Jump to content

Talk:Burzenland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs) at 12:33, 12 February 2024 (Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Untitled

[edit]
  • Article:de:Burzenland
  • Corresponding English-language article:Tara Bârsei
  • Worth doing because: much more information? (Like, didn't exist -- Jmabel | Talk 06:33, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC))
  • Originally Requested by:--210.128.247.147 08:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Status: Completed -- Jmabel | Talk 06:33, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Other notes: There is probably a lot of history that could be usefully added to this, but I've brought over what was in the German. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:33, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Article Name

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move.

Shouldn't this article be named Burzenland? Aside from Romanian tourist sites and Wiki-mirrors, I have not seen "Ţara Bârsei" used in English, while "Burzenland" is the traditional term used in English history books referencing the Transylvanian Saxons and the Teutonic Knights. Olessi 18:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are 4 Votes for a move and no opposing comments, I just went ahead and moved the page. -- Chris 73 Talk 22:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name discussion

[edit]
  • Oppose I know its late, but even now with Wikipedia supporting Burzenland, I get 380 hits (English pages) for Ţara Bârsei and 419 hits for Burzenland. Daizus 09:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-searched with -wikipedia: 344 hits for Ţara Bârsei and 243 hits for Burzenland. The reasons invoked above are not (anymore?) real. Daizus 09:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try a Google Books comparison. While the region is not often referenced in English texts, "Burzenland" is used more frequently than "Ţara Bârsei" is. Olessi 14:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you split the books by content and context? If the books discuss 13th century Teutonic Order history, then the term is Burzenland, obviously. If the books discuss 19-21th century Romania, I very much doubt it. Also I've seen in Google Books you cannot split the search by languages, and books like "Die Mundart der Burzenlander Sachsen" are irrelevant for the English language. Bring the relevant statistics if you have them, I've shown the "Google" argument to show the contrary of what it was claimed.
However, I believe the books should not have the ultimate word in this debate. Because "Ţara Bârsei" denotes a living reality, people use this term even today. It is not a historical term buried in the past and addressed only by scholarship. You don't learn of this term, only when you learn the history of Transylvania (or Romania, or Hungary). A tourist guide or simply casual usage have an equally strong word to say - you can visit "Ţara Bârsei" yourself, today! Daizus 17:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that not to mention cases like Gdansk vs Danzig, like one who supported the renaming suggested (probably not knowing "Ţara Bârsei" still exists under this name) Daizus 17:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:UE: "if one version gets 92 hits, while another one gets 194 hits, it can hardly be decisive." The vast majority of links in a regular Google search for "Ţara Bârsei" are in Romanian (which are irrelevent for the English WP) or are tourism/travel sites, which are commercial and not of encyclopedic value. A standard Google search for "Burzenland" is not particularly illuminating, either. Google Web is not a good resource in this case, as the region is quite frankly not frequently referenced in English.

Again from our naming conventions: "use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works." In terms of article naming, we are not interested in how a region is named in Romanian, but in English. The Google Books sampling gave me very few English hits for "Ţara Bârsei" or Tara Barsei". In comparison, there are more English texts concerning Burzenland or "Burzen Land".

Interestingly enough, what has not been listed yet is usage of the older (I believe) spelling in Romanian, "Ţara Bîrsei" or "Tara Birsei". While the former has not been used in English, there have been a few English publications from the last several decades utilizing the latter. While it does not indicate that the Romanian name has become the standard English name for the region, it does show that the Romanian terminology is accepted in English publications along with the traditional German name. In this case it seems that Google Books' catalog has presumably not caught up to most texts using the newer spelling.

Considering the usage of the Romanian name in some English texts and the contemporary identification of the region, I would not object to a title move if consensus is achieved with other editors. However, considering the importance of the Saxon community to the region's history and the equal usage in English texts, I would expect that "Burzenland" would be bolded and not relegated to merely being an alternative name. The same would go for Nösnerland, especially since both articles are currently about the historical background and not about the present-day regions. A similar situation is Klaipėda Region, an article using a present-day title but overwhelmingly about its historical importance. Olessi 19:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't browse ~350 pages from that Google search on "Ţara Bărsei" to see if the majority are in Romanian (and I don't think you did that either). In my first 10 hits 7 are in English, 2 in Romanian, 1 in German. As for Burzenland in my 10 hits 6 are in English (and 2 pages are from Wikimedia Commons) and 4 are in German. But you have a point as it may turn out the real difference is not that significant. However, the users supporting the renaming brought "Google" as argument and I was just noticing the opposite.
I think tourism/presentation sites are bringing valueable information as the type of information they bring (visiting routes, accomodation, agrotourism, cultural events, specificity) it is not included in encyclopedias, less in scholarly books (the few books on such topics - ethnography for instance - are not popular at all)
"Ţara Bărsei" and "Ţara Bîrsei" have the same pronounciation, it reflect two different norms in Romanian spelling. I don't know how this should be standardized as a name in an English-speaking environment.
I will look for some ethnographical material or some other cultural coordinates and see if I can emphasize also other ethnical elements but German in the two regions and make them less focused on Medieval history. The only book I have and I know for certainty to deal with "Ţara Bărsei" is a ethnoculinary trip of Radu Anton Roman throughout Romania yet I'm not sure if culinar recipes and related customs can make the object of this page :) Daizus 21:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly didn't individually check all of the Google results either. However, grouping searches into 100-result pages and skimming the synopses can be done quickly when there are only two pages of hits to glance over. Tourism sites can of course provide valuable information, but sometimes they need to be taken with a grain of salt. When in doubt, I would trust a textbook over a commercial site. Cheers, Olessi 22:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But they are not always commercial sites. Those presentation sites sometimes belong to various institutions like municipalities ( http://www.brasovcity.ro/brasov/index.php?lcp=0&lg=1 ) or universities ( http://www.ucdc.ro/en/fbvrei.html ). I'm not taking them as scholarly references, simply as testifying the contemporary usage of this term as a valid location (and also in English language).
Coming back at the cultural materials, I've found various other sites among those hits:
On Romanian ethnographical areas - http://www.eliznik.org.uk/RomaniaEthno/
On tourism on events and festivals - http://www.brasovtourism.com/index.php?task=event&event=shooting_the_rooster&lg=en
A map and some representative sketches of Ţara Bărsei culture -http://www.roconsulboston.com/Pages/InfoPages/Culture/TaraBirsei.html Daizus 23:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vulcan

[edit]

I've changed the link towards the town of Vulcan because Vulcan, Romania is an article about a municipality in the Jiu Valley in the West of Transylvania in the Hunedoara County. Burzenland (or Tara Barsei) is an area mainly in the Braşov County in the East of Transylvania, and here Vulcan is only a village. Here are the two links on eah County's council about the two localities:

--Mihai -talk 07:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burgenland

[edit]

Isnt this named after the Burgundians? It sure seems like one of those common variations of placenames that derive their names from the Burgundians. (Bornholm, Burgenland, Bourgogne) -- Hrödberäht 04:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burzenland is named after the Bârsa/Burzen/Barca stream, while Burgenland is named after the multitude of castles in the traditional Austrian/Hungarian borderland. Olessi 05:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary meaning

[edit]

