Category talk:Arbuthnot family
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Note
I am currently (late 2005) going through the Arbuthnot family articles and doing general minor cleanup on the excellent and extensive work done by User User:Kittybrewster. Mainly adding categories, formatting dates, etc. where needed. But I am also removing certain extraneous information (and moving it to each article's talk page), primarily:
- Information on non-notable spouses
- If marriage info retained, exact dates and locations of weddings
- Names of non-notable ancestors
- Names of non-notable offspring
- Occasional other non-notable info
On the principle that, while this information would be appropriate for truly notable people, it is overkill for not-very-notable people, which includes most of the entries in this category. I would much like to see more details on the Arbuthnot's military, political, bureaucratic, and ecclesiastical service, and don't think the geneological information is as important.
A note: While many of the Arbothnots had distinguished careers and many honors, the reader should remember that, in the UK at this time, birth and connection had very much to do with one's advancement. Herostratus 20:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Arbuthnot Retention
This note is for people considering deletion (via WP:AFD of any members of the Family Arbuthnot.
- I don't think any of the Arbuthnots should be deleted, on the principle of keeping a set together. Someone might want, for instance, to use these entries as a starting point for a paper on such as The Fortunes Of The British Empire As Reflected In One Family or something like that. You never know.
- There are, however, several Arbuthnots whose articles do not, of themselves, show notability. If you are going to delete them, they should not be nominated individually, but the entire set of non-notable Arbuthnots presented as a group for the consideration of the community. These are:
- (list to follow later)
Herostratus 19:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- "on the principle of keeping a set together" I don't understand what this means. If a family is non-notable apart but somehow notable together (which seems dubious in itself), then they should be merged into a single article. --Malthusian (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- You make a valid point. However, this would make for a very long article. So I don't see why using a category rather than a single article as a way of grouping the info together isn't OK. That's just my opinion. Herostratus 15:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- "on the principle of keeping a set together" I don't understand what this means. If a family is non-notable apart but somehow notable together (which seems dubious in itself), then they should be merged into a single article. --Malthusian (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
