Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Antioch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

from VfD:

Starcraft fancruft. Normally I'd just merge into Starcraft, but I'm not really sure this level of detail is required or wanted there, so I'm suggesting deletion instead. --fvw* 22:37, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

  • Comment: maybe a short version of thsi could be added to Aiur, but I'm not sure. Jeltz 23:00, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)
  • Delete nn Keep now Wyss 23:16, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • del Mikkalai 02:34, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've changed it to be about the historical Battle of Antioch. Still only a stub, but at least it's useful now. P Ingerson 03:21, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It still doesn't say anything not mentioned on the Antioch page, and is unlikely to be massively expanded 03:26, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep all articles on historical battles. Shouldn't it be disambiguated with the famous battle of the First Crusade, though? Everyking 05:40, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Clearly, keep it now. Re []'s comment, it's a hist-stub and I just added it to Category:Battles; I'm sure it will catch the interest of various expanders over time. Samaritan 07:17, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: DCEdwards1966 07:39, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Now an obvious keep. —RaD Man (talk) 10:34, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Clear keep now whenb the content is changed. Jeltz 13:54, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
  • Keep, the new content makes sense for this location. Shane King 00:26, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, replacing nonexistent battle with the historical one is commendable. Should be expandable. - Skysmith 11:16, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have expanded the article adding other significant Battles of Antioch including a battle at 145BC which saw the death of Ptolemy VI of Egypt and the overthrow of Alexander Balas, the battle in 218 which led to Elagabalus becoming Emperor of Rome, and the two famous battles in 1098 and 1268 which began and ended the Crusader Kingdom in Antioch. I have added two sentences about Starcraft at the end. It is now longer a stub. Capitalistroadster 11:29, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good work. Andris 11:33, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unfortunately VfD is being used as an expedited cleanup tool. Great thanks to those who refactored this into a better article. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 17:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Hey, don't fix what's not broke, right? If VFD is effective as a cleanup tool, who's to say we shouldn't occasionally use it that way? It works. Keep, by the way. PMC 07:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • And this is why fancruft is dangerous. Keep the wonderful new article. hfool 03:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion


As it says at MoS:DP:

don't wikilink any other words in the line, unless they may be essential to help the reader determine where they might find the information.

In this case they may be essential. Elagabalus, Baibars, Macrinus are obscure people. How is the reader to figure out who they are unless we link them? Gdr 23:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the idea is that they can find out who those people are by clicking on the battle links. But this is a really stupid edit war... Adam Bishop 06:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the comments by GDR and Adam Bishop. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this a holy war for you? Are you threatened somehow by the fact that with the cleanup tag other editors may come here and find the page in its current state? If someone's looking for Battle of Antioch, they're coming from some context already. All these links are confusing to me as a reader. But that's not the point right now, is it. It's about the cleanup tag. I haven't edited the page to remove the links, only to keep the cleanup tag there until we come to some consensus on this talk page about the existance of those links. Please leave the cleanup tag in place and let's have the conversation about those links. Tedernst | talk 22:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rather pointless discussion as only two articles even linked here in the first place, and I just fixed the links on both of them. I don't know who would search for "Battle of Antioch" anyway; as we were discussing on Talk:Siege of Antioch, perhaps it would be better to make that the disambiguation page. Adam Bishop 21:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(A) Tederst has been a serious problem everywhere, deleting too much information, and had promised to stop working on disambiguation pages. He's breaking his promise. I've removed his cleanup tag.
(B) If Siege of Antioch would be better, let's talk about a merge. I've added the {{Mergeto}}. Should be settled in only a couple days.
(C) OTOH, battle is more generic term. I'd suggest merging, but also keeping this as a redirect to catch future references.
--William Allen Simpson 14:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basesd on clear consensus, reverted MoS:DP cleanup once again. There needs to be a category tag from the Project.

--William Allen Simpson 09:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have done the cleanup if the {{disambig-cleanup}} tag wasn't there... Gflores Talk 13:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see from the history, you mean the clear consensus not to include it. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]