Talk:Charles Powell Leslie

Roman numerals

To editor Hydronium Hydroxide: I don't think using Roman numerals is the best way to disambiguate these people. The only source that seems to do this is the PRONI summary you have linked from this page; no other sources refer to "Charles Powell Leslie the Second". Ireland is not the United States of America. Opera hat (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

To editor Opera hat: It's not a USA thing. Multiple Irish/UK sources use this numbering including:

• The PRONI PDF
• Correspondence of Charles Powell Leslie III and other pages at the National Library of Ireland
• Selected: CO. MONAGHAN, CASTLE LESLIE (GLASLOUGH)
• Charles Powell Leslie II's Estates at Glaslough, County Monaghan, 1800-41 (Maynooth Studies in Irish Local History) (published by Irish Academic Press)
• Castle Leslie
• Presumably drawn from Irish sources: Wedding venue with history
• ... and from an English writer but presumably run past the Leslies: Looking For Castle Leslie

That said, I don't have a dog in the fight. If there's a better and more common way demonstrated to satisfactorily disambiguate the three, then so be it. The main thing is that they are disambiguated and Wikipedia doesn't suggest that the one politician held Monaghan for most of a century... Hydronium Hydroxide (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Now the 3 persons have separate articles, and anyone can proceed to refine them, including moving them or opening Requested Moves at those articles, if they believe that different names/titles are appropriate. --doncram 08:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I take HH's point about the use of the numerals by other sources to distinguish between the three men. But I still don't think it's the best disambiguation on Wikipedia: having them as part of the article title makes it look like these men were actually known by the numeral as part of the name in the same way as the various Cornelius Vanderbilts or John Jacob Astors. Having said that, I'm not sure what would be better. My inclination has always been to use years of birth and death – so Charles Powell Leslie (1731–1800), Charles Powell Leslie (1769–1831), and Charles Powell Leslie (1821–1871). WP:NCPDAB doesn't really approve, but does allow this for "historical figures when there is no dominant qualifier". Would this apply here? Opera hat (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I'm just going to move them. People can move them back if they think I'm wrong. Opera hat (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining and for being bold. Please note though that I just revisited them and made changes to clarify them, re-using the I, II, III names but now as clearly secondary. We cannot have four articles in Wikipedia boldly named "Charles Powell Leslie" only, i.e. seeming to be all about the same person, and implying that to refer to one of them you have to call him "Charles Powell Leslie". We have to show some distinction. It is okay by me for the article about the first one to be located at Charles Powell Leslie (1731–1800), using parenthetical disambiguation. But the birth and death dates are not part of his name; it is not good enough to refer to him as "Charles Powell Leslie (1731–1800)", as if the dates are part of his actual name, as was used at one or both of the others. And each of the articles absolutely must give the alternative I, II, III names, which are in fact used, at least in modern times. I revised the first article to start "The first Charles Powell Leslie (1731-1800), also known as Charles Powell Leslie I,[ref]..." with a reference giving modern usage of the I, and did similarly for II. I considered changing "also known as" to "later also known as", and I considered changing "also known as" to "also known in modern times as" but I think that doesn't help. I believe the changes I made are consistent with what Opera hat was trying to accomplish and are going to be okay. The I and II names are now clearly secondary. Everyone understands that I is not ever part of the first person's name in a sequence like this. I am pretty sure it is Pope Francis who is the current pope, not "Pope Francis I", in which case pope-naming would then be the exception. And with the articles as they are now, most readers will also understand that the second one did not have II explicitly as part of his name. --doncram 19:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with your inclusion of the numerals as a secondary identifier, though it was not contemporary usage. By the way Pope John Paul I did actually call himself "the First", though the current Pope does not. Opera hat (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Opera hat & doncram: Yeah that works. Thanks to you both for the work on them and the advice/consideration. (On reflection, I should have just created (real) individual pages in the first place...) Hydronium Hydroxide (talk) 03:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

confusion

Hydronium Hydroxide, the current disambiguation page was created with by you with intent to make distinctions between three persons, I believe. For any new future links to "Charles Powell Leslie" (without distinction), having them go to here is fine, and presumably they would then each be fixed by disambiguators to link to the correct one of 3 topics. However the separate topics were created as redirects to here, so disambiguation was not possible. Someone sensibly unlinked the links from here to the 3 separate topics because those topics redirected back to here.

I see that you did the work to make the distinction, at many or all of the inbound links to here, about which (I, II, or III) applied, which was very good to have done. But then every link in Wikipedia which specified any one of them, correctly or not, was also directed to here. So that did not provide distinction! And, as a disambiguation page, this page cannot have references nor cannot have categories like the categories that were here.

So I just proceeded to revise the 3 redirects to be 3 separate articles Charles Powell Leslie I, Charles Powell Leslie II, and Charles Powell Leslie III, splitting out material from here. I believe this is what you intended to happen eventually, so I hope this meets your approval. --doncram 08:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

(see above) Hydronium Hydroxide (talk) 03:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)