Is "Ţara Bârsei" used in a contemporary meaning today? Would a resident from the region say that s/he is from "Ţara Bârsei", or would "Braşov County" be used instead? Is the term used for tourism at all, or is it only used in a historical sense? That would help clarify whether or not the name has "lost cultural meaning" (a phrase originally taken from the German WP article). Olessi 15:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has. It is not only a historical region, but also a ethno-cultural region. It doesn't have the same boundaries as Braşov county (if I'm not mistaken Ţara Bârsei is shared by Braşov and Covasna counties). The term is used for historical meaning (and here Burzenland comes as a perfect synonym), tourism but also location or specificity. I am not sure if it has any geographical meaning (two other terms name approximatively the same area: "Depresiunea Braşovului" and "Depresiunea Bârsei"). It is equivalent to other regions having a similar usage "Ţara Haţegului", "Maramureş" or "Năsăud". Sometimes coloquially "Ţara Bârsei" or "Ţara Haţegului" or ""Ţara Făgăraşului" become "Bârsa" respectively "Haţeg" or "Făgăraş".
http://www.romanianmuseum.com/Romania/RomaniaEthnoARDEALsibiuTaraBarsei.html - ethno-cultural specificity
http://www.wanderomania.com/t1d9.htm - tourism
http://www.badorgood.com/detail.php?id=9 - common usage (it is a site of amateur photos, one user says about it: "It was shot at the upper limit of the fog covering Ţara Bârsei")
It's a bit hard to find people coloquially saying they are from "Ţara Bârsei" because such people are rather shepherds or agriculturists and they don't use computers less internet :). But if you wish I can provide as many examples as I can to show the term is still in usage, and not only as an echo of a reality faded long time ago. Daizus 19:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response and clarification. I don't think that tourism sites should be viewed as reliable resources, but mention can be made that "Ţara Bârsei" is used for tourism purposes. I think it is more important to add ethno-cultural information about the region today. Olessi 19:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I should stress that of course that these names (e.g. "Ţara Bârsei", "Ţara Nǎsǎudului") still have a meaning today especially when speaking about folk music and costumes (and folk culture in general). In Romania, unlike in other European countries, these folklore related things are still quite popular (probably because of the large rural Romanian population). It is likely that most of the people from a large city (Braşov for example) will identify himself with the urban culture of Braşov, but there are still people from the rural areas nearby that idetify themselves with the folk culture of Bârsa. I had colleagues during university saying they are from "Zona Nǎsǎudului" ("Nǎsǎud Area") or "Zona Bârsei" ("Bârsa Area"), but I haven't met anyone saying he/she is from "Nösnerland" or "Burzenland". So I guess the question to Olessi's question is YES, there are still plenty of residents saying that they are from these ethno-cultural regions. Probably less than 50 years ago, before the big Romanian urbanisation, but still.

Also, I'm not at all an expert in the history of Alsace-Lorraine, but it seems that even in that case (a historical German teritorial entity that does not exist anymore) the main article uses the French name and the German name Elsaß-Lothringen redirects to the French one. So, in our case, I can't see a reason for keeping German names for present-day Romanian regions inhabited predominantly by Romanians. Alexrap 13:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Burzenland", not "Ţara Bârsei", is the term that has been used most commonly in English-language history texts, and as such should be the title if the article is solely about its medieval history. Information asserting to the region's contemporary importance has since been provided. As I mentioned before, I would not object to a title change if the article is expanded to actually describe the present-day Romanian region. Olessi 15:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot check if most of the English-language history books use "Burzenland" or "Ţara Bârsei", as most of them only refer to the whole Transylvania, rather than focusing on such a small scale. But either way, it doesn't affect at all the way this article should be named. Also, what's your opinion on the Alsace-Lorraine example? Alexrap 13:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Olessi makes a different and valid point. Let's first focus in balancing this article to modern times (most of my documentation I have access to is about the Medieval history, but I try to gather more info to picture out the modern realities - for instance, check http://www.cosys.ro/haromszek/siculica/acta98/ro/documente/vofkori.html in Romanian). Once it will become clear the content of the article is not only about the Germans inhabiting South-Eastern Transylvania, or not only about a territory given to the Teutonic Order, then renaming the article would be much easier and will may get support from people not knowing the today realities of Romania. Daizus 13:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with the usage of "Alsace-Lorraine" as the proper title for that territory. However, as part of Western and/or Central Europe, Alsace and Lorraine have been referenced in English texts quite frequently and are the accepted English names for the two territories. Even though the dual administrative region was part of Germany, it is known in English by the French name, Alsace-Lorraine (instead of Elsass-Lothringen). Additionally, Alsace and Lorraine are still known today for their regional and cultural particularities. In comparison, Ţara Bârsei / Burzenland is not widely-known in English, as Transylvania is unfortunately not referenced often in detail in English. When it has been mentioned in English texts, it is usually referring to the Transylvanian Saxons or to the T.O., and the Germanic "Burzenland" is used. The aforementioned Google Books searches indicate that some authors are beginning to use Ţara Bârsei (or variations thereof) in English, but the local name is not overwhelmingly used like Alsace-Lorraine is. Regarding the article's title, we are not interested in what is "proper", but in how it is most commonly known in English.

