Talk:Moldova/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

From the deleted redirect's talk page

I'm noticing the beginnings of an edit war here. Please sort out where this article is going to redirect here on the talk page rather than reverting each other's edits. Thanks --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 14:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Telex is the only one who is reverting the page to the disambiguation page which is a bit confusing. I am certain that by far the majority of searches of Moldova refer to the Republic of Moldova. The other forms have a different form altogether (i.e. Moldavia), the sole exception being the Moldova (Romanian region), however that is a part of Romania and users wanting to go to that page can get there through the disambig page or the Romanian page, but in any case I am sure that it gets less hits than the Republic of Moldova article. TSO1D 14:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable position to me. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 14:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

As there's been no further comment, I've moved Republic of Moldova to Moldova. —Nightstallion (?) 06:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the new configuration fails to convey the (important) information that Moldova and Moldavia are the same name, which is then used for many things. I don't see why the disambiguation page is not the main page for Moldova, and why the "Republic of Moldova" is the main use of Moldova. I proposed a new structure in the previous paragraph. Dpotop 07:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What you fail to address is the principle of most common use and the principle of least astonishment. 95% of all instances of "Moldova" refer to the country, not to the territory, the river, or anything else. I'm strongly in favour of keeping it this way. —Nightstallion (?) 10:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What you fail to understand is that there is only a problem of translation. My roots are from Moldova (Romanian province, former Principality). It's just like Alsace and Elsass pointing to different pages. Note that in French there is no difference between the two. Dpotop 12:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Again with the sophistry? Dude, you were not born in "Moldova" as English uses Moldova, but in MOLDAVIA (which only Romanians call "Moldova"). There. Dahn 12:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. In English, Moldova almost always means Republic of Moldova. —Nightstallion (?) 12:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Dpotop, I understand your point, yes in Romania the term Moldova would in fact refer to both the Republic and the region of Romania. Nevertheless, English does differentiate the two, and no matter how odd it might seem to a native speaker (me included), it is still the conventional use of the two names and we cannot deviate from that model here. Vox Populi (TSO) 14:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sophistry yourself, Dahn. :) You are saying that only Romanians say Moldova, but I remind you that Moldovans themselves say "Romanian Moldova" (Moldova Romaneasca) when talking of the Romanian territory. Also, everybody is not dumb enough to say "Moldova" just because the Moldovan government decided they wanted the official translation of the country name to be the untranslated name. The french say "Republique de Moldavie" (but some international organizations say "Republique de Moldova"), the germans say "Moldau/Moldawien" (basically the same word). And on ru.wiki the situation is reversed. Moldavia is the Republic of Moldova, and Moldova is Moldavia. So, Dahn, my parents were born in Moldova by Russian/German/French standards. :) Dpotop 14:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not suggesting here to forget that in English Moldova is mostly used for the Republic of Moldova. I'm just saying that given the degree of confusion concerning the two versions, both "Moldova" and "Moldavia" should point to the same disambiguation page (whichever one you choose), which should explain the name (and nuances), and then link to the various pages. It's not a question of nationalism, or even use. It's just pragmatism - helping people (not only americans or british) searching for Moldova (RO) or Moldavia (MO) while not knowing that you have decided to separate them based on Google searches. Dpotop 14:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to look at this from a pragmatic perspective, then it is even more logical to keep the current configuration. I am certain that the majority of users searching for the term Moldova mean the country and thus the link would take them directly to it. If that is not what they are searching for, then right at the top of the page there is the link to the disambiguation page, or alternatively they could go through the main Romania page to reach their destination. Vox Populi (TSO) 14:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What Vox Populi said. This is a *clear* case of a primary topic which should be at this place instead of the dab page. —Nightstallion (?) 14:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents: Since it looks like there's a confusion about "Moldova", "Moldavia", etc. I think the most reasonable thing to do is Moldova to point to disambiguation page. The official name is "Republic of Moldova" not "Moldova" it also make sense from the historical point of view -- the republic is only half of the historic "Moldova" or "Moldavia" (BTW, Romanians call it Moldova, Moldavia is the English translation, or Latin like in "Descriptio Moldaviae"). AdrianTM 15:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This is English Wikipedia, and the most common meaning of "Moldova" is the country. Countries usually take priority over regions. —Khoikhoi 15:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The name of the country is "Republic of Moldova" not "Moldova" (just like "America" doesn't go directly to "United States of America"). I think this discussion shows clearly that there is some confusion about the issue, therefore the need for a disambig page. AdrianTM 16:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So Germany should be at Federal Republic of Germany, and Cuba should be at Republic of Cuba? —Khoikhoi 16:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if there would be a Cuba in another country or if Germany would still be devided, I think that Germany would not have went directly to "Federal Republic of Germany" when there was still a East Germany (GDR. Since there's no confusion about what is Cuba and what is Germany there's no reason for a disambig page, however in this case there is confusion and "Moldova" is not the official name AdrianTM 16:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

But as Nightstallion said, "95% of all instances of "Moldova" refer to the country, not the territory". —Khoikhoi 16:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Where did he get that statistic from? AdrianTM 16:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, but it is true that in English, "Moldova" almost always refers to the country, so a dab page is unnecessary. —Khoikhoi 16:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I can make up statistics too :-) As for English I wouldn't be so sure, for example Princeton online dictionary [1] gives Moldova and Moldavia as synonyms. In my mind the words are synonyms just like "Rumania, Romania, Roumania" just different spelling depending on period and where you get the word from. You'll find all those variants in English -- AdrianTM 16:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess we think differently. ;) Another factor is the pages that link here. Almost of the links are about the country. —Khoikhoi 17:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me propose an end to this debacle.

1. Moldova should direct here
2. A disambig at the top of the article: Moldova redirects here. For other uses, see Moldova (disambiguation).
3. On the disambig page, you will find: the republic, the river, and Moldova is also the Romanian name of Moldavia (where "Moldavia" is rendered with all articles possible - Nota bene: the 14,000 articles for the same Moldavia (Romanian region, principality, etc.) should be turned into a single one, especially since all regions of Moldavia that are not in Romania are well-covered individually (Bessarabia, Budjak, even goddamn Hertza region).
4. My fellow Romanians, stop being absurd, and stop inventing languages. Dahn 17:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You are talking about inventions, when "Moldova", in English, is a pure invention of some bureaucrats some 10 years ago? Who is absurd here?

I also have another example, closer to our case: Macedonia. This is a country, but due to an obvious ambiguity, the page Macedonia is the disambiguation page. Regardless of the fact that most westerners say Macedonia today. Dpotop 18:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Your analogy would only make sense if Moldova claimed to be called Moldavia in English. Dahn 18:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That's because of the huge naming controversy and the fact that Greeks are offended by calling the country Macedonia. There isn't the same issue going on with Moldova. —Khoikhoi 18:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

But of course it is. You people are trying to hijack a Romanian name and present it as a different one. You are practically putting a copyright on "Moldova", and imposing it. Dpotop 18:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

See, this is what you really mean... come on, man, this really makes no sense. Dahn 18:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course I mean it. When american dictionaries cannot agree on how to write it, how can you be so sure? Princeton gives the two words as synonyms. Merriam-Webster gives "Moldova" as a sub-case of Moldavia. And "Moldovan" does not exist, just "Moldavian". Dpotop 18:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What? —Khoikhoi 18:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me find a true analogy, Dpotop: the difference between Savoy and Savoie (both are Savoie in French). Dahn 18:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the French definition of "Savoy" is fr:Savoy "The English name of Savoie", and the English don't have two words for the same thing. This is exactly what I propose: A disambig page that explains exactly this, and where all the other are linked. Dpotop 18:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No, dude. That is not a "definition" as much as an explanation of why it keeps popping out in English. See fr:Savoie for the French complexity. My point was about ENGLISH, and you have not answered it one bit. To go further, tell me if "American dictionaries" bother referencing a native of Savoie as opposed to a native of Savoy... (whereas wikipedia need to: see Category:People of Brittany and its subcat Category:Natives of Bretagne). A slip of the pen is by no means "proof". Dahn 18:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but I would agree to having "Moldavia" to point to "Moldova" and then explain all the complexity of "Moldova" on the "Moldova" page. Just as you wish. Just don't take the word "Moldova" and set an exclusive use for the "Republic of Moldova". Dpotop 19:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

We use English on these pages. Dahn 19:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

But if in English (not Romanian) one meaning of a word is by far more common than another, why is a dab page necessary? —Khoikhoi 18:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all the "Moldova" -- "Moldavia" difference is silly, it's obvious a different spelling of the same name, the words are used interchangable for the same thing (see English dictionaries). Since Moldova country and Moldova part of Romania formed a unit in the past it is silly to diferentiate between them based on a spelling that's not even uniform accepted. The best way to diferentate between Moldova country and Moldova county is to have a disambig page -- end of confusions, that's the purpose of disambig pages right? -- AdrianTM 19:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"Since Moldova country and Moldova part of Romania" - who the hell is talking about them? The principality and the region both are not (should not be) "Moldova", but "Moldavia". Dahn 19:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Says Dahn, but not English dictionaries. "Moldova" is a new word in English, introduced by the lack of culture of some translators. It should disappear, or be used as a synonym to Moldavia (just like Princeton mentions it). Dpotop 19:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

K. You point me a single example of professional Anglo-Saxon historians using "Moldova" instead of "moldavia". Dahn 19:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

But this is exactly my point: "Moldova/Moldovan" is the recent invention of some incompetent translator. It's just like a Romanian I met on a place that came from "London", instead of "Londra". You should not use it just because some people don't know better. However, I can see the point in keeping the term, for it's largely use. So, let's combine correctness with coverage and say that "Moldova=Moldavia and this is the name of X,Y,Z,...". Dpotop 19:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not the "recent invention", it is self-designation in English. Again: if Moldova would not be used for the Republic, it would not be used at all. Whatever you may think of that, it is not equal to Moldavia. Nuance may be established "artificially", but it is very much there. You would make sense if "Moldova" would be in use for things other than the Republic and the river. It is not. Dahn 19:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Dpotop 19:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but only when one meaning is as equally common as another. Answer this question: In English, what is the most common meaning of "Moldova"? The country or the territory? —Khoikhoi 19:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The respective articles present both names of the regions, that is not a problem. However, from a practical viewpoint, making Moldova redirect to a disambiguation page would cause numerous problems. First of all there is a multitude of already existing links that point to the Republic of Moldova through its abbreviated name. Secondly, as most searches for the word refer to the country it is irrational to link Moldova to a disambiguation page. I am not denying the fact that Moldova can be used in the English language to refer to the Romanian region (albeit less often), frankly I don't care what the names of the articles about the principality or the region are, I just think that it does not make sense to make Moldova link to a dab page when the vast majority of the word's uses refer to the state.Vox Populi (TSO) 19:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

But if it's technically complicated, why on Earth did you move "Republic of Moldova" to "Moldova"? Dpotop 19:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Lemme break it down for you again: Moldova does not exist in English other than as a rare reference to what the Romanians use for "Moldavia" and for the Republic of Moldova. To an English-speaker (and an Italian, French, Spanish or whatever speaker, your ancestry is Moldavian, not Moldovan) Dahn 19:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about spanish, but in French, I'm "moldave de Moldavie", but so is anyone from Chisinau. French makes no difference between "Moldova" and "Moldavia", and it's perfect. Dpotop 19:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

