User talk:Somewhatdazed

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Somewhatdazed! I am Dougweller and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out Wikipedia:Questions, or feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome!

Dougweller (talk) 07:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peers articles[edit]

Hi, I was wondering why you are de-bolding the designation of peers and/or removing their titles from the infobox? They are part of the name and should be included as such, and most Wikipedia articles on peers have those as standard practice.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 15:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:NCROY. Thanks, --TÆRkast (Communicate) 15:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do this. If you're pursuing some sort of personal agenda with regards to the validity and credibility of the UK honours system, be aware that Wikipedia is not the place to campaign or agitate for change. It is an encyclopedia, and tries to record the way the world is (rather than how some people may think it should be); our use of UK honorifics is consistent with the most common views outside and should not be changed without obtaining consensus. Continuing to make large-scale changes without consensus may be considered disruptive and could lead to a block. Choess (talk) 10:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your long and thoughtful reply, and your assurance of your bona fides. As far as the philosophical side of the question, I think you may be overthinking this a bit. I don't think it's necessary to go hunting for a distinction between the "actual name" and anything else. For an extreme example, referring to peers by their hereditary surname is usually quite misleading; once they assume a real or courtesy peerage, they use the title of the peerage in place of their surname, so relying on forename and surname there is more confusing than anything else. Once people are knighted, it's broadly conventional to refer to them as if "Sir/Dame" were an integral part of their name. Whether or not it's logical, it's custom, and so we tend to follow it.

Probably the best principles to follow are to avoid anachronism and follow the sources for the article. Obviously, it's silly to refer to someone as "Sir So-and-so" when discussing the period before they were knighted, so then it makes sense to work without. Beyond that, it's hard to go wrong imitating the style of the sources with regards to whether or not they use the prefix. (And after the first use of the name, you can always avoid the issue by just using the surname, e.g., "the Earl of Salisbury" becomes "Salisbury", Lord Sugar becomes "Sugar", Sir Ian Blair becomes "Blair", etc.)

Poking through the letter of policy and guideline has been confusing, to say the least. Wikipedia:Article titles and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) explain the difference between what we do for article titles and for a first line. (In a nutshell: article titles have several other roles to serve, including as unique indexes, so there are several competing factors that have to be balanced in choosing one.) Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) discusses the use of "Sir" inline and in the first line of an article, but it leaves a lot of leeway for differing practices. (It has a distinct air of "good compromise", i.e., one which leaves all parties unsatisfied.)

From a social perspective, it's probably best to avoid making large numbers of changes solely for the purpose of tweaking styles—it tends to bring cranky people like me out of the woodwork. If in the course of otherwise rewriting or revising an article, you decide to cut back on the use of "Sir", that's probably OK; but large-scale changes should probably be vetted at the appropriate guideline talk page first, probably in this case Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies). (Be forewarned that this is likely to set off a major food fight over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.)

If you think some of my reversions are out of line, please drop me a note at my talk page. I am now inclined to believe there's somewhat more leeway under the guidelines to change these things, and while I still think following the sources will include "Sir" more often than not, I want to fix things if I've done you wrong. Choess (talk) 05:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]