Talk:Henrietta Stanley, 4th Baroness Strange

Untitled
This article just lists a bunch of people who the person in question is related to, none of whom even have articles themselves.--Lairor 02:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Legitimate British peer, so should stay.Tubezone 03:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, Henrietta Maria Stanley was de jure suo jure 4th Baroness Strange, as may be seen by consulting the Complete Peerage, vol XII/1, p. 338, or Burke's Peerage 1999, p. 2726. Charlotte Murray was the 8th Baroness Strange, succeeding in 1764. - Nunh-huh 03:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for correction, I was misreading the dates. Tubezone 03:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, but what did she actually do?--Lairor 03:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As a peeress, she's automatically notable. See Notability_(royalty) - Nunh-huh 03:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So tell me how we're going to turn this into the perfect article. I'd suggest you make one page for this whole family if all you're going to list on the individual pages is how they're related to each other.--Lairor 03:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Perfect is the enemy of the good. Deleting information isn't an appropriate response to your frustration that the article isn't perfect. = Nunh-huh 04:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Nunh-huh, the reference provided sounds good, but part of the misunderstanding here may arise from the fact that the article itself is unreferenced. If you have checked the reference, then it would be helpful to add the reference to the article, rather than just on the talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the problem is that Lairor was misusing the word "verified" to mean "my objection to the notability of peers has been answered". But yes, of course I checked the references, and I'll be happy to add them. - Nunh-huh 23:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)