Talk:Spencer (surname)

Spencer (surname) has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 12, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

Good article nomination

I'm a bit busy right now, but if no one else picks up this article on the Good Article nomination page, I'll do it within the next 4-5 days or so. In the meantime, I've listed a few notes below that'll get you started. I haven't had the chance to do more than scan the article. I'll just mention that you'll want to check carefully throughout for consistency.

DoneI see alternating use of single and double quotes. That's probably because the original source used different types. However, it is permissible to make certain formatting changes on Wikipedia for consistency. See Wikipedia's manual of style on this topic, but if there is no mention, use double quotes throughout for consistency, except for exceptions such as quotes within quotes, for example.
DoneI have made the footnotes same level as other headings and prefer a separate Footnote section as I've checked WP which allows this option and one entry involves a lengthy explanation that would clutter up the references section. Why is it a subcategory of “See also"? I’d recommend making it the same level header as “see also” and “references.” I’m also not sure you need a “footnote” section—especially when you only have two. You can type footnotes after your references themselves. See Rosa Parks and Absinthe as examples. I don’t think what you did is technically wrong (if you haven't checked, you should) as per Wikipedia, but not sure that you need a separate section for footnotes, references (which are basically endnotes anyway), and a bibliography.

Formatting in your References section.

Done:1. Put periods after all your page numbers. Some have them, some don’t.

Done:2. Page ranges (494–495) are separated by en dashes, not hyphens. You should be able to access en dashes in an edit box by selecting "Wiki Markup" from the dropdown menu (unless you have a browser that displays it differently).

Done:3. Multiple pages are identified with the prefix “pp.” You have some with only a “p.”

4. Typically, there is a space between “p.” or “pp.” and the page number itself. For example, if you use the cite template, it will add the space. You can check the WP:MoS to see if no space is allowed as long as you are consistent, but it looks strange. Either way, you have spaces between some, and no space between the others. I’d recommend just putting spaces between all. E.g. “pp. 494–495.” instead of “p.494-495.” (from note 21).

Done This is an interesting one. I believe WP states that it is permissable to write titles as they occur in the articles viz. sometimes in caps and sometimes not. However, i like consistency too and will correct them. * In your Bibliography, you have some titles where all key words are capitalized. In other titles, you use an alternative style, where only the first word is capitalized. You’ll want to choose a style and make them all consistent.

Done* In the article itself. Why is your name variant list bolded? Check the MoS on this if you haven't. --Airborne84 (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking up the running with the article Airborne and for your constructive comments. I shall address each of your points in turn if that's OK? Granitethighs 00:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I haven't been able to get back to this article yet although I'm glad to see some other editors have taken it up. A while back, it occurred to me that your selection of "orthographic variants" might be better as a list. See the article in the WP:MoS on embedded lists—specifically the second section under "Appropriate use" after "In some cases, a list style may be preferable to a long sequence within a sentence". The long sequence looks a bit strange in the article, but I had trouble putting my finger on it initially. I don't know for sure that the list format would be an improvement, it's just something to consider. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick look, the references look much cleaner. I'll look at the article in the next day or two IRT the GAN page. --Airborne84 (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urse

Does this article actually need to cover the life of Urse? Was he ever known by the name? Are any of his descendants known by the name? If not, then it doesn't seem like we need have a section on him. Do we need to cover the English d'Abetot family? Were members ever known by the surname? Another thing, is there a reference in the article that actually states Urse's brother Robert is the origin of English surname? The lead makes the claim, but the article doesn't cover it. I noticed Reaney lists the first record of the surname to a Robert le Despenser, in 1204.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph in the lead is referenced to the following link which is called "dubious" by an editor [1]. "Robert's adopted surname was mostly written as Despenser (see Domesday Book of 1086; Scottish Ragman Rolls of 1291 & 1296). Through the 11th to 13th centuries the occupational name attributed to Robert d'Abetot existed with numerous spelling and other variations. Eventually both the "le" and "de" that frequently preceded the name were omitted and the popular "s" in the centre of the name discarded for a "c" to evolve, in 1392, to the present-day form Spencer." That webpage doesn't really cover anything in the paragraph. What makes the wlink reliable? Why is it called "dubious"? Should we be linking to dubious information on a personal webpage? IMO, family trees on the family/personal webpages should not be considered reliable. Especially if reliable sources state that tree's supposed founder is not known to have any sons.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that most of this is pretty fanciful stuff and should be removed, leaving it at the origin of the name and picking up wherever adequate sources can cover. MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms

The coat-of-arms featured in the infobox is called that of Robert Despenser. I believe that it is instead the coat-of-arms of the Spencers of Northamptonshire, and of Althorp, where that branch of the family has resided since the early 16th century and the days of Sir John Spencer, the sheep farmer who made a big name for himself. I don't believe the coat-of-arms can be attributed to Robert Despenser, who was listed in the Domesday Book in 1086 – long before such fancy heraldic arms existed. MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. I found this little bit which mentions the arms (if the link doesn't work it the Spencers are covered on page 150) [2]. So the arms appear to date from the 15th century, and are differenced from an earlier coat. I can't find a specific reference, but it seems like the arms pictured are those borne by the current Earl Spencer (per a couple books on GoogleBooks mentioning the 19th century earls). We could change "Robert Despenser" to "Earl Spencer".--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the interesting link, Brianann. My understanding is that the first formal grant was to Sir John Spencer, as I indicate in the post below. I think he's our man to ascribe the initial grant to, or perhaps, as you indicate, to his descendants (the Earls Spencer). MarmadukePercy (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The description of the arms is wrong. The arms granted at the date stated were azure with a fess of ermine and six sea mews (seagulls) heads, erased. The arms of Despenser differenced with the indication of a cadet branch (the scallop shells) was assumed in the 1590s after a corrupt King of Arms named Lee had falsified a descent for the Spencers from the Despensers. Please see Spencer family for details.Urselius (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On Urse

I am happy to follow the advice of the two editors looking at this article but need to point out why the article is as it is. Thank you Brianann for these extremely useful comments. To answer your questions in turn.

Does this article actually need to cover the life of Urse?

If a genetic Spencer lineage did indeed derive from Robert Despenser then the genetic connection to Urse becomes very important genealogically. Apart from the genetic link, members of the family might live and have connections with the same places etc. There are indeed records stating that Urse took over the role of Royal Steward after Robert and, that he assumed the title Despenser. I’ll add the reference if you like.

Do we need to cover the English d'Abetot family?

The d’Abetot family is important because it was genetically the founding Spencer “family” – with all the genealogical and genetic implications this entails – as I have mentioned above. The brothers were both extremely influential and this adds both interest and import to Urse's associations and the family history in general.

Is there a reference in the article that actually states Urse's brother Robert is the origin of English surname?

Good point that needs addressing. However, there are many references in the literature to Robert le Despenser who was the brother of Urse who both came to England at about the time of the Battle of Hastings: see the Domesday Book of 1086 for example. Reaney is clearly remiss on this one. Nevertheless, you are correct in pointing out that there are no direct assertions in the literature (that I have found) as to this being the origin of the name. This needs a word tweak.

This paragraph in the lead is referenced to the following link which is called "dubious" by an editor [1]. "Robert's adopted surname was mostly written as Despenser (see Domesday Book of 1086; Scottish Ragman Rolls of 1291 & 1296). Through the 11th to 13th centuries the occupational name attributed to Robert d'Abetot existed with numerous spelling and other variations. Eventually both the "le" and "de" that frequently preceded the name were omitted and the popular "s" in the centre of the name discarded for a "c" to evolve, in 1392, to the present-day form Spencer."

I’m not sure what you are querying here. Are you saying it needs a better reference, in which case I’ll try and get one. The specificity of the 1392 date does need authentication but the rest of this paragraph is totally uncontroversial and probably does not need referencing. There are oodles of references later when the various spellings of the name are examined. Finally, yes the statement that Robert is not known to have any sons is significant – it is from a single source and is clearly important in terms of the genetic lineage – but it is of much less consequence in relation to the origin and use of the surname Spencer.

