Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Why so many peers?

I hate to jump in here, but it seem that this project has seriously cluttered up searches for "born on" dates with fairly non-notable people. What is the justification for having an article about every single peer, ever? protohiro 05:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Space is not an issue for Wikipedia. Being a peer could be said to be notable. --Setanta 10:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Lord Lovat Clan Fraser

User Canæn has been moving articles with peerage titles to new pages based on the ordinal number of the title as claimed by the Clan/Lovat as opposed to the ordinal recognised by law and shown on all the usual professional peerage sites correctly [1]. So the present 16th Lord Lovat was moved to 18th and so on. Essentially it boils down to the attainder of the 11th Lord and various heirs dying before att~ was reversed in favour of the 12th Lord. Under law they (intermediates) are regarded as never having held or been capable of holding the title as it was attainted. However both the above sites have been changed to conform to the clans 'view' which I regard as contrary to wiki's policy of pushing a POV. I would welcome any help in this as I can see potential for a revert war in this as the editor is sensitive about these matters.

I've already struggled though accusations that using the correct ordinal (is) "the dictated law of the monarch,...largely incompetant abd believed unfit to rule) the British Prime Minister & ministerial cabinet, or parliament, over the voluntary rule of the people, is POV". I would welcome some help in this matter. Alci12 11:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I moved the relevant articles some weeks ago, with no response. It was only recently that User Berks[number] moved them back to their legal numberings, and later started a discussion on the matter. I've no interest in starting a "revert war," and you'll please note that I've not moved any of the pages back to their propper pages, in the interest of furthering discussion and attempting to keep a relative peace. I learned long ago that such things accomplish little, besides bringing in needless beurocracy. As well, the styling of the present Lord Lovat as the 18th (his predecessors being in line with this styling as well) is not simply a clan view. It is what he is considered to be by the public. I'd ask you to please cease your comments referring to the higher numbering as simply a "clan view." File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 02:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Order of the Collar of Saint Agatha

Not strictly peerage but perhaps someone else here can have a look at this. I'm doubtful that there is a single line of this that is accurate. As such I don't know where to start with editing it. See the order at [2] [3] and for the claimed Prince, Don Francesco [4]

The links are diy sites or misleading (ie the charity commission) the individuals mentioned claim implausible titles. Alci12 13:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahem

Scam "Feudal Lords" has just been written. David | Talk 13:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well thats great to a point, though I think perhaps the title may need changing. Lords of the Manor and feudal baronies (in scotland) and fake orders of chivalry are rather different things and perhaps the title needs to be more all encompassing. It's self eveidently tricky as some are titles that exist but are misunderstood or misused others things that never existed and are clear fakes. Alci12 13:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Wjhonson

Could someone please tell him he's a moron? Oh, and block him for disruption if he continues. God, I have better things to do than revert idiots. Proteus (Talk) 13:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I've looked at all his edits and I'm not sure what he's trying to achieve. Will have a cuppa then look again Alci12 16:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Confusing references in succession boxes

The WikiProject Peerage article states that peers should be referred to by the short version, when used in familial situations "father of" mother of" etc. And non-contemporanous situations. The succession boxes for offices are almost never this case. To simply call someone "Lord Howard" who has never been introduced in the article in confusing. I've already posted one example from the Patent Rolls where Burghersh wasn't even called Lord. Then we get situations where a person is preceded *and* succeeded by the ... same person? No actually two different persons both called "Lord XX". That seems overly confusing. Simply *adding* their first names, does not seem to be such an outrageous request does it? Wjhonson 00:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I can see a circumstance where the father gains/loses/gains an office being confused with father/another/son holding office. Obviously you can hover your mouse to see the link but that's slightly inelegant. However having a long list of offices some with names but most with titles only also seems inelegant. Names+titles for all would be consistent certainly but would become cluttered losing the advantages of simplicity the boxes give us. Alci12 15:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

In some cases, apparently the title they were *deemed to have gained* is being used, when the person was never known as such in their lifetime. I think to be accurate, we should be using the name they actually used, with minor corrections for modern-day, English spelling (like Henry for Henri, or Eleanor for Alianor), but not creating titles they never had. And in those cases, where there is a conflict, citations to primary material should hold sway. Convention should not override accuracy. I've posted one example. Later this month, I'm going to be doing a project to re-create the list of Cinque Ports wardens using *only* primary references. Then I'll probably come back and go throught the list here and add my notes. Wjhonson 15:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how others will feel about this in some cases such changes may not be a problem. For instance, in the C19 many baronies by writ were dubiously deemed to have been held by many people who never held them. It would be quite reasonable to mention in their articles that they never actually held those titles in their lifetime but for legal purposes they are deemed to have done so now. This doesn't though mean the title should be removed from the article or inline as that would cause too many problems and cause confusion. It may be that joe bloggs was chief teaspoon holder and never held any other title in his lifetime and so it would be reasonble to call him such in other articles. *But* you do have to be very very careful here as primary sources can be wrong or inaccurate. For instance it was common to call all sons of peers and even non peers 'lord' through much of the c14-c17 but to list them as such in their articles would be the thin end of the wedge. It's easy enough to find documents calling people by titles they never held because the scribe has simply made an error. You only have to think of Boudica being spelt Boadicea for six centuries to see what careless recording can do. If you're making major changes to Cinque Ports you may be best to make a subpage on your user page with the changes then/or post the proposed changes to the talk page of the article to see how people feel. Alci12 17:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

And I have no problem with *discussion* on whether a person was a Lord or not or held a title or not, or was Cinque Port Warden or not. But discussion on these points is sorely lacking right now. I don't think it's appropriate to post these on my user talk page, so I'll go ahead and post to the discussion pages of each person as I find the source citations.Wjhonson 17:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that primary documents can be wrong, but they should be corrected by others posting other primary documents, or cogent arguments backed up from valid, secondary sources not merely their opinion of how it was. Wjhonson 17:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Andrew Roberts

Not strictly Peerage related, but can I ask members for support in seeing this article (and other's it's mentioned in) is swiftly thrown away? Thanks Craigy (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sighs, I seem to be seeing a lot of pages of princes, orders and offices that are frauds atm. Alci12 12:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Lord Forbes

What's the correct order of numbering with the Lords Forbes? Burke's has only 22 and our list seems to have an extra William at the 14th Lord compared to Burke's. Some of the birth and death dates don't match either. Craigy (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I think someone doubled William, the 12th lord. I corrected it. Hope I forgot nothing. Greetings Phoe 07:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Upper class

People here might want to have a look at talk:Upper class. there seems to be something of US/UK culture clash about this term. Jooler 14:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

UK-noble-stub split

This stub category is very large, and really needs to be split. There's a proposal afoot at the stub-sorting wikiproject's proposal page. Options mooted so far would be splitting by rank of peerage (and non-peerage), and either by system or by century. Alai 04:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• There wasn't a great deal of clarity about this last time; against my better judgement, I've raised it again at WP:WSS/P, as it continues to grow, and is now about the 20th largest of all stub types. Alai 04:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sir Thomas Lyttleton

I came across this article and based on what was in the Thomas Littleton, I've tenatatively identified him as the 1st Baronet of that line, based purely on when he lived and the fact thta the 2nd and 3rd baronets shared the same name. Any firming up and clearing of this stub would of course be appreciated. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

ODNB says that the first baronet of that line was Sir Adam Littleton (cr. 1642, d 1647) also of Stoke St. Milborough, Worcs.

Sir Thomas Lyttleton, the captain, is from Hagley, also in Worcs; the third baronet of that line is his 6th? son Sir Charles Lyttelton, the governor of Jamaica. Septentrionalis 01:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Lord Mayors or Lords Mayor?

I know it's not really related to peerage, but people here know these things. A user moved the page List of Lord Mayors of London to "List of Lords Mayor of London" by copy and pasting. I've reverted it and told him the preferred method of moving a page. I've also started a vote at Talk:List of Lord Mayors of London which people might like to take a look at.

If the outcome is to move it to "List of Lords Mayor of London", please could an admin delete the page List of Lords Mayor of London and perform the move properly? Thanks, JRawle (Talk) 14:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if an admin moves it, we should keep the redirect as a likely misspelling. Septentrionalis 20:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Dalyell Baronets

Could someone with knowledge of the Scottish law of tailzie please take a look at the Burke's entry for the Dalyell Baronets and expand a bit more on the title's succession. I've just created the page but don't really understand the law and how the title was claimed by the ninth baronet or why Nora Dalyell was considered de jure baronetess when Tam Dalyell claimed it. All a bit confusing to me. Thanks Craigy (talk?) 17:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What Burke says seems to show is that the estate of the Binns is entailed (in tailzie in Scots) to the heir-general, and that in default of heirs male the baronetcy falls to the holder of the Binns. There are three dormancies:

1. The second baronet had an only sister, who predeceased him. Her eldest son inherited the Binns in 1719, but did not claim the baronetcy until some time between 1723 and 1728.
2. The eighth baronet had an only sister, who survived him. She inherited the Binns, but is not counted as de jure baronetess. She died without children, and her aunt's eldest son inherited the Binns and claimed the Baronetcy, as ninth Baronet.
3. The ninth Baronet had an only daughter. Her eldest, and apparently only, son inherited Binns, and claimed the Baronetcy after his mother's death, but his mother was de jure baronetess.

Presumably when the male line fails, dormancy is automatic until possession of the Binns by entail is proven and the claim granted, but the difference between instance 2 and instance 3 I cannot explain. (The Married Women's Property Act for Scotland?) Septentrionalis 00:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Succession boxes

If we're going to have "Peerage of the United Kingdom" and the like on succession boxes, should we not also include peerages that aren't in the same Peerage as the main one? For instance:

Perhaps distinguishing them:

— Proteus (Talk) 23:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The obvious problem is where do you stop. Are we going to list each and everyone of a peers titles with a box. I can see an argument for a box for inherited and new creations for the individual with the preceeding and following peers just using the highest title for the box. Alci12 17:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's best to stick with the old convention of only giving the highest title unless there's a newly-created title, ones with different succession, etc. Given those older guidelines, the appropriate headings should be used.

So if the only title included in the boxes is in the peerage of Scotland, the box should read "Peerage of Scotland". A later holder might have been given a Barony in the UK peerage, but we didn't see the need to include it before, so we don't now.

