Talk:Hyde Parker

message: ----
This article should be split into the three persons it contains. Shauni 23:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Andrei Romanenko 02:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

message: This and the other hyde pages should really be disambiguated and renamed by either title or rank as there were during their own lives and are in other sources. Alci12 15:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, Sir Hyde Parker and Hyde Parker (Sea Lord) are pithier and perhaps preferable. Choess 04:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hyde Parker (vice-admiral) Sir Hyde Parker (admiral)  might be clearer - I wonder if people will know FSL well enough to realise that's the admiral they are after?. Alci12 14:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we'll clearly need dablinks at the top of the pages. Let me think about it. Choess 16:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Isn't there a Wikipedia convention against using knighthoods as part of the name?  I seem to recall being chastised for it previously (see for example Winston Churchill and John Major). --Legis (talk - contributions) 08:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I stand corrected - for Baronets it seems to be kosher: Naming conventions#Other non-royal names --Legis (talk - contributions) 08:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of "Sir" in article titles is permissible for purposes of disambiguation (or, of course, in the naming of baronets), not otherwise. Choess 16:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Somebody has moved this from (Sea Lord) to (Royal Navy Officer) which seems to me unhelpful since there were 5 Hyde Parker (RNOs) and three HP (Admirals) but only one Sea Lord. - Kittybrewster 23:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You are right - he wasn't knighted; my error. But the general policy is to differentiate people by their job and he was the only Hyde Parker who was a Sea Lord. Nobody knows him as Hyde Parker (III) - Kittybrewster 22:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally I would agree with you, but since there were three Hyde Parkers in the family, all admirals, I think it makes more sense to categorise them by their order in the family. Most people probably wouldn't be aware that only one of the three was a Sea Lord either, and it's only a position he held for a small part of his career. -- Necrothesp 23:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good reason not to call him Hyde Parker (Admiral) but not a reason to prefer Hyde Parker (III) over Hyde Parker (Sea Lord) This was discussed on his talk page - Kittybrewster 23:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the naming of the three Hyde Parkers was a mess, frankly, which was why I tried to give it some sort of order. One was titled Hyde Parker (Royal Navy officer) and one Hyde Parker (British admiral), both very bad disambiguators, since all three were British admirals and Royal Navy officers. The reason I chose Hyde Parker (II) and Hyde Parker (III) was that I couldn't think of a good disambiguator to give to the second Hyde Parker (except dates, which I don't like as disambiguators). If you can think of a good one then be my guest. -- Necrothesp 23:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought Admiral Sir Hyde Parker was great for No 2. Nobody would have known him as Hyde Parker (II). - Kittybrewster 23:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first Hyde Parker was Vice-Admiral Sir Hyde Parker, the second was Vice-Admiral Sir Hyde Parker, the third was Vice-Admiral Hyde Parker. So "Admiral Sir Hyde Parker" is neither accurate nor a disambiguation. And we never use ranks as a part of article titles (except in parentheses). In any case, people searching for any of the three are likely to simply enter "Hyde Parker", which will take them to the disambig page, where they can choose which one they want. It doesn't really matter what the articles are called as long as it makes sense and distinguishes properly between them, which combinations of "Admiral" and "Sir" sadly do not. -- Necrothesp 01:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  One was a baronet, one only a knight and the third neither. At least they were those things none were ever I/II/III it's ahistorical and devoid of any real meaning for disambiguation. If it doesn't really matter as you claim above why revert without making any attempt to join an ongoing discussion on the talk page to address exactly this issue. Alci12 17:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A rather strange comment, since the discussion on the talk page petered out in January and the pages remained badly named. It simply seemed sensible to do something about it! Better the way they are now than the way they were before, with one described as an admiral and another as a Royal Navy officer, which hardly distinguishes one from another. As I said above, I have no objection to their renaming, but only to something which is correct, compatible with usual Wikipedia policy, and actually does disambiguate them. How about Sir Hyde Parker (Knight) and Hyde Parker (Sea Lord)? That seems to distinguish them fairly well. -- Necrothesp 14:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy with III being Hyde Parker (Sea Lord) which is where it was. Sir means knight unless otherwise stated as Baronet. - Kittybrewster 18:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it does, but specifying "Knight" is a little better for disambiguation purposes and actually was usually done in the past to distinguish knights from baronets. -- Necrothesp 14:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming