Talk:List of knights banneret of England

TOC
From the edit history:
 * 23:56, 3 March 2014‎ Bgwhite (WP:CHECKWIKI error fix #97. There must be no content between TOC and first headline per WP:TOC and WP:LEAD. Do general fixes and cleanup if needed. - using AWB (9957))
 * 00:11, 4 March 2014‎ PBS (Undid revision 598031725 by Bgwhite The expand list needs to go below the TOC!)
 * 05:46, 4 March 2014‎ Bgwhite (Undid revision 598033431 by PBS No it doesn't and it cannot go there. You didn't read the links given in the edit summary There must be no content between TOC and first headline per WP:TOC and WP:LEAD)
 * 07:35, 4 March 2014‎ PBS(Rv: WP:BRD take it to the talk page.)

@Bgwhite See WP:BRD you make a bold edit it gets reverted, you talk about it on the talk page before reverting, particularly if your first edit was with a siemi-automated tool.

First of all that to which you are referring is a help page and a guideline (not a policy) secondly where do you think that WP:TOC or WP:LEAD specify that the TOC must be placed at a specific location? -- PBS (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm doing the edit completely manually. Don't make assumptions. It's not a bold edit, it is an edit against policy.  Where does it say expanded list needs to go between the TOC and headline?  Nowhere.
 * WP:LEAD is a MOS page. Per WP:LEAD, "Users of screen readers expect the table of contents to follow the introductory text; they will also miss any text placed between the TOC and the first heading."  (emphasis mine)
 * I'll ask the same question I ask everybody else, is your page ownership over the look of the page more important than somebody being able to read the text? As people have said yes and thrown "not policy" around, per Five pillars, Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute: ... no editor owns an article and any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed."  Bgwhite (talk) 06:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * AWB is a semi-automated tool it is not "completely manually".
 * Have you read WP:BRD? Please respect it while we discuss the issue. The idea is that you make a bold edit. It is reverted. The edit is then discussed until a consensus for change is established.
 * Have you read WP:OWN particularly the part that says "Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack. Address the editor in a civil manner, with the same amount of respect you would expect."?
 * How do you know what is written the LEAD is true?
 * If it is true, what is the text that is being missed here?
 * is the text under the TOC part of a lead?
 * is that text better placed before or after the TOC.
 * --PBS (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) Everything I did on this page was done manually. Just because it says AWB at the end does not mean a semi-manually edit.  Again, don't assume as you are again making many accusation based upon your assumptions.
 * 2) This is MOS. You abide by MOS unless there is a good reason not to.  Where is your good reason?
 * 3) Again, read WP:LEAD. "They will also miss any text placed between TOC and the first heading." (emphasis mine)
 * 4) How do you know what is written the LEAD is true?" If you look at the page history, you would see that it was added by Graham87.  I'm also doing this by request of Graham.  He is blind, does use a screen reader and is the expert on accessibility issues.
 * 5) This page is the only page that has text between the TOC and heading as of this month's dump.
 * 6) As you didn't answer my question, I'll ask it again, is your page ownership over the look of the page more important than somebody being able to read the text?  Bgwhite (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 1a) " is contradicted by the first sentence of the WP:AWB page "" (also PBS-AWB).
 * 2a) The MOS is contradictory, and can be read in many ways. For example the lead should be a summary of the text in the article. The text you are proposing to include in the lead is not part of a summary.
 * 3a) What is it that you see is being missed out that has to go into the lead?
 * 4a) I'll take your word for it.
 * 5a) So what?
 * 6a) I did answer your question, by pointing out to you "Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive..." your question is now posed in such a way that it falls into that group that includes "do you still beat your wife?". So I will answer you question by stating that your are making a false accusation of Ownership.
 * As to whether the line:
 * a) should be moved up above the TOC (by removing the explicit placement of the TOC),
 * b) or a new section header inserted (so that it remains below the TOC)
 * c) or is moved into an existing section header
 * d) or the line is removed
 * e) or the status quo is maintained
