Talk:Robin Teverson, Baron Teverson

Terrye Teverson
My reasons for removing the Terrye Teverson section of the article are covered by the MOS (MOS:BODY) in two regards:

1. Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose. The Terry Teverson section was 1 and a bit lines. It was too short.

2. The usual practice is to name and order sections based on the precedent of some article which seems similar. Most UK politician articles have a single "Personal life" section for the person's marriages and family, and perhaps an "Early life" section to describe their background and education. I cannot think of a single UK politician who has a separate section about one of their spouses. Given the precedent of other pages, this section is not justified.

On a more specific point, it seems completely odd that we would create a section for his second wife, and not one for his first, who he was married to for 30 years, including during the time he was an MEP. Frinton100 (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. The entire article is rated as a stub and all of it is very short at the moment. That does not mean that the article should not be given structure as part of the articles continuing development. I shall make the Terrye Jones section longer, which should address this concern.
 * 2. You have not used WP to support your case but say you havn't seen any and therefore claim precedent. If needed I could provide examples of where this has been done elsewhere.
 * 3. The creation of a specific section assists the reader in locating a part of an article from a link. That aside, I don't think that relative tenure of an event is a strong argument for not highlighting a part of someone's life. Any other editor is of course at liberty to create a section for his first marriage. Graemp (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I have used wikipedia to support my case, once again the link is MOS:BODY. And if you don't think that covers the issue, WP:STRUCTURE makes clear that undue weight must not be put on one aspect of an article through its structure.


 * I would be interested to see any articles where a similar section has been created, because as I say, I can't think of any, and I have read a lot of similar articles. Frinton100 (talk) 14:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't get that quite right. I should have said that your point in 2. is not supported by WP. The usual practice is to name and order sections based on the precedent of some article which seems similar is not in itself enough to rule out creating a section heading for a spouse. WP:Structure is a WP developed to address undue weight issues relating to Neutral point of view. In this, undue weight is concerned with bias, not the extent to which some parts of an article are developed more than other parts. In the Herbert Asquith article there is a section headed Venetia Stanley, who was not even his wife. There are of course many others. Graemp (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Point 2 in my first post is also from the MOS:BODY section - the italicised text is copied straight from the article. The Veneita Stanley section in H. H. Asquith is a subsection within the "Personal life" section. This section is quite long, so has been divided into subsections. What has not been done is to create a completely separate section away from all the other personal life elements as had been done with Teverson. Stanley also has an impact on his premiership, so it is important to give a brief background of her life. Frinton100 (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * (ec)But Venetia Stanley is notable enough to have her own article, and her relationship with Asquith is significant to his premiership. I see nothing to suggest that Terrye Teverson is either notable enough to merit an article, nor that her relationship with Robin Teverson is particularly significant to his actions in office. DuncanHill (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * @DuncanHill: Thank for contributing. I don't think it helps to dwell too much on the Venetia Stanley situation. I provided this an example of where a biographical article used as one of its headings the name of another person and then gave over that section to providing some biographical details. This was to address the point about "The usual practice is to name and order sections based on the precedent of some article which seems similar". Frinton100 did not know of any such examples. I agree with you that Terrye Jones lacks sufficient notability to warrant her own article, that is not in dispute. What is also not in dispute, is that she should appear in the article, given that she is the wife of the subject. I think as his wife, she could merit her own paragraph in the article, almost regardless of the extent to which she is involved in either his public or private life.
 * This is rated a stub class article and before today, it was a genuine stub of an article. Today Frinton100 has done some good work on expanding it. With further expansion, it would not appear odd for such an article to contain a separate section on Terrye Jones, particularly given there is more to include about her that would be interesting and informative to the reader. Given the relative stage in development of this article, it might be best at this stage to create her section as a subsection of "Personal life". Graemp (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. She's stood for election a few times, not been elected. A mention in the personal life section is perfectly adequate. DuncanHill (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with DuncanHill. No need to mention any more than they got hitched, she stood for election a few times. End of. And I definitely think there is no need to link her name in the election boxes when she was a candidate to this page. Frinton100 (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)