Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Protocol question: How to refer to someone with a name like "Xeres Youill of Zounds" in short form

If we need to refer to someone like that in short form, because their full name was given earlier, or we're doing a short citation, should it be:

1. "According to Youill of Zounds (2023) ..."
2. "According to Youill (2023) ..."
3. "According to Zounds (2023) ..."

? I've been using option 1, but am not 100% certain that it's conventional or not redundant.

Or does this vary by reason they have an "of Zounds" name format (named for a region or just for an estate/manse)?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that options 2 and 3 are more likely. It depends on the persons involved and the need for disambiguation. Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington is referred to as both Wellesley and Wellington in that article. Harold Macmillan is not referred to as Stockton in his article. The British royal family tends to be referred to chummily by their first names. It probably all depends on how we came to know them: Wellington was well known before he gained his dukedom; Macmillan was ennobled late in life; the royals are known to us before they gain substantive peerages. Within an article on a particular peerage, the given names of people sharing the title throughout history may be more frequently used. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC) (edited 05:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC))

Thanks, but I think I'm going to stick with the "long short" form then, for the purposes I'm putting these names to (primarily citations), because "it depends on the person involved and ... how we came to know them" doesn't work for that; they largely are not really known to us, but are obscure persons who wrote books 200 years ago, and we don't know anything about how they came by the titles (or maybe WP does, in some little-read article, in some of these cases, but the reader doesn't, and many of them are redlinks anyway). The "is referred to as both Wellesley and Wellington in that article" lack of consistency doesn't work for this, either; referring to same author as "Youill (2023)" in one paragraph but "Zounds (2023)" at another would be very confusing. As long as "Youill of Zounds (2023)" isn't absolutely wrong for some protocol reason I don't understand, it's my clearest solution.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I see that I got carried away thinking that you were talking about text references rather than those for citations, or other attributions. Also, your too-abstract example did leave me wondering what part is the title and what the given name. I forgot the example of Treasure Houses of Britain, an article I started and where I mention, using various forms in large part inspired by the program itself, a number of noble presenters and historical figures. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you talking about Scottish names like Donald Cameron of Lochiel? I see that that article calls him Lochiel after he became chief; but my impression is that Cameron would be more usual. —Tamfang (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, my impression here is that this is referring to Scots names with a territorial designation (unfortunately, most of that page is about territorial designations and peerages, which isn't relevant here). Normally, after introducing one of these individuals, I would probably use 2, but if the narrative involved other individuals with the same surname, I would likely use 3 instead. (Not uncommon in a piece of Scots history). I don't think 1 is wrong (see e.g. [1]) but it feels a touch more formal than is usual. Choess (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Edwina Mountbatten, Countess Mountbatten of Burma#Requested move 28 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Edwina Mountbatten, Countess Mountbatten of Burma#Requested move 28 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson#Requested move 18 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson#Requested move 18 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Mary Cynthia Roche

I've just reviewed a new article on Mary Cynthia Roche, the aunt of Diana, Princess of Wales. We also have an older article about a Cynthia Roche, and I'm wondering what the best way to disambiguate these articles would be (or if the current titles are sufficient). Thought I'd drop a note here since I am not too familiar with British nobility and the disambiguation conventions for this topic. (Courtesy ping for article creator Dorothy Schnapp.) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Up to you, i will help if i was needed :) Dorothy Schnapp (talk) 05:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Titles in infoboxes

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Sir and Dame in the name line of Infobox person. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Redirect Frances Thynne ?

Why is the redirect going towards Frances Seymour, Duchess of Somerset? and not Frances Thynne, Lady Worsley? Govvy (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)