Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

ARCHIVE FROM TALK: WIKIPEDIA:WIKIPROJECT BARONETCIES

I'm not sure it's an entry on the list but to the limited extent to which I have been involved in baronetcies I've run into frequent issues of establishing the TD which seems to be able to change (unlike a peerage) and that that change is by no means easy to follow or document. Alci12 12:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Cracroft's lists all Baronetcies, both extant and extinct, along with their (presumably official) territorial designations. I wouldn't want to copy and paste any lists (as I'm sure that would breach copyright), but if there are any issues or ambiguities just ask me and I'll check them. I'm pretty sure changes aren't allowed (the TD of a Baronetcy is the place the grantee is stated to come from in the patent of creation, so I don't see how it'd change, anyway). Proteus (Talk) 21:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What date is Cracroft? I agree re TDs not being changeable. But I think Rayment (wrongly) applies a later peerage TD to the earlier Baronetcy TD as if the later overwrites the earlier. - Kittybrewster 00:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The current release is February 2006. Proteus (Talk) 07:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, glad to help. (Shouldn't this be a sub-page somewhere at WikiProject Peerage instead of a new user page?) Anyway, the task list should, perhaps, include a check against a published source after checking against Rayment — I recently discovered that Hamilton Baronets, which I made up based on his page, omits Hamilton of Preston (created 1762 or 1763), one of whom is Sir William Hamilton, 9th Baronet. Choess 13:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I will add "to list the sources of info and check against them". I only have access to Debretts, Burkes and the SCB's official Roll. - Baronetcy project 14:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to say thanks to whoever (under pseudonym User:Baronetcy project) invited me to be part of this project, which I guess means someone has found my contributions to articles on the Peerage useful. I'm not sure I'll have so much time for Wikipedia in the future, but I'll certainly keep an eye on these pages and help out with things as I have done with the Peerage articles. JRawle (Talk) 13:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Many thanks, anonymous friend!. Thesocialistesq 03:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me to take part in this project! I will keep an eye on it, but I feel I haven’t got the time at the moment to take on a specific task (I found adding missing baronetcies in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom rather exhausting!). Will instead be focusing on expanding various peerage pages, and will of course include information on the baronetcy if a baronet has been elevated to the peerage. Tryde 08:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could suggest an example page. What about Gough Baronets which could use some improvement? - Baronetcy project 08:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In a case such as Gough Baronets, the most reasonable thing in my opinion would be to keep the page very short and simply provide links to the relevant peerage pages. If there had been only one person with the surname Gough who had been created a baronet and then a peer, then Gough Baronets could automatically redirect to the peerage page in question (as for example Lopes Baronets redirects to Baron Roborough). Also, in the case of where a peerage has become extinct, but the baronetcy attached to it is still extant, then the peerage title should in my mind redirect to the page on the baronetcy (as for example Baron Holden redirects to Holden Baronets). This should then be in keeping with the practice on the peerage pages, where for instance Duke of Bolton redirects to Marquess of Winchester, as this title is still extant. I don’t know if there is an agreed policy on this, and hope someone else can give their opinion on these matters. Finally, regarding the request that I should take on the peers who are shown on Unproven baronetcies. Just to clarify things, does this mean that I should add information that the respective peer is not on the Official Roll of the Baronetage? If this is your intention, it shouldn’t be a problem. Tryde 14:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes please. But stating day and month as well as year of creation. Kittybrewster 22:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Volunteer wanted please. Kittybrewster 22:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• There is a muddle between campbell 1628 and campbell 1913 (both Ardnamurchan) - Kittybrewster 09:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The situation is extremely unclear. The first creation certainly seems to have become extinct on the death of the first holder, but the second creation was for someone called by a few sources "10th Baronet", and with an early date for precedence, so it makes me wonder if something odd was going on (such as a family claiming and using the original title and then being given a real one with the precedence they claimed or some such). A 1940s-ish copy of Burke's or Debrett's might help matters, but I don't have one, unfortunately. Proteus (Talk) 16:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I worked on this at some length in September. Thought I had explained, harmonized, and added sources. Does it need something further! Laura1822 23:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Rayment says Erskine of Cambo (1st creation 1666) merged with the Earldom of Kellie and became extinct in 1829. So how did it happen that there was a second Erskine of Cambo creation in 1821? Did they really overlap? - Kittybrewster 12:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the specifics of this case, but since the first baronetcy was superseded by the Kellie earldom, there would be no confusion between the two of them. This case aside, baronetcies are strictly by surname, unlike peerages, so it would be pretty harsh to say that there could only be one baronetcy per surname at any one time, even if they are from the same place or of the same family. I've never heard of any rule restricting creating new honors in one family. It seems to me that theoretically, every brother in one family could be created a baronet, even though more than one of them might be from the same place. Laura1822 15:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Kb is talking about the td of the baronetcy being the same not just the surname ie two creations of 'smith of somewhere' not 'smith of somewhere' and 'smith of anywhere'. The duplication is somewhat common in those 'of the Navy' 'of the Army' creations for soldiers of the same name. Other than that two thoughts if the details are correct. If the baronetcy was known soon to be extinct (elderly unmarried holder etc) they may have felt free to create or it could just be carelessness with no one noticing the duplication. It's not unheard of for identical peerages to be created (though usually for the same person) the Earl of Mansfield had two creations with differing decents which meants there was both a 2nd earl and 2nd countess after his death! Alci12 16:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You've probably hit on the answer there — the only heirs to the first baronetcy at the time of the creation of the second one were about 75 and 70, so its extinction was imminent. Proteus (Talk) 16:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that I've sorted the "List of Baronetcies in . . ." lists into alphabetical order, I've started looking at the precedence/date-ordered lists and they appear to be incomplete.

Brilliant - and so fast. Yes, they are.

Are the "List of" lists complete? I mean, is every baronet included in those lists? (Obviously the full dates and notes are incomplete.)

No they are not.

Let me make sure I understand. We do not have any complete lists? Laura1822

Correct (although B of NS, E, GB, UK and I now include all extant Baronetcies - not all of which are on List of ...). The best source of extinct ones seems to be Rayment - Kittybrewster 16:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If they are, I think it would be reasonably simple to take a copy of the "List of" lists and sort them by date and create complete lists for the "Baronetage of . . ." lists. Then we can continue to fill in the full dates, notes, etc.

But if we do that, it effectively means maintaining duplicate sets of data, which is a waste of our precious resources (Exhibit A: the incomplete "Baronetage of . . ." lists). It might be simpler to have one master list that we actually work from (perhaps located on a subpage of the project rather than in the main Wikipedia), which could then be copied and sorted as needed to create whatever category lists we think might be useful.

I think we need two lists, one alphabetical and complete (including extinct) namely List of..., the other (which we now have) in order of precedence not including extinct baronetcies.

Anyone know how to make bots? Can we borrow some? Laura1822 20:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't. Yes, they are on Wiki available to be downloaded. Search for Bot. - Kittybrewster 22:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to help, but I'm not clear on just what I'm supposed to be doing. When the project page says I should "upload" baronetcies, what does it mean? Should I add them to the lists? Should I create articles on them? On all the people who have held them? Thesocialistesq 01:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The first would be most immediately useful. Yes please. Articles are a bonus and may be for later. But I created pages for Smith and Brown and Clark (using Rayment) and it is not difficult. Thank you very much. Everything helps. Maybe we will all get a leaping lord or a whirling baronet barnstar. - Kittybrewster 03:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Viscount Stonehaven entry looks wonky regarding the territorial designation of the Barony. I have added a query on the talk page. Ury or Urie? - Kittybrewster 12:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I can find both used. There are other problems on that article which I have added Alci12 09:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that Campbell Baronets has been deemed by a robot to be within WikiProject Biography. I don't know what the biographers will do with it. - Kittybrewster 08:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh, very old comment I'm replying to, but that would have been due to categorisation. I don't think that article is within WP Bio's scope so I've zapped the tag. --kingboyk 00:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Where a baronetcy is e.g. Price, now Rugge-Price, is the associated link to Price Baronets or Rugge-Price Baronets ? - Kittybrewster 08:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Debrett's et al. seem to use the last name in the list as the one under which they alphabetize, but the full name is always included in the title of the article. Is that what you're asking? Apropos of hyphenated names, my favorite pair are from the Regency era: "Golden Ball," whose name was something like Edward Hughes Ball Hughes; and the heiress Catherine Tylney-Long who married a Wellesley-Pole, after which the unhappy couple became Pole-Tylney-Long-Wellesley. (and the Tylney-Longs were baronets, making this On Topic!  :-) ) Laura1822 00:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

So, for clarification, you propose listing under Rugge-Price Baronets, but within that artice, state "(originally Price)", and possibly a reference under Price Baronets pointing to the Rugge-Price Baronets article? - Kittybrewster 21:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what I was nattering about before; Debrett's rule doesn't seem to apply here in Wiki-land. Make Price Baronets redirect to Rugge-Price Baronets. Laura1822 01:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In working with double-barrelled names in the relatively small Baronetage of Nova Scotia and List of baronetcies in the Baronetage of Nova Scotia, I discovered some inconsistencies in whether, to use the above example arbitrarily, Rugge-Price of Somewhere pointed to Rugge-Price Baronets or to Price Baronets. I found it both ways. And in alphabetizing, sometimes under Rugge and sometimes under Price.

To take a real example: "Purves, now Home-Purves-Hume-Campbell of Purves Hall" currently points to "Home Baronets" (there are a couple more with the name Home). According to the Debrett's Alphabetization Rule, it should point to "Campbell Baronets (there are several). I'm thinking that perhaps, since the name was originally Purves, it ought to point to "Purves Baronets." And of course we can always make a page called "Home-Purves-Hume-Campbell Baronets." Which should it be? I'm leaning towards the "original name" alphabetization option, but I'm wondering if and where we should have cross-references. My impulse would be to cross-reference every name in every table and on every "Baronets" page, e.g., put it with a link on the Home Baronets page, on the Purves Baronets page, on the Hume Baronets page, and on the Campbell Baronets page (regardless of where we ultimately decide to put it). At the moment of course many of these pages are not yet created, and I'm only concerned with getting them listed properly in the tables with the correct links and cross-references. Laura1822 13:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I've talked myself into it. I'm going with the "slather it everywhere" approach for now-- feel free to discuss. I would appreciate further comment regarding where double-barrelled names should go in an alphabetized list. Laura1822 13:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Asumption is the source of many problems and I'd assumed they were listed by whatever the original creation used (where it later changed). Perhaps we could go with the SCB list as that might be as good a guidance on these tricky bts? Alci12 21:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is best to list under the name of the present baronet, e.g. Rugge-Price with a reference under Price (the original name) pointing to the new name. That way round if Price becomes Rugge-Price, one just moves the page or redirects. SCB lists them as Price, now Rugge-Price in the order of precedence and as Rugge-Price in their alphabetical list. - Kittybrewster 22:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The 3rd Mander Baronet died in August. Is it too pernickety to put the (potential) 4th Baronet down as probably ? To date, SCB's website has not been brought up to date with the death, let alone the successor. Wiki in front, yet again, maybe. I suspect User:Handsaw is the heir incumbent. - Kittybrewster 23:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Good question, and here's my tuppence worth, for discussion. The whole "unproven" concept makes me a little uncomfortable - and I do understand about formal legal requirements! It seems to me to be pernickity on the part of the SCB to label everyone who hasn't filled out their paperwork as "unproven." I understand that the point is to avoid cases like Baronet of Campbell of Ardnamurchan, but in a case where there is no digging around the family tree, just a straightforward father to son descent, or even uncle to nephew, it does seem pedantic to me to say that the heretofore acknowledged heir apparent has only probably acceded. My understanding of peerage law is that the peerage descends according to the terms of its creation, and no one can do anything to alter it (with a few esoteric exceptions I won't go into here); indeed until the 1964(? if memory serves) Act, a peer couldn't even disclaim. In other words, he was the peer even if he followed none of the usual formalities, or refused to acknowledge his inheritance. Are not baronetcies the same? The issue in Baronet of Campbell of Ardnamurchan after all wasn't whether the 8th baronet was a baronet, rather whether it was provable on paper since none of the intervening baronets since the first one had done so to the SCB. The SCB (if the law is the same as for peers) could not (and did not attempt to) "uncreate" the baronetcy (there being no question of treason and attainder); if indeed it still existed, no one could alter it. All the SCB could really do was declare agnosticity. Right? (a) is my understanding of peerage law correct, and (b) is the law regarding baronetcies equivalent? Laura1822 00:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not the same because of the requirements laid down by the Royal Warrant as shown on the SCB website. That warrant was requested by the Baronets in order to stop pretenders devaluing the currency. In c.1996 I was told about a woman who had been seen at dances in London, claiming to be a Baronetess (which was undoubtedly false). If the Sovereign is the root of all honour, the Sovereign must have the concommitant power to subject succession to restrictions. SCB only came into existence in 1910 so it was not open to previous baronets to prove their succession - merely to later ones to show sufficient evidence of their claim. Pursuing the thought, it occurs to me that membership of SCB is restricted to Baronets and their heirs apparent, so, in the case of those whose heir has joined SCB, it could be argued that the Registrar of SCB has acknowledged the succession prior to the death of the incumbent. - Kittybrewster 18:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the SCB's on rather shaky logical footing here. They claim that it "is a popular misconception that the heir apparent succeeds automatically to a baronetcy on the death of the current holder", and then justify this by quoting the Royal Warrant saying "that no person whose name is not entered on the Official Roll of Baronets shall be received as a Baronet, or shall be addressed or mentioned by that title in any civil or military Commission, Letters Patent or other official document". That simply doesn't say what they're claiming it says. Preventing Baronets from being recognised as such at Court and on legal documents unless they've proved their claim to the title is enormously different from saying they don't actually succeed until they have proved their succession. Furthermore, Wikipedia's not an official document, military Commission, etc., so they're nothing in that citation stopping us from calling people Baronets when it's obvious they are. And we do seem to be going against the grain — sources like Burke's and Cracroft's have no problem calling Peers with Baronetcies Baronets, yet hardly any of them have proved it to the SCB. (And, under the Royal Warrant, it would seem they don't really have to: they would have no need to be received as a Baronet or styled as such in an official document because they will always be received and styled as a Peer instead.) Proteus (Talk) 11:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. However, I think a certain amount of common sense may be needed here. E.g. I'm perfectly happy to add the eldest son etc as baronet (where the usual sources agree they were heir) before they have proved their succession as long as we note they haven't been entered on the roll. Where the succession is to the 27th cousin 9 times removed I'd rather we put something like 'the probable holder/claimant is x but no claim as been made out' Alci12 09:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That would seem sensible. It is, after all, what we do with Peers (everyone is pretty sure Viscount Mountgarret is Earl of Ormonde and Ossory but it's not completely clear yet so we don't call him it). Proteus (Talk) 10:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well yes, though in that case as with several others I suspect the financial cost of trying to prove the claim with mean it will never be made Alci12 21:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the next thing to do is to copy Baronetage of (each) and then sort them into alphabetical and put them into List of (each). .... Laura would do that well.

