Talk:Sir Thomas Green

Family
According to the peerage.com which has NO source except for a person's email -- the parents of Sir Thomas Green are Sir Thomas Green and Marina Bellers. I refuse to use that site when it only has a person's email who didn't confirm where her information came from. Over at another site that actually has sources Sir Thomas Green, father of it shows that his parents are Sir Thomas Green and Maud Throckmorton. Marina Bellers was a wife of a Sir Thomas Green, but not the mother of Sir Thomas Green (1461-1506). Therefore on this page it is listed that his parents are Sir Thomas Green and Maud Throckmorton. Anyone who wants to confirm this -- please do so. -- Lady Meg (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC) FYI, we are going with the Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry for his lineage. -- Lady Meg (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This person's name his actually Thomas Grene. Later descendants changed the last name to Green and Greene, but during his life, Thomas Grene spelled his name as such. Shawn Greene —Preceding undated comment added 15:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Fogge Family
On the grandfather of Joan Fogge, there are a bunch of sources stating her grandfather is a William Fogge. Here are a few Crofts Peerage; The Main Historical; Fogge Family of America; The Antiquary and see The Lineage and Ancestry of H.R.H. Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, by Gerald Paget, Vol. I, p. 95. You can also see this page which has sources and names the best source on the family gives his father's name as William Fogge. Sir John Fogge -- Lady Meg (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Keeping refs for ahnentafels separate from other refs
Hi PBS, Could you move the ahnentafel back to where it was? I had it set up to show the two sets of references separately, after receiving assistance from the Help Desk, and now they're mixed together, and quite confusing. Thanks. Also, when I'm adding new material and references to an article on a fairly consistent basis over a period of several days, could you refrain from making major moves until I'm finished unless the moves are discussed on the Talk page first. This work is REALLY difficult, and finding things moved around while I'm still adding bits and pieces of new information and refs and citations really throws me off. Thanks. NinaGreen (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The ahnentafel is no different from other sections it should come before the WP:APPENDIX. I see no confusion over having the footnotes for the ancestor section listed with all the others. How are they confusing? It is difficult to tell if people are still editing a page but using the template Under construction if you are helps inform others, and people of good will will usually converse on the talk page before making a major change. -- PBS (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As for moving sources out of the references section. If they are not in use as citations then they should not be there. If they start to be used then they can be moved back from further reading. There is a real problem in many articles with sources which where cited but are no longer being left in reference sections, and short citations in articles with no full citation anywhere on the page. -- PBS (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

NG The short citation is "Pearman 1858, p. 25." the source in the Reference section has a date of 1868 (as does the other short citation). -- PBS (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Most ahnentafels on Wikipedia are entirely unsourced, and many of the sources used in others are questionable. They're something Wikipedia should perhaps look into. Because of the unreliability of most ahnentafels on Wikipedia, it seems to me a sensible practice is to keep their alleged sources (when they actually cite any) separate from the other references cited in the article. On the other issue, I must say it's disconcerting to be working on an article which no-one else has touched for months, if not years, and then find you suddenly showing up and making major changes to the formatting. Several times your doing that has resulted in edit clashes, and caused me to put in a lot of extra time. Could you not make major changes to the formatting of articles which no-one is currently working on? Alternatively, this article could use some additional new content, as well as an image. That's much more important than reformatting the references (as you've done with other articles I've been working on), or moving sections around. Could you help with adding new content, or an image? I feel that somehow we can work together, since that appears to be what you'd like to do, but we've yet to find a comfortable modus operadi. NinaGreen (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If ancestry trees are to be there they should carry citations. If you want to pace them in a separate reference list then use the "group=" parameter rather than relaying on placement of the section. See Help:Footnotes and Help:Footnotes. probably the template pairs: short-cite and list  will be the best choice (small and Roman is not often used) but you may prefer another, although  it can not be any group already in use (the common groups are none and group=lower-alpha). --PBS (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I did place the ahnentafel references (which were cited by an earlier editor, not by me) in a separate section after getting advice as to how to do that from an experienced editor at the Help Desk, and then you moved them, and you're now telling me I can put them back by doing something entirely different from the quick fix I got from the editor at the Help Desk, which will probably take up a lot of my time because that sort of thing isn't my forte. This isn't positive for me! You're wasting a lot of my time with this sort of thing. And while I'm on the topic of things which you do which just don't work for me, could I ask you once again not to reformat horizontally references I've added to an article? I find it extremely difficult visually to work with a long list of references which are formatted horizontally, which is why I format references vertically. Could you just leave them that way? You redid two of them horizontally in the past hour, and in the past you've done the same thing to more than one article I've been working on. Thanks. NinaGreen (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have placed a notes section embedded in the ahnentafel template. It has the advantages that it is not visible unless the ahnentafel template is open. Before you started to edit this page the format of all the citations was horizontal (which is the normal way that citations are laid out and is more accessible for people editing on small screens). The two I changed were changed because one was antecedently deleted (presumably in an edit clash) so I put it back and formatted it standard way (and the way the citations were in article before you started to edit it. Which by the way is to include the surname in the first field so that it is easy to sort them and to find the correct line (why do you put title first?). The second one I change was to use the specific Cite ODNB which fills in most of the fields and provides useful information for the WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography. -- PBS (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You wrote: 'Before you started to edit this page the format of all the citations was horizontal (which is the normal way that citations are laid out and is more accessible for people editing