Talk:William Ward, 2nd Earl of Dudley

Naming

The removal of middle names of peers goes too far! I have always heard of him as William Humble Ward, not just "William Ward". john k 17:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to move it back. john k 17:22, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of what you hear, the inclusion of middle names in the titles of biographical articles is only justified when (a) that is the form by which they were commonly known (eg, Martin Luther King) or (b) when it is necessary for disambiguation. Neither is the case here. Adam 23:52, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On what basis do you contend that "William Humble Ward, 2nd Earl of Dudley" is not the form by which he was commonly known? In Ulysses, he is called "William Humble, Earl of Dudley," for instance. The article on him at the ODNB is titled "William Humble Ward, 2nd Earl of Dudley". So does the list at the official Australian government site. Most of the ordinary encyclopedias (encarta, britannica, columbia) don't seem to have articles on him, so one can't compare. But my point that "I have always heard of him was William Humble Ward" was meant to mean "William Humble Ward is the form by which he is commonly known". This is, of course, in a limited context, because he is normally known as "Lord Dudley" or "the Earl of Dudley". But when his name is listed, it is as "William Humble Ward" not as "William Ward". john k 02:10, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The statement "William Humble Ward is the form by which he is commonly known," is simply untrue, as you in fact acknowledge in your next sentence. Peers are never "commonly known" by their names, let alone their middle names. As you say yourself, in his lifetime he was usually called Lord Dudley. How his name is listed in other encyclopaedias or elsewhere is not relevant. Adam 07:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, he is normally called Lord Dudley. But in contexts where his whole name is mentioned, he is usually called "William Humble Ward, 2nd Earl of Dudley," not "William Ward, 2nd Earl of Dudley". Since this is a context where his whole name is mentioned, there is no reason not to follow that. I'd add that, at least at the moment, the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) page uses, as an example of how to title peerage articles, Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston. Which is an analogous situation, no? At any rate, perhaps this issue should be brought up on the naming conventions talk page, since the question of how often to remove middle names of peers has come up before. john k 16:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see why peers need to have their full names in the titles of their articles while everyone else makes do with their "ordinary" name. Why not Anthony Charles Lynton Blair? Adam 19:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Peers don't need to have their full names in the titles. The question is under what circumstances they should. Your opinion would seem to be that it is only appropriate when they were well known before becoming peers and in that capacity were known by their middle names. My position is that in such instances the middle name should be used, but also in instances where they were not well known before becoming peers, but that, in their capacity as peers, their middle name is usually used when their whole name (and not just peerage title) is referred to. People who are famous before becoming peers, but not with their full names, should remain where they are - e.g. Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford. john k 20:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll add that I've started a discussion of this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). I hope I summarized your position fairly, although that can of course be difficult to do. john k 20:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lord Lieutenant of Ireland

Infobox says he was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland until 5 October 1906 while the text says 1905. 1905 must be correct. I've changed to 11 December 1905. Nigej (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)