And of course "Moldova is a new word: the country itself is new! Shall we use "Kyrgyzia" and "Turkestan" instead of the new names? "Romania" itself came as a new name, causing confusion with traditional references: Romania (disambiguation) (to which we should add that it was also the common reference to Rumelia. Dahn 19:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Moldova was the official name of what you call "Pricipality of Moldavia" for example: "Io, Stefan voievod, domn al Moldovei" ("Moldovei" is just a declension of Moldova, otherwise it would have been: "domn al Moldavei") AdrianTM 19:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, God. How many more times need I state this? It was not the name (traditional, official) in English.19:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Nor is "Moldova", it's "Republic of Moldova" that's the official name, that's why we need a dab page.AdrianTM 19:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You would only make sense if the state insisted on calling itself "the Republic of Moldavia". Otherwise, let me point out that "official usage" is not in any way coined, and Moldova only alternates Republic of Moldova in English (that and the river in Romania). It is offical usage for the Romanian flag to have a crest on it at all times, but it does not. It should be usage to have our country called "Republic of Romania", but we do not (if "Republic of Romania" could redirect to Romania, so could "Moldova" to "Republic of Moldova"; click Czechia). Dahn 19:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Dahn, you are mixing words and translations. Moldova is not a new word. The word existed for many centuries. It's just its second English translation that is new. Dpotop 19:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Really, do you think I'm an idiot? Does it "exist for centuries" in English? Btw, aren't you contradicting yourself? You said just now (your words, not mine) that the term was "coined by translators". Dahn 19:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you read my post? I think not. Dpotop 19:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I had. "Second English translation"? Why "second"? Dahn 19:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, it appears to me that English translation is a nice instrument for manipulation. Hiding relationships, enforcing them, can be easily done by choosing the "right" translation. And such a thing can obviously be done easily , in less than 10 years, and people start to believe in this. Dpotop 19:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, they're all in on this. Now go and redirect Savoie to Savoy and Bretagne to Brittany. Dahn 19:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure in Romania there are Moldavians and in Moldova there are Moldovans, soon will talk about Moldovan minority in Romania and Moldavian minority in Moldova. Ridiculous! Moldova or Moldavia refer to the same thing, they are synonyms, more precisely are different spelling just like "Roumania" and "Romania" AdrianTM 19:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Simply: no. Dpotop, why does this need to fall back on ethnonationalism? 19:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you a Enlish language specialist? I provided a link that shows that AT LEAST IN ONE CASE English dictionaries treat Moldova and Moldavia alike -- a dab page is required just exactly because of the confusion that Moldova/Moldavia might cause. AdrianTM 19:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

And I have proved why you are wrong. See Savoy/Savoie, Category:People of Brittany/Category:Natives of Bretagne etc. The point is certainly not about a case where dictionaries don't care (because that is how I describe their attitude), but on whether "Moldova used for something other than the river and the Republic in the English language" is a sustainable logic. Answer, then. Dahn 19:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You invoke again English language, I showed you with a link to a dictionary that in English Moldova and Moldavia are synonym. If you were English expert I would accept your opinon though. Otherwise it looks like English language is not decided as you are. Since there's potential confusion and because people that search for info on Wikipedia don't know from the start the fine differences as you do maybe is a good idea to have a dab page AdrianTM 19:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Mere sophistry, and the same willingness to coach readers in some direction. Answer my question. Dahn 20:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not qualified to answer about Savoy/Savoie since I don't know French well enough and nothing about the issue. I provided the proof that English treats Moldova = Moldavia, that's not sophistry. It's also common sense, they were part of the same region why would they have different spelling? If English speakers say "Republic of Moldova" they can say "Moldova county" as well since that's the official name. AdrianTM 20:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You have not pointed out that according to sources Moldova=Moldavia, but that, for this one dictionary, Moldova is at most a Romanian alternative of Moldavia. For the Republic of Moldova, this has no consequence: this is why I say your points would make sense if the Rep. of Moldova would want to be called "Moldavia". As to "being of the same region - why different spelling" argument, let me point out that all you need to do in order to investigate the Savoy parallel is click Savoy and Savoie (which, by your standards, should be called "Department of Savoie", because "Savoie", although not synonymous with "Savoy", although not used instead of Savoy, is the French language spelling of Savoy! I fail to see how that would make any sense). There: we satisfy the demands of English, not of "unionism". Dahn 20:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Accorting to at least one dictionary Moldova=Moldavia, that's enough by me. You could challange that the dictionary is wrong but that is kind of "original research" don't you think?That doesn't have anything to do with "unionism" it has to do with sanity. English has been inconsistent with "Romania" too, see "Romania", "Rumania", and "Roumania" BTW, Moldova is not "at most a Romanian alternative" is the only name in Romanian.AdrianTM 20:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, you keep avoiding the point. I have asked you if "Moldova" is used on a relevant basis (not "one dictionary", even if we use your clever "at least one dictionary") as a synonym for "Moldavia". Even if the word was "invented" for the Republic of Moldova, please explain if "Moldova" is used in English as a name for the principality or the Romanian region. If your objection states that the word has been "invented" as "an alternative for Moldavia", then forget sticking to "Republic of Moldova" instead of "Moldova" - CHANGE IT TO "REPUBLIC OF MOLDAVIA". D.O. Y.O.U. S.E.E. M.Y. P.O.I.N.T? "BTW, Moldova is not "at most a Romanian alternative" is the only name in Romanian." - yes, son, that is what I mean: a mere Romanian alternative of an English word in English (clue: I speaks Romanian) It is of no goddamn relevance how many or few forms it has in Romanian. Dahn 21:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The word "Moldova" is obviously not invented, only that they chose not to "translate" "Republic of Moldova". I don't have anything against "Republic of Moldavia" only that's not its official name. It's not my fault that English translators are/were inconsistent and "translate" official name of the county and historical region, but they don't translate the offical name of the country. However, how I showed in the link I provided, that's not an universal rule. People that don't know the fine differences between "Moldova" and "Moldavia" might get confused. I agree though that we might need to keep it linked like this because too many pages point directly to "Moldova". AdrianTM 22:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

(moved to the left to make it easier to read)
Again: its use in Romanian is completely irrelevant. And again: your comments about "inconsistency in translation" should make you hurry up and change this article's title to "Republic of Moldavia", since you state that Moldavia and Moldova are, and are intended to be, synonymous. And again: what you point out in just one link out of a gazillion (which, btw, I'm sure makes a clear distinction between the "Republic of Moldova" and "Moldavia", if it may forget to make one between "Moldova" and "Moldavia" - Goodness knows why) in no way adds to the topic at hand - for "Moldova" to be necessary as a disambig one would have to have both widespread instances where "Moldova" replaces "Moldavia" and those where "Republic of Moldavia" features as a self-designation. Otherwise, Moldova (this very succession of letters, not another) refers to the Republic and the river; as I have stated, this page should serve as direct link to "Moldova", with a disambig at the top on the pattern of "Moldova redirects here etc." - the disambig should perhaps make reference to the fact that it is the Romanian name of Moldavia (which is why the Republic has this name). And, please, stop adding irrelevant criteria like "what if tommorrow Romania will have a Moldovan minority?": if you, against all social science, consider the question of ethnicity to be "mathematically correct" (and not subjective splatter), at least note that the world has lived for longer without such "dilemmas" than without them... nobody seems to care that tomorrow "we" may have (oh, Golly, no!) a Walloon minority inside France, a Flemish one in The Netherlands, or an Austrian one in Germany. Just so you may see why I find the repetition of themes such as "Moldavian Moldovan Romania of Romanians them poor guys might not want be, but they are nonetheless Romanians whatever that means" counter-productive. Dahn 22:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

languages are not mathematic either, I speak English, I refer to that part of Romania as "Moldova", I'm not the only one as I demonstrated. Look in Moldova_(Romanian_region) it's "Moldova (also Moldavia)" so it's an equivalent name. You can make backwards flips if you want but you can't deny that's the same name written differently. I have no intent to change the title to "Republic of Moldavia" since that's not the official name. It's also not productive if you start to patronize me. -- AdrianTM 23:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You may refer to it in whartever way you like. When you have impact on English, I'll make sure we reference you. It is an interesting idea to reference wikipedia (especially an article I deeply object to, because it is pure invention of English, for what should be known as Moldavia) when carrying out debates about what wikipedia should include (it is also not admissible). Using your logic, the word "Moldavia" ought to be erased entirely from English, because it does not reflect your feeling about how Moldova and Moldavia are one and the same. If you keep coming up with the same twists of sophistry, I'll patronize you for years to come. Dahn 00:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That was just an example to show that languages are not fixed. I provided you a link to a dictionary that shows "Moldova" and "Moldavian" as equivalent. That's enough for me, that's a possibility of confusion, dab pages are exactly for that. You provided only your opinion about English (that's original research) Stop puting words in my mouth or trying to guess my ulterior motives. I didn't say that's anything wrong with the word "Moldavia" I just said that Moldova is a different spelling of Moldavia. Of course with your logic Roumania and Romania are 2 different countries. AdrianTM 00:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not provide "my opinion about English". I'm beginning to think that it's not that the clear points I make are not understood, but rather that they are ignored: you have failed to answer to a single point of what I have said, and you keep returning to that dictionary example because it is the one trick of word-magic that would make your vision seem justified. 10:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop the bulshiting about nationalism because that's not it, it's about calling things on their name.

I presume that's Dahn. Well, you know, words do matter. In an ideal liberal world, maybe they shouldn't (I'm not sure about this), but they matter today and for some time to come. Also, changing habits is difficult. So, when someone manages to impose a new, alternate translation for a region/country name, I'm thinking "why?" Some moldovans say that "Moldavia" was imposed by the Soviets. Which is false, but anyway, let's let them do it. But why should we change the way we talk because someone tells us to? I also understand official names. So "Republic of Moldova" is OK with me. But why "Moldova"? I cannot accept having this word being used as though it were different from "Moldavia"? This is not conspiracy theory, it's common sense. I should not be forced to change my habits by newcomers using my old words. Dpotop 19:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank for that insight. Perhaps, one day, wikipedia will come and ask you on every matter, so your vision of the world may find full voice. In the meanwhile, Moldova will cover two and only two meanings in English: the Republic (yes, with or without "Republic of"), and the river. And I fail to see how this is about what you believe Moldova means. 20:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't allow original research, claiming that English does or does not is original research. I provided a proof that shows that English treats Moldova = Moldavia, therefore a dab page is necessary to remove potential confusion AdrianTM 20:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

By all means: if you state it somewhere else on the page, you are somehow right. See my point above. Dahn 20:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm quite conservative. I don't like change, unless it's justified. Change for the sake of change is not good. Also, in science you have "Occam's razor", which basically says you should look for the simplest explanation or structure of something. Dpotop 20:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

And this is your way of saying: "Whoever opposes ny POV is an amateur cahnging things just for the sake of changing". Hm, quite sage. Dahn 20:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't really believe that people will cease to understand the historical and cultural links between the Republic of Moldova and the rest of Moldavia/Moldova because of the nominal title in English of the two entities. Vox Populi (TSO) 19:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

But then why did you move that page? If it's not important, anyway, why did you move it? Dpotop 19:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Because the vast majority of users who type in "Moldova" expect to find the article about the country in Europe, so per the principle of least astonishment (together with the fact that it's actually its official short name!), the article should be here. —Nightstallion (?) 07:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

But then, again, this principle does not apply to Macedonia? Or is there a hierarchy of "principles"? Dpotop 10:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a hierarchy of sorts, and on top of that are the five pillars, including WP:NPOV. Greece disputes Macedonia's right to use "Macedonia", the Republic of Ireland does not consist of all of Ireland and that fact is held up high by Unionists in Northern Ireland, but to the best of my knowledge noone in Romania disputes Moldova's right to call itself "Moldova", so there's no reason for the article *not* to be at Moldova. —Nightstallion (?) 16:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, nightstallion, I expect now you do the same for Macedonia

The majority use of Macedonia, just like for Moldova, is the Republic of Macedonia. I don't see why you would "apply wikipedia policy" here, but not there. If you don't show signs of trying to do it, nor justify why you wouldn't, I will assume I break no wikipedia policy in moving "Moldova" back to "Republic of Moldova". Dpotop 06:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. AdrianTM 06:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that Moldova's right to use "Moldova" as the short form of its name, or indeed the name "Republic of Moldova", is not at all disputed by Romania. If you think the cases are comparable, then you clearly know too little about the two subjects at hand. —Nightstallion (?) 06:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's not disputed, because for most Romanians Moldova=Moldavia, even in English. Just try to tell a group of English-speaking Romanians that Moldova!=Moldavia, and that they should not say Moldova in English to refer to their region because it's taken by the "Republic of Moldova". Unless you fall unto some clone of Dahn, they would probably laugh at you. Dpotop 10:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So, when we want to interpret the policies of the Romanian gvt. But you keep going with "Dahn's failure to fulfil his duties as a Romanian" and whatnot. The fact is that no intelligent person, in Romania or wherever, uses "Moldova" for "Moldavia" when speaking in English - especially not gvt. members. But I shouldn't even get involved in the ad populum. This is all you have in your point's defense by now, Dpotop: ad populum and melodrama. Dahn 10:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've never said that "Dahn's fails to fulfil his duties as a Romanian". Actually, I believe you are a very good Romanian. But maybe some of your oppinions are very liberal, much more than the average Romanian ones. Actually, you're one of the most liberal persons I've ever "met". Also, your views on "rational government" (the way you reject subjective issues such as nationalism in evaluating policies) are off-charts w.r.t. those of other Romanians I know. Which makes for very interesting discussions. Dpotop 10:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

