Jump to content

Talk:Edward Spears

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

Full Name

[edit]

His full name should be Sir Edward Louis Spears. However, I don't how the name of the entry can be changed from the existing Sir Louis Spears. Comments appreciated. Mikeo1938 (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The existing article under the name of Louis Spears should be left as it is ... its title should not be changed. The biography of Spears by Max Egremont states that Louis was the name by which he was called. So the page, Major General Sir Edward Spears, should be deleted.Mikeo1938 (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
As I understood you request, I deleted a redirect with trivial edit history at Sir Edward Louis Spears, 1st Baronet at moved the article about the person there. Sir Louis Spears, 1st Baronet is now a simple redirect. You, me or anybody else can undo the page move with the move Tab as long as the remaining redirect isn't modified. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need the fix all the broken redirects and double redirects at Special:Whatlinkshere/Sir Louis Spears, 1st_Baronet. It's a bit of a mess, I'm afraid. Leithp 11:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the question is whether to undo the move or if the new name is indeed correct, rather fix the double redirects (which can also be done by anyone including a bot). As far as I see there are no 'broken' redirects. So the first questions is: what should be the page title?--Tikiwont (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page currently says "Sir Edward Louis Spears, 1st Baronet" and it should be left as such now. I have included a note in the article saying that he was known under the name of "Louis". Hope that you can sort out the muddle. Mikeo1938 (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The broken (redirecting to self) redirect was fixed by me after leaving that message. I appreciate that fixing the redirects can be done by anyone, but it's normally done by the person doing the move at the time rather than leaving it for someone else to tidy up. Page names do not normally include titles such as "1st Baronet" unless there is a need to disambiguate between people of the same name. Leithp 14:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if this came across as leaving the tidying the others, but the move regarding the title happened in the past and the one above (adding also the 'Edward') wasn't really mine but on behalf of Mikeo, maybe mistakenly since there was a technical obstacle, but the self redirect wasn't created by me, but by another editor after the move.[1]. My problem with the double redirects is still that there was doubt or if we have place now right. Now I tend to rather undo my own action above, because there doesn't seem to be consensus and he is more known as Louis, so the full name could be the redirect. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I undid the only action that i did here and moved the page back to Sir Louis Spears, 1st Baronet per above. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sorry about this dog's breakfast! I now believe that the article should indeed be entitled, "Sir Edward Louis Spears, 1st Baronet". This was his full name. However, I have included a note saying that he was known as "Louis". What do others think? Mikeo1938 (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other non-royal names item 4, I would suggest either "Edward Louis Spears" or "Louis Spears" as there is no need for disambiguation. Leithp 16:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since he was known by his second name, he present article title is correct. His full name is properly given in the first line. He was a KBE and a Baronet. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK and VMT for your help. So I won't alter the title.Mikeo1938 (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Length of article

[edit]

I can see that this article is getting too long and will be reducing its length to conform with Wikipedia guidelines. Mikeo1938 (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will first finish the article in its entirety - then made a shorter summary, which will be the main entry. After this, I will split the long article into 2 (or even 3) separate sections: (1) probably to end of WW1 and (2) from end of WW1 to his death.Mikeo1938 (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of article

[edit]

I've had to stop work on this article for now but will be resuming ASAP. Mikeo1938 (talk) 08:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image Image:De-gaulle-radio.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Title of article

[edit]

It's quite clear from the Wikipedia title guidelines linked to above that the title of this article should be Louis Spears, 1st Baronet, without the "Sir". I'm not going to try to move it because I don't enjoy the arguments that always follow such attempts, but someone should do so. I also think the article is over-written, with too many disgressions and passages that read like a magazine puff-piece. Also many of the images are irrelevant and look like padding. I will see what others say about this before making any changes. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the title ... I agree but things got into a mess when I tried to change it in Feb 2008 so I've left it alone. I accept that the article in its present form is too long. However, rather have things cut things out, I favour splitting it. With the possible exception of the statue to Jan Masaryk, I consider that the images are relevant and enhance the article. (However, I should say that I inserted most of them) Mikeo1938 (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also think, having consulted a number of indexes in books about the period, that he was most commonly called Edward Spears not Louis Spears, particularly after he was knighted. That should be the title of the article. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the inclusion of ‘Sir’ in the title: I have not found the Wikipedia guidelines, but I have looked up other people (Patrick Bateson, Malcolm Campbell, Harold Nicolson, Gordon Richards etc) and these articles do not include ‘Sir’ in the Wikipedia titles. In this respect, I support the removal of ‘Sir’.

As to whether he should be called Edward Spears or Louis Spears, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography states that he was ‘known to his friends as Louis'. In the editorial note to Fulfillment of a Mission, Duff Hart-Davis calls him Louis Spears, but D H-D was a relation by marriage. In the Diaries and Letters of Harold Nicolson, he is referred to as Louis; this was by a friend.

However, I agree that Edward Spears is more common in reference books. Although the index of Jackson’s The Fall of France has him as General Louis Spears, the biography by Max Egremont Under Two Flags carries the sub-title ‘The Life of Major General Sir Edward Spears’. (On 23 February 2008 above, I note that Egremont says that Louis was the name by which he was called. However, I cannot now find this.) Who’s Who has him as SPEARS, Maj.-Gen. Sir Edward and doesn’t mention Louis at all. The Times refers to him consistently as Edward but points out in the obituary that he was ‘Louis to his intimates’.

