Jump to content

Talk:Chișinău/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Population

Population was changed from 707,000 to 857,000 with no source cited. But the old number didn't have an apparent source either. Does someone have a citation for the population? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

And now it is up to 918,211! What is going on here? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I have found some source on the Internet [1], it seems it could be believed, and updated info on the page. --Monkbel 10:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
That page actually gives some rather confusing numbers. Under "Counties": Chişinău 374,678, Chişinău Oraş (which is to say Chişinău City) 716,530. Then under "Principal Urban Areas" Chişinău 601,000, which is the number you put in the article, but which sounds low to me. Does anyone understand just what each of these three numbers represents? All things being equal, I'd be incling to use the Chişinău Oraş number, 716,530, but I'd rather hear from someone who understands what is going on. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
The correct data is here: http://www.statistica.md/recensamint/Date_prel_Recens_din2004.doc , under Municipiul Chisinau, you see urban area: 643,517, that's the correct number. 212.0.211.204 17:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


Music and nightlife

The Music and nightlife section looks like a paraphrase of the corresponding section of the Bucharest article. So I'm asking: is this based sources of some sort? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It's very vague, better to mention known bands like O-Zone (been #1 for quite a while in Europe), Zdob si Zdub (Eurovision Contest). --Just a tag 09:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Zdob şi Zdub certainly merit mention; they're the only Moldovan band I know, and I doubt I'm anything like alone in that. Could someone else take on this section? I really don't know much at all about music and nightlife in Chişinău, I just recognized the prose instantly as a near-copy of another article. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You mean you don't know O-Zone ? ;) --Just a tag 16:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Heard them a few times (on the radio in Romania); I was there in 2001-2, I don't think they were very big yet then. I don't have any of their albums, never heard them live, and really don't have any of their stuff "stuck in my head". I'm not sure I'd even recognize them if I heard them. But back to the article, I take it you know your way around this, could you rewrite the section? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
This article sounds too much like a reappropriation of the Bucharest article. There's nothing wrong with that, but a lot of the statements need to be verified, if not by sources at least by some explanations on the talk page. They include:
  • "Economically, the city is by far the most prosperous in Moldova and is one of the main industrial centres and transportation hubs of the region."
Ummm, exactly Bucharest had this statement (replace Moldova with Romania) :) Maybe the city is the most prosperous in Moldova, but I really don't think it's a main hub of the region (which in this case, is Eastern Europe, made up of MD, UA, BY and RU.
  • The city is home to thirty-six universities.
Really!?!
  • Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the city has become a relatively lively and well-appointed capital, with a much higher standard of living than most rural areas.
Any sources for this? Considering that Moldova is Europe's poorest country (even though I've heard – and seen from photos that – Chişinău is quite well off).
  • Chişinău is home to Moldova's largest recording labels, and is often the residence of Moldovan, and more recently Ukraine, musicians.
Any examples of Ukrainian musicians moving to MD?
On another note, I really love the photos. Ştefan cel Mare Park looks absolutely great! Ronline ✉ 11:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

2004 census

Please keep the official data. This may be verified here (only in romanian). --Zserghei 14:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

People keep changing the numbers. No one seems to be giving decent citations. The citation given here is to a page that links to over a dozen zip files. I don't doubt that the data is in there somewhere, but I'm not going to take the 20-30 minutes it might require to find it. Would someone please put the definitive information in the article, with citations clear enough that others can verify it? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 06:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Largest Romanian urban concentration

"The city is considered the largest Romanian urban concentration in the world after Bucharest." Can someone please explain how this statement is neutral? The above can have two meanings:

  • It can be interpreted as Chişinău being the second largest city in Romania, which is highly misleading, or that Moldova is a part of Romania
It's not in Romania but used to be in former Romania, i.e. greater romania.
  • It can be interpreted that Chişinău has the second-largest ethnic-Romanian population in the world, which is controversial, considering that about 4% of the population declared themselves as Romanians. It is very confusing for readers unless the situation is clearly explained somewhere in the article (i.e. that Moldovans and Romanians are considered to be the same ethnic group). But, in any case, it is controversial to claim that someone who is "Moldovan" should be allocated Romanian ethnicity.
It may be, so I see no objection in having there. Now again about the results of the census doesn't says anything new. Are moldovans from Iasi romanians or not? If only by this statistics, and we know that Moldova is not the champion of democracy and any census is bias, I still wouldn't trust them and still inclined to believe that Chisinau is the second largest romanian-population city in the world after Bucharest. --Chisinau 12:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I really don't see what the above statement contributes to the article. Ronline ✉ 09:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Romanians / Moldovans

Given that the Moldovan census gives separate nationality counts for "Romanians" and "Moldovans", why do people keep eliminating the distinction in the article? Yes, I agree that the distinction is tendentious, but it is official, and it seems to me that we should report it accurately. - Jmabel | Talk 06:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you trust a communist Census? I don't. When you say Moldovan you say Romanian. But saying that Moldovans and Romanians are different is a very big mistake. Letting the text as separate will support this mistake. --Chisinau 12:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

In addition to that, the phrase The city is considered to be the second largest Romanian urban concentration in the world after Bucharest. looks VERY strange with the census data on Romanians being but 4.4% of Chisinau's population. --Illythr 17:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment to Ronline's assertion

...But, in any case, it is controversial to claim that someone who is "Moldovan" should be allocated Romanian ethnicity...(Ronline)

Now if we judge like that we go nowhere Ronline. How many americans there are in Los Angeles? Should be allocated to American ethnicity? A Moldovan is Romanian. Punctum. A russian is not Moldovan but russian. Decide once and for all, where you count them, either to Romania either to Russia. --Chisinau 12:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the point is that if they declare themselves as "Moldovan" in the census, they are counted neither to Russia nor to Romania, but rather to the Republic of Moldova. In any case, this isn't about nationality but rather ethnicity (since most Chişinău residents are obviously not Romanian nationals). In ethnic terms, the Moldovans are obviously not Russians. I don't think the issue is about that, since it would be fair to say that Chişinău is the city with the second-largest Eastern Romance population. But since they declared an ethnicity separate to Romanians, it is, from an abstract point of view, quite tenuous to allocate them Romanian ethnicity. Ronline ✉ 00:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Well I am sorry to brake it to you guys but Bucharest has a pop of almost 2 mil people, Chisinau of about 650.000 - 700.000 people and Iasi a pop. of about 350.000. So you do the math commarades:))) Have a nice day.Constantzeanu 05:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The issue here is NOT about statistics at all. It is clear that Chişinău has a larger population than any Romanian city except Bucharest. It is also clear that its population is majority "Eastern Romance" (Vlach). The problem is over whether to classify Moldovans as Romanians. Personally, I would say they are the same ethnicity. However, the statement must be explained more deeply considering the controversy of the situation. One cannot say that Chişinău is the second-largest Romanian urban area when in the census data we list Moldovans as the largest ethnic group. In any case, saying this is only one POV - the other POV is that the city has in fact a small Romanian minority, with the other Latin peoples declaring themselves as Moldovans (in the same way as some Montenegrin cities have a Montenegrin majority and a small Serb minority). So, I think the statement could remain only if it moved from the lead section and put into context, in the Demographics section. Ronline ✉ 08:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
To be honest I do not think it is correct to declare the Moldovans as Vlachs. As far as I know there are no scholar that have made that distinction so far. About the statement, I think it is a good piece of information which deserves to be kept in the leading section :)
About who declared himself Romanian and who declared himself Moldovan, I would also like to point out that the international observservers have issued a warning to those who plan to make use of this ref. results since obvious infractions have been commited by the censors when it came to language and ethnicity. I am not making this stuff up, you can read it in any major Moldovan and even some Romanian newspapers. Many organizations have taken this warning seriously and have presented Moldovans as Romanian so in fact this leading sentence is true. Constantzeanu 18:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Census numbers

As explained many times in several articles, giving the numbers different from the ones provided by census and than claim that these are actual numbers is the false path. Census numbers should be presented as they are and no one is interested in seeing how Wikipedians can correctly add/subtract/combine them according to their tastes. Valid and referenced criticism of the census may be given in the articles but not altering the hard numbers provided by census, especially with the wording "Census held in 2004 reports the following ethnic composition". We should give what census reports exactly how it reports. Anything else is simply a falsified quote. --Irpen 00:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

template

I used the Romanian city template, instead of the Moldovian city template. I did this solely for the reason that the first template is more pleasing aeasthetically. No reference to Romania appears. I did not wish to change the Moldavian city template as I was afraid I would mess up other articles, and then that's not really necessary when this other template is readily available. I am simply posting this to pre-empt any possible reverts on the basis that the template has the word Romanian in it, I made the change for purely practical reasons and in the visual effect no link can be made to Romania. TSO1D 01:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for attention to the template. Moldavian version was old and really looked ugly, but Romanian city template has a number of disadvantages: it links to the Counties of Romania instead of Counties of Moldova, default census is not 2004, as it should be for Moldova. It has no dialing code. I have rewritten {{Moldavian cities infobox}} correcting all these issues, added foundation date, made some parameters optional and other minor improvements. If you have any suggestions on the template, express them here. Maybe some additional fields are needed. --Zserghei 09:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok that works great. TSO1D 20:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Kishinev"

I agree with describing Kishinev as a "former" English-language name for the city used mostly in historical contexts. Just as an aside, though, in the U.S. at least, the city probably comes up more historical contexts than otherwise. Few Americans are familiar with present-day Moldova. Probably the most common connection of anyone in the U.S. to this region is historical: a lot of Jews emigrated to the U.S. from (historic) Moldavia, no small number of them from Chişinău and environs, especially after the 1903 and 1905 pogroms. - Jmabel | Talk 22:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sister cities

Is there a reliable source for the sister cities? Yerevan was recently changed to Cracow with no explanation. There is no cited source to sort out which is correct. - Jmabel | Talk 22:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Green city

Where did this claim arise: "Chişinău is considered one of the greenest cities in the Europe". I've never heard this claim before, and I find it quite hard to believe, considering that Chişinău is one of Europe's poorest cities (and hence can't really invest in environmental protection), but at the same time it is quite industrialised with USSR-era industry. Or is it not? I've never been there. Ronline 08:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I've never been there, either, but I've heard from people who have that it's a rather lovely city. No idea on "considered one of the greenest cities in the Europe": if it doesn't say considered by whom or whether "green" means "lots of plants" or "ecologically responsible" or <joke>"Crawling with lizards"</joke>, it isn't really worth much. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

What does "poorest" have to do with the fact that there are trees and other kinds of vegetation everywhere? People do not go around Chisinau cutting down the trees.. The money Chisinau has for environmental protection is enough to keep it the greenest city. If some industrial city spends billions on environmental protection and has only 100 trees spread around the city, that doesnt make it greener than Chisinau, which might not afford such money, but it surely affords to keep it clean and green. If its the greenest: hurray! if it is not anymore: well it sure is green enough, greener than any Romanian cities I have seen (including the capital city of Romania).

Chisinau is, or at least was considered the greenest city of Europe because of its flora. In fact Chisinau's Botanic Garden and the parks in the city are very known for their vegetation.

Where is this information from ? =) I live in Chisinau, and I've been to some parts of Western Europe, really, one of the greenest? :) I wouldn't say so :) 212.0.211.204 11:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Well maybe not in the last years. I am sure "the greenest city" is still valid but I might agree that, because of economical problems, it is bearly holding together. And did you consider the size of Chisinau compared to those West European cities? It is the greenest because the ratio vegetation/square miles is probably the highest in Chisinau. Sometimes the eyes do not see the whole picture.

