Ar fi bine dacă experții pe care îi amintiți ar rezolva dintr-o dată problema diacriticelor, din nefericire ei n-o fac (încă). Eu văd că totuși nu există d.p.d.v. englez obiecții la utilizarea diacriticelor române corecte, oare sunteți de părere că e mai bine cu virgule așa zise turcești (sedile)? Ce fac eu este puțin , dar este totuși ceva și este ortografic corect d.p.d. v. al scrierii românești, nealterând totodată sensul de înțelegere în engleză. Numai bineBAICAN XXX (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vedem problema diacriticilor, s-ar părea în mod similar, eu fiind se pare doar mai optimist în privința efectului corectărilor făcute de mine. La en.Wicționar a fost o situație mai delicată, eu scriam (până în martie) cu diacritice corecte, și pentru asta am fost jignit, apostrofat nejustificat o perioadă de timp de unul care voia să scrie doar cu sedilă și schimba orice cuvânt scris de mine și "asmuțea" pe englezi contra mea (acum scrie și el la ro.Wicționar doar cu diacritice corecte(!), făcându-se că a uitat alergia față de ele, și pe mine m-a blocat temporar !). Noi nu ar trebui aici să legăm problema corectării automate (soluția 100%) de existența unor denumiri "turcești" în articole românești, cred că asta poate privi 5% (aproxim.) din articole, restul ar fi deci prelucrabil (e problema softiștilor, ei pot multe în domeniul semnelor diacritice, astă vă garantez). Tocmai de aceea fac ceea ce fac, o sensibilizare a subiectului, dar într-o manieră corectă! Mai mult decât nimic!BAICAN XXX (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the person to ask about this would be User:Kotniski; three months ago, he was experimenting with a bot. Unfortunately, that effort foundered because he didn't see a consensus for the change; perhaps we could find a way to persuade him that such a consensus in fact exists. - BiruitorulTalk 05:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still oppose such a move. Win XP still holds 40% of the Internet traffic, while Android and Symbian hold together 65% of the mobile Internet traffic, as our article points out. None of these systems have the comma version enabled by default (and on named mobile systems, there's not even official support for them). Thus someone attempting to read the article about my hometown on an up-to-date Android device will see a blank rectangle where the t-comma should have been. As graphically the difference is almost unnoticeable on the usual 12pt font, I support the version that maximizes usability and outreach, that is s-cedilla and t-cedilla.Anonimu (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, I would share Anonimu's concerns, and note that the Academy's decision back in the day was callous and superfluous. I'll also add that the "new" diacritics are so obscure and unnoticeable that one doesn't even find them in the map of characters wikipedia provides to its editors (the "Latin" menu to the lower left of the editing window) - and that is what I use in editing here, mainly because I despise the standard Romanian keyboard settings.
But we are already pushed into adopting the change, and the pendulum of consensus is changing. Instead of the guerilla war and the associated chaos, we might as well see about doing this properly and decently. What do Bogdan, AdiJapan, Kotniski have to say, is what we should be curious about at this junction. How do we move on, and into what? Dahn (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Biruitorul for pointing me to this discussion... Yes, I would also like to get this sorted out, and I would have thought we would want to follow the decision taken by Romanian WP - if they don't see a significant technical problem with using the correct characters, neither should we. In fact I've been doing some more experimenting recently, and have compiled a list of categories and page titles which, as a first step, ought to be renamed (the more complex step of changing the article text itself could come later). If there really is consensus to do this, then we can start by submitting the list of categories to CfD for renaming (the other pages I can probably move myself with a script).--Kotniski (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, this will make most articles using Romanian words with t-diacritic and s-diacritic inconsistent in the use of cedilla and comma for a long time to come. The solution on ro.wiki was marking all non-Romanian words with HTML (not wiki!) markup, and then mass-convert all unmarked words. This approach is not applicable to an encyclopaedia where the number of articles using Romanian diacritics is comparable (if not lower) to the number of articles using Turkish diacritics. While changing articles titles based on categories may work to a certain degree (although category conflicts are possible and likely, as the territory of modern Romania had intense contact with the Turks since the 14th century), automatically "correcting" article text is far from easy. As the Nicolae Iorga article was mentioned in the discussion, I don't think a fully automated bot will get it right in the next 2 years. Just look at a high impact article such as ro:Ștefan cel Mare: the text uses s-comma for Romanian words but also for "Süleyman Pașa" (the umlaut on the u and the y indicate that a Turkish rendition was sought), while the image captions, with one exception, use s-cedilla , with the most striking example being the caption "Iaşi,Palatul Culturii, statuia lui Ștefan cel Mare" (s-cedilla in Iasi, s-comma in Stefan). And this is one year after the "correction" process was declared basically completed (per table at ro:Wikipedia:Corectarea diacriticelor). Considering these, and the technical problems with displaying these characters on a large part of Internet-enabled devices (including the majority of the growing mobile market), I reiterate my strong objection to such a move. At most I may acquiesce to a solution based on the use of English standards (redirects from both variants + if an article uses s/t-comma consistently, then new contributions to that article should also use s/t-comma, the same for s/t-cedilla; while I discourage the move of an article from cedilla to coma, I would not actively oppose it through reverts or move wars if the use is consistent). And as WP recommends that (English) common use should prevail, it is readily verifiable that the majority of English-language publication use the cedilla variants (when they use diacritics at all). Furthermore, a quick check shows that the websites of the major Romanian journals either use the diacritics inconsistently [1][2], or use only the cedilla version exclusively [3],[4], as does the website of the Romanian Academy. The amount of words in Turkic languages in each of these websites is insignificant, yet they don't make any effort to use the "correct" diacritics. (BTW, as far as I've been told, the migration on ro.wiki had a lot to do with the prior decision of Enciclopedia Romaniei to use "correct" diacritics exculsively, so it was a rather political move - note that I don't participate in the ro.wiki project, so I might be wrong).Anonimu (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Thank you for joining in, Kotniski, your input is vital.) I have noticed some of those rowiki inconsistencies myself, and let me add that it becomes virtually impossible to correct a text that uses both keys, once these are left in there by some mistake: who will, or indeed could, fish out the anomalies between the comma and the cedilla in every article where they may still appear? It is something to consider, and one more reason why the move, when/if carried out, should be total or very near to total. I would also like to consider proposing a revert of all "-to cedilla" changes here until consensus, any kind of consensus, is reached - more inconsistency is the last thing we need. Dahn (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to do a big change like this, it's unavoidable that there will be inconsistencies during the intermediate stages, that some of them will be missed, and that occasional errors will be made. But I don't think that should put us off doing it, if we're agreed that the gains outweigh the losses (the principal gain, of course, being that readers are no longer misinformed about how these words are written in their native language - and as an encyclopedia we don't want to be misinforming people). --Kotniski (talk) 10:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it was a need for me to create a Wikipedia account here, because i see you write a lot of very interesting articles about the workers movement and the socialist movement in Romania. I write by myself at the moment about Stefan Gheorghiu and the syndicalist workers movement between 1900-1916 in Romania. (I write in german language and the book will be also published in german). More and more questions and hints about persons and happenings come up, which i try to figure out. I think you could have additional knowledge and informations and would like to ask you, if you could help me by answering some questions and figuring things out. Is there maybe a possibilty to reach you by email?
And sorry for my english. It is better then my romanian, but also not that good.
Best greetings to you and i hope to hear from you.
--MVHB (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Dahn. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
As he hides out in Sirte or Sabha or some other friendly enclave, I'm still holding out hope: the world will simply not be the same without him dispensing his wisdom. To quote The Green Book:
The antagonistic force of the trade unions in the capitalist world is capable of replacing capitalistic wage societies by a society of partnerships. The possibility of a socialist revolution starts by producers taking over their share of the production. Consequently, the aims of the producers' strikes will change from demanding increases in wages to controlling their share in production. Guided by THE GREEN BOOK , this will sooner or later take place. The final step is for the new socialist society to reach a stage in which profit and money disappear. Society will become fully productive; the material needs of society will be met. In this final stage, profit will disappear, as will the need for money.
