User:Dc76/project1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feel free to edit and/or leave ideas. Dc76\talk 05:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Attempt 1[edit]


N.B. 1) Categories for centuries, decades and years would be created only when there will be need. Decades will exist only for Romania (1860s, ..., 1990s, 2000s), Bessarabia (1900s, ..., 1940s), and Moldova (1950s, ..., 2000s), not for Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia.

N.B. 2) I am not interested to deal with Years in Romania. So I won't even touch on that. Dc76\talk 05:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Just stumbled upon this... Titles like "1990s in Romania" sound quite odd to my ears; "Romania in 1990s" are much more natural. The former form looks like the years visited a place (which would have do newell without them, too :P). Similar for "Centuries in Romania": better-sounding is "History of Romania by Century". As for years categories, "1937 in Romania" is also worse than "Romania in 1937", but not as awkward as century/decade ones, and since you don't plan to touch it... No such user (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I replied on his talk page a few days ago, see also mine. Dc76\talk 11:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have second thought about Decades in Moldova. I think that only 1990s and 2000s are warranted. 1812-1991 rather can be divided into 4 cats, and not more: Governorate of Bessarabia, Moldavian Democratic Republic, Bessarabia in Greater Romania, and Soviet era in Bessarabia and northern Bukovina. Dc76\talk 11:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let me start by saying the following: not everything in a category also needs to be in a subcategory. Sure, there are examples of categories where this can/should apply (like, say Category:Romanian writers, where all articles should eventually be part of one or several categories, as applicable, and none left to linger in the main cat), but I'm guessing we all know "History of Romania" is ultimately a collection of abstract articles, and abstract may prove beyond logical subcategorization. this is one of the main problems I see with the existing subcategories: some were apparently created just so we don't leave article hanging around in a logical but non-specific place, and primarily because other such subcategories existed. I think it stands self-evident that not everything can or should be fitted into a subcategory just because something else can.
A short, plain, reasonable solution would be that, instead of looking for countless subcategories to address this horror vacui, we simply consider the simplest and most accessible variant. How about if, instead of creating other new subcats for "History of Transylvania" or "History of Wallachia", we simply leave the "History of Transylvania" or "History of Wallachia" categories? Why does it need to be "Medieval Transylvania" or "Early Modern Wallachia"? Instead of those, how about creating categories for/around the "history of Romania by period..." and letting articles straddle the divides? Allow me to explain. At the moment, your "Romania"-titled subcategories are anomalous in that there appears to be an "ancient Romania" and an "early medieval Romania", then a pause, and then Romania pops up again in the 19th century. Let's think for a moment: article on x event in 15th century Wallachia goes into "History of Romania in the Middle Ages" (or similar) as well as into "History of Wallachia". To show the full complexity of the matter: article on y event in the 16th century of Transylvania goes into "History of Romania in the Middle Ages" and perhaps (given the chronological ambiguity of the 1500s) into "History of Romania in the Early Modern Ages" (or similar), as well as into "History of Transylvania" and also, potentially, into a corresponding category on Hungary and whatever relevant country is also "on the line" (if applicable). An article can belong to several categories, there's no need to make every crossover category into a separate one.
Another needless complication your system has is that "Centuries in Transylvania", "Centuries in Moldavia" and "Centuries in Wallachia" would have to be constructed from the same unilateral perspective. Think about it. For one, Wallachia, Transylvania and Moldavia still exist, as regional entities; "Romania", in the sense of geographical location (which I understand is what the century articles refer to), would also cover the "centuries in..." before the actual state existed (I mean, we have stuff such as Romania in the Early Middle Ages and Category:16th-century Romanian people). So dividing these into periods or whatever you mean to do with four separate categories for the same thing is confusing and highly impractical. This is especially true for stuff such as "20th century in Transylvania": if I understood it right, you want it to include articles from between 1901 and 1918, but, Dc, the 20th century ends in 2000... Even if you would want it to be for a defunct political entity, Transylvania was no kind of political entity in the 20th century (with the exception of one or two years of chaos after WW1), and there's no sense inventing one for the purposes of wikipedia. If we're going by former states, it was "Austria-Hungary in the 20th century" or "Hungary in the 20th century", then "Romania in the 20th century". See my point?
So, to summarize: the solution would be simply to upmerge the articles on the "History of region (period)" and "History of region in period" into "History of region", and have articles that straddle the divide be present on both sides.
Other issues:
Category:Romania in the Dark Ages is equally redundant. Again I have to criticize your rationale: the name "Dark Ages" is dated (and very imprecise), but that's only half the problem; the other half is that you again seem to consider that the vagueness of some portions in Romanian history should be reflected by unique categories. It needn't. You have an article that predates the fall of the Western Empire or whatever other vague criterion is chosen as the start of the Middle Ages? Then include the article into Category:Ancient history of Romania. You have one that is neither here no there, or relevant for both? Then include it into both Category:Ancient history of Romania and Category:Romania in the Early Middle Ages.
There is really absolutely no sense for the Category:Romanian Old Kingdom (1881-1918) or Category:Romanian Old Kingdom as long as we have Category:Kingdom of Romania. Since the "Old Kingdom" name is most often understood as a perennial geographical concept (and would have to include, say, Category:Wallachia rather than, Ida know, Conservative Party (Romania, 1880–1918)), and since it is generally not seen as "the Kingdom's first period" (but rather as "the Kingdom's geographical core"), it's really confusing and unimaginative as a subcat. Before considering further topical subcats, let's just upmerge the category and the content to "Kingdom of Romania" and leave "Greater Romania" as a working subcat for articles 1918/1920 to 1939/1940, alongside "Romania during World War I" and "Romania during World War II". Dahn (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Tentative new plan[edit]

