Talk:Antioch (disambiguation)

Clean up

I have given the page a clean up regards to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages).

The info at the top was moved to Antioch, where it can be expanded and verified. If info like this stays on a dab then it ~~can~~ can't progress and stuggles to be cited.

I have removed the categories. The categories only apply to some of the entries, and thus are incorrect and misleading. Antioch, Illinois, for example, is not a part of Persian history.

The page has undergone style change, as per the MoS, including remoivng of excess wikilinks. This is in order to achive better naviagtion for readers.

If you disagree with these changes please discuss them here. I will watch this page in anticipation.

--Commander Keane 17:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I agree with the cleanup, as all I'd done in passing was remove the "." on lines and a few other minor fixes.
- However, I don't agree with changing the various "--" to "," as that just creates run-on sentences. Stylistically, the long dash is more correct.
- Also, I'm the fellow that put the quote here, as it is more appropriate where all the Antiochs are listed. (What do you mean by "progress and stuggles to be cited"?) It seems informative to me, and matches the Seleucia page. It's utterly irrelevant where you stuck it in Antioch, in the modern Antakya section!

--William Allen Simpson 19:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the "--" is that it reads as html gibberish in the edit window. So as a compromise in style (keep in mind that this enclyclopedia is a work in progress) I use commas. I think you will find that many agree with me on that one.
The thing about the quote is that this is not a list of all the Antiochs, it's a disambiguation page dealing with other things too. I placed it in Antioch becasue there was already a sentence there related to it - if you could find a more appropriate home for it I would be delighted.
By "progress and stuggles to be cited" I mean that a disambiguation page shouldn't have categories, a references section or prose. So your addition couldn't progress in these respects when on a disambiguation page. Much better to have it in an article, and then link to that article from this disambiguation page.

--Commander Keane 20:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that (someday) we're going to get the "---" fix done, and until then we're supposed to use HTML syntax (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes)#Dash guidelines for Wikipedia editors). I don't have a problem with typing it, and care more about what the result looks like than what the edit page looks like! (A lot easier to do it right the first time, than go back and change its grammar and syntax later.)
Hmmm, probably Seleucus I Nicator himself, I suppose.

--William Allen Simpson 21:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fix is here - you can click the dash below the edit box (it's roughly between the Ə and the ~, the longer dash being the one you like to use). I'm not familiar with the syle where the dash is better than the comma, so I use the comma. About what the edit window looks like - it's no so much that using HTML is ugly (although in this case we don't have to use HTML so it's not an issue), it's that using HTML scares new editors away from wikipedia. It's the "free encyclopedia", not the "really hard to edit/fidly encyclopedia for those with advanced computper skills". It's just a philosophy I like to keep in mind, although many aren't bothered by it, and even use HTML to intimidate new editors to stop them from editing.--Commander Keane 21:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About that quote of mine above, it was a bloody typo. It originally read "it can progress and stuggles to be cited." but should read "it can't progress and stuggles to be cited." Sorry about that.--Commander Keane 21:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"stuggles"?

That would require Javascript (which I have turned off at all times), and moving from the keyboard to the mouse and back (which is annoying and slow).

Frankly, I cannot imagine the need to progress a quotation. It's not likely to change in the future. It's explanatory, and explanatory information is frequently at the top of disambiguation pages.

--William Allen Simpson 23:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be. If you know of pages like that, please let me know and I'll edit them to conform to the style guideline and not have this type of information. It's simply distracting. Tedernst | talk 23:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I didn't realise that feature req'd Javascript.
Explanatory information is against the MoS (link quoted above). If you find a dab with explanatory information, you should change the {{disambig}} to a {{disambig-cleanup}} and it will be corrected.
By progress I mean that the quote should be woven into the fabric of an article. We don't have a quote here from the mayor of Antioch, Ohio explaing where its name came from.--Commander Keane 23:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Additional pages to add to this disambiguation page

I discovered these two pages that might be a fit for this disambiguation page:

What category should these pages belong in?

--152.7.255.228 (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]