Wikipedia

Talk:Chișinău/Archive 2

< Talk:Chișinău
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Community Tech bot in topic A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
Archive 1Archive 2

Number of article titles tagged by mrg3105

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I wonder if this is not WP:POINT, I see that mrg3105 has started a war on multiple pages, from his edit history:

  1. 02:18, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Timiş County‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  2. 02:18, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Sălaj County‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  3. 02:17, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Neamţ County‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  4. 02:16, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Mureş County‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  5. 02:15, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Mehedinţi County‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  6. 02:15, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Maramureş County‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  7. 02:14, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Iaşi County‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  8. 02:13, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Ialomiţa County‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  9. 02:12, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Galaţi County‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  10. 02:11, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Dâmboviţa County‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  11. 02:11, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Constanţa County‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  12. 02:09, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive‎ (→Naming conventions (geographic names): I am simply clarifying the answers you gave)
  13. 02:05, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive‎ (→Naming conventions (geographic names): a historical event which is unique to Russian language)
  14. 02:02, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Călăraşi County‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  15. 02:01, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Caraş-Severin County‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  16. 02:00, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Buzău County‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  17. 02:00, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Brăila County‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  18. 01:59, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Braşov County‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  19. 01:59, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Botoşani County‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  20. 01:58, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Bistriţa-Năsăud County‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  21. 01:57, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Bucureşti-Ilfov (development region)‎ (contravenes WP:UE) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
  22. 01:56, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive‎ (→Naming conventions (geographic names): which "main articles"?)
  23. 01:51, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Raionul Teleneşti‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  24. 01:51, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Raionul Şoldăneşti‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  25. 01:50, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Raionul Străşeni‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  26. 01:50, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Raionul Sîngerei‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  27. 01:49, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Raionul Rîşcani‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  28. 01:48, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Raionul Ocniţa‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  29. 01:48, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Raionul Hînceşti‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  30. 01:47, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Raionul Floreşti‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  31. 01:47, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Raionul Făleşti‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  32. 01:46, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Raionul Edineţ‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  33. 01:46, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Raionul Dubăsari‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  34. 01:45, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Raionul Donduşeni‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  35. 01:45, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Raionul Cimişlia‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  36. 01:44, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Raionul Căuşeni‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  37. 01:44, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Raionul Călăraşi‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  38. 01:43, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Raionul Ştefan Vodă‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  39. 01:42, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Zaim, Căuşeni‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  40. 01:42, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Sîngerei‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  41. 01:41, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Străşeni‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  42. 01:40, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Şoldăneşti‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  43. 01:39, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Rîşcani‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  44. 01:39, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Rîbniţa‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  45. 01:38, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Mărculeşti‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  46. 01:37, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Mileştii Mici‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  47. 01:36, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Hînceşti‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  48. 01:36, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Edineţ‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  49. 01:35, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Dubăsari‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  50. 01:35, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Donduşeni‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  51. 01:34, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Buckshot06‎ (→Use of stubs: new section)
  52. 01:32, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Ceadîr-Lunga‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  53. 01:32, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Cimişlia‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  54. 01:31, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Căuşeni‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  55. 01:30, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Călăraşi, Moldova‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  56. 01:29, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Bălţi‎ (contravenes WP:UE)
  57. 01:28, 17 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Chişinău‎ (contravenes WP:UE)

I think this behavior is highly disruptive and a clear WP:POINT, I hope an admin will take notice of this.

Oh, and by the way he uses a wrong argument, he asks "is [...] letter part of English?" if not it means the names are wrong, however here on Wikipedia diacritics are used even if they are not "part of English", for example English doesn't have a "ö" however here in English Wikipedia we have Malmö. -- AdrianTM (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue of use of diacritics in English Wikipedia is being addressed here [[1]]

In actual fact Wikipedia places no limit as to how many article titles I can question, but the fact that I have not attempted to restore the template (except Chişinău‎) suggests that I am not being disruptive, or starting a "war", but was trawling for who was interested in resolving the issues, and not trolling as has been suggested.