THEN go through Rayment and check that each baronetcy is shown on List of (each) and, if appropriate, on Baronetage of (each).

Unless anyone has ideas for better prioritising..?

More hands needed on deck. - Kittybrewster 22:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand. You want to replace our current "List of" lists with alphabetically sorted copies of the current "Baronetage of" lists? That won't be quite so simple as it was before, because I'll have to move or remove the precedence numbers so that it will sort on the name, and I'm not sure there's an automated way to do that. But if that's what you want, I'll play with it and see what I can come up with. Sorry for my absence lately, been ill again/still. Laura1822 01:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

We dont need the precedence numbers in the alphabetical lists. And the existing List of (each) (properly) include some baronetcies that are not shown on Baronetage of (each), namely the extinct baronetcies. - Kittybrewster 09:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Just ran across a source online with which I was previously unacquainted. Debrett's 1828 Extant Baronetage of England appears to be a transcription of some of the Baronetage of England published by Debrett in 1828. I added it to the list of sources on the project page. For the record, I own a copy of Debrett's Peerage pubished in 1828, which is a genealogical peerage (ditto Debrett 1812). Wish I had the time and energy to transcribe it and put it online! Laura1822 15:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well done - Kittybrewster 18:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As things are (or are intended to be) we are aiming for this:

Table	Baronetage of (each)	List of (each)
Sorted by	Date	Alphabetical
Nova Scotia	Extant	Extinct & extant
England	Extant	Extinct & extant
Ireland	Extant	Extinct & extant
Great Britain	Extant	Extinct & extant
United Kingdom	Extant	Extinct & extant A huge list subdivided into each initial letter

1. Is this really the best way to list them?
2. Should the complete lists (extinct and extant) be bundled together in one massive list, regardless of the type of baronetcy, but subdivided by letter of the alphabet and stating which type of baronetcy?

In my opinion that might be more useful - and it more closely reflects Raymond's page. My thinking is that most enquirers don't know or care whether a baronetcy is extant or not, or whether it is GB, UK or whatever. They just know they want to look up Sir John Bloggins and won't know how or where to begin. - Kittybrewster 19:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to think that one complete combined list (divided alphabetically, as you say) might be the most useful organizational scheme. But I seem to recall somewhere that Wikipedia frowns on constructing massive lists? Laura1822 20:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think so too. The way to do it is as in e.g. List_of_craters_on_the_Moon and the sub-sets of that. - Kittybrewster

In thinking about this, I am loathe to toss all our hard work on the extant lists. Perhaps it would be useful if we renamed them something like [[List of Extant Baronetcies in order of precedence]]. I was more than a bit confused about the difference between the two sets of lists when I first encountered this project, and a more descriptive title would help. Then rename the second set (currently List of baronetcies) [[List of all baronetcies in alphabetical order]]. Most importantly, make this latter, complete list (divided alphabetically onto separate pages), the primary focus, the page to which references elsewhere in Wikipedia point. And then include a link on that page to the Extant List by precedence-- or possibly to a new Complete List by Precedence (which would be a copy of the Complete List, sorted by precedence)? Ultimately, there is value to a list by precedence. Okay, I'm starting to contradict myself now so I'll stop. Please, other Team Baronetcy members, give us your opinions on overall organization. Laura1822 14:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh I wasn't thinking of abandoning the extant lists (which are undoubtedly of value), nor of including the extinct baronetcies on the list by order of precedence. But your proposal is that Extant baronetcies also be merged into one list, not being subdivided into "kind" but having an extra column containing NS, E, I, GB or UK. Sounds good to me. - Kittybrewster 17:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, NS etc in a column. Laura1822

So the format we are aiming for now is this:

Table	List of extant baronetcies	List of all baronetcies
Sorted by	Date	Alphabetical
All	List of extant baronetcies subdivided into 25 year blocks	Extinct & extant A huge list subdivided into each initial letter

Only a little notice: the more new lists (or parts), the more confused the whole gets, I think. Greetings Phoe 19:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I am hoping all extant will all be on one page - subdivided purely for ease of editing. I am thinking UK, GB, etc are not useful subdivisions. The question is, do we have a consensus for this change? Do folks think it is, on balance, a change for the better? And where do we insert the additional column? - Kittybrewster 19:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Aren't we breaking consistency with the peerages format though. ie List_of_hereditary_baronies_in_the_peerages_of_the_British_Isles which is by date for extant/abeyant/extinct combined list Alci12 11:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Clearly we would be. I think our goal should be to do things in the most useful way. It seems to me that the extant ones should be merged onto the one page (UK) in date order and then renamed List of extant baronetcies. That will give rise to the question as to when a baronetcy is no longer eligible for the extant list and moves to the extinct list. - Kittybrewster 14:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps proteus can tell us if that's going to cause a problem as I thought wiki good practice is to try to keep coherancy across the whole even where it isn't best for an individual article(s). I don't have a huge problem but with what's your suggesting but I'd hate for peoples huge efforts to be undone if this causes general problems. Alci12 17:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have thought further on the objectives (usefulness) and the objections (which are based on “Wiki should be standardised”). Both the objectives and the objections are achieved by merging Baronetage of (each kind) within one page, as is the case with the various Baronies.

1. I propose to do this, merging (each) into a new page List of extant Baronetcies but “each kind” will retain its own table within that page. The baronetcies will remain sorted by precedence (date) within kind.
2. Baronetcies of the UK will be further divided into 25-year periods, as at present, for continued ease of editing.
3. I propose that Baronetage of (each kind) loses its table and redirects to List of extant Baronetcies.
4. Please note (a) the word “all” does not occur before “extant” beause it is implied <<comment: it is also implied in various incomplete lists>>, (b) lower case “e” in “extant”, (c) the departure towards the word “Baronetcies” and (d) capital “B” in Baronetcies.

Please feel free to comment on these proposals.

It may be that the same exercise should be carried out on List of baronetcies in the Baronetage of (each), but that is a separate question. - Kittybrewster 22:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The formats we are aiming for now are as shown here:

Table	Project	List of extant baronies/ baronetcies	List of all baronies/ baronetcies
Baronies	Peerage	List of extant baronies sorted by date and thus subdivided into kind	List of Baronies of England; Lordships of Parliament; Baronies of GB; Baronies of Ireland; and Baronies of UK
Baronetcies	Baronetcies	List of extant baronetcies subdivided into kind, then sorted by date	List of all English, Nova Scotia, Irish and GB baronetcies, in alphabetical order List of all UK baronetcies, subdivided into each initial letter

I would support that. It follows a well-established precedent and it aids navigation. The only problem I can think of is that it will create yet more work for us, but that is what we're here for. As to the argument from gratuitous length, consider Wikipedia's gargantuan full list of Latin phrases, which has gained acceptance by the community. Thesocialistesq 04:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, Project Peerage has just decided to divide their List of hereditary baronies into English, Scottish, etc. The link in the table above now redirects. Laura1822 00:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I have re-done the To Do section on the project page to reflect the above. I then re-ordered the sections on the project page to follow the order in which we are doing the tasks.

I'm still a little unclear on the status of the intended-to-be-Complete lists. Are they finished up to the Rayment comparison task, or am I supposed to re-create them by sorting the finished extant lists alphabetically? (If the latter, I need to wait until we've finished adding the full dates to the extant UK list, and then I will have to compare each newly-created list to the current list to make sure I don't lose any work anyone's done on them in the meantime. But I could get started on the first four.) Laura1822 15:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

My confusion has been alleviated and I have revised the project page accordingly. We are almost finished with the tasks leading up to the enormous Rayment comparison. Laura1822

All extant baronetcies now have full dates, so Rayment/Abdy can now be done. - Kittybrewster 08:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

On the page for Dunbar Baronets, the text says that the Dunbars of Mockrum, Durn, and Hempriggs are in the Baronetage of England, and only Dunbar of Northfield is in the Baronetage of Nova Scotia, and Dunbar of Boath in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom. However, in the List of baronetcies in the Baronetage of Nova Scotia, all of the first four -- Durn, Hempriggs, Mockrum, and Northfield -- are listed. Also Hope-Dunbar of Baldoon. I don't see them on the extant Baronetage of England that we have now. Where do they really belong? Laura1822 13:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Mockrum, Durn, Hempriggs, Northfield and Hope-Dunbar of Baldoon are all NS. Boath is UK. I have fixed them. - Kittybrewster 14:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks! I like your new "resolved" template. I was just wishing for something like it this morning. Laura1822

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 17:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It is done, thanks to User:Ais523. Examples of its use follow:

• • Dormant. 9th Bt died 1999.
  • Extinct. 9th Bt died 1999.
  • Extant.
  • Unproven. 9th Bt died 2005.
  • Unproven, under review. 9th Bt died 2005.
  • Dormant, under review. 9th Bt died 1999.
  • Proven but merged with Baron Whatnot.
  • Unproven. Merged with Baron Whatnot. 9th Bt died 1999.
  • Dormant and merged with Baron Whatnot. 9th Bt died 1999.
  • Under review. Merged with Baron Whatnot.
  • Proven but not used.
  • Forfeit.

