Talk:James Burton (property developer)

Citation style

To unnamed user 2a02:c7d:6005:2800:4d8e:7569:a467:6dca (possibly User:Webbjones?)

Why are you insisting on repeating inline citations in full, when you can reuse the same reference name? If you use "ref name" it keeps the reference listings (and page lengths) shorter.
Wikipedia Manual of Style says "Citations should not be placed within or on the same line as section and subsection headings." Paul W (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vanderwyk as source or copyvio

Paul W The above looks to be self published, so I agree it is not reliable. Text in the article section 'Marriage and children' could be copyvio of Vanderwyk or more likely of an edition of Manwaring Baines. SovalValtos (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul W, SovalValtos

-1 I was placing citations on the same line as headings to avoid excessive repetitions of the same citations in the following text, not knowing how to use the 'ref name' function, which I shall use in future. Thank you for doing this. -2 Text in the 'Marriage and children' section is not copyvio, from either Vanderwyk or Baines, but the information on the Vanderwyk blog is partially derived from Baines. -3: There is a dispute over the birth year of James Burton. All but one internet source records 1761, but some written sources say 1762.

P.S. I am not 'Webbjones' but we are working together on the same project in researching the history of the Burtons and related families.

(2A02:C7D:6005:2800:D423:14E7:7C69:5876 (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Hi - Thanks for the response.

Beware use of blogs (Vanderwyk): as self-published sources, they are regarded as unreliable.
It might be helpful if you create a user profile for yourself, so that we can talk via User Talk. Paul W (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed Vanderwyck. Cits now need adding from someone with access to Baines who can include the page numbers. SovalValtos (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SovalValtos I have cited all the info re. the children to Baines, from which it is derived, and also to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography page for James Burton, which lists the children. I have Baines somewhere, but not to hand. I'll dig it out at some point. It's best to leave the Baines citations in place, lack of page numbers notwithstanding, to point those interested in the direction of the book, rather than remove them altogether. Editors shouldn't lose sleep over such specifics - which would not be necessary for those sufficiently deeply interested to be reading about his children, which is well above the interest requisite for the purchase of the book providing a biography of the man. It's not as though the page numbers are required to prove the veracity of a hitherto unknown controversial fact which provides the main attraction to the article would and sooner be rejected than accepted, e.g. that Burton had an affair with the contemporaneous Prime Minister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webbjones (talk • contribs) 13:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Children

Child number 8 is listed as "Octavia (20 May 1796 – 1 April 1799) Married Edmund Hopkinson of St. Albans, banker, at Tonbridge in 1813. No issue."

So she died in 1799 at the age of three, then married a banker 14 years later. Something's clearly wrong with this Zombie bride, but I've no idea whether it's the deathdate or the marital information. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 02:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]