User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Ladislav Mednyánszky

Ladislav Mednyánszky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article should be moved to László Mednyánszky. If you read it, you'll understand why. It is now however struck between his Slovak (Ladislav) and Hungarian (Mednyánszky) spelling. He was ethnic Hungarian, born, lived and died in the Kingdom of Hungary. The full article is struck between a Slovak interpretation of history and placenames and a Hungarian one. --Rembaoud (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Someone should definitely rename the article. However it should be done by someone who's not on an edit restriction so Tankred wouldn't have to tell on me for violating the controversial EE articles editing restriction imposed on me by Elonka..... CoolKoon (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
If anyone wants to rename this article, I would suggest they initiate a discussion on the article's talk page and show evidence supporting their view that a particular name is widely used in relevant English sources. I would support Ladislav Medňanský as a new name because this is how he is called in Slovak sources. Both his first name and his last name are of Slavic/Slovak origin. He was born in what is now Slovakia and is still considered Slovak there. I do not think Paris and Vienna were part of the Kingdom of Hungary, so I somehow cannot believe Rembaoud's statement "He was ethnic Hungarian, born, lived and died in the Kingdom of Hungary". But this is my personal view. What is more important than what Rembaoud, CoolKoon, and Tankred think is what English sources say. I have never read any English book mentioning him, so I do not know his "English name". If you want to rename this (or any sensitive) article, please provide evidence and citations on the article's talk page. Tankred (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, then let's use this page for the discussion. BTW it's pretty much false reasoning that if somebody has lived in that part of Hungary which is now Slovakia he/she must have been Slovak. Unfortunately many Slovaks agree to this reasoning. And besides I could argue that since Štúr, Hurban, Hodža, Kollár etc. lived in Hungary they must've been Hungarians (although many Slovaks would lynch me for such a statement). As for László Mednyánszky it's interesting that many other nations seem to support our POV: the French; the Germans: [1],[2] and [3];even the Russians: [4] and [5] (hint for those who don't understand the Cyrilic alphabet: search for "Ласло Меднянски" and Vengria is Hungary in Russian). Unfortunately Squash Rocket has found some nice English sources so I won'T have to search for those :P CoolKoon (talk) 07:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times mentions the Hungarian painter several times by his name, László Mednyánszky. Also here and here. Lonely Planet also mentions him by his name, the book Made in Hungary: Hungarian Contributions to Universal Culture also.
The name can be found also in The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, and the The dictionary of art. Squash Racket (talk) 03:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Support moving to László Mednyánszky per all the above. Hobartimus (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This proposal is one week old. Google results also support the Hungarian name. I moved the page, I think we may close this thread now. Squash Racket (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well done ;) CoolKoon (talk) 09:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Support the move. From his birth and upbringing it is hard to tell if his Hungarian or Slovak name should be preferred. It's the general use of his Hungarian name in the English sources that is persuasive. EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


question about "no revert" restrictions

(ported from User talk:Elonka)

I see that you are busy with other issues as well but I have a question about what is appropriate if someone thinks an edit might be a violation of an existing restriction. Is it better to revert the edit or note it on your talk page or the discussion page? Some of these might be complex or someone might be even mistaken in thinking something was a revert, for example an edit [6] and the revert [7] the edit [8] and the revert [9] the edit [10] and the revert [11]. So the question is what to do, where to post in cases like this, on your talk page or the special page, or nowhere just revert the edit with a summary? Some of the cases might be arguable as well or hard to see that it was a revert of an edit a few days before, or some cases thought to be reverts can turn out to be complete non-reverts even. For example in the second case listed above a source was added, which would make it a non-revert, but the quote and it's translation (like you required before) is missing as well as the page number and the information inserted also seems redundant in relation to the text 2 sentences back. Most instances are much more clear cut than that but I'm sure these issues will come in the future as well so a little clarification from you would be helpful about how to act in such cases and what exactly counts as a "revert"? Hobartimus (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, just heading out the door at the moment, so I haven't looked at the diffs in detail. My general advice though, is that if it's not urgent (and content disputes usually aren't), bring it up at the article talkpage, and/or the experiment page. Even if this leaves the article in a "wrong" state for a few days, it'll sort itself out in the long run. See WP:DEADLINE, especially View Two. --Elonka 16:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I took a look at the Bratislava diffs, and will check the others later. However, if you feel that someone has violated their restrictions, I would encourage you to speak up about it if you think that it will head off future problems. Your best bet is probably a polite message to the user's talkpage, pointing out what you feel was a violation, and explaining how the editor can do better (and why it's a good idea). --Elonka 04:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
This is not urgent at all so It can wait until you have the time to look at the diffs, the main question is what exactly constitutes a "revert" in this context. Also I wanted to ask, what is your opinion of the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct process? Do these usually result in some type of action by the community or not so much? Hobartimus (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I generally see the User Conduct RfC as something of a last resort, when other measures have not been effective. It may also be useful for very complex cases, where the involved editors have not been successful in coming up with a solution, and they are genuinely looking for outside input. There have been some calls for doing away with the process entirely, though I have definitely seen cases where the RfC has been useful in raising awareness of a problem. In other cases though, I have seen it used as a "club" to try and embarrass or intimidate an editor, rather than to try and find a solution.
It often depends on which uninvolved editors show up to participate in the Request. Sometimes you get lucky and get some genuinely thoughtful opinions, other times you get the "conflict junkies" who may actively make the situation worse. I would recommend that you look at some previous RfCs, to get a sense of how they work. Or even better, look at some of the current ones, and try to go in as an uninvolved editor and offer a comment. This will often be a rapid way of identifying the challenges involved in offering a cogent opinion.
In terms of the Hungarian-Slovakian disputes, I don't think an RfC/U would offer very much beyond what we're already doing. If you feel that someone needs to be topic banned or blocked, you could just bring it up at the Experiment page, which also serves as a limited form of RfC, ANI, and Wikiquette alerts, all rolled into one.  :) Or if you think that a problem isn't being properly addressed, then please feel free to bring it up in more detail, so that we can examine what other solutions are available. If you're not comfortable discussing it on-wiki, you (or anyone) is also free to send me an email, or contact me in IMs. --Elonka 18:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

CoolKoon

CoolKoon (talk · contribs)

(copying from User talk:Elonka)

Hi Elonka, this Nmate's edit[12] clearly violates his editing restrictions. It is not very civil to call another editor "an ultra agressive vandal" and a legitimate complaint at the Wikitequette alerts "an Hungarian ethnic slander". This was done in support of CoolKoon, who was reported at the Wikiquette alerts after he called a female editor a "little pussy" and two editors "stupid" (see [13] for his original comment in Slovak). He repeated his attack later[14] and then posted another, this time less vulgar ad hominem message[15]. The editing restrictions from the Digwuren case explicitly say that editors are not allowed to be uncivil or to make personal attacks. MarkBA and Svetovid are currently blocked for long periods because they violated their editing restrictions and many of us have been punished for even less serious transgressions. I hope you will look at this case. I would like also to notify you that I may be away until the end of the week, so I will not be able to participate in the discussions on your experimental page. Cheers. Tankred (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I need language assistance please. It appears that CoolKoon is blocked on the Slovak Wikipedia. If I'm reading this right, it's for 6 months?[16] Also, can another Slovak speaker please verify the above comments made by CoolKoon? Thanks, Elonka 16:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I can not speak Slovak but I studied Russian long ago. Tankred and AtonX intentions contain a fashionable Slovakian political character. And to be a Slovakian administrator It does not mean a huge prestige if AtonX complaining about CoolKoon here.Nmate (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to talk about it in public. Elonka, please send me an email if you are interested CoolKoon (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a civil comment from CoolKoon, for example the second sentence can be translated as "You are so simple, that you're don't even able to speak English". A good Slovak-English-Slovak online translator can be found here: [17] (word-by-word so slow, but knows most of the nasty and slang words too). You can translate CoolKoon's comment pretty well with it, however many letters has specific accents, therefore for example, you can't find "Hocico" but you can "Hocičo" (wich is "Whatever"[18] btw.) Try the "base" of the words in these cases then. Staying at hocico, if the dictionary does not find, try removing letters as long, as it shows some hits; hocico is in the list when you type "hoci" [19]. --Rembaoud (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please find my translation of CoolKoon's comments below. If there is any other Slovak-speaking person around, please verify the accuracy of my translation. I would also love to hear Elonka's opinion regarding this incident. The translation of the first comment is: "Whatever. You can thank a little pussy Bubamara and a 'Superslovak' Bronto for they did your dirty work. Pity they're so stupid that they don't speak English. Otherwise, I'd tell them it face to face."[20][21] The second comment (plausibly in reaction to a complaint at the Wikitequette board) can be translated as: "........ It isn't enough for you to kick me out from the Slovak Wikipedia, right? You also want to ban me for at least 6 months here, right?".[22] Nmate's comment[23] is written in English, so there is no need for translating. I still wander what exactly makes an administrator of the Slovak Wikipedia "an ultra agressive vandal" and why a legitimate complaint against a Hungarian user was labeled as the "ethnic slander". I have seen this automatic and unrestricted support of the fellow co-ethnics on administrative noticeboards before and I believe it is a powerful weapon capable of skewing any discussion in a harmful way. Tankred (talk) 06:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Battles of Bratislava

