Talk:Lord Kelvin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeLord Kelvin was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 26, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
September 25, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Untitled[edit]

Old discussions are archived.

Nationality again[edit]

Here are some reference works which deal with Kelvin:

  • Martin, Elizabeth, ed. (2009), "Kelvin, Sir William Thomson, Lord", The New Oxford Dictionary for Scientific Writers and Editors (2nd ed.), Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/acref/9780199545155.001.0001/acref-9780199545155-e-5281, ISBN 978-0-19-954515-5, retrieved 2020-10-08, British theoretical and experimental physicist
  • Knowles, Elizabeth, ed. (2014), "Lord Kelvin Oxford Dictionary of Quotations", Oxford Reference (8th ed.), Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/acref/9780199668700.001.0001/q-author-00010-00001845, retrieved 2020-10-08, Lord Kelvin 1824–1907 British physicist and natural philosopher{{citation}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Clapham, Christopher; Nicholson, James, eds. (2014), "Kelvin, Lord", The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Mathematics (5th ed.), Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/acref/9780199679591.001.0001/acref-9780199679591-e-1575, ISBN 978-0-19-967959-1, retrieved 2020-10-08, Kelvin, Lord (1824–1907) The British mathematician, physicist and engineer
  • Schaschke, Carl, ed. (2014), "Kelvin, Lord", A Dictionary of Chemical Engineering, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/acref/9780199651450.001.0001/acref-9780199651450-e-1627, ISBN 978-0-19-965145-0, retrieved 2020-10-08, A Belfast-born Scottish scientist
  • Ridpath, Ian, ed. (2018), "Kelvin, Lord", A Dictionary of Astronomy (3rd ed.), Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/acref/9780191851193.001.0001/acref-9780191851193-e-2003, ISBN 978-0-19-185119-3, retrieved 2020-10-08, Kelvin, Lord (William Thomson) (1824–1907) Scottish physicist
  • Ratcliffe, Susan, ed. (2018). Lord Kelvin Oxford Essential Quotations (6th ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acref/9780191866692.001.0001/q-oro-ed6-00006236. Retrieved 2020-10-08. Lord Kelvin 1824–1907 British scientist {{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Rennie, Richard; Law, Jonathan, eds. (2019), "Kelvin, Lord", A Dictionary of Physics (8th ed.), Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/acref/9780198821472.001.0001/acref-9780198821472-e-1617, ISBN 978-0-19-882147-2, retrieved 2020-10-08, Kelvin, Lord (William Thomson; 1824–1907) British physicist
  • Law, Jonathan; Rennie, Richard, eds. (2020), "Kelvin, Lord", A Dictionary of Chemistry (8th ed.), Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/acref/9780198841227.001.0001/acref-9780198841227-e-2341, ISBN 978-0-19-884122-7, retrieved 2020-10-08, Kelvin, Lord (William Thomson; 1824–1907) British physicist, born in Belfast

