Talk:Manor of Scadbury

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kent, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the county of Kent in South East England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KentWikipedia:WikiProject KentTemplate:WikiProject KentKent-related articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Kent tasks:

Here are some Kent related tasks you can do:

Clean up an article: Here are automatically generated lists of articles needing cleanup sorted alphabetically and by category.
Edit the Top and High importance articles.
Refine/polish: Ashford, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Canterbury
Expand:: List of churches in Kent, Maidstone Borough Council
NPOV: K College
Citation needed: Unreferenced Kent articles
Cleanup/Copyedit: Kingdom of Kent
Expert attention: Channel Tunnel, Bromley Civic Society
Stubs: see Kent geography stubs articles

Note: These articles may overlap with those on other related lists. If you would like to make a change, either do so yourself, or make a suggestion.

RfC about distinguishing people with the same name

Should the five Thomas Walsinghams in this article be distinguished by mid-name identifiers (e.g. Thomas I Walshingham ... Sir Thomas V Walshingham)? —SMALL JIM 09:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant section of the Manual of Style appears to be MOS:JR. The style of numbering used here isn't employed by any of the references, as far as I can see. —SMALL JIM 10:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence that WP:RFCBEFORE has been observed, so why have you gone straight to a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: perhaps some more detail may have been useful, but I thought I should keep things simple, as recommended. I can't discuss it with the other editor because he refuses to discuss anything with me or acknowledge any of my advice - see, for instance this edit and Talk:Thomas Walsingham (died 1457). A pretty unique situation I guess. Had I explained everything in sufficient detail, I thought it would have put everyone off. Would you give an opinion on the question, please? —SMALL JIM 19:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there's been disagreement at the article - but only a small amount of actual dispute. As of now, the article has just six edits by four different people (Lobsterthermidor (creator), Smalljim, CAPTAIN RAJU and DrKay), and nothing worthy of filing a case at WP:ANEW. Even so, before jumping straight for WP:RFC, you should at the very least have started a discussion thread here, perhaps sending a note to WT:NCP and/or WT:BIOG. Only go to RfC once WP:RFCBEFORE offers no further avenues of resolution. I have therefore removed the {{rfc}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: Did you read this? It's a long term problem which I'm trying to resolve. This is not helping - other suggestions would be welcome. —SMALL JIM 20:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this thread has continued on User talk:Redrose64 under the heading "From Smalljim" (21:35, 11 May 2020), commencing with the sentence "OK so I made a hash of the RfCs". Comments referring to an on-going rfc should be made on the article's talk page, not surreptitiously elsewhere, that might be interpreted as WP:Canvassing.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, they should be removed per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Generational and regnal suffixes, especially as they are misplaced in the middle of the names. DrKay (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me this is more a matter of British English versus US English. It's quite usual in British English to refer to Thomas I Walsingham, Thomas II Walsingham, Thomas III Walsingham, etc., as ways of distinguishing generations. In the US they do it differently (as in the current Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Generational and regnal suffixes) as in "Henry Ford I", "Henry Ford II", etc., which are in substance quasi-peerage titles (they certainly are used as indicators of social importance), or as close as Americans can get to them. This latter style is alien to British English. I might raise this issue on the Wikipedia:British English / Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling page.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Utter nonsense. DrKay (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think if a Brit referred to his son as "John Smith II" there might be some ribaldry suffered by him down the boozer. It's not British usage and would be considered highly pompous. The reason Americans get confused by mid-name nominal letters is that they are accustomed to see in that position an initial of a second fore-name, as in "George W. Bush" (or even "Donald J. Trump", where no disambiguation is required from his father's name). That form of mid-name initial is alien to British usage. But thanks for your clear and succint response!Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leo G. Carroll, Arthur C. Clarke, Harry H. Corbett --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this style of distinguishing multiple persons who have the same name was rejected at WT:Manual of Style/Biography#Generational suffixes - US / British English variants —SMALL JIM 10:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]