Disambiguation | ||||
|
On 9 May 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Trocadero (disambiguation). The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Editors with a certain level of retentive fixation who don't really read entries and have little thought for the reader are likely to make bumbles like separating Trocadero from Trocadéro. The two entries complete one another. Irritatingly obtuse. -- Wetman 04:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
An anonymous user made a separate little article for each local Trocadero (which is fine) but deleted the material from this entry (which is not fine). I reverted the damage here. Some duplication of text at Wikipedia is no problem at all. Context is a concept not everyone seems capable of grasping. -- Wetman 05:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Removing links, in this case, is like removing sources: they are the source of information in the text. Editor A removes them, then later Editor B removes the text, as "undocumented assertion" or somesuch. Does removing links service the reader? I restored them. Editing at the various local articlettes, will eventually turn each into a main article on its local subject. Meanwhile the amusing general phenomenon can be traced here, for those with a more-than-local horizon. And why not? -- Wetman 17:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I see now that some previous editor, in order to create a Trocadero (disambiguation) page, removed the opening paragraph, which I have replaced. No wonder CalJW was dumbfounded:
The subject of this article is "Trocadero"; it traces the apparent mere circumstance "that a few venues have shared a name" is in fact modestly significant. A good comparable article could trace Ritz, from César Ritz to Ritz Hotel, to "ritzy" to Ritz Crackers, as a kind of expanded disambiguation page. This page demonstrates that "Trocadero" is a kind of meme, though not to CalJW, apparently. No matter. With the restored opening statement, the sense is restored. The spin-off articles will develop their own weight: no reason on their account to impoverish this article now. "Normal Wikipedia practice" and "the rule that Wikipedia should have one article on each subject" are doubtless figments of an authoritarian training. -- Wetman 13:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The information at the top was about the battle, the area in Paris, and the London restaurant. All the info was also in each article. The so-called Trocadero (disambiguation) dab page did not include restaurants, and both were mostly disambiguation and also mostly a mess. It even said the battle closed in 1965 (or was it the area of Paris?), not quite clear. If the editors from the above 2005 discussion want an article detailing the relationship between the battle, the area nad the restaurant, why not add an article Trocadero (name origin) or the like? No, never mind, I'll do it, but really the two articles should just mention that the name comes from the battle. Chris the speller 04:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Per WP:RMCI#Moves of other pages, anyone can open a new discussion at Talk:Trocadéro about moving that article. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 07:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Trocadero → Trocadero (disambiguation) – Retarget Trocadero to Trocadéro, the primary topic. 162 etc. ( talk) 06:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation | ||||
|
On 9 May 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Trocadero (disambiguation). The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Editors with a certain level of retentive fixation who don't really read entries and have little thought for the reader are likely to make bumbles like separating Trocadero from Trocadéro. The two entries complete one another. Irritatingly obtuse. -- Wetman 04:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
An anonymous user made a separate little article for each local Trocadero (which is fine) but deleted the material from this entry (which is not fine). I reverted the damage here. Some duplication of text at Wikipedia is no problem at all. Context is a concept not everyone seems capable of grasping. -- Wetman 05:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Removing links, in this case, is like removing sources: they are the source of information in the text. Editor A removes them, then later Editor B removes the text, as "undocumented assertion" or somesuch. Does removing links service the reader? I restored them. Editing at the various local articlettes, will eventually turn each into a main article on its local subject. Meanwhile the amusing general phenomenon can be traced here, for those with a more-than-local horizon. And why not? -- Wetman 17:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I see now that some previous editor, in order to create a Trocadero (disambiguation) page, removed the opening paragraph, which I have replaced. No wonder CalJW was dumbfounded:
The subject of this article is "Trocadero"; it traces the apparent mere circumstance "that a few venues have shared a name" is in fact modestly significant. A good comparable article could trace Ritz, from César Ritz to Ritz Hotel, to "ritzy" to Ritz Crackers, as a kind of expanded disambiguation page. This page demonstrates that "Trocadero" is a kind of meme, though not to CalJW, apparently. No matter. With the restored opening statement, the sense is restored. The spin-off articles will develop their own weight: no reason on their account to impoverish this article now. "Normal Wikipedia practice" and "the rule that Wikipedia should have one article on each subject" are doubtless figments of an authoritarian training. -- Wetman 13:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The information at the top was about the battle, the area in Paris, and the London restaurant. All the info was also in each article. The so-called Trocadero (disambiguation) dab page did not include restaurants, and both were mostly disambiguation and also mostly a mess. It even said the battle closed in 1965 (or was it the area of Paris?), not quite clear. If the editors from the above 2005 discussion want an article detailing the relationship between the battle, the area nad the restaurant, why not add an article Trocadero (name origin) or the like? No, never mind, I'll do it, but really the two articles should just mention that the name comes from the battle. Chris the speller 04:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Per WP:RMCI#Moves of other pages, anyone can open a new discussion at Talk:Trocadéro about moving that article. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 07:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Trocadero → Trocadero (disambiguation) – Retarget Trocadero to Trocadéro, the primary topic. 162 etc. ( talk) 06:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)