Talk:Strickland (surname)

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

New to sections

I have reverted some discreet vandalism--Pandaplodder (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Mr. Strickland"

From the Back to the Future franchise (catchphrase- as far as it goes- "Slacker-!"). Any ref.? Basket _Feudalist 14:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I’m also a Strickland 4.18.133.68 (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Discussion regarding who should be included in the list of people mentioned in the list and who should not, moved from my talk page as it might also interest other readers. As you can see I hold that people who are not notable by themselves should not be included in the list. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing these edits on this page or else I will consider it vandalism, your argument that "no one not mentioned previously in Wikipedia should have an entry" is absurd, show me where in the rules it says, by the way I was just linking John Lilburne in that entry. If you want help in future ask. Pandaplodder (talk)

@Pandaplodder: "Or you will consider it vandalism"? It doesn't matter what you consider to be vandalism, what matters is what the rules say is vandalism. And removing irrelevant trivia, such as people who have received an obscure award (so obscure that it doesn't have an article on Wikipedia, and in fact isn't even mentioned in the article about the Citizens In Charge Foundation), is most definitely not vandalism according to the rules. So learn what the rules are before you start accusing people of breaking them. As for rules about inclusion in stand-alone lists, which Strickland (surname) is, is governed by WP:NLIST, which among other things says that inclusion in a stand-alone list is governed by normal rules about notability (includingsingle-event notability), which means that people who aren't notable enough to have an article about themselves aren't notable enough to be included in a stand-alone list. So totally non-notable people who have been awarded an apparently non-notable award is trivia, and does not belong in the list. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Strickland (surname). 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/20080513063536/http://www.kendalparishchurch.co.uk/kpc/history.html to http://www.kendalparishchurch.co.uk/kpc/history.html

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) 00:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Just to be clear on the recent edits that I have reverted, saying that the name is English and Scottish, derived from a town of the name in Cumbria, and that it could also be an English name from Strickland in Westmorland, has three problems. The first is one of semantics - if the name originated in England and then bearers of the name went to Scotland, does that really make it a Scottish surname, or just an English name that appears in Scotland? I am ambivalent on this, but the issue is somewhat neutered by the second issue: material in the lede need not be referenced, if it is referenced in the body and the body has details on English people bearing the name, but nothing whatsoever about Scotland. If we are going to claim it as also Scottish, we need a reference that says so. The third and biggest problem is that the surname is not from a town in Cumbria and also from a town in Westmorland, because Cumbria is the current geographical entity and Westmorland a historical one in which the exact same location, the ancient manor of Strickland, is located. It is not an 'also', any more than it would be appropriate to refer to the Crimean Tatars as being from that place in Ukraine, but also from Crimea in the Soviet Union. Finally, there is the issue of the etymological origin of the name. This information is already in the article, and need not be repeated almost verbatim, so it is a question of which is the better place. Because it is not the origin of the surname, but of the toponym from which the surname indirectly derives, it is my opinion that the body is the place for it, and not the lede. Agricolae (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]