Jump to content

Talk:Hubert Chesshyre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability?

[edit]

Is Hubert Chesshyre notable enough to need an article?--AlexanderLondon 15:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • The College is a top heraldical institution in the world. If you think that an entire millenium-old science (or art, if you prefer) and its foremost representatives don't matter enough for a colossaly broad encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia, then I ask myself what you are here for. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Hubert Chesshyre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too long?

[edit]

Isn't this article too long for a minor figure, important only in the minority activity of heraldry?

And the bit at the beginning about his ancestors reads almost like a sort of Wodehouse parody. e.g. "Robert Isacke's wife, Chesshyre's 2nd-great-grandmother, Matilda Scrymgeour-Wedderburn, was the daughter of Henry Scrymgeour-Wedderburn, de jure 7th Earl of Dundee, and great-granddaughter of Charles Maitland, 6th Earl of Lauderdale"

Most people wouldn't even know what a "second" great-grandmother is. And is there such as a thin as a "de facto" earl, rather than a de jure one?

I suggest removing most of the guff about his forebears and cutting the rest of the article down to the bare bones.

Marchino61 (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ordinarily I would agree. However, this article does seem a bit of a special case, e.g. with regard to his ancestry. The subject's profession for over 40 years was being a genealogist, therefore an account of his ancestry is in keeping with the subject of the article. Furthermore, it is generally established in that section why his particular ancestors are relevant, e.g. it is interesting that a herald should be related to the holders of two Scottish positions related to flags. It is noteworthy that he is descended from the very person who presented the College of Arms premises to the Crown and that he is related to the Duke of Norfolk who was effectively his employer for over 40 years. He also is quoted as saying that discovering a portrait of a particular ancestor was what sparked his interest in genealogy.--SeptemberInteriors (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be "special cases;" the winner of a Nobel Prize couldn't even get an article; some pretty obscure figure does not need the article to go on and on as it does, recounting all of his activities throughout his life; I doubt more than 10 people in the world care. Queen Elizabeth II's article would be 10 times as long as it is if we followed the same approach; so would most of them. Just because there are reams of information available about someone, doesn't mean we need to include every single little bit. We don't need to know his genealogy in such detail; far more notable people, such as Theresa May, Justin Welby and David Beckham don't have a section 824 words long. We really DON'T need to know the family details of his paternal great-great-great-great-grandfather; we just don't. An encyclopedia is supposed to be relatively concise (even if Wikipedia is not restricted by space) and this is rambling and irrelevant. Also his activities aside from his profession, don't need to encompass several sections on their own; they are far too excessively detailed. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 12:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the commenters above. This article is hilariously over-detailed and comes off as promotional in tone, though it's more promotional than any CV I've ever seen. We don't need a long list of his clients and 'professional achievements', and his ancestry is utterly irrelevant. The most important fact of his biography - his conviction for child sexual abuse - is buried deep in the biography where someone casually scanning the article could easily miss it, when it should really be at the top of the first section. Robofish (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Robofish: I've now trimmed this page heavily (more like taken a chainsaw to it) to remove much of the trivia, puffery and unsourced material; I've tried to prosify what remains and make it feel more encyclopaedic and more suitable for a general audience. I disagree that the section on abuse needs to be at the top though -- Jimmy Savile's section is also at the bottom. It is now much easier to navigate too and weighted much more appropriately. —Noswall59 (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks, Noswall59! Good work there, much improved. Robofish (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hubert_Chesshyre&oldid=1231753768"