on small screens)'. It isn't the norm for references placed in harv or sfn format at the end of articles, although I agree that it was the norm for earlier Wikipedia editing when citations were (and still are by some editors) placed in the text itself right after the text to which they refer. But for most people, editing an article which has a lot of citations in the middle of the text is a visual nightmare, which is why I use harv and sfn formats which allow for a very brief citation in the text itself which links to a fuller citation in a separate References section at the end of the article. Horizontal citations, whether embedded in the text itself or in a separate References section, are just plain hard on the eyes for both inexperienced editors and experienced editors. You have your personal preferences, and that's perfectly fine, of course, and I wouldn't object in the slightest to you using your preferred form for articles you're editing. But I do object to your making it harder visually for me to edit the articles I'm working on just because of your own personal preferences. NinaGreen (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Grandparents and great grandparents
There is no need to mention in the body of the text any of is ancestry other than his parents unless the ancestors are direct notable to the events of his life in which case they can appear in the text as part of notable events. Therefore I propose to remove the following:

Also it is unusual in English to refer to a man as "Baron" (as they do in German) he are usually referred to as "Lord". -- PBS (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be disadvantageous to Wikipedia readers for you to delete that information. The only reason I can see for earlier editors having created a Wikipedia article on Sir Thomas Green is that he was the ancestor (i.e. the grandfather) of Henry VIII's last wife, Katherine Parr, so his own ancestry is obviously significant, and the information you propose to delete took a great deal of time to put together because of the disagreement among reliable sources as to his own ancestry. The information you propose to delete also affects a number of other existing Wikipedia articles concerning Sir Thomas Green's own ancestors which at present don't yet reflect that disagreement among RS. In addition, the presence of this information might encourage the development of Wikipedia articles on some of Green's ancestors who don't yet have Wikipedia articles of their own, but who are perhaps sufficiently noteworthy to merit one. There is a tremendous amount of interest both within Wikipedia itself, and out there in the general public, about anything to do with Henry VIII and his wives and the Tudors in general, and the material you propose to delete has a guaranteed readership, and is also likely to encourage the development of future articles on Wikipedia.
 * As for referring to a lord as 'baron', I agree with you, and I too find the Wikipedia usage of 'baron' odd, but all the articles in Wikipedia on the various English baronies use 'baron' for the article titles on the baronies themselves and the individuals who held the title, so I've adopted the existing Wikipedia practice. I'm surprised you're not aware of it. NinaGreen (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * THere is nothing obvious about this being significant. It isn't.  Everyone has ancestors, but it has to tell us something noteworthy about the subject (not one of their descendants) to be worth showing.  Genealogy should not be included just because we can. Agricolae (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree Agricolae. I agree with everything Nina said here. Somewhere the ancestry of this man should be noted. If a tree is not what you want to do, then the ancestry should be mentioned in the article. It is important to certain people that this be noted. Not just because it is the ancestry of Queen Catherine Parr, but it is the ancestry of LIVING people and they may be interested into where it leads, especially when there are articles out there claiming that Parr's maternal side leads back to Edward I several times. People want to know about these things. Just because it doesn't have any personal relation to you doesn't mean it doesn't matter to others. Also, some people work REALLY hard on gathering information and it takes some of us years to compile these things and to have someone swoop in and delete it, is rather insensitive. And to that I ask, how important is this to you? It's just a random page to you. Do you have a personal connection to it? I do and that's why it matters to me. -- Lady Meg (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Why should his ancestry be noted? His immediate context, (i.e. his parents) yes, but every ancestor on every branch of his tree it just gratuitous, not informing about him as a person.  Wikipedia is not a genealogy database, and it is not a place to celebrate the ancestors of anyone, living or dead.  A Wikipedia biography exists to explain the biography's subject, not as a genealogical tool to connect living people to Edward I.  Also Wikipedia is not a feudal aristocracy - no editor, no matter whom they think their ancestors are, have any more right to edit a page than any other.  Agricolae (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * His ancestry should be noted because someone might want to actually know it (like Nina noted above). If ancestry isn't a big, then why do SO MANY pages have ancestry charts? And why do so many pages have notes about notable ancestors, like links to Anne Boleyn (who has no living descendants) or Princess Diana? So you're going to go around deleting all the ancestry and genealogy on Wikipedia? That's not right. If it was here before you started editing, there was a reason for it. Some of us have been doing this for over a decade now and we don't appreciate it when things like this are done. Please don't tell me what should or should not be put on pages. Like you said "Wikipedia is not a feudal aristocracy". Do we need to open this up to a discussion or have a third party intervene? Because you're being quite rude by continually deleting things on here. -- Lady Meg (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * His ancestry should be noted because some hypothetical person might be interested? - that way lies madness. I could write on the page of Henry II of England what he ate for dinner on several specific days, and somebody might care, but that is not the way one writes a coherent biography, putting in material on a whim because someone might like it.  'Because we can', or 'because other pages have it', or 'because I am interested in it so other people must be' are not sufficient reasons to place trivia of any sort on a page.  Wikipedia was never intended to be all things to all people - there are a whole lot of things that Wikipedia is not and one of them is a genealogy.  As to being rude, you might want to consider how it comes across when you presume to have more right to decide what goes on a page than other editors.  That is not how Wikipedia works.  Find for me a biography of Sir Thomas Green that thinks the name of his maternal great-great-grandfather is noteworthy, and I will agree it has a place here, but I can't even find a biography of him at all.  