Talk:Street family

WP:NOTGENEALOGY

"Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic." That somebody held English lands at Strete in the 1080s is not relevant to an Australian legal family. That one member's wife had some distant relative in America is not informative. Claiming everyone and anyone who was related to anyone in the family is not relevant. Keep it focused rather than trying to turn it into an elaboration of their distant genealogical connections. Agricolae (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The first member of this Australian legal family lived in the 19th century, so it is hard to justify starting the article with someone 200 years before, just because that person was notable. Likewise, this is about the Street family, not everyone who was related to anyone who married into the Street family. This article is suffering from a rather extreme lack of WP:PROPORTION. Agricolae (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The 'Main' template was never intended to be used to put 'Further reading' pointers to peripheral topics at the start of a section. It has one very specific use - when to avoid an inordinately long article, the topic of the section is presented in summary style, and then there is a full article on that topic. In other words, the pointer to Monmouth's Rebellion does not belong. Further, if you are using the Main template for a section, then a summary style needs to be used in those sections, which means giving someone's father's mother's mother's father's father's brother is well in excess. Likewise with Susan, summarise her, and anyone interested in her father's full biography can follow the Main link to her page. Agricolae (talk) 05:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Sir Thomas, WP:PROPORTION suggests that we give similar emphasis to topics as given by reliable secondary sources. The Fox reference is the closest we get to a reliable source with analogous focus, being the only one that addresses the Streets as a coherent family and legal dynasty. It names Thomas as an ancestor and describes him in passing, but does not give a full biographical sketch, nor does it explicitly state that the family drew any influence from him. Thus our article on the Australian legal dynasty should do similar - name him and indicate that there was a descent; if someone is interested in more information about him, that is why links exist. Agricolae (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Commander Sir Laurence Street III.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

This is about the Street family

Not the Grey family - yes, the Street wives were related to other people, but beyond the immediate context, this is all just genealogical happenstance, unless there is a source that draws specific attention to the relationship as being an important aspect of the Street family identity, not just because of our personal fascination with it. Agricolae (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Chief Justice Sir Laurence Street.webp

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)