Support the Split. Splitting would make sense. Greenshed 11:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
- I don't think so, there's hardly enough material for two articles. Grue 20:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
- support. The amount of material is irrelevant. These are different things, hence different articles. Wikipedia is not paper. `'mikka 21:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Support. They are clearly of different importance. Would even suggest removing NY section altogether. Mhym 06:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Against. I am against the split. In the 1960s the magazine continued the dissident tradition of the first (NY) Novy Mir; there is a clear connection between the two. --Badvibes101 (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Comment: I almost did the split myself, but then i looked at the talk page. If there is indeed a "clear connection" between the two, i can't really see it in the article body. If the article can show it, then it really shouldn't be split. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I re-wrote the article (which needed a clean-up); tried to show the link between the two. Hope I've made it clear why we don't need the split. --Badvibes101 (talk) 11:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Support: There is no historical connection (a vague "dissident tradition" is not enough, and in any case the Soviet magazine was not "dissident" except to a limited extent at certain times), and no one who comes to the entry will be looking for the obscure NY magazine. The NY should be split off or deleted, and the entry considerably expanded for the Soviet version, one of the most important literary magazines of the 20th century. Languagehat (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Split done. Clearly different subjects. They were sitting in the same page, because it was created in early wikipedia days where style was not clear. It was not split before because not many really care about the topic. `'Míkka>t 16:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=small}
