This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Devon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Devon 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.DevonWikipedia:WikiProject DevonTemplate:WikiProject DevonDevon articles
Material from Berry Pomeroy was split to Manor of Berry Pomeroy on 30 May 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution.
The following discussion 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.
"Hello @J850NK:, as far as we discussed I propose to merge St Mary's Church, Berry Pomeroy into Berry Pomeroy. I think that the content in the St. Mary's Church-article can easily be explained in the context of Berry Pomeroy. The destination-article is of a reasonable size, so that the merging of St. Mary'Church, which is a stub, will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Furthermore the qualitiy of the chapter about this church in the Berry Pomeroy-article could be improved by adding the informations as found in the stubb.--Bockpeterteuto (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this. I support the merger and have tagged the pages with the proposal. However, I will leave this open for a little longer just to see if anyone else has opinions regarding this. Thanks J850NK (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @J850NK and GenQuest:, just for information: according to your kind recommendation I added the proposal to the Merge requests and hope, that this was done correctly. As far as I understand you, I do not need to add something on top of the articles for I saw your insertions? Thanks very much for your help!--Bockpeterteuto (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Sorry, but I don't agree with this merger. The real problem is that the article on the church is under-developed despite the existence of reliable sources. I believe that the correct solution is to expand the stub, starting with the information in this article. There's more that can be written about the church, for instance in the Historic England listing entry, and there's about 2/3 of a page in Devon by Cherry and Pevsner (both sources already cited in this article). It's clearly a notable building. We currently have 46 articles on Grade I churches in Devon; if expanded, St Mary's belongs in that set. Pinging Leutha, who created the church stub last October, out of courtesy. —SMALLJIM 23:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge as a Grade I listed building the church is of exceptional notability in itself. DuncanHill (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
→Suggestion: Hello @Smalljim, DuncanHill, and Leutha:, if you both - and Leutha additionally - as the voters against the merger proposal would not mind me editing, perhaps I could help to expand this article as an alternative way of dealing with the stub. I also think your arguments considerable and expanding the text had been my second consideration, but as a newcomer I did not dare to suggest it, because I did not know about the responsibilities concerning this article. Greetings--Bockpeterteuto (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
→@DuncanHill:please declare the merger discussion finished. I give up dealing with this article for an editing conflict destroyed nearly my whole changes.Bockpeterteuto (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bockpeterteuto: Please don't give up! Edit conflicts happen to us all - for advice about how to deal with them see WP:EDITCONFLICT. I can't close the discussion as I have taken part in it. DuncanHill (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DuncanHill:, thank you for your encouragement and the apology. I do not see this as your fault, but I suppose, that this text-editor is not very well-programmed. You did nothing wrong, this was misfortune. I have to consider, how to rewrite. I think rewriting takes more effort and time and so the reconstruction will not come into existance at once. GreetingsBockpeterteuto (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello@DuncanHill:, I tried to start with the repairs, as you will see, but I have to work carefully., GreetingsBockpeterteuto (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello@DuncanHill:, I succeeded in repairing the most of the losses of text-sections. But I think this article is no more a stub. Should the hints at the category as a stub now be removed?Bockpeterteuto (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pro: My reason for a merger proposal had been the idea, that by my opinion a well sourced chapter of an article about Berry Pomeroy is a good possibility to inform readers about St. Mary's, because I think visitors of Berry Pomeroy Castle would look back in an article about Berry Pomoroy but not unter the topic St.Mary's. The second aspect is, that a stub could be proposed for deletion and by my opinion the information in this stub is too important to be deleted - and this would be a pity. In a chapter about Berry Pomeroy the informations could be maintained. Third, the Building is in severe decline and threatened to fall ruinous as far as I know - and the more people are drawn their attention to the church the more hope will arise to find someone, who could help to remodel the building. Fourth, doing my own researches on Berry Pomeroy I found the extension of the article disappointing and I think, other readers could feel the same. So I thought, collecting informations and sourcing them in a well structured chapter of a main article could be helpful.Bockpeterteuto (talk) 06:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grade 1 listed parish churches tend to have plenty of coverage for a separate article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Hello @Crouch, Swale, DuncanHill, Smalljim, Leutha, J850NK, and GenQuest:, the stub has grown to be an article, so I would like to ask you all, if we should state an agreement, that the article will NOT be merged and close the discussion? Should we remove the hints at the status of a stub? Greetings and thanks in advanceBockpeterteuto (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No one else has supported so you can just withdraw and remove the tag. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about closing the discussion. I would agree!Bockpeterteuto (talk) 10:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