1 Pressburg, 2 battle (singular) 3 has no sources or references yet --Rembaoud (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If you know any reliable English sources using the term "Battle of Pressburg", please cite them here. I doubt there are any because the name Pressburg did not exist in 907 and English sources use the name "Bratislava" when referring to the city in the early Middle Ages. The article describes three battles, that is why the plural is used. You are right that the article does not have references and you are welcome to add some. Tankred (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Tankred, if you had had took the time to look at what you are talking about, you probably would have noticed that it does not contain any sources or references at all. So nothing justifies the current content and name. "Battle of Pressburg" has the highest number of hits on Google [24] and all the other search engines. Pressburg, and (singular) battle. In Hungarian, it is singular also, plural version has only 3 hits [25], and they are about current or that time current political issues in Slovakia. --Rembaoud (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I searched Google Books (see the talk page of the article), and found that several names are used, including Bratislava and Pressburg. Markussep Talk 15:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I think Bratislava name would be the worst solution here because Hungarians fought with Bavarians and it was not a Slovak business at all.Nmate (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I renamed the Battles of Bratislava because I think it is the best soultion.Nmate (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

78.99.65.151 & 78.99.33.176 (MarkBA again? playing out his restrictions)

78.99.65.151 (talk · contribs)

[26] + [27] + 78.99... = User:MarkBA

I have a bet on this. A bottle of any kind of beer. :) Does "checkuser" process always needed? --Rembaoud (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

+ 78.99.33.176 (talk · contribs)

[28]. Obvious. --Rembaoud (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. Both accounts have been blocked. If you see any others, let me know. :) --Elonka 22:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
On enforcement [29]. Hobartimus (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Correct, any edits by sockpuppet accounts, can be reverted without consequence. --Elonka 23:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Does these constant evasion attempts and controversial edits have any impact on Mark's temporary banning? I mean three new "sockpuppets", (including one new user+their edits) should have an effect on Mark's banning: in an extension. Or something. Imho. --Rembaoud (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing more to extend, MarkBA exhausted the patience of the community to such a level that he is now banned indefinitely, see his user page and block log. Hobartimus (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't noticed that. Its a bit harsh though to raise it immediately to infinite indefinite (what is this meaning?)... but well, he had all the time and possibility to avoid not only this, but any of the restrictions and bans he got. --Rembaoud (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

MarkBA started sockpuppeting in March so it took months of abuse, hardly an immediate thing. After some point enough is enough. Hobartimus (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I see. What does "indefinite" mean here? (I know the translation) Is it a bigger or a smaller punishment than (definite) 6 month? Or you really wanted to write infinite but accidentally mixed words? --Rembaoud (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The BLOCK was extended from the previous length of 3 months so it's longer, in this case there is also the BAN from CE EE topics, you should try reading WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN if it's still not clear. Hobartimus (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this user is a newer MarkBA sockpuppet account:

+ 78.99.132.221 (talk · contribs)

Nmate (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Slovakia

Coat of arms of Slovakia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think the unsourced additions should be removed from the article.Nmate (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am going to remove the unsourced statements from it and I will not be patient for a long time.Nmate (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Spiš and Spiš Castle

This move and these edits to the Spiš and Spiš Castle by Nmate are clearly against the whole spirit of this experiment. Nmate replaced Slovak names with Hungarian names and also removed Slovak alternative names. As anyone can see above, the #consensus was to include alternative names in pre-1918 contexts like this, not to replace them. I urge Nmate to stop this kind of editing immediately, and I will edit the articles in a way that they follow the consensus. Markussep Talk 17:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The naming convention says "Before 1918: the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. "Eperjes (Prešov)" or "Prešov (Eperjes)"." So the first reference should list both names. Note that the articles were non-compliant with the convention before and after Nmate's edits so actually there was no change in this regard. Unless you make personal attacks on Nmate I don't think there will be any problems by you editing these articles, or editing them without bringing it up here. Hobartimus (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I do think it's strange and inappropriate that someone involved in this experiment changes the naming in an article and doesn't bring it closer to the convention we agreed upon. I wouldn't bring it up if it were one isolated event, but it isn't. This move of Spiš to Szepesség was particularly inappropriate because the article is also about the current Slovak region (there was already a separate article Szepes county). Don't think I'm attacking Nmate personally (though I would like to see a bit more explanation or sources from him than "It is better"), my only interest is the progress of Wikipedia. Markussep Talk 22:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


Bratislava

This sentence is unfair on top of the article, because the city's Hungarian historical roots is stronger:

Bratislava was home to the Slovak national movement of the 19th century and to many Slovak, Hungarian and German historical figures.

So this sentence would be better:

Pressburg was home many of Slovak, Hungarian and German historical figures.

it is better crown jewels instead of crown jewels

This sentence is very one-sided also:

in 1783, the first newspaper in Slovak, Presspurske Nowiny (Pressburg Newspaper), and the first Slovak novel were published.

better solution:

The first newspapers were published here in Slovak, German and Hungarian languages -Presspurske Nowiny, Pressburger Zeitung and Magyar hírmondó in the 18th century in the Kingdom of Hungary.

This sentence in not so good:As a reaction to the Revolutions of 1848 in the Revolutions of 1848, Ferdinand V signed the so-called March laws (also called April laws), which included the abolition of serfdom, at the Primate's Palace.

better sentence:

As a reaction to the Revolutions of 1848, Ferdinand V signed the so-called April laws, at the Primate's Palace which included the abolition of serfdom and the basis of a today's modern Hungarian constitution.

this is a wrong sentence with an anachronistic bridge name:

The city's first permanent bridge over the Danube, Starý most (Bratislava), was built in 1891.

good sentence:

The city's first permanent bridge over the Danube, Frantz Joseph bridge, was built in 1891.

furtermore some absentee but very relevant hungarian related events from the 19th century:

In 1825 István Széchenyi offers his yearly income to establish the Hungarian National Learned Society (now Hungarian Academy of Sciences) in Pressburg. Between 1843 and 1844 Hungarian language is proclaimed the official language in legislation, public administration and teaching by the Diet in Pressburg. Here formed the first responsible Hungarian Ministry in 1848 on 7th of April. On 7th October in 1848 Josip Jelačić's army threatened the city with bombing but He marched away from Hungarian army who occupied the city until 19th December. On July in 1849 Julius Jacob von Haynau set up his campaign in the city. After this Pressburg became a center of military headquarters. In 1850 railway line connected Budapest and Pressburg. The city was prosperitied by mayor Henrik Justi and banker Theodor Edl in the second half of the 19th century. During the Hungarian Revolution of 1848 They were political opponents.

Nmate (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

My comments, point by point:
  • Slovak national movement: it would be very strange to omit this, it was very relevant, and it was for a large part based in Bratislava/Pressburg and surroundings. This doesn't deny the importance of the city for Hungary, does it?
  • crown jewels: OK, not controversial IMO, probably collateral damage of the revert war.
  • The Presspursky Nowiny was (apparently, I don't know it) the first newspaper in the Slovak language, that's relevant. The other newspapers are mentioned in the article History of Bratislava. The German one was definitely not the first one in German, if the Hungarian one was the first in Hungarian, it's worth mentioning here.
  • I don't understand the fuss about March or April. If the 1848 law served as the basis for the present constitution of Hungary, that might be worth mentioning, but the article Politics of Hungary says that it's based on the 1949 constitution of Germany. Who's right?
  • It's quite common to use the present name for a bridge or other landmarks. A better wording may be: "The Starý most, built in 1891, was the city's first permanent bridge over the Danube."
  • Your "absentee" paragraph is rather poorly written. Let me rephrase the first part like this: "In 1825 the Hungarian National Learned Society (the present Hungarian Academy of Sciences) was founded in Pressburg using a donation from István Széchenyi. In 1843 Hungarian was proclaimed the official language in legislation, public administration and education by the Diet in Pressburg."
  • I'm not sure what to do with your "ministry" line (what does "responsible" mean here?). If it evolved from the 1848 constitution, it might be better to make it a clause of that sentence. The Jelačić/Haynau part is a bit too much for this article, and also treated in the History of Bratislava article. It suffices to refer to the 1848 revolutions. The railway line to Budapest: OK (was it Buda or Pest? they hadn't merged yet in 1850). "prosperity" is not a verb, and the mayor and the banker are not so relevant IMO, the development of Pressburg in the late 19th century is already treated. Markussep Talk 18:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

my point of view:

1, Slovak national movement: I do not want to omit it - I would like to move it from under the headline to historical context.It would be a good solution also: this sentence remain on this place but an another one very important Hungarian related event will be inserted under this headline too.

For example:

Pray codex is liked to the city - which was made between 1192 - 1195 - that is the first known coherent literary remains of the Hungarian language. The city was the capital of the Kingdom of Hungary under the Habsburg monarchy from 1536 to 1783. Pressburg was home to the Slovak national movement of the 19th century and to many Slovak, Hungarian and German historical figures.

2, Newspapers:Hungarian and Slovak are together in an sentence is O.K.because the Magyar hírmondo was the first newspaper in Hungarian language.

3, It is true both : These laws meant the transition from the feudal society into the civil society in the Kingdom of Hungary so these laws included the basis of today's modern Hungarian constitution. But it is true the German pattern also.

4, What You rewrote at Hungarian National Learned Society is O.K . A good clause will be find out with first responsible Hungarian Ministry. First responsible Hungarian Ministry means: the official name of the Batthyány government.

5, Bridge name is not so relevant for me.

6, What you wrote about revolutions of 1848 is O.K. I do not know exectly that railwayline connetion was at Pest or Buda.

Nmate (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

1. What do you mean with "liked to the city"? Was it written there? And does this prayer book have a specific name? "pray codex" sounds very general.
2. OK, that's relevant.
3 and 4. I don't think the constitution is relevant enough for the Bratislava article then. The parliament (Diet) can be mentioned of course. Was it permanently in Pressburg, and when was it moved to Pest?
5. OK
6. According to German wikipedia, de:k.k. Südöstliche Staatsbahn, it was Pest, connected via Vác (Waitzen).
I don't have the time to do it myself now, but I can do the changes on Monday. Markussep Talk 18:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Pray codex contain a Mortuary speech and prayer and a almanac of Pozsony , which contains the historical events from 997 to 1203.Nmate (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's a rather weak link. It could be mentioned in the "History of Bratislava" article, but then for the almanac ("an early source for the history of Pressburg is the 13th century almanac in the Pray codex"), not for the sermon. Markussep Talk 12:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be right to wait for Hobartimus in the debate.

The first newspapers were published here in Slovak and Hungarian languages -Presspurske Nowiny in 1783 and Magyar hírmondó in 1780 - in the Kingdom of Hungary.

Is it good?

In 1825 the Hungarian National Learned Society (the present Hungarian Academy of Sciences) was founded in Pressburg using a donation from István Széchenyi. In 1843 Hungarian was proclaimed the official language in legislation, public administration and education by the Diet in Pressburg.As a reaction to the Revolutions of 1848, Ferdinand V signed the so-called April laws, at the Primate's Palace which included the abolition of serfdom and the basis of the civil society in the Kingdom of Hungary. Here formed the first independent Hungarian Ministry so called Batthyány government in 1848 on 7th of April. During the Hungarian Revolution of 1848 the city's population supported Hungary instead of Austria although the local residents were mainly German origins in that time.

Is it good?

Nmate (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've copied our discussion to Talk:Bratislava, and will reply there from now on. Markussep Talk 17:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Why would you do something like that to duplicate the exchange? Well it's not that important but anyway were most of the changes implemented in the article yet on which you agreed above? Hobartimus (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
It seemed quite logical since the discussion is about that article. A few changes were implemented, we're still discussing the rest. Markussep Talk 08:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Farewell

Dear Elonka and others, I wish you good luck with your experiment. Although this page has definitely made the environment here more civil, I believe some users are still motivated by their desire to introduce politically motivated POV. New issues are emerging and old issues are re-emerging regardless of our discussions. Instead of improving quality of Wikipedia, many edits just reflect the discourse between marginal and often extreme political views in the region. It will hardly change until the degree of political polarization in Central Europe gets reduced or Wikipedia's rules get stricter. I have decided that I do not want to spend my days arguing in never-ending fights. I have done a lot of work on Slovakia-related articles since 2005, but I could not focus on writing recently due to all those time-consuming disputes. I do not enjoy that; I enjoy the creative part of our work. Although I consider this experiment extremely valuable for the future of Wikipedia, I do not feel like spending more time and energy in the project. I may return if a new generation of editors interested in Slovakia-related topics appears. But this area of Wikipedia is now a sad place to work. Good luck with your dispute resolution. Tankred (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I share the first few lines. Until the newest declaration of retirement. Sorry for my scepticism, (it is not maliciousness), but we had several examples in the past that retiring did not necessary meant retiring at all, but only a simple attempt of manipulating others (notably "outsiders"). Anyway, bye. --Rembaoud (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Tankred, thanks for your active participation in these Slovak-Hungarian discussions. I really value your contribution. Markussep Talk 12:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
You did a damn good job here, mate. Yeah, zealots have endless energy for their goals. And yes, it's pointless to waste time on them here. But in other areas, don't bow down or their dogmas will dominate.--Svetovid (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Tankred, thank you for your participation, and if you ever want to return, you are always welcome. In the meantime, I wish you success, wherever your off-wiki travels take you. :) --Elonka 04:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi protection needed

Semi protection is needed at Bratislava and talk:Bratislava as a blatant sockpuppet of MarkBA is attacking those pages using the same dynamic IP range as before. MarkBA and sockpuppets targeted these pages before numerous times, just three examples from the talk page, [30] [31] [32]. It seems that MarkBA simply will not stop and needs limiting either via more semi-protections to most of the articles he attacks or range-blocking the whole range altogether. Hobartimus (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Anon has been blocked. --Elonka 05:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any special reason to assume that he is MarkBA and not an unrelated Slovak editor? His behaviour sofar 78.99.132.221 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) has been civil and content-focused IMO, unlike MarkBA's. Markussep Talk 10:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Evidence? Since when is that required here?--Svetovid (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Turiec Basin

Hi Elonka, I would like to ask your opinion on the article Turiec Basin. Users Nmate and Hobartimus have twice added the Hungarian name for the basin into the article, although it is located in northern Slovakia, is a name of a basin (not a town or a person born before 1918) and the population of ethnic Hungarians living in the basin is very close to 0 (that is around 10 out of roughly 100.000 inhabitants of the basin, i.e about 0,01% by my reckoning). They have already been reverted once by an IP editor, and reverted him/her back. I have really no intention on starting a revert war, as I find this type of editing highly counter-productive and diverting the very much needed energy from other more useful and necessary stuff.

Therefore, as the arbiter in the Slovak-Hungarian issue and so-to-say an expert in the field, could you please voice your opinion on the whether, as per the Hungarian-Slovak Experiment, the article on the basin should also bear the Hungarian name or not?

Thank you for your help, it is very much appreciated.

