This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland 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.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics 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.Irish republicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish republicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish republicanismIrish republicanism articles
Although the artticle is factual and straightforward the passage:
'IRA financial support in America via NORAID dwindled, which was already in steep decline since the Bloody Sunday incident of 1972.'
Is somewhat jarring as it suggests that somehow the IRA were deemed to be responsible for the atrocity. 171.6.138.123 (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support per Guliolopez. Article title naming conventions can differ depending on context, and as outlined, derivative subjects don't have to follow the article title for the main subject. I can imagine that could lead to unwiedly title if applied generally. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is not good reason to promulgate “1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma” to related pages, and that title has little relevance to this page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposed to it being moved to the suggested title because it violates consistency when the main page is taken into account, but "Lord Mountbatten" is more common that "Louis Mountbatten" (per the Ngram). And it's not like we don't have pages named "Lord X" (ex. Lord Byron). Keivan.fTalk02:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ngrams are useful but are not a substitute for looking at actual usage in the best sources. In this case, a style change has occurred with time. Quality sources are far less deferential to royalty. The current Sea Lord, is titled simply Ben Key. Your ngram indicates that “Lord” is more frequent than “Louis”, but the Wikipedia MOS prefers to not use titles, and exceptions required a heavy preponderance for the titled form. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current First Sea Lord is titled thus because he is not a peer. The MOS prefers not to use titles except when they are a part of the common name, but a quick Google search finds "Lord Mountbatten" is far more commonly used than "Louis Mountbatten" with no title whatsoever. Richiepip (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Keivan.f. I moved the page originally to be consistent with the subject's article and "Louis Mountbatten" with no title is not his common name. Richiepip (talk) 04:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
COMMONNAME is not singular. The old nobility-deferential writing style features Lord Mountbatten frequently, but “Louis Mountbatten” IS commonly recognised in reliable sources. This is one example. Honorifics such as “Lord” should be avoided, and Mountbatten does not rise to the exception for Mother Theresa or Queen Victoria. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so to clear this up; nobody is actually saying that Lord Mountbatten should be used on its own as part of this article's title, or the main article's title. But, if we are to use Louis Mountbatten then we might as well make it consistent with the main page, which does include his hereditary title (it is hereditary because it was inherited by his descendants). It would also be consistent with funeral of Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma. Keivan.fTalk06:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. While I usually seem to find myself arguing for longer titles, usually “to help readers”, for this person, I believe including the peerage only hurts. Earl Mountbatten of Burma does not, I believe, help anyone with recognizability. It hurts concision. It doesn’t connect well to any of the many thinks for which Mountbatten is highly notable. I would move Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma to Louis Mountbatten. However, regardless of whether that ever happens, I don’t think that when adding “Assignation of” that consistency requires retaining unnecessary from the parent article. Doing so would often make titles unwieldy long. In this case, “Assignation of” adds, itself, considerable recognizability, in fact far exceeding the “1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma” suffix. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Keivan.f, for clarifying my position. WP:NCROY, though not policy is still a helpful guideline ensuring consistency and recognizability, states "Members of the British peerage, whether hereditary peers or life peers, usually have their articles titled 'Personal name, Ordinal (if appropriate) Peerage title'" there are of course exceptions to this, but none of these, I believe, fit Mountbatten as he was not widely known exclusively as his personal name and Lord Louis Mountbatten was not correct form after 1946. I could accept Assassination of Lord Mountbatten but I really see no need to move this article. Richiepip (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As an encyclopedia we should not be perpetuating false info. He was born "Prince Louis of Battenberg", then styled "Lord Louis Mountbatten" until 1946, and then "Viscount Mountbatten of Burma" until 1947. So he had ceased to be "Lord Louis Mountbatten" for about 33 years by the time he died. The words "Earl Mountbatten of Burma" are carved out on his grave stone. Also, he's the 1st earl because he has had two successors. That's how the pages on peers are titled to provide clarity and avoid ambiguity in cases where the personal names are similar. I could understand why the numbering should not necessarily apply to side pages though. Keivan.fTalk16:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And, forgive me, but the above paragraph is precisely why the article should be moved, either as proposed, or to "Assasination of Louis Mountbatten". This is an international encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia, we should not be expecting readers to be familiar with the obscure naming conventions used by members of one country's aristocracy in order to find an article, while also creating numerous redirect pages to actually get people to the correct "Assasination of Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl of Tautology" page. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!11:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
.svg)
