Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Housekeeping.

i) I've amended the guidance to:

"Only post-nominals authorised (or at the time for historic articles) by the relevant authorities should be used e.g The Crown ( generally in Monarchies) or State."

Hopefully this is non controversial but if someone can word it better fine. I'm trying to preempt people adding post noms that don't exist/never (LL anyone!) existed or are not for use outside various (religious) orders.

ii) I know Choess wanted me to bring up the subject of heirs apparent who die vita patris. On the main title (Earl(dom) of X) page my feeling is that the list of title holders is just that a list only for the holders so any editor can (on finding an unqualified reference to Lord X) easily see who that was at a given date. Some editors have been interpolating into the list heirs apparent who die V.P. This might just be sustainable today when such cases are few but the logical extension of this policy is we have to go back and edit them into all historical peerages where in many cases such deaths exist in every generation and in some cases multiple heirs in single generations. The effect could easily double or triple the length of the holders list! This way madness lies! Far better imo to include any notable heirs in the body of the article not in the title list. (just for clarity I'm only referring to interpolated heirs DVP here not the living HA of the present peer at the end of the holders list.

Thoughts all...

iii) Lastly I do think we need to look at our inclusions of PC. We assert its use without seemingly any citation. The use seems in all the official sources to have ceased even for peers. Are we in danger of being plus royaliste que le roi? The only location I could quickly find sill using them is debretts but not I suggest in such a way as to... Um!! Garlicplanting (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

(i) It's not as clear as one would prefer that the e.g. illustrates "authorities" rather than "post-nominals" (or "used"), so I'd rearrange the sentence to "Post-nominals should be used only if recognized, now or at the time, by the State or other relevant authority."

(ii) I don't mind doubling or tripling the length of a list if the list still has a well-defined limit. No one (I hope) is proposing to include, say, everyone who was ever in remainder. —Tamfang (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Does "Post-nominals should be used only if recognized, now or at the time, by the State, Crown or other relevant authority and that they are for public use. E.g. Some religious bodies allow use only internally within the order." make things clearer?

On (ii) My concern is loss of clarity. It was originally a list of holders + the living HA. The inclusion of heirs who died never holding the title 500yrs ago seems to mess up a simple definition and clogg up the list? Its morphing into something closer to a family tree which I can't see the benefit. Garlicplanting (talk) 11:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Commonname.

Joy! A user has decided that the UK citizen, government minister and member of the house of Lords - Lord Astor of Hever - should be at John_Jacob_Astor_VIII and has subsequently altered other titled members of the same family and the links/redirects in a series of edits. They are citing commonname but either ignoring or or not knowing of the naming conventions for nobility WP:NCNOB. I can't see any grounds for the exceptions there to apply. Can someone with more experience of cascading changes across multiple articles cast an eye as to how best to revert. The use of roman numerals (not legally part of the name) are superfluous when you have a natural disambiguator but that's another matter. Garlicplanting (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes per WP:BRD, as far as I can see. RGloucester — ☎ 18:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok thanks. There are still some loose ends I'll see what I can do. Anyone know of a wiki policy in regard to naming conventions & non royal usage of numerals? Essentially a US usageGarlicplanting (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Peerage and Baronetage articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Barons in Scotland

I have some concerns about this article, but I am not sufficiently expert to really know if I can correct it in such a way to get the nuance right.

My concern is that the page reads in a way that likely serves the interests of those making a trade in these titles, puffing them up to seem more important than they really are. For example: "whether Scottish barons rightfully rank as peers is disputable." I would that that's not at all disputable - laughable would be the right word. That statement is sourced to an idiosyncratic essay on a personal genealogy website - an essay which tries to make the argument (convoluted and nonsensical) that owners of feudal barons have a right to sit in the House of Lords.

Another example of what I think is a ridiculous statement: "not conventionally considered peerage titles". This seems to suggest some leeway or argument that some in authority might possibly consider these to be peerages. They aren't considered peerage titles by anyone honest as far as I know - but those engaged in marketing them may wish to generate confusion around that point.

A major concern I have is that these are referred to as "noble" titles - even though many parts of the article seem to suggest that even hundreds of years ago they were not considered as such. Here I'm on less certain ground, though, as I'm not really clear on whether they are indeed "the lowest official titled nobility in the United Kingdom." Not all titles are "noble" titles, but are these?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"the page reads...serves the interests of those making a trade in these titles, puffing them up to seem more important than they really are." You're getting good at this Jimbo ;-) This is part of a growing problem of articles by people who have bought baronies and are trying to use them to create personal pages on the justification they are notable or failing that to create an article about the barony which then contains the same content. They are a right pain to get removed as they often bare verisimilitude to valid articles and often others editors don't have enough expertise to see them for what they are.

On the article specifics. A Baron is not a peer in any way shape or form and this is not under 'dispute'! (though I rather think sellers like to create that impression) That's easy the easy bit. The article has definitely been interpolated with bits since I last read it with some pushing advancing feudal baronies. The issue of nobility seem to rest on one quote of one part of one single grant in 1943. Given a choice on that or an act of parliament making a clear distinction with it not being part of the nobility I'd choose the latter unless contemporary, substantive and official sources can be found to the contrary. The UK Government seems to use only 'dignity of a baron'. Classically the UK constitution only recognises 3 statuses: the Crown, peers and everyone else. One last thought, the sources are unacceptable. Nearly all the 'sources' are from sites that appear to be SPS, of unsubstantiated authority or not obviously sourced to authoritative sources. A number are Feudal barons pages, or dead. Even where the sources are ok, they substantiate little of the total claimed in the body of the article. Garlicplanting (talk) 10:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The article is about the Scottish equivalent of English feudal barony. Neither a feudal baron not a Scottish baron is necessarily a peer. The article correctly states that the equivalent to and English baron (a peer of the realm) is (or was) a Lord of Parliament. It might be useful of the article could set this out rather more prominently. Similarly the lord of an English manor has court baron. Having bought a manor (usually an empty title), some people like to call themselves Lord Foo, but they are in fact merely lord of foo, and since most manor courts have been abolished, they have nothing to exercise lordship over. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Earls of Mar

The Earl of Mar article and its dependent pages are in a bit of a muddle. I've explained the problem and made a proposal here, if anyone cares to comment. Thanks, Swanny18 (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Arthur Wellesley, Marquess of Douro

Can the WikiProject do something here, because this has taken too much time?--The Theosophist (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Noble family or gentry

I have raised concerns over an edit to an article called Anthony Hungerford of Black Bourton which introduced a {{Infobox nobility}} (diff) specifically two fields

• "noble family = Hungerford" -- This is because the Hungerfords were during the later 16th and 17th century were predominately a gentilegentry family (see for example the dab pages for two of their favourite Christian names Walter Hungerford Anthony Hungerford) filling typical gentry roles of knights, sheriffs, JPs and MPs.
• "occupation = Knight" -- because being knighted is not an occupation.

Kbabej who added the {{Infobox nobility}} dismisses my concerns, so what do others think? -- PBS (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I actually responded to your concerns, PBS, but apparently you did not see the responses on your talk page. Regardless, other perspectives would be great. I contend that no one less than a lady of noble rank would be permitted to be lady-in-waiting to Queen Mary I, as Anne Hungerford Lee's aunt Jane Dormer was. Also, Anne Hungerford Lee's father, Walter Hungerford (Knight of Farley), "was favoured by Queen Mary, whose Maid of Honour, Anne Basset, was his first wife." (Your words, PBS). The marriage between Walter Hungerford and Anne Bassett would never been allowed to have happened had he not been of noble rank. Anne Basset received attention from an admiring King Henry VIII, she was Queen Mary's maid of honor and her stepfather was Arthur Plantagenet, 1st Viscount Lisle, an illegitimate son of King Edward IV and uncle of King Henry VIII. It's inconceivable that a family of gentiles would be intermarried with and favored by royalty, IMO. What are others' thoughts? --Kbabej (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you don't quite understand English aristocracy - there is no "noble rank" and "It's inconceivable that a family of gentiles would be intermarried with and favored by royalty" - English titles do not work like German or continental titles. Many of the ladies in waiting were not "noble" - they could be daughters of gentry very easily. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

What Ealdgyth said. In a British context, I would think of the nobility as being peers and perhaps their immediate families. Hungerford was obviously armigerous, hence a gentleman, but not noble. Remember that offices like that of lady-in-waiting evolved over the years in terms of their duties and who was selected to fill them, generally tending to become increasingly ceremonial and hence filled by those of higher rank. I assume it's true now that only a noblewoman would be chosen for the position, but that doesn't mean it was true at other times. And it's never been the case that British peers have married exclusively among the children of other peers. Choess (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Ealdgyth and Choess. I'll look into the English nobility further and change the infobox used. Thanks! Also, PBS, I think you could have saved us both some time and responded to me when I posted on your talk page about your concerns, rather than opening a discussion. Just my two cents for you going forward. --Kbabej (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, with such a short article, I'm not sure what the infobox adds; IMO the article is not really long enough to demand a tabular summary. Others would disagree, of course. Choess (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you Choess, but many people like them (along with an image if it is avaible), so if there is to be one then the fields ought to be filled in accurately. Kbabej I had stated what I thought, this was not a noble family, you had responded disagreeing, the quickest way to sort it out and build a consensus was to bring it to a talk page where other interested parties in this subject lurk and can add their thoughts. Do you also see that "Knight" is not an appropriate entry for "occupation="? MP, Sheriff, landowner (or similar would usually be suitable) in the case of the man we are discussing held the office of "Deputy Lieutenant of Wiltshire" and that would make a suitable entry.-- PBS (talk) 10:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure 'occupation' boxes are too useful in this period. DL or MP not really a job in this period. Closer to sinecures (albeit no money) Garlicplanting (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You are confusing Anne Hungerford Lee with another article. I don't have her listed as a knight anywhere in the article, nor does that word appear anywhere on her page (except for in a citation). --Kbabej (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think PBS was referring to the article on Anthony. Now, having argued over definitions, "infobox noble" doesn't seem to be well documented, so maybe in practice people do use it for gentry despite the name. There are some fields that don't seem very applicable, though. The whole taxonomy of infoboxes in the royalty and nobility area could probably use a look from subject-matter experts, but I don't really have the energy to deal with the infobox obsessives right now. Choess (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed I was see the first line of this section. -- PBS (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Choess the problem with the "noble family=" field is the lable displayed it generates which is "Noble family" with a link to the article Nobility. Which means that the article Anthony Hungerford of Black Bourton displayed:

"Noble family" Hungerford

Which as discussed here was incorrect. There was already a parameter that allowed the link to be changed called "house type=" but it did not change the display. I have altered the code so that if "house type=" is set only "Family" is displayed so in the case the article Anthony Hungerford of Black Bourton, I have added a parameter "house type=Gentry", so the field now displays

Family Hungerford

Which should do until someone can be bothered to build a full switch into the script to display different types of families. -- PBS (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Are we sure of the article title and inline? A little search generally returns only Anthony Hungerford. While is was common enough to refer to a family by place ie the 'Hungerfords of Black Bourton' its not common to run the name with a location.Garlicplanting (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Hungerfords of that period were not very imaginative with their Christian names as they have to be disambiguated there are articles on 4 Anthony Hungerfords (1492–1657). As they were typical county gentlemen they tended to do the usual county jobs of Sheriff, Knights of the Shire that sort of thing, so unless one disambiguates on dates (which is often confusing) place is as good as anything particularly as many sources use that type of disambiguation. -- PBS (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I appreciated the disambiguation issue and it may be the least worst option - but we have included it in the opening text as well in the manner of a Scottish td. That seems odd Garlicplanting (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Sir John Auld Mactaggart, 4th Baronet

Something wrong here, apart from the fact that the stub is unsourced - see Talk:Sir John Auld Mactaggart, 4th Baronet. PamD 17:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Succession boxes for life peers?

I notice that Editor FIN (talk · contribs) has been adding Peerage succession boxes to life peers: example edit. Is this appropriate? I would have thought that as a life peerage is a title which by definition can't have a successor, it is therefore inappropriate to have a succession box which at the very least implies that a successor was a possibility. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

That's useless clutter. It can't possibly serve any purpose for a life peer. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree: remove them. By definition a life peer has no predecessor or successor,sothat the succession box is utterly pointless. I assume that Editor FIN (talk · contribs) is new editor and whoever warns him off should do so gently. I have seen the son of a life peer calling himself Hon.,but that seemed inappropriate to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that life peerages are by definition incapable of succession and need no succession box. I think the use of "Hon." for sons of life peers is appropriate inasmuch as that applies to sons who are not heirs apparent (for ranks lower than Marquess)Choess (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Err? Children of life peers have that precedence by royal warrant - 21 July '58 iirc Garlicplanting (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

questions on sources

Hi, I've noticed a lot of the leighrayment/thepeerage.com references are listed as unreliable/self-published... so should they really be listed as sources on the main page? —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Should we include titles in our lists of deaths?

Ongoing discussion here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyone heard of this guy?

His Royal Highness, His Most Serene Highness, His Ducal Serene Highness, His Grand Ducal Highness, His Illustrious Highness James Scott Walling Carver, Royal Order of Saint Hermenegild. Also apparently:

• Rt. Hon. Lord 6th Earl of March of England
• The Rev. the Hon, 10th Baron Daubeney
• Rt. Hon. Lord, 18th Earl of Warwick
• Rt. Hon. Lord, 9th Earl of Bridgewater
• His Grace 4th Duke of Buckingham
• His Grace 4th Duke of Bridgewater
• Rt. Hon. 4th Earl de Montgomery
• Duke de Choiseul d'Amboise
• Marquis de Remonville
• Duke of Montmorency
• Count of La Marche
• Count of Provence
• Duke of Aquitaine
• Count of Poitiers

See his website for the full experience. I ask because I just nominated his coat of arms for deletion over on Commons, Since I suspect people in this project know a lot about this, participation is welcomed. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Obvious bullshit, so delete. The drawing of the achievement just isn't well formed. Also apart from the untenable and unprovable claims (he's probably a Tichborne baronet as well) there are claims made for very obvious titles that are still extant. He might well be the 18th Earl of Warwick, so long as the (still living) 9th earl has died overnight and eight more successors have passed in the intervening time. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured as much. I tried finding out about any current "Earl of March of England", and couldn't find one. There's Charles Gordon-Lennox, Earl of March and Kinrara, who is the current holder of that similar title, but that's the closest I could find. You're welcome to go over to the discussion on Commons and offer your opinion there, too. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Baden-Powell

I have nominated Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKiernan (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

A tangle of redirects related to Earl/Lord Aberdeen

I don't even know how to explain this: help is needed. Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 30#GeorgeHamiltonGordonAberdeen and give your input! --BDD (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Legit?

Was Paul Berowne an actual person? There is only an offline Debrett's ref. The only relevant online search results seem to be for a fictional character. Hack (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

6th Baronet

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/6th Baronet for discussion of this disambiguation page created in 2009. PamD 09:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The Right Honourable

It seems that there is much disagreement concerning whom should this style normally be accorded to. Many sources say that it is enjoyed only by privy counsellors (regardless of rank), while it can be found in other sources that all Earls, Viscounts and Barons [and life Barons] (whether or not they are privy counsellors) are entitled to use it. I lean towards the former, mainly because this is the practice in the House of Lords. However, as the sources are clearly unclear, I preferred to ask here before starting reverting edits.--The Traditionalist (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that the practice of the House of Lords would be the latter one, according the style to peers, regardless of their being PC. The Wikipedia article seems clear enough on who is entitled, and we should follow it. Another point to consider is the abbreviation. Is it to be Rt. Hon., Rt Hon., or Rt Hon (the WP article, I think, has mistakenly put "Rt Hon." twice as the example, meaning probably to have listed one of the other forms too)? Dhtwiki (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: Thank you for your answer. I have two objections:

• a) Certainly, the article about the style clearly states that all Earls, Viscounts and Barons are entitled to use it. The article about the Privy Council, however, firmly contradicts this, stating that peers who are not Privy Counsellors should not use this style. It also states that this “was considered to be a correct formal style when addressing them in writing”, which is not the case with Wikipedia. Either way, we cannot say that one article has more “authority” than another and we should seek the answer in our sources, not in our articles.
• b) The House of Lords accords the style only to Privy Counsellors.

--The Traditionalist (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I meant that we should bring the relevant articles in line with each other, rather than to use them as sources. What are the sources that you consider definitive? Is the Lords view on the subject online? Dhtwiki (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: As you possibly know, the House of Lords′ website has a page for each Lord, even the most inactive ones. It is not stated explicitly, but the site uses “the Rt Hon.” only in pages of Lords who are Privy Counsellors. Compare 1, 2, 3 and 4 with 1, 2, 3 and 4.--The Traditionalist (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I hope we're only talking about infoboxes here, since honorifics like this should never go inline in the lead. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: Yes, of course.--The Traditionalist (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

A project of reverting was mentioned. Is that to be retroactive, or just going forward? Dhtwiki (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: It has to be retroactive. There are many articles that go by the first rule and as many that go by the second. Thus, if one proves to be more better, we have to correct the articles using the other.--The Traditionalist (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware "Right Honourable" is an appropriate style to use in certain very formal contexts for all earls, viscounts and barons. As a result, traditionally, peers who were privy counsellors indicated this by use of the postnominal "PC", rather than by adding a style they already had for another reason. More recently, everyone seems to ignore this and just use "Rt Hon" as an all purpose prefix for privy counsellors, whether peers or not. I'd prefer to stick to the most formal, older version here, largely because a large percentage of our articles on peers and privy counsellors are going to be about people from eras where the weird "use Rt Hon to indicate that peers are members of the Privy Council" rule was actively wrong. john k (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@John K: We may set a cut-off point.--The Traditionalist (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

But the rule hasn't changed. Debrett's still notes "Right Honourable" as appropriate for formal legal documents when referring to peers. john k (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

In older issues of the London Gazette, peers who were Privy Councillors were given the Rt Hon prefix before their given names when their names were listed in full (e.g. The Right Honourable Frederick Edwin, Viscount Birkenhead), but those who were not Privy Councillors were not (e.g. William Hesketh, Viscount Leverhulme). -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

My inclination would be to give all earls, viscounts and barons the Right Hon. prefix that is their right as peers, but I agree that the House of Lords has moved away from this. Going back a lot further, "The Right Honourable" was used for children of dukes and marquesses and daughters of earls, as well as for peers - in Pride and Prejudice Austen refers to "The Right Honourable Lady Catherine de Bourgh", for example. Maybe following the contemporary usage in the London Gazette would be the best way. Opera hat (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• I think the issue is that many peers are members of PC. I expect that what Debrett says is indeed right, but it is not used except in a certain very formal contexts; and should not be used in WP, which (I assume) intends to reeflct ordinary usage. IN the same way in a deed the wife of a knight Sir John Jones would be Dame Mary Jones, but in common usage Mary, Lady Jones. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems utterly reasonable to not use "right honourable" (or "most honourable" or "most noble") for regular, non privy council, peers. I'm just not sure about using it for privy council peers, although if the London Gazette does it, I suppose there's no problem. Necrothesp - did the Gazette do this for Marquesses and Dukes, as well? Also, I've never heard that the wife of a knight is formally "Dame Mary Jones." I thought dame was specifically for women given that title in their own right. john k (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

When women were appointed to the first and second classes of the Order of the British Empire in 1917, the title of "Dame" wasn't just made up at the time. The reason women granted "knighthoods" are called dames is because that was/is the formal title for wives of knights (and baronets). Opera hat (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's not a title used at all for the wives of knights and baronets now (the formal title is "Lady") and I'm honestly not sure it was ever a formal title, although it was certainly used informally in medieval and early modern times. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It's usually in wills and things. "That all creditors or persons having any debts claims or demands upon or against the estate of Dame Gertrude Maher (Widow of Major-General Sir James Maher K.C.M.G., C.B.) late of 17 Kenton Court Kensington in the county of London..." "No. 35912". The London Gazette. 19 February 1943. Opera hat (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that style was used for all peers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

