Talk:Centrul Civic

Much of the following, mostly my writing, was dropped in a recent edit as being POV. I suppose I can't really argue the issue, but I hope no one minds my preserving this on the talk page.

"The facelessness and placelessness of the Centru Civic is due not only to its architectural uniformity, but also to having been designed in accord with Ceauşescu's general hostility to commerce. Few spaces were left for retail business of any sort, leaving the Centru Civic nearly devoid of the small shops and restaurants found in the areas immediately to its north. The few street-facing business spaces in the Centru Civic retain a cold, communist-era look.

"As one goes east, the eerie bleakness of the western part of the Centru Civic gives way to the outright devastation of the eastern portion, known to Bucharesteans as "Hiroshima". Construction cranes, disused and rusting since Ceauşescu was overthrown, hover over the concrete hulks of half-completed buildings whose vacant windows, in turn, stare out onto pits of rubble, where historic buildings (including much of the city's historic Jewish quarter) once stood; street dogs roam the neighborhood from which their one-time masters are long departed.

"Although the destruction of historic Bucharest for the Centru Civic was extensive, it was not total. Nearby Lipscani remains to give some of the flavor of what was lost, and some older buildings survive even in small pockets within the general area of the Centru Civic itself. Many churches, such as the Sf. Nicolai-Mihai Vodă Church, were moved rather than demolished, and the nearby Antim Monastery remains largely intact, although minus its eastern wing. Immediately adjacent to the Centru Civic, just off of Unirii Square, is the Metropolitan Hill (Dealul Metropoliei) with the Patriarchal Cathedral and Palace, seat of patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church."

-- Jmabel 17:51, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Proposed move

What really bothers me about that article is not that it is Romanian, but that it is in absurd Romanian. All dictionary entries for it would actually be Centrul Civic. Dahn 19:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, and "the Centru Civic", used throughout the article, strikes me as redundant. Biruitorul 02:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"The Centrul Civil" is gramatically incorrect since "Centrul" already contains the article; "The Centru Civic" would not be incorrect, since there is no article in the Romanian. For some reason, however, Centru Civic sounds more natural (perhaps in the same way that Sighetu Marmaţiei is not named "Sighetul", or "Târgu Mureş" is not "Târgul". Also note that the Romanian Wikipedia article is also at Centru Civic. Quarters and place names should generally not have the article included, so Centru Civic follows this convention. It translates literally as "Civic Centre", instead of "The Civic Centre", which I think is more correct for a place name. On the other hand, Centrul Civic does seem to have a bit more Google hits (when searching for Centru Civic, Wikipedia articles and mirrors come up first). Ronline ✉ 06:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not se why "Centru" would sounc more natural, and I cannot see the parallel with "Sighetu". Centru, as you indicate, features nowhere but on wiki. This is the clear policy we should establish: in the proper version,the article is implicit, which should include the English article topic; the simple and correct way is to change all mentions to "Centrul Civic" and drop the "the" in front of any mention ("In Centrul Civic, I eat mushrooms" etc.). This method is flawless: paradigms I can think of refer to languages that do not have the article as part of the word, but consider that, even if "going to the Observatoire" is right and "going to the L'Observatoire" is wrong, one cannot go wrong with "going to L'Observatoire". Dahn 12:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake–"the Centru Civic" could work; it's just that I was already considering it as "Centrul Civic". I think part of the problem is the tendency in spoken Romanian to barely pronounce that final l. Someone who said "Băiatul a băgat mărul în sacul meu", hitting the l every time, would sound like a fool to my ears, while "Băiatu' a băgat măru'n sacu' meu" would be quite natural. Also, note that while pronouncing the l in a phrase like "băiatul meu" might be all right, "Centrul_Civic", said together, is problematic because that combination (l_ch) is awkward and so the l drops out even more naturally.

Since no one (to my knowledge) actually says "Centrul Civic", and since this place hasn't been written on extensively, that may be what gave rise to the current title. But Google and the rules of grammar appear to back up Centrul, so I'd support a move.

The Sighet and T-M examples are interesting, but one can equally talk about Parcul Carol, Piaţa Mare, Oraşul Vechi, etc.

Also, when you have a common noun and common adjective together, you must use either a definite or an indefinite article, no? "centrul civic" or "un centru civic", but "centru civic" is, in fact, non-existent. Biruitorul 00:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with Centrul Civic as a title; I was merely arguing that "Civic Center" (or "Civic Centre") are bad choices in this case. - Jmabel | Talk 05:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Good to hear. Do we have a consensus to move? Or should we move this to Talk:Centru Civic first? Biruitorul 06:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, move. And it would be helpful to also move this discussion to the talk page of Centru Civic. Ronline ✉ 07:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Biblioteca Nationala 2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)