Merger of Wesselényi conspiracy and Zrinski-Frankopan conspiracy is, of course, possible, but, if it is reasonable, I am not sure. For instance, NOBODY in Croatia knows what does the Wesselényi conspiracy stand for. Perhaps the same situation is in Hungary, i.e. the Zrinski-Frankopan conspiracy is unknown term in Hungary.
It is interesting how Croatia and Hungary each claim the Zrinski (Zrinni) line of Nobility. I am from Croatia, in absolutely every EVERY book, factbook and encyclopaedia the Zrinski family are Croats, not hungarians.
Merger proposal
editThere are two articles about the same event, Wesselényi conspiracy and Zrinski-Frankopan conspiracy. I believe they should be merged per WP:MERGE. I invite their creators to discuss how exactly this should be done. Tankred 02:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I see 2 problems in that. First will be "fight" about conspiracy name between Croatian and Hungarian editors about Croatian or Hungarian version of name. We will need neutral name so that everybody will be happy.
- Second problem will be changes in both articles so that again everybody is happy. My proposition about that are parts of articles with names: Conspiracy in Croatia, Conspiracy in Hungary. I support merger of articles in this conditions. I am interested to hear thinking of other users.--Rjecina 04:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- They should be merged because of WP:MERGE, which lists reasons for merger. The first of them is described as "There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject and having the same scope". I hope this talk page will resolve all the potential conflicts between Croatian and Hungarian editors before the merger. As to the first problem that you have highlighted, I would suggest we use any name that appears more frequently in English sources. Google scholar and Google books can be of much help here (if properly used, e.g. counting only works in English). Of course, other alternative names should be properly mentioned, perhaps in the lead. As to the second problem, could you elaborate on it please? I am not sure I understand what you propose. What exactly from the two articles should be put into these two separate sections? Tankred 04:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- My proposition for neutral name of article is german name of conspiracy (Magnatenverschwörung) translated to english. This version is neutral for Croats and Hungarians, and in the end Habsburgs are Germans !!
- After very good look to both articles my thinking is that best version for end of article will be separated parts: Legacy in Hungary and Legacy in Croatia. For example article Wesselényi conspiracy is having part Legacy but this part is speaking only about legacy in Hungary. --Rjecina 05:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think you are right. This article already mentions the German name (Magnate conspiracy), so basically this is a renaming process. Croatian and Hungarian versions can be put in the lead. As I see this article is in a more developed phase, so would someone copy the missing parts from the Zrinski-Frankopean article here? Squash Racket 05:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Magnate conhttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png
- I think you are right. This article already mentions the German name (Magnate conspiracy), so basically this is a renaming process. Croatian and Hungarian versions can be put in the lead. As I see this article is in a more developed phase, so would someone copy the missing parts from the Zrinski-Frankopean article here? Squash Racket 05:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- They should be merged because of WP:MERGE, which lists reasons for merger. The first of them is described as "There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject and having the same scope". I hope this talk page will resolve all the potential conflicts between Croatian and Hungarian editors before the merger. As to the first problem that you have highlighted, I would suggest we use any name that appears more frequently in English sources. Google scholar and Google books can be of much help here (if properly used, e.g. counting only works in English). Of course, other alternative names should be properly mentioned, perhaps in the lead. As to the second problem, could you elaborate on it please? I am not sure I understand what you propose. What exactly from the two articles should be put into these two separate sections? Tankred 04:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Your signature with timestampspiracy seems to be neutral and accaptable. --Koppany 10:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I support the merger under the "Magnate conspiracy" name - seems like the most reasonable thing to do. If the name itself should prove novel (ie: if it is not used in sources), once could consider the original version, Magnatenverschwörung, for a title. Dahn 10:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems no one objects to the "Magnate conspiracy" title (at least not so far). But how about the content? As Squash Racket has already pointed out, this article is more developed than Zrinski-Frankopan conspiracy, so it would make sense to (1) move this article to Magnate conspiracy, (2) add those parts of Zrinski-Frankopan conspiracy that are not already in this text (or are better written), and (3) replace Zrinski-Frankopan conspiracy by a redirect to Magnate conspiracy. Before we do that, has anyone found any factual disagreements between the two articles that should be dealt with? Another question: Magnate conspiracy already exists as a redirect. We can simply copy&paste the text from this article to Magnate conspiracy, but the history of revisions of Wesselényi conspiracy would disappear. Is there any other way to do it? Tankred 19:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
'"Magnate conspiracy" -wikipedia' google search yields a grand total of 9 results over the internet exposing it as the worst/weakest possible choice as title. Hobartimus 06:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Then we may use the German form 'Magnatenverschwörung'. Britannica uses "Wesselényi conspiracy" [1], but considering the role of the Croatian families I would not mind the title Magnate conspiracy. Squash Racket 07:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- If there will be decision about name moving article to new name there will not be problems and we will not use copy/paste but normal moving so history of revisions will survive. This will not be problem.
- I support neutral name of conspiracy (Magnatenverschwörung or Magnate conspiracy) so that there will not be in future edit wars between Croat and Hungarian users. For me is good even Wesselenyi Conspiracy because it is popular in english language but this version will create future problems. Simple I have never be interested in names but only in facts.
- I think this night to write part Legacy in Croatia so that this article will be completed. Somebody will need to correct my writing mistakes.. --Rjecina 22:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I do not know very much about the connections between the Magnatenverschwörung and Zrinski-Frankopan conspiracy, but I do believe it is very important to keep the name Zrinski-Frankopan; if it cannot have it's own page, than at least it's own section in the main article. This event is a very important event in Croatian history the Magnatenverschwörung not so much (at least by that name). IF the articles do merge, than the Zrinski-Frankopan needs to be mentioned more specifically than it already is in the Wesselenyi. --Jesuislafete 17:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Merger
editBecause discussion about merger has ended in November 2007 I have asked administrator to delete article Zrinski-Frankopan conspiracy [2] after which somebody of us will move this article to Magnatenverschwörung and make all redirect links --Rjecina (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- No concensus about the move, remember the Britannica reference? I wouldn't mind moving it, but someone pointed out that Magnatenverschwörung doesn't have many English Google results. Squash Racket (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- With hope that we all agree I only want that discussion about merger end. After that we will have new discussion about name. I have asked administrator to delete Zrinski-Frankopan conspiracy and nothing else. My comment about new name in this section has been mistake....--Rjecina (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you are sure that useful information has been saved from the article, then OK. Also please add WP:CRO if you are a member. Squash Racket (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is possible to say that ulmost nobody of Croatian users which are 1 year or more on wikipedia are members of WP:CRO .Only active members from this list which are living in Croatia are Thewanderer, Jačov, Timbouctou and administrator Joy. Information about merger has been given on Wikipedia:Croatian Wikipedians' notice board so problem is solved.--Rjecina (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you are sure that useful information has been saved from the article, then OK. Also please add WP:CRO if you are a member. Squash Racket (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- With hope that we all agree I only want that discussion about merger end. After that we will have new discussion about name. I have asked administrator to delete Zrinski-Frankopan conspiracy and nothing else. My comment about new name in this section has been mistake....--Rjecina (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The other article won't be deleted anyway, only redirected. If you agree the material from Zrinski-Frankopan conspiracy has bee properly integrated here, just turn that page into a redirect (i.e. #REDIRECT [[Wesselényi conspiracy]]). You don't actually need me to do that. The page history of the old Zrinski-Frankopan page will still be accessible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and by the way, just to forestall a frequent error, if you finally decide to move it all to a third location, please don't do that by copying-and-pasting the contents, only through the move button. If that should be impossible for technical reasons, ask an admin to do it for you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)