As Debrett suggests that the style should be used for all Earls, Viscounts and Barons “in formal legal documents” (which is not the case with Wikipedia), and both the London Gazette and the House of Lords use the style only for Privy Counsellors, I think that the picture is quite clear.--The Traditionalist (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

A bit surprising that one with your user name should turn out to be a descriptivist. Opera hat (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Opera hat: I would have never put it this way, for certain. When you are a Traditionalist, and you see a style which should normally be accorded to people of the characteristic A, being accorded to people of the characteristic B, then you try to stop it. This quite Traditionalist, in my opinion.--The Traditionalist (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, I am not well versed in Descriptivism, but I think that a genuine Descriptivist would argue that this style should only be accorded to people who have passed a specific “Honour test”, not as an honorific. Do they recognise honorifics at all?--The Traditionalist (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you don't know what the prescriptivist/descriptivist divide in usage actually means, maybe? Descriptivists say that correct usage is what is actually used, while prescriptivists hold to some idea that there is some prescriptively defined "correct" usage, no matter what actual usage is. john k (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You are right. It looks like I was rather confused concerning this subject.--The Traditionalist (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with changing from our current practice. It's certainly how it has been used in the past, and I thoroughly dislike the idea of a cut-off point. We'd end up with fathers having "Rt Hon." and their sons not, for no other reason than that the son lived after our arbitrary cut-off point. That implies a formal switch, which has never occurred. It seems clear that formally "Rt Hon." still attaches to all barons, viscounts and earls (it was last used in the Gazette for a non-PC baron in July this year), and so I don't see why we shouldn't use it. The House of Lords is probably the worst place to look for usage examples - it makes sense not to use it when it would apply to almost all of your members! Proteus (Talk) 15:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Proteus: I agree. It's clear policy (also for readers to understand) that The Rt. Hon. is used for all earls, viscounts and barons and that the post-nominal letters PC are added for peers who are Privy Counsellors. --Editor FIN (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe we have an error

In the entry Lord-in-Waiting, I believe we have an error. I have left a note on the talk page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Use of baronetcy as disambiguation in article titles

Comments would be welcome at Talk:Sir Robert Douglas, 3rd Baronet#Requested move 12 March 2016. Opera hat (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Steuart baronets

The article on Steuart baronets needs attention.

Its layout doesn't fit the usual standards, and its factual accuracy seems poor. I just corrected a few errors, but it needs more work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, your corrections amount to respelling one family of 18th-century Steuarts to Stewart, contrary to the cited sources. This seems a doubtful improvement. What are your other factual doubts? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

New source in Google Books

I noticed the 1914 edition of Burke's Peerage is now available in Google Books. It's only Volume 1, through L, but it's very thorough - 1200 pages! It has a ton of birthdays etc so it's a great source to replace the Peerage and other sketchy sources. You can find it here - just search for a title ie Devonshire. Hopefully Volume II will pop up soon. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

When I go to that link it says "No eBook available". Perhaps only available in certain locations? (I'm in the UK.) Proteus (Talk) 09:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

REQUESTING GUIDANCE ON SCOTTISH FEUDAL BARONS

We do have a category of Barons in the Baronage of Scotland with about 20 entries. These were incorporated in Burkes 107th and the title is now incorporeal, hereditary and no further feudally linked to the land. Debretts does not include the Scots baronage, I believe. The Baronage is the most ancient noble institution in Scotland, but although the Peerage is more recent, as is the Baronetage, still considered noble by the Lord Lyon. Would it be worth incorporating the Scots baronies under the discipline of this category, which seems to me an attractive idea? There is a 'Barons in Scotland' site, which could also be brought into line. 14:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not even sure that Scottish feudal baronies meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. They're essentially akin to English lordships of the manor, and we don't include them. Proteus (Talk) 09:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I must agree. The reason for all peers being notable as default is that a vast majority of them have been members of the legislature - and it is simpler exposition to include the few exceptions. Scottish barons are not; they are not even, as peers now are, members of a small and powerful constituency of substantial public interest. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

If I remember correctly from the last episode of this, the legal definition of "nobility" in Scotland more or less corresponds to "gentry" in England, so I doubt whether the designation of the feudal barons as "noble" makes them generally notable. Choess (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Dispute on piping

Hello.

There's currently a dispute on Talk:Freeman Freeman-Thomas, 1st Marquess of Willingdon about how to refer to peers in a familial context. User:Miesianiacal is in my view confusing reference with address, linking to Forms of address in the United Kingdom#Peers, peeresses and non-peerage, and piping "Henry Brand, 1st Viscount Hampden" like this: Viscount Hampden (or, "informally", Lord Hampden), unnecessarily keeping the reader in suspense.

In my view this is ambiguous, as there have been 10 viscounts Hampden, of two creations, and I think there's no reason for any piping at all. Like WP:EASTEREGG says, it only teases the reader, and also creates problems for offline readers, as they cannot hover the mouse-pointer over the link, let alone follow it.

Now that I've read your project page, it appears that the correct way of linking/piping is

" ... his wife, Mabel, who was the daughter of the 1st Viscount Hampden".

I have now implemented that on the article in question. Even so, "the 1st Viscount Hampden" is ambiguous, as there have been two creations, and thus two 1st Viscounts Hampden (Robert Hampden-Trevor and Henry Brand). I'm wondering why we should pipe the link at all. What's wrong with

" ... his wife, Mabel, who was the daughter of Henry Brand, 1st Viscount Hampden"?

That says more to any reader who doesn't know by heart which peer had which numeral, i.e. most of us, while at the same time it removes any ambiguity. In my experience, it is the overwhelmingly most common way of linking. But Miesieniacal insisted on concealing the link target.

Please help sorting this out for us.

Regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl, Iamthecheese44, Lwarrenwiki, Sigehelmus, and Wikimandia: Could someone help out here? HandsomeFella (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC concerning honorary titles

Dear all. There is current a RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) concerning the manner in which the honorific "Sir" ought to be formatted at the beginning of biographical articles. As the matter is of interest to this project I should be grateful if editors here can drop by and give their comments. Atchom (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion elsewhere

There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#British_nobility. PamD 08:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Categories for discussion

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 October 13#Chatterton baronets and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 October 13#Lethbridge baronets, which are germane to the project. Choess (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Old merge proposal

Hey folks! A merger has been proposed for 3 years to merge Baron Chatham into both Peerage of Great Britain and Earl of Chatham. I'm not really sure either of those make sense. It seems to me a disambiguation page point to the few people who have held the title may be the best way to deal with the page? But I know next-to-nothing about Peerage/Baronetage so I figured I'd ask here for help. Any thoughts? Ajpolino (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Henry Conyngham, 8th Marquess Conyngham

I have proposed renaming the article currently at Henry Conyngham, 8th Marquess Conyngham, which falls within the scope of this project.

The discussion is part of the requested moves process. It is located at Talk:Henry_Conyngham, 8th Marquess Conyngham#Requested_move_27_November_2016, where your comments are welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Links to a countess

The Countess Bathurst, whose only mention in a Wikipedia article is as the wife of Allen Bathurst, 9th Earl Bathurst, has been appointed High Sheriff of Gloucestershire. She gets a mention in that list, with a link to her husband, and in Gloucestershire, as yet unlinked. As the succession moves on, the name "The Countess Bathurst" will refer to her husband's heir's wife and future countesses, and of course many women have previously held the title. Should she get a mention by her own name, Sara Bathurst? Should the title Countess Bathurst link to Earl Bathurst, given that the two titles are permanently connected (though there is no mention in the EB article of the fact that his wife has this title - I suppose it's something obvious to those who understand the peerage). I'm not a peerage expert, just felt unhappy at the non-link in the Gloucestershire page but then wondered whether it should link to her title, or her husband, or neither. I'm sure there are readers of this page who are much more au fait with how to deal with Countesses! I wonder whether being High Sheriff is sufficient to constitute notability so that she needs her own article, which would be one solution? PamD 22:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, may have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

House of

user:Domdeparis has recently move about 15 articles from "House of ..." to "... family" with a comment of 'In English "House of" is reserved for Royal dynasties see House of' I have started a discussion at WT:RM#House of (Archived) to see if there is a consensus on this statement for British and Irish Noble families and also whether this is true for European Continental Aristocratic families. It would be helpful if experts who lurk here could join the discussion. -- PBS (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Suitable name for an article

Hi. I came across Emilius Bayley when editing cricket articles related to Kent County Cricket Club. I've added a bunch of stuff to the article but, given that he was a Baronet and so on, wondered if there was a more accepted way to name the article? It's complex as Emilius was a middle name, he became 3rd Baronet Bayley and then changed his name to Laurie when he inherited a house in Scotland. He seems to have gone by the name Emilius for sure, and from a cricketing sense Bayley is the surname we'd use. But... it's complex. I wondered whether anyone who reads this might have some suggestions? Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't remember where the guideline is, but we don't include the "Sir..." and ", nth Baronet" in the title unless we need to disambiguate from someone else of the same name. I assume "Emilius Bayley" is unique, so it's fine where it is. Choess (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - I've done some link chasing under various names and piped things to this. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, I thought that for baronets we did normally locate the article at Sir Emilius Bayley, 3rd Baronet, with redirects from other forms of the name. Currently it is the reverse of that, but it probably does not matter unduly. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

See WP:NCPEER. Schwede66 16:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll go with point 3 of that I think and just use Emilius Bayley and redirect from Emilius Laurie in case that crops up at any point. I've piped the links I can find. Much appreciate the help and so on - the world of the aristocracy isn't one I usually venture in to :-) Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Baron Myners

Hi there,

I'm trying to help bring Baron Myners' entry up to date as it's currently listed as start class. I have a COI as detailed on his Talk Page so am try to work with the community for referenceable, factual updates. Is this the right place for an RfC?

Jackedelman (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Further to the above, for ease, I've added in the draft updates I think would make sense, along with their sources, into my sandbox. If someone would be able to take a look and make additions / removals where they see fit that'd be great. Ideally I'd like to bring Lord Myners page up to date with more in depth information.

Jackedelman (talk) 08:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Which coat of arms to use?

