Talk:Lord Byron/Archive 2

GA fail and review
This article fails GA immediately because it lacks proper citations:
 * This article needs inline citations. All disputable claims need to be sourced to reliable sources, in this case most often academic books about Byron. I have added fact tags in many places throughout the article to illustrate what kinds of statements need sources. See WP:CITE, WP:RS and WP:ATT for a thorough explanation of citing.
 * All quotations must be sourced.

The article has a lot of good information, but its organization and prose could be better. A few sections need to be expanded or condensed, but, overall, this is a good start (the biggest problem is the lack of citations):
 * The lead is not a stand-alone summary of the article per WP:LEAD: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources."
 * The "Name" section is a bit hard to follow. Try to retain only the essentialy information and to outline it more clearly.
 * Wentworth was Lady Byron's eventual title, her surname before marriage had been Milbanke. The Noels had inherited it from the Wentworths in 1745. - I am not sure this is necessary, but if it is, it is odd to end on it because it is out of chronological order.


 * The "Early life" section does not flow very well. Try to make the paragraphs more of a coherent whole rather than a list of unrelated statements.
 * "Beginning of a poet career" starts awkwardly; the chronology also becomes unclear because some of these texts you have mentioned before. I would refrain from having two sections about the same text within the "Biography" section of the article. Make it as clear as possible when a book was written and published.
 * It also introduces the concept of the "Byronic hero" without explaining it at all.


 * In the "Political career" section, you list a lot of poems without discussing them at all. To a reader ignorant of Byron, this is not particularly enlightening.
 * Note, "The Landlords' Interest" will not be found in any Byron anthology, it is Canto XIV of "The Age Of Bronze" (1823). - This kind of information belongs in a footnote.


 * "Affairs and Scandals" section begins awkwardly with "he" - always start a new section with "Byron" to be clear. The last paragraph swerves from topic to topic a lot - it needs better organization. Also, the list of poems is a problem for the ignorant reader.
 * In the "Poetic works" section, you say that Don Juan is important, but you don't really explain it is about. Since this is one of Byron's most important works, I would suggest saying a bit more about it.
 * Do not list the attributes of the Byronic hero - write them out in prose. You might think about including an example of the Byronic hero from Byron's work to illustrate it. Plenty of such explanations with examples exist in the scholarly literature about Byron.
 * In your one-paragraph analysis of Byron's poetry, it is unclear whose claims these are. Because you have no sources, they appear to be yours. You must rely on literary criticism here. An expansion of the discussion of Byron's literary works might not be a bad idea, either.
 * I would integrate the "Parthenon marbles" section into the biography section. It would work better there since the section itself is so tiny.
 * I would also integrate the material that is currently in the "Character" section into the appropriate sections of the "Biography." They are oddly separated here.
 * The "Lasting influence" section is woefully short on Byron's literary influence, what might be considered the most important aspect of his influence. It should also discuss how Byron is often considered the first "celebrity" - this information is available in most scholarly biographies of Byron.
 * The "Fictional depictions" subsection is a list in prose. Try to codense this material into a few paragraphs, selecting only the most important representations. If there is a lot of information, you might think about creating a "Byron in popular culture" article (see Moby-Dick in popular culture for an example.) All of this material needs to be sourced as well.
 * The "External links" need to be pruned.
 * Many of the sentences in the article are awkwardly phrased:
 * Ex: "Hours of Idleness", which collected many of the previous poems, along with more recent compositions, was the culminating book. (Also any book title should be italicized.)
 * Ex: While some authors resented being satirized in its first edition, over time in subsequent editions it became a mark of prestige to be the target of Byron's cool pen. - What exactly does "cool pen" mean here?
 * Ex: Ultimately he was to live abroad to escape the censure of British society, where men could be forgiven for sexual misbehaviour only up to a point, one which Byron far surpassed.
 * Ex: In 1816 Byron visited Saint Lazarus Island in Venice where he acquainted himself with Armenian culture by the Mekhitarist Order. - Doesn't make sense.
 * Ex: His profound lyricism and ideological courage has inspired many Armenian poets, the likes of Fr. Ghevond Alishan, Smbat Shahaziz, Hovhannes Tumanyan, Ruben Vorberian and others. - What is "ideological courage"?
 * Ex: Byron employed a fire-master to prepare artillery and took part of the rebel army under his own command and pay, despite his lack of military experience, but before the expedition could sail, on 15 February 1824, he fell ill, and the usual remedy of bleeding weakened him further. - Too much for one sentence. Awadewit |  talk  19:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have done a lot of these and added a lot more information. --Gloriamarie (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No mention of his swim across the Dardanelles?

Middle name
So why isn't this as George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron; as it used to be? Using George Byron, without the middle name, is unusual. I propose to move it back. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur. Far too many peer articles take out the middle name for no good reason. john k 18:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The move was apparently made by Phoe nearly a year ago with no discussion. john k 18:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll be bold, then. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Move to George Gordon Byron?
I don't think Wikipedia's style is to include honorific titles in the person's name (unless it's the best way to disambugiate the title)

George Gordon Byron is enough to uniquely identify the person. I think the article should be moved to that name, and leave the "6th Baron Byron" in bold as the full person's name in the first sentence of the introductory paragraph. 24.83.195.130 09:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * He is almost universally known to history and art as 'Lord Byron'. Why should the wikipedia set up its own claims as to proper modes of address? Is it because most of the contributors are American and have a cultural POV about the use of titles? Colin4C 18:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Americans call him "Lord Byron" too and aren't obsessed with putting titles on everyone English. I'd actually assumed every British person being called by long titles was some kind of Britishism.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a claim as to "proper" address - and I can do without the personal attack on Americans. It is general Wikipedia policy (including in UK articles, and I believe in non-English language wikis as well) that honorifics are not used in article titles.  Better to just use the name.  For instance, "Muhammad" instead of "The Prophet Muhammad", "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" instead of "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith", "Ivan IV of Russia" instead of "Ivan the Terrible",  "Mao Zedong" instead of "Chairman Mao" - heck, even "Palpatine" instead of "Emperor Palpatine".


 * Now substantive titles are ok, since it's essentially part of the name in that case. "Charles, Prince of Wales" is used, for instance.  In my opinion, this article really should be under "George Gordon, Lord Byron". You may wish to check the guidelines and see if you feel my interpretation is correct, as there's ambiguity in the guide.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28names_and_titles%29
 * Vonspringer (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is good where it is. It is consistent with many other articles. --WPLanders (talk) 04:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, for obscure landowners. It should of course be moved to "Lord Byron", the name by which he is normally referred to. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * He was not known as Lord Byron. He was known as Byron in present day. Back then, he was only the sixth Lord Byron, and not even the most famous as a Lord Byron. Furthermore, his mother, Lady Byron, would be more acceptable under the title because she was never known based on familiar terms by most people. The page should stay to conform with Wikipedia titling standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolute nonsense. He was known as Lord Byron in his day - though adressed and referred to as Byron by his friends, an entirely different matter - and has continued to be so ever since. The one name that has never been used is "George Gordon Byron".  Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't want to fight about this, but "He was known as Lord Byron in his day" is incorrect. Why? Because he was rarely called by that title except as a child, and most people knew his Uncle far more, especially with all of the major scandals. By the time Byron had his own scandals, he was known by his poetic signature, which was not "Lord" Byron. As you can see from the early life page, I am doing an overhaul of the biography, and I know a lot about this subject area. Rarely, rarely, do any reviewers or critics ever address him as Lord Byron, especially with the possible confusion that comes from addressing his mother as Lady Byron. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't want to go into it either, but whatever his contemporaries called him - and I don't accept your statements (what do Jane Austen and her characters call him?) - he was been universally referred to for over a century as "Lord Byron", "Byron" for short (just like "William Wordsworth", "Wordsworth" for short), and virtually never as "George Byron" or "George Gordon Byron". This is like insisting on using the legal names of Michelangelo, Raphael or Caravaggio. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You keep claiming such things without proof. You lack consensus, nor any real justification to make him the "Lord Byron", when this is perfectly suitable. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME is the justification. Neither of us can be bothered to produce references - your claims are just as much assertions as mine. Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You lack any consensus, nor can you say that Lord Byron is favored over Byron, George Gordon Byron, or the many other just as popular names. Furthermore, if you actually read the guideline, you would see "Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". With 5 other Lord Byrons, this instantly fails. You wont receive any further response from me, because this has become utterly silly and pointless. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there should be some mention in the lede that, at least in parts of the world, this man is known only as "Lord Byron". I myself had to come here in order to confirm this fact. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Date of Death - Julian or Gregorian?
At the time of Byron's death, Greece was still using the Julian (Old Style) calendar, which at that time had a 12-day discrepancy from the Gregorian (New Style). Is "19 April" shown as it was in Greece, ie. an Old-Style date that would be equivalent to 1 May in the rest of Europe; or did he die on 7 April under the Old-Style calendar and it has already been converted to 19 April in the Gregorian? Whichever is the case, I think we should make a note of it for inquisitive people like me. -- JackofOz 04:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Applesnpeaches (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC) I was under the impression that the time discrepancy was 13 days. Applesnpeaches (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It became 13 days from February 1900, but was 12 days in the 19th century, 11 days in the 18th, and 10 days in the 17th and back to 1582. In the Julian calendar every 4th year is a Leap Year, but in the Gregorian Calendar some 4th years are not - 1700, 1800 and 1900, for example.  28 February 1900 (Gregorian) was followed by 1 March, but 28 February 1900 (Julian) was followed by 29 February.  See Gregorian calendar for lots more details.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Name section
The Name section, which leads off the body of the article is confused. First rule of biography, do *not* discuss characters not yet introduced. WHO are these people? We're treated to an exhaustive enumeration of his names in regard to people in his ancestral table, whom we don't yet know. Either the name section should *follow* where they are all introduced in his bio, or it should be a footnote to the appropriate bio area. Wjhonson (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have now fixed this in the article, so you know who some of these people are when you reach that point.--Gloriamarie (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Edward III descendent
I've removed this irrelevancy. Show me *any* anciently descended family, still in power in England in the 18th century who did *not* descend from Edward 3. I don't think you can, so this quip doesn't add anything, and it makes it seem like this claim is unusual or notable, when it's not. Wjhonson (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sergical monster, indeed!
I removed this:

"Another popular work of Byron, The Travels of the Sergical Monster, follows the sequel of his college Marry Shelley's Frankenstein ..."

Apart from being bad English, I believe it's hogwash though it might be inspired by some fictional treatment like Bride of Frankenstein.

Agger (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Bisexuality; shouldn't we include him within the category of LGBT writers?
Byron was clearly bisexual. At least for the first 36 years of his life. I say add him to the group. Thoughts? -FM (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)-FM
 * Absolutely. Also a section is needed on his homosexual exploits, with Nicolo Giraud and others. Haiduc (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be : Nicolas Giraud, Eustache Georgiou, Loukas and Lord Clare must be quoted somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.79.29.5 (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Crompton reference
There seems to be some dispute as to whether Crompton is a reliable source. This is the reference in question:

"Louis Crompton, 'Don Leon, Byron, and Homosexual Law Reform' in Stuart Kellogg, Ed. Literary Visions of Homosexuality. p.53"

Please use this section to reach consensus on the appropriateness of using this source to support the claim that Byron's relationship with John Edleston was a love affair. Thank you. Nandesuka (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Apart from the question of reliability of the source, there's also the problem that, once again, the cited source doesn't actually say what Haiduc is claiming. When I look at page 53 of "Literary Visions of Homosexuality", I don't see anything about Eldeston at all. He is discussed on page 58:

"[Byron] hears John Edlestone singing in the choir, and friendship ripens into love....He begins to question traditional standards -- after all, he is not about to ruin a virgin, betray a husband, or beget a bastard..."


 * (emphasis added). In short, I don't read Crompton as providing any support for the statement that Byron and Edleston had an active sexual relationship, which is what the term "love affair" implies.  Crompton does claim that Byron had sexual longings, which is, given that we're talking about Byron, no great surprise.  It may be that there are other sources that support this assertion, or that Crompton says it explicitly elsewhere in his work.  But he doesn't say it where the citation claims.  So completely apart from the question of whether Crompton is a reliable source, the citation is completely misleading, and can't be used until it is corrected. Nandesuka (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Saying that a source is unreliable does not equal "questions of unreliability." If someone wants to claim that a source is unreliable then they have top make a case for it. Until then the material stays, as it is not removed on anyone's say-so. At any rate, the book has been cited over fifty times in the literature, so the whole "challenge" seems little more than a sham, until it is substantiated.

Apart from this inappropriate interference, Nandesuka is once again indulging in ad hominem attacks against me. The page number was a typo, it should have been 54 instead of 53. My apologies. Next time perhaps you will not presume to make a federal case out of something like this. Haiduc (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing the correct citation. That's also a nice trick, by the way:  "Nandesuka is unjustifiably attacking me for getting this citation wrong, when in fact, I only got the citation wrong."  I should definitely work on that sense of shamelessness.
 * I see that Crompton does indeed briefly refer to this as a "love affair", although his longer description on page 58 doesn't quite support that characterization. Hoeper describes this as a mischaracterization promoted by Marchand:

"Here Byron was proudly asserting a Platonic love that was fairly common and respected between schoolboys in his day. It is akin to the 'bosom friendships' sought out by the young heroine in the 'Anne of Green Gables' series for young girls. Marchand's readers are encouraged to presume that only some particularly base imbroglio in the relationship with Edleston could have led Byron to quit England--though early in A Portrait Marchand acknowledges that the relationship with Edleston always remained a pure and ideal 'romantic attachment'....So far as I can determine Marchand's charges about the homosexual advances of Lord Grey and Edleston are the flimsiest of speculations--not demonstrably false, but not particularly likely to be true either."
 * Do we have any other sources describing the Edleston relationship beyond Crompton, Hoeper, and Marchand? Surveying the reliable sources will give us a better idea of how to properly describe this for our readers. Nandesuka (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Where did you get that text from? Talk about shamelessness. Haiduc (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I got it from here. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you haven't read it.  It's only cited nine times in the article we're discussing.  Nandesuka (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the citation. I see you have carte blanche to be rude. I guess it comes with administrator credentials. Haiduc (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of a non-sequitur, seeing as I haven't used any of my administrator credentials in my interactions with you. As far as that's concerned, I'm just another editor -- one who is shocked and a bit frustrated by your pattern of mis-citing and mischaracterizing sources.  Nandesuka (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your undocumented personal opinion about my edits does not excuse your aggressive and sarcastic tone. In the future please restrict yourself to discussing the topic at hand, and keep your suppositions about my activities to yourself. Haiduc (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Returning to the topic at hand, does anyone else have citatons to the effect that Byron and Edleston were lovers? Given that one of the major sources for this article refers to such theories as based on "the flimsiest of speculations," we want to make sure our sourcing for such a statement is solid.  Nandesuka (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Crimes of Passive Voice
I have (temporarily) removed this sentence:

"The extent of Byron's joy over the birth has been construed as evidence that he was Medora's father, a theory reinforced by the many passionate poems he wrote to Augusta."

I have no doubt that this sentence, as such, is true, but its crimes are many: if it "has been construed", who has it been construed by? The theory "is reinforced?" Rather, we should actively identify a reliable source that construes it thus, and who believes the theory is reinforced by the poems, and then we should include a citation to them. I don't have time to do this right now. Anyone else want to take a crack at this? Nandesuka (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Fiona MacCarthy examines the Medora question carefully, and concludes that Byron himself was never convinced that she was his child. (see 'Byron: Life and Legend' pp 214-215). Re Edelston, by the way, there are multiple references: I am surprised that this excellent source has not been relied on more in this article.Domnique 17:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domniqencore (talk • contribs)

John Murray the publisher vs. John Murray the publishing house
I just commented on the John Murray article but I see that it's barely touched at all which means it will prob be a long, longtime before someone gets to answer me. I'm posting here too since more people come here and since Murray was Byron's publisher and a big guy in his life. I don't know if that's okay but if not then go ahead and remove it. Here's what I'm copying from the John Murray:

I saw that the two have been mixed together here and I don't know how the best way is to fix it. The article talks about both. I've come across other articles that mentioned John Murray either as the publisher or the house and both link here. I've not touch any since this one needs to be fixed first. I don't know how many article link here so is it even possible to fix it? If so I think we should have two separate articles. One on the publisher and one on the publishing house.--Nocturnalsleeper (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be better to acknowledge that they are not really distinct in 1818. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Name of Greek Poem
The name of the Greek poem written on the occasion of Byron's death is rendered in English as 'To the Death of Lord Byron'. This seems odd, since it suggests that it is being written as some sort of ode, or in any case to celebrate his death rather than to mourn it. Might 'On the Death of Lord Byron' be a better approximation? Perhaps someone who knows both Greek and English sufficiently well can comment? MJM74 (talk) 03:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone is being excessively literal: Eis principally means to, but it is a wide-ranging word. I will consult a Demotic dictionary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Heading Revision
Isn't the section Fondness_for_animals a bit misleading? How about Love for animals? Could the heading be changed?DanSand (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Its going to be removed in the revision. However, the various vandalism and the rest moved the bulk of revising to user space, so the old headings are still in place. This should be fixed early next year. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Byron in Italy and Greece
The section Byron in Italy and Greece totally ignores his relationship with the Shelley and Williams families, and more important his time spent with Edward Trelawny. Also Byron having his own boat (the Bolivar) built in competition with Shelly's boat (the Don Juan), ending in Byron's attendance at the funeral of Shelley, pictured in the well known paining by Edouard Fournier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Funeral_of_Shelley_by_Louis_Edouard_Fournier.jpg

Examining the References it would appear the contributors to this biography relied mostly on Fiona MacCarthy, but did not include other biographical material from:


 * Marchand, Leslie A., Byron: A Biography (three Volumes) New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1957


 * His Very Self and Voice (Collected conversations of Lord Byron), Edited by Ernest J. Lovell, Jr., New York, 1954


 * Moore, Thomas, Letters and Journals of Lord Byron, With Notices of His Life, London, 1830


 * Trelawny, E. J., Recollections of the Last Days of Shelley and Byron, London: Edward Moxon, 1858


 * Dallas, Robert Charles, Recollections Of The Life Of Lord Byron, London, Charles Knight, 1825


 * Borst, William, Lord Byron's First Pilgrimage, Connecticut: Archon Books, 1969


 * and others.

Also in the section "Lasting Influence" it is written: The re-founding of the Byron Society in 1971. Please note there is a Byron Society of America and an International Byron Society, however there is no just plain Byron Society.

http://www.byronsociety.org/bsa/index.html

http://www.internationalbyronsociety.org/

Sirswindon (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The page is being completely rewritten. The current version is the old vandalized version. Also, Trelawny's work is not a good source, as with Dallas's. MacCarthy currently has the most scholarly and trust worthy source on Byron right now. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Who are you to tell me that Trelawny is not a good source? Who else was with him at the end of his life? Who does MacCarthy quote? If this is to be a quality biography you must include Trelawny. Sirswindon (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It may be being rewritten, but this section totally ignores Trelawny who played a significant role in Byron's life. Who will edit this section and add Trelawny to it? Sirswindon (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are POV problems with the source. He lacks the critical objectivity needed. Like James Boswell for Samuel Johnson, it is an interesting read but can't be used as a basis for the article. And Sirswindon, when I get a chance to finish rewriting it, I will make sure to contact you and you can tell me what also needs to be added. Major biographies are a long and complicated work and take time. As you can see from this (about 40% complete and just for the first part of his life), the article will be significantly reworked and corrected.


 * I do not believe you would make that statement if you had read Trelawny's description of Byron:


 * "You never know a man's temper until you have been imprisoned in a ship with him, or a woman's until you have married her. Few friendships can stand the ordeal by water; when a yacht from England with a pair of these thus tried friend touches, --- say at Malta or Gibraltar, --- you can be sure that she will depart with only one.  I was never on shipboard with a better companion than Byron, he was generally cheerful, gave no trouble, assumed no authority, uttered no complaints, and did not interfere with the working of the ship; when appealed to he always answered, 'do as you like.'"


 * Byron always felt at ease when sailing in the Med. I feel one of the keys to his personality can be found in Childe Harold's Pilgrimage - Canto 4 - CLXXXIV:


 * And I have loved thee, Ocean! and my joy
 * Of youthful sports was on thy brest to be
 * Borne, like thy bubbles, onward: from a boy
 * I wanton'd with thy breakers -- they to me
 * Were a delight; and if the freshening sea
 * Make them a terror -- 'twas a pleasing fear;
 * For I was as if were a child of thee,
 * And trusted to thy billows far and near,
 * And laid my haand upon thy mane -- as I do here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirswindon (talk • contribs) 16:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sirswindow - Trelawny is clearly not an objective source of information. No primary recollections are. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottavia Riva --- There are as many Byrons as there are Byronists. It is important to read the primary recollections as well as reading MacCarthy and Marchand.  You wrote that Trelawny is not objective; but without him you would not have an account of Byron's behaviour at Shelley's funeral.  How can anyone be "objective" concerning Byron?  One can only be "subjective" --- that is why so much has been written about him.  It is almost impossible to produce a "lucid" very short biography of Byron.  But if it is to be attempted, it should contain as many snapshots as might be required to challenge the reader into further reading.  Such a list is as important as the article itself.  The list of further reading, now included in the article, is almost useless.  Sirswindon (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sirswindon, you are entering into my specialty. I know exactly which sources are credible and which sources are not. I also have a long history of experience with literary biographies. And how can anyone be objective? Biographies are supposed objective. They deal with facts. Trelawny's work is not a biography. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia work everyone has something to contribute, even people who are not experts, and who do not know anything exactly. The proper approach in this instance is to include Trelawny, of course, with such caveats as later biographers have indicated appropriate. We, as Wikipedia editors, are neither qualified nor permitted to exclude sources on our own sayso, or anyone´s. --Haiduc (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Ottavia Riva --- I do apologize as I did not realize I was carrying on a dialog with a recognized Byron Specialist.  I started this discussion pointing out that the section on Byron in Italy and Greece was devoid of much of the significant information concerning his life during that period of his life.  Some of this comes from Williams Journal and from Trelawny.  I must agree with Haiduc --- should you wish to add caveats --- do so.  But it is important to cover Byron's final year using the many contemporary accounts as part of that coverage. I will be looking forward to your rewrite of the entire page. (Including your list of further reading).Sirswindon (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am more of a Keats specialist in terms of individuals, but I have a long history in 18th and 19th century biography. See the Samuel Johnson page for how we dealt with Boswell. Yes, it came up a few times in text. However, we put most of it in quote boxes as "color". Biographies have gone through a lot over the years and became more critical, more objective, and dealt with issues in a fairer manner. There are many perspectives that need to be included that Trelawny just didn't know about. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If your specialty is Keats you may not be aware that I wrote most of the Wikipedia articles on Charles Armitage Brown. Added much to Joseph Severn. I also wrote the ones on Edward Ellerker Williams and Edward John Trelawny.  Although much Byron material has been uncovered in recent years (Letters, narratives, etc.) if his biography is to be "complete" it must contain many of the "facts" recorded by those, such as Trelawny. Sirswindon (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I will just say that Fiona MacCarthy is a writer of quality popular biographies with a background as a journalist, and that the list of OR's "specialisms" stretches ever longer .... Johnbod (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Because it looks like from just the Samuel Johnson article that I sure know what I am talking about when it comes to early biographers, and from the discussion on Nicolò Giraud and my creating it as what it is now shows that I have a strong understanding and ability to determine quality sources on Byron. I have multiple graduate degrees in the field and related fields, and there are many people who know my actual identity and can verify my credentials. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottava Rima asked me to look over this debate. I think the debate has strayed from the actual question. It can easily resolved by looking at the reliable sources policy, one of the core policies of Wikipedia. Note that the overview says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." Biographies of Byron by his friends clearly fall into the "primary source material" category. We should only include the bits from these biographies that later scholars have deemed important. We cannot rely on our own judgment, no matter how qualified we are. There are many reasons for this. I'll list the simplest. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that is, a tertiary source - we summarize secondary sources. We are not doing original research. Awadewit (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine than use what all the rest of us use: Marchand's three volumes on Byron. He refers to the original sources as I have done.  Use MacCarthy, but use the original material as well. Otherwise you have a biased biography. Sirswindon (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you bothered to read Marchand? A lack of an effective index, few citations, and a lot of speculation. Sure, he did a hell of a job editing Byron's letters, but that was it. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * When writing the Mary Shelley biography, and I found it was useful to compare all of the major biographies of MS. If they all agreed on a particular point, we tried to include it in the article. If only some of them contained a particular speculation, we tended to leave it out. This is one way that we could condense the story of her life as well. Awadewit (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How does that allow for the evolution of history, and novel points of view? In Byron´s case, we have the contribution of queer studies, a discipline that dates back only forty years or so. Should that voice be squelched? In Mary Shelley´s case, for example, there have been a number of voices that have suggested that not she but her husband wrote "Frankenstein." Their arguments need to be presented as just that. But a quick inspection of the article yielded no such information. I am concerned that your suggested approach may result in an article reduced to the lowest common denominator. --Haiduc (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The idea is to present the mainstream scholarly views on Byron (often articulated in things like the Cambridge Companion). I don't see why queer studies would be ignored in Byron's case; there is clearly lots of scholarship on that issue. In the case of Frankenstein, that thesis has been roundly rejected throughout the years, Lauritsen's book notwithstanding (I'm not going to go through the refutations of that thesis - they have already taken place in other fora). To present that argument would give it undue weight. Wikipedia reports the consensus of the academic community as it is at the current time. If you read the Shelley article in full, you will see that it has hardly been reduced to the "lowest common denominator" but rather that it addresses all of the major scholarly issues that have been raised in relation to her works, which is eventually what this article should do with Byron. Awadewit (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "I don't see why queer studies would be ignored..." If that is so, that is well. But now you are presenting a different method, which I consider to be sounder, in which you acknowledge newer trends in scholarship as legitimate material. Your previous post suggested that all major biographies had to agreee in order for a given aspect to be included in a Wikipedia article -- that is what I was objecting to, since older biographies of Byron are more likely to paper over his pederasty. Your new formulation makes a lot more sense to me. As for Mary Shelley, Lauritsen is not the only one to have come to that conclusion, but this is not the place to discuss that topic. And I disagree with your suggestion that any presentation of that theory would constitute undue weight. It is all in how you write the article. --Haiduc (talk) 09:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, what I said was "If they all agreed on a particular point, we tried to include it in the article. If only some of them contained a particular speculation, we tended to leave it out." - note the "we tried to include" and "we tended to". Neither of these are absolutes. Not all biographical details can be included and most speculation was left out (as I am sure you are aware, there is a lot of speculation about MS). One of the really important things to do in an encyclopedia article for the lay person is to provide some sort of coherent narrative that does not get bogged down in scholarly arguments. Awadewit (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Outdent - to be honest, I plan on working with a few people and asking for many comments in regards to POV when finishing this biography. Those I plan to rely on include Moni3, who would definitely be able to say if the article is fair towards queer theory interpretations of parts of Byron's life. Byron is very controversial and many people have used him for whatever means. It takes a lot of work to go through his various biographies, and, as you can see from the early life and Giraud page, I own all of the major ones. I plan on creating a page on Byron's relationships and finishing off his poetry before jumping in to editing the page as a whole in order to measure out the various weight issues that will arise. This takes time, especially when we want it to b e perfect. Samuel Johnson took 3 months of research, 4 months of work and planning, and then 2 months for the FAC. With the controversial nature of Byron, it will take me at least 7 more months (after all of the planning and research already devoted) before there will be something that can be called "complete". Ottava Rima (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As I have pointed out before --- there are as many Byrons as there are Byronists. The article will not be "perfect" --- there is no such thing.  The important part of this biography will be listing and explaining the references so that readers may find their own way to further reading.  This means listing many sources, and allowing each of us to present a view, not necessarily agreed upon by all.  An example is the recent work by Edna O'Brian "Byron in Love." I feel it is no more than a patchwork of speculation and hyperbole, but others might consider her view of Byron as fact.  Hopefully the Wikipedia article will allow readers to delve into Byron's many Personas and then join the rest of us in trying to understand him and his poetry.  I have had articles published in The Byron Journal and The Keats-Shelly Journal.  I trust that those of you who will be rewriting this article will not ignore my suggestion. Sirswindon (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sirswindon, I share your concerns. I will add that anyone's "plans" for any article in Wikipedia have to be taken with a grain of salt. None of us is in a position to impose plans regarding the evolution of an article, though we are all welcome to propose, and enact, ideas. There are a number of fundamental flaws, as far as standard Wikipedia operating procedure (at a minimum), in much of the above discourse. They have to do with ownership of articles, assumption of authority, and others which I think are crystal clear to those with eyes to see. The main point is that we have to maintain a tolerant and inclusive environment in which everyone can contribute according to their domain of expertise, and in which personal shortcomings are accommodated as long as they do not impact the gradual improvement of the article. --Haiduc (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Birthday
There are two birth dates given on the page. Can the discrepancy be cleared up please?JocelynDeBath (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

New files
Recently the files below were uploaded and they appear to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think they would be a useful addition, please feel free to include any of them.

Both are by Richard Westall, 1813. Dcoetzee 14:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

