Talk:Bale, Croatia

Town or naselje

Once and for all then, what exactly are Bale and Grožnjan officially? (the settlements themselves, not the municipalities, Općine) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Bale officially refer to two things...:

1. Pars pro toto: the municipality, including the settlements of Bale - Valle [1], Golaš and Krmed.
2. the homonym settlement itself.

In the articles at the moment there is info about both: the history of the settlement, but also some info like population, area, administration, etc. referring to the Općina. Most of the Category:Municipalities of Croatia has the same problem, but in a few cases i see there's a specific article for the municipality (see the articles that ends with 'Municipality') --Yuma (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is obviously about the settlement, or it would have been titled "Bale Municipality", not simply "Bale" or "Bale, Croatia", which is a standard formulation for settlements (cities, towns, etc...). This article's subject is defined by the title. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No, isn't so obvious, it is only your opinion. --Yuma (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hardly. Even if we disregard the title, there is only one detached sentence in the article that refers to the Bale Municipality, the rest are solely on the settlement. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually a couple of sentences in the body of the articles and the whole content of the infobox are absolutely related to the municipality. Find yourself a solution, I'm not interested in arguing. But if you write 'hat' on a box containing shoes, it's misleading. If you think the shoes are in the wrong place, you can move it. But you just keep writing 'hat' on the shoe's box. --Yuma (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

How picturesque. I could say just as easily and with more ground that the 'box' actually contains a 'hat'. And what about writing 'hat & shoes' on a box containing only a hat? How do you justify the "merging" of the municipality and settlement in the infobox?
Here's the article. The sentence in bold refers to the municipality. My point is obvious, if you want we can spread this out sentence by sentence. Read the thing, its not that long.

If we disregard the reference to the municipality in the lead (which I added a short while ago), there is only one solitary sentence referring to the municipality. The rest quite plainly concerns only and exclusively the town of Bale itself. How is this "my opinion"? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Picturesque? Mumble... You say The article is obviously about the settlement. My issue is: No, isn't obvious, it's your opinion. Your opinion ---> obvious. My opinion --> it's not so obvious. Enough clear?

The actual situation of the article is that data related to the small settlement and data related to the whole Opcina are mixed, like in a huge number of articles. Are the 'municipality' contents less than the 'settlement' contents? I'm not contesting this point. I'm analysing contents. I see an infobox filled with data like the mayor, the total area, poulation etc, all related to the whole opcina/municipality. I did'nt say that this is right or wrong. Nor that this infobox is in the right article. I say that renaming the infobox is not a solution: it results in a misleading box, stating 'settlement' but offering to the reader contents not related only to a settlement. Period.

What to do? I have no preferences, you can separate the information in two articles, or let it cohesist in the same. Actually I don't have any good reason for arguing about this point. I'm not willing to tell you what to do. I'm sure you can find a good solution.

What is my exact issue? I completely disagree in filling the settlement_type with 'settlement', if the content of the infobox does not refer to the settlement (naselje). As I said and repeated, it's misleading and confusing. --Yuma (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 11 November 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the page to Bale, Croatia, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 19:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Bale (town) → Bale, Istria – As I understand WP:NCGN, we don't use parentheses for disambiguation of place names. And yes, Bale is in Istria. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support confusing disambiguator, the different between town, village and community will be lost on most readers. "Bale (town)" should redirect to Bale (disambiguation) where multiple municipalities that have this name are listed. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support as 67.70 and Lugnuts. [amended] with comma, Croatia. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per WP:NCGN, the country is to be used for disambiguation (except in the case of specific countries, among which Croatia is not named; the latter being a very small country to boot). Istria is a tiny, vaguely-defined, informal region. Support Bale, Croatia. If we had two "Bales" in the country, we might find it necessary to disambiguate with the region, but we don't. -- Director (talk) 10:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Bale, Istria but support Bale, Croatia per User:Director. "Bale (town)" should redirect to Bale (disambiguation). I ask the nominator, 67.70.35.44, User:Lugnuts and User:In ictu oculi to weigh in on the Bale, Croatia option as well. —  AjaxSmack  03:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, User:Director and User talk:AjaxSmack are absolutely right, the nom should read comma country name not comma Istria. While we're here can the experienced geo editors above review the wave of undiscussed Azerbaijan "English name" geo moves plus RMs at Talk:Qabala etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, sounds good to me. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems counter-intuitive to me – it's in Istria (which I had linked wrong above) and is called Valle d'Istria in Italian. But I'm not an "experienced geo editor" and am more than happy to defer to those who are. Either result is fine with me, as long as it gets moved. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

---

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