PeterRet (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

IP 78.99.161.255 making the edit was a confirmed as a sockpuppet of a banned user. Looking at the user page helps not to confuse real IP editors with sockpuppets but it's hard to track them sometimes and properly mark the IP so there is no confusion. It's not a town but it's still a "geographic name" I guess. Hobartimus (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The question to ask is: what names for this geographic feature would I expect to encounter in relevant English texts? Is this feature only referred to in hydrographic or orographic contexts, or also in biographies etc.? And of course, what are the locally used names? Markussep Talk 14:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Markussep :) To answer your question I did a quick Google hit-count and the results are as follows (please note that I only counted unique hits, i.e. without repetitions as displayed by Google):
  • "Turiec Basin"  : E: 84, S: 29, H:0
  • "Turčianska kotlina" : E: 81, S:199, H:11
  • "Túróci-medence"  : E: 0, S: 0, H:28
Where E=English language results, S=Slovak language resluts, H=Hungarian language results. The results might include translations of local webpages (thus creating a slight pro-Slovak bias of the hit-count), but the tendency towards the usage of the English/Slovak names seems to be quite convincing.
The locally used name is exclusively "Turčianska kotlina", officially translated into English as "Turiec Basin". However, it needs to be said that between 1867 and 1918 the Hungarian equivalent, "Túróci-medence", was most probably the official name of the basin, as was the case with all the geographical names in the present-day Slovakia. I have no sources or knowledge about the official name of the basin before 1867 (when Austro-Hungary was created), but it might be reasonable to suppose it was the present name's German or Latin equivalent.
Before 1918, Hungarian was spoken especially in the northern part of the region (towns of Martin and most of all Vrútky), again, as was the case in the entire area of the contemporary "Upper Hungary". This is especially true of the language used on the official and administrative level. Among the general population, the usage was very limited and I will not venture to guess at a number of inhabitants of the Basin, who would actually identify themselves as Hungarian, as I don't possess the required data.
However, after 1918 Hungarian fell into disuse in the area, which was further exacerbated by the Beneš Decrees put into effect after the end of the World War 2, causing the deportation of the remainder of ethnic Hungarian population. Therefore, for the past 90 (or, if you will 60) years, the exclusive locally used name has been the Slovak variant, "Turčianska kotlina".
PeterRet (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
If you want to know recent ethnic compositions, you can search the Slovak statistics office website (only by municipality unfortunately). From your Google search I'd conclude the Hungarian name is not used in English. However, its historic local use is a reason to include it, according to WP:NCGN: "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted [in the lead of the article]". According to the 1910 census, 10% of Turiec county was Hungarian-speaking (and 20% German-speaking). Markussep Talk 16:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Markussep, thank you very much for your opinion and for the Slovak statistics office source. I really appreciate your involvement and impartiality in this sometimes excessively heated issue. As per your argumentation I agree with keeping the Hungarian name of the basin in the article (in short: makes sense :D).
However, while researching other Slovakia-related articles for the way this SK-HU thing functions there, I got the following idea, which might help move the issue a bit in a more general way (and maybe, hopefully, calm the passions down a bit). My argument goes as follows: There are articles such as Váh, Hron e.a. where, in addition to the English name in the title of the article, Hungarian, German, Latin, ..., names are used. This is perfectly fine with me. What is interesting from my point of view, though, is that technically, the Slovak version of the name is ommitted as it is supposed that the name used in the head of the article is actually the English one (since we are in the English Wikipedia). I know it might sound redundant, as the English name is (probably) in the majority of cases identical to the Slovak one, but I would propose including the Slovak name of such articles along with the rest of the language versions (Hungarian, German, Ukrainian, ...) for the simple reason of the town/river... being located in Slovakia. This would, for example, mean, that the first sentence of the Váh article would read:
The Váh (Slovak: Váh; Hungarian: Vág; German: Waag; Polish: Wag) is the longest river entirely in Slovakia.
(this is actually the same way the names are constructed in the Turiec Basin article)
The logic behind this is that since we are on an English Wikipedia (not a Slovak or a Hungarian one), it should not be supposed that a Slovak/Hungarian name for a certain geographical unit is automatically also the English one. To me, including both the Slovak and Hungarian version in addition to the official English one makes a psychological difference: the English name (whether coming from Slovak or Hungarian is unimportant) is reinforced as the official name of the place in English and the remaining languages are shown for illustration (and put on the same level of importance). This, to me, might help remove the feelings some Slovaks here seem to bear, that the Hungarians are trying to liguistically "steal" Slovak towns/hills/rivers... and at the same time remove the feelings some Hungarians here seem to bear, that the Slovaks are trying to linguistically negate the history and the fact that the Slovak towns/hills/rivers in fact used to be a part of Austro-Hungary (and before that the Hungarian Kingdom).
Does this make sense? To you think this proposal could be useful and could gain some support from both camps?
Thanks :) PeterRet (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, it seems a bit superfluous to me. I suppose if the place is in Slovakia anyone can guess that the placename is probably in Slovak. But I'm neither Slovak nor Hungarian, so the psychological subtleties might escape me. Markussep Talk 19:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, if you don't mind, I will try adding the Slovak version of the name to the two aforementioned articles (Váh, Hron) and see how it keeps up. This way we can safely use the most frequently used name of a given place in English as the name of the article (albeit it be the Hungarian variant) and freely add both language variations to the articles without assuming that the English name should be equivalent to the Slovak one, when in fact, it does not have to be the case. Btw, I whish all this SK-HU edit-warring would just stop... PeterRet (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I see nobody (I mean not even a Slovak editor) agreeing with that. Would you explain why the Slovak name should be added in parentheses when the whole article goes by the Slovak name? Or should we move the article to the Hungarian name (Vág) so you can add the Slovak name in parentheses?
Don't you think this would affect many articles so it's not a good idea to just go on with only one editor's expressing his opinion and even him is basically disagreeing? Squash Racket (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Squash Racket. OK, for me the logic is as follows: From my point of view the name of the whole article is not in Slovak, but in English. The fact that the English name is in this case identical to the Slovak one is theoretically just a coincidence (as, for example, the Turiec Basin has an English name which is different from the Slovak one). Therefore going by this logic, in addition to the English name, it seems correct to include all the other names of the article which might be relevant (Slovak because it lies in Slovakia, Hungarian because it used to be a part of Hungary, German because a German minority lives nearby, etc.)
The automatic assumption that the name of the article is in Slovak or in Hungarian (as opposed to English) to me suggests a domination of the given country/language over the subject of the article (i.e. that Váh is in Slovak, therefore the Hungarian name of Vág is inferior to the Slovak one - or that János Szapolyai is in Hungarian, therefore the Slovak name of Ján Zápoľský is inferior to the Hungarian one). This to me might be potentially conflicting. Do you see what I mean?
I am aware of the fact that the only response to my proposal was slightly negative. Therefore I wrote I'd just try it to see how it holds up - I'm not planning to impose this solution should the community be opposed and will not revert the edit you made. However, I would like to ask you to please have a look at my reasoning, give it another look and consider if it might or might not have some beneficial effects on the whole naming issue. For me it puts the Hungarian and Slovak names on an equal level and elevates the official English one.
As for the fact that it affects a lot of articles - you are right, it does. Maybe the above principle could be implemented with priority in articles where a conflict exists and its usage in "non-conflict zones" could be more gradual.
To conclude, I'd just like to make it clear that I'm really not trying to push any kind of agenda here and I'm striving to remain as impartial as possible. If others also have an opinion on this, I would be happy to hear it. PeterRet (talk) 07:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Some points:

  • Treating this name as an "official English name" is a bit tricky: see for example this reference I found just after a quick search in The New York Times where the name is featured as "Vah River" (no diacritics)
  • "Domination of the given country/language over the subject of the article" - that's fine, as you see, this is now a river in Slovakia
  • To avoid clutter we try to keep the lead simple (there are enough disputes already, see archives)

If you want to propose such a widescale, controversial change I don't think this is the right forum for it. Squash Racket (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

When is this "experiment" actually going to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?

