Jump to content

User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Names

Dear Elonka, I did not make any changes. I merely reverted undiscussed changes made by User:Rembaoud that went both against WP:NCGN and against the consensus among the members of the Wikiproject:Slovakia (which covers these articles). Rembaoud is welcome to provide evidence that the Hungarian geographic names that he inserted into articles about Slovakia are widely accepted in English. WP:NCGN lists what is needed for it and Rembaoud has read that convention. WP:NCGN also states that, in order to prevent edit warring, articles should use the default geographic names (as used in the title of the article about the place in question) until someone proves that a different name is widely accepted in English. Tankred (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tankred, we did not get any protection against uncivil behavior and disruption, instead of that we are punished and threatened. Elonka why don't you warn editor Nmate for summaries like this I removed one-sided edition by braček, jaz daljni odporný šovinistický verzia z Tankred (odporny sovinisticky = ugly chauvinistic), etc ... see here [1]. He stays not warned. Or Rembaud [2]. I wrote summary that I am reverting vandalism and I am on the black list. We are encouraged to discuss changes, we do, but the other side don't. We are warned, other side not. What should we do? What should we do? I am asking twice ... I am getting little bit concerned and I am thinking about ArbCom because this leads to nothing and nowhere and I do not want to wake up and think which warning I get now? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I have placed both Tankred and Nmate under ArbCom editing restrictions, per the Digwuren case. I am not issuing any blocks for past actions though, because I would like to try to "wipe the slate clean" and give everyone a chance to improve their behavior from now on. But if there are further problems with civility, harassment, edit warring, or making any kinds of controversial edits without engaging in good faith discussion, blocks will be issued. I encourage everyone to take advantage of this amnesty, and cease all disruptive behavior. --Elonka 09:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Many of the recent problems were caused by the edits made by User:Rembaoud and User:Hobartimus against a naming convention. WP:NCGN has been in force since December 15, 2006. It was created in a process of careful deliberation among a great number of editors (many of them being respected administrators). This deliberation lasted for several years and the resulting convention was accepted by full consensus. WP:NCGN basically applies WP:ENGLISH in the area of geographic names. Rembaoud's edits go not only against WP:NCGN, but also against WP:ENGLISH. Let me quote from WP:NCGN: "Our naming policy provides that article names should be chosen for the general reader, not for specialists. By following English usage, we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called. If English usually calls a place by a given name, use it... If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local official name."

It is not true that this policy somehow discriminates against historical names. WP:NCGN says: "The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article. Exceptions are allowed only if there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context." Therefore, one can use Constantinople to refer to the capital of Byzantium despite the existing modern name of the same city (Istanbul). But, again, the historical name should be widely accepted in the English language because this is the English Wikipedia. The convention also provides detailed guidelines to decide whether a particular name is widely accepted in Englsh or not. They can be found at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Widely_accepted_name. Despite my encouragement to read WP:NCGN, Rembaoud has not even tried to follow these guidelines and has been replacing official names by their Hungarian version without providing the required evidence or initiating a discussion at the relevant talk pages.

All the historical names should and can be found in the lead (or a special Names section placed just after the lead) of the linked main article about the place in question. However, it would be confusing and detrimental to style to write all the historical names in every article referring to some place. To give you an example, this is how an article began before WP:NCGN: "Johann Andreas Segner (in Slovak: Ján Andrej Segner, in Hungarian: Segner János András, 9 October 1704, Bratislava (in German: Pressburg, in Hungarian: Pozsony), Kingdom of Hungary (today: Slovakia) – 5 October 1777, Halle) was…". Now, the sentence is shortet, but a user can simply click on Bratislava and see how different nations called the city in 1704. At that time, the city of Bratislava had distinct Latin, German, Hungarian, and Slovak names. Latin was the official language and the population was mostly German, Slovak, and Hungarian. All these names were used simultaneously. Many other places in Central Europe are in the similar situation.

The question which name should be used in historical context led to many edit wars and to the inconsistent use of four different names to refer to the same place thorough the same article. I have experienced many conflicts appearing in this area only because there were no clear rules. The unacceptable situation both repelled readers (who were confused by too many different names and disgusted by awkward or even unintelligible sentences) and discouraged valuable editors (who did not want to waste their time protecting articles against various nationalist claims). WP:NCGN largely changed that by explaining in detail what WP:ENGLISH has already established: The English Wikipedia should follow the English usage. If Rembaoud and Hobartimus want to use Hungarian names to refer to Slovak towns, they can either (1) prove that a Hungarian name is also widely accepted in English, or (2) propose changes at the convention's talk page. They did neither.

If we want this dispute resolution to prevent future edit wars, it should clarify whether the current convention is valid or not. I do not see any reason why the names of Slovak cities and towns should be an exception if the convention is successfully applied on other contentious cases (the Czech Republic, Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, Italy, etc.). If we all follow its provisions (incl. how to identify a widely accepted English name), the number of edit wars will significantly decrease. I think the conflict regarding geographic names is one of the key parts of what is going on between Hungarian and Slovak users. Tankred (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Tankred, overall I like your post, it lays out your view of the naming issues in a clear way. However, it would be better if you could focus strictly on the content, without pointing fingers at particular editors. When you "name names", it tends to make people defensive, and they are less likely to listen to the rest of your arguments (even if they are good ones). For myself, I am not willing to blame either nationality for causing the problem, because from where I sit, there have been disruptive edits made by editors on both sides.
For these naming disputes, the way to handle the disagreement was not to simply edit war about it. Instead, as soon as it became apparent that there was a dispute, things should have been moved to the article's talkpage. Describe the dispute there, and explain how you think that things should be handled (as in Tankred's post above). Then any editors who disagree should be allowed to express their viewpoint as well. In an ideal situation, the solution will not be to say "Editor A wins, Editor B loses", but instead to try and find a compromise which makes both sides happy. Once a consensus is found, especially for a controversial topic, it can be useful to put a notice on that article's talkpage, to explain what the consensus is, and link to where the discussion can be reviewed. This was done to great effect at Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice. Perhaps we need to make a "Bratislava-Pressburg-Notice" with similar rules? I can definitely help with that.
Once there has been discussion, and a consensus can be pointed to, it can become much easier to stabilize the related articles. If an editor still disrupts against the consensus, an administrator can be alerted, shown the diff of the edit, and a link to where consensus has been created. Then any disruptive editor, if they ignore warnings, can be blocked or restricted from editing articles in that topic area. The burden is then on the editor who wants to go against consensus, to build a new consensus on the talkpage. They can bring up new arguments, point to new sources, they can persuade, they can invite discussion from other editors. What they can't do is edit war.
So I agree with Tankred, it seems the first step towards stabilizing the articles, is to develop a consensus on the rules by which the names in these articles should be handled. Hopefully, with everyone working together, you can come up with something that all editors here are in agreement with. Please proceed. --Elonka 03:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Tankred's following comment at Talk:Kingdom of Hungary was a key factor initiating the edit war about articles of counties:

  • The Slovak names of neighboring counties should be mentioned at least at the first occurrence of a county's name in an article.
  • The capital was Komárno, not Komárom. Unless someone proves that Komárom is a widely accepted name of Komárno in the English language, Komárno should be used. It would be not only compliant with WP:NCGN and WP:ENGLISH, but also the correct link.

Here he says don't apply WP:NCGN for old Hungarian counties (add Slovak names) and let's apply it for towns/cities (delete Hungarian names).
Little additional info: according to a Slovak editor even Slovak sources tend to use Hungarian names for counties of the Kingdom of Hungary, while Komárom is a city in Hungary, and Komárno is its twin city with a clear Hungarian majority in today's Slovakia. Squash Racket (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I read at WP:NCGN, general guidelines, number 3, which is about using a name in another article, there is no good reason for removing alternative names, except style (cluttering). And: "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 in applicable sections of the article in the format: "historical name (modern name)."" I think we agree that the modern English name would be the Slovak name (any exceptions?), and I can imagine that for the period before 1918 the Hungarian name would be a widely accepted historical name in English. Since the names are often quite different (e.g. Nagyszombat=Trnava), I think it would be good service to the readers to give both names on the first occasion, as WP:NCGN already recommends. Actually, based on what we discussed at Talk:Kingdom of Hungary#Disputed edits in articles about counties, I already added missing Slovak and Hungarian names of counties to the county articles, like [3]. Markussep Talk 09:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Old Hungarian counties and modern Slovak regions are not the same and they never were!! Those counties were immediately torn apart after they were turned to Czechoslovakia. Your premise and your edit linked above is therefore wrong! I see correct articles, where these are separated, like Szepes (county) and Spiš. This is the right way, and the accurate. --Rembaoud (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Komárno/Komárom are still Hungarian cities, both together and on their own. If you only deriver names from their inhabitants, Komarno should be still called "Révkomárom". :) --Rembaoud (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There has been much debate about this already, see for instance Talk:Kingdom of Hungary#What language versions to be used for naming former KoH counties?. You should consider that Hungarian wasn't the only language spoken in those counties, that these counties certainly had names in Slovak, German, Romanian, Latin etc. etc., and that Hungarian wasn't always the official language in the KoH. Noone claims that the old Hungarian counties and the modern administrative regions (especially after the latest reform) are the same, we're talking about Slovak/Romanian/etc. names for the KoH counties. Markussep Talk 11:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It is pretty funny in my opinion that if you fight for "strong magyarization" to be included in the Trnava page, you delete everything wich is hungarian, and you claim that Trnava was always called Trnava and there was no part in history that it was called Nagyszombat. But this is just one oximoron :) --Rembaoud (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Better check your facts. I don't delete everything that's Hungarian (au contraire), and I would only claim (but I don't recall doing so) that Trnava was always called Trnava by its Slovak inhabitants. I would never claim that it was never called Nagyszombat, show me the diffs if I did. Markussep Talk 12:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
"You" is in plural, referring to everybody who acted like I described. I do not see, what you want to say with your link, since in the link you provided you actually turned every placename in that article into contemporary Slovak. "Bratislava county". Anachronism, and obvious fabrication if written in pre-1919 context. You compromised that article with your edit you linked in. --Rembaoud (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Markussep's edits can seem very biased by looking at the sheer number of Slovak names, and Hungarian names added by him, but I think he can be reasonable and his position seems consistent. It's Tankred who always twists interpretation of this guideline to end in removal of Hungarian names and inclusion of Slovak ones. There are other problems here as well but the main issue here is user conduct related, once those are resolved most disputes will be manageable again. Remember that there were disputes in the past, and we got along just fine before WikiProject, attack pages, lurking IPs became involved. Hobartimus (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

For best results, please stick to discussing the article, instead of each other. As an exercise, try to see what it's like to write a post without using the word "you." Now, can anyone think of a compromise which might incorporate the different views? --Elonka 14:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't let this groundless accusation go unchallenged. My proposal would be, for articles discussing the period before 1918: use either "Mr X was born in Prešov (Eperjes), in the Kingdom of Hungary. He left Prešov in the year Y." or, "Mr X was born in Eperjes (Prešov), in the Kingdom of Hungary. He left Eperjes in the year Y.". So that's both names at the first occurrence of the town (or county), and the linked name (which would be the best name for the context) in the rest of the article. Should we define which name goes first, or should we make that situation-dependent? Markussep Talk 14:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to note: user Fz22 has just changed year date in Names section of article Bratislava. I find it controversial, therefore I am going to revert it with proper noting on Talk:Bratislava and invitation for him to join discussion here. --Ruziklan (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Names - Formalization

I agree with the above proposal by Markussep but how can we a bit formalize it? I mean what form should such a proposal take? Hobartimus (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
To formalize it, I would recommend writing it up in its own section (once you know what you want it to say) and then formally asking everyone, "Do you agree with the above proposal?" in a poll format and get everyone involved to signoff on it. Then, if it's something that's going to be needed on multiple articles, I or someone else could turn it into a talkpage template like the Gdansk notice, and we could put it on the affected articles, and have it handy in case it needed to be added anywhere else. Or if it's only affecting a couple articles, we can make a different kind of banner just for those articles. --Elonka 16:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with Markussep's first proposal ("Mr X was born in Prešov (Eperjes), in the Kingdom of Hungary. He left Prešov in the year Y.") and it has been already successfully used in the case of Bratislava (Pressburg). It will be also friendly to the average English-speaking reader of Wikipedia, who might know about existence of Presov (appearing on maps and having its own article here), but never heard about Eperjes. What I more concerned with, is how we would choose the alternative name. For most of its history, Latin was the official language of the Kingdom of Hungary. But at the same time, the cities and towns in Slovakia usually had a German (often German-Slovak) elite, while the majority of their population was usually Slovak (sometimes Slovak and Hungarian, Slovak and German, or Slovak-Hungarian-German). All these nations used their own names for the given town. So, we have usually four different names used in official documents. I do not see any reason why we should use the Hungarian name for medieval Banska Bystrica because the city was clearly German-Slovak at that time and the official stat documents referred to it using its Latin name. Unless there are clear rules, this will be a future point of contention in a great number of articles. We should resolve it while we still have a chance. Tankred (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Besztercebánya (− first recorded in 1263 as Byzthercebana); well, Eperjes in Hungarian, Eperies or Preschau in German. Maybe English language Google hits (without Wikipedia) should decide?
Why did you support adding Slovak names for the old Hungarian counties (besides?) German/Latin versions if you are concerned about the cities now? Please try to keep talk page formula. Squash Racket (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
No, Banská Bystrica was first recorded in 1255 as Villa Nova Bystrice. I think it is a good idea to use English Google hits excluding Wikipedia, but I think we should also look at other, more authoritative English sources listed at Wikipedia:NCGN#Widely_accepted_name. Would that be acceptable? Also, the modern name is clear, while the historical name is very often contentious. So, I would suggest we do not replace official names (accepted in modern English sources) before discussing which historical name should be used along with the modern name. I would also suggest such a discussion should always occur at the talk page of the article about the concerned place. It will make sense to centralize discussion at one place and it is also in line with WP:NCGN. Tankred (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
We only try to find a compromise here for the issue of Slovak-Hungarian names that's what's the compromise or this dispute resolution is about. One possible version was presented by Markussep who already implemented some of it(or similar?) to the county articles. This is to present both the Slovak and the Hungarian name in the first instance they appear in an article (order can be decided on talk page if there is dispute). Let's discuss this idea without getting off topic into general issues. Hobartimus (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


