Wikipedia

Talk:Linz

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

old comments on naming

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

Why not title this article Linz, Austria and have Linz be a redirect? --maveric149 — Preceding undated comment added 23:55, 9 June 2002 (UTC)Reply

Why, are there any other "Linzs" around? jheijmans — Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 9 June 2002 (UTC)Reply

No, not that I know of. The problem is that around here there is an informal method for automatically disambiguating pages that lists the city then the country. Seeing this as the normal way of naming articles, another user might automatically make a link for Linz, Austria when wanting to link to the city Linz. Usually only very well known cities, such as Paris or Rome are listed w/o their country name. Again, there is not a set naming convention on this issue and is something that needs to be further worked out. However, at the very least whoever makes an article with just the city name should also make a redirect to catch any links to "city, country". --maveric149 — Preceding undated comment added 00:08, 10 June 2002 (UTC)Reply

After submitting, I thought you'd come up with this. I just checked the list of cities (City listing), and almost none of the cities there is named like that, usually only for disambiguation. One of the reasons nobody does this is because the "city, country" thing is mostly American (I think). Nobody in Europe will ever say "Linz, Austria". Also, in most contexts of encyclopedia articles, this will be a weird way to link. Another thing bothering me about this format is that the US towns are listed "city, state". But maybe we should open a real discussion on this at an appropriate place?
Anyway, making extra links doesn't sound like a bad idea, so I'll try to keep that in mind. jheijmans — Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 10 June 2002 (UTC)Reply
I'm inclined to believe that using the same name twice is an anglo nostalgia for places left behind so it will be pretty rare outside of the colonized world to find the same name used twice Except in the colonies, which you could easily argue is fairly large, most of S and N America for example. There are a few teenie tiny places in Austria and Germany that use the same names but you'd be hard pressed to find them on a good map...my .02$--dgd — Preceding unsigned comment added by DennisDaniels (talk • contribs) 14:53, 22 October 2002 (UTC)Reply
I can think of half a dozen towns in the Netherlands that have the same names as towns 20 miles or so across the border in Germany. But we have already had this debate several times, see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names) (four pages of it) for starters. Oy! --rmhermen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmhermen (talk • contribs) 15:01, 22 October 2002 (UTC)Reply
ohhhmygod. can of worms there...well, until there's another linz I'm going to leave it the way it is.--dgd — Preceding unsigned comment added by DennisDaniels (talk • contribs) 15:10, 22 October 2002 (UTC)Reply

Well Linz at least for the german speaking part of the world is referred following:

A couple of years ago it was still common to refer to Linz (Austria) as Linz an der Donau and to Linz (Germany) as Linz am Rhein. No inhabitant of either of the two settlements would even consider Linz, Austria or Linz, Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepitschek (talk • contribs) 18:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Confusion of two places

edit
Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dreifaltigkeitssäule and Pestsäule aren't the same thing, although even in Linz they are confused. The Pestsäule on the Auerspergplatz (near the Kreuzschwestern school) is much older, but also much smaller. There, infact, exist other Pestsäulen, namely in the southern suburbs of Linz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.16.235 (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2003 (UTC)Reply

Too much emphasis on Hitler

edit
Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There was too much emphasis on Hitler in the original article. Not that you can deny the links to Hitler which existed in the city. The city had a past before the second world war, although it was rather dorment for huge periods of time. So I felt free to add several other important milestones the city had in the past, and some additional locations in the present. There aren´t too many of those anyway, given the provincial character of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.41.244.42 (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2004 (UTC)Reply

Plague?

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just curious: If the plague was important enough for them to build the column, why isn't mentioned in the history? Plagues tend to warp history in different directions. John (Jwy) 22:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

The column wasn't built only because of the plague. Its name should correctly be translated into Trinity Column. It was built to commemorate the deliverance from the dangers of war (1704), fire (1712) and the plague (1713). The plague actually spared the city. I don't think the inscription says anything about the victims or that the column was built to remember them like it is said in the article. --cay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.66.41.33 (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Third-oldest Soccer Club

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I have no idea if Lask is, but I don´t think that POV comments (which I have twice deleted) are of much help, or use.

