Wikipedia:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Marea Unire a Moldovei!

Anyone who has visited articles about Moldavia must have seen how scattered all the information is. No other Romanian region has as many overlapping articles describing them. I propose merging Principality of Moldavia, Moldova (historical region), and Moldova (Romanian region). I am thinking that Moldavia should remain mainly a disambiguation page, whereas the articles should all be concentrated into Moldavia (historical region). Another important task is dividing the article History of Moldova into two section, the main part that discusses the principality before the union with Wallachia and the other describing the fate of Bessarabia. Thus one section would go into the Moldavia history section, whereas the other would stay in the Moldova history section with a link to the former. TSO1D 21:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I propose that the merger lead to the creation of an article entitled Moldavia, and not Moldavia (historical region). Dahn 21:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that would make the format exactly to what is used for other regions, ex. Transylvania. In any case, I think it's better if we move everything to Moldavia (historical region) first, put it together, and then simply move it to Moldavia in a few days. TSO1D 21:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good tactic. Dahn 23:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think at this point I have moved most of the information from Principality of Moldavia and Moldova (Romanian region) to Moldavia (historical region). If someone finds something that I missed, please add it there. In any case, if no opposition will appear, I want to delete the former two articles. TSO1D 03:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I also thoink we should consider merging History of Moldavia into the article, following what has been done for Wallachia. After all, the info is not that long, the main sense of the article is historical, and we could reference articles which already exist as the main articles (Origin of the Romanians, Romania in the *something* Age etc, - which focus on a history per total). Plus, there are also excellent articles around that deal with successions of events, which could be referenced instead of repeating information (see Moldavian Magnate Wars) What do you think? Dahn 03:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are right, the current History of Moldavia article is not that long and integrating it into Moldavia (historical region) should not present great obstacles. I only fear that if other users will want to elaborate on the history of the Principality the article might become too long. For example Transylvania has a History of Transylvania article, although the latter is substantially greter than the current History of Moldavia. I guess we can merge them for now, and if it becomes too great in the future we can always re-create the history article or as you said simply have links to sections about certain periods. TSO1D 03:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If they do elaborate there, we'll move it to relevant articles by period - that is, if added info is indeed relevant (if they start adding details about Stephen's childhood...). The article on Transylvania would need a cleanup, getting rid of all absurdities (such as the fact that the part on the 1848 Revolution is largely a copy-paste work from Avram Iancu) and irrelevant and unverified stuff about the "civilization of the Dacians" (which, if we need at all, do actually belong on Dacia or Dacians - after all, they are in there only to push Romanian paranoia that if you don't repeat the claim of antecedence or whatever on every single line of a text, people will forget; equivalent to a similar parade put on show but some Hungarians). And I don't even want to deal yet with what some boys in green have been doing recently (not just New Rightisms, but plagiarism - I will say no more for now). Dahn 04:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Also: detail should be pushed towards topical articles if it gets all big and healthy. For example, the article we have now on the Republic of Ploieşti is quite comprehensive for me to have to start explaining what it was all about on the Ploieşti or Kingdom of Romania pages, when I could just provide the link (perhaps with the stressed see also, which tends to indicate that the article referenced has substantial information). Dahn 04:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Should I move Moldavia (historical region) to Moldavia now? I want to fix redirects broken by all the moving and I do not want to create double redirects. TSO1D 14:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Ok this is now completed. TSO1D 21:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Burzenland, Mezőség, and Nösnerland

According to some users, these are historical regions of Romania. But isn't there a policy of naming them first by the current name (Tara Barsei, Nasaud, and I could't find mention of the third). You can find these also on the Transylvania page. Dpotop 09:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

GayFest photos

Moved to talk page

Ceauşescu's salary

There appears to be an inconsistency in our discussion of Ceauşescu's official salary. I don't know much about this one, so I'm not the one to clear it up. Please see question at Talk:Nicolae Ceauşescu#Numbers don't add up. - Jmabel | Talk 04:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ploieşti

