Talk:Earl Tylney

Subject Matter

This is an article about the Tylney 'Earldom, it is not a biography about the man, which can be found at Richard Child, 1st Earl Tylney. The biographical information on this page is far too detailed, and is to a large extent a duplication of material on the biographical page. It is also full of inaccuracies which a careful reading of the biographical page will reveal. For example "Richard Tylney" never was "Viscount Castlemain". That title was used by the gentleman between 1718 and 1731 only, whilst he changed his family name to Tylney in 1733 (not 1734 as stated here). The image of Sir Josiah Child has little claim to appear as the title image; he was the father of the 1st Earl, and his image appears on his own biographical page Josiah Child, which is wikified from this article on the Tylney Earldom. Images of the Earl himself do exist, as shown on the biog. page. The name of the gentleman is here given and wikified as "Richard Tylney, 1st Earl Tylney", whilst the heading of the biographical article is "Richard Child, 1st Earl Tylney". This is certain to confuse the reader. The issue of the proper nomenclature for the title of the biog. article is an on-going discussion on the talk page there, and I suggest that unless and until a contrary consensus about the article's existing title be reached, this gentleman should be referred to in the article "Earl Tylney" as "Richard Child, 1st Earl Tylney", in conformity with his nomenclature not only in his Wikipedia biog., but also in that commissioned by the House of Commons edited by David Hayton, part of the History of Parliament series. If there is a more credible source which names him as Richard Tylney rather than Richard Child than his official House of Commons biography, please let it be known. I am quite happy to let the listings of the Child Baronets of Wanstead and the Viscounts Castlemain remain on this page, but have reverted the duplicated and inaccurate biographical text.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC))

Image of 1st. Bt. replaced

A better & fuller version of the same portrait after Lely has now replaced "Image:Sir Josiah Child.jpg" , which has been moved down to the sub-section "Child Baronets". (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC))In the absence of a reason given for the previous removal and move, I have again moved the image of Sir Josiah Child from Top RH slot to lower slot opposite "Child Baronets" section, for the reason that his image has no direct relevance to the title of this article primarily about the Tylney Earldom. He was merely an ancestor of the 1st Earl, therefore of secondary relevance to this particular article. To show his portrait in the main slot will therefore confuse the reader into thinking at first sight that he himself held the earldom. Also, cannot understand why portrait of the actual 1st Earl has been removed? Please supply reasons, Regards.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC))

The picture of Sir Josiah Childs is of so mucher higher quality than the one of the earl. Also, you shouldn't view the article as specifically about the earldom, instead it's a history of the Child and Tylney families and their titles. The baronetcy is not of secondary importance to the earldom, they are just as important. Tryde (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The title of the article is "Earl Tylney" so the article is therefore primarily about the earldom, not the baronetcy. It is, I accept, not exclusively about the earldom, hence the baronetcy is discussed as a secondary issue. Your argument would be wholly acceptable if the article were entitled "Child Family" as for example Gorges family. The picture quality of the earl is not perfect, but it is surely perfectly adequate. Before any image of the earl was available, then Josiah Child's portrait was better than no image at all, a position which no longer holds. I hope that seems reasonable.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC))

Substitution of "Lord" Tylney, for "Earl" Tylney

This is of course perfectly acceptable as an informal term of reference to any peer (below a duke?). I would however prefer to use the formal title "Earl" throughout the article as the introduction of a "new" term will confuse many readers not expert on the English Peerage, especially American readers, who will be interested in this article due to the Hogarth painting "Assembly at Wanstead" being held at Philadelphia. I cannot see the benefit of changing "Earl" to "Lord" on ground of either accuracy or style. please supply reason for the change, Regards. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC))I am in agreement with your other minor changes which add clarity, but would question your substitution of "first" for "1st" etc. throughout. Is there a good reason for this, or is it just a stylistic preference? Is it supported by a WP guideline? Generally do not encyclopaedic entries seek to save on space where possible by using well-recognisable abbreviations, such as this, or da., c., d., b. etc.? Also, may I take it from your silence that we have reached consensus on the title of the article about Richard Child/Tylney and the introductory surname given to him? If so it would be useful if you would signify such on the talk page for the benefit of future editors. I would then propose to put a hidden (!) message in the text referring any future editor to the consensus reached on the talk page on this matter.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC))

I have now rewritten the introduction according to the guidelines. It states clearly that he was born Richard Child - the change of surname is discussed in the article. I am now so tired of discussing this topic and will leave it here. Tryde (talk) 09:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)