Talk:Suceava

[Untitled]

Do we really need to gaze upon the tremendous kitsch that is the "throne room"?Dahn 10:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe till something better will be posted, something like (Nicodim 1473, slavon Tetraevanghel polichrome image of the Stefan)193.230.195.1

100% REMOVE!!! We need some GOOD pictures about Suceava. Mihai -^talk 12:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that the throne scene must even be copyrighted... So, I removed it. bogdan 12:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Romanian Pronunciation

Isn't the "e" silent, as in Italian when used to indicate an affricate? Ratzd'mishukribo 05:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is almost silent, but sometimes in Romanian spoken very clearly, you might hear it there. It depends on the accent. The Moldovan accent is known to change "ia" into "ea" so there you might hear it, or as I said in very clearly pronounced Romanian. Mirc mirc 11:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

I've never seen the idea that Suceava is of Hungarian etymology anywhere (and it would be odd as the region wasn't ruled by Hungary) but have seen claims that it's of Dacian origin (the -eava being supposed to be a corruption of dava, common in Dacian names). Given the fact that the river is also Suceava and river names tend to survive an area being conquered by groups with a diferent language better than most, this seems far more likely than any supposed Hungarian etymology. Whichever is actually true, though, the certainty with which the article states that the origin of the name is Hungarian is utterly unwarranted.

I have NEVER heard of the idea of Hungarian etymology either! Never. It is a totally un-neutral claim. There are two variants generally accepted: a) that it is of Dacian origin, from the "dava" termination that you mentioned too, meaning fortress; this being supported by the existence of another city, on the bank of the Danube called "Sucidava" which resembles a lot the name Suceava; b) that it comes from the verb "a suci", to turn, to bend. And considering Suceava is a river with A LOT of turns, it's very likely that it was called by the locals "The River that Turns", "Riul care (se) suceste", "Suceava". And I think this is a really touchy issue, and really NOT A NEUTRAL ARTICLE, considering all the propaganda about this issue going on on the Internet nowadays. Please change it, anyone that sees this, as I am afraid of doing any edit on any article of Wikipedia. Mirc mirc 11:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

St John the New

Could I just point out that St. John the New was not a Moldovan of any description, nor a monk, but a merchant from Trebizond and that his martyurdom had nothing to do with any Turkish occupation. Indeed, his relics being brought to Suceava pre-dates the period of Ottoman Suzerainty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.174.130 (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

new section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.73.168.22 (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Capital of the Moldova medieval kingdom

Yes, Moldova was a medieval kingdom !. Principality is a term from the XIX th century. Moldova rulers were wearing crowns (see painted monastires),minted coins, commanded armies, and signed treaties They beared the name "domn" equivalent to "king". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.38.125 (talk) 04:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Pricipality means: state without own army, without own coin and without crown. See MONACO, see ANDORRA etc

Show me a reliable source, which implies "Moldova kingdom" or "Kingdom of Moldavia" etc. --Norden1990 (talk) 08:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe was a republic ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.28.33 (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Suceava. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130604040638/http://www.suceava.insse.ro/phpfiles/Comunicat%20-%20pt%20site-DATE%20PROVIZORII%20RPL%202011%202_Suceava.pdf to http://www.suceava.insse.ro/phpfiles/Comunicat%20-%20pt%20site-DATE%20PROVIZORII%20RPL%202011%202_Suceava.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

German names

In a recent edit summary, a user wrote: “There is no exaggeration in stating German names for cities or localities which were and still are inhabited by an important community of ethnic Germans. If you're not from around this cultural area, stick to your business! Furthermore, there are plenty other articles on the English Wikipedia in which German names are stated, which is perfectly civilised.”