Well, there are trees usually at both sides of a road, okay, but does that automatically entitle it to be the "the greenest city" ? :) This is a statement written in the introduction, thus I would expect there to be at least a source classifying it as "the greenest city", just saying it is the greenest, doesn't make it so. But if other editors find it to be okay... --Just a tag 15:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I think such a statement needs to be backed up by sources or at least detailed explanation on the talk page. I have never before heard that Chişinău is a particularly green or environmental city. Considering it's lack of concern for environmental protection (this is a trend seen all over this part of the world, not only in Moldova), the funds for making it green are simply not there. However, as I said above, it remains quite industrial, which would reduce it's "green nature" even further. Sure, it might be greener than, say, Bucharest, or Prague, or Madrid or whatever, but that doesn't make it "one of the greenest cities in Europe" (see some German and Northern European cities for that). Ronline ✉ 11:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
While I never heard people calling Chisinau "Europe's greenest city", I did hear the phrase "Europe's greenest capital". Compared to other built over European capitals, the city does indeed look greener. Not because of effective environmental policy, but rather due to the slow pace of industrialization and few building initiatives. However, this trend has changed in recent years, the city has lots of construction sites now, often at the expense of the environment. --Illythr 17:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
This confusing statement should be amended. While someone familiar with the area might be able to understand the author's intent--lovely climate, lots of trees, parks, etc.--to English speakers the phrasing implies a political philosophy that isn't there. Put another way, we all know that Chisinau is not run by environmentalists, it does not have a recycling system to compare with that of Berlin, and city hall is not run by solar power (etc., etc...) However, users unfamiliar with Moldova might not. Alternate phrasings anyone? Simply adding a few words to introduce the sentence might make it clear in what sense "green" is to be taken: "Because of Moldova's lush climate..." Jamason 02:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Alternosfera

I'm trying to avoid an edit war here, but I see that TSO1D added back something I removed.

  1. Why the mention of Alternosfera when no other musical group is named; not even Zdob şi Zdub, who I believe are better known; not even any notable classical music group, of which I'm sure a national capital has at least one.
  2. What is the basis for calling them "very appreciated"? By whom? Seems POV to me, even more POV than saying someone is "famous".
  3. Comparing some other cities, New York City does not mention particular musical groups; Seattle has a ăparapgraph or two, but it is a city where music and other arts are pretty much what "put it on the map"; oddly, New Orleans, another city best known for music (and maybe food) mentions only Louis Armstrong by name (and that in a picture caption); Manchester has a long list (like Seattle, a city very known for music); Bucharest mentions four contemporary groups, as well as the Philharmonic and the Opera (and its remarks on boy bands, etc. seem to have been almost slavishly copied in the present article); Iaşi mentions none.
    • I just stumbled across this talk page, and here is my belated response. I probably added the info back during a revert of someone else, personally I don't care much for these bands and I agree that the wording you describe would violate NPOV. TSO1D 02:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to see a good paragraph on current bands in Chişinău, and certainly something on classical groups performing there, but the singling out of one band, especially as "very appreciated" but with nothing to indicate what their music is like, smack of promo or fandom. - Jmabel | Talk 22:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Lautarii, Codreanca

More ostensibly "world-renowned" groups have now been added: "Lautarii" and a dance group, "Codreanca". The first, of course, almost defies searching, because of the word lăutarii itself swamps it, as well as a film by the same name and a song by Spitalul de Urgenţa. But I would think that if this group were world famous, at least one of the first Google hits on the word would relate to the band, and if one did, I missed it.
Googling on "Codreanca", only two of the first 20 hits seems even possibly to relate to the dance group: a German-language remark on a forum page about a dance school of that name in Chişinău, and one page from Molodova mentioning either the group or the school in terms of a local dance competition.
So does anyone have citations to bear out "world-renowned" etc.? - Jmabel | Talk 16:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Russian names of the districts

Through some path obscure to me, the Russian names of the districts of Chişinău had found their way in this article. An anonymous user removed them but was reverted by Khoikhoi. I reverted again, for the reason that I don't believe that having the Russian names for the districts is necessary on the English Wikipedia. The name of the city is given in Russian in the name section, however giving the Russian translations for the districts as well seems a bit over the top. TSO1D 02:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I thought they were in Moldovan Cyrillic. I see what you're saying now. :-) —Khoikhoi 02:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

On Russian Jews

"The Russian name gained international currency because of Russification during periods when the city was under Russian control (first by Imperial Russia and then for over four decades by the Soviet Union) and because of Russian speakers throughout the world, including many Russian Jews in the English-speaking world."

The statement above strongly appears to be politically charged. First of all, it is not at all clear what do so-called "Russian Jews" have to do with the frequent use of the word "Kishinev" in the English-speaking world (it isn't clear how do "Russian-speakers" influence English-language lexical preferences, either). I'm for one not sure that emigre "Russian-speakers" use this word with any frequency even speaking in Russian, not to mention in English (after all, the city is marginal in world affairs and most English-speakers don't even know its name or discuss it) - unless they personally come from this city. And here is the second problem: are you implying that Jews coming from Chisinau are "Russian Jews"? Well, they are "Bessarabian Jews" (the way they call themselves), "Moldovan Jews", whatever, but not "Russian" unless you seriously think that Chisinau is part of Russia, hence the adjective. If you speak in historical perspective, then Jews who immigrated to the US from the Russian Empire Kishinev or before 1940 Chisinau surely didn't call the city Kishinev - they weren't even Russian-speaking and in their language the city is called "keshenev" - why isn't his latter name an accepted English usage? I think to be impartial this sentence should be changed. - Sergiu

