Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage/Archive 3

message: ===First Poll===
Ought articles on peers include in their titles a reference to the highest peerage title of the subject? (Note: this does not apply to life peers.)
*Yes, the peerage title should be included (in the article's title), either in all cases, or when certain criteria are fulfilled.
*#Adam 02:36, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll 

message: Ought articles on peers include in their titles a reference to the highest peerage title of the subject? (Note: this does not apply to life peers.)
*Yes, the peerage title should be included (in the article's title), either in all cases, or when certain criteria are fulfilled.
*#Adam 02:36, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: First Poll

message: Ought there to be exceptions to the general rule that articles on peers include in their titles a reference to the highest peerage title of the subject?
*Yes, there should be exceptions, based on criteria such as the rarity of the use of the peerage title.
*#Stan 06:27, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Poll

message: While it is correct that in general articles about life peers should not have the peerage title in the article title, this rule must also admit of exceptions. Examples:
* The current Master of the Rolls is Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers. Perhaps his friends and family might know his Christian name, but 99% of lawyers, academics, and probably even other judges know him as "Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR". Supposing his Christian name is Tom or John (after doing a search on Google I am still unable to discover it), to name an article about him John Phillips would be lunacy.
* Lord Kirkhill, Minister of State in the Scottish Office, used to be one John Smith. Obvious need for disambiguation. Perhaps life peers who abandon their surnames should be treated in the same way as ex-hereditary peers who have disclaimed their titles!
* Baroness Trumpington, an active Tory peer in the House of Lords, was before her ennoblement known (or rather unknown) as Mrs Jean Barker. There are many other people who received peerages not as honours, but to allow them to represent their party in the Parliament, and as such are completely unknown in their pre-House of Lords form.
Andrew Yong 19:18, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Exceptions to the rule on life peerages

message: Well, the poll is officially closed.  What have we learned?
#There is not a majority, and certainly not a consensus, in favor of always using the peerage title.
#A fairly strong majority, including just about everyone who works on these articles, seems to support the idea that peerage titles should be used if they are not especially uncommon.
I think that the suggestions that I made when I changed my vote, or that Lord Emsworth made above, would form a fair compromise that would allow work to go forward.  Basically, I think a key idea is that in instances where it is hard to determine what the "most common" name is, we should stick with the peerage title.  In cases where it's quite clear that the peerage title is not used too often, we should stick with the given name.  And in cases where someone is known almost entirely by a courtesy title, that should be used.  Is this satisfactory?  I'm going to start moving the 20th century PMs back to their common names. john 19:40, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll Closed

message: I'd like this project group to also consider an issue: Where else should titles or names be listed. As an example, I added to the List of People by name three entries: William Legge (twice) and Lord Dartmouth. Some history works just refer to Lord Dartmouth. To suuport this I created an entry as though that werwe a name, with a link to the peerage article. The William Legge entries give bith dates, etc. for the 1st and 2nd Earl.
Should there also be a redirect page created for Lord Dartmouth, or maybe a disambiguation page. The only one I've seen so far is Lord North which is a redirect. (I think the North one works well, and wouldn't want to change it.) But, in the Dartnouth case there are several prominent holders of the title.
Any suggestions? Lou I 07:05, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Other References

message: Does anybody here know who the seventh Baron Harris (of Seringapatam and Mysore) might have been? He died in 1996, and according to  (a post on a.t.r. dated 25 October 1996), he was born in 1916. -- Emsworth 19:27, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
I can't find anything, but I'll look in Burke's when I get the chance. john 19:40, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 7th Baron Harris