So far it has been a popularity context won by editors with agenda, who made Slovak editors leave in disgust. The only result of the debate so far is a continuous disregard of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Slovak editors are leaving because of political correctness or outright pussyfooting around real issues, such as chauvinistic behaviour of Nmate and his and others' magyarization of Slovak articles. When I told my Hungarian friends about this they apologized. They didn't have to, every country has zealots. But why are they not dealt with here?
Just ask yourself two questions: How many Slovak editors did you see editing Hungarian articles, adding Slovak names everywhere? How many Hungarian editors did you see editing Slovak articles, adding Hungarian names everywhere?
You didn't even need to read to the end to know the answer...
P.S. If anybody wants to reply with obvious fallacies, don't bother.--Svetovid (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's see:
Regarding that edit summary after your comment here:
  • it was not vandalism
  • nobody is compelled to revert anything here, especially not in controversial cases like this
Answering your comment now:
I hope your Hungarian friends also know about a Slovak editor stalking me for months trying to associate me with a banned user. You were honest and told them about Svetovid reporting me at night on the 3RR board for making two reverts. I hope your Hungarian friends apologized knowing about these.
How many times did you apologize to anyone here for the derogatory comments you made?
I saw Tankred not simply adding Slovak names into Hungary-related articles, but deleting a number of Hungarian ones. He also tried to prove at all cost that the House of Esterházy was a Slovak noble house.
Svetovid added a Slovak name to a battle in which most probably zero Slovaks participated and that with a misleading edit summary.
BTW the naming convention that you don't agree with was initiated by Tankred, not a Hungarian editor. Squash Racket (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
You didn't read the P.S. I am not going to respond to your ad hominem.
"I saw Tankred not simply adding Slovak names into Hungary-related articles." Names of Slovak cities (Bratislava and Prešov)? That's logical.
"Svetovid added a Slovak name to a battle in which most probably zero Slovaks participated." First, probably. Second, that's totally different from Hobartimus, Nmate and Rembaoud adding names into tens of almost exclusively Slovakia-related articles, which seems to be main part of at least Nmate's and Rembaoud's contributions.--Svetovid (talk) 08:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The diff I provided was Tankred's removal of Hungarian names (Pozsony and Eperjes) from a biography of a Hungarian writer and leaving only the anachronistic names there. I don't consider this "logical".
For example Britannica sometimes exclusively uses Hungarian names in Hungary-related articles without even mentioning the Slovak one. Compared to that this naming convention seems acceptable. Squash Racket (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Please everyone, no more accusations. Let's focus on Svetovid's initial remark again: does the proposed naming convention violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? And if it does, which parts of it need to be modified? Or is it a question of interpretation of the policies and guidelines? Svetovid, since you expressed your general concerns about it, could you specify which points under /Archive 2#Consensus you disagree with (with explanation), and which aspects need to be added or removed from the naming convention? Markussep Talk 11:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a policy or part of a policy itself. I mean the dispute resolution in whatever form. Wikilawyering does not lead to anywhere. Svetovid just wants to be the one who solely decides about stuff, but that just doesn't work, which often drives him mad, as above, for example. --Rembaoud (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Rembaoud, please remember not to make things personal; comment on the issue at hand instead of the editor bringing it for discussion. Shell babelfish 08:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Ignorance doesn't drive me mad. I usually just chuckle. Anyway, unless you can prove that I tried to pass or passed a guideline or policy "solely", your accusations are just personal attacks. It wouldn't be the first time. You already accused me of using a sock puppet and didn't apologize after you were proved wrong.--Svetovid (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Svetovid, you've mentioned this agreement violates some policy or guideline but neglected to mention which one(s) and what you believe fails that policy. Without that information, there's nothing anyone can do to respond to your concern other than by guessing, which obviously hasn't generated helpful comments. Could you please give us some specifics of your concerns? Shell babelfish 08:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, how is it possible that a failed proposal was used? Second, why are severe breaches of consensus and Wikipedia's rules being ignored by involved admins in the featured article Bratislava?--Svetovid (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't follow this page quite as closely as others, but everything I've seen indicated that a general agreement was reached on naming conventions - do you believe that is not the case. Again, I have no idea what rules you feel are being broken here - the only thing I see mentioned in the discussion you linked to is consensus, but even there, you made no mention of what consensus you were referring to. I really can't help address your concerns any further without understanding what those concerns are. Shell babelfish 13:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
A general agreement was not reached on naming conventions, not at all. Some editors tried to push their opinion and failed to convince others. However, some editors left in disgust over what was going on here, which doesn't surprise me.
Which guidelines and policies? Start with the basic one: Wikipedia:Citing sources. Information are being inserted en masse without any references what-so-ever. Typical example.--Svetovid (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
You were not very involved in the naming discussion, unlike e.g. Tankred and Ruziklan. If you don't express your opinion, you can't blame others for not listening. I've asked you several times what you would like to see changed, but you haven't been specific sofar, for instance which naming policies are being violated here according to you. Now you can keep on reverting edits, and be reverted an hour later, or you can try to work towards a solution. There might be leads towards a more widely supported naming convention in this discussion. Markussep Talk 14:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
See my older posts. In short, the whole policy is flawed from the beginning.--Svetovid (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I found some of your comments: [33], [34], [35], [36]. In your first comment, I see concrete suggestions: the first is allowing Hungarian names in the subject's article (which is in line with WP:NCGN), and the second is (maybe) giving the Hungarian names in parentheses at the first appearance (which is also in line with WP:NCGN, if we consider the Hungarian name to be a widely accepted name in historical context). Do you still support these suggestions? Those are actually not very far from the current convention, except that you would like to see the Slovak name as the primary name in all instances. To me, that's a reasonable suggestion, and it's something we can discuss, for instance using some English usage test cases. Markussep Talk 16:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the primary usage another encyclopedia sometimes exclusively uses the Hungarian name in historical context. Squash Racket (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are secondary sources. I don't think it's a good idea to exclusively use "Pozsony", because "Bratislava" is a much wider known name for the city in English. See also guideline #3 of WP:NCGN, quote: In cases when a widely accepted historic English name is used, it should be followed by the modern English name in parentheses on the first occurrence of the name. I suppose the main question is: are Hungarian names widely accepted historic English names?
Now about another recent edit war topic: Hungarian names for buildings in Bratislava and for caves and mountains in Slovakia. It doesn't make much sense to me to add Hungarian (or Slovak) translations for "mayor", "street", "house", "town hall", "cave" etc. unless they're part of a proper name. WP:NCGN says to add foreign alternative names (in the lead of the article) when they're used in 10% of English sources or by a group of people that used to inhabit the area. Would it help to settle on a minimum percentage (e.g. 5% or 10%, not only by recent census but also historical ones) for this group of people criterion, to avoid endless lists of alternative names? Markussep Talk 07:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
When it comes to naming issues encyclopedias are recommended sources at least according to WP:NCGN. In Hungary-related articles Bratislava might be mentioned in parentheses, I was only reflecting on "primary usage" in the previous comment.
Svetovid and the IP were removing only Hungarian names as "irrelevant in English", but carefully left there the Slovak ones which are also not used in English. According to "Use English" both should be in the lead. Squash Racket (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we have a misunderstanding about what "primary sources" means. Encyclopedias don't do original research (those are primary sources), they review information that is published elsewhere. WP:PRIMARY calls encyclopedias tertiary sources. That doesn't mean they can't be used as sources for Wikipedia, but ideally, the information used should be backed by primary and secondary sources.
WP:UE is not very clear: it says the article should list all common names by which its subject is known, but not whether those common names are in English or in native languages. Better use the more specific WP:NCGN. The edits by Svetovid and 194.160.75.10 are probably based on their interpretation of WP:NCGN, which might be too restrictive. I hope we can agree on a widely accepted interpretation here. What do you think of my suggestions? Markussep Talk 09:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I know encyclopedias are tertiary sources, I modified my comment. I wanted to show that primarily these should be used when it came to controversial naming issues.
Does WP:NCGN apply to castles, palaces, cathedrals, just to name a few? Squash Racket (talk) 10:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
OK. Since Wikipedia:Naming conventions (architecture) is inactive, WP:NCGN is the next best thing for buildings. "group of people that used to inhabit the area" would refer to a larger area than the building itself of course. You haven't answered my question yet? Markussep Talk 11:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:NCGN is still no reason to delete relevant Hungarian names from the lead. The Grassalkovich Palace is a palace built by a Hungarian nobleman.
Your suggestion: how do you prove this percentage (in English sources)?
"by a group of people that used to inhabit the area" - to me that's acceptable. Tankred added alternative names to Hungarian articles, because allegedly a Slovak minority lived in Szeged once.
I guess Hungarians lived/live in all parts of Upper Hungary (now Slovakia) at least in proportion of the Slovak minority of Szeged (today 0.1%). Question: why do we need any proof then for any Hungarian names in Slovakia, if a 0.1% minority was enough to add a Slovak name at Szeged? Squash Racket (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily have to be an English source. I suppose any census would be OK. The 1910 census is available on the internet, so are the Slovak censuses of 1991 and 2001. I don't think Tankreds January 2008 edit to the Szeged article is very relevant here. I suggested 5 or 10% as a lower limit, are you OK with that? I would like to see a reply from Svetovid too. Markussep Talk 16:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:194.160.75.10

Checkuser needed in this case? Here he mentions the "mob rule", a favorite phrase of User:MarkBA and the editing pattern... Squash Racket (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This IP is also suspicious. Squash Racket (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Different IP range than usual, but I agree that it's probably MarkBA again. Tagged and blocked, let me know if you spot any others. --Elonka 03:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The whole problem summed up in one sentence from Nmate..

