Talk:Round Church, Preslav

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Architecture Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Bulgaria Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria 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.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

It seems there's neither a single link to Round church in this article, nor a mention of and link to Round Church, Preslav in Round church. Perhaps someone competent (unlike me) can add these in an appropriate way.--Nø (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much it has to do with the design described in round church. The churches in the round church article seem to be mostly later Nordic examples, is it indeed a specific kind of Scandinavian church architecture (like stave church), or is the article just about any type of round church? Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 21:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just think the articles should be connected. Perhaps most of the contents of

Scandinavian round churches, and Round church should not be much more than links to the other articles.--Nø (talk) 13:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Seems fair to me, but I'm not sure how we're supposed to do it either :) — Toдor Boжinov — 20:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this article has a single major failing, I think it's the lack of any mention of the church's history, beyond its origin. How long was it used? When was it abandoned? When was it rediscovered? If we don't know the answers to these questions, why? I'm surprised that it was elevated to featured article status as is. Brain Rodeo (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You probably were looking at a vandalized version with significant content removed. Look at it again.64.38.226.82 (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It still looks the same to me. As far as I can see, the article skips from the tenth century to the twentieth. What happened in between? Brain Rodeo (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had exactly the same impression. We don't know the history of the church between its original construction and the 1920s. That is strange. Was it damaged during WWII, or earlier, we don't know. Hektor (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You both wrongly assume that the church's history is known, but not mentioned in the article for some reason. There is a single reference to the church in medieval sources, which is described in the article. Apart from that, everything we know about it comes from archaeology and some solid educated guesses. We don't know how long the church was used, when it was abandoned and even the exact role it had. And we don't know this because, well, there are no primary sources to tell of it, to begin with.

The church was rediscovered in 1927–1928, during the excavations of Preslav. No, it suffered no damage in WWII (if it is not mentioned, there's no reason to assume it happened). — Toдor Boжinov — 10:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not assuming that the history is known. I noted that there is no mention of the history, not even an explanation for the absence of information. See my original question: "If we don't know the answers to these questions, why?" Brain Rodeo (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it was rediscovered in the 1920s and only mentioned once (if at all) in prior sources, how could we know any details from its history? I believe this is pretty clear. Also, please be more careful with your wording, because I find "I'm surprised that it was elevated to featured article status as is." quite disrespectful. — Toдor Boжinov — 18:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So no one knows why this church was abandoned? That seems hard to believe. Funnyhat (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More significantly, the fact that no one knows why it was abandoned isn't mentioned; it's just omitted from the article. There's no mention of the intervening history and no explanation that 'we don't know the history.' It merits some explanation. Todor, I mean no disrespect, but I really am surprised that this omission wasn't addressed before elevation to featured article status. Brain Rodeo (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really enjoyed this article! Amandajm (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:24.51.215.215/User:165.225.32.81 has altered clearly sourced, neutral content that hasn't changed since the article's FA review to a nationalist Bulgarian POV. The edits are clearly unreferenced and tend to erase/underestimate any kind of external influence on the church's architecture and design. For this reason, I am reverting them a second time and notifying the user with a link to this discussion. — Toдor Boжinov — 14:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]