Talk:Archita, Mureș

I copied the following from my talk page. Greenshed (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello. As I indicated in March when you first created the article, there’s a consensus that we don’t have articles on individual Romanian villages, rather treating them together within the parent commune article. There are a variety of reasons for this: the logic of presenting all the information together, the problem of duplicating the same information across several stubs, ease of navigation, etc. Moreover, it’s consistent with WP:GEOLAND, as these villages are not self-administering.

At that time, I also tried to merge what I could into Vânători, Mureș, but didn’t get anywhere, simply because the sources were of poor quality. That remains the case: this is some NGO (not a scholarly work), and this is a self-published website, failing WP:V.

My suggestion: let’s redirect once again, but create and link an article for Archita fortified church, which is notable as a historic monument. And, should WP:RS-compliant material on Archita turn up, by all means that should be added at Vânători. Your thoughts? - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

All in favour of an article on the Archita fortified church - perhaps you would like to make a start on that? Not in favour of redirecting this article to either the future church article or to Vânători, Mureș. There are multiple WP:RS on the German language version of this article which can be used here. Also, to quote the opening line of WP:GEOLAND, "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable." Archita is populated and legally recognized (it's a recognized locality - see https://www.coduripostale.ro/Mures/Archita). The guideline says nothing about self-administering status as a pre-requisite for notability. Greenshed (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I will at some point work on the church article, but meanwhile:

1) Without splitting hairs on the precise meaning of “legal recognition” — and one policy cannot be expected to account precisely for nearly 200 countries, each with its own particularities — let me note that yes, Romanian villages have postal codes, but the Romanian Post Office is an independent company. It certainly does not make laws; that prerogative belongs to the Romanian Parliament. Villages are informal districts of communes.

2) The sources for the German article are disappointing — a personal website, a photo blog, a wiki. Three of the bibliographic list are “Selbstverlag” — i.e., self-published. You get the idea.

3) But even if all their sources were excellent, the fact would remain that it really makes no difference whether information is presented in one place or another — except that one place has the virtue of coherence, simplifying the reader’s task, as opposed to spreading bits of information around several small articles. There are 12 thousand Romanian villages, and this particular one is not exceptional in that sense.

4) See Coronini on how this should work in practice. Or Berzasca, or Bazna. The same approach will work here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand your point but don't think that it's grounded in policy and I don't think that consistency of detail is always the overriding principle. If there are sufficient reliable sources to justify a standalone article on a fair sized village (with over 800 years of history and an important religious and cultural site) then WP:GEOLAND says it gets an article. If some other villages in Romania lack sufficient reliable sources for a standalone article then they do not (WP:GEOLAND again). Take your point about Selbstverlag - I missed that in my skim reading of the German. I have and will add some more good quality references. Greenshed (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)