From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

This article just lists a bunch of people who the person in question is related to, none of whom even have articles themselves.-- Lairor 02:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Legitimate British peer, so should stay. Tubezone 03:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

In fact, Henrietta Maria Stanley was de jure suo jure 4th Baroness Strange, as may be seen by consulting the Complete Peerage, vol XII/1, p. 338, or Burke's Peerage 1999, p. 2726. Charlotte Murray was the 8th Baroness Strange, succeeding in 1764. - Nunh-huh 03:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Thanks for correction, I was misreading the dates. Tubezone 03:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Okay, but what did she actually do?-- Lairor 03:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
As a peeress, she's automatically notable. See Wikipedia:Notability_(royalty) - Nunh-huh 03:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
So tell me how we're going to turn this into the perfect article. I'd suggest you make one page for this whole family if all you're going to list on the individual pages is how they're related to each other.-- Lairor 03:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Perfect is the enemy of the good. Deleting information isn't an appropriate response to your frustration that the article isn't perfect. = Nunh-huh 04:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Nunh-huh, the reference provided sounds good, but part of the misunderstanding here may arise from the fact that the article itself is unreferenced. If you have checked the reference, then it would be helpful to add the reference to the article, rather than just on the talk page. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Actually, I think the problem is that Lairor was misusing the word "verified" to mean "my objection to the notability of peers has been answered". But yes, of course I checked the references, and I'll be happy to add them. - Nunh-huh 23:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

This article just lists a bunch of people who the person in question is related to, none of whom even have articles themselves.-- Lairor 02:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Legitimate British peer, so should stay. Tubezone 03:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

In fact, Henrietta Maria Stanley was de jure suo jure 4th Baroness Strange, as may be seen by consulting the Complete Peerage, vol XII/1, p. 338, or Burke's Peerage 1999, p. 2726. Charlotte Murray was the 8th Baroness Strange, succeeding in 1764. - Nunh-huh 03:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Thanks for correction, I was misreading the dates. Tubezone 03:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Okay, but what did she actually do?-- Lairor 03:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
As a peeress, she's automatically notable. See Wikipedia:Notability_(royalty) - Nunh-huh 03:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
So tell me how we're going to turn this into the perfect article. I'd suggest you make one page for this whole family if all you're going to list on the individual pages is how they're related to each other.-- Lairor 03:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Perfect is the enemy of the good. Deleting information isn't an appropriate response to your frustration that the article isn't perfect. = Nunh-huh 04:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Nunh-huh, the reference provided sounds good, but part of the misunderstanding here may arise from the fact that the article itself is unreferenced. If you have checked the reference, then it would be helpful to add the reference to the article, rather than just on the talk page. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Actually, I think the problem is that Lairor was misusing the word "verified" to mean "my objection to the notability of peers has been answered". But yes, of course I checked the references, and I'll be happy to add them. - Nunh-huh 23:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook