# Talk:Walter de Lacy, Lord of Weobley and Ludlow

This review is transcluded from Talk:Walter de Lacy (died 1085)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 12:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Marvellous stuff. I could pass it now, very easily, but just a few very minor comments.

"succeeded by a son": Which son, or is this not known? It is not mentioned in the main body.
Reworded a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
"Another son became an abbot.": Ditto, who, where.
Um, first paragraph of "Family" says about the sons... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
"that were held of the Bishop of Bayeux": Should it not be held from; and possibly make it clearer what this means for the general reader?
See how this works? "Held of" is actually slightly more correct, as I was taught in college. "from" is okay, but "of" is better (I suddenly am hearing sheep bleat ... "two legs bad, four legs good"...)  Ealdgyth - Talk 12:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
"stopping a Welsh raid and then raiding into Wales in retribution": raid … raiding. Could "attack" be used?
Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
"along the border with Wales": Very minor point: maybe "Welsh border"?
I think I used this phrasing to avoid paraphrasing concerns... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
"Considerable confusion exists about the wife of Pain fitzJohn, Sybil. C. P. Lewis names her as the daughter of Walter": Possibly my stupidity, but when I first read this, I thought it gave Lewis' name as Sybil C. P. Lewis. It may be that my eye-test is due, but maybe reword this as "Considerable confusion exists about Sybil, the wife of Pain fitzJohn. C. P. Lewis names her as the daughter of Walter…"
Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Sarastro1 (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
All good, passing now. Somehow I did not notice the part in "Family" which clearly explains the sons. I think it's time for a holiday... Incidentally, I have no real preference on the "held of" or "held from", but we were usually told to use "from". Doesn't really matter either way, and I have a suspicion that "of" sounds better but may be a little more impenetrable to the ordinary reader. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I have been informed (as a formal warning threatening an editing block, see my talk page) that "it is unacceptable to dump large amounts of  inappropriate genealogical detail into articles, yet you continue to do so, as here a few days ago in Walter de Lacy (died 1085) where you have been reverted: [1] by Ealdgyth". 
I'm totally bemused. I actually reduced genealogical information by demoting to a note the sentence "A niece was married to Ansfrid de Cormeilles", which I felt was irrelevent, especially as we were not told who "Ansfrid de Cormeilles" is, and there was no link. So prima facie it's not notable. All I did was to rearrange the existing genealogical information into the standard wikipedia format of bullet points for issue/children (is that disallowed?), adding the date of death for the eldest son and heir, and stating that he was the eldest son and heir (is that disallowed?). That's four words, and not "inappropriate", surely entirely relevant. As is standard in thousands of wikipedia biographies. How is that possibly interpreted as "dumping large amounts of  inappropriate genealogical detail"? The section heading "Family and death" is clearly totally absurd, if not comical, what has "family" got to do with "death"? The two topics are unrelated, so I split them into two logical categories. "Family" can mean either birth/ancestry or marriage/descent. Thus "Marriage and issue" is a clearer heading. Please can we have some comments as to whether my two edits are evidence of what I have been accused of doing.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

This isn't an RFC... it isn't formulated as one. As for the reason for the revert - you muddled up the citation system (it's not my job to clean up after you), you inserted jargon "married a certain", you made it appear that Sybil was certainly the daughter of Walter which is not the case, and you did edits against the MOS - when first mentioning someone in a paragraph they should be identified by name, not by "he". Nor is a bullet list for children "standard wikipedia format" - it gives undue prominence especially when the list is short. Again - genealogical works use lists ... we aren't one and it isn't standard. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
For ten years people have been telling you to stop doing this, and I tried to talk to you at length about the issue after coming across it myself, but you evaded the core issue - generally either not responding or going off at a tangent; and you continue to refuse to accept that this is not how we do things on Wikipedia. Your typical response is to argue rather than reflect on what people are telling you. We can't keep trying to explain to you that this is not acceptable on Wikipedia. You must stop now. SilkTork (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
"For ten years people have been telling you to stop doing this"? Where? I've never been told not to use the phrase "married a certain  ..." which is not "jargon" (jargon means "special words or expressions used by a profession or group that are difficult for others to understand"). How is that jargon? If an editor wishes to use bullet points for issue/children, that is allowed by MOS. How can it be "undue influence" when the section heading is "Marriage and issue"? The whole section concerns issue/children as a principle topic. So it cannot be "undue prominence" to list the children. The list is not short, it lists 5 children, that's a substantial list. Sybil is listed as a daughter by a highly reputable source (C. P. Lewis, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography) that should allow her inclusion in the list, with a caveat that another source questions it. That's usual for matters of mediaeval history, few things are certain. You seem to object to me giving a response to any of your many recent criticisms of my work.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Where? I've never been told not to use the phrase "married a certain  ..." which only reinforces that the block warning was for a general pattern of behavior, not for the specific words you used in this one edit. Mixing these two separate issues only confuses the discussion here. Agricolae (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
(e/c) Without even looking at the edit in question, I agree with Ealdgyth that this isn't an appropriate RfC, both because it is formatted incorrectly (see: Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment - note in particular the lack of a specific, neutral question) and because it is an inappropriate way to address the actual issue: a) if a specific edit is disputed, then some attempt to reach consensus by normal discussion should precede a solicitation of broader opinion via RfC - at least find out specifically what the reverting editor found objectionable first, and b) when a warning has been issued finding fault (rightly or wrongly) with a decade-long pattern of editing and failure to live up to prior agreed behavior, there is clearly a larger issue at play that will not be resolved by a conclusion over the specific edits made in this instance. Agricolae (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
If an editor wishes to use bullet points for issue/children, that is allowed by MOS. How can it be "undue influence" when the section heading is "Marriage and issue"? The whole section concerns issue/children as a principle topic. So it cannot be "undue prominence" to list the children. The list is not short, it lists 5 children, that's a substantial list. Sybil is listed as a daughter by a highly reputable source (C. P. Lewis, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography) that should allow her inclusion in the list, with a caveat that another source questions it. That's usual for matters of mediaeval history, few things are certain.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not operate by an 'everything that is not prohibited is mandatory' standard.  If Eadgyth does not consider particular phrasing helpful, then Wikilawyering over the absence of an expressed prohibition in the MOS is not moving toward consensus. As to the children, your disagreement is over how to format the material, not its undisputed inclusion: the children are named and Sarah is mentioned in the article, in detail. Agricolae (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Listing them out makes them more prominent - and thus makes the genealogical trivia of children stand out more than the other information - thus giving the appearance that the fact that he had children makes him important. Genealogical sources/works do that because that is what they are about but we aren't a genealogical reference so we shouldn't single out one aspect of a person's life. And by making a list we imply that the children listed are for sure the offspring - even if one is not sure such as Sybil. As for the heading - it wasn't "Marriage and issue" before your changes - it was different... which somehow isn't getting mentioned either. And there were other issues with your edits also, which I note you did not address. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Also - you didn't just "adding the date of death for the eldest son and heir" ... you added "eldest son and heir, feudal baron of Weobley". Roger got Weobley, but calling him the "feudal baron of Weobley" changes the meaning of what was written before your changes. The concept of a feudal baron is not one that was medieval - it's a later construct. Useful at times, but we shouldn't be stating baldly that so-and-so was a feudal baron of a place - that's an anachronism. Safer to use "lord of place" or "held the lordship of place". I note the ODNB article calls him a "magnate" and mentions his "honour of Woebley" but never calls him baron or feudal baron of anyplace. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)