Talk:John Brooke-Little

message: When it says that he had been one of the last surviving officers of arms at the Coronation more detail could be desired.  --Daniel C. Boyer 18:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this obituary in The Herald says that he was "the last survivor of the dozen English heralds who attended on the Queen at her Coronation in 1953" but he was not a member of the College of Arms at the time of the Coronation... -- ALoan (Talk) 19:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found that interesting, as well.  There were others involved in the coronation who are still working at the College today.  For example, Sedley Andrus was not yet an officer of arms in 1953, but he was working at the College before World War II.  He subsequently became a pursuivant and a herald and is still a herald extraordinary.--Evadb 08:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Last surviving

message: * No fair use rationales on images
* References aren't properly formatted
* One references doesn't work
Please see WP:CITE and WP:FAIR. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 17:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input. I think I've fixed the problems that you've mentioned. I've gone through and looked at the fair use rationale of the images and tried to get them up to snuff. I've also gone through and added in line citations in a proper format all through the piece. I think it helps a lot. Maybe we can try another evaluation?--Eva db 07:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything asked was fixed, the fair use rationale has been adjusted though considering nothing in public domain a that the man is dead is somewhat difficult to get hold of them pictures. I re-read the whole article and would consider an expansion in the Honours and appointments section to include people's criticism or views toward him. Lincher 00:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA 
Failure
 awarded 

message: If John Brooke-Little was an officer of arms is it necessary to categorize him as an heraldist as well?--Dave Boven 07:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Heraldists

message: But why is the picture of this bloke as a school kid? It doesn't really help illustrate the subject. MrBeast 00:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem that this is the only image in the article that is in the public domain and not a fair use image. None of the others have a free license, and thus, cannot be used on the mainpage. That's how I understand it, anyway.--Eva bd 00:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, the picture on the Main page must be a free image. If you can find a better free image, please do so. —Centrx→talk • 10:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Front Page 

message: Brooke-Little turned 18 in 1945. He went to Oxford in 1949, at 22. What happened in the middle? Skimming the biographies suggested that he was teaching; one makes vague reference to National Service. Might be worth a passing mention... Shimgray | talk | 01:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, since National Service was practically universal at the time, it is unremarkable.Myopic Bookworm 12:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short biographical gap 

message: The article makes quite a deal about his not being knighted, but of his five predecessors as Norroy and Ulster, only three were knighted, so however peeved he may have been, it's hardly unusual. Myopic Bookworm 12:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True...but three of his five predecessors as Clarenceux also received the accolade. This is the higher of the two offices, so the odds would seem to be a little better for them. Not unusual, but it would be nice to see some more recognition for all his contributions to heraldry. I've heard that he was robbed of both his knighthood and the Gartership by his battles with alcoholism, but I cannot find a source for such a thing...only correspondence with those that knew him.--Eva bd 15:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, is that what "convivial lifestyle" means? —Tamfang (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knighthood 

message: The article states that he was a member of the Sovereign Military Order of the Knights....of Malta. That is restricted only to practising Roman Catholics, so perhaps somewhere in this article we should mention his religious background. Was he Anglican or Roman Catholic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.199.177.246 (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, he was a staunch ROman Catholic. As you mention, this is implied by his membership in the SMOM.--Eva bd 15:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And strongly suggested by the Mary among his names. —Tamfang (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholicism 

