WikiProject iconRomania Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania articles
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
To-do list:
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconHistory Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Michael the Brave/First unification[edit]

Certainly, the event was marginal at the time of it’s making, and, of course, was transformed in a myth by the national-communist propaganda, but is also true that it had an influence on Romanian nationalistic historical figures in the 19’th century and contributed to the ulterior making of Romania. Only because we talk about nationalists and nationalistic ideas, it does not mean its influence was not real or shameful, and I think it deserves a place in the timeline of Romanian history. Maybe not under the “first unification” or “Michael the Brave”, but I have no better title idea, I admitt.--79.116.53.154 (talk) 11:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bottom line: I could take just about any "mythical" figure in Romanian history and explore the same argument ("marginal at the time of its making", "transformed in a myth by the national-communist propaganda", "had an influence on Romanian nationalistic historical figures" - the "contributed to the ulterior making of Romania" can mean just about anything). Would that validate the inclusion in the template of say, Stephen the Great, Vasile Lupu, Horea, Cuza, Carol I (if not also Petru Cercel and Samuil Micu-Klein)? No. The contextual importance of one rule and one ruler, as opposed to events involving collective actors, can be picked out from the period articles (in this case, the "Early Modern period" article). Otherwise, we renounce a minimal criterion and open the floodgates to "I likes it"-type inclusions. Dahn (talk) 11:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And let me add: the very core of the argument, which admits that the event was not important in its time but "served to etc.", is proof of Whig history (so is calling an event which may not have been a unification at all "First Unification" - oh, and those lovely capital letters...) Dahn (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bessarabia[edit]

The history of Bessarabia is an integral part of Romania's history, from prehistory to modern times. Also, the break down of history by region is done following and keeping consistency with Historical regions of Romania.--Codrin.B (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's no more integral than Transylvania is of Hungarian history, Wallachia of Bulgarian history, Dobruja of Turkish history etc. The only neutral way to present history is presenting evolution of current territories. Otherwise similar irredentist templates would sprout all over the Balkans and transform (again) Wikipedia into a battleground.Anonimu (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anonimu, you are missing the point and just disrupting things again out of your suspicious agenda. Shared regions, which changed owners multiple times, belong to history of multiple nations and thus to each template. Transylvania is already (as it should be) on the ((History of Hungary)) template. Most regions of Romania belonged to others at some point in time. By your logic, this template will have nothing in it.--Codrin.B (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's a huge difference between linking a specific period in time when the region was highly relevant for the development of a modern country, as the History of Hungary template does for the Principality of Transylvania, and History of Romania does for Wallachia and Moldavia, and irredentist claims over neighboring territories, implying a state is the rightful owner of a foreign territory from time immemorial, as you want to. Including the whole history of Bessarabia in the history of Romania is as adequate as including the whole history of Romania in the template about the history of Turkey.Anonimu (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

inline inclusion of Dacia[edit]

Some relevant discussion about this template is at User talk:Fakirbakir#Re: Template. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image[edit]

Super Dromaeosaurus, how can that map you put in be interpreted by people who look at the template (most don't know much about the history of Romania)? The legend is very small. Without it, the map doesn't make much sense. See the images in other "History of..." templates: [1] [2] [3]. I think we should use similar ones as these, or the coat-of-arms. Gyalu22 (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see any problem with the map. Michael the Brave's personal union stands central to Romania's history and it is a greatly commemorated event. The only other epochs we could use for us to be able to portray the three Romanian historical regions together would either be Dacia, controversial, and the Kingdom of Romania, too recent. I haven't been able to find maps of the kind you proposed, other than this one [4], of bad quality. Another good option might be this [5]. Super Ψ Dro 14:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like the one made by Daniel Philipppidis, though I don't know what was the problem with this: [6] Gyalu22 (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The map is good but it doesn't show Transylvania. Philippidis' map is also good but it has pretty bad quality. I wouldn't be opposed to adding it if we could find a better version, with brighter coloring. Super Ψ Dro 19:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The possibility of the coat of arms remains. Neighbouring countries' like Moldova's and Bulgaria's template also use the national coat of arms. If you don't understand my argument for changing, I write it down again. My problem is that the map itself without the legend (it's small, not readable) doesn't make much sense. Most people who will see it don't know the history of Romania in detail. It would be strange to use the map of monarchies ruled by Louis I of Hungary ([7]) as the illustration for the history of Hungary, instead of an antique map of the Carpathian Basin (as part of the Kingdom of Hungary), right? Even more without description. Gyalu22 (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I kind of don't inherently see any problem with that map. Only that it would need to be cropped to include only the red parts and its immediate surroundings. However if you wish you can revert to the former coat of arms. Just that any map that could be added here should include the three historical Romanian regions. Super Ψ Dro 20:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reinstated the older version before we would move on to heavily controversial topics. It's better to avoid that so we can use our time on WP to do more productive things. Gyalu22 (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories