Talk:Elizabeth FitzHugh

Untitled

I do not know how to add a 2nd spouse.. can someone help me? Meg E. McGath (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. --Labattblueboy (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Labattblueboy (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

---

User:Meg E. McGath/Elizabeth FitzHugh, Baroness Vaux of Harrowden → Elizabeth FitzHugh, Baroness Vaux of Harrowden — It is ready to be moved into the main articles. Meg E. McGath (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Latest updates

user:surtsinca -- Is there a reason that you completely hacked up my article on Elizabeth FitzHugh? There are plenty of pages that list the legacy of people's descendants and as they did not mention all the people I did they usually do list a few notable descendants. People are always noting on pages that Anne Boleyn is a descendant of such and such. And to write that her descendants don't make her notable? Why would you write something like that? That's just rude, Elizabeth FitzHugh was a great-grandmother of many notable people living today and perhaps the whole list should not be listed, but perhaps a few should be listed. You also took out a link to Sir William Parr which led to a valid page, her husband's page. Also, you took her out of the Tudor women category, why? She belongs in that period of time as she was a notable woman in the Tudor period. I would appreciate it if you left the page well enough alone now, thank you.
Lady Meg (talk) 05:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hacked up? :D Huh. Anyway, I removed that list because it was simply silly (for example, listing the Queen of the United Kingdom along with her mother and sister). She has countless notable descendants today and it makes no sense to mention just a few of them. Her descendants are not supposed to make her notable; it's not rude, it's a fact. If she is notable only because of her descendants, the article should be deleted because Wikipedia is not a geneaology database. I did not take her out of the Tudor women category; she was not in that category at all.[1] Anyway, please remember that you don't own the article and that you, therefore, can't decide who gets to edit it. Surtsicna (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Elizabeth FitzHugh and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: I'm afraid that I agree with Surtsicna in almost all respects in this case, with only a couple of minor exceptions: First, I think that removing the words "her siblings" in this edit was a mistake because without that explanation the tie–in to Anne Herbert and William Parr becomes indistinct to the general user; either "her siblings" should stay in or the reference to the two siblings should be removed altogether. Second, while I fully agree that the descendant list was not useful and that Wikipedia policy says that the article should be deleted if its notability depends upon the existence of the list, I do not agree with the characterization of the inclusion of the list as "silly" (nor do I, however, agree with Lady Meg's non-AGF characterization of its removal as being "rude").

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I did create the page so until you create a page and then have someone come by and completely change it you wouldn't understand. I understand that the list of notable descendants was redundant. That's fine, I listed only 3 this time. I am not basing this article solely on notable descendants, but I was trying to clear things up for those who are using wikipedia as a primary genealogical source. There are many people on ancestry.com who use wikipedia as they do not know any better and like I said on your page my main purpose of signing up here was to help those people who are looking for genealogical information get the right information as most articles on royals and nobility list their children and have an ancestry chart. There are too many trees out there online that are incorrect and it's frustrating to others who actually do their research so I guess you would not understand where I'm coming from if you are not into genealogy.
Lady Meg (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Though I don't think that I've ever mentioned it here at Wikipedia, both my late mother and my wife are avid genealogists and I've been actively doing and assisting with genealogy for over 30 years. I've made nine trips from the U.S. to Europe to do genealogy, and I have two articles published in national genealogy magazines. While I understand exactly where you are coming from, I fear — and please understand that I truly do not say any of this with rancor or as criticism — that you do not understand where Wikipedia is coming from. Can I respectfully request that you read my short essay at User:Frank777w#Wikipedia.2C_Bicycles.2C_and_Wagons? Not all of it precisely applies to you, but I think that you might find it edifying. Also, let me add a word of friendly advice: Though it may not look like it on first blush, there are strict policies on what subjects and content can and cannot be included in Wikipedia. In very general terms, before a person, place, thing, organization, or idea can be included in Wikipedia it must have

• already been recognized
• as important or significant
• by objective, independent, and provable third party sources
• with a established reputation for fact-checking
• which are independent of both the subject of the article and of Wikipedia itself.

That's just a plain-English generalization of the actual rules to give you an idea of what's going on here, so don't rely on it but refer to the actual policies instead. (For a great analogy illustrating these concepts, see WP:SCRABBLE.) Without a working knowledge of Wikipedia policy it can be very frustrating to try to write an article that won't be deleted. I've tried several times to write a better introduction to editing than can be found at the Article Wizard and Your First Article and I can't. Don't be tempted to skip past sections of either one, they're full of solid gold information. Also, if you've not done so already, you need to read the Notability, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Conflict of interest policies from beginning to end. Good luck with your editing, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 05:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elizabeth FitzHugh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316224625/http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/FitzHugh1321.htm#FITZHUGH_1321_2 to http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/FitzHugh1321.htm#FITZHUGH_1321_2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)