Hi. Is anyone here from Ploieşti? I've found two beautiful photos of the city at Flickr (see Image:Central Ploiesti.jpg - especially the wonderful yellow buses - and Image:Ploiesti view.jpg) and I'd like to expand the article, making it similar to that of Bucharest. However, I really know barely anything in detail about the city (I've been there once, but that's about all), and it would be great to get some help from a local. We can get the article up to FA status, even. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 02:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Bucharest Metro station infoboxes

Hi. I've created an infobox to be applied to every Bucharest Metro station: Template:Bucharest metro stations. For testing purposes, I have included it in Pipera metro station and Piaţa Unirii metro station. There are still a few issues with it, and I would like some feedback as to its presentation and what it should contain. More specifically, it envisages moving the next/previous station box from the bottom of each article to the top of the infobox, just below the title. Is this a good idea? Or should the indicator box remain where it is, and the infobox should only contain information about what lines it is serviced by. For comparison, see Moorgate tube station for the London tube infobox, which doesn't include the next/previous station indicator.

Also, the box is, at the moment, quite short on information. What other information could be included? AFAIK, we don't have access to the statistics such as passenger use, etc (whereas the London tube stations do have this information). But is there any other statistic or information that would be useful and that could be applied to most, if not all, stations? Thanks, Ronline ✉ 11:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I just read one of these Sector Bucharest articles. My opinion: boring and useless info. No offence to anyone. The articles are very short, so no-one should take offence to what I said. There are so many other things about Ro that should be covered, yet you choose to write about some gay Sector in Bucharest. --Candide, or Optimism 09:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the sectors are just administrative units which are not very cohesive. For example, Sector 5 includes both Cotroceni and Ferentari. :-) bogdan 09:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was the thing I found odd about Sector 5, even though Cotroceni is in both Sector 5 and 6 (see Cotroceni). But, still, there are some trends that can be observed among the sectors, particularly due to the growing north-south divide in Bucharest. Sector 5 is the most disadvantaged sector (is it not?) and it votes PSD more than, say, Sectors 1 or 6, in line with the rest of the country's voting patterns based on income. In any case, as long as the sectors do hold some political-administrative power, we can't pass them off as being unimportant. Most counties are, IMO, just as arbitrarily defined. Ronline ✉ 10:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the articles have barely even been created yet, so obviously they're short. However, I think the information is very useful. Sector 3 (Bucharest), for example, is longer and provides good info. The sectors' websites are quite clunky and confusing, and overall there is quite little organised information about Bucharest's sectors. Particularly, knowing things like the party composition of sectorial councils is quite valuable info that reflects political demographics in Bucharest and is also interesting from a statistical point of view. It was quite odd that Bucharest's sectors had no articles yet, when most other major cities have articles on their political divisions. I'm assuming that if I wrote about the districts of Iaşi, you wouldn't say the same thing? Ronline ✉ 09:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Just another note - I think political geography information is lacking quite significantly. The Sector 3-like table should be included for most major cities so that people can see the political composition of the Local Council and hence the voting patterns of the people. I will implement this at some other cities, it is already implemented at Copşa Mică (surprisingly Justice and Truth dominated), Oradea, Salonta, Cluj-Napoca and Craiova. Ronline ✉ 09:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

I started a Request for Mediation for the following users:

• Irpen (talk · contribs)
• Khoikhoi (talk · contribs)
• PANONIAN (talk · contribs)

They revert and destroy the article of Vlachs of Serbia where they don't allow romanians to say that they speak romanian language, that is in a country where not even a Church they are not allowed to have it. They revert any relationship between Romanians/Moldovans/Vlachs.

Their edits are exclusive, missleading and false. --Andrei George 15:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

For simplicity, here is the link to the RFMs WP:RFM#User:Khoikhoi . I believe you should give more details, Andrei. Right now, the RfM's look a bit too general. Dpotop 15:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Andrei, I think it's important to get your facts right before starting an RfM in the Vlachs of Serbia issue. I won't talk about the Moldovan-related pages, since that's much more controversial. In any case - I think Panonian's version of the Vlachs of Serbia article makes it quite clear that this group is cognate to Romanians, and speaks a language that is commonly considered to be Romanian, of the same variety as standard Romanian. The reason why the link can't be made clearer is simply because some Eastern Romance peoples in Serbia declare Vlach ethnicity and "Vlach language" (whatever that may be...) Remember though that the Serbs do allow people to say they speak the Romanian language, which is in fact an official language of Vojvodina. As to the church issue, that may be a problem in terms of religious freedom, but one that's not directly to ethnicity (Romania doesn't have a national church, neither does Serbia). And, yes, minority rights in Serbia are generally less than those in Romania. The minority rights situation of the Vlachs of Serbia could be mentioned in the article (I think it already is). Ronline ✉ 01:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The latest reincarnation of your friend Bonny was permabanned, so you may relax, Ronline. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Bilingual names for Romanian towns

