Yeah. Despite their constant assertions to the
otherwise, I can
testify that Romanians are collectively Russophobic.
What is this doing here?
I'm not sure that wikipedia-l is the place for
exposing your feelings about some nation or another.
User pages and blogs serve this purpose.
The argument here is about whether one *needs* two
fully independent wikipedias (ro and mo), or two
interfaces to a single code base, given that
1. the standard language is the same, as stated in
sources presented above, and accepted, for instance,
by GerardM.
2. wikipedia is about languages, not politics
And there is a second question: Is the second variant
feasible?
Dpotop
I don't really
blame them, given the role Russia has had in their
history.
Danutz claimed that it was a "coincidence" that they
removed the
Cyrillic character from the ball in the logo to
replace it with a
Romanian one, that they were just replacing a letter
at random, not
because it was Cyrillic. But I do not believe this.
Certainly, it is a basic difficulty that most
Romanians don't know
Cyrillic well enough to be able to write it,
although they can
probably read it with some difficulty (just as
someone who knew
Serbian Latin but not Cyrillic could eke their way
through a text).
Presumably, though, it could be solved that editbox
text, too, would
be converted.
But still, ro.wp would probably vote against the
very idea of having
Cyrillic on their WP in any way, shape, or form.
They've said some
pretty interesting stuff about it, like how badly it
fits the
language, despite the fact that it is linguistically
much
better-suited (more phonetic and has no digraphs,
represents some
distinctions that Latin does not, and combines a
couple of
diphthongs), and a hostile attitude in general
through various
actions.
I'm guessing that a long-term solution (ie, when the
internet comes to
Transnistria in its entirety) would be some form of
a transliterating
portal, if not a separate WP. (likely the Romanian
domination of power
would anger Nistrians regarding POV disputes)
Mark
On 15/11/06, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/15/06, Brion Vibber <brion(a)pobox.com>
wrote:
>> As long as there is no automated lossless
>> conversion from Latin to Cyrillic and from
>>
Cyrillic to Latin AND the
>> orthography used, MediaWiki does not
provide
>>
the required functionality
>> for Romanian/Moldovan.
>>
> That's a third thing, and an implementation
>
detail for the given
> language (eg, already implemented for
Serbian,
>
etc). Nor is it related
to the
'Multilingual MediaWiki' proposal.
Usage of scripts in articles on Serbian Wikipedia
are regulated by
policy, not by software (if initial article is
written in
Latin-Iyekavian, it should stay Latin-Iyekavian)
and we are not quite
happy because of that (we want solution in which
anyone may use it's
own script and variant inside of the code). And
what we want, it is
necessary for Moldovan/Romanin case and for all
other cases where
differences between orthographies are not inside
of one cultural
space. (I.e., it is OK for Serbian Ekavian user
to
see Iyekavian text,
but I don't think that it would be OK for
some
Romanian user to have
> to write in Moldovan Cyrillic ;) )
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.