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 no consensus to move at this time. There are a similar number of editors in support and opposition, both sides with arguments with strong precedents elsewhere. I suggest that this debate is one for the Manual of Style to fix, once clarified. Skomorokh, barbarian  11:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron → Lord Byron — Per WP:COMMONNAME. "Lord Byron" is the name by which he is almost universally referred in modern general-audience sources. It's already a redirect to this article, so questions of ambiguity are moot; the only question is whether "Lord Byron" or "George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron" is the name by which most readers would recognize him. --Powers T 01:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Lord Byron is not the common name. George Gordon Byron is the common name. I have multiple collections of Romantic poetry and many, many biographies on Byron, and George Gordon Byron is the common use. Your statement above is blatantly wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A cursory search of Google Books shows many more books with "Lord Byron" in their titles than those with "George Gordon Byron". I think the former is also far, far more recognizable to the average modern English-speaking person.  Anecdotally, I stumbled upon this article when I found a link to it on another page, like so: Byronesque  I had hoped to determine the identity of the Byron being alluded to by simply noting the destination of the link in my status bar; instead, I had to actually follow the link to verify that the 6th Baron Byron was indeed the Lord Byron of poetry fame.  I find it difficult to believe I'd be alone in my confusion.  Powers T 03:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A few book titles are -not- common use, and there are far more -collections- of his poems than books on Byron. Furthermore, the biographies of Percy Bysshe Shelley, John Leats, Leigh Hunt, Robert Southey, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, William Wordsworth, William Blake, and Alfred, Lord Tennyson all have him as "Byron" or "Byron, George Gordon" from what I can tell simply by the 90+ books that I currently have on my desk. Furthermore, MoS consensus on -lords- is to describe them by their official title, as that is an extremely common name per the heavy documentation of every member of British nobility within legal documents. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're confusing two purposes of using his name. In prose, as in the case of your cited biographies, we should absolutely use his full proper name and title.  Likewise when he is listed as the author of a particular work.  However, in the case of a title -- such as the book titles I cited -- we should use the name that most readers would most readily recognize.  See the rule of thumb at WP:COMMONNAME: "What word would the average user of Wikipedia put into the search engine?"  If you think that's "George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron" (or even just "George Gordon, Lord Byron") then I'm not sure there's anything I could say that would convince you.  Powers T 14:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the overwhelming use of his name in scholarship is George Gordon Byron. Even the majority of biographies use George Gordon Byron. There is no basis for your claim. There have been people that have complained about his name for years, and the community has always ruled in defense of the nobility title and there has never been a convincing argument that Lord Byron is used in even close to the majority of works, let alone is the "common" name. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree with the full name being used, so long as the redirect is in place. Any confusion should be addressed as early as possible in the lead. Where multiple sources can be shown to use many versions of his name, a simple claim that one is "common" requires far more evidence, particulalry when evidence to the contrary is given. Lord Byron's full name is used far more often than Lord Dunsany's, but we also use his full name and title. Yob  Mod  08:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So we make the reader click to verify the subject of the article? I find that absurd.  Powers T 14:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Click on what? The first sentence tells us he is also called Lord Byron. Renaming wont solve the problem of people coming to the wrong article or having to read the first sentence to verify they are on the correct page. As there are multiple other notable Lords Byron, renaming would also require this be disambiguated. Yob  Mod  14:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are there other Lord Byrons of similar or reasonable notability? --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As I noted, issues of "primary topic" are moot, as Lord Byron quite properly redirects to this article. Powers T 16:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was reading an article. The article used the word "Byronesque".  Not knowing, but suspecting, which "Byron" might be referred to, I hovered over the link to see what article was linked.  The article was this one, but I did not know if "George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron" was the Lord Byron of poetry fame, so I had to click through to find out, instead of being able to just go on reading the article I was reading.  Powers T 16:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) FWIW, jstor pulls out 33 references with the exact match to "George Gordon Byron" but 4218 with "Lord Byron". Of the 4218, 230 contain the exact name "George Gordon" in the text. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. English speaking people generally know the poet as "Lord Byron". Poetry specialists may or may not use other terms, but the evidence I see from JSTOR generally supports Lord Byron over the current title by an astronomical margin. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is completely bogus. 1. JSTOR does not have access to the Keats and Shelley Journal, which has far more uses of George Gordon Byron than anything that would be contained in JSTOR. 2. The Library of Congress has far, far more hits under George Gordon Byron. Furthermore, "Byron" on its own appears more times than "Lord Byron". 3. JSTOR has 39539 for -Byron-. 21448 for George Byron. 7801 for George Gordon Byron. Only 11507 for Lord Byron. 3970 for "Lord Byron" as a phrase, not the 4218 that you claim. Funny how 300 articles suddenly vanish in a few hours. If you are going to play these games, don't do it with someone who is an expert in the field with the whole DC consortium at their fingertips. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Bit, unnecessary, and rather uncalled for, the rant I mean, don't you think, Ottava Rima? --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 00:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, it is hardly surprising that George Byron occurs more frequently than Lord Byron (I get 23012 and 12465 for the two terms respectively - a bit more than your numbers) since articles on Byron will doubtless contain George as well, since that was his name. A better indicator of the common name is what article titles use. If you search for "George Byron" in the title vs "Lord Byron" in the title, you get 2 and 108 respectively. The 2 for George are for George Byron Roorbach rather than for the poet. (That 'Byron' appears more often than 'Lord Byron' hardly needs explaining!) To me it seems fairly obvious that the poet is more often called "Lord Byron" (or just Byron) than "George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron" and the numbers backing that up don't seem bogus. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 00:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh. And I think a move to just plain Byron is fine as well. The current title is just not, well, common. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 00:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that looking at titles is a better metric, since we're looking at what to title this article. Powers T 02:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Rant? What rant? I straightforwardly proved that you were spreading blatant falsehoods. There is no rant. Furthermore, it doesn't matter what you want the page to move to, the name is based on an objective standard and not popular opinion. Furthermore, "Byron" does not prioritize George Gordon Byron, as there are millions of Byrons in the world. Library of Congress classifies him as Byron, George Gordon. Norton classifies him as such. Penguin classifies him as such. Oxford classifies him as such. There is no debate. If you want to continue wasting your own time, you can feel free. But there is no justification that can be used and that was made clear from the beginning. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Contrary to your assertions, there is indeed a debate, and you are not right just because you say so. Powers T 13:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) (and ec) Unfortunately, there is clear justification for moving the title to either Byron or Lord Byron. Let's examine the following: In general, we, on wikipedia prefer to use the common names of articles and our focus is more on the names people actually use rather than on formal ones. I understand you say that you're an expert on the subject, and perhaps the readers of your numerous articles in the Keats and Shelley Journal expect no less than George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron (though, looking at the references in the article, I find none from that august poetry journal!), but, here on wikipedia we prefer to keep things simple. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) On JSTOR, 108 articles have "Lord Byron" in the title while 0 that have George Byron in the title refer to our poet. Clearly scholars writing on the subject prefer Lord Byron over George Byron or the unwieldy title our article currently uses. It is entirely possible that they prefer Byron over Lord Byron but George in the title is not preferred by them.
 * 2) On wikipedia, Byron and Lord Byron both redirect to your preferred title. There is no apparent need to disambiguate.
 * 3) Per WP:NAME: Use names and terms most commonly used, and so most likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article. You cannot seriously argue that George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron is more recognizable or commonly used than Byron or Lord Byron.
 * 4) Per WP:NAME: Use terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article Will users arrive at wikipedia and type in George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron or just plain old Byron?
 * 5) Per WP:NAME: Be precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously Byron alone seems to do a fine job of identifying the topic of the article unambiguously.
 * 6) Per WP:NAME: A good article title is brief and to the point. (Even when disambiguation is necessary, keep that part brief.) The current article title is the antithesis of brief and to the point.
 * 7) Per WP:NAME: The choice of article names should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists. Readers will always prefer Byron or Lord Byron over George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron.
 * 8) On examining the references included in the article, 11 use just plain Byron in the title, 12 use Lord Byron in the title (4 of which seem to be published works of Byron where the publishers appear to think that attributing the poems to "Lord Byron" is perfectly fine), 4 have George Gordon in the title - of which 1 also uses Lord and only one matches the title of this article.
 * What do major publishers refer to Byron as? George Gordon Byron. The Norton collection? George Gordon Byron. Penguin? George Gordon Byron. Oxford? George Gordon Byron. What does the Library of Congress classify him as? George Gordon Byron. There is no way to justify not calling him such, so please, stop the nonsense. Your comments are filled with 100% incorrect information and yet you are trying to be snide about it. Furthermore, the fact that Byron is a Peer means that he falls under community wide Peer Naming conventions, as Peers are published in their full name and title in millions of works and are the official classification per the British nobility system. Byron went by his full title. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * He may have gone by his full title but the reality is that his common name is Byron or Lord Byron, and neither of those names needs disambiguation. Per our policies, the article should be at Byron or Lord Byron. (Also, do note that his notability is primarily as the poet and not as a member of the nobility so the official classification does not apply.) Even the published poetry referenced in the article is attributed to Lord Byron rather than George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You can claim that all you want, but you have been proven 100% wrong. So cut the nonsense already. Furthermore, "common name" deals with authors like Mark Twain, who is classified as Mark Twain and not by his original name. It does not apply in this situation as libraries classify him as Byron, George Gordon. There is no way for people to be confused as you claim, and all of your arguments have been debunked. Stop. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm curious what you mean by "refer to Byron as". In what context are they referring to him?  And I'm also unclear on what you mean by a Library of Congress classification, since we're not classifying Lord Byron here, we're identifying him.  Powers T 22:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You've heard of a library before, right? What do you think "refer to Byron" would mean? It is really straight forward. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We "refer to" the man in this very article in at least four different ways: "Byron", "Lord Byron", "George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron", etc. All right here in this article, right now.  So my question was, in what context do those sources "refer to" Byron as "George Gordon Byron"?  As for the Library of Congress, my confusion is because you switched from talking about referring to and identifying the person to "classifying" the person.  I would think he is classified as a poet, and probably as a British noble.  But what that has to do with his name is beyond me.  Powers T 03:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Using just "Byron" as the title would be as silly as using just "Beethoven", "Churchill", "Bush", "Tolstoy" and all the rest. Using "Lord Byron" is also silly because this chap was one of 13 Lords Byron so far, of whom Wikipedia has currently 6 different articles. He may have been far and away the most famous Lord Byron, but the other 12 were/are also just as entitled to be referred to as "Lord Byron", so ... -- JackofOz (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see why. Both Byron as well as Lord Byron redirect to the current article. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Byron is an obvious miss-redirect. The name "Byron" is a regular first name and a regular last name. There is no way to claim that George Gordon Byron comes close to 50% of its use, especially since 19th century literary figures are -not- commonly known. Lord Byron is disputable, but it should never be used within an article, as the author classification is George Gordon Byron, so there is no need for a redirect. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottava, we're talking about the title of the article here. Per WP:NAME it should be at the most obvious/common/popular name. Almost no one in the English speaking world would be at a loss to figure out which Byron was being referred to if you went up to them and started a conversation about the man. The other 12 peers of the realm (if that is the right term) can have their full names and titles in their article names but it is both against our common name policy as well as a disservice to our readers to keep the current title. Very few, and I mean a very tiny few, even know that his first name was George, let alone that his middle name was Gordon, or that he was the 6th Baron Byron, or that there are 12 other Baron Byrons jostling for respect. Hundreds and thousands have read the poetry of Lord Byron and only a precious few that of George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron. I know you've done good work on poetry articles here on wikipedia, but, I think, your familiarity with the subject is causing you to lose perspective here. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 00:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "most obvious/common/popular nam" Seeing as how he is an author and authors are listed by a specific name, then the common name is that. Book stores and libraries list him as George Gordon Byron. No more, no less. Anything to the contrary is imaginary BS. I'm done with your games. You have no argument, and your pursuit is against the MoS, against standards, and against logic. You already crossed WP:CIVIL and NPA attacks above. Does an AN or ANI need to be brought about because of your indecent actions? And you keep putting up claim after demonstrably false claim. There should be a policy against such absurdities. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Ottava, when the works of the man are published under Lord Byron, I don't really see how you can claim that using that as the title is not appropriate. Nor does it seem to me that an expert on poetry, even a self-proclaimed one, would be unable to recognize that the vast multitudes are unaware of a George Gordon Byron. It seems to me that your reactions here are not particularly healthy in the sense that you seem over-invested in this and are taking the whole thing rather personally.  I think I've been perfectly civil and am surprised that you think otherwise given the tone of your posts from your first response onward. If your remarks here are your general standards of civility and 'no personal attacks' then all I can say is that I would hate to encounter you on one of your particularly bad days! However, as far as I'm concerned, I've stated what I think, I've provided many arguments based on our policies that you haven't addressed, but, it it makes you feel better, please take this to AN or ANI or wherever you think fit. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, please do bring this to a noticeboard. It's clear enough that you're the one being unreasonable here, tossing around insults, threatening escalation, and dismissing arguments out-of-hand.  I would welcome the increased attention.  Powers T 03:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with having Byron and Lord Byron redirect here, because this is obviously the person most people are thinking of when they say these names. If they were actually wanting a different Byron, they're told how to access it at the top of the page.  But as for the title of this article being just "Byron" or "Lord Byron" - no way in a million years (it would be like having "Shakespeare" as the primary title of the article currently called "William Shakespeare").  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "hen the works of the man are published under Lord Byron" Lying is incivil. LoC classifies him as George Gordon Byron. That is all there is. Your persistence is the very definition of tenditious and incivil. "would be unable to recognize that the vast multitudes are unaware of a George Gordon Byron" Then I guess they have problems when they go to their libraries and book stores for information, especially when there is nothing under "L" for Byron! Your arguments are so incredibly wrong that you must know that they have no basis and is further proof of your intentional disruption. Stop. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This should be a no-brainer, per WP:COMMONNAME. "Lord Byron" is the most commonly-used moniker in English, he's the most famous Lord Byron by quite some distance, and the short form is considerably better known than his full title. The current title is like an exercise in how to get this wrong. There's also the question of which of the above editors is most likely to be wrong in any given debate, which is also a no-brainer. As for whether to use "Byron" or "Lord Byron", I think the latter is slightly core common and a little clearer. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 03:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And yet every library categorizes him as George Gordon Byron. Common name requires reliable sources and you lack any. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Lets see - Norton Anthology uses "George Gordon". Harold Bloom's Oxford Anthology uses "George Gordon". Martin Day's well known History of English Literature 1660-1837 uses "George Gordon Noel Byron, 6th Baron Byron of Rochdale". M H Abrams in Naturalism Supernaturalism uses "George Gordon". Paul de Man in The Rhetoric of Romanticism uses "George Gordon". Northrup Frye in Anatomy of Criticism uses... you guessed it, "George Gordon". What do Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar use in The Madwoman in the Attic? Shock?!?! Its "George Gordon". How can all of these pre-eminent critics and collections use a name that would be unknown to everyone... unless the claims above are 100% a sham and you guys are wasting everyone's time with this nonsense. Cut it out. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have even thought it necessary to point this out, but our naming conventions are not predicated on what libraries call people. JSTOR provides the evidence for common naming, as shown above. I'm sure at least some of the 22,100 results turned up here are to reliable sources making this assertion. I am unsure why you think invective is going to persuade people, rather than simply convince them that you're being intractable for the sake of it (which you're infamous for). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "are not predicated on what libraries call people" You should honestly be blocked for that because that can be nothing but trolling. Library labelling of the individual -is- the common use. Byron is not alive. 99.99999% of people don't have a clue who he is or cares about who he is. Who does care? Publishers, libraries, literary critics, and people who have to read him in their text book collections. As has been pointed out, -they- all call him George Gordon. Your refusal to accept the vast majority of use is unbelievably inappropriate. There isn't anything about "persuasion" as this is not a popular vote. It is an objective standard. The issue was ended from the very onset as years of consensus have already said that the above is so clear that there is no way to claim otherwise. Your pushing of the point is disruptive. That should have been obvious to you, and you should know better. Furthermore, MoS does not accept -honorary- titles in naming. Barack Obama is Barack Obama, not President Obama. Byron was not "Lord Byron" but 6th Baron Byron. You can read about it here (see: "Wikipedia editors that the use of honorific titles inline is intended only to describe the person as holding a particular title"). That is the difference between Baron Byron and Lord Byron, as one is an -honorific-. Finally, remember that this is an -encyclopedia- and that you should actually treat it as one. This isn't some children's game so your actions are inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Now, I am tired of the "commonname" bs, though it is proven wrong, is not acceptable use - Naming conventions - All British Peers follow the same convention, which is their full title. This allows for there to be -no- problems with the fact that honorifics (i.e. "Lord" and "Sir") are unacceptable use per MoS and distinguishes them as per millions and millions of legitimate uses of them in British records and texts. This has been an upheld standard on thousands of pages for many years. It wont change here, especially with the claims about "Lord Byron" being a common name 100% false. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are going too far, Ottava. Please tone down your language and cease accusing us of discussing in bad faith.  We have all been quite civil to you, receiving nothing but scorn and abuse in return.  Please don't make me escalate this issue.  Powers T 15:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going too far? You are the one starting this whole nonsense. You have no legitimate argument and you pushed absurdities. The two above should honestly have known better then to encourage your disruption. You have contributed nothing but disruption. Once it was mentioned that the LoC classifies him as George Gordon Byron, you should have apologized for starting this. The other two should never have bothered. That is enough to warrant a week long block against all three of you because you have proven that you are not here to contribute. It seems like a block would be the only way to protect the encyclopedia by those who don't actually care what the real classifications are or how people actually use them. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think blocks are necessary, feel free to start the process. We will see what comes of it.  Powers T 16:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you admitting that it will be necessary for you to be blocked because you are unwilling to respect our guidelines here and want to push an issue that has been proven wrong in every possible manner? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that I believe my behavior has been perfectly acceptable, especially in comparison to yours, and that further review will bear that out. Powers T 00:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So, you are saying that it is perfectly acceptable to not write encyclopedic content and demand pages with 7 year old precedences to be changed because you found a word that you didn't understand on another page, and when it was pointed out that your understanding of policy and use was wrong based on actual common practice, you continued with your ideas? This is an encyclopedia. Your actions are not appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

