Talk:Isaurian War

Military history: Asian / Middle East / Roman & Byzantine / Classical

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	Roman and Byzantine military history task force
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greece: Byzantine

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force.

Place coordinates

I do not understand edits like this. What's the point of removing information, as it were vandalism or original research, only because one does not understand its utility? --TakenakaN (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the information is irrelevant. Giving geo coordinates as references (?) makes no sense. Nor does it any way make sense to give the coordinates of the Chalke gate or the Hippodrome of Constantinople in an article on a rebellion in Asia Minor... It simply serves no purpose at all. Constantine ✍ 16:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's your position, not the consensus: what you find useless might be useful for another reader (and it is for me). As they are not a vandalism, nor original research, there is no ground to remove them. --TakenakaN (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, this is not a dispute on content... It is about standard editorial practice. Just look around on all the other articles in WP. ;) Cootrdinates templates are to be used in the articles that are about a specific location, not elsewhere. Constantine ✍ 17:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is such a rule, please provide me with a link. Otherwise it is just a practice. --TakenakaN (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Things do not need to be written down for them to be valid. Just look around and look at {{Coord}}. Where does it indicate that it is to be used this way? No single page does this. What is the point of giving the coordinates for the Chalke? If you want a map, there are some of Asia Minor. That would be useful. I don't want to have a dispute with you over such a silly thing, but as an experienced editor, please take my word that it is simply not done this way. Constantine ✍ 17:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you state that "cootrdinates templates are to be used in the articles that are about a specific location, not elsewhere" you are supporting a limitation that must be clearly written somewhere.

About the usefulness of the coordinates, I find much more useful this than a map of Asia Minor in which those places aren't even listed. --TakenakaN (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make sense. What is the value of this map? To illustrate that the Chalke is in modern-day Istanbul? Or where Antioch is? It does not add any level of understanding to the article. Anyhow, if you are so persistent, then at least do so properly, in line and within parentheses and not as references. Constantine ✍ 18:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the value of this map? You mean the value of a map showing the locations of the war? It should be self-evident.

Why putting them inline in the text should be "proper"? And why you insist to put the redirection (Chalke Gate) instead of the article (Chalke)? --TakenakaN (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not, because a) these locations are not given within context, b) just putting pins on a modern political map does not help to understand anything concerning a 5th-century conflict and c) the location of the Chalke or the Hippodrome are rather irrelevant to the conflict and either way not distinguishable at this scale. If you want a map to go with this article, I can make one with the prime locations of the revolt. As for the Chalke Gate, well, it is for clarity: the average reader does not know that the Chalke was a gate. Constantine ✍ 18:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any map of any conflict has the problems (a) and (b), while for this map problem (c) is inappropriate (the map can be zoomed in). As for the Chalke gate, what is unclear in "Chalke Gate" as it was before? Why in-line coordinates are the "proper" way to go? --TakenakaN (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the maps, no they do not :) Check the maps for the Roman–Parthian War of 58–63 article. As for c), what information regarding the events and outcome of the conflict can be gleaned from knowing where exactly in modern-day Istanbul the Chalke was? What is the relevance? If we go putting coord tabs on every single location in WP, it will become a mess. For the gate, well, personally, I find "Chalke Gate" better-looking than "Chalke Gate". Since the redirect exists, let's use it. For the location of the links, because they are not "citations" as such. They are in essence external links pertaining to a vaery specific point in the article. In my experience here, when the geolinks are given, they are included inline in this way.Constantine ✍ 18:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My problem evidently is "your experience". Here everything must conform to your experience. When you find the time to draw maps up to "your experience" standard, you can remove the coords, until then, they are much better than nothing (which, incidentally, is your experience for these cases, I assume). Have a nice day.

There is no reason to be insulting, you know. As for my experience, I do not claim papal infallibility, but I've been here quite longer than you. If you don't appreciate that, fine, suit yourself. I am just trying to help... Constantine ✍ 20:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate the fact that everything should conform to your experience instead of to clear rules or practice. If you consider my complaints against the arbitrariness of your experience as "insulting", well, that's not my problem. --TakenakaN (talk) 11:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, the only thing I am trying to suggest is current practice, which I know of because of my experience editing here, obviously. I am not trying to impose my arbitrary will. When I am saying that nowhere have I seen geolinks used in this particular way, then that is precisely what I mean to indicate: it is not standard practice in WP in my experience. There are not minutely detailed rules and guidelines on everything, after all. You are free to take these suggestions in good faith or leave them. Constantine ✍ 13:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]