Talk:Sophia Howe

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Hello. I enjoyed reading this article but I am confused about the references. Do you have further information available for each, such as author name, book/magazine name, year, and/or URL? Thank you.

Rosiestep (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rosiestep The references issue was discussed on my talk page a while back, and the article does seem to be properly cited now. It would be great to have you weigh in on the current move request though. Rylee Amelia (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Rylee Amelia. Glad to see that the referencing issue is resolved. As for the move request, I'll let others carry on the conversation as I lack enough familiarity with the topic (British nobility titles). --Rosiestep (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 29 August 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Per discussion below. Best, (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading of Beans 14:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Sophia Howe → Sophia Waller, 2nd Baroness Howe –

DrKay and I have found ourselves in disagreement over the title of this article.

At creation, this article was named like it currently is: Sophia Howe. Since she was a peeress suo jure (having inherited the barony from her father), I moved the article to Sophia Howe, 2nd Baroness Howe, which is generally the format for articles on peers – unless they disclaim the title, or don't use it (like for instance author Nicholas Mosley).

DrKay moved it back to Sophia Howe with the comment Remove unnecessary parentheses/disambiguator: mismatch of her maiden name and a title she inherited after her marriage.

I can buy that her surname wasn't Howe when she inherited the barony, but I find it peculiar that DrKay nevertheless kept it, while removing the title, which was correct. It seems to me that it flies in the face of his own edit summary.

As I said, I totally buy that her surname wasn't Howe when she inherited the barony, so I then moved the article to Sophia Waller, 2nd Baroness Howe; Waller being her surname when she inherited the title. DrKay has now moved the article back to Sophia Howe again, with the edit summary bizarre use of unknown surname!

What's bizarre?, I ask. DrKay complains the Howe wasn't her surname when she inherited the title, I move it to the surname that she had when she inherited the title, and DrKay moves it back again (never mind referring to WP:RMUM after they have done it themselves ... ).

I don't know if anyone is move-warring here, but if so, it certainly isn't me. I have acted in good faith.

So, what should the article title be?

1. Sophia Howe (with or without "2nd Baroness Howe"), this lastname is her maiden name.
2. Sophia Curzon (with or without "2nd Baroness Howe"), this is the lastname from her 1st husband.
3. Sophia Curzon-Howe (with or without "2nd Baroness Howe"), #1 and #2 combined, which is what her son, who inherited the barony from her, chose.
4. Sophia Waller (with or without "2nd Baroness Howe"), this is the lastname from her 2nd husband.

Vote 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, etc, with a=with "2nd Baroness Howe", and b=without the title. My vote is 4a.

HandsomeFella (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Sophia+Waller%2C+2nd+Baroness+Howe%22 = 0 hits. Per policy, articles should be at recognizable names not ones made up by wikipedians. The proposed article title is not found in any reliable sources. DrKay (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  It is a regonizable name and it was not "made up by wikipedians", it was her name (duh) – when she inherited the barony and after her marriage (quote-unquote DrKay).

  Here's a search with 8 hits for "Howe" https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Sophia+Howe%2C+2nd+Baroness+Howe%22 (which you apparently opposed).

  Here's another one with 2 zero (0) hits for "Waller" https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Sophia+Waller%2C+2nd+Baroness+Howe%22

  "Curzon" as the surname yields 0 hits, as does "Curzon-Howe" and "Waller-Howe".

  Given the few hits on any of the variants, maybe the article should be up for deletion instead? HandsomeFella (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  We obviously don't count pages you created on wikipedia as '2 hits'. DrKay (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Clearly her name and her title per WP:NCPEER. British women had long taken their husband's surname by her day and it wasn't until the late 20th century that it no longer became so universal again. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support 1A. As the creator of the article under it's original name, I agree with your original edit, not the one you are now referring to. I was unaware of the proper conventions surrounding the naming of articles for nobles when I first created this article, which is why I hadn't originally included her title alongside her name. After reviewing Wikipedia's rules on naming conventions, it only makes sense to recognize the common consensus of both name and title, Sophia Howe, 2nd Baroness Howe. As this is the title she inherited from her father, Richard Howe, 1st Earl Howe and is the title she is most commonly referred to in most sources, it only makes sense for her article to be titled in the same manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rylee Amelia (talk • contribs) 06:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. See Wikipedia:Article titles, "article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." Celia Homeford (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: WP:AT (and therefor WP:COMMONNAME) supersede WP:NCPEER and the whole nomination, as laid out, feels to be WP:OR. We must default to what the subject is called in WP:RS, ergo, WP:COMMONNAME prefers Sophia Howe. Nomination also extensively complains about the revert of moves and cites RMUM but fails to see their own numerous attempts of disruptive moving as well, WP:BOOMERANG. Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  "numerous attempts of disruptive moving"? I have moved the page twice. The second "attempt" – an actual move (just like the first one) – was to another target, in order to address DrKay's stated objections in his revert move of my first move. Please assume good faith. In contrast, DrKay has moved the page no less than three times. I cited RMUM? I mentioned DrKay citing RMUM (see this diff). So I guess who gets hit by the boomerang is in the air.

  I'd appreciate if you would walk back at least some of your comments. It's okay to just say you oppose and explain why. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: here's a couple of sources:
  • History, Monuments and Memorials of Penn, History, Monuments and Memorials of Holy Trinity, Penn, Buckinghamshire
  • Baroness Howe of Langar, The Twickenham Museum

  They seem to assume her lastname is Howe. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. I don't see a strong case for focusing so strongly on her married name. Sources mostly call her Sophia Howe or variants thereof.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.