User talk:Phoe

[edit] Baronetcy

Then I stand corrected and apologize for the confusion. --Golbez 18:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sir William Arbuthnot, 3rd Baronet

Please would you respond to the talk page question. - Kittybrewster 15:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Please folks, centralise this discussion rather than splatting it over a dozen article talk pages. I suggest Category talk:Baronets. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Dukes of X and User:Heavens To Betsy

Hello. I have seen that you have edited some of the "Category:Dukes of X" pages created by User:Heavens To Betsy. These are in my mind completely superflouous, the peers are already listed in the respective peerage pages. Also, what's worse is that the "Category:Dukes in the Peerage of ..." pages are completely destroyed as User:Heavens To Betsy has edited literally hundreds of pages on Dukes... (see his/her edit history). I guess there is nothing else but to go through his/her edit history and change the category sections accordingly... Could you please convey this info to User:Heavens To Betsy or else he/she might have a go at pages on marquesses or earls next... Of course I could do it myself but you seem like a very tactful person, and is probably better suited than me at delivering messages like these (I have a feeling I might be rather rude). Regards, Tryde 15:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgot this, the "Category:Dukes of X" pages need to be nominated for deletion. Or what do you think? Tryde 16:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to contact me regarding my large number of ducal edits. Having only read the Wikipdia articles on the Peerages, they seemed quite explicit that they entirely replaced the previous peerages, therefore meaning that the Peerages of England, Scotland, Ireland and Great Britain actually no longer existed. I'd assumed that, in 1801, all living dukes simply became dukes in the Peerage of the United Kingdom when, the previous year, they'd been dukes in the Peerage of Great Britain. I bow to anyone's superior knowledge in this instance.

However, I haven't gone through the new categories I'd created so I'm not really sure what other changes have been made. From Tryde's comments above, it seemed he/she was also against my making Category:Dukes of X in the first place, regardless of any error of mine in placing them in the wrong peerage. With the large number of articles on individual dukes, it just seemed logical and far more readable to put, say, all Dukes of Grafton in their own category and, more importantly, in creation order rather than alphabetical. I really welcome any comments on these and won't make any further edits until I feel clear on other people's views. - Heavens To Betsy 18:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I have left a message on Heavens To Betsy's talk page which you might like to see. I have also seen that you have moved Lewis Vernon Harcourt, 1st Viscount Harcourt to Lewis Harcourt, 1st Viscount Harcourt. Are you sure he was known as simply Lewis Harcourt and not as Lewis Vernon Harcourt? His father was definately known as William Vernon Harcourt (although only Harcourt was his legal surname). Regards, Tryde 20:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A very impressive list of sources! The LG, Britannica and ONDB must be considered reliable sources in this case. I didn't have a specific source, just a feeling that he might have used the "Vernon" like his father. It is of course possible that he was sometimes known as Lewis Vernon Harcourt but, in regard to the sources you provided, more often as simply Lewis Harcourt, just like his father was probably often referred to as William Harcourt. As you might know this family were originally Vernons but assumed the surname of Harcourt to inherit the estates of the Earls Harcourt. I guess they were both prestigious surnames. I might also ask you what you think of my comments on User talk:Heavens To Betsy, is this the right way to proceed? Regards, Tryde 22:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for your comments, they were appreciated and good luck with all your future work on Wikipedia. --Berks105 09:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John de Beauchamp, 1st Baron Beauchamp of Powick

Hi Phoe, I left a blank page here in order to follow General Criteria #7 at WP:SPEEDY, which states that if the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request. I'll use a template in future, though. Christina Kaye 15:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lady Phillips

Hi Phoe, You once corrected me about George Albu and once again I am in need of your expertise. Is the correct form Florence, Lady Phillips or simply Lady Phillips. Go well Paul venter 17:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Ralph Delaval

Hi Phoe, Your article Delaval Baronets states that Sir Ralph Delaval, 2nd Baronet was born in 1649 and that he died in 1696. However, the article Ralph Delaval gives the dates as 1641-1707.

Are these two people the same Ralph Delaval? If so, which dates are correct . Thanks for your help. Raymond Palmer 23:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Phoe. Raymond Palmer 22:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ashdown

While I accept that Baron_Ashdown may be the baron Ashdown I wonder if we need dab to handle the much more likely person searching wiki for Lord Ashdown who will be automatically sent to the former. Alci12 18:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)