Talk:Villages with fortified churches in Transylvania

Comment

This text is not original. See: http://www.wsp.ro/cnrweben/patrimony.htm. Remove?

Not only Saxons had fortified churches

The first paragraph states: "... are former Saxon villages located in Southern Transylvania".

There are some fortified churches in the Hungarian regions, too, especially in the areas that were often attacked by Turks, or Tatars.

• I either suggest to change the Article title to "Saxonian villages with fortified churces in Transylvania", and follow this definition in the text too,
• or to change the sentence in the first paragraph to "... are mostly Saxon villages ..."

--KIDB 16:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The Unesco site says:

The seven villages inscribed, founded by the Transylvanian Saxons"

bogdan 17:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes but they mean the Saxonian fortified churches. To avoid the title being misleading, it could be modified to what I suggested, or to "Villages with fortified churches in Transylvania, inscribed by the Unesco", or this could be explained in the first paragraph if you don't want the title being too long. Belive me, there are nice Hungarian fortified churches, too, however, I agree that the Saxonian ones are the most beautiful --KIDB 17:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I moved it to "Saxon villages with fortified churches in Transylvania". Now the title is more clear. bogdan 21:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. --KIDB 07:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way this is a non-Saxonian church for you: --KIDB 15:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

UNESCO name?

What's the point of having listing the UNESCO name along with every village's real name, if both names are exactly the same? -71.107.254.174 00:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fram.

We have 2 separate topics. Unesco: 7 churches, term using capital letters. In total: over 150 churches, lowercase initials.

Will create separate article, plesse, some PATIENCE! As I wrote: "step by step"! Arminden (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Please start a WP:RM to see if we need two articles and what the name of the moved page should be. Fram (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Fram, with all due respect: are you familiar with this article?

1. This article deals with 7 villages/churches only.
2. The wider topic covers over 150 villages/churches, see List of fortified churches in Transylvania.

• "Villages with Fortified Churches in Transylvania" UNESCO World Heritage Site is one topic. Notice 1) "UNESCO World Heritage Site" as part of name; 2) Quotation marks (official title); 3) Capital letters, as in titles.
• Villages with fortified churches in Transylvania will be the other, wider topic.
• List of fortified churches in Transylvania is just that, a list, it's not supposed by definition to offer much more.
• The first two MUST bear the suggested names, otherwise the UNESCO-related page is bound to be mistaken as covering the entire topic, which is already happening (that's how I landed here). It's a de facto, classical title usurpation and highly misleading as such.
• Reducing the UNESCO page to a section inside the wider-topic article is more of a headache than keeping it separate; see existing redirects on other pages, "short description", "infobox", article content, categories, etc.

Nothing could be less obvious and non-controversial! I honestly do not understand why you even started fighting it. While you kept on reverting my page move attempts, you did not revert the article text edits themselves, which can't possibly be contested, as they're clearly helping to avoid the confusion. So I guess it was a less-than-informed reflex in your behalf, out of the laudable worry that I might mess up something. I hope you now see that that's not the case.

I also made it clear, in written, that I'm going "step by step", and that I'm about to create a separate page for the wider topic (150 churches), apart from this one (7 churches). We usually owe fellow editors at least the benefit of the doubt and the courtesy of not reverting, and repeatedly so, while they're working on a topic and made that clear.

One harm is already done, as the new redirect for "Villages with Fortified Churches in Transylvania" UNESCO World Heritage Site now prohibits the renaming of this article, and the proper naming of the wider, new one.

SUGGESTIONS

• I can swap and rework this current page and keep it as the wider article while you're removing the redirect (big headache, can't do it myself); and I can use a provisional name for the UNESCO page, to be changed when the redirect is removed. Is that OK with you?
• Or I do the harder thing and transform the UNESCO bit into a section right on this page. I don't think you'd like to do that work? Neither would I, but the mess must be cleared out.