This is mainly a cosmetic question, and apologies if this is the wrong talk page. Many of the more 'important' peerages now have a high-quality vector graphic of the full achievement of arms (see Duke of Norfolk, Duke of Somerset, Duke of Grafton) as well as the escutcheon (shield) alone. This image is usually used in a corresponding 'Coat of Arms' section of the article, however in many cases it is also being used in the main infobox. So, my question is should we use the full achievement of arms in the main infobox, or stick to the more widespread convention of using the coronet and shield alone (see Earl of Shrewsbury, Earl of Derby)? There's a lot to be said for making the infobox as complete as possible, but on the other hand it does not need to be as detailed as the article, and that includes the coat of arms used. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

There are several problems here, starting with using an achievement of arms for a title at all. Arms belong to a person, and by extension by a family, but they do not belong to a title. The holders of a title do not have to use the same arms; consider Earl of Shrewsbury, which gives both Talbot and Talbot quartered with Chetwynd. More seriously, consider Duke of Northumberland, which gives a particular achievement of the Percies, although there have been two families of Percy Dukes, and several Dukes who are not Percies at all. I would recommend much simpler shields.

As for the concern about whether to use supporters, and so forth, which is the difference between Norfolk and Shrewsbury, do remember that the rule that peers are entitled to supporters is recent; it doesn't apply to mediaeval peerages like Shrewsbury or Derby.

I hope this helps.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware a coat of arms belongs to a person, not their title, but that doesn't answer the question of whether to use the full achievement or a simplified version in the main infobox. My preference is for either the shield and coronet of the current holder, or the 'family' arms (e.g. only the 'Percy' shield for the Dukes of Northumberland, without the other quarterings) with the coronet, as that's the simplest arrangement.

Regarding supporters and the other components of a full achievement, my concern isn't about whether to include them or not, but where to include them. For example, the Earl of Suffolk page doesn't use the full achievement anywhere on the page (because there's no image to use, which is fine), the Duke of Norfolk uses the full achievement in both the main infobox and the 'Arms of the Duke of Norfolk' infobox, while the Earl of Shrewsbury uses only the 'Talbot' shield in the main infobox and the earl's full achievement in the 'Arms of the Earl of Shrewsbury' infobox. Personally I favour the approach taken on the Earl of Shrewsbury page, which seems to cover all the bases.

I hope this clarifies my position. Where there are multiple coats and achievements of arms to be used I think it's important we establish a consensus about which should be used where, because at the moment there's a lack of consistency across the pages. Not that every page needs to be identical, but there's no logical reason for the inconsistency here, I don't think. A.D.Hope (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• The full achievement refers to a single person (perhaps also his brothers too), as it includes the arms of his mother, both grandmothers, and all great grandmothers. My preference would be for the simple arms on a peerage article, perhaps with a second arms showing quartering if it has applied over several generations. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage/Archive 11/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth Plunket, Countess of Fingall

I am concerned that the page Elizabeth Plunket, Countess of Fingall may contain OR or at least a definitive position that is not supported by the ODNB. See Talk:Elizabeth Plunket, Countess of Fingall#Genealogy and the ONDB. If you are interested please reply on the article talk page so that the conversation is kept in one place. -- PBS (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters

There is an RFC about the capitalization of titles such as "Duke" and "King" (essentially, when to capitalize and when to use lower case) that could use input from the members of this Wikiproject. Please see: WT:MOSCAPS#RfC on capitalization of job titles. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Earls of Ormond (Ireland) etc

Hello project.

Someone is in the process of creating categories like Category:Earls of Ormond (Ireland), Category:Marquesses of Willingdon, etc. Is this really meaningful, given that each category will inevitably have a very limited number of aricles, in many cases only one or two?

HandsomeFella (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The relevant guidance is WP:SMALLCAT. Nominate them for merging; I did this last year for some of them at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 11#Peerage titles with only one holder. Opera hat (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

My initial thought was that they are unnecessary altogether, but what you're saying it that depending on the number of articles in each category, it should either be upmerged or kept? HandsomeFella (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Marquesses of Willingdon, and others which are "small with no potential for growth", should definitely go. There might be a bit more of a case for Category:Earls of Jersey... I wouldn't have felt the need to create them myself, but if they weren't there it would make Category:Earls in the Peerage of England and the like quite large. Opera hat (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

AfD you might be interested in

Was there a Barony of Leighinmohr created in 1934 or at some other time? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Leighinmohr Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Leigh Rayment's Peerage Pages (2017)

see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage/Archive 10#Leigh Rayment's Peerage Pages

User:BrownHairedGirl has indicated on my talk page that it is desirable to remove the two templates from template:Rayment and its sister templates, that warn that the Rayment website is:

• {{self-published source}}
• {{better source needed}}

I added them back in 2012 (five years ago). Is this site still self-published? And should better sources be used? I think that these templates should remain embedded in {{Rayment}} and its sister templates. What do others think? -- PBS (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Full list of the templates under discussion:

• {{Rayment}}, used on 2595 pages
• {{Rayment-hc}}, used on 6019 pages
• {{Rayment-bt}}, used on 2184 pages
• {{Rayment-pc}}, used on 6 pages
• {{Rayment-bd}}, used on 23 pages

It is regrettable that @PBS chose not to post this list when opening the discussion.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a pity that PBS didn't have the courtsey to link to the discussion on User talk:PBS#Template:Rayment_etc where I raised the issue, and where I linked to the previous discussions at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_116#Leigh_Rayment.27s_Peerage_Pages and at WT:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage/Archive_10#Leigh_Rayment.27s_Peerage_Pages. Discussions like this are always much more productive is they start out with links to previous discussions.

Note that in those discussions, there was no consensus to tag these templates in that way. I am therefore in the process of removing the tags. Obviously, they should be reinststed them if and when there is an actual consensus to do so. (I don't support their inclusion, but will of course accept whatever consensus emerges here). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

[Interjection] BHG please see the hat-note which was included when I opened this section. -- PBS (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that: my eye is used skipping over hatnotes. Anwyay, thanks for mentioning one out of the three discussions which should have been linked. Pity you didn't link the others, or ping previous participants or or notify the WikiProjects whose scope covers the 10,000 articles on which these templates are used.

I have now done the relevant notifications, which will hopefully bring wider participation. This time round, please will you be kind enough to await an uninvolved closure of the discussion, rather than taking it upon yourself to act unilaterally? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• Pinging the participants in the 2012 discussion at WT:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage/Archive_10#Leigh_Rayment.27s_Peerage_Pages: Motmit, PBS, Fifelfoo, Peterkingiron, John K, Sam Blacketer, Ardric47, and Canadian Paul: --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
• Pinging the participants in a 2012 discussion at Template talk:Rayment#Reliability: Ardric47, John K, Wjhonson, Rovaniemi-5, PBS, Ugen64, and Mackensen:. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted one of the changes you have made user:BrownHairedGirl. I published the fact in the previous discussion that I had made the changes (diff 01:18, 28 February 2012). None objected to them until your unilateral reversion five years later. After 5 years it is reasonable to assume that silence equals consent. SO let this discussion play out and see if there is a consensus to remove them. -- PBS (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• @User:BrownHairedGirl: Is Leigh Rayment's a self-published site? If so why should it be exempted from WP:SELFPUBLISH, which the removal of the self published template implies? -- PBS (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
• @User:BrownHairedGirl: if it is a self-published site why not indicate that better sources should be used. In the last discussion you said that you now had better sources. If so why do you still want to use this site? -- PBS (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @PBS it would be really helpful if you would start by reading WP:SELFPUBLISH. All of it. It's not long.
    (Hint: see the 3rd sentence). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I think we need to see that Rayment is an expert in the field. If he doesn't cite his sources on the pages, then that's a problem and makes it less likely that the site could be considered reliable. Can we leave out the commentary on the other editors and just address whether or not Rayment's considered an expert in the field? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The issue was raised in the last debate and two answers were noted. (1) Is he a recognised expert? (2) Who has cited him? His website states "Leigh Rayment lives in Sydney, Australia, where he practices as a Chartered Secretary". The suggested source that cites him was Millbank Systems. As I wrote at the time: The advantage of Millbank Systems as a verification source for Rayment is presumably they will have crossed checked the data, but that does not make Rayment a reliable source, or changes the advise that a "better source is needed". -- PBS (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: Rayment's work was used by the Hansard digisation project, which was part of a project led by the Commons and Lords libraries.. Rayment is credited through out their website: see >1100 hits at https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22leigh%20rayment%22+site%3Ahansard.millbanksystems.com

Note that that House of Commons Library is a highly-respected research service, providing impartial information to Members of Parliament, of all parties. (Their own description says: We provide MPs and their staff with impartial briefings to support their work in scrutinising Government, proposing legislation, and supporting constituents). They are WP:NPOVand WP:RS incarnate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I can't say that trying to navigate to a page and getting this makes me all warm and fuzzy about it as a source. And that's from his peers navigation page. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: there are weblink errors on all sorts of sites; I frequently get them on newspapers. But the issue here is the reliability of the substantive content, not the perfection or otherwise of his website's internal links. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not active on these topics now, but here's my view. To the extent that I considered Rayment reliable, it was because Rayment was republishing reliable sources. Rayment was used as a convenience. It's not my sense that Rayment himself is an expert. His site is self-published, yes, but I'm not sure WP:SPS is meant to encompass this situation. If Rayment were making original claims or assertions, then that would be a different matter. I think in most cases Rayment is replaceable with a better source. Mackensen (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mackensen: I agree that there are better sources than Rayment .. but I think that would be a seriously mistaken test to apply. The issue here is not whether Rayment is the best source, but whether he is so dodgy that he should always be deprecated.

For British MPs 1832–1950, I use the relevant 3 volumes of F. W. S. Craig's British parliamentary election results series, of which I have (rare & expensive) copies. For those periods covered by the History of Parliament Trust's website http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/, I use that; and for Irish MPs 1801–1922, I use Brian Walker's Parliamentary Election Results in Ireland, 1801–1922.

However, Craig lists only initials rather than full names, and neither Craig nor Walker list d.o.b. or d.o.d. So in practice, I use both together, and have done so on literally thousands of articles over 11 years.

In the course of that decade's work, I can count on my fingers of one hand the errors I have found in Rayment's work, so I can well understand why the Hansard digitisation project used his work. It's not perfect, but it is v high quality. Given the number of people listed, his error rate is lower than that of the ODNB, who corrected their article on Robert Kaye Greville based on my research.

However, my big concern here is that vastly lower quality sources have not been problematised in the way that PBS seeks to problematise Rayment. Burke's Peerage, for example is widely derided as fictional, while I have corrected scores of articles which have relied on biographies or newspaper articles to make incorrect assertions about whether or when someone was an MP or held a title. By tagging Rayment as inherently dodgy, we are encouraging editors to use much much lower quality sources which will often have had no fact-checking.

Of course I support replacing Rayment with better sources, if/when they are available. But why on earth would we single out one of the best sources, when all the poor ones go unremarked?

I note that this deprecation of Rayment is not being driven by the editors with significant experience of these topic areas. In the previous discussions, it was notable that all such editors noted Raymnet's high overall reliability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Back in 2012 there was another template: {{Rayment-hc-ie}} however since then Rayment cites his sources, so last year I removed the self published and better source templates from that one because it is possible to use it with WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. This is similar to another self published website http://thepeerage.com where Darral Lundy usually cites reliable sources. But other sites such as Genealogy.EU by Miroslav Marek can not be used with WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT because they do not cite their sources -- unfortunately this has not stopped it being used on over 1,000 pages (see insource:genealogy.euweb.cz) . -- PBS (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• I have notified the following WikiProjects of this discussion: WikiProject England (diff), WikiProject Ireland (diff), WikiProject Northern Ireland (diff), WikiProject Scotland (diff), WikiProject United Kingdom (diff), and WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom (diff). All 5 notices are identical. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

As to broken links, it looks to me at the moment that the whole peerage section of the website is broken as of July 7, though it can still be found in the Google Cache (and presumably the Wayback Machine), which is troubling. That has no real relevance to whether his site is a reliable source, however. I think that the fact that Rayment is used by Hansard and by Parliament's own research branches as a source on its history, and that it more or less always checks out when compared to more authoritative sources (I'm sure there are errors, but every source in the world has some errors), suggests that there's no particular reason to deprecate it, and, indeed, that Rayment is considered an expert on the topic by reliable sources. That being said, WP:SPS seems to be extremely restrictive as to who counts as an "estblished expert," and I'm not sure whether Rayment would qualify. On the whole, what this and other similar debates suggests to me is that WP:SPS needs to be liberalized. john k (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Right now, I am seeing a lot of arguments against "depreciating" Rayment's pages as sources, but the actual question wasn't about that. It was about whether or not the specialized sourcing templates for Rayment's pages should still have notes that state the site is self-published and that there may be better sources available. So what we need to address is that question - which is seemingly in the affirmative. I can't get to the pages to look at them so that's a problem to determine if they are showing sources or not. But is anyone arguing that the site isn't a self-published source? Or that if possible, we should use other, better sources? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Ealdgyth, this discussion is about deprecating the refs,[not "depreciating", which is something else] by tagging them with a request to do better and categorising the articles under accuracy disputes. Ideally, we should of course use the best sources, but we don't routinely tag good-enough sources in this way, nor place the pages in categories for accuracy disputes, as those tags misleadingly did. Heck, nobody in either this discussion or the 2012 debates who is familiar with Rayment's work argues that there is any systemic problem of accuracy. There are way more accuracy problems in Henry Stooks Smith's The Parliaments of England, which wasn't self-published ... and the single-minded fixation on self-publication is blinding some editors to the actual reliability of the source.

Yes, of course Raymnent's work is self-published. But that does not automatically mean that it is deprecated. Please note sentence 3 of WP:SELFPUBLISH: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Rayment fits those criteria.

Do editors really prefer that articles should use less accurate sources than Rayment? If not, why prioritise a narrow reading of formal criteria over the real issue of whether the facts asserted are accurate? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I would consider Smith's work also to be problematic, mainly due to age. The study of history has changed greatly in the last 150+ years. And, in general and in specific, I prefer that we use accurate sources, period. Yes, the fact that Hansard used Rayment is a sign in its favor, but it's not really showing that it's a great source. Are academic historians citing Rayment? Are popular historians using him? Is he recommended as a source for finding other sources? Since I can't get to his pages, I can't judge his reliability. I can, however, get to another site that's being bandied about here ... thepeerage.com, and it's got some issues on the things I spot checked. I can find a June 2016 archive of Rayment at Wayback Machine, and I'm not really sure it adds a thing beyond what one could get from the Complete Peerage. If that's the quality of the whole site, I can totally see using "better source" because there are much better sources available. Hell, thepeerage.com is more useful, because it at least cites its sources. I really don't see what the big deal is with putting "self-published source" on the template. Of course, I find the use of specialized templates for individual sources to be a problem also - but that's a totally different kettle of fish. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth : the problem is simply that putting "self-published source" on the template encourages the replacement of that ref with the many less reliable sources available, but which do not place the article in Category:Accuracy disputes ... or simply using a cite template to bypass the pejorative labelling.
As repeatedly noted, Rayment's accuracy is not contested. As we agree, he's streets ahead of Stooks Smith.
As to specific-source templates, there are ~2700 of them in Category:Specific-source templates, and I see no reason to make it harder for editors to format refs to those sources. If you want to pursue that idea, please open a separate discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Rayment is undoubted self-published. This makes it suspicious, rather than unreliable. My recollection is that we have not found it systematically unreliable, rather the reverse. There are certainly better sources, such as the volumes published by History of Parliament Trust for MPs; Complete Peerage; and Burke's Peerage etc. However these are not readily available on-line. Some of the others are available, but sometimes behind a pay-wall. I have also seen peerages cited from 19th-century published works, which are liable to have errors, which have been corrected as a result of later research. We certainly should not substitute poor older printed sources for what seems to be a compilation from good recent sources. "Better source needed" may be unjustified, and encourage the substitution of what are in fact poorer ones; "self-published" seems indisputable. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
• Both those templates should be removed. BHG has made a solid case for this. The templates remaining won't achieve anything that's helpful to the project. Schwede66 21:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

There are a lot of these self published sources on the net, however most of them do not have individual templates designated to linking to those sites. Having templates such as {{Rayment}} will appear to many inexperienced editors the the site is considered to be reliable, even thought it does not meet policy requirements as a reliable source. There seems to be some confusion over whether a site is accurate or whether it is reliable. On Wikipedia reliable and accurate are two different concepts. It does not matter how accurate a site is, its reliability depends upon it meeting different criteria. BrownHairedGirl has argued that because one reliable site, has been shown to use Rayment then that shows it is reliable. It does not show anything of the kind as the site qualifies its research and presumably it will checked Rayment against other sources. If so, then for the information that it has checked, iy can be extracted from that reliable source and the self-published Rayment site can be dropped. I don't buy the augment that including a warning that Rayment is self-published and that a better source is required encourages editors to provide a worse source, as they could just as easily provide a better one. I think it is interesting to note that since the last survey of the usage of Rayment templates (in 2012), the total number of articles using them has gone down. This is desirable. If the "self-published" template is removed then what is the drive to remove more of them? -- PBS (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: Oh dear, lots of misconceptions there.

On your first point about reliability, I remind you again to read the 3rd sentence of WP:SELFPUBLISH: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. As already noted, that test has been met in this case, and it is tedious for you to proceed as if that part of the discussion had never happened.

Secondly, you disagree with my warning that these deprecation templates "encourages editors to provide a worse source, as they could just as easily provide a better one". Again, it would be helpful if you had read the discussion above where (in my reply to Mackensen at 16:35, 7 July 2017) I dealt in detail with the other sources available. I will not repeat all the points I made there, but ask you to list which freely-available-online sources exist which provide comprehensive coverage to a higher degree of accuracy than Rayment for 1/ Baronets 2/ MPs since 1832. Having edited these topics intensively for a decade I am not aware of alternatives which meet those criteria ... but since you insist that these better sources are available, so I'm sure you will be able to list them.

Thirdly, you say that here has been a decline in the use of the templates since they were tagged. The substantive concern you have here is not the templates per se, but the refs to Rayment, and any such measure is meaningful only if it includes all refs to Rayment, not just those generated by template. Othwerwise, editors could simply replace the template with a direct link, and you'd count it as a success. Do you ave a measure of total refs to Rayment?

Finally, what evidence do you have that where Rayment refs have been replaced with other sources, those other sources are of a higher level of accuracy? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I have been adding to the article Oatlands Palace and I want to find a page so show when the property was sold by the Commonwealth government to Major-General William Boteler. One of the first sites I looked at was http://www.pastscape.org.uk a website that is considered to be reliable. However the page for Oatlands Palace includes as citation 9 "Wikipedia. 2009. Oatlands Palace, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oatlands_Palace". @User:BrownHairedGirl does this make the Wikipeida page Oatlands Palace a reliable source? -- PBS (talk) 10:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: are you seriously trying to compare a one-off use of an unreliable source by a website of unknown authorship with the systematic use of Rayment by the highly-respected House of Commons Library? Seriously? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The website site pastscape.org.uk and its author is Heritage Data Management, Historic England, is about as authoritative as it gets for English architectural heritage, so I think it is comparable with House of Commons Library. The pastscape website returns over 100 pages that cite Wikipedia. The principle remains the same, just because Wikipedia is cited in a reliable source it does not turn Wikipedia into a reliable source. @User:BrownHairedGirl I fail to see why you think that it is different for a self-published website of a person who "lives in Sydney, Australia, where he practices as a Chartered Secretary". -- PBS (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: you are trying to compare the scholarly integrity of the highly-respected House of Commons Library with the website of a charitable trust whose funding has been slashed as it has been hived off from govt. Boggle.

If you can show that the HocLib uses Wikipedia as a source for anything other than the state of Wikipedia, then I will happily concede that you have a relevant point. But so far, all that you have demonstrated is that pastscape has much lower editorial standards than you would like to believe, and that it is not a WP:RS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you are applying circular logic. If a site cites an unreliable source then it too is unreliable, unless BrownHairedGirl is trying to prove otherwise. -- PBS (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Please give an example where the House of Commons Library is using Rayment in inline citations, so we can see that it is not double checking Rayment as a source, and on a page without a blanked get out of Jail free card that includes Rayment in an endnote that ends "The means by which names are recognised means that errors may remain in the data presented". -- PBS (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. PBS, you are starting to get very silly.