I am sorry, but how can we take this dispute resolution seriously if one side keeps making unilateral changes? I thought Rembaoud is under editing restrictions, but neither the restrictions, nor the discussion here prevents him from changing geographic names in articles about Slovakia.[4] Tankred (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the diff, and I can see what could be the problem with it. The additions "(today Devín)" could imply that the name Devín wasn't used at the time of Ľudovít Štúr (I think that only goes for Bratislava), when it actually was used by the contemporary Slovaks. And not all places have the Slovak (or Czech) given as an alternative. Could we stop the edit war by changing the article according to my proposal? Markussep Talk 16:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
"Today" can safely excluded I think as it adds to the clutter significantly. Hobartimus (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

We should make it historically accure. For example Bratislava. If even in the History of Bratislava article it is mentioned that it was not a Slovak city and Slovak was not an official language, and was not in Slovakia but in Hungary, it is nothing but falsification to call that city on its invented Slovak name in pre 1919 context. I still wondering what is ununderstandable about this. Peter Minuit was never been in New York, nor in the US. Not even in New Orange. When will you understand that? --Rembaoud (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's tackle this once and for all. It is indeed silly to use names that were introduced after 1918 in a KoH context, but that only goes for a limited number of places (Bratislava, Štúrovo, Partizánska Ľupča, more?). IMO it is appropriate to add the modern name in parentheses, and WP:NCGN recommends that. Markussep Talk 11:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


Gdansk template

Here's what they came up with in the Gdansk/Danzig debate, per Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice:

  • For Gdańsk, use the name Danzig between 1308 and 1945
  • For Gdańsk, use the name Gdańsk before 1308 and after 1945
  • In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdańsk) and later Danzig exclusively
  • In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdańsk (Danzig) and later Gdańsk exclusively.
  • For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.

Could we swap out "Gdansk" and "Danzig" for "Bratislava" and "Pressburg" (and of course change the years and countries) and come up with something similar? Which values would be appropriate? Are there any points above which everyone here could agree on? --Elonka 10:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This looks OK to me. I think we should make a distinction between the general issue and places that changed names after 1918 (Bratislava, Štúrovo, Partizánska Ľupča, more?). Generally, for all places in present Slovakia (except the changed names), I suggest a distinction between contexts before and after 1918.
  • 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. In biographies of clearly Hungarian persons, or if the place has or had a significant Hungarian population, the Hungarian name should be added, either in the form Eperjes (Prešov) and later Eperjes exclusively, or in the form Prešov (Eperjes) and later Prešov exclusively
Any comments? I have no idea how to handle contexts before the arrival of the Hungarians (10th-13th century), suggestions? We can discuss what to do with Bratislava, Štúrovo, Partizánska Ľupča etc. later. Markussep Talk 12:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Omg Markussep I love your post very much except for the part where you place the "arrival of the Hungarians" into the 10-13th century(the 10th is pretty close but the 13th?)? Let's just stay with the scientific consensus of 896 (maybe 895 if you want to place it at the earliest), anyway If we could settle even only the biographies this way it would be a huge step forward and the proposed solution (clearly Slovak person, clearly Hungarian person) seems very sensible. Hobartimus (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Glad you like it ;-) I meant the arrival of the Hungarians at the specific place. The Britannica says "From the 11th century, Hungary ruled what is now Slovakia". I got the "13th century" part from the Slovakia article, which says that the northeasternmost part was under Hungarian control by 1300, maybe that only applies to a small part. Shall we put the limit at the year 1000 then? And everything before 1000 according to the "after 1918" rules? Markussep Talk 12:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, sure 1000 is fine I just didn't know what you meant :). Yes, to the second part of the question using the after 1918 rules before 1000 as you said is fine as well. Hobartimus (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Are there other cases we should discuss, like clearly German persons (examples?), or places with a significant German population (probably Spiš)? Other nationalities, like Rusyns? Or should we treat that like "other cases"? Markussep Talk 13:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
They can be treated like "other cases" as you said, or if we have a general rule for non-biography articles they can be covered by that. Hobartimus (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
For me the proposal sounds ok as well.
There is one other additional question: What to do with geographical places having changed names multiple times. As an example take Veľký Meder, with Hungarian name Nagymegyer, that have been called in Slovak Čalovo in years 1948–1990. There are many such places in Slovakia and probably having the rule would be useful. --Ruziklan (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
For places like Štúrovo, Partizánska Ľupča and Veľký Meder I'd say: follow the same rules as above, but use the contemporary Slovak or Hungarian name as the primary name, and also add the modern name as an alternative. So for a biography about a 19th century Slovak from Parkan/Párkány/Štúrovo, I'd propose Parkan (Párkány, present Štúrovo) and for a Hungarian in the 1950s in Veľký Meder, I'd say Nagymegyer (Čalovo, present Veľký Meder) or Čalovo (Nagymegyer, present Veľký Meder). Bratislava is a special case because its German name Pressburg was widely used in English, probably the same goes for more places. Maybe we should decide that on a case-by-case basis. Markussep Talk 18:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Since you both like it, I think I'll put my (modified: before 1918 --> between 1000 and 1918, and after 1918 --> before 1000 and after 1918) proposal up for a poll. Elonka, what would be a good format for that, a yes/no poll? And only for editors who have been involved in this experiment or should we announce this somewhere (WP:RM or something like that)? Markussep Talk 18:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd say getting the initial signoff of the editors in this experiment would be a good first step, and then once there's agreed consensus wording here (or earlier), announcing it at a few other key places. Definitely the talkpages of the major location articles (countries and cities), plus the related WikiProjects and noticeboards, and the key guideline pages. There are also the various discussions at the Wikipedia:Village pump. For example, someone could post at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), either to announce the poll, or to explain the poll, and ask for advice on where else it should be posted. Though be aware that the Pump often attracts, hmm, editors who like to spend more time arguing than actually working on articles (I'm sure you know the type). So there may be some that will immediately shout "Polls are evil!" But don't worry about that, sometimes polls are still the right way to go.  :) To many experienced Wikipedians, as soon as you say "a Gdansk/Danzig solution", they'll know exactly what you mean, because it was such a large dispute for such a long time. And for what it's worth, I'm very pleased with how this discussion has been going so far! It's exactly what the Wikipedia:Consensus process is about, trying to hammer out a solution which pleases all sides. --Elonka 19:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
To learn more about the Gdansk/Danzig discussions, see:
--Elonka 20:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Once the proposal is ready it could be attached to both WikiProjects as sort of a special type of page sort of like a MoS, only protected. These could be linked in disputes for smaller cases. With many pages and not that many editors sorting it all out in practice will be a slow process anyway only thing that's needed for this to work is some admin asisstance in case mass edits happen contrary to what was agreed. Hobartimus (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Danzig/Gdansk template, I have to say that some users, who seem to dislike having the traditional German name established in the history of "their" city, seem to take revenge for it, trying to abuse it for other purposes, eg. disrupting many articles by adding "Krolewiec" to Königsberg/Kaliningrad even though this city never was part of Poland nor had a Polish population. On the other hand, they oppose adding the German names of cities that indisputably were in Germany or Austria and had a German-speaking population for centuries, e.g. Breslau, Stettin, Karlsbad. As admins seem to have no interest in the issue, and let edit warriors play their ugly games as long as the limits of civility and 3RR are not stretched too far, I'll occasionally play with them, pointing out the other side of this medal [5]. So, whatever guidelines are adopted, admins are needed to prevent them from being abused by POV warriors. -- Matthead  Discuß   03:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Matthead, glad to see you back, and I'm very pleased to see you participating here, as I know that you have a wealth of experience on these issues. On the Gdansk/Danzig situation, it seems that you feel that administrator assistance has not been sufficient. How are problems usually reported, and do you have any suggestions on how these situations could be better handled in the future? --Elonka 04:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
User Matthead is hardly neutral in Polish-German matters(and was placed on editing restrictions[6]), so I don't consider his statement accurate nor objective. Wrocław for instance always had Polish population and history, even when it became minority. Likewise Królewiec had significant Polish minority and history, so Matthead statement is simply not true. Also the template speaks nothing about populations in the first place. However I can't due to past beheaviour of Elonka towards Polish topics and editors consider her objective in those matters. A more neutral admin is required. Also the Gdańsk template is not precise enough nor does it explain what it means. Warsaw was under German and Prussian rule for periods in time of history. Does it mean it should be Warschau as it shares history ? Where do we use bold letters and wikilinks ? Also is troubling the admission of Matthead that does not edit Wikipedia for its benefit but to play with other editors. This is an sad statment and needs intervention. I will inform concerned editors. I am dissapointed in acceptence of this disruptive editing by Elonka.
--Molobo (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Molobo, and you illustrate a good point, that it would probably not be wise to re-discuss the Polish situation here (though some other "experiment" page might be useful for those issues). What do you think would be a good title? For now though, you are welcome to participate here if you'd like, but we should probably stay focused on how to decrease the disputes over Hungarian/Slovakian issues. --Elonka 13:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Well that was my main point, but fair enough. I will comment:
there is a scale of problems in wikipedia with more or less complicated issues and more or less specific issues. We should resolve first the more general and easier ones, as they will later help us resolve complicated ones. I therefore believe that first the issues of civility should be resolved before we can go to further steps. There was a civility board and it served a good function, however it was disbanded because majority didn't like it. Restrictions are not always liked but serve to control the discussion. And without civility control Wikipedia is going downwards. So this issue should be adressed first before others will be resolved.
--Molobo (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that civility issues are an excellent place to start. Though the WP:PAIN board got dismantled, I've found that Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts seems to have filled that void. A couple years ago it was but a ghost town, you could post something there and it would never get any action. These days, the page is scrolling almost as fast as ANI. I've been working with the archive bot there, and I've had to tweak it down to a 5 day cutoff to keep the scrolling under control. --Elonka 13:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
What a coincidence: Molobo once again shows at at page shortly after I edited there, attacking me, on a talk page of an admin who expressingly requested adherence to #Ground_rules. Wikipedia:STALK#Wikistalking: If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter. Molobo had been blocked many times, even for a whole year: "Used up all your last chances: the edit warring and incivility continues, and shows no sign of ever stopping". He returned and continued in his same old fashion, yet no admin took any interest in his behaviour, apparently tired of looking at your contributions, as stated in the block notice for the career edit warrior. Does he get away with everything since his block expired? He should have been among the first editors to be added to the Digwuren list, yet his name is still missing there, inexplicably. (Sorry for the dirty laundry in your house, Elonka). -- Matthead  Discuß   15:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Pointing out that your previous actions and statements give reservations regarding your objectivity in those matters I don't consider an attack, especially since it was noted by admins and led to your insertation on the list. All the previous blocks ended and I am not engaged in any incivility or disruption and always try to contribute to Wikipedia in best way possible explaining my edits as much as possible. --Molobo (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please.  :) I completely agree with you that there are still other areas of conflict on Wikipedia (which is one of the reasons for the Working Group). However, to give my experiment here the best chance of success, I would like to stay focused on Hungarian and Slovakian issues. So can we please move other disputes elsewhere? If you think that the creation of another "experiment" page for another area of Wikipedia might be useful, we can definitely do so (there was an attempt at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania/Conflict resolution, but it failed, I think in large part because of lack of uninvolved admin moderation). But I would like to work very hard to keep this page, the Hungarian-Slovakian experiment, focused on its main goal, without getting side-tracked into other longrunning disputes. Both of you are extremely experienced Wikipedians, with a wealth of wisdom to offer. If either of you has insight on how to help the Hungarians and Slovakians with their issues here, I encourage you to participate. Otherwise, please take it outside?  :) --Elonka 00:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Poll #1

