For example, we have Edward Stanley, the 14th Earl of Derby and Edward Stanley, the 15th Earl of Derby.
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) might suggest these should be [[Edward, 14th Earl of Derby]] and [[Edward, 15th Earl of Derby]].
Or, it should be [[Earl of Derby]] and [[Edward, 15th Earl of Derby]]. The 14th Earl of Derby was Prime Minister, and arguably moreso *The* [[Earl of Derby]] than the 15th Earl of Derby.
I must say I dislike this, because there are plenty of minor conflicts of fact to sort out in research of a given century without having to chase down every Lord Halifax to ascertain whether they are *The* [[Lord Halifax]] for all centuries.
Appeals for "consistency" may have been blown away in debate on city names, but I've more important things to do than play favorites between this Lord Halifax and that Lord Halifax.
In no case is it [[Edward Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby]] and [[Edward Stanley, 15th Earl of Derby]]. "English-speakers do not put family names as part of the title."
Meanwhile, [[Thomas Stanley, 1st Earl of Derby]] redirects to [[Thomas Stanley]]...
At 04:44 23/09/02 -0500, Tesla Coil wrote:
In no case is it [[Edward Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby]] and [[Edward Stanley, 15th Earl of Derby]]. "English-speakers do not put family names as part of the title."
...which is quite clearly untrue, at least when referring in formal terms to historical figures. The Dictionary of National Biography, for example, lists peers by their family name, as in: CAVENDISH, Spencer Compton, Marquis of Hartington and 8th Duke of Devonshire.
There is an alternative proposal which may be more to Tesla Coil's liking at [[Wikipedia:History standards]], which is to use the full name, ordinal and title. I don't think this should take precedence over to "common names" rule in cases like [[Duke of Wellington]] or [[Bertrand Russell]], and it does tend to make entry titles rather long, but it is the best way to clearly identify a specific titled individual. Thus we would have [[Spencer Cavendish, 8th Duke of Devonshire]] for the chap named above, no matter what it says in [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)]]. This seems the best way forward to me (for UK peerages, at least), but while I'm willing to be bold in updating pages, I don't want to be too bold in updating conventions. I've only been in this thing for four days, after all.
Rob
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 09:34:44AM +0100, Rob Brewer wrote:
Thus we would have [[Spencer Cavendish, 8th Duke of Devonshire]]
It seems to me a better alternative would be [[Spencer Cavendish]] (assuming no other Spencer Cavendish has an article) and a [[8th Duke of Devonshire]] redirect to it. It makes it easier to find the page.
At 11:22 25/09/02 +0100, you wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 09:34:44AM +0100, Rob Brewer wrote:
Thus we would have [[Spencer Cavendish, 8th Duke of Devonshire]]
It seems to me a better alternative would be [[Spencer Cavendish]] (assuming no other Spencer Cavendish has an article)
Not that I know of. The family does have a plague of Williams that might require disambiguation if more than one was consdiered article-worthy. Most sources that use his personal name at all use the full "Spencer Compton Cavendish", which may be a better choice. To complicate matters, for most of his political career he was known by the courtesy title Marquess of Hartington.
and a [[8th Duke of Devonshire]] redirect to it. It makes it easier to find the page.
Thanks for the advice.
Rob
On Wed, 2002-09-25 at 09:34, Rob Brewer wrote:
At 04:44 23/09/02 -0500, Tesla Coil wrote:
In no case is it [[Edward Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby]] and [[Edward Stanley, 15th Earl of Derby]]. "English-speakers do not put family names as part of the title."
...which is quite clearly untrue, at least when referring in formal terms to historical figures. The Dictionary of National Biography, for example, lists peers by their family name, as in: CAVENDISH, Spencer Compton, Marquis of Hartington and 8th Duke of Devonshire.
I think Tesla was referring to that specific standard form of quoting a title, where I believe he's correct - you would indeed *not* cite the surname in that particular formulation.
At 19:06 25/09/02 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2002-09-25 at 09:34, Rob Brewer wrote:
At 04:44 23/09/02 -0500, Tesla Coil wrote:
In no case is it [[Edward Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby]] and [[Edward Stanley, 15th Earl of Derby]]. "English-speakers do not put family names as part of the title."
...which is quite clearly untrue, at least when referring in formal terms to historical figures. The Dictionary of National Biography, for example, lists peers by their family name, as in: CAVENDISH, Spencer Compton, Marquis of Hartington and 8th Duke of Devonshire.
I think Tesla was referring to that specific standard form of quoting a title, where I believe he's correct - you would indeed *not* cite the surname in that particular formulation.
I may have misunderstood Tesla... I understood Tesla to be quoting from [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)]], and took it as a complaint. I'll look in to the convention when I have time.
Rob
On 25 Sept 2002, Rob Brewer wrote:
In no case is it [[Edward Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby]] and [[Edward Stanley, 15th Earl of Derby]]. "English-speakers do not put family names as part of the title."
...which is quite clearly untrue, at least when referring in formal terms to historical figures. The Dictionary of National Biography, for example, lists peers by their family name, as in: CAVENDISH, Spencer Compton, Marquis of Hartington and 8th Duke of Devonshire.
I think Tesla was referring to that specific standard form of quoting a title, where I believe he's correct - you would indeed *not* cite the surname in that particular formulation.
I may have misunderstood Tesla... I understood Tesla to be quoting from [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)]], and took it as a complaint. I'll look in to the convention when I have time.
I was quoting [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)]], but only as a citation of what seems to be Wikipedia "Legal Code" on entry titles.
I considered referring to Oxford's Dictionary of National Biography in this context myself, but I'm not certain how much it helps on the issue. There, you'll have an entry WATSON-WENTWORTH, CHARLES, second Marquis of Rockingham - but other articles will name him as Lord Rockingham, or simply Rockingham, no Charles Watson-Wentworth about it. On whether the Wikipedia entry title should be [[Lord Rockingham]] or [[Charles Watson-Wentworth]] this could argue for either position. About all I can say of it is that anyone finding [[Charles Watson-Wentworth|Lord Rockingham]] too inconvenient or complicated to write in an article would the more easily surrender before the task of navigating the Dictionary of National Biography in writing said article.
Returning to "English-speakers do not put family names as part of the title." Looking through a biography last night, I noticed it included a portrait identified as "John Montagu, Earl of Sandwich." The book was published in Great Britain, and though I suppose that no guarantee it adheres to Queen's English, I have my doubts this is anything of a hard and fast rule.
The real question here is whether to recognize that Edward Stanley, the 14th Earl of Derby is for many persons *The* [[Earl of Derby]], or that the [[Earl of Derby]] is a *title* that has been conferred to many persons and that its movement may prove history by itself.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org