Talk:Eulalia Pérez de Guillén Mariné

Creation

--Aboudaqn (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC) (actually on March 18, 2006)

Noteworthy

This woman is clearly noteworthy; thanks for the contribution. However, the article needs some work:

• Needs a short intro/context paragraph; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style
• Unless your intent is to YELL, section headings should be in mixed case (MoS again)
• Avoid excessive categorization (I deleted several that were inappropriate for use in biographies)
• The "excerpt from memoirs" is more than just an excerpt, and thus dangerously close to being a copyright violation
• An extended family tree is generally inappropriate unless those listed have separate Wikipedia articles, implying that they are notable in their own right
• The following note should go on the discussion page, not in the article itself: "Descendants, historians, and researchers are welcome to contact ..."

-- Engineer Bob 23 March 2006

First, a note to myself: here is the entry URL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eulalia_Perez_de_Guill%C3%A9n_Marin%C3%A9

Second, thanks for the note. I will work on it, probably over the weekend -- this and my other entries so far (super chef and the celebrity chef page, the Juliette Rossant page).

Right now, I'm into writing biography pages. I've been adding, which is easy, but it's tougher to compose a good page, so could you help me with a few questions? :

1. How long do you want them to be? I saw two today on a Sri Lankan prime minister (Gopallawa) and another on his son, and they were quite short, where my two main entries so far (Juliette Rossant and Eulalia Perez de Guillen Marine) are both longer -- yet neither were prime minister or such. How do we weigh quantity versus quality?

2. For "Eulalia Perez de Guillen Marine," I used the family tree for two reasons, (1) because I want to develop at least short bios on each of these people myself and (2) to encourage descendants of Eulalia to fill in with more notable descendants. Is that proper, or is there some way to mark "Work in Progress" etc.? That was what my note suggested, and in that case is it still best to place such notes on the "Talk" page?

3. Should I just go ahead and start stubs on those descendants? Vicente de la Ossa was a prominent ranchero. His grand-daughter Katherine Kevane almost single-handedly pushed the California school system to start teaching Mexican kids English (up until the early 1900s, Mexican kids were just shunted aside and had to learn through osmosis). Katherine Kevane's son Alexander H. Murray, Jr., was a prominent businessman and politician in Placerville, CA, and helped to ensure that Route 50 was developed into Highway 50 in time for the Winter Olympics at Lake Tahoe...

4. When is someone "prominent" or "famous" enough to merit an entry? I'm trying to document people who are lesser known and yet obviously have impact -- people who do not have a Britannica entry, for instance, whereas Wikipedia seems to offer a wider universe...

Many thanks - Aboudaqn 02:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm responding to the {{helpme}}.

1. Length. I think the length isn't important, just include everything that is important. You can take a look at Wikipedia's Featured articles to see how long excellent articles tend to be.
2. I don't think I've seen many family trees in articles. Wikipedia:Family trees has some ideas, but you would only include one if it was important for the subject of the article. The note you left "researchers are welcome to contact descendant "Aboudaqn" at aboudaqn[at]gmail.com" should definitely not be in the article, but on this talk page.
3. (this includes an answer to number 4 too) Write stubs/articles if the person is notable. Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) might give you some idea of what notability is. If you feel they have had an impact go ahead and write the article - your hard work is much appreciated.

Finally, if you want me to go through the article and clean it up a little (eg remove the CAPS headings) just ask. Good luck! --Commander Keane 03:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

New review

1. Length. I have revised entry with Introduction and rewritten the Biography
2. Genealogy. I have reformatted. As you can see, Eulalia Perez is a "Californio" matron with great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren alive and well today. Many of them married into other prominent families, e.g., Pico, Sepulveda, Kevane (a lawyer who served a California governor). So, I plan to create stubs and have family members contribute to the geneaology.
3. Review. If you could then please review this article again, I would be grateful.

Aboudaqn 04:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll get some more people to take a look at it.--Commander Keane 04:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Death certificate

Her death certificate, located in the Los Angeles County courthouse in Santa Ana records that she lived to be 140 (dying in 1768)

I thought she was born in 1768. I think that last date is wrong. BigBlueFish 08:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Aboudaqn done.

Important new Facebook link

I have added an important Facebook link -- for Eulalia's descendants. The Facebook page asks for contributions from descendants, which I will add to this Wikipedia article over time (probably under "Stories from Descendants" or some such section. Aboudaqn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.22.200 (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Rancho del Rincón de San Pascual

The section on Rancho del Rincón de San Pascual doesn't ring true - although it may be what Eulalia believed - and certainly is what some recent newspapers report. But the story doesn't match the detailed Chain of Title documented in Chapter 7 of Robinsons "Land in California". In addition, the Missions were not giving land grants to anyone in 1826. Also it does seem reasonable that they would give 14,000 acres to a 60 year old widow - no matter how deserving.Emargie (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a fascinating discussion. I see no reason for the claim from Eulalia's descendants to be untrue -- they gain nothing from it. Instead, it raises the question of who wrote the records (quis custodiet custodes) and the very nature of historiography in California, as everywhere else. Aboudaqn (talk) 12:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding Actual Notes in Footnoted References

{{helpme}}

How does one add actual details and/or notes in footnoted references on Wikipedia? I have hunted through the Tutorial section but can find nothing. I have tried to add sections like " | details =" with variations like "notes" and "contribution" but nothing appears afterwards in the reference/footnote that is visible in the normal article (outside of "Edit" mode). (See references 2 and 3 in current version of article - 2009.12.30) Aboudaqn (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Date of birth missing

It's unfair to assume that this person was "112" with no birthdate. She could have been 111.Ryoung122 06:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"Unfair"? Aboudaqn (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)