Talk:H. E. and A. Bown

Intricate detail
WP:NOTGENEALOGY indicates that details of family history should only be presented when appropriate to support reader understanding of the subject. Intricate detail like the residence of one of the architect's wife's father and the birthplace of the architects' paternal grandmother do not fulfill that criterion. Not everything that is true or useful should be included - the aim is to provide a summary of accepted knowledge regarding the subject. If one of the other people mentioned may be notable, then an article about that person should be created and their biographical information placed there rather than here. Note also that birth and death details specifically should only be included past the lead if there is special contextual relevance, again absent here. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a reason for all the details about individuals which you deleted. Those details are nothing to do with genealogy for its own sake, i.e. it is nothing to do with making a pointless list of relatives.


 * The background of a biography subject has to include the people who brought them up and lived with them (where we can find that out) because that tells us more about the biography subject and their career or other notability. For example, if they had rich relatives in the same trade as them, then they likely had training and experience just handed to them. On the other hand, if they were born of agricultural labourers but they ended up as a valued historian, then that may have involved talent, hard work and courage, which would be to their credit. We cannot know how much help they really had, of course; all we can do is give what we know about that situation, and let the readers make what they will of it.


 * Regarding bmd dates, well those are very useful for identification. Our articles are at least partly intended as first-stops for students and researchers, and the dates will help them check identities, in the same way as they should be checking everything we say, before they use it in their own research work.


 * Regarding Bown's father in law, Bown used his ironwork frequently in his designs, so that man is an important part of the article, therefore the verification of his identity is important.


 * Another matter in 19th-century British biographies is location. Where people came from within the nation was important - far more important than it is today, for social, financial, cultural and other reasons, besides the dialect which they would have spoken. So where relatives came from, counts. In those days, that gave you your sense of identity, and your culture - again, very different from today, in the case of most people here.


 * There is always a reason for the inclusion of information and citations in this sort of article. Storye book (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't remove tags while matters are under discussion: see WP:WNTRMT. One of the benefits of tagging is to draw in additional eyes that can help arrive at a consensus on an issue; I've added a link to this section to the tag to facilitate that.
 * Some genealogical details provide relevant context to understand the subject - for example that some relatives were artisans, which you'll note was retained in my edit. However, not every detail has that sort of contextual significance, and much of what is included in your edit falls into that category.
 * As noted, per policy, not everything that may be useful merits inclusion. The role of this article is to provide a summary of knowledge on the subject of the article based on secondary sources, not to help people check the identity of the architect's grandmother (for example). Your argument on birth and death details also seems to be a repudiation of MOS:BIRTHDATE, since "identification" is a much broader justification than "special contextual relevance" as per that guideline.
 * In short, reasoning for inclusion of information should take into account Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which are narrower than "there is always a reason" - in fact WP:NOT among others outlines several relevant reasons why certain kinds of content ought to be excluded. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * You are aware that we have been down this road before, on another article. As before, I have indicated at length the value of the information which you want to remove. And again you have not read my explanations, but have repeatedly installed an inappropriate tag, which appears to any passing reader to override discussion (whether you intended it to or not). The tag says "see discussion", then it asks readers to prune the article. That is not helpful; all it does is attempt to enforce your side of the argument by getting others to prune the article for you, when pruning is not only unnecessary but would leave the article the poorer in respect of information. The article is properly within WP guidelines. I suggest that you step away (as you wisely did on that previous occasion) and chase real crimes that harm WP, such as copyvio, paid advertising and blatant bias. There are no crimes in this article, and this article does not harm WP. Step away, Nikkimaria. As before, you are wasting your time and mine, here. Storye book (talk) 10:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have indeed read your explanations. Did you read mine? I pointed out a specific WP guideline - MOS:BIRTHDATE - which, contrary to your assertion, this article is not within. I also pointed out a policy - WP:NOT - which is fundamentally at odds with the philosophy you expressed in your post. Similarly your position on tagging is inconsistent with Wikipedia practice, and illogical - tagging should not be an endpoint to discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes of course I have read your comment and (inappropriate) links, as I did last time you did this, which then ended in great distress for me, due to there being no crimes in that article, and what I saw as your daily hounding behaviour. As far as I could make out on that occasion, every time I explained the reason for inclusion of information, you dropped your previous complaint and used that new explanation to divine some other crime, or potential crime in the article in connection with the wording of my explanation. And you would not stop, until I had asked you to step away many times. There is no point in my writing explanations for you again, because of how you have historically abused my good faith in giving those explanations.
 * You say "tagging should not be an endpoint to discussion", but that is exactly the effect of that particular tag, which asks readers to prune the article drastically, when there is nothing wrong with the article.
 * You have skills useful to WP, which would be better used on real crimes which really affect WP, such as copyvio. You have already been faced elsewhere with a possible blocking due to a previous edit war, and you prudently stepped away from that. Please stop hounding here on the same subject as before, and in the same way as you did before. I ask you again. PLEASE STEP AWAY. Storye book (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I read with interest this article about people I'd never heard of and buildings I've never seen. My thanks to all contributors.

If my understanding of the above is correct, User:Storye book argues that both the dates and the hometowns of the parents and grandparents of the architects who formed this partnership are relevant to understanding the architectural partnership that is the subject of this article; they are sufficiently relevant that they may reasonably be included. User:Nikkimaria disagrees. The relevant words of MOS:BIRTHDATE appear to be "birth and death details should only be included after a name if there is special contextual relevance". On this basis, I comment that the amount of detail about grandparents and indeed various other points is certainly unusual. I would not characterize Nikkimaria's behaviour as in any way inappropriate.

On the specific judgement about special relevance in this case, however, I did find these details sufficiently illuminating that I was glad that they were there. For example, it was interesting to note that the named grandparents lived long lives, long enough to see their grandsons either approaching or part of the professional partnership, and that they are from the artisanal classes in nearby parts of Northern England.

On balance, in this particular article, I'd probably keep these and other mildly-unusual degrees of detail. But if a consensus to remove them should emerge, I would bow to it. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Edwin Arthur??
The first paragraph reads: "H. E. and A. Bown was an architectural practice in Harrogate, North Riding of Yorkshire, England, in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Its two partners were Edwin Arthur Bown who started the business and died at the age of 36, and his brother Arthur Bown, who carried on the business until he retired in 1911." This seems at odds with other references in the piece to the elder brother as Henry Edwin, which would be consistent with the initials quoted. Is the reference in this first paragraph to the older brother as Edwin Arthur Bown a mistake? Gwladys24 (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, much appreciated. That was a typo, and I have corrected it. Storye book (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)