Talk:Sir Arthur Wilson, 3rd Baronet

message: The Montagu story in Booth is by his own admission based on the autobiographical account of the salvage officer's son, who was a little boy at the time.  Per WP:VERIFIABILITY I'd say there's a "conflict of interest" in using such a source as the sole basis for trashing Wilson's handling of the Montagu salvage.  For the record, the Admiralty had noted in Wilson's service records, "T.L. satisfaction expressed at manner in which operations for salvage of 'Montagu' were carried out."  (ADM 196/86.  f. 30.)  Unless someone wants to cry "Conspiracy!" then there is a clear discrepancy here - one can't lose a battleship then be commended for the manner in which one did it - and to err on the side of a patently dubious source is madness. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 19:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings Simon.  We're all trying to get a better article. Wilson was a brilliant engineer who recognised the threat submarines posed and an extremely brave leader.  He was not to blame for the loss of the Montagu, there was no navy expertise in salvage and the Admiralty failed to put an expert authority in place.  I'm happy with one sentence saying that the Montague was lost but it led to the setting up of a specialist salvage department. JRPG (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Montagu 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Arthur Wilson (Royal Navy officer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120805140816/http://www.victoriacross.org.uk/norfolk.htm to http://www.victoriacross.org.uk/norfolk.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've updated this - his biographer, who served alongside him, seemed to think that being named after Tug Wilson, the boxer, was more likely. The dates certainly make sense - the boxer was briefly world-famous in 1882, just the right time for Arthur Wilson to pick up the nickname after his VC.
The story about him offering a tug to a ship failing to come into harbour is fairly widely quoted, but there are a few other versions of it floating around (eg threatening to tow a sluggish cruiser out of dock), and the earliest versions of it seem to be quoted in the early 1900s. Would be interesting to know when the "Tug" nickname is first recorded for him. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nickname 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved by strong consensus.  Andrewa (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sir Arthur Wilson, 3rd Baronet →  – 'Sir' is a prefix and it's more common to not include in article titles; see :Winston Churchill and :Isaac Newton. Engineerchange (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Oppose With baronets we normally include the "Sir" as well as the suffix. See for example Charlton baronets or Chapman baronets as well as other Wilson baronets. Dormskirk (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Oppose. Inconsistent with other articles and it is unidiomatic to use the suffix without the title. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Comment. Understood. Thanks for the clarifications here. --Engineerchange (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 23 January 2024