| Revision as of 13:38, 2 April 2009 editGeo Swan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers112,843 edits more← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:02, 2 April 2009 edit undo157.142.203.127 (talk) →ExplanationNext edit → | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| The contributor who amended an entry in the disambiguation entry to use piped links also used the technique of wikilinking to a section heading. I have already asked that contributor to read and respond to the points I made in ]. I am going to appeal to that contributor one more time to address the points I raised, and not simply ignore them. ] (]) 13:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | The contributor who amended an entry in the disambiguation entry to use piped links also used the technique of wikilinking to a section heading. I have already asked that contributor to read and respond to the points I made in ]. I am going to appeal to that contributor one more time to address the points I raised, and not simply ignore them. ] (]) 13:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| : Absolutely not! I guess the whole purpose of deletion of this page is lost. Actually you are not supposed to changed the whole format of this page untill a decision is made! now that you do, you must understand that the whole concern was that a page already exist. Please do not make further changes! ] (]) 14:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:02, 2 April 2009
 | Disambiguation | |||
| ||||
explanation
I am reverting this article back to being a disambiguation. It was a disambiguation page for close to three years. There are multiple articles that could exist under the article title "shahzada".
About three months ago a contributor decided to change this from a disambiguation page to an article on the princely title.
I don't have a problem with the wikipedia having an article devoted to the princely title shahzada, just as there are articles on Dauphin, Tsarevitch and Prince of Wales. While I personally think that if someone creates that article, they should do so under something like "shahzada (princely title)", or "shahzada (son of a Shah)", I realize others might feel that the princely title should have pride of place, and the disambiguation page should be moved to "Shahzada (disambiguation). I am sure the person who replaced the disambiguation material with an article, was well intentioned, and simply didn't realize the importance of the wikipedia's disambiguation pages. Their edit summary said: " ..those people already have their own articles. This page is for the title as given..." I think this comment shows a lack of understanding as to why disambiguation pages are necessary.
About a week ago another contributor nominated the article on the princely title for deletion. I think it was a mistake to make this nomination without addressing the need for disambiguation.
So I am reverting back to the disambiguation.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Shahzada(son of shah)
- Well this is your opinion and please avoid giving links to pages that do not exist. I certainly disagree with creating a page like "Shahzada (son of shah)" as it already exits under shah in here. So again, please do not create a link for this word. Parvazbato59 (talk) 02:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Explanation
I reverted an edit that did not comply with the standards for disambiguation pages. Those standards state that the wikilinks on disambiguation pages should not be "piped".
User:Parvazbato59 raises a concern over "giving links to pages that do not exist". The standards for disambiguation pages allow red-links, so long as at least one article uses that red-link. Geo Swan (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The contributor who amended an entry in the disambiguation entry to use piped links also used the technique of wikilinking to a section heading. I have already asked that contributor to read and respond to the points I made in Redirection ot subsection heading is deeply broken. I am going to appeal to that contributor one more time to address the points I raised, and not simply ignore them. Geo Swan (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely not! I guess the whole purpose of deletion of this page is lost. Actually you are not supposed to changed the whole format of this page untill a decision is made! now that you do, you must understand that the whole concern was that a page already exist. Please do not make further changes! 157.142.203.127 (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)