1. Please re-read. There is no circular logic, just two v difft cases. Wikipedia is inherently unreliable because it lacks quality control: anyone anywhere cam write whatever they like on its articles. No usage by any third party alters that.
   OTOH, Rayment has a single author, and agreed high accuracy. The only issue in his case in self-publication, addressed by the HoCLib use.
2. What on earth does the disclaimer about automated matching of name variants in text have to do with reliability or otherwise of Rayment's scholarship? His works doesn't claim to address variants of names.

You are clutching at straws here, and I'm getting a strong impression here that tagging these templates has become something of a crusade for you. So I won't engage further here unless you have something more pertinent to say. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm jumping in here way late, but the reason that I had objected years ago was that (at the time, at least), Rayment's site contained intentional errors, "copyright traps" (which is odd, because facts cannot be copyrighted). Self-published sources are great whenever they're correct, but ones that seek a bizarre sort of schadenfreude are not (in my opinion). Ardric47 (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Peers elected to Parliament

There's a discussion of how to format the names of (Irish and courtesy) peers elected to the British House of Commons at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Peers in election result boxes. Your commentary is invited. Choess (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Template

{{Infobox peerage title}} should probably be added to this project. Hairy Dude (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for Brian Robertson, 1st Baron Robertson of Oakridge needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Brian Robertson, 1st Baron Robertson of Oakridge; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Emma Portman, Viscountess Portman article

Hi, all. We need people weighing in at Talk:Emma Portman, Viscountess Portman#Accuracy. It's about when Portman dies and therefore the accuracy of the viscountess title. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Dealt with, I see. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Percys or Percies

There seems to be gentle disagreement across a range of articles about whether several members of the Percy family are some Percys or some Percies. Is it Written somewhere which usage is correct? Or is there some more general rule about plurals of family names in -y perhaps? I'd be interested to know or to be pointed at an existing guideline or discussion. Apologies, as always, if this is the wrong place to raise this ... but it did seem like a potentially decent starting-point! Thanks in advance and best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I doubt there is any decision; there ought not to be. Ngram suggests that both forms are in frequent use. As long as this remains a gentle disagreement, I see no particular reason you should not continue to disagree - as long as you are consistent in any given article. Flip a coin, when you can't decide? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

If anyone does want to discuss this, I would use Percies, just as I would use mercies - as the way English forms such plurals. But that's my usage, and we are a collaborative work. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Percy is a proper noun, so the plural is Percys. Irregular like "The Misses Bennet" rather than "the Miss Bennets", Courts Marshal, Trades Unions, and so on. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

There are books about the family. They appear to use "Percys." See here. john k (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, all – very interesting and useful. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment

This project has pages about peerages and baronetcies in the United Kingdom and Ireland (including the former states of England, Scotland, and Great Britain), and their holders.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there an extinction of title category?

2605:E000:9149:A600:7D56:CC3:EA51:5FBF (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Ancestry.com

Does anyone have any experience with searching Ancestry.com and the other genie sites for publication confirmation in the Gazette for Honours. The Gazette can be rather limited in what scope you can specify and the hits can be very large. One of the problems of the Gazette is that the style of personal name can vary as well than what is published in WP. And from what i have experienced so far there is not a date range that can be supplied to limit hits on the Gazette. Usually when info is lacking on an honour is because the source is general instead of being specific. It is better to be specific when possible to eliminate confusion when someone can have multiple honours that the significance of in some publications is rather not sought. Let us face it, all that many people can remember is that their johnnie knelt, was touched by the sword and voila, when all that happened was a handshake. Reminds me of clerks coming in looking for something and swearing how they described it to a "T" it ended up not being the same card stock, color or information arrangement. Thank you.2605:E000:9149:A600:7D56:CC3:EA51:5FBF (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

A question

If a title holder passes, and there is an article on the heir (whether apparent or presuṃtive), do you ṃove that article iṃṃediately, or is there a process that is to be observed?

HandsomeFella (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• @HandsomeFella: My experience is that the article is moved immediately, which makes sense, as the title passes immediately upon the death of the holder (ie there is no ceremony marking the transition). The only issue would be if there was some kind of dispute or difference in opinion on who the heir presuṃptive was (which I've never seen). —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, agreed. Barring problems of succession, the heir is held to succeed at the precise moment of death. The King is dead, long live the King! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Although the succession is immediate, I understood that the convention is for the new peer not to start using his (or her) title until after the funeral of the late peer. This is just a social convention though, and they are a peer from the moment of their predecessor's death. Opera hat (talk) 08:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • • Yes it dates back to a time when burial was the point of certainty of death. It is social not legal. Garlicplanting (talk) 09:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I guess every situation may have its, "What to do with the dowager?" consideration. But then even the Duke of E. wanted to live down the street from the office.2605:E000:9149:A600:7D56:CC3:EA51:5FBF (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Fact conflict on knighthood

Just how inclusive is this group as I have a situation dealing with India where there is a conflict with the appointment of a knighthood:

In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fateh_Singh_of_Udaipur_and_Mewar#So there is language that the honor was recieved in 1881 but when you look at the 1881 birthday honours it is for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sajjan_Singh_of_Udaipur ("n 1881 the maharana was created a knight grand of the most exalted of the star of india, he being decorated with the insignia at chittor by Lord Ripon....").

In January 1877 there was a visit by Lord Lytoon to Delhi for an Imperial Assemblange associated with Victoria's Golden Jubilee but no mention of a knighthood.

Something is wrong.2605:E000:9149:A600:7D56:CC3:EA51:5FBF (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

According to Who's Who, Fateh Singh received the GCSI in 1887. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Title(s) styles standard

Is there a style standard for WP that outlines just what is preferred for each title/honour since what i have found for some vary from article to article and sometimes within an article? Sometimes there will be a category listed but no text in the article. Also, there might be links within the same article to what i can assume is basically the same thing but worded differently. This becomes very confusing when one is reading and then attempting to interpret what is being said. So as to better show unfamiliar readers at a glance, that a chart for titles/honours be developed to show how it has changed over time because the articles are not necessarily standardized so there is no telling where you might find what you need to know. And of course there is the factor of what best can be described as idiosyncracies of the nation/place.2605:E000:9149:A600:34D8:EC05:8EC2:B095 (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

and also the point that people may be known by different styles in the course of their life.Xxanthippe (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC).

That is a good point; much like how sometimes film plot content is explained with flashbacks etc.2605:E000:9149:A600:7D56:CC3:EA51:5FBF (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you are asking. The project page covers most of this. Are you talking about the 'The styles a peer held over the course of his life should be contained in a "Styles" section of the article' section Garlicplanting (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Titles

Wikipedia titles that is, not the other kind. Two (relatively) recent baronet articles - James Maitland, 4th Baronet of Barnton, Sauchie and Bannockburn and Sir John Thomas Stanley, 6th Baronet. The Stanley article might perhaps best be at Sir John Stanley, 6th Baronet by our conventions? And the Maitland one at Sir James Ramsay-Gibson-Maitland, 4th Baronet or James Ramsay-Gibson-Maitland. Especially as while he might have been 'of Barnton, Sauchie and Bannockburn', the territorial designation of the baronetcy was Clifton. And Ramsay-Gibson-Maitland was the surname, rather than being several middle names and a surname. 92.12.217.145 (talk) 09:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes in both cases Garlicplanting (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

William of the United Kingdom

William of the United Kingdom, currently a redirect to William IV of the United Kingdom, has been nominated at RfD. Your comments are invited in the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 16#William of the United Kingdom. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Henry of Grosmont

I was wondering if someone could help me identify if in 1345 when Henry succeeded as Earl of Lancaster, whether in order of precedence as the Earl of Derby or the Earl of Lancaster, how should he be described in 1346? Regards Newm30 (talk) 05:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Not sure I follow the question. Peerages are always ranked by ancienty. Garlicplanting (talk) 12:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC on post-nominals

I have opened an RfC as to whether we should keep the post-nominals template listing them at 85% text size or increase to 100%. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Request for comment: Size of post-nominals. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Dissent on Castlereagh & Wellington

I do not like the use of "Viscount Castlereagh", by itself (a title used by every heir to any Marquess of Londonderry) as the title for the article on the 2nd Marquess. Though he may be the best known user and may have borne it for most of his public career, it simply does not suffice to mean a particular individual and thus should be avoided. The same goes for treating "Duke of Wellington", by itself, as specifying only the 1st Duke. LE (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Well you're right its a quite encyclopaedic that we have people at locations that are completely inconsistent with other peers. The trouble is that this has been fought before and the majority of users who know little about peerages decided that the 'DofW' was most famous so he should be at that link despite others existing and created DoW(title) for the list of all holders. About 3,000 other titles follow the usual/correct format so the whole thing is a mess.11:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garlicplanting (talk • contribs)

There already is a disambiguation page Duke of Wellington (disambiguation). Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC).

You're missing the point. For c3k peerage titles the 'title' is @ 'DofW' and each holder is @ 'Fred,DofW'. But for DofW its not; the 1st holder is @ 'dofW' and the title @ DofW(title). Disambiguation doesn't fix this nonsense! Just backing up a bit the Castle article link is listed as an exemption in our MoS because he was known as that for his political life and only very briefly as a Mq Examples: Frederick North, Lord North (not "Frederick North, 2nd Earl of Guilford"), Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh (not "Robert Stewart, 2nd Marquess of Londonderry").Garlicplanting (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

While North had fallen from power when he inherited the Earldom, the 2nd Marquess of Londonderry had not, his political career continued until his suicide. And what about namesake holders of courtesy titles where there is no numbering to disambiguate them? LE (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know perfectly well he was Mq for 1 year or about 1/26th of his political career. I'm not sure who merits an article that this would create an issue but they would go @ fred,V-C without much bother. At that point if needed we might need to discuss the disambiguation.Garlicplanting (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Seigneur into Lord

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Lord#Merge with Seigneur proposal. Peaceray (talk) 08:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Correct title of Lady Louisa Thynne?

