Talk:European history

Postwar rebuilding

I knew a town planner who told me that when he was a student in the UK in the 1960s, the rebuilding of Birmingham was often cited by his teachers as a fine example. By the 80s, it was being used as an example of what not to do. Pashley (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I care a bit for town planning and for the ironies contained in it. One big example is that when the Plattenbau was en vogue in practically all of Europe and even beyond, the thing that was considered the epitome of ugliness and a bygone era to be replaced by modern architecture (i.e. Plattenbau) was the turn of the 19th to the 20th century architecture that is called Gründerzeit in German. Funny thing is: Today almost all places (at least in Germany) that have extant buildings from the Gründerzeit left have property values and rents going through the roof while nobody who can avoid it wants to live in a Plattenbau. Which just goes to show that tearing down stuff just because it is not considered "modern" or "nice" at the time is rarely - if ever - a good idea... Though in the defense of urban planners and architects of the 1950s: Especially in Germany there was a huge shortage of decent housing and it had to be built cheap fast and mass-produced. The Plattenbau was the logical consequence and it beats shacks or housing without central heating hands down. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Related topics

A new user (User:TomParrat30) deleted all the links at the top of sections that used the seealso template. I instinctively reverted. I then realised he had also added a section at European_history#Topics with all the links, so I've undone the revert.

What is the best way to handle such links? Pashley (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Rollback

Recently there was a rollback of many minor adjustments to the text that were all done in one edit. @Hobbitschuster, Ground Zero: I personally do not see either edit as being better than the other. Which confuses me a little, as to why a rollback was done, or even why the the undone changes were made in the first place. Could you guys explain why you did what you did? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• I removed a bunch of repeated links that add clutter per our policy.
• I simplified the syntax of some sentences to improve readability (and to reduce repetition of the trite use of "saw": "The Migration Period saw...", "the Battle of Adrianople of 376 saw... ", "World War I saw...")
• I corrected the capitalisation of "integration", "coal" and "steel".
• I replaced "subsequently" by "since" in once instance, which is less formal per WV:tone.
• I replaced "of any kind at the moment" by "underway", which is shorter, to the point, and remove emphasis which isn't needed here to make the point clearer.
• I can't explain why Hobbitschuster would revert another editor's edits without even a comment on the comment line, but it is a pattern of behaviour that is not constructive. When they've done this in the past, and I've provided explanations, they have bothered to reply, so I'm will wait a day then restore my edits unless there are specific points that anyone else wants to discuss. Ground Zero (talk) 04:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I see. When I looked through the differences, I saw that you accidentally broke up a sentence into 2 paragraphs. I can understand why he would revert that, but I'm still wondering why a rollback was used, rather than an ordinary "undo", for the edit. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Or just fixed the minor error instead of restoring incorrect capitalisation and overlinking. It seems that they'd rather make a point than improve the article. Ground Zero (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I think I remember seeing a Hobbitschuster comment not liking these kinds of minor edits somewhere. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)