Talk:Lake Constance (New Zealand)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lake Constance (New Zealand). 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/20151121203027/http://www.linz.govt.nz/regulatory/place-names/recent-place-name-decisions-and-place-names-interest/nzgb-decisions-august to http://www.linz.govt.nz/regulatory/place-names/recent-place-name-decisions-and-place-names-interest/nzgb-decisions-august

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) 18:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Lede form

@HTGS:, as mentioned in the edit summaries we have collectively agreed at the NZNC talk page not to change the form of dual names in the ledes from whatever they were before the discussion until after that discussion is over. There have been a few reversions across dual name articles of edits from both me and others, so it's not just a one-sided thing or anything like that. If you think the discussion has run its course, then perhaps we should be implementing the consensus of that instead of a different form? Turnagra (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Turnagra, I wasn’t aware of any agreement not to edit leads. The discussion on that talk page is lengthy and although I’ve skimmed it, I can’t see it. Could you please make sure to link to these sort of things, so that I and any other readers here know what you’re talking about. Beyond that, between you and I, it sounds like only you have agreed not to edit any such leads, so it appears you are the only one breaking a promise here. And as I stated there, I fundamentally disagree with the premise of the discussion—a discussion which clearly has no consensus and has all but fizzled out at this point. (But, if I know you, you’ll find a way to triple the length of any talk page you’re involved with). If you have reason to revert the lead here, please make an argument relevant to the page. — HTGS (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies - I think this is the right edit where it was proposed (last sentence). There have been changes to the ledes on other articles (eg. Sutherland Sound, Tasman Glacier and so on) but these have generally been to revert to the status quo ante. Other users, including Paora and BilledMammal, have also been taking the same approach in not making changes to the ledes while it's ongoing.

I won't drag this out too much (this was mostly an empty talk page so I'm already dangerously close to having tripled it) but it does seem we have different interpretations on what a consensus is. Turnagra (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)