Jump to content

Talk:Earl of Dunraven and Mount-Earl

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Common usage

[edit]

Would it not be true to say that in common usage i.e. outside of Burke's Peerage, the title or title-holder is pretty-well universally referred to as "Earl of Dunraven", "Lord Dunraven" or simply "Dunraven"? Even for the second half of this article those are the only names used. Should this not be stated in the first sentence of the lead, then, as well as or instead of the spelling variants of Mount-Earl? And could it not also be shortened (or replaced by "the earl") when it occurs in the second paragraph? Scolaire (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have move the article from "Earl of Dunraven and Mount-Earl" to "Earl of Dunraven" for the same reason. Scolaire (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence that the title is normally referred to as "Earl of Dunraven"? It sounds likely as "of Dunraven and Mount-Earl" is a very elegant title but also somewhat cumbersome. I suggest the article should stay at the full title "Earl of Dunraven and Mount-Earl", we should then include information in the lead the the title is often referred to as Earl of Dunraven. I have edited a lot of peerage articles and I can't think of one example where part of the title is removed from the article title. Tryde (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Google Books search for earl of dunraven and mount earl gave me about 18,000 results. The first page was not very exciting: House of Lords papers, books on genealogy and the peerage, a couple of "books" taken from Wikipedia, and an 1865 book cowritten by the the earl of Dunraven, not EoD&ME. A Google Books search for earl of dunraven -"mount earl" -mountearl gave me about 96,000 results - more than five times as many. On the first page I found the aforementioned 1865 book, plus this undated book by the Earl Of Dunraven. A search for 1902 land conference "earl of dunraven" brought me up a number of important history texts as well as contemporary journals, the great majority of which refer to the 4th Earl as "Earl of Dunraven", not EoD&ME. The article title, in my view, should reflect the common name of the subject. It may be that other peerage articles ought also to be shortened to give the common name, but the peerage is not my area so I don't know.
As regards bolding of peerage titles, can you point me to the Wikiproject, MOS or wherever this convention is stated? Not that I doubt you, I'd just like to know for the future. Also, your edit summary failed to explain why it is necessary to say "Baron Adare, of Adare in the County of Limerick", when the previous sentence has already said "Baronet of Adare in County Limerick". Scolaire (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think keeping the article at "Earl of Dunraven and Mount-Earl" and then mentioning in the lead that the title is often referred to as "Earl of Dunraven" would be a good compromise. Can we agree on this? I can't think of another example where the peerage title is shortened in this way. Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair would be one of the few other titles using two different places in the articles. There are guidelines for peerage articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage but this is not covered specifically. However, I've been editing peerage related articles since 2005 and this has always been the system used. We don't have separate articles for all peerages - only for substantive titles. The article on the earldom of Dunraven also covers the barony of Adare and viscountcy of Mount-Earl - they should therefore be in bold. The reason that the territorial designation should be mentioned for both the baronetcy and barony is that they may not be the same. Tryde (talk) 11:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm moving this back to Earl of Dunraven and Mount-Earl in line with other peerage articles. Tryde (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Earl of Dunraven and Mount-Earl. 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:

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) 23:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earl_of_Dunraven_and_Mount-Earl&oldid=1256995154"