Talk:Trbovlje

Slovenia Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovenia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Slovenia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SloveniaWikipedia:WikiProject SloveniaTemplate:WikiProject SloveniaSlovenia articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Slovenia to-do list:

Here are some tasks you can do (watch):

Requests: , Protestant Reformation in the Slovene Lands (sl), Metlika black (sl)
Wikify: Russia–Slovenia relations
Unreferenced: Inner Carniola, Litostroj, Pavel Golia, Predjama Castle
Cleanup: Edvard Ravnikar, Škofja Loka, Inex-Adria Aviopromet Flight 1308
Expand: Education in Slovenia
Stubs: Ajdovi žganci, Čop Street, Radenska
NPOV: Gregorij Rožman, Siddharta (band)
Portal maintenance: Update News, Did you know, announcements, and suggest Selected article and picture
Help assess the quality of 35 unassessed articles
Take/Add requested photographs

Parishes and churches

An anonymous contributor has made this change twice. It is inaccurate. Trbovlje has two parishes (not three) and has only one church dedicated to Saint Martin (not two) per the cited sources. Doremo (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By persisting with this change the same contributor has deleted sourced historical information and added contradictory information ("St. Martin's Church in the western end of town, dedicated to Saint Nicholas"). I have tagged the section. Doremo (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The editor didn't add that information, it was correctly taken from the old version of the article that you've kept reverting to. 198.143.0.153 (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed it so it now says there are 2 churches, but the version that you have reverted to indicates there are 3 churches. Read it again, and stop reverting back to the old version with broken links. 190.102.113.116 (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The correct version cites three churches: St. Martin, St. Nicholas, and Virgin Mary. A redlink is not a broken link; you can learn more about redlinks at WP:RED. Doremo (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the errors that you have raised. Next time, you can do this yourself, instead of reverting. And by broken links I meant broken sources that link to nowhere, that's why I removed them. 190.102.113.116 (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 8–12 (in the last consensus version) appear to be functioning properly, with no broken links to sources. Doremo (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't. Two of those "sources" are the same link that is broken, and the other 3 all link to Družina. Your contributions only make this article look worse, and your personal attacks on other editors make you lose any credibility that you had left. 198.143.0.153 (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This change by the same anonymous user continues to have grammatical errors (e.g., church names are not articulated) and has deleted sourced historical information. The parish structure also remains unclear. The comment above (on the number of churches) indicates that the anonymous contributor is unfamiliar with this topic. Doremo (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More personal attacks. Is that all you do? The structure was even more unclear in the old version, so I'm not sure what you want. 190.102.113.116 (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The restored last consensus version clearly states how many parishes there are and which churches belong to which parishes, and it gives reliably sourced information about the history of the buildings. The modified version did not state that there are two parishes, did not state which parish St. Nicholas' Church belongs to, and deleted reliably sourced information. The last consensus version is therefore preferable. Doremo (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't bother responding to the original editor before requesting article protection from User:Eleassar, who reverted the article to YOUR version that other editors (who improved the article) disagreed with. You are a troll who just wants to have the last word, despite the fact that you are still wrong. 198.143.0.153 (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doremo, please stop directing your messages at me on this talk page because I won't be reading it now that I can't edit the article anymore. If you have something to say to me, use my user talk page instead. Thanks. 190.102.113.116 (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Some important naming conventions which the article's lead violates (WP:LEAD#General guidelines and WP:LEAD#Separate section usage): Once a Names or Etymology section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead. (Foreign language: Local name; known also by several alternative names)".' 2A02:2430:3:2500:0:0:B807:3DA0 (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remind

Just a remind. Consensus should incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Some important naming conventions which the article's lead violates (WP:LEAD#General guidelines and WP:LEAD#Separate section usage): Once a Names or Etymology section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead. (Foreign language: Local name; known also by several alternative names)".' If the case is exceptional, common sense may be applied to ignore all rules. Please discuss to decide whether this is an exceptional case or not.2A02:2430:3:2500:0:0:B807:3DA0 (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Trbovlje. 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:

Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6CRTMfOo4?url=http://www.stat.si/letopis/2002/01_02/01-06-02.asp?jezik=en to http://www.stat.si/letopis/2002/01_02/01-06-02.asp?jezik=en

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) 20:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]