Talk:Kate Nesbitt

Recent edits
I've just made the following edits. in explanation, first, I dispute that a See also section is not needed, I think that plenty of those links are relevant. Second, in the recent expansion, I removed the WO/MM etc info in the first place, primarily as it seems secondary to the main claim of notability (no source that I saw picks it up), and secondly, it is simply unsourced. I also think a basic explanation of what the MC is awarded for is fine for the article, particularly if it is going to go into depth about the history of it. So, if this is to be included, I consolidated all of this into one new section, but I have tagged the bits that need a citation, as otherwise, they would pretty much be the only unverifiable parts of the article. I hope this makes sense. MickMacNee (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Height
Busy day. Regarding this recent change, can I ask why her height is not relevant? Quite apart form the fact you've killed my pending DYK hook, this is basic biographical info imo. MickMacNee (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * BBC News made a point of mentioning it in their reports last night so I think her height does have some relevance to this article. Paul Largo (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I've re-added it. I really cannot see any logic to saying height is not relevant bio material. MickMacNee (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The only reason this woman has an article is because she received the MC. Unless she has a particularly unusual height, or her physique is relevant to why she is notable, then it is superfluous.  I have come across this sort of information only in articles about people such as sportspeople and models, and not about military figures.  Today's featured article, Henry Wells (general) is a good example. Jhbuk (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, we don't have any rules about including heights. There is frankly no reason not to include it, it's not like it is total trivia, like the colour of her car, or her favourite meal, it is basic biographical info. Just because you don't think it's relevant, please do not be so bold as to assume this for other readers, especially when RS also note it. This is a biography, just because it only exists because of the MC, is no reason to exclude anything not directly relevant. At the end of the day, references are for verification, they are not Further Reading material to find out what info they noted but has been deemed 'superfluous' here. And finally, how many people are even aware that the RN allows women four inches below average height to join? Don't assume this sort of thing is common knowledge. MickMacNee (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is extremely important whether this piece of information is in there or not (which is why I haven't changed it), but the reason I took it out is because I can't see why it would be so vital in this article, but not for featured articles about more prominent military people, or for it not to be given a section on the infobox template. Regarding your last point, that is not really to do with her, that more suggests that the information about height restrictions should be included in a more general article about the RN.  Also, regarding the news article, I thought the information was added there more for artistic effect with those around her being so much higher than her, than as a necessary piece of information. It is as always a matter of opinion, but we are all entitled to "be bold" and edit to improve the articles here where we each see fit. Jhbuk (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)