Talk:Seleucia (disambiguation)

Untitled
As you'll see by the history, this was a consolidated page, with 4 cities, and redirects for those cities back to this page. Not good form.

After consultation with the Help Desk, split text into the several existing redirects, and added as many more as could be found in the current Wikipedia, making this a true disambiguation page.

The form of many references was just Seleucia, so that form was adopted for the main titles (or future redirects to whatever the current city name).

But another common reference form has an intervening "di", "in", "of", etc. That requires yet another 3 or more redirect pages each, or hand editting the links. Since this disambiguation already required visiting nearly 100 of the existing links to this page, opted for embedding the pipe. William Allen Simpson 23:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Seleucia on the Tigris
For some unknown reason, a user wants to add a date range to this entry. William Allen Simpson 18:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I asked (on her talk page) that s/he revert this incorrect entry more than 48 hours ago, and s/he has refused.
 * There have now been 3 reverts in less than 24 hours.
 * This city was only briefly the capital of the Seleucid Empire, until the government was moved to Antioch.
 * This city was burned, destroyed, and otherwise rebuilt numerous times.
 * The Seleucid Empire did not last until 164 AD.
 * No possible NPOV reading of the proposed date range makes any rational sense.
 * Hi. First of all, I was working on this article well before you showed up.  You don't have to address your remarks into hyperspace; I'm here and you're mainly talking to me, so you can use the second person.  (By the way, I'm male, not female) ;o)  Your remarks on my talk page made far more use of the imperative voice than usually is the case here on wikipedia, but aside from that, I answered you on my talk page, maybe you didn't see that.  The only way you can possibly get "3 reverts in the last 24 hours" is if you count two of yours, plus one of mine.  This is obviously a very big deal to you.  I suppose I can live if the article does not include the dates when Seleucia on the Tigris existed, but general policy guideline is to include any information on a disambig that will assist the reader to find the appropriate article he's looking for.  Even if it wasn't the capital for long, the city definitely existed between 305 BC when it was built, and 164 AD when it was finally destroyed, and if someone has those dates at hand, it might help him decide what Seleucia he is looking for; so what exactly is the big deal about suppressing these dates from the article?  ፈቃደ 19:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'll bet I know what it is... This article was originally written in AD / BC format that most of the whole ENglish-speaking world uses...  You really "composed" the article Seleucia on the Tigris by cutting and pasting the text (that I had mostly written myself) directly from here to there, but I notice your main contribution was to change BC to BCE...  That is itself questionable since the original form of it was BC, but I'm guessing it's because you're a "BCE-CE date crusader" that you object so strongly to any appearance of the conventional abbreviations BC and AD appearing on this page... Am I right? ፈቃደ 19:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Having carefully and frequently read the MoS:DP, and having first composed this page in that style, found it lacking, and tried a different style (so that the older names lines up more neatly), I have given thought to the information on the page. I reviewed the need on the Help page, and took the time to update links in about 100 existing articles.


 * Recent variants not-with-standing, the additions to this entry are out of character, and technically incorrect. This town was not "finally destroyed", exists today, and has a considerable number of references within the *pedia.


 * Now the motivation has been made clear for the NPOV edits: the user is a crusader for including religious texts and obsolete date formats, and reviewing his talk page shows that he has a large number of complaints about this behaviour. William Allen Simpson 12:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You refuse to address me except in the 3rd person, this must be the least "wiki-Love" I've ever seen yet!!! And if you seriously think BC and AD are "obsolete" because you say so, it's time for you to wake up and smell the coffee...  If you're such an expert on wiki policy, you might know that it's considered incorrect to change from one to the other, as both are considered equally acceptable here (although BC / AD are still overwhelmingly more common) and moving the article text to a slightly different title, just so you can claim you "created" it with the cumbersome BCE format, is really kind of like a sneaky trick Bent on "gaming the rules"... ፈቃደ 15:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)