Template talk:Royal and noble ranks of West, Central, and Southern Asia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shahzade / Şehzade[edit]

@LouisAragon:, @Vdr11:, I sense a bit of a strong discussion going on here. Could you just clarify what these links need to point to exactly? I was under the assumption that they need to point to the Iranian versus Ottoman counterpart of that title, and changed so accordingly after I had cleaned up the Shahzade disambiguation page. But maybe you are seeing things differently? --Midas02 (talk) 05:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey Midas02, there's as you can see, no discussion at all. I also don't get why Vdr11 reverted the incorrect revision back. I simply pointed out the same issue brought up by you after your reversion, as it indeed redirects to a dab page. I changed it subsequently to a red link as you correctly suggested.[1] He however (Vdr11), apparently does not seem to grasp the point of an edit summary, (and thus also not the concept of a dab page) which I even linked him on his talk page, which he simply blanketed afterwards.[2]. - LouisAragon (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Midas02: - Hello Midas02, all I did was fix the brackets, so that the link to "Sehzade" is restored. It was previously broken (in red). Lord knows, for some reason @LouisAragon: reverted my change. He also reverted improvements I made to the "Mirza" page with appropriate citations. As far as I understood, WP was for academic sharing and not entrenching biases. I blanketed his post on my talk page, becuase it was disrespectful and contained no constructive feedback. He's just trying to bully me. Luckily for him, I have a better grasp of the English language and more knowledge on Persian nobility subject matter. Thank you and have a lovely day. --Vdr11--

I believe you're getting the two mixed up. Shahzade was pointing to a dab page, so I changed it to point to the Persian title. Şehzade was never an issue though, as that link has always been an article. So all is correct now? --Midas02 (talk) 06:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


@Midas02: - Hello Midas02, nope, I am not mixed up at all. If you look at my edit @04:37, 7 November 2015, I fixed the broken link, which @LouisAragon: had broken again, after I had fixed it a couple of days ago. Before that, I fixed grammar / spelling, and layout of template so it is consistent. The template looks perfect now, exactly as it is and only appropriate links should be added here on in. Thank you and have a lovely day. --Vdr11--