Category talk:Baronets

Article naming - previous discussions
This may be helpful to those discussing these issues:

From Talk:Sir Henry Chamberlain, 1st Baronet. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Should the title include an honourific like "Sir"?--Vintagekits 18:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * One cannot be a baronet without being addressed as 'Sir'. It is like you and I being addressed as 'Mr'. I can see no reason for the prods you have put up. It states quite clearly at the bottom of the page that this is a stub and so calls for help. What is the purpose of going overboard here? David Lauder 21:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no sources so therefore proof of notablility that is why I added a prod. Also, as fair as I know th MOS doesnt use Sir in the title.--Vintagekits 21:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Untrue. A very notable source is cited. David Lauder 08:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * With barons this even is required, if the baronetcy is used. See Manual_of_Style_%28biographies%29, number four for this. Greetings Phoe  talk 22:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if I am wrong, but my interpreation of that is the Sir should not be used in the title of the page but should be used in the article text. Is this right?--Vintagekits 12:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You are wrong.Naming_conventions_%28names_and_titles%29 No 4 applies. Honorific not Honourific. - Kittybrewster 12:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits is correct. Point 4, cited, reads in full:
 * Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives, follow the same practice as hereditary peers and should have their title noted in the beginning of the article. The format is Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet. For the article title, this format should only be used when disambiguation is necessary; otherwise, the article should be located at John Smith. . John Smith, 17th Baronet should never be used with the postfix and without the prefix. [my underline, bold and italics]

There is no disambiguation necessary, as Henry Chamberlain redirects to this article anyway. Therefore the article should be located at Henry Chamberlain. The title should be noted at the beginning of the article, which it is.

In order to conform to the naming requirement stipulation for article titles, I have moved it back to Henry Chamberlain.

Tyrenius 03:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a complication here, as there are two people called Sir Henry Chamberlain (in fact I think there is at least one more after them). This suggests there might be a requirement for a disambiguation page, unless this is the individual whose article is most likely to be searched for, in which case the present arrangement would suffice with the disambiguation note at the top of this article. Tyrenius 01:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have created a disamb page. - Kittybrewster 11:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I can make out the article should by Henry Chamberlain, 1st Baronet and not -Sir Henry Chamberlain, 1st Baronet - am I right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vintagekits (talk • contribs) 03:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

No and the answer is already above - but I will repeat it for you: ''The format is Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet. For the article title, this format should only be used when disambiguation is necessary; otherwise, the article should be located at John Smith. John Smith, 17th Baronet should never be used with the postfix and without the prefix.'' (see also Naming_conventions_%28names_and_titles%29) Phoe  talk 04:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

MOS - The naming of Baronets - article title

 * 1. Alexander Lauder is preferred to Sir Alexander Lauder, 4th Baronet.
 * 2. Alexander Lauder, 4th Baronet is always wrong.
 * 3. Alexander Horace Lauder is a possibility (unless there are two or more of them) but if he was generally known as Sir Alexander and not generally known by his two forenames, then Sir Alexander Lauder, 4th Baronet is preferable.
 * 4.  Where there are two or more Sir John Smith, 2nd Baronets, they may be distinguished by their territorial designation (e.g. of Hackney Marshes) or by their occupation, e.g. (admiral) - Kittybrewster 15:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I agree with this
 * 2) I now see why this isnt used so agree with that also.
 * 3) I disagree with this because it is, A) more confusing to have  Sir Alexander Lauder, 1st Baronet, Sir Alexander Lauder, 2nd Baronet, Sir Alexander Lauder, 3rd Baronet, Sir Alexander Lauder, 4th Baronet etc than using a unique middle name, B) if one is known more as Sir Alexander then by their middle name then it is reasonable to assume that they all were known as Sir Alex - even more confusing and how do you prove that, C) if they have individual middle names that would distinguish them for others with similar names then that is the name that should be used.
 * 4) Agree.--Vintagekits 16:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The assumption is that a person uses his first name unless anybody knows better or differently. The expectation is that you would look up Sir Alexander Lauder, 4th Baronet rather than Alexander Horace Lauder in that you would know he was the first Baronet but probably wouldn't know his middle name was Horace. If there are two or more Smith Baronetcies then you can look up Smith Baronets to find out which one you need. And if there are two John Smiths, there should be a disambiguation page. - Kittybrewster 16:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Vintagekits, point 3 is taken from Naming conventions (names and titles), and mirrors the guidance at Manual of Style %28biographies%29. If I understand correctly what you have written above, then you disagree with those guidelines ... in which case you are free to seek to have the guidelines changed.  But it doesn't seem to me to be helpful to argue for breaching the guidelines.  --BrownHairedGirl (talk)  • (contribs) 18:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)