I was adding some s-boxes and went to look for the next holder and it wasn't where I expected. Ie List_of_extant_Baronetcies has the baronetcy of Scotland (which only started 14 years after Englands sorted ahead, so in the case in question I found the oldest extant baronet well down the list. This doesn't make sense to me is there a reason. Depending on method you use it would be E/I/S/GB/UK or E/S/I/GB/UK Alci12 18:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

True. I have thought about this and didn't move E above S because I felt other things were greater priority - and I like the intro to NS. By all means change it around. - Kittybrewster 18:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it - at least E/S. Alci12 19:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Talking of which, should there be a section somewhere dealing with S as opposed to NS? - Kittybrewster 20:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd always assumed they were indivisible? Unless anyone knows otherwise. Alci12 21:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There are now three Rayment templates. Rayment for Peerage, Rayment-b for Baronetage and Rayment-bd for Baronetage where the dates of the Baronets have not been copied across from Rayment-b. A job that has arisen as a result is the changing of Rayment to Rayment-b or Rayment-bd (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Rayment. - Kittybrewster 13:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I was finding the LP for some other articles and came across those for baronets. I don't have a strong feeling on this but perhaps it might be a link on or a quote contained in the baronet article [1] Alci12 12:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Talk:Francis_Burdett,_5th_Baronet - Kittybrewster 08:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Baron_of_Dirleton - Kittybrewster 16:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Humour#Move_proposal - Kittybrewster 23:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 21:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Needs disamb fixing jr/senior/iii/iv indeed! (the first by baronetcy the second by knighthoods and the latter two by rank seems consisent with all other examples I can think of . [2] seem to give the dates for the baronetcy as a whole but I can't confim they are correct.Alci12 16:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are interested in articles about British royalty, please look at this proposed template/style guide for articles about British royalty, and help improve it. We might eventually implement something similar here: it's a great idea. Please forgive my cross-posting this both here and on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage. Laura1822 16:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Whilst the thought is in my head. The Roll of the Peerage and the Roll of the Baronetage are now maintained by the same person and there is intended publication of the former online, sadly due to lack of funding the latter is not intended to be published any time soon. So the occasional SCB publications are going to continue to be one of the few sources. Alci12 16:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated Aylesbury Baronets, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Aylesbury Baronets satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aylesbury Baronets and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Aylesbury Baronets during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Inkpaduta 21:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This AfD campaign against baronets and/or peers has got to stop. We need to work on getting a statement about peers, baronets, peerages, baronetcies, and their lists all being inherently notable included in the official Wikipedia notability guidelines. For a start, how about adding to WP:NOBLE? Also, it seems to me that there ought to be an official Wikipedia policy somewhere that ANY article that includes a template indicating that it is part of ANY WikiProject ought to be prima facie evidence that it is notable. In other words, if a Project has "claimed" an article, then requesting it to be deleted as non-notable ought to result in an automatic Speedy Keep. Appropriate requests for such articles would be templates for expansion, citation, etc. How do we get this done? Laura1822 21:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the main problem is that the notability guidelines don't work well with the British aristocracy. A major concern is verifiability: if I, for instance, were to be the subject of an article, all its information would have to come from me and my friends and family, because no one's ever written anything about me. Thus having a policy that stops an article being written about me is perfectly sensible. But titled aristocrats are the subject of reference works, even if they haven't actually done anything, and if I were a Baronet no doubt there would be plenty of verifiable information on me available. The problem is that the guidelines don't recognise this, and assume that achievements are the only way of being notable, which simply isn't the case in Britain. I feel the best way forward is to try to make the notability guidelines reflect this cultural difference, rather than trying to add exceptions to fit people like Baronets into an imperfect system. Proteus (Talk) 21:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it would be in everyone's interest to have pro forma a basic notability argument here or project peerage to save manually recreating the arguments when this issue comes up at afd etc. I'm bound to say I think we should be careful that we do base articles on sure ground of notability. Disambiguation pages for titles and multiple holders of titles are for my mind very useful and oil the cogs of wiki enabling users to access articles from them. I have though some doubts about needing both title and only holder of title articles for baronets except where the details of the title(s) are sufficiently unusual or important that they need to be covered but are otherwise not appropriate for the holders page. Alci12 12:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points, both of you. I agree about the cultural bias and think that the most significant problem seems to be trying to convince people with an anti-aristrocratic bias that it is in fact a bias and that an aristocracy, love it or hate it, is inherently notable. We need to enumerate the arguments why and leave it here for reference, and also pursue changing the notability guidelines. We may also need to take a look at whichever guideline it is that I keep seeing that claims something about Wikipedia not being a genealogical database, and see if that guideline can be modified so that it's clear that genealogical information about the nobility is notable (essay on Rennaissance Habsburg marriages omitted). Laura1822 17:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(royalty)#Proposal - Kittybrewster 16:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please take the discussion there. The proposal is not being taken seriously. I mentioned the cultural bias but it needs expanding. Laura1822 20:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Now the Hereditary Peerage Association is under assault as being "non-notable." The discussion linked above doesn't even address the actual proposal, but challenges the underlying aim of the guideline, which is to establish that nobility is by definition notable under the current WP:BIO policy, not an exception to it. Laura1822 20:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability revisited

I had been unaware of the discussions about notability until I got dragged into them on sunday night, when I was asked to intervene between two editors in a dispute which had started to deteriorate into an edit war. So I have been doing some catching up, and have read Wikipedia talk:Notability (royalty)#Proposal and some of the AFDs.

It seems to me that the starting point, for now, is that the proposed guideline did not achieve consensus, and is therefore dead. Maybe someone can try drafting a new guideline, and if so I would suggest separating nobility from monarchy, following Kittybrwester's suggestion of a guideline called "Nobility and Baronetage".

In the meantime however, it seems to me that the position is that while peers of the United Kingdom gain an automatic presumption of notability through WP:BIO#Special_cases as "politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures", that does not apply to Baronets.

I know that there are some who argue that all baronets should be automatically considered notable, and some who argue further that the same should apply to all knights. I think that both these cases should be further discussed, because it seems to me that there several different rationales at play here.

I think that there are three separate groups to consider here:

1. 1st Baronets
2. 2nd and subsequent baronets
3. Knights (who I suggest should be left aside as a separate issue)

I have summarised below the arguments as I see them, and I hope that others will add their take. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

1st Baronets

The most persuasive argument that I see for notability of first baronets is that they must have done something to gain their title, and that the title of "1st Baronet" is therefore axiomatically evidence of notability. In many cases, that is demonstrably true: for example, Denis Thatcher and Lord Beaverbrook clearly received baronetcies as a result of their notable roles in public life.

There are many baronets who received their titles largely as a mark of rank: plenty of otherwise rather unremarkable MPs used to get baronetcies largely because of seniority or loyalty, and ambassadors reputedly used to get them just because the monarch paid their host country a state visit. Those cases seem to me to be irrelevant either way, because most (if not all) such people are clearly notable regardless of their baronetcy (e.g. the MPs get automatic notability).

The problem, though, is that there are a lot of baronets who do not otherwise appear to be notable. I can't find a date-sorted list of baronets, but for example I reckon that at ~£40,000 a shot Maundy Gregory must have sold quite a few Baronetcies in the 1920s ... and I can't see any inherent reason to regard those people as more notable than someone who at the time put their £40,000 in the bank. Given the history of patronage in the award of titles (currently occupying some of Scotland Yard's energies), there may be a significant number of other baronetcies awarded for reasons other than merit. Since Baronetcies were devised as a means of raising funds for James I, older baronetcies may be particularly likely to have been bought.

It seems to me that the question wrt to those people is whether they were inherently notable, because of their titles ... and that seems to me to be the same question as arises for 2nd and subsequent baronetcies, discussed below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Without disagreeing with anything you say, I think it is too complicated for wiki-rules to distinguish between those who bought it and those who earned it. How can we prove which is which? Besides which, coughing up ~£40,000 in the 1920s is fairly notable in itself. I prefer automatic notability for all 1st Baronets. - Kittybrewster 19:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the arguments above are quite persuasive, and due to the difficulty of distinguishing the "Baronetcy by payment" from the "Baronetcy as honour" we should accept all Baronets of first creation as notable. Sam Blacketer 23:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is easy to distinguish between the to - where someone was given the title of Baronet for something they have done or achieved then surely this will make them notably as they will have undertaken deeds which are of note and will surely be documented and pass WP:BIO and WP:N easily, a Baronet for payment is not automatically notable by any stretch of the imagination. 1st Baronets will most probably all be notably, not because they received the title but because they carried out deeds which led to them being bestowed with the title - however, these grand deeds must be explained and referenced just like any other information on wiki. We cannot try and circumvent wiki rules and policy to give automatic notability to someone how received a title, especially when that title does not carry any powers whatsoever and is purely ceremonial. We have WP:BIO, WP:BLP and WP:N for reasons. --Vintagekits 09:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

2nd and subsequent baronets

I have noticed lots of 2nd and subsequent baronets who were elected as MPs, had notable military careers etc ... but there also seem to be lots who did little or nothing notable apart from hold their baronetcy.

The only baronet I know personally (let's call him Jim) is a 4th or 6th baronet (or thereabouts); he is very unassuming, private man, who modestly lives as quiet a rural life as possible. Apart from the baronetcy, Jim is about as non-notable as anyone can be, and appears determined to keep things that way. Kittybrewster's description here of Sir Keith Arbuthnot, 8th Baronet as "intensely private" could have been written for Jim.

So I find it hard to see a case for regarding Jim as notable. Peers have had a significant role in British society, and the case for treating them as notable seems reasonably well-made, but Baronets are not nearly so important: their title is now often unused, and they have never had an automatic seat in the Lords.

Some baronets are the child or parent of someone notable (Rayment's lists show lots of those cases), but others (such as Jim) are in their second or third generation of obscurity. I can't see a case for regarding them as being more notable than knights.

The situation may be different if we go back two centuries or so, when a baronetcy may have been a title held by landed gentry, who wielded a lot of local influence, and I can see that there may a case for considering baronets from that era as notable. However, I don't really know enough about that aspect of 17th and 18th century history. Does anyone know more?

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

My feeling on this is that having a Baronetcy is notable to some people and, while we should not be striving to create an article on each one, if somebody has thought it sufficiently interesting to write an article then that should automatically save any Baronet's article from nn or afd. Unless the man himself requests that the article be removed. The same should apply to all knights and dames. - Kittybrewster 19:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me or does anyone else feel that it is a little disconcerting that it is people who actually are Baronets (such as Kittybrewster) that are vociferously trying to circumvent wiki policy to make someone who hold a non notable title like Baronet automatically notable. Plain and simple if these people are notable then let them face the scrutiny of WP:BIO and WP:N - It is my opinion that you want to make them automatically notable because you know the vast majority are completely non notably - Kitty has written an individual page no pretty much every single person in his family - wikipedia is not a genealogy service. You should not be trying to make up new wiki rules so you can have a page for each pewrson in you family.--Vintagekits 10:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and think that the existance of this project is itself evidence that there is something notable about baronets. Laura1822 15:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Laura, this is Wikiproject Baronetcies, not Wikiproject Baronets. I don't see anyone here arguing that the Baronetcies are not notable; the point in dispute seems to be whether each individual baronet is notable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely if there is "there is something notable about baronets" there would be media (press, radio, biographies, tv or internet) coverage of these people - the only sources used in many of these articles are geneology listings, its seems absurd to give automatic notability to an articles subject merely on the basis of a (bought (in some/most case)) herediarty title. We have WP:N and WP:BIO as guidelines and these people should have to adhere to those. If not they should be merged into an article on the Baronets of that family.--Vintagekits 16:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Some years ago I had the pleasure of living next door to the widow of a Baronet, who was then formally a "Dowager Lady". Her husband had been someone who was reasonably famous in his own right but she was quite clear that quite a lot of people asked him to be on their board of Directors, or involved in their charity, simply because he had a title in his name which sounded impressive. He had died in the late 1980s and I think this tendency is decreasing. Several current Baronets do not use their title and have never done so, although there is no formal way of getting rid of an unwanted Baronetcy. For that reason I would be wary of arguing that "every Baronet is notable". Sam Blacketer 23:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point Sam, but I think you are making a mistake which I may also have made in the discussions above: forgetting that per WP:N, 'Notability is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance"'. Whether your neighbour's late husband performed those roles because people were impressed with his title or because of his talents is arguably less important than the fact that they performed those roles, or maybe how effectively he did those jobs; but in terms of his notability for wikipedia's purposes, all that matters not a whit. The test is the WP:N test is the multiple, independent, reliable non-published sources.
We may approve or disapprove, but the WP:N test means that, for example:

• Baronet X had a successful career in cattle breeding, and played a crucial role not only in breed improvement but also in advising several governments on policy, and was effectively the architect of three crucial pieces of legislation. He also worked long hours as a volunteer assistant a local centre for disabled children, and chaired two prominent charities in that field. However, he did avoided all publicity; there are no newspaper reports on him and no biography. So he fails WP:N.
• Baronet X never did any work in his life, paid or voluntary. He lived off the income of a trust fund, but was notorious for his numerous sexual liaisons, and his wild, drug-fuelled parties. As a result, he attracted some of newspaper coverage and was the subject of one carefully researched but nonetheless scandal-mongering biography.

