Talk:Nicholas Van Dyke (1769-1826)

Year of Birth

I have altered his year of birth from 1770 to 1769. The 1770 year comes from the Congressional bioguide, whuich in turn comes from the Dictionary of American Biography. I believe their source was his headstone in the Immanuel Churchyard in New Castle which only gives his date of death and notes "in his 56th year". (1826 minus 56 is 1770).

I found the 1769 year in the DAR records, the Princeton University arcchives and two genealogy sources, as well as Applpleton's Encyclopedia (1889 printing). Given the dates of birth and death, 1769 means his death would be in his 56th year, so I've chosen to go with that year. Comment here of my talk page, thanks, Lou I 18:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Move help request

The name of this article should be moved to Nicholas Van Dyke (senator) to conform to the standard for disambiguating politicians using their most significant office. An administrator's assistance is required. stilltim 23:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to disambiguate as Nicholas Van Dyke, Sr. and Nicholas Van Dyke, Jr.? There no hard and fast rule about disambiguating politicians by their most significant office. older ≠ wiser 01:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose the move; instead move to Nicholas Van Dyke, Jr.

As they are father and son, and they are the only 2 Nicholas Van Dykes in the encyclopedia, "Jr" seems the most natural article name. I have just read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#When it seems difficult to follow the "<First Name> <Last Name>" format which says there are no hard and fast rules, and seems to say that Sr. and Jr. are fine for this case. To my mind, parentheses are clumsy and should only be used as a last resort. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• The problem with "Junior" is that it is inaccurate in that the father of Nicholas Van Dyke the Governor was another Nicholas Van Dyke. Further, they never seemed have used these terms to distinguish themselves. Otherwise, I would agree with the comments above. stilltim 12:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay; vote withdrawn. If it was not customary at the time, and there are no distinguishing middle names, then go for the most senior posting. Should we take the Jr. and Sr. out of the article bodies? Whichever of the two is the more notable can go to Nicholas Van Dyke; the other gets their senior posting. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If the Jr./Sr. monikers were not used, then why do the articles use them to refer to these people? older ≠ wiser 14:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, the correct title of the office at the time the father held it was "president" of Delaware. The title Governor was not used until the new state constitution of 1792 -- Joshua Clayton was the first person to have the title of Governor of Delaware. older ≠ wiser 14:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• It is correct that the office held by his father was called President at that time, and the article states that clearly, but the same office has been known as governor since 1792, and since the object of disambiguation is clarity, it would seem "governor" would be the most helpful term to use. stilltim 00:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)