Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-15/Talk:Yavne

Where is the dispute?
Talk:Yavne (Maybe this doesn't qualify as a dispute, not sure. But there is definitely an issue that needs a NPOV.)

Who is involved?

 * User:Sreifa
 * User:Ynhockey
 * User:Tiamut
 * User:Ori
 * User:No More Mr Nice Guy
 * User:brewcrewer
 * User:Andrensath
 * User:FunkMonk
 * User:Chesdovi
 * User:AMuseo
 * User:Supreme Deliciousness
 * User:Jfdwolff
 * User:Nableezy
 * User:IZAK
 * User:Debresser
 * User:Odedee

What is the dispute?
There are two pages for the same town (maybe this is my POV); Yavne and Yibna. Both pages cite the same ancient history, but treat modern times as being different towns.

What would you like to change about this?
IMHO, the pages mentioned should be merged.

How do you think we can help?
Need a policy. Important for providing comprehensive information about a place. Good Luck.

Mediator notes
The issue appears to be about the continuity of the city; if there is some form of continuity, logic and precedent suggests that there should be one page, but if there's a discontinuity, perhaps there should be two.

I've asked for input on two questions:
 * 1) What happened to to depopulate the old city?  This isn't explained in either article.
 * 2) Was the old city just depopulated, or was it also substantially destroyed?  Looking through the examples both sides have presented, it seems to me that other cities covered by Wikipedia generally get multiple articles where both the population and the infrastructure of a city "go away" for a while, whereas cities that change names for political reasons but otherwise keep a substantial part of their populace or infrastructure tend to be covered in one omnibus article.

Awaiting replies on the appropriate talk page. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

One reply was received, which didn't establish a clear-cut answer, but added weight to the idea that there was a discontinuity of culture between Yavne and Yibna that justifies two different pages, based on the precedent set by the other cities discussed on the talk page. In my opinion, to apply the same precedent fairly and in a neutral fashion, these pages should remain separate. Without counting my opinion, views expressed on the talk page were nearly evenly divided, with those opposing the merger having slightly more representation. The discussion has been dormant for about a month. Therefore, there is no consensus in favor of the proposed merge. Based on the dormancy and the lack of consensus, I boldy closed the merger discussion and removed the merger tags from both articles. I'm considering this mediation case closed; the requested opinion was provided, and there does not appear to be any active disagreement on the talk page.

My proposed guideline, based upon reviewing similar cases with other articles, is as follows. Please note that this is in no way an official or binding policy. It's just a suggestion, based upon what seems to be current practice.


 * Unofficial guideline: Where a city has experienced a substantial cultural discontinuity, particularly the total or near-total loss of its population combined with the destruction of most or all of its physical infrastructure, and a new settlement is founded on or near the same location as the old city, it is appropriate for the new city to have its own article (provided that the new city is sufficiently notable to merit an article at all). The new article should refer the reader to the old article for detailed historical information about periods prior to the discontinuity.

// ⌘macwhiz (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)