That may not be how we would all like it to be, but the notabiliy policy (which flows from WP:ATTR, one the pillars of wikipedia, makes the conclusion clear. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No case can be made whatsoever for a 2nd (or greater) Baronet - they will have inherited a title which in itself carries no power - they must adhere to the criteria of Baronet - they will have inherited a title which in itself carries no power - they must adhere to the criteria of laid down in WP:BIO and WP:N - anyone claiming that a 2nd (or subsequent) Baronet is notable simple because of this title is wrong in my opinion. Yes a Baronetcies may be notable and should have its own page but an individual Baronet is not. All non notable Baronet should be merged into the article about their specific Baronet title. --Vintagekits 09:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been referenced at WT:NCNT; you are invited to join. It suffices for me to say here that I cannot agree. There have been thousands of baronets, most of them second or later. Some of them (Sir Robert Peel, for example) genuinely are notable - but articles on all of them, even those who have done nothing more than enjoy their inheritance? Come on now, let us be reasonable! Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Overall

Consensus will never be reached on this subject due to diverging personal opinions and some of the myths and legends stated above. (For instance, regardless of their automatic right, a great many peers never attended parliament so their notability lies entirely in their title. Also, it is 'well-known' - to use a dreadful byword - that many peerages were 'bought' through bribery and corruption, especially in the Liberal and Labour governments of the 20th century). It seems to me that the simple yardstick for notability of a baronet is how they are viewed in Great Britain, generally, and by the establishment. Most books published specifically as directories of notable persons carry baronets, more often than not for no other reason. Burkes, Debretts, Kellys, Whittakers, Who's Who, to name but a few. A baronet is a hereditary title conferred by the monarch. It naturally confers notability on all holders under that Patent. It is ridiculous to suggest that the patent would say otherwise. Now that the hereditary peerage have been expelled from Their House, it appears to me at least that they and baronets are on a level playing field as regards everything else. David Lauder 08:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Please see my comments below. Laura1822 15:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Not all the hereditary peers have yet been expelled; the votes in the last few weeks indicate that agreement between the two houses of further changes are a long way off.

Whatever happens in terms of the future composition of the Lords, the overwhelming majority of articles on peers will remain historical articles, and their significance should be assessed against the situation prevailing at the time, not against what happens now. If, for example, someone stages an armed coup tomorrow and abolishes Parliament entirely, that will not alter the fact that those who have been peers or MPs in the past meet WP:BIO as members of a Parliament, and Baronets don't.

Having followed a lot of the awards of minor honours (MBEs etc) over the last decade or so, I have to say that many of them seem to me to be far from notable: I know of a few , cases where that sort of honour was issued as a form of patronage to people who were had done remarkably little to deserve it and many others given to people who were it thoroughly worthy but deeply obscure. So the fact that something was done by the monarch doesn't seem to me to be an automatic mark of notability: monarchs, like others in authority, do plenty of things which are non-notable. These gongs and titles seem to me be comparable as the plaques on walls which the monarchy unveils at openings; sometimes they are attached to something highly notable such as the Princess of Wales Memorial Fountain, and sometimes it's something like a village hall or an factory extension, things which may be thoroughly worthy, but are not notable.

I think we disagree on the question of how, as you put it, baronets "are viewed in Great Britain, generally, and by the establishment". As of now, I think the answer is that they are marginal: as one test, searching BBC News for Baronet returns 1 1hits, the most recent from 2004; but a search for peerage returns 500 hits. Trying the same on the Telegraph website gives 10809 hits for "peer" and 243 for baronet.

The current situation, though, is that the since the specific guideline failed, we are left with WP:N, which confer a presumption of notability on no baronets. That appears to leave us with three options:

1. stick to the status quo, in which a baronet does not meet the WP:N test, which requires that:
   A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other, and have substantial depth of coverage of the subject to establish notability. Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.
   and that says that "Non-triviality" is an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject."
   Debrett's etc are directories without "substantial depth of coverage" of each individual, so don't meet that test.
2. We could try again for an all-inclusive guideline; but that has already been rejected even when restricted to peers and royalty, so I don't see how it would stand a chance if extended to baronets.
3. So unless people are happy to have all baronets rigorously subjected to WP:N, the only alternative I can see is to try to look for some sort of compromise, possibly around first baronets. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I for one cannot agree with that. You do not seem to have read and digested at all what I have said in my opening post under Overall. All the books I have cited are regarded as principal sources in print of notable people in Great Britain. Some individuals therein are dealt with in very great detail indeed and more than meet the "substantial depth of coverage" required. It is absolutely crucial in this discussion to separate personal opinion from fact. I cannot see that comparing well-known manuals of notables with mentions in the media is at all acceptable. Most people would entirely disregard such an impossible comparison. If you wish to state categorically that these books are not compendiums of British notables you must quote a reliable source for such an amazing assertion. One last thing: it is insulting to compare a Patented Baronetcy with an MBE; wrong to suggest that a Patent confers notability only on the grantee. They are hereditary and carry with them all the rights therein. David Lauder 18:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

David, I did indeed read your opening post. The difference between us here is that you start from an axiomatic assumption that baronetcy=notability, and it was quite clear from the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (royalty)#Proposal that your view was overwhelmingly rejected. If you want to persuade people of that view, you need some evidence, rather than mere assertions, such as:

1. That baronets are viewed as notable "generally" and "by the establishment".
   It seems to me that was probably the case a century ago, or even fifty years ago, but no longer; and the figures I posted elsewhere on this page for the result of a few searches on news websites support that. If you believe that to be the case, I you need some evidence. Assertion is not enough.
2. A baronetcy naturally confers notability on all holders under that Patent. It is ridiculous to suggest that the patent would say otherwise.
   Again, you need more than an assertion, and more than a haughty dismissal of opposing views as "ridiculous". I had never read one of these Patents until just now, when I read this statutory instrument, and I find it it interesting and relevant reading. The most relevant part states that "he and his heirs male aforesaid may enjoy and use all the rights privileges precedences and advantages to the degree of a Baronet duly and of right belonging which Baronets of Our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed or as they do at present use and enjoy".
   So it confers certain (unspecified) rights and privileges, that's all. It seems to me to be a huge leap to suggest that those unspecified rights and privileges in the eyes of the monarch infers notability for other purposes: can you explain what those rights and privileges are, and why exactly their possession makes someone notable for wikipedia's purposes?
3. You say If you wish to state categorically that these books are not compendiums of British notables you must quote a reliable source for such an amazing assertion.
   Umm, no; the one indisputable fact about "Debrett’s Peerage & Baronetage" is that it is a guide to holders of peerages and baronetcies; no more, no less. "Debrett's Distinguished People of Today" is a guide based on Debrett's assessment of "distinguished"; those criteria may or may not align with wikipedia's criteria of notability, but if you reckon they do, then it's up to you to prove the case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Similarly, your assert that it is "wrong to suggest that a Patent confers notability only on the grantee".
   That only makes sense if you start from the assumption that a Patent confers notability; all it actually claims to do is to confer unspecified rights and priveliges. I quite agree that it would be wrong to deny that those r&p apply only to the first baronet, but if you believe that those "rights and privileges" automatically confer notability, you need to explain why. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I note all you say but I still feel you are expressing an opinion. I have cited established manuals of notables in Great Britain. To suggest that is only my opinion is really a bit much. You will have noted in the Baronet's Patent that it is a dignity which, according to the Oxford English Dictionary means an "elevation of manner or proper stateliness" or "excellence" or "honourable office, rank, or title". It also gives the latin dignus = worthy. No-one in academia would argue that to be a baronet is not notable. Only those completely opposed to our honours systems, titles, etc., would be saying that. Wikipedians don't make, by their personal opinions, British society's rules and regulations. It is, as I said before, ridiculous. David Lauder 11:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you back any of that up? "No-one in academia would argue that to be a baronet is not notable" - anything to prove that? What exactly are they notable for - what power does the title give - in fact a local councillor has more power than a Baronet. Again if they are that notable why dont you let them face WP:N and WP:BIO like everyone else - this is an attempt to circumvent wiki rules to give automatic notability to those who arnt notable.--Vintagekits 13:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

David, I hope that you will read WP:CIVIL before replying again. Dismissing an opposing view as "ridiculous" is not a helpful way to proceed in a discussion.

Unlike Vitagekits, I do not regard Baronets as non-notable; I regard their notability as unproven, and have been looking for evidence to support the claims of their collective notability. Unfortunately, all that seems to be on offer is circular justifications such as "Baronets are in a list of Baronets", which proves nothing. A list does not of itself prove notability: the same govt Dept as is responsible for maintaining the Baronetcies (viz the DCA) also implements legislation which created the Gender Recognition Register, which records the names of people who have legally changed gender, which hardly confers notability.

You point to the meaning of the word "dignity", and your ue of the definition rests on your implicit POV that the only people with dignity are those whose dignity is recognised by the crown.

In your latest reply, you also refer to "British society's rules and regulations". What exactly are those rules and regulations? Any Acts of Parliament or other official documents to support your position?

You repeatedly accuse me of taking a POV position, but all I am doing is looking for verifiable sources to back up your claims. Labelling me however you choose doesn't alter the lack of sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You keep asking for evidence of British notables and I have pointed out repeatedly the several directories mentioned which are universally acknowledged in this country as containing people of note. Baronets are always contained therein. If you or other Wikipedians refuse to accept these directories of notables, then I don't know what to say. Here exist established and well-known sources. What can I do if Wikipedians don't like them. David Lauder 17:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Debrett's and Who's who are directories and provide no depth of coverage - I have taken the time and trouble to go and read these books and they to not convey notablilty.--Vintagekits 09:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sir Keith comfortably survived afd although no claims to notability are made in his article other than his baronetcy. This suggests to me that all baronets for whom somebody has troubled to write an article are sufficiently notable. - Kittybrewster (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

So by that yardstick if I take the time and trouble to write a nice article about my wee mammy then this should be kept? That is patently nonsense. If they cannot prove notability for anything other than receiving a hereditary non notable title then the article should be either deleted of merged to an article about that line of Baronets.--Vintagekits 09:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please contribute to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_prefixes_No.2. - Kittybrewster 22:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sir_Keith_Arbuthnot,_8th_Baronet - Kittybrewster 11:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• In response to the AfD (see my own comments there), I have decided to begin collecting any previous precedents on the notability of baronets whose only claim to notability is being a baronet. Please feel free to add any other material you are aware of: User:Newprogressive/Baronet notability. --New Progressive 12:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Resounding keep. Very useful debate and new page by New Progressive. - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[3] - Kittybrewster 21:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As a party to those discussions, I would like to stress that I am undecided on the question of whether Baronets should be automatically regarded as notable. I joined this project because my main interests is in Parliament, and I wanted to ensure that articles on MPs and Peers who are Baronets recorded that data correctly, and have been delighted by the expertise available within this project. I have a few thoughts on notability, and will post something soon on the subject.

I understood the primary aim of the project as being to create an accurate article on each baronetcy, an aim which I unreservedly support. I don't think that necessarily means having an article on every individual baronet. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that and have added my views in the section above. - Kittybrewster 20:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be a discussion about using these type of publications as reliable sources. As far as I am aware they are just listing and each entry is complied after a questionnaire is sent out to that person to fill in - so in essence they are self written. I have the feeling that I know the responses I am going to get from some editors as this is the Baronet Project but can we please discuss it.--Vintagekits 14:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand the rationale for your rejection of publications such as Debrett's Peerage and Who's Who. The raison d'être of these works is that they give information about notable people. They simply wouldn't exist otherwise.