A woman, whose created nature has assigned to her a natural role different from that of man, must be in an appropriate position to perform her natural role.
Mankind is still backward because humans do not communicate in one inherited common language. It is only a matter of time before mankind, achieves that goal, unless civilization should relapse.
I do hope someone carries forth the glorious Jamahiriya ideology.
Take your time with the email. Of course I did think of snapping a picture, but I didn't try forcing my luck. Fortunately, someone else got his picture for us in the interim.
This article looks interesting, and there are some nice nuggets, especially in the part beginning "Misiunea Comisiei apărea extrem de dificilă..." See you around . - BiruitorulTalk 20:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny how he sings the praises of Black people when he himself looks rather Sicilian. He may be African, but a reasonable observer would probably not label him "Black". To be sure, the Assad regime is hardly at the same level as the Jamahiriya, but at least it's still around for the moment, and we still have one Baath party taking a leading role in society (its bitter Iraqi rival now a distant memory). Unity, Liberty, Socialism! Long live the Alawite hegemony over the Syrian people! I rather like the secular, socialist Arab dictators (incidentally, both the Baath and the Syrian Social Nationalist Party were founded by Orthodox Christians, Michel Aflaq and Antun Saadeh), but in the ideological struggle between them and the Islamists that's been playing out since the 1920s or so, the latter seem to have gained the upper hand rather decisively. Be that as it may, the anthem of the Syrian Baath party, "Al-shabab al-orb" ("Arab Youth"), is beautiful, even if you don't know Arabic (I certainly don't).
I hadn't thought in depth about a cutoff date for Historia; the sale happened two years ago, so I guess "some time after that". Its current incarnation reminds me of Jurnalul Naţional's articles on history, and of course we cited those extensively. I see Cioroianu is there (this sounds like an interesting episode). And of course, where else will we get material for a Prostitution in Romania article?
About the Mihai episode: there was definitely some posturing going on - I don't know if Antonescu or Ponta gets the prize (probably Ponta, who made his criticism "Ca susţinător constant al sistemului republican"). At the same time, one did see actual historians like Cioroianu and Giurescu take the King's side, though not quite Tismăneanu. (Oh, and Bălăceanu-Stolnici, of whom my aristocratic friend said simply, due to his Communist-era activities, when I asked for his opinion on him: "Nu şi-a cinstit clasa". Well, I suppose he did have to earn a living...) My own understanding is that once Antonescu came to power and until he was arrested, the King really was very much of a symbolic monarch, living almost by force at Peleş, with ministers banned from communicating with him, stopped and turned back when he tried to enter Bucharest during the Legionnaires' Rebellion. But he did tour the front, and he must have had some role in the affairs of state, so it's worth exploring in full. If his devoted son-in-law would permit an interview on the subject, that might be a start in shedding some light.
Ahoy there! I know I've been awfully rude by continually pushing off my reply until it's become almost too late to do so, but meanwhile, I'll have the gall to ask you to stand by in order to potentially put out a couple of fires — this one and this one, to be precise. I really thought I'd finished off this "let's have articles on villages" hydra once I completed the "villages project" — and it's been done for a month now — but it looks like it just refuses to go away. Concurrently, Category:Communes and villages in Romania should be moved to Category:Communes in Romania, since the articles on villages are all gone, but let's just hope this episode turns out all right first. - BiruitorulTalk 06:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm truly sorry to hear about that, and I sincerely hope that, whatever shadow this is, it too shall pass. Our affairs here are of secondary importance, and the thing will probably blow over sooner or later. Nevertheless, I do look forward to seeing you weigh in when you have a chance, as I'm sure I'll laugh heartily at the devastating logic. So far, I've manned the breaches almost alone, and while they're still holding, my own contributions don't have quite the same mental firepower I'm sure you'll bring. - BiruitorulTalk 18:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once Tripoli fell, I imagined he'd spend years riding around the desert on horseback, a green flag trailing from his hand, shouting "I'm in control!", perhaps composing an updated Green Book, a retinue carrying around his tent — alas, it wasn't meant to be, but at least he died a martyr on Libyan soil. Anyway, a lovely photo gallery over here, and more here.
