Talk:Merogais

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Talk: Merogais[edit]

I realize that there isn't much information available about this guy; however, please try and find as much as possible to expand this article a bit. Also, references are a complete must. You should leave the {{unreferenced}} tag until references have been added. lesthaeghet (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okey doke, Lesthaeghet. Wollslleybuttock (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So now, I've taken care of it, and put in some references. But it is sort of hard to put more in it. Oh, and thank you for your information. Wollslleybuttock (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I saw the changes that you made. I'm glad that you are trying to add references to this article. However, you need to go out and get verifiable third-party sources. We unfortunately cannot cite Wikipedia as the source. Also, try to include links to articles when possible when using internet references. Also, try to avoid making statements that are based on opinion. It is a person's opinion that Merogais was a good king. We want to stick to facts. Now, if you could find a source that shows that he was greatly appreciated by his kingdom and did a great job, well, then you could include that information and cite the source. I'd suggest going out on the internet and seeing what you can find about him. Good luck! lesthaeghet (talk) 03:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I put that he was PROBABLY a good king because of the way that the Fankish Empire flourished during that time. And I put some links. PLEASE tell me that there are any more problems with it! I even put in a small GALLERY! What else do you want me to to, throw my HEAD in there? I hope THAT covers it! And/but thank you very much!! Wollslleybuttock (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, the gallery is a start, but it unfortunately has to go. Wikipedia is not a image gallery. You can certainly use a couple of the images, but perhaps include them in an info box on the right instead. For an article of this size, no more than one or two pictures. As for the references, you need to get third-party references. Wikipedia cannot be a reference. You may have to go to a library or search the web, but as far as references go, that's what needs to be done. I'm not saying you have to do it by any means, but leave the tag in place so that someone knows it needs to be done. Then, someone with access to an institutional research library (which I normally have access to, but i'm presently out of town) can do the research. Also, one other note, this is an article about one king. You can mention the others as a reference of them being his father/son. However, you do not need to include other details about them. lesthaeghet (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I CAN'T TAKE THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS IS ANNOYING!!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE STOP!!!!!!!!!! And PLEASE don't take away the gallery!!!!!!!!!!!Rud Hud Hudibras (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, please let me explain. The purpose of tagging an article is so that it will show up on certain special pages. This way other Wikipedia users can find this and perhaps contribute something to it. The image gallery needs to go. However, some of the pictures can stay. Wikipedia is not suppose to be an image gallery. Finally, the references... this article need reliable third-party references. You need to find a book or a website that has information about this guy. YOU CANNOT CITE WIKIPEDIA AS A SOURCE. Leave the tags in place so others know this article needs attention. lesthaeghet (talk) 02:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oke doke. I put in some 3rd party references. But I REFUSE to take out the gallery. My own MOTHER questioned that!Rud Hud Hudibras (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you are trying and are frustrated. But, you should not remove tags from a page unless you have actually corrected the problem. The purpose of tags are to notify others that an article needs attention. Now, if you're so adamant about them not being there, then they are getting put onto the talk page. That's an alternative thing I can do. Don't remove them. I've warned you about this now a couple times. If you continue doing it, I'm going to submit for administrator intervention against vandalism. Finally, thank you for adding some third-party references. Great work there! lesthaeghet (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I don't want to let them stay OR put them on the talk page is that if Wikipedia was an image gallery, there would be more pictures than THAT!!!!! Don't you get that? I hope you do!!!!!!!! Please respond to this!!!!Rud Hud Hudibras (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do realize that there are only four pictures; however, it is still an image gallery (it's even called "Gallery." These pictures can still be used on the page though, just in a different format. Look, I'm not telling you that you have to delete it. Somebody else may, or they may come along and format it in a manner that is in check with Wikipedia style guidelines. Or, perhaps someone that is an expert on this topic may come along with a huge reference book on this topic and fill in all sorts of stuff, and then the images can be broken up and included throughout the page. All I'm trying to do is follow Wikipedia style guidelines. The thing you have to remember is that this is an encyclopedia. It may be able to be edited by anyone, but there are still certain guidelines that need to be followed. I would suggest checking out the Welcome page and reading some of the guidelines and style tips. One other thing, this honestly isn't worth getting into a huge argument over. This is an article on a mildly obscure topic on Wikipedia. Relax and don't worry about it so much. lesthaeghet (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lesthaeghet, you are a GENIUS!!!!!!!!! I'll break them up, that's what I'll do. THANK YOU EVER SO EVER SO EVER SO MUCH!!!!!!!!!! Please respond!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, and WHY am I blocked from editing MY OWN ARTICLE???????????????????????????? But I guess it's for the better. Oh and plus, thank you for your edits. I will mention you as the co-creator when I talk about the article.Rud Hud Hudibras (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes from Users[edit]

That Merogais lived in the early 4th Centuury CE is only a rough guess. Wollslleybuttock (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The English translation would probably be Merogald. Anonymous user.

Rating[edit]

Rating Notes from Users[edit]

Its rating in quality is estimated at start class, and its importance is estimated at medium. It is estimated because it has not yet OFFICIALY been rated. Wollslleybuttock (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion[edit]

Gosh, if we are going to propose a merger we need a place for a merger discussion, don't we? I certainly see the problem Whatever you might say about Merogais would also be said about Ascaric. As far as I know, from what I can tell from my current researches of the literature, they are always coupled together. And, the name is Merogais, and his existence does not depend on the emendations of one manuscript by one emender. Those problems with that MSS however should be included. Any individual treatment of Merogais would concern itself mainly with etymology. In my mind I saw myself referencing the main article of Ascaric for most of the article. Well, you know, Ascaric is not all that long, so perhaps they might be included together. While I am pondering my vote, I am creating space for you to vote below. Please vote! Otherwise you are leaving it up to me, and you wouldn't want to do that, would you?Dave (talk) 13:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the merger[edit]

Vote here: (bulleted list?)

Against the merger[edit]

Vote here:

@Botteville: Well, here it is 4 years later, and your proposal is coming up near the back of the proposed merge queue, as I'm patrolling that as part of WP:WikiProject Merge.

Just noting that the French have kept them separate: fr:Ascaric and fr:Mérogaise.
What do you think a merged article should be titled? It wouldn't be a biography any more, but rather about incident(s) connecting the two. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I got the message. Frankly I'm out of touch with the topic now. I can't really say which is best. I believe I was following the lines of the early Frankish kings. I couldn't wait so I went on to other things. I would say, this indecision on my part and the length of time places this thing squarely in your part of the ballfield. I trust your decision. If it wasn't your intent to pick it up, I'm done. I don't have time for pointless arguments. So, you decide. If they do get divided I foresee duplicate articles. If they don't get divided, I would call it Merogais and Ascaric. If I were you considering the lack of interest I would just delete the tag on the grounds of being expired and start over. I doubt if you will raise an eyebrow over it. I would say, let your conscience be your guide concerning what is the best information to present to the public. I'm getting back to the things I DID decide to fix (if I can) so ciao and best of luck.Botteville (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]