Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Biertan fortified church, Câlnic Citadel, Dârjiu fortified church, Prejmer fortified church, Saschiz fortified church, Valea Viilor fortified church, Viscri fortified church

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Biertan fortified church, Câlnic Citadel, Dârjiu fortified church, Prejmer fortified church, Saschiz fortified church, Valea Viilor fortified church, Viscri fortified church edit

( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links:
)

Biertan fortified church

Created by Biruitorul (talk). Self nominated at 14:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC).

  • Comment. I was thinking about looking into this article, because I once visited around. Question: Don't you have more sources in English? 2) Can't find the church in this reference. [1]. So far there is only one reference in English that is lenghty - so maybe a reviewer who can speak well the language - Rumanian or German(? - if any sources can be found) should take over. Hafspajen (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • One more thing, you should try to make a hook that has less blue links. Hafspajen (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Here, above I made you a blue link that will take them to the Villages with fortified churches in Transylvania and than you got all instead of put the entire list in the hook... Hafspajen (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


(ALT2 - is still pretty long, but hopefully your readers will click on the DYK link and not all the other links...) Hafspajen (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Hafspajen, thank you for looking into this. I will address your concerns.
    • One reason I wrote seven articles from scratch, nominated all seven for DYK and reviewed seven separate hooks is so I could have a hook featuring links to all seven articles. Hence, I think my original hook linking all seven articles should stand, or perhaps ALT2, although the grammar is a bit weaker there.
    • It's this link you want: Biertan, Câlnic, Prejmer, Viscri, Dârjiu, Saschiz and Valea Viilor are all mentioned as being part of the World Heritage Site.
    • In terms of English-language sources, I really didn't find much in the way of good-quality material, but luckily, the source confirming the hook is in English and readily available online.
  • I hope this helps. - Biruitorul Talk 00:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I asked a person who did quite a lot of DYKs and got the same answer that I got when wanted to nominate two articles in the same hook- that it would be better to nominate separately. Do you think it would be too much work? Hafspajen (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Hafspajen: two-hook DYKs are fairly routine - as I write, there's one on the main page, with other examples here and here and here and here. DYKs with more than two hooks are a little rarer but they do occur - this one from March had 10; this one from February, also 10. Ultimately, this is not a question of what someone once told you or of what would be easier for me, but of what is permissible under the rules. Given that multiple-hook DYKs do occur, that the nomination template has lines for multiple articles, and that no rule prohibits multiple nominations, I think it's fairly clear that they are permitted, and I would be grateful if, having established that, we could move on to a more substantive-based evaluation of the hook and its suitability (or otherwise) for promotion. - Biruitorul Talk 14:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Of course they are permitted. My concern was that people will read one or two of them, but skip the rest. However, if is this what you want, that it is of course fine. Hafspajen (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Hafspajen, I think I'd like that - I've only had one or two-hook DYKs so far, and seven would be a striking change. I agree that each article has nice potential hooks within it, which are more interesting than this rather generic one, but I still prefer to have them as a group. So, if there isn't anything else standing in the way of approval... - Biruitorul Talk 14:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it IS a striking change, alright. Hafspajen (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • But, do you realise that they are seven articles to check? I was checking on your examples above, and those had no more that two or three DYK links to new articles. To check all those seven articles I need help. Gerda Arendt, could you please step in as a co-reviewer, or single, I need help. I can give you go for the first church. Hafspajen (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


For Biertan, I have read the English sources, and they look alright. For Biertan, 4235 characters of readable prose size. New enough. Long enough. QPQ has been done. Biertan is god to go, if ALT1 is used. If not, for the other churches in the DYK hook, we need more reviewers... Hafspajen (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I looked at the others and found now no German references for which I would be helpful. A Romanian speaker would be more helpful. Did you know that there is {{infobox World Heritage Site}}, see Hildesheim Cathedral? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


Many thanks to both of you for your input. Hafspajen, I appreciate the full review. Gerda, by all means let me know of those German references and maybe we can work them in. I do know of the infobox, and it is present at the Villages with fortified churches in Transylvania article. However, I believe the standard practice is to restrict that infobox just to the sites as a whole, rather than to each contributing property. On the other hand, {{Infobox church}} would surely be suitable if someone wanted to include it. Personally, I'm not a big infobox fan but I won't stand in the way of someone wanting to include it. - Biruitorul Talk 17:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, Gerda would be delighted to put some of it in your articles, I am sure. Hafspajen (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
German sources: sorry, that was my typo, "now" instead of "no". I thought I could help with understanding some German sources but didn't find any. - Infobox: the example shows that it is not true, the cathedral is only part of a site. I think "World Heritage" should come first. Perhaps "church" could be embedded. Ask expert Pigsonthewing. Unfortunately, neither he nor I can put any in your articles, per the wisdom of the arbitrators ;) - I am not sure if "fortified" has to appear in every name. - I am not a big fan of more than one link in a hook, but if you absolutely want seven new articles, I suggest:
ALT3: ... that a World Heritage Site in Romania contains the fortified churches of Biertan (pictured), Câlnic, Prejmer, Saschiz, Valea Viilor, Viscri and Dârjiu? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