This is nonsense, on several levels:

• At the last census, all of Suceava County had 267 ethnic Germans. At 0.072% of the population, that is not an “important community”, by any stretch of the imagination.
• Everyone has the right to edit any page; see WP:OWN.
• While the German name of Suceava is relevant for the “names” section, everything else is definitely overkill. These places have not been governed by Germans since 1918 and have not been inhabited by Germans (with very few exceptions) since 1945. The German names are present in the relevant articles. Putting them here just needlessly clutters up the text, and gives the distorted impression that Suceava is some kind of Germanic island today, which is simply not the case.

@Super Dromaeosaurus: - Biruitorul ^Talk 10:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Correct. I removed most of the German names again, anyways. Super Ψ Dro 10:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Ukrainian name in the lead

Haldir Marchwarden, how is the Ukrainian name of Suceava relevant enough as to add it in the lead and to place it before the German name of the city? Suceava is not comparable to Chernivtsi. A century ago, it was a part of Romania. Suceava has however never been part of any Ukrainian state. I have no problem with it staying on the Names and etymology section. Super Ψ Dro 12:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I usually put everything in alphabetical order, differently from some articles pertaining Ukraine, its borderlands and lands long inhabited by Germans, seemingly of pro-Romanian matrix, where Romanian terms are inexplicably put first, right in front of the German ones, among others. It was a mistake: names should always be put in alphabetical order imo. Anyway, allright, let's do like you say.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

This is not an improvement. No, we don’t need translations of Romanian Old Kingdom wherever the term occurs, just in that article. Nowhere in MOS is that recommended and it’s absurd to start imposing this practice. No, we don’t need sensationalist language like “massively hit” or “nearly ruined”. No, we don’t need colloquialisms like “for that matter”. No, we don’t need unsourced speculation about a population decline. No, we don’t need a phrase like “placed in the red scenario”, which no Anglophone reader will understand. No, we don’t need to go on and on about planned repairs to a single building, which has its own article anyway. No, we don’t need to dwell on some random initiative the mayor signed on for. And so on. — Biruitorul ^Talk 23:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Hungarian name

Certain user (Biruitorul) keeps adding a Hungarian name for this city (and many other cities: Bacău, Târgu Neamț etc.). If these cities do NOT (AND DID NOT) have Hungarian inhabitants, if they were not even under Hungarian rule and are not known even coloqually under the Hungarian name, then why have a Hungarian name for Suceava on this page? I remind you that when googling the name of the city, the Wikipedia page is the first result displayed. So this induces the false idea that somehow these cities/towns were at some point part of Hungary or that they had significant number of Hungarian inhabitants. 213.205.200.58 (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Rosenborg BK Fan:, your thoughts? — Biruitorul ^Talk 10:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  Well, the thing is, according to some sources, the Romanian name of the town of Suceava is derived from Hungarian. However, historically speaking, there hasn't been a sizable Hungarian population living in the town of Suceava, therefore the Hungarian name shouldn't be displayed in the introduction, but should, nevertheless, from encyclopedic regards, be specified in the 'Names and etymology section'. I for one don't see any particular problem with that whatsoever. I cannot talk about the other cities or towns edited by that respective user with additional Hungarian names though, but it would be common sense and rather normal for towns/cities with historical or sizable Hungarian populations to also have their Hungarian name attributed in the introduction, of course. All the best, much health, take care, and stay safe! Namaste, many blessings, and great peace your way! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I also believe it should be removed from the lead. Suceava has never been part of Hungary, so we shouldn't apply the practice we use for Transylvania, and it also never had a Hungarian population. Only those villages directly inhabited by the Bukovina Székelys should have the Hungarian name. Super Ψ Dro 10:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps, that's true... There had been, however, in the past a small Hungarian community in Suceava, in Ițcani, more specifically. And, perhaps, due to the medieval contacts with the Kingdom of Hungary, the Hungarian name of the town might be relevant, in a historical context... I am not entirely certain here, but I for one don't mind it, and I am a native of this town of course... All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 09:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Edits of 28 May 2023

