Talk:Vushtrria

Proposed merge with Vučitrn[edit]

Vushtrria and Vučitrn are the same place; Vushtrria article seems to be better developed. Λeternus ^(talk) 12:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong direction, Vučitrn is the main article, while Vushtrria is a recent, unsourced article.--Zoupan 13:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, Vushtrria is not an unsourced article at all: it appears to have 33 references; on the other hand, Vučitrn has only 3. --Λeternus ^(talk) 13:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vushtrria would appear to be the more developed and more sourced article. IJA (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. bobrayner (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be merged with Vushtrria, Vushtrria is a recent and better developed, and even the 'Vučitrn' is not this city's official name (it's actually where i was born & live), to prove this, go to the official website: http://kk.rks-gov.net/vushtrri/home.aspx - Arddi 13:29, 5 March 2014 (CET)

Merge: I agree, the Vushtrria article is much more developed, Vucitrn should be merged into it. Ujkrieger (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the merger proposal was inappropriately closed by involved editor. This article is content fork of Vučitrn created to avoid renaming procedure. It should be merged into Vučitrn as Zoupan explained. Editors who are involved in attempt to avoid renaming procedures should be warned. Those who were already warned should be sanctioned.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made the merging proposal on March 4, 2014, and it remained open for a week. All of the discussions were made in the first two days of the proposal (March 4 and 5). Five users approved the merging, one didn't, giving a false argument that Vushtrria is an unsourced article. There were no other objections on the following days, including March 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. On March 11, given that 5/6 users agreed with the proposal, 1/6 had no valid arguments, and there were no other objections for 6 days, I closed the discussion and merged Vučitrn into Vushtrria, copying all the sourced statements from it and pasting them on the new article. Only after the discussion was closed, you came and reverted all of my edits relating to this issue. You may have a point about content forking; Vushtrria was indeed created as a second article about a topic which was already covered in Vučitrn. I do not know if the author was aware that Vučitrn article existed, but this is an issue that you could have brought when the debate was active. You can still do it, but by starting a new discussion. However, if you feel that I closed the merging proposal immaturely, please address it on a new section, or make a reviewing request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. --Λeternus ^(talk) 13:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You violated Wikipedia:Merging which request merge proposal to be closed by "editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the merger proposal or the discussion." Please refrain yourself from further violation of wikipedia rules.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Merging#Step 5, "Any editor, including you [me, that is] is permitted to perform mergers in accordance with consensus. Merging pages does not require intervention from an administrator." However, it seems that you were right about content forking. I noticed that the author removed the redirection template and replaced it with new content. I think a new, updated discussion is needed. --Λeternus ^(talk) 14:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done I merged everything from the Vushtrria article that had any reference to the Vučitrn article. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]