MoS
I'm tired of the disruption above. I will spell out the MoS very clearly, and if people continue then there will be no more excuse of ignorance on the matter. Byron is a Peer. "Lord" is an honorific. MoS has restrictions on when and where an honorific can be used. Furthermore, this is the British peerage naming MoS guideline, the -only- one that applies. Byron is an inheritance Baron title, thus, it follows the standard conventions. As for "Lord" - "As such, they should be included in the article title if a person if universally recognised with it and their name is unrecognisable without it". The Library of Congress does -not- recognize the name. Libraries follow the LoC convention and do -not-. As I have pointed out, Oxford, Cambridge, Norton, and other major publishers do -not- recognize the title. The major English Literary critics do -not- recognize the title. They call him "George Gordon", and thus, the British Peerage naming convention makes it 100% clear that it cannot be -Lord- Byron. Any further arguments here are disruptive. You want to change the MoS which has been in place since 2003? Go and pull up an RfC. This issue has been fought about many times on little pages by people who do not understand the argument or just don't care about our standards. This talk page is not for disruption so please stop. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the invective, the actual quote from the MoS is as follows: "In the cases of certain historic persons, an honorific is so commonly attached to their names that it should be included. For example, the honorific should be included for 'Father Coughlin' (Charles Coughlin), the 1930s priest and broadcaster; Father Damien, the missionary in Hawaii; Father Divine, an American religious leader; Father Joseph, in 17th-century France; and Mother Teresa, a 20th-century humanitarian." To be honest, that section would be better including some examples from the nobility rather than just religious figures; once this has been settled, Byron would be a good shout for inclusion there. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I quoted the peerage standard. That was obvious. The fact that you quoted a completely different standard and even pointed out that there is no mention of nobility really provides a lot of evidence that you should be blocked for disruption. Cut it out. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Only #3 of the British peerage section mentions this case, and doesn't address the issue of common naming. As Powers said above, please feel free to Plaxico yourself on ANI if you think blocks are appropriate here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Common naming does not apply. It is very specific in the above. There are guidelines for -individual- subjects. It makes it clear that only if it is -universally- recognized. Do you understand what that means? I think you do, so, please stop this. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're referring to #6 in that section, then that's a matter of choosing between "Byron" and "Lord Byron", not between either of those two sensible suggestions and "George Gordon Byron" or "George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Byron" is not an option for a name. He is not listed as "Byron" in records. Your statement is as absurd as saying "William Shakespeare" should be "Shakespeare" or something similar. What is with your complete disregard for standard encyclopedic naming conventions and these rules that have been upheld by the community for over 6 years? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And Thumperward, why did you ignore that "Members of the hereditary Peerage" is the primary rule here? Is it because it defeated any argument you could make? Or is there some other reason? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's probably because your arguments were obfuscated by false threats and personal attacks, which made it difficult to see exactly what you were referring to. #1 suggests that full title + redirect is appropriate, yes, but it also rather assumes that the short form will be split between several obvious candidates. In this case, there's really only one obvious candidate for "Lord Byron". Nevertheless, I've pinged that talk page for response. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Not the fact that I stated something in the very beginning and you started quoting something that didn't apply? I mentioned the Peer standards. Did you ever bother to quote them? No. Why not? You would think that if you actually wanted to find out what the MoS said, you would have looked it up. You didn't. You continued to push something that was demonstrated as being false. You continue to push is. Why is that? And it doesn't matter where Lord Byron redirects to. What matters is the standard page title, which is following standard convention -and- the standard classification. Do you know what the term "encyclopedic" means by chance? So far, you have proven that 1. you were unwilling to look up the pertinent MoS guidelines, 2. you ignored statements that debunked your claims, and 3. you are pushing something that has no encyclopedic basis and, having never shown any interest in actually -fixing- or -working- on these pages, you are arguing with a person who has an FA -on- this very subject and who has a expertise in the field that has been verified by ArbCom. Those three things are very clear in determining that your actions are highly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've pinged the talk page for that MoS article, by the way. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that because Lord Byron is most well-known as an author rather than as a baron, the nobility guideline may not be the only one that applies. Powers T 17:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, the Baron guidelines apply no matter what. And if Byron is most well known as an author, then the whole "Library of Congress" classification takes priority and destroys your argument. After all, you are the one pushing for "Lord", which is a peer title. Authorship does not use honorifics in classification. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not pushing for "Lord" because it's a peerage title; I'm pushing for it because that's how the man is known among the general populace today. And you still haven't explained what you mean by "classification" as it relates to the naming of an encyclopedia article.  Powers T 00:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How is he known? From reading about him at school? As proven above, text books by all the major publishers use "George Gordon Byron". How about from checking him out at the library? That's right, under Byron, George Gordon. In academia? All the major critics call him "George Gordon Byron". Stop with the nonsense already. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Ottava, above you accuse me of lying about hen the works of the man are published under Lord Byron. In the interests of keeping things constructive, I won't take umbrage over that because I'm beginning to think you have neither read any of the policies mentioned in the above discussion (if you had, you would have noticed that there is no Ottava Rima exclusion caveat in WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA), nor have you bothered reading the arguments that I and others have presented (if you had, you would have noted that the publishers I am talking about are actually listed in the article as references). About your substantive argument re MOS, do note that WP:MOS is a guideline, while WP:NAME is a policy. Policies take precedence over guidelines. It would be more constructive if you addressed why the commonly used and easily recognizable 'Lord Byron' does not meet the 'Recognizable', 'Easy to find', 'Precise', and 'concise' requirements listed in that policy. Or, why George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron does. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am being civil to you. You, however, were being extremely uncivil and tendentious. I have not personally attacked you, but you have clearly personally attacked me, which I commented on above. Furthermore, your false claims of personal attacks are even more personal attacks. The simple fact that you are pursuing this when the Peer MoS guideline was clearly pointed out and the LoC statement was pointed out meets the very definition of trolling. You need to stop. You have no basis to argue here. The fact that you keep making such absurd and factually wrong claims about names is just proof that you wont stop until you are banned. Do you even do anything around here worth while? Why are you here on this page trying to disrupt 7 years worth of consensus and yet haven't bothered to provide any worth while contributions to this encyclopedia or topic area? Why is it when every single famous literary critic is put up as proof, of the major publishers are put up as proof, and world wide library standards are put up as proof, that you continue on and on? You have made it clear that you have utter contempt for our standards and for any kind of encyclopedic integrity, and you have been belligerent, tendentious, and abusive from the start. Why are you at Wikipedia with such an attitude? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and while you were being snide about WP:NAME, you forgot that NAME was quoted above and is referring to the Peer naming convention. Furthermore, you have not proven there is a -common- name, and there has been a lot of proof dismissing there being one in your claim. The fact that you would attempt to fall back on that argument is further proof of tendentious behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Quick question, in addition to missing the above when being snide, did you read the beginning of the policy you cling to? I'll bold for emphasis: "It is supplemented by guidelines that advise on how to apply the principles set out here and on managing conflicts between them. Most detailed naming advice appears in guidelines relating to articles in specific topic areas – a list of these can be found in the box to the right." A simple look to the right would show: "People All people — Ancient Romans • Baseball players • Clergy • Royalty and nobility". Do you know what that last one is? Then there is: "Consensus on naming articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, is stated and explained on the guideline pages referenced" after those bullet points you cling to. Are you done wasting our time? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me see if I can address your more substantive arguments (why do I bother, I don't know). First, the peer naming conventions. With regard to peer naming conventions, one first needs to ask: is the subject more notable as a peer or as a poet? In other words, will our readers be searching for the peer George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron, or the poet Byron? The very first line of the article tells us that the subject is the poet, Byron, rather than the peer. If the article is primarily about the poet, if our readers are primarily looking for the poet, then the article should be at the name by which the poet is recognizable. Second, the bullet points that I cling to. Note that there is a difference between a guideline (the stuff in the box on the right of the page - see your boldfaced comment above) and a policy (the stuff written into the policy page). The bullet points that I cling to are a part of the policy whereas the peer convention that you cling to is a guideline. In this case, the poet trumps the peer and policy trumps guidelines. Third, the common name part. Ignoring for the moment that a poetry expert should easily know that he is more recognizable as Lord Byron or simply Byron, no one in their right mind can possibly argue that George_Gordon_Byron,_6th_Baron_Byron is the common name of the poet. For Byron and Lord Byron being the common name, please see my analysis of the references in the article (yes, looking at references is one of the many tendentious methods recommended in WP:NAME), the jstor results, the google uk results of Chris Cunningham's search, and Power's google books analysis above. I could recommend that you stop wasting our time but I'm not going to stoop that low. Finally, if you think you've been civil while I have not and that I'm being tendentious, disruptive, and am a general blight on wikipedia, do please file a complaint on AN, ANI or start an RfC or something. All of which, a quick look at your contribution history reveals, you are quite the expert at. Your constant carping and your tragic hero pose here, coupled with your refusal to do something about it is depressing in the extreme. Regards and good luck. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no author "Lord Byron". There is only an author George Gordon Byron. This was proven below as per the Library of Congress. Even Google Books follows this standard. 9000 entries by the author George Gordon Byron, less than 500 for Lord Byron. You have no argument. This has pointed out over and over, yet you continue. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Does it matter?
The present title correctly gives Byron's full names and title. Accordingly the title is correct accoring to WP:MOS. However, since he was by far the most famous Lord Byron, I see no reason why "Lord Byron" and also "Byron (poet)" should not be redirects to this article. Nevertheless, the poet was not the only notable Lord Byron: WP also has articles on the 1st, 5th, 7th, 11th, and 12th barons (see Baron Byron). Each of them was also Lord Byron. Accoringly, if my suggestion is taken up, there should be a disambiguation hatnote, "Lord Byron redirects here, for other holders of the title see Baron Byron". This is a regular means of dealing with this problem. The only exceptions are for Prime Ministers normally known by something other than their final title (only used when out of office) and living peers ho do not use their title. In each case, however, the titled form of the name should be a redirect to the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It only "matters" in that we have conventions for this sort of thing, and that the redirect function is not a replacement for proper naming in the first place. This could easily be reversed to show that the move is trivial, and that strong opposition to it is pointless. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The convention dealing with nobility has existed since 2002 and was used multiple times on this page and Alfred Tennyson's page. Each time, the convention was upheld as this being proper. Your persistence on the matter is very troublesome, especially since you have failed to actually show any willingness to -work- on the actual -articles-. Your tendentious denial of the LoC, actual academia, and your disrespect for tradition compound with the above. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, as Lt. Powers points out, it is confusing for the reader who expects to find references to Byron at Lord Byron. Since links to the article are almost always to the article itself rather than through a redirect, the reader, on encountering a link to the current name, could be left wondering whether the reference is to the poet or to someone else. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides your hiding of comments through misthreading them, your claim that articles would link "Lord Byron" go against our conventions and would be inappropriate. Furthermore, your claim that -our- readers wouldn't be able to find the poet is absurd, as every major library lists George Gordon Byron, which would mean that this mass of ignorant readers could never find his poetry at all. Surely seems like a major problem that hundreds of thousands of librarians would want to fix if it was truly. Fortunately, it is not. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Library Congress
Note - this was restored after being inappropriately removed by RegentsPark. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

People seem to ignore this important point, but I feel like I will just put forth all of the evidence because people refuse to bother. Just go to libraryofcongress.gov to verify if the links don't work. This search reveals that there are 566 -unique- entries in the Library of Congress on works authored by Byron. The name they use - "Byron, George Gordon Byron, Baron". In standard use (first last) it is George Gordon Byron, Baron Byron. Look familiar? There are also -no- entries on "Lord Byron". What about the other use of the name "Byron"? The search reveals 1390 -Byrons-. That is more than double how many entries are on George Gordon Byron, which verifies that he is not the primary use of the name "Byron" or even represents 50% of the use. Many of these entries have dozens of works to their names. There are many with the first name, and many with the last name. This guy has 70 works to his name with the name Byron. Who uses the Library of Congress organization? Besides most of the major libraries in the world, all major publishers follow it. What about citations? Yep, if you have any academic leaning, you cite him as "Byron, George Gordon" per the Library of Congress naming. You don't say the author was "Lord Byron" when citing.

Google books for "Lord Byron"has 24,428 hits. Yet, works with the title "Lord Byron" have the author as George Gordon Byron. Funny how that works. George Gordon Byron as an author has 9,729 hits on Google Books. Lord Byron as an author has 275 hits. Yes, if you are ever going to look for a book by Byron and actually -read- Byron, guess what you have to look under? George Gordon Byron. There is no legitimate claim to say otherwise, and the numbers are overwhelmingly against anyone who claims that "Lord Byron" is even close to acceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a library classification scheme or a place that people come to look up books. They usually do that in the library or bookstore and Byron, George Gordon probably works just fine there. Wikipedia is a reference encyclopedia where people come for information about topics that they want to know more about. The reason we have a common name policy is so that these readers can get to the article they seek by the quickest and most direct method. If it was just a matter of setting up redirects, we wouldn't need a common name policy at all and every article that is currently at its common name would be at the official/formal name along with appropriate redirects. But that is patently not the case, and for a good reason. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Library classifications are reliable sources. Your claims are not. Library classification for authors represents the internationally recognized consensus name of an author. Your statements to the contrary do not represent anything within policy and are inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well actually a reliable source is a published source. The way a library chooses to classify its books is not a published source. (A classification scheme may be published but an actual instance of classification is not). To look for reliable sources, best to look at the references in the article (which favor Byron or Lord Byron - see my analysis somewhere above). Your statements to the contrary do not represent anything within policy and are inappropriate (for a poetry expert, you have a rather bureaucratic style of expression! I hope you're not offended by my borrowing it.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you actually going to try and claim that the Library of Congress catalog and listing is not a published and reliable source? The actual instance of classification is published. There are many, many editions of their catalogs, and hundreds of thousands of Bibliographies that go and reinforce such. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right about the fact that it is published (I checked our library catalog system). I guess that claim of mine is, um, debunked (I just love Ottava speak!). Still, the broader point of library classification not being what our readers are all about is still valid. I notice you haven't addressed (sorry, debunked!) that yet. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've asked Bugs to put forth a study about the readers, and I haven't seen anyone since produce something. If you look at my user page, you will see what I work on. That work deals with putting forth articles that are catered to those who would use them most often - college students working in literature classes that need to a basis for either a paper or a presentation. They put forth scholarly articles, never use online works, and deal with the verified and credible scholarship in the area. This is not some 20th century band, or some children's novelist. This is not some current fad, and high literature is quite ignored except in academia and students needing to submit assignments. Our rival is the Literary Encyclopedia, an invite only encyclopedia edited by scholars. Yes, I was invited to go there, but the format and system lacks the standards and true encyclopedic spirit that can be found here and has produced far superior pages to their comparative pages (such as Samuel Johnson or "To Autumn", just two of my extensively worked and researched pages). This is their article. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, while it is clear that in your daily life you work with an academic environment, a large volume of hits on any Wikipedia page come through a google search. "When did Byron live?"  "What was Byron lord of?" "When did he die?" "Wasn't the woman who wrote Frankenstein married to Byron?"  That kind of stuff.  Sadly, they won't be English lit school students from England, as none of the current exam board curricula appear to cover the Romantics. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That said, I still thing the article should be where it is currently, if only to educate those (like me) who had no idea that Byron's first name was George. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible precedents
I note that neither Christopher Guest nor Bertrand Russell are titled according to their peerages. This would appear to be a similar case, in that the subject is widely known by some other name other than "Firstname Lastname, Ordinal Title Domain". Powers T 13:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * - "EXCEPTIONS: When individuals received hereditary peerages after retiring from the post of Prime Minister (unless they are better known for their later career under an additional/alternative title), or for any other reason are known exclusively by their personal names, do not include the peerage dignity. Examples: Anthony Eden (not "Anthony Eden, 1st Earl of Avon"), Bertrand Russell (not "Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell") (but Henry Addington, 1st Viscount Sidmouth not "Henry Addington")." - In this situation, the "personal name" would be George Gordon Byron. If you want to follow the Russell example, the article cannot be "Lord Byron" but only "George Gordon Byron". Furthermore, the word "exclusively" is the key word in the above. As shown in the LoC link, the term is "Byron, George Gordon Byron" or "Byron, George Gordon Byron, Baron", which shows that the title is used in major fields. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies, you're correct that those two cases are covered under that exception clause. Powers T 15:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

View from Elen of the Roads
I confess my ignorance - I didn't know Byron's first name was George until I came here. Sadly, even though I went to a good school (many years ago) we didn't do the Romantics. There is no doubt that Byron the poet is frequently referred to as Lord Byron - the British Library catalogues list many books in several languages spanning 180 years, with titles containing the words Lord Byron, there is a Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies, in 1826, William Parry, styling himself "major in Lord Byron's brigade" published The last days of Lord Byron, in 1827, Lake wrote The Life of Lord Byron, Cosmo Gordon wrote "The Life and Genius of Lord Byron" in 1824 and so on.

However, there is equally no doubt that the chap's full name is George Gordon Byron etc, and he was a peer of the realm. Wikipedia has a system for naming peers of the realm and suchlike titled personages, and as someone who works with information technology, metadata etc, my own preference is to have the article name match the rest of its set, and use meta navigation (in this case a redirect) to get the many users like me from Lord Byron to George Gordon. For one thing, doing it this way round allows the creation of the set of Barons Byron all with their correct appellation, without one of them having to be piped. For another, while Byron the poet is the only one anyone recalls now, all the Barons Byron are properly Lord Byron, so the situation is not analogous to the example in WP:COMMONNAME of Bill Clinton vs William Jefferson Clinton, nor to Anthony Eden quoted above. There's only one of them, whichever way you dice it.

I think it does no harm to leave him where he is, in the company of the other Lords Byron. He's easy enough to find when that Eng Lit essay looms.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually think there is harm in leaving him where he is (though that needs to be traded of with the possibility of Ottava having a stroke if it is changed!). While it is true that any search for Byron will be redirected to this page anyway, the reality is that many readers to this page will come through links from other articles or from links embedded in other sites. For example, a reader may be reading an article - perhaps the article Dandy - and come across a reference to a Byron and think, "wow, I didn't know that Byron was a dandy?" Clicking on the link, he/she ends up at an article titled "George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron" and could be forgiven for thinking "just another dandy peer, not the poet" and moving on without bothering to read even the first sentence of the article. This is, in my mind, a disservice to that reader, and a disservice that is purely for the bureaucratic reason of internal consistency. Our focus, instead, should be on customer service which is better catered to by the alternative title Lord Byron (except, possibly to peerist purist editors on wikipedia). The whole point of the common names policy is to get readers to where they want to go as quickly, directly, and precisely as possible and there is not much point in having that policy in place if we don't use it or if we ignore embedded links and focus solely on redirects. If readers are primarily searching for the peer, then the peer name should take precedence. If readers are searching for the poet, then the common name should take precedence. Since Byron was primarily a poet, and one commonly known as Lord Byron, that's where the article title should be.  --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, RegentsPark, I think your "... moving on without bothering to read even the first sentence of the article" is an unsustainable principle. If reader A thinks of 1 association and B thinks of another, the 2 ideas can't both be in the first phrase of the lead sentence. In general, you have to assume readers will read the first para.
 * IMO the whole issue is WP:COMMONSENSE. The content should be under the most unambiguous title, to minimise the risk of having to untangle conflict - in this case, the full-address of a British peer per British references on the nobility. Commonly-use alternatives should be explained in the first part of the lead. In this type of case I'd bent the rules of WP:LEAD a little:
 * There's no need to mirror this in the main text, as any main text on the topic would just be the same words recast as a sentece or 2 rather than a phrase.
 * The names in the lead should be supported by a ref or note that lists the alternative names with 1 or more citations per name. see Alexander Alekhine (chess champion and minor member of Russian nobility).
 * Then use DAB pages and/or otheruses if we ever find e.g. a pop star styled as "Lord Byron".
 * Where's the drama? --Philcha (talk) 10:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a problem with the first sentence saying "George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron is the full name of the Romantic poet Lord Byron." The fact that he is Lord Byron is, I fully agree, the most important thing about him, and should come to the top of the lede. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2009 (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.

Compromise proposal
Obviously there was no consensus for a straight move to Lord Byron. However, based on the text at WP:NCROY, I think another solution presents itself.

That section reads, in part: "When individuals inherited or were created peers but are best known to history by a courtesy title use that. Examples: Frederick North, Lord North (not "Frederick North, 2nd Earl of Guilford"), Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh (not "Robert Stewart, 2nd Marquess of Londonderry")."

I believe that our Lord Byron fits perfectly into that particular guideline. It is undeniable that he was "best known to history" by his courtesy title "Lord Byron". Therefore, this article could be moved to George Gordon Byron, Lord Byron while remaining perfectly in line with the guidelines at WP:NCROY and clearing up confusion about his identity before the reader even gets to the first sentence.