ALT3 (if you really are so stubborn on this...) Hafspajen (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


Any reviewers, please step in as a co-reviewer: Câlnic, Prejmer, Saschiz, Valea Viilor, Viscri Dârjiu

  • I am trying to meet your ideas,... Biruitorul. But for Christsake, don't do to many of these giant hooks... No need to try one with eight or nine, please...Hafspajen (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, I promise, last one for a while! - Biruitorul Talk 18:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The thing is, the Hildesheim site is called "St Mary's Cathedral and St Michael's Church", so it's quite natural that both should have the infobox. If you look at something like Palaces and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin or Belfries of Belgium and France, with names that encompass multiple properties, you will find that individual entries don't have the infobox. However, I note that Cathedral of Our Lady (Antwerp) does have a line for World Heritage Site embedded in the church box, so I might try something like that. Sorry to hear about the ArbCom decision...
  • In Romania, there are two quite special kinds of churches, fortified and wooden. (Not unique to Romania, just rather special.) And they are usually referred to that way, to distinguish them from ordinary unfortified stone churches.
  • I like my proposed hook because it indicates denomination and cultural affinity, but I don't have any firm objection to your suggestion. Since this 7-article hook article is drawing more than a few questions, let's just say it will be my last one for a while.
  • By the way, Gerda, on another theme, would you at some point be interested in writing an article about this event? I think it would be quite useful. - Biruitorul Talk 18:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Many thoughts, some replies: The name of the Hildesheim Cathedral is arbitrary (should be Assumption of Mary), as - I understand - many of the Heritage Site names. I would still go for the Heritage site infobox with church embedded than the other way round, - looks more important ;) - Never mind the arbcom decision, I came to like it, actually, it leaves much more time for things like this, if you are permitted only two comments in discussions. - I understand that "fortified" is important, but see that there are many different churches in Germany but still their article names kept as simple as possible, such as St. Martin, Idstein or that cathedral which has a much longer official name. - I don't doubt that you like your hook, but it almost tells too much. Don't you want people to actually read at least two of those articles? - Suggestions of other articles: better on my talk. I do more translations from English to German these days, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • At some point (unless someone gets there before me), I'll experiment with some infoboxes and see what works best.
  • Meanwhile, I think there is a rather pronounced lack of uniformity to church names in general across Wikipedia. I went with "fortified" simply because that's how sources seemed to refer to these places, both on the Internet and in books I consulted, as well as (for what it's worth) on ro.wiki. At least there's consistency among the articles, except I suppose for Câlnic, where the church is of lesser importance than the citadel.
  • That makes some sense. ALT3 it is, I suppose. - Biruitorul Talk 19:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Biertan edit

"I have reviewed Biertan (pictured), and that is approved. Different reviewers are required for the remaining six articles." Hafspajen (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: I have moved Hafspajen's comment here to clarify - with apologies for moving another editor's comment but Haf's comment was to clarify that the remaining six articles still required review. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, here you are, Phil. Any brief interest? Hafspajen (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
No, sorry, I'm not able to help review this at the moment. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Viscri fortified church edit

I picked the Lutheran one ;) - I found a ref in German, after all. It mentions the count sooner, consider to do the same, it's more chronological. Online sources should have an access date. I am a fan of templated references ;) - I don't think the authors with a red link will have an article soon, right? More to come, too late, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

