Talk:Samuel Chatto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

British Royalty This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it But how? By working out what number-in-line-to-the-throne this high-born tot is? Wetman 07:44, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No, I think it means by reporting the media reaction to his birth, etc. StAnselm (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Not encyclopedic though in the least. To say otherwise would be to assume that readers are stupid. Charles 06:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
StAnselm continues to revert this article without discussion. Notability has not been established and every single association to something notable with this individual and his brother is entirely dealt with in other articles. StAnselm, please discuss and rationalize your changes as others have done. Charles 06:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think I did get sucked into three reverts, so I'm sorry about that. I guess this page is different to Arthur Chatto, which was AfDed a long time ago. Look - my argument is simple: the talk page isn't the place to discuss deletion - if you want to delete it, then nominate the page for deletion. StAnselm (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't delete the page, it was redirected. Redirects are generally discussed on the talk pages. I was told by an administrator that AfDs for redirects were not the way to go. Individual cases can be discussed on their talk pages where a record of discussion remains, reasoning the lack of notability or otherwise for a particular subject but also to maintain the redirect. Samuel and Arthur are well discussed on their mother's page. The only information needed is there. Saying who his grandmother is, etc is does not establish notability. Rather, we go to those pages and say who Princess Margaret's grandchildren are, for instance. Even then though, lots of people do have children but that does not make them automatically notable. Outside of the context of his mother and grandmother, there is absolutely nothing notable about Samuel or his brother. He is information about them, not vice-versa. That is the rationale for redirection. Charles 06:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I didn't know an admin told you that. That means we need some serious policy clarification - because the "other" article had a "keep" from an AfD. We need this bit out first, I reckon. StAnselm (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Looking around, they must have meant for you to take it to WP:RM. There's a section on "Requesting potentially controversial moves". StAnselm (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
No, WP:RM is almost never about the content of an article, it is about the correct name. The caveat for that though is that the article should have a reason to exist alone as is. I am expanding the section in Lady Sarah's article to be inclusive of all the information which shouldn't be in a separate article. Charles 06:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The redirect goes to a section now inclusive of all the vital information and even the two "trivia" items for Arthur (which is frowned upon anyway). Charles 06:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to find common ground. But I'm going to do the AfD myself. That should bury this matter once and for all, though even it would be good if you could get your notability for royals guideline up. StAnselm (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)