| Revision as of 21:12, 17 July 2011 editAl-Andalusi (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,094 edits →Tags← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:19, 17 July 2011 edit undoWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,022 edits →Tags: not quite what you saidNext edit → | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| ::::Battles of Muhammad | ::::Battles of Muhammad | ||
| ] (]) 21:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC) | ] (]) 21:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
| : I checked what you asserted: that it was a parent. Had you said parent-of-parent-of-a-parent-of-a... it would have been clearer from the beginning, and much unpleasantness could have been avoided. You were complaining about wastes of time elsewhere; you could help, too ] (]) 21:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:19, 17 July 2011
Name
At least two articles were renamed from "Battle" to "Invasion" recently ( here and here) on the claims that Mubarakpuri said so. Is there any reason for not using Mubarakpuri's naming of this event as "Hamdan Delegation" here as well ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Because you cant call it a battle, when no battle took place, and it is a military expedition when "horsemen" are sent. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- It isn't clear to me why this is a "military" expedition. Nothing in the text really justifies that. That the people were armed (if they were) seems not particularly odd, for the times William M. Connolley (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Incidentally, I am still of the opinion that this entire block of stuff needs rework to come under the banner of "early spread of Islam" or somesuch; some of which was by force, some not William M. Connolley (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Tags
I see Al-A removed two tags . One I can see as debatable; but the "history" cat seems unexceptionable; that really deserves an explanation.
As for the POV tags: please don't scatter them casually. Make a good-faith attempt to resolve issues on the article talk page *before* tagging William M. Connolley (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Removed parent categories. What's so unexceptionable about that ?! Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is your lack of explanation. In fact I still don't know what you consider to be a parent of what; see M2's edit, below William M. Connolley (talk) 08:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
@Al-A, why did you remove the "Islamic history" category from many articles. Are these battle/expedition articles not part of Islamic history?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC) update: by the way, the category was called "Muslim history" before, a robot changed it to "Islamic History"--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I thought it was pretty clear when I said that I "removed parent categories". "History of Islam" is a parent of Category:Battles of Muhammad, which you didn't even bother to verify that. Also, William reverted prematurely, he posted the question here, then reverted a few hours later, claiming it hasn't been answered. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- No: I did "bother" check. And as far as I can tell, you're wrong: Category:History of Islam has no sub-cats beginning B, let alone the one you mention William M. Connolley (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Then you haven't checked properly:
- History of Islam
- Islamic conquests
- Battles of the Islamic conquests
- Battles of Muhammad
- Battles of the Islamic conquests
- Islamic conquests
Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- I checked what you asserted: that it was a parent. Had you said parent-of-parent-of-a-parent-of-a... it would have been clearer from the beginning, and much unpleasantness could have been avoided. You were complaining about wastes of time elsewhere; you could help, too William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)