Jump to content

Talk:Antikyra

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This is listed on WP:ANRFC. But since its old, super clear consensus for it, and there is really no opposition so there is consensus for the merge I am going to box this. AlbinoFerret 15:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anticyra isn't another name for a different time or different period. It's simply the exact same Greek name of the exact same location of a Greek settlement romanized two ways: the traditional Latinized form and the modern treatment. The current situation is not even a POV fork: it's simply a false one: the modern town is sometimes romanized as Anticyra (albeit unofficially now that Greece standardized things) and the ruins are increasingly romanized the modern way. Most of the content of the two pages should be merged here to a single treatment of the ancient and modern settlements at this site, although the treatment of the 1½ unrelated "Anticyras"/"Antikyras" should go to Antikyra (disambiguation) with a hatnote mention here. — LlywelynII 11:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Content merged and dab created. Just needs history merged before Anticyra becomes a redirect. — LlywelynII 12:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • What? First, why is this an RFC? Second, what am I to comment on, a merger that's already happened? Third, if you requested comment, why did you perform the action before gathering the consensus you specifically asked for with an RFC? Fourth, there's no attribution of the merge in the edit summaries or talk pages which is required per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and WP:MERGE. Fifth, you don't need a histmerge for a merger unless the other page is being deleted, see WP:PROMERGE. Wugapodes (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) To see what other people think. (2) As above. The merger hasn't happened. Anticyra still duplicates a treatment of the ancient history of this settlement. My contention is that it's a misguided fork and should be turned into a redirect here. (3) As above. The merger hasn't happened, but I did go ahead and provide the ancient history of this settlement on this page while leaving the fork untouched pending thoughts here. (4) The merge hasn't happened so there is no call for the edit summary notice. Easy enough to fix when the time comes. (5) The page will be turned into a redirect. We leave the history there where no one will see it? — LlywelynII 23:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) A merge discussion probably would have been better in this instance as an RfC is a dispute resolution service and there isn't really a dispute here. (2) Then you should have a "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue" per step three of the WP:RFC instructions. Also, if the merge hasn't happened, why did you say "Content merged..."? (5) yes, per WP:MERGE and WP:CWW, you do not require a histmerge. Wikipedia is Creative Commons, so you can copy text, as long as you attribute it, which is satisfied by linking to the redirected page. Wugapodes (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) Those get fewer responses. You're welcome to give one, instead of just unhelpfully focusing on policy minutiae. (2) I did. The content was added here, but the merge itself hasn't occured since I haven't removed the material at Anticyra and turned it into a redirect, pending other people's input. (5) Peachy. — LlywelynII 02:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with Wugapodes on all points. This is moot, a post-WP:FAITACCOMPLI waste of time, and not what WP:RFC is for. That said, the merge was probably a good one, so just get it over with. If others end up objecting to it after the redir, that'll be a lesson to have merge discussions (including RfCs if necessary) before doing merges.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antikyra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Antikyra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updates

[edit]

I read the above comments, which date to 2015, and read the article, about the same date, but wouldn't you know it, time has gone on, the way it does (ain't it awful?). You can't get some of the 2011 sites and anyway the numbers weren't 2011 but were years earlier carried on, and you have to go to Internet Archive now to get them, whatever good they are. Moreover, we aren't distinguishing between the village and its municipal unit. Not for nothing did the Greek government combine this tiny village with larger towns. Shall several hundred people have their own town hall and try unsuccessfully to duplicate better facilities elsewhere, etc. Still, tradition must be honored. Since I'm on this I am doing some updating using basically the very good figures provided by the EU. So, I'm changing the sources, which were not much good to most Americans anyway being in Greek. Maybe one or two persons of recent Greek ancestry might miss it.Botteville (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antikyra&oldid=1204894570"