Talk:Transvaro
Add topicLatest comment: 7 years ago by Thevictorator95 in topic Unjustified revert of sourced content and amelioration work
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | On 11 August 2012, it was proposed that this article be moved to TRANSVARO. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Requested move
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
Transvaro → TRANSVARO – It is an abbreviation and it should be written capital letters. Reality 16:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - Abbreviation for what? Looks more like a shortened name, like "Ford" vs "Ford Motor Company". Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 17:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Nonsense – see their web site; and it's not WP style to capitalize abbreviations anyway. Dicklyon (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, their website is not supporting it. The article needs third party reliable references! --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Even if their site did us TRANSVARO it would still go aginst the WP:MOSTM so it the capitalized version should not be used regardless.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. We capitalize acronyms, for example NASA is an acronym of "National Aeronautics and Space Administration". This doesn't look like an acronym. Please provide some evidence that "TRANSVARO" is an acronym. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - not an abbreviation, just a shortened "doing business as"-type name.--ukexpat (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Unjustified revert of sourced content and amelioration work
[edit]The discussion started --> here <-- and went as follow :
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Transvaro. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 17:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- (I reply) Those edits were not vandalism... The page has 3 different issues as mentioned by the banners, and I solely address those issues : Turned catalog-like lists into short descriptions, adding a bunch of sourced content (it was hard to find), removed primary sources because sometimes they're perceived as SEO, I do not see what is vandalism there... Let me take this discussion to the related page's discussion area. --Thevictorator95 (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- (and I add) Therefore the complete revert of CASSIOPEIA is uberly not justified. Also, the sourced Panama Papers story was removed in that revert... --Thevictorator95 (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)