Talk:Roman Catholicism in Romania
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Romania, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Romania-related topics. Please visit the the Wikipedia:WikiProject Romania if you would like to get involved. Happy editing! |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. |
 |
edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Roman Catholicism in Romania: |
|---|---|
|
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category |
|
Why was this now so important to redirect Roman Catholicism in Romania to Romanian Roman-Catholic Church? Is the adjective "Romanian" is the most important? All other countries say Roman Catholicism here and here, now the Romanians has to emphasize their nationalism even here, when it is about a thoroughly universal organization?! Furthermore, the article itself says that inside Catholic Church in Romania the Romanians themselves are not the largest group in terms of ethnicity. And this Romanian Roman-Catholic Church sounds quite funny anyway.
- There's a bit of spirited discussion over how to characterize things inside wikiproject:catholicism. I expect that such moves are going to happen all over the catholic content as the project members come to a consensus over how things should be labeled. It's currently pretty inconsistent. TMLutas 22:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Alphabetical turn
The images of the churches at the end in this article are alphabetic classified, sure after the name of the village, not of the commune. For example, the church of Şandra is at Ş, not at B (from Beltiug commune). Consequently, the place of the church from Babda is at B, not at C (from Cenei commune). --Mihai Andrei (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- The chance that we should have articles on villages is minuscule and contradicts WP:NOT (even if they take the liberty on Romanian wiki). You were right about the village-to-commune for Beltiug, but that was the only slip-up here (I simply forgot to check what commune the village was in). Dahn (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I do not agree with erasing the identity of the villages. It is evident that the famous orthodox church in Sibiel is in Sibiel, even when Sibiel belongs to the Sălişte commune etc. Please see the excellent ro:Format:Biserici de lemn din Salaj and admite the primate of the village name. Any other solution where absurd, because in one commune are many villages whit each own church. --Mihai Andrei (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- The notability of individual villages remains dubious to say the least, and the "several churches per commune" argument is irrelevant here (since nu such instance occurs or will likely occur in this here article). Any info about any village can fit nicely into the articles on their communes. Dahn (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- You have no right to expropriate the church of Şandra from the citizens of Şandra for giving it to the citizens of Beltiug. What you are dong is to desinformate the article lecturer. --Mihai Andrei (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, here we go again... Dahn (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Would you move the Probota Monastery at Dolhasca Monastery, because Dolhasca is the commune, and Probota the village!? See: Painted churches of northern Moldavia. --Mihai Andrei (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Did I move them? Are these articles on churches? Take a moment to ponder why your analogy is irrelevant. Dahn (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, you only described the Image:Biserica Bobda - Timis.jpg as "Church of Cenei", and the church of Şandra as "Church of Beltiug", in disrespect for truth and for local people. --Mihai Andrei (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Do the people not live in that commune, Mihai Andrei? Is their administration disrespecting them every day? Are you not basing your examples on individual monuments (i.e.: not on the villages)? Is there any logaical possibility that all villages become articles? And, finally, what is it to me or this project how a user decided to name his photo? Dahn (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, you only described the Image:Biserica Bobda - Timis.jpg as "Church of Cenei", and the church of Şandra as "Church of Beltiug", in disrespect for truth and for local people. --Mihai Andrei (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Did I move them? Are these articles on churches? Take a moment to ponder why your analogy is irrelevant. Dahn (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Would you move the Probota Monastery at Dolhasca Monastery, because Dolhasca is the commune, and Probota the village!? See: Painted churches of northern Moldavia. --Mihai Andrei (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, here we go again... Dahn (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Mihai, you are right that there could be more than one Roman Catholic church in a commune, that's why I propose this version, which includes the name of the village, but it also links to the commune. Dahn is also right that probably 90% of the villages don't need separate articles, but rather sections in the commune articles, because there's not much to say about them and for most of them, we would not be able to fill more than half a page. bogdan (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- D'accord. --Mihai Andrei (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- You have no right to expropriate the church of Şandra from the citizens of Şandra for giving it to the citizens of Beltiug. What you are dong is to desinformate the article lecturer. --Mihai Andrei (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- The notability of individual villages remains dubious to say the least, and the "several churches per commune" argument is irrelevant here (since nu such instance occurs or will likely occur in this here article). Any info about any village can fit nicely into the articles on their communes. Dahn (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I do not agree with erasing the identity of the villages. It is evident that the famous orthodox church in Sibiel is in Sibiel, even when Sibiel belongs to the Sălişte commune etc. Please see the excellent ro:Format:Biserici de lemn din Salaj and admite the primate of the village name. Any other solution where absurd, because in one commune are many villages whit each own church. --Mihai Andrei (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
