 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Untitled
editI see no problem with the suggested merger, so long as the strong points of each article can be preserved, to the benefit of the historical contribution. Ballista 06:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The merger would be fine so long as both names take you to the mergered article and so long as the new article contains all data from each article, except of course for repetitions. There is very little known of Prince Maurice's life and we need to preserve what we do know, no matter what name he is found under. NM Spencer April 20, 2006
In their current state, the two articles disagree as to Maurice's dates. The article on his mother, Elizabeth of Bohemia, has yet another set of dates for him (without linking to either of these articles).
I disagree - a Civil War historian in the would recognise him purely as "Prince Maurice", just as they would recognise his brother as "Prince Rupert" or "Prince Rupert of the Rhine" (Rupert's entry has his name by birth in parentheses). As a historical figure he is known chiefly as a solider in the English Civil War and I think to merge in this way would be a hinderance to historians. Sctb 14:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)