Talk:Miercurea Sibiului

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Miercurea Sibiului. 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20070312060420/http://www.sibiu.hermannstadt.ro/localitati/miercurea/en/miercurea%20sibiului1.htm to http://www.sibiu.hermannstadt.ro/localitati/miercurea/en/miercurea%20sibiului1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060501210013/http://www.cjsibiu.ro/ro/miercurea.htm to http://www.cjsibiu.ro/ro/miercurea.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061005103106/http://www.cjsibiu.ro/ro/miercurea.php to http://www.cjsibiu.ro/ro/miercurea.php

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) 15:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Apoldu de Sus, Dobârca articles needed!

Until there is a dedicated art. on Apoldu de Sus village, the "see also" hatnote sending to the different Apolds is very much needed, especially for those who arrive here via redirect "Apoldu de Sus". I know that some Apold/Apoldu terms are wikilinked within the art., but that's not sufficiently user-friendly.

The entire art. here deals with the town of Reussmarkt/Miercurea Sibiului, the other villages administratively connected to it being little more than an afterthought. It would be fairer to have an article here strictly on Reussmarkt/Miercurea Sibiului, noting that it's the administrative head of some kind of a commune, and start separate stubs on those two individual villages, who both have a lot to show for themselves and stand at some distance from Miercurea. Arminden (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

You are quite correct that the various Apolds needed sorting into a disambiguation page. That now exists: Apold (disambiguation).

However, I object to having a separate page for Apoldu de Sus. As a rule, we don’t have pages for Romanian villages. First, they lack administrative independence; they’re informal districts of larger entities. Second, it makes more sense to cover everything about a municipality in one place rather than have it scattered around several stubs. And third, there simply isn’t that much to say about most villages, so there’s not much point to a standalone article. If all we’re ever going to be able to say is that “Village X exists”, then why clutter the project with yet another permanent stub?

So in that spirit, I’ve created a dedicated space here where all relevant, sourced information about Apoldu de Sus can be added. — Biruitorul ^Talk 18:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Biruitorul. I am, honestly, not just surprised, but angry at your move. It's one thing to create an article, and quite another to erase it; one thing to be BOLD (Wiki sense), and another to be destructive and revert somebody's, I'd say, well-argued steps in creating an article w/o bothering to enter into a discussion. This cannot be accepted even by matter of principle.

Now on the topic. I insist that we must have articles on all villages which have a

1. notable presence, i.e.
2. notable attractions
3. notable history
4. notable personalities, and which
5. are not an organic part of whatever admin. unit they happen to belong to at this moment.

This is all true regarding Grosspold/Apoldu de Sus. It's not a coincidence that we have dedicated articles for it in all the 3 main Transylvanian languages - Romanian (here), German (here), Hungarian (here), and even Ukrainian (here) and 4 additional ones.

Regarding the 5 points above:

1. The village preserves more of its original aspect than many others in the Saxon parts of Transylvania.
2. The village museum, the centre for safeguarding traditional crafts, the Evangelical church with its 1816 organ and 1751 altar are obvious attractions.
3. It is 1 of only 3 Landler communities in Transylvania.
4. See the German & Romanian articles: 4 notable personalities, 3 of them Landlers (an industrialist, a West-German pioneer in special education, a mathematician-cum-politician and researcher in all things Landler, and a successful fiction and non-fiction German-language author, btw each with a very different and almost archetypal Transylvanian German biography).
5. Reußmarkt/Miercurea and Großpold/Apoldu de Sus are both Saxon settlements, but quite distinct from each other. The two are 5 km apart. The former was est. before 1200, was a market town (Markt) and became the seat of a Stuhl or county with a judge in the 14th c. Btw, the name Miercurea Sibiului ("Sibiu's Wednesday") comes from the fact that it held the Wed. market in the region. The latter, Großpold, wasn't documented until the late 13th c., but in the 14th it had become the largest settlement in the Reußmarkter Stuhl - the name contains Gross- = Great(er), to distinguish it from nearby Kleinpold - Klein- = Small/Lesser. The location on a main road and the resulting market led to the county seat status and were essential to Reußmarkt's history, while the Landler element is specific and crucial to Großpold's.