However, if titles in different peerages are included in an article, there should be multiple headings. (See, for example, Lord Curzon.) JRawle (Talk) 19:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

How about a compromise: We use Duke of Abercorn, for example, to discuss all the titles which the Dukes hold, although they are in different Peerages; why not change the label in James Hamilton, 5th Duke of Abercorn to a multiple line Peerage of Ireland, Peerage of Great Britain, Peerage of Scotland while having only one box. Slightly misleading, but better than 8 identical succession boxes. Septentrionalis 23:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

So many peers have titles in multiple peerages or baronetages that it would become a mess to potentially have Peerage of Ireland, Peerage of Great Britain, Peerage of Scotland Peerage of England Peerage of the United Kingdom all stuffed in one box. Highest title in whichever peerage + any new creation is workable. The title page should cover the fine detail. Alci12 09:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What I'm worried about is that I feel the current system can be misleading: the Dukes of Abercorn, for instance, only have "Peerage of Ireland" on their boxes, which, while it may be the Peerage in which their Dukedom is, is not really the most important or relevant one, as their oldest titles are in the Peerage of Scotland (and they are really Scottish peers who happen to have an Irish Dukedom) and they sat in the House of Lords for a long time by virtue of being Marquesses of Abercorn in the Peerage of Great Britain. To be honest, I don't think the Peerage boxes work very well. Apart from this "which Peerage?" business, they make peerages look like offices, which is highly misleading — holding a peerage is not simply like being Lord-Lieutenant of Dorset, as it alters a person's very identity, and listing both things in the same big box and in the same format is not ideal. Proteus (Talk) 10:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Depends when you are talking about; under Edward I, a peerage (especially a Earldom) was very like a Lord-Lieutenancy. Septentrionalis 12:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What I suggest as a compromise would be

since the ranking peerage would be the Peerage of Great Britain, and all the Peerages involved will be discussed under Baron Digby. This would be clumsy for someone who hold titles in all five peerages, but how many of those are there? Septentrionalis 12:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the version with two headers looks for me like someone forgot a box. Phoe 12:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite a lot of peers (Scottish/Irish) cover two and I can think of examples of three. The point is that these would be covered in the title page. To many boxes and clutter I think harm the readability of articles. The purpose is just to show the obvious line the titles follow - subsidiary titles unless they break free are not really needed - nor for practical purposes does it matter which peerage someone starts out in as they are only ranked by their highest title. - the 1264 de Ros barony was outranked by the 800 years newer whitelaw viscountcy. In terms of some giving seats in the lords that would need to be mentioned in the article - if it was relevent - as including the peerage in the box would be meaningless to 99% of users who wouldn't know what an Irish or scottish peerage did or didn't grant to the holder. Alci12 14:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I offer the compromise, I don't insist on it. But it's important that the Abercorns were Peers of Great Britain, and that many Irish peers were not; one reason for the links is so that readers have someplace to go that will explain how Irish peers could be MPs at Westminster.Septentrionalis 14:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's clumsy. That's why the unhelpful "Peerage of X" boxes should just be removed and we should use what we used before instead of trying to fit into this new-fangled succession box system that's simply unhelpful where peerages are concerned. Proteus (Talk) 14:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This? It's still a box, and the only present difference, as far as I can see, is that one of them doesn't have dates. Septentrionalis 14:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

{{PeerNavbox | Title=[[Baron Digby]]| Prev=[[Edward Digby, 11th Baron Digby|Edward Digby]]| Next=Current incumbent}}

I don't follow you here proteus. The SecBxs are a very easy way to navigate between the peers especially when so many articles don't have the links or detail within them Alci12 20:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean "remove them". I mean (a) separate them from the succession boxes for offices and (b) leave out the coloured bar things. Proteus (Talk) 20:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What we have now is:

I don't see how

is all that much different. Septentrionalis 17:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The practical difference tiny. Alci12 12:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

By chance, I just came across Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford where someone has tried to use {{s-reg|uk/ie}}. The result of this is currently that it defaults to saying Titles of nobility, which seems a sensible option when it isn't clear whether it should say UK or Ireland. JRawle (Talk) 22:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It certainly works although Longford is a somewhat special case having been a hereditary Irish earl and baron, a UK baron by inheritance and a hereditary baron (UK) and Life Peer by creation. There aren't too many Longford's Alci12 23:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The same could apply to any peer who holds titles in multiple Peerages. The heading can simply read "Titles of nobility" then we don't have to worry about having separate headings for the Peerage of Scotland, the UK etc. if the peer holds titles in more than one. This is unless they had newly created titles in multiple peerages (e.g. Lord Curzon, as I mentioned before) – although that certainly is quite rare. JRawle (Talk) 00:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

S-reg does that by design. Really. Anyway, this is the best idea on how to deal with the issue I've heard so far. Choess 03:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Baron of Fulwood

Resolved

As this personal project still seems to clinging to life shall we have another go at trying to delete it. 2005 Afd atttempt Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Baron_of_Fulwood Alci12 23:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead as far as I'm concerned; I see Proteus' {{prod}} has been contested, so AfD is the next step. Septentrionalis 19:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Order of the Bath

Order of the Bath is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 16:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ronan Handcock

Not sure if anyone was watching this evening, but Hon. Ronan Handcock, heir to the barony of Castlemaine, was on The X Factor this evening. The three judges laughed at his surname (typical) and he sang You Raise Me Up (if anyone's interested). I didn't want to create the article as I guess he's not that notable yet but just to let people know what he's doing if anyone wants to follow his progress and create an article for him. Craigy (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC) - - Oh, and he's through to the next round... Craigy (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I kept an eye on that one, I dont think I !voted on the AfD, however, now that the AfD is over and its has been deleted all I will say is that I would have been embrassed to write that article and it was rightly deleted.--Vintagekits 22:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

To Do list?

Is there a To Do list for this project? I can't find one. Is there an overall plan? Is there a list of pages that need copyediting or fact checking? Thanks! Laura1822 16:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Dog's Breakfast styles

I've noticed we suddenly seem to have an alarming number of entries where any and every style under the sun is thrown together contrary to any formal or social practice. Take the Gerald_Grosvenor,_6th_Duke_of_Westminster who is now listed in his titles section as "His Grace The Most Noble Major General Sir Gerald Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster" I'm perfectly happy if the project can agree one or other form (i've not edited to allow discussion) but they can't be mixed together like this Alci12 11:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

References to Peers

Currently the guidance says, effectively, "call them Lord X unless necessary". However, whilst this is good for modern peers, whose ranks in the Peerage aren't so important, it seems to me that ranks were important for large parts of history, and it's important in (for instance) articles about the Wars of the Roses which people were Earls and which were simply Lords (I'm slightly wary of calling them Barons, as the term doesn't really seem to have meant the same at this time as it does now), and we do generally write "the Earl of Essex did such and such" rather than "Lord Essex did...", so it would be helpful if the guidance reflected this. Opinions (on where the cut-off point should be/whether I'm talking rubbish/etc.)? Proteus (Talk) 16:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. The Marquess Cholmondeley (or even better, the first Marquess Cholmondeley), rather than Lord Cholmondeley, which might refer to one of his ancestors who was Earl Cholmondeley, or an even more distant one, who was a baron (if memory serves). Laura1822 15:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that for the Wars of the Roses and the Tudor period, it makes sense to use the full title for earls. I'm not sure at what point after that to cut it off. For the seventeenth century, some test cases. First, up through the Civil War:

1. Lord Salisbury vs. Earl of Salisbury
2. Lord Strafford vs. Earl of Strafford
3. Lord Montrose vs. Earl/Marquess of Montrose
4. Lord Argyll vs. Earl/Marquess of Argyll
5. Lord Essex vs. Earl of Essex

In these cases, I think that the form giving the full title seems more natural. Next, the restoration and post-Glorious Revolution periods:

1. Lord Clarendon
2. Lord Danby
3. Lord Shaftesbury
4. Lord Godolphin
5. Lord Bolingbroke

In these cases, sticking with just "Lord X" seems more appropriate. As such, I'd suggest the Restoration, or thereabouts, as a rough cut-off point. But obviously, both forms can be used both before and after the break. No need for a radical change in style. john k 15:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Baron or Lord?

I may be flying against the wind here, but our policy of giving the rank title "Baron" rather than simply "Lord" for created peers seems to be contrary to usual convention (according to the infamous Google test anyway). As a few examples:

• Peter Fraser, Baron Fraser of Carmyllie
  • "Baron Fraser of Carmyllie" — 99 matches
  • "Lord Fraser of Carmyllie" — 45,200 matches

• Charles Falconer, Baron Falconer of Thoroton
  • "Baron Falconer of Thoroton" — 879 matches
  • "Lord Falconer of Thoroton" — 152,000 matches

• Kenneth Cameron, Baron Cameron of Lochbroom
  • "Baron Cameron of Lochbroom" — 62 matches
  • "Lord Cameron of Lochbroom" — 13,000 matches

In addition, a large number of these matches coming up for Baron are from Wikipedia and its mirrors. By WP:NC the page title should normally reflect the most common usage, not necessarily the "official" title - the latter belongs in the opening paragraph. Cheers — SteveRwanda 15:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles) for a better guide to this area but no it's very logical. Google tests like that are quite easy to engineer (try Princess Diana)where they 'prove' something patently wrong. Each peer is listed by their title (so earls as earls viscounts as viscounts etc.. barons are barons. All the above can be called lord xyz (and are on many occasions) but they are still listed by their rank. See also scottish peerages where baron doesn't exist and lord of parliament is their only form or the various law lords' titles. So the form exists for clairity and accuracy. Alci12 16:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As it happens I didn't engineer this test with a view to proving anything; I just had no idea why certain people I thought of as "Lord X" were being referred to as "Baron X" so did some more investigation. The conclusion is that we call people Barons whilst the whole media and just about every other reference call them Lords. I'm not disputing that those are their accurate titles, but if people aren't using it then there must be a reason and it constitues original research for us to do something different. I'm not trying to be confrontational here, but the figures above are really quite overwhelming... Cheers — SteveRwanda 16:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say you did but it's so easy to return invalid google results that the test itself is fundermentally flawed. You seem to misunderstand the policy on original research it certainly doesn't stop correct citation from verifiable and reputable sources. [Alteration on the basis of a google search by contrast would be very much OR.] It's hardly difficult to find the naming for any peer as it's on the government websites [5] and is announced in the London gazette[6], the Times newspaper [7] and various other sources like dods [8]. Confusion with titles is not unusual but does not invalid wiki being accurate and verifiable. As to personal use it's easy enough to find peers using the full form on their own websites [9] Alci12 19:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The choice of article title isn't between "Lord X of Y" and "Baron X of Y", though, it's between "John X, Lord X of Y" and "John X, Baron X of Y", and the former, in a technical sense at least, usually refers to a courtesy peer. Our article titles are essentially a modified form of their legal names (but with middle names left out and the surname inserted for clarity), and are consistent with usage for hereditary barons (with the obvious omission of a numeral). Proteus (Talk) 22:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I am ambivalent on the use of "Lord" or "Baron" or the article title: I'm happy with the current guidelines, but wouldn't be upset if they were changed. However it does seem to me that this discussion underlines the imprtance of redirects to peers, so that "Lord Toff of Bigtown" and "Lord Toff" will both get the reader to the article, via a disambiguation page if appropriate. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Geoffrey Lawrence, 1st Baron Oaksey

He isn't listed under List of Law Life Peerages, but one source [[10]] (look on 'Trevethin') confirms that he was made Lord of Appeal in Ordinary in 1947. As such he would receive a life peerage, however the wiki-article on him states that he was made only 1st Baron Oaksey in this year. So can it be that either the hereditary peerage was the life peerage actually, or he never became a Law lord and the wiki-article (and the source) is wrong in this? Greetings Phoe 10:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

He was a Law Lord, and it is a hereditary peerage. There isn't a rule as such that Law Lords have to be life peers. The 1st Viscount Dilhorne, for instance, was a Law Lord from 1969 to 1980. I'd imagine that the powers that be knew that he would soon inherit a hereditary peerage (as his 67-year-old elder brother the 2nd Baron Trevethin was childless and unmarried), and as the point of legal life peerages was to avoid cluttering the House of Lords with the heirs of judges, and his heirs would have seats anyway through the Barony of Trevethin, it was deemed pointless restricting his peerage to his lifetime. Or it could have been intended to honour him more than usual. At any rate, the article seems correct. Proteus (Talk) 11:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Aye, and thanks Proteus for your explaining :-) Phoe 18:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, he was awarded a Peerage as an honour for his work in the Nuremberg Trials. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Format and ordering of lists

The formats we are aiming for now are as shown here:

Table	Project	List of extant baronies/ baronetcies	List of all baronies/ baronetcies
Baronies	Peerage	List of extant baronies sorted by date and thus subdivided into kind	List of hereditary baronies sorted by date and thus subdivided into kind
Baronetcies	Baronetcies	List of extant baronetcies subdivided into kind, then sorted by date	List of all English, Nova Scotia, Irish and GB baronetcies, in alphabetical order List of all UK baronetcies, subdivided into each initial letter

It might be worth actually dividing the list of baronies into five articles by kind, and having the overall article as a dab page - purely to keep article length down. Perhaps the Baronetcies too? (This is not top priority; but let's think about it.) Septentrionalis 17:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

We have thought about it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baronetcies and think such a subdivision makes the page(s) much less valuable to the vast majority who do not care what "kind" each baron(etc)y falls into. - Kittybrewster 20:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron

There is a proposal to actually move him to Lord Byron. I'm ambivalent on this; it may be a case where the title (which already redirects to him rather than Baron Byron) has an overwhelming primary meaning. But if anyone cares to make the case for the present location, please do. Septentrionalis 17:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think a redirect (Lord Byron to the above article title) is sufficient. If you type "Lord Byron" into the search box, and you get directed to the correct article, then it shouldn't matter what the article is titled: so keep it consistent with other peers. Laura1822 23:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Laura1822. - Kittybrewster 00:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson

Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 15:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to tidy this up but one point raised I can't see an obvious way to handle and we generally don't. However if it smooths the FA attempt perhaps people can find a short/tidy way to disambiguate the two baronies in the titles box. Personally I don't find a problem but obviously I understand the system and we perhaps can't expect readers to so do. See link above for the problem Alci12 23:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've posted suggesting we change the s-box header for the article and hope that is in line with the general feeling per the use of titles of nobility -v- peerage of x, y or z discussed above Alci12 09:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have created User:Phoe/sandbox to resolve the problem with the headers, that we had discussed already above. Maybe my idea can help. Phoe 11:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Charles Ritchie, 1st Baron Ritchie

This is unambiguous; but there is a proposal to move the article to include the full form, Baron Ritchie of Dundee. Please comment at Talk:Charles Ritchie, 1st Baron Ritchie Septentrionalis 20:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
• User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
• User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
• User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 14:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

William John Robert Cavendish, Marquess of Hartington → William Cavendish, Marquess of Hartington

I have requested this move to shorten his name. Please feel free to discuss on Talk:William John Robert Cavendish, Marquess of Hartington. Thanks Phoe 09:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hereditary peer

Hereditary peer is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 14:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Lords Lovat - invitation

I'm not involved in this Wikiproject, but I figure this is the place to ask about titles. The Lord Lovat article has about 4 it seems to need to deal with, and anyone who's got a real good knowledge of just how Scottish & later British titles have worked over the last 600 years would be greatly appreciated. Better yet, several. : ) See you there, 66.81.182.59 07:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

List of hereditary baronies in the peerages of the British Isles

This still exists in two forms: one very long article, and five lists of the individual Peerages. We have three choices:

• Keep both forms and hope they will stay identical, maintaining both of them.
• Keep the long article and remove the short ones.
• Keep the short ones, and make the joint article essentially a dab page. (We can discuss what exactly to do about the template.)

I am in favour of the last; is there objection? Septentrionalis 15:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur - keeping the short ones seems like the most sensible option. john k 15:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Mackensen (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Me too, how I wrote on Talk:List of hereditary baronies in the peerages of the British Isles before. ~~ Phoe _talk 16:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

Done; I simplified the dab back to List of hereditary baronies, since it's a service page. Come and see how it looks. Septentrionalis 18:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I think you have earned a commendation. :-) Greetings Phoe 18:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Surname for wives of peers

The current rules on the project page state:

• Wives of peers, when the title is used in the article name (the same rules apply as for substantive peers as to whether it should be), should have their married surnames.

I have searched through all of the Talk archives and can find no discussion of this rule. Can someone explain to me why we use surnames for the wives of peeresses? I have never encountered such a usage elsewhere, and it strikes me as very odd. Peeresses do not use surnames; instead they use the title as a surname (indeed, so do their husbands). Furthermore, references to historical females, including peeresses, are usually by their maiden names, if a surname is used at all. For example, in footnotes in The Journal of the Hon. Henry Edward Fox (afterwards fourth and last Lord Holland), 1818-30, edited by The Earl of Ilchester, 1923, we find:

• "Lady Augusta Paget, daughter of Henry William, first Marquess of Anglesey, married Arthur Chichester, created Baron Templemore in 1831."
• "Caroline Leonora, daughter of Lord George Murray, Bishop of St. David's, married Henry Stephen, third Earl of Ilchester (1787-1858) in 1812."
• "Ann Maria Tree (1801-62), afterwards Mrs Bradshaw. She rose to fame at Covent Garden after 1819."

To be fair, he often leaves the surname out altogether, as in the second example, but he never uses the married surname. This book is just one example, of course, but I repeat that using the married surname is, to say the least, unusual.

If it were entirely up to me to make the rules, I would probably leave the surname out of article titles for peers, too (as does Lord Ilchester, since peers use their titles as surnames, and do not use their surnames for any purpose). That may be going a bit far for the purposes of Wikipedia, but using the married surname for peeresses is completely inconsistent with historical or modern usage. Laura1822 16:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you in that it's unnatural to use the surname for anyone. But if we're going to use it for peers (and it seems pretty set in stone that we should), then it would be completely inconsistent not to do so for their wives. Not using it would also open up enormous problems as to where to draw the line. What about peeresses in their own right? Or the wives of peers who are also peeresses in their own right? What about the wives of peers whose husbands only succeeded (or were ennobled) late in life, and so were actually known for a long time by their husbands' surnames? To my mind it's much simpler and more professional to treat people in exactly the same way regardless of how they posses their title. Proteus (Talk) 16:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Baron Whaddon

The Barony of Whaddon is listed on the article Duke of Buckingham as subsidiary title of the dukedom. Further there was a life peer with the title Baron Whaddon, of Whaddon in the County of Cambridgeshire. Since life peers usually may not take already existing titles, there must be a error someplace. Has one not paid attention to the hereditary peerage at the creation of the life peerage or was it thought even as a special reference? ThePeerage states the hereditary peerage as Baron Whaddon of Whaddon [11], so the dog lies buried perhaps here? Or is there perhaps still a completely different solution? ~~ Phoe _talk 21:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

The restriction on repeated titles (which, by the way, is a general modern rule, not just applying to life peerages, it's just obviously most visible with them because they're now overwhelmingly more common than hereditary peerages) only applies to surname titles, not territorial titles. And it's only a convention, and is not even always obeyed with surname titles: a Barony of Nugent, for instance, was created in 1960 even though there have been previous Baronies and an Earldom of Nugent, and there have been two Baronies of Olivier in the 20th century, the second in 1971. Proteus (Talk) 22:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Your examples are both repeating hereditary peerages, so the case isn't exactly the same. I have seen it the first time, that a life peerage agrees with a hereditary peerage (even two times Baron Whaddon), therefore I was surprised. I know this of different creations of hereditary peerages, and of different creations of life peerages (see Baron Parker of Waddington) - but merged? Your brits are strange people :-) Anyway, thanks for your as always brilliant explanation. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 23:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

PS ... I think I will change the redirect Baron Whaddon to a dab-page, since I plan to write a stub to the life peer ... ~~ Phoe _talk 23:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

The second Barony of Olivier was a life peerage (for the actor Laurence Olivier). And if you're looking for life peerages that repeat hereditary peerages the life Barony of Kingsdown created in 1993 has the same title as the hereditary Barony of Kingdown created in 1858, and the AJA Barony of Clyde created in 1996 has the same title as the hereditary Barony of Clyde created in 1858 (in this second example, the life peerage is a surname title and the hereditary peerage was a territorial title). Proteus (Talk) 09:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly more custom than a rule so it's certainly been bent/ignored at times. Usually where there have been repeats in the past they are simply not used by one or other holder (if possible) or the form is changed. The two baronies of strange (1299) and (1628) are usually called 'strange of knockin' and 'strange'. Viscount Lyon isn't used to avoid confusion with the Lord Lyon. The Marquess of bute's heir uses Earl of Dumfries, the Duke of Buccleuch & Q's doesn't use the Marquess of Dumfrieshire but earl of dalkeith. The Earl of plymouth's heir uses viscount windsor, the Marquess of Bute's not using the earldom of windsor. Of course much of this is historial not just politeness but there are many overlaps. Alci12 12:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems it was too late for me yesterday. You are right, Proteus, the second Barony of Olivier was of course a life peerage ( and I have of course it already seen that hereditary and life peerages agree - I really have slept). Therefore I have now to revert my previous statement (partly): we Germans are strange, too. Thanks you both for waking me up! Best wishes ~~ Phoe _talk 16:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

