Talk:Strath Fillan Priory

Merger proposal

For me, it seems logical in this case to move the list of Priors into the priory article, rather than maintain two separate articles. Per Prior of Strath Fillan, not a great deal is known about the priors except what has already been said. Per this article, Strath Fillan Priory was a small priory so one article should suffice. At the same time, I'm not sure how "Senior churchmen of Medieval Scotland (post-1100)" is defined, but I am not sure this heading is applicable for the prior of a "small priory"? BobKilcoyne (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles are capable of being buffed, being stubs is not a reason for merging. The article Prior of Strath Fillan is one of a series of prosopographic list articles on prelates of medieval Scotland, all linked by the template... which you might not have noticed (at least, when you deleted the content from the Prior article and moved it in your own name here you left template too as if you hadn't seen it). I don't think I undersand what you are saying about 'applicable', if you are not sure why make the point? Are you seeking clarification from others with expertise, or are you presenting your personal uncertainty as evidence for something? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon of Pndapetzim, thank you for your comments. The wording "Senior churchmen of Medieval Scotland" reads to me as relating to churchmen of some seniority on a national scale, rather than to heads of religious institutions in Scotland, however great or small the institution might have been. The first reading here seems to be more natural. How would the reader know that Prior of Strath Fillan is a prosopographic list article? None of the WikiProjects listed at Talk:Prior of Strath Fillan suggests this. I accept that articles being stubs is not in itself a reason to merge them, but I would be interested to know how either of the articles might be further developed given my initial comments about the limited material they currently contain. I am not sure what you mean about articles being "capable of being buffed", but I assume you mean that some more extensive content could be added? BobKilcoyne (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capable of being made into larger articles, I think they are even though the chances of it happening are pretty slim. A prior of a priory is a prelate or ecclesiastical superior, not the most senior but senior in that they head a religious institution, which is also a major landowner. Although I don't think the benefit would be great I don't think merging these is necessarily a bad idea per se, but there are dozens of these articles -- see the links in the template. I assume you are taking exception to Strath Fillan because that's the only article you've stumbled across, but your proposal could cause a lot of work and mess (moving text around, confusing edit histories, etc), are you happy the benefits merit this? Since you think it's a problem, maybe you can remedy it and go around and register these articles as list articles on the Wikiprojects? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support the merger. Quarl ^(talk) 19:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support the merge for short text and context; the topics are so closely interdependent that they are best discussed in the one place. Klbrain (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]