Talk:Pleven Province

[Untitled]

There was a move request to "Oblast", but a small majority was opposed. Radiant_>|< 00:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Oblasts of Bulgaria

Pleven province municipalities

Hello, please do not make separate articles for Bulgarian municipalities. The unwritten rule is to include municipality content in the city/village article: see Chiprovtsi, a GA. Please redirect the municipality articles to the city/village articles and introduce the content there if not already available. Thank you. Todor→Bozhinov 11:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Beg to disagree. Significantly diferent entities an deserve separate articles. Too bad Bulgarian wikipedians are not active enough to add more info about the towns and the districts (obshtinas). Mukadderat (talk) 07:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do you insist on doing something when you have opposition? This has to be discussed and voted, it's not a minor thing! I'm undoing all your edits until you organize a vote on it and you win it. Todor→Bozhinov 09:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that I've done the reverting, let me prove my point:

1. Your "articles" are nothing but forks of Pleven Province or the Municipality sections of the articles added by me. By doing this, all you do is republish and republish the same content, which is useless: if you can't write an actual article, don't do it.
2. At the moment, the town/village+municipality model works fine: this is the lowest administrative level, allows for more exact data, and we have had no problems with it whatsoever: how difficult is including a municipality section after all?
3. We have precedents: Serbian articles use the same model (see Trgovište, Bosilegrad, Kraljevo, etc., etc.), as do the Norwegian articles (Inderøy, Ål, Åfjord), which, while putting an emphasis on the municipality, do not have separate articles for the administrative centre and use the basic name. Romanian communes also cover several villages and do not have separate articles. Todor→Bozhinov 10:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that I've done restoring let me prove my point:

1. Please be aware that reverting without finished discussion is disrespectful to ellow wikipedians. Fortunately, I am not a person who will be easily excited or angered.
2. There are plenty of cases when content of one article is used to start other ones. I don't "republish content. If you have notices, I removed the identical content from town pages. I added more content (which you deleted by your reverts).
3. Everything works fine. However a town and an 'obshtina' are very different entities, with plenty of content to create. The translated word "municipality" gives false impression that a town and "municipality" are nearly the same. Which is very not.
4. We have opposite precendents. Of course, when workforce is scarce, I understand there is difficult to maintain many articles. But this is not the reason to disregard other people's work. Mukadderat (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
5. Your arguments fail to probe that having separate pages is bad for wikipedia. I think it is just the opposite. People see small municipality stubs will try to add information and make them bigger. But who will really notice that in Pleven article the section "Pleven municipality" is microscopic? It does niot catch and eye in a very big page with many sections.

Once again, please don't do massive reverts without discussion first. Mukadderat (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so you're one of those people that copy other people's text and change it to the opposite without even reading it :) Once again, you're just forking content written by me and you're not providing anything useful to the encyclopedia. I have a very broad overview of Bulgarian geography articles and honestly, sticking with the one-article format is undoubtedly the best decision. That's exactly what the BG and RU experience proves: the municipality articles have remained content-lacking stubs or even useless small lists for years, something that we surely don't want happening here. Because we have to learn from others' mistakes.

Obshtina is the absolute equivalent of a municipality, apparently you don't even have an idea about the context you're creating those forks in. I'm not sure what "workforce" you're referring to, we have no problems with maintaining our variety of articles, and in fact that's what I'm doing at the moment: preventing you from forking content out of stubs to make them even shorter stubs. In Wikipedia, we strive to expand stubs, not to create more stubs out of them: Wikipedia articles are not about being useless but "eye-catching" stubs, the ultimate goal is to produce well-written and detailed featured articles.

I'm making a vote section on WikiProject Bulgaria, feel welcome to participate. Todor→Bozhinov 16:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• You wrote an excellent statement: "Wikipedia, we strive to expand stubs". Please do. And stop taking other people for idiots. Mukadderat (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)