Wikipedia talk:Famous Residents

Rationale for this essay

Personally, I feel that "Famous Residents" sections are pure braggadocio - just a way for people of a certain location to tag their moniker to someone else's fame. However, as I realize most people do not share my view on this subject, I have written this essay in a spirit of compromise.

This is in response to the often lengthy lists of "famous residents" listed in articles about certain cities or locations. I have found that the very notability of some people included in these lists is questionable at best. I feel the criteria listed in the essay are valid, reasonable, and beneficial to Wikipedia. Perhaps through dialog and revision, this essay can eventually become a Wikipedia guideline or policy. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I heartily approve. Dlabtot (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There's some good stuff here, but I disagree with excluding seasonal residents. In some settlements, almost all of the notable residents are seasonal, particularly places visited by the wealthy like Aspen, Colorado, or Palm Beach, Florida. These "dilatory domiciles" may cost $20 million yet only be occupied a few months a year (or less). Since the people have a substantial investment in the community, it seems worthwhile adding them. By comparison, a totally different problem are communities with prominent hospitals. Santa Monica, California, a small city in a major metropolitan area, has two major hospitals. People are born there who have no other connection to the community beyond parents who live nearby. I think that's an insoluble issue, but it shows why it's inappropriate to delete folks who may cumulatively spend dozens of months in a place while keeping people whose only residency in a place was in the maternity ward. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If this essay is written in a spirit of compromise it's not clear to me wherein that quality resides. 'Braggadocio'? Human settlements by definition derive their significance from their inhabitants of that named species. If a few of those 113 billion creatures achieve sufficiently wider notice to became famous residents on here what's your problem? As already pointed out these new restrictions are proposed without much in the way of justification. Why urge exclusion of those notables with a regular presence at different locations - is only one entry to be allowed? Another example is when you invite disqualification on grounds of an unspecified non proximity. What's wrong with 'nearby locale or community' - that means local to - so if a notable person never lived what you consider 'close enough' to the their nearest notable settlement they don't qualify? Think about poor Stamford Raffles ;-) Or your suggestion that being the subject of a Wikipedia article has to be a necessary condition of meeting the notability criteria - or that being born in a place is not significant enough to warrant an association with it. With respect I think there are far more questions raised than answered by your essay.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Elaboration of essay from MOS See Also

Some of what is in MOS:SEEALSO could be adapted to this essay, for example:

• Sorted either logically, chronologically, or alphabetically.
• Links should enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article.
• Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent.
• No red links.
• Should not repeat links that appear in the article's body. --Cornellier (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)