Female life peers

There is a CFD for the category above on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 8#Category:Female life peers. ~~ Phoe _talk 21:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

Co-heirs presumptive

I've removed a few of these labels and will continue unless anyone can come up with a good reason for the use. A title in abeyance or shortly to go into abeyance can certainly have heirs and co-heirs at that. But an heir presumptive will failing the present holders line succeed to a title. An abeyance is only a claim not presumption of a succession so I don't see you can ever be co-heir presumptive. Alci12 11:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Writ in/of Acceleration

I've been minded for a while to propose a rename of the writ of acceleration article as it's correctly a writ in acceleration but where does that leave those articles where the peerage is accelerated where it is also used in the common form. As a few busy bees have been adding writs to articles (a good thing) seems now is the time to decide before there is too much to undo if indeed we feel we need so to do. Alci12 14:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It leaves them with a link to a redirect; which is not a problem. Septentrionalis 18:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Add that to my long todo list...as it really ought ot be changed Alci12 16:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Earl of Wigtown

Hi, are there reasons not to number Malcolm Fleming, Earl of Wigtown and Thomas Fleming, Earl of Wigtown? And does somebody know if there is a guideline of the use of symbols in dates (in example †, existing in both articles)? Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 08:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

Wiki doesn't use them so they can be removed. The only date in the intro should be birth/death. Alci12 10:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Aye, thanks. ~~ Phoe _talk 22:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

Please vote

• Talk:Francis_Burdett,_5th_Baronet - Kittybrewster 08:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Baron_of_Dirleton - Kittybrewster 16:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vice Great Seneschal of Ireland - Kittybrewster 08:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Earl of Pembroke

It is really necessary to have a – in an article's title, like at William Herbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke (1506–1570)? I think a simple hyphen should be enough in such cases, shouldn't it? Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 19:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC) ~~

How about making him William Herbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke (1551), the date of creation? It would be preferable to disambiguate him from William Herbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke (1423–1469) by something that didn't involve dates, and for which readers were likely to search. (Black William) suggests itself for the older Earl, but I can't think of anything for the younger. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think many people would not know on what the number refers, so I would suggest to take instead William Herbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke (8th creation) and William Herbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke (10th creation). Greetings and have a happy Christmas. ~~ Phoe _talk 15:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC) ~~

Hmm, Disam by nth creation seemed like it ought to be the best but I'm no sure either is that great Alci12 14:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

(1551 creation)? the problem with nth is that there is often a different count of the number of creations, depending on your source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a fair point. Even here you have problems as it assumes that anyone will know the date of the creation relating to the peer they want . I'm not sure there is a good solution here, whatever we choose will confuse some people. Though perhaps the last is best for now I'd welcome other ideas. Alci12 22:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have another idea and how you said, every solution will arouse confusion at somebody and so I would prefer Septentrionalis's suggestion, since it is a better one than mine. Greetings and have a good slide in the new year. ~~ Phoe _talk 17:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC) ~~

What about William Herbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke (Chief Justice)? - Kittybrewster 17:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that WP:NAME deprecates fancy dashes in article titles - as a technical problem for Internet Explorer. I am going to go ahead and move to 1551 creation unless someone has objected at the article. If anyone dislikes this, let's go to WP:RM and gather more thoughts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I would still say that a simple hyphen would be best here. That is the clearest, in that the information someone is most likely to know is the century the guy lived in, I should think. john k 17:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In this case, since these are first Earls, the creation does that (one reason I supported it). If there are other examples, we can rethink. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Edits by User:Rodolph

This user hasn't quite got the hang of Wikipedia style yet, and is editing peerage-related articles. I've just fixed George Jellicoe, 2nd Earl Jellicoe for the second time. Have a look at his edit history, and in particular Viscount Fane and Charles, 2nd Viscount Fane. I hope someone can fix this, as I don't have the time to sort it out at the moment. JRawle (Talk) 17:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

My God, he is exhausting. ;-) ~~ Phoe _talk 14:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC) ~~

Categorisation

User:Jdcooper is recategorising articles on peers by surname rather than title. Might be worth keeping an eye on the situation. Proteus (Talk) 14:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines for categorisation of people state that "In categories dealing with peerage, British peers are sorted by name of the title rather than surname". Implicitly, this means that categories that are not restricted to the peerage should be sorted like any other category — Surname, Forename. --Stemonitis 17:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It probably just means the wording wasn't thought through, using surnames is generally meaningless as they are not known by them. Alci12 14:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In which case, it's a matter for a naming convention, rather than categorisation. Naming conventions cover the words that appear in the article's title; categorisation only covers how to order and represent them in a sort key. Titles which include names by which the article's subject is not known are flawed, and that's not a problem that categorisation can solve. --Stemonitis 15:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The article name is right but the cat being added or changed was most certainly wrong. Ie Lawrence Dundas, 2nd Marquess of Zetland is the correct name and title he should sorted as Zetland, Lawrence Dundas, 2nd Marquess of not Dundas, Lawrence the latter being something he was never called being known as Lord Ronaldshay for 37 years and finally Lord Zetland for 42. Alci12 17:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If he's never been called "Lawrence Dundas", then why is that in the title? Elsewhere, article titles follow common usage, and I see no reason why that should not continue here. As long as an article's title begins "Lawrence Dundas", it should sort as such, with the exception of more specific categories (such as those which deal exclusively with peerages or a category for members of the Dundas family, for example). If he is "Lord Zetland", then the article should be at "Lord Zetland" (with additional disambiguating terms if necessary), and sort as "Zetland, Lord". It cannot be expected that "Lawrence Dundas, 2nd Marquess of Zetland" would sort differently from "Lawrence Dundas (fictional character)" or anyone else of that name. Categorisation should follow the article title in as simple and transparent a way as possible; sorting outside peerage categories by titles (which inevitably vary over time) rather than by name (as is done for everyone else) is likely to be confusing for the uninitiated. No-one questions that the article should be sorted as "Zetland, …" in peerage categories, but that practice need not be appropriate elsewhere. --Stemonitis 18:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed countless times before. Please read the archives and you'll find out why it is how it is. Proteus (Talk) 18:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"The archives" is quite a broad target — did you have somewhere specific in mind? The only debate I can see referred exclusively to sorting within peerage categories. --Stemonitis 18:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The first three sections of the archives are almost exclusively devoted to discussion on the location of articles. Proteus (Talk) 22:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

But in my (admittedly cursory) look there, I saw no mention of category sorting outside peerage categories, which is the real issue here. I suspect that this is an issue which has never been discussed in detail before, it being assumed from two sides that the procedure was covered by (two different and contradictory parts of) the existing rules. --Stemonitis 22:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well Alci's already pretty much explained that. To use the example I used with User:Jdcooper, the 19th-century Prime Minister Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury was and is known variously as "the Marquess of Salisbury", "Lord Salisbury", or simply "Salisbury", and so categorising him under anything other than "Salisbury" would be silly. If you put him under "Gascoyne-Cecil" no one would be able to find him, because they wouldn't know where to look, since no one (except people who have previously read about him in an encyclopaedia and remembered it) knows what his surname is. This doesn't just apply to "categories relating to the Peerage", it applies to everything — if he'd happened to be a famous balloonist in his spare time, he would still have been "Lord Salisbury, that famous balloonist", and so would be logically sorted in Category:Balloonists as such. Peerages aren't just things that people haul out on ceremonial occasions: they have and do replace people's previous names in every aspect of their lives. Indeed, though we use surnames through convention in article names, legally and officially peers cease to have surnames at all when they succeed, and the chap above wasn't in fact "Gascoyne-Cecil" at all after he became Lord Salisbury. Proteus (Talk) 22:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It may be simplest to change the categorization guideline; I suspect the purpose is to deal with articles like Anthony Eden, who is (for peerage categories) listed under his title (Earl of Avon), while under most categories he should be under Eden. One solution for this is to make sure that Anthony Eden, 1st Earl of Avon exists as a redirect, and add Category:Earls in the Peerage of the United Kingdom to the redirect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, I don't think anyone has a problem with people not known by their title (ie Eden) being listed by that name outside peerage categories. It's for people who are known exclusively by their title that we need to prevent confusion. [I did a similar test to proteus, using the cat 'People associated with the University of Chester' The University site itself returns no useful results if you search for their Chancellor, The Duke of Westminster, under his name Grosvenor but it returns the announcement of his acceptance if you use 'westminster' Alci12 11:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The question, then, is to determine which peers are better known by [Forename Surname] and which by [Xth Title of Somwhere] (which would be easier if articles were titled by commonly-used names). How can an outsider (like myself) tell which articles titled [Forename Surname, Xth Title of Somewhere] are people best known by name, and which are best known by title? There is no qualitative difference between Jeffrey Archer, Baron Archer of Weston-super-Mare and Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury as far as the article title goes. It is worth remembering that it's not just a question for the person putting articles in their right places in categories, people have to be able to find the articles once they're in there. --Stemonitis 13:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Peers whose article title is at Forename Surname should be alphabetized based on surname. Those at Forename Surname, Xth Title of Something should be alphabetized by peerage title. There is, I would add, more or less no qualitative difference in alphabetization between "Archer, Jeffrey" and "Archer of Weston-super-Mare, Jeffrey Archer, Baron". john k 16:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In a large category, there is a distinct difference between "Archer, Jeffrey" and "Archer of Weston-super-Mare, …", since the latter will sort before all other people called Archer (because space sorts before comma). Compare Peter Archer, Baron Archer of Sandwell and Jeffrey Archer, Baron Archer of Weston-super-Mare here. --Stemonitis 16:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There will be some slight differences, sure, but I don't think those issues are such as to prevent somebody from being found. john k 16:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, at the moment there aren't too many Archers in the same category, but Wikipedia's growing all the time, and there are more frequent names than Archer. It is not enough that articles be sorted to roughly the right place. There must be a transparent way of working out the single appropriate place for every article in every category. There are already two and a half pages (!) of living people called Jones, and it's only going to get worse. If they weren't sorted logically, there'd be no reasonable way of finding anybody with that name. If categories are to serve any purpose, they must be well sorted, and that includes difficult cases. --Stemonitis 16:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I provided the metric - if the peerage title is in the article title, alphabetize by it. If it's not, don't. john k 16:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