To Nightstallion 's point I would like to add another same common sense thing (at the risk of repeating myself): "Macedonia" would work as an analogy only if the Republic of Moldova would claim the name Republic of Moldavia. This is an obvious thing! and you either missed its connontations by now, or you pretend not to notice because you know you have no point in hell. 10:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So you pretend that Moldova is a new word just because some crackpot used it untranslated in English. It's just like saying that SUA and USA are not synonymous in Romanian. Or that "Switzerland" and "Swiss Confederation" are not synonymous. Well, it seems that you guys form a majority here, so I won't insist. But I still think what you do is wrong. Dpotop 10:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And you change your point entirely every couple of hours or so? Didn't you originally say that it was an invented word in English (in English: let us not mix the two)? Oh, but then you remembered that your original mission was to connect as much of Moldova to Moldavia and Romania... Actually, your point is saying that "Swiss Conf." and "Switzerland" "are not synonymous", since you reject the notion that "Moldova and Republic of Moldova are synonymous" - btw, officially, Switzerland is always the Confederation, and yet... If you want a logical analogy, for the fifth time: Moldavia is to Moldova what Savoy is to Savoie, what Brittany is to Bretagne, what Russia is to Ruthenia, what France is to Île-de-France etc etc etc. Moldova as Moldova is not contested by the Romanian government, Moldova is not the proper English name of the Romanian region, the Romanian region does not have juridical existence, Moldova would not be used at all in English were it not for the Republic and (for those who bother) the river. This is a reasonable point to make, and not clinging on towhat must look to you as "annoying them Russians". Dahn 10:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I find the general aspect now to be very accurate (Moldova redirects to Republic of Moldova, and a dismbig which states that "Moldova or Moldavia also refer to etc"); however, I think that "Moldavia" should redirect to a single article for the Principality, Romanian region and region in general (because they are one and the same thing), with the same link to the disambig at the top of the article. Dahn 13:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to move Republic of Ireland while you're at it. --Telex 10:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Double standards are not neccesary. Please revise all countries. --200.109.38.53 13:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody denies the right of Republic of Moldova to use "Moldova" however I think that is relevant that "Moldavia" in Romanian is "Moldova", why is relevant?

• First of all the official name of country/region/river/etc are more and more preferred to the translated ones (by the way that's why "Republic of Moldova" is not translated to "Republic of Moldavia" either), as I successfully showed the name is uses as this even in English (I could provide more examples, even in Wikipedia there are people who link to Moldova but they mean "Moldova region in Romania")
• Second, since this is the official name in Romanian many people might read something in Romanian and search for the name "Moldova" to find out more about the subject -- if "Moldova" goes directly to the Republic of Moldova that is confusing. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to eliminate confusion.

So at least in my view I don't "deny the right of Republic of Moldova" to use the name of "Moldova" the issue here that we deny the right of Romanians to call their part of the country how they want. (Dahn will probably say "Romanians have the right to call Moldova how they want in Romanian, but in English is Moldavia" -- Please read my points to see why that's not and also try to understand that your opinions about English language are original research as long as I have a clear example in an English dictionary that Moldova is used as a synonym for Moldavia. -- AdrianTM 16:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Simply put, nope. The most common meaning of "Moldova" is the country; people who find out that the article they arrive at (about the country) is not the one that fits what they were looking for will see the dab notice at the top and find out that Moldova means other things, as well. —Nightstallion (?) 16:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, given the fact that most of the pages that link to Moldova refer to the Republic not the Romanian region the redirection should probably stay this way, I end up my support for change, for what I'm concerned the dicussion ends here, you can move it at your convenience in Archive so we won't have all this shit in the talk page. AdrianTM 22:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)