User talk:Tryde/Archive 8

Peerage page moves
Thanks for putting all these back in their rightful place. Regards,  J Rawle  (Talk) 12:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks also for reverting all the ridiculous edits by User:Somewhatdazed!  J Rawle  (Talk) 13:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * User_talk:BrownHairedGirl. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  22:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved by Lucy-marie to User talk:BrownHairedGirl. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT
I noticed that you made this edit to George Loftus, 7th Marquess of Ely. If you use a source such as http://thepeerage.com/p8548.htm#i85472 as the website is not in itself a reliable source please include Darryl Lundy's sources in the style described in WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. -- PBS (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Earl of Dalhousie
You made this edit to Earl of Dalhousie article on 29 April 2008. You included a list of references but did not include any in-line citations, which makes it difficult to verify the text. Please could you have another look at the text and add in-line citations? -- PBS (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Downing Baronets
Please could you create this article. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  14:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done! Tryde (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Please could you add Des Voeux Baronets of Indiaville, Queen's Co.. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  14:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  11:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

savile baronets/marquess of halifax
You moved this page recently without any explanation (and, I notice, fixed it so it couldn't be moved back). There is a discussion here if you wish to comment. Swanny18 (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

What proof do you have that the Judkin-FitzGerald Baronetcy of Lisheen is in actual fact extinct?
I've not yet found that proof & in actual fact as I've just added the Late Linda Gullette Hudson did considerable research into essentially indicating that the Baronetcy is in actual fact Dormant with the apparent Heir male of the body being a FitzGerald 1st cousin of hers. Mifren (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Use of "the Hon."
I notice you've added the style "The Hon." to several office-holders in the UK Government articles. I think it's inconsistent to add this without adding the higher style "The Rt Hon." to those who held it, and by extension "The Most Hon." and "His Grace" to those so styled. These would be inappropriate in such a list, and so is "The Hon." Opera hat (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Cork
You have made several attempts to edit my contribution which is a violation of Wikipedia terms of use. The information I posted is factual and related to the page. Scott Michael Boyle is a son of the current Earl of Cork and has been listed as to create the proper listing of potential EOC. Do not change it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalwar (talk • contribs) 14:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can find no evidence of Scott Michael Boyle. What is your source, Generalwar? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  10:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Earl of Shaftesbury
I've reverted your addition of Anthony Ashley-Cooper, Lord Ashley (1900-1947) to the list of Earls of Shaftesbury, since he was not in fact, one of the earls. I'm puzzled why you would add him to the list. It's like that old Sesame Street song, "One of these things is not like the other one." If you seriously thought it was appropriate to add him to the list, why did you not add the other lords, as well? In all things, if you want to include the lords in the article, I would suggest either creating a separate list, or renaming the section to reflect the appropriate content within the list, i.e., Earls and Lords.  Cind. amuse  05:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Viscount Malpas
At Marquess of Cholmondeley, your edit here leaves me puzzled. Perhaps your rationale is best understood in the broader context of similar articles about British marquesses? --Tenmei (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been customary to include non-succeeding heirs in lists of peers. However, I don't think there is an official policy on this. I will bring it up at WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. Tryde (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your follow-up. In general, I have no direct interest in the array of articles about the British peerage; however, my close attention to the development of the Cholmondeley articles seems justified by the kind of nuanced perspective your edit has highlighted. Please consider a hypothesis that articles about the Marquesses of Cholmondeley and Barons Delamere may offer perspective for evaluating ways to improve articles about Japanese counterparts, e.g., the Meiji period kazoku peerage system, the pre-Maiji daimyo system, etc. At first blush, I wonder if a non-succeeding Viscount Malpas would be better presented as an inline note attached to his father? IMO, the emphasis in transition can be perhaps better handled by a note attached to his father's successor?  For example, please give some thought to the "Notes" columns in  the tables of the four seshū shinnōke &mdash; Fushimi-no-miya, Katsura-no-miya, Arisugawa-no-miya, Kan'in-no-miya? I wonder if adding Viscount Malpas in the list might contrive a kind of misplaced emphasis within the narrowly-focused context of this specific article?  In other words, the overall objectives of the article is better served by attention to serial successors rather than non-succeeding presumptive heirs? --Tenmei (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please give some thought to my edit here. --Tenmei (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Alexander Leslie-Melville, 7th Earl of Leven
this redirects to 9th Earl which is wrong. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  09:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Templemore
The need for Templemore to feature higher in the lead is because many would think that it is associated with Templemore, County Tipperary. Also, the northern Templemore is mainly in County Londonderry, not Donegal. Also the bits about the 1st, 2nd & 3rd barons was just plain confusing and in need of simplification.
 * It is customary to include territorial designations in peerage articles. You removed the territorial decoration from this article without any explanation. The td in this case is "of Templemore in the County of Donegal". This place may now be mainly in County Londonderry, but that is neither here nor there, the territorial designation doesn't change. I also think the emphasis in an article on a peerage should be on the recipient and what he or she did to receive the title - the emphasis should not be on geographical issues relating to the title. The information on Templemore is very useful and should be included but should not be the focus of the article. It is normal for this kind on information to be located at the bottom of the article. It is also customary to include the descent of the title - you removed this material without any explanation. Please clarify what you find confusing. Tryde (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The reader will be presented with contradictory information unless the differences between the td of Donegal is explained versus the parish of Derry. A note, at least, is needed. "The first, second and third barons served as Deputy Lieutenants of County Wexford." is more compact that the constant repetition in the current format. There is no loss of information in my version. Also, where does Wexford come from? There is no context for a town at the opposite end of the country. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a loss of information. You removed the information on the descent of the title. Also, I can find no source that the first Baron was a DL for County Wexford. The difference between the td and Derry can be easily explained. Tryde (talk) 06:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What was the info loss exactly? Please explain the difference between the td and Derry easily. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You removed the territorial designation. You removed the information on the descent of the title, i. e. the first Baron was succeeded by his son who was in his turn succeeded by his son, and so on. The descent of the title is explained in peerage articles. As I said above I can find no source for the statement that the first Baron was a DL for Wexford. I have expanded a little on the difference between the territorial designation and the present location of Templemore. As far as I understand it is not uncommon for county boundaries to be moved. Tryde (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's more verbose than it needs to be but I can live with it. The Templemore note is good. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Barons in the Peerage of Ireland.
I've noticed that a few Barons in the Peerage of Ireland have been removed from this category. Is this a systematic sweep? I've noticed that a few Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom have been removed from their category. Is this a systematic sweep? Do you have a broad baron issue? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, this is not a systematic sweep. Peers should only be categorised under their highest title. For example, the Dukes of Abercorn are also barons in the Irish peerage and earls in the Scottish peerage but should only be categorised as Dukes in the Peerage of Ireland. Likewise, Lord Curzon was also an Irish baron but should be categorised as a Marquess of the Peerage of the United Kingdom. Otherwise we would end up with a complete muddle in the category sections. I have tried to correct this. Tryde (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of De Neufville Baronets


