Talk:Lund's Tower
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from Lund's Tower appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 February 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lund's Tower. 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:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.millenniumschools.co.uk/pub/ind/malsis/na.html?1065447826
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.millenniumschools.co.uk/pub/ind/malsis/nb.html?1140607803
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Revision 844358429 by Schrocat
edit
Why is the infobox a ‘non-improvement’? It would be nice if you could discuss the removal of the infobox here on this talk page instead of just removing it.
Cosycoin (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- An IB is not always an improvement. I could just of well reverse your comment: It would be nice if you could discuss the addition of the infobox here on this talk page instead of just adding it. I am sure that the original writers of the article would have had good reasons for not including one, so discussing it would have been appropriate. BTW, Could you please sign your comments with the addition of four tildes (~~~~)? - SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- What’s the problem with adding an infobox to the article? Surely it is of assistance to anyone reading the article? Cosycoin (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- If you wish to overturn the status quo, you are the one who is supposed to bring points, based on policy and guidelines, why the change should be made. Please feel free to bring in arguments that support the inclusion of information largely repeated from the text, in a box that is longer than the article itself and contains at least one piece of unsupported information. - SchroCat (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Infoboxes are generally useful for someone stumbling across an article and wanting instant information, and infoboxes are widely used on many Wikipedia articles. An infobox would also be a nice addition to this article as Wainman’s Pinnacle (another folly which is associated with Lund’s Tower) has an article on Wikipedia with an infobox, so it would be nice to keep the two articles looking similar, but that’s obviously not urgent and it’s just my opinion. You can find more info on infoboxes at Help:Infobox. I can see that you probably aren’t a fan of infoboxes in general and you probably won’t change your mind regarding the idea of an infobox being added to this article, so I have consulted the original creator of the article for their opinion on the matter, which probably won’t result in a change as they may be inactive on Wikipedia, but who knows. Thanks, and I’m sorry for adding an infobox to the article without making it a topic on this talk page first. No hard feelings, Cosycoin (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Contrary to what you have written, I do not hate IBs: I like them a lot, but only when they are used properly, which isn't, and never should be, on every article. Like everything else that goes onto an article, their inclusion should be very carefully considered. More often than not they contain disparate factoids that don't give any real understanding to the subject, just superficial dross. If you think a related article, like Wainman's Pinnacle should match, well, this one was here a long time before you wrote that, so it would make sense for that one not to have a box, rather than the other way round? Either way, WP:OSE means we don't have to have consistency between articles, only within an article. - SchroCat (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- I understand you don’t hate infoboxes, I just kept wording it that way as the other person did. Sorry about that. I suppose we should end this conversation/topic now that the problem is sorted?
Done Cosycoin (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- I understand you don’t hate infoboxes, I just kept wording it that way as the other person did. Sorry about that. I suppose we should end this conversation/topic now that the problem is sorted?
- Contrary to what you have written, I do not hate IBs: I like them a lot, but only when they are used properly, which isn't, and never should be, on every article. Like everything else that goes onto an article, their inclusion should be very carefully considered. More often than not they contain disparate factoids that don't give any real understanding to the subject, just superficial dross. If you think a related article, like Wainman's Pinnacle should match, well, this one was here a long time before you wrote that, so it would make sense for that one not to have a box, rather than the other way round? Either way, WP:OSE means we don't have to have consistency between articles, only within an article. - SchroCat (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Infoboxes are generally useful for someone stumbling across an article and wanting instant information, and infoboxes are widely used on many Wikipedia articles. An infobox would also be a nice addition to this article as Wainman’s Pinnacle (another folly which is associated with Lund’s Tower) has an article on Wikipedia with an infobox, so it would be nice to keep the two articles looking similar, but that’s obviously not urgent and it’s just my opinion. You can find more info on infoboxes at Help:Infobox. I can see that you probably aren’t a fan of infoboxes in general and you probably won’t change your mind regarding the idea of an infobox being added to this article, so I have consulted the original creator of the article for their opinion on the matter, which probably won’t result in a change as they may be inactive on Wikipedia, but who knows. Thanks, and I’m sorry for adding an infobox to the article without making it a topic on this talk page first. No hard feelings, Cosycoin (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- If you wish to overturn the status quo, you are the one who is supposed to bring points, based on policy and guidelines, why the change should be made. Please feel free to bring in arguments that support the inclusion of information largely repeated from the text, in a box that is longer than the article itself and contains at least one piece of unsupported information. - SchroCat (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- What’s the problem with adding an infobox to the article? Surely it is of assistance to anyone reading the article? Cosycoin (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