It seems to me that rather you are protesting the fact that while we may have democracy, we don't have equality. That's true even in the U.S. and other republics where "titles of honor" are not recognized by the state. In the UK, where they are, it is considerably more true. We might lament the fact, we might make efforts to change it (such as excluding the hereditary peerage from the House of Lords in 1999, or endorsing abolishing the monarchy), but the fact remains that while the UK continues to be a monarchy, and while there continue to be inheritable titles, those titles will remain notable, in and of themselves. That's not an assertion of how things ought to be, but a description of reality. There is an establishment in the UK, just as in every other country. That establishment recognizes hereditary titles as significant. If they weren't, no one would bother to use them. The fact that one may not like the establishment, or is trying to change it, is simply not relevant in describing reality. Indeed, if it wasn't reality, there would be no need for those who don't like it to attempt to change it. Laura1822 15:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a separate discussion than the notability issue, this is about using these listing directories as sources as per WP:RS. regards--Vintagekits 15:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything in WP:RS that could possibly be construed as excluding sources like Debrett's Peerage or Who's Who. (I also think that your description of them as "directories" is inaccurate, but will leave that aside for the moment, because "directories" are not mentioned in WP:RS.) What part of the policy do you think that they fail to meet? Laura1822 16:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the entries are written by the entrants themselves casts a shadow of the inpedenence and verifiability or the sources.--Vintagekits 16:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What part of the policy do you think that they fail to meet? Laura1822 16:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the following are relevant from WP:ATT -

• "questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process"--Vintagekits 16:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

To some extent some of them (e.g. Debrett's Peerage) are written by other people. But who is more likely properly to verify e.g. dates of directorships than the subject? - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Kitty, you have an entry in both Debrett's and Who's Who. How and where did they get that information?--Vintagekits 16:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I will have checked th proofs. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes you will have checked the proof but where and how do they collate the information in the first place? regards--Vintagekits 17:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The Times, Telegraph, Guardian births, deaths & marriages, London Gazette, etc. It depends on the sort of information. - Kittybrewster (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, may I say something here. With regard to Debrett's Distinguished People of Today, the editors contend, in an article in The Guardian (6 Feb 89), that their book contains "the most distinguished people in the country - all those listed truly deserve their place". According to the same article their editors said that they themselves select notables for their publication. I knew David Williamson, who until he died was editor at Debretts. He told me that every entry was very carefully vetted and that they sought out notables for inclusion and verification and did not accept entries sent to them without their invitation. Lodge's old Peerage used to boast on the spine "corrected by the nobility". David Lauder 17:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrt to the original point of reliability as a source, Debrett's Peerage is a commercial publications. I doubt that it is perfect, but it wouldn't have remained in business for so long if it wasn't doing a reasonably accurate job. It seems to me that the combination of checks by editors and by the subjects is about as good a method as there is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Just jumping into this discussion, but I think there is something in Vintagekits' objections as far as some Peerage reference works go. Burke's Peerage (at least the version printed up to 1970) was famous for accepting "any old guff" from noble families explaining their origins, and Debrett's was not immune either, as this page shows. I have seen plenty of examples from Who's Who of inaccurate dates for particular posts, or of birthdate falsification. However, I think it is unlikely that someone in Who's Who could get away with pretending to hold a job which did not exist. They do seem to do checking. G.E. Cokayne's "Complete Peerage" is a magisterial work which can be trusted and has a wonderful tendency (in the second edition at least) to include much of what is essentially scandal. His "Complete Baronetage" is slightly less well known and well-renowned, but I think probably to be preferred in the case of any dispute. Meanwhile, check, check and recheck against other sources. Sam Blacketer 23:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The entirely private website you refer us to here - the baronage - is a bit of a loose cannon source, to say the least, and they are stirrers. I would not rely upon them as an academic source. To the best of my knowledge they have never published anything. If you can direct us all to a very authoritative source which supports your possibly libellous assertion that Burkes, Debretts, and Who's Who accept "any old guff" which goes unvetted and unchecked I feel certain we would all like to study it. The crucial thing which seems to be glossed over in this discussion is this: is it contended that these publications are meaningless, or are they rated as publications of the nation's notables? I am saying that the latter is the case. It is nothing to do with our personal opinions. Rather the facts of the standing of these publications. David Lauder 08:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The Baronage Press may be a renegade but the points there about bogus family histories are well made and persuasive. I do not see how it is libellous to say that Debrett's printed an uncheckable legend in 1823, or that Burkes did so slightly more recently, only 96 years ago! There is, though, a kernel of truth in observing that any biography based on one sent in by its subject is inevitably partial, even if one checks to see that everything in it is true. Remember Tony Benn and his amazing slimming entry in Who's Who in the 1970s? Sam Blacketer 09:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to David Lauder's comment above, that "The crucial thing which seems to be glossed over in this discussion is this: is it contended that these publications are meaningless, or are they rated as publications of the nation's notables?", I can only say that's a very slanted false dichotomy. There are so many possible positions in between those two extremes that I hope, on reflection, David will agree that the unintended effect of that comment was deeply misleading; and David also conflates two separate concepts, viz. reliability and notability.

Reliability

• Sam Blacketer usefully points out somes flaws in these sources. That doesn't surprise me, and in fact I'd very be surprised if there had not been some flaws. But Wikipedia regularly relies on journalistic reports, even though many newspaper articles contain demonstrable inaccuracies (consider the libel cases they lose, the number of corrections they have to publish, and the tight deadlines which limit the research journalists can do). All that's been shown so far is that these publications, like any human endeavour, have an error rate greater than zero. Hardly surprising, but Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable_sources does not require perfection. Sam's points are a useful reminder that we should not treat any source as perfection incarnate, but we don't have to choose between perfection and junk.

Notability

• This is a separate issue. There may be a very reputable and reliable source on a subject, but it takes more than that to make someone notable per WP's policies. WP:N is clear that 'Notability is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance"'; it is a matter of whether there is non-trivial coverage in secondary sources (plural).
  Someone may choose to publish, for example, a book of meticulously researched and utterly scholarly work on a sash window manufacturer in 19th century Derbyshire ... but the existence of that scholarly work does not mean that the window-maker met notability criteria, unless there is at least one other non-trivial reliable source.
  The notability rules provide no exemption or presumption of notability for baronets; the only question is whether the reliable sources available offer independent and non-trivial coverage of the subject.
  Unfortunately, the notability guidelines are not as clear as they should be on the issue of directories: WP:N#Dealing_with_non-notable_topics disparages directories, but offer little guidance on what should be considered a "directory". At one extreme, the phone book is clearly a directory, and the Dictionary of National Biography clearly offers substantial coverage of its subjects ... but Debrett's and Who's Who, for example, fall somewhere between those two positions.

That seems to me to be the main issue at stake here, and I suggest that we should raise it at WT:ATT and/or WT:N. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My main issue with these listing publications is that they rely on the entrant to make up their own entries - this surely is the major flaw with these publications.--Vintagekits 13:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Depends whether they rely solely on the entrant. If there is reasonable checking, and some sort of review process, then it seems to me to be a rather good way of getting a reliable and comprehensive entry. I do find it hard to imagine that anyone would get away with major porkies; by their nature, these listings publications are open to public scrutiny. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion are a matter of public record. In the case of Baronets you can't get onto the roll of the Baronetage unless there are no missing birth certificates. This process can take months. As for the details of the entry there would be no more stupid place to tell a porky, as everyone will find out. The entries tend to be about easily checkable things - schools, regiments, degrees, dates of birth, marriages, directorships, political appointments, publications. Given that to lie would be social death, I think the fact the person themselves checks them makes them more accurate, as people are keen to avoid the embarrassment of an incorrect entry. AnnabelBuxton 14:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sure they are all honest people - but that is not the issue here - the issue is that as they write their own entries it breaches WP:NOR--Vintagekits 09:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think if people have serious concerns then a list of publications and depth of coverage should be compiled. As for depth Burke's and Debrett have several pages per entrant. As for number of publications, baronets are listed in all sorts of places - another one that comes to mind is Whitaker's Almanac. This is a one stop annual listing everything of note in the British nation. Hardly a specialist publication. AnnabelBuxton 14:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Annabel, that is not exactly true - I went and looked at a copy of Who's Who 2007 and Debretts just to see what level of depth it goes into on people. Firstly Debrett's - this is 1,797 pages - with approximately 13 entries per page (therefore NOT several pages per entrant) and most/many entries do not state anything notable about about the entrant only when they were born and the names of his family members.

Who's Who - this is pretty much the same book as far as I can see just with even more people, the UK edition alone is 2,529 pages long this year and it has on average 16 people listings or referral's per page - you do the math on the amount of people in it then. Each page is split into two columns with 100 lines per column so that 200 lines per page (over half a million lines in the book). The entry for the person highlighted above is 6 lines long in one column - that includes a line for his name and address of where they live - the other four lines include where he went to school and the names of his family members inc. ex. wife. There is no mention of anything notable that he achieved except that he went to university. Both entries in both books are identical?--Vintagekits 10:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits With regards to the editing own entry issue - I am assume you are aware of all the press coverage about Jimmy Wales edits of his Wikipedia entry - so presumably the founder accepts the principle! With regards to Debrett - there are less than 2000 peers and baronets. I assume you are counting details about relatives of the incumbent as seperate entries, wheras if you look at the layout they are content of the article. Even on Wikipedia many articles devote considerable attention to family members - eg even a figure like Richard Dawkins has a reference to Burkes in his entry. You have a worthy view of notability - i.e. purely of achievement - however that is neither a reflection of Wikipedia (what has Jade Goody achieved) or of the real world Bush, Clinton, Bush, probably Clinton. What is the probability of that in your hypothetical world where family doesn't count? I can see the arguments against - but a world in which notability takes generations to acquire rather than one visit to big brother seems preferable to me. It also makes for a fairer society - no-one has starved through lack of a title - wheras if money is the basis of status then you get a society like America where the richest two people have as much as the bottom 30% AnnabelBuxton 09:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you realise this, Vintagekits, but this is no different to what happens when a biography of someone appears in the newspaper or most other publications. Basic biography is obtained from the subject. It then may be fact-checked to some degree, but it's unlikely to be completely checked back to primary sources. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasnt aware that the subject of newspaper article always wrote the articles about themselves - which is what happens with these listings books.--Vintagekits 00:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone actually have a relevant example of a reasonably current Debrett's entry being deceptive due to the self-publication policy? The only examples brought forth so far, by Sam Blacketer above, refer to the 1823 edition of Debrett's and 1909 of Burke's, respectively, when those publishers were more credulous about supposed genealogies and traditions handed down from the Angevin era or what have you. (And believe me, I've done my time chasing that kind of bogus genealogy out of Wikipedia: see my struggles with User:Burkem over the early Earls of Ulster.) Obviously, the fact that it relies on submissions from the relevant families might make it weaker in comparison to other sources should they differ on particular facts. But in the real world outside of Wikipedia, Debrett's is a source people consult, and consider accurate until proven otherwise. Trying to get it ruled out strikes me as an inherently WP:POINTy exercise, like asking for citations for "The Sun is a star," all the more so when coming from someone with a large ax to grind about the subject. Choess 04:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

According to Leigh Rayment's page the Summers Baronetcy of Shotton became extinct in 1993. However, it's listed in List of extant Baronetcies. Perhaps someone can shed some light on this. Also, if anyone knows what the first baronet did to achieve a baronetcy it would be good if they could add this to the Summers Baronets page or even better create a page on him. Tryde 19:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Debrett's the territorial designation of the Maclean Baronetcy of 1957 is "of Dunconnel", this is also the td used in List of extant baronetcies. However, Leigh Rayment uses the style "of Strachur" while according to Wikipedia's article on Fitzroy Maclean it is "of Strachur and Glensluain". Can anyone confirm which one is the correct td? It would also be good if someone can confirm the td for the Maclean baronetcy of 1631, is it "of Duart and Morvern in the County of Argyll" or simply "of Morvern in the County of Argyll". Tryde 19:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Strachur and Glensluain per SCB. The earlier one was Maclean of Morvaren per SCB. - Kittybrewster (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the amazingly quick answer! I presume that Glensluain is also located in the County of Argyll. Tryde 19:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No idea. I am wondering if Morvaren is a misspelling. - Kittybrewster (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

After a quick google search it seems that "Morvaren" and "Morvern" are used interchangeably. The td for the life barony of 1971 was "of Duart and Morvern". I'll add some info on the alternative spellings. Tryde 19:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Per Template_talk:WPBiography#baronets-work-group I'm about to start work on adding you to the {{WPBiography}} template as requested.

