Talk:Baron Rich

Change use
I've cancelled the re-direct and added text about this one from the Earl of Warwick page, as it's too cluttered over there and it seems reasonable to have separate pages for different institutions. Swanny18 (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Page blanking
I see this page has been blanked and replaced with a redirect, without any discussion or prior notice, and with very little explanation that I can see. There was no notice of a deletion, nor of a merger, and nothing has been added to the target page from this one. So I have put the text back per WP:BRD, and the discussion is here. Would anyone care to give an argument for what has happened here? Swanny18 (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have now moved the material on the barony of Rich to the Earl of Warwick article. The Baron Rich is now a redirect. All according to the normal standards used for peerage articles. Tryde (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I know what you "have now" done, as I had to undo it; what I asked was, why you did it. How exactly do the "normal standards used for peerage pages" give you the right to merge/delete a page without any explanation or prior agreement, and without reference to the merge or delete guidelines? Swanny18 (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There are guidelines for the layout and structure of peerage articles here. We don't have separate articles for every peerage - as in the case of Baron Rich this is merged into the higher title of Earl of Warwick. See Earl of Kimberley, Marquess of Salisbury, Viscount Allendale for examples of this - in fact look at any peerage article to see how this system is used. There are exceptions to this rule in the case where a younger titled branch of a family have inherited a senior peerage and where the junior title have a substantial history in its own right, such as Earl of Cardigan or Earl Talbot - in these cases we have separate articles for these peerages. In the case of the barony of Rich there were only two holders before the third Baron was made Earl of Warwick - this makes it a very straightforward case where the article on the barony should be included in the article on the earldom. It would be different if there had been two creations of the barony - we would then have a separate article on the barony where the reader interested in the barony of 1537 would be referred to the Earl of Warwick article. I hope this explains the system used. Tryde (talk) 08:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your explanation and for the link to the peerage guidelines, though I cannot really see how they help your argument. It says there “Titles should only share articles when one is totally connected to the other” which isn’t the case here; the barony existed for two/three generations before being promoted to an earldom. Otherwise, it says “there should be separate articles”.
 * And the point of not having all the preceding baronies on the Earl of Warwick page is because it makes the page so cluttered; There are four different creations of the earldom of Warwick, with links to half-a-dozen different titles; lumping them all together is a recipe for confusion. We don’t put all the information on different examples of the same name all together on one page anywhere (towns called Warwick for example, or ships called Warwick): There may well be some logic to putting all examples of one title on the same page (like Baron Kensington, or Duke of Bedford), or all titles connected in linear fashion to each other, (as with Earl of Kimberley), but none at all in mixing both schemes together.
 * But my main objection here was the way you went about it; might I suggest that, if you still want to do this, you would be better served making a merge proposal and see if your intentions gather any support. That would give you a bit of a mandate for what you want to do; otherwise it'll just be you and me arguing about it. Swanny18 (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See my comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. I have now changed the layout of the Earl of Warwick article so that it is hopefully a littler easier to understand - I agree that it was cluttered. I now suggest that Baron Rich becomes a redirect to the section on the 1618 creation - like this: #REDIRECT Earl of Warwick . I hope you see this as a good compromise. Tryde (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Or, we could simply leave this page, the Baron Brooke page and the layout of the Earl of Warwick page alone, trim the extraneous material at EoW and put in a couple of main article tags.
 * And editing to move the goalposts in the middle of a discussion is a bit out of order, don’t you think? Swanny18 (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

As I just commented over at the talk for EoW, this discussion is getting quite hard to follow as it's broken up into parts; can any potential participants please join in at the WT:PEER discussion. Ta. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   11:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)