Talk:Duke of Wellington
|
|
What the hell? Mackensen (talk) 12:33, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Indeed. Let's put this straight. john k 12:52, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I have moved this page because most of the links to Duke of Wellington intended the link to be to Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. The page was particularly confusing because it had a short Biography of the 1st Duke. To all intense and purposes this made it a double link. I am about to go through the list and fix those links to point to the correct one. But the system seems to be very slow at the moment. Philip Baird Shearer 12:55, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Given that there seems to be a lot of feeling about this then OK I will not move it again. But it needs stripping down so that it is not an alternative page for Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. Philip Baird Shearer 13:07, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, the correct path would be to change links referring to the 1st Duke that go to Duke of Wellington to go to Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. Just to add that while you are correct that many of the links are supposed to go to the first duke, many others are meant to go here. As to the stripping down, the second paragraph needs to go. There is no need for information on the parents of the 1st Duke on this page. The rest is fine. john k 13:13, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Also, most of the links that I've found are something like "this was done by Arthur Wellesley, later Duke of Wellington." That seems fine to me. john k 13:15, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, please realise that this is not just a disambiguation page it is a page about the title (much like Monarch of the United Kingdom or President of the United States) and that it is still very much in use. Mintguy (T)
Points taken. As Churchill said of Chamberlain "he looks at foreign policy through the wrong end of a municipal drain". I was looking at it from the point of view that apart from the the Iron Duke who has ever heard of any of the others? The page at first glance looks as if it is about the Iron Duke, so any one writing a page who glances at it quickly will view it as a page about him. This leads to double redirects, which althought they can be fixed now, will crop up in the future. So I think it is better to fix this page so that that does not happen. I suggest that the Duke_of_Marlborough, chosen as a template, because the title was created in similar circumstances. And that picture has to go! --Philip Baird Shearer 13:42, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- There should be more detail about the succession, but this is probably still true of nearly all of the peerage pages. At one time I spent most of my time on Wikipedia writing up these details on pages such as the Duke of Hamilton but there are now many better qualified editors who regularly edit the peerage pages and I have moved on to other areas of interest. I don't think there is anything wrong in having picture of the 1st Duke on this page. No more than having a picture of Tony Blair, Thatcher or Winston Churchill on Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Further discussion of changes to peerage pages in general should take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage Mintguy (T) 13:54, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)