Talk:Adelelmus of Flanders

Merger with Tironensian Order

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge this article with Tironensian Order. Ladysif (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

---

An editor has suggested that this article be merged with the Tironensian Order. I think it makes sense to have a separate section within that article with brief biographies of its saints and major members, especially given this article is a stub. It would also be useful to flesh out that piece a bit more. Thoughts before I go ahead with it? Ladysif (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

As there are only two rather brief sentences, I say go for it. Mannanan51 (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: so far no reason has been given as to why it should be merged. The article has four wikilinks, and the French version is over two pages long. So it's not the article's fault that its English version hasn't been fleshed out yet. It definitely seems to be a topic in its own right, so no need to destroy that. --Midas02 (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reversions

Midas02, it's pretty clear that multiple editors have agreed that the two articles should be merged. This content has already been added to the Tironensian Order page. If you think it shouldn't be merged because the French version is "longer," why don't you go ahead and translate the French version of the page instead of accusing me of "violating consensus" when the majority ruled. I requested discussion, two people agreed, and I left the talk page open with no action for several months. It would be more useful to expand the Tironensian Order page with the followers of the order under Bernard of Thiron. This is not your page. Ladysif (talk) 11:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Who are you taking me for? Two people? Consensus? I see only one person apart from yourself adding a weakly motivated opinion. And you're not even quoting me correctly. I spoke of a violation of guidelines. You are ruling on a discussion you have started yourself without passing through an independent adjudicator, which is forbidden. --Midas02 (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Two lines in an article stub is hardly worth throwing a fit over. Ladysif (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)