I recently started a stub at Lady Louisa Thynne, also known as Louisa Finch, Countess of Aylesford or Louisa, Countess of Aylesford. Not being familiar with British peerage, I'm not quite sure what the most suitable or preferred title is, although I'm leaning toward one of the latter. Anyone more knowledgeable, feel free to move and/or edit the intro as seen fit. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I am slightly more happy with the first one, as it contains the name she was born with. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC).

I'm not sure that's in line with WP:COMMONNAME though, and the guidelines on this very project suggest: Wives of peers, when the title is used in the article name... should have their married surnames. As a botanist, the Countess seems most often to be referred to as "Countess of Aylesford" or "Lady Aylesford", neither of which are unambiguous, and infrequently as Thynne in prose (she seems to have begun her painting after marriage). On the balance, I think "Louisa Finch, Countess of Aylesford" is the go to: even The Biographical Dictionary of Women in Science lists her as "Finch, Louisa (Thynne), Countess of Aylesford". --Animalparty! (talk) 02:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Louisa Finch, Countess of Aylesford is entirely correct. Actually, she was never called Lady Louisa Thynne. Her father was a viscount when she was born, and only the daughters of earls, marquesses and dukes have the title "Lady". He didn't become a marquess until 1789, eight years after her marriage to Lord Aylesford. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: Thanks for the insight. I've made adjustments on Wikidata and Commons. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Lady Louisa Thynne is definitely wrong. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC).

The Origins of Honorifics

In the modern age (roughly the Glorious Revolution onwards), there is reasonable consistency in the infoboxes of British politicians. Privy council members, barons, viscounts and earsl are styled The Right Honourable, marquesses are styled The Most Honourable and dukes His Grace. How far back does this system extend? There is a degree of confusion on the biographies of senior English politicians up to the mid-seventeenth century, with many articles using Infobox peer or Infobox noble rather than the more useful Infobox officeholder in what I suspect is an attempt to evade the decision. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The period you describe 1688-1730s is really when those modern forms started to firm up a bit. Even at that time the fuller & older long forms were still in use (but changing) and covered other peers. Those forms were largely inventions of the previous late 16th & 17C.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/otherprince.htm

There was surprising flex in all these forms the term 'Lord' for anyone of importance was used much like 'sir' from the earliest records until the late C19 (in rural areas at least) 'Majesty' arrived with Henry VIII and the children of princes were 'Lord/lady' until the Hanoverians. I generally advice useing the modern forms where appropriate unless it creates obviously ridiculous consequences as deciding cutoff for title forms is impossible. Garlicplanting (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Please STOP using thepeerage.com

I've had to formally request this site be blacklisted. @PBS: has discussed this on the Reliable sources Noticeboard five years ago when it was cited on 7,000 pages. That number is now over 10,000. This is not a reliable site by any Wikipedia standard. There is already a template indicating Lundy is NOT a reliable site and should not be used but people ignore it. It is self-published and either taken from reliable sources (meaning they are available for you to find use) or personal email correspondence by the creator. I've found countless mistakes that are contrary to reliable sources and I'm at my wits' end trying to replace this site with reliable sources. There are thousands of pages I am trying to fix. If you want to use it as a guide to find reliable sources, then go ahead, but please stop citing it or linking to it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Conversation(s) are now archived MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2019#thepeerage.com and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 266#thepeerage.com -- PBS (talk) 11:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Excess peerages.

Can everyone keep an eye out as i'm running across lots of titles where someone is adding all the peerages. We need to revert this nonsense. see

Earl_of_Shrewsbury

Charles Henry John Benedict Crofton Chetwynd Chetwynd-Talbot, 22nd Earl of Shrewsbury, 22nd Earl of Waterford, 7th Earl Talbot, 7th Viscount of Ingestre, 7th Baron Dynevor (born 1952)Garlicplanting (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on honorifics

There's a discussion on honorifics going on over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Honorifics. Please take part.

HandsomeFella (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Resignation Peerage 2019

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/830278/Resignation-Peerages-2019.pdf

FYI

BlueD954 (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

New bot to remove completed infobox requests

Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!

Sent on behalf of Trialpears (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Cross-project question

From WT:CRIC: Does anyone know if Richard Wellesley (cricketer), who played for Marylebone Cricket Club in 1841, is related to the Wellesley family that includes Duke of Wellington (title) and Earl Cowley? ミラP 00:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

My guess is that one of the four sons of Richard Wellesley (1787–1831) would be named after his father and be the right age in 1841 - but a guess is all that it is. Chuntuk (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Blazons of Baronets

Also applicable to Heraldry and vexillology.

Editions of Burke's and Debrett's up to 1959 can be found online. Only a few dozen baronetcies were created from 1960 onwards. I have added all blazons for extant baronetcies created after 1959 from Debrett's Peerage 2000, though a couple were apparently non-armigerous. That means all extant baronetcies have blazons available for their associated arms. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Marquess of Bath

The 7th Marquess of Bath has died, and has been succeded by his son. Both articles need updating, and the latter needs an infobox. Members of this WP are requested to assist in this. Mjroots (talk) 12:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Something odd

In the past few days, members of the "James" family, supposedly descendants of an illegitimate son of the the 4th Duke of Hamilton, have been added to several articles and married off to previously non-existent members of the aristocracy. As yet I haven't had any response from the new users who are apparently responsible, and I think that may be because User:AlhambroDennis, User:ArthurBrechin, User:HarryGordon99, User:GarethDalrymple, and several others are one and the same person, who perhaps doesn't realise they are doing anything wrong by creating different IDs. Would anyone else like to venture an opinion as to the likelihood of this being a complete hoax? Deb (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

If there is not proper sourcing of the new entry then just revert it thats policy. 86.137.215.216 (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about people being receiving multiple peerages

Hello.

There's a discussion going on at Talk:Robert Henley, 1st Earl of Northington about people receiving multiple peerages. I am intentionally avioding the expression "being created a peer multiple times", because that is exactly what is being disputed by my fellow editor Opera hat.

I will suggest centralizing the discussion here.

HandsomeFella (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC on succession boxes on US presidential biographies (and the future of succession boxes)

An RfC is occurring at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Succession boxes for US Presidents that concerns the inclusion of succession boxes in articles about US presidents. The RfC's outcome may have implications for the future of succession boxes more generally. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the village pump. Thank you. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 07:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Sir William Blackett, 1st Baronet, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Hello, coming across this painting, looking at the text in the upper right part reading: JULIA, wife of S^r.. W^m BLACKETT. B^art, dau^t of X^pher CONYERS. B^art, wondering if this could be a portrait of his wife Julia Conyers, daughter of Sir Christopher Conyers, 2nd Baronet. If yes, the image could be added to the article. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Clearly so, Lotje, I have added it. Moonraker (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Earl of Cleveland

Why isn’t they a page on the peerage of Cleveland, presently redirecting to baron Wentworth. The area, I think, covered approximately Yorkshire wapentakes: Pickering Lythe, Whitby strand, Ryedale and Langbaurgh. Darlington and other peerages have also linked to the area. Cheers if it is followed up on by people who know where and how to put a peerage article together. Chocolateediter (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

They is a duke article maybe add it there. Other peerage might exist. Chocolateediter (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Chocolateediter, there seems to have been only that one Earl of Cleveland, who was a Wentworth. As you say, we also have the page Duke of Cleveland, which is about a peerage granted twice, to different families. Moonraker (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Moonraker: I think on hindsight more of a section as to titles&/peerages linked to the area on Cleveland, England article or a list in Cleveland (disambiguation). Disambiguation list would be a start point and article one more in-depth. What would you recommend?

On another note, is they any maps as to areas where peerage names come from, I know most of the time the titles aren’t at all that linked to the area, of which can be vaguely described, it is interesting to have a visual on Wikipedia though. I guess old deacon, liberty, wapentakes, etc boundaries are closest to titles. Chocolateediter (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

That isn’t the way any reference works on peerages are organized, Chocolateediter. If you go back to the Middle Ages, many peerages had a basis in geography and land ownership, and an earldom was often closely related to the county whose name it used, which is why an earl’s wife is a countess, but it didn’t stay that way for long. Most earldoms are much more recent and are just a name it suited the monarch to use. Moonraker (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Styles of nobility

I just read the project page of the WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage and find it says "The styles a peer held over the course of his life should be contained in a 'Styles' section of the article". I looked at 11 FAs and 40 GAs of peers and found only 4 that had a Styles sections: Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough, Prince William, Duke of Gloucester, Elizabeth Campbell, Duchess of Argyll, and Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale. I think the cited sentence is not intended to mean what it appears to say, namely that all the biographies of peers and baronets should include a Styles section. I wonder whether it is not meant to say that styles of nobility if mentioned at all should be presented in a Styles section and should not appear in the running text elsewhere. Could somebody please clarify and find a better formulation? With thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Johannes Schade, those are well-developed articles, and most of the biographies of peers we have are not. It’s still good guidance on peers, because they can change their names several times during their lives. Mr Henry Thynne is later Viscount Weymouth and then the Marquess of Bath. A styles section helps to disentangle this. Baronets are less like chameleons. Moonraker (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Privilege of peerage at FAR

I have nominated Privilege of peerage for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about article "Prince William, Duke of Cambridge"

 You are invited to join the discussion at Prince William, Duke of Cambridge#Baron or Lord Carrickfergus, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

This is for a discussion at Talk:Prince_William,_Duke_of_Cambridge#Baron or Lord Carrickfergus. The above link directs people to the article, not the talk page. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

New articles?

Just from thinking off the back of disappearing down a Wikipedia hole, has this project considered the following (perhaps slightly macabre) articles?

• List of British hereditary titles to have become extinct in the 21st century - Listing any title that ran out of incumbents in that century (so could do 20th, 19th etc - splitting by century hopefully means it's not too unwieldly)
• List of members of the British peerage killed in World War Two - Listing any person with a title, and possibly anyone directly in line to succeed to titles, who was killed in WWII. Similar to something like List of cricketers who were killed during military service (could also do WWI, I imagine)

Apologies if these already exist and I've failed to find them, and obviously the titles could probably be improved. Just thought they were worthy of consideration/discussion. Cheers, HornetMike (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Coat of arms, or not?

Article on govt minister who got a life peerage in retirement. Should his coat of arms be included?