Your suggestion that if diacritics are used in many places, it must be ok is a fallacy.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 02:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Frankly that's tl;dr. -- AdrianTM (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you lost for words, or would you care to translate?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 04:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
tl;dr = "too many letters". --Illythr (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Scoring points works both ways. Titling articles in Romanian in an English language publication is far from a moot point on what the article's author is trying to convey, particularly when some articles are one sentence long!--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 23:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually read WP:POINT? -- AdrianTM (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Adrian buddy, the sites must be correctly annotated also. All information on the sites is copyrighted. This is besides the fact that some were incompletely listed, and at least two are commercial.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 06:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Buddy, copyrighted info shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all. -- AdrianTM (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's deal with technical things. mrg3105, could you, please, state what exactly is your objection respective copyright issues. Please, refrain from mingling that into diacritics dispute. By putting the two things together, there is hardly anything to gain for anyone, and the dispute becomes lame. Let's sort things out, and see that it is possible to achieve agreement on all except 1-2 clear-cut yes/no, which we can then bring for discussion at a "higher" level. :Dc76\talk 18:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This is an issue of calling the links what the site owners call them If you go to the sites, you will see they are called what I copied from the sites. You can not invent new site names to reflect waht you want to call them. If a site owner call the site ACBD, you can not call it EFGH because you think its a better name.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 21:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstand the purpose of copyright. Copyright applies only to works, not to individual words. Also linking has nothing to do with copyright. bogdan (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Copyright applies to entire content of the site. Besides that, changing the name of the site to suit your own preference is WP:POV. I am not going to revert edits. If you do not revert it I will request an RfC from someone knowledgeable in online copyright. Ok?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 00:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead. bogdan (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Airport

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

It has a 3 km long runway (8 and 26). Can anyone tell me what those 8 and 26 numbers mean? --Illythr (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It means the direction of the runways where you can land. All runways in the world use the same standard. 8 means 8 a clock 40 minutes, 26 means the opposite one, 2 a clock 40 minutes. Perhaps this is more relevant in the article about the airport. :Dc76\talk 15:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably. I had no idea about this. Neither do 99% readers, most likely. --Illythr (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Linkfarm