The amount of potential AfDs is piling up, so may I ask for some notability checks when you have a chance?
Picking up one thread of an earlier discussion, I would say that this category is useful for buildings that already have a claim to notability — the Athenaeum, the Art Museum/Palace, the Patriarchate, etc. What we should probably avoid is adopting the standard editors did for the US (and probably the United Kingdom) - deeming any historic monument worthy of an entry, regardless of its actual notability aside from the designation. Then we'd have articles like this or this or this. (I guess ro.wiki is going down that path, and the "Castra of" articles are a spillover of that - click on a couple and you'll see what I mean.) - BiruitorulTalk 21:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First off, you know I'm a patient man, so no worries on that front. Second, that sounds wonderful. I suppose my latest DYK doesn't count — he died during WWI, but that's about the extent of the connection. On the other hand, I can think of at least one article I can write that would fit perfectly, so if you set up a holding area, I'll have what to put there. - BiruitorulTalk 05:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here was my idea. It's fairly obvious, but on the other hand, he's probably unknown outside Romania and is intricately linked with the event, so this should work.
One of the several (and sometimes confusing) governing bodies of the transition phase - perhaps the Directing Council of Transylvania.
A newspaper. I was thinking of Telegraful român — some good coverage here, here, here and perhaps here. I know the paper's heyday was in the 1860s, but this (the "Transilvania – o periferie cu trei centre" article) gives some attention to its WWI-era reporting. - BiruitorulTalk 14:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would Cathedral of the Unity of the People, Alba Iulia qualify for December 1st? I'll have to be off till nearly the end of the year, so this would be my second and last contribution for the event. (But great work on your part!)
Anyway, after this debacle, I'm not even that enthusiastic at the moment. I can send you the text in question if you like (simply for review; I'm not expecting you to get drawn into this) and you'll see that this is somewhat unfair. I did try as much as I could to word things so that I wasn't copying, and even more so after problems were pointed out. At the same time, I only had one main source because, after all, we're not dealing with a Picasso or a Matisse here; there's only so much material readily available. As long as I cite the source (which I did rigorously), use my own words (likewise) or quote what seems quotable (the same), I don't quite see what else I'm expected to do. - BiruitorulTalk 02:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dahn. There is a new editor who I think will be a valuable contributor once they learn the ropes, but at the moment does not seem to realise the policy issues involved in close paraphrasing of text from sources. I don't want to put them off from editing, but we seem to have come to a bit of an impasse on the question of copyright. If you visit User talk:RashersTierney#Roma in the Czech Republic and follow the links you should see what I mean. I will provide links to show the issues in question if you don't immediately see the 'borrowed' text. I'd like the problem to be resolved quickly and amicably as I think the ed. can be a valuable asset on Romani-related articles. Hope you don't mind the imposition. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rashers, thanks for the post, but I just happen to have way too much on my plate right now, and this requires a helluvalot of patience. If this is still an issue by the end of the week, I'll weigh in at that time. Please forgive me, I know it's an impotant issue, and normally I would not delegate. Dahn (talk) 07:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine Dahn. An added source of irritation for me, (which may have unintentionally crept into my reaction), is that I have a copy of Crowe's book somewhere, just can't put my hand on it following a personal library 'reorganisation'. Hope to retain the substance of the edits, but they will need quite a bit of a rewrite. Talk soon. RashersTierney (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits seem problematic. The point of DYK is to have people read the article, so blue-linking Democratic Party (U.S.) was a distraction. The Democratic Party is linked at the article.
