Talk:Moldova/Archive 4

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ok, nightstallion, I expect now you do the same for [[Macedonia]]