I think the original author meant that when the pogrom of Jews (who were then still subjects of the Russian Empire) in the city was publicized in the foreign press, the name for the city was given as Kishinev. I don't know how valid a theory this is, and it might be original research, so if you want to remove the statement, I would have no problem with it. TSO1D 00:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe Sergiu is referring to the Bessarabian Jews. Also note that we have the article at Kishinev pogrom, not Chişinău pogrom–because that was the official (and most common) name for the city at the time. BTW, my guess is that the Bessarabian Jews spoke Yiddish natively, and some probably aslo knew Romanian and Russian as well. —Khoikhoi 01:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Stadionul Republica

A recent edit without summary or citation changed the capacity of Stadionul Republica from 8,009 seats to 18,009 seats. I have no idea which is correct. Does someone have a citation? - Jmabel | Talk 06:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's 7687 per http://www.uefa.com/competitions/EURO/Teams/Team=57160/index.html. TSO1D 21:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Weird stuff

Just noticed this:

After the war the head of the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin, claimed the area around Bessarabien, to be in his own nation's sphere of influence.

Er, Bessarabien was within the Georgian sphere of influence? :-) --Illythr 02:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I can't believe no one has noticed that until now. I tried to clean up the passage but ended up completely removing most of it as it was either non-sense or irrelevant. TSO1D 02:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Population again

I hope I did right here. I went back to an earlier version by TSO1D, the same generally reliable editor who had edited last. The most recent exchange with an anonymous vandal (or statistic-warper) had left several longstanding numbers changed, and had replaced a link in a reference with a URL that gives a 403 error. If I didn't get this right, then, please, let's fix it going forward from here with edits that have very specific edit summaries, so it is clear where we have a reliable baseline version of this section. I will leave a note for TSO1D on his user talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 00:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel, this is what happened. The anon introduced some strange changes and at first I reverted him. But I thought he could be right, so I went back to the source at http://www.statistica.md/recensamint.php?lang=ro and looked at the numbers for Chişinău. I found that although the vandal's numbers were clearly off, a revision did take place on the site and I introduced the new numbers. As for the site, the name of the excell file changed, so just took the ending off and let the page go to the main repository of census data. TSO1D 00:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Great! Wonder why it gave me a 403 error. - Jmabel | Talk 07:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Answer: because you cut off too much of it in the article. You left only http://www.statistica.md/recensamint/, which doesn't work. I'll correct it. - Jmabel | Talk 07:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh thanks, for fixing that, I didn't notice that I cut off too much. At first I thought you meant that you got a 404 on the old version. TSO1D 12:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

sh vs ṣ

Why is Chisinau, written with Ṣ, isn't this an English language wikipedia, There is no Ṣ in "Engliṣ" . I am just being curious, and would like a link if this has already been discussed. Thank you Comradevik 02:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand your question. The name of the city includes diacritics (the ş) as that is the official spelling of the name. Wikipedia policy for place names is that unless a common English variant exists, the official native version should be inserted, and in this case, that is Chişinău. TSO1D 03:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Names in other languages

Can we employ the Names of European cities in different languages: C-D some way? --Maxim Masiutin 05:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your question (and given that it has been over a month and no one has answered you, I'm probably not alone). Could you give some indication what you have in mind? - Jmabel | Talk 02:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Second World War

"After nearly six months of warfare, Chişinău finally fell on 24 August 1944 to the Red Army." Eh, what six months? The Iassy-Kishinev Operation began on 20 August and the capital was taken four days later...--Illythr 21:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's not have a Gdansk/Danzig thing here