I'm thinking of adding bilingual names for all Romanian towns where the minority population exceeds 20%. According to Law 215/2001, minorities which exceed 20% of the total population can use their own language in the public administration, education and have the right to bilingual signage. In this way, that language can be seen as "co-official" to Romanian. For this reason, I think it would be good for us to add the respective name under the Romanian name on the infobox, and perhaps mention somewhere in the Infobox that the municipality/town/commune is bilingual in Romanian and Hungarian/Romani/Serbian/etc (see articles on Koper, Slovenia and Turku, Finland, both of which are officially bilingual). I have implemented this at the article on Budeşti, where Romani is co-official, and at Oradea, where Hungarian is co-official. What do you think? Ronline ✉ 08:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Funny thing, the Romani writing you used for Budesti. Looks just like Romanian with diacritics expressed using combinations of letters. Many use this on IRC. The two writings are in fact homophonic, a bit like Müller versus Mueller in German. Is it always so, or are there names that are not homophonic? Dpotop 08:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm researching more on this, but as far as I'm aware, very few Romanian localities actually have localised Romani names (most of them just use the Romanian). I used the "Budeshti" version since Romani does not contain the letter "ş". However, if there is no established Romani variant, convention stipulates that the Romanian name should be used (in the same way that "München" is user as the Romanian-language version). There are some names that are not homophonic - Bucharest is known as rmy:Bukureshta in Romani. Ronline ✉ 09:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. And I have yet another question: Regardless of assumed or perceived Romani ethnicity, or mother tongue, are there estimates of how many people are using Romani in everiday life? Dpotop 01:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not write the old dacian names? That's a strong support for our belonging over ages and ages in this country. ;) D39 17:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)D39

I don't think it's a good idea, since they aren't "officially" official names. The comparison with cities in countries like Finland or Ireland is irrelevant, since those countries are officially bilingual, not the case of Romania. currently, only the romanian parliament has the right to change or modify the name of a city in Romania. If you show me any law adopted by the parliament that says "the name of Rom city is changed to Rom-Hun/Rom-Rro/Rom-Ser" i'll accept alternative names used by local non-romanian population in the infobox. Anonimu 12:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Romania in the Middle Ages

Could I ask people to take a look at the issue I raise at Talk:Romania in the Middle Ages#Possible copyright issues? I think there is copyvio material in the article (anonymously added last month). Greier claims to have written it, and claims that Ion Calafeteanu (from whom I believe it is plagiarized) actually plagiarized him, rather than vice versa. Along the way to claiming that, he calls me several things that clearly violate WP:CIVIL. Given his attacks on me, I'd really appreciate it if someone else will help sort this out. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This situation is becoming very ugly

As I've expressed, I believe User:Greier added (and now deliberately re-added) material to Romania in the Middle Ages at least some of which has copyright problems. No one else seems to be stepping in on the matter, and he is now saying that I should not be involved in the article because of my nationality:please see his comments to me at Talk:Romania in the Middle Ages#Possible copyright issues and then following with this edit summary—"(changed my mind... hahaha haha ha!!! if anyone sees anything plagiarised, is free to mention it in talk page... americans not included.)"

I ask the rest of you to consider how you would feel about an edit summary on an article that specifically said that Romanians were not qualified to object to copyright violations. But I will duck out of it, because, frankly, I don't believe that I can continue to interact with Greier and stay within appropriate limits of civility myself.

Will someone else who works on Romanian topics please go through the article, look through the portions that are not cited to the (public domain) LOC country study for material that raises copyright problems, and deal with it? I'm taking the article off of my watchlist. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Romanians

Moved to talk page.

Romania in the Middle Ages

I've been doing some pretty serious editorial work on Romania in the Middle Ages, and tracking down citations. It could still use a lot more. In particular, I'm guessing that if one large section was nearly verbatim from a U.S. Library of Congress country study (perfectly legal, public domain, but should be acknowledged), then some of the rest came from similar (as yet unacknowledged) sources. Also, I have quite a few questions on the talk page if anyone knowledgable would like to take a look. - Jmabel | Talk 03:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hungarian population

Moved to the talk page.

Military Museum in Bucharest

I was told by someone that at the Military Museum in Bucharest there is a "splendid diorama of Vaslui." Okay, who has a digital camera above 6.1 megapixels? I need someone to go there and take some good shots of whatever is there. Anyone? --Candide, or Optimism 23:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

DIORAMAS? Need we go into Kitschland again? Dahn 04:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, on this one I have to support Anittas. We are not creating art here, but providing information. If the diorama is indeed that good at conveying historical info, why not? However, we also need to take care about copyrights held by the museum itself (so that publishing the diorama here may not be acceptable). Dpotop 09:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I remember, they charge about 1 leu per picture, if you want to take photos inside the museum. I'm not sure whether this tax includes copyrights, but I have seen a photo from the Village Museum on wiki released under GPL by User:Gutza, who says that if you pay the supplementary fee, the pictures are yours. I may go take some photos there when I get the time, maybe this week. But my camera is only 4 Mpixels. Andrei Stroe 11:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you really go there and take photos? If you do, take many of them so that we can choose the best. Thx. --Candide, or Optimism 14:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can go this week, most probably next week. I'll take as many as I can afford.Andrei Stroe 06:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What!?! I don't think they have the right to charge you on a per-picture basis (unless it's some sort of bribe). They can either ban photography outright in the museum, or they can allow it, and in the case that they allow it, they shouldn't be allowed to control the number of pictures you take. What, so they stand around there watching and charging 1 leu? That seems odd. But a photo would be a nice, since the Battle of Vaslui article is shaping up nicely. Ronline ✉ 04:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they can charge people for the amount of photos they take, but they can charge them for getting permission to take photos. Has anyone been to that museum and witnessed this diorama? --Candide, or Optimism 05:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree it is stupid. But I went there about two years ago, with a friend who wanted to take pictures, and the charge per picture taken was official (it was written on an information panel, so it was no bribe). I hope their policy changed, although I don't know how they can check how many pictures I take, except for having someone stand by me at all times. My friend gave up taking pictures at the time and we just went to look arround. I think there was a diorama, I don't remember exactly, but I do remember that Ştefan cel Mare's battles were all well ilustrated, it was one of the best parts of the museum. What I also liked there was that they had many interesting pieces of weaponry, as well as military outfits (from the middle ages fighting outfits to NATO uniforms). And in their back yard, there are heavy weapons, such as tanks, radars, cannons, a military helicopter. There is plenty of photo material there. I only have to see when I get the time to go there. Andrei 11:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is a preview of the Military Museum contents. Andrei 08:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Vaslui is not in that list. I'm going to try and contact them and ask them about it. Thx. --Candide, or Optimism 10:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Umm, they don't seem to have their contact info posted. Ugh... --Candide, or Optimism 11:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Some very nationalist edits

I'd appreciate it if someone besides me would look into the recent edits of 129.241.81.103 (talk • contribs). My quick impression is that these edits (often deletions) are often very POV and nationalist. I've run across two pretty blatant examples: something of an attempted de-Magyarization of Béla Bártok, and the removal of (cited) remarks in Magda Lupescu on the status of Jews in late 19th century Romania and the unusualness of her father having been a Jewish pharmacist. - Jmabel | Talk 19:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Matila Ghyka

Does anyone know anything about this author? She was Romanian and I assume she moved to France. Her books are still popular. Just google her name and see that her books are sold worldwide. In practice, she's more popular on the international scene than Eminescu and Cosbuc put together. We should have an article about her. --Candide, or Optimism 22:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"She" was a man. :-) bogdan 22:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, my mistake (Google had his part of blame: [1]) --Vlad|-> 23:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, we can include that too in the article. --Candide, or Optimism 22:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

