Talk:Nova revija

Proposal to split
It is not clear right away from the article in its current form what refers to the magazine and what to the publishing company. I think they should be discussed in two separate articles. --Eleassar my talk 12:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The split can be considered: but right now, we have very little information for the publishing house; I'd wait to have more of it (or, alternatively, to add more data when splitting the article). As for now, it seems to me that the article differentiates fairly well between the journal and the publishing house (there're two different sections, while in the "Contributions" section, there's a separate paragraph regarding the publ. house). Viator slovenicus (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Then at least the material should be reorganized. The lead defines the publishing house not the magazine. It should also be stated more clearly whether the 'Contributors' refers to the authors published by the magazine or the editors of the publishing company. --Eleassar my talk 12:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We can also split it. In this case, we would have to create a disambiguation page. Plus, the article on the publishing house should be expanded (if we just move the data, we'll create a stub). Or we can keep it (for the moment or for longer), and re-write what has to be re-written. Both solutions are perfectly ok in my view. Viator slovenicus (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's better to split it. If you're willing to expand it, that's welcome, but otherwise I don't see a problem in creating another stub. It's more important that it's easily verifiable through the provided references. --Eleassar my talk 13:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, then. Nut make it sure to create a disambiguation page, cause most of the links point just to Nova revija. Viator slovenicus (talk) 10:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)