Talk:Iolanthe (disambiguation)

Edit revert
You reverted my work to clean up this page in accordance with MOS:DAB with comment "Radicalrefocus of dismbig needs explanation????\". Please explain which part of my edit did not comply with MOS:DAB and why the reverted version of the page is better. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * No, Shhhnotsoloud, it is your burden to establish precisely why your edit is helpful and why each change that you are proposing is an improvement. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My revision is better because it cleans up the page as requested by the clean up tag, removes material that was unsourced and unverified (WP:V), and formats the page correctly in accordance with MOS:DAB. Your revert reintroduces inappropriate material in the lead, poor and non-=standard headings (WP:LONGDAB), WP:Partial title matches, and entries not known solely as "Iolanthe". You should also note that there are no Wikipedia articles about people with the given name "Iolanthe" (See ). This is a disambiguation page, not a given name article. Can I assist further? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, can you please be more specific? Which items were "clean up" items, what was incorrectly formatted, which headings were "poor" or "non-standard"? Thanks -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have restored 's edit as I would have done exactly the same thing per MOS:DAB. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Instead of edit warring, please establish the reason for each change that you propose to make. These changes are disputed. I am not sure you are wrong, but no one has explained why each change is helpful, except for Shh's very vague protest above.  See WP:CONSENSUS. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The name of the (very well known) opera is surely much more widely known than the rather uncommon given name, and more likely to be the term "first sort" but if Ssilvers of all people wants to dispute this I am not interested in arguing the question further Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Soundofmusicals, I was just supporting your original revert of the edits as insufficiently explained. I am satisfied now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)