Looking again at the request, and your project structure, I'm not entirely sure, however, how you want this done. As far as I'm aware, baronets aren't royalty, so it wouldn't be appropriate for you to be a workgroup of WikiProject British Royalty. Furthermore, it would appear that you're already affiliated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage.

My suggestion then is that you get the agreement of the WikiProject Peerage folks (most of whom are probably the same folks as here anyway! :)) and have WikiProject Peerage become a child project of WikiProject Biography. Then, we'd need to get your project pages updated with a few WPBIO navigational aids (like at WP:BROY and WP:MUSICIANS), create your article assessment categories, and add two new mutually-exclusive parameters to {{WPBiography}}, one for this project and one for peerage. How does that sound?

Note that many of your articles probably already have WPBio tags anyway, just without the new parameter(s). --kingboyk 00:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Baronts are not royalty though a few of them, are also peers. My thought was merely to have an additional line within wpBiography saying "This article is supported by WikiProject:Baronetcies. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, great (assuming here that you speak for the whole project!). I'll work on this later today. --kingboyk 14:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Two new parameters:

• peerage-work-group=yes
• baronets-work-group=yes

(I don't like "work-group" but I've chosen consistency!) {{WPBiography|peerage-work-group=yes}} {{WPBiography|baronets-work-group=yes}}

The assessment and other maintenance categories are red. I or somebody will fix those up shortly.

Also, the project pages need to acquire the WP Biography trinkets like at WP:BROY and WP:MUSICIANS.

Hope that helps! Oh, one last thing, I'll also support for these 2 parameters to my plugin, so if you want my bot to run through any article categories for you, drop me a line. --kingboyk 21:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've now written a new script to set up assessment categories, and have done the categories for you. The WP 1.0 bot (talk · contribs) will pick up those categories over the next few days and these links should go blue, giving you the article assessments worklists:

• Peerage: Index · Statistics · Log
• Baronets: Index · Statistics · Log

Next (sigh!), I'll tweak a couple of things in {{WPBiography}} for you as requested, and add the parameters to my plugin so that my bot can tag your categories, also as requested. --kingboyk 22:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You're terrific. Thank you. - Kittybrewster (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please vote specifically on list-as parameter. Henry Vivian, 1st Baron Swansea should be under

• Swansea

Proteus —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kittybrewster (talk • contribs) 12:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

(Vote here)

• Vivian

(Vote here)

Comments

Please also note: 1) listas doesn't really matter, as it only determines talk page placing in maintenance categories. 2) If you want the way my bot does it changed, the WP:AWB algorithm will have to be changed. This feature isn't code I wrote myself. All that said, if the code can be improved that's a good thing. --kingboyk 22:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally it may be that baronets prefer alpha by surname while peerage prefer alpha by title. Either way it needs to be consistent.  :) - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Peers are categorised by title rather than surname, so it would be consistent to have the same sorting for "list-as". Baronets obviously only have one option. Proteus (Talk) 09:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Kelly Martin is proposing an experimental Requests for Adminship criterion:Endorsement by a wikiproject.

So my very simple question here: Please state on the RFA page whether or not Sam Blaketer is doing a good job on this wikiproject.

--Kim Bruning 20:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I am supporting this request for WikiProject Baronetcies. Strike out if you oppose t. - Kittybrewster (talk) 08:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Kittybrewster, I have no hesitation in lending very strong support to Sam's nomination, but I think I have struck out your comment as invited because I think that it is inappropriate for a project to take a collective stance on an RFA. Individuals here should make individual statements on Sam's RFA (or any other RFA) as they feel appropriate, but I think that it could be divisive to start a precedent of discussing RFAs on project pages. There are some excellent editors who we might feel would be poor admins, and I would hate to see the co-operative spirit of this or any wkiproject damaged by allowing the project to become the focus of a divisive discussion on the merits of any particular editor. Let's keep the project as a place for work on the project's purpose! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

(following argument at Village Pump re murder vs killing). Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sir_William_Arbuthnot,_2nd_Baronet - Kittybrewster (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

for deceased baronets and nobility in general: the Online edition of Dictionary of National Biography. Almost all I have checked are covered either in separate articles, or in sections--the indexes give excellent access. The articles are signed, and by noted scholars. I haven't used it for anything in the 20th century (that not being my interest), but for earlier centuries it often gives very different information than the PD editions of the other guides that were used in many WP articles. I would have no hesitation in considering it the most authoritative of all the secondary works, and am slowly revising the bios of some of the later medieval nobility with this as the basis.

Here in the US, it (or its print counterpart) is generally available only at university libraries, but in the UK a license has been negotiated by which is should be available at every academic and public library. DGG 00:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

And it is an excellent test; anyone who died before 2000, and is not listed, should require other strong evidence of notability to have an article here; anyone living not of comparable achievement should probably not have one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I see the question of notability as regards baronets has flared up again. I believe I've previously stated my opinion on the subject, to wit, that the possession of a baronetcy does not alone suffice to make a person notable. Accordingly, I've tried an experiment at Dashwood Baronets, for the Dashwoods of West Wycombe: I've written a paragraph for each baronet, with a link to the main article for those of independent notability. Merging some of the articles regarded as non-notable into the main article on the baronetcy seems to me to be a sensible compromise between inclusionism and deletionism on this subject. Arguments and counterarguments, and critiques of the format, are welcome. Choess 03:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A very sensible notion. I would prehaps remove the simple list of the baronets and merge the main article tags into the paragraphs they adorn; for example, making the entry on the first Sir Francis:

Sir Francis Dashwood, 1st Baronet (c.1658 – 4 November 1724) was a London merchant who made his fortune trading with the Far East. Francis used part of his wealth to buy the estate of West Wycombe Park, and was created a baronet in 1707.

As it is, the Dashwoods of West Wycombe are are listed three or four times; once in the TOC, again at the top of the section, and a third time in the individual sections. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. OK. I've tried that, but the "Main article" links look a bit odd without sections above them. Feel free to adjust the formatting yourself. I've included anchors and set up redirects so that, e.g., Sir Francis Dashwood, 11th Baronet will jump to his section on the page. This has two purposes: 1) succession boxes for the baronets who warrant their own articles will work as expected. 2) proper categorization. In light of all the discussion of WP:BLP recently, it's important that the little blurbs on the current baronets of whatever baronetcy be recognized and locatable as such. Choess 05:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I didn't look closely enough at the example. Anyway, see how you like it now. Choess 05:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Is there a reason to leave some of them bold, or did you just not get around to it? If the latter, no rush. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I de-bolded them and made it into a bulleted list. Anyone else want to comment? My motivation for creating this was in part to create a compromise between declaring every baronet, ever to be notable and deleting information on less-than-notable baronets in toto — plus it makes the "X Baronets" pages less stubby and (IMO) more useful. But I'd really like to hear what other people think. Choess 00:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I very much like what you have done there. - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

An article that you may have been involved in editing, Alexander George Arbuthnot, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander George Arbuthnot. Thank you. Kittybrewster (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I consider this canvassing which you have been warned for before. Not impressed.--Vintagekits 13:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong again. I have no plans to be interested in whether or not you are impressed. - Kittybrewster (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"Wrong again" on what score? Is this person a Baronet? You are just posting it here in order that your "cronies" will go a !vote Keep - lets see how many of "your cabal" do!?--Vintagekits 15:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with Vintagekits that advertising this AfD on this page does indeed seem a little beyond the pale - I can think of no cognizable reason why Baronetcy team members would care about this article and its AfD over and above the dozens of other AfDs everyday. --New Progressive 17:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The phrase "an article that you may have been involved in editing..." is also odd considering that there has been only one editor making substantive contributions to the article. -Will Beback · † · 17:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I copied and pasted ONIH's posting on my page, thinking it might be of interest to folks on this project. So the original post said (as I later spotted) that I had nominated it for afd. - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would a non Baronet be of interest to members of the Baronet Project? What would you say if I listed this AfD on the Irish republican project talkpage? This is blatant canvassing and you have been warn a number of times about this and no action has been taken to curb your entusiasm.--Vintagekits 11:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone help me to unravel whether Leolin Forestier-Walker was a baronet and/or a KBE? See Talk:Leolin Forestier-Walker#Titles. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll re-open this one. I've now found the Gazette entries for his baronetcy:

• "No. 33501". The London Gazette (invalid |supp= (help)). 31 May 1929. {{cite magazine}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• "No. 33516". The London Gazette. 12 July 1929. {{cite magazine}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

It's a new creation, rather than being connected to the 1835 Walker of Castleton Barontecy (and incidentally on the UK Baronetage list I've pointed this to Forestier-Walker, rather than just Walker now), which explains the earlier connection. Given both the unusual surname, and the coincidence of Leolin popping up amongst the middle name sof holders of both, there must surely be some relationship between the families. I assume that this additional creation should be added to the Forestier-Walker Baronets page (I haven't attempted this). David Underdown (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have just created Morice Baronets, but I'm not sure that I have got the spelling right.

The three baronets were all MPs for Newport. In the list of Newport MPs, Rayments spells the name "Morice", but at http://www.angeltowns.com/town/peerage/baronetsm4.htm he spells it Morrice. Thepeerage.com uses "Morice"[4], but the entry is scanty. Does anyone have any better sources? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

I have started an article on Father Sir Hugh Barrett-Lennard. Does anyone involved in this project have access to sources that could be used to improve it? Rjm at sleepers 08:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, My Lords. WikiProject Succession Box Standardization are finalising the guidelines on succession boxes (the draft can be found here) and I have two questions to make:

• Although it would seem that no person may hold more than one baronetcies, that is not clear anywhere in the Baronets article, in the Baronets section of the British Honours System article, or in this WikiProject. Can you please enlighten us?
• If a single person can hold more than one baronetcies, should these be given in the person's succession box in ascending chronological order (order of granting/enrollment), in ascending alphabetical order, or in some other order?

Thank you for your time. Waltham, The Duke of 07:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A person may hold more than one baronetcy, the first to come to mind are the Bacon Baronets, who presently hold two baronetcies. Order of listing should be in chronological order of the title first being granted. --New Progressive 13:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your prompt reply. Our guidelines (now posted in their proper location) will be updated in due course. Waltham, The Duke of 10:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A succesion question, since the heir presumptive to two baronetcies has died: Talk:Gore Baronets#Baronets_of_Artarman. Can anyone help? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been giving a lot of thought to the current fraught atmosphere surrounding the baronetcies project, and I think that the project is in trouble. Choess suggested on my talk page the possibility of an ad hoc group under the auspices of WP:CEM, to try to resolve some problems, but unfortunately it seems that CEM's scope was too narrow, and in any case the process seems to be defunct (or at last dormant). So I think that idea is a non-starter, and I want to propose an alternative. This isn't going to be short, so please bear with me

The reasons that his project is in trouble are twofold: a) that some members of this project became engaged in disputes with other editors on largely unrelated issues, which led to a high degree of hostility to this project from some quarters (via a long and contentious history which I suggest that we skip here). For a wikiproject to command respect for its work co-ordinating articles on a particular topic, it is important for it not just uphold high standards, but to be clearly seen to do so, and that doesn't currently seem to how this project is seen. b) As part of the dispute, a number of baronets articles have been targeted for deletion, and it has become clear that have been a number of articles on baronets which do not meet notability guidelines.

My proposal is simply that instead of waiting for antagonistic editors to query the notability of articles on baronets, that this project mounts its own assessment drive, and takes steps to ensure that only retain articles on baronets who have a clearly plausible claim to notability. In other words, clean up our own house.

I took some time digging the garden to mull over what I thought needed to be done, and when I started writing this last night I did a little more reading around, and found a very thoughtful and useful post by Choess suggesting a way forward: it's at User talk:Major_Bonkers#VK_-_BHG (in case it's archived, here's the diff). The rest of what I have to say draws heavily on Choess's proposal there and on Choess's earlier thread above about Condensing articles on baronets.