message: Sorry to bring this project up again, but I feel it needs some clarification on certain aspects of the peerage.
Firstly, the current system for article naming is excellent in many respects, but I feel the system for life peers needs altering. I think a system very much like that for hereditary peers would be useful: the vast majority of life peers are known mainly or exclusively by their peerage titles, and it is only a few people who were famous before their ennoblement (for being an MP, normally) that are known by their actual name. In this category, for instance, we have people like Jeffrey Archer, Paddy Ashdown and Andrew Lloyd Webber, and it would be silly (in my opinion) to have them at their peerage titles. However, the current system puts people like Lord Falconer of Thoroton, Lord Woolf, Lady Amos and Lady Scotland of Asthal at their real names, when very few people know what they are. (For instance, the only one of those whose name I knew before I came to Wikipedia was Lady Amos, and that only because the PM's website calls her "Baroness Valerie Amos".) I think John Smith, Baron Smith of London as a standard form, with John Smith for the Jeffrey Archers and Paddy Ashdowns of the HOL, would be far more helpful and clear for users. We could then have redirects from John Smith, Lord Smith of London and Baron Smith of London.
Secondly, I'd like some kind of decision to be made on "Lady" vs "Baroness". "Lady" is undoubtedly the correct form, and is recommended by most respected British news organisations.
:(A couple of examples:
::Guardian Style Guide: "barons, baronesses - we call them lords and ladies, even at first mention: Lady Thatcher, Lady Blackstone, Lady Jay, Lord Callaghan, etc"
::Economist Style Guide: "Life peeresses should be called Lady, not Baroness, just as barons are called Lord.")
However, "Baroness X" is increasingly being used, even though it is completely incorrect (and seems almost to be the exclusive form used on Wikipedia), and I don't want to go around changing everything unless there is some form of consensus. I feel strongly that "Lady" should be used, since encyclopaedias should aspire to complete correctness, and it would be a shame to ruin the otherwise amazing accuracy on peerage matters displayed here by using an incorrect form, but I was wondering what everyone else thinks. (I do however think that "Baroness" should be put in article titles, as Jane Smith, Baroness Smith of London, and in the first line when the full name and title is given, because we should make it consistent with John Jones, 1st Baron Jones of Birmingham.)
Thirdly, I think this page should make some mention of how peers are to be referred to in the actual content of articles, as it's a bit inconsistent at the moment. The best way, I feel, would be to refer to all peers at first mention by their full title (with numeral only if absolutely necessary), and by "Lord Title" or "Lady Title" (or "the Duke" or "the Duchess") for any subsequent mention. (e.g., "In 1890 the Earl of Selkirk fought a duel with the Duke of Devonshire. After only 20 seconds of fighting, the Duke slew Lord Selkirk with a vicious slash to the chest.") The full name and numeral would of course be contained in a link. I feel that the system used predominantly at the moment, that of giving the full name and title at first mention, breaks up the flow of the narrative and gives unneccessary information (if I'm reading an article in which my imaginary duel is mentioned in passing, I don't need to know Lord Selkirk's full name, or whether he's the 5th or 6th Earl, and if I'm curious I can always go to his article to find out). Under this system, if "Lady" is used as I've suggested above, life peers would be "the Lord Smith" or "the Lady Jones" at first mention and "Lord Smith" or "Lady Jones" thereafter. I'm not particularly bothered what system is preferred here, but I think it would be useful to have some form of policy, both for the sake of consistency and because I think this project should have all the information necesssary for any Wikipedian wanting to write about a peer.
Fourthly, one minor question: under the current policy, should life peers be "John Robert Smith, Lord Smith of Manchester" or "John Robert Smith, Baron Smith of Manchester" on the first line of their article? Proteus 21:45, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Random peerage musings

message: .. copied from Lord Emsworth's talk page.
We have a problem of how to disambiguate the 1st two barons of each creation for Baron Foley. There will probably be many other similar instances. Mintguy (T) 10:36, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps make a notation for the first creation? Thomas Foley, 1st Baron Foley (I), or something to that effect. Mackensen 12:27, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Or even Thomas Foley, 1st Baron Foley (1st Creation). I think this should be discussed on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage. I'll copy this stuff to there. Mintguy (T)
Thomas Foley, 1st Baron Foley (1st Creation) sounds good to me. (I'm inclined to wonder whether it should be "creation", not "Creation", but I'm not familiar with Wikipedia capitalisation guidelines.)  Proteus 17:20, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Well I think they were, that's the problem. See . This could be an error of course. Mintguy (T) 20:18, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation of Peers with the same title, ordinal and name, but different creation

message: The listing of peerages is becoming extremely intricate, and perhaps even messy. We have so far:
*Peerage of England
*Peerage of Scotland
*Peerage of Great Britain
*Peerage of Ireland
*Peerage of the United Kingdom
*List of Dukedoms
*List of Marquessates
*List of Earldoms in the Peerage of England
*List of Earldoms in the Peerage of Scotland
*List of Earldoms in the Peerage of Great Britain
*List of Earldoms in the Peerage of Ireland
*List of Earldoms in the Peerage of the United Kingdom
Does anyone have any ideas for simplification? -- Emsworth 00:04, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
I put the Earldoms in separate articles because putting them all in one page would make that page far too long.
I don't think simplification is necessary because the different types of articles all serve different purposes, and they're all useful for different things: the "Peerage" series would be most interesting if you wanted to know, for instance, who'd be in a reconstituted Irish House of Lords, the "List of Dukes" series is obviously useful for precedence, and the "List of Dukedoms" series is of (I think) great historical value.
I would recommend two things, though. Firstly, we need some form of guide or links page to the peerage articles, so that people know which one they want. Secondly, I think the "List of Dukes in order of precedence" articles should have their names simplified to "List of Dukes", as we're hardly likely to create articles listing them in any other way. Proteus 09:34, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, not finished, since it only has extant viscountcies, for the most part, and those pages are supposed to have all titles created.  (Oh, and Grandison is an Irish title)... john 02:13, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Peerage Pages

