Talk:Romanipen

This stub is basically a dictionary definition of a term with various spellings none of which are in English. This external link added as a source would seem to agree [1] referring to Romanipen as a term and/or expression to denote identity. It would be more appropriate to merge it into this section of Romani people.—Sandahl (♀) 15:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree the article is as yet underdeveloped, but think that expansion should be done here rather than merged. It is surprisingly sparse though. RashersTierney (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I see you have reverted a redirect and I won't roll it back. If we can't come to a decision about the merge here, it may need to go to wiktionary:, or to AFD and I doubt it would survive there because it is basically a dicdef.—Sandahl (♀) 18:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason whatever to think that this stub cannot be sufficiently expanded as an article as a simple Google (Books Scholar) readily demonstrates. Whats the sudden urgency for merge? RashersTierney (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The first of only two English language links refers to Romanipen, "(romanipen, romipe, romimo, cikánství)" , as a definition, see WP:NAD, of Roma idenity. It's a definition and would be best merged into Romani people or Romani society and culture. Five of the sources are non English and links need to be in English.—Sandahl (♀) 18:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I have redirected to Romani society and culture. An article here is possible, but not desirable, since the whole topic can easily be covered within Romani society and culture. In any event, this article was a bare dictionary definition. -- Y not? 18:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You have not so far contributed to this discussion and your unilateral decision is not collegial. There are numerous sources in English for this topic to expand to stand-alone -article. See these as examples. RashersTierney (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether an editor has contributed to the subject or is collegial does not preclude their opinion in the matter. Anyone at anytime could have redirected it or merged it. It would a better decision rather than outright deletion.—Sandahl (♀) 19:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As it was already said, Romanipen is a very important concept related to Romanis. If, at this moment, the article is just a definition and that bothers you, you could work to expand it rather than to make it disappear.

I thought more times about this article and the fact that is so tiny for such an important subject. This is part because Romanipen is a delicate concept to understand and explain and is not even that easy to define. Kenshin (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I never wanted it to disappear. Why don't you expand it you ask, That would need to be an editor who has experience with the topic , I would not be familiar enough with it to do the best job expanding, not that I see it can be expanded greatly. Romanipe was defined in Romani society and culture in this dif [2] 12 October 2007 and Romanipe was created 8 December 2007 with very similar text. [3]. It definitely belongs in Romani society and culture, as it is now [4] not as stand alone article where it appears primarily as a definition without association with whole concept of the Romani Code. Given that, a redirect seems the best out come since there is nothing really different here to merge.—Sandahl (♀) 03:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Because you are not an editor who has experience with the topic it is probably hard for you to understand why Romanipen needs an article on its own. The association with the Romani Code is not enough to understand Romanipen, as Rashers added recently, Romanipen is more of a "framework of culture" than a set of rules. This a delicate concept that needs time and attention to develop a strong article and I, personally, don't have that time right now. Not to mention that there are other Romani topics that need more attention, too. Kenshin (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably a great number of contributors won't relate to it's importance by reading the article so this won't draw much attention outside our interest group. The links fall short in proving why it should not be merged since similar text is already included in Romani society and culture and expanded, five of seven are non English. See [5] for why links should be in English are why non English should be discouraged and what needs to be done if foreign ones are added. Three in Russian, the one Romanian link and the Polish one I have asked a friend to translate, just now done he says "the article in Polish is an "introduction to Roma". The author writes about his experience with the Roma and outlines their general history and current situation in Poland. He can't do the Romanian one, the one from the BBC."—Sandahl (♀) 21:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The three in Russian: "To write and to affirm the united law (Romanipen)" as the only mention, is a Thesaurus, simply a list of publications. —Sandahl (♀) 21:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Am inclining more towards the idea of merge as no dramatic development has occurred despite this debate. Perhaps it is a better possibility for encouraging a new dynamic? RashersTierney (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

A merge seemed the best fate for the article but the preponderance of opinion at this time is against same. This is the English Wikipedia, 5 foreign and 2 English links is a bit unbalanced. The foreign language links could include an English translation, in the text or in a footnote.—Sandahl (♀) 22:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

So what do you see as the present preference as to how to progress this content? RashersTierney (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The editors who have expressed an opinion here feel that it should not be merged though they seem to have lost interest in any further conversation at this time. What is your preference?—Sandahl (♀) 02:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

On mature reflection it might be best to let things be. The article could certainly be improved by the input of experts in this field. I'll flag the issue at the Wikipedia:Notice board for Romani-related topics project. Thanks for highlighting the deficiencies at this article.RashersTierney (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That seems the best course. If there are no objections, go ahead and close the merge or let me know and I will again.—Sandahl (♀) 00:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Done and best to you also.—Sandahl (♀) 02:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not as much lack of interest as it is lack of time for a delicate subject. I think that the links that just "mention" Romanipen should be removed (basically, those in Russian). Kenshin (talk) 09:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no particular time or requirement to edit any article, that is the beauty of Wikipedia. I don't see that they should be removed just more should be added. The sources in English are sparse but I am sure some can be found, Being gadji is a bit of a handicap in that area though, someone else will have to handle that. Best —Sandahl (♀) 02:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that part of the difficulty is that the idea of Romanipen, and especially the practices associated with it, varies widely across different Romani groups. Still, the common theme, at least as far I understand it (and speaking totally as an outsider) is that of "spiritual cleanliness". At least that theme should be included in the definition in this article. At the same time it's also true that most people writing about Romani culture have been outsiders so they sort of tend to focus on the "more exotic" aspects of it - for example, "hospitality" is an integral part of Romanipen within many Romani societies but that doesn't get as much attention as gender-based taboos. As such it is probably best to leave the subject matter a bit vague and general. Volunteer Marek  05:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)