Talk:Spencer (surname)

Good article nomination
I'm a bit busy right now, but if no one else picks up this article on the Good Article nomination page, I'll do it within the next 4-5 days or so. In the meantime, I've listed a few notes below that'll get you started. I haven't had the chance to do more than scan the article. I'll just mention that you'll want to check carefully throughout for consistency.


 * ✅I see alternating use of single and double quotes. That's probably because the original source used different types. However, it is permissible to make certain formatting changes on Wikipedia for consistency. See Wikipedia's manual of style on this topic, but if there is no mention, use double quotes throughout for consistency, except for exceptions such as quotes within quotes, for example.
 * ✅I have made the footnotes same level as other headings and prefer a separate Footnote section as I've checked WP which allows this option and one entry involves a lengthy explanation that would clutter up the references section. Why is it a subcategory of “See also"? I’d recommend making it the same level header as “see also” and “references.” I’m also not sure you need a “footnote” section—especially when you only have two. You can type footnotes after your references themselves. See Rosa Parks and Absinthe as examples. I don’t think what you did is technically wrong (if you haven't checked, you should) as per Wikipedia, but not sure that you need a separate section for footnotes, references (which are basically endnotes anyway), and a bibliography.

✅:1. Put periods after all your page numbers. Some have them, some don’t.
 * Formatting in your References section.

✅:2. Page ranges (494–495) are separated by en dashes, not hyphens. You should be able to access en dashes in an edit box by selecting "Wiki Markup" from the dropdown menu (unless you have a browser that displays it differently).

✅:3. Multiple pages are identified with the prefix “pp.” You have some with only a “p.”
 * 4. Typically, there is a space between “p.” or “pp.” and the page number itself. For example, if you use the cite template, it will add the space. You can check the WP:MoS to see if no space is allowed as long as you are consistent, but it looks strange. Either way, you have spaces between some, and no space between the others. I’d recommend just putting spaces between all. E.g. “pp. 494–495.” instead of “p.494-495.” (from note 21).

✅ ''This is an interesting one. I believe WP states that it is permissable to write titles as they occur in the articles viz. sometimes in caps and sometimes not. However, i like consistency too and will correct them.'' * In your Bibliography, you have some titles where all key words are capitalized. In other titles, you use an alternative style, where only the first word is capitalized. You’ll want to choose a style and make them all consistent.

