Talk:Chiavari/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chiavari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151125092842/http://portofinocoast2014.digiside.it/en/chiavari-storia-e-personaggi.aspx to http://portofinocoast2014.digiside.it/en/chiavari-storia-e-personaggi.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- User P1x77 told me that the previous edit was reverted. It is true that I am used to it.wiki and not en.wiki, but I cannot understand why a notice in talk page must be deleted without looking at its content. But if this is the case, here there is the original text, this time backed up by me: I really hope I am not considered an evading user. BTW, I agree with him that talking about how garbage is collected in a city is hardly of any interest - unless the city is at the top of the charts for percentage of waste sorting, or something like that - and that writing that people complain about the bad smell is material for a local newspaper, not an encyclopedia.
- The article currently (2017-03-03) contains a paragraph with non encyclopedic information about the garbage collecting system. The way in which a city manages it's garbage collection isn't in any way of interest of people looking for information on the city. Neither the city is famous or known for the way it collects garbage, nor for anything related to that.
- Moreover those paragraph contain subjective facts without any source (in the sources there is no reference to "smell", while the paragraph reports a "all the streets are smelly"); sources report declarations from the opposite party about bad "garbage collection system", but there is no reference to smell. Anyway, regardless of that, the garbage smell is not an encyclopedic information.