Cheers, Arminden (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh, the "Villages with Fortified Churches in Transylvania" UNESCO World Heritage Site move didn't create a redirect after all! More freedom of movement.

Pls tell me you understood the problem.

If you have a preference between 2 pages and 1 page with UNESCO section, pls let me know. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Fortified churches in Transylvania could be an article about the general topic, while this one, which uses the exact title of the Unesco, can stay where it is, if people think two articles (plus the list) would be better. The topic you want to write about is not villages with but the fortified churches of Transylvania, I guess? For such discussions, it is better to use a WP:RM or a WP:RFC (or at the very least a talk page discussion) instead of repeatedly moving. Fram (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

​Thanks. There are no "people", just us two :)

As you can see, the title you're suggesting (only re. fortif. churches) is also already taken by a redirect. Same confusion, same mess - what I tried to fix when you stopped me. I won't touch redirects, it's a drag and I hate it. Plus really no time, and it takes a lot.

I take your point that including "villages with" is less of a must for the 150 than for the 7. But not necessarily. With all due respect: you should read up the topic. The village was one with the church fortress. They kept their food inside the fortress all of the time, each family had a room for siege times, one room was used as a school which was in some villages also the one used in peacetime, in some places the men were allowed to get married only if they contributed stones for the fortifications, the church was the centre of village life more than you can imagine (Amish-style, if you wish), etc.

Also, the title as is is very wrong - read my post above - only

• "Villages with Fortified Churches in Transylvania" UNESCO World Heritage Site

is accurate and does not mislead.

So that's it, either 1 page with a UNESCO section (not ideal and more work), or 2 pages. Any of those 2 MUCH better than the totally misleading mess created here over time.

This discussion here makes little sense, honestly. From outside it maybe looks as if it does, but it doesn't, really. Arminden (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

To sum up and taking your argument on board (w/o "villages with"): 2 pages,

• Fortified churches in Transylvania
• "Villages with Fortified Churches in Transylvania" UNESCO World Heritage Site

I'll do it tonight if no counter-argument comes in, OK? Arminden (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Transforming the 2nd into a section of the 1st stays possible, if needed. Arminden (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

No, please don´t move this page to that convoluted title, other wubesco sites don´t have that title structure either. Capitalization, okay, but not the quotation marks or the Unesco addition. See e.g. Prehistoric Sites and Decorated Caves of the Vézère Valley. Fram (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but there's not one case I can think of where 7 examples out of 150 are picked out, and they're also given a generic Unesco name which covers all 150. Arminden (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

It's like listing the "Great Lakes" as Unesco sites, by keeping Superior and Huron, but leaving out Erie, Michigan and Ontario. It's not OK then to have on enWiki a Great Lakes page, you hae to call it "Great Lakes" UNESCO Heritage Sites, even if its long. It's not Taj Mahal or the Louvre - 1 name, 1 site, no confusion possible. Arminden (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I guess a long name for a section would bother you less. I'd still very much prefer 2 pages, but I want to wrap this up. Arminden (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

But that´s exactly what we do, Churches of Moldavia isn´t an article about all churches of Moldavia either... Fram (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're wrong again. That page covers more than the 8 UNESCO sites. It proves my point, not yours. Arminden (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Look, this is becoming ridiculous, like everything illogical. If for the sake of convenience Romania proposes, and UNESCO accepts, to use a term which covers >150 sites for a select 7 out of them, it's a problem, confusion is guaranteed, but we don't have any obligation whatsoever to adopt it. And enWiki actually does not, as proven by your very example with the Churches of Moldavia.

I've just fixed the inevitable confusion in the Viscri section of the Bunești page. With an improvisrd solution, by changing a redirect in a rather adventurous way and using the "List..." page as a link for all 150 and this one for the 7. Enough with that. I'll get it fixed right away. Arminden (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

So "Churches of Moldavia" is an article about all churches of Moldavia? Or is it, despite its title, an article about the World Heritage-designated ones only? Fram (talk) 08:03, 8 October 2025 (UTC)