Jump to content

Talk:Chevella

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chevella. 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) 15:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal

[edit]

I propose that Chevella villege be merged into Chevella. I think that the content in the Chevella villege article is redundant, and the Chevella page is of a reasonable size that the merging or deletion of Chevella villege will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. RajkGuj (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I've simply deleted both that title and the duplicate version that existed at Chevella village. Neither article actually contained any content worth merging into this article — they both consisted of two sentences basically just stating that it exists, and neither one said a single thing that isn't already reflected in this article — and neither title actually has any value as a redirect to this one ("villege", in particular, being an implausible typo that nobody would ever actually look for.) So they've both just been deleted instead, per the speedy criterion for "Recently created article that duplicates an existing article topic". Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Bearcat. I wanted someone to do just what you did but didn't know how to request for the same, so used Merger suggestion. RajkGuj (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]