Talk:Walter Hungerford (Knight of Farley)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
October 2010[edit]
From the history of the article:
- 17:25, 8 October 2010 – 17:30, 8 October 2010
- 03:53, 10 October 2010 Philip Baird Shearer (semi revert of last edit)
- 17:40, 11 October 2010 LoveActresses (Farleigh Castle and House are different parts of the same estate. The mother of his wife is mentioned on his father-in-law's page and was also added here.)
LoveActresses, what is your source that the Farly estate only consisted of the Castle and the House (no lands or other property), also what is your source that the house was built before this date. You have added "His mother appears to have been his father's third wife Elizabeth Hussey." but you have not provided an in-line citation for this edition. No one minds you being bold but if your changes are reverted and you are asked for sources you will be in breach of WP:PROVEIT if you reinstate them without providing in-line citations. Mentioning Wikipedia as a source in the history of the article does not satisfy WP:PROVEIT. -- PBS (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
LoveActresses you have made this change twice.
See MOS:DOB. "At the start of an article on an individual, his or her dates of birth ... except between year-pairs when no spaces are used." (my emphasis) so changing "(1532–1596)" to "(1532 – 1596)" is contrary to the MOS guidance.
"Sir" and "of Farley" is not part of the article title so there is no reason for the words to be in bold, particularly as neither is part of his name. If the "Sir" was part of a Baronetcy then those are usually placed in bold. But which guideline are you using to justify putting Sir in bold? As he is known as "knight of Farley" and that is mentioned in the first sentence there seems little point in including "of Farley" in the same sentence as it bloats the sentence without giving the reader any additional information and no source or reason has been given for including it. -- PBS (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- "–" (ndash character in HTML) can be written as "–" in the edited text so there is no need to replace (1532–1596) with (1532–1596) as it will appear the same: (1532–1596) -- PBS (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Sources[edit]
I see that PBS either made this page or redid it. Fine by me.
Why are my sources not reliable sources? People use the Tudor Place as a source all over wiki. I have never had a problem with that source before as I check it with other sources, I don't just go with one source. The guy who made that site didn't just make up all those entries or stories, they came from sources he used, sometimes they are listed, sometimes they are not. The site is not like wiki where all of the sudden you are required to put a source after every sentence apparently. Are we not allowed to use links? There are links on wiki all the time to other pages to find the source where people found their information. The link to that book is a full book online. It's not a snippet. It was just a link to the page where it said what I found, which was --
Inquis PM jas pt H By Anne Dormer Sir Walter had four children Edward who died young Susan who married i Michael Earnley 2 J Mervyn and 3 Sir Carew Reynell Lucy who married l Sir John St John and 2 Sir Anthony Hungerford of filackbourton and Jane who married Sir J Karne.
Have you never used the Tudor Place for a source or even heard of it until now? I'm not sure why this is a problem all of the sudden. I guess this is "your" page so therefore no one can contribute.. as every time someone tries to you make a big deal out of it. Most of us are just trying to get the right information out there and help wiki to be a better place where you can actually rely on what you're reading is true. I was merely trying to help make the page better as it is annoying searching articles for people's children especially when it's not made clear and no names are listed. As for your new source..
This is what the Genealogical History says:
Sir Walter Hunger ford Knt of Farley Castle to 1st Ann Basset and 2ndly Anne dan of Sir William Dormer Knt and had issue Edmund d p Susan m 1st to Michael Ernley Esq of Cannings co Wilts 2ndly to John Moring and 3rdly to Sir Crew Reynolds Lucy to 1st to Sir John St John of Lydiard and 2ndly to Sir Anthony Hungerford Jane m to Sir John Came Knt of Ewenny co Glamor gan
Good luck with "your" pages. Makes for a lonely existence when you are constantly bombarding people about being correct isn't it?
Lady Meg (talk) 06:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Self published websites are not reliable sources, and Sir Walter HUNGERFORD of Farleigh, Knight does not cite any sources, so it is not possible to check what is written is accurate. Yesterday I added some information to an article Sir John St John, 1st Baronet a son of Lucy Hungerford (mistakenly I thought at first it was her husband who gave his full name to his son) I used two sources to do it. The first was a conventional reliable source:
- However the second site:
- Lundy, Darryl (20 January 2009). "#26311: Sir John St. John, 1st Bt". thepeerage.com. Retrieved 8 July 2007.
{{cite web}}: External link in|publisher=|ref=harv(help)
- Lundy, Darryl (20 January 2009). "#26311: Sir John St. John, 1st Bt". thepeerage.com. Retrieved 8 July 2007.
- Is not a reliable site as defined by WP:SOURCES, but Lundy is meticulous in citing his sources which are relibale sources. in this case
- So when I used the information from the website I also included the reliable sources so anyone who comes after me and wants to check whether a citation is accurate can do so by checking against the reliable source. I made this check only yesterday for an article on Elizabeth Cromwell, because the reliable source cited his source, I was able to go to that source and check up a detail for the article that was not mentioned in the less detailed source. In doing that I was able to verify that the text from the reliable sources was an accurate summary of the more detailed source and hence confirmed our text. I could not have done that if the Wikipedia source was based on a website that did not cite its sources. These are not arbitrary rules that I am making up on the fly, they are part of the Wikipeida policy on verifiability and have been for a number of years since the drive for quality in articles replaced the earlier drive for quantity. I suggest that if you disagree with me you raise the issue at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. -- PBS (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
The Peerage page has sources listed, so that should be fine to use. I use that site all the time. I really have nothing to do with this page so it doesn't really bother me. What exactly was the problem with the children then? I use Lundy all the time for his sources, but some of his entries are off as of right now. He doesn't seem to check and see if some people already exist on his page before adding them again to other spouses. I was just pointing out that many wiki pages use that site and it is taken for a source and no one questions it. You are the only person I have come across that won't accept it. Enough with this.
Lady Meg (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
If the Tudor Place is not accepted then why is it listed at the bottom of the page for Sir John St John, 1st Baronet as further reading?
Lady Meg (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- See WP:Layout "Further reading" and "External links" are not part of area used for displaying citations used for WP:V, so the requirement for those sections, particularly WP:External links are different. Personally I would not have included Tudor Place, on the page, but if others want it mentioned on the page, then one of those sections are acceptable and it does no harm to place it there. In the mean time I have revisited the Sir John St John, 1st Baronet and removed one of the Lundy citations replacing it with his source.-- PBS (talk) 05:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)