I realise that Moldovans may not like that English texts continue in part to use the Russian name for their capital, but the fact is that they do. On known English language domains (.edu, .au and .uk) Google gives 13.800 hits for Chisinau and 5.650 for Kishinev. There's even over 2000 hits for Kishinev on the Moldovan domain, .md. Chisinau is gaining in usage, plus it's the official name. That's why I clearly give Chisinau priority in my wording. But the fact remains that Kishinev is one of English names for the city. Zocky 18:36, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But isn't Kishinev just another transliteration of Russian Кишинёв ? Bogdan | Talk 18:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree (I am Moldovan, even if my name sounds Russian). Saying Kishinev is same as using Moldavia for Moldova. It is nothing but the Russian version of the name, and I think this needs to be made clear. So Kishnev should go in the parantheses, together with the other transliterations from Russian. Oleg Alexandrov 19:06, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It is, but it's really an issue of which name English speakers (and writers) use for the city. The fact is that Kishinev was traditionally used adn and still is to some extent. Read talk:Oder/Odra and talk:Gdansk/Danzig for extensive discussions on the topic. To give just the most common example: I'm sure there's a name for Vienna in your language different than Wien, and I'm sure that it sounds same or similar to the name for Vienna in some other language. You probably wouldn't dream of calling Vienna Wien in a text in your language, would you? Zocky 03:01, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, on the Gdansk page it is clearly mentioned that Danzig is the German name. I see your point about Vienna. However, I would like to make things clear as far as Chisinau is concerned:
Kishnev is the Russian name. We have been under Russian occupation for almost 200 years, with interruptions. We did not have much say about how to call ourselves or our country. The Russians called our capital Kishnev, and the term obviously stuck abroad, for the simple reason, that even now, most western people call all people from former Soviet Union simply as "people from Russia". So, the term "Kishinev" is a Russian imposed nickname, which holds its own by inertia, and will die in due time. We can accelerate its death by sticking to the correct terminology ("Chisinau") no matter what the historical baggage is. You would not want others to claim the name of your country is what your former occupiers decided it must be.
That said, I put back "Kishinev" in the category of Russian names. By this we do not negate history, or the fact that until recently "Kishinev" is what the name was thought to be, but simply state that we call our capital "Chisinau", this is our choice, and it has to be respected whatever its name was thought to be before. Oleg Alexandrov 19:52, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
One more thing. The Kishinev page redirects to Chisinau, also, the name "Kishinev" clearly shows in the paratheses in the list of Russian names, so again, I want to make it clear, I am not playing the game "Let's pretend Kishinev never existed", I just put it in the place it rightfully deserves to be. No foreigners will have any trouble whatsoever getting to this page, nor will they be confused by the fact that we, Moldovians, consider "Kishinev" the Russian name. So, by putting "Kishinev" in the parantheses, no harm is done, and no confusion is made. This is the right way to have things, and "backward compatibility" with the Russian name is preserved. Oleg Alexandrov 20:02, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If you study the Gdansk and Oder talk pages in detail, you will find many examples and explanations of why you're reasoning is flawed. What Moldovians call their capital has no direct influence on what its English name is. Since this Wikipedia is in English, the name used by English speakers and writers should be used.
Names of places travel through languages and change or don't change on the way. Whether Kishinev is an "Russian imposed nickname" or just the Russian name for the city, the English writers historically gained most of the information about Moldova through Russian sources and adopted the name they used, or rather the spelling they used. Which brings me to another important point: in many cases, writers in English (or any language) prefer to stick to the spelling that's more natural to them. The natural English pronounciation of Kishinev sounds more like the original name than the natural English pronounciation of Chişinau, and let's not even get into "your weird letters" as lazy writers all over the world call those characters that require more than one keystroke on their keyboard.
So, for whatever historical reasons, a sizable proportion of English writers continue to use the spelling Kishinev, and obviously even some Moldavians think that Kishinev is the correct spelling in English. And since Wikipedia is not a usage guide, i.e. it does not prescribe how names should be used but rather describes how they are used, this article should simply aknowledge that Kishinev is an alternative English name. By all means, mark it as dated, describe why Moldovians don't like it, explain the history involved, but don't deny the facts. Zocky 05:43, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
BTW, Britannica says something like this: Bogdan | Talk 10:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Chişinău, formerly Kishinyov, also spelled Kishinev, or Kišin'ov, city and capital of Moldova (...)

First, the Britannica thing implies Chisinau is the correct present name.

Second, I did look at the Gdansk talk page. Yes, there are many arguments. But the outcome was that Gdansk is considered the name of the city, and Danzik the German version.

Third, I have a National Geographic world map, issued very recently, and the name there figures as Chisinau.

Fourth, on the web page of Moldova at the CIA world factbook, the name of the capital is Chisinau, see Moldova.

All these point to one thing. Chisinau is the name of the city. Kishinev is still lingering around, but this is not the name used nowadays. This is maybe what you are used to, and feel free to use it, other people are using it too, but this does not change the actual present officially accepted name of the city.

I hope you will not also say that the name of my country is Moldavia instead of Moldova, just because this is how it used to be known during Russian times.

Looking forward to your views on these things. Oleg Alexandrov 20:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oleg, nobody is arguing that "Kishinev" is the only name or the proper name. They are simply noting that rather than just being "the Russian name", it used to be the most common name for the city in English, and it is still used sometimes. Englishmen call the capital of Portugal "Lisbon" while Portuguese people call it "Lisboa", Americans call the Cuban capital "Havana" while Cubans call it "La Habana", New Zealanders call the Austrian capital "Vienna" while Austrians call it "Wien"... in the case of Chisinau, both are used commonly in English nowadays. If someone travelled to the city just recently, they will say "I remember when I was in Chisinau...", but if they travelled there in the 1980s, they will probably say "I remember when I was in Kishinev...". So, nobody is arguing that the primary name of Chisinau is "Kishinev", but rather that it is a valid secondary name in English which is still used by many people, and was perhaps a decade ago the most common English name for the city. --Node 07:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I am Russian (the bad guy :) ). I respect the opinion of Moldovans/Moldavians to call their city what they want and ask others to use the same name. This happened to Beijing (Peking), Mumbai (Bombay), Marseille (Marseilles), etc. and I want it to happen for Moskva (Moscow), Wien (Vienna), Lisboa (Lisbon), Warszawa (Warsaw), München (Munich), Bucureşti (Bucharest), København (Copenhagen), La Habana (Havana), Athina (Athens), Al-Qahira (Cairo), etc. The Ukrainian capital Kiev/Kyiv is a special case, IMHO. Each city has a History of English usage and the national feelings are different in each case.
Let's respect each others' national feelings, then we don't have to rename a lot. Moldova, being not a major country, managed not only to rename its capital but the name of its country as well! Imagine calling Germany - Deutschland, Japan - Nihon and China - Zhongguo! Perhaps renaming or de-anglicising country names is not a priority yet.
I am not sarcastic, I am serious. Let's just start this discussion and see which obstacles we have to overcome.
By the way, today I started a discussion on de-anglicisation of Moscow to Moskva.

--Atitarev (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You are evil not because you're Russian, but because you're a Necromancer, dabbling into the Dark Arts of Resurrection of Long Dead Topics like that. Additionally you appear to be a master of Obfuscation, as I didn't get what exactly you are suggesting. :-) The most common name is used. In the case if this city, it appears to be Chisinau. With Moscow/Moskva, Moscow is so much more popular, it'd really be like trying to change Germany to Deutschland. --Illythr (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Although, you have a point there, your comments are not friendly, so I won't go into a big discussion or an explanation. Reviving old discussions is not prohibited, in my opinion. Re: my English, it's no so confusing, thanks for commenting on my English, I will improve.
I expressed my personal opinion, popularity may change, the changes with other names were caused by native speakers first, who opposed the anglicization of their geographical names.
Moscow/Moskva and Germany/Deutschland are not the same thing, as country names are also used for everything else - languages, nationalities, adjectives.
EDIT: Not surprised - most abuse you get from your former country people.