"I have to restore this article's Hungarian name."
At least he is not shy about his intentions on Wikipedia.--Svetovid (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The revert wars were launched by Svetovid and a mysterious IP today.
If Svetovid would read the talk page instead of launching revert wars, he could see that Markussep mentioned the Hungarian name also had Google books hits just like Pressburg or Bratislava. Squash Racket (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Two books is not a wide use.--Svetovid (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
You added bratislava.info as a reliable source, don't forget that. Squash Racket (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, let's do this right:
  • Pozsony: 2, one of which written in 1892 (net: 1 "recent" book)
  • Bratislava: 19, 6 of which written before 1958 (net: 13 "recent" books)
  • Pressburg: 20, 2 of which about a 17th century battle, and 9 of which written before 1958 (net: 9 "recent" books)
  • Brezalauspurc: 0
So the winner is Bratislava, closely followed by Pressburg. Markussep Talk 16:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Britannica uses Battle of Pressburg (mentioning Bratislava in brackets). So there are "winners" here based on wide usage? That applies to all articles? Squash Racket (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Based on my google books search I'd say that the article should be moved to either "Battle of Bratislava" or "Battle of Pressburg". Alternative names can be added in the lead, if they're relevant. About the Slovak name for the Battle of Mohács: it's probably not widely used in English, and neither are the Hungarian, Turkish and Croatian name. This is not an article about Mohács, but about the battle, so WP:NCGN doesn't apply here. I don't see French, Dutch or German names at the Battle of Waterloo article. Markussep Talk 08:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to naming issues and there is no clear result first other encyclopedias should be searched according to WP:NCGN. I haven't found anything in Columbia Encyclopedia and Encarta, but Britannica mentions the Battle of Pressburg in the article Bavaria. So the article should be moved to this name.
I think WP:NCGN emphasizes using other encyclopedias to filter scholarly works of (in this case) Germans, Hungarians, Slovaks etc. Squash Racket (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

One source is a bit meagre. WP:NCGN doesn't apply here, since it's not a geography article. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) and WP:UE do. Since there is not one common name, we should check reliable sources, and, quoting WP:UE: Use what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article. I think both Pressburg and Bratislava would be acceptable, you can try history reference works for more usage data. Markussep Talk 09:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I think WP:NCGN applies, because the only difference is about the geographical name. The naming convention you mentioned only helps in a debate whether the event in question was a battle or not.
WP:UE says in case of no established usage:

If this happens, follow the conventions of the language in which the entity is most often talked about (German for German politicians, Turkish for Turkish rivers, Portuguese for Brazilian towns etc.)

This is either Hungarian or German (Battle of Pozsony, Battle of Pressburg), the battle is part of Hungarian and German history. Squash Racket (talk) 10:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
"no established usage" doesn't apply here, there's just not one single established name. The battle is also part of Slovak history, the Slovaks didn't fall to earth in 1918. I just found the New Cambridge Medieval History, page 298 (and also page 295): battle at Bratislava. Markussep Talk 11:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The Slovaks didn't fall to earth in 907 either (that is more than 1000 years earlier). I think you have to have a very good reason to differ from Britannica's usage. I don't see that reason now. Using a Slovak name invented in 1920 for a 907 battle between Germans and Hungarians to me seems anachronistic, unencyclopedic, wrong.
Google Scholar: Battle of Pressburg 7 hits, Battle of Bratislava 1 hit. Squash Racket
BTW we can add further links like that:[37], [38], [39], [40], etc. (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
You have to have a good reason to differ from the Cambridge histories too. Some of your B.o.Pressburg hits refer to a 17th century battle. Anyway, I'm fine with Pressburg, but Bratislava is also used, probably because that's what the place is called presently. Time to request a move at WP:RM? Markussep Talk 14:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I guess that is the reason why encyclopedias are important regarding naming issues: too many university presses/scholarly works with different usage. It is simpler to check Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia and Encarta (if these mention the subject in question). Squash Racket (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Svetovid

Just don't learn. As soon as the attention falled back behind a level, Svetovid continued his fight to delete Hungary, Hungarians and any reference to their history from Wikipedia, especially from Slovak(ia)-related articles. In my opinion he is MarkBA number 2. Not a "puppet", but a...how to say...an identical match.

Markussep tries to do his best to stop Svetovid, but unfortunately he (always) fails. Hobartimus, Elonka, others detto. This guy just don't give a shit to anybody or anything. Therefore we should teach him a lession. Should be banned from Slovak(ia) and Hungari(an) related articles for the rest of the year to teach him some respect to this experiment (an thus to Elonka, and other users) and to all what we've reached here. --Rembaoud (talk) 10:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Rembaoud, the above comment is uncivil, please consider refactoring, thanks. --Elonka 20:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of alternative names

WP:Naming conventions (geographic names) says about the lead of articles:

  • Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place [my stress]) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e., (Armenian name1, Belarusian name2, Czech name3). or (ar: name1, be: name2, cs: name3). As an exception to alphabetical order, the local official name should be listed before other alternate names if it differs from a widely accepted English name.

Now we could prove for every single place in Slovakia that other languages were also spoken there, or we can save us some work by using census data. The 1910 census of the Kingdom of Hungary is available on the internet: http://www.talmamedia.com/map/hhcounty/hhcounty.htm. This census recorded the first language of the population, and it gives figures by county (vármegye) and by (smaller) district (járás), and also for the larger towns. Some examples:

county/district/town Slovak name Hungarian name %Slovak %Hungarian %German %Rusyn
county Spiš Szepes 56.2 10.8 22.2 7.1
district Martin Turóczszentmárton 80.4 12.6 5.4 0.1
town Prešov Eperjes 39.8 48.9 8.6 0.3
county Šariš Sáros 60.7 10.8 5.6 22.9

So, as a way forward, could we agree on using a minimum language percentage (for instance 5%) in this census as a criterion for including the alternative name? And, to save us the trouble of calculating the figures for every single district or town, shall we use the county data? For the counties that are only partly in present Slovakia (Esztergom, Komárom, ...) I suggest we use only the Slovak part. And if the alternative name doesn't meet this population criterion, it has to be used in 10% of English sources, as WP:NCGN says. Your comments please. Markussep Talk 09:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with your proposal. There is no need to prove area by area that Hungarians lived somewhere. The whole area of the KoH was partially inhabited by Hungarians (and by many other people of course). There were no 5 % limit used when Slovak names were added to towns like Pécs - and absolutely rightly because Slovak names are relevant for the whole area of the KoH. The same is true for Hungarian names but even more so because every topographical feature had an OFFICIAL Hungarian name before 1918. These offical names are encyclopaedical content per se. Zello (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure there are people that disagree with you, for instance the Slovak name (among others) for Pécs was removed in a nice little revert war. The guideline WP:NCGN doesn't say anything about historical official names. Could you explain your statement about encyclopaedical content a bit more? Markussep Talk 12:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Markussep, alternative names for Pécs are listed in the "section Name" right after the lead per WP:NCGN:

Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead

Also:

In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced by a link to the section phrased, for example: "(known also by several alternative names)".

Some context: before that revert war the Hungarian name Trencsén had repeatedly been deleted, that's why it seemed a bit strange when I saw a large number of alternative names (including Turkish!) at the article Pécs. Squash Racket (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't followed that revert war but I think that was a step towards the wrong direction. The KoH was a multiethnic country were many towns had a lot of different names. Until now these names were generally mentioned in the lead sections. The "need" for new guidelines appeared when some editors began to delete Hungarian (or in the case of Pécs other minority) names that they were not able to tolerate. The 5 % policy and the usage of the 1910 census is arbitrary. The ethnic composition of the KoH was constantly changing during the centuries. In 1910 there were only a few Serbs in Budapest but they were a relative majority during the first decade of the 18th century. Should we delete the Serb name? I don't think so. Instead of this appeasement policy towards intolerant editors it would be better to stick to the old guidelines. As for the part about official historic names I think that it is obvious that you SHOULD mention all the former official names of a town (or river, lake etc.) in the lead for the sake of providing important information to the reader. For example all the colonial names of the towns are mentioned in other articles although I doubt that many Belgians ever lived in Inner Congo. Zello (talk) 12:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. The main argument Svetovid uses for removing Hungarian (and other) names is the WP:Verifiability policy. See my discussion with him and Elonka at Talk:Váh. I don't think there can be any doubt about the fact that Vág is the Hungarian name of the river Váh etc.. So the remaining point is the relevance of alternative names. In similar cases, such as the formerly German part of Poland (e.g. Opole, Bytom, Słupia) and the Czech Republic (e.g. České Budějovice, Žatec, Ploučnice), German names are mentioned. Markussep Talk 15:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Svetovid

