| Revision as of 11:41, 23 January 2006 editBogdangiusca (talk | contribs)39,816 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:26, 30 January 2006 edit undoNode ue (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users7,238 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| ::: I put a link in ]. It should link eventually have a link in the history section, but currently that section has little on the modern history of Romanian language. ] 11:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC) | ::: I put a link in ]. It should link eventually have a link in the history section, but currently that section has little on the modern history of Romanian language. ] 11:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == Sections added by Bonaparte == | |||
| I suspect that the large section of this article originally added by Bonaparte is a direct translation from a copyrighted work in Romanian -- he has only one reference for the whole thing, despite the fact that it's paragraphs long. It's also poorly written, and most of it repeats things already written elsewhere in the article using different, less neutral, wording. I think we should remove it entirely, and if not that, it definitely needs a lot of work. --] 11:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:26, 30 January 2006
Why the article split?
I am just wondering. Was it simply to pull the content people were not arguing about out and put it somewhere? It does not leave very much in the other article. Dalf | Talk 11:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Because this part is getting very long. The other article is supposed to talk about Moldovan, the current official language of Moldova and what happend hundreds of years ago is only marginally relevant to that article. bogdan 11:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, seems like a good reason. Sometimes I think people split articles too quickly or for bad reasons. A lot of the best featured articles are quite long. But there does seem to be a good argument for having them seperate. Does the article on ROmanian also link here? I think a line or two mentioning Moldova and a like here (and there) might be worthwhile. Dalf | Talk 11:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- I put a link in Romanian language. It should link eventually have a link in the history section, but currently that section has little on the modern history of Romanian language. bogdan 11:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Sections added by Bonaparte
I suspect that the large section of this article originally added by Bonaparte is a direct translation from a copyrighted work in Romanian -- he has only one reference for the whole thing, despite the fact that it's paragraphs long. It's also poorly written, and most of it repeats things already written elsewhere in the article using different, less neutral, wording. I think we should remove it entirely, and if not that, it definitely needs a lot of work. --Node 11:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)