Talk:Daco-Romanian

message: This stub adds no useful information to that in the article on the Romanian language. Romanian language can mean one of two things:
*the Daco-Romanian dialect spoken in Romania and some other countries, and
*the group of all four Eastern Romance languages.
As Romanian language gives information particularly on the Daco-Romanian dialect, I don't see any point in having this stub here. Unless there is no opposition, I will turn the stub back to a redirect. --AdiJapan 06:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's supposed to be a "NPOV-ing" page for Romanian and Moldovan "languages", but I don't think it is needed as it's a consensus in linguistics that Romanian = Moldovan, so I agree with that. bogdan 09:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Deletion of articles without votes of deletion is not allowed in wikipedia. We have smaller articles and on a more trivial issues than this one, like, bung and stopper. mikka (t) 19:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article deletion

message: Again you make bias edits Mikka, this is another proof of your bias edits.--Bonaparte 19:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not making any edits. I am restoring your deletion of information. mikka (t) 19:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: another proof of BIAS edits

message: G'day guys,
I note that this page was protected, "to deal with vandalism".  The thing that every edit warrior forgets is that his opponent is not a vandal, but another good faith editor who happens to feel just as passionately as he does.  Edit warring is not vandalism, it's edit warring.  And it takes two to war.  I see no vandalism here.
Mikkalai, I'm very concerned about the way you protected this page.  You have clearly been very deeply involved in this article, and we are not meant to protect in such circumstances except in cases of simple vandalism.  Of course, if the nascent edit war continues, the page may need to be protected again anyway ... but it won't have anything to do with vandalism, and both you and User:Bonaparte will end up blocked.  Have a nice day. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 19:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very deeply involved with Bonaparte, who deletes information. Anyway, thanks for reminding me the policy. mikka (t) 19:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  page protection 

message: Please comment on the correctness of the following phrase:
:In formal classifications (disputed) that list Romanian and Moldovan as separate languages, "Daco-Romanian" is used as a supergroup for the two.
I am pretty much sure that Soviets didn't classify so, but I've seen something like this on web. To what extent it is correct? 00:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you, please, give me the source? I'd really like to read it. Then only I can comment (until now, I never saw such a classification). User:Dpotop
Note I am not saying it is correct or notably accepted. Well, first of all I was wrong about Soviets.
C. Tagliviani, Le origini delle lingue neolatine. Bologna, 1952. (?)
М.С.Гурычева, Сравнительно-сопоставительная грамматика романских языков. Итало-романская подгруппа. М., Наука, 1966 These two girls proposed called "substrate-based" classification, and I don't know who of them said that Daco-romaninan: Romanian, Moldavian & extinct Dalmatian language. 
In Russian: http://etheo.h10.ru/roma01.htm Looks nonstandard to me. 
Indirect: http://www.farsarotul.org/nl25_5.htm says  "he also published on practically all the languages of the Balkans, especially Albanian (including both Shqip and Arvanitika), Daco-Romanian (including Moldavian)" implying Mold as a sep lang.
It is quite possible that this theory is thoroughly obsolete, so that there are no traces on web. I don't see big contradiction: If Soviets created a new language, it would be only natural for them to devise a supergroup, which looks totally plausible bearing in mind insignificant difference between mo: & ru:  mikka (t) 11:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok, I read the two links (the first one using the automatic translator of Altavista). The second only says "Romanian (including Moldovan)". This expression can also be interpreted as "including Moldovan readers as Romanian". More interesting is the first link, which first states the same "Moldovan is Romanian", but then composes Istro-Romanian with Romanian to form the "Daco-Romanian group". This is not without justification, given that Istro-Romanian is the closest to Romanian of the other three Eastern Romance languages/dialects. However, I feel uncomfortable accepting this in the "Daco-Romanian" article, as it seems to be a "research-related" use of the word (and again, there is no mention of the "Moldovan language" as a separate language in any of the two links). I do not have acces to the printed references. Therefore, my oppinion is to preserve the status que for the article. User:Dpotop
Also my opinion is to preserve the status quo of this article.  Bonaparte  talk & contribs 15:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daco-romanian as group 

message: I said (at the top of this talk page) that this article doesn't give any useful info in addition to the article Romanian language. Now, after many enriching edits, it does. However, in my opinion it still doesn't deserve a separate article. I believe that the generally accepted way of doing things on Wikipedia is that articles should define concepts rather than terms. If this is right, then read again:
:Daco-Romanian [...] is the term used to identify the Romanian language in contexts where distinction needs to be made between the various [...] languages or dialects [...].
So the article is about a term, and admits that the concept considered is the Romanian language. I would say it is obvious that it belongs there. --AdiJapan 13:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I got your point. Cool, we can keep it here. (And by the way, you know how to pick your examples...) --AdiJapan 19:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Mikka. This article should exist. Dpotop 20:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate article?