Results of the previous poll about the unmodified proposal:

Agree:

  1. Markussep Talk 17:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Hobartimus (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. perfect compromise --Rembaoud (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. good compromise, but see my question below, in the Discussion section. – Alensha talk 20:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. acceptable compromise, in practise it may not work in some cases (e.g. Ottokár Prohászka) Borsoka (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree (please add what you would like to see changed):

  1. Tankred (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC) (I will be happy to change my vote after the proposal is changed to address the points I raised in the discussion).
  2. R O A M A T A A | msg  17:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC) as per Tankred.
  3. Biruitorul (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC) (see below)

Discussion

I made a draft naming convention, based on what we discussed under "Gdansk template". I propose that we edit the proposed naming convention until we're satisfied, and explain the changes we make here, under "discussion". If there are parts we can't reach agreement over, name them here, and we'll have to make options to vote about (see Talk:Gdansk/Vote for an example). Markussep Talk 09:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we postpone the poll until we discuss the proposal here for a couple of days please? Tankred (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
So far, only Ruziklan, Hobartimus and myself discussed about the proposal, and we all like it. I meant this poll as a check whether everyone in this experiment feels the same. Discussion is still open of course, I suppose we can take all the time we need to get to a good solution, or get the options clear we should choose from. Markussep Talk 18:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
One possible way is to vote on proposed modifications (changes and amendments) in different votes later, this allows both progress and flexibilty. Hobartimus (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I would recommend choosing a more clear example in the template. Speaking as an outsider, I find it very difficult to tell which is a "Slovak" name and which is a "Hungarian" name. And the two examples chosen, Eperjes and Prešov, seem to be about completely different settlements? Is there something more well-known which could be used, such as a city that is recognizable to even non-Europeans? Ideally it would be something that routinely appears in even English-language history books. --Elonka 00:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
There is also a village named Eperjes and the Hungarian name is hidden in the other article (Presov) about the city (removed from the lead) that's why you might think they are diferent settlements. We could simply use Slovak name - Hungarian name to make it more clear. Hobartimus (talk) 01:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know about the village Eperjes in southern Hungary. I'm not sure what's the primary usage of "Eperjes" in English: this village, or Prešov, I'd expected a redirect to Prešov. Prešov is the third-largest city of Slovakia, so people who are interested in Slovakia should know it. Anyway: we could also pick the second-largest: Košice/Kassa.
Hobartimus, I think your proposed votes about amendments are more or less the same as what I propose, only I would rather prepare the votes here (define the options for which to vote), and let the larger community decide/vote. Markussep Talk 08:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the cat's pretty much out of the bag. Tankred went and announced it in several locations today. --Elonka 09:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
There are many editors dealing with the issue of geographic names for years. I have notified them because their input may be very valuable here. They may know successful solutions from other similar cases or they may be aware of the proposal's weak points that have perhaps posed problems in their geographic area. Moreover, this kind of discussions usually creates a precedent often applied outside the scope of the original discussion, so I have also invited some potentially interested parties. We principally always advertise this type of discussions at the talk page of WP:NCGN. Finally, Slovakia and Hungary are not situated on an isolated island. They share a lot of their history with Romanians, Poles, Czechs, Austrians, Germans, and few other nations. Members of these wikiprojects should not be excluded from our discussion because the resulting rules will have impact also on their work. I hope Squash Racket's and my invitations will not cause any problems. Some of the invited editors have already given us valuable feedback here. Tankred (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I sent a few messages to a few noticeboards of nations that might be interested after I had seen your invitations to some people, but I don't know how you had picked and chosen these people. My message was neutral, while this sentence

Since these new rules might be later regarded as a precedent by non-involved editors (remember the Danzig/Gdansk case?)

needs some clarification. I thought we were dealing with a pretty specific proposal here. Squash Racket (talk) 05:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NCGN took years to complete and it was supported by a wide consensus. I doubt we can come up with better rules in just two days with little deliberation among only three users. Therefore I suggest we postpone the poll until we carefully discuss and improve this proposal. We should also wait until more Slovak users can participate. Now, substantial points. I am afraid this first draft leaves many issues opened and it will fail to prevent future edit wars due to these gaps. Here are some pressing issues that should be taken into account before we vote:

  1. First, any rules should be applied to places in both Slovakia and Hungary. We do not want to produce an unequal treaty, right?
  2. I like the idea to list "other" names at the first occurrence of the place in an article. But which names are relevant? This issue should be clarified by the rules before we vote about them. Here are few examples of questions that can and surely will arise when this proposal is applied: How about places that have never had any significant Hungarian population from 1000 to 1918? Are we going to include a Hungarian name in these cases too? If so, why? Many towns in both Slovakia and Hungary had a German-speaking elite. Should we include a German name whenever they are mentioned in a historical context? If an article about a person of German ethnicity mentions a place in Slovakia, should we include German and Slovak names or German, Slovak, and Hungarian names? What are we going to do about Latin names? Latin was the official language of the Kingdom of Hungary until the 19th century and official state documents were written in this language. How about Turkish names? Most of Hungary and some parts of Slovakia were part of the Ottoman Empire during the periods described in various Wikipedia's articles. To be efficient, the rules should be more detailed, so they could be applied to these (and perhaps other) problematic cases without triggering more edit wars.
  3. How are we going to assess ethnicity of people? People like Matej Bel, Móric Beňovský, and Ányos Jedlik are regarded as Slovak by Slovak sources and Hungarian by Hungarian sources. Many historical figures could be described as Slovak Germans living in the Kingdom of Hungary. Many other historical figures were total foreigners. How are we going to refer to Kremnica (now in Slovakia) in Charles I of Hungary, Charles I himself being a native of Naples? In many other cases, ethnicity is not recorded at all because it was rarely salient before the end of the 18th century. Are these cases automatically classified as "other", with an arbitrary decision?
  4. If an article is not about a person, but rather about an event or period, which names are we going to use? Ludovit Stur (Slovak) will go to Zvolen, while Lajos Kossuth (Hungarian) will go to Zolyom (the Hungarian name of Zvolen) in the very same article? Or we will use one of these names consistently thorough the article? If so, which one?
  5. As I read this proposal, all unclear cases will require the evidence recommended by WP:NCGN. I totally agree with this requirement, but we should also define a default version that should be protected until someone provides all the evidence at an article's talk page. Otherwise a Hungarian editor can change Zvolen to Zolyom and ask Slovak editors to prove that Zvolen is a more frequent name, then Slovaks would revert asking for evidence than Zolyom is a more frequent name, etc. What is the default version? Is it the official name? Or the name used in an article as of April 20, 2008, 12PM CET?
  6. In case there is no or mixed evidence (no Google Scholar or Google Books hits, no Cambridge histories, only say 54:57 Google hits), what are we going to do?
  7. If there is an article about a Slovak politician of Hungarian ethnicity and this article mentions Zvolen in 2007, should we include the Hungarian name of Zvolen? If so, why? What is the value for a reader of the English Wikipedia? The Hungarian language does not have the status of the official language in Slovakia. So, whenever we mention a town with a significant Hungarian minority in 2007, why should we also add the Hungarian name? The Hungarian name appears only in Hungarian sources. In all other languages, the place would be referred to using its official Slovak name. And how much is "significant"? This whole sub-section of the proposal goes far beyond anything we can find in Wikipedia.
  8. When people address these points, please include the original numbering, so we do not get lost in the discussion. Thank you. Tankred (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Tankred raised several good points, however I see no controversy in the basic principle of the idea. I am a member of the Polish minority in the Czech Republic, our situation is similar as Hungarians' in Slovakia, we have also many villages and towns with significant Polish community there. Still, in my articles about these places I use both versions of village's name only in the lead (plus German one, of course). In sections about history I use German/Polish name as default only when the town had significant German/Polish community and influences. So for Slovakia I dare to propose two additional points or alternations to abovementioned points by other users:

  1. All historic names should be mentioned in the lead, ie. most often Slovak, Hungarian, German, Rusyn, Ukrainian or Yiddish. Occurrence of those names depends often regionally, ie. there are no Rusyn names for villages in Čadca District, however, if a proper historical name exists, it should be mentioned in the lead, also when it deals with a village that was let's say historically 100% Slovak, ie. XY (Hungarian: YX, German: XYZ). This is quite non-controversial in my view, only one line is given to historical names.
  2. For places which are still inhabited by significant Hungarian or other minorities, I would prefer the magic thing called common sense. When a village XY has 87% of population Hungarian how sensible is to use only Slovak name in the article body? So both names should be used. In the same platform of thinking it would be nonsense to use both versions of name in the article body for village in Čadca District, where there are no Hungarians at all and population is 99% Slovak.

So, that is my input. Please comment. I would like this to be clearly consensual and discussed before expressing my vote. - Darwinek (talk) 09:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment: I also think that simply common sense should be used when deciding about the usage of names as a case-by-case basis would go on forever without acceptable results. Squash Racket (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Darwinek, thank you very much for joining us.
D1: We have already been applying this part for a long time and it is pretty consensual.
D2: SO, how would you deal with an article about Komárno, a town that is 60% Hungarian? Its official name is Komárno, the Hungarian name is (Rév)Komárom. If we mention it in Economy of Slovakia, which name would you recommend? Tankred (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I will comment (some of) Tankreds and Darwineks issues below, numbered with "T" and "D" for Tankred and Darwinek resp.:
D1: There has been a bit of edit warring over that lately at the Žilina article. The naming convention WP:NCGN recommends to mention relevant alternative names in the lead, and if there are many (=three and more) alternative names or if there is something notable about the names, put them in a separate "names" or "etymology" section directly after the lead. Do you (plural) think that's good enough?
D2+T7: Shall we delete the "In biographies of clearly Hungarian persons, or" part in the "before 1000 and after 1918" rule? It does make sense to me to mention Hungarian names for places with say over 30% Hungarian population. For the 1000-1918 period, and especially 1850-1918 Hungarian names are always relevant IMO, also for Čadca (see my comment on T1).
T1: Definitely not all places in Hungary. I've seen that go bazerk in the Gdanzig discussion: one user started adding Polish names to articles of Mainz, Aachen etc. The main reason I think Hungarian names belong in articles about Slovak places, is that they have been known internationally under their Hungarian name for a long time. Check any old encyclopedia, e.g. EB1911 or the 1888 German Meyers Konversations-Lexikon, you won't even find the Slovak names of Prešov, Žilina etc.. Slovak names for places in Hungary are and were not widely known internationally. Of course where it's relevant (large Slovak minority, or large influence on Slovak history), the Slovak name can be added in the lead or a names section of the article (e.g. Esztergom), and at the first occurrence in other articles, both according to WP:NCGN.
T2. I don't think you can find a place in Slovakia that didn't have a Hungarian population, albeit small in some cases (Čadca/Csaca district 1.3% in 1910). But the main reason would be as I said under "1.": places in Slovakia have been known under their Hungarian names for a long time. German names should be added where they are relevant, that would be places with a large German (historical) minority like Kežmarok. Latin only if it's widely known under its Latin name, which will not be the case for most, if not all places. Turkish would be interesting for the Ottoman-occupied part of Slovakia, but only in that context.
T3. I wrote "clearly Slovak" and "clearly Hungarian", so if the persons in question do not satisfy those criteria, they are "others". Do you think the "others" part should be default Slovak first, and explain on the talk page/ provide references if Hungarian first is chosen?
T4. That would be silly, definitely use one name as the primary name in an article. I think this is an "others" case. We could expand the "persons" with organizations and events.
T5. See "T3.".
T6. Like points T3 and T5, this comes down to whether we want a default order for unclear cases. Might be something to vote about. Markussep Talk 13:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
T1: I do not want to add Slovak names to any settlement in Hungary. But if a rule is that an article about a Hungarian person uses Hungarian names and an article about a Slovak person uses Slovak names, the same rule should be applied to the geographic names in both Slovakia and Hungary. Moreover, it is not so long ago, when a great number of minority names in the articles about towns in Hungary got deleted. If there has been a significant Slovak minority or the place was important for the Slovak history, these names should be retained in the lead of the main article about a place.
T2: So, it seems we have here two different criteria: a name in a minority language and a name widely used to refer to a place. What is the time horizon for the choice of an appropriate name? It would be anachronistic to use the modern Hungarian name of Bratislava (Pozsony) for 1003, when Bratislava was called Predslava and the name Pozsony did not even exist. It would be anachronistic to use the modern Hungarian name of Banska Bystrica for 1255, when Banska Bystrica was referred to by a Latin-Slovak name (Villa Nova Bystrice). If a place is mentioned in the historical context, are we going to include its modern names in minority languages or only the names recorded from that time? You say Latin (the official language fo the Kingdom of Hungary until the 19th century) is relevant only if a Latin name is widely used to refer to a place. Do you mean by modern sources or contemporary sources? As far as I know, modern English sources consistently use the modern official names of places in Slovakia even in the historical context. The only exception is Pressburg/Bratislava.
T3 and T5 and T6: All right. So, the proposal should be updated in a way that any sourced contestation of ethnicity at the talk page would put an article into the "others" category. I think it is important to have a default version. I do not think it would be good to pick up the Slovak language as default. I think a default version making a lot of sense would be to use the current official name (i.e. Slovak in Slovakia and Hungarian in Hungary) until the issue is discussed and evidence provided at the corresponding talk page.
T4: I agree this is the "others" case. And we should definitely expand this part to cover all the topics other than a person.
T7: English sources do not refer to places in Slovakia using Hungarian names. Since this is the English Wikipedia and we have WP:ENGLISH in force, I do not think it is appropriate to use Hungarian names after 1918. Of course, all relevant minority names should be listed in the lead of in the Names section of the main article about a place. But their use in the main body of other articles does not make much sense to me if these names are not used in English. As to the period before 1000, I think no unofficial name should be used prior its existence, as documented by its first use in the historical records. Although King Bela IV is regarded by Hungarians as part of the Hungarian nation (despite all the Slavic, German, and Byzantine ancestors), he did not use the Hungarian name of Banska Bystrica in 1255. He used a Latin-Slovak name. It would be anachronistic to use the Hungarian name, when Banska Bystrica is mentioned in the Bela IV article in reference to what happened in 1255. Therefore I would not use the fixed threshold of 1000, but rather the first documented use of a particular name in a minority language.
Tankred (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have two comments about the draft for now (I may add others):