The article De Neufville Baronets has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:GNG. The reference the article sources contains nothing about de Neufville, and a google search for "De Neufville Baronets" and "de Neufville Baronetcy" returned nothing but a page quoting this entry.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Restore please
Would you please restore the proposed move request tag to the misnamed article about John Barran? Sarah777 (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reinserted Sarah777 move request - it is was not "a nonsense tag", please let the discussion take place and let everyone have a chance to discuss it rather than you decide on your own. Mtking (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Bunce Baronets. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. MarB4  •ɯɒɹ• 23:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Ditto Bendish Baronets. MarB4  •ɯɒɹ• 23:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Elgar and Beecham
Apropos of your recent changes, could you point me in the direction of the relevant stipulation in the MoS? One wants to get these things right, for future reference. Tim riley (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a guideline here. Tryde (talk) 10:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I see! Not the MoS, in fact. No wonder I hadn't seen it. Your preferred style is particularly jarring when applied to Beecham as he was known to countless record-buyers as "Sir Thomas Beecham, Bart, C.H.". However, as your project's preferences do not clash with any stylistic requirements of the musical projects I am content to let it stand, unless other contributors from the musical side of WP disagree. Tim riley (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Henry Jacob Preston, 3rd Baronet
Hi - I see your edits to the Julia Inglis article - no problems with those; thanks. The upper reaches of British society have always been a bit of a mystery to me. If you have the time, and inclination, can you look at the Henry Jacob Preston, 3rd Baronet article and correct any obvious errors. Also, I'm sure there are other categories to which he should be added. Thanks for any help. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since I posted this query, user:Opera hat has moved the article to Henry Jacob Preston with the justification "unnecessary disambiguation. see also WP:NCPEER". Do you agree? (This seems to be the exact opposite to your move of Julia Selina Inglis to Julia, Lady Inglis) ---  Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As there is another article named Henry Preston the correct disambiguation should be "Sir Henry Preston, 3rd Baronet" according to WP:PEER. I will make some small changes to the article. I don't know if there is an official policy on how wives of English knights and baronets should be named but "X, Lady Y" seems to be the most common version - see for instance Mary, Lady Heath. Tryde (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Cospatrick Douglas-Home, 11th Earl of Home
Just wanted to let you know that I saw that you created the new article Cospatrick Douglas-Home, 11th Earl of Home--It would be great if you could also clean-up the related article Baron Montagu of Beaulieu. Jipinghe (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Shaw Baronets
I have found a reference to Sir James Shaw of Polmadie, listed as a Voter for William Douglas, Esq. in the Electors in the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright in 1812. Do you know how he fits in to the Shaw Baronets? Shipsview (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's Sir James Shaw, 1st Baronet, whose second patent (1813) was "of Kilmarnock, co. Ayr, and Polmadie, co. Kirkcudbright". Choess (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Shipsview (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

