Select Page

Talk:Lazac

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Lazac. 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) 22:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 March 2025

– No primary topic.

The name Lazac Lokvarski (lit. 'Lazac of Lokve') is also a "Lazac", just like North Carolina is also a "Carolina" (the classical example from WP:PTM). So "Lazac" is the specific part in this case, the part people use ambiguously, hence it is subject to disambiguation.

Here's a few illustrations from a quick Google search about how this toponym of Lazac works in the area:

The municipality of Lokve has a news section on their website where they use the term Lazac to refer to the place covered in a news article from Novi list about Lazac Lokvarski. We can also observe how the title of the newspaper article also changes the order of words (...do Lokvarskog Lasca instead of ...do Lasca Lokvarskog), because it's assumed that you can refer to the same place with either order. Both orders refer to the subject called Lazac with an adjective referring to Lokve. Also, that article's picture seems to show the place to be signposted as just Lazac, but it's hard to read because of pixelation.

I couldn't find the aforementioned article on the Novi list website, but I did find this one where Novi list writers also use it ambiguously on several occasions: ... ona se sjetila Lasca i pred pet godina ..., Tata Željko dodaje da je Lazac zakon .... These are quotes from the locals, but the editors didn't normalize them to be unambiguous, meaning this is a reasonable usage, even if ambiguous.

Just in case, I searched for more from the same paper, and found another article which does the same ... Lazac Lokvarski. Iako se iz naziva jasno razaznaje kako je riječ o općini Lokve, morate priznati da je malo tko od vas, uostalom i nas, bio baš u Lascu. Translated, that actually explains the natural disambiguation of the name.

The Risnjak National Park website refers to a meadow of Lazac - so a third instance of Lazac, but one that wasn't documented on Wikipedia yet - for some sort of wildlife watching. They have a map at its page which shows that Lazac meadow as well as the nearby Lazačka glavica (lit. 'the little head of Lazac').

And just in case we don't want to trust the partially crowdsourced Google Maps embed, it's easy enough to confirm these toponyms at e.g. the Croatian Mountaineering Association's website trail 1 trail 2 where they include scans of old maps confirming it.

Lazac Lokvarski is about 10 kilometers to the southeast of this third Lazac, so it's probably natural that it had to be disambiguated from that. At the same time the Serbian village is quite far away from these other two, so over there they had little need to use e.g. "Lazac Kraljevački".

Regardless, it's fairly clear that there's no particular benefit for the average English reader to reading only the stub about one village, and having the information about the other two usages - and possibly others, who knows - hidden from view. There's no primary topic here, they're all fairly minor topics.

I will note that we're here because a procedural objection to a move was made despite the fact that WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Sigh. --Joy (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. At the moment, there are only two articles, one longstanding about a larger village without natural disambiguation, and one brandnew about a very small village with a natural disambiguation (used in all other languages as well it seems). You can either have a disambiguation where everyone needs to go to that page before getting to the right one, or a hatnote where most people are at the right place and the others can still get to the other village with one click. There is no benefit in creating a disambiguation here, no one is actually helped by it. Fram (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and please don't misrepresent what happened. We are not here "because a procedural objection to a move was made despite the fact that WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Sigh." but because I oppose the move full stop. The procedural objection was against you moving the page again despite this objection. Fram (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So one insignificant village matches precisely and others are more insignificant, therefore let's call the first one the primary topic... this poor attempt at a rationalization has little to do with the spirit or the letter of the primary topic guideline. --Joy (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Oppose (see below) Only two articles share the name. The second one especially is separated enough by having an extra name in the title. I do see the point in the move. However, I would have to be further persuaded to the direction of moving the page. WiinterU 16:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WiinterU would it help if I provided more data?
For example, Google Books search without personal search doesn't bring up the Serbian village in the first two pages for me. Most hits I see are instead about the mountain location I mentioned above.
Or, Google Scholar search without personal search brings up works that mention that village on the first two page only at #6 and #8, while the rest are completely unrelated results, and there's a couple of mentions of the mountain location too. --Joy (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also updated the disambiguation page now to include the third eponymous location. --Joy (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After taking some time to think about it, I change my opinion to Soft Support. WiinterU 14:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Place Lazac (Srbski) and Lazac Lokvarski on equal footing - small places with same notability. Then, use 'Lazac' alone for disambiguation, mirroring the approach used with Brod (Bosanski) and Brod Slavonski in Brod. 63.117.225.249 (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Serbia has been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 12:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath given that the other two known locations are in Croatia, you can also notify that WP. --Joy (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy I'm about to go to sleep. Will do tomorrow. TarnishedPathtalk 14:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per detailed nomination, WiinterU and comment by 63.117.225.249. There are three entries listed upon the Lazac (disambiguation) page, with no indication that the one-sentence stub delineating the village in Serbia confirms its renown to the extent of overwhelming the combined notability of the remaining two entries. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Croatia has been notified of this discussion. --Joy (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I will be expanding Lazac Lokvarski once I get to Delnice municipality. But not much. It is a hamlet that happens to have the legal status of "village". By contrast, I could probably write a separate History of Lazac article for Lazac, Serbia. I wouldn't, however, because Lazac, Serbia is a very small town whose history fits into a single article when that of the much larger rural population is separated into articles dedicated to indididual villages and hamlets. In the end, the two articles might not be far off from one another in size. Ivan (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Иованъ so you then agree that there's no observable primary topic?
    None of the topics individually have substantially greater enduring notability and educational value nor would any be sought more likely than all the other topics combined when a reader searches for that term. --Joy (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree. I didn't vote because I am not as familiar with PRIMARY policy. Ivan (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: there are way more than just 3 of "Lazac", by the way. It means "pass", and the dialectally correct form for Lazac Lokvarski is actually Lazec (alongside Lazəc), which for whatever reason redirected to Lažec instead of a disambiguation page including Lazec, Loški Potok and Lazec, Cerkno. Ivan (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]