The majority here quoted here treat him as "British". A few say "Scottish". Not one says "Irish". "British" is probably best because of 1.) his strong connection with the UK, in which he was born and died, and of which he was a citizen 2.) his strong connection with the island of Great Britain, on which he lived for most of his life, 3.) his close connection with the British Isles, within which he has connections to more than one country and to more than one island, and 4.) the fact that the relevant demonym for all these is "British". 5.) Wikipedia defers to what reliable sources say and the way other encyclopaedic and reference material treat the subjects this encyclopaedia covers. @Dirac66: In light of your recent change, the American encyclopaedia may label Kelvin "Scottish" in its headline, but it also refers to him as "British" in the article, so Britannica`s variance from the majority of sources can hardly be taken to contradict them. GPinkerton (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC) @Donn300: Please present any sources you can for your uncited changes. GPinkerton (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica describes Thomson as Scottish when referring to him as an individual, but then says that he "was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped lay the foundations of modern physics". This of course is consistent because Scottish is a subset of British, so anyone who is Scottish is also British. However if you really want to just describe him as British, then I suggest you refer to one or more of the references you have given to support this label more clearly, instead of Britannica. Dirac66 (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thomson was an active member of the Liberal Unionist Party, an organisation promoting British unionism and opposing Irish Home Rule. Together his departure from Ireland at a young age for Britain and the scant references to 'Irish' in the quoted literature, the previous consensus of referring to Thomson as 'British' seems sensible to me, rather than foisting an identity upon him which is unrealistic. · | (t - c) 11:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'll amend what I said: rather than 'unrealistic': 'misrepresentative'. Also, 'Anglo-Irish', which has been used to resolve the impasse on Ernest Shackleton, would not be a desirable solution as Thomson was not a member of that class. · | (t - c) 11:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He was born in the UK, lived and worked in the UK for his entire life, and died in the UK. So with no RS consensus that he self-identified as either Irish or Scottish, and with him known to be a unionist who opposed home rule, and having accepted a British peerage, it seems very clear to me that he should be described as British. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have we actually reached a consensus here? There's an IP that wants to change this back to 'Irish'. I normally keep well out of these debates, but that looks like POV-pushing to me. Thomson clearly never self-identified as Irish, but do we have a consensus as to what the article should say? Philip Trueman (talk) 01:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is consensus yet. It's weird to say that it's POV pushing to state nationality as Irish. However, I'd like to make a couple of points based on the above discussions.
First, he was not born in the UK he was born in Ireland. Ireland did not become part of the united kingdom until after his birth.
Second, acceptance of a knighthood or other royal honours is no indication of nationality, many famous Irish people such as Bono or Bob Geldof have accepted knighthoods and titles from the British monarchy.
Third, many Irish people were unionist that does not make them less Irish.
Fourth, all of the referenced evidence is from the same publisher and that publisher could be easily said to be biased.
Fifth, there are many many many famous scientists and writers from the same era (too many to list) who are listed as Scottish, English, or Welsh even though all these countries were actually part of the united kingdom at the time. (Again, Ireland was not part of the UK at the time Kelvin was born.
Fifth, there are many many many famous scientists and writers from the same era (too many to list) who are listed as Scottish, English, or Welsh even though all these countries were actually part of the united kingdom at the time. (Again, Ireland was not part of the UK at the time Kelvin was born, the UK predates the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. This information is already available on wikipedia.) Unless some good logical explanation can be given why these people are not all and without exception simply listed as British leaving out which country then I think it's very strange and verging on dishonest to try to leave out the Irish part here.
Sixth and finally, Britain is the island that includes Scotland, England, and Wales. Ireland is the island to the west of Britain. JamPowWex (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JamPowWex, according to their respective Wiki articles, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was created in 1801 and Kelvin was born 23 years later in 1824. So if those dates are correct, the sovereign state that Kelvin was born in was the UK. Did I misunderstand something? Also, the island containing most of England, Scotland, and Wales is called Great Britain (not Britain) - hence the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" includes each of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I got my dates confused. In that case should we then delete the Irish nationality of all notable people born on the island of Ireland between 1801 and 1922? Logically that is the argument here.
It was always my understanding that the main island was Britain, the main island and her small isles was Great Britain. However several sources have conflicting versions of this so I won't argue that point as it's irrelevant to the nationality discussion. JamPowWex (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality again (April 2023)[edit]

The multiple discussions on what to label his nationality in the lede need to be resolved. I suggest saying "British" but adding an explanatory footnote elaborating that he is Irish and Scottish, and will collectively be referred to as British. Thoughts?

Pinging participants of former discussions: @Centuryofconfusion @Donn300 @Gpinkerton @Sandstable @Dirac66 @Interpuncts @DeFacto @Philip Trueman BhamBoi (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly see the need to expand beyond 'British' with immediacy within the lead, and think it would look sloppy if attempted. #Early life and work is the place for this. · | (t - c) 14:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would leave it alone. "... a British mathematician, mathematical physicist and engineer born in Belfast." is true and summarizes the facts.Dirac66 (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No replies for 14 days - it seems that the status quo is settled. · | (t - c) 10:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why leave out Irish only for this one person when so many other Irish contemporaries even on Wikipedia are listed as Irish? JamPowWex (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In order to declare the nationality of British as settled I think it is only correct to remove Scottish from Alexander Graham Bell and all other contemporary scientists of the time. Equally remove English and Welsh as nationality from all scientists on Wikipedia and have only British as a nationality for all three countries (and for Ireland between 1801 and 1922). I make this point as an extreme example because Kelvin is one of extremely few examples I have found of Wikipedia where his nationality is deliberately obscured in this way. It's not logically consistent to engage in such linguistic gymnastics to say he was born in Belfast but is not Irish when the same effort is not made for other scientists and notable figures of the time. JamPowWex (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As evidence I've selected a random contemporary scientist. Look how much more clearly and sensibly his nationality description and his place of birth and death is to read.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell JamPowWex (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JamPowWex, how other people's nationality is treated in other articles is outside the scope of this talkpage. All we need to concentrate on here is what we know about Kelvin from the reliably sourced biographies concentrating on him. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary. Consistency is vital. All of Kelvin's contemporaries born in Ireland are listed as Irish unless there is a record of the change to another nationality. The onus is on you to prove that he was not Irish. In the absence of good evidence either way he should be treated like any other person. For example Ernest Rutherford, listed as New Zealand when New Zealand was a British colony, moved to Canada after his education there and finished out his career and died in England. Unless you can provide a good argument why Maxwell is Scottish and Rutherford is a New Zealander but Kelvin is not Irish when all three would have been contemporaneous and entitled to British citizenship then it is absurd to pick this one individual and say he be treated differently. JamPowWex (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 May 2023[edit]

