This page 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.
Poll at close 19:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC). Results: Choice 1=net+1 ; Choice 2=net+/-0 ; Choice 3=net+4 ; Choice 4=net+2 ; Choice 5=net+2 ; Choice 6=net+6 ; Choice 7=net+1 ; Choice 8=net+4 – nat.utoronto 19:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The following is an archived poll. Please do not modify it.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Which of the following should be the text of the article (feel free to add other options) Please indicate any you can support; reasons to oppose should go in the discussion below:
Please indicate all you can tolerate, with brief comments. (Each form of text would presumably have footnotes also, which would include evidence, and should include the claim Rumania is derogatory if a source can be found.)
1) Romania (Romanian: România, IPA:[ro.mɨˈni.a]) is... (and then add names in Etymology section)
This should suffice for the first sentence of the article.Nergaal (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Third choice, providing there is expansion of the etymology to cover the various English language names that have been used for the country. Narson (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Now we have seperate options for inclusion with etymology and such, this option becomes unacceptable, IMO Narson (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
First and only choice. Any other "alternate names"should be posted in the Etymology sectiion. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Second choice, this is fine too, simplicity is fine and etymology section and redirects take care of other spellings. AdrianTM (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Alternate names have to be mentioned in the leading section. Besides, they are not a matter of etymology. — AdiJapan☎ 12:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
First choice. Narson (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Third choice, that's OK too, but I prefer simplicity in introduction. -- AdrianTM (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Support. --Reuben (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
First choice. — AdiJapan☎ 12:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, this should pe posted in the Etymology section. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you please explain why the variants of an English word should be described in a section about the etymology of a Romanian word? — AdiJapan☎ 19:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
First choice. Also, AdiJapan, this is approval polling, not disapproval polling. Vote for what you think is best, not what you don't. Charles 19:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
4) Romania (Rumania, Roumania are now largely historic; Romanian: România, IPA:[ro.mɨˈni.a]) is...
Fifth Sixth and final choice. The last of the current six I consider acceptable. It is starting to get horribly long for a simple bracketted bit after the most common name. The whole "Rumania, Roumania are now largely historic" bit makes it look like Rumania is alternative, Roumania is historic. Would be better if it said "Rumania or Roumania, though both are now largely historic" but then its even longer. Narson (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Dated covers much the same ground, although there is a slight difference; this would say, correctly, that the less used terms are now used about the nineteenth century. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 04:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Narson, can you see any acceptable way to shorten or abbreviate the wording? --Reuben (talk) 08:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Support. First choice. --Reuben (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Awkward wording. — AdiJapan☎ 12:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
"Archaism, the use of a form of speech or writing that is no longer current" Since 1% of Google results point to Rumania and 99% point to Romania and 100% current official documents and communiques use "Romania" (AFAIK) I think "archaic" describes the situation pretty well. Notice that archaism means "no longer current" it doesn't mean that you need to use archaeology tools to find such words... -- AdrianTM (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see discussion here. There are still (a few, mostly older) people who use these versions of the names, so "archaic" is too strong. In 50 or 100 years that may not be the case. Right now, "dated" is more accurate. --Reuben (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, "dated" is better choice. AdrianTM (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
There may be other, better choices too... --Reuben (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
second choiceSupport As Rumania and Roumania are pretty much historically used forms, I believe this is the best option to go with. nat.utoronto 23:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Second choice. Narson (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Not archaic. — AdiJapan☎ 12:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Support. How is it not archaic? I've seen it in museums and old texts, but never anywhere recent. --Dmfallak (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
First choice. nat.utoronto 23:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Support as first choice. -- AdrianTM (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Fourth choice. Perhaps "somewhat dated", since there is a touch of original research here; but it accomplishes my primary purpose. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 23:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Fourth Choice. Though I dislike inventing a new form (dated) in the intro, sometimes deviating from the guidelines is necessary for the 'greater good' of an article (For example the use of a spanish second name in the Falkland Island articles (despite the native language not being spanish), as it stops there being a constant fight over how much should cover the spanish name) Narson (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment It's not quite invented, see here it's a clear needed category between "archaic" and "current" since it seems that "archaic" has a nuance of "really old", we need a word for "used in the past, nowadays not used in official documents anymore and rarely used in other settings" -- AdrianTM (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Support. --Reuben (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
So-so. If you need a link to the Wiktionary, it's not the best wording. Ambiguous and inexact too. — AdiJapan☎
Second choice. Charles 19:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Support, with the possibility of changing the wording. --Reuben (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Third choice Narson (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Alternate names are not a matter of etymology. Also, why use 6 words and a link when you can explain it there, in 4 words?... — AdiJapan☎ 12:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
8) Romania (Romanian: România, IPA:[ro.mɨˈni.a]) is... [later sentence in intro] Romania has also been known as Rumania or Roumania, names which are now found chiefly in a historical context.
Support. Changes in wording of this suggestion are entirely possible. --Reuben (talk) 07:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Fifth Choice Narson (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Support, this is not bad either. -- AdrianTM (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Last choice. It has the disadvandage of going back to discussing the name. — AdiJapan☎ 12:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I cannot support this. It is wordier, less visible for those who need it, and yet more obtrusive than any of 2-6. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 00:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The above is an archived poll. Please do not modify it.