Maybe that is the problem - maybe he isn't even notable at all and we are trying to spin an entire article out of original research in primary records, passing references, and a genealogical compendium. Agricolae (talk) 03:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * His ancestry is worth being noted. I've cut it down several times and now to just the grandson of. I already said what I'm going to say. You seem to be completely ignoring me and continue to just insist on reverting my edits. So I guess it's just who gets tired of editing the page over and over. I've got nothing but time. Thanks. -- Lady Meg (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You again say his ancestry is worth being noted, as if your bold assertion of that personal opinion means it can no longer be questioned. WP:NOTGENEALOGY says otherwise.  And you have no business removing unaddressed cleanup tags. If you have nothing but time maybe you should spend some of it actually discussing the problems with the page rather than just insisting only you get to decide what should happen to this page, as if you WP:OWN it. Agricolae (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You are also the one deciding (like you own the page) what is best for the page and if what I put isn't ok, you revert the edits. So I think we have a problem and need a third party to intervene. And don't go using another account to intervene. I know socks when I smell them and I know that people do that on here. -- Lady Meg (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Except my argument is based on policy, while you seem to be arguing 'because I say so", which, surprisingly, I don't find persuasive. And so now, rather than actually defending your position, you accuse me, without the least basis, of being a sock puppeteer - the simple act of disagreeing with you is evidence of a character flaw now, is it? Agricolae (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also that WP:NOTGENEALOGY says, Genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic. And since Sir Thomas Green is a notable person (to me and Nina, who is in this discussion), I think it would help people to understand where he comes from and who his ancestors are. The fact that his ancestry was one of notability and then he got executed in The Tower just the same means something. Plenty of articles on Wikipedia state genealogy and use genealogy tables. I don't understand why this is the only exception because YOU think it should be so. I don't think you understand what the WP:NOTGENEALOGY means entirely if we see this all over Wikipedia. You're the only one having a problem with it and in particular this article only! You're not the only editor and your opinion doesn't count more than anyone else. So we are at a stalemate and it's time for someone to either step in or this is just going to go on and on. -- Lady Meg (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And here it is again - Thomas Greene is notable, not based on the notability policies, but because you say he is. Here is a thought - how about you break the dreaded cycle by actually addressing the issue rather than a dressed up version of 'how dare you question my authority' arguments you keep using.  Based on what notability criteria do you conclude Thomas is notable?  'He had ancestors and he got executed' may be why you are interested in him, but I don't see how either of those satisfies WP:BIO, or WP:GNG for that matter.  'Because Lady Meg says so' isn't good enough (and no, you can't count Nina as agreeing with you - Nina hasn't made a contribution to Wikipedia since 2014, because she was blocked for bad behavior). Give me a reason not to AfD this article, because it sure looks to me like it has been cobbled together from original research in primary records, passing reference and genealogical trivia.
 * All this aside, don't remove cleanup tags until/unless the problem has been resolved. Agricolae (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have already argued with you enough. I'm not going around in circles. You don't care about this article or my feelings at all. You're just trying to get the upper hand here. You're now threatening to trash this article? How dare you. That's it. I've had it with your behavior. I'm bringing this to the attention of someone else. -- Lady Meg (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And FYI, this is exactly why Wikipedia will never be a reputable source. Because you have people who can edit pages any way that they want to without even taking into consideration the research done by others. This is why people start their own blogs and write books. You're not the authority of Wikipedia and you cannot just threaten anyone you want because your edits keep getting reverted. You can't just threaten to delete a page without getting another opinion. I'm really surprised that you haven't asked for another opinion from other users. It seems that you would rather torment a woman and get under the skin of people than agree to anything. I just wanted a few things in the article and you can't even allow that. You're not the authority here and there needs to be an open discussion with other people. This can't be decided by just two people when nothing can be agreed to. -- Lady Meg (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have given some policy-based reasons for excluding the information you wish to include. I have also expressed doubt over whether the subject of this article satisfies any of the WP:NOTABILITY criteria.  Why do you think policy supports the inclusion of one of this man's great-great-grandfathers?  Why do we need the names of his grandparents and great-grandparents to understand this man's historical context.  Is it just because that is how far you have to go to find another person with a Wikipedia page in his ancestry?  It certainly can't be because scholarly biographies of this man place him in historical context using these relationships, because as far as I can tell there are no biographies of this man, which brings us to . . . .  What criterion for WP:NOTABILITY do you think this man satisfies?  It can't be because he has received significant coverage in an appropriate source, because he hasn't received anything more than passing reference in the citations provided.  It can't be because he is related to someone famous or interesting because notability is WP:NOTINHERIITED.  It can't be because you have done research on this person, because there is no policy that grants notability on the basis of an editor's personal interest.  Once again you have removed cleanup tags without addressing the issues they indicate, in violation of policy - in addition to the notability issue, the article relies heavily on what appears to be original research in primary sources.  This isn't supposed to be how Wikipedia articles are compiled and that is precisely why these tags exists, not to 'trash' an article but to highlight a way an article can be better aligned with policy, to encourage its improvement.  (And, now in addition to being a sock puppeteer, I am a misogynist?  And I threatened you by asking you to explain your viewpoint?  Perhaps rather than examining the many flaws in my character, we could actually discuss the relative merits of our different views of this page.) Agricolae (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * All I wanted in the article has been put in the article. I'm telling you that this is common here on Wikipedia. All of the articles on old nobility and royalty (even newer ones like Queen Elizabeth II) have genealogy and genealogy tables. I was just doing here what has been done ALL over Wikipedia and you are the only one to have a problem with it and to continue to delete it. I simply wanted a few sentences going back a few generations and that was it. This had to turn into a pissing contest. I spent a lot of time and hard work on the genealogy of this man and all I get is gross behaviour on your part. -- Lady Meg (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Why would you not have extra information?
Somebody has spent time, time they're not going to get back, researching, writing, editing and publishing this information, I don't see why you would want to remove it.

The information is pertinent to the subject and of interest to people looking at the subject - you would think that someone researching the heritage of certain families would be all the better for finding extra information that might further aid their search.

As for the argument of readability, if you're reading an article and there is a section you're not interested in then you can skip past it.

I am a neutral party in this case, I came here from the 3O page where this has been listed. It is my opinion that the extra text stay because I don't think we should remove that section for any of the reasons given and that it doesn't affect readability. Satyris410 (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia content policies do not include an exemption that allows otherwise unimportant details if only it took a lot of effort to compile. In an example I have used before, I could compile an account of what foods Henry II of England ate every night for long stretches of time using household accounts.  That would entail a lot of effort, but nonetheless doesn't belong in Henry II's Wikipedia article.  WP:NOTGENEALOGY means that Wikipedia does not include genealogy just because we can, or because I put a lot of effort into figuring it out, or because people might sometimes use Wikipedia as a proxy genealogy site.  How then do we decide what information is worthy of inclusion and what isn't?  Editorial whim?  no, we follow the type of coverage that is provided by published reliable-source accounts of the subject (or more generally of subjects similar to our subject).  Do other encyclopaedia entries name the great-great-grandfather of a common knight? almost never, unless there is a good reason to do so.  Do profiles in the ODNB do so? as a general rule, no the don't.  How about the History of Parliament series?  again, nope.  They usually name the parents (sometimes even just the father) and only give more distant ancestry when that relationship is particularly noteworthy in setting the context for some aspect of the person's life.  As such, if there is such a biographical account of Sir Thomas Green in a reliable source that deemed the additional ancestry worthy of mention, then by all means it should be included with the relevant cite, but if there isn't, then it shouldn't.  And that raises another big problem (along with the excessive use of primary records, which suggest some WP:OR has been involved) - I have not found any such biographical account of this subject in any reliable source at all, nothing more than passing mention of him being someone's grandfather or of him becoming shorter at the king's behest, suggesting he may not even satisfy WP:GNG let alone mandating that we give his complete five-generation pedigree.Agricolae (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to be sure my point is clear, if we simply use editorial whim to decide what to put on a page, then where does it end? If I know the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather of Thomas Green, should that be included?  It took a lot of effort to figure out, right?  Some genealogist would be fascinated, wouldn't they?  How about his father's brother's wife's sister's grandniece's half-brother's uncle's father-in-law?  Again, a lot of research, and some genealogist might be interested.  Yes, these are ridiculous extremes that I would think everyone would agree are excessive (or not - I know of one page that gives a relationship more remote than the first), but where does one draw the line?  If one bases it on one editor's personal whim, it is just as subject to a different editor's different whim.  Instead we need a concrete and non-arbitrary criterion of how much genealogy is enough and how much is too much, and we have one as we do with all content - per WP:PROPORTION, we reflect the depth of coverage given by WP:RSs, whether or not accounts of the subject published in reliable general biographical sources deem the relationship illuminating enough to include, rather than having it devolve into an argument over whose personal whim in more righteous.  Agricolae (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And since mentions 3O, the listing there is a grossly biased mischaracterization of this dispute. I am not "threatening to trash the article because it doesn't meet [my] guidelines".  What happened to the 3O policy that "the third opinion request should be framed in terms of content issues, even if the conduct of an editor is also at issue"?  Do I get to post my own one-sided characterization of the other editor's actions there? - or maybe we could actually be fair about this and have a neutral listing. Agricolae (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * All I wanted in the article has been put in the article (but then deleted every time). I'm telling you that this is common here on Wikipedia. All of the articles on old nobility and royalty (even newer ones like Queen Elizabeth II) have genealogy and genealogy tables. I was just doing here what has been done ALL over Wikipedia and you are the only one to have a problem with it and to continue to delete it. I simply wanted a few sentences going back a few generations and that was it. This had to turn into a pissing contest. I spent a lot of time and hard work on the genealogy of this man, only to have it deleted by ONLY you. You are the only person who has a problem with this and is not following what has been done on countless other pages. Are we going to start deleting all that has been done on other pages now? -- Lady Meg (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There are numerous venues on and off the internet for where genealogists can publicise their extensive Original Research into the genealogy of obscure Tudor-era knights, but Wikipedia is not that place. It has policies about what is appropriate for an article. The policy on Original Research doesn't have an exception that it is prohibited, unless you spent a lot of time compiling it, nor does it say it can be ignored if an editor simply wants the material to be there.  Show me that some published author of a biographical account of Sir Thomas Green thought his descent from The Baron Despenser was an important factor in understanding who he was, and this problem will go away.  Except to do that, you would need a biographical account of the man, and you don't have that either.
