Talk:Fall of Ruad: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→POV: re |
reply |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:: Agree that the other one should be Ruad, since that's the most common usage in sources (if the article should even exist at all). --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 22:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC) |
:: Agree that the other one should be Ruad, since that's the most common usage in sources (if the article should even exist at all). --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 22:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::Since it was moved previously without discussion, I just moved it back. I see no reason why it shouldn't exist ''and'' cover the entire campaign centred on that fortress. Neither do I see a reason why there should be two articles about the same thing. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 02:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC) |
:::Since it was moved previously without discussion, I just moved it back. I see no reason why it shouldn't exist ''and'' cover the entire campaign centred on that fortress. Neither do I see a reason why there should be two articles about the same thing. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 02:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::: Agree. Though let's maybe keep this article around for a few days, since it's being used as evidence at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Franco-Mongol_alliance|a request to re-extend PHG's topic ban]]. It's sad that his last ban expired on February 2nd and he launched right back into POV editing on the 3rd. So I guess we'll just need to get the ban extended again. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 03:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 03:27, 17 February 2010
POV
PHG, please stop. There does not need to be an article on this topic, and it appears to just be another coatrack article. Everything here is already well-covered at Franco-Mongol alliance and Siege of Ruad. --Elonka 14:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree wholeheartedly that this article must be merged into Siege of Arwad (perhaps moved to Ruad?). Srnec (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Agree that the other one should be Ruad, since that's the most common usage in sources (if the article should even exist at all). --Elonka 22:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Since it was moved previously without discussion, I just moved it back. I see no reason why it shouldn't exist and cover the entire campaign centred on that fortress. Neither do I see a reason why there should be two articles about the same thing. Srnec (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Agree. Though let's maybe keep this article around for a few days, since it's being used as evidence at a request to re-extend PHG's topic ban. It's sad that his last ban expired on February 2nd and he launched right back into POV editing on the 3rd. So I guess we'll just need to get the ban extended again. --Elonka 03:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Since it was moved previously without discussion, I just moved it back. I see no reason why it shouldn't exist and cover the entire campaign centred on that fortress. Neither do I see a reason why there should be two articles about the same thing. Srnec (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Agree that the other one should be Ruad, since that's the most common usage in sources (if the article should even exist at all). --Elonka 22:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)