--Atitarev (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Aww, c'mon, I was just joking! (see the smiley and the word "evil" which few people use seriously nowadays) And I didn't comment on your English - I just didn't understand what you were proposing to do with the article with that comment. The Moscow-Germany thing - the popularity of those names was meant there. They are far more popular than their native names, and thus it is unlikely that it will be possible to change those names the way relatively unknown countries like Moldova managed recently. --Illythr (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
All right, I had a bad day, just too many negatives in one sentence, didn't take as a joke.

--Atitarev (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

histmerge

This article was marked as a history merge, but that was not needed. User had cut-and-paste moved because the redirect history here made a move impossible. Really, this request should have gone to WP:RM.

I have no idea if this move will be controversial. If it is, feel free to move it back and discuss on WP:RM. My actions should in no way suggest a preference to this title. Cool Hand Luke 07:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is the most commonly used English name of the city--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 07:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I moved it back to the official name of the city - see also the official site mentioned in the infobox. Chişinău is also the most widely used international name of the city. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 10:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
But we are not concerned with its official name in Romania or its international use. We are only concerned with the English use, and that is Kishinev. Do you disagree that this article is being edited in English language Wikipedia?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 10:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Kishinev it's not used at all in english, maybe in Russian. Mrg, are you starting the russification of the Romanian articles on the English Wikipedia? --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you have to prove that Kishinev is "not used at all in English"
Actually you're the one who has to prove that Kishinev is used in English, as your the one who is making the changes. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Kishinev is used, in some historical contexts, but Chişinău is far more used in contemporany issues:
See Google News archive for the last 5 years:
Chisinau: 16,000 hits.
Kishinev: 600 hits, most of them in historical contexts, i.e. about Kishinev pogrom or other Jewish history articles. bogdan (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Each and every one of the following authors or organisations use Kishinev in their publications:

  • Glantz, Bellamy, Jukes (Osprey series), Willard C. Frank and Philip S. Gillette, Christopher Duffy, Denes Bernad, Albert Axell, Malcolm Mackintosh, Nathan Constantin Leites, Carl G. Jacobsen, Institut zur Erforschung der UdSSR, Florence Farmborough, Robert Maxwell (Information U.S.S.R.: An Authoritative Encyclopaedia about the Union of, University of Michigan), Martin L. Van Creveld, Kenneth S. Brower, Steven L. Canby, Air University (U.S.), United States Dept. of the Air Force.
Well, Google Scholar provides twice the amount of hits for "Kishinev" than for "Chisinau". However, if we look at publications from the last 10 years ("Kishinev", "Chisinau" (1997-2007)), the trend is reversing in favor of "Chisinau". In this case, we also have other encyclopedias to help us pick the name, and all of them use "Chisinau (formerly Kishinev)". So, while it's not true, that "Kishinev" is not used at all in English, "Chisinau" is currently the most common form. So we use that. --Illythr (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Google Scholar, or any of Google utilities are not acceptable historical sources for this article--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 12:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Kishinev was used during the Russian/Soviet occupation. However we still don't use Danzig for Gdansk on Wiki. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 12:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Was Kishinev occupied by Soviet Union during the period from 20 August to 7 September 1944?
  • Do you also agree that we are not discussing Danzig/Gdansk?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 12:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This has little to do with who "owns" the city and everything to do with who makes the name of the city known. "Jassy", to take our other example, was never German, but was known in English under its German name for a comparably long time.
For historical events, however, we use the names contemporary to those events, for example, Kishinev pogrom or Treaty of Jassy. These terms are likewise preferred by scholars (63 to 1 hits in GC for "Kishinev pogrom") as well as encyclopedias. So we use that. --Illythr (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • What was the contemporary name of the operation between the periods of 20 August and 7 September 1944?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 12:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually we can easily compare this with Gdansk/Danzig. The result of the Gdansk vote was that we should use the name Danzig for the period which the city was under germanic occupation. The conclusion of this vote should be also considered in our case. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I've already answered you above. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to confirm:
  • User:Eurocopter tigre agrees that we are not discussing Danzig/Gdansk in this talk page.

Wikiquette alert

I've posted a request on WP:WQA, asking for some outside input on whether Wikipedia policy truly does demand that the Chişinău article, as well as the other articles Mrg3105 has tagged, must (or need not) have their titles changed to diacritic-free versions. Richwales (talk) 06:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, though I would have preferred this was resolved through discussion--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 07:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Mrg: Google Scholar is not a "historical source" in itself - it lists and refers to historical sources and as such may be used as a quick "reality check" to see the general naming trends. It is more reliable than a standard search as it excludes Wikipedia references and unreliable sources like forums and blogs. Besides, we have most other big encyclopedias using Chisinau. As for your author list, an even more impressive one can be compiled for Chisinau, so that argument is rather pointless. --Illythr (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Please provide commonly available authored English language sources that use city name in Romanian spelling --mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 13:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Britannica, Encarta, Columbia. As for individual books, here's a list of 770. Kick out Romanian and Russian ones and you have it. --Illythr (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Britannica - Chisinau, formerly (1812–1918, 1940–91) Kishinev
encarta - Kishinev [ kíshi nèf ] Former name for Chisinau
Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-07. Kishinev Chiinu (the reason the name doesn't come out correctly is because of the non-standard character mapping used to display the Romanian script!)
list of 770 books - but the search word was Chisinau not Chişinău. Using the same search for Chişinău produces 530 publications, almost all unsurprisingly Romanian.
therefore I repeat myself with a clarification:
For me the sources mentioned by Illythr and Bogdan are perfectly available authored English language sources. It seems funny that you are now arguing even with your compatriot. Instead repeating several times the same thing, you'd better come out with serious sources and comments. Otherwise, I see no reason to continue this discussion. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Compatriot? I don't think Mrg3105 is from Moldova... --Illythr (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, maybe co-national would do. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you mean a common ethnicity, which may be possible. Hmm, are you implying that you expect all co-nationals to hold the same POV? Weren't you the one to complain about a user making general statements about other users based on their ethnicity? --Illythr (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Try again. The edition you pointed to is the 2007 edition which is an electronic edition of the