Your other edit removed the specific context of the Nicaraguan Civil War. The readers don't need to learn about General Sandinista, etc.
I won't revert you, but I mention these differences of opinion wishing that you can convince me that your edits make a better DYK hook.
As vrea sa propun articolul la WP:GAC (m-am consultat si cu bibliomaniac15). M-ai ajuta cu imbunatatirea articolului astfel incat sa primeasca statutul? Ma ocup eu de legaturile rosii.Ionutzmovie (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nici o problema, sa-mi zici cand ai terminat. Articolul are potential si ar fi pacat sa nu il propunem.Ionutzmovie (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Poti scrie cateva cuinte si despre familia lui Kogalniceanu? Intre timp am mai "albastrit articolul".Ionutzmovie (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination of Democratic Union Party (Bukovina)[edit]
Thanks for fixing that Gary Oldman portrayed Sid Vicious and not Kurt. The source does say Sid Vicious. That would have been embarrassing if the article appeared on the main page with that error. SL93 (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an amazing sequence of DYKs over a 24-hour period. The articles are all interesting, well researched and well written. You are making a wonderful contribution to the coverage of Romania on the English Wikipedia. Thanks for your efforts. - Ipigott (talk) 08:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why, thank you, and of course, that's a great run of work on your part as well. As for where I am: well, probably not too far from you. At 11 am, I was a stone's throw away from the President of Romania (and his shining bald head) as he laid a wreath beneath the Arch of Triumph. Now I'm near a computer for the first time in a week, checking in on things. Good luck going forward. - BiruitorulTalk 15:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Dahn. You have new messages at Ionutzmovie's talk page. Message added 00:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Keep up the good work Dahn. We may disagree very occasionally, but you well deserve the 'farkle'. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reply. Sarek of Vulcan is a good admin, you may address yourself to him for any help needed. Saturnian's position is one that is recurrent on RM, cannot get people to use Google Scholar :(.. Anyway, have a good day. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Saturnian appears to have gone wildly over WP:3RR, but please check that yourself, in correcting his edits haven't also been pushed over WP:3RR - it would be grossly unfair if you had but if it gets called by admins... In ictu oculi (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Goodo. I think you're doing amazingly frankly. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your post in WP:ANI. You should repost in Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical). Wikipedia has a bugtracker where you can make this sort of petitions, but I have no idea where it is. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mean about adding the "new" Romanian diacritics to the character map, so you can start using them. Ask the people to add them, or to tell you where to ask. Give them a list of all the new diacritics so the people making the change can simply copy/paste them. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if you know of any inconsistencies in ro.wp articles you should report them there (or on my userpage here if you don't want to edit ro.wp) instead of making it look like this is a general situation. But before you do, please make sure you're not affected by the script that allows users of Windows XP to see the pages with cedilla-below characters. In order to do this, you could deactivate JavaScript in your browser or choose the "Diacritice nemodificate" gadget on ro.wp.--Strainu (talk) 09:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't try to change your quotes. You did not talk about inconsistencies, you said: "the change it [ro.wp] performed is non-systematic and created many articles which still used both spellings in the same body of text". That is false for several reasons:
The change was systematic. The robot went through every article of ro.wp and made the change unless instructed otherwise.
There are no pages wrongly using both spellings. There are some pages that wrongly converted some Turkish names to comma-below.
"many" is a relative measurement. But I doubt you will find more than 1‰ (that is 1 in 1,000, or about 170 as of today) of the articles have mistakes. This is an insignificant part of the whole content.
I do not care one bit about how disruptive or not you are, either here or on ro.wp. I've dealt with much worse in the past. I also do not care much about your opinion on the Academy. I am irritated because you use wording designed to greatly exaggerate the problems of the conversion, presumably in order to dissuade other users from supporting it. Pe românește, faci din țânțar armăsar.--Strainu (talk) 12:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's now official. And let me begin by saying how dreadful those attacks must have been for you. I just noticed them recently, and I'm sorry I wasn't there to weigh in. I've also noticed this, which is mild by comparison, but really, someone should read WP:STICK at some point.