As to Dobring/Dobârca, itself some 3 km away from Reußmarkt and entirely distinct from that town, it had one of the most amazing fortified churches in the Saxon realm, a small gem which elsewhere would have become a tourist magnet and movie prop (see here). But as you can see here, at least the inside of the church itself has been stripped naked and vandalised in a uniquely barbarous manner. At least out of respect for what has been one should allow for a separate article, as a memento mori. Although there is more to it and there's space for hope (see here or here).

I see no good argument for dusallowing at least Apoldu de Sus from having its own article. The Miercurea Sibiului doesn't even come close to cover for the specifics of Apold (or Dobârca), as it had an entirely distinct evolution. One would have to introduce subsections for Location, History, Demographics, Education, Notable people,... EVERYTHING, for extant and still to be created sections. And you haven't even remotely started to do any of that - while I was about to add all those sections to the separate Apoldu de Sus article when I found it deleted by you on the very day I created it, w/o allowing for a discussiin. And the material is substantial and notable enough, ready and out there. So no, to say that "as a rule, we don’t have pages for Romanian villages" (which are part of communes, you must have meant to say) is both untennable in an encyclopedia and a scandal if that has indeed been the case until now, and cannot be invoked in the case of notable, distinct settlements. Here even less so, since Miercurea, the least urbanised Romanian settlement to be given the status of a town, got two declining unconnected villages "thrown into the package" to make its statistics look more town-like; which is another argument for not blindly following any old admin. decision when building an encyclopedia. So NO on every level, and for good, rational, thorough reasons.

I'm waiting to hear the opinion of more fellow editors, as this shouldn't become a edit-warring topic between two editors entrenched in their respective positions. Thank you. Arminden (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree the Apoldu de Sus fortified church could have its own article, provided sources are found. Same with the Dobârca fortified church. As to the four (allegedly) notable natives, they can simply be added to the Miercurea Sibiului list, with their birth village in parentheses, or below. And for the rest: well, let’s see the sources. How much content can actually be produced regarding this place?

At any rate, let’s ping @Dahn:, since he’s a veteran of these endlessly recurring discussions. — Biruitorul ^Talk 06:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

As I have noted above, the existing articles in Rom., Ger. and Hung. offer all one needs to go beyond a stub - and there is more if need be.

I would like to ping Accipiter Gentilis Q., who has shown a solid, rational approach to matters of geography, sometimes agreeing with me and sometimes criticising my edits or comments. Please, would you mind offering your opinion? Arminden (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

With all due respect, but I do not intend to engage in this discussion.Accipiter Gentilis Q. (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

1. It is not true that enWiki "doesn't have articles on Romanian villages". Unless we're playing around with words and utterly formal administrative acts ("former villages", "villages that became city neighbourhoods", articles on villages but formally dealing with communes named after them and only dealing with the namesake village, or communes only containing one single village (!) etc.), a very brief search achieved 4 hits out of 4 search terms: Turnișor, Mogoșoaia, Băneasa, Snagov.
2. The Apoldu de Sus church fortifications have been largely demolished in the 19th c. The Dobârca fortified church is in a sad state of conservation. Writing articles on fortified Saxon churches, but denying articles to the villages for which they represented the centre of relugious AND social & cultural life is weird and formalistic, to say the least. Finding sources is never the problem here, the Saxons have documented their settlements very well.

I am getting the impression that you have removed the article out of a sense of formal application of a perceived enWiki rule (whose existence I contest, and which would be nonsensical if introduced). Reality takes precedence over perceived formal norms, on enWiki, in encyclopedic work in general, and far beyond both of those.

I honestly don't get the impression that you are well acquainted with the topic at hand. This should be a much stronger prerequisite when undertaking such harsh actions as you did, than evoking perceived formal enWiki rules. The Saxon heritage in Transylvania is very notable, endangered, and insufficiently known, in spite of being extensively documented.

