Talk:Žirovnica, Žirovnica

Žirovnica ≠ Municipality of Žirovnica

An anonymous user has merged this article with Municipality of Žirovnica several times. The Municipality of Žirovnica is a 42.6 km² administrative unit (see map). The village of Žirovnica is a 0.5 km² settlement within that municipality (see map). They are not equivalent; compare New York (state) and New York (city). Doremo (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. Merge discussion can continue in a new section. --BDD (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Žirovnica, Žirovnica → Žirovnica – I think the settlement of Žirovnica in the Municipality of Žirovnica is the best known entity named Žirovnica. Therefore, I propose the article is moved to 'Žirovnica'. The disambiguation is redundant. Relisted. BDD (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC) --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: To be honest, I think the anonymous mover complained of above has the right idea. In a municipality of just 5,000 people, it really doesn't make any sense at all having a separate article for both the core village and the municipality, especially when we have so little to say about either. The two can quite easily be discussed in the same article, and, in the unlikely event that some earth-shattering occurrence befalls one or the other, and the article gets too large, they can be split at that time. Wikipedia doesn't have to have a separate article on every single geographical permutation of the name. Merge both articles to Žirovnica, as the primary topic of the name (the only one on the disambiguation page that is a municipality), and move the disambiguation page to Žirovnica (disambiguation). If it works for Sheffield, where both the settlement and the municipality are a damned sight larger and more significant, it shouldn't be hard to make it work for Žirovnica. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment on merge proposal: From my perspective, it's rather awkward to combine the settlement and municipality articles because then the article would need two sets of population figures, two sets of area figures, two sets of establishment dates, etc. Also, the endonym Scheraunitz would apply to the settlement, but not to the municipality, so that would require splitting as well. Perhaps more awkwardly, the settlement of Žirovnica is also not the municipal seat, so such a merger would combine the larger administrative unit with a secondary settlement within itself. It's also likely that the settlement article will be expanded in the future (for example, it's been around for eight centuries, but the history section currently only covers three or four years). Doremo (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment on move proposal: I agree that the settlement of Žirovnica in the Municipality of Žirovnica is the best-known entity named Žirovnica in Slovenia. However, the presence of a significantly larger settlement with this name in Serbia implies that the Slovene Žirovnica should not be the default Žirovnica. Doremo (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: I accept that there are a few difficulties to overcome in merging the articles, but as I pointed out, if those difficulties have been overcome in the case of Sheffield, it shouldn't prove too taxing to do so for this municipality. Sheffield is a city of half a million people—that's 100 times larger. It is also a city with a considerable history, and of worldwide significance in the steel and cutlery industries. If someone has managed to overcome those problems in the case of such a significant city (and there are many others besides), then Žirovnica really shouldn't pose too many problems. Incidentally, it might be worthwhile leaving worries about the Serbian settlement until somebody bothers to write an article about it. Even if that occurs, a settlement in Serbia of 830 people, or a municipality in Slovenia of 5,000. Mmm, which do you think is more likely to be considered the primary topic? Skinsmoke (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Regarding the merger, I agree with Doremo. There should be two articles, one for the municipality, and the other for the village/town. The former covers 43 km², exists from 1994 and is an administrative entity; the latter covers 0.5 km², has existed for centuries and is a real place. They both have a different focus and a different story to tell and their infoboxes have an inherent value too, because the statistical data about both of them are neatly presented and useful. Regarding the move, I agree with Skinsmoke. Unless someone proves that the village in Serbia is more notable than the village in Slovenia, the number of inhabitants is pretty irrelevant. On the other hand, the fact that Matija Čop (as well as other known people) was born in Žirovnica raises the notability of the Slovene place, which is also evidenced by the number of incoming links. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.