Discussion at Talk:John Moore, Baron Moore of_Lower Marsh#Arms. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

A question about spouses

I've been this morning casually researching a question that I find quite interesting. How do we treat the courtesy titles of spouses of male life peers in Wikipedia when they qualify for a Wikipedia entry in their own right?

The reason for that very specific formulation is that: (a) the spouses of female peers do not get any sort of courtesy title, so the issue doesn't arise there for reasons not up to Wikipedia (b) I suspect that hereditary (versus life) peers may view the use of titles differently - but this could be a distinction without merit, so I'm not hung up on it.

My own view is that many prominent spouses of life peers do not use their courtesy titles professionally and therefore, they should not be treated prominently in their Wikipedia entry. This formulation strives to follow usual Wikipedia practice such as WP:COMMONNAME and a reliance on reliable sources rather than original research and/or technicalities.

Here are some examples for your consideration:

• James Arbuthnot - Emma Arbuthnot - "Emma Arbuthnot, Lady Arbuthnot of Edrom DBE is an English judge." No infobox.
• Jeffrey Archer - Mary Archer - "Dame Mary Doreen Archer, DBE (née Weeden; born 22 December 1944) is a British scientist specialising in solar power conversion." - Infobox refers to her as Dame Mary Archer DBE, i.e. by her own substantive title.
• Anthony Bamford - Carole Bamford - "Carole Gray Bamford, Lady Bamford, OBE (born 1946), is a British business person who founded the Daylesford Organic Farmshops chain and the Bamford brand of women's products." Infobox refers to her as Lady Bamford, OBE. I note that she is widely known in the press and in her own website(s) as "Lady Bamford", so this is consistent with WP:COMMONNAME.
• Alan Beith - Diana Maddock - Baroness Maddock was a Peer in her own right. "Diana Margaret Maddock, Baroness Maddock, Lady Beith (née Derbyshire; 19 May 1945 – 26 June 2020) was a British Liberal Democrat politician." Infobox refers to her as The Right Honourable The Baroness Maddock. It seems quite odd (and sexist?) that we refer to her as "Lady Beith" in that title, and it is unlikely that she was ever known as that given that she was made a Baroness in 1997, married Alan Beith in 2001, and he was made a peer in 2015. I would suggest that sourcing for that sort of thing would be necessary, i.e. did she ever use that name?
• Jo Johnson - Amelia Gentleman - This one is quite the odd one out: "Amelia Sophie Johnson, Baroness Johnson of Marylebone (born 1972), better known as Amelia Gentleman, is a British journalist." Infobox is very formal with "The Right Honourable The Lady Johnson of Marylebone". It is worth noting that she is known in the press only as Amelia Gentleman and apparently does not use her title (not even Lady Johnson) at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Roy Kennedy, Baron Kennedy of Southwark - Alicia Kennedy, Baroness Kennedy of Cradley - both peers, no mention of husband's title as part of her name (which I think is right)
• Neil Kinnock - Glenys Kinnock
• Mark Lancaster, Baron Lancaster of Kimbolton - Caroline Dinenage
• Richard Layard, Baron Layard - Molly Meacher, Baroness Meacher

And a couple of hereditary examples:

• Christopher Guest - Jamie Lee Curtis
• Jamie Borwick, 5th Baron Borwick - Victoria Borwick

I note that this is far from a comprehensive study but even so, there are some interesting tidbits: 1. Some of my examples are examples of couples where both have substantive titles. We treat the question of the husband's title in the wife's article rather inconsistently. 2. In general, our treatment - particularly in infoboxes - is all over the map, with no clear tie to sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Depends whether you're talking about article titles, the first line or infoboxes. Article titles obviously follow WP:COMMONNAME, so it would depend on what their common name was. In the first line, then yes, we should mention their courtesy title, just as we list middle names that they don't commonly use. If their common name is different, then it should be listed after their dates as per normal ("known as" or whatever). Infoboxes? Well, they're always a law unto themselves! Note that Alicia Kennedy, Glenys Kinnock and Molly Meacher are peers in their own right, so their husbands' titles don't take precedence. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I propose that we at least start a project of mild standardization along these lines as per your suggestion but with a bit of addition:

• Article titles - common name as you say, and getting into a scuffle about these would be ill-advised I would imagine
• First line - mention courtesy titles but be sure to lead with common name and then some wording like "also known as" particularly if they actually are also known as - the specific wording might vary depending on circumstances
• Infoboxes - semi-standardize towards something closer to common name. I think what makes sense here is "the most formal name that the person actually uses" (in some real context).

My plan is to continue my research a little bit at a time to gather more relevant examples. I think we agree fully on the examples where both spouses are independently peers - the problem is not with those articles as the treatment of men and women is the same, and the treatment actually makes sense.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Styles and titles of royal descendants, especially Archie Mountbatten-Windsor

Your input is sought over at Talk:Archie_Mountbatten-Windsor#Decisions_about_his_style_and_title. The article has a section on the subject's not having the style HRH and the title of a prince, but the reasons for this are now the subject of public controversy due to the fallout from Oprah with Meghan and Harry. It would be helpful if the article could explain the legal situation e.g. with reference to George V's letters patent about royal princes in general, and Elizabeth II's 2012 letters patent about the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, as I'm already seeing comments and tweets from people who appear to be under misapprehensions about who usually gets to be a prince, who gets to be one automatically as opposed to needing an individual grant etc. I have made some suggestions on the talk page but am no expert. Beorhtwulf (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

George V's Letters Patent state that "The children of any Sovereign of the United Kingdom and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have-and-at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour". That was later changed by Letters Patent by Her Majesty The Queen stating that "All the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour". That was meant to ensure that all the children of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge will enjoy this style. According to these Letters Patent, Archie Mountbatten-Windsor shall be made a Prince of the United Kingdom and enjoy the style of Royal Highness as a granchild of the Sovereign as soon as charles, Prince of Wales will become King. Duke of Somewhere (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Sir Charles Asgill, 1st Baronet

I'm wondering if someone would reassess this article, Sir Charles Asgill, 1st Baronet please? I've expanded it as far as I can, from a stub, but I think it has gone beyond 'start class' now, especially since I do not believe there is anything further to be found about him.Anne (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

This has now been rated "C" class, which I think is spot on.Anne (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion elsewhere

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Peerage_titles_and_honorifics_amendments may be of interest.PamD 14:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Baron Mowbray

There is an issue with the numbering of these barons. As best I can tell from the history, one editor created pages for the individual holders, while separately the Barony page was created, but the numbers there didn't match thos of the individual pages. This was originally addressed with piping, but then a set of double numbers was used (e.g. 22nd/24th Baron Mowbray). The lower set of numbers match those of Cokayne, I can't tell where the larger set of numbers come from, and can't even be sure they are authentic and not just somebody's miscount being propagated through the use of the double numbers. Any insight? Agricolae (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Why are baronets listed by surname?

I don't understand why we have created so many articles with the title "XXXX baronets". This appears to be based on the practise of a number of books of listing baronets in alphabetical order, but makes little sense from an article point of view - who is going to be searching for "Smith Baronets" where they will find what amounts to a disambiguation page where a number of different titles granted to people who just happened to have the same surname are listed? Is there an explanation of why we are doing things this way? FOARP (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with FOARP that this practice is problematic, as I have argued at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dickson baronets‎‎. Specifically, it runs into WP:SYNTH and I think it is confusing to readers. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• The problem in my view is that there are a bunch of similar articles: (2), (3), (4), etc. We can either (1) delete them all, (2) split them all into articles on each of the baronetcies covered, or (3) leave them as be. Deleting them all would be destructive in my view, and I think Ingratis argued well in the AfD discussion that short index lists have a place on wikipedia. Ficaia (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• I don't really know what else we could do. The baronetcy, unlike a peerage, merely puts the title of "Sir" in front of whatever name the person already has. Sure, they have territorial designations but they are not primarily known by these and in any case they are not always consistent from one holder to the next. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Lists of children

I feel that a list (or table) of children is a useful item in most aristocratic biographies, even if many FA-level aristocratic biographies do without them (the FA Charles I of Anjou has a list of children, and the FAs Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough and William IV have tables of children). If both parents are notable, this list might appear on both biographies. It might also be useful to have a list of siblings. I found that the list of siblings was less important and can be annoying when it is long. I used to hide it in a collapsed table until I found that reviewers did not like the collapsed list because of WP:DONTHIDE. If one of the parents was notable, I now try to circumvent the difficulty by replacing the list of siblings with a reference to the biography of the notable parent in the style of "siblings are listed in his fathers's article." where I made his father's article clickable. See e.g. "By her father, Joan had two younger illegitimate half-sisters who are listed in her father's article." (Lady Joan Fitzgerald) or "He had a brother[f] and five sisters (see here).[41][42][43][44]" (Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty). Is this a good practice? Is there a bettter way? Should one do the same with a children's list when both parents are notable? One might then write the list into the mother's article and refer to it in the father's article, is this good practice? With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Numbering of Earls of Winchilsea

The issue of contradictory sources for the numbering of the Earls of Winchilsea was raised on that article's talk page five years ago but has remained unanswered; it affects quite a few articles (not just on the individual earls). The difference seems to concern the status of Sir Moyle Finch, 1st Baronet, the husband of Elizabeth Finch, 1st Countess of Winchilsea. His article makes no claim to him being the 1st Earl and, indeed, it was only on his widow's death that the Earldom passed to their son, Thomas. Most sources describe him as the 2nd Earl, but not Debrett's, or at least the 1839 edition, which names Thomas as the 1st Earl (and all the subsequent consequently one different), as does Burke's here on p1057. I don't have any expertise in this, but there is hopefully someone that will clarify the many of discrepancies, whether some explanatory note should be added to some articles, and advise how we should deal with referencing. Davidships (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully a knowledgeable project editor han help resolve this. Davidships (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

That's a rather old edition of Burke's. Cokayne's Complete Peerage of 1898 numbers him as second earl. Both of your sources seem to get their numbering by skipping over the Countess in their enumeration, so I would stick with our current system of numbering (Elizabeth 1st, Thomas 2nd, etc.). Choess (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:PEER" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:PEER and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 31#Wikipedia:PEER until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)