This redirect 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.
I would like to create an article about the international festival in Waynesville, North Carolina. The templates, links and such probably won't be useful. The definition of the word "Folkmoot" probably would be. There's so little here I don't see the point in keeping the article's original purpose.Vchimpanzee·talk·contributions· 19:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I would be very opposed to this. In general I am opposed to historical concepts being subsumed by modern events. This is an article about the history of Britain, even if it's inadequate, and I'm sorry you can't just hijack it and make it about some obscure bit of US culture. BillMasen (talk)
Okay, so you don't want the merger to happen? And I created the article using the name above. There's a hatnote. By the way, I would hardly call this festival obscure. If it was they'd nominate it for deletion. I think I'm safe, however, now that I've found enough information about its notability.Vchimpanzee·talk·contributions· 17:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
well, no, the merge should be with thing (assembly), not with Folkmoot USA. As this has been a substub/dictdef for years, I supposed the merger should just be implemented. The hatnote can still be displayed at the thing article. --dab(𒁳) 18:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
My idea was to use the text of this article, as a complete description of where the name came from. But Folkmoot USA is the formal name of the event.Vchimpanzee·talk·contributions· 21:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
If I may, I would like to suggest that this be incorporated into something more general like Moot (Anglo-Saxon) (to be compared/contrasted with the Scandinavian thing and the Frankish mall), as the folkmoot was merely one kind of moot: there was also the shiremoot, burhmoot and hundredmoot. Not trying to rock the boat, just something to consider. Cheers, --Aryaman(talk) 12:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
well, Moot (Anglo-Saxon) is a possible article, no argument about that. Unless and until somebody writes it, "moot" should just be subsumed under thing (assembly). I don't think we disagree about anything. For a quick fix, there can be an "Anglo-Saxon moot" section at the thing article, and as soon as somebody expands this enough for a standalone article, it can be branched out. --dab(𒁳) 11:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)