As it does not seem customary for two forenames to be included in titles, I agree that the article should be renamed: Edward Spears, 1st Baronet. However, I do not feel competent to carry out the various changes (re-directs etc) which this would entail. Mikeo1938 (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do I :). I suggest you fetch an administrator. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Googled - Wikipedia baronet - and the usage that came up for the first six (I went no further) was:

Sir George Stokes, 1st Baronet

Sir William Moore, 1st Baronet

Sir Robert Cotton, 1st Baronet

Sir Charles Seely, 1st Baronet

Sir William Boulton, 1st Baronet

Sir William Gooch, 1st Baronet

QED? What seems to me to be an utter nonsense is the use of the sole forename 'Louis'. The evidence in Egremont's biog. was that this was what his friends called him. The title should, surely, be the name he was publicly known by, for instance on the title page of Assignment to Catastrophe', namely Sir Edward Spears. Egremont's biog. is entitled 'Under Two Flags: The life of Major-General Sir Edward Spears'. The Cambridge University archive - Sir Edward Spears. Is there any other reference work anywhere that refers to him as Sir Louis Spears? If his friends had called him Binkie, would this article have been entitled Sir Binkie Spears? I don't know what the Wikipedia guidelines might be, but Wikipedia practice in the examples above suggests the title should be Sir Edward Spears, 1st Baronet. Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Peel
Robert Baden-Powell
Thomas Beecham
Samuel Cunard
Denis Thatcher
Mark Thatcher
Oswald Mosley
Walter Scott
Henry Royce

Snap. There is a general rule that titles are not used in article titles. Thus Douglas MacArthur not General Douglas MacArthur, etc. This should be applied here, although it is obviously not being consistently applied to baronets. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair cop, Mr Toad! I don't much care whether his title is included in the heading. It's the choice of the forename 'Louis' that seems wrong. And Sir Louis seems even wronger ;-). His friends would not have referred to him as Sir Louis. And the pictures included in the article refer to him as Sir Edward. I read Assignment to Catastrophe and when I returned it to the person who lent it to me, I referred to him as 'Louis Spears' - purely on the basis of this article. And felt a bit of an idiot when I got a completely blank stare. I'm asking whether any other encyclopaedia, dictionary or catalogue lists him as Louis Spears, because I can't find one, not the ones I've mentioned, nor the British Library Catalogue, nor the Dictionary of National Biography (art. by Max Egremont). Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we are all in agreement about changing Louis to Edward. It just needs an administrator to do it. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure where to go from here but how about [[2]]? I am willing to put up a request for help. However, before doing so can I take it that we agree that the title should be Edward Spears, 1st Baronet? Also, does anyone know of a better location for the request? Mikeo1938 (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with Edward Spears, 1st Baronet since, in spite of exceptions, that fits a Wikipedia model. I'm afraid I've no idea where the request should be made. Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PEER: "Baronets should generally be at their simple name; for example, Robert Peel. When necessary for disambiguation (as is often necessary, as these families tend to reuse names), the baronetcy can be included in the article title in the form "Sir Forename Surname, Ordinal Baronet"; for example, Sir William Mount, 1st Baronet and Sir William Mount, 2nd Baronet. (The 3rd Baronet, Ferdinand Mount, would not be at "Sir Ferdinand Mount, 3rd Baronet" even if he used the title, as it is not necessary for disambiguation.) The baronetcy alone should not be used for disambiguation without the preceding "Sir": "John Smith" or "Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet" are fine, but "John Smith, 17th Baronet" should not be used." There doesn't appear to be anyone else called either Louis Spears or Edward Spears, so whichever one of them is appropriate should be used. Proteus (Talk) 12:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re the above from (Talk) ... it seems that we should go for Sir Edward Spears, 1st Baronet. If we are in agreement, perhaps Proteus would be kind enough to do the necessary redirects etc. Both Mr Toad and I are reluctant to meddle with such matters. On the other hand, Ioan Dyfrig may oblige ... (?) We might wait a week or so just in case there is more input. Mikeo1938 (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, if Proteus is right (and he has identified the relevant guideline) the title should be just Edward Spears. I am a reed bending in the wind, I know, but the Wiki guideline says no 'Sir' and no Ordinal Baronet, other than to disambiguate which isn't necessary in this case; and we seem to agree that the public name, Edward, should be used rather than the name used by intimates (which we aren't). Hence 'Edward Spears'. Meddle with the matter? I wouldn't know how to! Proteus? Though first, are we in agreement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioan Dyfrig (talk • contribs) 21:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, regarding the move of an article and its handling, may I point both of you to Help:Moving a page ... Best wishes ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 15:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Proteus, for sorting out the move / change of name. Mikeo1938 (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Reynaud (image)

[edit]

The image of Paul Reynaud which originally accompanied the section about Liaison 1914 must have been removed from Commons. Not sure whether there is another image which meets the copyright criteria but will have a look. Mikeo1938 (talk) 11:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Edward Spears. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Edward Spears. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 00:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

Apologies in advance should this come to the attention of the authors. This article is written in, in many places, a rather purple, adulatory tone lacking any impartiality. Examples include

"However, when the British failed and took heavy losses, there were hints that they could not stand shell fire. He began to doubt his fellow countrymen – had they lost the vigour and courage of their forebears?"

and

"He was at a loss to understand why a meeting had not taken place – had Reynaud simply forgotten? Did Reynaud wish to explain the situation to the ministers himself?"

and an entire section headed "Tragedy of his life," which appears to discuss a highly subjective point which seems coincidentally not to contribute anything sufficiently original or valuable enough to deserve its own section. I thought it might have been restricted to a handful of instances, but the tone throughout is exceptionally positive to Spears and frequently contains phrases and styling more appropriate for fiction (see above). Much of the body appears to need some substantial revision to achieve a more encyclopedic and neutral point of view.

WhampoaSamovar (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edward_Spears&oldid=1196500398"