And I've provided another: if there's a forename and a surname in the article title, use those. This is where the conflict stems from, and the discussion doesn't seem to be moving forward. --Stemonitis 16:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

But yours is bad - all articles on peers include a forename and surname, because this is the naming convention for peers. The rule is that if the peer is known by his title, that is the title of the article. If he is very much best known by a courtesy title (as Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh or Frederick North, Lord North, he goes at the courtesy title. And if he is best known by his forename and surname, he goes at Forename Surname. Alphabetization for categories should proceed accordingly, since, theoretically at least, articles include peerage titles or don't based on whether or not the person is known by them. If you think somebody has mistakenly had the peerage title in the article title, that's a matter for Requested Moves, and the category shouldn't be changed until the page title is resolved. Your basic problem seems to be, so far as I can tell, with the fact that the surname is included in the title, even though the person isn't generally well known by it. But that has nothing to do with categorization - again, you should take this up on the naming convention page (in this case Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). The current arrangement was worked out on the basis that it is the way articles on peers are titled in standard reference works, and how indexes in books generally list them. john k 17:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh well this just edit conflicted with my long post but no matter I agree with the above. It's exactly as standard works index peers by title first then name. Removing the name would I suspect set off a fight with those who never wanted titles in the article titles at all. Setting/continuing cats by title and then dealing with any problems where they are found seems the most logical - consistent with reference practice - and requires fewest changes Alci12 17:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that that makes my sorting scheme any worse than yours. It may be a flaw in the naming convention, but most people would expect Lawrence Dundas, 2nd Marquess of Zetland to sort as "Dundas, Larwence", (as is done for Jeffrey Archer, outside peer-exclusive categories). As long as article titles contain (and indeed begin with) a forename and a surname, then they should be sorted as such. That is what the guidelines currently state, and that makes sense. I don't feel qualified to comment on the intricacies of article naming for peers (according to Proteus [12], "Archer's name is now 'The Right Honourable Jeffrey Howard, Baron Archer of Weston-super-Mare' ", and most people call him either "Jeffrey Archer" or "Lord Archer" and yet the article title is something else, with two Archers in it - am I the only one confused by this?), but I do know something about indexing. If an article's title begins with a forename and a surname then, regardless of what follows, the average reader would expect it to sort by that name. Actually, the Jeffrey Archer example isn't the best one, because of the (apparently) repeated term, but the average reader, seeing "Lawrence Dundas, 2nd Marquess of Zetland" will expect the article to sort under D; looking through the Z section of a category and finding a "Lawrence Dundas" is most confusing. So, to reply to Alci12 (edit conflict again), the problem occurs every time a forename and surname are given. --Stemonitis 17:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why anyone would expect to find a man known as "Lord Zetland" under "Dundas". You seem to be looking at the thing backwards, or perhaps from an editor's perspective. A reader looking at the category is going to look for the person by the name by which they best know them. In the case of Lord Zetland, that would be under "Zetland." Then they would find it, and see an article title that gives his full name. For editors who don't know anything about the guy, and are trying to figure out how to sort his name in a category, I can understand how there might be some confusion, but wikipedia is written with our readers in mind, not our editors (for the most part). I fail to see as you have made any actual arguments to back up your belief that people would expect to find Zetland's article under "Dundas", you have merely asserted it. What evidence can you provide to support such a claim? john k 17:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am looking at it from a reader's point of view. If a reader wants to find out about someone they already know something about, they simply type that name in. Categories are for finding articles which cover similar topics, but which a reader might not have been aware of. --Stemonitis 19:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see your point. The guy is called "Zetland," and should be alphabetized under "Z". Anyone who knows anything at all about the guy will have heard of him as "Zetland" or "Ronaldshay," not as "Dundas". I really don't understand your point. john k 22:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

And the reader will know him by his peerage title. No one looking for Lord Salisbury searches by Cecil. Mackensen (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Or, God help us, Gascoyne-Cecil. It's worth noting, though, that the Dictionary of National Biography did alphabetize by surname, even for peers. john k 00:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a delightful image of someone looking for the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos having to guess they need to search under Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville :-) Removing the name would leave us having to disambiguate the page title with 2nd Earl of somewhere (2nd creation) 2nd Earl of somewhere (7th creation) and so on which would be hopeless Alci12 11:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

To clarify for what the DNB does, they alphabetize by the last part of the surname in multi-barreled names. So the Dukes of Buckingham and Chandos are at "Grenville," the Marquesses of Salisbury at "Cecil," the Earls of Home at "Home," the Dukes of Richmond at "Lennox," and so forth. This would very strongly not be my preference, but it has been done by a very reputable reference source. john k 17:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The point is that categories are most useful for finding articles one didn't know about. If one already knows who one is looking for, an article can be found by more direct means. To find the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos, type in "Duke of Buckingham and Chandos" and you'll be taken to Duke of Buckingham where you can find the person you were interested in. But if you want to find out, say, about other people who died in the same year as the 3rd Duke of B. and C., you might find a list that appears to be in the order Domeyko, Donders, Chichester, Dong Khanh, Dugas, Dunbar, Ducombe. --Stemonitis 11:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Only if he was under D for duke surely - the most odd location yet. If he was under B for Buckingham all would be as expected. Just as D for Donegall not C as you piped it to Chichester Alci12 12:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

But looking down the list, people will browse the surnames, not the disambiguating terms (or, in this case, titles) that follow. So it really will appear to be Chichester in the middle of the Ds. --Stemonitis 12:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The "average" reader probably isn't going to be familiar with Asian naming conventions, either, so he'll see "Donders, Chichester, Khanh, Dugas", so the point is already vitiated, IMO. If people can be expected to understand that Asian names are written surname forename, I don't think it's too much to ask that they recognize peerage titles as surnames. Choess 15:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

So does anybody wish that categories could pipe so that the alphabetized term could appear first with a comma? Wouldn't that be great? john k 16:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is (quite apart from the poor programmers who would have to implement it) you would then need three different versions of the title: one real article title, one sort key, and one form of the title to appear in the cateogry listings, since that will often not be the same as either the sort key or the article title (no-one wants the text "Gregory 07" to appear in Category:Popes, for instance). The extra work would be vast. --Stemonitis 17:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

there would be extra work, but it'd still be better than the current situation. john k 19:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you take your idea to Wikipedia:Bugzilla (the current replacement for Wikipedia:Feature requests). --Stemonitis 22:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This can be done now: Make the form you want as a redirect to the article, and then move the cat to the redirect, on the first line. (It may be just as well to add a comment to the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Baroness Soames

Hi Proteus. You're obviously something of an expert on this stuff, but you're statement that the wife of a Baron should be know as Baroness, rather than Lady, would seem to be contradicted by this paragraph from the Burke's Peerage website:

A baron's wife should be referred to in print as 'Lady Blank', 'The Lady Blank' or 'The Rt Hon The Lady Blank' in ascending order of formality and a baron's divorced wife as 'Jane Lady Blank'. A baron's children are addressed on an envelope as 'The Hon [short for 'Honourable' and sometimes still, if in rather old fashioned style, only partly shortened to Hon.ble] Adam/Eve Binks' (where Binks is the name of the family holding the barony of, e.g., Blank). They have no special form of address in direct speech. A baron would normally be addressed to his face as 'Lord Blank', his wife, whether current or divorced, and widow as 'Lady Blank'. Some peers and peeresses do not use the prefix Rt Hon on the grounds that it more properly belongs to Privy Counsellors: Lady Grimthorpe is one such among wives of barons. The form of second person address 'My Lord'/,My Lady', formerly in use even by those who felt themselves the social equal (or even the social superior) of the holder of the barony or his wife/former wife/widow, would now tend to be used only by domestic servants (if any), estate workers (if any), tenants (if any) and tradesmen in a small way of business.[13]

It has certainly always been my understanding that only a woman holding a peerage in her own right, ie Baroness Thatcher, should be addressed as 'Baroness'. Please can you clarify? Many thanks.

lawsonrob 11 January 2007

We're not "addressing" her as Baroness Soames, we're using that form in the title of an article on her, because it's part of her legal name. Articles in encyclopaedias don't generally pay any attention to forms of address (which is all Burke's is concerned with). Proteus (Talk) 17:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Royalty Style Guide

If you are interested in articles about British royalty, please look at this proposed template/style guide for articles about British royalty, and help improve it. We might eventually implement something similar here: it's a great idea. Please forgive my cross-posting this both here and on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baronetcies. Laura1822 16:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

peers in succession boxes

Traditionally, in succession boxes we have referred to peers by their titles, rather than their names. Thus "The Earl of Derby," rather than "Edward Geoffrey, Earl of Derby" or "Edward Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby," or whatever. User:Wjhonson has been questioning this on various grounds. If you want to comment on this issue, please head over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization, where he has raised the issue. john k 04:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Tradition has nothing to do with it firstly. Secondly tradition is the weakest argument to use in a case like this. Thirdly there are as many succession boxes that use proper names as those that use titles, if not more. Saying that the Earl of Derby was succeeded by the Earl of Derby who was succeeded by the Earl of Derby is not helpful to an encyclopedia. We are here to inform people not to needlessly confuse them for pedantic purposes. Wjhonson 04:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I was not making an argument here, so there's little point in you "rebutting" my "arguments." I was merely stating that we have traditionally done it one way. This was not intended to be an argument for continuing to do it that way, and pointing people to the page where we have been debating it. At any rate, let me amend my statement. For the succession boxes of the titles themselves, we always use simply the given name and surname, with no titles. Only for other succession boxes, where it is unlikely the person was succeeded by someone with the same title, do we use the title alone. I would prefer that in cases where the latter does happen, we use the ordinal to prevent confusion. But the preference for the peerage title has, in my case at least, nothing to do with pedantry. I just think it looks a lot cleaner to have a neat "The Duke of Westminster" in the succession box, rather than "Gerald Grosvenor, 5th Duke of Westminster." john k 06:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

How John said, it is a matter of style, too. Michael Bowes-Lyon, 18th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne would not only make a box much bigger but also uglier than "The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne" does it. In addition, many peers were known in many offices under other titles as these they had at their death and the succession boxes should also reflect this. And why can't a Earl of Derby be succeeded by a Earl of Derby? The links are piped and everbody can follow them. ~~ Phoe _talk 14:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC) ~~

