Talk:Pohádka

Disambiguation -- a disputed "undo"
I do not feel that Francis Schonken's "undo" (21:25, 25 June 2017‎ -- see history of article) was entirely reasonable. It is perfectly usual practice in Wikipedia when an article has an unqualified/generic title that references one and only one of a number of peer meanings/usages, to state that fact up front, as a preface to the disambiguation -- especially when the article opens with: "xxx is dot dot dot", giving the instance in hand as a sole instance. Also, if the article is about one piece of music, and there is another, almost as well known, with the same name as the article's title (and in this case the senior claim to it), the reader might be quite happy to have an up-front re-direction to the work he may be looking for -- although for dissimilar usages one must of course go to the disambiguation page.

There are two points at issue: first, the up-front scoping phrase; second, the "short-cut" to a peer claimant on the article's name. I would be grateful for the thoughts of other contributors. I don't want to get into "undo"ing "undo"s, so if the consensus agrees with Mr Schonken, I'll drop it.

Was I mistaken in believing that Wikipedia discourages "undo" unless the edit being undone is vandalism, obscenity, libel, nonsense, opinion, advertisement etc? Is in fact seen as just a regular editing tool?

I am a little puzzled, though ... was Mr Schonken hovering over this article, watching for intruders, or does his computer ring an alarm bell? According to the change history, he made his last change to it nearly two years ago, yet he undid my edit, and typed in a long line of explanation, within three minutes of my submitting my edit. Curious too that he says he does not know what a chamber work is, yet takes such a keen and vigilant interest in an article on just such a work. Wyresider (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)