Um, what does this mammoth template add that is not achieved by Category:Royal Navy First Sea Lords? The articles (now) have succession boxes (thanks!), and there is a list at First Sea Lord anyway. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It helps make all the first sea lord articles accessible from each individual lords page - the aim of a template - accessibility and navigation from the page your currently on LordHarris 00:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said, succession boxes get you to the one before and one after in one click, and categories and the list on the main page First Sea Lord page get you there in two clicks. This huge template saves at most one click, but takes up an awfully large amount of screen real estate. How likely is it that an editor will want to navigate from Julian Oswald to Prince William, Duke of Clarence to Sir John Jellicoe? -- ALoan (Talk) 00:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you worried about the space it takes up on the screen, there is I believe the permanent option to "hide" the userbox and "show" if you want to see it again? There are a lot of similar templates, which is where I used the idea to link all the articles together on every page e.g. White House Chief of Staff. LordHarris 00:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I am not convinced how useful that template is either. However, it is noticeably shorter than this one! -- ALoan (Talk) 00:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its about the same length as Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and that has its own category as well. If you are worried about the length, what about if in the near future I shortened the template and split it into First Sea Lords for specific time zones e.g. 1914 - 1945, 1946 - Present etc? LordHarris 01:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you reverted my edits on the Template:First Sea Lord. I was just wondering why. My only intention was to bring it under the new standard template designs at WP:MILHIST#NAV. I would like to know what grieves you so much about the change to call it very unhelpful. Thanks Woodym555 21:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is very unhelpful because:

• The old version worked just fine and was highly intuitive
• Your change only reveals the links to all the biographies if the user correctly guesses where to click. This is no doubt obvious to anyone who has played about editing such templates. It is not in the least intuitive to non-expert readers.
• The benefit in saving space by compressing a box that appears at the bottom of the screen is not exactly obvious. I could see the point if it were something that appeared at the top of the page.
• The argument that succession boxes make this feature unnecessary seems very odd. Succession boxes are a useful feature - in that they make it clear when people did certain jobs, who they replaced, and who replaced them. This on the other had gives a quick at a glance list complete with links.--Toddy1 21:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not mentioned succession boxes, i think succession boxes serve their purpose. The "state = collapsed" parameter had to be removed, that is all, not the change to a milhist navbox. Personally i think it takes up less space on the page if it is hidden, but if you don't want the compress feature activated then i won't. I don't think it is that much of a stretch for a any user to click on the Show button. Maybe i am overestimating people's common sense?

Unless you object i will add in the milhist generic navbox template but without the compressed feature: Woodym555 21:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no objection to your adding in the milhist generic navbox template but without the compressed feature.
• And yes, you are overestimating people's "common sense" (including mine)--Toddy1 22:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compressed feature

Here is an example of the compressed feature when activated:

I personally think this is more appropriate in terms of space. It is a large navbox and is unseemly at the bottom of a long article such as Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope. What do other people think? Thanks Woodym555 22:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Woody has reverted my removal of "The Hon." from George Dundas, Berkeley, Richard Dundas and Grey, and "Bt" from Madden. I did this because I considered it inconsistent to use "The Hon." when other styles such as "The Rt Hon." (e.g. for Howe, Beatty, Chatfield, Mountbatten) or even "HRH" (Clarence) or "HSH" (Battenberg) are not present. Similarly, why should the postnominal "Bt" be present when others such as "KB", "GCB" etc are not?

