Talk:Principality of Gjirokastër

Merge proposal

This article is proposed for merging with Gjon Zenebishi. I support this proposal because:

1. The text of this article does not mention the subject of this article (except unsourced infobox).
2. the text of this article is actually about Gjon Zenebishi
3. The only source used in this article (Fine, pages 355 and 356) does not mention the subject of this article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Support. If there is further information regarding his province, a section at Gjon Zenebishi could be created (titled "province" or "administration").--Zoupan 23:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There are 0 hits in google books for this title: Support. I initially thought that a move to "Principality of Zenebishi will be ok, but this wasn't even a real political entity, just a tribal short-term society centred on a single tribal chieftain.Alexikoua (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. It would be more practical to have two separate articles. [[1]] states that "Near Gjirokaster we have the Zenebishi family, probably the Zenevias. They occur in Ottoman records as owning land near Gjirokaster in 1431." [[2]] states that "In 1381 and 1384, the Latin feudal lords of Arta asked Muslim troops for protection against the invading Albanian Zenebishi clan from Gjirokastra." [[3]] states "gli Zenebishi di Argirocastro". [[4]] states that "in Gjirokastra etablierte sich das Feudalgeschlecht der Zenebishi". The person and the area controlled by the person should be considered separately. If not, then this article should be merged into the article for Zenebishi family, not the person, as Gjon's son, Depa, was briefly ruler in 1418, titular ruler 1418-1435, and attempted to reclaim the territory in 1435. Ujkrieger (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Considering that the current title hits "0" you favor a "Principality of Zenebishi" in case this article stays separate?Alexikoua (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I see. Yes if there are 0 hits the article should be moved from Principality of Gjirokaster. Either to your suggestion, Principality of Zenebishi, or be merged with the Zenebishi family article. Ujkrieger (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Support Admittedly I am not an expert on this area of Balkan history, but if this principality was coterminous with its one and only ruler, then having two articles is indeed redundant. Personal realms that did not pre-exist or survive the person who formed them, i.e. did not have an independent existence except as "the lands held by person X during his lifetime" are almost never worthy of an article simply because they are bound up in that person's activities. Constantine ✍ 08:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Support as per above.--Zoupan 19:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)