Talk:Moldova and the European Union

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, an attempt to provide information in a consistent format for articles about international organizations, diplomats, international meetings, and relations between states. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject European Union, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a WikiProject related to the nations of Eastern Europe.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

	Moldova Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Moldova, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Moldova on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Is [1] a reliable source? And is it important enough to be included in this article? (58.188.97.134 12:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC))

Aren't the things written in this article a little too europhile? For example, the situation in Pridnestrovie isn't mentioned at all, and reading Enlargement of the European Union#Moldova, it seems that the situation is somewhat different from what's stated here. I'm adding an NPOV tag on the article page. If anyone disagrees to this, feel free to remove it again. (58.188.97.134 12:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Reducing versus expansion

I prefer expansion rather than reducing the articles. The latest version looks very reduced now. I ask the editors to work to expand and not to cut the papers. --Tones benefit 16:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

Any reason pretty much any content added has been reverted or simply deleted? And not a single comment in talk? PētersV 01:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? See "Page history". If you can convert the cut and pasted texts into a summary that does not smell plagiarism and is related to the article title, you are very welcome. `'Míkka 01:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm very well aware of page history, after all, that's how I saw all the whittling down to nothing. :-) I had just expected to see some discussion here. If it's simply plagiarism, that should be reasonably simple to remedy. PētersV 01:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This was a piece from a huge mess from this bunch, and not very imoportant to waste any time beyond reverting: just a bunch of newspaper reports about intentions of politicians. Nothing definite, i.e., suitable for wikipedia. If we start adding each and every move of every stateman from USA to Zamunda, it will be one big unreadable shitload of wikipedia. `'Míkka 04:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you have to admire persistence! I need to get to the library in the next week or two for something else, I'll see what I can turn up that's more analysis than pronouncements. PētersV 01:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)