Talk:Islamic Gunpowder empires

Copied?

Mccapra Hello. This is actually a long story. This was taken from here. The article here on wikipedia existed earlier than 2016. It was the users of egypt search forums who copied and pasted. I've just created this article which highlights only about the Muslim Gunpowders, the Ottoman, Safavid and Mughals specifically. Thank you.--Kapokbirdnotflying (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

To avoid this happening in the future, please attribute when you copy from other wikipedia pages. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for more information. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 17:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Moneytrees: @Kapokbirdnotflying: I don’t think this is right. There are several paragraphs in this article which are identical to several paras on the forum page I provided a link to. Those paras in turn are sourced on the forum page to a book. So it appears to me that both the article and the forum are copied from the same source. Mccapra (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Mccapra where? If this is the case then I will removed anything copied or put in our own words. Oh, i can Note that the WP:LINKS can be found across those paragraphs, so looks it wasn't copied. From which source do you think it is copied?--Kapokbirdnotflying (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi it was in the link I provided in the speedy deletion notice: [1] but on rereading it I think I misunderstood it and you’re right. The reference to the book is to the item above the one that matches the article. Mccapra (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Article title

@Kapokbirdnotflying: I think the article should be moved to "Age of the Islamic gunpowder empires" or just "Islamic gunpowder empires", what do you think? Your sources include Douglas E. Streusand's "Islamic Gunpowder Empires", whereas my (quick) search for books referring to "Islamic gunpowders" didn't find anything relevant. TSventon (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

For a while, we had the article Gunpowder empires, which based on its name, one might assume is about any empires associated with gunpowder. Instead, the article was about the early modern Islamic empires that utilized gunpowder, with a couple of randomly-selected other empires added in by editors confused about the title. It was a mess of an article, and recently gutted down to what is little more than a dictionary def, with now little potential to become anything more.

Now we have this article, Age of the Islamic Gunpowders, which based on its name, one might assume is about an age that featured various gunpowder formulas that were Islamic, which is apparently a proper noun since it's capitalized. Instead, the article was about the early modern Islamic empires that utilized gunpowder, just as the previous article started out until editors confused by the poor title filled it with random stuff.

Both articles cover the same subject -- the Islamic gunpowder empires. Note that, AFAIK, this is not a proper noun according to sources, so should not be capitalized.

So, I think this article should be renamed Islamic gunpowder empires to properly identify the subject, and what's left of Gunpowder empires should be merged into this and made a redirect. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@A D Monroe III: as you are probably aware Kapokbirdnotflying created this article by copying deleted text from Gunpowder empires after Gun Powder Ma had nominated "Gunpowder empires" for stubification at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunpowder empires and then stubified the article in line with the (limited) discussion. I hope it will be possible for the editors involved to reach a consensus and resolve the WP:CONTENTFORK. If one article is kept it should be "Gunpowder empires" as that is where most of the content came from. TSventon (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This specific discussion is about the article title, whatever contents the article may have. When saying If one article is kept it should be "Gunpowder empires", I think this refers to the content, not the article title, right? That's a different (and completely valid) discussion. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 00:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@A D Monroe III: I think the content issue needs to be resolved before the name issue, if only by silent acceptance of the current situation. My If one article is kept it should be "Gunpowder empires" was a response to your what's left of Gunpowder empires should be merged into this and made a redirect. TSventon (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

TSventon Hello, sorry for the delay. Yes I think it is more appropriate to keep both of them (separately). There is no need to merge it. This article is about the age of the Muslim empires and part of the Islamic history, where as the other is about the term Gunpowder in general used by some authors. Now it has been nominated for deletion. Thanks--Kapokbirdnotflying (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kapokbirdnotflying: I think the subject is notable but the article celebrates the empires, rather than taking the neutral popint of view needed for wikipedia. In a similar situation, I would recommend starting a discussion rather than starting a new article with deleted material. TSventon (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

(Back to the subject of this discussion, the title, not the content.

I see that this article's title has been changed during the discussion, to something not following the consensus. Sigh. The current title is now Islamic Gunpowder empires, arguably the least sensible title so far. Capitalizing the "G" makes zero sense; if the title were a proper noun, all three words would be capitalized, and if not then only the first word would be capitalized. What reason can there be for capitalizing half-way between these? Again, the last suggestion was Islamic gunpowder empires. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@A D Monroe III: True, but the article is now nominated for deletion, so I am reluctant to rename it a third time until the discussion is resolved. TSventon (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@TSventon: hi you haven't voted yet?--Kapokbirdnotflying (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kapokbirdnotflying: Done, although it is outside my normal areas of interest, I only noticed the article because it was on a list of new architecture related articles. TSventon (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)