His memoires were translated and published in Romanian recently: [2] bogdan 22:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that, but I have no intentions in aquiring that book. I have too much on my mind right now; but an article would be in order. Well, I might create the article this week, if no-one else does it. --Candide, or Optimism 23:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Poza lui Stefan cel Mare

Nu este posibil sa adaugam poza originala a lui Stefan in loc de poza cu iconul refacut? Aici este poza originala, la manastirea Putna. Stiu ca majoritatea din voi sunteti boieri de Bucuresti, dar niciunul din voi nu a trecut prin Moldova ca sa ia o poza? Nici macar nu avem un articol despre acele manastiri; in schimb avem articole despre orice strada si stalp din Bucuresti, de parca cuiva iar pasa. LOL! --Candide, or Optimism 06:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with people writing about what they know. Why blame Bucharesters for writing about Bucharest? As for the picture, it's clearly PD, so use it! - Jmabel | Talk 05:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Bucharest Metro pictures

Hi. I've noticed that User:Xanthar has contributed a lot of good information about stations on the Bucharest Metro network - see for example Basarab metro station. However, what we are lacking at the moment are some pictures of metro trains, stations, etc. It would be great if any users in Bucharest have any photos of metro stations that they can share or upload to Commons so that they can be used in these articles. Additionally, photos of the outside of the new trains, and of the new M4 stations would be much appreciated. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 06:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I only found one pic in my collection, it isn't particularly good and I'm not sure which metro station it is of, but take a look here: Image:Metro station in bucharest june 2003 c.jpg original: [3]. I see you already uploaded it, well I uploaded a cropped version too then :) - FrancisTyers 13:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Cool! I actually quite like that picture, it conveys the mood of the metro very well. Ronline ✉ 06:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's Timpuri Noi metro station. bogdan 12:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I added some photos of metro stations on my daily track (M2 stations). Others will, hopefully, follow soon.Andrei Stroe 16:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Diacritics

Moved to talk page.

DACIA Logan Combi Concept

Anybody that knows a thing or two about automobiles care to update the Dacia Logan article with some information abut this new model? As a non-driving woman I don't speak that lingo so I cannot do it. Dunemaire 18:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Romanian Corvinus library?

Hello. Any of you knows whether something resembling a Romanian Corvinus library exists? My problem is that some guys are now pushing the revisionist Hungarian POV, and they are very well served by this collection of documents and by Wikipedia practice that about any source is acceptable (even if it's obvious propaganda, and doesn't even talk about actual facts). Dpotop 08:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe you can look at Batthyaneum library in Alba Iulia :)CristianChirita 09:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You mean the Batthyaneum really concentrates on anti-Hungarian stuff like the Corvinus library (www.hungarian-history.hu) concentrates on anti-Romanian stuff?

Of course, you must take here my "anti-Romanian/anti-Hungarian" expressions in a mild sense. What I want to say is that, for instance, the Corvinus library is for me the reference in terms of documents supporting the immigrationist theories on the origins of the Romanians. Or for stuff related to Lord Rothermere, a.s.o. Dpotop 16:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry i was thinking about the Matei Corvin library, one of the most valuable in the world.The Batthyaneum concentrate some part of the Corvinian heritage.

The most attacked stuff regarding the hungarian history is the Anonimus chronicle (Gesta). Also there are some materials from Vatican library and also a russian chronicle. But be aware the dispute can be endless, a part of hungarian historians support the ideea that the Anonimus chronicle was a fantastic story. Still the best source for us, regarding our history, are still the old hungarian books (in Johannes de Thurocz chronicle you can find the moldavian flag in battle, in Kepes Kronika you can find depicted Posada battle), and some documents from the catholic church. (according to some historians first rulers of Valahia were catholics.) There are also a lot of books where the origins of the romanians are treated fairly. ( one was translated in romanian by Humanitas) But as some hungarians say: being a Hungarian is, above all, a state of mind :)

We can only show the materials proof of our continuity. http://dmoz.org/World/Rom%c3%a2n%c4%83/%c5%9etiin%c5%a3%c4%83/%c5%9etiin%c5%a3e_sociale/Arheologie/Situri_%c5%9fi_monumente/ http://www.archweb.cimec.ro/scripts/ARH/RAR-Index/selen.asp And the best will be to use the Genographic project in order to find our roots and to settle the dispute.CristianChirita 17:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Negoescu, 1980B

Who is this Ro? I found this: Species Haliophasma adinae (Negoescu, 1980B) --Candide, or Optimism 21:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Dr.Ileana Negoescu - lookie here: [4] Dunemaire 22:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Moldova

I noticed that "Administrative divisions" section of Moldova article the raioane links actually point to cities rather than to subdivisions, eg Floreşti istead of Raionul Floreşti, and so on. I cannot fix it myself today: something wrong with computer. Can anyone? mikka (t) 00:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Romanians in Northern Transylvania

I archived the previous discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board#Romanians in Northern Transylvania - Archive. Dpotop 08:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Vlach-Bulgarian Rebellion

Vlach-Bulgarian Rebellion---A dispute popped off here between Bogdan & Alexander 007 on one side and an anonymous Bulgarian on the other. See Talk:Vlach-Bulgarian Rebellion. No compromise of the accepted facts is to be allowed. Alexander 007 10:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Conservative Party

In Conservative Party (Romania) there is:

• The National Conservative Project - a youth group unaffiliated with the "Conservative Party" (Romanian)

If it is unaffiliated, what is it doing there? I found its web site unilluminating on even its stance toward the party (at least in the three minutes I gave it), or whether its politics were similar to those of the party, other than falling under the broad heading of "conservative". I'm guessing that someone on the ground in Romania will be familiar with the group and have an informed opinion on whether the link belongs. - Jmabel | Talk 06:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Moldovan business is over

Hello, this last discussion about Node_ue and the Moldovan wikipedia was a huge error. In fact, the freeze of the Moldovan wikipedia has been decided more than 3 months ago here: [5]. This message and its source should be posted at various places, for not everybody knows of it. Dpotop 17:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Romanian Revolution

Interesting suggestion at Talk:Romanian Revolution of 1989#Proposed revamp of the article, about sorting out what is generally agreed from the various controversial theories. It would be very useful to have others weigh in. - Jmabel | Talk 20:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Romania in Carpathian Ruthenia 1918-1919

Can someone help out with my question at Talk:Carpathian Ruthenia/Archive 1#1918-1919? The article makes a claim about a Romanian occupation of Carpathian Ruthenia (or possibly a larger area, the passage is very vague) coincident with the short-lived West Ukrainian National Republic. Offhand, I don't know where to begin on sorting this out. - Jmabel | Talk 05:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Projects

40.000 new articles

Dictionarul Enciclopedic Român aparut la editura politica Bucuresti 1962-1967 are in conformitate cu legea drepturilor de autor valabila pana in 1994 (cred), drepturile de autor expirate din 1987. In consecinta se poate face ceva similar cu enciclopedia britanica 1911.CristianChirita

Good ideea. Not bad. But who has time and patience to translate so much amount? Some articles related to Romania are very welcomed indeed. Bonaparte talk 21:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte has a valid point. Maybe we should use them in the rowiki then first?Dunemaire 22:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The point is that somone with an scanner and an OCR software shall start the project.

But please consider that the images are not mandatory to be translated:)CristianChirita

From the Romanian copyright law:

Durata drepturilor patrimoniale asupra operelor colective este de 70 de ani de la data aducerii operelor la cunostinta publica.

So, since the copyright for collective works is valid 70 years after the publishing, it is still protected for another 27 years. bogdan 22:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

From the Romanian copyright law 1956, (legea 8 din 1996 nu cred ca poate modifica retroactiv drepturile de autor.)

