Talk:Regions of the People's Republic of Romania

Fair use rationale for Image:Romania1950-1952.jpg

Image:Romania1950-1952.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Regions of the People's Republic of Romania. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Administrative divisions of the Socialist Republic of Romania → Administrative divisions of the People's Republic of Romania – I know that, when a defunct state had more than one name, there's a general practice to use the final name of the state in article titles, but in this case, that's fairly absurd. Among the precious few differences between the Romanian People's Republic (RPR) and the Romanian Socialist Republic (RSR) was the ditching of the Soviet-style regions in favor of the more traditional counties. Yes, it's true that the RSR was established in August 1965 and that the change did not happen until February 1968. But in Romanian historiography, the regions are intimately associated with the RPR, and with good reason. The RPR was established in December 1947 and switched to regions fairly quickly, in September 1950. It continued using them for the remainder of its existence. The RSR leadership (i.e., Ceaușescu) had decided to scrap the regions by 1967, a little over a year into the RSR's existence, and implemented the change early the following year, after the work of drawing up the new subdivisions was complete. The RSR retained the counties until its collapse in December 1989.

In sum: yes, the RSR did briefly use regions, but that was an ephemeral and transitory period. For 90% of its history, the RSR was divided into counties, not regions. It was the RPR that set up the regions and used them for the remainder of its existence, and for that reason, the RPR alone is commonly associated with regions.

I'm aware that the corresponding category was also moved, and will ask for a move back to the original title, should this request succeed. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The proposed title is more accurate. —  AjaxSmack  04:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see any reason, why this article should use a different name in the title as the article about the state (People's Republic of Romania). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how to respond to that, given that I argued at length why the change should be made. The bottom line is, the RSR was divided into counties for almost its entire existence, while regions - detailed in this article - were used by the RPR from early in its existence until it ended. Indeed, this was a key difference between the two phases - regions were replaced by counties soon after the RSR was set up. I know consistency is good, but taken too far, it becomes inaccurate, as is the case with the present title. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
    • The articles title is "Administrative divisions of the Socialist Republic of Romania", and this could encompass both counties and regions at the same time. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, except that the counties are basically the same today as they have been since 1968, so we have counties of Romania for that. How about Regions of the People's Republic of Romania instead? - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Support Regions of the People's Republic of Romania, it's clearly better. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nominator. It is more accurate as Administrative divisions of the People's Republic of Romania. I prefer "divisions". It is more in sync with the corresponding categories Category:Administrative divisions of the Socialist Republic of Romania and Category:Lists of country subdivisions. "Regions" has more of a geographical/historical feel and is not a good fit. --Codrin.B (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The category should/will be moved, while the larger category contains articles with a wide range of titles: Regions of Iceland, Arrondissements of Belgium, Sucos of East Timor, Governorates of Egypt, Neighbourhood Councils of Guyana, List of Polish gminas, States of Brazil, Jamoats of Tajikistan, Resorts of Suriname, Former regions of Bahrain, Okrugs of the Ukrainian SSR, Mukims of Brunei… and Counties of Romania. All have a geographic feel, and where appropriate, a historical one as well. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.