Talk:Lierna

File:Lierna lc.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lierna lc.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Lierna lc.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopaedic material

The many recent additions to this article have introduced a mass of unreferenced and unencyclopaedic material, much of it barely comprehensible, written in an unacceptably promotional tone. Sections such as "Celebrities linked to Lierna" have absolutely no place in a serious encyclopaedia. Unless other editors object, I propose to revert the page to this version from 22 February 2013, prior to all those additions, as a basis for construction of a reliably-sourced and encyclopaedic article. I'll do so in a day or two unless there is consensus that this is not the best way forward here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers, having read through what was removed, I think you made the right call. Primefac (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Primefac. It was not entirely an easy call, as I do recognise that editor Alec Smithson must have spent a great deal time on this article. Unfortunately that editor has not spent much time learning what does and what does not constitute an encyclopaedic article here. Nor does he have the necessary WP:COMPETENCE in English to edit this Wikipedia, as he has been told many times. For those reasons I waited much longer than I had said I would before removing the content. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSITION

Total opposition, All the content are true! all had reference!!! and a complete bibliography! you complete erase a long work of reserach without reason. All had reliably-sourced!!! I ask to the administrator to check all these page before and check that all the reference, and that with no reason you completly erase all the important and historical information! --Alec Smithson (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Smithson, if you are trying to attract the attention of an administrator to changes at this page, you have several options; you can contact an administrator at his or her talk-page; you can place an {{Admin help}} template here, with your request; or you can post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please be sure that what you want to say requires the attention specifically of an admin (please be aware that admins don't normally intervene in ordinary content disputes). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still Vandalism and Personal attack

Once again the publisher talk canceled a text arbitrarily with demonstrable known photo justifying and testify to the fact, and it has deleted without writing any reasons, in breach of the rules of wikipedia, it has continually reason for personal against me reiterating in every way this behavior every time . Please verify that the text still was deleted with its reliable source. --Alec Smithson (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AlecSmithson: Justlettersandnumbers stated he removed your addition because the statement made wasn't supported by the source given. I can't verify this as the source is in a language I can't read, but I can say that your addition doesn't make grammatical sense: In 1573 Pope Gregory XIII merged the Italian foundation of the Order of Saint Lazarus with the Order of St Maurice in the Church of the Castle of Lierna of where the lakeComo (emphasis mine). What is the bolded part supposed to mean? clpo13_(talk) 17:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Lierna Castle

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was not merged. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's not enough to be said about Lierna Castle to merit a separate page. It would be preferable to have a section on it in here. If in the future that section is expanded so much as to become disporportionate to the article as a whole, it can always be split off again. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose only because as short as the castle article is, it would over-power the existing Lierna article. I do plan on adding just a slight bit more to the castle article, at which point it would equal about a full third or more of the Lierna article, which is not good for balance. At present the castle article is not so short as to be a stub. I see no harm in the status quo, now that disruptive editing has ceased for the time being. --Bejnar (talk) 04:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The structure is obviously notable, all the more so since the church is interesting in itself. Not every article has to be lengthy; from the information in both articles on the Italian Wikipedia I believe it's safe to assume sources exist. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Lierna Castle into Lierna

nothing here that can't be covered in a couple of sentences in our page on the comune. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, for the same set of reasons given in the 2015 merge statements-in-opposition (which still hold). Klbrain (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, for the same set of reasons given in the 2015 merge statements-in-opposition (which still hold). MrKeefeJohn (talk) 10:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.