Talk:Bonville–Courtenay feud

Merge to Battle of Clyst Heath (1455)
I suggest the above merger would be beneficial. Comments please. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)) This article is a four-month old Good article nominee. When I just thought of reviewing the article, but I found proposed merge tag on its top. This tag has placed in March 2015 (a very long back), and the discussion done is too little. So I thought of requesting for comments because if the article is to be merged then a review would be a waste of time. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Survey

 * Two months late, but I totally agree. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  18:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyright
No copyright infringement as work quoted (Transactions of the Devonshire Association, Volume 44 (1912) pp. 252-265) published in 1912, thus prior to 1923 and now in the public domain under Public domain as USA copyright term expired. Work quoted from now added to sources section, sorry for the oversight.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC))

More work has been done on this in the last century (Storey, Cherry) spring to mind, which would both update and expand the article. I might be able to do this tomorrow. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  18:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Proposed merge from Bonville–Courtenay feud dated March 2015
I suggest the above merger would be beneficial. Comments please. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC))
 * Note: Bonville–Courtenay feud is a four-month old Good article nominee. When I just thought of reviewing the article, I found a proposed merge tag on its top. This tag has been placed in March 2015 (a very long back), and the discussion done is too little. So I thought of requesting for comments because if the article is to be merged then a review would be a waste of time. I have moved the discussion from the talk page of Bonville–Courtenay feud to the target article's talk page. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 03:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Survey

 * Two months late, but I totally agree. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  18:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC), the Battle article is small and can be included in the Feud article.
 * Redirect this title to the in-depth article: Bonville–Courtenay feud. As FIM advises in the Point of order below, this article isn't about the battle anyway. —S MALL  JIM   23:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect as Smalljim's and FIM's responses indicate, the article has no substantive information that is not already included in the Feud article. However, a redirect should be left in place to point to the better article. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 05:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect this article ("Battle") into the Bonville–Courtenay feud article. The latter is MUCH more developed, sourced, and is very much more grammatically correct than the "Battle" article is (which was more at the level of a "fight" than battle anyway).  Also, it is clear from the comments here to date that if a merge were to occur, the target article is the other one (much better developed and written), not here.  This discussion should be re-placed at the "feud" article talk-page, not here.  I can do the work and the merge if you want.  GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 20:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion. There is a clear consensus for the merge. Please complete the merge procedure as your a master at it. Also update the status after you're done, by striking out the present one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 05:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
Comments other than votes may be discussed here.
 * Point of order If the consensus is to 'merge' then that is effectively deleting the article, as there is nothing here that is not already in the 'feud' article. Nothing to merge. Indeed, that's actually why I wrote the feud article in the first place, because most of this short article isn't even about the battle that took place, but, rather, a potted summary of the events surrounding it; in other words, the feud generally (see my 13 May 2016 comment, above). Cheers, Muffled Pocketed  11:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

GA review
I thought the GA review had already started? Thanks for tidying this though. Muffled Pocketed  14:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It had, but it was deleted, presumably at the request of the reviewer. I removed the mention of the merge, which has been completed, to avoid discouraging potential reviewers; hopefully the next reviewer will undertake and complete the review in short order. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)