white space between the list of holders. So what if some of the information is duplicated? I have been using this system for peerage and baronetcy articles for the three years I've been editing Wikipedia. I believe it's informative, reader-friendly and stylish and I'm not going to change it. It's not flawless, the negative aspect is that the reader will have to move his eyes between the introduction and the list of holders to follow the descent in detail, but I think this is acceptable. To have information in the list of holders makes the lists look cluttered (although I think the system with mini-biographies in the lists is an acceptable compromise). I also think that the introduction should have information on every holder of a title that did something notable, not just on the recipient of a title. This is the system I have always used and it's never been criticized before. Likewise I think the Cradock-Hartopp Baronets and Broughton Baronets articles are fine. I feel offended that you criticized me for the layout of articles that I have spent a great deal of time expanding, especially considering the sorry state some of them were in before (for instance Boughey Baronets). I'm not taking it personally and I am not interested in starting a petty Wikipedia feud with you, on the contrary, I hope we can work together on baronetcy articles. Like in real life I try my utmost to stay out of any kind of conflict on Wikipedia, however, I don't agree with you on this issue. Tryde (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Well perhaps you could concede me one minor point. As the Baronetcy article is about the Baronetcy and its Baronets would it not be sensible to have any relevant information on related people who are not Baronets included in a seperate section folowing the succession list and headed 'Other members of the family' or something similar?Ordyg (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.