Talk:Fiona Shackleton

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a clear consensus here that this article should not be moved at the moment. The consensus here is that the exception in WP:NCPEER applies because, at the moment, there is no evidence that she will use her title. Suggest another requested move be started should evidence she is using the title emerges because then this consensus becomes invalid. Dpmuk (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Fiona Shackleton → Fiona Shackleton, Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia — per WP:NCPEER. She has recently been made a life peer, and per WP:NCPEER we use titles for peers. She had achieved some notability under her ordinary name as a solicitor, but her law firm now uses the title. Her situation is analogous to that of Helena Kennedy, Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws, who was notable long before she received a peerage, but is now widely known as "Baroness Kennedy" or "Baroness Helena Kennedy". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Fiona Shackelton is currently widely known as just Fiona Shackleton. If in the future she becomes more commonly known by the peerage then that will be grounds for moving the article title. This is not a Crystal Ball and as such the current common name must be taken as the article title, and not some name which could become the subjects common name, sometime during the rest the subjects life.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Lucie-Marie's comment ignores the existence of WP:NCPEER, which is one of more than 60 topic-specific article-naming guidelines. All those guidelines have achieved consensus, and they exist to clarify the application of the general guidance at WP:TITLE. The subject guidelines serve an important purpose, by helping the development of stable and consistent names for articles. Lucie-Marie has made it clear that she does not like the existing guidelines, but unilaterally dismissing a guidelines out of hand dismisses the policy of WP:CONSENSUS by which they were formed. If she wants to seek a change in the guidelines, she should make a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The naming convention is just that a convention and a guideline. There will always be exceptions to guidelines. The common name policy is a policy and policies have precedence over guidelines. Also is a convention has been established for 60seerate topics what's the point of the common name policy if it is just going to be ignored. The common name policy explicitly states the following Article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic. Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name,...
 * IF the peerage title becomes the common name then that is grounds for changing the title but to so blatantly ignores Wikipedia policy is ludicrous.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What you are saying is, in effect, that only WP:NAME matters and the 60 guidelines can be ignored because they are only guidelines. You should therefore nominate all the Wikipedia guidelines for deletion, because clearly they are pointless when all we need is Lucie-Marie's interpretation of policy. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)