 * And that in turn brings us back to my doubts over whether this person passes notability guidelines. I have asked you specifically to indicate what grounds for notability you think his man fulfills to justify having a page.  I ask it again. Agricolae (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going with what has been done on here for over a decade. You don't have the authority to go page to page and just delete what has been done by people. And why is it that you're only doing that to this page? If you're going to do this just to this page, why not go over to Queen Elizabeth II and delete her genealogical table? See what kind of trouble that gets you into. People over there will be even worse than I am towards you. And at this point, I don't even think you can about my feelings. You're just here to cause trouble because you know you will get a reaction out of me and no one will help me when it comes to you. That's fine. I'm coming to realize what you're doing here and it's not very noble or nice. But you don't care.
 * What I have done is not original research. I have gotten it from reputable sources and put it on here. I put the sources with the genealogical table. I can't help that you have deleted EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE DONE! At this time I've had to back up this article on my web page because I'm seriously concerned about it's future. And as for having the article, if someone is mentioned in the history books, I think that deserves an article on here. This is not original research if there are sources and resources being provided that show where the information is coming from. I've done A LOT for Wikipedia and I know how it works. I have spent countless hours, even days researching for articles. As for you, it just seems that you want to delete precious info that people have gathered from reputable sources and put up tags. You're not contributing to this article or trying to make it better. You're just policing and it's not wanted by people. Please consider your behaviour in this and think about people that have done work on these articles that you are just policing and not even helping. -- Lady Meg (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I am missing it, but I do not see in this screed the basis for notability Thomas Green meets. I also don't see a citation to a biographical account of him that thinks his descent from Lord Despenser illuminates his actions or those taken against him.  Maybe if you tried responding again without the personal attacks. Agricolae (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, for obscure knights it is very much unusual to name their grandparents and an arbitrarily-selected great grandparent and great-great-grandparent in the text of an article. Most only name parents.  That being said, it is unusual for an obscure knight to have an article at all.  What is usually done with articles about such obscure people with no particular claim to notability is to delete them.  Agricolae (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Original Research
As the Career section now stands, all but the first and the last paragraph and one sentence in the middle are solely citing primary documentation, and recounting it at a level of detail unlikely to be found in secondary accounts. This seems to be a clear violation of WP:No Original Research, so I have added the appropriate tag to the section. Agricolae (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC) (I overlooked one sentence, so I have modified this comment accordingly.) Agricolae (talk) 04:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Anything else? Have you even looked at the sources that are being used? I don't think you have all the sources to actually make this claim. What is your deal with this article? Let me guess. You love getting a rise out of people. That's the ONLY reason you're still doing this. Just admit it. Either that or you have nothing better to do. -- Lady Meg (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI, you can keep doing this, but I'm not going to stoop to your level and get angry and start calling you names or anything. I'm just going to keep insisting that what I'm doing is what has been done for over a decade and if it's being done ALL over Wikipedia and it's never been addressed like it has been by you ONLY on this page for whatever reason. -- Lady Meg (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Researching in primary records is Original Research, and is prohibited. It will still be prohibited no matter how much you continue to attack me for pointing it out. Agricolae (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to be excruciatingly clear, summarizing the content of a primary record, such as an IPM, is Original Research, as is extracting an account of his charges from a contemporary chronicle. It is one thing to use primary records to back up what has been deemed noteworthy by secondary sources, it is another to derive the content from your own reading of the primary records. Agricolae (talk) 03:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with User:Agricolae. User:Lady Meg you have been editing since 2011 you really ought to know this by now. See WP:PSTS it says "". The part I have highlighted "reputably published" is there to stop original research with unpublished primary sources. -- PBS (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

However I do think that: The content of this book is "reputably published".

In general I do agree with the point User:Agricolae makes about listing decendents, with few exceptions it does not improve the content of a biography. If you look at profesional biographies produced by the DNB, ODNB, DCB etc they tend not to include such information. -- PBS (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I assume in this last statement you mean my point about listing ancestors. The Evans book is reputably published, but what is being done here, basing the vast majority of the career section on primary documents alone, is a lot closer to violating:   It is one thing to use a primary source to provide a detail that supplements a secondary source, but that is not what is being done here - there is no secondary source that mentions this person, other than in passing, and so his entire biography is being extracted from primary records. Agricolae (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes you are right, but it is more than that. I was content to have an ancesty tree, with entries carrying citations,but the original creator of this article had a tendency to put in a textual family information into the first paragraph of the body of the text, in this case it was put into the Family section. I asked for inline citations for the parts of the tree that did not carry citations and removed the text about step-family relations from the Family section (see Revision as of 15:16, 3 December 2016).