  1. We should use [[Slovak language|Slovak]] or [[Hungarian language|Hungarian]] with the parenthesized names, so that the general reader (for whose supposed benefit this entire operation is conducted) will understand what is going on.
  2. I'm not sure the provision on clearly Hungarian/clearly Slovak persons makes sense. That's a provision of the Gdanzig agreement, but WP:NCGN did not pick up on it; it tends to encourage the creation of little German and Polish bubbles of reality, from which each excludes the other.
    • As a practical matter, did Pavel Jozef Šafárik work in Bratislava in 1819? He had not yet reconstucted the name.
    • Would it make a rational difference if he were Czech?
    • And if so, did Ľudovít Štúr travel to Bratislava in 1836?
    • Should we be using Pressburg in either case, or both? (The present text of Ľudovít Štúr, which discusses the suburb now incorporated into Bratislava, is rather elegant.)
  3. (added) I would make this before 1918 and After 1918, instead of mentioning 1000 at all. The clause before 1918 does not say use Hungarian"', it says provide alternate names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In general I like and support this effort. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we need the language name? That's more clutter, and if people want to know why a place is called Prešov and Eperjes, they can click on the link. I'm not very much against it, but it could decrease the acceptance of alternative names. We could italicize the alternative names. Šafárik and Štúr went to Pressburg (present Bratislava). Markussep Talk 14:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
In fact, Septentrionalis' suggestion makes the proposed rules more acceptable, at least for me. Otherwise, occasional readers might be confused by a list of name given without any explanation. Tankred (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
As always, thank you for your helpful input, Septentrionalis. I am as uneasy about creating pockets of the separate Hungarian/Slovak realities in the English Wikipedia as you are - especially if the delimitation of these realities is so ambiguous. I do not like much the provision about "clearly Hungarian" and "clearly Slovak" persons. On the other hand, I think we can all agree on Pressburg (present-day Bratislava). But that could be (and was) resolved under the official WP:NCGN rules and without any need for this new naming convention. Tankred (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A thing to point out: Hungarians arrived into the Carpathian Basin in 896, not in 1000. That's just the date, when Hungary became officially christian with the coronation of the first christian king, Saint Stephen, and therefore been diplomaticly recognized by the other Christian European states of that time. --Rembaoud (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I picked 1000 based on a little discussion with Hobartimus (see Archive2) and the Encyclopedia Britannica, that writes "From the 11th century, Hungary ruled what is now Slovakia". Markussep Talk 14:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
However, the assertion that we should use Slovak names (as opposed to, say, Old Church Slavonic) for Great Moravia is odd; for the time of Marcus Aurelius or Ptolemy, it becomes an invitation to conjecture. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
With perhaps the exception of Nitra and few Roman camps (such as Gerulata), I do not know any place in Slovakia with a particular name consistently used in the contemporary sources before the 12th century. And for a great majority of places unearthed by archaeologists, there is no name recorded at all. I think the modern official name should be used in these cases in order to reflect secondary sources. Tankred (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
For purely archaeological sites, I agree we should follow the literature. This will usually mean modern names, although I suspect they will sometimes be Czech. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all for your comments.

  • To Tankred: I don't know if I clearly expressed myself, I meant the Hungarian name should be used in the article body only in the article about the town itself, leaving "third-party" articles like Economy of Slovakia aside.
  • To Markus: Yes, I think that solution for names in the lead is good and quite in use already throughout Wikipedia. I just fear various nationalists. I've been already called "revisionist" etc. in the past for applying German names to the lead of articles about towns in the Sudetes. Still, I think Czech and Slovak communities here are quite open-minded to allow and support various names. This solution will benefit all users, e.g. recently I've gained original 1910 Austrian census records for Silesia, without knowledge of German names of current Czech and Polish municipalities, I wouldn't be able to use them. - Darwinek (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Then we totally agree. I think minority names in the lead or in the Names section are uncontroversial for most editors and there is no objective reason to delete them. Tankred (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I suppose we don't need to create a new rule for names in the lead of an article, since WP:NCGN already covers that, and it seems to work. Now, for the use of names of places in Slovakia in other articles, I see some proposed modifications to the naming convention:
A. Add the language for the alternative names, e.g. "Eperjes (Slovak: Prešov)".
B. Change "Between 1000 and 1918" to "Before 1918", and "Before 1000 and after 1918" to "After 1918"
C. Not only biographies of clearly Slovak and Hungarian persons, but also clearly Slovak and Hungarian organisations and events
D. For "others before 1918": use the modern official name (=Slovak), unless it is established (and discussed and documented on the article's talk page) that a different name is widely used in the given context
E. For "after 1918": use Hungarian (or other minority languages) at least once for places with significant Hungarian (or other minority) population. Significant is more than 30-50% of the population by contemporary census. (the "biographies of clearly Hungarian persons" part is dropped)
F. No distinction between clearly Slovak and clearly Hungarian persons/biographies, all contexts before 1918 (or between 1000 and 1918 if modification B is rejected) are treated like "others before 1918"
I think modification D is too restrictive, D would imply that for instance place names in historical county articles should be only in Slovak until someone proves that other names are widely used. I wouldn't support throwing out the Hungarian names, unless there's evidence that the Hungarian names are not used in modern English literature about the era. Some additional remarks: for the "others before 1918" part I didn't mean contemporary sources, I meant modern reliable English language sources about the era in question. And I suppose Bela IV wrote in Latin (so did nearly everyone in Central Europe in the 13th century), so that explains his use of a Latin(ised) name. Markussep Talk 19:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Those who want such major changes can still vote disagree so there is no proposal at all. I still think the best way forward is to accept the text and then vote for minor modifications later in separate votes. Of course these have to be serious to be voted on so I suggest a minimum of two supports before a modification is put to vote. Hobartimus (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Are there modifications that are uncontroversial in your (plural) opinion? And are there important issues I missed in my summary? I guess most will agree with "A" and "C" (provided they agree with the whole Slovak/Hungarian persons etc. concept). "B" will only affect a few articles I suppose. "E" makes sense to me, Hungarian names are less used in modern context (except for places with large Hungarian populations I think), regardless of who the text is about.
So I support A, C, and E, I'm neutral about B and I'm against D. Markussep Talk 07:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think A looks good on it's face but it adds to the clutter significantly just like "today" "presently" and other things that could be there, just think about types of articles(e. counties) where lot's of first instances of names appear close to each other. B will affect very few articles and instances since recorded history is very sparse from those days mostly theories are available and not much in the area of specifics and we don't have 'first mentions' for most settlements, I'd support B but it's really a minor change. With C I think we need a list of good faith users who can look at the bio and decide to combat bad faith attempts at abuse. We don't need to solve every possible problem and we can already apply common sense just need a little admin assistance in case of mass edits happen. Hobartimus (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Modification "C" is about applying the rule also to Slovak or Hungarian events and organizations, not only to people. If there is much resistance against the "bubbles of reality" of Slovak and Hungarian biographies, that would be another modification, let's call it "F", in which all contexts before 1918 are treated as "others". I've added it above. Since I don't really care which name gets the most priority, as long as they're both mentioned, I'd vote "neutral" for F. I feel a bit uncomfortable about your proposed list of good faith users, but common sense should do the trick in most cases. Markussep Talk 07:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
A is completely acceptable to me and I think it will clarify why there are two or three names used.
B: What I meant in my previous comment (T7) was that a Hungarian name should be relevant only from the year in which it was first recorded in written sources onwards. So, no Pozsony for 1003 or 907 (when that name did not exist yet).
C: I agree with Septentrionalis here. I do not like the idea of dividing Wikipedia's articles along ethnic lines and I do not know what exactly is meant by clearly "Slovak" or "Hungarian" events. What is the ethnicity of Treaty of Pressburg? If there is real consensus that we want to use Slovak and Hungarian geographic names in an inconsistent way for persons, I will support it at the end despite my reservations. But I find the idea of "clearly ethnic" organizations and events even much more problematic. I would rather drop this.
D: I think this just applies WP:ENGLISH. Since this is the English Wikipedia, we should use geographic names as they appear in modern English sources. Sometimes, it is a modern official name. Sometimes, it is a historic name (such as Pressburg for Bratislava). But until we identify the English name of a place, we need a default version. An official name is always clear and that is why I proposed it as a default version. If anyone wants to add another relevant name, it is matter of maybe 30 minutes to check Google Scholar, Google Books, and the online versions of Britannica, Encarta, and Columbia Encyclopedia. What do you suggest as a default version?
E: Hungarian names are not used in English sources about Slovak municipalities after 1918. I think Wikipedia should reflect it. But I would not mind supporting the proposal if my more important points are addressed and this is the only disagreement. If we include this point, I would prefer a form "Dunajská Streda (Hungarian: Dunaszerdahely)" at the first instance when a municipality is mentioned in the modern context (i.e. after 1918). Two thresholds that make sense to me are 50% of population (as a natural break) or 20% of population (because minorities in such municipalities enjoy some extra rights under the Slovak law).
F: I support this point. Again, I did not like the idea of separate ethnic bubbles of reality.
Tankred (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
About B: you're right, that's a typical case for common sense I'd say, no anachronistic names.
About C: Peace of Pressburg is obviously an "other" case. I meant articles like "Matica slovenská" (obviously Slovak) and "Hungarian Academy of Sciences" (obviously Hungarian), I can't think of a typical ethnic event.
About D: since I don't support D (at least if D means that only one name is to be used), I suggest that you or another supporter define it. If D means: "use the modern Slovak name as the primary name (unless another name is proven to be more used in the context), and add alternative names at the first appearance", then I support D. Markussep Talk 16:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I meant. So, we have no disagreement in this. How about F? Is that acceptable for you? If it is, could you write the second draft of the proposal, reflecting these changes (A, B, D, F)? Tankred (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
D and F are completely unacceptable as both go against the spirit of the proposal. It's not a good idea to mix several changes some acceptable and some unacceptable in one draft we can just vote on the modifications one by one after the base text was accepted. Hobartimus (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
"D" was a result of me misinterpreting Tankreds opinion, I will rewrite it, since the way it is written now is not supported by any of the participants of the experiment I think. For me the spirit of the proposal is that it is recognised that several languages (Hungarian, Slovak, and in several cases other languages as well) were relevant in this part of the Kingdom of Hungary. I don't think that the "new D" and "F" go against that spirit, since alternative names will be mentioned. I have seen a lot of discussion here about using different rules for Slovak and Hungarian biographies, it will definitely be something to vote about. Markussep Talk 12:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If we use both names, which one is considered the first mentioning (e.g. which one should be linked?) Example sentences:

  • The king traveled to Kassa (today Košice, Slovakia).
  • The king traveled to Kassa (today Košice, Slovakia).

I prefer the first, since that s the actual first mention of the city, looks better and the redir takes the reader to the Košice page anyway. – Alensha talk 20:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree it looks better, and we can bypass the redirect (I'd prefer that) with a piped link: [[Košice|Kassa]] (Košice). But I don't think we should add a rule about that, or which name to link. What's your opinion on the proposed modifications (A-F)? Markussep Talk 20:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Poll #2

Proposed naming convention (after poll)

This is a proposed 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.

Poll

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

Voting has started at 20:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC), and ran until 11 May, same time. The result of the poll was:

Accepted modifications: B and E. Rejected modifications: A, C (with a small margin), D and F.

