Talk:Walter Hungerford (Knight of Farley)

October 2010
From the history of the article:
 * 17:25, 8 October 2010 – 17:30, 8 October 2010
 * 03:53, 10 October 2010 Philip Baird Shearer (semi revert of last edit)
 * 17:40, 11 October 2010 LoveActresses (Farleigh Castle and House are different parts of the same estate. The mother of his wife is mentioned on his father-in-law's page and was also added here.)

LoveActresses, what is your source that the Farly estate only consisted of the Castle and the House (no lands or other property), also what is your source that the house was built before this date. You have added "His mother appears to have been his father's third wife Elizabeth Hussey." but you have not provided an in-line citation for this edition. No one minds you being bold but if your changes are reverted and you are asked for sources you will be in breach of WP:PROVEIT if you reinstate them without providing in-line citations. Mentioning Wikipedia as a source in the history of the article does not satisfy WP:PROVEIT. -- PBS (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

LoveActresses you have made this change twice.

See MOS:DOB. "At the start of an article on an individual, his or her dates of birth ... except between year-pairs when no spaces are used." (my emphasis) so changing "(1532–1596)" to "(1532 – 1596)" is contrary to the MOS guidance.

"Sir" and "of Farley" is not part of the article title so there is no reason for the words to be in bold, particularly as neither is part of his name. If the "Sir" was part of a Baronetcy then those are usually placed in bold. But which guideline are you using to justify putting Sir in bold? As he is known as "knight of Farley" and that is mentioned in the first sentence there seems little point in including "of Farley" in the same sentence as it bloats the sentence without giving the reader any additional information and no source or reason has been given for including it. -- PBS (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "&amp;ndash;" (ndash character in HTML) can be written as "–" in the edited text so there is no need to replace (1532–1596) with (1532&amp;ndash;1596) as it will appear the same: (1532–1596)  -- PBS (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)