Talk:George Fox (disambiguation)

Dict-defs and less, for non-notable people

In my Dab-CU of the accompanying Dab page, i cleaned one entry and then hid it inside a comment for the use of any editor interested in writing the subject's bio stub (shown in cleaned up form):

** George Fox (Irish poet) (1809-1880)

I also removed the following entries completely:

* George Fox, alias used by former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer for his involvement in a prostitution ring
* George Fox, the name of several members of the Quaker Fox family of Falmouth, unrelated to GF (1624–1691)

The purpose of this contribution is to provide, for the benefit of interested editors, the obnoxious research needed to document the lack of usefulness of the link, from the accompanying Dab, to what would essentially be a list of relatives of the Falmouth George Foxes, if it were not concealed within and among lists of their relatives, and significant info on some of their even more numerous non-George relatives. That seems necessary since a colleague complained in relevant part

... Irish poet is notable; Fox family entry is relevant and useful;...

They restored the Irish poet (who was duly removed again within 90 minutes), and the Falmouth-related article -- whose unsuitability is less quickly established. Since i had already done the research once (in order to decide whether to remove the entry), i was in a position to repeat the task, without having to guess at the cost/benefit ratio. (I have left lk'd all lk'd words that are reproduced here, but indicated only one case where a footnote appears. I shall not discuss further the reference to the non-Falmouth George Fox.)

One of the George Foxes of Falmouth is found in the second graph of the five-sentence section Fox family of Falmouth#Royal Cornwall Polytechnic Society. Perhaps i'll go to hell for quoting more than is strictly necessary, since there is no real justification for inferring that the section's topic is more trivial than its title suggests:
In 1870, the Falmouth & Penryn Committee included Charles Fox (President), Miss AM Fox, ... [names of 8 Foxes removed] ... and George Henry Fox. Miss AM Fox judged the Needlework that had been exhibited in the Annual Exhibition.
In Fox family of Falmouth#Minerals:
George Croker Fox (1784-1850), Robert Were Fox FRS and Alfred Fox assembled excellent collections of minerals, which are now in the British Museum (Natural History), given by Arthur Russell.
In Fox family of Falmouth#Iron founding (full section):
- Perran Foundry
  - General manager of the Foundry: George Fox the Second ( -1825), Charles Fox (1825-1842), Barclay Fox (1842- )
- Neath Abbey Iron Foundry.
(The remaining potentially relevant refs are in the first 3 subsections of Fox family of Falmouth#Genealogy.)
In Fox family of Falmouth#Children and grandchildren of George Fox of Par:
George Fox of Par was the son of Francis Fox and his second wife, Tabitha Croker. George Fox married twice, first, to Mary Bealing and, second, to Anna Debell.
Children of first marriage of George Fox to Mary Bealing
Edward Fox (born 1719) of Wadebridge, married Anna Were (1719-1788). They had nine children, including
George Fox (July 11, 1746 - June 22, 1816) of Perranarworthal near Falmouth, Cornwall, merchant

[3 more children of Edward omitted for this talk page]
Children of George Fox's second marriage to Anna Debell
George Croker Fox the First (1727/8-1781) (See below). [The "See below" has a lk to the next subsection.]

[Second of their sons, and his 11 children omitted for this talk page]
In Fox family of Falmouth#Children of George Croker Fox the First (1727-1781) and Mary Were, his wife:
George Croker Fox the First was the son of George Fox of Par and his second wife, Anna Debell. In 1749, he and Mary Were (died 1796) were married. Their children were:
- George Croker Fox the Second (2 June 1752 - 31 December 1807). He married Catherine Young (1751? - 1809) in 1780.
  - Their son, also called, George Croker Fox (1784-1850), in 1810, married Lucy Barclay (b.1783), whose sister, Maria, who married R.W. Fox the Younger. Lucy and Maria were daughters of Robert Barclay (1751-1830) of Bury Hill, near Dorking, Surrey. Lucy and George Croker Fox the Third had no children. He was the author of the following translations:
    The Prometheus of Æschylus and the Electra of Sophocles. Translated ... With notes, intended to illustrate the typical character of the former. Also, a few original poems. By George Croker Fox. London, Darton & Harvey, 1835.
    