What say you? Powers T 14:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That might work. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I remain unconvinced that most people either look at where the link is going or indeed look at the title of the article that is wikilinked. I believe they just click the link and read the first sentence. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about the alternate title proposal. It seems like a mish-mash to me. Perhaps we should just stay with the current title for the time being. (Though, I am left with the question why we bother having a common name policy if redirects can do the job? I don't mean that as a question about the move, which was closed properly, but rather as a general question.)--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 12:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it's any more of a mish-mash than Frederick North, Lord North is. Anyway, the common name policy is there for several very good reasons that are not ameliorated by redirects.  WP:NCCN once explained the rationale, but it has since been merged into WP:NC.  Here, reprinted for your perusal:
 * Names of articles should be the most commonly used name for the following reasons:
 * We want to maximize the likelihood of being listed in external search engines, thereby attracting more people to Wikipedia. For example, one pagename is Jimmy Carter and not "James Earl Carter, Jr."; the string "Jimmy Carter" in the page title makes it easier to find: search engines will often give greater weight to the contents of the title than to the body of the page. Since "Jimmy Carter" is the most common form of the name, it will be searched on more often, and having that exact string in our page title will often mean our page shows up higher in other search engines.
 * We want to maximize the incidence that people who make a link guessing the article name, guess correctly; people guessing a different name may think there is no article yet, which may cause duplication.
 * Using a full formal name requires people to know that name, and to type more.
 * We respect our readers and name our articles as they do, just formulating their collective needs.
 * Redirects help, but give a slightly unattractive "redirected from" announcement at the top of the page. On the other hand, if someone reads or hears "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom", and wonders who might be meant by that, the "(Redirected from Elizabeth II)" at the top of the page describing the monarch in question puts the reader at ease that this was the intended queen: the "redirect" message indicates that the system hasn't been playing tricks, and that this was the page to which you were supposed to be led.
 * -- Powers T 13:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that list. Makes perfect sense to me but, apparently, not to everyone. C'est la vie. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, common names are a good thing; but they are not the only good thing. For example, the common name of every Baron Baltimore is Lord Baltimore; but we cannot call them all that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering how the previous discussion turned out, I'm reluctant to propose another move so quickly afterward. Thoughts? Powers T 13:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's generally not a good idea to propose another move too soon (the point of consensus is that we should all be able to move on). However, it is worth looking at what this means to the common name policy. In the discussion above, the main arguments in favor are (1) peer naming conventions override the common name policy (2) published works are mostly under Byron, George Gordon and (3) the redirect takes care of the common name issue. There was also the other peers issue but that cannot be taken seriously because our Byron is clearly the primary topic. The main argument for Lord Byron is that that is the common name of the person. In this case, I think (and this is a personal opinion) the principle of common name seems to have taken a direct hit because the main rationale seems to be that common name is taken care of by redirects so what difference does it make. But, this would imply that we don't need a common name policy at all since every possible name can be taken care of by redirection (in the reducto ad absurdum condition, we could replace every title by, say, a number!). Personally, I'd like to get a clear answer, about when guidelines should take precedence over the common name but I can already see Ottava yelling "forum shopping" and "ban the editor" and have no stomach for that. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I explained why the Common Name policy is not obviated by redirects above. There are very good reasons for using common names, but certain groups of editors (those editing in the areas of European nobility and biology, among others) seem to take a dim view of the concept.  Powers T 14:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a balance, as WP:NAME says (unless a certain editor from Pacific Grove, California has been editing it last ;-> Hi, Serge) between recognizability and consistency. Since the full form of the name is almost equally recognizable, and most peers cannot simply be Lord Emsworth, which is massively ambiguous, the solution of Clarence Threepwood, Lord Emsworth usually tips the balance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the effort being made to find a good title for the article, but I'm really not sure that it is worth the effort. As long as "Lord Byron" redirects to the present title, I don't think there's much point in the move.  Better to use the article title to educate, in my opinion. Deb (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But that's just it; in many situations, the title is just the opposite of educational; it's obscuring instead of illuminating. Powers T 13:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Compromise sounds great to me; the objections are weak. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK by me. The examples that Lt. Powers give are persuasive and what's good enough for a pig-fancier is good enough for me. As a common man, I much prefer the common name (as does policy!). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How dare you call the Empress of Blandings a mere pig, Sir? Pray, Pig-fancier, at the least. ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Erm ... a little information: the comparison with Lord North or Viscount Castlereagh is rather unfavorable. While both were indeed courtesy titles for heir apparents, Lord Byron was not, but the address of a baron, who had already inherited his titles (see also Baron). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoe (talk • contribs)
 * I appreciate the information, but the text makes clear that those examples are given because they were more commonly known by those titles, not because they were heir apparents. The reason they were called by those titles is irrelevant; what's important is that they were called by those titles and today best known by those titles, just as Lord Byron is.  Powers T 16:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Lord Byron
USAToday.com has a short article referencing Lord Byron. No "George". Just "Lord Byron". That's his "common name", if you want to go by that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If. But do we? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case, no. But I'm not arguing for a name change. I'm just pointing out that "Lord Byron" is how he is known. Maybe not to someone who's deep into the classics as O.R. is, but to the average internet reader, which is who wikipedia's audience is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Other than Ottava's gainsaying, I don't think it's really disputed that this is the common name used for the subject. The main objection is that currently the MoS naming conventions for peers make no reference to the common name. IMO this is invalid because the sub-guidelines are supplemental to rather than a replacement for WP:NAME, but at least it's a serious argument. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:Naming conventions, please. However unwise and petty they may be, at least the subconventions have one virtue: they're not the "Manual of Style". ;->.
 * On the substantive issue, see Name, here. This is an instance of the balance between Consistency and Recognizability, and the subguideline gives (as it should) examples of how actual editing discussions have drawn up that balance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * From that list, "Lord Byron" is recognisable, easy to find and concise. The present title is precise and consistent, but fails miserably at the three previous criteria. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You omir Uniqueness (but Lord Byron is probably WP:PRIMARYUSAGE). I don't care how this discussion comes out; I think there is a reasonable case either way - but I should like it to be done in terms of our much-discussed and consensus policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is far too much time wasted on debating the names of articles. The way it should be done is to assign a number to each article (a "primary key", in database-ese), and then the various synonyms for an article would just redirect to it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They've also used "Dr Johnson" and just "Shakespeare". Using a short hand nickname in a newspaper that has no real credibility on the matter does not make consensus or anything. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is interesting. It turns out that the "Lord Byron" link was actually to George Byron, 6th Baron Byron and not to Lord Byron. Why ever would they list that and have so many hits under that name? That is just so odd. Perhaps this should be a lesson to look more closely at what you are referring to? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, they're redirecting from the "common" name (Lord Byron) to his actual name. Just as Edelweiss links to a Latin name that probably even the average botanist doesn't know, never mind the general public. If articles were ID'd by a primary key, a lot of this time-wasting discussion about what-to-name-it would go away. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A redirect is a page that shifts to another page. It is quite clear that they have "Lord Byron" to not take up space while the link shows the full name and title. Short hand does not suggest a lack of a common name, especially when both are present. Furthermore, if it did suggest such, then every article would be named merely by last names, as last names are used as short hand for full names, even in our MoS. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Lord Byron is an actual name. Furthermore, after 1811, the poet's full name was George Gordon Noel, Baron Byron. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Perhaps we should be talking about moving the article to George Gordon Noel Byron, 6th Baron Byron. Per MoS, of course! One issue with the current formulation is the Baron Byron at the end. That sort of alliteration is not aesthetically pleasing in a title. Baron Byron bored Baroness Byron. Puns accidental. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's an error. His surname changed, it wasn't lengthened. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Lord Byron is an actual name." - No, it is an "honorific" as the MoS states. He was not a "Lord". He was a Baron, which is his official title and official name. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If it were an "actual name", then it was one adopted by each man only at the death of the previous holder, save by the first Baron, granted it by King Charles just as though it were a title. See for instance:John Byron, 1st Baron Byron — a.k.a. Lord ByronWilliam Byron, 5th Baron Byron — called Lord Byron throughoutWith Lord Byron at the Sandwich Islands in 1825, ISBN 9780554605265. — referring to the 7thHMS Blonde (1819) — about the voyage commanded by Lord ByronWhat a remarkable string of "same-named" men, who oddly enough kept all their differing baptismal names, so that "Lord Byron" was only used where one would expect an honorific to be used. Hmmm. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 12:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As that's not going to happen any time soon, I don't think it's worthwhile continuing along that line of argument in this particular discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you know if it's ever been suggested before, and if so, what the reasoning was in not doing it the way I suggest? Is there some technical argument against it? And do you have any earthly idea how much time is spent on this site debating what to name things? Every second spent on that is a second not spent on actual article improvement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To rename to Lord Byron? See the green box immediately above. There was at least once before - see the archives. Lady Byron is worse, but at least we're not calling her Anne Isabella Byron, 11th Baroness Wentworth, nor Annabella Millbanke. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * MoS has a clause that in regards to a noble with multiple peerages that they can split the difference or have a hybrid. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't surprise me, although I'd like a quote for something so illiterate, even from MOS; but that has nothing to do with our article naming policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is carried over here, so yes, it is in both. "When a peer holds one or more other peerages of the same rank as his most senior peerage, use only the most senior peerage in the title. Example: Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond, not "Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond and 1st Duke of Lennox" or "Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond and Lennox"." Ottava Rima (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What in Heaven's name gives you the idea that Duke of Richmond is "split[ting] the difference or hav[ing] a hybrid"? In fact, hybridization is what this example prohibits: Duke of Richmond and Duke of Lennox are different titles, from different Peerages. It is (of course) using the most common title, as is customary in encyclopedic English; among the many things Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not a Court Circular. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is only one example of a result and that deals with clear hierarchies. In this case, you have a Baronage from marriage and a defunct one from inheritance. Both are equally non-powerful and would result in a compromise situation on what to call her. The accepted was ", Baroness Byron" per her marriage title. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, because what the overwhelming majority of anglophones actually call her is Lady Byron. Those who object to taking common usage into consideration should argue the point at WT:NAME; I do not expect them to draw consensus, but I could be wrong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there is some confusion. As I pointed out, there can be splits or hybrids, with the page naming falling under choosing the dominant name. Anne Isabella Byron, Baroness Byron is the page name, not "Lady Byron". As for Ada Lovelace, her name is her first name and her title name, as she had multiple titles (with multiple legal name changes) and shifted through her life. Women gaining titles through marriage do not have the same "number" system, so they have a different secondary name. There is a difference between an inheritance title and a marriage signifier. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes,there does appear to be a certain amount of confusion, about British naming practices, our naming policies, and the interaction between the two.
 * Lady Byron had several names in her lifetime; most of them had several forms, depending on the formality which which she was being addressed. Of those, Lady Byron (with a formal variant  Anne Isabella, Baroness Byron or, after 1824, Baroness Anne Isabella Byron; more formally still, the Baroness Byron of Rochdale/Dowager Baroness Byron of Rochdale)  is the most common form of the most common name; we do not use it because of the conflict with the other Baronesses Byron, and because readers who know us well may not expect it. Neither is a strong reason.
 * Ada Lovelace is an informal variant, slangy to the point of barbarism, of Augusta Ada, Countess of Lovelace. Lovelace was never her surname, which was Byron, then Noel, then King; her husband assumed King-Noel after her mother's death, which was years after her own. Anyone who accepts it, and it may now be inevitable, has no standing to object to Lord Byron as informal; Lord Byron is at least contemporary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Many of the secondary Byron pages are still being improved, and they will be essential to complete before the main biography can be fixed. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I am NOT proposing to rename the article to "Lord Byron". I'm thinking outside the box and saying that the articles should be numbered (which I suspect they are anyway), and then all references to all articles should be redirects to the unique ID of the articles. That would eliminate the constant, ridiculous battles about what to name things. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. That decision was taken very long ago, much before my time. It is my understanding that we chose not to as an act of reader service; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gordon_Byron,_6th_Baron_Byron is much easier for readers to get to, and editors to link to, than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/190298-08 would be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there some technical reason for discouraging redirects? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Dsicouraging the esistence of redirects? No; some will argue server cost, but the actual programmers say WP:redirects are cheap. Some editors, however, and therefore some readers, dislike the little tag which tells the reader they've gotten to a page via redirection, and regard it as an aesthetic cost. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * An aesthetic cost? Vs. the cost of endless and lengthy battles over what to call an article? Oy vey! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Lt. Powers lists a number of reasons why the common name is preferred rather than relying on redirects. See this diff.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Does he have any good ideas on how to prevent the constant pointless wars over what names to use? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are only two ways to avoid pointless wars over anything on wikipedia. (1) Do whatever YOUR NAME HERE says is the right thing to do. (2) Shut down wikipedia. Meanwhile, no one is actually getting killed in these wars, so what the heck! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a third way, which is to go outside the box and come up with a better solution. Every minute spent arguing about names, categories, etc., is a minute not spent on actual article improvement. That's "what the heck". :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Specifically, O.R. is a good contributor who occasionally gets sidetracked into these naming disputes, sometimes to the brink of an indefinite block. How does that kind of situation enhance wikipedia in any way? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * True. And your suggestion is quite good (though I'm still not sure about what will happen when James Bond is numbered 7!). Article can have numbers instead of names and, this shouldn't be a big technical deal, the title that shows up is whatever the reader typed in. If the reader was looking for Lord Byron, then the title that shows up is Lord Byron. If he/she were looking for George Gordon Byron, then that's the title he/she sees. If the reader typed Byron, then a disambiguation page shows up with all the alternative titles for that peerless poet (I am good!). As long as the numbering scheme is hidden, it sounds like a good plan to me and I'll support it if you want to take this to a broader audience. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be excellent. I wouldn't know where to take this idea. Maybe the Village Pump, maybe elsewhere. But I wouldn't necessarily hide the article's "primary key ID", but just put it in small print somewhere inconspicuously on the page, like at the bottom where a lot of other miscellaneous stuff appears. I just think this approach would save a lot of time and trouble. There are plenty of legitimate disputes over content. But disputes over article titles are generally a waste. It's possible there are technical arguments against that approach, but the techies themselves would need to weigh in on that. And I know there are techies somewhere, because there are frequent changes to the presentation style and other aspects of this website. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that an article's title is supposed to provide the reader with an immediate indication of the topic. A simple number would only be confusing.  Powers T 14:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not if it's done the right way, which could be to list the redirect name at the top, and the actual article ID in small print. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it still might be confusing to have the article on Star Wars appearing to be titled things like A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away... or Starwars.com. Powers T 14:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead sentence of the article has the "real" name. And it's not confusing to the user who entered it, because it's what they used to enter it. So what's your solution for the perpetual light-saber battles over what names to give to articles? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Needing to refer to the first sentence eliminates the myriad advantages of using a title in the first place. As for your question, why do you presume I have a solution?  I'm not even convinced one is needed; the vast majority of articles have obvious and unambiguous names that need no debate at all.  Powers T 17:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So, you think these endless, bitter debates over the names of things are just fine and dandy? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of a loaded question. Powers T 00:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's been nothing "bitter" about this debate which wouldn't be easily solved were "good content contibutors" not essentially given exemption from our user conduct guidelines. Fixing that is non-trivial, and unfortunately very unlikely in the near future. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