✅* In the article itself. Why is your name variant list bolded? Check the MoS on this if you haven't. --Airborne84 (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking up the running with the article Airborne and for your constructive comments. I shall address each of your points in turn if that's OK?  Granitethighs   00:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I haven't been able to get back to this article yet although I'm glad to see some other editors have taken it up. A while back, it occurred to me that your selection of "orthographic variants" might be better as a list. See the article in the WP:MoS on embedded lists—specifically the second section under "Appropriate use" after "In some cases, a list style may be preferable to a long sequence within a sentence". The long sequence looks a bit strange in the article, but I had trouble putting my finger on it initially. I don't know for sure that the list format would be an improvement, it's just something to consider. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * From a quick look, the references look much cleaner. I'll look at the article in the next day or two IRT the GAN page. --Airborne84 (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Urse
Does this article actually need to cover the life of Urse? Was he ever known by the name? Are any of his descendants known by the name? If not, then it doesn't seem like we need have a section on him. Do we need to cover the English d'Abetot family? Were members ever known by the surname? Another thing, is there a reference in the article that actually states Urse's brother Robert is the origin of English surname? The lead makes the claim, but the article doesn't cover it. I noticed Reaney lists the first record of the surname to a Robert le Despenser, in 1204.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This paragraph in the lead is referenced to the following link which is called "dubious" by an editor. "Robert's adopted surname was mostly written as Despenser (see Domesday Book of 1086; Scottish Ragman Rolls of 1291 & 1296). Through the 11th to 13th centuries the occupational name attributed to Robert d'Abetot existed with numerous spelling and other variations. Eventually both the "le" and "de" that frequently preceded the name were omitted and the popular "s" in the centre of the name discarded for a "c" to evolve, in 1392, to the present-day form Spencer." That webpage doesn't really cover anything in the paragraph. What makes the wlink reliable? Why is it called "dubious"? Should we be linking to dubious information on a personal webpage? IMO, family trees on the family/personal webpages should not be considered reliable. Especially if reliable sources state that tree's supposed founder is not known to have any sons.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that most of this is pretty fanciful stuff and should be removed, leaving it at the origin of the name and picking up wherever adequate sources can cover. MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Coat of arms
The coat-of-arms featured in the infobox is called that of Robert Despenser. I believe that it is instead the coat-of-arms of the Spencers of Northamptonshire, and of Althorp, where that branch of the family has resided since the early 16th century and the days of Sir John Spencer, the sheep farmer who made a big name for himself. I don't believe the coat-of-arms can be attributed to Robert Despenser, who was listed in the Domesday Book in 1086 – long before such fancy heraldic arms existed. MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you're right. I found this little bit which mentions the arms (if the link doesn't work it the Spencers are covered on page 150) . So the arms appear to date from the 15th century, and are differenced from an earlier coat. I can't find a specific reference, but it seems like the arms pictured are those borne by the current Earl Spencer (per a couple books on GoogleBooks mentioning the 19th century earls). We could change "Robert Despenser" to "Earl Spencer".--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the interesting link, Brianann. My understanding is that the first formal grant was to Sir John Spencer, as I indicate in the post below. I think he's our man to ascribe the initial grant to, or perhaps, as you indicate, to his descendants (the Earls Spencer). MarmadukePercy (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The description of the arms is wrong. The arms granted at the date stated were azure with a fess of ermine and six sea mews (seagulls) heads, erased. The arms of Despenser differenced with the indication of a cadet branch (the scallop shells) was assumed in the 1590s after a corrupt King of Arms named Lee had falsified a descent for the Spencers from the Despensers. Please see Spencer family for details.Urselius (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

On Urse
I am happy to follow the advice of the two editors looking at this article but need to point out why the article is as it is. Thank you Brianann for these extremely useful comments. To answer your questions in turn.

''Does this article actually need to cover the life of Urse? ''
 * If a genetic Spencer lineage did indeed derive from Robert Despenser then the genetic connection to Urse becomes very important genealogically. Apart from the genetic link, members of the family might live and have connections with the same places etc. There are indeed records stating that Urse took over the role of Royal Steward after Robert and, that he assumed the title Despenser. I’ll add the reference if you like.

Do we need to cover the English d'Abetot family?


 * The d’Abetot family is important because it was genetically the founding Spencer “family” – with all the genealogical and genetic implications this entails – as I have mentioned above. The brothers were both extremely influential and this adds both interest and import to Urse's associations and the family history in general.

''Is there a reference in the article that actually states Urse's brother Robert is the origin of English surname? ''
 * Good point that needs addressing. However, there are many references in the literature to Robert le Despenser who was the brother of Urse who both came to England at about the time of the Battle of Hastings: see the Domesday Book of 1086 for example. Reaney is clearly remiss on this one. Nevertheless, you are correct in pointing out that there are no direct assertions in the literature (that I have found) as to this being the origin of the name. This needs a word tweak.

''This paragraph in the lead is referenced to the following link which is called "dubious" by an editor [1]. "Robert's adopted surname was mostly written as Despenser (see Domesday Book of 1086; Scottish Ragman Rolls of 1291 & 1296). Through the 11th to 13th centuries the occupational name attributed to Robert d'Abetot existed with numerous spelling and other variations. Eventually both the "le" and "de" that frequently preceded the name were omitted and the popular "s" in the centre of the name discarded for a "c" to evolve, in 1392, to the present-day form Spencer." ''
 * I’m not sure what you are querying here. Are you saying it needs a better reference, in which case I’ll try and get one. The specificity of the 1392 date does need authentication but the rest of this paragraph is totally uncontroversial and probably does not need referencing. There are oodles of references later when the various spellings of the name are examined. Finally, yes the statement that Robert is not known to have any sons is significant – it is from a single source and is clearly important in terms of the genetic lineage – but it is of much less consequence in relation to the origin and use of the surname Spencer.

