Talk:Midbarium

Proposed merge of NegevZoo into Midbarium

NegevZoo is central to the history of Midbarium, at the exact same location. gidonb (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Different businsses. --Altenmann >talk 05:25, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Not organizationally separate as it only changed names under Kivunim. Furthermore, the different setups and names were iterations of precisely the same animal collection that started as the petting corner of Shorashim in Neve Noy (not nearby at all, as claimed in this weak article), that developed into the zoo project of the city of Beersheba, here also at the same location. The implication of the above approach would be the extreme further fragmentation of Wikipedia, where users chase after snippets of information across many articles, i.e. a user experience from hell. What's more NegevZoo itself focuses on different and more distinct iterations of the same project, so it fails the test proposed above. Now that NegevZoo is history, it does not get an edge over its previous iterations and most certainly not over its future iteration. gidonb (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

YOu may be right, but you need support from ref that they are "not organizationally separate" and there is business continuity. Kivunim he:כיוונים - החברה לתרבות הפנאי באר שבע is nothing but a business "layer" for Beesheva city hall, so one may say the zoo is owned by the city, and in view of this, the statement "organizationally separate" is meaningless. Also, there is a gap from 2022 and 2024, between old zoo demolished and new created. --Altenmann >talk 19:29, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Regarding "fragmentation": do not exaggerate: the two are clearly separated in time and one mouse click away. Wikipedia is not a paper book and should not be in one huge text. I could understand merging is there were plenty of cross-references between the two. In which case it could indeed be tiresome for a user to jump between articles back and forth. But as of now it is a straightforward linear read. --Altenmann >talk 19:29, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not follow your new claims. Are you saying that if this animal collection is operated by Kivunim it is one collection but if Kivunim is owned by the City of Beer Sheva –which it is– the rebranded and reorganized zoo suddenly becomes "different businesses"? It reminded me of a classical scene in Sallah Shabati. gidonb (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Do you have references that it was simply "rebranded and reorganized"? And even so, last year I wrote a short stub, cannot find it now, that sometimes "rebranding and reorganizing" is carried out exactly with the purpose of establishing a new legal entity, see e.g., "phoenix company". On a similar vein, recently I wrote a quick lazy stub Neve Tzedek Prison. It replaced Prison Four and Prison Six, prisoners transferred. Shall we kill the previous articles? --Altenmann >talk 01:58, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Depends. Not all cases are equally straightforward as this one. If you are curious, however, I am totally willing to look into the right solution for this prison or these prisons articles as well. gidonb (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the proposed merge tags since consensus has not formed after three months. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

However, no serious case against merger has been made. No uninvolved parties have responded. Not against the closer or the creator, it's a disadvantage of the RM procedure. Will try to involve more people next time. gidonb (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2025 (UTC)