"Columbia Encyclopedia Sixth Edition by Paul Lagasse (Hardcover - 1993)"

The 2007 edition is so uncommon that it is not even available on Amazon.com of from Colombia University Press site! At 3156 pages it is unlikely to be "common" for quite a while given the cost of the Concise version of almost USD$800. The http://www.bartleby.com/65/ch/Chisinau.html online one doesn't even give a guide to pronunciation of the current Romanian name, and only provides pronunciation for Kishinev!--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 14:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Have a look again, it provides pronunciation for both. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I quote Columbia in full

(k´´shnou´) (KEY) , formerly Kishinev (ksh´nf´´) (KEY) , city (1996 est. pop. 735,229), capital of Moldova, on the Byk River, a tributary of the Dniester. Major industries include food and tobacco processing, the assembly of consumer and electrical goods, and the manufacture of building materials, machinery, plastics, rubber, and textiles. Founded in the early 15th cent. as a monastery town, Chiinu was taken in the 16th cent. by the Turks and in 1812 by the Russians, who made it the center of Bessarabia. Romania held the city from 1918 to 1940, when it was seized by the USSR. The Jewish population, which formerly constituted about 40% of the total, was largely exterminated in World War II. Chiinu’s educational and cultural facilities include a university (1945) and the Academy of Sciences of Moldova. 1 See E. H. Judge, Easter in Kishinev: Anatomy of a Pogrom (1992).

Nope, no pronunciation for Romanian name.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 14:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

(k´´shnou´) - then what's this?? --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Well, how would I know, I don't speak Romanian...I'm an English speaker!

Um, guys, it seems that you two have a common problem. Failing to notice that the very first word of an article is a transcription of its name is almost as difficult as counting four authors in a list of over 20, there. How do you manage this? --Illythr (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Please provide commonly available authored English language sources that use city name in Romanian spelling (i.e. Chişinău)--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 13:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


Ok, Mrg, let's set this straight. Which one spelling of this city do you dispute: Chişinău - specifically with the diacritics, or Chisinau in general? What name do you propose instead? Based on what sources?

