Jump to content

Talk:Dacia (disambiguation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Missing Section

[edit]
14 % of Dacia - under Roman occupation.

Actually it was more than that. Romans conquered Dobrogea, Oltenia, Banat and most of Transylvania. It's almost half of today's Romania. Bogdan | Talk 22:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dacia (disambiguation)

[edit]

Scandinavia was listed because it is mentioned in, and linked-to from, Jacob the Dacian. I am restoring the listing as warranted and helpful to readers. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still a disambiguation page?

[edit]
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.

As of this edit, hasn't the page gotten pretty screwed up? Looks like partially an article, partially a disambiguation page now, with undue stress given to certain listings. Doesn't it? SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned it up, removed the TOC, and sorted out the "Recovered" and "Red link" sections -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you BzS! SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incomprehensibly abbreviated entry

[edit]

What (under Dacia as Denmark) is

  • (e.g. Cal. Patent Rolls H III, 1225-32)

and how on earth is it supposed to be understood by the average reader? SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Primary topic

[edit]

What is the problem with having the primary topic, Dacia, described in the 1st section and then all derived, secondary topics, in the specific sections? Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Linking to a primary topic and look at these examples: Romania (disambiguation), China (disambiguation), etc. Thanks.--Codrin.B (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who decides then what the "primary topic" is? To me, the Scandinavian associations are much more important, to someone else, maybe the hotel is, another person may be only interested in the cars. I think we should stick to the normal format för a WP:Disambiguation in this case. The objective is to allow readers to choose topics that interest them, to each h own, not to rank the topics. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It has already been decided for the goodness sake, there is a full article on Dacia!! And is not about Scandinavia!! Are the China or Romania the primary topics?! Do you need proof for those too? 0.1% of the users will come here looking for an obsolete, out of use, ignorantly used name for Scandinavia. It was used in the Middle Ages in some papal documents by some people in the west who were ironically writing in Latin but forgot about the many Roman provinces in the east named Dacia. Can you compare that with the name for the Dacian Kingdom? Don't you see that all the other terms on the disambig (various Roman Dacias, the automobiles, the hotel, the villages, the football etc) are mostly in Romania and are overwhelmingly named after the Dacian Kindom?! Look at these searches on Google Books Dacia and Scandinavia 7,610 hits vs Dacia and Dacians 64,100 hits, Dacia and Romania 146,000 hits or Dacia and Romans 166,000. Granted these searches are not perfect, the difference in numbers speaks for itself. This is a non issue that your are trying to create artificially for some reason I can't possibly comprehend.--Codrin.B (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have no idea why this is so important to you?!?! Important enough for you to bring up my Danish roots on my talk page?!?! The car (excluded in your statistics) obviously is the most well known. I could see that as the primary topic, if you absolutely insist on having one. I see no need of that at all in this case, though. It's just confusing to people who don't have a special interest in the history of Romania and that area of Europe. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it so important to you to start an edit war on a damn disambiguation page and to not follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Linking to a primary topic and allow a phrase describing the obvious primary topic?--Codrin.B (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you replying as the 3O editor as requested? If so, per whom or what is that the primary? SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded my comment, above, as I accidentally submitted too early and have kept gettig edit conflicts. I'm saying nothing about whether Dacia should or should not be the primary topic - just that it currently is by the fact that it has the "Dacia" title, and so it should be treated as such in the disambig page. (Changing the primary topic would need RM discussion on the article itself, as there would be link implications) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To me it's obvious that a primary topic here, if any (which I do not think is necessary), should be Dacia, the automobile. But let's wait for the 3O coming up. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But that's a different issue - the disambig page should be formatted according to the article that *currently* has the Primary topic title. If it is renamed to something else, and the Automobile Dacia article is renamed to "Dacia", then the disambig page should be reformatted to match. If it is decided that there should be no Primary topic, then Dacia should be renamed Dacia (whatever), the disambig page renamed to Dacia and formatted as per no Primary topic. As it currently stands, it is wrong -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and as for 3O, that's me - it's what I'm offering -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How can you have an automobile named after Dacia, the Dacian Kingdom, be the primary topic in an academic encyclopedia like WP? What kind of scholastic idea is that?--Codrin.B (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I accepted the 3O on the noticeboard, but I'll defer to BsZ, especially since I've been edit-conflicted about 10 times trying to post my own 3O. Just for the record though, I'd be in favor of no primary topic at all, with the dab moving to Dacia and other pages renamed appropriately. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK, sorry - I was trying to help with other things here and came across the 3O without going via the noticeboard. I'd certainly appreciate your input too - 4O? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, as a matter of fact, Boing!, you did not yet address the question asked at 3O. On the contrary, you declined to take a stand on it: "I'm saying nothing about whether Dacia should or should not be the primary topic." That's not the objective of a 3O request. Let's wait for User:Writ Keeper to reply as h/s has taken that specific question on. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean to decline, I meant to say I had not addressed it yet - I'm busy checking page views and things, and will get back here shortly. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would very strongly oppose replacing Dacia with anything else but what it is: The Dacian Kingdom. The primary topic has been established long time ago, it is the most common occurrence in all modern scholastic, academic and encyclopedic sources. That is not subject of discussion here. We are talking about acknowledging the primary topic with a phrase. --Codrin.B (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The primary topic has been established long time ago" - according to whom or what? SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What should be the Primary topic (or whether there should be one at all) actually is the subject of discussion here now, as it is what was asked at the 3O request. And there's no reason we can't change a Primary topic if there is a consensus to do so. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasoning is much the same as mine, BsZ; I had also looked at the pagestats and, while the current Dacia has more hits, it's not really conclusive. I think any primary topic on a dab page should be obvious, and I don't think there is an obvious choice here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks - do you think it would need a page move request at Dacia in order to change it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is my habit always to thank a 3O editor for helping, whether or not h/s has agreed with me. I will now rely in BsZ and WK to take whatever steps may be necessary. Thank you! SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dacia as Dacian Kingdom for primary topic. Everything else (various Roman Dacias, the automobiles, the hotel, the villages, the football teams etc) are derived from this ancient name or is obsolete, like Denmark. For the WP:Primary topic, you have to check scholar and encyclopedic usage, especially Google Books and Google Scholar, and other encyclopedias. Not just page views. Here are a few entries: Britannica, Merriam Webster. I quote from WP:Primary topic: A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. The term Dacia for the Dacian Kingdom has been use for 2000 years and it has substantial educational value and notability as oppose to any other usage. The usage of Dacia for automobiles started in 1966, and the Romanian factory was named after Romania' history, i.e. the Dacian Kingdom. It is a much more recent usage, derived from the primary topic and of no academic value. As I shown above, the term Dacia used for Denmark and Scandinavia was erroneous, is out of use and certainly no one uses it in academia when referring to Denmark unless they specifically note the obsolete name. And to see how the term is used globally even on WP, there are articles about the Dacian Kingdom in 43 languages vs Automobile Dacia has 32. Does this close the case?--Codrin.B (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't close the case - it will be decided by consensus -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is much that could be discussed, refuted, objected to here above, but I think I have said my bit in all that is essential to this debate topic. Perhaps a look at Jacob the Dacian also might motivate understanding for my POV.
I think I am correct in summarizing the gist of this, as it stand right now, this way:
At the moment we have
  • 1 editor supporting status quo and
  • 3 editors opposing status quo (myself included) and proposing that there be no primary topic for this disambiguagtion.
I hope I have noticed everything so far and have summarized it all essentially and correctly. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be correct, Serge. To address some of Codrinb's points: I think you're confusing "academic" and "educational" here. In the context of that policy, the word "educational" is used in the sense of instructive; something has educational value if it teaches someone something. Thus, even though it could be fairly argued that the article on the car company may have no *academic* value, it has *educational* value to anyone who wants to learn about it, and judging from the pagehits, there are a fair amount of people who want to do so. The fact that it was named after the region is neither here nor there. The fact that the subject is scholarly, by itself, does not win it any points (so to speak). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Dacia and Dacians as were recorded first by Romans and Greeks in the Before Christ period and later on, in Anno Domini centuries by writers, scholars, geographers as Agrippa, Strabo, Ptolemy, Criton, Dio Cassius, Pliny, Jordanes (6th century) Saint Isidore (of Seville, 7th century), Johannes Honter or Hynter (15th century) in addition to the 18th-21st century writings and encyclopedias, is the primary topic according to wikipedia Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. There shouldn’t be a discussion about it. This topic is similar to Gaul (Gallia) and Gauls, Iberia a.s.o.Boldwin (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Boldwin. What on MOS:DAB (or, more probably, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) is bringing you to that conclusion? I'm not really sure what element your list of authors who mention the term is supporting. Can you respond more specifically to my points above, perhaps? As I said above, the topic being a scholarly one does not automatically make it the primary topic. I understand that you and Codrinb think that this topic, as a topic you are both invested in, is more important than the car company, and you might be right, but a topic has to be *much* more important than the others in a dab to be labeled the primary topic. Keep in mind that we're not proposing that the car company be the new primary topic, only that the existence and significance of the car company means that there should be no primary topic for this dab. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"why has all the information been stripped out without adding anything useful back?"