 * Comment - What I am saying is that the common name policy is being ignored and only the Naming convention guidelines are being taken into account. I am simply trying to have both taken into account and not one or the other. In this case I believe the common name policy is the more relevant.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:NCPEER. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  21:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment' - Would you mind elaborating please, as to how the naming convention is relevant to this issue and what points of the naming convention are the grounds for your argument.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. No. I have answered at Dee Doocey. You are just trying to scatter the text. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  21:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Each request is unique and the arguments used on one request cannot be used on another unless they are explicitly made on that individual request. In this case there will be some repetition with regards to similar requests the same users are involved in.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Members of the British Peerage, whether hereditary peers or life peers, usually have their articles titled "Personal name, Ordinal (if appropriate) Peerage title", e.g. Alun Gwynne Jones, Baron Chalfont" Kittybrewster   &#9742;  21:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose using WP:NCPEER is introducing WP:PEACOCK to the article title for someone known by a WP:COMMONNAME that is not the title. 184.144.170.217 (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Hardly. She was not a peer - now she is. No pretention about it. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  11:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment She is not known as a peer though she is though known as a barrister and a solicitor for her her work in the legal profession.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. never known as a barrister. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  12:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose As she was only given her title 9 days ago this is a bit ridiculous. I am not sure Helena Kennedy should not still be there. PatGallacher (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. WP:NCPEER in its first excemtion (bullet) notes that an already regular name can be kept. Fiona Shackleton is known a long time and by her own name already (think Charles/Diana - hey). Her style is not relevant. -DePiep (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose (but not violently). I just cannot see her going into court under the name of "Baroness Shackleton".  If she continues to use her name to practise, we should stick to this. Deb (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name in infobox
The name in the infobox should match up with the article title and the honorific prefix tab should be used for the baroness title. The full title is given in the first line of the text. The title and infobox should reflect the same common name as determined by the recent move request. The full title is given adequately in the main text and to have the infobox name and the page title name different creates unnecessary confusion to user’s with little or no knowledge of the subject at hand.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am happy to rely on parliament.uk Your reference is ?  Kittybrewster   &#9742;  13:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The result of the move request above and court documents showing that she goes under the name of Fiona Shackelton.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are none since she was ennobled. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  13:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly, so we have to take the historicly accurate name she goes to court in and not what she may use in the futer because that is crystal ball gazing. Take Cherie Blair, she still goes to court as "Miss Cherie Booth QC". So guessing at what he future name will be when she goes to court is not able to be done.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Her name sans title is historic and now inaccurate. She has now been ennobled and the infoxbox should reflect her present style. Kittybrewster   &#9742;  14:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The ennobled title is acccuratly covered in the context of the main article. The name used before she was ennobled is waht is is commonly known as so that is what should be used. The ennobled title is adequatly covered in the main article text.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * She is no longer known without her new style. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  14:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I stated earlier the ennobled name is sufficently covered in the main article text. These arguments were covered in the move request above. For consistency in the article the title of the article and the name in the infobox should match up.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. See Margaret Thatcher, David Steel, Norman Tebbit, John Prescott, Peter Mandelson, Paddy Ashdown, Jeffrey Archer, Michael Heseltine, Michael Howard and Harold Wilson. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  15:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your point is - there are plenty of references to her name, e.g. the first one on the article page (the BBC). The issue here is whether we used the honorific or her normal name, both of which are supported by reliable sources. Dpmuk (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All that does is show a wider problem with inconsistency. I think a wider discusion on this is needed probably best done when the article titles discussion currently being undertaken is resolved. As for the Rt Hon and LVO additions they are clearly not needed in the infobox as they are just unecussarry clutter in the infobox.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I was asked to comment here by Kittybrewster. I have to say that what should be included in people infoboxes is not something I knew too much about so there may well be guidelines out there that contradict what I'm about to say - please point me at them if there are.  Anyway it seems to me that there is a strong argument for consistency between the name in the infobox and the article title and so I think the name should read "Fiona Shackleton". I don't really know enough to feel able to comment on whether honorific_prefix parameter should be used (although I do not that attempts to introduce it have failed as they have used a "-" rather than a "_").  I would prefer that other people weigh in on this rather than this just being decided by three users, because as I say, this isn't really my area (I hang around requested moves, hence the reason I closed the request but know less about this particular issue). Dpmuk (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)  I did say I didn't know much about the infobox area! Given the examples given above by Kittybrewster I would now feel happy in supporting the full title in the infobox (done properly with use of honorific_prefix like the examples) unless anyone comes up with some other high profile counter-examples. Dpmuk (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Lucy-marie, I would hope that your response would address the points made. We agree that she is now Baroness Shackleton. The proposal adds the style by which she is now held and which she will hold for most of her adult life. Why do you believe that the reader is assisted by removing the the from the infobox? Kittybrewster   &#9742;  18:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No-one in their right mind in print or in general conversation would say to someone “the rt. hon. Baroness Shackleton LVO" it is just superfluous. Please do not add unintentionally but highly confusing prefixes 99% of the general public do not understand and are never used in print or in speech outside the Commons or Lords chambers or committee rooms. The Baroness prefix fine keep it until the discussion has been had and the consensus in agreed to. if you really want to add the suffixes in small and centred underneath the title in the infobox ,but the only prefix is the title Baroness and not Rt. Hon. which virtually nobody uses outside of the Palace of Westminster. One prefix is enough two is confusing and unnecessary.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Consistency. See Margaret Thatcher, Norman Tebbit, David Steel, Paddy Ashdown, Michael Heseltine, Michael Howard, Jeffrey Archer, John Prescott, Peter Mandelson and Harold Wilson. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  19:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I read the matter was closed (above). So I changed the infobox accordingly. Bye. -DePiep (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So after the article title has been decided, you English snobbers start it all over again about the infobox. Without talkiing here. So I will revert the baronessesses highnes into her real name. -DePiep (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What is an English snobber? Brackets have no part in the infoxbox title. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  23:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * An English snobber is: snobbish. The title is clear. Now stop rubbing indirect "style" please: her name is crisp & clear, and her style is mentioned in the intro. -DePiep (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC) (non-FGO, non-SWE, non-VBE, and non-FQ).
 * As shown in the examples given, the infobox should include her style. It is pretentious to suggest otherwise. We don't do brackets in infoboxes. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  23:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

There is not a single problem with her current naming, even being doubled (and brackets included), in the infobox. I propose and suggest the non-controversy be stopped by now. -DePiep (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it doesn't have consensus and it is not how we do infoboxes. That makes your novel approach controversial and unstable. Are any infoboxes done that way? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  10:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We do this the way the others are done. Examples given above. Kittybrewster   &#9742;  10:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally I agree that consistency would seem to suggest that include honours is the way to go (although done properly using honorific_prefix and the like) but it seems obvious we've reached a stale mate so starting an RfC to try and get more input. Dpmuk (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Should the infobox include her honours or not? See the above discussion for more context. Dpmuk (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Page protection
I have protected the article for three days and encourage the editors involved to consider the various means of dispute resolution. No doubt, the current version is The Wrong Version, but that's the nature of things. Favonian (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fiona Shackleton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120612064414/http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/content/documents/peat_report.pdf to http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/content/documents/peat_report.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.express.co.uk/news/view/2523
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070329013705/http://www.paynehicksbeach.co.uk/our_team/partners/fiona_shackleton.asp to http://www.paynehicksbeach.co.uk/our_team/partners/fiona_shackleton.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fiona Shackleton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120210204347/http://www.kevinbean.plus.com/family_history/paf/pafg351.htm to http://www.kevinbean.plus.com/family_history/paf/pafg351.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Family link to the Shackletons
Her husband Ian is related to Antarctic explorer Sir Ernest Shackleton.
 * It would be interesting to know through which of Sir Ernest's family. Valetude (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)