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I think the links section can use some cleanup - the tv channels sites are not about the city, the elections link is old and not particularly on topic either, the relevance of the Jewish community link is also somewhat doubtful, what with nearly all Jews having left... An the French links can go into the French Wikipedia. --Illythr (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ya, you are right. I'd leave, though, a link to the Moldovan tv channels. As per other ones, don't just de-link, but move them to the appropriate articles. Most of the Jews in Moldova are in Chisinau, 2,649 out of 3,608 as per Moldova's stats, but yes, the link should in some other article. If the monument is dedicated just to the solders, remove the other word (I simply did not know, and speculated).:Dc76\talk 15:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll try to find some description of the monument complex and maybe add a little bit on it. --Illythr (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Just noticed: are there -41 Jews in Moldova outside of Chisinau? :-) --Illythr (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Sigh, 1995 is actually old now. I must be practically ancient, then... --Illythr (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
No-no, that's not true. Let me check... It's 2,649 out of 3,608. The difference was negative 33, obvious non-sense.:Dc76\talk 19:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Latest comment: 16 years ago47 comments17 people in discussion
The following discussion is archived. 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 proposal was do not move.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you mind posting the link to the moldova view, Mrg? Narson (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone accepts the move anyway.Xasha (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
You said that the moldavians say the official name in English is Chisinau. I was wondering if you could provide the link? Just so the evidence is there for people to make their minds up on. Narson (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[2]It's on the requested move page. --Illythr (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Must say I'm stumped. I've seen both used, though mostly Chisinau, and if thats what the Moldovans use I'd lean towards that. Can't really find much decisive evidence though, either way. Narson (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
That's because most people don't know (or care) how to write on a webpage the diacritics right. It doesn't mean it's the official name. bogdan (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
These several thoroughly official sites also use the diacritic-less version. However, it's possible that webmasters are reluctant to use the diacritics. What are the rules for this anyway? --Illythr (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Is the claim that the designer of the official website of the state of Moldova had no idea what to use, or doesn't know how to use diacritics? I would prefer not to speculate--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Some government sites, like the one of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs use diacritics: [3] [4] [5]. Do you have any explanation other than the one about different webmasters? :-) bogdan (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
One is an official site of Moldova as a whole, the other is one of its constituent departments. It may be that given the nature of the work performed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs use of a different form is warranted, but again, I prefer not to speculate--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose - this proposal is unnecessary and threatens to corrode our accuracy. Yes, English should by all means be used in the event of established exonyms - Dunkirk, Cologne, Florence. However, lack of diacritics is not an indicator of English usage, but of sloppiness/superciliousness/unfamiliarity by English-language publishers/web designers. I grant that most English books, websites and newspapers call the city "Chisinau". However, in no way does that imply English has its own exonym for the city; it is merely the result of a failure to place diacritics. Here at Wikipedia, we have a strong tradition of respecting local use in the interests of accuracy. Łódź, Klaipėda, Székesfehérvár - one imagines English-language sources overwhelmingly call these too "Lodz", "Klaipeda" and "Szekesfehervar" - but again, let's be accurate rather than perpetuate the aversion to diacritics (which, I may happily note, has been receding lately). Biruitorul Talk 03:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Its not a vote--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Good counter-argument. Biruitorul Talk 12:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Its not an argument either--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't know what you're driving at. In case you didn't notice, I wrote seven sentences after "strong oppose". If you care to respond to them (the argument), feel free. If not, your own case is weakened by implicitly conceding my points ("qui tacet consentit"). Biruitorul Talk 17:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:NCGN supports current name (with diacritics). End of story, let's move on.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 10:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Piotrus is right. Let's write, but not talk. ;) --serhio talk 10:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately for Piotrus, the state of Moldova is not subject to Wikipedia policies or conventions --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but this has nothing to do with this, as this wiki does not belong to the state of Moldova. Mrg, stop disconsidering Wikipedia policies in order to illustrate your own point. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I can only suggest you discuss my point of view with the state of Moldova--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that in order to continue your activity on wikipedia, you have to respect its policies and guidelines. Anyway, per official website of the Republic of Moldova, the official name of the city is Chişinău. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, but which official site and in which language? ;-) --Illythr (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
moldova.md, at the bottom of the start page. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
If you click on the "more" link to go to the actual article, you can see that moldova.md uses "Chisinau" as well as "Chişinău". To add to that, gov.md, presedinte.md and the site of the Moldovan Academy of Sciences are also quite official and use the diacritic-less version. So there doesn't seem to be a consistent official policy there, with webmasters/translators choosing the variant they prefer every time. If someone could find some kind of an official statement or at least an external guideline (naturally, in a reliable source) adressing the issue, that would solve the problem much better than our random poking at .md sites... --Illythr (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Been to the Burma page lately, mrg3105? We decide our own headwords here. True, official status matters (and, let's be honest, the Moldovan government probably does call it Chişinău, even if it doesn't bother to use diacritics on some of its websites), but it's only one of several factors we consider. Biruitorul Talk 19:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:NCON foresees diacritics, and it foresees self-identifying names. Chişinău is correct, Chişinău stays. NikoSilver 21:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Just so we are all "on the same page", Wikipedia is a reference work. As a reference work it does not decide what things are called, but merely reflects their name in English. Determination of names, in the case of organisations, whether public, commercial or international, is made by the organisations themselves and not Wikipedia editors. This is owing to the said organisations being know by these names when being represented in courts of law, and, in the case of states, in international adjudication tribunals and other international organisations where English is almost always used as the primary international Lingua franca. Therefore, as a work of reference, Wikipedia simply reflects existing usage determined by the organisations as part of their policy reflecting needs of internationally determined judicial standards, in this case, determined as part of an applied international policy by a panel of international experts. This is because language use has implications for operations of international organisations, such as FAO for example [6]. This issue is far beyond mere use of diacritics (if only it was so simple), and a simple search in Google books on Language policy (or even Wikipedia) will inform the Wikipedia editors of the issues that are complex and far beyond the scope of Wikipedia to affect. The only course open to a reference work is to reflect this and other official policies, and not to try to confuse the matter more by introducing its own "conventions" in to the public arena, considering that Wikipedia may be used to inform public on all matter involving its content, even that of use in legislative application for individual not able to afford professional services in less developed regions. Therefore the editors of Wikipedia need to be professional enough to know and reflect these policies. In this case the state of Moldova language policy complies with the use of English as defined by other international organisations. The only problem is that editors here are not aware of the relevant policy, because these have not been cited in the article. In effect I am simply stating the end result which in only disputed here due to lack of awareness, and nothing else. I can only suggest that the editors appreciate that their insistence only reflects to the public Wikipedia's ignorance of Language policy as a factor in international relations, and nothing else. Since it is the primary intent and a matter of policy for the Wikipedia Foundation to be a quality primary online reference source to the global public using the Internet, any Wikipedia naming conventions, adopted by editors where naming is possibly not a subject to the organisation's own policy, is not even a consideration. Therefore this requested move is not subject to voting or consensus discussion, but simply the administrative procedure in correcting naming errors based on reflecting existing usage standards as defined elsewhere.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Telling us (in rather verbose fashion) that we're all idiots isn't a terribly constructive solution to the issue, and neither is telling us that we have no option but to comply with your request. Chişinău is the correct spelling of the city, regardless of some websites' failure to put the diacritics, and, I regret to inform you, we will continue using diacritics here and wherever else is appropriate, despite your disdain for them. That is my view and the view of most commenters here. Please review Wikipedia:Consensus, an official policy; declaring that it does not apply does not make it so, as it is not within anyone's authority (except perhaps that of Jimbo Wales or someone of that calibre) to make such a declaration. Biruitorul Talk 00:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Biruitorul, your interpretation of what I say is entirely yours. How I choose to express myself is entirely my choice. I would ask you not to be uncivil and address other editors as "idiots". I am not telling anyone to do anything. I am just presenting facts. You on the other hand discard facts, in this case official website of the state of Moldova whose capital we are discussing as "some websites' failure to put the diacritics", which clearly suggests that you do want to tell us what we ought to do, and that is to accept your unverified opinion. I have no "disdain" for diacritics given they are parts of languages.
You just don't get it, do you? There is no consensus about it. The name of the city in English, the language of English Wikipedia, as cited in the official published source for this bit of information, the city name, is Chisinau. The government of Moldova is the best source for this citation. It makes the article title fully compliant with the Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is a Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:Naming conflict is a guideline that binds no one to anything, as is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Wikipedia:Consensus is only required were there is a doubt as to the Verifiability of the content. However, since the move is referenced to a citation which comes from the best source possible, there is no doubt as to what the name of the city is in English, even if the Chişinău is the correct spelling of the city in Moldovan (as it says on the same source), which, as a Romanian, you clearly want to promote as part of that policy. There is no dispute over diacritics. I am simply stating a fact in evidence. It is entirely your