    • Oh, but six out of seven are Lutheran! I've added access dates, although without the formality of cite web (so far). I did start stubs on both those authors. By the way, www.cabana3stejari.ro, being the website of an inn, is hardly a reliable source; that would be a little like referencing this link at Wiesbaden. I'm sure German scholarship, one of the most advanced on earth, has produced material on these churches (even if they're a somewhat far-flung outpost of German civilization), only it's probably in a library, so I would understand the difficulties involved in retrieving the material and do not expect anyone to retrieve it for me. Still, between nothing in German and the website of a hotel, I'd probably opt for nothing, although we can address these issues more fully after the main page appearance.
  • One additional thought on the World Heritage Site matter: the site actually is "Villages with fortified churches in Transylvania", so before the line is added to the churches (that is probably appropriate), it belongs in the articles on the villages (Biertan, Câlnic, etc.). However, somewhat bizarrely, it appears the WHS parameter exists only in {{Geobox/type/settlement}} and not in {{Infobox settlement}}. At least the villages are in an appropriate category. - Biruitorul Talk 02:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
You may have noticed that it was late where I wrote, but I was determined to make a start ;) - I misunderstood the original hook as mentioning Lutheran only for this one. - Hotel or not: the information is more comprehensible to me than Romanian. Move it to External links then, it has some good pictures. The information that it first was a count's church then community is probably also in other sources. It could appear a bit more clearly in the article. Mention that the fortification was strengthened because of fear of the Turks? The WHS line belongs in every article related to a site, I believe, for example the treasures of the cathedral such as the Hezilo chandelier, you expect too much of readers if you trust they will go back to the village. - This is a detailed article on a great building with an interesting history.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC) I still think it deserved to stand alone ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
This is not a "monumental task", but I do my reviews my way, always asking the author a few questions when I miss something I put in every new article, - you can check my older reviews, even before DYK reviewing quality was challenged in general (all articles on my user page). So, if you say this is it, I can accept Romanian sources AGF and be done. I asked Andy about the combination of infoboxes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Please, I didn't mean to offend, I just wanted to streamline the process a little, but of course it's up to you how you go about things. I can talk a bit about my main sources, if that helps. kirchenburgen.org and kirchenburgen.ro (I consulted the Romanian versions) are both fairly official-looking sites, with the involvement of the Bundesbeauftragter für Kultur und Medien, the Evangelische Kirche A.B. in Rumänien and cultural heritage offices in Sighișoara and Sibiu. Then I relied on a couple of books by Vasile Drăguț and by the geographer Dan Ghinea. Also, where I could, I drew on the sites of the Romanian counties' cultural affairs offices. Perhaps this is useful to know. - Biruitorul Talk 17:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Offend? Sorry if I came across as offended. I changed a cat and removed the interwiki - this is now done by Wikidata, and correct others please if there are more. I had the kirchenburgen-site as external ref before, did you see? Keep thinking about an infobox. If I need another qpq and there are still some unreviewed, I may take another, - I am easy on DYK, being identified as causing scandal ;)
Romanian and offline sources accepted AGF, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


Prejmer fortified church edit

Sigh. I take this one. Start ... but it will take some time... (And I will NOT take the unitarian, I don't like unitarians, sorry.) Hafspajen (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm rather an old-fashioned anti-Catholic myself; it was nice writing about all these churches that escaped from the Pope's orbit.
But reviewers, aren't you making this a little too hard on yourselves? This is, after all, DYK, not FAC. The hook is fine: one of you wrote it, after all! Date: every article is from around May 2-5. That can be checked in seconds. Every article is long enough: that can be seen with the naked eye or, if you really want, checked quickly. The source for the hook is reliable, is online, is in English, and it's all there in one place. Citations to reliable sources are all in place, throughout. I'm not saying to cut corners. By all means, review everything as thoroughly as you wish. It just doesn't seem to me like it needs to be such a monumental task. - Biruitorul Talk 13:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, the articles are well written. But this the kind of text I get (translation...): In 1211, Andrei II mentions in a document addressed to the Teutonic name Tarlung River, near the town of Prejmer will increase. The Teutonic Knights who receive rights over this territory are the ones who will rise up to a certain level of Tartlau (Saxon name of the town). They are due to the Greek cross plan, unique in Transylvania, but having a correspondent in a few churches in northeastern Germany... Hafspajen (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. If you do have a point, perhaps I can address it. - Biruitorul Talk 20:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that the translation is not that glorious.(google-bing translations, mostly use bing) Not easy to understand always. Who is the Teutonic name Tarlung River.. raul Tarlung.. ? I mean you can't write letters to a river (the first reference) And this is what I getHafspajen (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
The Tărlung River is the river near where Prejmer was established, although I didn't mention that since it probably belongs at Prejmer/Tărlungeni. The letter was sent to the Teutonic Knights, and mentioned they could settle near the river. I hope this helps, although it's not directly related to the question of whether the DYK is approved, but I'm glad to answer any further questions about translation or anything else. - Biruitorul Talk 20:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I am working on it, trying to understand. On the English ref, maybe you have a better one than this, like before, you had a more complete ? Hafspajen (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
This one really is the best I can do at present as far as English-language sources are concerned. - Biruitorul Talk 21:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Romanian sources accepted AGF... (last question: is the church in use today, or is it part of the museum?)

