This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: Pages moved per consensus Barca → Barca (ancient city), Barca (disambiguation) → Barca Philg88 ♦ talk 09:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
– I think that the ancient Greek colony isn't more important than other pages.--Relisted. Andrewa ( talk) 22:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Vivaelcelta { talk · contributions} 03:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
A survey as to the proposals to date, and their reception.
In my opinion the best of the above is Barca (ancient city). Comments welcome, suggest make them below (whether for suggestions old or new) rather than trying to edit my already messy survey above.
In particular, Dekimasu and AjaxSmack are the two formal oppose votes above, would you support a move to Barca (ancient city)? Andrewa ( talk) 20:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
This appears to have consensus (above) to date.
There is strong consensus, unanimous in fact, that the DAB should move to Barca undisambiguated. The only question has been where to move the article.
Of those who participated in the survey, all but two supported the moves, self included of course. But several of us questioned the proposed target Barca, Libya, and none of our arguments, including the original rationale of the nominator, particularly supported Barca, Libya over an alternative move target such as now proposed.
The two who opposed the original move proposal, for valid reasons IMO, both now support this alternative proposal.
Unless there are objections in the meantime (make them below) these moves should IMO be made when the current discussion period expires.
And feel free to explicitly support this alternative proposal below too! It will make it easier for the closing admin. It's not strictly necessary IMO, provided you think I've accurately summarised above. Just helpful. TIA Andrewa ( talk) 19:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The dab will need to be corrected when the page realizes that it's suffering from WP:BIAS and that the settlement didn't end in late antiquity but continued as Barqa through the Arab conquest and medieval period. It probably needs to be moved entirely to Barqa since (a) that currently mistakenly redirects to the modern district instead of the medieval city and (b) the city was more important during that era than it was in antiquity, serving as the capital of the caliphate province and somewhat independent emirates. If not, it needs to go back to Barca, Libya or Barca (Libya) as people previously suggested. It probably shouldn't be needlessly separated into separate ancient and medieval pages across the Latin and Arabic forms of the same name for the same place.
If the same name for the exact same place was used all the way into the 1940s and only changed to Marj as part of decolonialization, the page should probably simply be entirely merged to Marj's history section. — LlywelynII 18:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
The intro previously included the unsourced claim
but (a) that's a language family and not a language; (b) there's no language in that family that is anywhere near this city or that historically controlled the city; (c) it's the wrong script for any language in the family, even if there were one. If it's going to be reincluded, the history section should mention what the connection is to the specific dialect that's being given, ideally in the correct script. — LlywelynII 17:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: Pages moved per consensus Barca → Barca (ancient city), Barca (disambiguation) → Barca Philg88 ♦ talk 09:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
– I think that the ancient Greek colony isn't more important than other pages.--Relisted. Andrewa ( talk) 22:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Vivaelcelta { talk · contributions} 03:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
A survey as to the proposals to date, and their reception.
In my opinion the best of the above is Barca (ancient city). Comments welcome, suggest make them below (whether for suggestions old or new) rather than trying to edit my already messy survey above.
In particular, Dekimasu and AjaxSmack are the two formal oppose votes above, would you support a move to Barca (ancient city)? Andrewa ( talk) 20:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
This appears to have consensus (above) to date.
There is strong consensus, unanimous in fact, that the DAB should move to Barca undisambiguated. The only question has been where to move the article.
Of those who participated in the survey, all but two supported the moves, self included of course. But several of us questioned the proposed target Barca, Libya, and none of our arguments, including the original rationale of the nominator, particularly supported Barca, Libya over an alternative move target such as now proposed.
The two who opposed the original move proposal, for valid reasons IMO, both now support this alternative proposal.
Unless there are objections in the meantime (make them below) these moves should IMO be made when the current discussion period expires.
And feel free to explicitly support this alternative proposal below too! It will make it easier for the closing admin. It's not strictly necessary IMO, provided you think I've accurately summarised above. Just helpful. TIA Andrewa ( talk) 19:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The dab will need to be corrected when the page realizes that it's suffering from WP:BIAS and that the settlement didn't end in late antiquity but continued as Barqa through the Arab conquest and medieval period. It probably needs to be moved entirely to Barqa since (a) that currently mistakenly redirects to the modern district instead of the medieval city and (b) the city was more important during that era than it was in antiquity, serving as the capital of the caliphate province and somewhat independent emirates. If not, it needs to go back to Barca, Libya or Barca (Libya) as people previously suggested. It probably shouldn't be needlessly separated into separate ancient and medieval pages across the Latin and Arabic forms of the same name for the same place.
If the same name for the exact same place was used all the way into the 1940s and only changed to Marj as part of decolonialization, the page should probably simply be entirely merged to Marj's history section. — LlywelynII 18:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
The intro previously included the unsourced claim
but (a) that's a language family and not a language; (b) there's no language in that family that is anywhere near this city or that historically controlled the city; (c) it's the wrong script for any language in the family, even if there were one. If it's going to be reincluded, the history section should mention what the connection is to the specific dialect that's being given, ideally in the correct script. — LlywelynII 17:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)