No law can be applied retroactive. Art. 7. - In cazurile aratate mai jos, autorul nu are folosinta drepturilor patrimoniale decit:

a) pe termen de 20 ani de la aparitia operei cu privire la cei care alcatuiesc enciclopedii, dictionare si culegeri;
b) pe termen de 10 ani de la aparitie cu privire la autorul unei serii de fotografii artistice;
c) pe termen de 5 ani de la aparitie cu privire la autorul de fotografii artistice separate.

http://www.cdep.ro/pls/legis/legis_pck.htp_act_text?idt=8999

Deci conform legii vechi, drepturile de autor au cam expirat inainte de intrarea in vigoare a legii noi adica in 1982-1987. Dar daca este cineva care a facut dreptul poate ne poate lamuri. CristianChirita Dar situatia din punct de vedere al legii internationale eu o vad oarecum similara cu cea a rusilor care nu au drepturi de autor pe perioada in care legea nu prevedea acest lucru. mai ales ca articolul 8 spune: Art. 8. - La expirarea termenelor prevazute la art. 6 si 7 sau, in lipsa de mostenitori, din momentul mortii autorului, dreptul patrimonial de autor se stinge.

I don't know. In some countries, the copyright laws applied retroactively. See for example, the Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection in the European Union.

Unlike some other copyright term extension acts, this act retroactively restored copyright to works that had fallen into the public domain in their source countries (see grandfathering).

bogdan 12:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Legea 8/1996:

se abroga Decretul nr. 321 din 21 iunie 1956 privind dreptul de autor, cu modificarile - ulterioare, precum si orice alte dispozitii contrare.

bogdan 12:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Corect. Se abroga incepand din 1996. Ceea ce inseamna ca pana in 1996 a fost valabila, ceea ce inseamna ca drepturile de autor au expirat in 1982.CristianChirita 12:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Daca ar fi asa pentru orice articol copiat si distribuit in perioada 1982-1995 am putea comite o infractiune conform legii din 1996. Ceea ce nu este in regula.

Puten folosi aceste imagini scanate de mine dintr-o carte din 1987? Link --Anittas 13:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Anittas, uite ce zice decretul 321/1956 in articolele 14 si 15: (sub incidenta caruia se afla imaginea din 1987)

Art. 14. - Sint permise fara consimtamintul autorului si fara plata vreunei remuneratii respectindu-se insa celelalte drepturi ale acestuia:

c) publicarea, chiar integrala a operelor literare, muzicale sau stiintifice ori reproducerea operelor de arta plastica in manuale didactice, cursuri universitare, culegeri sau alte asemenea lucrari destinate invatamintului, cu exceptia operelor care au fost comandate special in acest scop si pentru care autorul pastreaza dreptul de remuneratie;

e) extrase de mica intindere din opere literare, muzicale, cinematografice ori stiintifice, sau reproduceri, precum si prezentari cu ajutorul aparatelor optice a unor opere de arta plastica, servind exclusiv ca document explicativ pentru continutul scris sau vorbit in conferinte sau publicatii cu caracter stiintific, in lucrari de critica ori in darile de seama asupra expozitiilor publice, sau pentru popularizarea acestor opere prin radio si televiziune;

h) reproducerea operelor de arta plastica in filme, diafilme sau prin televiziune cu titlu de informare sau de prezentare accesorie.

j) fotografierea, copierea si reproducerea in orice mod a unei opere de arta plastica, daca aceasta nu se valorifica.

Art. 15. - In cazul folosirii operelor conform art. 13 si 14, trebuie sa se indice opera originala, numele autorului acesteia, al traducatorului sau al autorului operei derivate prevazute la art. 10, iar la operele de arta plastica trebuie sa se indice si locul unde se gaseste originalul precum si numele celui care a efectuat copia.

Altfel zis, poti s-o lasi pe Wiki linistit daca precizezi sursa si autorul. Dunemaire 14:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Nu-i adevărat. Imaginea din 1987 se află sub incidenţa legii valabile în momentul actual, care nu are o asemenea prevedere. bogdan 14:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Legile nu se aplica retroactiv in Ro, deci e imposibil sa fie sub incidenta celei din 1996. Dunemaire 14:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Mersi, Dune! --Anittas 14:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Daca conform legii vechi dreptul de autor expira in 1997, atunci din 1996 a intrat sub incidenta legii noi, pentru ca dreptul de autor nu expirase, daca dreptul a expirat in 1992 atunci este PD din 1992. Parerea mea..CristianChirita