Having swung through Craiova, Ploiești (they did now put s- and t-comma in the editing box), Vălenii de Munte, Timișoara, Buziaș, Arad, Gherla, Curtea de Argeș and your beloved hometown, I bear with me rich photographic material. For now, let me note my bewilderment that you didn't grab thisshot during your own foray into the Domain of Antonie Solomon (or is it still? It's hard keeping track, with so many arrested mayors these days), but here it is. And here is a whole set of pictures that I'd say we were missing. (Any word, by the way, on the Măgirescu source in the article?) And this - well, maybe it'll inspire a 1907 article in time for the 105th anniversary!
I have to go for now, but let me close by asking about The Ceausescu Moment. I've heard the term "Ceaușescu moment", and it might do to redirect to Nicolae Ceaușescu or Romanian Revolution of 1989, but a separate article? And a "fine" one at that, we're told... - BiruitorulTalk 06:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the Demetrescu bust is by Ion Jalea (as may be the case), then the news is good either way. On Commons, we only need wait another 41 years or so. Here on en.wiki, we might use the Template:PD-US/Template:PD-US-1923-abroad, since the bust is from 1912. (That is, if this applies to works of art and not just to photographs.) About the prison: hmm. I'm guessing the general view of the memorial, the memorial wall and the mosaic cross fall afoul. The smaller cross might pass (insufficient originality). (The memorial view one might want to upload here under fair use, since it seems pretty important for the article.) The ones from the prison site itself should be fine, since the building and yard, although dating to ca. 1940, seem to lack any sort of originality.
I kind of bumped into the 1907 one while a friend was driving me around looking for the prison site (it's a bit hidden). Come to think of it, it too is probably copyrighted until the 2050s, but if Buzău can get away with it... As for the anniversary, the idea came to me as I pondered the strangeness of this campaign. Speaking of which, I'm surprised we still lack articles like Borsec (water), Tușnad (water), Perla Harghitei, etc. There must be some interesting history there.
Who still supports the PD-L, anyway? I do know a few lost souls stubbornly clinging to the sinking ship, but the polls look grim indeed. Perhaps a PNȚCD-style meltdown is coming up. The UDMR is also pursuing a pretty weak strategy, flirting with that 5% threshold, possibly sinking beneath if Tőkes gets his new party off the ground, or simply if enough of its voters stay home in disgust at a party that stays in power for the crumbs thrown at it. As for the Dan Diaconescu 9-14%, I guess we now know where the Vadim voters are migrating.
Merry Christmas, and see you around. - BiruitorulTalk 15:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is everything with you? I do hope you're more or less all right. - BiruitorulTalk 14:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not that relevant for your article, but: heh. And Romanian politics remains just as farcical as it was back then. - BiruitorulTalk 21:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now here's something a little different: may I ask you to brush through them, since they may make the main page? I think Romania's industrial heritage is rather under-explored and this area could have some potential. There's the long-planned oil industry article, but on Galaţi we have a source ready for use, and the PDF I used for Govăjdia also talks about Hunedoara. Then there's Braşov, Slatina, Rovinari, the carpet factory at Cisnădie, the cement factories at Deva, at Bicaz, so many glorious memories... Well, at least Galaţi, Hunedoara and Braşov deserve articles.
On Reşiţa, I know it was quite the pride of the Communists (after all, nothing says "building socialism" like those furnaces) and used to good propagandistic effect: that aspect could use a bit more emphasis. - BiruitorulTalk 02:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the review; Galatz has already rolled off the assembly line, faster than I anticipated. Grigore Preoteasa is back in the news - perhaps there's something new.
Articles on all Romanian elections since 1919 have now been started, and they all feature that irksome "politics of" template, although supposedly it's useful. - BiruitorulTalk 04:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Your submission of Democratic Union Party (Bukovina) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Harrias talk 17:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
