Difference between revisions of "Talk:Takatsuki castle"
From SamuraiWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search (Suggest deleting page) |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Probably an article on the Musashi castle should be "Takatsuki Castle (Musashi)", and Takatsuki Castle in Setsu be just "Takatsuki Castle," but if you split the material now on the page, I don't think there is enough material to justify an article on either. --[[User:Bethetsu|Bethetsu]] 05:59, 7 July 2012 (PDT) | Probably an article on the Musashi castle should be "Takatsuki Castle (Musashi)", and Takatsuki Castle in Setsu be just "Takatsuki Castle," but if you split the material now on the page, I don't think there is enough material to justify an article on either. --[[User:Bethetsu|Bethetsu]] 05:59, 7 July 2012 (PDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::Sorry to have not noticed this earlier. I'm sorry to hear you felt that way about it. Now that things are cleared up a bit, as to which castle is which, hopefully you're okay with the article staying as it is. [[User:LordAmeth|LordAmeth]] 10:12, 11 July 2012 (PDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 12:12, 11 July 2012
I think this page should be deleted.
The photo is the site of a small, virtually unknown fortress Takatsuki 高月城 in Musashi that was hardly used after about 1550.
The history is of Takatsuki 高槻城 in Setsu, best known as the seat of the Takayamas for twelve years, which was at one point surrendered to Nobunaga, and was an Edo-period han. I tried to avoid the confusion by specifying that the photo was of Takatsuki in Musashi, but it didn't work.
Probably an article on the Musashi castle should be "Takatsuki Castle (Musashi)", and Takatsuki Castle in Setsu be just "Takatsuki Castle," but if you split the material now on the page, I don't think there is enough material to justify an article on either. --Bethetsu 05:59, 7 July 2012 (PDT)
- Sorry to have not noticed this earlier. I'm sorry to hear you felt that way about it. Now that things are cleared up a bit, as to which castle is which, hopefully you're okay with the article staying as it is. LordAmeth 10:12, 11 July 2012 (PDT)
