Talk:2007 Imam Abbas mosque bombing

Merge
I think it is quite logical to merge with 2007 Karbala bombings. First of all this is the second serious bombing in two weeks time (same period, same city, same type of victims). Secondly, these bombings are linked to eachother in the media. Thirdly, it gives a better overview for interested readers. Pages and templates can still be linked to the subsection. Fourthly, I think we should avoid to create for every new bombing a new page if precedents in the same year and area exist. If a particular bombing is in any way much more notable than the other, it can still get expanded to a subarticle. At the moment however, most articles contain irrelevant data (which expand the article) or do not go beyond a stub (as no more information is reported in the media). This does not help the overview and does not prove why the particular bombing was more relevant than others and how it is related to other bombings in the same city (who are the victims? how many casualties? a city map of the different large bombings?). Sijo Ripa 10:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, as every attack should have it's own article. Merging would make confusion in lists and templates (even if the subsection is linked). That's my opinion -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 12:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with TheFEARgod each attack should have it's own article.We have already listed more than 10 attacks in Baghdad in more than 10 different articles. What? Do we have to merge all of them too, no there should be seperate articles for each bombing.Top Gun 21:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You present the bombings in a incorrect way. We have about a dozen of Bagdhad articles for 5 different years (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007). Each year (or another relevant clearly delineated period) can have a different article. Furthermore, only a few bombings have a page, while many more terrorist attack have occurred. Such a main article could deal with the mediatized attacks, as well as dealing with the general situation (=similarities, mentioning of the total of estimated victims in non-mediatized attacks, a city map with the attacks marked, etc.). Furthermore, I do not oppose subarticles for the most notable attacks. Sijo Ripa 20:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about the years. I was ltaking about that each attack has to ahve it's own page (article), like they already do. The attacks should not be merged. Furthermore, I am going with this that the April 14th Karbala attack be added to the campaignbox of the bombings of the Iraq war, but in my personal opinion, and I think Feargod agrees with me, the attack shouldn't be added. You ask why? Because there have been dozens and dozens of attacks with that small a number of casualties (42 killed), I mean c'mon, in that case we should also list the others as well. And don't try to tell me that there are already attacks in the campaignbox that have even a lesser number of fatalities than that attack because in the campaignbox me and Feargod have put only attacks: with more than 65 killed, huge attacks on military targets (coalition barracks in Karbala or FOB Marez) or significant political attacks (Jordanian embassy, UN headquarters, Iraqi parlament). If you are interested in a comprehensive list of suicide attacks in Baghdad then check out Suicide bombings in Iraq since 2003 that me and user Publicus have been updating. Top Gun 14:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)