So here's what I propose:

1. Notability: This project accepts that Wikipedia has a general notability guideline at WP:N, and at WP:BIO. Some editors would like a different guideline, but the the proposed guideline WP:NOBLE did not achieve consensus, and the status quo on wikipedia is clearly that posession of a baronetcy is not of itself an indication of notability nor part of a claim to notability. The baronetcies project needs to be unequivocal that unless and until the guidelines are changed, we work to uphold the current guidelines. (That does not of course in any way preclude editors from seeking changes to the guidelines).
2. Merge non-notable baronets. Articles on non-notable baronets should not be created, and if found to exist, should be merged to the apropriate baronetcy article. As examples of how that should be done, see Glynne Baronets (with short entries on each article) or Abdy Baronets (much longer entries). Where an existing article on a baronet is about someone non-notable, the article should not be deleted; the information should be merged into the baronetcy article, and the baronet-article made into a redirect which itself is categorised under the approriate baronets category (e.g. Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of England).
3. A systematic cleanup. Given the perception in sme quarters that there are many articles on non-notable baronets, this project should be proactive rather than reactive, and should start a systematic cleanup. I suggest that a group of editors acceptable to the project should start an alphabetical trawl through the baronet articles, identifying non-notables and listing them on a project subpage prior to upmerger. I used AWB to count the existing collection of articles, and I find 1748 articles; that's a lot, but a team of editors should be able to assess the lot within a few months.

I know that some editors will not like this proposal, but I don't think that inaction is an option. Given the scrutiny which this project is under, the choice is between a tidyup run by this project which draws on the project's expertise ... or a continuation of the old cycle of articles being nominated for AfD or being simply redirected to the baronetcy page without being properly merged, and often without sufficient input from editors who actually know the subject. I'm sure there are details to resolve, but what do people think of this in outline? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Constructive destruction, huh? I think there are greater priorities as listed in the WikiProject page. - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm disappointed in that response. What I'm proposing is not destruction, because no info will be lost; this is essentially about having more comprehensive articles on baronetcies rather than distributing the info across a collection of stubby articles on broadly non-notable baronets. And as above, I don't think that the status quo is an option; numerous AfDs have shown that there isn't community support for some of the stubby articles which currently exist. Surely it's not unreasonable for this project to take some responsibility for trying to ensure that the project's work is structured in such a way as to produce articles which are a clear keep if taken AfD? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that you have made it very clear that you do not regard baronets as notable and oppose that position do you think you should be the one proposing a 'clean-up'?David Lauder 14:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The proposal set out by BrownHaired Girl is in my mind very reasonable. Although I contribut a lot to articles on peers and baronets, I don’t consider all baronets to be automatically notably. The “condensing process” proposed by Choess is also a very good idea. However, I don’t think the project in itself is in crisis, rather I think some features of Wikipedia are in crisis. This is perhaps not the place to posts these thoughts but I’m going to do it anyway. Firstly, it’s too easy to move articles by regular users. This was highlighted when some articles on Baronets, in which the title was needed for disambiguation, were moved by some users determined to push a certain agenda. BHG and other users had to spend an enormous amount of time an energy on discussing this on various talk pages. I think a change in the process of moving pages is needed, the reasonable solution in my mind is that only administrators should be allowed to move pages. Secondly, it’s too easy for the regular contributor to nominate an article for deletion and round up a few of his or her cronies to vote. It would be worthwhile for Wikipedia to consider if only administrators should be allowed to determine whether an article should be deleted or not.

Now back to the proposal. I would be willing to go through some of the articles on baronets, and “condense” them in to the relevant baronetcy article if needed. However, going through articles on baronets at random I believe BHG makes this out to be a bigger problem than it really is. Another thing that needs to be sorted out is that in many lists of holders of a baronetcy all holders are wikilinked (I have myself been guilty in the past of linking all holders). We need to go through these lists and de-link those holders that may not be considered notable.

As a major contributor to articles on baronetcies I would also like to make one thing sure. I am under the impression that the notability of an article on a baronetcy, in contrast to that of an individual baronet, has never been questioned. Can someone please confirm this. Furthermore, there is the question of the correct article title for a baronet. The current naming convention is as followes: Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives, follow the same practice as hereditary peers and should have their title noted in the beginning of the article. The format is Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet. For the article title, this format should only be used when disambiguation is necessary; otherwise, the article should be located at John Smith. John Smith, 17th Baronet should never be used with the postfix and without the prefix.

In my mind this policy is somewhat absurd and contradictory. For example, Prime Minister Robert Peel, known to history mainly as Sir Robert Peel, is under the article title "Robert Peel", while his father and namesake is under "Sir Robert Peel, 1st Baronet" (although I have no problem with Robert Peel redirecting to the more famous second Baronet). Another example is Sir George Cornewall Lewis, known to history under this name, is located at "George Cornwall Lewis". Wikipedia encourages its editors to be bold, and I am aware that this is a bold proposal under the current climate: members of the baronetcy project should jointly propose that the naming conventions be changed, so that all baronets are under their full title, i. e. "Sir John Smith, 1st Baronet". They are, from what I understand, legally entitled to use their title and this is also the practice with peers (where almost all articles include the peerage title). A simpler naming convention like this would also save editors a lot of time bickering of the correct title a baronet should be located under. The only exception would be baronets who are not known by their title, like for instance Ranulph Fiennes and Ferdinand Mount. Tryde 14:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

A few different points to respond to:

• in reply to David, the consensus at AfD has repeatedly been that baronets are not automatically notable. The proposed guideline WP:NOBLE would have admitted a baronetcy as a factor in notability (tho not made baronets automatically notable), but that the proposal failed to each consensus. So the status quo is that baronets are not automatically notable, and I support that position; others do want a change, which is fine, but unless and until the guidelines are changed we should work with them as they stand. It seems to me to be mighty perverse to suggest that support of the current guidelines should be suggested as a disqualifier for a cleanup.
• In reply to Tryde, I'm delighted to hear that your searches have revealed few articles which look problematic! Apart from anything else it means less work in any tidyup :) My main concern in this is given the way baronet articles have been problematised, it would be immensely helpful for everyone interested to know that this project does have quality control standards, and doesn't regard it as satisfactory to have articles which are merely genealogical entries along the lines of "born, married, had kids, inherited baronetcy, died" (see WP:NOT#DIRECTORY). I'd be sad if that resulted in a big cull, less sad if it resulted in some baronet articles being merged into the baronetcy articles, and delighted if it meant that we could in good faith tag several hundred articles as clearly notable. The problem now is that a perception has grown that the baronet categories include a lot of non-notable genealogy articles, a perception which does have some basis in fact (as demonstrated with all the non-notable Arbuthnot articles), and which is sustained by those who argue (contrary to guidelines) that all baronets are automatically notable. I think that those caught up in the British-Irish turf war have exaggerated the extent the of problem, but unless some sort of assessment is done in good faith against current guidelines, any exaggeration cannot be disproven. I like to think of a cleanup as being like a due diligence exercise.
• As to the naming issue, I have so far stayed out of the debate at WT:NCNT, because it seemed so dogmatic and polarised as to be unlikely to allow any goodwill in finding a solution which works (a debate marred by such red herrings as repeated references to the The Standing Council on the Baronetage as if it were an emanation of the crown or the state rather than a voluntary association). Tyrenius's point at WT:NCNT#Consistency about the benefits of consistency seems to me to be persuasive, because it focuses on the practical impact on wikipedia articles of various formats. However, I wonder at this point whether there is any reasonable prospect of a sensible discussion at WT:NCNT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I agReE with tryde and choess and bhg. - Kittybrewster (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

How do we proceed from here? Should other editors that have been involved in the project be alerted? We need to decide if merging articles is a good policy. I have gone through articles on baronets from A-D and have found a number of articles that are of doubtful notability. I suggest (along the lines of BHG above) that a subpage is created where these can be placed in the meantime. We then need to decide if there is going to be a vote on every single article on the list prior to merging (similar to an AfD-vote) or if they can be merged without any prior discussion. The template suggested below is a good idea but perhaps not necessary. Tryde 19:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that since there are so many baronet articles, we should try to minimise bureaucracy, and that the bold, revert, discuss cycle seems appropriate. So if someone finds a non-notable baronet, they should be WP:BOLD and merge it to the appropriate baronets article ... but to facilitate tracking what's done, such merges should be logged on a project subpage.

I was tempted to agree with Tryde that a template might not be neccessary, but I think that since one of the major purposes of this exercise is confidence-building (reassuring all concerned that a quality-control process is in place and is being used fairly), that a template would help enormously in keeping track of what's happening. I will try over the w/e to post a few suggestions below on how it could be done, but (briefly) I suggest using one of the standard bot-managed systems which builds tables of articles. Since these systems are already widely used by other projects, it seem a pity to reinvent the wheel. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

When the Visigoths are at the gates, you need to come up with a rapid and pragmatic response. All of the above seems rational, well thought-out and in line with current policies and guidelines. To avoid friction and losing well written and researched valuable material in the meantime, I would suggest developing a suitable template to tag the top of articles awaiting assessment (and possible merging) by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Baronetcies project in preference to (and to substitute for) any generic deletion or notability templates). Wikipedia does not need to lose any valuable material (or long-standing contributors) because of a politically-motivated deletionist tendency.84.13.10.123 15:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Do please design one. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If any of you have the time, could someone have a stab as cleaning Sir John Wynn, 5th Baronet up? This one seems a particular mess, but (if the article as it stands is true) he certainly sounds interesting enough to deserve a decent article — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, honourable members of WikiProject Baronetcies. I am here on behalf of WikiProject Succession Box Standardization (SBS) to inform you about the new succession box templates (S-start series) we have been developing, something which concerns you greatly, given that every article you deal with has, or should have, one of those useful little boxes at the bottom.

You see, for some time now the most heavily used succession template has been Template:Succession box. Although it is simple enough, and it is compatible with s-start succession templates, it lacks flexibility and has led to the need for the creation of a whole series of specifically adapted templates for incumbencies and multiple-row cells, while it makes no provision whatsoever for vacancies and title creations/abolitions.

The s-start series has been created with this very concern in mind. Not only is it simple enough even for rather inexperienced editors to create and edit succession boxes with a relative ease, but it is also extremely adaptable. Succession boxes can now be adjusted to the beginnings and endings of succession chains, note vacancies without interrupting the continuity of the chains in question, and show differences in the title names between different occupants. Furthermore, the same simple templates can allow for the creation of every possible structure in a box—with the addition of a plain "rows" parameter—showing all sorts of joint terms, title mergers, multiple titles passing from/to the same person, etc. For further details, you can see the Documentation page, which supplies editors with full instructions for the creation of succession boxes.

Please note that the succession box headers that are so much used in old style succession boxes (templates s-off, s-par, s-reg, etc.) are actually part of the s-start series and have been developed along with it.

The new succession templates have several advantages over the old ones (not to mention the ancient HTML boxes), and this is why we have been systematically updating succession boxes so that they not only conform to our standards but they also feature the new templates. Our request is that you should seriously consider promoting this model, given that both as a WikiProject and because you are dealing with Baronets' articles you extend a certain amount of influence that is important in ensuring the wider use of the improved templates. I believe that adopting these templates will prove beneficial to both the articles you are working on and our project; such mutual benefits also do good to Wikipedia itself, something highly desirable on all sides.

You can find all the information you need in our project (main page, Guidelines page, Documentation page, Templates list, discussion page); please study it carefully and think whether it is indeed to your interest to adopt our suggestion. We believe it is, but it is up to you to make a decision. We shall be eagerly waiting for your response, looking forward to a fruitful cooperation. Thank you for your time. Waltham, The Duke of 18:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if members of this project are aware of {{LondonGazette}}, a template I've found useful for making consistent references to the London Gazette. You may also not be aware that there has recently been a chane in the urls used to refer to a specific issue/page of a Gazette, and older links will no longer work. I've been trying to fix them, and if the template is used consistently, it should make future maintenance easier, as the fix will only need to be applied in the template, and all pages will pick it up, rather than having to manually change each page. David Underdown 15:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new to this and I'm not exactly sure what to do. I just discovered this page/project, and saw that where the Douglas Baronets are listed, there is no link, but I created a page for the Baronetcy of Carr some time ago. I don't want to go in and mess anything up and I honestly don't have the time to figure out how to fix this right now (although, when I DO have the time, I'll be happy to change the format of my article to fit with the norm). If anyone has a chance to do it, that would be great, or I can come back later and read all the instructions.

Thanks! Cvalin (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing some work on John Gordon Nairne to sort out London Gazette references, so I created Nairne Baronets as well. You'll probably want to give it the once over to ensure I've done them to spec so far as you're concerned. David Underdown (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Projects members may find these two supplements to the London Gazette interesting:

• "No. 28804". The London Gazette (invalid |supp= (help)). 20 February 1914. {{cite magazine}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• "No. 29056". The London Gazette (invalid |supp= (help)). 2 February 1915. {{cite magazine}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

as they consist of the first two issues of the Roll of the Baronets

User:Tryde has been deleting the Baronetcy category from those baronets who were also peers. This has given rise to two discussions on his talk page which I am copying here. Your views are sought. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell

Why the removal of Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom from Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell? --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. He should only be categorized under his higher title, that of a baron. Peers are only categorized under their highest title, for example an earl that is also a viscount is not categorized as a viscount, and so on. Regards, Tryde (talk) 07:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we (certainly I) need evidence for this. A Baronet is not a Peer, for a start. It is more a hereditary knighthood. There are examples of people who are Barons as a Life Peer, but also a Baronet which will be passed on to their son or whoever. They are different. You are right about Earls' who are also Viscounts, but not I think here. Please give a source for your assertion. --Bduke (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I am well aware that a baronet is not a peer. But a baronetcy is a junior title to that of a baron. Lord Baden-Powell was at first made a baronet, then he was considered to have given further public service in order to be elevated to the peerage. In British history there have been hundreds of dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts and barons that have also held baronetcies but they are never categorized as baronets on Wikipedia, with the exceptions that a few barons are (erroneously in my mind) categorized as baronets, something I am currently trying to correct. For example, the Dukes of Northumberland are the holders of a baronetcy created in 1660 but are never categorized as such. It is also not the case that a baronetcy is an honour given to a person that is already the holder of much higher titles, for example an earldom. This is in contrast to the different orders of chivalry in existence. For example, it is common for the holder of a peerage to also be made a Knight of the Garter, a Knight of the Bath, et cetera. A baronetcy is linked to the peerage in the way that a baronetcy is considered to be the level of dignity under a baron, although it is not part of the peerage. The procedure whereby we categorize a person under their highest honour also applies to the article on Lord Baden-Powell. Apart from his barony Baden-Powell was also a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George (GCMG), the highest class of this order. I believe (although this is not made clear in the article) that he was also a Knight Commander (KCMG) of the order, the second class of the order. However, he is correctly categorized only as a Knight Grand Cross. To follow your logic he should also be categorized as a Knight Commander which I think would be inappropriate. The same should in my mind also apply to categorizing peers that are also baronets. Regards, Tryde (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

From the little I understand of this, the two titles are separate and distinct. See Talk:Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell/ArchiveToJuly2007#Barony v. Baronetcy for previous discussion. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Ian Anstruther had two baronetcies which were inherited by different sons. As it happens they were both Baronetcies of Nova Scotia; had one of them been of [another place], both categories would be shown. Numerous baronets are also peers (inherited or otherwise) and it is customary here to record all relevant categories even if one is (maybe temporarily) invisible. It occurs to me that the Viscount Gough and the Duke of Fife and the Earl of Erroll wear their Baronet's Badge at a formal dinner, notwithstanding the baronetcy is trumped by the peerage. Incidentally, Tryde, good call on Sir Matthew Brown, Bt.. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• please respond below the next section'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittybrewster (talk • contribs) 02:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Edmund Beckett, 1st Baron Grimthorpe

As this person was a baronet and then 12 years later a baron, why does he not get both categories "Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom" and "Baronets in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom"? It seems logical to me, and neither seems to be a subset of the other, but you have deleted the baronet category. I'm puzzled. PamD (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A person should only be categorised under his highest title. Just like a duke that is also a marquess should only be categorised as a duke a baron that is also a baronet should only be categorised as a baron. There were a number of barons that were categorised as baronets and I have removed these to make the category clearer. See also my reply to Bduke above. Tryde (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That is not correct, Tryde. It is true that someone who is CBE and KBE is only categorised under KBE, but a KBE who is a Baron is categorised under both. Similarly a Baronet who is a Baron. - Kittybrewster ☎ 19:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If we follow this policy we will end up with an awful mess. The baronet categories will be completely cluttered with people that held much higher titles and will consequently lose their purpose. The reason a user looks at the category is to see a compilation of people that held this title as their highest honour. Just like, for instance, Category:Viscounts in the Peerage of England, only lists people that held viscountcies as their highes title, the baronet categories should list only people that held baronetcies as their highest title. The only solution to this is in my mind to create completely new categories, such as [[Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom that were also Barons]]. Tryde (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer that solution to the wholesale culling of baronets from the category in which they certainly belong. But I don't agree with your statement that "the reason a user looks at the category is ..." It seems to me you have been acting without first seeking a consensus and it would have been better to discuss it first. - Kittybrewster ☎ 22:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• please respond here:''........

Thanks to Tryde and Kittybrewster for initiating this discussion. It seems that we do need to clarify the approach to categorising people who held multiple titles.

I think that it is useful to start this by looking at WP:CAT, which says at te top that "Categories are for defining characteristics". That seems to me to suggest that we shouldn't be categorising people by every title they held, and it might help to look at a few more generalised situations than the two individuals above.

I think that in general, it makes sense to view the different types of peerage as ranks within a whole peerage, and record only the highest one, as we do with MBE/OBE/CBE etc.

I started to write a much list of examples here, but I don't think that's needed, because a baronetage is not a peerage. I think that's all that matters: a baronetage should not be treated for categorisation purposes as if it was a peerage.

There are plenty of examples of people who held baronetcies for much for their careers, but were ennobled later. In particular, there used to be a lot of seats in the House of Commons which consistently returned Baronets from the same family, and it seems quite wrong not to categorise as a baronet someone who was known as a baronet throughout a long political career, but as a peer only when sent to the House of Lords for a few twilight years before his death.

The one exception I can see to this is cases where the individual was never actually known as a baronet, either because they inherited the titles simultaneously or because they inherited a baronetcy after their ennoblement. I can can accept that it might be appropriate to consigning those instances to a subcategory, but that's all.

I don't share Tryde's concerns about the baronet categories being overhelmed by peers. Having spent more time than is healthy trawling through Rayment's lists of baronets, I don't think that there are all so many cases of this as to overwhelm the baronets categories. It would have been easier to count this before the categorisation was removed, but too late now for that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The logic seems clear to me: he was a baronet for 31 years, he was a baron for 19 years, there are categories for baronets and categories for barons and he should appear in the most appropriate category in each group. I'm not a baronetage expert, I just have the chap who designed my local church on my watch list! PamD (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed, many of those from which the category was removed were widely known as baronets; e.g. James Craig, 1st Viscount Craigavon and Basil Brooke, 1st Viscount Brookeborough - the former was a baronet of first creation. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have put forward most of my views above but will go through them here again. I believe a person should only be categorised under his/her highest title. Although a baronetcy is not a part of the peerage it should in these circumstances be considered as the level beneath a baron. A peer that is also a baronet should consequently only be categorised as a peer. The exception to this rule should only be the case put forward by BrownHairedGirl above, namely when the holder of a baronetcy is raised to the peerage towards the end of his life. Then he should be categorised both as a peer and a baronet. Sir Samuel Hoare and Sir Archibald Sinclair are examples where this would be suitable. However, I don't agree with BHG that the baronet categories won't be overwhelmed with peers. For instance, the Dukes of Northumberland, Somerset, Sutherland and Westminster, the Marquesses of Bath and Townshend and the Earls of Derby are all holders of baronetcies in the Baronetage of England. We have articles on 71 of these peers/baronets. There are currently 317 articles in the Category Baronets in the Baronetage of England. Only the peers I have listed (seven out of thousands of peerages, extant and extinct) will number 22% of the articles in the category. If we follow the policy where every peer that is also a baronet is categorised as a baronet, the baronet categories will become a complete mess and virtually useless to any reader wanting a list of baronets. Tryde (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If you turn to Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom you expect to find all such baronets for whom we have an article. If we show in that list only those who were "just" baronets at some stage then we have an incomplete category. "for much of their careers" is verging on breaching WP:OR since it is hard to define. Part of the pleasure of wikipedia can be looking in a category and seeing Viscount Snooks and thinking Oh I didn't know he was also a baronet. It is easy to go to a Category and ignore the peers if they are not of interest. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to come here, as I had commented (see above as it was copied there) on Baden Powell. I agree with Kittybrewster and disagree with Tryde as I have throughout. Baronets are not Peers. The sort of compromise suggested is POV and unworkable. I do not see the category getting unworkable. Let us just reverse all the removal of people from the Baronet category and move on. --Bduke (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Many baronetcies were coinferred on landed gentry. Would it be appropriate to add ancestors of the baronets to the pages (which are often almost disambigation pages)? I have recently been working on articles on the Croft Baronets, Lyttelton baronets and Pakington baronets, and their Elizabethan ancestors. Or would this offend against the project guidelines? Peterkingiron (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how it would hurt, it would help if the ancestors were notable and/or interesting. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably helpful and relevant. Please do it. - Kittybrewster ☎ 08:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think articles on peerages and baronetcies can also be viewed as small family histories. Mentioning ancestors and members of younger branches of the family that have gained distinction can only enhance the articles. Tryde (talk) 10:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with all the above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

...and Sir George Downing, 1st Baronet surely worthy of some attention by an interested party. Lucian Sunday (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The Standing Council of the Baronetage says: "It is a popular misconception that the heir apparent succeeds automatically to a baronetcy on the death of the current holder. Nothing could be further from the truth. By a Royal Warrant of King Edward VII dated 8th February 1910 an Official Roll was established to be kept at the Home Office. It was further stated "that no person whose name is not entered on the Official Roll of Baronets shall be received as a Baronet, or shall be addressed or mentioned by that title in any civil or military Commission, Letters Patent or other official document." [5]

We seem to have accepted this without question, but I think it's nonsense. The wording of the Warrant says nothing about succeeding as a Baronet or becoming a Baronet, merely being addressed as a Baronet in official documents, etc. This seems to me to be similar to how peerages work: you won't be named as a Peer in official documents until you've proven your succession, but before you've done that you're still a Peer, just not officially recognised as such. Succession to both is governed by the same wording in the letters patent, which says nothing about descent resting on official recognition, but rather accords the title to the grantee and his heirs.

Moreover, the statement is hardly from an unbiased source: of course the SCB would like people to think they're not Baronets until they've registered with them. That doesn't make it the case. I would advocate returning to the way we used to present things, as automatic descent to the appropriate heir on the death of the holder. Proteus (Talk) 12:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've had the same thought. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The effect of the warrant is to make the Home Secretary the registrar of baronetcies. This was no doubt done so as to eliminate spurious claims. The equivalent for peers used to be applying for a writ on summons, upon which the claimant's title was investigated. Rival claims were dealt with by the House of Lords Committee of Priveliges. I am not sure what the new procedure is since the automatic right of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords was abolished. I would suggest that WP should follow the popular view (disapproved by SCB). Otherwise, where there were deaths in quick succession before there was time to register, an absurdity would arise. If the 6th baronet died on 1 June, followed by his eldest son (childless) on 5th June and 2nd son on 10th June (also childless), surely the third son would be the 9th baronet, not the 7th. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

A good example is the murder of Norman Stronge and his son James. Burkes says James succeeded his father (doctrine of survival) but WP currently says this wasn't the case as he could not have been registered, clearly nonsense. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

And we claim the successor (Sir James Stronge) isn't a Baronet at all, when Burke's not only says that he is but calls him the 10th Baronet (which clearly wouldn't make sense if Sir Norman's son didn't succeed). Our current practice is the worst kind of original research, depriving people of titles which every reference work on the subject says they hold. Proteus (Talk) 11:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that we follow the practice of publications, such as Burke and Debrett. The Royal Warrant of 1910 was clearly to suppress spurious claims to be baronet. However, even the Crown cannot derrogate from its own grant. The grant is normally to A and the heirs male of his body - I think this is the wording. A person becomes his father's "heir" immediately on his father's death; this does not depend on registration. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage for a proposed merger of projects. Comments welcome. Craigy (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)