In an article already ten pages long, we should worry about an extra quarter-inch? Also the reason why an Earl of Derby should not be succeeded by an Earl of Derby is that it's confusing. Any reader would be right to think the same person preceded and succeeded the position when in fact they didn't. You're forcing them to read three articles to see what's going on, instead of one. That's not helpful. Wjhonson 16:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

In cases where someone was succeeded in an office by their successor in a title (this happens a fair bit with Lord Lieutenancies), the succession box can include the ordinal, and I think that ought to be our standard way of doing this. The problem with the full name and title is that it takes a lot longer to figure out who is meant, because there's so much stuff going on. john k 17:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, for the succession of peerage titles themselves, we already give the person's name, not the title. john k 17:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Earl Roberts

Heads up on User:Mduparte (previously editing as User:172.202.56.251), re Earl Roberts, along with Andrew Martin Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts and Stefan David Andrew Roberts, Viscount St Pierre (both obvious hoaxes and now nominated for deletion). Proteus (Talk) 18:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Privy Councillors

Please contribute to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_prefixes_No.2. - Kittybrewster 10:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Categories

It seems User:Stijn Calle is creating a bundle of new categories and links to categories (see Special:Contributions/Stijn_Calle). I'm not sure what he is doing exactly, but I think we should keep it in the eye. ~~ Phoe _talk 19:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC) ~~

Representative peer FAR

Representative peer has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Project under attack

[14] - Kittybrewster 22:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ronan Handcock

Not sure if anyone agrees, but I just created an article for the above and it's been AFD'd. Comments anyone? Craigy (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I fear with the rejection of Wikipedia:Notability (royalty), we have no more basis, to justify the notability of heir apparents, who don't offer other possibilities to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people). ~~ Phoe _talk 20:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC) ~~

Proposal to become a child project of WikiProject Biography and share our template

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baronetcies#.7B.7Btl.7CWPBiography.7D.7D. --kingboyk 00:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes please. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Two new parameters:

• peerage-work-group=yes
• baronets-work-group=yes

(I don't like "work-group" but I've chosen consistency!) {{WPBiography|peerage-work-group=yes}} {{WPBiography|baronets-work-group=yes}}

The assessment and other maintenance categories are red. I or somebody will fix those up shortly.

Also, the project pages need to acquire the WP Biography trinkets like at WP:BROY and WP:MUSICIANS.

Hope that helps! --kingboyk 21:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've now written a new script to set up assessment categories, and have done the categories for you. The WP 1.0 bot (talk · contribs) will pick up those categories over the next few days and these links should go blue, giving you the article assessments worklists:

• Peerage: Index · Statistics · Log
• Baronets: Index · Statistics · Log

Next (sigh!), I'll tweak a couple of things in {{WPBiography}} for you as requested, and add the parameters to my plugin so that my bot can tag your categories, also as requested. --kingboyk 22:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Priority

I take the view that all 1st Dukes & 1st Marquesses are minimum of high priority. And all 1st Viscounts, Earls and Barons are minimum mid priority. A huge number need to be assessed. - Kittybrewster (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Including such non-entities as the first Marquess of Downshire? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

de jure peers

Hi, has somebody perhaps an idea how to deal with de jure peers? Shall we treat them like the regular peers, add their titles at the article names as well as in the opening, and use peerage succession boxes as well as the respective peerage categories - or shall we treat them as commoners, refrain from all this and mention the succession instead only in the text? Greetings and have a nice Easter! ~~ Phoe _talk 15:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC) ~~

It's not an entirely perfect solution but I think on balance I'd favour treating them as peers. Attempts to decide which were called peers in their own time period or claimed/didn't claim to be peers is a very complex area and seems a recipe for arguments and reverts so I favour a broadly black/white presumption - with some caveats! (1) If using the title makes them easier/no harder to find then fine but if it makes it more difficult don't use it - save within the article opening. ~ Margaret Thatcher. De jure must used carefully so they must have been capable of holding the title or subsequently legally judged so. No adding 'claimants' or those under a non reversed attainer or something I really dislike, and exists in a few articles, adding people as de jure who are not recognised. I know we all often think X must be the holder of title Y (Viscount Mountgarret and Viscount Knollys probably come to most minds) but it's a pretty dangerous path if we start making judgements rather than reporting sourced 'fact'. (2) Irrespective of the article title question S-boxes always to be included as they are a huge help navigating around peerage articles and it's not helpful if they either end in dead links or multiple jump holders. Alci12 16:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Esq

I had a quick chat with Proteus about the use of this post nom which is at best sketchy across wiki and with no obvious pattern of inclusion/exclusion. I thought perhaps it would be best if we sought some consensus. It seems to me the options are:

1) Use with all males (UK or Dependant Territory only). 2) Use with none. 3) Attempt to decide a selective basis of certain people it would be correct to use it with and exclude all others.(vide Esquire#United_Kingdom)

Personally I regard (1) much like the inclusion of BA in wiki entries - so commonplace as to be of no informative value to the reader - the reason I always remove BAs. (2/3) seem the most obvious choices. (2) is obviously easiest to implement whereas (3) would require us to decide on or agree on someone else's definition. [Ed. this question is meant in the context of Titles from birth sections etc and not about introducing them into article intro para names] Alci12 11:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Alci12 11:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason I tend to use it, I think, having considered it, is that it tends to stop people adding "Mr" in front of untitled names in such sections (which I think looks highly out of place). Proteus (Talk) 16:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Second Baronets

Regulars of this page may be interested in this conversation on "Are second Baronets always notable?". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The use of "the" in succession boxes

Succession boxes for offices, when these are held by peers, should refer to them by title, masking a link to the actual article. There has been some discussion of the exact style to be used for holders of substantive titles. Wikipedia often uses (in February 2007) "The Earl of Somewhere", in which the use of The distinguishes between substantive and courtesy titles; but this is not required. The distinction will be lost on many readers, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a Court Circular; "Earl of Somewhere" may be preferable.

The above excerpt (highlighting mine) has been taken from the main project page, and the highlighted part is something I cannot possibly agree with. How on earth can someone justify the omission of a three-letter word (not long enough for its non-inclusion to save any substantial space in a succession box or visibly improve it in any way) by saying that "the distinction will be lost on many readers"? Is it or is it not the aim of this encyclopaedia to be useful to all, experts and not alike? Accuracy should be of paramount importance, and if the definite article distinguishes between substantive and courtesy peers, then why should this most useful distinction (even if only to some people) be taken away? It will not confuse the other readers; on the contrary. most people unaccustomed with the conventions of peerage will still find the "the" rather familiar in this context.

And even if the lack of "the" would be tolerable, why should it be mentioned in this page in such a way as to actually encourage users to omit it? Personally, I find it irresponsible and overly simplifying, as well as contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia.

I rest my case here. I am not going to change the passage in the page because I am not a member of this project and do not know to what extend this has been agreed upon by the members of WikiProject Peerage, so I shall leave the decision to them. But please think well of what I am saying here. Waltham, The Duke of 08:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't reflect what we do, and to be honest I hadn't noticed it had been added. I've changed it to reflect actual practice. Proteus (Talk) 16:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with the change, either as policy, or as a statement of practice; Wikipedia is not a court circular, and it is pointless and uncommunicative pedantry to attempt to sound like one. A compromise text may be in order. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with His Grace and Proteus. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I must admit I have no idea what you're getting at. Calling the Earl of Somewhere "the Earl of Somewhere" is overwhelmingly common usage, and it's certainly not confined to the Court Circular. If you want to call him "Earl of Somewhere" (which is contrary not only to common usage but to the rules of English grammar) then you're going to have to do a pretty good job of explaining why... Proteus (Talk) 23:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This is strictly as regards succession boxes, right? I confess that, as a pedant, I do like the fine distinction to be made in the boxes between substantive and courtesy titles; but as far as prose, I think it quite satisfactory to say that it was Lord Mordaunt who led the forlorn hope at the Schellenberg without making it explicit that his title was a courtesy viscountcy. Attempting to enforce this distinction in regular prose seems to me rather too much, but in succession boxes — which are by nature collections of just that sort of fine detail — I think it quite harmless. Choess 23:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That's my view as well. Alci12 13:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Choess, I was referring to usage in succession boxes only. I did not even refer to cases where the numeral was included, as the numeral indicates a substantive peer. In any case, I believe the changes have improved things. Thank you all for your support. Waltham, The Duke of 11:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

User:SqueakBox

SqueakBox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is being a pain, and could do with having an eye kept on him. Proteus (Talk) 23:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

He does raise a valid question, although unintentionally. Do we need always to include life peerages, granted after 2000, in the article title? They are honours, not [always used as] seats in the House; and often not the most important or defining fact.

We don't, and shouldn't, include CBE or OM, although they are part of the full style of the subject. We don't always include middle names, although they are part of the name of the subject. We don't always include hereditary titles, where the subject is not known by them (see Bertrand Russell, which also omits his middle names). We should of course have the full style as the first line. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

They are seats in the House. Not sure where you got the idea they're not, to be honest... Proteus (Talk) 18:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A momentary glitch, from discussing two subjects at once. I have inserted a more modest and I trust accurate argument. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah. The difference is that peerages are part of a person's name, not merely their style. (When John Smith becomes the Earl of London he becomes John, Earl of London, not just John Smith who happens to have a peerage, whereas if he was appointed to the Order of Merit he would indeed be John Smith who happens to be in the Order of Merit.) And of course we don't include peerages, granted before or after 2000, where they're never used (whether by the person themselves or by others), which is where the Bertrand Russell exception comes in. Russell's post-2000 equivalent is someone like Neil Kinnock. Proteus (Talk) 20:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So are their middle names. Please observe that we don't use, say, Neil Gordon Kinnock,either. And the question of the exact line could use work. "Lord Kinnock" is not absolutely unheard of; about 10% of the ghits". "Lord Coe" is about 20%. Where do we draw it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can set a figure in a meaningful way. However the Kinnock example seems to me at the right location and a much clearer example than the Archer dispute of main usage. I think sadly it's to hard to use fixed rules and is going to be sorted on very much on a case by case basis. Alci12 13:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Apropos: [15] Choess 16:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Biographies

Following on from Kittybrewster's comments above on priorities. Of the extant baronies there are now articles, of very varying degrees of quality, for almost every "1st Baron" (not that recipients of baronies that are now extinct are any less important, but this is at least a start). There are some exceptions, mostly first holders of medieval English baronies and some ancient Scottish lordships.