 * While I am not particularly fussed whether there is an ancestry tree in an article. The fact that so many exist (~9,000 shows that there is a consensus for them (see also Help:Family trees). My position which I have oft-repeated is on my notes page § Notes on Ancestry trees and unreliable sources — leaves must be supported by inline citations.


 * I think my position on primary sources is best summed up by the alterations to Anthony Hungerford (Roundhead) and the talk page discussion § April 2010. Ie attribute the primary sources with secondary sources if possible. However, if they are not readily avaible, then I see some problems with using primary sources as described in WP:PSTS the first is how to be sure that the primary source is really about the subject and being carful not to to commit a SYN (pun intended). This is a point I made recently on the WP:RSN about using as "" (here). However if the primary source has been reputedly published and it is used within policy and guidance, (which  includes your concerns about "entire article") then I do not think information based on primary sources should be removed if it meets WP:PRESERVE. -- PBS (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 6 June 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved to "Thomas Green (died 1506)". There is a consensus against the first proposed requested move. In strict numbers, there is a 4 to 2 for the move to "Thomas Green (died 1506)". Considering one opposer did not voice an opinion on the other title and the other opposer chose to supplement other opposers who supported the title, I'm inclined to move this to the new title. (closed by non-admin page mover)  qedk ( t  桜  c ) 18:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Sir Thomas Green → Thomas Green (grandfather of Catherine Parr) – This entry was listed a day or two ago at uncontroversial technical requests, but has remained unresolved. The text accompanying the submission pointed out that the honorific was not needed, but did not include a suggestion as to how the main header should be disambiguated. Subject's standing as ancestor of Henry VIII's last wife seems to be a reasonable qualifier, while other editors may propose qualifiers which are deemed to be more intuitive. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943  (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - If he deserves a page at all, it shouldn't be based on a relationship to someone else, but ion his own merit, and it should be named accordingly rather than naming it in relation to someone else. Honourifics are generally avoided, but are allowed when useful for disambiguation, as is the case here. If, for some reason, this is deemed unacceptable, then I would much rather see Thomas Green (d. 1506) (I usually don't like death dates, because they aren't always unambiguously known by historians - not a problem here - or by people doing a Wikipedia search), Thomas Green (knight)  (there are several that are disambiguated this way, with a one-word description, but then why bother just renaming it to something that calls him the same thing as the current name does, in a less elegant manner), or Thomas Green of Green Norton.  Still, I really don't see any point in moving it at all. Agricolae (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. If consensus coalesces around Thomas Green (knight) or Thomas Green of Green Norton, as mentioned above by Agricolae, I would apportion support for either of those options. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose see WP:NAMINGCRITERIA Naturalness "", See also WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) "" and also WP:NATURAL -- PBS (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. It may be also noted that two recent RMs rejected the proposed addition of "Sir" to the main title header (Talk:Walter Scott [unanimous] and Talk:Walter Raleigh) [10 to 5]. Furthermore, a number of Wikipedia main title headers describe subjects in terms of their relationships to more famous subjects — Anne Hathaway (wife of Shakespeare), Sybil (wife of Pain fitzJohn) or Anne of York (daughter of Edward IV). Some headers use the qualifiers "(knight)" or "(gentry)" — John Conyers (knight), Ralph Stafford (knight) or Elizabeth Cheney (gentry), etc. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The 'Sir' cases you mention are instances where the person is already occupying the main namespace without the Sir, so the Sir is being added more for decoration than disambiguation. That is not the case here, where there are any number of people with the name and some disambiguation is necessary.  I could point to some others where Sir has been retained.  As to the relational instances, I am not sure how pertinent some of them are.  Sybil, wife of Pain Fitz John has no other definitive characteristic to be used - her paternity is in dispute so no surname is possible, she had no title, and we don't know when she died, leaving who she was wife of (or who she was mother of) as the only possibilities.  There are other cases of this, such as Agatha (wife of Edward the Exile), where exactly this concern was raised, that we shouldn't be defining people by their relationship to someone else, but in the end it was decided that was the sole thing we know about her for certain.  Sometimes we just don't have any other options, but here we have plenty of options that don't depend on the marriage fortunes of a grandchild.  For the two Anne's, the only community discussion over their names are not indicative - Hathaway was moved from (Shakespeare's wife) to (wife of Shakespeare), while Anne of York has been through a series of unilateral moves mostly intent on removing inaccurate titles rather than focussing on where it was moving to - I could name a whole lot more royal scions that are disambiguated with death dates.  I still don't understand the motivation behind this proposal.  Policy explicitly allows use of Sir when it is necessary to draw a distinction for disambiguation - so why are we trying to fix something that ain't broke?  (As I understand it, you initiated this formal discussion after someone else proposed it as a non-controversial change.  Was any rationale given when the original proposal was made?  Has the original proposer been informed of this discussion so they could tell us their rationale?)  