Talk:Coțofeni culture


 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Consensus clearly favors move, though there is a minority objection to moving only this one page. But as Kotniski says, this is just a first step. Precedent is set. Born2cycle (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Move?
Coţofeni culture → Coțofeni culture — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Technically, ț is correct, but we always use ţ here: Constanţa, Galaţi, Haţeg, etc. Biruitorul Talk 17:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The name of the culture is Coțofeni with a ț. Why redirect from the correct spelling to the incorrect one? It should be the opposite way around. If someone is lazy or illiterate or doesn't know the Romanian alphabet, Wikipedia will redirect them from the incorrect spelling to the correct one. Why reinforce this error for foreigners who aren't familiar with details of the Romanian alphabet?
 * Not only is ț technically correct, but ţ does not even exist in the Romanian alphabet (as indicated by the Romanian Academy). Until recently, most computer software didn't contain all Romanian letters so people HAD to use alternatives. People often write ţ on the computer simply because they can't write ț. It's the same logic behind why people write stuff on the internet without any diacritics at all. Just because a lot of people do it, doesn't mean that it's correct. It just means that a lot of people haven't updated their software. It's also common to find texts with ă written as ǎ or ã. These are equally incorrect. Fortunately the cedilla error has begun to decrease now that people are using more updated software. We shouldn't propagate this error on Wikipedia.
 * I request that the page name be changed back to it's correct spelling with ț. O crandell (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with a move but other users should read the T-comma (ț) article and weigh in on whether there would be serious difficulties for users to read the title. If it matters, the Romanian Wikipedia uses the T-comma rather than the T-cedilla (ţ) for all of its articles (Constanța, Galați &c.).  —   AjaxSmack   01:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)  See also further comment below concerning moving only this article.  —   AjaxSmack   16:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose - yes, ț is correct, and no one contests that. However, what O crandell ignores, and what I would like to remind participants of, is the fact that we have thousands of articles titles using ţ (and ş), as well as tens of thousands of occurrences of ţ and ş within articles. I would seriously consider supporting a wholesale transition to ș and ț, as was recently implemented at ro.wiki. What I cannot support, and what would be rather illogical, is this proposal to change just one article title. - Biruitorul Talk 06:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm for using the correct diacritics. I would also support a wholesale transition in other articles as well. Unless someone is using a very old browser they will be able to see the correct letters, even if they aren't able to type them. I'm not ignoring that other articles use the T-cedilla. I also don't agree that they should be left that way either - simply because all the other articles are that way. They are that way because in the past people couldn't easily use the correct letters. Now they can, so there's no reason to continue using the incorrect ones if there is a choice. Sure, using only the S-cedilla and T-cedilla will create less confusion, but only because it re-inforce an older error. If all the sites are left with the T/S-cedilla then people will think that THOSE are the correct forms and that the T/S-comma are accidental errors. If we're voting, I'd vote for changing to the correct form and allowing people to correct any other errors that they find.O crandell (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I support changing the diacritics to t-comma and s-comma on this page and all others if the words or names are clearly of Romanian origin. We should also consider the fact that many people translate pages from English Wikipedia into other languages. So if we use the incorrect diacritics on the English page, then it's likely that the error will be transferred to articles in other languages because people will think that the t-cedilla and s-cedilla are the correct forms. Biruitorul, what do you mean by "we always use ţ here"? Where is "here"? Here in Romania? In Romania, nobody writes with a cedilla. The cedilla only appears on electronic documents that were made on old computers. Here on Wikipedia? The Romanian Wikipedia uses the comma. Many of the English Wikipedia articles are with the cedilla but this is also because some people didn't use a new computer to type them, and some people (ex. foreigners) see these names and words and sometimes it's written with a cedilla and don't know that it's wrong and other times it's written with a comma but they don't notice it because cedilla is a more common diacritic to see (e.g. in French). So, the cedilla is there because of an error, not because it's a correct form. If you search, you will see that the t/s with comma does appear on many English Wikipedia pages. I think it's better to change them to the correct forms.Cerc de arheologie (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * By "here", I mean English Wikipedia. Every article title on a Romanian person or place on en.wiki uses t-cedilla and s-cedilla, and within 99%+ of articles on Romania-related subjects, t-cedilla and s-cedilla are also used. Moving each one of those articles to t-comma and s-comma may be a reasonable idea. Moving only this one would be illogical. - Biruitorul Talk 04:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I also favour a wholesale rather than piecemeal move of articles ț/ș but that (obviously?) should entail a wider discussion than this. Inasmuch as moving this article alone might create a dreaded inconsistency, moving it can wait for a more comprehensive discussion.  —   AjaxSmack   16:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Do I understand that everyone agrees that changing the t-cedillas to t-commas Wikipedia-wide would be a good move? (I.e. would there be any accessibility concerns with doing that?) If we want to make such a change, then I support this move as a first step (with thousands more to follow).--Kotniski (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Indo-European?
Since pots cannot speak, nobody knows, who ever spoke "Indo-European" there. I inserted a "perhaps" therefore".HJJHolm (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "It is seen as ..." already qualifies the following as hypothetical, therefore I consider the additional qualification unnecessary. Note that even Renfrew accepts the identification of the Kurgan horizon with Indo-European languages within his Anatolian framework. I have changed perhaps to presumably to reflect that we have essentially a consensus on the Indo-European nature of the Kurgan horizon in academia now. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC
 * This is my VIEW, too. However, it is scientifically incorrect to describe views as facts, or nearly, facts. I would rather suggerst to list which facts speak in favour of this view, or against it. HJJHolm (talk) 07:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Baden phases
The Baden phases addressed here do not appear in the linked Baden article, and seem very outdated. 2003:7A:9F27:AB70:C82:951D:F6D1:8804 (talk) 08:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Mistakenly including Usatovo
I am not aware of any modern specialist to include the Usatovo culture (between the Danube delta and Odessa) with the Coțofeni culture. HJJHolm (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

And indeed the article never even mentions Usatovo, let alone makes the claim. Someone should delete the redirection. Can random users do that or does it take some sort of superuser? Jamesdowallen (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC) I reviewed the instructions for recommending redirects for deletion -- it would take me too long to learn. I've modified the page asking competent user to do so. Do not remove the notice until the redirection is explained or deleted. Jamesdowallen (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Usatovo culture currently redirects here, so it needs to be mentioned. See also the reference from the EIEC on the bottom. If the two cultures are distinct, Usatovo culture, formerly a standalone article, should be restored. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So it is; in addition, MOST ORHER wikis confuse the two cultures. Even Anthony (2010) as well-known "Usatovo fan" clearly distinguishes these geographycally distinct cultures. 2A02:8108:963F:F853:48B7:7297:5D98:815 (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)