The following modifications to this naming convention were open for voting:

A. Add the language for the alternative names, e.g. "Eperjes (Slovak: Prešov)".
B. Change "Between 1000 and 1918" to "Before 1918", and "Before 1000 and after 1918" to "After 1918"
C. Not only biographies of clearly Slovak and Hungarian persons, but also clearly Slovak and Hungarian organisations and events
D. For "others before 1918": use the modern official name (=Slovak) as the primary name ("Prešov (Eperjes)" and later "Prešov" exclusively), unless it is established (and discussed and documented on the article's talk page) that a different name is widely used in the given context
E. For "after 1918": use Hungarian (or other minority languages) at least once for places with significant Hungarian (or other minority) population. Significant is more than 20% of the population by contemporary census. (the "biographies of clearly Hungarian persons" part is dropped)
F. No distinction between clearly Slovak and clearly Hungarian persons/biographies, all contexts before 1918 (or between 1000 and 1918 if modification B is rejected) are treated like "others before 1918"

Modification A (3-5, 3 ntr):

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Modification B (7-3, 0 ntr):

Support

Yes it does. Markussep Talk 06:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral


Modification C (5-4, 2 ntr):

Support

Oppose

Neutral


Modification D (3-8, 1 ntr):

Support

Oppose

  • What is the "others before 1918"? Btw if it is, what I think, than absolutely no, since this would preserve the status quo, the tons of anachronisms and history inventions, therefore putting this debate into a never ending loop. And do your really think, that this would not mean that in reality that you have to fight to manage "Bratislava" deleted and replaced with "Pressburg" in pre 1918 contexts, not speaking about smaller places? Clear no for keeping this[7] and such debates, or preserving the status quo around the articles. --Rembaoud (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I advise you to read the proposal again. "Others before 1918" applies to contexts before 1918 that aren't clearly about Slovak or Hungarian persons. If modification "F" is accepted, the "others before 1918" rule applies to all situations before 1918. Anachronisms are properly dealt with in the last two rules of the original proposal. Markussep Talk 06:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

  • Markussep Talk 11:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC). I did a little search in Google Books, comparing the hits for "Prešov" and "Eperjes" in combination with "Hviezdoslav" and "Kossuth" (both lived in Prešov/Eperjes in the 19th century) in English, and it's pretty much undecided.


Modification E (8-4, 0 ntr):

Support

Oppose

Neutral


Modification F (4-7, 1 ntr):

Support

Oppose

Neutral

  • again: what is "others before 1918"? --Rembaoud (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • 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 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.
    • Modification D would strengthen this last statement to default to Slovak first until proven otherwise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • --Ruziklan (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion (continued)

Previous discussions can be seen in /Archive 2
I’ve come to this “experiment” by chance, but having dealt with this sort of issue before, I’d like to throw in my few halierov.
First, solving naming problems in the intro is easy; solving naming problems in the title is hard. Your convention should explicitly address article naming.
Second, there is a tendency to resolve these issues in a manner that “settles” issues between the contentious parties, but which loses track of the perspective of the reader and of non-specialist editors. Encyclopedias are not written for – and Wikipedia is not (for the most part) written by – subject-matter experts.
  • For the sake of the former, there should at least be an explicit rule that WP:ENGLISH takes precedence where the subject has a traditional rendering of a name in English (in either English-language scholarly usage or popular usage). Hence, “Béla IV”, not “Belo IV”.
  • Where names have formally changed over time, an article should clearly point out the “whens” and “whys” (and perhaps the impacts of the change). This is pertinent to explaining why a redirect got the reader to a “different” article. Certainly no article should become FA without it (where this is relevant) since this is a important part of its history.
  • Arcane rules relying on interpretations such as "clearly Hungarian" and "clearly Slovak" persons (et al) are rather opaque. This is particularly difficult before 1918 given the empire’s efforts to supplant local ethnicities with a more unifying imperial self-identification. It’s also a problem with individuals with multi-ethnic parentage. If these “clearlies” become the rule, then there needs to be a WikiProject (or other resources) identified where editors can go to find such expertise.
Third, in my opinion an historical or biographical article’s usage of place names should give preference to those in contemporary usage for that is the way most reliable sources will employ. E.g., an article on the Kingdom of Hungary or an event or person of that era should reflect the style of “Pressburg (modern Bratislava)” at first mention (as I have just done in Ľudovít Štúr); given the long use of “Pressburg” (or other long-used well-known name – as in the case of Byzantium/Constantiople/Istanbul), a modern source should explicitly mention “Bratislava (formerly Pressburg)”. Fifty years ago, the use of “Pressburg” was still well-understood among the general English-speaking populace, but nowadays it is almost unknown … and we are here to help people to learn.
Hope this helps. Askari Mark (Talk) 16:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Mark, thanks for your comments. The issue we're trying to solve here is not the names of the articles or the alternative names in the leads of the articls, since that's not problematic, and covered by WP:NCGN. Using the English name is the essence of that. This is about what name(s) to use in other articles, that refer to a place in present Slovakia. You'll see that the Pressburg/Bratislava case is specifically mentioned in the proposal above. Markussep Talk 12:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think what really could help here is The Encyclopædia of Geography by Hugh Murray. However its a bit hard to find, since it was printed in 1838 (eighteen-thirty-eight) so just a few copies left... --Rembaoud (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: I support the "original" proposal, these ABCD things are just doing confusions. --Rembaoud (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"confusion" is not the purpose of the modifications, I like to think of them as "refinements" of the proposal. Note that ABCDEF are the results of the discussions above. Markussep Talk 12:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Tankred raises some very valid points. In particular, as per the Constitution, "Slovak is the state language on the territory of the Slovak Republic", regardless of the fact that some regions are Hungarian-speaking. Thus, merely because a Slovak citizen happens to be an ethnic Hungarian (Pál Csáky for instance) does not mean the way we refer to cities he is associated with should change. Mention the Hungarian name in articles on the cities themselves, by all means, but there's no need to clutter up biographies in this way. Biruitorul (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me reassure you: this proposal is not about cluttering articles with irrelevant names. Let's take Pál Csáky as an example: he was born in 1956 in Šahy. According to the proposal as it stands now (without modifications), and assuming he's clearly Hungarian, that means that the Hungarian names of places in Slovakia mentioned in this article should be added. If modification E is accepted, this only goes for places with a significant (for instance >20%) Hungarian population, like Šahy (Ipolyság). Markussep Talk 19:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying Hungarian names are irrelevant - they're in daily use in southern Slovakia. However, despite the fact that Hungarian can be used at the local level, Slovak names alone are official everywhere, and we reflect this in our titles for the articles. To me, Šahy is Šahy is Šahy, and if a Hungarian native wants to call it Ipolyság, a German, Eipelschlag, a Russian, Шаги, or a Martian, Klaatu Bara Nixto, that's his prerogative. However, at least until such time as Slovakia's language law or English-language usage changes, I see no need for a biography of a contemporary Slovak citizen (born decades after Austria-Hungary dissolved) to tell readers what he calls his hometown, a fact easily accessible to interested parties by clicking the link that says Šahy.
By the way, Csáky heads an ethnic Hungarian political party, so I'm pretty sure he's "clearly Hungarian". Biruitorul (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Question (and not to sidetrack the discussion, I hope): can we agree to apply roughly whatever solution emerges for Transylvania, or must we then go through another discussion substituting "Romania(n)" for "Slovakia(n)"? I'd add a small proviso - Hungary controlled Northern Transylvania in 1940-44, so I'd use Hungarian names for that period. Vojvodina would be a little different, since Hungarian explicitly has official status there. Biruitorul (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not, this experimental page is explicitly set up, to deal with a very specific dispute as the name of this page also says this is related to Hungarian-Slovakian disputes. If you intend to participate here to influence handling of other issues, please don't this would open a can of worms, as Austrian ,German and various other users might want to follow suit each with their own set of specific articles and problems in mind. This would make this experimental dispute resolution almost certainly fail. Hobartimus (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I have been learning that there were some other "experiments" on other ethnic disputes here and there, but called different names. Sometimes it was something like a WikiProject "collaboration", sometimes it was a "cooperation board". I've compiled a list of the ones that I've found so far at WP:WORKGROUP#See also, and (in my free time, heh) would like to take a look at the successes and failures of each, and try to come up with a guideline for new projects which incorporates the best practices of the older ones. If anyone knows of any other of these projects, please definitely add them to the list. And if anyone feels that there's a need for one that doesn't exist yet, by all means make one! Some of those projects were editor-made, not admin-made. You are more than welcome to be bold and start something new.  :) --Elonka 22:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Given that the issues surrounding Hungarians in Slovakia are basically the same as those surrounding Hungarians in Transylvania, I'd say "absolutely not" is a bit strong. And neither the Hungarians of Germany nor those of Austria (.05% of the population) exist in such important numbers, cover such appreciable areas, are as politically organised, etc, as those of Slovakia and Transylvania (again, Vojvodina excepted, but that's different). So if consensus is to stick to Slovakia only, so be it, but that seems rather counterproductive, as the situations are not dissimilar. Biruitorul (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Biruitorul, welcome to the discussion.  :) I've given some thought to this question, in my role as moderator, especially because earlier we chased away from other nationalities that were trying to bring an old dispute here. However, this is different, so my decision is that if someone wants to bring up issues that are not strictly "Hungarian-Slovakian" but do relate to Hungarians or Slovakians in similar situations, they are welcome to do so. If the discussion starts straying too far afield from the scope of this experiment, we can easily move the discussion to its own "experiment" page elsewhere. Which might actually be an excellent way of seeding new such projects!  :) --Elonka 07:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! I agree with that principle: let's stay on the Hungary-Slovakia topic here, but keep in mind the results could quite easily inform a new initiative on Transylvania and to some extent Vojvodina: what we discuss on this page will surely be found relevant by editors more interested in Romanian and Serbian issues. Biruitorul (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The proposed guideline is such a total clutter with an obvious POV (excuse my French) that I'm not going to say anything detailed at this time. Especially points 1, 2 and also quite 3 aren't very well thought; e.g. point 2 cannot be taken literally. Modifications C, D, E and F are written in a quite vague language. I'm afraid that if this will enter in force, greater scope of POV edits will be allowed by that and possibly we will open a can of worms. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 13:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(serious question) How about writing up your own set of guidelines? --Elonka 15:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
1. I don't have time right now. 2. I don't feel like to start a new game about such topic. 3. My own words above are still valid; let me for example explain what is wrong with point 2: implying a Hungarian name all the way between 1000 and 1918 isn't correct, as although they ruled the whole country, Hungarian started to be an official language only from the 18th/19th century, so implying them in the 11th century is quite incorrect. As sometimes written documents are scarce at that time, it's better to use default than to create a messy mishmash. In any case, so long as the situation is explained, it's never wrong to use default (in this case, Slovak) names all the time, contrary to some claims of "history falsification". MarkBA what's up?/my mess 08:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
If there are some modifications above that you agree with, and some that you disagree with, please add your name accordingly. You are also free to suggest your own modifications, and/or write a completely new guideline. --Elonka 09:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not agree with MarkBA. 1.Hungarians not ruled the country only but they are native population of the country also.2.Official languages of the country were the Latin and the German, but the Slovak was not at all between 1000 and 1918 3.Many settlements were not Slovak' names before the 20. century.4.There were settlements like their Slovak names changed three times in the 20. century. For example Tornaľa, Šafárikovo, and Tornaľa again or Parkan', Štúrovo, and maybe its name will be Parkan' again.Nmate (talk) 10:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The whole debate seems to be artificially skewed in favour of particular Hungarian editors. The Hungarian language and names were unimportant in writing, among the nobility and among other than Hungarian people, before the 18th century, so I don't see any need to include them specifically in other than subject's article. Maybe they should be included in parentheses when the name is first time mentioned.
And the accusation of canvassing was ridiculous. German and other editors should have a say in this indeed.
It's a common habit to use contemporary names even if we talk about the location in the past when the name wasn't used. Remember, this is an encyclopaedia for everyone. Therefore, using rules that will please a small number of editors but would go against a widespread practice would be a very unwise decision.--Svetovid (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

