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 within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Do we really need a 1000-character description of the fact (historically irrelevant, as nobody but later genealogists seems to have noticed) that they were distant cousins? Agricolae (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are several points being overlooked here. By today’s standards they might be considered distant cousins but by canon law of the time they were considered too close for marriage. The note also points out the history of repeated intermarital alliances in this branch that were not cases of simple consanguinity and affinity, but for which another more descriptive term was coined, ‘affinal relinkings’ (fr: renchaînement alliance). Also, it was by anthropologists not genealogists. I could have added that Adalbert I and his wife Gerberge have been the subject of anthropological studies as examples of affinal relinkings and this branch of the Carolingians disregarding canon laws for their own gains. But I kept this note as brief as possible (actually, 750 characters/164 words), but still adding educational value for those readers interested in following up on this. I also find it interesting you’d bring this up given your authorship of a much larger note on William de Warenne’s page, which was on the subject of genealogy. I will say that, although lengthy (since you appreciate accurate counting, it was 2295 characters/490 words), it seemed to provide additional information some readers might appreciate. So I assumed you saw the value in such notes. BTW, thank you for reminding me the note here was unfinished and unsourced. Also, I should not have said there were no records of a dispensation, but in consulting my notes I quickly discovered why. This branch, of which Adalbert was a member, had a history of circumventing canon laws regarding consanguinity and affinity and it is important to point this out. As per WP:TPA an article “Acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject”.Bearpatch (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing WP:TPA, " i.e., it covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject." Every encyclopedic angle, not everything that has ever been said about the subject. The most important thing being overlooked is WP:WEIGHT. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Agricolae (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