message: Please enlighten me.  As an American I find it hard to imagine anyone getting paid for this kind of activity.  It is somewhat like stamp collecting, train spotting, or being the fan of some celebrity:  a hobby. Did this fellow actually get paid for it?  And if not, how did he live?  Independently wealthy, perhaps?  Or engaged in some worthwhile and remunerative activity? 
On another tack, who in England pays for all this fancy dress and play-acting?
Too Old 16:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr Brooke-Little and all other officers of arms in England are certainly paid for their services. I think that the salary of a Herald is somewhere in the range of 25 GBP. Obviously, this is not enough to live on so most of the officers maintain private practices in genealogy and research. I'm sure there are some that independently wealthy (I know one is the son and heir apparent of a Baronet). In Scotland, Ireland, South Africa, and Canada the situation is different. I believe that in those countries, the officers of arms are civil servants paid livable salaries, while in England that small salary is paid by the queen because these are members of her royal household. If you find it hard to believe that someone could make a living at this, maybe you ought to consider that your countrymen make livings by running up and down a basketball course or hitting a small white ball down a field. The world is a kooky place.--Eva bd 17:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heralds receive yearly salaries from the Crown - Garter King of Arms £49.07, the two provincial Kings of Arms £20.25, the six heralds £17.80, and the four pursuivants £13.95. Fwiw, while it takes only a handful of heralds to cover most of the globe along with their domestic duties the US army manages to employ thirty-two people on a $2.5 million budget to handle designing heraldic badges for it's army units. Alci12 21:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted that the US Army's institute of heraldry does a lot more than simply design new Distinctive Unit Insignia. They also do a lot of design work for government departments and agencies as well as producing a great deal of art work. As of June, there were 24 people on staff and a budget of $2.3 million (According to a New York times article out this past summer). This seems comparable to somewhere like the College of Arms when all the secretaries, herald painters and other staff are added to the 11 officers of arms.--Eva bd 05:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  They do but less than the remit of the heralds (eg  no trademarks or real genealogy) but I do know which salary package I'd be picking. My staff figures came from the institute's site which states 32 who are mostly fix salary not 'freelancers'. Alci12 15:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Means of livelihood 

message: Perhaps this is subjective taste but I find the intro a touch clumsy. We mention heraldry and being an O of A, then we mention heraldry related orgs and then mention his exact O of A status again. Personally I like short punchy intros so would ideally shorten it - but as it's only just gone through FA and if everyone prefers the long format perhaps they could try to sort the repeat. 
Also wrt his arms we have a nice pic of his personal arms right next to a blazon for those arms quartered with his mothers. Now while this might make sense to us I'm not sure an average reader will have a clue what's going on. Other than the blazon I don't know much about his wife's paternal arms, which tbh I can't see he even used as quarters with every image I can find uses his arms alone not quartered. Are we sure he used it as most families with arms are entitled to many quarters which they never use? Alci12 15:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro+Arms 

message: According to Debrett's People of Today his name was just John Philip Brooke Brooke-Little. I was once told that he was born John Philip Brooke-Little and adopted the extra Brooke later in order to sound more grand. I was told this by somebody who liked him but evidently found aspects of his character a little odd. It could well be untrue or a misunderstanding. However. I am wondering where all of those extra names listed in the article come from.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, either. The Coat of Arms lists all of those names in his bibliography, but if some other good source says otherwise, it may be good to put both of those in a note with some explanation of the disagreement between the two.--Eva bd 21:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gazette entries regarding him are fairly consistent in using John Philip Brooke Brooke-Little (or initials corresponding to those forenames)   I've found no evidence of a deed poll or other licence to change name - but the Gazete search engine isn't 100% reliable - and in English law you may use whatever name you like, so long as there is no intention to decieve (as I understand it).  David Underdown (talk) 10:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on John Brooke-Little. 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/20071001030432/http://news.independent.co.uk/people/obituaries/article346737.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/people/obituaries/article346737.ece
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060823122209/http://whitelionsociety.org.uk/WLS%20Armorial%20Ppt%20GIF/Slide2.GIF to http://whitelionsociety.org.uk/WLS%20Armorial%20Ppt%20GIF/Slide2.GIF
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060219153455/http://www.theheraldrysociety.com/resources/johnbrookelittle.htm to http://www.theheraldrysociety.com/resources/johnbrookelittle.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) 02:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John Brooke-Little. 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/20070313053501/http://www.ocsociety.co.uk/Newsletter%2004/letter04-brooke-little.htm to http://www.ocsociety.co.uk/Newsletter%2004/letter04-brooke-little.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) 06:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Does this article still meet FA status? A large number of assertions are unsourced, for example: 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
I am unable to find RS to support these and simply removing them would make the article a bit disjointed, IMO. Chetsford (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA status 

message: Well, the comments above by  are still outstanding, and there's other issues as well.  The "Correspondence with Old Clayesmorian Society" doesn't look like a high-quality RS, and I've detected some close paraphrasing issues after spot-checking a single source:
*  (source) compared to  (article)
*  (source) compared to 
*  (source) compared to 
*  (source) compared to 
I've seen worse close paraphrasing, but we should be doing better than that close of similarity in a FA. Hog Farm  Bacon 03:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:URFA/2020]]