Talk:Andrew Lauder (burgess)

Moved

See WP:NCNT#Other_non-royal_names#4:

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.

I am moving this to Andrew Lauder.--padraig 11:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Astrotrain what do you think that is above, do not revert my edits and say I moved it without discussion, WP:POLICY is to not use titles unless it is necessary for disambiguating which it clearly isn't in this case.--padraig 22:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. In the case of baronets their legal format worldwide is Sir Robert Whatever, Bt. The Standing Council for Baronets states clearly: "A baronet is entitled to the prefix "Sir" and the word "Baronet" after his name". If republicans or followers of the French Revolution on Wikipedia who loathe the aristocracy have the upper hand and propose to arbitrarily and illegally deny them their legal titles, then a notice to that effect should be placed where all comers to Wikipedia can see it, not hidden somewhere on a page that they'll never find. Moreover, every Earl, Marquis, etc., on Wikipedia appears to say, Robert Whatever, 2nd Earl of London. So you are just wrong and vandalising my work in particular out of misplaced spite. Just remember: we can all do this. David Lauder 07:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying that in all articles on Baronets are excluded from the Rules of WP, as for vandalising your work in particular, please point out where this occured, as moving a article is not vandalism. Also I wasn't aware at the time the article where created by you, not that I see how that is relevent, the articles of all editors have to confirm to naming conventions, if you disagree with that policy take your case to the talk page of the policy and argue for it to be changed.--padraig 09:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe you for one moment. An examination of your contributions to Wikipedia shows clearly where your interests lie and you came to see what trouble you could cause with these articles deliberately because of my input and for no other reason. Anyone could see that. Please don;t treat me as a half-wit. As for naming conventions, these are set under British law and they are applied in, say, Encyclopaedia Britannica which is published in Chicago. If you are trying to justify your actions by citing some rule which denies people their proper form of address then the problem lies with you, not me. I have behaved correctly. David Lauder 12:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You are the one trying to ignore WP:Policy, as to wether you believe me or not that is your problem I edited in good faith your reaction is silly, if your not prepared for your contributions on WP to be edited, then simple solution don't post, so don't try and dictate to other editors. WP:Policies dictate style and this article is non-conforming, its as simple as that, so your can either name it properly yourself or accept that other editors have the right to do so.--padraig 15:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Padraig is quite correct. This is the current convention. Until it changes, then it is the one to apply. If anyone reverts it back to the incorrect name again, I will block them for disruptive editing. Tyrenius 04:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have now moved the article to its correct title.--padraig

Notability

This article does not appear to make any claim of notability. The most significant points in the article appear to be that a) he was a baronet; b) he was a burgess; and c) his horses were requisitioned during the Jacobite disturbances. None of those are uncommon, so he appears not to meet WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

In the context of the Jacobite disturbances he was a notable figure; a tiny minority of people - almost off the percentage scale - have the honour of being made a Burgess. It is true he was not a murderer or a pop star. David Lauder 13:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This edit summary [1] is totally out of order. It was a perfectly reasonable and normal editorial action taken by BrownHairedGirl. If you carry on with this hostility, you'll be blocked without any further warning. Kindly stop making accusations and innuendos against other editors. Just deal with the issue at hand. If you feel unable to do so, because of personal involvement in particular articles, then leave them alone and edit something else. Tyrenius 14:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it really that rare to be made a burgess? I don't understand why a relatively common and relatively lowly position is made notable by the Jacobite context, but maybe you can expand.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Until the Victorian local government acts were instituted all towns and cities were run by councils which consisted of burgesses. So it was not at all common or a lowly position. In fact it was a semi-autocratic position. I see no connexion between being a Burgess and Jacobites. This baronet's page is, after all, listed as a stub. Those seriously interested could do as I did and research and find out more and add it. David Lauder 14:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

So, rephrasing my original point, he was a baronet and a member of the town council and his horses were requisitioned during the Jacobite disturbances. That falls a long way short of WP:BIO, and this article should be merged to Lauder Baronets. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:BIO, (a guideline only), states: the topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". I believe this article falls within this category. David Lauder 12:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)