User talk:Tryde/Archive 5

MaxMux

A lot of his articles are indeed near-useless stubs. Many of his recent ones are redirectable, although I'd avoid doing so with the life peers. Essentially if an article is never likely to consist of more than "he was born, he got a title, he got married, his wife popped out some kids, he died", redirect. Ironholds (talk) 07:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. In future you're welcome to do it as well - while I'm the "go-to" guy here for Max, minor stuff like that doesn't need to be run past me. Ironholds (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Baron Rotherwick

Why have you deleted the 3rd Baron Rotherwick's involvement in motorcycling? As a patron of the National Association for Bikers with a Disability he has given huge support to the charity, allowing it to hold one of its fund-raising rallies in his deer park each September for several years. It is a matter of record that his generosity has made a major contribution to the growth and success of the NABD, which is now the leading charity for disabled motorcyclists in the World. I am minded to revert your edit, but I would prefer to read your views first. Motacilla (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I assumed it was included in the article on him, which it wasn't. I have now added the material to the article on the 3rd Baron. It shouldn't be included in the article on the peerage. Tryde (talk) 07:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for doing that. Trust me to have put the paragraph on the wrong "Baron Rotherwick" page in the first place! If you're interested in aristocracy, please could you check an article I've just written on the village of Chesterton, Oxfordshire? I've included a paragraph about the history of the overlordship of the manor, but I found it hard to distil the essential details from the Victoria County History and match them to all the articles about past barons, earls and dukes on Wikipedia. If I've made any mistakes I would be grateful if someone would spot them and put me right. Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Everything seems correct to me. The link to Sir John Williams led to a disambiguation page, so I changed that. Regards, Tryde (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

hi

I see you are renaming and retitling a lot of articles. As there are no edit summaries its difficult to see why. Is there a new policy? Could you explain the advantage? Victuallers (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see I have renamed three articles today. Katharine Fraser, Mistress of Saltoun - it is customary to include courtesy titles in article titles. Whether she meets the notability criteria is another matter. Peter Mitchell-Thomson, 2nd Baron Selsdon - it is customary to include peerage titles in article titles. If someone has evidence that he was known solely as Peter Mitchell-Thomson, I would happily accept this article title. Sir Mitchell Mitchell-Thomson, 1st Baronet - this was his legal name. Tryde (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure legal names are important. For example Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher have titles but their articles are simple names. If your sure you're in line with policy then fine ... Victuallers (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Re-directed multiple articles

Hi Tryde, I'm wondering why you re-directed 10 articles yesterday, saying that they are non-notable. Has there been a discussion on this? I looked at two articles, Ceawlin Thynn, Viscount Weymouth and William Bentinck, Viscount Woodstock, and found that multiple pages link to them. Please explain, :-) Maedin\^talk 08:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

To me they don't meet the notability criteria. In The Evening Standard article on Lord Weymouth we learn that he cleaned the toilets in a night club and that his father has many lovers. The Daily Telegraph link leads to the main web site. The third external link has presumably been added by the subject himself. Does investing in a hotel scheme in Russia make you notable? Weymouth's name is not even mentioned in the fourth external link. As for the article on Lord Woodstock, the external link informs us that he is interested in photography. I'm sure these are two fine young men but I can't see how they meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Maybe we should bring the two articles to Afd. Tryde (talk) 09:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

re: More peers

I can understand why the first one caused problems, he seems notable enough in his own right. Tennyson should probably be kept, Spenser is worthy of further investigation, Dángen and Tolemach need further investigation, Macpherson is certainly notable, as is Bathurst (a bencher at Lincoln's Inn? Probably quite successful as a barrister in that case) and Brougham is probably worth investigating. The rest can go hang. Ironholds (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Dalkeith and Ronaldshay can be kept, the rest can sod off. You might want to smack Charles Carnegie, Lord Carnegie while you're at it. Ironholds (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs

Hi Tryde, I'm currently writing an article about Henry Unwin Addington and have found in this connection an inconsistency, of which I hope you can help me with. Dod's Peerage lists Addington as Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs from 1842 to 1854, an appointment Haydn's List of Dignities endorses. The article Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at Wikipedia, which you had heavily expanded with dates and succession back in 2007, however misses Addington as well as others mentioned at Haydn's List. Futhermore Haydn writes of two simultaneous serving under-secretaries in the Foreign Office (at least until 1851), while the list you had compiled indicates only one such position. So may I ask what your source was for this and whether it could be possible that this source was incomplete or that you had misinterpreted it? Best wishes

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 16:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see Addington was the Permanent Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (i. e. a civil servant), not the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and is included in the former article. Regards, Tryde (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah thanks, that was the link I had searched, but have not found. However after a short overview I'm still a little bit confused ... see for example that John Planta is listed in both articles in 1817 or that Culling Charles Smith replaced Charles Bagot as Parliamentary Under-Secretary and William Richard Hamilton replaced George Hammond as Permanted Under-Secretary, while in Haydn's list Culling Charles Smith replaced George Hammond and William Richard Hamilton replaced Charles Bagot ... so are both lists in some parts perhaps mixed together ?

