Talk:Constance Kent

A "Jack the Ripper" suspect?

Kate Summerscale's book The Suspicions of Mr Whicher says that William Saville-Kent travelled out to Australia in 1884 and that Constance Kent followed him in 1886 under the name Emilie Kaye. That's very much at odds with this very strange paragraph about Jack the Ripper. I have no access to Ms Wagner's book to check the referenced passage. JohnHarris (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Please read my annotation which draws attention to the rather sensational way in which the case is presented. The new book by Noeline Kyle A Greater Guilt (now added to the bibliography) explores some of the myths and inaccuracies surrounding this case.

It's crept back in. The date of Kent's emigration (two years before JTR) now referenced in the text and the speculation removed, again.--Old Moonraker (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Another World by Pat Barker

Anyone read "Another World" ? It predates the Summerscale novel, and is set in the present, but has as one of its central themes the murder in Victorian times of a two year-old boy, the son of an up and coming industrialist by, allegedly, his older half-siblings, a boy and a girl. The events of the novel are set near Newcastle-Upon-Tyne in and around the house where the murder took place. Seems so similar to the Road House murders as to be a clear inspiration, but I have been unable to confirm. Anyone ? 160.83.42.130 (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Inline template

An editor deleted the geographical co-ordinates for the murder venue because he/she found it "carbuncular". This seemed an unworthy reason to remove information, so I restored it. It's gone again, with explanation that it was the placement of the carbuncle that was causing the problem. As this template is designed with, specifically, an "inline" parameter, I'm not sure what I can do to remedy this. Using this inline template as a footnote wouldn't be orthodox, but tucking it away in this manner might satisfy the aesthetic sensibilities. Views? --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Moonraker, using the word carbuncle was uncalled for and I apologise. I simply meant that it looked out of place - no insult intended. I just don’t get why those co-ordinates need to be in this article at all. ‘Road Hill House in the village of Rode’ seems enough to me. I’ve been down this road previously [1] and [2], so perhaps these things jump out at me more than others - but I still think I’m right. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 11:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, you say this has been specifically designed as an in-line parameter. Really? There's a small blue/green planet followed by lots of big blue numbers, letters and other symbols. Shouldn't the spec for an in-line parameter be 'as subtle and unobtrusive as possible'. On what small blue/green planet does that template meet that spec? :-) Mannafredo (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Now we are getting to an argument I can relate to: whether or not the information belongs here. It's an extra facility that, through geohack, allows the interested visitor to click through for instant access to large-scale aerial photography and some pictures: surely an enhancement to the article's relevance and usefulness. For example, the size and grand style of the building quickly gives a valuable insight into the family's wealth and social position beyond that offered in the article. Some readers may be aware that with a some research and extra effort they can get to this, but your deletion denies this extra benefit to to others who may not know about it.

I can't answer for the template design, sorry; I just believe that aesthetic considerations of the mediawiki software we have to use (and, in general, are very grateful for) shouldn't override the primary purpose: the provision of information. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If the grandeur of the building is relevant to the article, then it should be in the article and not off down some tangential path of off-site clicks. '...Road Hill House, a very large and elegant building in the village of Rode...', or similar, would surely suffice. The coords seem like 'information overload' sitting in the middle of that paragraph, and I really think these sort of things should live down the right-hand side of articles. Mannafredo (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This, however, I have no problem with, as the subject of that section - geography - is so closely linked with the template in question. Mannafredo (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly: your argument seems to be based on nothing more than your likes and dislikes—WP:JDLI in other words—and these are "not arguments to use in talk page discussions"--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I deny that accusation. I have said much more than what you suggest. Mannafredo (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)