Unfortunately, I don't have access to a lot of sources, and there are some of the more modern creations (19th century onwards) that makes you wonder what the person in question actually did to merit a peerage. I thought it would be a good idea to post these peers here, then someone with better sources than I (and with the time and energy) might have a go at expanding them. I guess some creations were purely for the recipient to fulfill a certain political role in the House of Lords.

• Robert Borwick, 1st Baron Borwick more info on career needed
• Colin Campbell, 1st Baron Colgrain needs expansion
• Frederick Smith, 1st Baron Colwyn needs expansion
• Thomas Brooks, 1st Baron Crawshaw ???
• Reginald Crook, 1st Baron Crook career before peerage needs expansion
• Gilbert Greenall, 1st Baron Daresbury wealthy businessman, philanthropist?
• John Davies, 1st Baron Darwen more work on his business career needed
• Robert Gerard, 1st Baron Gerard ???
• Robert Nivison, 1st Baron Glendyne needs expansion
• Ernest Greenhill, 1st Baron Greenhill given peerage to sit on the Labour benches in the House of Lords?
• Arthur Grey Hazlerigg, 1st Baron Hazlerigg local benefactor?
• Thomas Fermor-Hesketh, 1st Baron Hesketh minor soldier and politician
• Henry Tufton, 1st Baron Hothfield  ??
• Fred Kershaw, 1st Baron Kershaw more info on career needed
• Clotworthy Rowley, 1st Baron Langford  ???
• George Wyndham, 1st Baron Leconfield  ???
• Chandos Leigh, 1st Baron Leigh poet, to sit on the Whig benches in H o L?
• Laurence Philipps, 1st Baron Milford more info on career needed
• George Bampfylde, 1st Baron Poltimore ???
• Robert Renwick, 1st Baron Renwick more info on career needed
• Mary Hill, 1st Baroness Sandys why give UK title to younger branch of the Hill family?
• Thomas Mullins, 1st Baron Ventry “Act of Union peerage” ???

Tryde 18:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Complete Peerage makes fairly clear that having an estate suitable to the rank of Baron is often a sufficient reason, especially in the eighteenth century; and assisting the party in office never hurt. Creations under the Coalition Government of 1916-1922 were notoriously given for partisan reasons; I believe there is a quote from Lloyd George to the effect that he was happy to give out peerages, of which there was an unlimited supply, rather than other favors, as long as they attracted support. (I do not believe I have been more cynical than the evidence warrants; the Irish Act of Union was almost as bad - but the effects are largely confined to the Irish Peerage.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD of peer

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Arbuthnot,_6th_Viscount_of_Arbuthnott seems to me auto-notable. - Kittybrewster (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• I will comment here, as I did there, that I am unconvinced. This is a Scottish Peer after 1707; he's not a representative peer. He's not a member of the House of Lords. Why is he auto-notable? All the Viscounts of Arbuthnott would make one good article, together. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If he isn't notable because he was never a member of the House of Lords, what about peers who inherited their titles after 1999? Should we nominate the articles on them for deletion? --Tracey Lowndes 23:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I would not be sweeping; but if they are nominated, I would ask: Have they done something? Are they notable (for wealth, for example)? Most of them pass one or the other of these; do we really need the rest? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I would say that we should delete them if they are not notable for any other reason. The whole reason that a Viscount has historically gained notability is in relation to there satisfaction of the politician section of WP:N because they were part of the nationwide parliament. Now if they dont satisfy this or they are not notable in any other field then deletion should be considered.--Vintagekits 11:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Starting with Dukes or Barons? - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Starting with those that are not notable. --Vintagekits 21:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Most Dukes are notable as celebrities; but there are an awful lot of hereditary baronies. Many of the present holders are redlinks; some probably deserve to be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• I wouldnt disagee with that.--Vintagekits 18:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Welsh Peers

Members of this list will also be interested in Category:Welsh Peers and the two articles it contains: Welsh Peers and Welsh Nobility Family Seats; somebody wants to make a Peerage of Wales out of the Peers, from at least two Peerages, with Welsh titles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Cat on CfD; articles on Afd. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

PR request

I've been working on Katherine van der Kerckhove, Countess of Chesterfield for the past few weeks and have asked for a PR if anyone has any suggestions - link is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Katherine van der Kerckhove, Countess of Chesterfield/archive1. Thanks, Craigy (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive talk page?

I would not want to tell you what to do in your own house, but this page has reached massive proportions. No major conversation seems to be taking place right now, and one would think a whole year is long enough a period of time to allow for another archive? Waltham, The Duke of 00:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Invitation/Information

Due to its history or expressed opinions, I believe that this wikiproject would be interested in a Sprawl Control Proposal currently in development. Please note that the idea is not deletionist, and advocates retention of all suitable material, by current definitions. If you oppose the idea in principal, please do not attempt to discourage its development. The intent is that all views may be integrated into a proposal that may achieve the stated aims and be acceptable to as wide an audience as possible.

It is thus felt that it is particularly important that relevant wikiprojects participate in the formulation of the proposal.

This invitation template was placed by: SamBC 16:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Precedence categories

Recently, Category:Daughters of marquesses was deleted as it was thought by some users that including it in an appropriate article was overcategorisation. There are similar ones (Category:Daughters of earls, Category:Younger sons of dukes etc) and I created these articles a while back for the purpose of grouping these people together. Is anyone in favour of having the category restored or perhaps getting rid of the others? Craigy (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions for wives of peers

Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Naming conventions for wives of peers and knights for discussion on how to name articles on wives of peers. Timrollpickering 09:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sir Arthur Pearson, 1st Baronet

If someone could please take a look at Sir Arthur Pearson, 1st Baronet. I know the name does not comply with conventions, but I'm not expert enough to decide on the proper title. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"Marquess"

The guideline says "Marquess" should always be used, never "Marquis", for the British rank

I suggest changing this to "Marquess" should always be used, never "Marquis", for the English rank.

Although rare in Scotland the spelling was always Marquis (Marquess simply lists peerage of England, and see James Graham, 1st Marquis of Montrose, 1612-1650 or the National Library of Scotland's catalogue Lorne, John George Edward Henry Douglas Sutherland Campbell, Marquis of and Angus Council's The Marquis of Montrose). -- Barliner  talk  14:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Viscount Clandfield

I'm sure this title doesn't exist and has something to do with this link (albeit the title is spelt Clanfield on that page). Can someone confirm my suspicions? I think if it's not addressed by tomorrow I'll go ahead and delete it. Craigy (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

OK scrap that. I've gone ahead and deleted because it starting to grind on me now. Craigy (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Numbering peerages

I agree with numbering most peers, as necessary pre-emptive disambiguation; but is it wise for those peerages which are so old that it is not clear who the first holder was? At the moment, this may be confined to the Earl of Mar, Earl of Sutherland, and the Baron Kingsale in Ireland. (The date of the creation of Baron Dunsany is disputable, but the numeration is established.) But this will also apply to several now extinct, promoted, or recreated titles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

SBS: Proposal for cooperation and promotion of improved succession template system

Greetings, honourable members of WikiProject Peerage. I should like to present you with the latest news in the world of succession boxes.

No, no, I am not trying to sell anything, just listen to me before you throw me out. This may be a long message, but it is important to us that you should read it and carefully consider its content. Five minutes of your time is not too long, is it?

WikiProject Succession Box Standardization (SBS) is the WikiProject developing and improving the template system and guidelines behind succession boxes. For the first time since the inception of this type of navigational aid, we have been able to create a comprehensive set of instructions that will allow any contributor to create good boxes in articles that will both be accurate and conform to the standards that will ensure their usefulness and uniformity, not only in terms of appearance but also as far as their content is concerned.

In addition, SBS are processing a relatively new model of succession box templates called the S-start series, which is distinct from the old-school HTML-based boxes that are still occasionally found in articles. We wish to completely replace these succession boxes, as they are rigid and not well adjusted to their purpose, and their code is too complex for inexperienced editors to edit, or even understand.

As you can see in our project's goals, we also desire to eventually phase out another class of templates: the Template:Succession box series. Even though the templates of this series all have internals compatible with those of S-start series, and samples from the two classes can co-exist in succession boxes with few problems, there are considerable advantages that our templates have, advantages that can improve both the appearance of the boxes to the readers and the ease with which they can be edited by the contributors.

The primary disadvantage of the Template:Succession box series is its great lack of flexibility. The main template can only create simple "predecessor-title-successor" lines, and it needs an entire series of other templates to allow for the creation of a finite number of other table layouts, such as Template:Succession box two to two and Template:Succession box three to one. Some of these templates can be very confusing to the editors, and the series is by definition unable to cover for all the possible structures that may be required by the special needs of individual articles. The results often give out an inelegant image of makeshift solutions and do not promote standardisation.

Additionally, these templates do not cover special cases like the beginnings and endings of titles and various types of vacancies. And, although provision been made for incumbencies, even more templates are needed for them to show in succession boxes and not all different possibilities are covered. The Template:Succession box series is only suited for simple cases of succession, while there are thousands of special cases that demand special treatment. Flexibility is of the utmost importance here.

This is where we come in. We have designed our templates with specialisation in mind, and if you check their workings at our Documentation page you will easily agree that we have to a great extent achieved our goal. With no more than five core templates and six supporting ones, we have managed to create a system that will produce any kind of succession box, with every imaginable layout and with reasonably few restrictions. With the knowledge of a few simple principles, one can craft elaborate tables displaying any kind of successions in a readily comprehensible way.

And the best part is that even the five core templates will suffice for that. The supporting templates exist for the special cases of creations of titles, abolitions of titles, vacancies, incumbencies, usurped titles, and titles in pretence. And even though these eleven templates with their standard parameters can create perfectly good tables suited for most occasions, there are title parameters for use in these same templates that can even further specialise them, elegantly informing the reader of the creation of a political party or the abeyance of a title of nobility without redundant reasoning lines.

Please have a look at our project and its Documentation and Guidelines pages, and you shall see for yourselves that we offer few, simple, easy to remember and use templates that can create adjustable, informative, aesthetically pleasing succession boxes. Add to that the headers that SBS has created and which are already widely used even in boxes with no other S-start series templates, and you will have a great navigational tool in your hands, helpful to editors and readers alike.