For Prejmer, 4123 characters readable prose size, new enough, long enough, QPQ has been done. Prejmer is god to go. Hafspajen (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the progress you two have been making - I'm surprised no one else has stepped in yet. In terms of current use, that's an interesting question. Dârjiu has a priest and a regular congregation every Sunday; the Székely have not emigrated en masse like the Saxons. In Biertan, a priest comes from Mediaș once a month to serve the remaining 20 elderly Saxon villagers able to climb the stairs (out of ~60). Prejmer and Câlnic are pretty clearly museums by now. Saschiz, Valea Viilor, Viscri - I'm really not sure. - Biruitorul Talk 14:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Well it is a bit sad. We in Sweden try to use our old churches, even if they are part of a Skansen ( at least in the summer). Hafspajen (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Dârjiu fortified church edit

Sources accepted AGF. Can you do me a few favours: if you don't want to show at a glance that this is part of a WHS (as in Hildesheim Cathedral), can you please mention it in the lead? (That goes for all seven.) Can you place the size of the building away from the "Frescoes" header? Can you start a new paragraph for "Recognition", because the combination with "Frescoes" seems a bit arbitrary. Can you show an image of the frescoes in that paragraph, and mention them in the lead? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

    • First of all, thank you and thanks to Hafspajen for continuing the reviews. It's discouraging that no one else has picked these up, and I do appreciate both your work.
    • Second, I will try an infobox (or seven) soon, it's just that I've been a bit distracted lately. I haven't purposely ignored you. They're coming. (Before the deadline!)
    • In the interim, I did add UNESCO (as well as the frescoes) to the lead and will spread that around. I also shifted the dimensions and added a fresco photo to the text.
    • The one thing I hesitate to do is a new "recognition" section. Yes, the combination is a bit awkward. But as WP:BODY reminds us, "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose". Personally, I'd rather have them combined in this slightly arbitrary fashion than split into two one-paragraph sections - in fact, at two sentences long, the "recognition" part isn't even a proper paragraph. Neither solution is ideal, but I come down on this side. - Biruitorul Talk 03:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Câlnic Citadel edit

Sources accepted AGF. Can you pick one good image to illustrate the second paragraph, and choose only the best three for a gallery, with descriptions? There's the Commons for the rest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Valea Viilor edit

- Sources accepted AGF. 2605 characters of readable prose , new enough, long enough. Hafspajen (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Saschiz fortified church edit
looking into it

SOME QUESTIONS:

  • This sentence is not explained in context: From 1503 to 1507, the village received a Papal indulgence upon the request of a parishioner, and was not obliged to quarter troops or send provisions to the army - which means what? That they had more money to build the church? Or they kept their soldiers on the place?
  • Doesn't find explaiation why the road makes it vulnerable. while the site's proximity to European route E60 leaves it vulnerable - how close and why?
  • The road runs right through the village center, adjacent to the church. Pollution, noise, tremors - all these are going to be damage, little by little, a centuries-old building. - Biruitorul Talk 13:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

(and ... Just silly quiosity = Why does those pictures present the figures 700 and 702? File:Valea Viilor Biserica fortificata.JPG, File:Wurmloch vilea viilor2.jpg?) Hafspajen (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

To answer you last question, they say "700 ani" and "702 ani" -- "ani" being "years". Somebody thought it a decent idea to have the age specified in terracotta or mud or whatever that is. By my standards, it is not -- but there you have it.
I'm currently looking into the other issue. Dahn (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so the thing about Papal indulgences looks quite clear to me: it means that the church was once supposed to provide Hungary with actual military supplies, but that one parishioner successfully obtained from the pope a dispensation on that point. Dahn (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The quoted source says that Saschiz church is in "the immediate proximity" of E60. Dahn (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, here we go, Sources accepted AGF, 3337 characters of readable prose , new enough, long enough, QPQ has been done. Saschiz fortified church is good to go.

Only one is left... Hausente, hilfe!
What's left edit
Of seven small churches...

Any reviewers, please step in as a co-reviewer:

I have reviewed Biertan (pictured), Valea Viilor and Prejmer, and those are approved. Viscri and Dârjiu fortified church are approved by Gerda. Saschiz under revision... Different reviewer is required last remaining four three two article. Hafspajen (talk) 13:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

last done, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


Double check on that (including on the Romanian-language refs). Dahn (talk) 08:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Done edit

Sources accepted AGF, see sources double check above, new enough, long enough, QPQ has been done. All seven churches are good to go. Hafspajen (talk) 11:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hurrah! It took a while, but at last, thanks to the dedicated efforts of three reviewers, the job at last appears finished. I appreciate all your work. - Biruitorul Talk 13:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
By the way, it is hook ALT3: ... that a World Heritage Site in Romania contains the fortified churches of Biertan (pictured), Câlnic, Prejmer, Saschiz, Valea Viilor, Viscri and Dârjiu?
Thanks. Hafspajen (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Biertan_fortified_church,_Câlnic_Citadel,_Dârjiu_fortified_church,_Prejmer_fortified_church,_Saschiz_fortified_church,_Valea_Viilor_fortified_church,_Viscri_fortified_church&oldid=793946101"