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: Moved (non-admin closure) ExtorcDev (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


William Thomson, 1st Baron KelvinLord Kelvin – I don't see how the current title satisfies WP:COMMONNAME. I searched and checked the references in the article but it seems like every source published after he became Lord Kelvin mentions him being called "Lord Kelvin". It seems fine that the article calls him William Thomson (after all he only got that name later in his life), but "Lord Kelvin" is his most recognizable name and should be the article title. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nomination. Listed as Lord Kelvin at Scottish Science Hall of Fame. Analogous to others, such as Lord Dunsany, Lady Gregory or Baroness Orczy. —Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 06:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator. Lord Byron is comparable in recognition. --Killuminator (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about William Thomson, Lord Kelvin? Dirac66 (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That falls afoul of WP:CONCISE. There is only one holder of the title "Lord Kelvin", the guy in this article. Hence, per WP:NCBRITPEER, an exception should be made to the "Personal name, Peerage title" scheme. Because Lord Kelvin is "the unambiguous name by which the subject is clearly best known" the use of the title is appropriate (WP:TITLESINTITLES). Mathnerd314159 (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is a biographical article, not a history of science article, so useful to be clear. Every baron in English history is "commonly known" as "Lord X", but we don't use that form in article titles. "Lord Byron" is an exception, as that was his contemporary nom de plume. "Lord Kelvin" is not. Most of his works are signed "William Thomson". The term "Kelvin" make very little appearance in this article. Walrasiad (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, per WP:NCBRITPEER, the question is whether "one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known". Most barons in history share the title with a lineage. However, there is only one Lord Kelvin. Regarding the appearance of Kelvin, the article calls him Kelvin or Lord Kelvin 46 times, vs. 111 for Thomson, so roughly a 30/70 split. I wouldn't call that "very little". Similarly, the article has a lot of history of Kelvin's work in science; it is not purely a biography. But AFAICT article content plays little role in naming decisions, it is mainly the lead that matters, and having a statement "Absolute temperatures are stated in units of kelvin in his honour." while titling the article "William Thomson ..." is confusing. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Kelvin" is already contained in the article title, so it's not either/or. What you are proposing is to remove "William Thomson" and let Kelvin stand alone. If you say he is known purely as "Lord Kelvin" (like "Lord Byron"), then I'd expect to see "Kelvin" used through 100% of the article (like Byron is). But it's not. The biographical parts of the article refer to him almost exclusively as "William Thomson". It is unsurprising that the only parts that refer to him as "Kelvin" are non-biographical parts, that seem to be written by scientists and not biographers nor historians.
That later scientists later named other things in his honor, using his title rather than his name, does not mean that should be the exclusive name for this article. The state of Virginia is named in honor of Queen Elizabeth I of England. Should we change the title of her monarch article to "Queen Virginia"?
This is primarily a biographical article about a person. William Thomson is the name he which he was known through most of his life, the name biographers use, and is the name used through most of this article. Scientists may use the title for their honorific purposes - it is simpler for them to say "Lord Kelvin" than try to remember his actual name. And that's fine for their ends. They're scientists, not biographers. They don't much care about the man himself, and don't need to. But this article is not written by nor for scientists. This article is about the man, a biography, not about things scientists name things after. Walrasiad (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would agree that Thomson is the most common name used to refer to him, but there are a lot of Thomsons (and William Thomsons). Meanwhile there is only one Lord Kelvin. So another way to justify it is that Lord Kelvin is an alternative, somewhat less common name that is a WP:NATURAL disambiguation. He was called Lord Kelvin during his lifetime, e.g. this letter, so it's not like it's a title created by later scientists. The biographical section "Later life and death" uses Kelvin almost exclusively. I don't think Lord Byron is a fair comparison because that article mostly uses "Byron" and that refers to both the title and his last name. Similarly, the Virginia - Elizabeth I connection isn't even confirmed, so using it to name the article would be foolish. The actual naming discussion that decided on "Elizabeth I" removed based the argument on WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT, as here. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Virginia was clearly tongue-in-cheek. I hope you don't take that proposal seriously!
Byron isn't his last name, it is "Gordon". But nobody referred to him that way. I suppose you can say Byron was lucky to get his title while still very young, and so never used Gordon.
The current title has "William Thomson" and "Kelvin" included, so it already disambiguates him from other Thomsons. Englishmen like referring to their lords by lordly names once they get them. Thomson didn't receive his title until very late in life. It shouldn't displace the name by which he was known throughout his life, and under which he made most of his contributions.
[fun personal anecdote: I worked for some time the assistant to a professor whom about half-way through my service, was suddenly made an English lord. Despite his strident "leftist" political credentials and his causal "oh, just call me John" camaraderie, his innate love of grandeur couldn't resist, and soon I was dealing with correspondence to & from "Lord S". To tease him, I would sometimes subtly address him in person as "Milord" (as in, "Yes, Milord", "Can I help you, Milord?"). He didn't bat an eyelid or correct me. He was thoroughly enjoying it.] Walrasiad (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree regarding Byron. This old version says "Gordon was a baptismal name, not a surname". The current article corroborates that by saying he was christened as "George Gordon Byron", per [1]. It really was pretty much Byron from birth.
Getting back to the topic at hand, the question is not whether the current title is sufficiently precise - the issue is that it is too long. Sometimes I type in article titles from memory and "William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin" really is not something I'd get in one try. "Lord Kelvin" is easy to use and has been a redirect for a long time, but I'd rather it be the title. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Maybe right on Byron. Still, received his title early, and was "Lord Byron" from his teens. Not so Thomson.
I disagree. Again, "Lord Kelvin" maybe used by scientists for frankly lazy reasons - many only know the modern scientific things named "kelvin" and attach a "Lord" to it simply because it is easy, they don't need to bother to remember his name. But to biographers, and historians, and that includes historians of science, and those who know and read his works, he is William Thomson, first and foremost, and referred to as Thomson when describing his work. e.g. the Treatise of Natural Philosophy, one of the greatest and most influential scientific textbooks, is known widely as "Thomson & Tait", or just "T & T", not "Kelvin & Tait".
The name "William Thomson" and "Kelvin" are included in the current title, and satisfies both needs. Nobody - not even the laziest of scientists - is going to be surprised to discover that "Lord Kelvin" is actually just a title, and not his first & last name. Sure, many scientists may simply say "Lord Kelvin" for shorthand. Military aficionados also say simply "Duke of Wellington" for shorthand, but his article is Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington here.
It doesn't take up too much brain space. If keeping the longer form cements that "William Thomson" and "Lord Kelvin" are one and the same person in the mind of lazy scientists, so much the better.Walrasiad (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Walrasiad. We use full names by default. Barack Obama, not Obama. No reason to make an exception here when the term already redirects. Srnec (talk) 02:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. His WP:COMMONNAME is "Lord Kelvin", so policy supports the move. It's not comparable to Barack Obama either, otherwise we'd just call him William Thomson.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

