Fred Bauder wrote:
This is a difficult problem. If they deserve an article
they have probably
done something under their name (without title), but we have a faction that
honestly believes that all members of the titled British nobility deserve an
article based on their title. Long ago someone said, "Well, they appear in
Who's Who"
Just to play devil's advocate for a minute, the main reason people seem
to be arguing for the titular naming scheme is that some people were
known primarily by their titles ("The 1st Duke of ...") rather than by
their names, some were known by either, and the whole mess is best
sorted out by just using "Firstname Lastname, Their Title" consistently.
While I can see the reason people might want a standardized naming
scheme like that, I think it detracts from readability and makes some
articles just ridiculous. The article on [[Bertrand Russell], for
example, should very clearly appear there, *not* at [[Bertrand Russell,
3rd Earl of Russell]], a name by which he was rarely if ever known, and
a name he did not use when signing his writings. But this is exactly
what the current proposal would mandate. Though I personally plan to
keep [[Bertrand Russell]] at that location, regardless of the outcome of
the current vote, as I don't recognize the authority of
Wikiproject:peerage over such general-purpose articles as [[Bertrand
Russell]].
-Mark