User Svetovid deleted seven Hungarian alternative geographical names, that I had to restore after an anonymous vandal, User:194.160.75.10 had deleted them before. This user was identified as a probable sockpuppet of MarkBa and blocked by Elonka. Svetovid deleted the Hungarian name of the Low Tatras recently again although it was sourced. I don't think this malicious activity should be dealt like a content dispute. Zello (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

And again in the case of Kráľova hoľa... Zello (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I have cautioned Svetovid that in the future, he is not to remove names unless he has first requested sources for them, and/or confirmed consensus at talk. If he violates this, please let me know. --Elonka 16:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, sourced info was deleted again from the Kráľova hoľa article. Zello (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Naming convention

(previous discussions and polls can be seen in Archive 2)


The naming convention for places in Slovakia. It is meant to be a specification of guideline nr. 3 (about the use of a name in other articles) of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Given the long shared history of Slovakia and Hungary, it is desirable to mention both the Slovak and the Hungarian name in several cases. This depends on the (historical) context in which it is used:

  • Before 1918: the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. "Eperjes (Prešov)" or "Prešov (Eperjes)".
    • In biographies of clearly Slovak persons, the name should be used in the form "Prešov (Eperjes)" and later "Prešov" exclusively
    • In biographies of clearly Hungarian persons, the name should be used in the form "Eperjes (Prešov)" and later "Eperjes" exclusively
    • In other cases the order of the names, and which name is used in the rest of the article is arbitrary. If a dispute arises, the name most used in the given context in reliable sources (see WP:NCGN) should be used first, and the other name(s) should be listed in parentheses at the first occurrence
  • After 1918: use the Slovak name. Use Hungarian (or other minority languages) at least once for places with significant Hungarian (or other minority) population, either in the form "Eperjes (Prešov)" and later "Eperjes" exclusively, or in the form "Prešov (Eperjes)" and later "Prešov" exclusively. Significant is more than 20% of the population by contemporary census.
  • For places that changed name (e.g. Štúrovo was called Parkan before 1948): follow the rules above, but use the contemporary Slovak or Hungarian name as the primary name, and also add the modern name as an alternative. Example: for a biography about a 19th century Slovak from Parkan/Párkány/Štúrovo, use "Parkan (Párkány, present Štúrovo)", and later "Parkan" exclusively
  • For places that have another widely accepted (historic) name in English (e.g. Pressburg for Bratislava before 1919): use that name, and mention the modern name and relevant alternative names at the first occurrence.

Articles in which the convention has been applied


I oppose the whole convention because it's artificial and its only purpose is to satisfy certain editors. It's also against guidelines and policies of Wikipedia.--Svetovid (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
And what would you prefer instead? --Elonka 04:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, follow the Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Unless there is actual evidence that a name is widely used in English, don't use it.--Svetovid (talk) 07:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The text of the convention was formulated after months and months of several discussion rounds and the participation of at least 15 editors, you are free to propose your possible modifications if you think they can achive consensus. Hobartimus (talk) 12:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, if in the article on Anton Bernolák (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for the Slovak Orava the form Orava (Árva) is used (and without mention that Árva is a Huingarian name for Orava, what is confusing for a reader who does not come from Central Europe), why not to use for Hungarian Buda a form Buda (Budín) or better Buda (Budín, Ofen)? Up to cca 1850 the population of the whole twin city (Pest and Buda) was composed from 50 000 Germans and German-speaking Jews, 30 000 Slovaks and from obly 20 000 ethnical Hungarians :-) Trisw (talk) 08:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I can't understand to this solution. Why aren't also hungarian names in articles about hungarians completed by slovak equivalents? I also can't understand, why si translated Orava to hungarian (Arvo), when there isn't and wasn't hungarian minority at all. And why isn't this geographical names completed by polish or czech equivalents?
Note: the above comment arrived months after the debate closed. Squash Racket (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

correct use of historical names of Hungary

I looked a lot of biografies and I see a common practice to name a place of birth and palce of death: using full information see Garry Kasparov: born in Baku, Azerbaijan SSR, Soviet Union or Josip Broz Tito born in Kumrovec, Croatia-Slavonia, Austria-Hungary, but for a lot of people in years 1700 - 1918 I see only Hungary, that is a humbug, Hungary was not existent and Kingdom of Hungary is only half-truth and falsehood, Kingdom of Hungary was part of Austrian Empire, after 1867 Austria-Hungary, best cheek is comming from User:Hobartimus, he say Segesvar, probably death place of Petofi is in Hungary, there was a lot of laughter, Teansylvania was only 1867-1918 part of Kingdom of Hungary, but not Hungary. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Nina, I think your above remark contain some misunderstanding of historical facts. (1)The Kingdom of Hungary existed from 1000/1001 until 1946 when the Republic of Hungary was proclaimed. (2)The Austrian Empire existed from 1804 until 1918, therefore the Kingdom of Hungary could not be its part before. (3)Although the Archdukes (and later Emperors of) of Austria were also Kings of Hungary from 1526, it does not mean that Hungary was a part of Austria. E.g., Louis I of Hungary was also King of Poland, but nobody claims that Poland was part of the Kingdom of Hungary at that time. (4) Although the political union of the realms and provinces ruled by the Habsburg monarchs went further than a pure personal union, because there were some institutions (e.g., the Council of War) whose jurisdiction expanded over all of them, but consitutionally the Kingdom of Hungary was an independent state with its own legislative and governmental bodies independent from the jurisdiction of foreign powers. E.g., both Hungary and Slovakia are members of the EU, but nobody claims that they are not independent countries any more, although some EU institutions can issue decrees that are obligatory for the legislative and judiciary bodies of the two countries; in the Kingdom of Hungary, during the Habsburgs' rule, the Diets passed acts and no foreign powers could legally enforce the Estates or the law courts in the kingdom to accept any direction. So, I think it is more than surprising that anybody qualifies a polity existing over 1000 years as humbug. Borsoka (talk) 10:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Hungary existed 1000-1944/1946, but Kingdom of Hungary
from Kingdom of Hungary:
  • After a failed Ottoman invasion of Austria in 1683, the Habsburgs went on the offensive against the Turks; by the end of the 17th century, they had managed to conquer the remainder of the historical Kingdom of Hungary and the principality of Transylvania. At this point, the Royal Hungary terminology was dropped, and the area was once again referred to as the Kingdom of Hungary, although it was still administered as a part of the Habsburg realm. In the 18th century, the Kingdom of Hungary had its own Diet (parliament) and constitution, but the members of the Governor's Council (Helytartótanács, the office of the palatine) were appointed by the Habsburg monarch, and the superior economic institution, the Hungarian Chamber, was directly subordinated to the Court Chamber in Vienna.
Summary: Hungary was 1526-1918 only a province of Habsburg monarchy, no chance to be independent country, correct syntax is 1526-1867 Kingdom of Hungary, Habsburg Monarchy and 1867 - 1918 Kingdom of Hungary, Austria-Hungary. :--Nina.Charousek (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no such country as Habsburg Monarchy I'm sorry. Habsburg Monarchy is not a country. See Holy Roman Empire. Hobartimus (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
you a right, there is today not such country, there is not more Sovjet Union, but Habsburg Monarchy and Sovjet Union - 2 historical empires: from hu-wp: Habsburg Birodalom névvel szokás illetni a Habsburg-ház kezén levő államok összességét I. Rudolf német király 13. századi uralkodásától kezdve egészen az Osztrák–Magyar Monarchia 1867es megalakulásáig. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes and that includes Spain, The territory of the Netherlands, All the states in the Holy Roman Empire, including parts of present day Italy, Switzerland, the list goes on. The Habsburg House ruled over a huge number of countries during the centuries, but this didn't mean all of this mess was one country. Hungarian King Nagy Lajos ruled over Naples (Nápoly) for example in present day Italy but we don't say that Naples was part of Hungary at the time. Or Poland or Wallachia or Moldavia or ... he ruled a lot of lands. Mátyás Hunyadi along with quite a few other Hungarian Kings also ruled over Bohemia, Bosnia and since the King decided on foreign policy all these lands didn't have their foreign policy at the time or their own army (it served at the will of the King) etc. This doesn't mean they were part of each other, that would require a common language common laws etc etc. Hobartimus (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
easy - habsburg monarchy was not a country, but an empire, an empire not need a common language, laws and hungary was not an independent country, sovjet union was 1950 not a country and estonia was 1950 not an independent country. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Habsburg Monarchy was not actually used as an official name of any country state or empire. There was no entity by that name, in existence ever. This is a simple, yet undisputable fact. Hobartimus (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
yes, i made now in flash article about habsburg monarchy and i am the only historian, who use it. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Within the EU, EU institutions control the tariffs, the budgetary system, several taxes, several fields of civil law and other functions of the member states. Does it mean that Hungary and Slovakia lost their independence when they joined the EU? As to the Habsburg empire, during the middle ages, similar empires also existed: the empire of the Luxembourg dynasty (Bohemia, Hungary, Luxemburg), the empire of the Jagello dynasty (Poland, Bohemia, Lithuania, Hungary). All these empires had their own institutions (at least the king and his council), but nobody claims that they lost their own independence. Yes, the union of the realms and the provinces within the Habsburg Empire formed a political union, because they were governed by the same monarchs and there were some common institutions, but each realms and provinces reserved their own constitutional institutions: e.g., the Habsburg kings could not levy tax without the consent of the Diet, the viceroy (the Palatine) was elected by the Diet, the Diet passed the act that ensured the succession of the female line of the Habsburgs. In the course of the 17th century, the Habsburg kings made peaces with the Estates of the Kingdom of Hungary and even in 1711 they had to accept a compormise that ensured the constitutional (although in some territories, only limited) independence of the Kingdom of Hungary. Even the Habsburg kings of Hungary, could not grant offices and estates to their partisans living in their other realms in the Kingdom of Hungary, without the consent of the Estates. I accept that the Kingdom of Hungary did not enjoy the same level of independence from the 17th century, than it had enjoyed before, but Hungary and Slovakia lost the control over several field of law when they joined the EU, but, I presume, both of them are still independent countries with their own independent constitutional institutions. Borsoka (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

