| Language desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < November 9 | << Oct | November | Dec >> | November 11 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
I'm currently assisting on an article ( American Revolutionary War for those interested) where people are given both a formal title and a military rank (e.g., "Sir" and "General"). Is it considered appropriate to blend the two together (such as, General Sir William Howe)? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Not typically, no. I would do it like "The opposing General was Sir William Howe," then refer to him as simply Howe from then on.
Temerarius (
talk)
21:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- General Sir William Howe is fine, but I would tend to go with Temerarius's suggestion. Do take care not to give people titles they did not hold at the time, a common error . DuncanHill ( talk) 21:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think that a large number of writings refer to the Duke of Wellington in the Peninsular Campaign, even though technically his title was not yet a dukedom. It's just what he is most commonly known as.... AnonMoos ( talk) 23:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- One hardly ever sees reference to the Queen, between her marriage and her accession to the throne, as "Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh", but that's exactly what she was. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- You may be interested in General Sir William Howe's Orderly Book. Alansplodge ( talk) 09:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Dunno about appropriate, but it's very much done. — Tamfang ( talk) 01:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
| Language desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < November 9 | << Oct | November | Dec >> | November 11 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
I'm currently assisting on an article ( American Revolutionary War for those interested) where people are given both a formal title and a military rank (e.g., "Sir" and "General"). Is it considered appropriate to blend the two together (such as, General Sir William Howe)? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Not typically, no. I would do it like "The opposing General was Sir William Howe," then refer to him as simply Howe from then on.
Temerarius (
talk)
21:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- General Sir William Howe is fine, but I would tend to go with Temerarius's suggestion. Do take care not to give people titles they did not hold at the time, a common error . DuncanHill ( talk) 21:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think that a large number of writings refer to the Duke of Wellington in the Peninsular Campaign, even though technically his title was not yet a dukedom. It's just what he is most commonly known as.... AnonMoos ( talk) 23:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- One hardly ever sees reference to the Queen, between her marriage and her accession to the throne, as "Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh", but that's exactly what she was. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- You may be interested in General Sir William Howe's Orderly Book. Alansplodge ( talk) 09:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Dunno about appropriate, but it's very much done. — Tamfang ( talk) 01:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)