Talk:Souliote Confederacy

Do we really need this?[edit]

Do we really need this as a separate article? We have Souli for the modern place, and Souliotes, which covers all the history, including, obviously, that of the "confederacy". For all I can see, Souliotes and Souliote Confederacy are more or less 100% identical in scope. What content would be part of the one article that wouldn't also be part of the other? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, at its present status it has no place in wiki. But, it can and should be expanded. There are plenty of things that may be written in here and are partly irrelevant to the Souliotes (legal system they used, taxing, etc. which I shall add in a day or two).Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't that also fit into the main Souliotes page? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It`ll go too much (I have planned to expand it a lot), per WP:SIZE.Balkanian`s word (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But given the massive amount of overlap between the articles, you'll have size problems one way or the other. It is still the case that 100% of what "Souliote confederacy" is about is also part of the topic of "Souliotes", and about 80% of what "Souliotes" is about could also be part of "Souliote confederacy", so where's the size advantage in cutting it up? I just don't get it.

BTW, another issue: is "Souliote Confederacy" an actual proper name? Was it ever used at the time? Was it in any form official? (Probably not.) Why did you capitalise it, and why do we need its Albanian and Greek translations in the lead? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, even if expanded, the section structure 'Origin-Confederacy-Wars-Expulsion' is 95% identical with Souliotes. I don't see a reason to keep this. wp:size alone isn't enough argument.Alexikoua (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]