message: Can people please take a look at Nobility(talk:Nobility) User:Kenneth Alan is trying to introduce stupid anachronistic comparisons to US generals, the US president, and the middle classes. Mintguy (T) 09:06, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Nobility

message: I find the current naming for life peers to be an utter nightmare. If X politician gets pushed up into the Lords then I strongly support the article being under the name they have always been known as - ie Jill Knight stays at Jill Knight, not Jill Knight, Baroness Knight of Foo. The baroness bit can stay in the first line but in a title it is a nightmare to link to. Secretlondon 11:17, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Some life peers introduce themselves as "Baroness Firstname Surname" (Lady Kennedy of the Shaws, I'm looking at you), so I'm not quite willing to accept their usage as automatically correct and proper. Also, just a small quibble: she doesn't "count" as a peer until she actually becomes one, which she doesn't until the Letters Patent making her one have been issued. Proteus (Talk) 20:55, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Life Peers

message: I notice quite a few articles have included territorial designation which are not part of the formal peerage title. When a peer is made, they have to take a territorial designation but it is not necessarily part of their title - hence Baroness Thatcher, of Kesteven in the County of Lincolnshire. Some Peers do have a territorial designation in the title which is in addition to the one from which the title derives - eg Baron Young of Dartington, of Dartington in the County of Devon. Sometimes it's not the same - eg Baron Jenkins of Hillhead, of Pontypool in the County of Gwent.
Some of these 'after the comma' designations have been finding their way into articles. There is a case for mentioning them in the text if significant but not in the title. I have been correcting these as I find them but there may be more. Dbiv 00:06, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Territorial Designations

message: At the moment we have articles on
*Tony Benn
*Alec Douglas-Home
*Quintin McGarel Hogg
*Anthony Claud Frederick Lambton, 6th Earl of Durham
I guess to be consistent we would want to move the latter to Anthony Lambton?
Morwen 16:56, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
That seems sensible to me. (The other option, I suppose, would be Anthony Lambton, Viscount Lambton, but I'd rather not give him the courtesy title that isn't rightly his.) Proteus (Talk) 17:26, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Disclaimed peers

message: I have a navbox query. What should the links be in the Navbox? My understanding is:

Of course, Previous and Next can be null if this article is the first/last holder. Here's my problem:

This Navbox is on Ernest Rutherford and links to Baron Rutherford, which is a non-article, recently vandalized. Shouldn't the link be Baron Rutherford so that on the Ernest Rutherford page it shows up as a non-link? Or is the idea that someone will create an article about the barony (which in this case would simply be Ernest Rutherford and so should not be a link anyway, but in other peers would be an article about the history and significance of the title)? - UtherSRG 12:28, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Navbox links

message: Whilst I perfectly understand and for the most part agree with the policy of not including territorial designation where they are not part of a peer's title, I do not like the fact that in many cases these territorial designations are been expunged from articles. I find it quite amusing and interesting for example the Jeffrey Archer is Baron Archer of Weston-Super-Mare and that John Birt is Baron Birt (of Liverpool), The former is in the title but the latter is not. I would like to see these territorial designations indicated somewhere, if not in the opening sentence of a peerage page. A particular reason for my desire for this is that I had some recent confusion over Baron Renton. The one who lives near me is Baron Renton of Mount Harry, he is almost always called Lord Renton in the local press etc.. When I created an article on him I was unaware of David Renton, Baron Renton and my research led me to write information about the latter on the page about the former. If Wikipedia is to be a useful resource then providing indicators of territorial designations will help prevent similar confusion by users of this site. What do people feel about this?
:The territorial designations are listed on List of Life Peerages, if you want to find out what they are. I think it would be quite nice to have them in the text of an article, but not in the opening bit. For example: "John Smith, Baron Smith (born 1 January 1950) is a Labour life peer ... <about his early life> ... In 1998 he was created a life peer as Baron Smith, of Kensington in the London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and was a Government whip in the House of Lords from 1999 until 2003." That would probably avoid confusion about the actual title, while still providing all the information possible. Proteus (Talk) 08:30, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer titles without territorial designations