Talk:Obiit
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
These articles overlap significantly in scope, and it would probably be best for the content about the funerary rights to be merged into one article or the other. I'm not personally very familiar with these subjects, and unfortunately I wasn't able to determine what the best WP:COMMONNAME for the subject is as many of the sources are offline and "chantry" is used in a lot of other contexts as well. signed, Rosguill talk 03:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- Um, but is chantry about funerary rites? I'm looking over the chantry article now and it's miscited to the dictionary for "atonement". If you have access to it, check the cite for chantry. Nothing about funerary rites. Chantry is an important article, but I'm no expert on medieval law, and it's way out of my depth. This isn't my usual cup of tea, I only created it because the obit link was needed for another article and is much narrower in scope. Cornsimpel (talk) 05:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- Merge - this article cites paraliturgy for the Dead, which should more properly be on the Chantry page since that page has reference to liturgical rites for the dead. Whiteguru (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't cite paraliturgy for the Dead. Just redirect it, this isn't my area of expertise, but I wrote the obit article and none of the sources I used support merging to chantry. I don't want to work on Chantry, but someone should. It's one of the fundamental and most important articles of English history and that you guys don't know what it means is too depressing to be funny. The factual inaccuracies in chantry should be corrected, by someone more knowledgeable than I. It's definitely not St. Anselm's doctrine of sin and atonement. (For more: Satisfaction theory of atonement) Cornsimpel (talk) 08:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- Closing, given the lack of consensus for any action. Klbrain (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't cite paraliturgy for the Dead. Just redirect it, this isn't my area of expertise, but I wrote the obit article and none of the sources I used support merging to chantry. I don't want to work on Chantry, but someone should. It's one of the fundamental and most important articles of English history and that you guys don't know what it means is too depressing to be funny. The factual inaccuracies in chantry should be corrected, by someone more knowledgeable than I. It's definitely not St. Anselm's doctrine of sin and atonement. (For more: Satisfaction theory of atonement) Cornsimpel (talk) 08:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)