Talk:Francis Burdett

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

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED to Francis Burdett per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Burdett, 5th Baronet → Sir Francis Burdett, 5th Baronet – This was listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial proposals, but it clearly is not uncontroversial, so I'm setting up a full move request. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support. See WP:MOSBIO#Honorific prefixes, which states that "No baronet should be shown with the postfix but without the prefix, e.g. John Smith, 17th Baronet." Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage#Articles on baronets concurs: when Firstname Lastname is not unique, the article should be at Sir Firstname Lastname, nth Baronet". This should, in fact, be uncontroversial, Gene's comments notwithstanding. Choess 00:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It would appear, from the WikiProject guideline you quoted, that the title should be Francis Burdett, and only would be Sir Francis Burdett, 5th Baronet if disambiguation were necessary. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The correct place is Francis Burdett, according to principles given by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles): "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." Disambiguation is no needed, yet. Somebody just had moved the page to a wrong location a year ago, and without proper reason. I note that there actually is no reason given for THAT move in edit comments. Marrtel 02:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There have been five other baronets of that name, the second, seventh and eighth of Bramcote (as the subject) and the first and second of Burthwaite, but I should not care to assert notability for any of them. Choess 03:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also 1st and 2nd Baronets of Burthwaite, Yorks. - Kittybrewster 14:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Surely not controversial. Per User:Choess and MoS No 4. - Kittybrewster 07:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. per Choess and how I have written on its entry at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial proposals. ~~ Phoe _talk 09:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

• Support. move to Francis Burdett. After I have gone through the other baronets with the same name, I am of the opinion, that they aren't notable, so disambiguation would not be necessary at the moment, since also apparently no additional articles of persons with this name exist. (My intention to request the move from Francis Burdett, 5th Baronet to Sir Francis Burdett, 5th Baronet was to revert the former total wrong move from Sir Francis Burdett, 5th Baronet to Francis Burdett, 5th Baronet). ~~ Phoe _talk 16:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

• Support. The correct form of address for a baronet, either written or verbal, anywhere at all, is 'Sir'. David Lauder 10:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is also the correct form of address for knights, but the articles are at Isaac Newton and Alec Guinness and Julius Caesar (judge) all the same. Simplicity is important; the full style, with the alphabet soup, is in the first line. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, the current location is completely wrong; it should be at either Sir Francis Burdett, 5th Baronet, or just Francis Burdett. Since we don't have any articles on the other holders, I question whether pre-emptive disambiguation is necessary. I support a move to either location, with preference to Francis Burdett. Mackensen (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I support a move to Francis Burdett, and if that isn't possible, I tacitly support a move to Sir Francis Burdett, 5th Baronet, per Mackensen. This man's notability doesn't lie solely or even primarily in his title, and therefore, as with Robert Peel, his page should exist at his best-known name until there is a need for disambiguation. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 20:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose; but Support move to Francis Burdett. I agree with Mackensen and Lesocialiste. WP:NC (names and titles) says "For the article title, this format should only be used when disambiguation is necessary; otherwise, the article on [Sir John Smith, 2nd baronet] should be located at John Smith." The convention for peers makes sense as pre-emptive disambiguation, because it is likely that we are going to write an article on every peer in the Complete Peerage; most of them are notable aside from their title. I oppose potting the Complete Baronetage for the opposite reason. We don't need articles on all the baronets in the United Kingdom, of whatever type. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.