Talk:Charls Butler

Loss of title

The original article, entitled 'Rev Charls Butler' was modified to its current form with the editor's admonition 'don't include titles in articles.' Why, then, [1]? --londheart 23:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger

The more recent entry on Butler was inserted by apiculturists, perhaps on finding that this article's author, a member of the Simplified Spelling Society, had 'stolen their thunder' and got to Wikipedia first. It is a most interesting addition, but clearly fails to do justice to the broad versatility of Butler's undercelebrated versatile and polymathic genius, and to the largely forgotten (at the time of writing) importance of his contribution to the field of modern Natural history in general. Also, the spelling 'Charles' causes confusion with other historical 'Charles Butlers,' is not how the name was generally spelt at that time, the rococo and unnecessary 'e' being conceivably anathema to the early spelling reformer's spirit, memory and following. It also appears to contain a possible apicultural inaccuracy, queen bees being workers by conception, and speaks of 'Butler's orthology' (meaning 'orthography'). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.100.250.217 (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The two articles should be merged. Butler the beekeeper and Butler the spelling reformer are the same person. -- Chironomia (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, but how? Perhaps one day Butler will be recognised as the Newton of natural history, but that day has not yet come. Meanwhile, whereas bees affect everyone, spelling affects almost everyone directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.72 (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)