So far we have updated a large number of succession boxes to our advanced templates and formatting standards. However, we are badly understaffed and progress is slow. I am asking everyone that may be interested in succession boxes to join us and help us with our cause. Moreover, I propose that WikiProject Peerage should adopt S-start series as their official template system. Due to the very nature of this WikiProject it is obvious that every single article under your "jurisdiction" (with the exception, perhaps, of Life Peers) is going to have a succession box at the bottom, and it is therefore reasonable to say that this project has a great impact on how succession boxes are used. As a result, I request that you should carefully study SBS's templates and guidelines, and think very seriously about switching to our model by promoting it in your main page examples and using it when editing articles. I assure you that these simple steps will make a lot of difference and hasten the transition to S-start series, which is at present regrettably slow.

Well, perhaps I have been meaning to "sell" something to you. But it is, as they say, a "win-win situation", out of which every party can only profit.

Thank you all for your time. It is my firm belief that our WikiProjects can work together, and I hope this co-operation will turn out to be fruitful and to the benefit of Wikipedia as a whole. Waltham, The Duke of 18:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Privilege of Peerage

Privilege of Peerage has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Earls Grey

My Lords, there is an inconsistency between the articles of the fifth and sixth Earls Grey. Is there any one amongst your number that can rectify this error and remove the set of (newly standardised) "conflict" templates from the articles? Waltham, The Duke of 11:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've sorted it. They were second cousins twice removed. Craigy (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Armitstead request

Would someone knowlegable about the Barons Armitstead be willing and able to help in creating an article for George Armitstead, British-Baltic German Mayor of Riga, 1901–1912? Many thanks! — Zalktis 06:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

William Villiers, 10th Earl of Jersey

It seems an editor is consistently trying to remove information from this page on the grounds that the earl himself has asked him to remove it. I was wondering if someone would have a look, especially at the article diffs made by the editor, as I can't see anything that's libellous towards the earl or his family in anyway which needs to be removed. Pure vandalism if you ask me. Thanks, Craigy (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Referencing to the London Gazette

I don't know if members of this project are aware of {{LondonGazette}}, a template I've found useful for making consistent references to the London Gazette. You may also not be aware that there has recently been a chane in the urls used to refer to a specific issue/page of a Gazette, and older links will no longer work. I've been trying to fix them, and if the template is used consistently, it should make future maintenance easier, as the fix will only need to be applied in the template, and all pages will pick it up, rather than having to manually change each page. David Underdown 15:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Help with categorization of Rowland Vaughan

Rowland Vaughan was an English Manoral Lord. According to the Lord article, that is an aristocratic title. Should he be sorted in one of the subcategories of Category:Nobility of the United Kingdom? Thank you for your help! — Ksero (leave me a message, things I've done) 00:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Washington Shirley, 5th Earl Ferrers

I thought you would like to see this. :-D

Basically, I have no idea what to do with it. The closest speedy deletion criterion that actually covers this case is G3, and yet one can only assume that the editor has not mistaken the title and added the content in bad faith. (Although the fact that the second half of the paragraph refers to a different person might point at this direction.)

There is also the possibility that it is copyrighted text, in which case it would be most easily done away with. I have no idea about this kind of things (I am just a poor WikiGnome). Waltham, The Duke of 13:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Defo the wrong person. I've changed the article to match the right chap. Craigy (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean that you have actually written the current content? Wow, you are fast.

As a sidenote, and with the full knowledge that I am about to sound very grumpy: please use S-start series templates for the succession box from now on! Oh, and insert blanks between the dates and their dash. Generally, I think that this project's main page is not exactly ideal as far as succession box style is concerned, so... Well, see next section.

Anyway, thank you for your prompt action. Waltham, The Duke of 17:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Peerage and succession boxes

My Lords, I feel rather distraught by the fact that my message higher in this page has received no answers, and that your project's main page is still promoting antiquated succession templates and succession box styles. We consider it of great importance that the older succession templates of the Template:Succession box series are no longer advertised in order that their continued use can cease and that the templates can be slowly phased out. I have fully analysed the benefits of such a move in my aforementioned message, and I believe in them staunchly enough to be willing to update the succession box examples in your main page for you as soon as such action is approved by WikiProject Peerage. If no answer is given to this message within the following ten days, I will consider it as silent consensus and proceed with the change. As I have said before, this project is way too influential to be left impeding improvements in any sector of Wikipedia, however small these may be, simply because its members have not paid enough attention to this sector; something which is completely understandable, but also quite unacceptable. Thank you for your time. With regards, Waltham, The Duke of 17:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for presenting your suggested improvement. Please do not replace, please add both methods; both should be documented. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for responding. This is a perfectly acceptable compromise. I do feel somewhat uncomfortable, however, with the notion of altering another WikiProject's main page to such an extent, especially since I am at a loss at how exactly I am supposed to do it. Therefore, it might be better for a project member to do it instead (although I remain willing to do it myself if required). In any event, I hereby present you the page's three examples with their templates converted to those of Template:S-start series:

One more suggestion: it might be better if blank spaces were inserted between the dates and their corresponding en-dashes in the already existing examples. As this is a style guideline, it is irrelevant from the selection of templates. Now, with this issue (almost?) solved—may your gracious Lordship be blessed with a long and healthy life for this—I shall now proceed with a proposal (again, as you can guess, related to succession boxes). Waltham, The Duke of 00:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I've got the message. I will attempt and find a compromising formula; when I do, I shall post it here for confirmation. Waltham, The Duke of 13:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. With a delay, due to a heavy schedule, I suggest this version for section 2.3, titled "Succession", of the WikiProject Peerage main page:

Succession to peerages should be shown by succession boxes, which are created by the appropriate templates (see Template:S-start and Template:Succession box). All peerages with different predecessors or successors should have individual boxes, as should those held at different dates. For example:

Titles should be listed in descending order of seniority (in contrast to succession boxes for offices, which are listed in ascending chronological order).

Succession boxes for offices, when these are held by peers, should refer to them by title, masking a link to the actual article. The style used is "The Earl of Somewhere", "The Lord Elsewhere", etc. In cases where this is ambiguous, where offices have been held successively by successive holder of the same title, the numeral should be added:

For more specific examples, see Template talk:Succession box. See also the guidelines on succession boxes here, which also include examples for peers.

I should like to believe that this is a good compromise between the two styles; by looking at the edit window you will see that both models are used for the boxes. I subject this sample to your scrutiny and consideration and I hope that it shall be approved for display. I still aspire to the further improvement of our templates and guidelines, so that s-start will eventually become the primary choice of succession templates. Waltham, The Duke of 22:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought you would like to comment. Well, if there is no opposition, I shall change the page in five days' time; the proposal has lingered here long enough. Waltham, The Duke of 15:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

With a slight delay, in regards with my comment above, I have implemented the change to the "Succession" section about peerages (with no deviation whatsoever); I have also changed the corresponding "Succession" section about baronets. I hope you are happy with the present state of the page. Waltham, The Duke of 11:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Extended peer and baronet disambiguation criteria for succession boxes

For two different peers with the same title (or baronets with the same name) that are met as the predecessor and successor respectively to an article's subject in an office, there is the practice of adding numerals in order to disambiguate between them in a succession box. However, there is another, rarer but similar state of affairs which has been, I am afraid, overlooked. Namely, the instance of two different peers with the same title (or baronets with the same name) being present in a single succession box but without necessarily being involved with the same office or title. I ask the noble Lords: does this situation not create the exact same confusion as the one for which measures have been taken? Does this situation not need to be addressed? An example of the predicament which I have just described can be found in the article of Henry Devereux, 14th Viscount Hereford; I have already applied the proposed solution, and it can temporarily serve as a sample—before any definite decision is taken. Just think of it. Regards, Waltham, The Duke of 00:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello? Is anyone watching this page? I find it hard to believe that the subject is that boring. Waltham, The Duke of 14:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You're doing just fine. - Kittybrewster ☎ 14:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been doing the same thing, as far as I can tell. I see no problem with it. Choess 15:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Great. It is settled then; I shall talk to the members of my project. There should be no problem amending the guidelines to accommodate this little change.

Stay tuned, for I have more ideas to propose, and I will do so in the near future. Waltham, The Duke of 16:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the proposal has also been approved by WikiProject Succession Box Standardization. The relevant discussion can be found here and the appropriate amendments to the Guidelines have already been made. Waltham, The Duke of 17:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

H.M.L?

With regard to Lord Brookeborough:

I have in my possession an official document with Brooke's full title printed on it. It reads as follows (caps as written):

“ THE RT. HON. THE VISCOUNT BROOKEBOROUGH, K.G., C.B.E., H.M.L., M.P. ”

Punctuation here is as presented on the document. Shouldn't the article reflect that? The document is dated 26th January, 1967.

Does anyone know what H.M.L. stands for? --Setanta 10:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought the abbreviation was "Rt Hon."? I am asking because I have removed the full stop of "Rt." from a couple of articles' infoboxes. Waltham, The Duke of 12:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't know what the official document actually is but IMHO a lot of official documents aren't always 100% accurate when it comes to styles and abbreviations. Most of the compilers tend to look at what is in current use on other documents in front of them, rather than at style guides that give the correct form, and so errors just get compounded. Timrollpickering 12:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This makes sense. In any case, the initial question seems to have been answered in the article itself (somehow): Lord Lieutenant. H.M.L. can plausibly be attributed to "Her Majesty's Lieutenant" (for the country blah blah). Waltham, The Duke of 16:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Lord Lieutenants were officially (in letters patent) designated "HM Lieutenant"; the title of "Lord Lieutenant," while used in the vernacular since Elizabethan times, did not become the formal name of the office until 1974. Choess 15:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

History of the Peerage

History of the Peerage has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Date conflict: 1879 or 1892?

The article for James Innes-Ker, 7th Duke of Roxburghe conflicts the article Duke of Roxburgh, as well as its own succession box and that of the subject's heir. Can anyone please find out when he died? Waltham, The Duke of 14:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Someone copied his father's box and forgot to change the date. Choess 15:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I take it that the correct date is 1892 (as in the list and the updated article); the box now reads "1897", so I will correct this at once. Thanks! Waltham, The Duke of 16:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael Abney-Hastings, claimant for the throne of England

I was looking at the Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun article, it says that he was born in "Britain" before moving to Australia, but it doesn't say specifically where. It mentions that he studied at Ampleforth College a secondary school in North Yorkshire, but I can't find any more information on his specific birth place? - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

HALP

Hello all you lovely peerage enthusiasts, it's Dan, from WikiProject British Royalty here! We could do with some advice on how to DEFAULTSORT peers and courtesy peers. Cheers! DBD 12:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)