Agricolae (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding "I still don't understand the motivation behind this proposal" — per guidelines quoted [in green] by PBS above, it seemed that there should be more apt forms for disambiguating an individual's main header than the use of the honorific prefix "Sir", even if the guidelines do permit such use, while also discouraging it. I briefly spotted this nomination when it was listed two or three days ago as "Sir Thomas Green → Thomas Green" at WP:RM/TR and, upon returning to RM/TR an hour later, saw that the move request was no longer there. I cannot recall who posted it and, as far as rationale was concerned, I remember it as being something very brief, along the lines of "No honorifics". However brief the rationale, it appeared sufficient on its own merits and I decided to resubmit it for consensus, along with a parenthetical qualifier, since the original poster did not provide any disambiguation proposal. If consensus decides that the honorific is sufficient for disambiguation in this instance, then at least there will be a historical record of this discussion in the event future generations might decide to revive this matter. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The reason why "Sir" is not normally included in the article title is because of "Precision" (Brevity) in the article title, Sir is usually included only for disambiguation purposes. This is also true for baronets (see WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)), however in the case of baronets, the families tend to use only a few Christian names so baronets more often than not are in the form "Sir John Smith, 1st Baronet. -- PBS (talk) 10:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The quoted guidelines discourage use of these honourifics except for disambiguation purposes - note that it doesn't even say 'when the person is usually referred to using the honourific' but rather simply 'when one of them was a knight', the exact situation here. Were disambiguation not necessary, the original proposal of replacing Sir Thomas Green with simply Thomas Green would be spot on, but the necessity of disambiguation removes the normal restriction against using Sir.  That leaves us replacing a perfectly valid disambiguation with one that is less elegant. Agricolae (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Baronets do indeed maintain their own specialized disambiguation form which I emphasized in response to another editor at Talk:Walter Raleigh. However, since honorifics are, for the most part, discouraged and a number of knights in subcategories under Category:English people by century use parenthetical qualifiers, such as Thomas de Ashton (alchemist), Robert Bowes (lawyer), Thomas Brandon (diplomat), Robert Brudenell (judge), Thomas Bryan (Chief Justice), Nicholas Carew (courtier), Thomas Coke (seneschal of Gascony), William Hussey (judge), Edward Montagu (judge) or William de la Pole (Chief Baron of the Exchequer), to name but ten, it seemed possible that some distinctive qualifier might be agreed upon for Sir Thomas Green, even if it was as simple as "(knight)" or "(gentry)". As always however, the ultimate decision rests with consensus. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * But they are not discouraged for disambiguation: they are explicitly allowed - not mandated as your examples show, but allowed. It is obviously possible to find a different name, but it is unnecessary as the existing name is consistent with guidelines.  If there is a better name, fine, but this seems change for the sake of change.  Agricolae (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If the practice of using the unadorned honorific "Sir" within main title headers was widespread throughout Wikipedia, it would have been improvident to even submit this RM. However, the above examples of the use of qualifiers, instead of "Sir", demonstrate that such forms are the norm and that the use of "Sir" in the standalone manner exemplified by "Sir Thomas Green" is rare. I would be surprised if there are even five such main headers in all of Wikipedia. In various other examples, such as Walter Bentley (died 1359), William Browne (died 1514), Thomas Felton (died 1381), John Harpeden (died 1438), Edmund Mortimer (died 1331), William Prendergast (died 1333), Robert de Ros (died 1285), Arnold Savage (died 1375), John de Seton (died 1299) or John de Wisham (died 1332), to name but ten, intuitive qualifiers did not suggest themselves and death years were used instead of "Sir". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Then be surprised. Sir James Halyburton, Sir Richard Pole, Sir Richard Combe, Sir James Alleyn, Sir James Ramsay, Sir William Felton, Sir William Hawkins, Sir William Hawkins, Sir John Shelton, Sir Rhys ap Gruffydd, Sir Thomas Hawkins, Sir Thomas Norris, Sir Thomas Parr, . . . . Agricolae (talk) 06:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * To name but thirteen... obviously Sir Thomas Green has more company than I thought. Judging by your examples and by my examples, the decision whether to use "Sir" or a parenthetical qualifier is entirely dependent on the judgment and / or whim of individual editors who may decide, or not, to cast additional votes here regarding this topic. Ultimately, as I mentioned earlier, this discussion can at least provide some perspective in case anyone raises the subject or submits a similar RM at some point in the future. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Move to Thomas Green (died 1506). The best disambiguator and the most consistent with other articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Five days ago (20:45, 9 June 2019) Agricolae posed questions, above, regarding the origin of this nomination ("Was any rationale given when the original proposal was made? Has the original proposer been informed of this discussion so they could tell us their rationale?") which still have not been answered. For the record, before the allotted time expires, here is the original proposal (20:58, 6 June 2019) as recorded in the revision history of WP:RM/TR, with the linked name of the original proposer, User:MrClog, which serves as a notification. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , the reason I wanted a move is because it's preferable to have no honorifics written in Wikipedia's own voice (per the policy on honorifics). Even if it is allowed for the purpose of disamb., I still think that for the very same reason it would be better to find a different alternative. I find Thomas Green of Green Norton, Thomas Green (knight) and Thomas Green (died 1506) all OK alternatives, with a slight preference for the last. MrClog (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * While the policy on honorifics indeed deprecates their use 'in Wikipedia's own voice', the policy has several explicit exemptions, including "The prenominals Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady". There then follows a specific policy for these titles of knighthood that says these prenominals should be used on the first naming of the individual and in the infobox, but is neutral on their use in the remainder of the article (explicitly saying it should neither be added when absent, nor removed when present, as neither are wrong), with the sole exception that one should not use just prenominal and given name, without surname.  