Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Greco-Persian Wars

Yes, I know I am not the major contributor, but this is not a nomination proposal, but a merge proposal. There are three topics nominated this year ( that encompass most of this. But as listed above, these topics appear to be fine as merged. Since "The Invincibles" topic, it appears to be a significant movement towards merging together small topics into broader, well defined topic. The advantage of this proposal is that the last battle is also included, together with the main article. What do people think? Nergaal (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I think that to be complete, a topic on the Wars should also include articles on the major generals, like Leonidas I, and sources, like the Histories. Ucucha 06:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck my oppose; I won't support until a subject expert has approved the topic. Ucucha 13:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, a book is needed that covers the entire proposed topic. Ucucha 13:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nergaal (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ucucha. You might could construct a topic around "Battles of the Greco-Persian Wars", (You'd likely need an FL) but as nominated, I must oppose. Courcelles 07:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've renamed it as suggested. As for the FL, I don't really see that appropriate. There would be some 10 entries in a table that would be well included in the main article; to me that sounds like a content fork and should not stand as a separate article. Nergaal (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This format is similar to that in other current topics - specifically Classes of supernovae, Physical geography of Somerset, and Towns in Trafford - which use the main article to define a slightly narrower topic that that of the central article. Nergaal (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The topic can be later expanded to include other major personalities in the wars, at which point the title can be switched to the overview topic. Nergaal (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still oppose. This format necessitates either a list or a timeline to be added. Courcelles 01:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody give their opinion about merging or not these topics? Nergaal (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 oppose, 1 neutral, 1 nom after a month. Anybody else care to give their input? Nergaal (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I feel that the piping is fine, and I see that the original nominator of the three topics wanted to put them all together originally but didn't because they were told that they needed the biographies. --Pres N 19:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I hope one day that I will get all the rest of the work done, and this can just be a "Greco-Persian Wars" super-topic. For the time-being though, I think that the "Battles of the Greco-Persian Wars" super-topic is fine. M.F.B.T. ^{Yes, Minister?} 19:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: MFBT is the original nominator of the topics currently proposed for merger. Nergaal (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I too think the piping is fine. The main article already outlines the entire battle in prose form, thus a timeline is not required imo.—Chris!_c/t 22:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close with consensus to promote. The lone oppose left seems not to be an issue for anyone else, and has also been countered. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]