So Britannica is wrong for using Hungarian names, but the guideline WP:NCGN (self-admittedly influenced by Tankred) is right... Squash Racket (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:NCGN was created by a high number of respected editors after several years of deliberation. It is applied everywhere in Wikipedia and people in other "hot" regions (such as Ukraine, Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, Italy, etc.) are perfectly fine with it. If you want to change it, please go ahead and propose your changes at the convention's talk page. Anyone can do it. If you do not want to change Wikipedia's rules and want to edit Britannica instead, you should perhaps contact its editorial board. For us, Britannica is just one of many sources. It does not determine our policies here. Tankred (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if the countries you mentioned have lost 2/3 of their territory after 1000 years or not.
I also find it funny you talking about "several years of deliberation" and the next moment belittling the 250-year-old Britannica that the very independent and accepted WP:NCGN uses as a means to resolve disputes. Squash Racket (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem here is also user conduct related. No amounts of guidelines have any effect on a certain type of user or he might even try to abuse the guideline to violate basic policy or simply circumvent it using IP sockpuppets, this is why some things need to done regarding user conduct as well. Hobartimus (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
"I don't see any need to include them specifically in other than subject's article."--Svetovid (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need some of comments made in this summary voting diff? --Ruziklan (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean that comments should be in the discussion section and voting should only contain the votes? Hobartimus (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
No. I am fine with comments aimed at the matter of debate, but not with commenting on editors. That is why I have used formulation "some of comments". I am similarly concerned with the comment made just below as well. --Ruziklan (talk) 08:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to continue my debate here, I've expected that for my statements a bombardment would follow. Nice, really nice. To repeat, I oppose the guideline as whole because it's totally flawed with many, many mistakes. If it will pass, its effect will equal that one like to the Munich Agreement or of the Vienna Awards. And everyone knows why this guideline even appeared, just don't want to admit it: 1. to shut us up and 2. to give them a legal weapon which otherwise would not be available. Wake up from your dreams. Sorry, but I'm not interested in editing an encyclopedia where a group dictates you must do like this and this, otherwise you'll be jailed. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 08:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No need for drama, and dramatization. Also, be civil. And try to avoid favourite far right expressions and turns, like "they shut us up", destroy our country/culture, "wake up", etc. They are revealing you.-Rembaoud (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need to make comments driven by emotions? I know that naming, in our region, is a sensitive issue, but we should refrain from negative statements. Personally, my view is that there is no point in "ócsárolni" (sorry, its in Hungarian, I cannot translate it, it means something like that "belittle") the other party. Our only purpose is to reach a consensus on naming. If we are not able to reach our purpose, third party readers will realise that the text of several articles will be changing day by day (minute to minute), reflecting regularly only the mainstream (or even extremist) views of one of the parties who are involved in ridiculous disputes followed by petty personal attacks. It would be disappointing and boring for them and shameful for us. Borsoka (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Borsoka, I couldn't agree more. Please everyone, remember this is about creating an encyclopedia. Let's focus on the audience of Wikipedia, and what they would expect to find in it. Markussep Talk 21:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Some of my comments and questions with respect to comments in the poll:
A. CoolKoon doesn't understand the point of the proposal. Does this refer to the proposal as a whole, or to modification A? The point of "A" is to make it clear to readers that the two names refer to the same place in different languages.
C. Battles of the Kingdom of Hungary wouldn't qualify as clearly Hungarian events, since other nationalities (within the KoH) would be involved in them. I rather meant Slovak or Hungarian cultural organisations etc. "C" doesn't influence Slovak ministries, because they didn't exist before 1918. I don't see the relation between modification C and the NPOV policy, maybe CoolKoon can explain that.
D. Whether Slovak names were used officially before 1918 is not the issue here. They were used by the Slovak speaking population of the places. The main issue is which names would be expected by the English language reader. Since the places are widely known in English under their modern Slovak names, it would be very strange not to mention the Slovak names at least once (if modern names are different from contemporary ones, this should be mentioned).
E. Relevant alternative names can always be mentioned in the lead of the articles, according to WP:NCGN. I'm not sure whether everyone realises that "E" actually reduces the number of articles in which the Hungarian names should be mentioned. Markussep Talk 17:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Right now I oppose the whole guideline per my objections above. Either rewrite it so it will conform to established guidelines and to the pleasure of both sides, or (almost 0% of chance) stop it. I guess some forgot this is an encyclopaedia, not some xyz website with who-knows-what. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 17:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware that this proposed guideline violates any established guideline, could you point out which one(s)? Some of the objections against this guideline you wrote above are vague ("not well thought", "cannot be taken literally" and "quite vague language") and if you want the discussion to go forward, it would help if you indicated what exactly is wrong with it.
The main point of this guideline is to end pointless revert wars about names of towns. Most of us here agree that both Hungarian and Slovak were relevant languages in pre-1918 Slovakia. Both languages were spoken by a significant part of the population, and the Hungarian placenames were widely used internationally in the past. And the main reason for me to include both languages: you're very likely to find Hungarian (or both Hungarian and Slovak) placenames in modern English books about (people or events in) pre-1918 Slovakia, and since the places are currently better known under their Slovak names, it would be awkward not to mention those. Markussep Talk 18:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Violates WP:NC (WP:NCGN). I won't explain why because it's clear. In detail, "not well thought" = slapped here because of someone's request and quite hastily done, e.g. point 2. If I would go more in detail I'd open a can of worms; "cannot be taken literally" = see my post above, the main problem is the changing political situation, in other words, political correctness, e.g. point 1 and its subs; and finally, "quite vague language" = parts, e.g. modification C or F, aren't clearly written. But the main problem is, that it is biased in many parts, like points above. Relevant, why not, but how to get the right balance? This one doesn't quite get it. But after my experiences here I know pretty well that any five-or-more tag team can push its own opinion without difficulties, so this one will be turned down as well (again, excuse my French). MarkBA what's up?/my mess 18:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
You'd better explain it because it's not clear to me at all how it violates WP:NCGN. I don't understand what you mean with "someone's request", "quite hastily done" and vague references to cans of worms, political correctness and bias. If that was meant to clarify your concerns, it failed. Facts and arguments please. Markussep Talk 18:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It violates general guidelines, specially point 3 in my view and on top of that it goes against common sense. Hastily done = done without imagining possible consequences. Biased is mainly in that sense because it is very pro-Hungarian, and as such biased. If you want to gain neutrality, you'll have either to fine-tune it (e.g. points 1 & 2) or completely rewrite. By the way, if you want to propose such guidelines here, go and propose such for Burgenland, Zakarpattia Oblast, Transylvania and former Yugoslavia as well, or it could be viewed as unfair. My concern about tag-teaming still isn't resolved. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 19:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I suppose the point of discussion is whether "Exceptions are allowed only if there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context" (quote from WP:NCGN rule nr. 3) applies here. I think it does. If you think merely mentioning a Hungarian placename in a pre-1918 context is very pro-Hungarian, then I can imagine that you have difficulty with this proposal in all its versions. Markussep Talk 19:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
No, you misunderstood the purpose of this comment. Repeating, the main point isn't about any existing guideline, but about this one. Mentioning, why not, but not in excessive measures this guideline would allow (btw, when we're discussing Hungarian, then why not German or Latin? Why not Polish?). If you'd like to gain at least neutral position from me, you'd have to trim it down or rewrite it. There's no other way, because in its present form it is unacceptable, for example, point 2 is flawed per my comments above. Do you finally understand what do I mean? Or should I stop trying? MarkBA what's up?/my mess 19:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Please don't treat me like I'm stupid. You stated that this proposed guideline violates WP:NCGN, I quoted WP:NCGN to show that yours is not the only possible interpretation. If you think mentioning a Hungarian name (and German, or Latin, etc.) once in an article referring to that place is acceptable, the proposal including modifications D and F actually represents your point of view. Markussep Talk 20:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Please don't speak about your intelligence when it's off-topic. Back to the topic: "others" is a bit vague term. It speaks about usage outside Slovak/Hungarian biographies, but what exactly is meant? Sometimes there could be a fine line. By the way, I think articles don't need name clutter when it's already shown at the main articles (in this case, of a city/town), and if I recall correctly each or almost each has them in some form. That's also one of the my reasons for opposing (shower of arrows). I hope it's clearer why I object to the current form. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 21:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I suppose our little discussion is finished, because you object to the very essence of this proposal. Since it's only you that's against it (as far as I know), I suggest you write your own modification or proposal, or reconsider your opinion. Markussep Talk 21:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
As you wish, but first, I don't have time to write guidelines and second, under current conditions it's almost impossible to do so for me. If I'd like to suggest a modification, at this time it would be only for point 1: from 1000 to 1918 is a serious mistake at least, as until 19th century Latin was officially used; it has nothing to do with ethnicity. That needs an adjustment. Probably the only point which doesn't need much to fine-tune is 4; by the way, if accepted, the original proposal w/out modifications is the lesser evil than the one with any of them. Points 2 and 3 would need some adjustment. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 23:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Since the proposal doesn't use numbers, it's a bit confusing what you mean with "point 4" etc. I think you mean the first-order bullets, right (so point 4 is the Bratislava/Pressburg case)? The official language is not so relevant for our purpose: we use the names that are used in English. As I wrote yesterday, Hungarian names are widely used in English when referring to places in pre-1918 Slovakia. You know we should describe English usage, not prescribe it. I still have to see the first use of a Latin name as the primary one (except early Middle Ages and archaeological sites). Since you apparently don't have the time to write an alternative, I suggest you pick the "lesser evil" options. And if you have a valuable modification or adjustment for any of the "points", don't hesitate to discuss it here. As you may have noticed, the discussion here is relatively open and pragmatic. Markussep Talk 11:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


Misinterpretation modification E?

How would this part look with modification E passing through?

Before 1000 and after 1918: use the Slovak name. In biographies of clearly Hungarian persons, or if the place has or had a significant Hungarian population, the Hungarian name should be added, either in the form "Eperjes (Prešov)" and later "Eperjes" exclusively, or in the form "Prešov (Eperjes)" and later "Prešov" exclusively

Like this?

Before 1000 and after 1918: use the Slovak name. If the place has or had a significant Hungarian population, the Hungarian name should be added, either in the form "Eperjes (Prešov)" and later "Eperjes" exclusively, or in the form "Prešov (Eperjes)" and later "Prešov" exclusively

So this would only mean the biographies part would be dropped? Just asking whether I should change my vote or not. Squash Racket (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. And significant means over 20% of the population by contemporary census (as Tankred wrote that minorities over 20% enjoy some extra rights under Slovak law). Markussep Talk 09:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
And what to do now? I think everybody misunderstood that point. Should we change our votes one by one? (Well, the definition also could have been a little bit clearer). Squash Racket (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
How did you interpret it, before I explained it today? I'm surprised it could be interpreted otherwise. Markussep Talk 10:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
use Hungarian (or other minority languages) at least once for places with significant Hungarian (or other minority) population. Significant is more than 20% of the population by contemporary census shouldn't have been mentioned as this part won't change in the proposal.
The main part of that modification (dropping biographies) is at the end mentioned in parentheses. See all the votes (both sides) for that point and decide for yourself if it was possibly misleading or not. Squash Racket (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The way I wrote "E" was how the "after 1918" rule would be if "E" were accepted, and I added the biographies part in parentheses for extra clarification. It wasn't exactly hidden away, people really should have read it a bit more carefully. The only things that could possibly be misleading is that I added the 20% criterion for significance, and the option for other minority languages, that should/could have been in the original proposal as well. I expect that Septentrionalis knew what "E" meant when he voted, maybe Rembaoud was the first to make a mistake, and many followed apparently. I was surprised when I saw the votes for E (see my comment here), but noone replied on that then. Feel free to notify others about this possibly common misinterpretation, they may wish to recast their votes. Markussep Talk 12:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, these votes have been added in 10 days and the whole thing is soon over...
Feel free to notify others? Nobody would accuse me of votestacking? It's not likely that all voters would show up in the next two days anyway. Squash Racket (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Canvassing is not considered disruptive if it improves the quality of a discussion (see the guideline WP:CANVAS). In this case, I think it's allowable to inform voters of a possible misinterpretation, as long as you don't exclusively inform people who supported "E" in the poll. You can point them to the subsection I just created. Markussep Talk 13:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not able to follow the above discussion any more, because I got confused. Could anybody summarize the main points (not for me, for themselves)? I guess that you could continue making comments only on the proposals that are not sharply opposed by one of the parties involved (if there are any). Borsoka (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

NOTE to avoid confusion

You can find the ongoing poll and the discussion about it above the section "Preferences". Just to avoid confusion. Thank you. Squash Racket (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Names (continued)

Preferences

My impression from the poll and our discussion is that we have reached a kind of a stalemate. Some editors strongly object to the proposal as a whole and there are also people strongly objecting to each of the proposed changes. What we lack is some middle ground acceptable to everyone. Perhaps we should start from scratch and try to find some simple rules by consensus (or at least acceptable to an overwhelming majority of both Slovaks and Hungarians). But I am not sure how exactly the preferences of the involved editors look like. Is there any middle ground? If you are interested, you can write down what you see as the ideal state, what you find acceptable, and what you find unacceptable at this point. Please do not use this space to persuade other editors or to react to their comments; we can do it later if needed. Let us just briefly indicate our own preferences at this point. Maybe there is some reasonable intersection we can build upon. Tankred (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

My impression was that noone, except maybe MarkBA, opposes the core of the proposal: mentioning several names for places in Slovakia in pre-1918 contexts. That way the modern Slovak name is always mentioned, and the (contemporary) Hungarian name as well. I agree with you that the current official names should not be deleted, as has been done until recently, and I hope our proposal will put an end to that. Markussep Talk 20:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Tankred

