Talk:Lefkoniko

King of Lefkoniko

During the difficulties of the island under Lusignan heir Janus of Cyprus who failed to consolidate his rule against the powerful Genoese as well as Egyptian raiders, a popular revolt c. 1426 briefly established Lefkoniko as capital for a certain 'King' Alexis. 124.188.100.155 (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC) Ian Ison[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lefkoniko. 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/20131106001538/http://www.devplan.org/Nufus-2011/nufus%20ikinci_.pdf to http://www.devplan.org/Nufus-2011/nufus%20ikinci_.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 11:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lefkoniko. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 23:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

de facto / de jure

Nargothronde: I absolutely see the point of your edit here and a similar edit at Famagusta, but unfortunately there is a snag. Back in 2014, we had huge discussions about the presentation of places in Northern Cyprus, involving a now indefinitely blocked editor. One issue was how the "double presentation" in the infobox should be constructed. You can see the discussion here. Even if only a few editors were involved, we were actually the only editors making systematic edits to NC-related articles at the time. I supported the "(de facto) / (de jure)" presentation that you have proposed, but in the end, I accepted the "Country / Country (controlled by)" formula, as long as the "de facto" situation was presented in the main text (in the form "Xxx is a village in Cyprus. It is under de facto control of Northern Cyprus". This consensus was then implemented in a large number of articles (at least 100, perhaps 200), and it has to my knowledge not been contested since (apart from some attempts to remove either the Cyprus links or the NC links completely). Accepting your change to this article will therefore have rather massive implications, and I do not think it would be wise to change it without making sure that there now is a consensus for your suggestion. This could be made through a Request for comment. The question is: Is it worth the effort? Any thoughts? Regards! --T*U (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for bringing this up with me T*U. I'd definitely like to raise this point as per your suggestion, and I'd also be equally willing to stick my neck out and say that I'd happily and regularly go through those articles myself and systematically make those edits, and anyone else who is on-board will also be welcome to help out, that is, if such a consensus is reached and people are onboard. I'll get round to making that Request for comment at some point. I'll also take a look at that discussion before I do. I think I'll just mention that: I just saw "Country / Country (controlled by)" and immediately thought that doesn't do justice to clarify exactly which country has what type of jurisdiction in those cities/regions/districts etc. Using "(de facto) / (de jure)" solves this issue outright AND presents a clearer and more as-things-are representation, AND as a bonus is using terms that are demonstrably both practically and politically correct, for any readers who might cry "politicisation", "political sidelining" or "misinformation" etc at the former "Country / Country (controlled by)" system, "(de facto) / (de jure)" is something that cannot be misleading, cannot be confusing, cannot be contestable, and simply represents fact. Nargothronde (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nargothronde: I am afraid I have made things a bit confusing by starting this discussion when the same is also discussed in Talk:Famagusta. I will give my answer there and invite you to continue there. --T*U (talk) 08:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]