Talk:History of Diyarbakır

Where is the deletion discussion?

I oppose its deletion, as the word Kurdistan which apparently annoys Beshogur, can easily be adapted, and the article Diyarbakir would be much shorter and better accessible, readable for the reader. I couldn't find the deletion discussion for the article, so I ask.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

A WP:PROD is, sort of, placed in the hope that there will be no discussion. If you object, see WP:DEPROD. If someone then still wants to delete it, they will start an ordinary afd (discussionpage and everything). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There is no deletion discussion. This material is covered in the target article, whether or not it meets the requirements as per WP:SPLIT should be discussed, especially since an editor (Kansas Bear) has requested a discussion occur before making this move.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

There was no deletion discussion, and a deleting or a redirect for a page for the word "Kurdistan" as it was mentioned in the filing of the deletion is a bit weird, we could also name it otherwise as "weird".Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Amida (Mesopotamia) into History of Diyarbakır

There is no justification for a distinct article at Amida (Mesopotamia). The city has been continuously inhabited, and so the subject is the same as Diyarbakır merely under a historic name. Daask (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Ancient cities whose names in antiquity differed from modern settlements in the same location are usually covered under their ancient names. This not only assists antiquarians in locating and identifying them, since sources concerned with antiquity usually use those names rather than those of the modern towns (and in many cases, though perhaps not this one, there is a significant gap in habitation or significance between the antique period and later settlements), but also permits the articles to expand separately. Even when the name remains the same, articles on the settlement in antiquity are frequently split off from the history section due to their size and level of detail.

In this case, the article on Amida focuses almost entirely on antiquity, and thus can incorporate its ancient history and archaeological investigations in detail. This level of detail either currently is, or potentially will become, excessive as a subsection within the section on the history of Diyarbakır. It would likely have to be trimmed in order to fit there now, and would then be a candidate for splitting off into a separate article. Since that article already exists, I can see no advantage to merging the two now; that would probably just result in a repeat of the current situation. P Aculeius (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)