Talk:Charles Louis de Biaudos de Casteja

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Errors in syntax, titulature and emphasis

I concur in the recent edits of Aciram to reduce excessive emphasis on familial trivia in an article as brief as this one, one of several being erected on relatively minor nobles by the same editor, with familial extranea. Corrections to errors in syntax and grammatical usage also need to be allowed. FactStraight (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I did not wish to insist upon my opinion, but I do feel that it is completely unnecessary to have a special section for family in this article. 1) It is too short to warrant such a section; 2) although the immediate family should of course be named, this is trivia and has nothing to do with the relevance of the article, which rests upon the article subject's diplomatic career, and to have such a family section given undue relevance to the family and 3) the User who wish to have this section pointed out to me that this is a custom in Wikipedia, but while some articles of people of the nobility does have this section, he article given as an example was created by this user and of course formatted by him/he, so this is no reason, as they are a great amount of styles in the articles here. I do not wish to fight, but I felt that I should state my reasons, as I was named. --Aciram (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]