List of Privy Counsellors of Ireland
Glad to help! Thanks for all your hard work in creating it. Choess (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

New category
Is there scope for "Heir to a baronetcy"? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  09:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The category would be very small. How many currents heirs to baronetcies are notable? We don't have "heir to a peerage" categories so I don't think we need one on baronetcies, to be honest. Tryde (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

December 2011
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary&#32;for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. ''I know you have been around for a long time, and all due respect to your efforts here, but in your last 500 contribs I notice you have never left any edit summaries, which is normally considered good practice and shows editor transparency. It is difficult for other members to know what your contribs represent without digging through diffs first and seeing what you have done, without summaries, and also leaves your contribs open to being reverted, because you have not explained changes that may not seem logical or appropriate, as in your removal of text regarding title usage from Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington‎ which is common fact, at least in the UK and many European countries, but to the wider world may not be as well known fact, so I did not see its removal as making any sense. Cheers.''  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 13:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Laziness? Tryde (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, you tell me! I used to hate typing summaries myself, when I first registered, but these days, as I contrib more, I find it helps me identify specific edits if I need to track something down. Of course, no one is saying you have to, just that it's often considered a courtesy to do so. I had an editor's review at 3 months into joining which raised the issue, if I recall.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 21:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to improve... Tryde (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Edward Stanley, 18th Earl of Derby, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Territorial Army (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited William Astor, 3rd Viscount Astor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samuel Hoare (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited David Samuel, 3rd Viscount Samuel, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages British and Israeli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Edward Harbord, 3rd Baron Suffield (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Stephen Lushington


 * Nicholas Lawless, 1st Baron Cloncurry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Francis Conyngham

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Lundy
I see you made a significant change to Template:Lundy a few years back. I've nominated it for deletion, but it turns out to be a tricky situation. If you have a chance, could you stop by and give your view of things? Templates for discussion.  Will Beback   talk    11:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Baronet page moves
Please stop moving baronet articles to incorrect locations. The guidelines for baronet articles can be found at WP:NCPEER and the relevant part reads: Thanks. 2 lines of K 303  09:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 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).


