Talk:Late Bronze Age Troy

[Untitled]
According to Nic Fields' [Osprey:Fortress] Troy c. 1700 - 1250 BC, pp. 24-25, Troy VIIb1 was NOT destroyed by fire or sword; and Troy VIII was occupied continuously, if modestly, from c.700 - 85 BC, with a temple to Athena at which Xerxes sacrificed a thousand oxen (c.480 BC), and Alexander the Great dedicated his whole suit of armor and took away sacred arms dating from the Trojan War (c.330 BC).66.235.26.150 (talk) 05:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Troia VIi
Troy VIi (formerly Troy VIIa) says this site: http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/history.htm Böri (talk) 09:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Contradictions?
The article seems to contradict itself. First: "Troy VIIa appears to have been destroyed by a war"

Followed, at the end of the same paragraph, by: "the finds are too scarce to clearly favour destruction by war over a natural disaster." Maitreya (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Troy VIIa
Troy VIIa has now been reclassified as Troy VIi. Although Troy VIh was severely damaged by an Earthquake, it is clear that there is cultural continuity between it and the rebuilt/repaired city. Hence, the latter is now considered to be part of Troy VI rather than VII. It is still the level that is associated with the Trojan War. Bringing the article into conformity with this new consensus will require a substantial rewrite which I am not prepared to undertake at the present time, but may eventually do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4070:6240:1C5B:E934:455B:F062 (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 3 October 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved to Late Bronze Age Troy. New title reflects MOS:SLASH guidelines and consensus on scope as reflected in User:Botterweg14/Troy VI/VII. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Troy VII → Troy VI/VII – As explained in Troy, current scholarship considers Troy VII to be a continuation of Troy VI. Most of the text one could add here would apply to Troy VI as well, so it would be better to have an article that covers both (and redirect both "Troy VII" and "Troy VI" here.) Botterweg14  (talk)  14:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Jack Frost (talk) 04:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support As nominator. Botterweg14  (talk)  15:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment As an alternate proposal, I do think this article could just be deleted or redirected to Troy. The text at the main Troy article is more comprehensive than the text here, and I don't think WP:Split would motivate simply moving that text here, since Troy VI/VII is a major subtopic of interest (perhaps 'the' major subtopic of interest). Botterweg14  (talk)  15:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose and (in either case) support Botterweg14's alternative proposal. The text at Troy states "the original erroneous labels are still generally used in order to avoid confusion".  Assuming this is correct, Troy VII remains the common name of a stratum, about which an article could be written, which seems to be the article we have.  It seems to me that this is really a proposal to rescope this article.  If modern RSs generally treat Troy VI and VII as a single subject, that in principle may be a sound proposal, but that has not yet been shown.  We would avoid the issue entirely if we didn't have an article for a particular stratum of an archaeological site, which I suspect is highly unusual.  We don't, for example, have Megiddo IVA or Hazor IX-X. Havelock Jones (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * "Rescoping" is a good description for what I have in mind, but crucially what I'm proposing is just an expository choice. Recent reliable sources agree about the extent of continuity between the layers. The difference is just in presentation.


 * There's precedent for a Troy VI/VII topic grouping in Chapter 3 of Trevor Bryce's book on Troy, this article, and others you can find on Google Scholar. You do find things split up in other sources, e.g. Jablonka uses VI/VIIa vs VIIb in his contribution to the Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia and uses VI vs VIIa vs VIIb in his contribution to the Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean. Splitting works well in running text where you can say "Troy VI was blady blady blah" and then "Troy VII was similar except that fooby fooby foo changed". The current Troy article is a bit like that. But if Wikipedia has separate articles for Troy VI and Troy VII, that would require both to include the "blady blady blah". That would mean a lot of duplicated text, and more worryingly raise issues of WP:Integrity since one can't always be sure that each detail is true of both Troy VI and VII. For instance, one of these sources could have used a detail that's only true of Troy VIh to exemplify a trait that was shared by other sublayers. Botterweg14  (talk)  18:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Rescoping proposals create a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation. I'm reluctant to move articles to names which don't reflect their current contents, but at the same time I can see that editors would not wish to add content to an article which is out of scope of the current title.  Possibly the ideal would be to prepare the proposed rescoped article in draft and then propose a move on the basis that the draft text would simultaneously replace the article, although I can see there may be a reluctance to do that without first establishing that there would be a consensus for the replacement, in case the effort were wasted.
 * In the present case, since we both agree on the alternative proposal, perhaps it would be best to propose this article for deletion? If nothing else, if that proposal reveals support for keeping the article, it should clarify which article it is felt we should have. Havelock Jones (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Here's a sketch of what a combined article could look like. It's mostly text from Troy, with a bit of text from here, and some little changes. Most of this was originally written by me, so attribution shouldn't be too much of a worry. Let me know what you think. Botterweg14  (talk)  13:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Opposing specific proposal per MOS:SLASH, but have no opinion on other potential names. Gonnym (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A dash could also work, as might an alternate term such as "Late Bronze Age Troy". Botterweg14  (talk)  13:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt proposal of Late Bronze Age Troy. This seems much better to me.  The topic of interest is the LBA settlement rather than the stratigraphy.  I have reviewed the draft which looks good, although obviously it would require some tweaking to reflect the alt title.  Sorry this took a while: I've had some complex cases at work. Havelock Jones (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Short footnotes to Korfmann?
Currently this article contains two citations to Korfmann 2003 and Korfmann 2013 with no corresponding full citation. I assume these are the same as in the article Troy, i.e.: However, I don't have access to either of these sources to confirm – can anyone who does confirm this? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, those are the same from the main Troy article-- thanks for catching that! The first one is linked in the url field of the ref, but I can't help you with the second one. Botterweg14  (talk)  20:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for confirming. I've updated the article to include the full citations. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)