Talk:Barony of Halton

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:Military history: Biography / Medieval BL‑class

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
BL	This article has been rated as BL-class on the project's quality scale.
	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

Biography: Military / Peerage and Baronetage / Royalty and Nobility

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Mid-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Cheshire Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cheshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cheshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Changes of title

The original title was "Barons of Halton" of whom there were 15 in number. The Wiki convention is to make such a title singular and it has been changed to "Baron of Halton". However the local historians in the area always refer to the "Barons of Halton" as a sort of entity, even though they were 15, and "Baron of Halton" reads somewhat oddly. In order to, if possible, satisfy all parties, I have again changed the title to one which I hope is acceptable. Peter I. Vardy 16:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Henry de Lacy

The text from this section was removed when Henry was made the subject of a separate article. However to have no text at all in place disturbs the "story" of the barons so I have replaced the text and directed the reader to the main article (as with all the other later barons). Peter I. Vardy 16:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

I have tagged one sentence, as such. William I created three earldoms palatinate on the Welsh border, of which Hereford was gone before Domesday Book and Shrewsbury in early 12th century. He did not divide his kingdom between them (unlike King Lear). This article is treating the succession of barons as if the barony was a title of honour like a peerage. This was a feudal barony under the earldom of Chester. The barony was held by a succession of barons, but I do not think it ought to be treated in quite they way it is at present. The barons might have been referred to as the Lord of Halton, but not Lord Halton. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. In my "defence" I can only say that it was one of the very first articles I wrote, in much ignorance (then) of much about Wikipedia and (then and now) in much ignorance of the history of the time. I have changed the title and class as it is a list rather than an article. I have amended the the reference to "division of the kingdom", which was clearly wrong (and removed the "dubious" tag), changed the reference and amended the links. I think it is better now, but not necessarily OK yet. Is "seat" the correct term? Not sure where the reference to "Lord" comes from; it is not anywhere in the list. Ideas and suggestions for treating the list in a different manner are welcome. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Much improved. I came to this article as a result of somewhere else where the title was treated as if it were a peerage (which it was not). Quite how feudal baronies should be dealt with in WP is an issue that has not adequately been resolved. These baronies were ratehr more tenurial than the peerages of laster periods. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)