[edit]

Re: this edit summary comment, there was no useful information there except "a car manufactured by Romanian auto marque Dacia", and I explained what I was doing in the edit summary. I'm glad that some differentiation between the cars has been added now. I didn't have that info, or I would have added it myself. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've put back the single-word statements of what kind of car each is, but have left out the dates of production - it's useful to have a minimal statement for each disambig entry, but there shouldn't be too much and there shouldn't be things might vary from the article -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, thanks! SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The Roman Dacias

[edit]

The reason I added initially the other Roman Dacias was to alleviate the confusion. The Romans literally moved the province of Dacia from the north to the south of Danube, which complicates things a lot. Actually they renamed parts of Moesia as Dacia to hide the fact that they lost a province. If we want to represent the hierarchy and chronology correctly, it looks like this:

  • Roman Dacia (also known as Dacia Felix and Dacia Traiana), an ancient Roman imperial province (106 - 275 AD) in modern Romania, cropped out of the conquered south-western Dacia in 106 AD
    • Dacia Superior, meaning Upper Dacia a relabeling of Roman Dacia province after the 118 AD reorganization done by Hadrian
      • Dacia Apulensis, a Roman province created from southern portion of Dacia Superior, after the 158 AD reorganization done by Antoninus Pius; it included Banat and southern Transylvania, and had Apulum as its capital
      • Dacia Porolissensis, a Roman province created from northern portion of Dacia Superior, after the 124 AD reorganization done by Hadrian; it has Porolissum as its capital
    • Dacia Inferior, meaning Lower Dacia, a Roman province created from portions of Moesia Inferior to the north of the Danube, after the 118 AD reorganization done by Hadrian
      • Dacia Malvensis, a relabeling of Dacia Inferior province after the 158 AD reorganization done by Antoninus Pius; it included Oltenia and had Romula/Malva as its capital
  • Dacia Aureliana, an ancient Roman province in modern Bulgaria and Serbia, established south of the Danube after the retreat from Roman Dacia (275 AD)
    • Dacia Mediterranea, a part of the former Dacia Aureliana divided by Constantine the Great
    • Dacia Ripensis, an ancient Roman province, part of Dacia Aureliana, after year 275 in modern Bulgaria and Serbia, south of Danube
  • Diocese of Dacia, a Roman diocese in a larger area of of modern Serbia and northern Bulgaria encompassing the provinces of Dacia Mediterranea, Moesia Superior, Dardania, Praevalitana and Dacia Ripensis.

Hope this clarifies. The way it is now, it is nice, but could be confusing. It is really not an easy disambiguation page.--Codrin.B (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All that new information is good, yes, but it needs to be in actual articles and not in the disambig page - I'd suggest you just create short articles for each province, and then there would be no disagreement over adding them to the disambig page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am planning to make those articles. But in meantime, you created a hierarchy which looks nice but is incorrect historically. Some history buff will come along and change it because of what I described above. Just put this disambig on your watchlist ;-) Regards.--Codrin.B (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's currently just in alphabetical order, which is the convention at disambiguation pages - I look forward to the new articles -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dacia Maraini and Dacia Valent noted as frequently referred as Dacia or not

[edit]

Dacia Maraini and Dacia Valent are noted as frequently referred as Dacia ? In my memory not. Should we delete the two entries ? From [1] "Persons who have the ambiguous term as surname or given name should not be in the same section of the disambiguation page as the other links unless they are very frequently referred to simply by the single name (e.g., Elvis, Shakespeare)" --Robertiki (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dacia_(disambiguation)&oldid=1241661458"