I agree completely with Daizus that the article should be expanded. In its current state, the article is not about a currrent ethnographic zone, but is only describing the history of a historical region. If the article is expanded to describe how the region is a contemporay cultural/ethnographic zone, then a title change would certainly be understandable. Unfortunately, I do not speak Romanian, so it is more difficult for me to add information about the region as it is today. Olessi 14:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Olessi, I don't agree with your statement that we are not interested in what is "proper", but in how it is most commonly known in English, especially as the region does not have a well establish English name. You also said that: Ţara Bârsei / Burzenland is not widely-known in English, as Transylvania is unfortunately not referenced often in detail in English. In these cases, when there isn't a well-establish name, we should make sure that we use a proper name. Alexrap 17:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NC(CN): "Wikipedia is not a place to advocate a title change in order to reflect recent scholarship. The articles themselves reflect recent scholarship but the titles should represent common usage." While Alsace and Lorraine are frequently mentioned in English texts, Ţara Bârsei / Burzenland has not been. When it is mentioned, it is usually in connection with medieval German colonization. In the majority of these sources, the Germanic "Burzenland" is used. Our naming conventions state "use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works". The article in its current state is merely a history article, and as such should use the name most often used to describe the region in history texts. As I have mentioned before, I would have no objections to a title move if the article is expanded to describe the region today. Olessi 19:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, Alexrap, search your bookcase, search the internet, buy a new book, improve the article and then we'll change the name, too! :) Daizus 19:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree that titles should represent common usage, but when there isn't an established common usage version, Wikipedia should look for the correct title. But I also agree that this is basically a pointless discussion and the only way forward is the improvement of the article. Unfortunately, I have no access to books about this region exactly because English text books don't mention it. So, at least for me, the only source available is the internet. Alexrap 11:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teutonic Order and Kronstadt

[edit]

I think there's a little confusion. The fortification supposedly built or strenghtened (because the archaeology dates it earlier than Teutonic Order period) by Teutons are the actual ruins of Braşovia, on the top of Tâmpa (Czenk, Zinne) hill. I don't know the name in the Medieval documents, I think the first documentary attestation for it is in 14-15th centuries. I also know this fortification was demolished by John Hunyad and it is said he used its stone to build in the actual Braşov. Daizus 22:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Urban's text: "By 1220 the Teutonic Knights had built five castles, some in stone, and given them names that were later passed on to castles in Prussia. Marienburg, Schwarzenburg, Rosenau, and Kreuzburg were grouped around Kronstadt at a distance of twenty miles from one another" (p. 34). Urban's focus regarding the Teutonic Order is on its internal organization and campaigns against the Balts, so it is possible he generalized info about the Order's brief time in Transylvania. While the author does not directly state that the Order built/rebuilt a fort at Braşov, this was the inference to me.

"This wild region was never fully settled by the Hungarians, who were themselves descendants of nomads and therefore preferred the plain, and it was but sparsely populated by the descendants of the Roman settlers of Dacia. ... Almost immediately a contingent of knights, accompanied by peasant volunteers from Germany, entered the unsettled region and built a series of wood-and-earth forts; the peasants then established their farms and villages, providing the taxes and labour necessary to support these military outposts. ... The peasants soon began to harvest reasonably abundant crops, making it easy to attract yet more immigrant farmers from Germany" (p. 33). Urban does not say that the Teutonic Knights were the first to bring German colonists to the region or that there were not any indigenous people, merely that it was not highly populated when they arrived (especially in comparison to Western Europe).