 * I will once again refer you to the above. If you don't immediately stop disruptively returning pages to incorrect locations I'll take this to ANI and ask for you to be blocked. 2 lines of K  303  06:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting to see if I could be blocked after contributing so massively to this encyclopedia for the last seven years. Tryde (talk)
 * I'm sure if you keep being disruptive you'll find out you're mistaken on your assumption. 2 lines of K  303  07:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How kind. I am of the opinion that I have edited constructively not disruptively. Tryde (talk) 09:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Tryde - you are a great contributor and I see nothing disruptive in your behaviour. What I do consider disruptive is for someone with a petty obsession to go trawling through another editor's creations for several years and systematically pick out article names that have not offended anyone in their entire existence and rename them. That is very sad behaviour. Motmit (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with One Night In Hackney that your moves against consensus are disruptive. I will therefore block you if I see you make any more moves of this type in the absence of a consensual agreement that these are good moves. I would very much appreciate it if you could refrain from making these moves and discuss, as I hate blocking good contributors like yourself. --John (talk) 11:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Motmit. Unfortunately this has more to do with politics than any real desire to improve Wikipedia. Tryde (talk) 05:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that's an interesting tinfoil hat theory, but easily disproved by the history of Joseph Ayloffe, an article created at that location on 13:22, 23 August 2005‎. It was then subsequently moved by you on 10:15, 4 March 2008 claiming "correct form", when the naming conventions looked like this which contradicts your reason for moving it. After Crusoe8181 correctly moved it back in 2010, you subsequently moved it again at 17:38, 26 April 2012, when the naming conventions looked like this, again making your move wrong. So before I even went near the article we see two moves from you to an incorrect location, but keep trying to blame me if it makes you feel better eh? 2 lines of K  303  08:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2 lines of K 303  06:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Abdy baronets
Hello, a baronet is a baronet, not a Baronet, just as an earl see (List of earls) is an earl not an Earl and a viscount is a viscount not a Viscount. These are all common nouns (albeit the latter two referring to non-commoners). When the words are used with a name as a title then they do become proper nouns and are capitalised, but only then. Hence my move of the article, and of course, all the other similarly-named articles are similarly misnamed, and are due for a move per WP:MOS, which does rather differ from Debrett's etc usage in headings. Regards Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello. The system with a capital "B" has been in place for about seven or eight years, that's why I moved the article. However, I can see your point and you are probably correct. If you want to change this I suggest you raise this point at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. Regards, ¨Tryde (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Baronet of Leadclune
I see you have redirected Baronet of Leadclune to Fraser Baronets and that you merged in a small amount of information. However the Baronet of Leadclune was fully cited while the Fraser Baronets is not. Please either merge in the inline citations and general references into the Fraser Baronets, or revert you redirect as cited material ought not to be replaced with uncited material. -- PBS (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Marquess Curzon of Kedleston
I see that you redirected Marquess Curzon of Kedleston to Viscount Scarsdale. I don't agree with that because this is a separate title that happened to be held by the same person for a brief period. This page is useful and contains information not contained in Viscount Scarsdale.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the system normally used for peerage articles. An extinct title redirects to an extant lower title, for instance Duke of Bolton redirects to Marquess of Winchester and Marquess of Dalhousie redirects to Earl of Dalhousie. In the Viscount Scarsdale article you get a full overview of the titles held by the Curzon and their descent. The different remainders for the various peerages granted to Lord Curzon are also described in much more detail than in the brief article on the marquessate. I also couldn't find any material of note in the article on the marquessate that was not included in the Viscount Scarsdale article, as you claim. I suggest the system used for other peerage articles should also be used here, i. e. the article Marquess Curzon of Kedleston should redirect to Viscount Scarsdale. Regards, Tryde (talk) 06:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Reverting edits without good reason or explanation
Bad form - you have reverted one of my edits, yet no real explanation or, so far as I can see, good reason. To say that the Earl of Harewood heads the Lascelles family is a nonsense. He is the head of one branch of that family, not the entire family and is not directly related to all those you have listed.

There is a talk page to discuss a change if you wish to revert - don;t just revert. Wiki rule is to assume good faith - ask before reverting unless it's clear vandalism (and the fact that I made an entry on the 'talk' page gives you a clue... Reading some of the other comments, you seem to have a bit of a history of cavalier behaviour, but I will assume good faith, revert my edit and ask you to discuss on the talk page if you disagree.Tattooed Librarian (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * While the Earl of Harewood isn't formally head of the Lascelles family (like a Scottish clan chief) this is the branch where all the wealth and titles have been gathered. In fact I haven't heard of any other branches of the family that have produced any notable individuals. In that regard I think it's fair to say that the Earl heads the family just like the Duke of Devonshire heads the Cavendish family. What is important is that all members of the family are gathered in one category - the introduction to that category is not that important. This seems to me to be a lot of fuss over very little. Tryde (talk) 09:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)