In any case, the use of "The Hon." for Berkeley is incorrect. As he was illegitimate he would not be styled as the son of an earl, and during his second tenure he was appointed a Privy Counsellor so would be "The Rt Hon." anyway. Opera hat (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't include Bt, the natural assumption is that the person is "just" a knight, rather than a baronet. It is "incorrect" to use Sir without Bt for a Baronet. There's probably a few more it sould be added to for consistentcy, but there doesn't seem much point doing it until the point is resolved here. David Underdown (talk) 10:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Berkeley, a search of the London Gazette certainly brings up som occurrences of him being referred to as The Hon [1] David Underdown (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am up for consistency, as was shown in September 2007 in the history. Do we want to have them listed differently if they served two terms and were honoured in the meantime, do we want to include all postnoms/prenoms or only certain postnoms/prenoms. I think the current version is accurate, though please prove me wrong. I only want consistency, if it can be proven that the template is that, then great. Regards. Woody (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir William Parker, 1st Baronet, of Shenstone seems to have been raised to the baronetcy before his spell as First Lord. David Underdown (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

During both periods as Senior Naval Lord Berkeley was a Member of Parliament, who are nowadays styled "the Honourable x" - is the style referring to his service as a parliamentarian or as the son of an Earl? --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 12:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was what I was beginning to think. THough from the gazette entries it looks like at the time of his first his stint, it was treated as an office of profit under the Crown and he was then disqualified from his seat. During his later period, he seems to have been reelected during that period. David Underdown (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though MPs are addressed as "the honourable member for [constituency]" when actually in the Commons chamber, they are not styled "The Honourable" outside it (see the relevant article). Opera hat (talk) 10:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is in no way incorrect to use "Sir" without "Bt" for a baronet. "Bt" is only used whenever other postnominals are used. Opera hat (talk) 10:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't include Bt, the natural assumption is that the person is "just" a knight, rather than a baronet: one could equally say that if you don't include GCB, the natural assumption is that the person is "just" a Knight Bachelor, rather than a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath. In the interests of consistency, either all postnominals or none should be included; I would favour the latter. Opera hat (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A GCB or GBE etc is still a knight thoug, a baronet is something quite separate. David Underdown (talk) 10:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But why does the distinction need to be made in this template? Opera hat (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, they aren't all that separate; a baronetcy is just an hereditary knighthood. Baronets are dubbed on creation in the same way as knights; they are described as "the Order of Baronets" (cf. Orders of Knighthood); as late as the early nineteenth century they were described in full as "Sir [Firstname] [Surname], Knight and Baronet"; in heraldry baronets use the same helms as knights; until 1827 eldest sons of baronets had the right to be knighted on their coming of age, emphasising the view of baronets as hereditary knights. Opera hat (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Baronets are not dubbed on creation. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The options

Carrying on from Woody's point of the 26th ult. supra, there are three options:

• a) Include all styles and postnominals, e.g. "The Rt Hon. the Earl Howe", "The Hon. Sir Frederick Grey GCB", "Sir Charles Madden Bt GCB GCVO KCMG"
• b) Include no styles or postnominals, e.g. "The Earl Howe", "Sir Frederick Grey", "Sir Charles Madden"
• c) Include some styles and postnominals but not others, as at present, e.g. "The Earl Howe", "The Hon. Sir Frederick Grey", "Sir Charles Madden Bt".

