| Revision as of 14:15, 28 March 2024 editFylindfotberserk (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers166,246 edits →Mizo language: new sectionTag: New topic← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:17, 1 January 2025 edit undoRiteze (talk | contribs)356 edits →Convenient tag for a section name.: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit App talk topic | ||
| (70 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown) | |||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == ] == | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for January 28 == | |||
| I think this was kept but ]. Do you want to nominate this again? ] (]) 19:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ]. | |||
| == Not unnecessary == | |||
| (].) --] (]) 17:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| not unnecessary. Some external site might want to link to some particular section. ] (]) 17:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Did you know you removed material while adding at Ram Mandir? == | |||
| == Unnecessary reversion. == | |||
| ] ] 14:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| If some other page want to link directly to , how would it do that? ] (]) 17:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| ⚫ | :What do you see as the value of deep-linking into a list with limited information? ] ] 17:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| == Bengali-Assamese script == | |||
| ::Since there doesn't exist any independent page/section on Purva Ashadha Nakshatra, other pages are forced to link to the information where it is present. Thus, an anchor is necessary at this point, if another page want to link to this particular nakshatra. ] (]) 17:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::You don't have to make precise links to everything. If the information's not there, it's not helpful to the user. ] ] 22:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There are not only (wikipedia) users who browse these pages, but external websites might also want to make links to necessary information present there. ] (]) 02:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There is nothing to be gained by deep-linking to information that isn't there. ] ] 02:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::There is important information about Astrological leader, Deity, Symbol, Indian zodiac, Tropical zodiac and more about the entity. ] (]) 02:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Where is it you want to link ''from''? ] ] 03:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::. ] (]) 03:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::OK, no. Don't add unnecessary anchors to Misplaced Pages to suit the needs of your own web site. ] ] 03:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::There might be many others who might be trying the same. ] (]) 03:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::And? Why don't you just put the information on your own page? ] ] 04:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::If a copy of information from wikipedia is placed in one's own page, it will result in duplication of information. Moreover, readers will be deprived of timely updates to the information as and when they take place. ] (]) 04:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Well, I'm sorry, but deleting anchors that nothing on WP links to is just normal housekeeping. WP editors aren't responsible for your web site. Either maintain your own information or link in a sensible way. ] ] 05:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Can you suggest any other way (which you think is sensible) of linking? This and its peers are significant topics, each of which deserves an anchor of their own, irrespective of weather they are linked to any external website or not. ] (]) 10:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == January 2025 == | |||
| You've removed the infobox why? It is present in other similar articles - ]. - ] (]) 19:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]  according to the reverts you have made on ]. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ], rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. | |||
| :I don't get either. While Devanagri is the script of the union, you kept Gurmukhi and Meitei, which are official in a few states only? - ] (]) 19:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, basically, I kept any scripts for which I could find any evidence for ''any'' official status. All that I could find with any official status at all were Devanagari (nationally for Hindi and some states for other languages), Gujarati, and Meitei. I basically checked every Indian state's official language legislation. I removed the infobox because it's about about 85% nonsense. I'd actually prefer to remove the article entirely, but an AFD got no consensus, so I settled for removing all of the downright nonsense. I may still suggest a merge to to ]. ] ] 20:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'd support ] to ] merge. - ] (]) 20:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@], what do you think of ], below? ] (]) 17:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposal: ] == | |||
| I noticed you've been doing some great work recently cleaning up some fluff and nonsense having to do with various topics, most of them South Asian—great job by the way—but I think some of the content you removed from ] can conceivably be merged into an article titled ] or even ] (or similar). A page titled ] exists but only as a redirect to ]; this is not correct, as many scripts used presently (e.g. Nastaliq, Latin) and historically (]) do not belong to the Brahmic family of languages. Overall I think you're correct that the article ] is poorly conceived, but in investigating the coverage of it and related topics during the AfD discussion, I realized there is surprisingly not really any article that talks about writing in South Asia as a whole, independent from a script/language (family) (e.g. ], ]) or a historical or modern-day culture or polity (e.g. ] itself). Thus, as I imagine it, the article would serve to house not just a list of languages ordered by script family, but also a section on the history of writing in South Asia—surprisingly, as best as I can tell, there's no Misplaced Pages article that really covers this as distinct from other topics (please correct me if I'm wrong)— or other topics that take a broad view of writing on the subcontinent (e.g. sociocultural or religious dimensions). | |||
| Points to note: | |||
| There is ample precedent for such an article, e.g. ], ], ]. | |||
| # '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;''' | |||
| # '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' | |||
| If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases, it may be appropriate to ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.''' <!-- Template:uw-ew --> ] ] 05:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Convenient tag for a section name. == | |||
| Similarly, the template {{tl|Officially used writing systems in India}} could be reworked in a similar way into {{tl|South Asian scripts}} or something (although IMO the case for the template isn't as strong as for the article, since {{tl|Infobox Writing system}} arguably serves; to be discussed). | |||
| A simple convenient tag was added to a long section name which contained some special characters too. is not constructive in this sense. ] (]) 13:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| What do you think of this? ] (]) 17:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Brusquedandelion}} I don't see a problem with ]. You can create it. - ] (]) 18:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Mizo language == | |||
| Hi, could you have a look at ] article? Apparently needs some cleanup, also the article is subject to POV push by some users. Thanks. - ] (]) 14:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:17, 1 January 2025
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III. |
Dutch exonyms
I think this was kept but consensus seems to have changed. Do you want to nominate this again? Bearian (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Not unnecessary
This is not unnecessary. Some external site might want to link to some particular section. Riteze (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Unnecessary reversion.
