Talk:Henry Fairfax (Royal Navy officer)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This page was moved without discussion by the same disruptive editor who moved Lord Evelyn Stuart, now under discussion, who is claiming falsely that Wikipedia never uses titles. See Mother Teresa for the obvious counterexample. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The above statement, as well as the above editor totally misrepresent my position regarding titles. In fact Mother Theresa, Father Damien, Abbé Pierre, as well as pen names such as Lord Dunsany and Lady Gregory and stage names such as Lord Buckley, Sir Charles Jones, Sir Douglas Quintet, Sir Dystic and Sir Elwoodin hiljaiset värit are not only perfectly legitimate article titles, they are the only logical titles, since that is how they have been known to the public. The only controversy is over honorifics and specifically, the honorific "Sir", which the above editor is intent upon forcing down the throats of unwilling Wikipedians in direct contravention of WP:NCNT#British peerage, which specifically states, "Titles of Knighthood such as Sir and Dame should not be included in the article title: use personal name instead, e.g., Arthur Conan Doyle not 'Sir Arthur Conan Doyle'".—Roman Spinner (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This is very incomplete and openly dishonest. We have always used titles when they are common usage and when they disambiguate. Examples are manifold: Lord David Cecil, Mother Teresa, Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston; WP:NCNT has always said "Sir" may be used in article titles as a disambiguator. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Survey

• Move as nom. It is not at all clear that this is even the primary use of Henry Fairfax; there is also Henry Fairfax, 4th Lord Fairfax of Cameron, and two English clergymen of this family who have articles in ODNB, whereas this admiral doesn't. (But they aren't knights.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I invite interested Wikipedians to click on the November 18, 2008 date in this article's edit history to see its appearance before I revised and restructured it. I also added the previously non-existent hatnote which enabled visitors to this article to discover the article about the noble Henry Fairfax. In fact, no disambiguation page or even a redirect existed to either Henry Fairfax, so that anyone typing "Henry Fairfax" would see the indication that there is no such article. Other than using Wikipedia's search function, one would literally need to type either "Sir Henry Fairfax" or "Henry Fairfax, 4th Lord Fairfax of Cameron" to access either gentleman.—Roman Spinner (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per Roman Spinner. It's pretty clear cut that "Sir" and "Dame" should be not used in article titles (for real people, fictional characters fall under a different guideline), this has been policy for over 4 1/2 years now without any challenge. TJ Spyke 03:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. If disambiguation is really needed, then Henry Fairfax (admiral) would be more useful. Deb (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not primary usage, as far as I can see, and there are other Henry Fairfaxes on which we will want articles. Therefore Henry Fairfax should be the dab page, and this must go somewhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Per WP:NCNT, "sir" can be used for disambiguation in article names, although I usually don't stick my nose deep into the guidelines. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

And you an admiral, too! :-) Deb (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support. This is exactly the sort of scenario in which Sir and Dame etc. are good disambiguators, and that's what the guidelines say and the practice has been. Move to another disambiguator could be the subject of a RM of its own; First, fix this undiscussed and incorrect move. Andrewa (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per disambiguation usage and WP:COMMONNAME. Sources indicate that this person was not commonly known as Sir Henry Fairfax, mostly they refer to him as Admiral Sir Henry Fairfax e.g [1] or [2]. This is because his father was also Sir Henry Fairfax [3](sometimes refered to as Colonel Sir Henry Fairfax [4]). As I don't believe that this Henry Fairfax is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC I support a move to Henry Fairfax (admiral) or Henry Fairfax (Royal Navy officer). Tassedethe (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

We should also ban Roman Spinner from moving articles without discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The above veteran editor, disgruntled over inability to convince other Wikipedians at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Use of prefix "Sir" as a disambiguation aid that stand-alone use of "Sir" is desirable for disambiguation, and now, apparently, with a hidden agenda to retain as many inappropriately-titled "Sir" articles as possible, has upped the ante to propose banning another veteran editor from moving those very-same inappropriate titles. In fact, the stand-alone "Sir" titles are constantly moved as soon as they appear or as soon as they are spotted by administrators and non-administrators alike. They are considered non-controversial moves and I can easily provide numerous examples such as Sir Henry Phillips and Sir Ernest de Silva where such moves required no advance notice or discussion. Septentrionalis obviously wants to bog down the process with endless wrangling over each mistitled entry (there are many) and make the process as difficult (and as painful) as pulling teeth to discourage future moves.—Roman Spinner (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I am glad this tendentious crusader is having difficulties. Perhaps he'll stop. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No one should make a controversial move without discussion. If you're not sure, it's better to be safe than sorry. On the other hand, could you two please stop mud-slinging? It's not necessary. Deb (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Then, if no consensus is developed here, it should be restored to Sir Henry Fairfax, although Henry Fairfax (admiral) will do as a stop-gap. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hard as it may be at times, I try to follow the principle that if at least a rough consensus can't be achieved either way, then it doesn't matter which way the decision goes. Andrewa (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.