Regarding Kreuzburg (Crucpurg), its exact location is unknown, although some reports place it near Teliu.[1] Olessi 04:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Kronstadt in Prussia? What is also peliculiar is the difference in name - the first four are burgs, this latter one is a stadt. I guess there's no possible way to say through archeeology there wasn't a fortification there (now the city of Braşov lies there and except for accidental discoveries, I guess the surface of the city is virtually unchecked), while the history of the name goes as following: diocese Corona (1230s), Brasso (and similar names from 1250s - first the land, by 1280s or so the settlement, too), Kronstadt (mid 14th century). Brasso is often explained by Turkic (Pecheneg or Cuman) etymology - one of them is Bara-su = white water.
As for scarcity, I think we have not to compare with Western Europe (if we go by the description of chronicles most the South-Eastern Europe was scarcely populated, if not it was in fact another phenomenon: this region was mostly experiencing rural life, in a very "untehnical" way - we know from instance that at the invasion of Tartars even the major settlements, cities were unfortified or poorly fortified, while in Western Europe the age of castles, cathedrals and developing cities was booming, plus the "industrial revolution" of the Medieval West altered even the rural landscapes - e.g. the mills). We have to compare the data we have for this region, comparing the existing population with the new waves (as suggests by the opposition between "sparsely populated" and "estabilishing", "attracting immigrants" etc.).
The references are roughy arguing as it follows:
a) one author (Ioniţă) argues for an archaeologically attested colonization of the German element ("large number of tombs") since the 12th century (with no emphasis at all for the beginning of the 13th; he only speaks of 2 waves of colonization). This archaeological continuity is interrupted at the beginning of the 13th century, as the Teutonic Order has occupied this land and probably gave a new social and cultural orientation of the existing German colonists. The author of the referenced study says there are 3 certain significant archaeological sites assignable to German colonization dated in 12th century - the necropolis of Feldioara, the fortifications from Lempeş hill (near Sânpetru and Hărman) and the first stage of the church from Prejmer. He also adds the necropolises from Zăbala (Zabola) and Peteni (Petöfalva) and the settlement from Sâncrăieni (Csikszentkirály), dated at the beginning of 12th century can be assigned to Szeklers.
b) another author (Ţiplic ) mentions a contemporary (12th century) presence in the later "villa volachicales" - the archaeological inventory plus the continuity of material life suggests they is likely the same population called "Wallachian" in the following centuries.
c) a study (Brezeanu's) confirming and discussing a documentary evidence for people existing at the time of the donation, and the Teutonic Order responsabilities to these people are according to the vassalage bounds between them and the Hungarian crown. The author claims their numbers must've been significant. Because the same diplomas explicitely say the Teutons could not extend their authority over people subjected to the Hungarian crown, the author assumes the people mentioned as existing in Burzenland were Romanians. However corelating this with the evidence of a), it seems the Teutonic Order extended its authority also over other ethnic elements present in that time (first half of 13th century) at the south-eastern border (or outside) the Hungarian realm.
d) while I have no estimate of the 2nd wave of German colonists, I have an estimate of the number of Teuton Order army. Ţiplic says they were few hundreds quoting two scholars: Horst Glassl in "Der deutsche Order im Burzenland und in Kumanien (1211-1225)" assuming there were "only over a 100 knights" and Eugen Glück in "Consideraţii cu privire la prezenţa cavalerilor teutoni in Ţara Bîrsei (1211-1225)" estimating there were 200-300 knights. I don't know how many more German peasants came with them, but just comparing this number with the significant number of settlements (assignable to Romanians, Szeklers, Germans) I think "sparsely populated" cannot be maintained. Daizus 10:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed response. Rather than trying to discern the "truth" by ourselves, it is best to simply list the views by published authors, thereby allowing the reader to come to his/her own conclusions. In this manner, I would write something like, "Older texts report that the region was not widely populated when the crusaders arrived,¹ although more recent archaeological research indicates there was already substantial settlement by the time the crusaders arrived.² ³

