Talk:Baron of Abbotshall

Removal of title Harold Robert Peerenboom, Baron of Abbotshall

@DrKay I’ve noticed that you’ve been removing the title from Harold Robert Peerenboom, Baron of Abbotshall.

Could you clarify whether this is because you don't believe the title is legitimate, or if there’s another reason behind these removals? I’d appreciate understanding your perspective. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

As I said[1], it's a tautology. DrKay (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t believe it is. Nearly every other page on Wikipedia I've seen for a title of nobility formats the name and title in this way. I believe the reason is so that people know how to properly format the name and the title together. In this case, the name and title, as it's meant to be presented, is directly relevant to the topic of the page. Could you clarify your specific objection on this page? Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

"The title Duke of Cambridge is held by the Duke of Cambridge" = Idiotic and absurd tautology. "The title [Baron of Abbotshall] is held by ... Baron of Abbotshall" = Idiotic and absurd tautology. I think you're being disruptive by constantly demanding lengthy explanations for obvious and clear edits. It is a type of WP:BLUDGEONING: trying to exhaust your opponents by questioning every minor edit and arguing every point over and over. DrKay (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

But it doesn’t say what you're describing—in the body of the article it says, "Present Baron: Since 2001, the title is held by Harold Robert Peerenboom." If it said, "The Baron of Abbotshall is held by Harold Robert Peerenboom, Baron of Abbotshall," I would agree that it’s redundant. However, that’s not the case here.

I genuinely don’t understand your reason for removing what shows readers how to correctly format the name and title, especially since it follows a uniform format used across similar pages. I certainly don’t mean to exhaust you, but this removal feels disingenuous. Could you please clarify why this particular page is being treated differently? Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

If similarly idiotic wording is used elsewhere, it should be removed. DrKay (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I see, but the format is used on similar pages across Wikipedia. If you visit any title of nobility page, you’ll see the name and title of the holder formatted in the same way. My goal isn’t to exhaust or argue unnecessarily, but rather to understand why this specific page is being treated differently when it follows a common format...a straightforward clarification would be helpful. Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

See above. DrKay (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I see. I’ll leave it for now, but I believe my point is clear to anyone following the discussion. If this becomes an issue on more pages, it may require a broader discussion. Kellycrak88 (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)