--andreasegde 20:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

LASK is definitely the oldest Soccer Club of Upper Austria. --Ricky59 16:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Then where is your in-line reference? --andreasegde 17:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply


Vienna is the oldest soccer club in Austria. At least Sturm Graz is older, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.48.129 (talk) 10:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Cam stem!?

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"Kepler is the namesake of the local public university, the only one in Austria that embraces the cam stem."

Am I missing something here? I can't find a reference to that phrase "cam stem" on Wikipedia or Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.83.162 (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't seem important anyway, even if it does mean something. I've removed the reference.Dmhaglund 12:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

History

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I edited the history section somewhat. My knowledge of Linz extends basically to the part pertaining to Hitler, so that is what I changed. The whole section needs references, though. I know of a couple for the Nazi period so may add them if I can get around to it. Dmhaglund 13:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Culture

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

"The Posthof" is not mentioned, as well as various other institutions. --andreasegde 17:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I tried to mention some important cultural institutions here in Linz, but apparently HU12 is not the same opinion about Kapu, Stadtwerkstadt and Posthof. --ThomasDerflinger 09:33, 19 Feburary 2008 (UTC)

Put them in. HU12 is not a law unto himself. I live in Linz, and they should be there.--212.241.67.98 (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have put in the Stadtwerkstadt and the Posthof, with references. To delete them would be a very bad idea.--Dieterbrodnik (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Frederic Austerlitz

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have removed the claim in the article that Frederic "Fritz" Austerlitz was born in Linz for now. The references to Billman and Satchell make no mention of this and appear to have been copied directly from the article on Fred Astaire, along with the Bain reference. Indeed Billman, on p.1, states that Frederic "was born into a family of brewers in Vienna, Austria". Although I am aware of some unpublished research which claims Linz as his birthplace, such research will have to be published and pass peer review before it can be incorporated into Wikipedia, as per WP:V. D7240 (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Linz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Linz. 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:

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) 14:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Religion subsection?

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

User:Joobo added an empty "religion" subsection to the population section, and immediately templated it as empty. My main point of discussion here would be: Do we actually need a religion section in this article (and if so why). I would argue that in the context of Linz the role of religion is small enough to be omitted altogether and would argue to keep the past consensus (by acceptance of status quo) of not having a religion section. However if there are convincing arguments by a number of editors that a religion section should be included I am happy to discuss. (PS We should keep in mind that with about 70,000 kB, the article currently already substantially surpasses the suggested maximum of 60,000 kB in WP:Length. PPS I would argue that if consensus goes towards adding a religion section we first develop it before including a section header for an empty section.) Arnoutf (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Since no response has been given and the template explicitly suggests to remove empty sections before adding the template I will revert back to the last stable version in a few days; unless consensus to keep the current one becomes apparent here before then. Arnoutf (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
As Linz is one of the bigger cities of Austria such a subsection with at least some information is needed.--Joobo (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
Then write it. Arnoutf (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
You claim you are writing a section, but nothing is there. So no information is there now. Do your homework and add text, or accept deletion of the section (you can always add it after you created content).
What is the harm in not having an empty section.
While we may disagree whether the information is needed, I am sure NON-information is definitely not needed - and the presence of a template (of which the template documentation explicitly suggests to remove empty sections rather than using the template) is unnecessarily defacing the article. So please provide an argument why the addition of an empty section benefits the article for the reader. Arnoutf (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
Logically an empty section is not providing any information. What is achieved by this section and this template is pointing out to the fact that some information is needed for this article regarding the topic. I propose in case me or someone else will not include any content into the section of concern until the end of the third quarter (Sept) this year, I have no objections for taking this template out.--Joobo (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
A) There is no consensus any info is needed. You added both the section AND the template. Simply provide content and we can discuss
B) We are now four weeks after you first added the section, and you have already had time to create even a short content section. My counterproposal is simple, let's not add an empty section but only add sections with content, or if we add empty sections let's only do this with supermajority support to include those. Arnoutf (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
I am most likely including some content in the future. Albeit I do not see a major issue with having this template in this article (as it will not stay there forever anyway) you can take it out if you insist on its exclusion.--Joobo (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Linz. 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:

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) 19:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Linz&oldid=1212100907"