"Best known as"[edit]

@DeFacto The discussion just above concluded that Lord Kelvin is best known by that name. Is that not sufficient? Mathnerd314159 (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathnerd314159, no, that's not sufficient to put that wording in the article lead in Wiki's voice. To add subjective wording such as that I think it needs to be at least discussed and sourced in those terms in the article body, demonstrating that there is a consensus amongst the reliable sources saying exactly that. What's wrong with just leaving it as is, without that editorialisation? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my original motivation was consistency with other articles. Almost all articles that use a title different from the name start with the name and then introduce the title later in the lead:
  • Lord Dunsany - "usually, Lord Dunsany"
  • Lady Gregory - "Isabella Augusta, Lady Gregory"
  • Baroness Orczy - "usually known as Baroness Orczy (the name under which she was published) or to her family and friends as Emmuska Orczy,"
  • Lord Byron - "known simply as Lord Byron,"
  • Mahatma Gandhi - "The honorific Mahātmā, first applied to him in 1914 in South Africa, is now used throughout the world."
  • J. K. Rowling - "best known by her pen name J. K. Rowling"
  • Bono - "known by the nickname Bono"
  • Mark Antony - "commonly known in English as Mark Antony"
In this case the JK Rowling phrasing "best known" seemed appropriate, as it was short and to the point, but I guess if you feel strongly some other wording could be used. Note that for all of these articles, they either have a single source or no source. I guess I don't understand, is there some amount of reliable sources arguing that Lord Kelvin is not the name he's best known by? I don't even know how to look for such sources, but '"lord kelvin" -"william thomson"' gets 145 results while 'william thomson kelvin -"lord kelvin"' gets 98 results, so factually it seems Kelvin is the better name. In any case, it doesn't seem like a particularly controversial opinion, and therefore by WP:VOICE "avoid stating facts as opinions" it should just be a simple inline claim. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Also known as" is much easier to prove than "Best known as". Dirac66 (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "also known simply as Lord Kelvin" BhamBoi (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Featured picture scheduled for POTD[edit]

