Talk:Lord Kelvin

message: Hello! This is to let editors know that :File:Sir William Thomson, Baron Kelvin by T. & R. Annan & Sons.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for June 26, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-06-26. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. (200th anniversary of his birth) If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.6% of all FPs. 04:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured picture scheduled for POTD 

message: I thought that there was some "bot" that went through Wikipedia articles and found inconsistencies. It is the USUAL practice in Wikipedia articles about peers/nobles that their peerage/noble title is included in the succession-boxes so that someone can QUICKLY track the route of the title from person to person. I can't do that here, because the succession-box doesn't include "Baron Kelvin" (or, if it's atypical, "Baron OF Kelvin"). Why isn't that title included in the succession-boxes in this case, and why isn't its absence AUTOMATICALLY called to the attention of some person? I'm going to have to search this article itself to find out what happened to the title when this man died.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading the article (something I shouldn't have had to do), I find that this man's title "Baron Kelvin" died with him, but the curious statement that it's because he had neither children nor close relations. So, apparently, this title was conferred with an atypical remainder such that absent "legitimate [heirs][male heirs] of the body", it could be inherited by, say, a brother and the brother's descendants or male-line descendants, etc.. That is done of course, (the Dukedom of Wellington was engineered to lower the probability that it would ever become extinct), but if it was done in this case, then say so. Spell it out. Also, the article says he was enobled as much for his opposition to Irish Home Rule as for science. Could that be fleshed out a bit, such as by including the text of the royal action? I've done a word-search on this article for "Irish", "Ireland", and "Home Rule" and I can't find anything about him opposing Irish Home Rule.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

text: As it says in the infobox, he had no children so he was the first and last. --Cavrdg (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You're only telling that if I take the time to look elsewhere in the article then I could find what I SHOULD have been able to find by an instantaneous down-scroll to the end and check of the succession-boxes. You've done nothing to convince me that the absence of the "Baron Kelvin" title is in accordance with some Wikipedia rule. (And I don't think it IS in accordance with the rules, and if there IS some rule for this article to be allowed to be inconsistent with other articles about peers, then what is that rule and how soon can it be repealed?)2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read through what I think you mean by "info-box", and all that it says there is that he had no children. Not only is that not as fast as a quick end-scroll to the bottom, but it's not dispositive of the issue. It DOES NOT say (as you allege) that because he had no children he was the end of the line for this title. All it says is that he had no children, which doesn't settle it. If the title had been granted with an atypical succession, such as allows inheritance through other relatives, his having had no children wouldn't cause the title to die with him. And the article contradicts that anyway, because the article says "His title died with him, as he was survived by neither heirs nor close relations", which implies that his title could have been inherited by someone other than a child had such existed. If the grant of the title provided for a succession ONLY to his children, and he had no children, then that would cause the title to go extinct, and the sentence I quoted would have said (assuming a desire for accuracy which I'm probably a fool to assume) "His title died with him, as he was survived by no children".2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 10:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Succession-Box At Bottom