Wiktionary talk:About Romanian

Cedilla vs. Comma

• "right" - ș ț (with comma)
• "wrong" - ş ţ (with cedilla)

t and s with a comma are official and 'more correct', but aren't widely supported and often look like crap in some browsers and even notepad, and may not even display in wordpad. The characters with cedillas, however, generally appear correctly and are even what's used in Windows' Romanian keyboard layouts. Certain websites use cedillas where others use commas. Etc. Etc. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 21:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Romanian Wikipedia is now progressing to replace s-cedilla and t-cedilla with s-comma and t-comma. This is a strong sign that we should do the same. -- Prince Kassad 09:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Even common unicode fonts don't display ș and ț in wordpad. Lucida Sans Unicode, Arial Unicode MS... Out of about 20 to 30 fonts tested, including courier new and times new roman, the only ones I can find that display them at all are Palatino Linotype, Sylfaen, Tahoma and Code2000. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 10:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed they don't... if you don't install the Romanian support update for Windows XP. -- Prince Kassad 19:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others#Template:ro-past

It has been proposed to delete {{ro-past}}: Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others#Template:ro-past. Please discuss there. —Ruakh_TALK 07:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Adjective templates

@Robbie SWE, Word dewd544 and anyone else watching this page: {{ro-decl-adj}} now supports a new, simpler format which can replace the other declension templates in Category:Romanian adjective inflection-table templates. See the documentation page for an explanation of the new usage.

This could be also applied to {{ro-adj}}, to make it more similar to other Romance templates. It would use the same parameters and would display like this:

bun m or n (feminine singular bună, masculine plural buni, feminine and neuter plural bune)

Does anyone object to changing this? I think the current format, showing the number of forms, is unintuitive and not very useful. Redboywild (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Redboywild you have my full support - I think it's a major improvement. Nice work! --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Redboywild (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I've now enabled the new format for the headword template and will start to update the entries. Redboywild (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Name cleanup

I've noticed that some names erroneously use {{ro-proper noun}} instead of {{ro-name}} (all uses can be found here, examples of errors include Văcărescu and Teodorescu). g=X should be transformed to just X (as the second parameter). Some special care has to be taken with regard to the latter arguments. This task is semi-bottable e.g. by detecting the presence of templates such as {{surname|ro}} within the article. Fytcha (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Change past participle part of speech from Verb to Participle?

From the languages I've seen on here, Romanian sticks out a bit in that we categorize past participles as verbs and not as participles. Do we want to change that? Would be very easy with a bot, relevant category Category:Romanian_entries_using_Template:ro-past. Fytcha (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Then there's also entries with only an adjective header, no verb nor participle, e.g. alambicat. What is the best format in your opinion? I personally think Participle+Adjective is best. Fytcha (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I also dislike the fact that we display the base verb twice (or three times if you count the etymology, see e.g. desfătat). I would like to remove it form the head {{ro-past}} at least. Compare also how we do it in German: gemacht. Fytcha (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Fytcha: I agree that adjectives like alambicat need verb forms, that "Verb" is probably a better header than "Participle", and that ro-past is not an ideal template. I'd vote to delete the template entirely and just use {{head|ro|past participle}} instead. It doesn't make any sense to say "past participle of X" in the headword and the definition line. Ultimateria (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ultimateria: Yes, getting rid of {{ro-past}} entirely might be the way to go.

What is your reasoning for preferring ===Verb=== over ===Participle=== though? Fytcha (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Fytcha: I just realized it was ambiguous which header you prefer. I was thinking of consistency with other Romance languages, but we generally make that decision language by language. I also admit that I don't know how Romanian conceives of its participles. I don't feel strongly about my preference for "Verb". Ultimateria (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)