Talk:François de Beaumont, baron des Adrets
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Chhandama in topic Proposed merge with François de Beaumont
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | The contents of the François de Beaumont, baron des Adrets page were merged into François de Beaumont on 10 January 2018 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Proposed merge with François de Beaumont
edit- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result of this discussion was to merge. Chhandama (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Looks like these are the same person. Danrok (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, they are, and the 2nd article should indeed be merged into this one.Eustachiusz (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree as to which should be merged into which. The other is far richer in content. This one is only a copy of what's in the Encyclopedia Britannica, without even looking at the references (which are all incomplete). --Vicedomino (talk) 06:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- I would recommend the merging of the two articles, with this article being the survivor of the merge. However, I must warn that this article is a translation of the same topic on the French Wikipedia, which has not been acknowledged, according to WP copyright regulations. See: WP:TFOLWP. --Vicedomino (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- Agree with User:Eustachiusz, if only because retaining "baron des Adrets" in the title will help distinguish it from any other F. Beaumonts that may pop up. None of the rich content need be lost in a merge. Mannanan51 (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
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.
Further Reading
editI tagged the one item in "Further Reading". I know I didn't use the right template or tag, because there is none that covers the situation. An unpublished thesis is recommended for further reading. No bibliographical information is given. I have searched the author and title in various ways through Google, and Google Books, and come up with nothing, except this article and its clones. How can one read it if one cannot find it? I notice that the author is a "Fr. Sean O'Driscoll". I would like to know whether Father O'Driscoll is neutral and objective, or partisan. I considered tagging it as "self-published", but that doesn't quite fit.
Since it is an incomplete reference, and is stated to be unpublished, I recommend deleting it.