Talk:Gewis
Edit request on 26 November 2012
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please replace existing redirect with the following:
#REDIRECT [[Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies#Wessex]] {{R to section}} {{R from alternative spelling}}
to fix the double redirect resulting from a page merge.
Thanks, – Wdchk (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Done --Redrose64 (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 20 December 2014
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The link is currently broken, as there is no `Wessex' section in the article any more. I suggest linking to the Gewis section, or to some other part of the article.
In other words, replace the current
#REDIRECT [[Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies#Wessex]] {{R to section}} {{R from alternative spelling}}
with
#REDIRECT [[Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies#Gewis]] {{R to section}} {{R from alternative spelling}}
J.Gowers 13:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Done I linked to the Gewis section - it's not WP:EGGy. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 29 September 2016
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Page should redirect to Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies#Wessex and Bernicia - current redirect section does not exist in the article. 50.37.96.74 (talk) 04:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Or maybe this edit should be reverted? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Not done: no response — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- No, that edit should not be reverted. The highlighted edit appears actually to have been reverting most of this older edit and this one. The addition in question duplicated material already in the article, and, focusing on two arbitrary non-notable names among the scores of names in the pedigrees, did not fit with the general organization of the page. The addition was made by an IP but are clearly those of User:J.Gowers, who created the original Esla (Anglo-Saxon king) and Gewis pages and has stored their content on his/her user page since those pages were converted to redirects as a result of an AfD. This user has since periodically inserted text like this at various places (including, oddly, at User:Doug Weller/Ancestry of the kings of Britain, a page archived by Doug Weller as evidence for an unrelated administrative action). The user claims on user page that they are writing a book on Esla and Gewis. 50.37.117.214 (talk) 06:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have little interest in all that history, but I have made the requested change. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- No, that edit should not be reverted. The highlighted edit appears actually to have been reverting most of this older edit and this one. The addition in question duplicated material already in the article, and, focusing on two arbitrary non-notable names among the scores of names in the pedigrees, did not fit with the general organization of the page. The addition was made by an IP but are clearly those of User:J.Gowers, who created the original Esla (Anglo-Saxon king) and Gewis pages and has stored their content on his/her user page since those pages were converted to redirects as a result of an AfD. This user has since periodically inserted text like this at various places (including, oddly, at User:Doug Weller/Ancestry of the kings of Britain, a page archived by Doug Weller as evidence for an unrelated administrative action). The user claims on user page that they are writing a book on Esla and Gewis. 50.37.117.214 (talk) 06:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)