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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford 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.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
Betty Boothroyd is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Who is the source, if any, apart from Lady Boothroyd herself for the reference to her having been a Tiller Girl? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marktunstill (talk • contribs) 14:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dare say I'm displaying my ignorance here, but are there any grounds to substantiate the listing of BB in the category "LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom"? Vilcxjo 00:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really??!! Any evidence of this? Quis separabit? 17:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's gossip at best and complete speculation at worst. Only source I could find was [1] which is not promising. I would love Betty Boothroyd to be family in two senses but don't think it should be included here. David | Talk 01:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it's been known for years they do live together. Arniep 01:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to the IMDB which says that Patricia Routledge's partner is Phyllis Claymore [2]. In any case, in the absence of any public announcement by Betty Boothroyd, it's an unverified claim that should not be in an encyclopaedia. David | Talk 01:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't trust anything on imdb. Arniep 01:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I notice the LGBT category was added to the Routledge article (by Arniep) and reverted twice (by two different editors), with a talk-page request for evidence which wasn't followed up. I really don't think the glitterforbrains reference found by David is anywhere near sufficient for encyclopaedic purposes. If there's nothing more substantial, it ought to go. Vilcxjo 02:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence having been adduced in support, I'm removing the category. Vilcxjo 18:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. "She chose not to but also stated that any subsequent Speakers would be free to choose to wear the wig" is grammatical, but "She chose not to but also stated that any subsequent Speakers was free to choose to wear the wig" is not grammatical. "Speakers was" is an error, and although "Speaker was" would correct the worst of it, "would be" is better.
2. "casting vote" is not a legitimate compound noun. This part could be "casting a vote" but "the casting of her vote" is much better.
I do not think this is an American/British English disagreement, but if I am wrong, I'm eager to learn. However, I'm quite sure that "Speakers was" is not valid in either variant of English.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the editor who reinstated edit described at #2, above, I went to the OED for support but found but little: the specific definition and structure is there ("That turns the scale, deciding, decisive...as in casting voice, vote, weight") but it was listed using "casting" as a participle, and not the gerund necessary for my construction. An example of this structure would be "parking lot" (and I'm on strong grounds here, at least, because Peters gives "car park" as one of her examples of the form). My edit summary reasoning was faulty; I can now only rely on the OED example, and the highly subjective (and therefore not admissible) "that's the form of words used in England". I'm taking no blame for #1. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions that she was created a Life Peer, but does not state that she is a Member of the House of Lords. This is a glaring omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.99.156.73 (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, all life peers are automatically members of the House of Lords unless they take a permanent leave of absence or are suspended. If people see "Baroness", they will assume she is in the Lords anyway.<Robin S. Taylor> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin S. Taylor (talk • contribs) 10:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Moved to Betty Boothroyd.Julia\talk 16:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or it could be returned to just "Betty Boothroyd", since that name is fairly distinctive anyway. <Robin S. Taylor> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin S. Taylor (talk • contribs) 10:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Betty Boothroyd, Baroness Boothroyd is the best option; "fairly distinctive" or not, Boothroyd's title is inherently linked to her lifelong career in politics, unlike, say, P.D. JamesorRuth RendellorJoan Bakewell. As per [3], User:Robin S. Taylor only objected to "of Sandwell". "Distinctiveness" (i.e. "that name is fairly distinctive anyway") is irrelevant. Quis separabit? 16:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to plain "Betty Boothroyd", which already redirects here. This is similar to a number of senior politicians who only received a peerage after they retired from front-line politics, e.g. Margaret Thatcher, Anthony Eden, and entirely in accordance with WP:NCROY. She was fairly prominent in her time as Speaker before she got her title, but has not been prominent since then. I don't see anything in the guidelines which says that her title being "inherently linked to to her lifelong career in politics" has anything to do with it. PatGallacher (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this rule applies: "Peers who are very well known by their personal names and who only received a title after they retired". PatGallacher (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Betty Boothroyd per PatGallacher. The first female Speaker is renowned for her time in the Commons, before her elevation, and has not as active since. Xoloz (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Move to Betty Boothroyd has the consensus. Let's close this out. Quis separabit? 21:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
