Talk:Ilanz/Glion

Ilanz/Glion

see Talk:Ilanz#Ilanz/Glion -- ZH8000 (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose that Ilanz (the town, and former municipality (until 2014)) be merged into Ilanz/Glion (municipality since 2014). I think that the content in the Ilanz article can easily be explained in the context of Ilanz/Glion, since Ilanz/Glion is nothing else than what Ilanz used to be: the municipality of the same region (but got expanded in 2014), and the Ilanz article is of a reasonable size (describing the town) that the merging of Ilanz/Glion will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Further, both, the town and the municipality share now the exact same name, namely Ilanz/Glion as well as the very same political institutions (standard relation between village/town and municipality of the same name!!). This is fully in line with almost every other Swiss municipality's article. See also talk:Ilanz#Ilanz/Glion. -- ZH8000 (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My objection has nothing to do with your town vs municipality argument. Rather it is that the 2 municipalities (pre 2014 and post 2014) cover different areas (the post 2014 Ilanz/Glion is much, much larger), have different populations and demographics (since Ilanz/Glion was created from almost a dozen former municipalities) and have different identification numbers. Ilanz/Glion is not the successor municipality to Ilanz, rather it is the successor to Ilanz, Castrisch, Ladir, Luven, Pitasch, Riein, Ruschein, Schnaus, Sevgein, Duvin, Pigniu, Rueun and Siat. All the demographic and geographic data in the Ilanz article are only for the per 2014 municipality of Ilanz and are NOT correct for Ilanz/Glion. The history of Ilanz/Glion is either the history of all the constituent municipalities or starts in 2014, while the history of Ilanz only covers the former municipality of Ilanz.Tobyc75 (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You say nothing new than the obvious.

Ok, once again, right from the beginning: Ilanz (Nr. 3574), the former municipality, is still the town Ilanz, or Glion respectively. The town Ilanz and the municipality Nr. 3574 were IDENTICAL, CONGRUENT in every sense, similar in every detail, exactly alike. In pre-2014 period, there was no difference between the town and the municipality. The article Ilanz's content does STILL describe and reflect these facts exactly that way – nothing less, nothing more. There is just one difference with respect to pre-2014: NOW, the town is ALSO officially called Ilanz/Glion. THE TOWN! However, Ilanz/Glion (Nr. 3619) is a municipality existing since 2014 and called exactly the same way: Ilanz/Glion. OF COURSE, it includes now more than the town (AND the FORMER municipality) only, that's obvious, BUT it INCLUDES it and BOTH are CALLED THE SAME WAY!!! Got it?!?? THAT MEANS, they have to be called the same way on Wikipedia as well. Now we have TWO possibilities: EITHER merge them (or better said: include the description of the town (the geographically AND politically 100% included entity; or in other words: it's a REAL SUBSET) into the description of the LARGER municipality, the same way like it is done with many SWISS MUNICIPALITIEs), OR THEN apply a disambiguation solution, like Ilanz becomes "ILANZ/GLION (TOWN)" and Ilanz/Glion becomes "ILANZ/GLION (MUNICIPALITY)". But I just repeated myself for the third time now. I prefer the merge for obvious reasons, but I am also happy with a dismab solution. But it has to be adapted, one or the other way. – Besides, his happens to Swiss municipalities all the times, e.g. compare pre-1893 Zurich with post-1934 Zurich; former villages (and former municipalities for their own), such as Adliswil or Höngg, are now part of the municipality of Zurich and "just" called Kreise, as well as the pre-1893 town Zurich is now called Altstadt, the old town. – Besides, how do you explain from your point of view that both, the town Ilanz/Glion, and the new municipality Ilanz/Glion have exactly the same website? -- ZH8000 (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand your hang up on the difference between the town and the municipality. No matter HOW MANY CAPITAL LETTERS YOU USE, I can't figure out what you're actually saying here, but I appreciate your passion. There are no articles on the towns themselves as separate from the municipality, so why the insistence that it has to be ILANZ/GLION (TOWN) etc.?? The article on Zurich includes information on the Kreises that were incorporated into the municipality and if they had been independent municipalities and had had WP articles, then I'd say the articles on the former municipalities should be retained, any relevant history from those articles added to the Zurich article and other demographic data updated as it became available. This is the model that has been followed here for numerous articles. see Zernez, Scuol, Onsernone etc. In all of these cases (including Zurich) 1 or more former municipalities merged into an existing municipality and the name and number remained the same.

However, this is not the case with Ilanz/Glion! No matter how much you insist that the municipality was Ilanz but the town was Ilanz/Glion, the article is on the municipality of Ilanz, not the town! In 2014 the municipality (not the town) merged with 9 other municipalities (not towns) to form Ilanz/Glion. For example look at Turtmann-Unterems. When the municipalities of Turtmann and Unterems merged the relevant information from both was included in the new article. There was no suggestion that somehow Turtmann or Unterems was some-how the critical predecessor and that one or both should be merged into a single article under a single name. Look at Albula/Alvra, it is the capital of a district named Albula but the district and municipality articles didn't need to be smashed together into one.

As for the website...it's the municipal website. If you look under Fraczuins/Fraktionen you will see information on the towns that make up the municipality including 'Ilanz in German and Glion in Romansh. They do not appear at Ilanz/Glion. If you look at the government section, you'll see that the municipal parliament is made up of members from each town or village. This clearly implies that the website is about the municipality not the town. The website confirms what I'm saying, Ilanz/Glion in a municipality that came into existence in 2014.

If you want to include some text about Ilanz/Glion including the town of Ilanz/Glion I can get behind that. But I'm not understanding your demand that they have to merged or some how disambiguated. One note, however, the infobox template can't process municipality_type = " and town" or similar text. It only looks for "former" and if it finds that (and only that) string it changes how the box looks. No matter what you put in that box, nothing different is displayed.Tobyc75 (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are still fully neglecting the initial reason for this discussion: The fact that the town is now called "Ilanz/Glion" and not anymore Ilanz!! I do not mind any kind of solution, as I pointed out for many times now, but this official change of its own name should, MUST be reflected in Wikipedia as well! (for heaven's sake). The current situation is that if somebody searches for "Ilanz/glion", (s)he will find an article about the municipality, but not the town, since it is still called "Ilanz" only on here. -- ZH8000 (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the situation is that if they search for Ilanz they will find the former municipality with a link to the current municipality. If they search for Ilanz/Glion, they will find the article on the current municipality. There was never an article on the town alone and AFAIK there are no articles on Swiss towns separate from the municipality. If there is information on the town alone, it could be easily included in the Ilanz/Glion article or even in the Ilanz article, but I think it would be hard to find town specific info. However, if you do, take a look at the history section of Lumnezia where history information on all the former municipalities and the region are incorporated into the new municipality.Tobyc75 (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Smile* You are fully following my argumentation. The article Ilanz describes the current town of Ilanz/Glion, nothing else. And yes, it also used to be a municipality. LOL -- ZH8000 (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ilanz/Glion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Settlement names in two languages

Presumably many of these settlements have different names in German and Romansch. It is currently unclear which of these is shown. Ehrenkater (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]