Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage

PRODded Marquess

Peers are not my special subject, but I created Charles Paget, 8th Marquess of Anglesey some time ago to resolve a red link, and he is currently PRODded as insufficiently sourced to show notability (father's obit, Who's Who). Those with more interest in UK nobility may want to have a look and expand the article if appropriate, perhaps from sources I don't have. PamD 08:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi PamD, I see you agreed with the PROD and redirected the page a few days later. Clearly the problem was that the sources didn’t comply with WP:N. I’m sure it could have been expanded (for instance, there is the info at Lord Uxbridge's leg), but the redirect can still be expanded one day if someone has the time to source it. In the mean time, I have merged your content to Marquess of Anglesey#Family history, 1815–present, we might as well keep it. Moonraker (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I redirected it to save the incoming redirects etc which would be lost if the article was wiped out; someone else, perhaps from this project, is very welcome to reinstate it with better sourcing. @Moonraker If you are copying someone else's text, please remember to acknowledge it: this also explains to other editors why you are today adding material from sourced consulted in 2016 and 2017 (did you verify them?). PamD 07:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

PamD I did, and I had to add a reference for a sentence that wasn’t cited. NB, what is added to WP is in the public domain, unless it’s a copyright violation. Happy to acknowledge your contribution here. Moonraker (talk) 07:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Moonraker So as you checked the sources, please update the "access-date" to show this. And see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia on the requirement, as well as the courtesy, to acknowledge the history of the text you are adding. Thanks. (The unsourced marriage was added by an IP - I didn't notice it at the time, having previously removed a similar post as unsourced at least once!) PamD 07:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

PamD fair enough. Moonraker (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Noble immigration to the United States

Hello. I need help with the title of Noble immigration to the United States. Nobility does not define "noble" to include royalty but I don't know what term would be correct. Thank you. Invasive Spices (talk) 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Noble immigration to the United States#Article title

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Proposal: Moving post-nominals from lead sentences to article bodies

An RM that will be of interest to editors here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

collect them all

Mere curiosity: Is it known who held (or holds) the longest list of British peerages? —Tamfang (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Protocol question: How to refer to someone with a name like "Xeres Youill of Zounds" in short form

If we need to refer to someone like that in short form, because their full name was given earlier, or we're doing a short citation, should it be:

1. "According to Youill of Zounds (2023) ..."
2. "According to Youill (2023) ..."
3. "According to Zounds (2023) ..."

? I've been using option 1, but am not 100% certain that it's conventional or not redundant.

Or does this vary by reason they have an "of Zounds" name format (named for a region or just for an estate/manse)?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that options 2 and 3 are more likely. It depends on the persons involved and the need for disambiguation. Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington is referred to as both Wellesley and Wellington in that article. Harold Macmillan is not referred to as Stockton in his article. The British royal family tends to be referred to chummily by their first names. It probably all depends on how we came to know them: Wellington was well known before he gained his dukedom; Macmillan was ennobled late in life; the royals are known to us before they gain substantive peerages. Within an article on a particular peerage, the given names of people sharing the title throughout history may be more frequently used. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC) (edited 05:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC))

Thanks, but I think I'm going to stick with the "long short" form then, for the purposes I'm putting these names to (primarily citations), because "it depends on the person involved and ... how we came to know them" doesn't work for that; they largely are not really known to us, but are obscure persons who wrote books 200 years ago, and we don't know anything about how they came by the titles (or maybe WP does, in some little-read article, in some of these cases, but the reader doesn't, and many of them are redlinks anyway). The "is referred to as both Wellesley and Wellington in that article" lack of consistency doesn't work for this, either; referring to same author as "Youill (2023)" in one paragraph but "Zounds (2023)" at another would be very confusing. As long as "Youill of Zounds (2023)" isn't absolutely wrong for some protocol reason I don't understand, it's my clearest solution.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I see that I got carried away thinking that you were talking about text references rather than those for citations, or other attributions. Also, your too-abstract example did leave me wondering what part is the title and what the given name. I forgot the example of Treasure Houses of Britain, an article I started and where I mention, using various forms in large part inspired by the program itself, a number of noble presenters and historical figures. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you talking about Scottish names like Donald Cameron of Lochiel? I see that that article calls him Lochiel after he became chief; but my impression is that Cameron would be more usual. —Tamfang (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, my impression here is that this is referring to Scots names with a territorial designation (unfortunately, most of that page is about territorial designations and peerages, which isn't relevant here). Normally, after introducing one of these individuals, I would probably use 2, but if the narrative involved other individuals with the same surname, I would likely use 3 instead. (Not uncommon in a piece of Scots history). I don't think 1 is wrong (see e.g. [1]) but it feels a touch more formal than is usual. Choess (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)