Talk:Moldova Veche

Merge proposal

@Alfons Åberg:, let's talk about this:

1) We don't have separate articles about Romanian villages, because it makes more sense to cover everything about legally constituted places in a single article. This is the subject of longstanding consensus; for the latest restatement, see Talk:Răchitoasa.

2) You will notice that the article as translated by you not only barely talks about Moldova Veche (instead, it's largely about the Iron Gates region/Banat) — it's also almost entirely unsourced.

3) I've begun a section on Moldova Veche in the Moldova Nouă article. I invite you, indeed I encourage you, to add all sourced material about the village there.

4) I think I'm being reasonable in requesting that we handle this village like we do all 13 thousand Romanian villages. Therefore, would you please agree to a merger, and to add content at the section I have started? Thank you for your consideration. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I've read the discussion you're referring to at Talk:Răchitoasa about merging some stubs into an article on a larger administrative unit. I understand that your concerns are that there are 13,000 villages in Romania and if each village should have its own article there would be an unhelpful plethora of stubs. I also understand that you are concerned with applying a standard consistently. I found the comments of User:Andrei Stroe particularly constructive. He said: "In ro.wp, we decided to create articles for each village. The result is a plethora of stubs with next to no content (until recently, even Wikidata had more info on them than the Wikipedia article). Very few actually grew into decent articles. I think the ro.wp experience should caution us against establishing a pattern of creating this kind of stubs.". I have no strong opinion on stubs, but I do agree that stubbiness on Wikipedia shouldn't be encouraged.

While it may be warranted to merge stubs into a "parent" article, I do see a problem with applying this principle without regard to circumstances that may serve as an argument against a merge. If we were to apply this principle everywhere, we would basically take the 21st century administrative divisions of Romania and apply them transhistorically, which arbitrarily forces historical locations to be described in an article on an administrative unit that didn't exist at the time, rather than having a stand-alone article. Presumably, the Dacian town of Argedava should continue to have its own article, rather than being merged with Mihăilești (where the site is currently located), and Acidava should have its own article, rather than being merged with Piatra-Olt. In a similar vein, Moldova Nouă (i.e. "New Moldova") did not even exist at the time when the Ottomans destroyed the castle in Moldova Veche (i.e. "Old Moldova") in the 17th century, thus it would be non-sensical (and ahistorical) to have the information about Moldova Veche under Moldova Nouă. Moldova Veche has a history that predates Moldova Nouă, with which it was later merged. The problem I'm pointing out here is the type of problem that arises when taking 21st century concepts and applying them transhistorically. With regard to historical subjects, this is not just a minor nuisance, it is a big problem.

If we were talking about a historical location where very little information could be added to the article (say, 'someone found a Roman coin in this spot'), then I understand the concern about stubbiness. However, where real articles with some substance can be fleshed out, they should be allowed to stay as stand-alone articles. Thus, Argedava, Acidava and Moldova Veche should remain, rather than being merged with something else. I don't see why Moldova Veche having a history of "only" hundreds of years should give it a different status from the two other articles about settlements that are a couple thousand years old.

There are some issues with the article as it stands (as you have pointed out), and it is reasonable to ask for improvements of the content. However, merging an article does not amount to improving it, also, pointing out some quality issues doesn't imply that Moldova Veche isn't a valid historical topic that deserves its own article. Best regards, Alfons Åberg (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I find your reply unconvincing on several grounds, @Alfons Åberg:

1) The problem with the article as it stands is more than "some quality issues". The fact is that the amount of sourced material (please note that word) amounts to no more than a sentence or two. The vast majority is unsourced, and therefore subject to removal. I've already taken the first step of tagging the unsourced material which is, in any case, irrelevant: it's largely a general history of the area, not of the village.

Even the few citations are dubious: for one, travel guides are not academic sources, but let's be generous and accept that. Then, we have something on the Port of Moldova Veche, which is better handled there. Next, something about the Baptist parish - while I don't absolutely object to citing the church's website for information about itself, that does come dangerously close to breaching WP:SPS. Finally, we have a vague affirmation that "the region had 25,000 inhabitants in 2012", which is rather meaningless, especially as the 2011 census gives a precise figure of 12,350 for all of Moldova Nouă.

So in conclusion, there really is not enough sourced material to form any kind of non-stub article on the topic at this time.

2) Actually, merging an article is a perfectly valid solution in the event that the merged information is cited and presented clearly, in context, to the reader. There is simply no reason to assume that a reader will suffer if, when he types in "Moldova Veche", he is taken to the Moldova Nouă article, and finds all the information on the Moldova Veche topic as a section in another article, rather than a standalone one.

3) The obvious problem with your analogy on Dacian davas is that these belonged to an entirely different civilization that died out almost 2000 years ago; they were inhabited by a different people who spoke a different language, lived in a different state and ceased to exist in antiquity. Meanwhile, the villages of modern Romania still exist. Moreover, the fact that Moldova Veche predated Moldova Nouă is not an argument for handling it differently from other Romanian villages. Looking through the communes of Arad County (since I know the articles there give dates of first attestation), it is not difficult at all to find instances where component villages are older than the main village.

4) Finally, your argument about it being ahistorical to cover Moldova Veche under Moldova Nouă ignores an important reality, namely the present day. These are not just localities that existed under Ottoman and Hapsburg rule; they have been part of the Romanian state for nearly a century, and for the last 61 years, that state has treated the former as a village of the latter. Far from being ahistorical, covering the subordinate locality in the same place as the parent reflects the actual administrative division in place for the past two generations.

I hope I have addressed your objections, and that we are closer to a merger. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I've looked into your primary concern, namely the sourcing, and begun making improvements in that respect. I have more in the pipe, so expect more improvements to be made. I'm happy to address your other concerns, but I think improving the situation regarding sources should be top priority, so I'm looking into that now. Alfons Åberg (talk) 08:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Alfons Åberg: please do so, by all means. But while you are working on that, I also strongly encourage you to look at Coronini, which is not only right next door to Moldova Veche, it has a well developed article on the topic that manages to cover both villages within it, despite these having rather disparate histories. Not such a radical concept I'm proposing, if you think about it. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)