Talk:Crusades/Archive 3

message: The note of crusaders settling in the caucasus is bogus. I removed it, but I am willing to wait another few days for a reference. I am confident that it will not come! How long has this section been here? Str1977 (smile back) 08:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Caucasus

message: Still looks good ... :
:But the image :Image:Crusade.JPG doesn't state its fair use rationale. Lincher 03:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: I ran into an article Hussite Wars and as I was reading it called its purpose as an anti-hussite crusade with a papal bull and all. I was wondering if it was overlooked, for inclusion in the Crusades or it does not belong.--Tigeroo 10:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hussite Wars

message: It seems to me that all of the pictures in this article are either too small, or too docile. The crusades were a regime of blood and genocide, and I think some pictures need to illustrate that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Torus (talk • contribs) .
:Images created centuries after the crusades are usually politically and culturally interesting not so much for what they say about the Crusades, but what they say about the time period when the images were created, and how they imaged the past. See Middle Ages in history for a brief outline. Generally we try to stick with contemporary images in history articles. -- Stbalbach 04:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More descriptive pictures?

message: This page really ought to be at Crusades.  It is about the history of the Crusades, not the concept of a crusade (which would really be an issue for a dictionary. john k 20:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Larry Sanger made the same comment four years ago, and no one has ever bothered to move it :) Adam Bishop 20:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I would also be inclined support such a move. However, it would likely be somewhat confusing for the casual reader. This whole subject is a veritable minefield, as can be seen in the above exchanges between people of very strongly held views. Moreover, the subject is huge and cannot be fully dealt with here; this article can only really be a gateway into the subject and at the moment does a reasonable job.--M.J.Stanham 23:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah we can't have separate articles "Crusade" and "Crusades", it would be a disambiguation problem, many people use those terms interchangeably, "main articles" can branch off if needed. As for the singular versus plural, it's half a dozen one way, six the other - you can find MoS rules and logic arguments that support each position - as soon as you change it to one, someone else will say the other. IMO we should be pragmatic and choose the name of least resistance based on "What links here" - choose the name that is most popular. -- Stbalbach 00:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps the current article ought to be divided so that it begins with a discussion of 'crusade' before proceeding to individual 'crusades' . I expect that as this article grows each individual crusade will eventually require its own page anyway (probably including unnumbered ones), which could be linked from here. I was quite surprised that there was no article entitled The First Crusade. The end result would be that this article would be about 'crusade', rather than 'crusades.' In my opinion, a desirable outcome, but a lot of work.--M.J.Stanham 13:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh dear, I must have been half asleep not to notice that embedded in the article itself. I thought it was pretty strange. Thinking too much, sleeping too little. Sorry. --M.J.Stanham 15:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not controversial, but the idea of 'crusade' and the history of the 'crusades' are distinct.--M.J.Stanham 15:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a disambiguation problem, people refer to the Crusades and Crusade interchangeably meaning the same thing. The other pragmatic concern is that if this article is renamed, someone will need to go through the What links here and resolve all the redirects which looks like 3 or 4 hours of hard word, or a bot will need to be created. -- Stbalbach 16:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I would say 'crusade' remains preferable as long as this article discusses 'crusade', provides an overview of 'the crusades' and functions as a gateway to articles about individual crusades. I would like to see more emphasis on the former aspect, though. --M.J.Stanham 16:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crusade or Crusades?