Talk:Yanartaş

message: Isidore 1.40.4 discusses the monster only, discussing it as a symbol. or trope, for the Three ages of man; youth being hot and vehement, age inflexible. Not useful here, unless the connexion with the monster is discussed at more length. Septentrionalis 21:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: No Consensus Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm.... lead currently reads Yanartaş is the name of a geographical feature near Olympos valley and national park in Antalya Province in southwestern Turkey..., and this is also what the article was about almost a year ago, before the recent messy spate of editing (which included a cut-and-paste move for example). So, don't we need an article about this current (and quite fascinating) feature? And if so, isn't the question here what should be the name of the article on the topic of this current place, as described in the current lead? If there's also a need for an article on the place that does not exist any more (and I'm yet to be convinced of that), then certainly WP:NCGN becomes relevant in deciding its name. But that's a different (and hypothetical) article. Andrewa (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We could restore  Chimaera in antiquity, in addition to being the name of a monster, was the name of a volcanic site which was held, by  euhemerizing geographers, to have inspired the myth. The article used that before the meddling. But let's decide where it is first. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, since the contents of the article have not been altered to its benefit, I restored the old text. In the presence of a reverter, it may clarify things to give a permanent link. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm... so, you've now changed the lead to reflect the proposed name change. That rather begs the question IMO. Yanartaş seems to be an encyclopedic topic in its own right. Changing my vote to plain oppose. A strong oppose would need to be based on much better information than seems to have been offered as yet. Andrewa (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yanartas is an obscure place in Turkey. The subject of this article was the ancient Chimaera, and 90% of it relates to that. If this article is not to be about Chimaera, it should be divided. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So it seems there are two questions: How many articles, and what's the one article to be called if it's to be combined. Pointless trying to answer the second until we answer the first, as the second question presupposes a particular answer to the first. Content is currently about 50-50 IMO, and before the recent shenigans was even more focussed on the locality. Disagree that it's a particularly obscure locality, and can't see the relevance even so. It's encyclopedic IMO. Andrewa (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. Let it be two articles. The ancient one should contain everything after the second paragraph except the novel, and be called Chimaera. It will need a disambiguator from the genus of fish; what one would you like? The modern one will have the present title and be a stub; the monster is another article, at Chimera (mythology). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mount Chimaera, perhaps? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The practical question is: which keeps the edit history? Since the bulk of this is going, the edit history should really go with it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's absolutely no reason to remove everything that relates to historical events at, or references to, the modern site; To do so would simply be disruption IMO. So there's no reason that the edit history can't stay with this article. Andrewa (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Balance. We don't need to list the ancient sources, much less quote them at length, in an article on the Turkish scenic attraction. That's most of the article. even now.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

text: that's the thing, the lead is misleading. The area including that feature as a whole is named Chimaera. Even the mythology says it takes place in Lycia, so probably the myth comes from the place. But the place was named Chimaera even in ancient times. Actually, the real Turkish adaptation(evolved) of the name(Chimaera) is Çıralı, it is also the name of the beach and the little village there, as Greek Attalia became Antalya and Angora became Ankara.So we can mention Chimaera in the Çıralı article,but as we have seperate articles for Constantinople or Istanbul, or Symrna and İzmir, i think We can have a seperate article for Chimaera. By the way Yanartaş is only used between Turkish people like the Hadrian's Gate is called "Üçkapılar" which means "Three doors". But the wikipedia article is not named "Üçkapılar". I hope you get my point. 78.161.143.88 (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

text: look dude that's the point. It's name is not Yanartaş! Elmalili (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

text: The proponents of the change seem to have made a case for a separate article, but I wonder whether this is just a straw man. They then seem to want to gut the article on the current place of any reference to its past, for what reason other than to prove a point I don't know. Other articles on current localities include an outline of their history, with a separate article on the historical site only if there's too much material for one article, which hardly seems the case here. Andrewa (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can only speak for myself; what this originally was, and what I would like to restore somewhere, is an article on the ancient place. How much on that  subject remains under this title? I don't really care, but it seems that it might answer DreamGuy's fractious claims of POV-pushing if this did not express a point of view on its connection with antiquity. I would be satisfied with a statement of the verifiable link: Francis Beaufort identified these springs with the ancient site called Chimaera during his survey of Anatolia in 1811. More is optional.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Excuse me, could you please explain us what you are not convinced of?  Let's look at 1911 Brittanica to Chimaera article. It says "The origin of the myth was the volcanic nature of the soil of Lycia (Pliny, Nat. Hist. ii. 110; Servius on Aeneid, vi 288), where works have been found containing representations of the Chimaera in the simple form of a lion." Do you think there is another volcanic natured soil in Lycia? Ok if this is not enough for you, let's look at Lycia article in Brittanica 1911 [look what it http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Lycia says], "Between the Milyas and the Pamphylian Gulf was the lofty mountain range of Solyma, which was supposed to derive its name from the Solymi, a people mentioned by Homer in connexion with the Lycians and the story of Bellerophon. In the flank of this mountain, near a place called Deliktash, was the celebrated fiery source called the Chimaera, which gave rise to many fables. It has been visited in modern times by Captain F. Beaufort, T. A. B. Spratt and Edward Forbes, and other travellers, and is merely a stream of inflammable gas issuing from crevices in the rocks, such as are found in several places in the Apennines. No traces of recent volcanic action exist in Lycia." That is Brittanica and i know is the best source for Wikipedia. I really don't understand why you are so insistent on a subject that the whole world doesn't have a doubt about Elmalili (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: I trust that DreamGuy will eventually explain what he thinks a fringe POV, and why, preferably with sources. In the meantime, I have no intention of dealing with these accusations of WP:OWN; let Arbitration Enforcement do so. The section is here.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: btw, DreamGuy is also erasing the Chimera (geography) link from Chimera disambiguation page. I think he should be stopped by an admin.  Elmalili (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that's not very constructive behaviour by DreamGuy. Andrewa (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Well spotted Elmalili. It certainly seems DreamGuy has an incurable idée fixe on this point and will have to be watched in perpetuity. TobyJ (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: wish you arrived a little earlier for voting TobyJ. It is really sad that people vote without even reading the article or doing a google search. 78.161.64.210 (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: DreamGuy