Talk:City of London (UK Parliament constituency)

Recognisable names in listings

Where is this consensus you refer to? This seems to be the most recent discussion and comments were predominantly against your approach. Russell pre-Earldom is always referred to as "Lord John Russell" and is instantly identifiable as the PM; listing him as "John Russell" removes identification for no good reason. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

There was an extensive discussion about the format of election results boxes, including the additional of titles, on the talk page of the Uk Politics project site, a couple of years back as I recall. This arose because some editors were adding all manner of titles and honorifics into the result boxes - Sir, Dr, military ranks, OBEs, Baronets, Mrs, Reverends, etc. Remember we’re not just talking those elected, but all the other candidates, and in a modern context it is quite likely a fair few of these edits were being done by the candidates themselves. The consensus reached was that titles would be included in the list of MPs elected that is high up on each constituency page (thus you will see Russell has his title in this section of the City of London page) but for the results boxes for individual elections all titles would be excluded, with the standard format being COMMONNAME, normally first and last name or as otherwise used for that person’s WP article, or for candidates no longer living who don’t have their own Wikipedia articles, additional middle name(s) where this might help future editors identify the person. This approach is followed pretty universally now on constituency pages, as you will see if you check, for example, any of the current MPs who are knighted, etcetera. Kind regards. MapReader (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit/ by way of p.s., I see now the discussion you are linking to, which came subsequent to the consensus reached on the general format for election boxes. Although it isn’t concluded, the point being made back then is that peers should be treated as an exception to the general exclusion of titles, where the peerage title is clearly their common name. Is this your argument here? The argument in this case is slightly different, as that put before was that the peerage title was completely different from their actual name, and since they were known by the former, using the latter would be confusing. In the city of London case, the name is the same and you have simply tacked a title on the front - a title that is already shown higher up the page as well as made clear on that individual’s linked page. MapReader (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

For what little it's worth, my take on this (in related contexts, such as bolding at the beginning of the article and use in succession boxes) is that "Sir/Dame" and (in this context) "Lord/Lady" are a little different from the other cruft. E.g., when referring to someone in an informal register (without surname), it seems very unusual to omit those particles, e.g., "Sir Henry" is much more common than just "Henry" for someone who's been knighted. They sort of graft themselves to the first name. There's no logical reason for this; "Hon." is functionally similar to "Lord" here, just associated with a different grade of the peerage, and I would not expect it to be used the same way; it might appear in a more formal presentation of the name, but "Sebastian" would be normal and "Hon. Sebastian" very much not.

I do very much appreciate your efforts to dump military/ecclesiastical/professional titles from the boxes: people love dragging that cruft into contexts where it isn't really necessary. I think the traditional usage of the titles I mentioned above makes them exceptions from that, but I'm not that determined to carry the point or start a dustup over election boxes. Choess (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

You’re not allowed to include such titles on your nomination paper for inclusion on the ballot paper, so the rules do (and always have AFAIK) assume voters know who the person is, from their name alone. WP readers have the extra bonus of all the information they might want, just one blue link away... MapReader (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Huh. I did not know that. Difference between the antiquarian and contemporary perspective on these things, I guess. I'm pretty sure that's a 20th Century innovation—the secret ballot only came in in 1872, and I can't see it happening until after Asquith gelded the Lords in 1911, and probably not for some time after. It would be interesting to know when that was statutorily regulated. Choess (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Possibly. It's certainly true now - and the most frequent issue we have now is with edits to recent (or even forthcoming) elections adding in all manner of titles; cruft, as you rightly say. Coming back to the core issue - we have an established consensus that agreed a "no titles" approach to names in election results boxes. This was challenged, as Tim says above, in one individual case where it was argued that putting "John Pennington" when the individual was widely known as "Baron Muncaster" or "Lord Muncaster" would be misleading. This discussion didn't conclude but I let the edit ride rather than engage in extended argument (also note that this individual doesn't have any election result boxes, being too early in history). In this new case, however, the choice is between "John Russell" or "Lord John Russell" - so there isn't much of an argument about potential confusion or misdirection, particularly since he was elected and is already named "Lord John Russell" in the MPs' list on the same page, and the blue link will lead readers straight to the full biography. On the other hand, following the broader approach suggested in Tim's OP of looking at how people are or were referred to under a 'commonname' approach will immediately open the door to every knighted candidate having "Sir" added into the box, following which will become embroiled in debate about whether the "OBE" after people's names is part of their commonname and the same for Doctors, medical and academic, Brigadiers, and the rest - which is precisely what the original consensus was intending to avoid. Certainly any such proposal should go back to UK politics, and not be decided here. MapReader (talk) 07:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)