Unless you do have substantive arguments to the contrary, I'd like to restore the Apoldu de Sus article and continue adding material to it, as I was about to when you erased it. Thank you. Arminden (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• Is there any reason why the article on the village can't appear as a section in the commune article? (As per Mioarele.) Is the party proposing the rewrite and/or split actually adding sourced content on, say, the distinct features of landscape and history in that particular section of the commune? These are the mainstays of any conversation, the rest is more or less chaff. Dahn (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, there is, and it's all argued here-above:

  1. It's not a commune; it's an insufficiently urbanised settlement, declared a town for some political reason, and in order to make it seem larger, two VILLAGES totally DISTINCT from the town in every respect were added into the mix. Encyclopedias are there to offer info on notable topics of public interest, not to follow the day's local policies.
  2. Because the 3 settlements have nothing in common, one would have to introduce separate subsections for Location, History, Demographics, Education, Notable people,... EVERYTHING, for extant and still-to-be-created sections.
  3. Notability: plenty of it, as written above in detail (won't repeat here everything).

  Arminden (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  You know, one could argue the same, just as poorly, for any individualized portions of any town or commune in Romania. Less filibustering, more sourced info; if and when the sections are expanded, with decent info, we can consider a split. Until then: what is the point? Dahn (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry, but did you take a look at the article as it looked before being deleted? And at the Rom, Ger. And Hung. articles which I was using to expand it? Please do. That is the topic and goal, not arguing for argument's sake. Arminden (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  Please note: there are thousands of stubs on villages and hamlets from Iran, which have flooded enWiki. Probably a government-run project. Nobody has tried (or managed) to remove those piles of stubs. A great many of them are about places with 100-200 inhabitants, little more than a name attached to a speck on the map, with no history info (and in most cases: with no history, period).

  Why is this here a problem? I don't want to think that it's got anything to do with the Saxon history of the site. I'm most certainly not accusing anyone in particular!!! But I'm truly dumbfounded by the opposition to such articles. Arminden (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  The situation with Iran is regrettable, but someone else will have to handle it.

  Moving on: one glaring problem with what you wrote is that it had no sources. Upon which sources do you plan to rely when writing about Apoldu de Sus? That’s the crux of the issue, not speculation about what the Romanian Parliament was thinking when it upgraded Miercurea Sibiului in 2004, or why its communist predecessor placed the three villages (as Miercurea Sibiului was at the time) into one commune in 1968. — Biruitorul ^Talk 18:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• Arminden: if you mean this sort of thing, yes, I did. It is a content fork with nothing but chaff, spread over two glorious lines that are entirely unsourced. Even if it were a development of the text (which it manifestly is not), it could all fold neatly in this article as a separate section or just as a unified chronology. Other that your reassurances (in tiresome bold) that the info is unique and cannot be preserved in any other form but separate articles, what should I be focusing on? And even if salvaging the Saxon heritage were a stated feature of this project (rather than simply writing an encyclopedia), how is that endangered by having you developing this article, at the very least before you can prove that it should be split? And why can't that Saxon heritage be discussed in even more detail by separate article on the two citadels, rather than by a three-layered content forking (citadel--larger village--town)? Dahn (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  For everyone's convenience, here are the articles (all three far from being stubs!):

  • Romanian article (the largest)
  • German article
  • Hungarian article.

  I was in the process of expanding the newly-created enWiki article (just HOURS before being erased!), and I still intend to finish that work. Arminden (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm only using bold for essential bits, which still get conveniently overlooked by some. I'll stop our dialogue for as long as it remains on a non-constructive, rhetorical level on your side, ignoring any argument I'm offering. I'll leave that to politicians. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  If I may add links: ro:Apoldu de Sus, Sibiu, hu:Nagyapold, de:Großpold. The lack of cited sources is, at the very least, problematic. — Biruitorul ^Talk 18:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you. By combining the sources from ro + de + hu plus others I'd bring in, Apoldu will have more sources than Miercurea. Combining matetial and sources was exactly what I was going to continue with when the art. disappeared. So zero problem there.

  One down. What other problems do you see? Arminden (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  Again: those articles do not cite sources. Oh, sure, they have a general bibliography, but the information they present isn’t cited to specific sources, as required by WP:CS. That’s a problem. — Biruitorul ^Talk 05:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)