Talk:Livingstone, Zambia

Zambia Mid‑importance

	Zambia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zambia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Zambia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ZambiaWikipedia:WikiProject ZambiaTemplate:WikiProject ZambiaZambia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Livingstone, Zambia was copied or moved into Draft:Munokalya Mukuni with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 February 2019 and 29 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zarina 6022.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: Livingstone District state of environment outlook report and possibly others. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal[edit]

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 split the article, returning the Munokalya Mukuni material to a still existing Draft:Munokalya Mukuni, from where it had been moved and interposed in this article. Both size and content warranted the WP:SPLIT AukusRuckus (talk) 08:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, a large amount of text was added to the article. This not only makes the article very large, it also seems a bit out scope for the main subject of the the article. I propose that these sections, (i.e. everything in Pre-colonial History apart from the first 3 paras):

Munokalya Mukuni
Selection process and investiture
Be-Dyango selection
Selection for other roles
Munokalya Mukuni funeral rites
Memorial Sites
Gundu
Residences and important sites
Notable Mukunis

be split into a separate page called Munokalya Mukuni, or similar. This will ensure that the content of the current page stays closer to main topic. The sections noted above are large enough to make their own page (even after needed editing and trimming). I would be interested to hear if other editors agree or not. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although there was no discussion, reading the policy and thinking it over, it looked to me like a split would not be very controversial due to WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:CONTENTSPLIT. Hope it's ok that I close this myself. If not, my apologies. Just thought it might cause confusion to leave the discussion open when move had been done. Please pardon any poor procedure on my part. Thank you. AukusRuckus (talk) 08:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.