    The death of Demosthenes, and other original poems: with the Prometheus and Agamemnon of Æschylus, translated from the Greek; London, 1839.
In Fox family of Falmouth#Children of R.W. Fox the Elder and Elizabeth Tregelles (1768-1848), his wife, their second child is relevant, and others are omitted:
- George Philip Fox (1790-1854)

In sum, the G Fox refs are to:

George Fox of Par (fl. 1719-1729), x3 in quick succession and one more, in my section-point numbered 4 above; another in 5 above
George Croker Fox the First (1727/8-1781), in 4 and 5 above
George Croker Fox the Second (1752 - 1807), in 5 above
George Fox (1746 - 1816) of Perranarworthal, in 4 above
George Fox the Second (fl. 1825), in 3 above
George Croker Fox the Third (1784-1850), in 2, x3 in quick succession in 5 above
George Philip Fox (1790-1854), in 6 above
George Henry Fox (fl. 1870), in 1 above

Most of the information included is merely genealogical; i suppose i was unfair in characterizing the occupations mentioned for GH Fox and G Fox II as less than dictdefs, but it should be regarded as abuse of the reader who consults not a bio dict, but an encyclopedia for information on either one, searches the 27 kB article w/ no order but that of a descendant table, and finds nothing the least info that could appear in a bio dict. GC Fox III could IMO have a lk from the accompanying Dab to Fox family of Falmouth#Children of George Croker Fox the First (1727-1781) and Mary Were, his wife:, if and when it is shown that his translations are notable. (But i'm skeptical, and expect the self-indulgent, self-sponsored output of a time when one who went to University general came away equipped to be a cultured (but not really educated) wealthy dilettante.) In any case, it is IMO absurd to throw the article as a whole into the Dab as the answer to a maiden's prayer for a bio article on an obscure George Fox.
--Jerzy•t 08:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, delete the line. Sorry to have upset you. BTW, Quakers were excluded from Oxford & Cambridge by their religion. I don't think GCF III (or was it IV) went to Uni.Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 10:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if i sounded upset; i was going for "determined to contribute to the body of discussion that increases clarity abt what the guidelines mean in light of common sense and the peculiarities of WP".
Thanks for the great sidelight; i'm asking you for more info, on yr tk, where my curiosity may be on topic.
--Jerzy•t 20:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

response

I can't help some wry amusement at all of the above!

First of all, thanks to Jerzy for the effort he has put into this; thanks to both our efforts the page is now much better than it was.

On the Irish poet, I was amused (wry amusement, part I) to see that Boleyn2 had removed him with the edit summary "Rem as per WP:MOSDAB red links". Wry amusement on two grounds: firstly, MOSDAB red links doesn't actually support that statement (there is a direct short cut at MOS:DABRL) and only the day before I had been arguing in the opposite direction on a very similar case at Talk:Iron Man (disambiguation) (wry amusement, part II). Following the advice at DABRL, I looked to see where he is linked from, and it turns out that he is included in the Oxford Book of Irish Verse. That both satisfies the necessary condition that DABRL requires, and establishes notability (the book is highly respected), so he can stay in. (I also happen to think that DABRL needs to be clarified, but that's another matter).

I'm impressed by all the work Jerzy has put in typing all the above, but it's hardly necessary. The main question to be answered is: is this article likely to be useful to our readers? True, it doesn't lead the reader to any bio articles, but the reader will not expect that from the description on the entry. From MOSDAB: "usefulness to the reader is the principal goal." I certainly find it useful to know about the existence of these George Foxs, and I suspect others will too.

--NSH001 (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the poet. The only article that mentions him just gives a list of poets; it does not give any information on him, so anyone interested in him would reach a dead end. Boleyn2 (talk) 11:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't edit-war on matters of small importance, and try to avoid arguments on marginal notability, since I regard it as an unproductive use of my time. But for the record, I should point out that this view is incorrect, since readers will not, in general, click on a redlink to find an article on the subject, and, anyway, in this case DABRL supports retention of the entry. It is, of course, also possible that someone will expand the OBIV article to give more info. Could you, at the very least, restore it within a hidden comment, as J did? Thanks.

--NSH001 (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take the view that hiding potentially useful markup in comments rather than in the edit history is a lot more efficient, and that especially with Dabs (bcz so few have substantive content) editors are likely to edit without consulting the talk page. I think many others find the comments to be low-value annoyances, and i recognize the reality of the clutter problem. I writing this, i've asked myself "If not here, where?" and found an unexpected answer, which i've implemented. Comments welcome.
--Jerzy•t 19:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK here, I think, but may not work on larger pages, where editors will not expect to look below the {{disambig}} tag, and will miss it. It's still a kludge solution, so I can't see it being adopted widely or forming part of a guideline. Take it case-by-case, I think.
--NSH001 (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I made a mistake here, back in October 2008. It is crystal-clear that the poet belongs here, since he satisfies MOS:DABRL and his notability is also established through his inclusion in the Oxford Book of Irish Verse. Also worth noting that the links in that article are steadily turning blue, so it is quite likely that someone will eventually write an article on him. There is no reason not to include him here (unlike, for example, a certain n-n DNF racehorse elsewhere ). Accordingly I have reinstated him, but with an accompanying blue link and without the proper noun in the disambiguator. --NSH001 (talk) 13:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]