Talk:Robert Assheton

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because both spellings of Ashton are common. Extensive documentation confirms that they are the same family. Robert de Ashton is variously called Robert de Assheton and Robert Assheton. This redirect is necessary to deal with the alternative spelling. If necessary I will provide citations for my claim that Robert de Ashton and Robert Assheton are the same person. --Johnroashton (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you add the name variation in the lead text of the target article, I can see it as a variation defined in the single source referenced. Fæ (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, will do. Can I ask you another question? There are several articles about this man's son, grandson, great grandson, etc. I think I should link them, but which template should I use? Is it ok to have a succession box when you're just dealing with a family relation, not an office? Or is there a separate template for that? Thanks.--Johnroashton (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It might be easiest to initially include them in the See also section. Family titles often use forms of the succession box and for significant families there is often a main page specifically about the (notable) family itself which can then include a family tree and also then addresses the problem of including details for individual members of the family that by themselves are not notable for a stand alone article. For an example see Lord Gray. Fæ (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Two questions. 1) Would it be acceptable to have a family page, even though the family page isn't hugely noteworthy. It would just say 'The Ashton family is a family of the landed gentry dating back to the Twelfth Century' and go on to talk about the achievements of its members. 2) Is it acceptable to have an Ancestry Box when only a fraction of it (the patrilineal line) is known? Is it bad form to have one with empty boxes? Thanks! Johnroashton (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

1. The family itself would have to meet WP:GNG, however this might be on the basis of several notable family members. You might want to sketch something as a user draft and get some feedback from WP:RFF if you are unsure that impact on the historic record for the family is sufficient.
2. I'm no expert on any of the ancestry templates, the best thing is to check the template documentation for advice and see if there any any Good Articles that use it as examples. Thanks Fæ (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure the family merits an article. Although DNB refers to it as a great family! I hope you approve of the solution I ended up with. I think it's the best way of making the relation of these DNB articles clear. Thanks for your help and advice! Johnroashton (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)