We have Naming conventions for a good reason. It provides an accepted format. The convention on British peers is a long established one. We have a few exceptions: The problem with "Lord Byron" is that it in fact needs disambiguation. There is a Lord Byron (the 13th Baron) alive today. WE have WP articles already on six of the holders of the title Baron Byron, all of whome would have been commonly called "Lord Byron". There is no need to change anything. Both Lord Byron and Byron redirect to this article, I do not oppose that. If there is any change needed, it is probably in the hatnote to this article, to help those who get here by mistake. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Prime Ministers are known by the title they used when in office (but the standard form should also exist as a redirect).
 * A few living peers decline to use their title and have articles under the name they use (but again, the standard from exists as a redirect).
 * I have added to the hatnote, as I suggested. I believe the appropriate use of redirects should deal the issues raised by this debate.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point. If you have no problem with Lord Byron redirecting here, then there should be no problem with it being the title of the article.  If you are worried about people finding the wrong Lord Byron, then you should suggest (futilely, I suspect) that Lord Byron should be a disambiguation page.  Powers T 13:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NCBRITPEER #3: "An honorific such as Lord Normanby may refer to any of the holders of the associated title, so can redirect to a page about the title itself." Likewise, Lord Byron could redirect to Baron Byron, as each of those Barons has been, in his own time, "Lord Byron", duly, properly, and by right — the General, the Admiral, and the present incumbent, no less than the poet. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ...which is absurd, because the poet is overwhelmingly the single person most well-known as "Lord Byron", as evidenced by the long-standing stability of that redirect. Powers T 00:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ...whereas Baron Byron covers all the persons ever (legitimately) known as "Lord Byron", including the poet. All trumps most . — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "trumps" in this context. If you mean that we always must redirect a phrase that refers to all members of a particular class to the article on that class, you're wrong.  Powers T 13:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Say a redirect can point to either of two possible articles. Article A will have the topic(s) 100% of searchers were trying to find. Article B will only have the topic(s) "most" (51%? 65%? 80%? of) searchers were trying to find. It seems to me that Article A is the preferable target for the redirect. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If most of the searchers are searching for the poet, an article on the hereditary title is hardly going to satisfy them, or qualify as "what they were trying to find". Powers T 03:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is like saying people searching for Shakespeare only type in Shakespeare and thus we should have the page only named Shakespeare to cut down on any confusion. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really the same thing, unless you're suggesting "Shakespeare" shouldn't redirect to William Shakespeare. Powers T 15:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The above refutes your primary logic here. Shakespeare is used on its own far more than other uses. This ignores -why- it is used on its own and what kind of use it is. And Shakespeare shouldn't be a redirect. It is silly to even have so many redirects. We have a search function for a reason. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not quite as many "Shakespeare"s holding that name by their own right as "Byron"s and even "Lord Byron"s, some with good honorable records of their own (a General, an Admiral, a Lt.Col DSO, a Captain, a Lt.) of loyal service to the Crown that ennobled them, not "Wicked Lords", not expatriate profligates. Read through the whole series, there are only 13 Barons in it. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * An article on Baron Byron with a big picture of a familiar face captioned "the poet George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron"? And a text body whose third paragraph starts: "He was succeeded by his great-nephew, George Gordon Byron, the sixth Baron, the famous Romantic poet."? Wow, I'd think that'd jump out and grab them. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As I have indicated above this is a futile discussion. The present article name conforms to the usual standards fro British peers.  Likely alternative search terms have been set up as redirects, and the relevant articles have been provided with hatnotes so that those who reach them unintentionally can go to the right disambiguation page.  Certainly the article subject here is by far the most notable Lord Byron, but each of the 13 Barons Byron also used the title of whom several were notable enough to have an article in WP.  Can we close this discussion?  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt it will be closed, because they moved on to get Alfred, Lord Tennyson made the primary place against the standard for British peer when they couldn't move Byron. As such, they are making the peer standard obsolete. For what reason? Who knows. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What ridiculous hyperbole. The peer naming standard works, and will continue to work, just fine for peers who are notable solely for being peers.  For people who are notable for other reasons, they have come to be known by other forms of their names, which is where the peer naming standard becomes less useful because it comes into conflict with WP:UCN.  Trying to make a guideline that is suitable for everyone who has ever been a British peer is an exercise in futility.  No need to pursue a "foolish consistency" just for its own sake.  Powers T 15:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, well then, the name you want is George Gordon Byron, no need to go messing about with any of the peerage terminology! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 09:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I'm coming around to George Gordon Byron, Lord Byron but even that compromise seems unacceptable in some quarters. Powers T 01:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If entered by a reader, that will work, and redirect to the WP:NCBRITPEER standard-format (name, ordinal, title) George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron, in accordance with his predecessors and successors in that peerage. Other working redirects include: George Gordon, Lord Byron (which is how I've seen his name in poetry collections); Lord George Gordon Byron; Lord George Gordon Noel Byron; George Gordon Noel, Lord Byron; 6th Baron Byron. Let WP:NC dictate the article name, and let redirects handle the alternate names. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure by now you realize that WP:NC is exactly the convention I'm trying to follow. Powers T 13:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Then if you are determined to include his peerage in the article title, please do so in a way consistent with other articles on British peers, particularly the other Barons Byron:John Byron, 1st Baron ByronRichard Byron, 2nd Baron Byron<li>William Byron, 3rd Baron Byron</li><li>William Byron, 4th Baron Byron</li><li>William Byron, 5th Baron Byron</li><li>George Gordon Byron, <what fits the pattern here?></li><li>George Byron, 7th Baron Byron</li><li>George Byron, 8th Baron Byron</li><li>George Byron, 9th Baron Byron</li><li>Frederick Byron, 10th Baron Byron</li><li>Rupert Byron, 11th Baron Byron</li><li>Richard Byron, 12th Baron Byron</li><li>Robert Byron, 13th Baron Byron</li></ul>Now if you want the poet's article to be "George Gordon Byron, Lord Byron", should the three articles before his all be titled "William Byron, Lord Byron", and the three articles after his all be titled "George Byron, Lord Byron"? How does that work? I think the two "Richard Byron, Lord Byron" articles might also need some help there. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 16:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because, as I've pointed out numerous times, WP:NCBRITPEER is not the only convention that applies. Powers T 17:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Right! That only applies to an article about a British peer. Write about a plain old commoner named, say, "George Gordon Byron", and you needn't bother with WP:NCBRITPEER at all. Of course, such a person would never be called "Lord Byron" in the first place.... — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But Byron was a peer and is known as Lord Byron even today. Titling the article as you suggest would be even more confusing for the average reader than the current title.  Powers T 18:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Then that seems like wanting it both ways: to show his British peerage in the article title while not following the WP:NCBRITPEER convention in how a peerage should be shown. While we're at it, why not illustrate his nobility with a picture (if we can find one) of him crowned, robed, and enthroned in royal or imperial fashion? That isn't really appropriate for a mere Baron, but since we're throwing out conventions anyway....  If the reader enters "Lord Byron" in searching, and gets to (say) the "Baron Byron" article, the repeated mentions there of "George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron, the English Romantic poet" (one with a big picture of his face) would be a flashing neon hint. Or if the reader comes across the poet's article (no matter how titled) and sees on the first text body line "also known as... Lord Byron", well, that would be a flashing neon hint, too.  — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 20:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't see your points. The first is, perhaps, fairly accurate -- I do want it both ways, and there's no good reason why we can't have it both ways.  The second appears to be either a slippery slope fallacy or needless hyperbole.  The third is an irrelevancy; we follow the "use common names" guideline for good reasons and don't just toss it aside because proper links are in place.  Powers T 21:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * President Obama is most commonly addressed as "Mister President", and is at this time the one person most commonly so addressed. The reason we don't redirect Mister President to point solely to him is that the honorific pertains to his office and not to him as an individual; there were others before him, and will be others after him, who share the same honorific; no matter how notable that individual himself is, the reader is better served by having the honorific redirect to an explanation of the term than to the individual's article. All these considerations apply to the "Lord Byron" redirect. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're conflating forms of address with forms of reference. One would never use "Mister President" to refer to the current President in an article, for instance -- it is only used when addressing him personally.  Powers T 03:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merely pointing up some similarities in the two honorifics. One wouldn't address either incumbent as "44th President of the United States" / "13th Baron Byron", if it came to that. That the presidential and baronial honorifics differ in the ability to use them in third-person references doesn't affect any of the considerations just listed: (1) the honorific pertains to the office/title and not to the individual; (2) others (before and after) share the same honorific; (3) no matter how notable one individual, the reader is better served by having the honorific redirect to an explanation of the term than to the individual's article. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, under the principles of least surprise and most common name, the reader is best served by having the individual's article at the name the reader would be most likely to recognize. Powers T 03:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So you want to rename his article "Byron"? But wouldn't that still fall afoul of the same problem as renaming it "Lord Byron" — ambiguity?  You'd have taken an article name that clearly and unambiguously designates him and no-one else ("George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron"), and changed it to a name that could apply to many other people besides him.  WP:NCROY's principle of disambiguation argues strongly against either of those names.  — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact the problem with the current title is that it does not clearly and unambiguously designate him, since very few of the people looking for information on him will recognize that title as referring to the poet they know. Call it Lord Byron and everyone knows who the article's about.--Kotniski (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The lyricist and lead singer of Bal-Sagoth? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ambiguity is not a barrier if the name fulfills the "common name" principle; that's why we have disambiguation pages. Powers T 16:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)