Dear all, even such things like copyright laws are of interest to the community. Besides, speaking non-English is simply impollite. Please, stick to English, when possible as Polish, Rushian and Ukrainian editors do on the other boards. Thanks, --Irpen 03:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The short of it is that the massive Communist-era Dictionarul Enciclopedic Romîn fell out of copyright under the old, rather minimal Communist-era copyright law, and they are trying to work out if new, extended copyright laws apply. If I follow the above correctly (I haven't read it closely) anything that was still under copyright when the new, stricter laws came into effect is covered, but once something passed into the public domain, there is no turning back; I gather that the particular materials in question are now public domain, but not (for example) a photo from 1987, which gets the benefit of the new law.

I should add that as far as I know, no one involved is a lawyer, and some comments are qualified with remarks like "Parerea mea" ("my opinion").

If I misstated anything in that summary, or missed anything significant, could someone please fill in? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 11:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello again everybody! Can someone please summarize this long discussion (because I'm not sure if it is ok to use the said dictionary as source). Why I'm bringing this again? I've just realized that a newly created user (today), called ContinutLiber (FreeContent) seemed to have started the task of putting each and every article ((s)he started with the beginning: added some word starting with: "ab" (poor spelling, no diacritics, not really knowing how wiki works etc.) But I would like what to do: wikify entries or remove them as copyvio? Thank you in advance for enlightening me. --Vlad|-> 22:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

According to this article (Romanian), dictionaries and encyclopedias published before 1984 are in the public domain. The author of the article claims that this is certified even by ORDA, the Romanian Copyright Office. Iulian U. 10:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Magyarization and Romanianization

I don't know how many of you noticed these two articles (Magyarization and Romanianization). I suppose most of you will think the same I did: both articles are biased currently twards the hungarian POV. I think these articles need our / your help. The articles are preseting almost the same POV as virulent irredentist websites such as hungarian-history(dot)hu ---Paul- 10:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Editors are needed on this topic. There are some new Greater Hungary guys that edit everything according to stuff like this: Raffay Ernő: A vajdaságoktól a birodalomig-Az újkori Románia története = From voivodates to the empire-History of modern Romania, JATE Kiadó, Szeged, 1989

I know many of you don't like to be called "nationalists", but just imagine you're dealing with the Hungarian counterpart of Vadim Tudor. I'm not exaggerating. These guys don't even accept Hungarian government references. If they get me angry, I'll copy-paste here the volumes of Ion Lancranjan.

BTW, they also started editing Hungarian minority in Romania along the same lines. Dpotop 16:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, they have already made me angry, and on the Transylvania article I've tried to calm them down as much as I could. It is clear that the main agitator is User:Erdelyek (a name well chosen for his purpose) and as you can see here he has only edited on articles related to Transylvania, Bucovina and bout hungarians in these regions. As Bogdan said it well most of his edits are nationalistic hungarian bullshit, and I hope more users can keep an eye on him. Mihai -^talk 17:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Are the issues solved now? --Steaua 15:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Voronet, Sucevita

Images of the painted monasteries would be very useful. --Vasile 04:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I have uploaded a picture of Suceviţa at commons:Image:Sucevita Monastery.jpg. There is, however, no article that I found about this monastery. It is not linked from Painted monasteries of Moldavia. I've also placed a picture of Putna Monastery in that respective article. Ronline ✉ 21:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria, Moldova

These two pages have come under an intense barrage from various users who want to push their own ideologies. Of course this problem has always existed for these two pages, however I have never seen it escalate to such a level or become so unilateral. Any help will be appreciated. TSO1D 17:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

How about reading the proposed plan for peace of President Basescu? --Steaua 14:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Cult of personality

There have been ongoing attempts to tighten up the criteria for examples at the cult of personality article, with a couple editors saying that there should be no examples at all. I think there are other options, and have worked gradually for a few months to improve the article's verifiability. My current position is that any entries need to be cited with academic-quality sources that describe the systematic veneration of the leader and characterize it as a cult of personality.

Does anyone have sources at hand that they could use in a one-paragraph entry for Ceausescu? I'm aware that Ceausescu is still respected in some parts of Romania, and that could be mentioned as well (with sources). Gazpacho 23:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)