Talk:Heerenveen

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge to bring it in line with 99% of the articles about Dutch municipalities. CRwikiCA (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

---

I propose that Heerenveen municipality be merged into Heerenveen. I do not think there should be seperate articles for both, especially seeing that that one is really short and that most other municipalities named after their main town have only one article, or that the main article is the municipality article. I think this is particularly warranted here because Heerenveen municipality basically only consists of one paragraph, which can easily merged into the Heerenveen article. CRwikiCA (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like this was initially split off with this revision and not much was done to the other page since. CRwikiCA (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This is very bad, that "most other municipalities named after their main town have only one article". The right policy is to have different articles about cities and administrative units, not to merge all articles into one. The task is not to merge, but to enlarge an article - for example, it can be done by translating from nl-wikipedia --Slb nsk (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree with you, because the distinction between the municipality and city is often small. It would be the right thing to do if there was the possibility of a full article for both the municipality and town/city. Then it would still be the question whether the main article should be the municipality or the town. I do not have time to write a full rebuttal now, but will do so tonight. CRwikiCA (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

We have municipality with 16 (sixteen) towns/villages, and Heerenveen is only one of them. Some of those towns has more than 1.000 habitants, and those towns/villages accumulate about 25% of municipality's population. It seems to me that this distinction between the municipality and city is not "small". --Slb nsk (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I will try to itemize my points, let me know which you would or would not agree with:

1. It would be important that whatever choice (together or separate) of municipality versus city would be made, that it would need be the same across Wikipedia.
2. Currently most city/municipality articles are one and united, for example Amsterdam, Rome, Calgary, et cetera. These all would need to be structured to reflect the difference between the actual city and the city government, because the consistency point in #1.
3. Another leading principle should be WP:PAGEDECIDE to determine whether there should be 2 separate articles. The second point Do related topics provide needed context? would need to be evaluated in particular.
4. In case of a split the municipality article would only have demographics in it. The city article itself would have the town history itself.
5. In my opinion the relationship between the two is better appreciated if they are combined, especially seeing the briefness of the current articles. It would give people a proper overview in one article.
6. The fact that other language Wikipedia's might have a different way of doing these things do not play a role here.

In short, in the light of the consistency across Wikipedia, the brevity of the Heerenveen municipality article and the fact that a merged article would offer a more complete view on both facets of Heerenveen than splitting the topic. CRwikiCA (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I will merge the articles this weekend. CRwikiCA (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Heerenveen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921053543/http://www.ahn.nl/postcodetool to http://www.ahn.nl/postcodetool

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)