Talk:Francis B. Spinola

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Francis Barreto Spinola ethnic background[edit]

There seems to be some misunderstandement about the ethnic background of General Francis B. Spinola. Spinola is a common Portuguese surname of Genovese origin, introduced in Madeira Island during the 15th century. At this point, most of us Maderians, myself included, descend at least from one of the 2 Spinola brothers who came here as merchants at that time, whether we carry the name or not. After so many generations, the Italian ethnic percentage is almost irrisory, when compared to the Portuguese one, and describing him as ethnically "Italian" seems to me a bit forced, not to mention that when the Spinolas came here to Madeira there wasn't even a "Italy", they came from the Genova Republic.--Darwinius (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Burial place / Find a Grave link[edit]

The burial site info is referenced to an off-line book source. This is unverifiable for a vast amount of readers, because the only way to check would be to travel to some library where the book could be found. The Find a Grave entry, which can be seen on-line by everybody, shows a photo of the tombstone and other pertinent info about the burial place. Besides Find a Grave is a valid external link under WP:EL Links to consider # 4 and a valid exception under Links normally to avoid # 12. Kraxler (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

So the external link is there as a reference?!
What specific information do you mean? --Ronz (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The tombstone speaks for itself, it supports an unverifiable printed reference. Besides, WP:EL is very clear about external links. Please read WP:Consensus and WP:Reverting. Editors should not revert simply because of disagreement Editors should never (except in case of BLP) revert during an ongoing discussion (which is taking place at ELN right now. I urge you to undo your last revert: discuss first and act afterwards. I also suggest to read WP:IDHT and WP:POINT. Kraxler (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I reverted because of WP:ELBURDEN. ELBURDEN has been pointed out multiple times now. Let's not ignore it.
How about we focus on this specific article and how the information in the specific link may be of value? --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I also brought up WP:ELPEREN at ELN and in my edit summaries. --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:ELBURDEN says "Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them." - This is not applicable here, since there is no default: several discussions have taken place. It would be your burden to show that in these past discussions consensus to include has not been reached. The vast amount of links and the existence of a template for Find a Grave, and the posts of numerous editors in those discussions show widespread community approval, and tend to assume that consensus is that the links may be added/maintained. If you think otherwise, show me a link that supports consensus (not unilateral personal opinions of a handful of editors) against Find a Grave. You also can continue to discuss at ELN and wait for the result before causing more drama. Kraxler (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you take up the wording at WT:EL as to how we can make it clearer what "by default" means. As I understand it, disputed links should normally be excluded.
So, the link is there at a reference? Specifically as an accessible, primary source because the reliable source is hard to access? --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:ELPEREN#Find-a-Grave says "as an External link rarely" - Well, that clinches it. That's a positive statement that allows links to Find a Grave. We are talking here about an entry which has a 'photo of the tombstone. IMO this is one of the features (others would be, for example, original newspaper clippings and burial plot numbers) that make an entry interesting, helpful and verifiable, and thus addable to an article under this express permission. Kraxler (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, FindaGrave might be allowed under certain circumstances. Can we figure out if we have such a situation here?
Once again, the link is a reference to augment a hard-to-access one? --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)