Talk:Peter Fontaine

expand?

I truly hope this can be expanded. Zigzig20s 16:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Major unsourced editing

User 194.38.128.26 is making a list of the Fontaine family members, and other unsourced and, in my opinion, completely irrelevant additions to the article. If you wish to make major modifications to the article, please add reliable sources.--Technopat (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It's just his near family. Too bad if he had too many siblings. His background and parents aren't relevant? Since when? And unsourced how? Is this the discussion you want? Dgarq (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. As you well know, Wikipedia has very clear guidelines as to what constitutes notability and the corresponding mechanisms for veriafiability. The great man's "near family" and siblings do not seem to be notable, and the source given makes no mention of his place of birth. If you, or anyone can source it, please add verifiable source. Otherwise it stays out.--Technopat (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Technopat. Why are we listing every single family member the man had? They're not notable and shouldn't be included. None of the sources are very good and can certainly be beefed up. One final note: edit warring will not get anything accomplished and will probably result in the page being protected while the issues are worked out. TNXMan 18:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

They're just the brothers. Unless you don't know, brothers are often referred on wikipages. The sources are good enough. Someone else is here to take care of any page protection. 194.38.128.26 (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

"They're just the brothers." - so you haven't yet started listing sisters, nephews and nieces... Interesting to see this article, barring notability issues, developing into Wikipedia's longest yet.--Technopat (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I intentionally excluded the others, only brothers and sisters. So? Why do you say I will add them too? Are you just playing an ass? 194.38.128.26 (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It's completely undue weight. If he is "best known for his endorsement of slavery", why is the section on his brothers longer than the non-existant section on his views on slavery. Unless his brothers and sisters did something important enough to warrant their own articles, they are not notable for this article. Way too much data on everyone BUT Peter Fontaine. The birthplace and burial places of his parents also do not belong.

Just because there is little about what should be the main body of the article it doesn't mean the rest should be deleted. Enlarge it and the mention to his family will appear smaller!... Dgarq (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It is if what you have added does not directly relate to Fontaine. Just because they are relatives does not mean this information adds anything about Peter Fontaine. Information will continue to be removed because of undue emphasis on people OTHER than the subject of this article.

Something you seem to not understand Dgarq is that just because you can find some piece of information/trivia, does not mean it belongs on Wikipedia. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not?... Dgarq (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Because we are not a collection of every trivial bit of data. We're here to write an article about the subject, not include every burial place for the brothers and sisters of Peter Fontaine. Write about Peter Fontaine. The³5₉ (Talk) 16:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)