Talk:Duke of Wellington (title)

message: What the hell? Mackensen (talk) 12:33, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved this page because most of the links to Duke of Wellington intended the link to be to Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. The page was particularly confusing because it had a short Biography of the 1st Duke. To all intents and purposes this made it a double link. I am about to go through the list and fix those links to point to the correct one. But the system seems to be very slow at the moment. Philip Baird Shearer 12:55, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes, basically we need someone/some people (plural most likely - there are 250 links to here!) to volunteer to police it and look out for any that don't go like that and use Duke of Wellington as a synonym for the first Duke, and to relink them back directly to the first Duke.Neddyseagoon - talk 15:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There should be more detail about the succession, but this is probably still true of nearly all of the peerage pages. At one time I spent most of my time on Wikipedia writing up these details on pages such as the Duke of Hamilton but there are now many better qualified editors who regularly edit the peerage pages and I have moved on to other areas of interest. I don't think there is anything wrong in having  picture of the 1st Duke on this page. No more than having a picture of Tony Blair, Thatcher or Winston Churchill on Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Further discussion of changes to peerage pages in general should take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage Mintguy (T) 13:54, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Should [[Duke of Wellington]] be a redirect to the 1st Duke?

message: Who is this guy? Did he invent the boots which look remarkably like hessian boots? Not a mention of them if he did. From what I can garner he killed a lot of people. If he's worthy of an article at all, should it not be in the crime category? 86.42.95.215 16:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You will find Napoleon killed lots more than Wellington ever did.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.6.46 (talk) 11:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: 86.42.95.215, I think you will find the answer for your question "Who is this guy?" by reading the article. The first Duke of Wellington asked his shoemaker to modify the hessian boot and this resulted in what is now known as the Wellington boot. This article is mainly about the title, and it is worthy of an article, and no, it should not be in the crime category. Yes, 75.19.47.124, Chicken Wellington and Cheese Wellington are named after the Duke of Wellington, according to the food names page on About.com. --Joshua Issac (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Notability|Notability?]]

message: Given that Portugal today is a republic, and has been for quite a long time, aren't the Portuguese titles obsolete? If I (and Google Translate) understand this correctly, the article on the Portuguese Wikipedia says that Arthur Charles Wellesley, 4th Duke of Vitória, was the last one. The Netherlands and Spain are still monarchies, so I suppose these titles still applies, with the exception of the times of the first and second republics in Spain.
152.94.81.1 (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends. Republics don't necessarily abolish titles - French titles are still valid, for example. john k (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Portuguese article only states that the nobility system ended when Portugal became a Republic  IE: the system of awarding new titles of nobility by the monarchy. Those titles already in existence are still legitimate and thus handed down through the family. Therefore the current Duke of Wellington is the holder of the land / property and titles awarded to the 1st Duke. Note that there are a large number of Portuguese titles of nobility, see: :Category:Portuguese nobility, To advocate that their titles are now 'obsolete' would be opening a very large can of worms. ;) Richard Harvey (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign titles

message: Objection:Why has this been closed? I came here to comment, having noticed the discussion earlier, and found it done and dusted. The discussion doesn’t look anywhere near unanimous; and the last comment was four hours before closing, so I wouldn’t have thought the discussion had ended. </br>
On the subject of the move, there is considerable discussion at WP:D about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so basing a move decision on it seems a bit shakey, to my mind. This looks like another in a series of RM's based on an over-enthusiastic application of WP:PT; No-one as far as I can see is suggesting we move the Arthur Wellesley article to DoW, so where is the ambiguity that WP:PT is supposed to address? And both the titles page and the individual biography page are (or were) consistent with others of their type, so why do these need to be different? Since when does WP:PRIMARYTOPIC trump WC:NAMINGCONVENTIONS? Xyl 54 (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I closed it because the time was over and it seemed pretty clear that there was strong consensus that the 1st is the overwhelming primary topic for the term; and that that consideration should outweigh the others. "where is the ambiguity that WP:PT is supposed to address" - it doesn't necessarily address ambiguity. The problem is that people search for/type in DoW and don't find the article they are looking for, or as is the case here, erroneously link to Duke of Wellington. Unanimity is often not possible, and I certainly don't think it's required before moving a page. Here there is a significant objection based on the consideration that it should be named consistently with other "Duke of ???" articles, and this goal is supported by WP:AT, but the opposition is clearly the minority. I think the two factors have to be weighed against each other, and due to #1 being so clearly the PT, that was the result of the discussion here. If you're just counting the votes, note that one of the "opposes" even seemed happy with this move. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This page was getting about 400 views a day earlier, but since the move only about 70. Only a small percentage of readers use Wiki's search engine, so this must be a result of the way the links were done. There was no noticeable impact on the Iron Duke's page. Readers must have realized they were at the wrong place and used the hat. If so, the move saved over 300 readers a day the trouble of figuring that one out. Kauffner (talk) 07:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Ehm.. on which legitimate basis was the page moved from Duke of Wellington to Duke of Wellington (title)?? I do not see any consensus for that. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 08:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do. Would you agree that there is consensus above that the 1st Duke is the primary topic for the phrase "Duke of Wellington"? As in, when people say/write "Duke of Wellington", are they most likely to be talking about the 1st or the title? There is consensus at wp:PRIMARYTOPIC that the subject that is the primary topic should be what you get when you go to that phrase. Can you elaborate? Are you specifically complaining about the "(title)" disambiguator, or are you complaining that the page was moved at all? Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-vote discussion

message: The Duke is "Baron Douro", not "of Douro", because Barons generally omit the "of", no? But this site
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/peerage-news/YgiKMT1IAvM
addresses the text "Marquess Douro" lacking "of", which has not been consistently adhered to by later title-users and is inconsistent in Wikipedia's pages too. Is it true that Dukes and Marquesses are both, typically, "of"? I can't find it now but did I read somewhere that King George III was reluctant to specify "Marquess OF Douro" because Douro is outside the UK, in Portugal, and the "OF" would be some kind of diplomatic insult to the other country? Can someone please do some GENERAL clarifying as to why a Duke of Wellington is sometimes Marquess "of" Douro while at other times is "Marquess Douro"? (Same question applies to Heirs Apparent who are NOT Marquess of anything but borrow a lesser title anyway.) For all I know the answer might be that the Duke is "Marquess Douro" and that an Heir Apparent borrows the title "Marquess OF Douro". Or vice versa. It could be anything. Thanks if you can help.2604:2000:C6AA:B400:FDA5:11BF:305D:C0FC (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at London Gazette where the title was announced, it is clear it is 'Duke of Wellington', but 'Marquis Duoro'. https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/16894/page/936 Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for clarity on Douro title