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Sir William Thomson, Baron Kelvin by T. & R. Annan & Sons.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for June 26, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-06-26. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. (200th anniversary of his birth) If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.6% of all FPs. 04:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Kelvin

William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin, OM, GCVO, PC, FRS, FRSE (26 June 1824 – 17 December 1907) was a British mathematician, mathematical physicist and engineer born in Belfast. He was the Professor of Natural Philosophy at the University of Glasgow for 53 years, where he undertook significant research and mathematical analysis of electricity, the formulation of the first and second laws of thermodynamics, and contributed significantly to unifying physics, which was then in its infancy of development as an emerging academic discipline. He received the Royal Society's Copley Medal in 1883, and served as its president from 1890 to 1895. In 1892, he became the first British scientist to be elevated to the House of Lords. The Kelvin scale of temperature is named in his honour.

He is seen here resting on a binnacle (the stand for a marine compass) of his invention, and holding a marine azimuth mirror. Kelvin's balls have been removed or not yet put in; they are the iron balls meant to help balance out the magnetic fields around the binnacle, since a metal ship can easily pull the compass needle off of true north.

Photograph credit: T. & R. Annan & Sons; restored by Adam Cuerden

Recently featured:

Succession-Box At Bottom[edit]

I thought that there was some "bot" that went through Wikipedia articles and found inconsistencies. It is the USUAL practice in Wikipedia articles about peers/nobles that their peerage/noble title is included in the succession-boxes so that someone can QUICKLY track the route of the title from person to person. I can't do that here, because the succession-box doesn't include "Baron Kelvin" (or, if it's atypical, "Baron OF Kelvin"). Why isn't that title included in the succession-boxes in this case, and why isn't its absence AUTOMATICALLY called to the attention of some person? I'm going to have to search this article itself to find out what happened to the title when this man died.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson[reply]

After reading the article (something I shouldn't have had to do), I find that this man's title "Baron Kelvin" died with him, but the curious statement that it's because he had neither children nor close relations. So, apparently, this title was conferred with an atypical remainder such that absent "legitimate [heirs][male heirs] of the body", it could be inherited by, say, a brother and the brother's descendants or male-line descendants, etc.. That is done of course, (the Dukedom of Wellington was engineered to lower the probability that it would ever become extinct), but if it was done in this case, then say so. Spell it out. Also, the article says he was enobled as much for his opposition to Irish Home Rule as for science. Could that be fleshed out a bit, such as by including the text of the royal action? I've done a word-search on this article for "Irish", "Ireland", and "Home Rule" and I can't find anything about him opposing Irish Home Rule.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson[reply]
As it says in the infobox, he had no children so he was the first and last. --Cavrdg (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're only telling that if I take the time to look elsewhere in the article then I could find what I SHOULD have been able to find by an instantaneous down-scroll to the end and check of the succession-boxes. You've done nothing to convince me that the absence of the "Baron Kelvin" title is in accordance with some Wikipedia rule. (And I don't think it IS in accordance with the rules, and if there IS some rule for this article to be allowed to be inconsistent with other articles about peers, then what is that rule and how soon can it be repealed?)2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson[reply]
I just read through what I think you mean by "info-box", and all that it says there is that he had no children. Not only is that not as fast as a quick end-scroll to the bottom, but it's not dispositive of the issue. It DOES NOT say (as you allege) that because he had no children he was the end of the line for this title. All it says is that he had no children, which doesn't settle it. If the title had been granted with an atypical succession, such as allows inheritance through other relatives, his having had no children wouldn't cause the title to die with him. And the article contradicts that anyway, because the article says "His title died with him, as he was survived by neither heirs nor close relations", which implies that his title could have been inherited by someone other than a child had such existed. If the grant of the title provided for a succession ONLY to his children, and he had no children, then that would cause the title to go extinct, and the sentence I quoted would have said (assuming a desire for accuracy which I'm probably a fool to assume) "His title died with him, as he was survived by no children".2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 10:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson[reply]