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 17:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

They appear to be mixed somehow, at least until 1822. I don't have any sources so I can't be of any help here. I suggest you use the sources you have. Tryde (talk) 06:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• A note: Haydn can actually be pretty inaccurate, as I found out using that as a source for judicial appointments. Ironholds (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Chief Secretary for Ireland and other lists

Hi, would it bother you to remove the images again - on one side they pretify the article/s of course, on the other side they make the article/s extremely long and especially for users with slow internet connections badly viewable (the more images, the more mass of data a browser has to load). Please consider also that the images might rather belong to the specific articles about the individual incumbents then to what should initially only be a overview of them. Greetings

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 12:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would bother me to remove the images. Tryde (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the advice Tryde. Obviously I am not very wiki savy. Should I apologize on that page or no? Again thanks for pointing it out to me. Daytrivia (talk) 00:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

London Gazette

Hi Tryde, may I inform you, that a template for links to the London (Belfast and Edinburgh) Gazette exists - see {{LondonGazette}}. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 18:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Schuster

Tweak as you will, then, but I disagree completely with the infobox point on Haldane. "Lord Haldane" is the title used when referring to his actions and work as Lord Chancellor, not Viscount Haldane. Is there something MOS-y related to this that could shed light? Ironholds (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

by "tweak" I meant "edit the article" :). The peerage/baronetage guideline seems to apply to the mention of Lord X in the article on Lord X, not to mentions of lord X in the infoboxes in other articles. I'd suggest "Lord Haldane" is more appropriate, myself. Shall I bring it up there so as to get some clarification on it? Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought before I bring it up, actually - doesn't succession boxes refer to the bitties at the bottom of an article, not the infobox? Ironholds (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll bring it up at the peerage talkpage - give me a tick. Ironholds (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:Emily Cecil, Marchioness of Salisbury

Hi Tryde. Sorry for the late reply. Thank you for the consideration. I've made a start at User:Craigy144/ECMS and will what work on it more when I get a chance. Feel free to edit that page too. Regards, Craigy (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Cecil Harcourt

Thanks for contributing the pic! Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles

Ta a bunch - I had the TFA a few days ago, which was fun :). As before, no problem - feel free to send me similar cases in future. Me and Moonriddengirl just helped deal with a lot of FFs problematic editing (direct copyvios from the ODNB are not taken well) so this is just covering old ground for me. Indeed, I redirected a few similar articles on the same grounds. It will be interesting when the new Constitutional Amendment Act (or whatever they're calling it) comes in, since such people will no longer be covered by WP:POLITICIAN (joy). Frederick Ponsonby, Viscount Duncannon can be redirected (courtesy title, no achievements), Sir Christopher Nugent, 6th Baronet too (I note you've already done that). Assuming Charles Devereux, 19th Viscount Hereford isn't a member of the Lords as a result of his title, feel free to whack that one too. Ironholds (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, I thought FF had retired. Be careful of WP:3RR; if there are reverts, set up a discussion with him and give me a poke so I can chip in. Ironholds (talk) 12:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Cork would pass WP:POLITICIAN, yes. Ironholds (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council

Hello, Tryde. You have new messages at Phoe's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Whips in the Lords

I notice in several of the articles on Captains of the Gentlemen at Arms and Yeomen of the Guard you've described these offices' holders as respectively Government Chief Whips and Deputy Chief Whips in the House of Lords. The Lords' Government Chief Whip has only regularly captained the Gentlemen at Arms since 1945, and the Deputy Chief Whip the Yeomen of the Guard from that date or later - Lord Templemore was Government Chief Whip and Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard 1940-45. (See David Butler and Gareth Butler, Twentieth Century British Political Facts'.) Opera hat (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have probably been a bit careless here. In the future I'll just state that they served as Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms or as Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard. Would it be possible for you to add who served as chief whip in the House of Lords in the articles on British governments? Tryde (talk) 09:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can do. But what about the case of Lord Ribblesdale, who was Chief Whip in the Lords Dec 05 - May 07, but didn't hold a ministerial office? Should he still be included along with the government office-holders at Liberal Government 1905–1915? Opera hat (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I certainly think so. After all he played an active role in the government unlike, from what I understand, some other offices (such as the Lord Chamberlain or Lord Steward) that were only nominally part of the government. I'm not UK or US based and don't have access to any good sources, so I can't contribute much here. It would be great if you could add this information to the government articles. Tryde (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