 * are all options that can be considered. Simply removing the TOC is not necessarily the best solution. -- PBS (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Very infuriating. You give out accusations, but bristle at a perceived one by me.  All this text and time wasted on a trivial move, backed by MOS, backed by accessibility guidelines, backed by five pillars of Wikipedia and you have never given a reason for your stance, even when asked.
 * When one makes a manual edit and only a manual edit with AWB, it is not a semi-automated task. Just because AWB can make a semi-automated edit does not mean every edit was semi-automated. You and others who fail to understand this and complain about a problem that should be fixed in AWB, but the "problem" was done manually.  A plane can be flown on autopilot, but this doesn't mean the pilot wasn't flying when a problem happened.
 * There is only one solution and one solution only. MOS is not contradictory and is very clear.  Again, "They will also miss any text placed between the TOC and the first heading" and "Users of screen readers expect the table of contents to follow the introductory text".  There is only one solution where the ToC can go, which is what I did with my edit.  The ToC must go right before the first heading.  What you want to do with any text is upto you and I could care less.  If you want to add a TOC right or TOC limit, I don't care. Bgwhite (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Let us put AWB to one side, as it is not relevant to this conversation and like ownership agree to differ on those two issues.
 * The MOS is contradictory. For example the Lead section states "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies" what you are proposing to include in the lead by moving the TOC is not part of that description of the lead. My stance is that the template incomplete list ought not to appear in the lead and it is better placed after the TOC and immediately before the list. -- PBS (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What you quote has no bearing. Where the ToC is placed has nothing to do with the lede.  Don't even think about the lede and ToC at the same time.  This is only about the ToC.
 * There are only two things to worry about: ToC has to be placed before the first heading and there can be no text between the ToC and first heading. This is plainly spelled out in MOS.  If you place the incomplete list template before the ToC or into the second heading is up to you.  The template 'can not go between the ToC and first heading as screen reader users will not see this. This is around the fifth time I've repeated no text between ToC and first heading.  Bgwhite (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Bgwhite is right on this one. What it has to be done it is clear by the Manual of Style. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And where do you think that this is clearly expressed in the Manual of Style? -- PBS (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * LEAD. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And "Elements of the lead" clearly states, "They will also miss any text placed between the TOC and the first heading" and "Users of screen readers expect the table of contents to follow the introductory text". What reason is there to not allow a group of readers to view text?  Bgwhite (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Magioladitis for the link, the TOC is below the lead per "If you must use a floated TOC, put it below the lead section in the wiki markup for consistency." (assuming that Lead section defines what is supposed to be in the lead), it does not say put the TOC directly above the first heading. "The template 'can not go between the ToC and first heading" well it can because it is there at the moment, and I think it ought not to go in the lead ... I am repeating myself. -- PBS (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It cannot go there. I to gave WP:LEAD up above.  Stop thinking about the lead section as this is only about the ToC.  For the third time in a row, "They will also miss any text placed between the TOC and the first heading"  That is any text.  That is any template.  This is about accessibility.  This is about people not being able to read text. This is a trivial change backed by MOS, backed by accessibility guidelines, backed by the five pillar of Wikipedia.  What reason is there to not allow a group of readers to view text?  Bgwhite (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we may be having a problem with English dialects. When you say "can" do you mean the same as "may"? using an example from the OED "Can I speak with the Count?" -- PBS (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not about the definition of can.  "They will also miss any text placed between the TOC and the first heading".    Any meaning, "every and all".   Miss every and all text.  What reason is there to not allow a group of readers to view text? Bgwhite (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