  • Ideal: My ideal would be a commitment of all editors to apply the existing rules as described by WP:NCGN.
If this proposal means, that Hungarian and German names should be forgotten, I presume that it would not be acceptable for many editors. Borsoka (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Acceptable: Personally, I would not mind having Hungarian geographic names mentioned along with the official ones if they are proven to be widely used in the given historical context by modern English sources. I would accept any name to be consistently used through an article if this name is proven to be widely accepted in modern English sources. If the current official name has this status, I would not mind having a Hungarian name mentioned at the first occurrence of the place in the text if the Hungarian name is also frequently used in the given context by English sources. Similarly, if the Hungarian name has the status of being widely accepted in English, the official name should be mentioned at the first occurrence. A comprehensive list of sources we can use to see which name is more accepted in English can be found at Wikipedia:NCGN#Widely_accepted_name.
  • Unacceptable: I have a problem with people deleting current official names altogether. Official names are used in English. I have also a problem with people inserting Hungarian names without showing any evidence that the name is frequently used in modern English sources in the given context. I have a problem with inconsistencies, namely (1) two different names used in the same article to refer to the same place, and (2) different names used to refer to the same place in the same historical context across articles. Tankred (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


Your name

  • Ideal:
  • Acceptable:
  • Unacceptable:


Discussion WP:NCGN is bad, otherwise it would not been challenged all the time. Your ideal/acceptable is the "status quo" ("My ideal would be a commitment of all editors to apply the existing rules as described by WP:NCGN" - Tankred)- it would maintain the current situation, therefore it is pretty funny, when you demand/wish/ask for a moving to the "middle ground", when you declare the only acceptable conclusion for you is your corner faaar faaar awaaay from the "middle ground" :)

Modern sources in historical contexts? That is misleading. Contemporary sources wich are contemporary with the article's subject is the right solution. For example The Encyclopædia of Geography by Hugh Murray --Rembaoud (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that each of the towns, villages had its official Hungarian name 90 years ago; therefore the previous official name could be mentioned once in each articles. The historical context may help in some cases, e.g., mentioning "Óbuda" or "Altoffen" instead of "Aquincum" in an article describing the Roman province Pannonia would sound funny for me. Similarly, I would prefer "Blatnograd" instead of "Zalavár" in articles referring to Pribina's county in Transdanubia. I suggest that in articles relating to German people in Slovakia (e.g., Zipsers) we should prefer the German name, and similarly articles referring to Hungarian people (not to the Kingdom of Hungary) we could prefer the Hungarian name. Of course, the Slovak name should be mentioned once in the articles. Moreover, articles on the History of Slovakia could prefer the Slovakian name (even without mentioning the Hungarian and German names), but a clear distinction should be made between the "History of the northern parts of the Kingdom of Hungary" and the "History of Slovakia". The former articles should clearly mention the Hungarian and German denominations as well. Borsoka (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to prove what is the preferred English usage? Borsoka (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
As in other cases, we can look at relevant English sources, meaning major encyclopedias, articles accessible by Google Scholar, books indexed by Google Books, Cambridge histories, etc. Tankred (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

After the poll

The poll has closed, and two modifications received enough support to be implemented in the proposal. Before we can start implementing the rules, we need to make sure that the proposal as it is now, is widely supported. And of course there must be room for corrections, if the rules don't work out in practice like we want them to. So, how should we continue now? Markussep Talk 21:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be nice to hear what exactly each of us wants. If you are interested, you can use the thread above. Otherwise, we can blindly propose any changes and a number of editors will always veto them. If they do not say what exactly they want, I have no idea if there is any space for consensus. If people are interested, I would love to learn more about their true preferences in the thread above. And then we can take the intersection as the basis for new rules. After that, we can also negotiate what we are willing to give up. I think it would be better to reach some negotiated consensus that to vote about different things, hoping that our particular ethnic group will prevail here and there. What do you think? Tankred (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd like a more fact-based approach. It's not very interesting to Wikipedia what we, a couple of editors who happen to be interested in the subject, would like. I think the main issue is what the reader would expect, and that's what's commonly used in English literature about the subject and reference works. I'd propose to do some research on English usage, and modify the rules accordingly, if necessary. Markussep Talk 14:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
My reading of this poll is slightly different. Since MarkBA voted en bloc against all the proposals, the results for B should be 7:4 and for E 8:5. Anyway, I am not sure if we can declare any of the proposed points to be "accepted" because polls are not majority voting, they should show the degree of consensus. In this case, the poll has showed that there is no consensus. Let me quote from Wikipedia:Straw polls: "A poll is a survey (a measuring tool) which determines the current state of a situation, with respect to consensus. It doesn't form consensus. It merely measures it." Since we do not have any consensus here, we should negotiate one. Tankred (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
MarkBA's "vote" (he didn't actually vote IMO) wouldn't change the results. I don't think we need 100% consensus, which would be very difficult to achieve. Markussep Talk 21:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
After much debate, we arrived now to the implementation phase. I think it would be best if this would begin by Markussep editing a few articles according to the rules to see how things work out in practice. Hobartimus (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I can do that for a few articles (starting with some of the User:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment#Affected articles), and I will announce it here if I run into difficulties. Meanwhile, as proof (or refutation) of what we've assumed here, I would like to see examples of which names are used in English books about the concerned subjects. I don't have access to books on Slovak history, biographies etc. (except what you can find on internet and google books), so maybe you (plural) can help. Markussep Talk 14:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Just "transformed" Ľudovít Štúr and Anton Bernolák, see if I made any mistakes. Markussep Talk 18:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any problems, please continue. Hobartimus (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
And Pavel Jozef Šafárik, Juraj Jánošík and Lajos Kossuth (only a few places). Markussep Talk 19:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Nicely done maybe we could set up a system like with the French communes to check what's done and what's ahead? Nothing that elaborate something a lot simpler would do here just to see where can someone pick up things. Maybe like do all biographies starting with A-G in one go something like that. You propably know a lot more about this stuff though, how to do things like this. Hobartimus (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, it's a lot easier for French communes because there's a well-defined number of them, and there are lists of them available. Maybe there are good categories or lists to work with, like Category:Slovak people or List of Slovaks and if that doesn't include ethnic Hungarians that lived in what is now Slovakia, part of List of Hungarians. Just copy those lists to a project page and start working ;-) I have to warn you: I only meant these edits as examples, I don't have the time to work through all those biographies. And I'd like some response from the community before we start changing everything. Markussep Talk 21:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, just asking, hope you'll have a little time for a few more, in the future. Hobartimus (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I notice that in the poll, there were certain "camps" that were always on opposite sides. One possible way to proceed, is for each "side" to appoint a spokesperson, and then let those two people engage in a one-on-one conversation, to see if they can find a compromise. Off the top of my head, I would suggest Tankred and Squash Racket, though you are free to choose whomever you like. --Elonka 04:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, as editors are not always online, I think everyone will just comment when dropping in. Nevertheless if we decide to continue this way, I think Hobartimus is a better choice, he has dealt more with the naming issues. Squash Racket (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

So I did some test changes: [8], [9], [10], [11] and [12]. In some of them I added several Hungarian names, and in others I added several Slovak names, and of course there's always the Bratislava-anachronism-issue. Some of the questions I still have:
  • In general: what do we think of these edits?
  • I've been in doubt whether to add German names, I suppose Käsmark was also commonly used in English for Kežmarok, and there might be more towns like this (Sillein, Tyrnau).
  • I don't think I added Prešporok for Bratislava anywhere. My impression is that it's far less used in English than Pressburg and Pozsony. As the rules are written now, Prešporok must be added if it's a relevant alternative name. So, is it relevant (in 19th century context)?
  • In the Juraj Jánošík article, it felt a bit silly to add Hungarian names for villages around Čadca. They all have Hungarian names, but I wonder whether they're used in English. Markussep Talk 08:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer clear and consensual rules to the will of a transient plurality. A poll in Wikipedia is not majority voting; it merely indicates whether there is any consensus or not. Clearly, this poll showed the lack of consensus, but it indicates existence of some plurality. Since most of the editors expressing their opinion in a poll were Hungarian, many of them have never made any significant contribution to Slovakia-related articles (in terms of writing), and some of the most prolific Slovak editors refused to vote on this proposal, I do not think it will be seen as binding by Slovak editors (who often voted against the current plurality). If there are any editors willing to work on the rules that would be seen by all or most of us as consensual and binding, I will be happy to continue in the discussion.
My personal pragmatic view at this moment is: well, if this is a solution accepted by most of us, so be it. But before its implementation, I would like to highlight two problems that should be fixed. First, the alternative names that are not linked should be italicized. As far as I can tell, it is a standard way in geographic articles. Second, I can understand why the German name of Kezmarok and the Hungarian name of Dunajska Streda should be relevant. But I am not convinced that we need to use Hungarian names whenever a random village in Slovakia is mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia. Slovakia is not a bilingual country and Hungarian names only rarely appear in English sources. If people believe that a particular Hungarian or German name is frequently used in English, they should provide evidence for it. I am ready to go beyond Wikipedia's rules (WP:NCGN) for the sake of peace, but I am not ready to go beyond the common sense. I do not see any reason why a 100% Slovak village in a multinational kingdom with a German ruler and Latin as the official language should be labeled by a Hungarian name. A specific example of what I mean is the Juraj Janosik article. Since we will surely see many cases like this one, I would like to encourage interested editors to show evidence supporting their view that a Hungarian name is used in relevant English sources in the given context. I think it would be a good idea to use the concerned talk page for this purpose prior inclusion of these names. With these two caveats (italics and inclusion of relevant names only) I welcome Markussep's edits and I also thank him for his extremely valuable engagement in this debate. Tankred (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Tankred, we voted the changes. It was open for anyone to comment or vote or do whatever. Therefore we did not went beyond any rules, but changed one, so what you "offer" as a "favor for peace" is LOL. You ought to do it if you do not want to get banned. Like MarkBA(hn?) --Rembaoud (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Er, no, it wasn't a vote. It was a poll. I realize that it looked like a vote, but it was not a "majority rules" situation, more the poll was used to find out what everyone was thinking. This is another place where Wikipedia has different dispute resolution procedures than you might see in other off-wiki situations. On Wikipedia, we don't vote to see where the majority is, we try to find a compromise or "consensus" position that satisfies everyone. In certain situations where unanimity is not possible (or where speed is preferably over lengthy discussions), a decision might be made which seems to favor a majority, but even then, it is not a "counting the votes" situation, it is one where someone else (usually an uninvolved administrator) reads the entire discussion and then attempts to make a decision which reflects the community "consensus". See WP:POLLS and Wikipedia:Consensus. --Elonka 23:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Tankred. I think it's a pity some editors that are/were active in the field didn't participate in the poll, but we can't force them. They could have indicated what they didn't like about the proposal, and I would have created another modification to vote about. Of course we can still discuss modification of the proposal, it's not carved in stone. For now, I'm glad most of the edit-warring has ceased, a big Thank You to Elonka!
About the italics: I've seen that used for foreign words that are not in parentheses. I read WP:ITALICS and WP:NCGN, the latter says it's customary to italicise foreign names. So why not, let's italicise them.
About the relevance of certain alternative names, I think that's a valid question that will keep coming up if we don't address it. Maybe we should pick a few places and research the names used for them in English in pre- and post-1918 context, using the sources mentioned at WP:NCGN. Markussep Talk 08:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm getting ready to archive the poll (though I am offering no opinion on whether or not it defines a consensus). One possible way to proceed here would be to write up whatever you feel is the current consensus, including both the parts that are agreed, and also listing, "There is not yet consensus on the following points" and list those too. Then present that in a separate section, and ask, "Does everyone agree that this is the current state of things?" If anyone disagrees, they can write up their own view of what they think the "state of discussion" is, and then we can go from there. I recommend writing it in a "message in a bottle" format, in other words, write it for the benefit of those who weren't involved in the poll, have come to the discussion recently, and who are curious, "So, what was decided, what are the remaining open questions?" --Elonka 14:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Names

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


Current state of discussion

This is a discussion about a naming convention for places in Slovakia, and specifically about the name(s) to use in other articles (e.g. biographies). I classified many of the previously discussed issues below under "consensus" and "no consensus yet". Of course that's my interpretation, and open for discussion (below). If I missed something relevant, please add it. Markussep Talk 17:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

  • In articles about places in Slovakia, relevant alternative names are mentioned either in the lead or (if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves) in a separate "names" section immediately after the lead
  • Relevant alternative names can be used in articles
  • 1918 is used in the naming convention as turning point
  • Before 1918: the first instance of a name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. "Eperjes (Prešov)" or "Prešov (Eperjes)".
  • After 1918: the Slovak name is relevant
  • Minority language (Hungarian, German, Rusyn, ...) names should be added at least once if contemporary census shows more than 20% of the population of the place belongs to that minority
  • For consistency within an article, use one name as the primary name (alternative names are given in parentheses) unless the context changes within an article (e.g. History of Bratislava)
  • For places that changed names (e.g. Štúrovo was called Parkan before 1948): don't use the modern name as the primary name in contexts before that name was created/first used

No consensus yet

  • Should (all) relevant alternative names be added or not?
  • After 1918 context does it matter whether the subject of the article is ethnically Slovak, Hungarian or other?
  • After 1918 should the Slovak name be the primary name in articles about Slovaks, and the Hungarian name be the primary name in articles about Hungarians?
  • In pre-1918 context: are Hungarian names always relevant?

