Talk:Sir John Barran, 1st Baronet

Move

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

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure). Jenks24 (talk) 02:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

To John Barran (1st Baronet)

Per article naming policy. Sarah777 (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. You have clearly not read WP:NCPEER or looked at Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom. The article is under the correct title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per Necrothesp. The article is correctly named. Tryde (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What WP:NCPEER actually says:
 * Titles of knighthood such as Sir and Dame are not normally included in the article title: e.g. Arthur Conan Doyle, not "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle" (which is a redirect). However, Sir may be used in article titles as a disambiguator when a name is ambiguous and one of those who used it was knighted, e.g. Sir Arthur Dean. A person's full title (including both prefix and post-nominals) should be given in the article itself. Honorary knights – roughly, those not from the Commonwealth – are not called Sir; knights bachelor have no post-nominals.


 * So, are the rules to be completely ignored by dint of a simple majority vote? Sarah777 (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You have obviously missed the large and prominent section which reads (bolding mine):


 * Baronets should generally have their article located at the simple name, e.g. George Albu (rather than "Sir George Albu" or "Sir George Albu, 1st Baronet"). However:


 * If the name is ambiguous and the baronetcy is the best disambiguator between the men of that name, use the full style as the article title: Sir John Brunner, 2nd Baronet (with both prefix and postfix); John Brunner is ambiguous with his father and with John Brunner (novelist).


 * If there is more than one Sir John Smith, 2nd Baronet then add the territorial designation of the baronetcy (e.g. Sir William Williams, 2nd Baronet, of Clapton and Sir William Williams, 2nd Baronet, of Gray's Inn).


 * A baronet should never be referred to with the title but without "Sir" preceding (e.g. do not use "William Williams, 2nd Baronet, of Clapton").


 * Since Barran was a baronet not a knight and the name is ambiguous (i.e. there are two John Barrans on Wikipedia) the article is correctly named. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

If there are two "John Barrons" then per policy they should be called John Barron (1st Baronet) and John Barron (2nd Baronet). Using the title is manifestly against policy. Sarah777 (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)