Talk:Capsa (Roman colonia)

Merge proposal: Capsa (Roman colonia) to Gafsa

Alerting Onel5969 and GermAngle. Capsa seems to be the earlier name for Gafsa, in which case Capsa (Roman colonia) should redirect to a section in Gafsa, such as Gafsa#Ancient history or Gafsa#In Roman times. Boleyn (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Merge - clearly Capsa is one of the historical names for the current Gafsa. It would be one thing if the Gafsa article was long enough to warrant a split as per WP:SPLIT (similar to the "History of" articles we see in many city articles, e.g. History of Phoenix, Arizona), but it's not. Even then, the article's name should be "History of Gafsa", and this material included there. But as of right now, there simply is no rationale for splitting this info from the Gafsa article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• Keep separated and not merge. Same reasons that apply to have two articles on Thysdrus and El Djem -and many others, as pinpointed by another wikipedian- are those that support my opinion. Anyway, I am adding more data to the article Capsa (roman colonia), because during roman times it has had an importance similar to the nearby Thysdrus and as a colony of veterans from central Italy it was a center of romance African language (and, in a minor level, of Christianity).--GermAngle (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

And none of those are valid rationales for keeping 2 separate articles, when the historical article can be merged into the target. Nicely done. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

So, why Thysdrus & El Djem are separated articles and Capsa & Gafsa cannot be separated? What's your "rationale", onel5969? Anyway, thanks for your words "nicely done".--GermAngle (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

That's an WP:OSE, which doesn't really hold water. However, in the two articles you point to, that is not the same situation as here. In this case Gafsa and Capsa are the same location, just with different names at different times in their history. Thsydrus and El Djem were two different locations, very close to one another. A more cogent argument is the New Amsterdam versus New York City articles. However, both of those articles are fully developed, and a split was warranted. In this instance, as I pointed out earlier, WP:SPLIT doesn't seem to apply here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, but Thysdrus and El Djem were NOT "two different locations, very close to one another". The famous amphitheater of Thysdrus is the main tourist attraction of El Djem and is located within the modern city of El Djem as can be clearly seen here .......and the same location identity applies for Icosium and Algiers, for example, and of course other articles.--GermAngle (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Keep separated .....like ElDjem & Thysdrus or Icosium & Algiers. Johnny D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.16.142.169 (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Keep separated. To merge is the equivalent to make a damage to Wikipedia (like merging Londinium and London). BD
• Keep separated. like Lutetia and Paris or Vindobona and Vienna.
• Keep separated--LastDoge (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)