Regarding Kronstadt, I have no problem with removing it from the list since there is doubt about it and Urban is not specific. FYI, "Teutons" in English primarily refers today to the ancient Germanic tribe; the usage of "Teutons" to refer to the crusaders is increasingly archaic. They are usually referred to in English specifically as the "Teutonic Knights/Order", the knights, or simply as Germans. Olessi 17:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no preference about "older texts"/"newer texts" but I guess it can be a dangerous remark (our investigation, no matter how well intended can fail as we have limited means to cover a topic). We should simply put "some scholars" and "some other scholars".
Thank you for correcting me on Teuton/Teutonic. Daizus 17:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the cinque castra fortia document name the five castles? Olessi 17:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately no. It is also a late document (1230s), a diploma from the Pope to the Hungarian king, which among others lists the achievements of the Order in this place - building 5 strong castles and keeping the Cuman presence away from this border of the Hungarian kingdom. About the Knights building those castles, it goes: "cum multo labore ac proprii effusione cruoris, quinque castra fortia construendo" Daizus 17:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have the most important part of the Teutonic Knights Diploma? The one with "I gave them this country... although saviged/deserted and populated (deserta et inhabitata)... to settle and rule..." and so on?--Alex:Dan 23:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have it fully but you can retrieve a part of it using Google Books. It's "desertam et inhabitatam" in original. The bad part is that as many sources as many Latin renderings (silva/sylva, ae/e, etc. + few other particularities).
An attempt to reconstruct the context of the diploma (issued in 1211): Hinc est, quod pie recordationis parentum nostrorum vestigia, pio desiderio amplectentes et eterne vite bravium cum eis post presentis vite cursum apprehendere cupientes [...] cruciferis de hospitali Sancte Marie, quod quandoque fuit in Jerusalem, sed modo peccatis exigentibus situm est in Accaron, caritatis intuito quandam terram Borza nomine, ultra silvas versus Cumanos, licet desertam et inhabitatam, contulimus pacifice inhabitandam, et in perpetuum libere possidendam, ut et regnum per conversationem eorum propagatam dilatetur ...
There's also this site with fragments on acts and diplomas from 13th century (with emphasis on Cumans/Cumania) and thus, also the ones involving Teutonic Order in Burzenland: http://www.vfmk.hu/vfek/Szak/gyarfas/root/0002/0007-a8.html Daizus 09:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expelled?

[edit]

When we say "Most of these Germans were expelled by the Communist Romanian regime beginning in 1976," is "expelled" the right word? From what I understand, West Germany was paying the Romanian government to allow Germans to leave Romania for West Germany. - Jmabel | Talk 19:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the source: "După 1976, a luat proporţii şi repatrierea saşilor din Transilvania de Sud – azi practic au părăsit teritoriul României. ". The keyword here is "to repatriate". Perhaps this could replace the verb you questioned? Daizus 19:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, but I think we probably want somewhere (not in this article) a discussion of what actually happened, and link to it from here. - Jmabel | Talk 04:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

[edit]

A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category (unless the child category is non-diffusing - see below). For example, the article "Paris" need only be placed in "Category:Cities in France", not in both "Category:Cities in France" and "Category:Populated places in France". Since the first category is in the second category, readers are already given the information that Paris is a populated place in France by it being a city in France. (WP:SUBCAT)

Category:Historical regions of Transylvania is a subcat. of Category:Historical regions in the Kingdom of Hungary, there is no need to include the parent cat. 79.117.176.151 (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burzenland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Burzenland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 January 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Per consensus. (non-admin closure) Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Burzenland → Țara Bârsei – Google Scholar gives 96 results for "Burzenland" in recent (since 2019) English-language sources [2]. "Țara Bârsei" gives 183 [3]. Thus, it is the WP:COMMONNAME for this article. Super Ψ Dro 22:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzenland&oldid=1206543179"