Talk:Adam of Balsham
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
editWhat is the point of linking to Adam's alternative names?
S.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.168.172.214 (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2003 (UTC)
WikiProject class rating
editThis article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 22:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Requested move 19 November 2016
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Adam Parvipontanus → Adam of Balsham – The standard treatment on Wikipedia for premodern writers is to translate their name into the vernacular (e.g. Peter of Blois, not Petrus Blesensis). 'Adam of Balsham' is used in the standard reference works, e.g. Sharpe's Latin Writers, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and so forth; and is much more common in scholarship. AndrewNJ (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support per nomination. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.