As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) Chişinău is not appropriate for use in English language Wikipedia. I propose use of Chisinau in the title and Chişinău in the article with appropriate phonetic explanation for the English user as is suggested by the Wikipedia policy. There is no English language source for use of Chişinău in English language educational institutions, or use of diacritics in educational systems in the major (and minor) English speaking countries. This means that the vast number of English speakers can only relate to geographic names spelled without diacritics --mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 22:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
mrg: you are wasting everyone's time, your recent moves have been in breach of WP:POINT, and you are flogging a dead horse attempting to push a notion that is not in any way backed by the naming conventions. Please, find yourself something constructive to do on wikipedia. Dahn (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, we are all allowed an opinion. I'd like to hear yours.
  • Do you think that the English language has letters ş and ă?
I fail to see how WP:UE can be considered disruptive if the entire body of articles is dependent on its use.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 11:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious. If you insist that the city article in the English Wikipedia should be named with the name of the city as used in its native language, in this case Romanian, then why is it that in Romanian WIkipedia this is not the rule and the article Bătălia Berlinului is not named Bătălia Berlin?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 12:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
mrg: the rules you cite clearly specify that there is no automatic rejection of diacritics in article names, with the implication that these will be used by default where there is no variant in English (and "variant in English" does not mean taking the diacritic out willy-nilly as in "Chisinau", but an established alternative word such as "Algiers") or where the English name also features the diacritic (you will see a clear mention of that on the naming conventions page, in reference to the word "Besançon", and in clear connection with WP:UE). As anyone may read above, it was proven that the most prominent of English language sources do use "Chişinău", that "Kishinev" is an antiquated variant, and that "Chisinau" only exists in texts which do not use diacritics at all. The debate should have ended by this point. But you also claim that this name should somehow be "unfamiliar" to Anglo users - the spuriousness of which is made evident by the fact that wikipedia has redirects and pronunciation guides.
As for your last question, which is incidentally beside the point: Romanian forms its genitives by adding them to the word - in this case "-ului" to the source word "Berlin". Dahn (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Tense does not matter in the direct usage of the word. It should be as used in the language of origin according to your interpretation, so Berlin.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 02:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
That is among the most puerile messages I have ever read. I would be amused by it, but I am mainly worried by the fact that you may actually think it makes sense. Dahn (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify:
  • "the rules you cite" - which rules in particular?
Do you mean this Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) "Our naming policy provides that article names should be chosen for the general reader, not for specialists. By following English usage, we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called. If English usually calls a place by a given name, use it. If English uses different names in different historic contexts, use the name appropriate to the specific historic context."
  • "clearly specify that there is no automatic rejection of diacritics in article names"
Really? Since you make mention of reference to the word "Besançon", and it is the example used in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), I will quote the rest of the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28geographic_names%29#Use_English section:
===Use English===
This is the English Wikipedia; its purpose is to communicate with English-speaking readers. English does not have an Academy; English usage is determined by the consensus of its users, not by any government. One of the things to communicate about a place is its local name; in general, however, we should avoid using names unrecognizable to literate anglophones where a widely accepted alternative exists.
Please remember that many local names, like Paris or Berlin, are widely accepted in English. Frequently, English usage does include the local diacritics, as with Besançon. On the other hand, there are cases in which English widely uses the local name without adopting some non-English spelling convention or diacritic. In either case, follow English usage. When the diacritics are used in the article title, however, please create a redirect at the title without the diacritic, as not all Wikipedia users can readily type accented characters.
If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local official name. Foreign names should be used only if there are no established English names; most places which are notable, in Wikipedia's sense, do have established English names, which often are the local name. Rationale for historical usage should be explained on the article's talk page and in the name's section of the article about the geographical place in question.
You are claiming that Chişinău "will be used by default where there is no variant in English (and "variant in English" does not mean taking the diacritic out willy-nilly as in Chisinau"
However, there is an English variantChisinau [2], [3], and "On the other hand, there are cases in which English widely uses the local name without adopting some non-English spelling convention or diacritic."
You are also claiming that "As anyone may read above, it was proven that the most prominent of English language sources do use "Chişinău", that "Kishinev" is an antiquated variant"
  • Where was it proven that most prominent of English language sources do use "Chişinău"?
PS. Antiquated usually means over 50-100 years (except the USA) [4], and Kishinev was discontinued in 1991.
"and that "Chisinau" only exists in texts which do not use diacritics at all." That would be all English texts except one version of online dictionary updated in 2007.
What debate? There is no debate. USE ENGLISH.
Note, it is generally considered bad English grammar to begin a sentence with a "But".
"But you also claim that this name (Chişinău) should somehow be "unfamiliar" to Anglo users
  • I wonder how many English speakers would write it that way?Besançon is after all a close neighbour of many English speakers, and many of them actually speak French, so they make a few exceptions. Its only neighbourly after all, right? Still, I woonder how many English speakers, even those with higher education would write Besançon.
Given the length of the discussion it is safe to say I am not "spurious". However, I would consider this a breach of Wikipedia:Civility considering some of the meanings of the word.
"wikipedia has redirects and pronunciation guides." Yes indeed it does. As it says in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) Rationale for historical usage should be explained on the article's talk page and in the name's section of the article about the geographical place in question.
Also in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28geographic_names%29#General_guidelines it says
  1. The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always. If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. If neither of these English names exist, the modern official name, in articles dealing with the present, or the modern local historical name, in articles dealing with a specific period, should be used. All applicable names can be used in the titles of redirects.
  • We are now discussing this rationale. I can't see any rationale because
  • 1. the city name has an English language usage equivalent
  • 2. because no general English speaker would be able to write the city name in Romanian
  • 3. because there is only one source that actually uses the suggested title form
etc.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 13:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I think somebody has already explained you this issue, so what are we discussing anymore? --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
No, someone else has not explained the issue. In any case, the question is one of you providing sources for your claims.
  • Please provide commonly available authored English language sources that use city name in Romanian spelling (i.e. Chişinău)--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 15:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
We've already provided sources which you ignored. If you continue in this manner and ignore them, you will be reported. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, in English a plural is often accompanied by an addition of a s at the end of the word. When you say 'sources' you specify many. However only one English language source, the http://www.bartleby.com/65/ch/Chisinau.html actually uses Chişinău. Therefore the correct usage is
"We've already provided a source", which I clearly have not ignored.
If you are unclear about this, please see Wikipedia:Citing sources.
By all means report me for insisting that attribution is required for "direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." per WP:V--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 22:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Encarta also uses this orthography. Encarta. In any case Wikipedia guidelines state that when a well known common English name does not exist that the official name should be used. In this case, I don't think there really is a well known common name, so the form with diacritics should be used even by default, that being the official name. TSO1D (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Has Wikipedia adopted orthography guidelines of Encarta? Why was this not reflected in Wikipedia MoS?
In any case I have shown two other online sources above which are not commercial, and that do not use this orthography despite being located in the city in question--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 00:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
there are plenty of online sources using the diacritics: a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, some sports article on Goal.com, something religious article, no idea what, etc. bogdan (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't undertand mrg, you are the one who asked for additional sources, and when given one you ask me whether Wikipedia goes by Encarta. But actually there is some truth to that in the sense that Wikipedia guidelines suggest: "Consult English-language encyclopedias (we recommend Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, each as published after 1993). If the articles in these agree on using a single name in discussing the period, it is the widely accepted English name." (from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) In this case both Encarta and Columbia [5] use the version with diacritics. In any case, as the guidelines state this is not set in stone and particular exceptions can be made, but I just don't understand why you believe this should be done here. TSO1D (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, just to explain.
The Wikipedia policy is that the sources (plural) need to be commonly available English sources and not those one would go out of their way to find to to prove a point.
Besides this you suggest that "If the articles in these agree on using a single name in discussing the period, it is the widely accepted English name." All sources agree that the name for Chişinău during the Second World War was Kishinev, and yet User:Eurocopter tigre insists in Talk:Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive that current name for the cities should be used for all periods. This creates a contradiction in interpretation of the Wikipedia WP:UE policy and its related policies and guidelines, one of which you stated above.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 02:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you that the policy I cited would not apply to the operation. In fact there it might make more sense to use the Kishinev version. But that is a different matter that should be discussed on that talk page. TSO1D (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I feel the need to stress that I personally consider both views regarding the name for the article on the operation, to be of equal merit. In fact, if confronted with such a situation in the real world, I would simply flip a coin.
I also cannot help but read the above message left by mrg above is further admission that he was (is?) violating WP:POINT. Dahn (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmph, I'd rather check sources.
The multiple tagging of a heap of articles with diacritics in names does look rather POINTy. And pointless at the same time . :-) As for my own position on the diacritics - I don't care. As long as there's a en-compatible redirect to accept my search, I am content. --Illythr (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chișinău/Archive_1&oldid=1145403337"