Work in progress.

Others:

Common sense rules one is recommended to follow:

  • Chronological completeness: every article about Romania or one of its regions should be in a subcat of Category:History of Romania by period
  • Regional completeness: every article about something in one of Romanian regions should be in a subcat of Category:History of Romania by region
  • Thematical desirebility: every article about Romania or one of its regions which fits in one or more thematical subcategories, should be there
  • Articles that straddle the divide can be on both sides:
    • 271-476 articles can be in two categories: ancient and early medieval, though I incline to leave them only in ancient. Example: Attila the Hun
    • some early 16th century articles can be in two categories. Example: article on event x in the 16th century in Transylvania goes into "Medieval Transylvania" and "Early Modern Transylvania" (given the chronological ambiguity of the 1500s), which are then subcats of "History of Romania in the Middle Ages", resp. "History of Romania in the Early Modern Ages", as well as "History of Transylvania" and also, potentially, into a corresponding category on Hungary and whatever relevant country is also "on the line" (if applicable)
    • some (early) 19th century articles... still thinking Example: article on event y in the 1830s in Moldavia (including Bukovina ?) goes into "19th century in Romania" (still thinking) as well as "History of Moldavia"
  • Dc, let me just throw in a couple of points: 1) You don't seem to have even acknowledged my suggestion about not duplicating the "region by period" system, and have in fact created other such categories which only created more and more problems. 2) If you open a discussion abut the issue, the reasonable expectation is that you're actually waiting for feedback instead of presenting others with a new status quo every couple of hours. Again: it's easy to create categories, it's harder to undo them. So what exactly is the purpose of commenting here, if you: a) only look into some of the suggestions; b) continue to create categories as the discussion takes place? Dahn (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I simplified obvious things. Canceling all categories is also excessive. For example, "Greater Romania (1918-1940)", but "Greater Romania" was created. About "region by period": 1) you still haven't looked at England, Scotland and Wales, 2) I haven't implemented yet "Medieval Transylvania" or "Early Modern Wallachia". I am still considering alternatives. But be frank: you have provided no viable alternatives. ("leave them all in the mother category" is ignorance, if not worse) Dc76\talk 12:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Dc, England, Scotland and Wales are not regions (not just regions), they are countries (look it up). Note the present tense. What's more, the entire category tree, not just selective periods for historical periods up to a certain moment in time, reflects that nomenclature. And, seriously, with articles such as this and this behind my belt, who of us do you think is by now more familiar with the practice you offer as an analogy?
  • Okay, so I offer no alternative. It wasn't an alternative when I specifically said to create categories for the Medieval, Early Modern etc. periods of Romania (as in the names of the article), and the merged categories on just "History of Transylvania", "History of Moldavia", whatnot, and include the relevant articles in both categories, and, where applicable, in existing or potential categories related to or leading to the category branches of other countries/other countries' histories (Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, the Habsburg Monarchy/Austrian Empire/Austria-Hungary, Serbia, Bulgaria, whatnot). I was proposing no alternative when I said the exact same thing a couple of paragraphs above. Dahn (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Moldavia, Transylvania and Wallachia are just as constituent part of Romania as England, Scotland and Wales are of Britain. (So, what if they are officially called "constituent countries" in one case, and are only considered so traditionally in Romania). But sure, things look very differently from the "Greater Wallachia imperialist agenda". I am sorry, but is only from your very skewed POV that they are mere provinces of yours. Come down to earth!
  • the simple fact that you mention such expression as "Romanian occupation of Chernivtsi Oblast" is a proof of a serious POV. It is a die hard Stalinist POV. You should have the decency to respect what mainstream historians write, and not promote Soviet propaganda. This is a moral precondition: if you are not politically neutral, you can potentially promote political, unscientific agenda through your suggestions. You have to chose the camp on this: I have pointed out to you half a dozen cases over the last 2 days of you slippery pro-Soviet language. Either refute it, or have the decency to announce yourself as a pro-Soviet.
  • It is appalling how despite your serious pro-Soviet POV-ishness, you continue to call my proposals "Romanian irredenta" in the shameful Stalinist style. I have asked you from the very beginning to approach the issue as scholar would do, and leave political agendas at the door. But you continue to push them subtly (yes, yes, only a few expressions, but they spice up your judguments just the same wha as Vyshinsky was spicing up his) or even directly. It is typical of Stalinists to never admit any wrong, to never recognize any mistake, to always push for more and more outrageous things, and blame of the most vicious things ("Romanian irredenta") those normal people who dare question this.
Now, in case you do chose to continue this discussion in a civilized scholarly-like manner, without pushing pro-Soviet agenda, which I hope very much:
  • You have nothing under your belt (no articles or content contributions) regarding Moldova or Bessarabia, zero, niente, empty set. Yet you permit yourself to teach us lessons. I am not an author submitting something to you as editor. Please, stop imagining yourself in a position you are not. We are equal editors. Yet I have written something, which even as poor as it is, when divided by your zero is infinitely more.
  • If you couldn't care less to pick up a book in the library and find out when Moldova became a state, how can I expect you to know more delicate issues that must be taken into consideration. If you reject the necessity to read and inform oneself, what are you doing here? Obstructionism.
  • I told you that "leave them all in the mother category" is ignorance. Ignorance is no alternative. There will be hundreds of article on History of Moldavia, Transylvania, etc. Your choice of ignorance of this fact is very strange. How can you have a weight in a discussion when you chose to ignore the existing problems, when you chose to focus on a 100-km radius of Bucharest and, worse of all, when you refuse to pick up a book in the library about subjects you so energetically comment. Propose something about Moldavia and Transylvania, please. Dc76\talk 14:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Plan Number 3[edit]

Work in progress. These are supposed to be subcats of Category:History of Romania by period.

Please, Dc, before you consider starting these categories, give an extra thought to my proposal above. Dahn (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
And, again, to address just one of those flaws: we already have Category:Phanariotes. Your "Fanariot era" is a glaring misspelling (typo, or were you trying to prove an obscure point?), and even if it were "Phanariote era" it would still be non-specific and redundant. For one, we're again going with the supposed distinction between the concept and the era defined by the concept - not every nuance need be a category. And I'm repeating myself: for all the unilateralism of Romanian historiography, there was a "Phanariote era" in Greece, there was a "Phanariote era" in Bulgaria, and, whaddya know, there was in Istanbul (că de n-ar fi, nu s-ar povesti...). Sure, the peak of Phanariote careers was one of the two thrones (at least, until the Turks turned tormenting them into an art form), but it doesn't mean that Romanians have dibs. It's an international phenomenon, and should be treated as such. So, again, add the entire Category:Phanariotes as a subcat of "[History of] Early Modern [whatever]" and "19th century whatever" (I still say Romania) and "History of Wallachia" and "History of Moldavia", and see about also adding it into the respective categories for other countries, in case it's not. Keep it simple, keep it logical. Dahn (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Your "Fanariot era" is a glaring misspelling (typo, or were you trying to prove an obscure point?). Typo.
"Phanariote era" - I have no problem with adjusting specific entries such as this one. You have provided valid points. It can be a distinguished category, just as you said, and I will think more thoroughly about difference with "Phanariots". In principle, I can agree that only one category is needed, but for now, there are only people there, and you don't suggest how to deal with this fact. See, if you would think deeper, chances are you would address the issues, and we could progress much faster. "Simple and logical" does not mean "ignore what I don't understand". It means, "think ahead". Physics was very simple with ether. But even with strong and weak interactions, it can be made more simpler and more logical than the ether theory, if you think hard enough about it. The problem is infinitely simpler with WP categories. It is no a big deal of an effort to think. read the organization scheme, consider different aspects, adjust different parts, and let's come up with something reasonable. A few adjustments can be made later, but let's ensure the big scheme is fine.
How about all the rest, not just "Phanariots"? Don't worry, I won't start anything very quickly. I am still waiting for Biruitorul's comments. I only changed things I considered he wouldn't object, like "Greater Romania (1918-1940)" --> "Greater Romania". Dc76\talk 14:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Plan Number 4[edit]

Subcats of Category:History of Romania by period:

Question:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dc76/project1&oldid=322522066"