Talk:Baron Neville

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Royalty and Nobility

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of royalty and nobility on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Royalty and NobilityWikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityTemplate:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityRoyalty and Nobility articles

John Neville, 1st Baron Neville de Raby[edit]

I deleted the entry for John Neville, 1st Baron Neville de Raby, as he was not Baron Neville de Raby, and the page was redirected several weeks ago to John Neville, Baron Neville. I'm not certain what if anything should be done for the entry immediately following the deletion, which is for Ralph Neville, 2nd Baron Neville de Raby. NinaGreen (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Neville "of Raby" in 1295 and 1459[edit]

This article should be renamed to "Baron Neville", keeping in line with both the The Complete Peerage and the ODNB. The term "de Raby" appears nowhere in sources and should be dropped. Furthermore, the CP and other sources make it clear that the Neville titles of 1295 and 1459 are creations of the same barony, rather than different titles, and thus belong in the same wikipedia page. A disruptive user has recently been removing all sources I recently added and arbitrarily reverting to a 10-year-old version replete with errors and lacking in sources (he did not even take the time to select and remove only the parts that bothered him). He apparently thought that the 1295 and 1459 creations of the title were actually different titles – but the years-old version to which he reverted itself does not support his thesis. Aforst1 (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]