Finally, I agree about the coat of arms. What do you suggest we do about that Marmaduke?  Granitethighs  06:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Granite, on the coat-of-arms, I think it's best to ascribe them to Sir John Spencer of Wormleighton, Warwickshire, who was the purchaser of the seat at Althorp. He was granted these arms in 1504, and died in 1522. I'll come up with some specific refs by tomorrow. MarmadukePercy (talk) 08:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Perfect - thanks MP  Granitethighs   06:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the links MD - I have also changed the caption in the "Arms" - is OK now?  Granitethighs  09:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Heraldic mistake
The arms granted to John Spencer in 1504 were - azure a fess ermine between six sea mew (seagull) heads argent erased. The arms depicted in the article are those adopted by the Spencer family in the 1590s. A corrupt King of Arms named Richard Lee invented a connection between the Spencers and the Despencer family by adding a second marriage with issue to an early member of the Despencers. Following this the Spencers adopted, with formal heraldic approval, the Despencer arms with a difference indicating a cadet branch - the scallop shells on the bend. See Spencer family for more details and references.Urselius (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Spencer (surname). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110715002400/http://www.onegreatfamily.com/DesignTests/CleanLayout/SearchResults.aspx?LastName=Spencer to http://www.onegreatfamily.com/DesignTests/CleanLayout/SearchResults.aspx?LastName=Spencer
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110718144257/http://www.yournotme.com/results.asp?forename=&surname=spencer to http://www.yournotme.com/results.asp?forename=&surname=spencer
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110611112112/http://vrcoll.fa.pitt.edu/.../Despenser-tomb-main.html to http://vrcoll.fa.pitt.edu/.../Despenser-tomb-main.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

d'Abbetot
I think we need to reopen a discussion from 2010. The question raised was why so much material on d'Abbetot was included. The answer was that if the later Spencers descended from Robert le Despenser, then it is very important to the family. Well, OK, but the thing is, they don't. There is no evidence whatsoever that any Spencers alive today descend from Robert, let alone Urse. This is an occupational surname and no two people with the surname should be assumed to be related. The Spencers of the 16th century and later were entirely unrelated to the Despencers of the 13th-14th centuries, and they were unrelated to Robert le Despenser of the 11th century - it was just a job. Every court from the royal court to those of every Earl, Duke, Count, Archbishop, Bishop, and many more minor lords had their own steward and any one of them could have ended up with the same surname. You would no more expect a relationship than between two people named Butler. There is a lot more in this article that is just general fluff that tells us nothing about the family in question, or worse, suggests relevance when there is none. The entire Derivation section, almost all of the Heraldry section, and all but the last sentence of the Hereditary names and genetic lineages section are just boilerplate generalities without specific relevance, the latter being quite deceptive: "Nevertheless, the genetic similarity of people with identical surnames has been shown to be quite high, especially those with rarer surnames.[52]" but this only applies to some types of surnames, while others, and in particular occupational and common patronymic surnames, show no genetic similarity at all; "It might seem an almost insurmountable task to determine the true lineage of contemporary Spencers when such an "occupational" name probably has many founders." - Yes, that is exactly the problem; "Nevertheless, modern genetics now has the capacity to discriminate relationships at an increasingly detailed resolution both in terms of close recent ancestry and distant ancestry." What is this supposed to mean? That generic genetic analysis can reveal things about generic genealogical relationships is true, but it does not address the problem that most Spencers are not related to each other in any meaningful manner; "Many people are now using gene testing laboratories as part of a surname DNA project to resolve not only who their close relations are around the world, but also the migration patterns of their ancestors over the 50,000 years since modern man left Africa.[53]" and what does modern man leaving Africa have to do with the Spencer surname? Likewise, the Robert Despenser, Urse d'Abbetot, and the Despenser family section is only relevant if there is a genealogical connection, and there isn't the slightest shred of evidence that such a relationship exists between these people and any later person with 'the Spencer family'. This article needs a rather severe haircut. 50.37.127.81 (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)