Finally, I agree about the coat of arms. What do you suggest we do about that Marmaduke? Granitethighs 06:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Granite, on the coat-of-arms, I think it's best to ascribe them to Sir John Spencer of Wormleighton, Warwickshire, who was the purchaser of the seat at Althorp. He was granted these arms in 1504, and died in 1522. I'll come up with some specific refs by tomorrow. MarmadukePercy (talk) 08:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect - thanks MP Granitethighs 06:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links MD - I have also changed the caption in the "Arms" - is OK now?Granitethighs 09:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Spencer (surname)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Airborne84 (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Working...

OK - a few comments to get started because I'm short on time IRL today.

First, nice job on the article. It seems well done with only a few drawbacks.

Items that should be addressed before assigning GA status.

Done"Through the 11th to 13th centuries" in lede is ambiguous. Ending in that period, or existing in that period?

Done"This form of the name was popular in both the north country and in Scotland." I'm not sure what the "north country" is. This is probably a common term in the UK but others may wonder.

Done"As a north country word for 'pantry', spence was used by Poet Laureate Alfred Lord Tennyson in the sense of a refectory: "Bluff Harry broke into the spence and turn'd the cowls adrift" (The Talking Oak, l.47.)." You might check on this in the MoS or in the Citation policies closer. Mixing of Harvard-style citations and inline citations isn't allowed. I think you meant that one reference cites the other. It might be better to state "cited in" or "quoted in" xyz in the inline citation so as not to mix. It's possible that this is allowed anyway and I'm missing something. Best to verify though.

Done"German: Speiser - steward, from an agent derivative of Middle High German spise - food or supplies..." I tried to make sense of this sentence, but was having trouble. I recommend rewording for clarity.

Done"("oi" in Greek" There is no end to this parenthesis.

Done"The word economy here has come to mean the management of resources." I wasn't sure what you meant by "Word economy". This needs a bit of rewording to introduce the term or to make it more immediately understandable in the context of the paragraph.

DoneThere are still three "citation needed" tags. One of the show-stoppers for a GA is no original research. There might be a caveat to this (if so, let me know), but otherwise you will want to provide a reference for those sentences or simply strike them to allow the removal of the tags.

Done(Under the "Robert's brother Urse d'Abbetot" section) "Within a few generations the le ("the") usually placed before Despenser was omitted." This doesn't seem to go with the rest of the paragraph. It might be better placed elsewhere.

Done"Two villages have taken the D'Abitot family name: Redmarley D'Abitot which lies in the extreme south-west of Worcester on the Gloucestershire border." Is there another village?

DoneIn the tables at the end, I didn't know what FPM meant. You might just identify this with a few words in the reference or in a footnote.

Comments only and don't require addressing for GA status.

IRT the "list" on the plaque in the church at Dives-sur-Mer. The lede notes that the authenticity of the list is in question, but there is no more on this in the article or in the article on the Dives-sur-Mer article… Those interested in the "questioning of the authenticity" might have to dig into the French Wikipedia article. It would be useful to include some mention of that in this or the Dives-sur-Mer article.

I will try to source this statement

In the "Most popular given name used with surname Spencer" table, there are only male names listed. Are there no female names available in the source?

No, it seems a rather sexist name ...

I'll have to look at a few other "Surname" and similar articles. There is a good deal of general information about heraldry and other information that is not directly relevant to the article. That could indicate a lack of focus. It seemed like it might have been good context, however. I'll give it a second look later. Just a note now since I have some engagements IRL.--Airborne84 (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I take your point on the heraldry - I included it because it seems to be what people researching surnames like to find ... Looking for their family coat of arms etc. Not my cup of tea but perhaps of interest to readers?Granitethighs 01:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this A - I will try and tick off your suggestions a.s.a.p. Granitethighs 02:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've updated the article. I'll look at it again in the next day or so. Best, --Airborne84 (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to butt in, but I think all reference to the plaque [3] at Dives-sur-Mer should be cut. While mentioned in many old genealogies, the list has not – like the so-called Battle Abbey Roll – held up to scholarly scrutiny. The Spencer family has a long and illustrious history and needn't depend on such tangential (and questionable) references. Far better to rely on something like The Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Families by the English scholars Lewis C. Lloyd and David C. Douglas, both of whom were experts in the field. MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK MD, the idea is to put the article under scrutiny. Another editor has also queried the authenticity of this material and so I have removed it as you suggested. Please feel free to make further suggestions.Granitethighs 10:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article reasonably represents a GA at this point. I'll leave a few final comments, none of which detract from my support.

Under "Foreign equivalents", if the words "expe(n)sa (pecunia)" are meant to be in Late Latin, then they should be italicized to be consistent with the other forign words/terms in the article.

You defined FPM for the end table in the text itself. I personally would relegate that type of information to a footnote since it tends to interrupt/clutter the text. The current method also wouldn't work well if there were more than one term that needed explaning. I won't say it's wrong, however, and my way of doing it may not be any more "correct" than you have it. If you prefer to leave it as is, someone else will let you know if it merits a change, I'm sure.

I think it's OK now, but the lede should summarize the entire article. The "Spencer aristocracy" and "Notable Spencers" sections may be under-represented in the lede. It would likely need to be addressed before an FA nomination (perhaps by shaving the material in the first paragraph slightly and expanding the latter portion of the lede with this material—or just expanding the latter portion), but I think it's OK for a GA.

Nice work on the article, and I encourage you to review one of the other pending GAs since the backlog is sizable—if you're not doing so already. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heraldic mistake

The arms granted to John Spencer in 1504 were - azure a fess ermine between six sea mew (seagull) heads argent erased. The arms depicted in the article are those adopted by the Spencer family in the 1590s. A corrupt King of Arms named Richard Lee invented a connection between the Spencers and the Despencer family by adding a second marriage with issue to an early member of the Despencers. Following this the Spencers adopted, with formal heraldic approval, the Despencer arms with a difference indicating a cadet branch - the scallop shells on the bend. See Spencer family for more details and references.Urselius (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Spencer (surname). 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 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

d'Abbetot

I think we need to reopen a discussion from 2010. The question raised was why so much material on d'Abbetot was included. The answer was that if the later Spencers descended from Robert le Despenser, then it is very important to the family. Well, OK, but the thing is, they don't. There is no evidence whatsoever that any Spencers alive today descend from Robert, let alone Urse. This is an occupational surname and no two people with the surname should be assumed to be related. The Spencers of the 16th century and later were entirely unrelated to the Despencers of the 13th-14th centuries, and they were unrelated to Robert le Despenser of the 11th century - it was just a job. Every court from the royal court to those of every Earl, Duke, Count, Archbishop, Bishop, and many more minor lords had their own steward and any one of them could have ended up with the same surname. You would no more expect a relationship than between two people named Butler. There is a lot more in this article that is just general fluff that tells us nothing about the family in question, or worse, suggests relevance when there is none. The entire Derivation section, almost all of the Heraldry section, and all but the last sentence of the Hereditary names and genetic lineages section are just boilerplate generalities without specific relevance, the latter being quite deceptive: "Nevertheless, the genetic similarity of people with identical surnames has been shown to be quite high, especially those with rarer surnames.[52]" but this only applies to some types of surnames, while others, and in particular occupational and common patronymic surnames, show no genetic similarity at all; "It might seem an almost insurmountable task to determine the true lineage of contemporary Spencers when such an "occupational" name probably has many founders." - Yes, that is exactly the problem; "Nevertheless, modern genetics now has the capacity to discriminate relationships at an increasingly detailed resolution both in terms of close recent ancestry and distant ancestry." What is this supposed to mean? That generic genetic analysis can reveal things about generic genealogical relationships is true, but it does not address the problem that most Spencers are not related to each other in any meaningful manner; "Many people are now using gene testing laboratories as part of a surname DNA project to resolve not only who their close relations are around the world, but also the migration patterns of their ancestors over the 50,000 years since modern man left Africa.[53]" and what does modern man leaving Africa have to do with the Spencer surname? Likewise, the Robert Despenser, Urse d'Abbetot, and the Despenser family section is only relevant if there is a genealogical connection, and there isn't the slightest shred of evidence that such a relationship exists between these people and any later person with 'the Spencer family'. This article needs a rather severe haircut. 50.37.127.81 (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]