House of Sutherland-Leveson-Gower

I agree with what you said in the message you sent me about renaming the article and category to Leveson-Gower family I only stumbled on this category by chance and realised a lot of it was nonsense Ive noticed also a lot of Jansma's contributions in other categories have been reverted or deleted. Penrithguy (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I see Jansmas been at it again perhaps a warning is needed. Id love to hear his explaination for Princess Margaret being a member of the Leveson-Gower family Penrithguy (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sherston-Baker Baronets

The third name of the 4th Bart was Dunstan per thepeerage.com and Dundas per leighrayment.com and wiki. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Kittybrewster. Nice to see that you're back editing baronet articles. I found two on-line soruces, [1] and [2], indicating that Dunstan is correct. In the second source you can see that his son was named Dunstan, and I think it's safe to assume that his father used the same name. I don't have access to any other sources but I'm going to change his name in the article. Well spotted! Just goes to show that we're over-reliant on Rayment. Tryde (talk) 08:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly neither Debrett's Baronetage 1893, Who's Who 1914, Dod's Baronetage 1915, County Families 1919 nor Whitaker's Baronetage 1921 show his second and third surname - only Armorial Families 1895 and The Complete Baronetage 1900 refer to him as George Edward Dunstan Sherston Baker. By the way especially regarding the territorial designations of baronetcies I've experienced that Rayment differs often from the notifactions in the London Gazette. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 10:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

We can agree that he was named Dunstan not Dundas, then. I think all territorial designations on Rayment's page should be taken with a pinch of salt, especially the ones where holders were raised to the peerage. Tryde (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Your removal of numerous stubs by redirecting them

Today, for example, you redirected ten stubs for Earls of Kildare to Earl of Kildare, stating in your summaries that they were all non notable. These included Thomas FitzGerald, 7th Earl of Kildare, whom you apparently consider to be a non-notable Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and George FitzGerald, 16th Earl of Kildare, who has articles in the Dictionary of National Biography and the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.

You then proceeded to redirect Earl of Kildare to Duke of Leinster.

In most cases, you do not merge the contents of the redirected pages, which surely would be the outcome if you were to propose a merger by tagging with {{merge}}.

Would you please explain your authority for determining that stubs should be deleted by being turned into redirects to more general pages? For each page redirected in the past week, would you please say what research you did to establish "non notability" and also why you consider that you do not need to follow normal procedures? Moonraker2 (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I feel like a schoolboy being lectured... For someone who's only been on Wikipedia since June you're sure taking a tone... Let me explain myself. The articles I redirected were not even stubs or properly wikified. The material was copied directly from thepeerage.com. I get tired of seeing useless stubs on peers with only basic genealogical information and often redirect these to the relevant peerage article.

However, having now taken a closer look at the Earls of Kildare I admit that I have been a bit careless in this case. The 7th and 16th earls like you say are notable. The 5th earl also appears to be notable as he served as Justiciar of Ireland, the 12th earl was a prominent soldier, the 17th and 18th earls were MPs and are therefore automatically notable and the 19th earl as Lord Justice of Ireland is also notable. I will revert these redirects and expand the articles. With the limited information I have I can't see that any of the other earls should be worthy of Wikipedia articles (the 3rd and 15th earls died as children, for example).

I'm not sure that keeping the articles in their present states is a better solution to redirecting them. On the one hand you can say they are stubs that can be expanded, on the other hand the links are likely to annoy users who expect a blue link to lead them to articles on something useful and interesting, and not to articles with only very basic information on who the person married and who his/her parents were.

As for redirecting Earl of Kildare to Duke of Leinster, this is the standard for peerage pages. Earl of Exeter redirects to Marquess of Exeter, Earl of Huntly redirects to Marquess of Huntly, and so on. I will try to expand the Duke of Leinster article in the coming days and explain the descent of the titles. Tryde (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)