Talk:Henry Williams (alias Cromwell)

Biography Stub‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Merge in Henry Cromwell, the Golden Knight

Merge in Henry Cromwell, the Golden Knight yes. But only if the information carries inline citations, something it does not do at the moment.

user:LoveActresses why do you write a new article (30/10/2010) without using inline citations as required by WP:V? If you had included inline citaions in your duplicate article called Henry Cromwell, the Golden Knight then it would be easy to merge the information, without them it is not possible for anyone but the author (you) to do it.-- PBS (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

user:LoveActresses http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=rohlspur&id=I69853 is not a reliable source. user:LoveActresses you have been adding information to the article without citing sources. user:LoveActresses Why add a section called Sources and duplicate one of the citations given in the References section. -- PBS (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

User:LoveActresses See WP:V

http://www.geneall.net/U/per_page.php?id=537495 is NOT a reliable source.
http://thepeerage.com/p13112.htm#i131119 is not a reliable source but it cites reliable sources (see WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. But in the case of DOB he cites an email that is not a reliable source. In the case of DOD he gives the same date as that already in the article 1604.

Again with the envious attacks on geneall!... The rest I knew it already, but it's better to mention both the site and the sources, just for practical reasons. LoveActresses (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the man is not a baronet the Sir should not be included in bold at the start or in the links to articles of knights. This is a convention that many follow on Wikipedia but not all however, if you make a change from "Sir Richard Williams" to "Sir Richard Williams" and it is reversed to redo the edit is a breach of policy (an arbcom decision) see Wikipedia:MOS#Stability of articles. The same goes for the capitalisation of County in front of "county of Huntingdonshire": county is a descriptive word not part of a title.

I didn't know that. As if we didn't have enough rules yet they created another by arbitration decision... I use capital letters even for things like a County, because of its importance (as a political center, so to say). LoveActresses (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:LoveActresses You have re-added "and wife Frances Murfyn." See WP:PROVIT who says QE was returning from a visit to see Frances Murfyn?

I must have added the reference to the man's wife on the wrong place. I didn't want to say he was visiting her, but that Cromwell's wife or something was the daughter of so and Frances Murfyn. The text was too long and I didn't have the time nor the will to read it all. LoveActresses (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to post script Joan with "Warren" that is derived in the sentence from Joan daughter of Sir Ralph Warren, and is a repetition that is not needed.

It's her name. In a more perfected and formal publication surnames get repeated all the time. And what about the dates? LoveActresses (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the two sources at the bottom of the article that you added. One is not cited and the other is already included in the list of references.

Are you sure the not cited one wasn't mentioned on thepeerage.com? The other I missed it in the middle of all the text. LoveActresses (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you want to emphasise "golden knight" as it is mentioned in the text but there is no indication that it was a common moniker for him. What is your source that justified placing it in the first paragraph?

As I said, I use capital letters for many things. Kings' and others' cognomen are generally mentioned with capital letters. LoveActresses (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- PBS (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But mentioning Joan Tudor means that there is such a claim, and for that reason it should be taken in account. When we work for too long with genealogies, we just keep the information and don't recall again where we saw it, perhaps it's easy to find. Despite not being reliable it can be mentioned on both pages. Also, and specially when it's a well known lineage, people don't even consider that someone else will challenge the information, let alone deny it. When it's a general knowledge content, that people in these areas must know of, no one will contest it. It's like denying the five sons of Henry IV, it doesn't come up. If it appears somewhere means it's accepted. If there is any challenge, then it's by some authors who like to bash people's ancestries because of their own political bias. LoveActresses (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]