Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romania/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians to be moved to Anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment. This page is of interest to several relating WikiProjects and interested users may want to participate in the discussion here. Sorabino (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
ask for approval
Hi, I wonder if this project wants to add WikiProject Romania template to redirects based on what articles that in Category:All WikiProject Romania articles for example (the example for WikiProject Medicine).--جار الله (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Focus on Romania at Women in Red
In May 2018, in conjunction with m:Wikimedia CEE Spring 2018/Article Lists, Women in Red is focusing on the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We hope there will be contributions on Romanian women.
   
| ||
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
--Ipigott (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
The article Piața A-Z has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
not notable
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mathglot (talk) 05:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Wiki4MediaFreedom
Hi. If you have time, please take a look on meta at this page m:Wiki4MediaFreedom contest. It's an event organized by Rossella Vignola (OBC), there is a list of articles to improve also on English wikipedia.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
Background
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
The article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, but nothing about Romania in the text. User:Codrinb is responsible. Xx236 (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Sockpuppets at ro.wiki
This article has been created by confirmed sockpuppets. Would someone please ask an admin there to look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amfithea/Archive to see that they have already been confirmed. Their creations should be deleted.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Category:Romani people and Romanipen in Romania has been nominated for discussion
Category:Romani people and Romanipen in Romania, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
RfC on election/referendum naming format
An RfC on moving the year from the end to the start of article titles (e.g. South African general election, 2019 to 2019 South African general election) has been reopened for further comment, including on whether a bot could be used move the articles if it closed in favour of the change: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Proposed change to election/referendum naming format. Cheers, Number 57 15:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I found a Romanian "colony". Are there any more?
Greetings. I recently made an article on the Romanian concession in Sarandë, Albania, extant from 1934 to 1939. The Albanian state gave some territory to Nicolae Iorga as a gift, but Iorga transferred half of this land to the Romanian state in 1934. Thus granting Romania an overseas possession and a coast on the Adriatic. Do you folks, know any more such examples? Did the Kingdom of Romania have any other "colonies", or this is all? Prefectul (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- It doesn't sound like Romanian territory at all, just real estate owned by Romanian state. The Romanian state can buy real estate anywhere in Europe, but I doubt that makes it an "oversea possession", as such land doesn't have extraterritoriality.Anonimu (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- I have considered what you say. But a few things made me go ahead and create the article. For one, this land wasn't bought. It was gifted to Iorga, who in turn gave half of it to a minister in the Romanian Gov't. This is essentially a Romanian state-sponsored annexation of an overseas territory, mediated by Iorga. And second, the construction of the Romanian Institute itself. The Great Powers' concessions in China left behind samples of European architecture as inheritance. So did Romania in this case. Prefectul (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Splitting proposal: Origin of the Romanians
All comments are appreciated here. Borsoka (talk) 06:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The map in the infobox at Kingdom of Romania
Greetings. It had recently come to my attention that - unlike Neuily and Trianon - the Paris treaty of 1920 which was supposed to internationally legitimize the union with Bessarabia never came into effect, was invalid because one of the signatories refused to ratify it. As such, I believe this special status for Bessarabia, as a de facto union rather than a de jure one, should be addressed on the map accurately. My suggestion is to highlight Bessarabia in light green. Prefectul (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Well, as well the Paris Treaties (inlcuding Treaty of Trianon), as well were not ratified by the United Sattes of America. On the other hand, we have to be careful on the time and frame and legal situation, regarding mutual and/or international regonition, etc. In such case, I'd first check if all of Kingdom of Romania's neighbors recognized the union of Bessarabia with Romania. If so, it is enough to mention other distractions, as you already did in the article.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC))
- Perhaps you are right. However, I'd like to stress, the United States were indeed a major power, but they were a co-belligerent. The article on the Allies of World War I makes it quite clear: 5 official Allied powers plus the US. Russia ceased to exist mid-war, being replaced by the Soviet Union. This leaves us with four, of which only three ratified it, not Japan - an official extant major Ally. Prefectul (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- The current consensus seem to be to have all territory under effective control with the same colour, no matter whether it is internationally recognised as such; see our articles regarding India, China, Ukraine, Serbia - for unclear reasons this does not apply to Russia :). Having Bessarabia in light green would have made sense if it was claimed but not actually controlled (e.g. in a locator map of the Soviet Union before 1940). As a matter of fact, though using the alternate colour scheme, this approach is used in the article about the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic.Anonimu (talk) 10:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Requesting two maps
Greetings! I was wondering if I could get two maps of Antonescu's Romania from 1941-1944 (you know, this thing). I would like a physical map of it, as well as a blank map with the counties. No county name, no city, just a blank map like this: [1] Prefectul (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Romania_interwar_counties.svg){kind=link}
Restructuring the Origin of the Romanians article
There is currently a Request-for-Comment open about restructuring the Origin of the Romanians article. Any comments or suggestions for improving the article would be greatly appreciated.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
The difference is the s in Coisca. I am not sure which is the correct spelling. Coisca River will indicate a normal s instead. Can someone confirm which is the correct spelling and redirect the wrong page to the correct page? Thanks! --Xaiver0510 (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I basically re-wrote the entire article. And expanded it quite a bit. So I'm submitting it here for rating and review, and maybe corrections if they are needed. Prefectul (talk) 08:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
The map at Triple Alliance (1882)
As Romania was the secret member of the Alliance, I don't think the map is accurate in not highlighting it in any way. I think it should be colored in too, even if with a lighter color to signify the secrecy of its membership. Or, maybe color it in but not name it on the map. I've seen this method being used to more accurately depict the map of the Alliance: [1] Prefectul (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
1934 Romanian club in Lebanon
Hi,
I have some doubts regarding a Romanian club who played against the Lebanon national team in 1934 as I can't seem to find the club in question. Your input is appreciated at the WikiProject Football section; thanks, Nehme1499 (talk) 12:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
WP 1.0 Bot Beta
Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Romanian nationalism
This unreferenced stub is about very important subject matter and needs to be expanded. Charles Essie (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)