Talk:James Forbes, 17th Lord Forbes

Article title

@GoldRingChip: Moving this page back to James Forbes, 17th Lord Forbes would be consistent with the other Lord Forbes and WP:NCBRITPEER. Any objections? Certes (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• @Certes: I have no objection for the WP:NCBRITPEER reason. HOWEVER, before you do, I'm having the worst time trying to figure out exactly who was the 16th and who was the 17th Lord Forbes. See my dithering (live note-taking) at Lord Forbes#Lords Forbes (c. 1444) and User:GoldRingChip/sandbox. Do you have insight and/or suggestions? I've looked at multiple references which are all internally inconsistent. —GoldRingChip 18:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the reply. I don't have any other sources – it's not my field – but something is clearly wrong. One inconsistency: The article James Forbes, 16th Lord Forbes says that he was the son of James Forbes, 15th Lord Forbes, but Lord Forbes#Lords Forbes (c. 1444) says James 16th was the son of William 13th who had already died. The latter looks wrong. Also, Lord Forbes links twice to the same article for two people, though in fairness that title should go to whichever person turns out to be 16th. The current title of this article isn't optimal, but let's wait until we're more sure of his number rather than moving the page hastily to a wrong guess. Certes (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Certes: Yes, these inconsistencies are the problem I'm trying to solve. I liked calling this article "James Ochoncar Forbes" because at least I'm sure that's his name. His title… not so much. If/when I've solved this mess, we (you and/or I) can go ahead and move the article to comply with WP:NCBRITPEER. —GoldRingChip 20:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Certes: I've solved the problem and moved the article. —GoldRingChip 02:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for that, and for sorting out the list in Lord Forbes. Everything now looks right to my untrained eye. Certes (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)