If some other page want to link directly to Purva Ashadha Nakshatra, how would it do that? Riteze (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- What do you see as the value of deep-linking into a list with limited information? PepperBeast (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Since there doesn't exist any independent page/section on Purva Ashadha Nakshatra, other pages are forced to link to the information where it is present. Thus, an anchor is necessary at this point, if another page want to link to this particular nakshatra. Riteze (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- You don't have to make precise links to everything. If the information's not there, it's not helpful to the user. PepperBeast (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- There are not only (wikipedia) users who browse these pages, but external websites might also want to make links to necessary information present there. Riteze (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is nothing to be gained by deep-linking to information that isn't there. PepperBeast (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is important information about Astrological leader, Deity, Symbol, Indian zodiac, Tropical zodiac and more about the entity. Riteze (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Where is it you want to link from? PepperBeast (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- From here. Riteze (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK, no. Don't add unnecessary anchors to Misplaced Pages to suit the needs of your own web site. PepperBeast (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- There might be many others who might be trying the same. Riteze (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- And? Why don't you just put the information on your own page? PepperBeast (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- If a copy of information from wikipedia is placed in one's own page, it will result in duplication of information. Moreover, readers will be deprived of timely updates to the information as and when they take place. Riteze (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, I'm sorry, but deleting anchors that nothing on WP links to is just normal housekeeping. WP editors aren't responsible for your web site. Either maintain your own information or link in a sensible way. PepperBeast (talk) 05:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you suggest any other way (which you think is sensible) of linking? This and its peers are significant topics, each of which deserves an anchor of their own, irrespective of weather they are linked to any external website or not. Riteze (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, I'm sorry, but deleting anchors that nothing on WP links to is just normal housekeeping. WP editors aren't responsible for your web site. Either maintain your own information or link in a sensible way. PepperBeast (talk) 05:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- If a copy of information from wikipedia is placed in one's own page, it will result in duplication of information. Moreover, readers will be deprived of timely updates to the information as and when they take place. Riteze (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- And? Why don't you just put the information on your own page? PepperBeast (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- There might be many others who might be trying the same. Riteze (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK, no. Don't add unnecessary anchors to Misplaced Pages to suit the needs of your own web site. PepperBeast (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- From here. Riteze (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Where is it you want to link from? PepperBeast (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is important information about Astrological leader, Deity, Symbol, Indian zodiac, Tropical zodiac and more about the entity. Riteze (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is nothing to be gained by deep-linking to information that isn't there. PepperBeast (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are not only (wikipedia) users who browse these pages, but external websites might also want to make links to necessary information present there. Riteze (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- You don't have to make precise links to everything. If the information's not there, it's not helpful to the user. PepperBeast (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Since there doesn't exist any independent page/section on Purva Ashadha Nakshatra, other pages are forced to link to the information where it is present. Thus, an anchor is necessary at this point, if another page want to link to this particular nakshatra. Riteze (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
January 2025
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bluecoats Drum and Bugle Corps. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bgsu98 (Talk) 05:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Convenient tag for a section name.
A simple convenient tag was added to a long section name which contained some special characters too. Your edit is not constructive in this sense. Riteze (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)