Talk:Forts in Sri Lanka

Structure

Many editors are contributed their input to this article/list, and all structures are suddenly changed in overnight, which seems to me demoting our contribution. Therefore I undo the edit (in template too) and invite Blackknight12 and Dan arndt for further discussion before making big change in this article. I like the table, which initiated by Blackknight12. I'd like to include it while not damaging the main article. IMO, we can add the tables in each section. In addition, which is right naming? Eg: Ruwanwella fort or Ruwanwella Fort. --Anton^Talk 04:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anton, I am more than happy to discuss and collaborate with you guys on this projects, however the nature of many people working on a topic at the same time means that an article will change rapidly over and over in a short time frame, that is something we cant ignore. I thank you you for starting this discussion, but as my edits were neither disruptive nor vandalism and were a constructive edit towards the quality of the article I will restore it. Much of the content previous editors have written is still there, only it is in a more organised table now. I am very happy to hear any suggestions on how to improve the article, and it is not my intention to damage it.

I suggest continuing all discussions related to this project here and not on anyones talk page as it will be easier to manage.--Blackknight12 (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I do agree that article will change rapidly and I do not see your intention as damage. However, When removing a section of an article, it is necessary that it at least be explained, and in some cases, discussed. But, you didn't explain or discuss (Now, reverted). I don't see it as constructive edit by simply removing such content. I feel descriptions of the individual forts will be lost if you/we organised into table. Even though, the table looks simple. Can you add descriptions in the table or add the tables in each section such as 1.Ancient forts, 2.Portuguese forts, 3.Dutch forts & 4.British forts? --Anton^Talk 13:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that, the descriptions of the individual forts I removed because the same information is found in the main articles themselves, and there is not much use having duplicate information. However in saying that none of those paragraphs on the each forts were referenced either. All information available about each fort should be in each separate fort article. I have added a notes section where a short description can be read from the table and if you wanted to know more you could just read the individual article.--Blackknight12 (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

You are in the progress of converting paragraph to table during mid of the discussion, which I do not like and it could not be a good dispute resolution. You and I can't repeat the Circular logic unless someone intervene from WikiProject Sri Lanka. Otherwise, I have to approach resolution requests. I don't feel it could be worth to appeal. Actually, I was planning to develop this and nominate to "feature list". That's why I am in the process of creating supporting articles and templates. Anyway, I drop the "feature list" idea and discussion. You may continue your edit or not. I don't wanna be in part of circular logic. --Anton^Talk 03:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Forts title

Started from User talk:Blackknight12:

I noted that you have recently moved a number of pages relating to Sri Lanka forts. As per WP:NCCAPS the second or subsequent words in an article's title should not be captialised unless the title is a proper noun in almost all the cases fort is a common noun not a proper noun. (i.e. Arippu Fort should be Arippu fort). I am happy to stand corrected if necessary but I think you'll find that this is the correct application of the Wikipedia naming conventions. Could you therefore please revert all those recent moves that you have made to reflect the above. Dan arndt (talk) 04:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Like Agree with Dan arndt. --Anton^Talk 04:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dan arndt, I moved those articles based on the style of other related articles, see List of forts in India, List of forts in Pakistan, List of forts in Washington County, Pennsylvania and List of forts in the United States (I am aware "fort" is first here). In wikipedia there are exceptions to rules and in this case it is more commonly "Fort" than "fort".--Blackknight12 (talk) 13:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Have to disagree - the correct application of the Wikipedia naming convention is not to capitalise the second word in the title of the article.Dan arndt (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not too fussed about it. :)--Blackknight12 (talk) 04:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Forts in Sri Lanka. 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/20080509145717/http://www.colonialvoyage.com/remainSriL.html to http://www.colonialvoyage.com/remainSriL.html

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) 16:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)