Talk:Emmaus Nicopolis

Orphaned references in Emmaus Nicopolis
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Emmaus Nicopolis's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "EB1911": From Aelia Capitolina:  From Seleucia Pieria:  From Beirut:  From Aeclanum:  From Baptistery:  From Emmaus:  From Eboracum:  From Petra: </li> <li>From Moesia: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Move?
So are there any sources that this location was ever historically "Emmaus Nicopolis"? or was it always Emmaus or Nicopolis and modern historians distinguish it as "Emmaus-Nicopolis", "Emmaus/Nicopolis", and the like? We shouldn't be pretending this was ever a formal name in antiquity if it never was.

It's also highly dubious that it was renamed for a victory over the Jews in the 3rd century, given that the actual victories over the Jews were in the 1st and 2nd centuries and formal Christianization was in the 4th. Similarly, the "late Second Temple period" neither extended past 70 nor involved politically important victories over the Jews. The main victory of the Romans over the Jews was precisely the destruction of the Second Temple (with a name change to celebrate that victory necessarily coming afterwards) or over the Bar Kochba guys in the 2nd century. There were some actions involving Pompey and Antony but neither involved the complete takeover of the area or seems very likely for the formal renaming of a Jewish city. — Llywelyn II   21:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Pruning
The article also needs pruning, since it has ended up losing focus and started trying to cover Imwas. This article should either fully be merged to that page or refocused to fork out the content solely on the ancient site, dealing with modern history only in relation to the ruins and their study. — Llywelyn II   22:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:ERA
This edit established the usage of the page as. Kindly maintain it consistently, pending a new concensus to the contrary. — Llywelyn II   22:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)