| Revision as of 03:36, 19 November 2012 editMike Christie (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors70,672 edits →Proposed merge from Genealogy of the Kings of Mercia: Make support explicit← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:22, 19 November 2012 edit undoPaul Bedson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,657 edits →Proposed merge from Genealogy of the Kings of Mercia: reminiscent ofNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| *'''Support''', although some of the current material would perhaps better be merged into ], which itself needs some work. As to the new Genealogia Lindisfarorum, I have taken a much needed ax to it. Misplaced Pages does not exist as a medium to propagate obscure historical genealogical ephemera. A manuscript itself may be notable (although this one doesn't appear to be) but it is not the purpose of Misplaced Pages to reproduce the contents of manuscripts, nor to be a genealogical database by proxy. ] (]) 01:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC) | *'''Support''', although some of the current material would perhaps better be merged into ], which itself needs some work. As to the new Genealogia Lindisfarorum, I have taken a much needed ax to it. Misplaced Pages does not exist as a medium to propagate obscure historical genealogical ephemera. A manuscript itself may be notable (although this one doesn't appear to be) but it is not the purpose of Misplaced Pages to reproduce the contents of manuscripts, nor to be a genealogical database by proxy. ] (]) 01:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Support''', as proposer of the merge. ] (] - ] - ]) 03:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC) | *'''Support''', as proposer of the merge. ] (] - ] - ]) 03:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment''' Agricolae is making up rules that don't exist as part of actions that I am beginning to suspect are reminiscent of a ] and ] style ] to suppress the information in these Manuscripts being released for wider appreciation, study and discussion. Genealogia Lindisfarorum is perfectly notable, as is this manuscript. Calling it the ] is misleading. For starters, this 'collection' is in three different places with four distinctly different, highly notable manuscripts all saying notable, important things about human history and ancestry. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml; font-family: Verdana;">] ❉]❉</span> 13:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:22, 19 November 2012
 | Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms Stub‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Proposed merge from Genealogy of the Kings of Mercia
I propose that Genealogy of the Kings of Mercia be merged into Anglian collection. That article is about a single manuscript in the Anglian collection, Vespasian; there isn't enough information at that page to make it worth a separate page yet. Any content about the genealogies should go here or at the relevant Anglo-Saxon history article; an article about a manuscript should be primarily about the manuscript itself. Note that another of the four mss, the Textus Roffensis, does have its own article; that's also a merge candidate but I think there's a better case to be made for a separate article there because of the laws of Æthelberht. I'll post a note at Talk:Genealogy of the Kings of Mercia and at the Anglo-Saxon WikiProject. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- I am interested to know what differences Vespasian B Vi has with the other manuscripts and would like to see more information on this subject, so oppose the merge request. Sorry, I have continued to improve the article with illustration, content, context and comparison sections to clarify. Also created Genealogia Lindisfarorum if you are interested to demonstrate how I think historical documents should be treated if they have enough notability and meet article requirements. Would be nice to do genealogy charts for each manuscript really, they're pretty important history. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Also, in a critical, critical point. It appears that Agricolae has just admitted in an article edit over on the List of monarchs of Mercia, that he has compiled them from myths and legends, not from actual genealogies. This cements my point that we need to keep this article to differentiate between myth-based and genealogy-based king lists on Misplaced Pages. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- This is a blatant lie and you know it. I 'admitted' nothing of the sort and you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting that I did. Agricolae (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Also, in a critical, critical point. It appears that Agricolae has just admitted in an article edit over on the List of monarchs of Mercia, that he has compiled them from myths and legends, not from actual genealogies. This cements my point that we need to keep this article to differentiate between myth-based and genealogy-based king lists on Misplaced Pages. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support, although some of the current material would perhaps better be merged into Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies, which itself needs some work. As to the new Genealogia Lindisfarorum, I have taken a much needed ax to it. Misplaced Pages does not exist as a medium to propagate obscure historical genealogical ephemera. A manuscript itself may be notable (although this one doesn't appear to be) but it is not the purpose of Misplaced Pages to reproduce the contents of manuscripts, nor to be a genealogical database by proxy. Agricolae (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support, as proposer of the merge. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Agricolae is making up rules that don't exist as part of actions that I am beginning to suspect are reminiscent of a McCarthy era and Spanish Inquisition style Witch hunt to suppress the information in these Manuscripts being released for wider appreciation, study and discussion. Genealogia Lindisfarorum is perfectly notable, as is this manuscript. Calling it the Anglian collection is misleading. For starters, this 'collection' is in three different places with four distinctly different, highly notable manuscripts all saying notable, important things about human history and ancestry. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 13:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)