problem if you can not accept facts--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Let me just be clear: I didn't call anyone an idiot, I merely said it sounded as if you were making that charge. (For the record, your general tone, and phrases like "editors here are not aware of the relevant policy" and "Wikipedia's ignorance of Language policy" gave rise to that impression.) You are telling us, in effect, that your proposal must be adopted, and discussion is worthless: "this requested move is not subject to voting or consensus discussion" - a rather absurd stance, as I explained. And I'm sorry, I very much do get it: besides me, Piotrus, NikoSilver, Xasha, Eurocoptre and Bogdan have all expressed scepticism about your proposal, leaving just Illythr on your side. I'd call that a consensus in favour of Chişinău. I'm also sorry, but as Burma shows, governments are not in fact the "best possible source" - we do weigh other factors. Finally, do be so kind as not to use my ethnicity to accuse me of seeking to violate NPOV. That could not be farther from the truth, and the charge is disgusting. Thank you. Biruitorul Talk 02:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, my personal preference here lies with the diacritics (I can't believe I'm siding with Bonaparte here), albeit for a subjective reason - the diacritic-less version tends to be corrupted in many curious ways in foreign languages (the French spelling would be "Shizino", for example :-) ), so I think it's best to leave the diacritics (+transcription) in the article - both title and body. Still, mrg does have a point about Wikipedia being a reference work in English and gov.md is a damn good English reference. Guess I'm with Narson on this one... --Illythr (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose — I agree with Biruitorul that "Chişinău" is perfectly proper here as the article's title, that no clear policy reason exists to change it, and that having a redirect from the unaccented version (Chisinau) is sufficient to address the concerns of those who don't understand or can't type the diacritics. Richwales (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The policy says that Wikipedia being a reference work in English, it needs to reflect verifiable sources on titling usage of its article entries. In this case the verification is offered by the state of Moldova. It is neither a matter of propriety, or use of diacritics--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, we use diacritics here in the absence of an established exonym. Sure, the Government of Moldova refers to "Edinet" and "Balti". Sure, the Government of Romania refers to "Pitesti", "Timisoara", "Constanta", to "Calarasi", to "Galati" and to "Brasov". So what? This proves nothing, except that people in Romania/Moldova don't really like using diacritics on their websites. We can do better. We do do better. And we will continue to do better, to uphold accuracy over complacency. Or am I giving you ideas for more move requests? Biruitorul Talk 04:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No move. This is not a situation like Bucharest, which actually has an English name. BalkanFever 07:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care what you think "we" do. All I know is, that everything in Wikipedia is reference material that has to be itself based on authoritative published sources. The source of authority in this case is the published material on the official site of the government of Moldova, and I am applying this towards correcting an error in Wikipedia's reference article. I am not questioning the Government of Moldova, its people, or the pro or cons of using diacritics (since they are used in English). I am just applying a source to the article title as the policy instructs me to do, and that is what I do better--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, starting a reply with "I don't really care what you think" isn't likely to win people over to your argument. Perhaps, you know, he doesn't care what you think - which puts your proposal at risk, given you're outnumbered about 9 to 1 at present. Biruitorul Talk 16:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
One can refer to Chisinau but is always much better to use diacritics. I'm against any move. Praktiker iunie (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC) (striking out comment by banned user) Khoikhoi 22:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This page in English on the Moldovan government site shows the capital's name written both ways ("Chişinău" and "Chisinau") within the same "About the Republic of Moldova" info-box at the bottom of the page. This suggests, to me at least, that there really isn't any settled government policy at work here. Richwales (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh-huh... --Illythr (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose — I agree with Biruitorul and Bogdan. It's pretty clear the Moldovan webmasters got careless about diacritics, but the name of the city remains Chişinău, regardless. Wikipedia uses local diacritics for city names (unless there's another well-established exonym, which is not the case) and it would be a shame to compromise our accuracy in this way. --R O A M A T A A | msg  19:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, right, the webmaster who's only job is to design official webpages fro the government based on policy derived from the European Union, misspelled the city he/she lives in. Surely you can think of a better excuse--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
1. Moldova is neither in the EU nor subject to EU directives. 2. It's not a question of misspelling, but of not bothering to put diacritics. Quite simply, they're a pain; that in no way implies English has an exonym of "Chisinau". But we do use them here.
To quote myself: Again, we use diacritics here in the absence of an established exonym. Sure, the Government of Moldova refers to "Edinet" and "Balti". Sure, the Government of Romania refers to "Pitesti", "Timisoara", "Constanta", to "Calarasi", to "Galati" and to "Brasov". So what? This proves nothing, except that people in Romania/Moldova don't really like using diacritics on their websites. We can do better. We do do better. And we will continue to do better, to uphold accuracy over complacency. Biruitorul Talk 23:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose per the above. "Chisinau" is no exonym, but simply lazily dropping the diacritics. As there is no exonym for Chişinău, we should keep using Chişinău. —Nightstallion 23:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Big infobox problems

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The infobox is wider than my full-screen browser window, and has a big red error text in the middle of it... AnonMoos (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I fixed it... It seems the "seconds" coordinate parameters of the Settlement infobox cannot be left empty. --Illythr (talk) 03:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Much better, thanks. AnonMoos (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

English alphabet

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is there a letter "ş" or letter "ă" in English alphabet ??? The answer is NO, so why is romanian word "Chişinău" used in this article??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.254.48 (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"Puşkin Street"

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

What is the argument, when writing in English, for writing "Puşkin Street" instead of "Pushkin Street"? Presumably it is named after Aleksandr Pushkin, but English-speakers who don't know Romanian/Moldovan may not recognize "Puşkin". We're obviously not writing it in Romanian/Moldovan or it would be "Calea Puşkin". -- Jmabel | Talk 09:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No idea, Pushkin Street sounds reasonable. --Just a tag 13:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, how do Russians feel in Latvia then when their name spellings are thoroughly butchered? Instead for example Nil Ushakov ,the Latvian government make it spell as Nils Ušakovs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.181.67.133 (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A misspelling

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Re "also Chiinau": is this an error caused by a missing accented letter? The Romanian name has s-cedilla (Unicode 351) or more accurately s-comma, and I think the second a is a-breve (Unicode 259).

It's time to remove Chiinau. Fransvannes 13:45 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)
The correct name is Chișinău. The diacritics should be 'ș' (s with a comma below, U0219) and 'ă' (a-breve). S-cedilla is not correct. For more information on the correct Romanian diacritics, check this page (in Romanian). --Nogroup (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

Latest comment: 13 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

There's another city in Arad County, Transylvania that is named "Chişineu" that has its Hungarian name "Kisjenő" (roughly Kishyenoe), which would means in Hungarian "Small John".

Jenő is Eugene. 80.240.227.211 (talk) 11:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

But, usually, more than one placename with an etymology is found in one area and AFAIK, do not know any other name that could be of Hungarian origin in Moldova. bogdan | Talk 21:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I found another etymology, this time an alleged Romanian word, but I couldn't find any proof of its existence in any dictionary. bogdan | Talk 16:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Ca punct de plecare in crearea toponimului a servit un izvor. "Izvor, cismea, fintina arteziana"-aceasta semnificati sã fi avut-o stravechiul cuvant romanesc chisinau, disparut astazi, pastrat doar in toponimie from http://www.kishinev.info/history_ro/

Old village name was "Chişna-Nouă". Transormed with times in "Chişinău". serhio talk 13:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The problems with the etymology "chişmea nouă" are:
1.) I could find no "-mea" > "-i" sound development in Romanian language. The closest reconstructed form from "chişmea nouă" would be "Chişmeneu" or "Chişminău"
2.) In Chişinău even today one of the springs is called “Burcut” (borcut: regionalism meaning "mineral water spring", originating from the Hungarian borkút):
In acelasi an a fost curatit si amenajat izvorul care se numea “Burcut”, situat pe malul sting al riului Bic. Apa lui minerala avea capacitati de vindecare, lecuire. http://www.kishinev.info/history_ro/111857/
The spring, named "Burcut", located on the left bank of the Bik, was cleaned and improved in the same year. Its mineral water had healing power. http://www.eurotravelling.net/moldova/chisinau/chisinau_history.htm
So it is highly unprobable that the name of the city has anything to do with a spring, as it would have been simply named Burcut - see the Transylvanian places satul Borcut (or. Târgu Lăpuş, jud. Maramureş), satul Valea Borcutului (or. Sângeorz-Băi, jud. Bistriţa-Năsăud), satul Valea Borcutului (or. Baia Mare, jud. Maramureş) --Sattila 20:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Attempting to translate the above, please correct the text if I'm wrong, there is one construct ("aceasta semnificati sã fi avut-o") I'm not sure of and one word ("stravechiul") I don't actually know, although its etymology is clear. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

A spring served as the point of departure for this toponym. [It then give several synonyms for "spring", including cişmea which is of Turkish origin, as in Cişmigiu Garden in Bucharest, and then goes on...] This signifies that there would have been a former Romanian word chişinau, now disappeared, remaining only in toponomy.
"Stră-" is a prefix particle (from Latin "extra") that indicates a great distance either in time or in space. străvechi = very old, ancient; strămoş = distant ancestor; a strămuta = to move at a great distance; străfund = down deep; străin = foreigner; stră-stră-bunic = great great grandfather, etc. :-) bogdan | Talk 20:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! So I guessed more or less right... -- Jmabel | Talk 03:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Bogdan, Serhio, (and Sattila if that's not just a sockpuppet: 2 edits to this article, but no other edits ever): Sattila recently made some pretty major edits to this without citations. I've done what I can to beat this back into shape, but could really use some help with citation and sorting it out. Some of what Sattila added is close to, but doesn't quite match the information at http://www.kishinev.info/history_ro/. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Jmabel, believe me, if we use Jenő in Hungarian as a christian name (and not as the name of a tribe), it is not John, it is Eugen (it is a fact)! I know because I am a Hungarian from Romania, and I speak quite well both languages.

If it is Romanian "Eugen", the English equivalent is "Eugene". -- Jmabel | Talk 04:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Bogdan, you say "do not know any other name that could be of Hungarian origin in Moldova". Although they may exist, the most well known is Orhei which may derive from the Hungarian Várhely (pronounced Varhei - fortified place). For the va > o change see varos (Hung.)> oras (Rom.), Varad (Hung.) > Oradea (Rom.). I earned my master in socio-etno-linguistics in Cluj, Romania, and there the va > o shift was tought as one of the few certain points (aggreed by both sides) of Romanian-Hungarian interaction.

Yes. I was wrong: I found out later about Orhei. In the other side of the Prut there are more toponyms, including Szűcsvár/Suceava and possibly Bacău. (Etymological list of counties of Romania)
Orhei does fit phonetically, when comparing with the Udvarhely > Odorhei. bogdan 11:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

EREMIA Anatol, in his work: TOPONIMIA REPUBLICII MOLDOVA: STUDIU ETIMOLOGIC, LEXICAL–SEMANTIC ŞI DERIVAŢIONAL; PRINCIPII DE REGLEMENTARE, Chisinau, 2004, ACADEMIA DE ŞTIINŢE A REPUBLICII MOLDOVA, INSTITUTUL DE LINGVISTICĂ, also mentions toponims like Făgădău, Feredeu, Ghidighici, Heleşteie, Micleuşeni, Şendreni, Tăuri, which he considers Romanian toponyms having at the root regionalisms with Hungarian origins, or antroponims of Hungarian origin (he also considers orhei (fortified place) a regionalism deriving from Hungarian, although I couldn't find it in any Romanian dictionary of regionalisms).

Please read this as a constructive criticism, as the whole article about Chisineu is written in a professional manner, and it would be a pity if there would remain in it texts like c(h)işmea nouă > chişinău which cannot be defended in liguistic terms.

Actually both "Chişineu" (of Crişana) and "Chişinău" (of Moldova) fit Romanian phonetics, the variability e/ă being akin to the one in the word Dumnezeu/Dumnezău (Dumnezău is used in parts of Moldavia and Maramureş). bogdan 11:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
You are right. Also in Crisana, there is an Ineu - Inău alternation in pronunciation - so it is highly presumable that the names Chişineu(-Criş) and Chisinău are related. Sattila 13:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Although it is your choice - now I won't edit the article, not to be acused of (hungarian) nationalism.

The reason I edited the article is that I consider Hungarian-Moldavian confluences one of the most exciting fields of linguistics and history (see the mistery of the huge amount of regionalisms having Hungarian origins, Atelkuzu - see Wikipedia article - the former country of Hungarians located in Moldova, the ceangai - csango people, the medieval Hungarian village of Ciuburciu - Csöbörcsök etc. etc.

Yours Attila

I have no particular subject-matter expertise here; I'll just keep attempting to edit for style, etc., and asking questions when I need to understand something. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I rephrased/shortened my contribution about the possible connectin with Chisineu-Cris. Reason: I just found out that Jenő/Eugene as Christian name has been used in Hungarian only from the beginning of the 19th century. As the name of this settlement from Crisana can be documented from the 14th century, the only etimology possible is from the Jenő tribe - confirmed by absolutely all Hungarian /and the majority of Romanian/ ethimologists. --Sattila 16:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

A misspelling șş

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please change ş to ș more details here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-comma — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mywikipiki (talk • contribs) 07:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Chișinău/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Rated Start
  1. Cite sources for facts. WP:FOOT
  2. Implement properly formatted references. WP:CITET
Alan.ca 11:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 11:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Chișinău. 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) 17:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chișinău. 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) 12:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chișinău. 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) 20:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chișinău/Archive_2&oldid=1145403344"