User talk:Mpmarcil

NEHGR
You have added several incomplete/inappropriate references to the Fettipace page. The paywalled index entries you are using as citations are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Paywalled sources are not helpful to the vast majority of readers, while index entries are never a valid substitute for the original material upon which the index is based. You need to follow the index entry in the NEHGS database through to the associated images and page forward and backward to determine the details of the relevant journal article in which the material appears - author's name, article title, journal title, year, volume and pages. Agricolae (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I made the corrections. Mpmarcil Mpmarcil (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Please note that I have done a general cleanup of citations. Note in particular: 1) the general order and markup: Author always first, "article title in quotes", journal or book title in italics; 2) how repeated identical references are dealt with - assigned a ref name the first time, and then only the ref name need be repeated subsequently (look at markup to see appropriate coding for this); 3) when using a web page that simply hosts the content of a published book, cite the book, not the web host (e.g. British History Online is not a source, it is a host); 4) when citing a web page, give the title of the specific page and not just the blanket name for the entire site; 5) I flagged the many cases where the references remain incomplete, usually missing volume and/or page information but sometimes more - still most of the references present. Agricolae (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Please note that most of the items where you marked that the citation is incomplete are NOT my work. The only one that is mine is British History Online.  Also, you made the statement "same with a non-Fettipage descendant marrying someone related to a king," yet it was Richard Fettiplace's wife, Elizabeth, who was the royal descendant, not a "non-fettiplace" descendant. Additionally, where you deleted a reference stating, "her ethnicity is not relevant to this description of the memorial."  I did not insert that reference.  It was part of the ORIGINAL material being cited.


 * I didn't mean to imply that they were all your work - I wasn't going to flag just yours and pretend the others were OK, and since you are relatively new to Wikipedia, I wanted to point it out to you so you were not taking your lead from poorly-done exemplars. That said, you were the one adding the NEHGR citation, and some of those don't have pages, so not just BHO.  "A Fettiplace descendant marrying someone related to a king" was not a reference to the Harcourt marriage, it was to the other tangential connection stating that someone had a great grandchild who married a cousin of king Edward VI, or something like that.  That said, it doesn't matter since no royal connnection is noteworthy unless they are immediate or in some manner can be shown to have affected the family's status.  This is something that was fascinating to 19th century antiquarians and to certain genealogists, but we take our lead from modern scholarly historians and you would be hard pressed to find any who cares at all about such remote royal connections.  As to the last, when a citation is given at the end of a long paragraph, it is always problematic to know what, precisely, it refers to.  Is it documenting everything, or just the sentence it immedieately follows? I thought it was the latter.  If you are telling me that the whole paragraph is based on that source, then the source (just the source, not the sentence about Beatrice being possibly a Portuguese royal) should be restored. Agricolae (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was the whole source, and I did restore it. I have been doing genealogy fairly seriously for 30 years, so I am not a newbie, as they say, and I've even attended conferences.  I understand what you're saying, but I think there is some inconsistency in what is deemed noteworthy and what is not.  BTW, who are you exactly?  What is your affiliation with Wikipedia?  My mother happens to be a Fettiplace (maiden name) and my father also is a Fettiplace descendant, but distantly.  The other NEHGS references were not created by me, but I will be happy to correct them, since I have been a member of NEHGS for many, many years and have access to their online databases. BTW, with respect to who would be interested in the Harcourt connection, I would differ with you and say that anyone descended from this family might be.  Fettiplace is such a rare surname that I doubt that the only readers are scholars and would suspect that there would be many descendants and relations who would be on that page.


 * Wikipedia has a policy, WP:NOTGENEALOGY. In a nutshell, that is not what Wikipedia is for. There are plenty of venues on the internet where people can put trivial genealogical facts simply because descendants might be interested. Wikipedia is not one of them. Further, it is general bad practice to copy the text of a published source verbatim, as you have done in the section under discussion. We summarize what we find in sources, we do not simply cut and paste whole paragraphs as you did here.
 * I hope other added material is not similarly cut-and-paste, or there is a lot more cleanup that needs to be done.Agricolae (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I will review my material to make sure it is summarized. This consists solely of the entry on the Manor in East Shefford, so fear not, very little cleaning up to do.  I note that you again deleted my entry for Anne Fettiplace; However, offspring and their spouses are listed for numerous other Fettiplace children who were not "prominent.", which I did not enter.  Why the double standard?  I note that the policy states: "Genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic."  Since the topic literally is the Fettiplace family, I fail to see how incidental facts do not aid in the reader's understanding of the topic.  I think you have a fierce bias.  My intent was to add content to this entry, for which purpose I devoted my time, but apparently I should simply refrain because every entry I have made has been either removed or criticized.  Apparently contributions are not welcome unless they conform to your opinion of how they should be presented. I contributed the East Shefford monument, the 2 manors, and some additional information about Adam Fettiplace.  Sorry if you have been terribly inconvenienced by my efforts.


 * How is picking on of nine children out of a hat helpful in understanding the Fettiplace family? The man had nine children.  Naming them all is gratuitous.  Naming only one who was not notable themselves, had no special status among the children (e.g. wasn't an heir or co-heiress), and didn't marry anyone notable or with immediate notable connections is just arbitrary. Someone reading this and seeing that one of Richard's daughters married Edward Purefoy, whoever that is, doesn't better undderstand anything. Ancestry.com or FamilySearch or Geni or one of the innumerable others would be the place to go if you want to memorialize the complete family, that is not what Wikipedia is for. Agricolae (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

First of all, Anne's grandson became royal governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony and signed the Harvard University Charter among other things, but you removed the context from my earlier entries, so it stands alone. Second, I note that the categories for this article are "Categories: Start-Class Genealogy articlesLow-importance Genealogy articles" so I suppose those must be misnomers. Also, you have a very condescending tone. I'm asking for arbitration because this is ridiculous. One person should not be able to lord over an article and decide what stays and what goes. If I was putting something completely irrelevant, I would understand, but the relatively scant information I added to flesh out some of the dry facts on the page hardly counts as rubbish. If the article's purpose is to show the contributions the Fettiplaces made to society, then showing the achievements of their descendants would, I think, fit with that purpose. This is not my entry, and it doesn't seem to be relevant according to your logic: "William Fettiplace, of Letcombe, Berkshire, married Elizabeth Waring, widow of John Kentwood, but had no issue." Why is he even relevant since he isn't an heir or prominent in his own right? Why do we care about who his wife was?