Consensus check

Does everyone agree that the above convention reflects the current state of consensus? I'd appreciate if everyone could weigh in with "agree" or disagree" (and if you disagree, please state which part that you disagree about). Please note that I am not asking if you like the convention. Instead, I am asking if you think that it more or less accurately reflects a consensus, from the previous discussions viewable at /Archive 2. Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity, but it does require discussion, careful listening to all views, and the weighing of available options. If anyone feels that something was not yet properly discussed, please say so. You are also welcome to say something like, "I don't personally agree with the convention, but I do agree that it seems to reflect current consensus, though of course Consensus may change in the future."

So, do you agree that there is consensus? Or no? --Elonka 20:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Though I can't say whether this reflects a consensus, I wonder if there are any existing town articles or biographical articles where all the names follow the convention. This question might serve as a reality check for whether the convention is well-defined and makes sense. I was going to suggest Bratislava as a test case, but if that's too controversial, can anyone think of another example? EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, although if I happen to forget the terms of the consensus in some edits (yeah, I really DO forget some things) please remind me of them (which Tankred, Svetovid, MarkBA etc. will surely do for me after reverting my edits, right? :P) CoolKoon (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Markussep made some edits earlier I think these come pretty close. [13], [14], [15], [16] [17] He wrote and gave the diffs above I'm just copying them here. Hobartimus (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
See also Tankreds comments on the naming convention and my "test edits". He proposes to italicise the alternative names (I don't think we've discussed it earlier, but it's uncontroversial IMO, and it's supported by guidelines), and he asks for evidence of the usage of Hungarian names in English texts. Markussep Talk 12:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I like the above changes, which seem consistent my own understanding of the new naming convention. I agree that italicization of the first use of an alternate name seems harmless and unlikely to be controversial, though we should listen to any objections. It seems worthwhile for people to carefully go ahead and start making conformant changes to articles, but keep returning to this page to present examples of the diffs, to see if any problem is perceived. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Considering that most of the editors who are saying "there is consensus" are the more Hungarian-leaning editors, I recommend proceeding cautiously. The only Slovak-side editor who has spoken up is Tankred,[18] so I think that his views should be listened to carefully. As for the others on the Slovakian side, Ruziklan has been absent for awhile, MarkBA is blocked for sockpuppetry, and Svetovid is also on a two-week block. I have offered to lift his block so that he could participate here, but he has not replied. I would be happier about signing off on consensus if we had more Slovak input. Then again, "decisions are made by those who show up." What I'd like to avoid though, is a declaration of "Hungarian consensus" now, and then if Slovaks do come by later, I don't want them told, "Sorry, we've already made a decision." But if no one's objecting to a course of action, then that's a kind of "silent consensus", at least for now. --Elonka 18:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I find myself agreeing completely with the comment by Tankred that you highlighted, where he refers to two problems that need fixing. One was his suggestion for italics, and the other was for omitting the Hungarian names of random Slovak villages and of people like Juraj Janosik that apparently don't have any Hungarian connection. Do we have any idea what reservations the other Slovak editors might have expressed if the had joined the poll? EdJohnston (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
You can get a hint of MarkBA's opinion in User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment/Archive 2#Discussion (continued), specifically his comments of 7 May. But he didn't really explain what was wrong with the parts he disliked. Svetovid was involved in a discussion at Talk:Kingdom of Hungary#Disputed edits in articles about counties, his main concern (I think) is similar to Tankred's: (lack of) evidence of the use of Hungarian names for places in Slovakia in English. BTW the Hungarian connection for Juraj Jánošík is that he lived in the Kingdom of Hungary, albeit in an area that never had a large Hungarian population. Markussep Talk 21:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This is how the article looked about a year ago [19] intrestingly in that version the Hungarian name Jánosik György is listed so the editors back then did think that it had some Hungarian connection. Another intresting thing is that the article lists "Juro" as a variant of the name of the subject and the article was edited by banned user:Juro. The article contains sentences like "Under Jánošík's leadership, the group was exceptionally chivalrous: They did not kill any of the robbed victims and even helped an accidentally injured priest." I'm not sure Eva Krekovičová for example would agree with that assessment. The myth is not separated from fact within the article for example a section is titled "biography". The part where some of the names are is problematic in itself, maybe the article shouldn't contain an unsourced list of "other members" in the first place which is also highly irrelevant to the article, if they are notable they should have their own articles. Even if there was some reason for listing "other members" a sentence would suffice instead of the present list format and adding the home village for each member brings no useful information to the reader anyhow. Hobartimus (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
random Slovak villages that don't have any Hungarian connection? I haven't heard of any such thing. Maybe because all of those Slovak villages were part of the Kingdom of Hungary almost since the beginning (most of those villages were founded in the Kingdom of Hungary) CoolKoon (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, one more thing: I've tried to discuss the issue with MarkBA after he was blocked and asked for his hostility towards Hungarian things in general. Unfortunately the discussion has been forcefully halted by some admins of the Slovak Wikipedia. They were pretty hostile to me and blocked my accound there for 6 months shortly after that. CoolKoon (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


One year ago there were Hungarian names in Juraj Jánošík, but there are still no sources to establish a Hungarian connection. There are plenty of data to show the Slovak and Polish connections. If someone can show that Janosik was a folk hero for Hungarians, and not just for the other two nationalities, that would be enough proof for me, but nobody has established that. I gather that Janosik's residence in the Kingdom of Hungary is a factor to be considered, but I'd hope that is not considered the decisive item. If we do make that a decisive factor, then the vast crowd of small Slovak villages (with little or no Hungarian population) that used to be in the Kingdom of Hungary will also need to be given Hungarian names, which seems undesirable. EdJohnston (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes this would require some research to look into the deteals unfortunately very little real info is known about this person much of it is legends or similar. There is also substantial controversy (not covered by the article) as recently as early 2008 with many opinions conflicting on the topic and in many questions we are left without solid proof. The convention however already provides terms like "clearly Slovak", "clearly Hungarian" person for cases like this. This article would fit into the "clearly Slovak" category in my opinion and only the first instance requires the other name to be present all the following cases the name can be used without the parentheses. If an article contains long lists about "all the villages ever visited by person X" or "all the villages where the non-notable bandits were from" then with such lists instead of a few names per article we get somewhat more. If the article only used names of settlements that were important and related to Jánosik himself and not his fellow bandits it would mean very few names affected. Hobartimus (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is no true cross-national consensus. As to Slovak users, both MarkBA ans Svetovid (only on his talk page because he got blocked in the meantime) refused the proposal. The text right after the "Naming convention" headline in this thread is not what we have agreed upon and it would be perhaps safer to remove it. For example, a number of editors strongly rejected the idea of dividing Wikipedia into two separate bubbles of reality, one for "clearly Slovak" persons and the other for "clearly Hungarian" persons. On the other hand, the list of points created by Markussep above this thread (sections "Consensus" and "No consensus yet") sums up the results of our discussion so far. I think that is a compromise tacitly supported by those who have participated in the discussion. I will be happy to support it if the two points I have raised are adequately addressed. I think the italicized alternative names are totally harmless, in line with the current usage in Wikipedia, and no one objected to them. So, can we add them to the list? As to the evidence for the use of Hungarian names in English sources, I would like to thank EdJohnston and Markussep for their input. I also hope more editors will comment on this issue, as it seems pretty crucial. Tankred (talk) 03:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the above text of the naming convention formed after weeks of discussion several rounds of voting (this could be considered the 3rd round) with the participation of about 15 editors(if we count all "rounds") represents consensus of all the previous discussions and should definitely not be removed. Also we do need some text after all to show for all this time and effort spent in this process initiated by Markussep. Commenting on the idea of requiring "proof" I fear that this could be used by bad faith users to constantly demand "proof" from persons they dislike. Also would lead to more arguments not less and go against stability one of the main points of the convention. I must also point out that a very similar wording "unless it is established (and discussed and documented on the article's talk page) that..." was already proposed (D) recently and was already rejected soundly so proposing something this similar is not a good idea in my opinion. For all these reasons I must strongly reject this idea. However I'd like to see some reasons for the use of italics I feel this could enjoy unanimous support if some good reasons were brought up for the use of them other than lack of reasons not to do this. Hobartimus (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
MarkBA and Svetovid didn't take part in the poll (and that was their decision, they had opportunity to do so, but they refused to).
My only problem with providing evidence for every single place is that it would require too much time and that was the very problem with WP:NCGN.
That is why this whole discussion has been initiated actually here:
Markussep, thank you for your useful suggestions. I generally agree with all of them:
  • The Slovak names of neighboring counties should be mentioned at least at the first occurrence of a county's name in an article. (...)
Cheers. Tankred (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
BTW I couldn't find the diff for the comment, that's why I quoted the relevant part of it. Squash Racket (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it surely will not be so time-consuming to find evidence that those few major towns that are frequently mentioned in Wikipedia (Bratislava, Kosice, Trnava, etc.) are known under their Hungarian (or German) names in English sources. But why should we refer to smaller settlements in the regions without any significant Hungarian population automatically by their Hungarian names? These names are not used in English. I think the English usage should be the criterion here because it is the English Wikipedia. Although we can all agree that it makes sense to use the name Pressburg for Bratislava in the 19th century, the inclusion of Hungarian names of small villages in the 18th-century northern Slovakia needs some reasonable justification. Tankred (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

In your comment quoted above you agreed to have Slovak names for old Hungarian counties without demanding any kind of evidence for each and all of them.
Also let me have my doubt: in the thread just below I also heard there was no evidence in English. I could find a number of reliable sources available online after just a quick Google search. The problem is doing this little research for hundreds of places or having a general agreement instead.
Regarding major cities (Pozsony, Kassa etc.) I don't think any research is needed. Squash Racket (talk) 04:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think for this question of research, we could fall back on WP:V. In other words, sources are not required unless information is challenged "or likely to be challenged". If someone legitimately feels that a naming situation is obvious, no extra research might be needed. But as soon as a name is challenged, a source should definitely be provided. If there are lots of good faith challenges, then lots of research might be required, but, well, that's Wikipedia.  :) Would this address concerns, or am I misunderstanding the disagreement? --Elonka 05:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me. Are there any objections or we can make it part of the consensus? We should also think about where to discuss relevance of names. WP:NCGN recommends the talk page of the article about the place in question. But it would be perhaps more useful for our group to create a special talk page, on which we would centralize discussions about geographic names (of course, with a thread linked from all other relevant talk pages). Tankred (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As I understand the discussed guidelines, an alternative name is used only at the first occasion, not every time a place is mentioned. That is how Markussep also applied the results of our discussion in his exemplary edits. Therefore, Nmate's recent edits ([20], [21], etc.) should be corrected and someone should leave him an explanatory message. Another issue is that Bratislava should be mentioned at the first reference to Pressburg, right? So, this edit[22] is not what we have agreed upon and should be corrected as well. I would prefer someone else doing it in order to assure Nmate that this is not only my personal interpretation. Anyone up to this task? Tankred (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I can imagine that English usage would be difficult to verify for the smaller places, especially in historic context. We could also define this in a negative way: mention Hungarian names unless it is shown that they are not used in English. I think there's consensus about using Hungarian (and other minority) names when there is or was a significant local population of that minority. For instance for 1910 Trencsén County that would mean that for the towns Trencsén/Trenčín and Zsolna/Žilina (the bottom two lines in the first table) the Hungarian name is relevant around 1910 anyway, and for other parts of the county (e.g. the Csaca/Čadca district) English usage has to be shown if challenged.
About the italics: the WP:ITALICS guideline recommends to use italics for foreign terms. WP:NCGN says the same, specifically for foreign or historic names. I think it's also more obvious with italics that both names are for the same place. "Trnava (Nagyszombat)" could imply that Trnava is part of Nagyszombat, if you're not familiar with it. Hobartimus, does that answer your question?
Then there's the "bubbles-of-reality" issue: do we use different rules for biographies of Slovak and Hungarian people (before 1918)? Hobartimus removed the issue from the "no consensus yet" list, but I don't think we have consensus here yet. Markussep Talk 14:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the reader would conclude that Trnava is part of Nagyszombat in any case he can just click on the name and get to the article or even type it in the search box if for some odd reason there is no link in the article. The primary meaning of the italics to me is emphasis I don't think they carry any particular meaning in this case but I can be mistaken of course. Was there a case like this where a reader was confused beyond all help and the italics helped him? I have to confess I wouldn't think of this very specific meaning that is being attached to the italics here. I'd be only confused even more by them. It's true that there are not many good reasons against the italics either if I had to say one I'd say it's that readers are not used to italics outside of the lead in the article bodies also the exra time needed to add them. Hobartimus (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian_experiment/Archive_2&oldid=1255408260"