Talk:Knights Templar: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Geoff Beck(lost) |
imported>David Boven (thanks) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:Hearing no objection, I'm going to remove these links. They add nothing to this article except conclusion. They are still included in the external links section of the modern recreation of the order at [[Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani]], so those that are interested in them should have no problem finding them.--[[User:David Boven|David Boven]] 10:36, 17 June 2008 (CDT) | :Hearing no objection, I'm going to remove these links. They add nothing to this article except conclusion. They are still included in the external links section of the modern recreation of the order at [[Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani]], so those that are interested in them should have no problem finding them.--[[User:David Boven|David Boven]] 10:36, 17 June 2008 (CDT) | ||
:: Undo revision - I PMd you asking that this be left alone, again. I did not think it necessary to put it on the Talk page too. I disagree that they add nothing but conclusion, as they have two very good sections that add many additional history pages on the mediaeval order. If you really do have such a hangup about removing one of these links then I am happy for you to remove the OSMTH page and leave that on the relvant section, but the history section of the Grand Priory site has been the source of a lot of what went onto the W'pedia article and provides additional information that has not been repeated on either Wiki or CZ sites. [[User:Geoff Beck|Geoff Beck]] 13:10, 17 June 2008 (CDT) | :: Undo revision - I PMd you asking that this be left alone, again. I did not think it necessary to put it on the Talk page too. I disagree that they add nothing but conclusion, as they have two very good sections that add many additional history pages on the mediaeval order. If you really do have such a hangup about removing one of these links then I am happy for you to remove the OSMTH page and leave that on the relvant section, but the history section of the Grand Priory site has been the source of a lot of what went onto the W'pedia article and provides additional information that has not been repeated on either Wiki or CZ sites. [[User:Geoff Beck|Geoff Beck]] 13:10, 17 June 2008 (CDT) | ||
:::Upon reflection, I think there are two potential ways to resolve this issue. Particularly when we have subpages, I think it's problematic to have OSMTH links dominating the 'External Links' subpage-- in this, I agree with David. One solution would be to, as David suggests, remove the links but keep them in the OSMTH article. On the other hand, I think that it might be legitimate to have discussion of the OSMTH in the Knights Templar article. I am going to revise the External Links page: I will keep the OSMTH links, but I will indicate that they belong to the section of the main article about latter-day revivals. I think this is a fair way to resolve the issue. [[User:Brian P. Long|Brian P. Long]] 16:56, 17 June 2008 (CDT) | |||
::::Thanks, Brian. I think the compromise, as implemented, is fine.--[[User:David Boven|David Boven]] 13:14, 18 June 2008 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 12:14, 18 June 2008
External links question
So as to avoid any problems, I wanted to propose the removal of a couple external links here on the talk page. The two links to the modern "Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani" seem like they do not belong here. Their inclusion implies that they are somehow related to the medieval order, which they are not. If there is no objection, I'll remove them from here in the next couple days.--David Boven 09:03, 12 June 2008 (CDT)
- Hearing no objection, I'm going to remove these links. They add nothing to this article except conclusion. They are still included in the external links section of the modern recreation of the order at Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani, so those that are interested in them should have no problem finding them.--David Boven 10:36, 17 June 2008 (CDT)
- Undo revision - I PMd you asking that this be left alone, again. I did not think it necessary to put it on the Talk page too. I disagree that they add nothing but conclusion, as they have two very good sections that add many additional history pages on the mediaeval order. If you really do have such a hangup about removing one of these links then I am happy for you to remove the OSMTH page and leave that on the relvant section, but the history section of the Grand Priory site has been the source of a lot of what went onto the W'pedia article and provides additional information that has not been repeated on either Wiki or CZ sites. Geoff Beck 13:10, 17 June 2008 (CDT)
- Upon reflection, I think there are two potential ways to resolve this issue. Particularly when we have subpages, I think it's problematic to have OSMTH links dominating the 'External Links' subpage-- in this, I agree with David. One solution would be to, as David suggests, remove the links but keep them in the OSMTH article. On the other hand, I think that it might be legitimate to have discussion of the OSMTH in the Knights Templar article. I am going to revise the External Links page: I will keep the OSMTH links, but I will indicate that they belong to the section of the main article about latter-day revivals. I think this is a fair way to resolve the issue. Brian P. Long 16:56, 17 June 2008 (CDT)
- Thanks, Brian. I think the compromise, as implemented, is fine.--David Boven 13:14, 18 June 2008 (CDT)
- Upon reflection, I think there are two potential ways to resolve this issue. Particularly when we have subpages, I think it's problematic to have OSMTH links dominating the 'External Links' subpage-- in this, I agree with David. One solution would be to, as David suggests, remove the links but keep them in the OSMTH article. On the other hand, I think that it might be legitimate to have discussion of the OSMTH in the Knights Templar article. I am going to revise the External Links page: I will keep the OSMTH links, but I will indicate that they belong to the section of the main article about latter-day revivals. I think this is a fair way to resolve the issue. Brian P. Long 16:56, 17 June 2008 (CDT)
- Undo revision - I PMd you asking that this be left alone, again. I did not think it necessary to put it on the Talk page too. I disagree that they add nothing but conclusion, as they have two very good sections that add many additional history pages on the mediaeval order. If you really do have such a hangup about removing one of these links then I am happy for you to remove the OSMTH page and leave that on the relvant section, but the history section of the Grand Priory site has been the source of a lot of what went onto the W'pedia article and provides additional information that has not been repeated on either Wiki or CZ sites. Geoff Beck 13:10, 17 June 2008 (CDT)