Talk:Charles Harris Garrigues

Nationality in the lede
Being a "Californian" does not make one an American, and it is common practice to include one's nationality in the lede. Maybe include both his nationality and his location if you prefer, I could live with that. --Mollskman (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Can't agree it is common practice. Well, if it is, then it is shouldn't be. Is there a style guide? If not, then one should not change an otherwise quite sensible leed to add minor information that can be found later on (his birthplace). If you can find a style guide, I am willing to go along with it. I know I am being picky, but I hate these minor changes that don't really improve things very much. Thank you. Your friend, 22:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi GeorgeLouis, I would read WP:MOSBIO. The "standard" practice, if you will, is to include one's nationality, if known, in the lede, followed by why they are notable. That might include the "location" that made them famous. If you look at the category for American journalists or columnists, most well written bios are crafted this way. I hope this helps and I am not trying to bust chops. Thank you,--Mollskman (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I would look at WP:SEEALSO. Can those entries be "worked" into the article? If so, that is "preffered". Thanks, --Mollskman (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * GeorgeLouis: Your diagnosis of "minor changes that don't really improve things very much" is dead on. This little dispute is a continuation of already substantial discussion, at Talk:Herb Caen, of Molluskman's injudicious insertion of the word "American" into article lead sentences which already contain more specific information making "American" redundant.  In particular, you will see there demolition of Molluskman's contention that that MOSBIO requires explicit inclusion of nationality in the lead sentence.   EEng (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)