Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:34, 27 February 2011

Notability of the Republic of Kosovo

The issue is related to this discussion.

Enric Naval removed RoK content and deprived the newest independent state, the Republic of Kosovo, of an article in Misplaced Pages. I don't agree with this and I think that RoK is a notable subject, that should be covered in Misplaced Pages in its own article, like any other sovereign state, including these that are with limited recognition. Alinor (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that is actually in line with conclusions made on Talk:Kosovo. --WhiteWriter 10:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The article on the republic is in Koaovo. This is just a copy/paste move. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No, Kosovo status quo topic is APKiM+RoK - not RoK. This here is not a move, but a copy (with some modifications, because the topic is different). Kosovo article is not going to be split if there isn't consensus for this, but will remain with its status quo topic - as you wish. But this doesn't make Republic of Kosovo less notable subject. Alinor (talk) 07:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, APKiM has its separate own article in addition to the Kosovo APKiM+RoK article - RoK is as notable as APKiM and should have its own page. Alinor (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If the RoK continues to be treated in the main Kosovo article, then having a separate article in parallel is a POV fork. Don't start wikilawyering about it. The only way a separate article is legitimate is within a clearly defined "summary article with subarticles" framework, but then the subarticle would need to be slimmed down very considerably, to contain only that content that it doesn't share with the other sections of the main article (i.e. no separate history section etc.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

APKiM also continues to be part of the Kosovo article topic - and it also has a separate article.

WP:CONTENTFORK. Republic of Kosovo is not a "content fork" - "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject." - Kosovo status quo APKiM+RoK topic is not a sensible topic in the first place, this is a topic like "fire+water". And the subject RoK is not the same as the subject APKiM+RoK. APKiM+RoK topic covers the shared aspects of these two entities, if any. RoK topic covers the Republic of Kosovo itself.

Republic of Kosovo is not "POV fork" either - "a point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view". Describing RoK in a separate article from APKiM is not in order to avoid NPOV, its status dispute is still elaborated in the article, etc. These two are simply unrelated, they are even opposing sides in a dispute. An article about the Political status of Kosovo should present both RoK POV and APKiM POV regarding their dispute. But each of these political entities should have its own article. APKiM has such at Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–) and RoK has such at Republic of Kosovo.

I agree that text in the related articles can/should be amended, but the articles are not "main article" and "subarticles" - these are articles with different topics (see 09:20, 27 February 2011 comment). Yes, there is some similarity with the main-subarticles framework and similar principles for content arrangement can/should be applied (regarding no duplication of shared content, etc.) Alinor (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I am at a loss as to how to move this debate beyond the "is not!" – "is too!" stage at this point, since you WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT don't appear to be listening. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, please stop this disruptive editing. There was no consensus for this action despite the many long debates on Talk:Kosovo and the various attempts to interpret and manipulate other people's votes. bobrayner (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There are no "votes", just opinions, and any interpretations of these were made only when the user hasn't stated clearly the number of the option he supports. If you think that you don't support option1 (your name is shown next to it currently) - just move your name to the option you support (if have an idea that isn't any one of the 9 options currently listed - you can add it as 10th).

I don't disrupt anything - Kosovo remains as it is, with its status quo topic of APKiM+RoK mixed issues (option1). Its further improvement or change or whatever can be discussed at Talk:Kosovo.

What I did is that I established article about the Republic of Kosovo, a notable subject that so far didn't have an article devoted to it. Alinor (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I said I preferred the "status quo" in your carefully-crafted poll, as did others. That is not the same as "please start a POV fork"; I don't think any other user requested that. Stop misrepresenting people to further your POV war.

The article about Kosovo belongs at Kosovo, not Republic of Kosovo, in line with both consensus and policy. bobrayner (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

"The article about Kosovo belongs at Kosovo" - what do you mean by "Kosovo" - APKiM, RoK, Kosovo region, some combination of these or something else?

No POV fork is started - Republic of Kosovo article deals with the topic homonymous to its name. If another article somewhere in Misplaced Pages also has something to say about RoK (in relation to APKiM or to something else, etc.) - then so be it. But RoK is notable enough to have its own article. That's not related to different topics such as APKiM, APKiM+RoK, UNMIK or whatever. For example - APKiM has its own article in addition to the APKiM+RoK topic at Kosovo and I don't think that RoK is less notable than APKiM. Alinor (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Fut.Perf., I don't say that content should be repeated or that each article should have 3 infoboxes - on the contrary, I agree with you that such things should be avoided. I agree to re-shuffle content and avoid duplication. What I wanted to say is that each article should have a sensible topic. Alinor (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Then you need to start doing the work and show how it can be done. If this article is to survive it needs to be rewritten and very substantially slimmed down. Right now it still is a POV fork, and your saying a million times that it isn't one won't change that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

POV fork of what? Republic of Kosovo topic is no POV fork - the subject of this article is the independent sovereign state unilaterally declared in 2008 and so far recognized by over 70 states. If you think that some slimming down of the history section is order (as I do) - you can do it, or somebody else can do it, I don't object that. Alinor (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

1,000,001. Still not truer. You wanted this new article, so you do the work. If it's not changed substantially by tomorrow I will redirect it back. And the "region" article can be redirected back right away, because you yourself said you didn't really want it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Do not redirect this page

Just a heads up to everyone that this page should not be redirected to Kosovo at the moment, as it is confusing a number of links actively used in discussions threads and disambiguation. Please allow that larger discussion to take place in an orderly manner. I am not giving this page any kind of endorsement (an authority I do not have), but rather asking that the larger discussion be allowed to progress in a civil manner. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this request before I made my revert earlier today. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I agree that the onus is on Alinor to improve this article within a reasonable time frame before reverting back to the redirect. For the purpose of bringing everyone back into the discussion constructively, let's give Alinor, and all others, a week to focus this article's scope. At the end of the week, if the article remains unfocused, then it will again redirect to Kosovo. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Note to all editors "if the article remains unfocused" does not mean if the article is a mess because of edit warring after one week that we will revert it. Instead, the difs will be reviewed to take into account the impact of edit warring. Please also remember that the restrictions which apply to the main Kosovo article also apply here. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)