Talk:Lines of Stollhofen

See also

Moved from the article space

In the opinion of user:Dmol

"See Also section should be put in to text, rather than a list."

Yes that is true, but this is a {{stub}}, and to do it the list would have to carry in-line citations. Would you like to carry out the work? -- PBS (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Stub:

A stub is an article containing only one or a few sentences of text that, although providing some useful information, is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, and that is capable of expansion.

and WP:ALSO

Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. Thus, many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section.

What exactly is it that you (Dmol) want to see changed? -- PBS (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

What I want to see changed is exactly what was listed on the tag - See Also section should be put in to text, rather than a list.

I'm sorry, but what about that request is not clear. You have a two line article, and a list that actually gives more info than the text. I know this is a stub, but that is why these tags are use, to indicate the improvements needed.--Dmol (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not necessary or desirable to swamp a small stub with banners such as the one you placed on the top of the article. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid "Mentioning that the article is being read on Wikipedia, or to Wikipedia policy or technicalities of using Wikipedia should be avoided where possible." Yet this is precisely what you are doing with this banner. So what guideline can you point to that argues that templates such as the one you used should be placed in article space? Why do you think the that talk pages exist? Why not do what I have done and place your comments on the talk page?-- PBS (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

There four solutions.

1. The text can be expanded,
2. the see also can be reduced
3. The article with banner can stay as it is
4. The banner you have put on the top can be removed.

You say " I want to see changed is exactly what was listed on the tag - See Also section should be put in to text, rather than a list." Then why don't you do it? - PBS (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

My original concerns about the article still stand, but life's too short to worry about this sort of thing. Removing it from my watch list.--Dmol (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bühl-Stollhofen Line. 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://web.archive.org/web/20100204015546/http://www.buehl.de:80/index.php to http://www.buehl.de/index.php

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) 17:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Merge Lines of Stollhofen into Bühl-Stollhofen Line?

It appears to Lines of Stollhofen covers the same subject like this article. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 08:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

As I was the original author a heads up would have been nice. If so I would have explained why the merger should have been tbe othe way around:

• The common name in English.
• consistency, most of these types of article is styled "Lines of ....".
• copyright reasons. It is usual to keep the edit history of the oldest article, so that a third party can not claim copyright on the oldest text. If the other name is more appropriate then first merge the newer text into the older article and then request a page move.

For all these reasons I have reverted the direction of merge so it now goes from the newer article (Bühl-Stollhofen Line) into to the older one (Lines of Stollhofen). -- PBS (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)