User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2018/November

Beckenham edits

Hi, I'll add citations from British library maps, local archive records, etc. Certain details were erroneous or superceded by more accurate details. I,m putting fuller record on www.beckenhamplaceparkfriends.org.uk

Mal Novafact (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Evidence

Perfectly happy to discuss alterations via [email protected] Eg John cater died 1806 without issue so his nephew John Barwell cater and his descendents inherited and managed the estate. Even Edward hasteds record has errors. An act of parliament 1760 allowed John cater to acquire part of the Beckenham place property on Foxgrove Manor where he built his house 1760/62 as per hortus Collins onianus by Peter Collinson. The purchase of Beckenham manor was not fully settled until 1780 according to records of Chancery and Kings Bench. Several land exchanges between cater and the Burrells reorganized the area into two main estates by 1793. Mal Novafact (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I prefer to discuss things on wiki. If there are published sources for this information that is great. Be sure to make clear which information comes from where, so it is not synthesis. If it is necessary to trawl through archives that is probably original research which is outside our remit. The local website you mention is unlikely to meet Wikipedia standards as a reliable source and Wikipedia articles are only intended to give an overview of the subject without going into fine detail. This may be frustrating but is how it works.Charles (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Some of your information about the Cator family can be corrected from The Cators of Beckenham and Woodbastwick by Pat Manning. If other published sources are wrong whereas archive research is 'inadmissable under wikipedia rules then wikipedia will merely carry forward inaccurate information and become a barrier to the truth. Hortus Collinsonianus is now an e-book and archives in Bromley and the British Library confirm other details. Hasted makes mistakes ie assuming there were two Jones Raymonds as landlords in Beckenham. John Cator had no sons, the property passed down the line of his brother Joseph through John Barwell Cator, his son Albemarle Cator, his son also Albemarle Cator etc.good job an entry wasn't made from the flat earth society.....or was it. If the detail fine or otherwise is wrong, best leave it out of wikipedia as wikipedia is an unreliable source?? which some people believe already. Novafact (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

It is not my information. Please do try to improve on the article, but some stuff may just be better removed if it is wrong.Charles (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

adoption?

if you are interested, let me know!

User_talk:Mick2#adopt_me? 12:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Edits to Gloucester Cathedral

Some time ago you removed some of the key people I had included on Gloucester Cathedral's wiki page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gloucester_Cathedral&oldid=prev&diff=601327486 Others have since re-inserted the musicians and the Chapter Clerk.

You argued that "key facts only" were needed in the InfoBox. There is a fallacy in your argument in respect of lay members of Chapter. These are as involved in, and as responsible for, the governance of the Cathedral as any of the clergy members of Chapter, all of whom you left in the infobox.

If only those Canons who are members of the Chapter and work full time at the Cathedral were included then then I might agree with you. But the two Diocesan Canons, who are not on the payroll of the Cathedral but ARE members of its governance structure are included. So if they are included then the lay members of the Cathedral Chapter should be included.

Since the edit I am referring to, a section for Laity has been included anyway, and since this now includes the leaders of music and the chapter clerk whom you removed, I have also put back the lay members of chapter. To remove them would be to remove one selective part of the governance structure. And given the focus that there is on cathedral governance at present, I think it's justifiable to argue that listing all of those who govern is a "key fact" --dde0apb (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Are these people reliably sourced in the body of the article? If not they should not be included anyway. What is your source and how are they notable?Charles (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Your deletion of information on the Castle Douglas article

You have now twice deleted information which has sources. This is neither warranted or helpful. You cite WP:WTAF this only applies to WP:REDLINKs the two people listed as people from Castle Douglas did not have WP:REDLINKs so WP:WTAF does not apply WP:WTAF states "editors are encouraged to write the article first before adding it to a list, template or disambiguation page" this is to avoid excessive WP:REDLINKS, it is not a universal "must be obeyed" RULE.

Secondly it is absurd that people can't be mentioned in an article unless there is an existing article about that person. Wikipedia is meant to be a rich source of information, if we wer to follow your policy and go around and censor every article for people, places, things and ideas that don't have articles, wikipedia would be almost useless.

I would be very grateful if you would revert your recent deletion at the Castle Douglas article. Wayne Jayes (talk) 05:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

People can be mentioned in the rest of the article but not in the notables list unless they have an article. If I do not remove the unlinked names other editors will.Charles (talk) 08:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Please provide a link to a wikipedia article or guide or essay that backs up your view that only people with wikipedia artilces can be mentioned in a Notable people section. Many thanks. Wayne Jayes (talk) 09:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)