Talk:Wirtland

Virginia Low‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia 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.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. Moving the disambiguation page to Wirtland instead, and Wirtland to Wirtland (micronation). Jafeluv (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wirtland (building) → Wirtland — This has a bit of a complicated history so probably best to see the talk page. In short there's some disagreement about which is more notable.
Wirtland → Wirtland (micronation)
Dpmuk (talk) 09:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe the micronation was originally at Wirtland but at WP:Articles for deletion/Wirtland it was suggested it was moved to Wirtland (micronation) due to the existence of the building. This finally happened a few days ago when the building article was created. This move was then unilaterally undone and we reached the state we're in now. Personally I think that at least the move back should have had greater discussion as it was obviously not uncontroversial because otherwise someone wouldn't have made the original move. Furthermore I find the reasoning for the move back namely "Doesn't even register in the top ten Google hits, which are all about the micronation" to be of little relevance as none of them are exactly reliable sources - most of them appear to be far from independent - and the inherent problems with google searches. I propose we go back to the way things were as despite the results of the google search I think the building is probably more notable just less likely to be mentioned on the internet. A disambiguation page at Wirtland would be my second choice. Dpmuk (talk) 09:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose moving the building to Wirtland, Support moving Wirtland to Wirtland (micronation) and moving Wirtland (disambiguation) to Wirtland. As the editor who made the above move, I'd have to comment that the "suggestion" was not a formal outcome of the deletion discussion, but only an aside from one editor who voted for deletion of the micronation article. Furthermore, the building article did not exist at the time, nor is it especially notable outside of its locale. (To be honest, I'd only heard of Wirtland because of some related problems with the Micronation-related articles, and I only became aware of the building because of the debate over the micronation, which speaks to the building's notability on a global scale.) That aside, I'd been fine with moving the micronation article back right now and move the disambiguation page to Wirtland if that works for you; I'd been mulling such a move for the past few hours anyway. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat _spy 10:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: we shouldn't be giving primary usage to a website with weak notability (if at all) when the other one is clearly notable, carrying three obviously reliable sources with several other unused reliable sources (see here, page 4). The website is more prominent on the Internet, but in the real world even a locally known house (significant on a statewide level [see page 4 again] and nationally recognised) is likely more prominent. However, "Wirtland (building)" is not the standard disambiguation for sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places: unless they have another common name than the listing name (in this case, "Wirtland" is the listing name), disambiguation is supposed to be by locality. Therefore, if this is not located at Wirtland, it should be located at Wirtland (Oak Grove, Virginia). Nyttend (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving Wirtland to Wirtland (micronation). It's not notable enough to make the "primary" usage of the word, sorry to the Wirtland "citizens" out there trying to inflate the importance of the "country". I'm on the fence about moving the building to Wirtland, I'm not opposed to having a disambiguation page at Wirtland, but if Nyttend is correct and there's no better way to name the article about the building then it should be moved to Wirtland. -- Atama ^chat 22:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite support, like Ckatz. I believe this article should remain as is, Wirtland should be moved to Wirtland (micronation) and be replaced by a disambiguation page. Neither article is particularly important, and it will stop any bickering if we make the root article a DAB. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 10:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose moving the building to Wirtland. The reason: maybe the historical building is notable for USA, but micronation is more notable internationally (obvious from press coverage). English Wikipedia is not only a US or UK wiki, but used globally. People who are from overseas search primarily for information on the micronation. I think this must be taken into consideration. This is my view (I am not from USA). Thank you. --Rich church mouse (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Rich Church Mouse — Rich church mouse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.