Talk:Agnatic succession
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Manning Bartlett in topic redirect to patrilineality
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
redirect to patrilineality
editI've redirected this to patrilineality. The current article contains little more than a single sentence definition, and the article at Patrilinearity presents a better overview. Having said that, the latter article remains in need of work. Manning (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's not just a single sentence definition. It also directs the reader to two different articles describing two different practices of agnatic succession. I will emphasize this part a bit more. The patrilineality article discusses only primogeniture, so does not encompass everything in this article. So I'm reverting the redirect again. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, you've done nothing to justify the continued existence of this article. There is nothing in this article which is not covered in the Agnatic succession section of the Patrilineality article. Expanding that article to cover Agnatic seniority (which by definition also patrilineal) makes far more sense. This article is still nothing more than a single sentence stub article, with two links. I'll revert it for the final time, and sincerely ask you to provide a better reason for keeping it as a distinct article. If you expanded it in such a way as it ended up as clearly superior to what is contained at the Patrilineality article, then your argument would be more persuasive. Manning (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's a neat trick to address my objections immediately after berating me for having no valid objections. You could have conducted this conversation in a far more pleasant and courteous manner. But as my concerns have been addressed I will say no more at present. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Intriguing, first you start a revert war, and you are now demanding courtesy. Regardless, the only topic not covered in the paragraph at Patrilinearity (Agnatic seniority) was actually covered elsewhere in that article to begin with - as you noted, I have now amended that so that it is mentioned under the Agnatic succession heading. I'm glad you now find it to your satisfaction. Manning (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's a neat trick to address my objections immediately after berating me for having no valid objections. You could have conducted this conversation in a far more pleasant and courteous manner. But as my concerns have been addressed I will say no more at present. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, you've done nothing to justify the continued existence of this article. There is nothing in this article which is not covered in the Agnatic succession section of the Patrilineality article. Expanding that article to cover Agnatic seniority (which by definition also patrilineal) makes far more sense. This article is still nothing more than a single sentence stub article, with two links. I'll revert it for the final time, and sincerely ask you to provide a better reason for keeping it as a distinct article. If you expanded it in such a way as it ended up as clearly superior to what is contained at the Patrilineality article, then your argument would be more persuasive. Manning (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)