• No, we don’t need to write in the infobox that Suceava is a county seat and a town. Municipiu or maybe county seat, pick one.
• No, we don’t need to write how you call various things in Romanian — at most, that can be done (and is done) in the respective articles.
• No, we don’t need the cliché about being at the crossroads of etc., especially when that’s sourced to “The Dockyards”, a blog.
• No, we don’t need puffery about “renowned” attractions or “iconic” buildings. (By the way, I’d think the old cathedral, a UNESCO site, deserves mention more than the dime-a-dozen prefecture, but maybe that’s just me.)
• Are we on the same page? — Biruitorul ^Talk 09:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for your message. I think we should keep both municipality and county seat. As for the Romanian language use, I don't what's the problem with that. You also erased German language terms but you did not mention this on the list above and those names might be relevant in a historical and encyclopaedic context. The fact that the town lies approximately at the crossroads of Central and Eastern Europe is not cliché but fact, and was placed there before my edits, if I'm not mistaken (it was also sourced by a book, so if you have something against the respective website, which is okay, please keep the book at least, which is relevant, in my humble opinion). And the respective statement was sourced by a website (not a blog). You are free to call that 'puffery' if you want given the fact that these adjectives seem to be, for some odd way of reason (even if they are accurately used), frowned upon here on Wikipedia. The UNESCO cathedral does need a mention in the introduction, of course. Last but not least, technically we are on the same page, the talk page.

  All the best!

  P.S.: As a native I have the symbolic legitimacy to be responsible a bit more for this page, and this is specifically what I tried to do to the best of my capabilities. Hence the article, thanks also in part to my constant contributions I think, is now rated B in terms of article classification here on Wikipedia, which is something. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  P.S.: Also, Suceava is not a city (it is more of a town given its total population, which, unofficially, is lower than that recorded at the previous census, according to what I know and have been told). Now I know that you equate city with municipality but in my humble opinion, solely for me, that is not entirely correct. Suceava is a relatively small urban settlement now and I think that it is highly likely that its population will continue to decrease in the near future, so it's more of a town, in the understanding of urban settlements in the English language. At least, this particular reasoning makes sense to me. All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• To be precise, the Berger book merely asserts that Bukovina is in “the eastern part of Central Europe”. Citing a footnote in a law treatise for this rather banal statement is overkill. Non-controversial statements in the lead section don’t even need citations, per WP:CITELEAD. — Biruitorul ^Talk 10:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  By extension and by virtue of the fact that Suceava is the namesake seat town of Suceava County due also to its geographic position and history/historical former geographic positions, it is indeed situated at the crossroads of Central and Eastern Europe, in both cultural and regional regards. As for your other personal opinions, please keep them to yourself, especially when communicating to a native of a region or town you are referring to (and claiming that 'we don't need', not knowing exactly who this 'we' is, is a strong personal opinion which should be more elegantly replaced with a perhaps, even if somewhat associated with the Wiki rules and guidelines). Also a blog is a blog, it is hosted on Blogger, WordPress or other blogging platforms, dependently on them, and a website is a website, regardless of opinions on it.

  And, as you mentioned, these claims don't necessarily need citations, but even with citations they can get deleted, so an user like me is confused, therefore it is better to be safe than sorry and add some sources as well. To me it seems that the English Wikipedia is veering towards what's happening on the German Wikipedia, where the behaviour of some admins had definitely been worse than here (not even to mention in real life). And that, I find, quite distressing and worrisome...

  In conclusion, if you want to improve an article, please feel free to do it, but don't delete other users' edits solely based on your opinion, calling them either 'bloat' or 'overkill' as these can be interpreted as insults or rude behaviour. What is 'bloat' and 'overkill' for you is certainly not to users. Please be mindful of these considerations in the future when possibly interacting with other users and their edits. This improves the culture of dialogue to a considerable extent... All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

P.S.: You previously done this on the articles of the Bucovina Rock Castle and the Medieval Seat Fortress of Suceava and that wasn't alright for me... Likewise, what is 'bloat' to you, is definitely not 'bloat' to me...

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Suceava Galleria, general view - panoramio.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)