From the history of the article: -- PBS (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 22:38, 13 July 2014‎ Bgwhite (No content between TOC and first headline per WP:TOC and WP:LEAD. This is an accessibility issue for users of screen readers. Also discussed on talk page. If you have problems with this, then take it to WP:BR or ANI.)
 * 19:46, 18 July 2014‎ PBS (rv to last version by Magioladitis. Put back otherwise the message is confusing as it appears to apply to the list in the TOC and not the list in the article)


 * Take it to ANI or DR. Anybody with a screen reader can't see the message.  This is the only article in Wikipedia that is denying the right of others to actually read all of the article.  I'm following policy and rules, you are not.  If you don't want to follow accessibility guidelines and the five pillars of Wikipedia, then take it ANI or DR. You have also recently moved the TOC on other articles that left large paragraphs unable to be read by people with screen readers.


 * You have failed to answer my question from the very beginning... What reason is there to not allow a group of readers to view text?


 * I'm ping, who is the resident expert on accessibility and maybe he can tell it better. Bgwhite (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I really don't know what to say, frankly. Thanks, Bgwhite, for putting up with this nonsense. Graham 87 01:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And the "incomplete" tag does sum up the article, if it applies to all the headings in a list. If not, then just add it to the headings where it does apply. Graham 87 01:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The wording in the template does not apply to the TOC if it is placed before the TOC it implies that it is the TOC that is incomplete. Placing the template before the TOC is confusing to all editors placing it after the TOC confuses no one. -- PBS (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It only applies to the TOC under an extremely narrow reading of the template, and nobody else seems confused by its current location. Wouldn't placing it at the very top of the article solve both of our problems? Graham 87 14:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As you asked for an answer: No. -- PBS (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Since this conversation was started discussions at ANI reveal that information after the TOC will only be skipped if the TOC is skipped by the user of the reader requesting such a skip. This means that placing the template after the TOC does not hide any information from anyone, and it is less confusing for everyone to place the template at the start of the list. -- PBS (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * But almost all screen reader users who are experienced at using Wikipedia would choose to skip the TOC because there is almost never any information between it and the first heading, as I've said before. Graham 87 14:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It is less confusing for everyone if the template appears at the start of the list to which it refers. It has now been established that no one is excluded from reading it unless they choose to do so. The template has not been moved by consensus but by a couple of editors being willing edit warring to force through a change. Usually if there is a disagreement between editors, then the change is not made, why should this be any different? -- PBS (talk) 11:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Because you're the only one who disagrees, and you're outnumbered, as clearly shown above. It's true that the template is not hidden unless screen reader users choose to skip past it, but most would, for entirely rational reasons. It's like having a group of stores with standard layout but randomly moving items in one particular location to suit the whim of that place's proprietor ... nothing would be hidden, true, it would be unnecessarily difficult to find the affected items for people who are used to the standard store's layout. Graham 87 15:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In the edit history you wrote "12:16, 17 October 2014‎ Graham87 (rv per discussion already on the talk page ... and you never answered my question there)". I was not aware that you had asked a question because it looks like a statement to me. -- PBS (talk) 06:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite you write in the history "Undid revision 691672234 by PBS How many times have we been over this". What is it in the TOC that you think is incomplete? If you do not think anything is missing from the TOC why do you insist on placing a warning directly before it stating "This list is incomplete;"? It is the list after the TOC which is incomplete and so your edit is misleading. -- PBS (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Both and I have talked about this ad naseum.   Your disregard for those using screen readers is narrow-mindedness.  That you still keep reverting and wikilawyering after 18 months is ridiculous.  Stop your edit warring.  I'm not responding any further.  Bgwhite (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is the same affect for those who use screen readers as it is for those who do not. If edit warring is taking place it is you who ignore the idea behind WP:BRD not I. -- PBS (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

From the edit history:
 * 14:21, 26 March 2017‎ user:Graham87 ‎ m . . (rv, we've been through this before)

Been through what before? See my comment of 06:01, 29 May 2015, you never answered my question.

Also you were invited to this talk page (20:58, 18 July 2014) and interfering with the editing of the page is inappropriate (see Canvassing)

-- PBS (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue of the TOC position. Consensus is against you. You're continuing behaviour that you've been previously admonished for. Graham 87 06:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Which guidance do you think indicates that a consensus exists? -- PBS (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The comments above you. Graham 87 14:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete
Which part is incomplete ins this article? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Most of this list is based on Metcalfe (1885) and Shaw (1906), the sources that they used were quite narrow (from the roles) -- for example (if memory serves) neither of them mention any of the baronets created by Charles I, and there may have been others created by other monarchs or their representatives. No source under 100 years were used in constructing this list, so it is quite possible that more modern research includes more men from any or all periods. -- PBS (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

George II - Knights Banneret at Dettingen
It states that George II created 16 Knights Banneret at Dettingen, but this list of 16 names doesn't include Thomas Brown, who famously was made a Knight Banneret - and whose wiki entry states this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmb (talk • contribs) 15:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Going through the current list of sixteen, not one of their own wiki entries mentions being made a Knight Banneret; half of them seem to have either been made a Knight of the Bath or promoted (see below) whilst the other half make no mention of any preferment after the battle:
 * Earl Ligonier, Philip Honywood, and James Campbell were made Knights of the Bath
 * John Cope was promoted and made a Knight of the Bath
 * Duke of Cumberland, and Richard Onslow were promoted
 * Harry Pulteney, and John Huske were promoted in 1743, but doesn't explicitly say if for services at Dettingen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmb (talk • contribs) 15:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced material
Battle of Poitiers
 * Edward III:
 * Sir Ellis Hicks was knighted by Edward, the Black Prince (eldest son of Edward III and father to Richard II), 1356.

Battle of Agincourt In 1426 he was knighted by Henry VI. He became Baron Herbert of Raglan and was father of the first Earl of Pembroke.
 * Henry V:
 * William ap Thomas, a Welch company leader, was made a knight banneret by Henry V in 1415 at the battle of Agincourt.

Neither of these entries have sources so I have removed them. The entry for William ap Thomas repeats what is in the article. However it is not sourced in the article and it does not make sense that the man was awarder knight banneret before a simple knighthood. @user:Martine8 If he were knighted then it was probably Knight of the Garter or something similar. -- PBS (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)