It does not touch on page names, but its policy of leaving as-is whatever is already present would, if anything, argue against changing a page name over a prenominal.  I get it that some people just don't like it, and that's perfectly legitimate, but neither the policy on honorifics nor that on page names dictate such a change. Agricolae (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody is disputing he should be described as Sir Thomas Green within the article. And nobody could be more pro the use of titles than me. But for consistency, we don't generally use pretitles in article titles, whatever guidelines may say for people who it's difficult to disambiguate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, as the nominator, I would also support Thomas Green (died 1506). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: WP:NCPEER says "Sir may be used in article titles as a disambiguator when a name is ambiguous and one of those who used it was knighted." I've just added details of several other Sir Thomas Greens below, but as none of them has or is likely to have an article on Wikipedia, I don't think that need stop this article staying where it is. Opera hat (talk) 11:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * One of those needing disambiguated. We don't disambiguate from every other person who has ever lived, just those with WiIkipedia pages. Agricolae (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Er, yes, that’s what I just said. “As none of them has or is likely to have an article on Wikipedia, I don’t think that need stop this article staying where it is.” Opera hat (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, misread. Agricolae (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per opposers. Johnbod (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Other knights called Thomas Green
The second volume of Shaw's Knights of England lists four knights of this name: Thomas Green or Grey, knighted at the Battle of Stoke Field, 16 June 1487 (p. 24); Thomas Greene, made knight banneret at the Battle of Blackheath, 17 June 1497 (p. 29); Thomas Green, of Harpham (or could be Francis Green, of Wilby, Norfolk), knighted at Norwich, 22 August 1578 (p. 79); and Thomas Greve or Greeve or Green, of Bobbing, Kent, knighted at Windsor, 5 September 1622 (p. 180). Presumably the subject of this article is one of the first two, but it's surprising his father isn't listed. Opera hat (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Or any of his other namesake ancestors, come to that: Sir Thomas Green of Boughton (fl. 1319) was the father of Sir Thomas Green, Sheriff of Northamptonshire in 1331 and 1343. His son was Sir Henry Green (died 1369), Lord Chief Justice, whose son Thomas Green was the father of Sir Thomas Green (died 1417), who married Mary Talbot, daughter of Richard 4th Baron Talbot and Ankaret 7th Baroness Strange of Blackmere. They were parents of another Sir Thomas Green (1400–1462), Sheriff of Northamptonshire in 1441, who married Philippa, daughter of the 5th Baron Ferrers of Chartley, and had Sir Thomas Green (died 1465), who married Matilda Throckmorton and was the father of the subject of this article. Opera hat (talk) 11:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And none of these have Wikipedia pages that need disambiguated. Agricolae (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 26 August 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: speedy close early per discussion - recommend further discussion on list of names. Steven  Crossin  Help resolve disputes! 16:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC) Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes! 16:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Sir Thomas Green → ? – Procedural requested move. A previous requested move from 6 June was closed, taken to moves review, and closed as overturn to no consensus by myself. I recommended a fresh discussion take place to determine whether this page requires a move, and if so, to what title. Steven  Crossin  Help resolve disputes! 15:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment would it not be better to start a discussion to collect possible names first and then use those as a bases for the requested move? On mobile or I'd try to summarize the various suggested names from previous discussion here. PaleAqua  (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That can happen too - but often requested moves can garner outside opinions moreso than a localised conversation with only those that watch the page. Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes! 15:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose and speedy close. No reason for this RM, the present title is acceptable and the proposer seemingly doesn't actually have any opinion on what the new name should be. Per PaleAqua if people really want to explore alternatives they can do so, but doesn't seem like a pressing need right now. The previous RM went on for a considerable amount of time aNd did not yield consensus, so unlikely anything has changed now. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm not opposed to a discussion taking place here to determine what the article title should be - however the result of the move review was no consensus, not a clear not moved so I would recommend that a discussion does take place here at some point. It's not uncommon to do that through a requested move in order to get outside opinions, but as mentioned, I'm not really phased either way. Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes! 16:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, but "no consensus" means we retain the status quo and move on. It doesn't mean we immediately restart the same discussion again. If PaleAqua comes up with a list of possible names then we can look at them, but right now this is just a repeat of the same debate as last time, which was already argued to death. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I'll recommend that further discussion does take place here, but I'll close off the RM for now as there's no clear alternate title yet. Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes! 16:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.