Opera hat (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to go against a), because although it is the most complete, some entries would be cumbersomely lengthy, e.g. "The Rt Hon. the Earl Mountbatten of Burma KG GCB GCSI GCIE GCVO DSO PC". As I've already said, in the interests of consistency I'd also go against c); why should "The Hon." be included when the more important "Rt Hon." is not? Likewise, why should "Bt" be included when "KG" and "KT" (both higher in the scale of precedence than a baronetcy) are not? Therefore by process of elimination the best option is the shortest, b): no styles or postnominals at all. Unless anyone disagrees, I'll (re-)amend the template accordingly. Opera hat (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst a KG or KT has higher personal precedence than a baronet, Bt or Bart always comes first in postnoms, even before VC or GC. David Underdown (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. That bit was intended more as an answer to your assertion above that "Bt" has to be included to show that the person isn't "just" a knight: some knights outrank baronets. But you haven't yet said which option you'd support! (And why, of course.) Opera hat (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer a, failing which c. A first Baronet has earned that rank. As a KT has earned his. And a 4th Baronet has inherited his. Let us distinguish them accordingly. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One other point occurs to me, for knights in Wikipedia, the "Sir" is not generally included in the article title (unless it's useful for disamiguation), for a baronet, the convention is to include both "Sir", and "nth Baronet" which doe stend to show that the Baronet suffix is treated rather differently from other postnoms. David Underdown (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is large enough already, so including all prefixes and postnoms is untenable in my opinion. I am leaning to C — I prefer Knights to be listed, but I don't really have an opinion on baronets as I know nothing about them. I am not the best one to consult about it. Woody (talk) 11:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you say you want knights to be listed, do you mean you just want "Sir" to be included (I don't think anyone's disputing that), or knightly postnominals like GCB, KBE, etc as well? Opera hat (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, only Sir. Woody (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) says that baronets, like knights, should be at "John Smith" unless disambiguation is necessary; only then should they be at "Sir John Smith, nth Baronet". Opera hat (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK I had misrembered on actual article titling, however, the nth Baronet bit is still bolded, unlike other postnomials, and it does make the point that prefix and postfix should be used together for baronets, so the general point that it is not quite the same as other postnomials would still seem to stand. David Underdown (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage#References - not official policy, I know - recommends that baronets are called simply "Sir John Smith" with no postnominal in the body of articles. Should this apply to templates too? Opera hat (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had missed that, maybe there is no case for treating them differently after all in that case. David Underdown (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent for sanity) Before we dig ourselves too far in consulting our own guidelines, are there any external references we can look to for this matter? Does Debrett's Correct Form bear on the point? I'm just cautious about relying too far on Wikipedia guidelines, simply because they may have been concocted a few years ago with de minimis expert input and may well be in need of revision. Choess (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have come to this, as a rsult of a note posted elsewhere. My first comment is that this is a template, not an article, so that the content should (in my view) be brief. I think that "Hon" was formerly applied to MPs (who still refer to each other as "honorable member" (unless they have a higher honorific). Rt Hon applies to members of Privy Council: in modern times most will be PC, so that this is not useful; nor is their class of knighthood. If a person wants detail they should view his biographic article. Full titles would be appropriate in the article First Sea Lord or a list of First Sea Lords, but not here. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hon. for MPs has no place in any listing as it is a parliamentary usage. Hon. for sons of peers is a rather different matter That said this is a listing and I'd agree it should be brief - so omission of full styles and titles and Post noms is fine though limited styles probably useful which seems to be reflected in option (c). As an aside a baronet originally had the right to knighthood and still needs knighthood for some purposes in todays orders of chivalry. It is not simply a hereditary knighthood AllsoulsDay (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rt Hon also applies to Earls, Viscounts and Barons, and there are several of these in the template. Opera hat (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'd cast my vote for the use of "Sir", and nothing else in the interests of:

1. Brevity (always important, especially so in templates like this)
2. Sanity (self-evident)

Choess (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the rationale for including the Admirals of the Fleet (technically Admirals and Commanders-in-Chief of the Fleet) in this template? Just curious that this doesn't seem to have been brought up in over five years. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 16:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless anyone objects I'll be bold and remove the Admirals of the Fleet from the template tomorrow. Their presence just seems wrong. It doesn't help that the Admiral of the Fleet article itself is pretty poor. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 07:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted them as my understanding is that the Admiral of the Fleet (then a single individual) commanded the Navy at that time (i.e. the post was the equivelent of First Naval Lord / First Sea Lord rather than a rank). That said I am happy to be corrected and certainly don't have strong views on the subject. Dormskirk (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In modern times "Admiral of the Fleet" has been a rank above (full) admiral. Since this template is about the senior naval officer at the Admiralty, I do not think they belong. The fleet did not operate as a single entity, so that I do not see that there can have eben a single naval commander in chief, since the days before the office of Lord High Admiral was put into commission, with a number of the Lords of the Admiralty being politicians who had never served at sea. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]