Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a232b65b2c795c4f

Jump to content

Talk:Rio

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 18 years ago by 83.68.28.48 in topic Untitled

Untitled

[edit]

rio-bus is also a method for ibm systemp to connect multiple boxes


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.68.28.48 (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply


What was the reason for moving this page? Did you read the original Rio talk page, where it was determined that a disamb page was not needed? Please reference Wikipedia:WikiProject Music standards, where it says "do not reflexively disambiguate album titles". I would have appreciated a note on the talk page first. Thanks! Catherine\talk 17:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nope, didn't read them. Sorry about not discussing it first. I thought, and still think, that it is quite obvious that a separate disambig page is in order, since "Rio" can have many other meanings. (Such as Rio de Janeiro, by far the most common meaning for the word, and the towns of Rio, Greece and Rio, West Virginia; probably there are other meanings, too.) Clearly there is other encyclopedic use for "Rio", in the words of the WikiProject Music page. Besides, I cannot see any harm in that the album article is at "Rio (album)" instead of "Rio". This seems much cleaner and the "right" way to do it.
If you wanna revert the move (which in my opinion would not be very wise or useful), go ahead; I will not bother to counter-revert it. Cheers :-) --Jonik 14:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, not worth the trouble to revert (especially since you've been wonderfully nice and cleaned up all the links). I think I was just feeling a very unwiki-like prickliness about the abrupt move; I was the primary writer of this article and was feeling a little proprietary about it, although I'm well aware I should not. Since I had gone to the trouble to discover that (as of 18 months ago) not a single article linked to Rio when it meant something other than the album, and had checked for new links periodically since, I didn't feel there was a need to move it, and that the disambiguation block at the top covered it. You're not wrong, and it probably is "cleaner" this way, though -- just the wiki process at work. Cheers to you! Catherine\talk 21:24, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)