This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics 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.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning 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.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics 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.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania
Hardly. The article you mentioned covers both branches of Systematization: rural and urban. And it covers them in a generalized way. What I made was a new article with the specifics of only one of the two branches. To cram all of this information into it would severely imbalance it, leaving the urban systematization section seem vestigial by comparison. To develop both sections to the extent of this one article, would result in too much info in the same place. The original systematization article should serve as a brief introduction to the concept and a cursory listing of a few examples. Articles for both rural and urban systematization, with all the respective details, should be written separately. The two are fundamentally different: one produced new towns, the other rebuilt cities. Transylvania1916 (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
Agreed, and this is a very clear cut case for a merge; having two considerably overlapping articles is not helpful for the casual reader. There is no reason why urban and rural systematization justify separate articles given the common historical impulse for both and the blurred lines between the two (for example what were villages prior sometimes became parts of urban settlements after, such as Turnisor in Sibiu county). The two articles overlap considerably and even contain many of the same images; as such the argument for a merge looks overwhelming, and so it is done. MapReader (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yoy have used in your article names like transylvania, wallachia etc. These were never administrative divisions of Romania. Using names like Southern Romania and Central Romania would be far more fit.
