Talk:John Boyd Orr

Latest comment: 8 years ago by LaMona in topic title in name

Coat of Arms edit

Should mention coat-of-arms with very unusual supporters. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Reference list edit

I suggest the implementation of {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} on this article, because of the length of the reference list. Opinions, rejections? —bender235 (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Done - I also formatted the "References" section to correspond. --NSH001 (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

title in name edit

In my experience, titles are included in names only for disambiguation. The ", 1st Baron Boyd-Orr" seems to be unnecessary here as no other article is entitled John Boyd Orr. If there is precedent for including titles, and policy to back it up, I'd be interested to learn about that. Thanks, LaMona (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

LaMona, I doubt the title is appended because of any need for disambiguation. I note that the vast majority of the entries in Category:Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom have the title appended to the name, the main exception being former Archbishops of Canterbury, but there are also a few others, who seem to be covered by:
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#British nobility, according to which:
  • There are several exceptions to these rules.
  • Peers who are almost exclusively known by their personal names: e.g. Bertrand Russell (not "Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell").
  • Peers who are very well known by their personal names and who only received a title after they retired, e.g. Anthony Eden (not "Anthony Eden, 1st Earl of Avon"), Margaret Thatcher (not "Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher").
So it looks to me as if the name should stay as it is. You could also ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. --NSH001 (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, NSH001. I'll tuck this knowledge away for future encounters with Peerage. LaMona (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)Reply