Talk:Lord Charles Hay

Suggested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Lord Charles Hay per #5 WP:NCPEER Mike Cline (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Charles Hay (British general) → Lord Charles Hay – WP:NCPEER, paragraph 5. Relisted. BDD (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Opera hat (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support - Natural disambiguation, entirely consistent with Wikipedia:NCPEER #5 "Courtesy titles – including honorific prefixes such as Lord or Lady, which differ from full titles in that they are included as part of the personal name, often from birth – should be included in the article title if the person is far better recognised with the title than without." The sources used only ever use Lord Charles Hay, you can also add the ODNB - HAY, Lord CHARLES (d. 1760). The reason for the un-discussed move, Per WP:TITLES is hardly any reason. WP:TITLES gives no reasoning why the name was wrong. Lord Charles Hay is the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject as used in this sources. It was right first time, and should not have been moved. It should certainly not have been moved without leaving a redirect, given the COMMONNAME aspect. There are no shortage of other articles titled using the 'Lord so-and-so' format, as a quick glance of just Category:Younger sons of marquesses would confirm. Benea (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Not this title, maybe another that is compliant with WP:NCPEER that identifies what the actual peerage and fiefdom are. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

This is compliant with NCPEER, it is in fact a perfect rendering of point 5. Given that there is no 'peerage and fiefdom' in this case, it is a courtesy title, it would be simply wrong. Benea (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Puffery, and "Lord" is just useless, as it is not indicative of the feudal title. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

As above. 'Lord Charles Hay' is the feudal title, if you really want to call it that. Benea (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. "Lord" and "Lady" as used by children of peers are used in article title per WP:NCPEER as already stated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose it's not quantifiable to decide which "Honorific prefixes" are noteworthy, I think. There are honorary degrees, honorary military ranks and honorary political appointments aplenty. Should generally just stick with people's biological names. —Ed!^(talk) 18:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • What's a "biological name"? Proteus (Talk) 14:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • What, despite the fact that the community has already decided it in the Manual of Style? It's not an honorary title - it's the title with which, nine times out of ten, these people are born. Not quite the same as "honorary degrees, honorary military ranks and honorary political appointments"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Proposed name is clearly mandated by naming conventions. Proteus (Talk) 14:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME a cursory search of Google Books reveals that he does not occur without his title. QED. DBD 09:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCPEER, proposed title complies with both.--Staberinde (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

The move was done per standard naming conventions. Titles of articles are not to start with Lord, MP, Sir or other titles. References I found list him has Lord Charles Hay, General Charles Hay, Charles Hay and Sir Charles Hay. The History of Parliament always gives the highest title. See WP:NCPEER. If you want a redirect from Lord Charles Hay -> Charles Hay (British general) would be fine. Bgwhite (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

"Titles of articles are not to start with Lord, MP, Sir or other titles." MP isn't a title, as to the others, where have you got that from? Given that Wikipedia:NCPEER specifically allows them. Benea (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

We do not generally use "Sir" in article titles except for baronets. We do however use "Lord" and "Lady" when they are used for the children of peers, as here. To quote WP:NCPEER, "Courtesy titles – including honorific prefixes such as Lord or Lady, which differ from full titles in that they are included as part of the personal name, often from birth – should be included in the article title if the person is far better recognised with the title than without." -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll add, in response to Bgwhite, Lord Byron perhaps? If you've found him referred to as 'Sir Charles Hay', that's simply wrong, he was never a knight or in any other position to otherwise have used this style. Which sources were they please? 'General Charles Hay' in google books refers to a later general, or possibly even two of them. But never this one, he is always 'General Lord Charles Hay'. Again, which sources have you found for him as just 'General Charles Hay'? And likewise, when just 'Charles Hay' is used, it is for numerous other people of that name, but never this one. Your sources? Benea (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Ed! - would you really support moving Lord Randolph Churchill to Randolph Churchill, Lord Palmerston to Henry John Temple or the Duke of Wellington to Arthur Wellesley? No, because although these may be their given names, they are better known by their titles. Should generally just stick with the WP:COMMONNAME - in this case, "Lord Charles Hay". Opera hat (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

"The move was done per standard naming conventions." Er, no it wasn't, as has been pointed out several times above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lord Charles Hay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304030302/http://www.dwr.org.uk/dwr.php?id=308 to http://www.dwr.org.uk/dwr.php?id=308%7CDuke

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)