if you work in wikipedia exactly, you have to write: 1949-1953 Hungary amusement park of Stalin, 1953-1989 Hungary (satellite of Moskau), 1989-2003 Hungary (schoolgirl of Washington), 2003 - Hungary (part of EU) --Nina.Charousek (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nina, isn't this discussion about how to refer to places in Hungary and former Hungarian territories in 18th and 19th century context? Maybe it's better to focus on that. The History of Hungary 1700-1919 article may help. You can also research how other encyclopedias treat similar cases, for instance Encyclopaedia Britannica. Markussep Talk 18:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Nina, your suggestion is really interesting and remarkable. My only concern that it would be difficult to reach a consensus on the proper adjectives. E.g., the amusement park of Stalin would not be acceptable for several editors, because the Revolution of 1956 suggests that Hungary was obviously not an amusement park in those years, the satellite of Moskau would not differentiate Hungary from most of the states in the Soviet Block. 213.134.24.30 (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear IP and Markussep, my last contribution was a piece of irony, but history of Hungary is truly not funny, it is a long run of negative experience and foreign rule, 1956 is not exception, but it was not only tragedy for concerned generation, but a piece of hope for next generation. It is for me not so important to find a consensus - my chanches are not good - I see I receive a lot of irrational answers - but to say - please be careful and act not only at national basis. EB P. symbolized the Hungarian desire for freedom. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Nina, I fully agree that we should try to act not only at national basis, and we should accept that some of our remarks (e.g., amusement park of Stalin) may be offensive for others. And I also presume that we all also should accept that none of us is in the position to decide whether a fact of history is true or not, and it is not our task to describe our own interpretations of historical facts and events, but to help our community to learn all the relevant interpretations. Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • N. F.
  • Ó, mondd Istenem! Ó, mondd meg nekem!
  • Ó, mondd miért van ez?
  • És mondd meddig tart ez még?
  • Horthy jött a fehér lovon,
  • Sztálin vágtatott harckocsikon,
  • Hitler hozta a csodafegyvert,
  • ZSEBREVÁGOTT minket a történelem.

(sorry - only hungarian text) --Nina.Charousek (talk) 05:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Local names

The basic problems is that for the English word "Hungary" several languages have two or three different names with their different polical meanings. For example in Slovak "Uhorsko" means a multinational kingdom which existed from 1000 to 1918 and "Madarsko" a today Hungarian ethnic state. In Croatian it is expresed by names "Ugarska" and "Madarska". In Czech "Uhersko" means the whole kingdom (maybe wihout Croatia), "Uhry" the central part of kingdom (today Slovakia and today Republic of Hungary but without Transylvania and Croatia) and "Madarsko" a todaj Hungarian etnic state. Hungarian (Magyar) language and English do not make this difference.

Analogicaly all inhabitants of the ancient kingdom were "Ugri" or "Uhri" (Hungari in Latin) which were composed from smaller ethnical nations (Slovaks, Criatians, Romanians, Germans, Ruthenians and of course ethnic Hungarians,(till cca1830 the did not represetn more than cca 30% of the whole population)). The official language up to 1848 was the Latin! This was in past politicaly significant. Behind the dualism Uhorsko/Madarsko, Ugarska/Madarska there is expresed the idea that this kingdom was the "home" of several different and equal ethnical nations, but the having and using only one name (Magyarország, Hungary) and the idea of identification of the ancient Kingdom of Hungary with the presen small national Hungarian state may evoke an impression that the ancient Kingdom of Hungary was an ethnical state of ethnical "Hungarians" and other nationas were not real "masters" and "rulers" of the country. (see: the dispute Bencsik v. Magina in 18th century) This question in the past was an object of very heated discussion leading oft to military conflicts. (Therefore in this Slovak-Hungarian- Romanian discussion on terminology in the wikipedia the level of a personal involvement is understable.)

Russian and German language can make a difference between names of people "Vengri" versus "Madari", "Ungaren" versus "Magyaren", but not in names of the countries! That is always "Vengria" and "Ungarn". However, it is more corrent to admit that the English language has the proper name only for the ancient Kingdom of Hungary and its inhabitants ("Uhorsko"), but not for a today Hungarian ethnic state! Maybe in the past the Kingdom of Hungary was too far from England to make a difference between peoples within its borders :-)

It means that for a non-Hungarian and non-English contributors is possible to refer about past their nations and their ancestors as about "Uhri", "Ugri" and maybe as "Hungarians" (in meaning inhabitants of the Kingdom of Hungary), but they seek the way how to distinguish them in English from ethnic Hungarians (Magyars)and how to make English reading people understand a difference between "Uhorsko" and "Madarsko".

As I know, same Slovaks try to define this difference in English by using the word "Magyars" in English texts, but I am not sure whethet it is a acceptable way.

As regards a rule to use local names depending on the ethicity of the person that is being described in the article, yes, it seems to be a good solutin, but what to de with persons of mixed origin or bolonging to the history of more than one ethnical nations (Petofi/Petrovic and Kossuth/Kosut are good examples :-))?

In the conclusion I would like to express the idea that the historical Kingdom of Hungary in wikpedia should not be presented only by using the Magyar (ethnical Hungarian) perspective. Romanian, Slovak, Croatian points of view are equally legitimate.

Only ethnical Hungarian perspective is rather offensive for Slovaks, Germans, Ruthenians, Serbs, Romanians and Croatians. For exmaple places in Slovakia have their really original Slovak and sometime German names which are about 800- 1200 yeras old and sometime maybe more (Devin, Tatry, Nitra, Morava, Vah, Turiec, Liptov, etc.). Ethnical Hungarian names were very frequently invented for them only in 19th century during the political campaign of "Magyarisation" (or "Hungarisation"). It means that using Hungarian names for localities in Slovakia is not politicaly "neutral" (it is not only the question of terminology and a used language) and Slovaks can see it as a sign of "imperial arogance" and maybe agressive plans of ethnical Hungarians. I think that today nobody mentions Polish Gdynia as Gottenhafen (a German name during the occupation of Poland in 1940-45).

And if he or she calls this city as Gottenhafen, the Polish reaction is very agressive :-)

Therefore I really think that in English texts all names of places should be mentioned in English or in the official languages of the country in which they are today situated (with some referencies to names in other relevant languages or historical names). This stnadard is used in almost all other wikipedia articles. If in the article about Petofi/Petrovic for the Austian Wien is used English Vienna and not Hungarian Bécs, there is not any reason to use Hungarian Selmecbánya for Slovak Banská Štiavnica. Trisw (talk) 07:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What became of this experiment?

I don't know if you're still active, but I just wanted to leave a quick note that I added a section "Ethnic conflict resolution projects" at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory/History_and_society. If you count yourself as a WikiProject you may want to enter your project there. — Sebastian 07:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess it depends how we define "active". Since the disputes have died down, there isn't as much need for this page anymore. :) --Elonka 07:32, 22 December [[2008 (UTC)
Cool! Good work! — Sebastian 07:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian_experiment/Archive_5&oldid=1151045110"