[WikiEN-l] problem with courtesy titles

Mon Feb 10 00:48:39 UTC 2003

A problem has cropped up over titles, specifically COURTESY TITLES on Wiki. 
While standard titles relating to peerages can be ignored because there is 
an alternative (the holder will have a name and surname), courtesy titles 
(ie, titles possessed by someone related to a peer; son, daughter, wife, 
etc) are usually treated as PART OF A NAME in common usage, given that they 
are attached to the name. Which means Wiki's policy of dropping titles like 
'Lord', 'Lady' etc is producing unrecognisable names that users find hard to 
follow. I thought there was just one or two, but others have been pointing 
out more and more examples.

Examples:
Lord John Russell (UK PM in the 1840s) is down as JOHN RUSSELL,  a name 100% 
of people studying english history would not recognise. Leaving out the lord 
bit is the equivalent in terms of recognition of turning 'William Jefferson 
Clinton' to 'Jefferson Clinton' and then wondering why no-one knows would 
recognise who is being written about.

Lady Jane Grey is down as JANE GREY, again a name never ever used without 
'Lady'.

Lady Gregory or Lady Augusta Gregory (founder of Dublin's Abbey Theatre) is 
down as AUGUSTA GREGORY, a rarely used variation on her name. Most history 
books simply say 'Lady Gregory'.

Lady Caroline Lamb is down as CAROLINE LAMB.

Lady Diana Spencer was down as DIANA SPENCER. (Someone has changed her name 
to another variation).

The trouble in these cases with simply on an ad hoc basis using the 'lord' 
or 'lady' is that someone else will come along, say Wiki doesn't use titles, 
and remove it, leading to edit wars over how Wiki should refer to these and 
others.  Quite a few people at this stage have said they are uncomfortable 
having to use a version of the name minus the courtesy title that to them 
makes no sense and makes it more difficult to follow. Even people who in 
general remove such titles have said the Wiki policy in this area needs to 
be clarified and made more user-friendly and logical.

After a lot of consultation (here and on various pages) we reached a 
consensus on how to use royal nomenclatures. This is one of the remaining 
glitches to be worked out.

The best solution here might be to say on the naming convention page:

OTHER THAN IN THE CASE OF ROYALTY, AVOID USING PEERAGE TITLES (eg, Earl of 
Ardbraccan) OR HONOURS ('Sir') IN THE TITLES OF ARTICLES. INSTEAD USE THE 
PERSON'S NAME AND SURNAME.

HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF COURTESY TITLES (ie, titles attached to a person's 
name and surname by virtue of they being a son, daughter, wife, etc of a 
peer) IT IS ACCEPTABLE TO USE THE TITLE WHERE THE IDENTITY OF A PERSON MAY 
BE UNCLEAR WITHOUT IT.

FOR EXAMPLE:
Lord John Russell, rather than John Russell
Lady Augusta Gregory, rather than Augusta Gregory
Lady Jane Grey, rather than Jane Grey
Lady Diana Spencer, rather than Diana Spencer

IF IN DOUBT, ASK FOR OTHER PEOPLE'S OPINIONS ON THE NAMING CONVENTIONS TALK 
PAGE.

Any observations?

JT

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail