Talk:Sir Henry Chamberlain, 1st Baronet

Name change

Should the title include an honourific like "Sir"?--Vintagekits 18:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

One cannot be a baronet without being addressed as 'Sir'. It is like you and I being addressed as 'Mr'. I can see no reason for the prods you have put up. It states quite clearly at the bottom of the page that this is a stub and so calls for help. What is the purpose of going overboard here? David Lauder 21:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no sources so therefore proof of notablility that is why I added a prod. Also, as fair as I know th MOS doesnt use Sir in the title.--Vintagekits 21:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Untrue. A very notable source is cited. David Lauder 08:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

With barons this even is required, if the baronetcy is used. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_prefixes, number four for this. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 22:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC) ~~

Forgive me if I am wrong, but my interpreation of that is the Sir should not be used in the title of the page but should be used in the article text. Is this right?--Vintagekits 12:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong.Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Other_non-royal_names No 4 applies. Honorific not Honourific. - Kittybrewster 12:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits is correct. Point 4, cited, reads in full:

Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives, follow the same practice as hereditary peers and should have their title noted in the beginning of the article. The format is Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet. For the article title, this format should only be used when disambiguation is necessary; otherwise, the article should be located at John Smith.. John Smith, 17th Baronet should never be used with the postfix and without the prefix. [my underline, bold and italics]

There is no disambiguation necessary, as Henry Chamberlain redirects to this article anyway. Therefore the article should be located at Henry Chamberlain. The title should be noted at the beginning of the article, which it is.

In order to conform to the naming requirement stipulation for article titles, I have moved it back to Henry Chamberlain.

Tyrenius 03:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a complication here, as there are two people called Sir Henry Chamberlain (in fact I think there is at least one more after them). This suggests there might be a requirement for a disambiguation page, unless this is the individual whose article is most likely to be searched for, in which case the present arrangement would suffice with the disambiguation note at the top of this article. Tyrenius 01:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have created a disamb page. - Kittybrewster 11:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

From what I can make out the article should by Henry Chamberlain, 1st Baronet and not -Sir Henry Chamberlain, 1st Baronet - am I right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vintagekits (talk • contribs) 03:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

No and the answer is already above - but I will repeat it for you: The format is Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet. For the article title, this format should only be used when disambiguation is necessary; otherwise, the article should be located at John Smith. John Smith, 17th Baronet should never be used with the postfix and without the prefix. (see also Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Other_non-royal_names) ~~ Phoe _talk 04:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC) ~~

Expand tag

I placed an expand tag on the article before I realised one had previously been placed and removed. This is to encourage the article to have at least a brief outline of his life and career, rather than just a hereditary list. The article is a biography. Tyrenius 03:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It does already say at the bottom of the page This biography of a baronet is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. So arn't you just doubling up with the template? David Lauder 11:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've always assumed that expand tag is a special request, because someone would like to see some extra content out of interest. I did a bit of googling on Henry Chamberlain and got rather confused as to who had done what. I believe the 3rd Baronet was in the army, and was one of three people to survive a shipwreck. There was a rather nice illustration from a book by him, which could be used. (See also Talk:Sir Henry Chamberlain, 2nd Baronet.)Tyrenius 01:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I hoped someone might have some additional material to add to this, as well as to the two following Baronets (the third needing an article still), but, if not, it might be better to remove the tag, rather than have it sitting there endlessly. Tyrenius 01:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Finding all this information is a time and motion problem. My personal view is that the info found on the Internet generally is quite limited. Books remain the principal source. I'll see what I can locate but it may take a little time. Even finding books can be a headache! David Lauder 12:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I quite understand, and as there seems no extra information immediately to hand, I have removed the tag. Tyrenius 05:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Surname

We can't see where the surname Chamberlain came from. He was brought up as Vane. Valetude (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)