Talk:Árva County

Untitled

Almost all time of existention of this comitatus was official name "Comitatus Arvensis" Name was changed in the time of magyarization. Its good to change name to be historicaly correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samofi (talk • contribs) 20:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent attemtps to remove Hungarian names

Unfortunately the subject is forced by a second revert, with a clear aim avoiding good faith or fair review. Thus I have to announce here there is no consensus for the latest reverts and edit about the removal of Hungarian names.

WP:English or WP:Naming conventions were not harmed, no objection may be raised for the former state of the article, where all English and Slovak names were present where it is relevant. After a long experience about contemporary/historical naming conventions, I have almost never met such case the correspondent unser introduced here, unless it was a clear anti-Hungarian aim to get rid of anything that may be Hungarian in an article. This users persist a trick and confusing the medieval administration - that existed only paper, never in practice or the common langauge of the Modern Era's official language status, that is a totally different concept.

Surprisingly, in any article the correspodent in the country's name and language can be used in the first place in the medieval times, surprisingly only some people want to get rid of the Hungarian, may I ask, will this mean that more thousand articles and more ten-thousand names will be rewritten in Latin and Slavic - the two major administration in countries, and no Engish, German, Italian, Spanish, French, Hungarian, Romanian names may be ever indicated?

Of course, with a little experience it is clear when how we have to do, since the article's context is also very important. If there is a historical English name, it can be used in the first place, if not, the contemporary country's name can be used in the first place - and it don't have to be written in Latin phonetics, that is most of the time the phonetic transcript of the originally used name - after, the modern-day max be indicated in brackets - most of the cases the English names are identical of the present-day native names. If it is about a modern era, were strictly and official langauge was introduced in a completely different terms and usage unlike the medieval times, that may be used in the fisrt place. If the context is releavant to an i.e. historical person from a different ethnicity - like a Saxon in Transylvania - i.e. the German names may be used in the first place despite they were not official, similarly in any other cases, etc.

This article is about mainly a comitatus of Hungary, a historical region for a long time inHungary thus the ignorance of the Hungarian names are not just against the contemporary naming conventions, but are totally outreagous as i.e. like the Romanian names would be ignored regarding the historical Moldavia, or German would be ingnored in Bavaria, etc. Also it has to be taken into account that article's series is highlighting that comitatus that existed anyway when Hungarian was also the official language, since there are also other articles about eralier counties, nota bene.

The article has an other section, a shorter one when it is about the period of Czeshoslovakia, of course noone want's to exile Czech or Slovak names anywhere.

Sharply:

- the historical comitatus' of Hungary have Hungarian names, and the English names are not Slovak or anything else

- the river names were indicated in all languges, thus the removal of the Hungarian name is a clear demonstration of an anti-Hungarian aim

- all other cities, villages were indicated in all langauges, thus the removal of the Hungarian name is a clear demonstration of an anti-Hungarian aim

- Removing (Hungarian Árva vára), the historical reference of the Orava castle, however, the English-Slovak name was presented in the first place is again a proof of an an anti-Hungarian aim

- no problem if we add more version of the names used in the relevant timeline, but the current situation is inacceptable and incorrect, if a new consensus is wanted regarding this article, first it has to be built!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC))

Shortly

- Bratislava before 1919 -> Pressburg, the widely accepted historical English name (not Pozsony as you changed in other article)

- Veličná in the context of longer historical period -> Veličná (other names), because there is not any widely accepted historical English name and the name had changed over the time. Particularly, if we speak about the 16th century it was not called "Nagyfalu" even in Hungarian

- Veličná in 1844-1918 -> Nagyfalu (other names), because there is not any widely accepted historical English name, Nagyfalu was the official name (Hungarian was the official language).

- Orava (river) -> Orava river, like High Tatras are High Tatras and not "Magas-Tátra (High Tatras, Veľké Tatry)", the widely accepted English geographic name.

- I don't think that mentioning every single name is the best way how to do things. Veličná (Template:Lang-hu) is OK, but a detailed list including Magna Villa, Welkeg Wsy, Veľké Vsy, Naghffalva, etc, etc belogs to Veličná->Names not to the general article.

- Here is the original [diff] made by you and reverted by me. Which names in which language were removed? I did not revert anything else. Ditinili (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

- The Pressburg cases are not under debate this article, however I consider in a relevant context - i.e. - official Hungarian capital to be mentioned, but this is not the subject here, I acknowledge the well-established and accepted English name status of "Pressburg".

- Not true, "Nagyfalu" is dated from 1420, anyway the original latin name was also the translation of the Hungarian name, so I support here Nagyfalu (and any other version in brackets you wish)

- OK

- I would accept "Orava river (Hungarian: Árva)" version since the section is designating the territory of the comitatus, as historical region of Hungary as well the period of the modern-era. In this case, the English-Slovak name would be in the first place, and the Hungarian name in brackets. High Tatras was not debated.

- this I let you to decide on your own, which version you consider relevant in the brackets in case Hungarian is in the first place - about particularly Veličná see above

- Not that edit was reverted by you, a latter one. Names: Árva, Zázriva, Árva vára, Nagyfalu, Alsókubin. Language: Hungarian.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC))

Kiengir, you systematically hid any modern English (or historical Slovak name) and then accused me from "anti-Hungarian aims" (as it is clear from the [diff]). This is very, very strange and unusual behavior.

Now, about the names:

- The opinion that Magna Villa is "the translation of the Hungarian name" is an unsourced speculation, because the first Hungarian name is recorded only 148 years later and not as Nagyfalu (what is the modern or later Hungarian name) but Nag Flaw.

- No matter how, the village is historically known under various names and we cannot prefer some of them just to make somebody (whoever) satisfied, but it should be done systematically. If the Hungarian language a) had no special position in 15-16th century in the town or in the region b) it was not an administrative language nor spoken by the majority population c) the town is known under various very different local names and d) there is not any widely accepted historic English name, then we should use "modern name (other names)". This is completely neutral, non-conflicting and apolitical approach compliant with all Wikipedia standards.

- The dependency on the "original etymology" as a "naming convention" has no support in Wikipedia rules. I think that this is a non-standard and poor approach. Etymology is often unclear, it will only raise new discussions and conflicts and in many cases the name is Quadi and not Slovak or Hungarian. Note, that it does not support your naming by the modern Hungarian names, e.g. Kubín is "kublin" (archaic Slovak: a smoked glade) and is documented (also before the Hungarian language became the official language) as Nizny Kubin and Dolny Kubin.

"Orava river (Hungarian: Árva)" is not necessary, but I am fine with it.I am not OK with Kis-Fátra/Nagy-Fátra instead of Lower Fatra, Lesser Fatra or Malá Fatra and similar exclusively Hungarian names as they are used in several related articles (see e.g. Turóc County).

P.S.: If you look e.g. on [this English map from 1833], Dolný Kubín in not Alsókubin but Kubini, Ružomberok is not Rózsahegy but Rosenberg, Kysucké Nové Mesto is not Kiszucaújhely but Novemeste, Trstená is not Trsztena but Terstina, Mníchova Lehota is not Barátszabadi but Mnichova, Trnava is not Nagyszombat but Trnau, etc, etc, like Bratislava is not Pozsony but Presburg. So, the usage of historical/later/modern Hungarian names in English Wikipedia (as it is applied now - in general and for every cost) is more than questionable.Ditinili (talk) 10:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Ditinili.

-you ride on an old diff that was shortly overriden, since the article is part of the classical modern comitatus's of Kingdom of Hungary that has mainly a period with undebated Hungarian official language status and Hungarian context, it would have been also applicable that only the reference remains to English/Slovaks names, but an other editor warned me, we discussed explicitly about the question and after our deal also English/Slovak names were also shown.

- :) We have all the list of the latin names and systematically you see the pattern that mainly the two type of transcription and transliteration from Hungarian to Latin exists: 1. transcription of the Hungarian name with Latin phonetics 2. Transliterating the word. So it is not a "speculation", everyone knows who dealt with this topic. Anyway it does not matter here since the relevant timeline when it is mentioned already the Hungarian-Hungarian name was also referred, I think you surely wanted to be funny if "Nagfalw" could not be written or would not be equal with Nagyfalu... However, in 1487 it is mentioned already as "Nagyfalu" so we have not any problem here anymore....

- well, if would add also if the article and/or the context is about Hungary or related to Hungary or the Hungarian state then at least that Hungarian version should be indicated in the first place that was used that time, and of course also higlighting other important names along with the present-day name

- there is no debate many Hungarian names have Slavic origin, so I have no problem to put on the first place i.e. "Cublyn" or "Kublin" or similar in the relevant timeline and after in brackets the Hungarian and Slovak contemporary name, followed the present-day name. I put in Túróc the English names for the mountains, if you have further wishes please let me know

- I have no problem i.e., as mentioned above to use "Kubini" and after in brackets Hungarian, Slovak and present-day name.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC))

- "you ride on an old diff that was shortly overriden" Kiengir, did you systematically remove all references to the modern English names or historical Slovak or not? You did, [here is the proof] and [here is another proof] that you removed other than Hungarian names repeatedly (modern English or Slovak). Then, you wrote a long comment to my personal page, including some at least inaccurate (I would say also offensive) statements like "the final Slovak language were decided what to be exactly by Bernolák or other's" (you obviously do not distinguish between the language and the Codification (linguistics), but you repeat some cliches popular among Hungarian extremists), you complained to the administrator without sending me a link where exactly you did complain and to whom, you wrote numerous sentences about alleged anti-Hungarian aims and complained also to other Hungarian editors to coordinate. This is a very bad approach and you should change your attitude.

"Technical" issues:

- The statement: "mainly a period with undebated Hungarian official language status" is inheritly wrong. The first mention about the county is from 1370. Alleged "Hungarian official language status" was introduced 474 years later (!) only in 1844 and only for 5 years. Then again only from 1867 to 1918. Thus, in 553 years old history of the Orava county, the Hungarian language have had official status for 56 years. And now, I am asking why Hungarian names should be preferred over any other names, especially in the period when it was not the official nor administrative language, was not spoken by majority population and the Hungarian name differs from the modern name used in English (and there is not any widely accepted historic English name). I do not suggest Slovak names. I suggest modern names where the widely accepted historic English name do not exist and the historical records support various names. This is absolutely non-conflicting and neutral approach, compliant with all WP rules, consistent and applicable to any country. Tell me what's the problem and give me a reference to the rule which could be violated.

- "So it is not a "speculation", everyone knows who dealt with this topic." "Everyone who dealt with the topic" (please, do not use such wording for the future) knows that Magna Villa is not the transcription of the Hungarian name with Latin phonetic and Wekleg Vsy is not less Latin than Nag Falw. However, it is not relevant in the light of the previous point. Ditinili (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, again, you really do not want to understand, or just you want to deteriorate the attention....it is very tiring...surprisingly, your diffs as a "proof" contradicts you, since they proof I did NOT removed the references :) in one diff you again ignore it was shortly overriden and not this outdated edit is the subject here, and also on the other the Hungarian was added and the modern names were also indicated. You were told at least two times in more pages that a historical Hungarian comitatus does not have an English name that would be Slovak. The funny thing is that you start against me again an accusation list, although you were inaccurate right know and it seems instead of concentrating on peace you again give long accusations. You may understand everything in a calmer and more proper way, but as I experienced, you understand almost all the time everything totally different as it meant and mostly in a negative way, in my opinion, this attitude should be changed (this goes also about the Slovak language). I don't know any "clichés" about any "extremist" I would used or whatsoever. I don't know why I should have sent any link, since I did not mention you explicity and not any noticeboard issue were initiated (not my style). I don't see anything negative that in your personal page I tried to communicate with you and shared my experiences and concerns. I also don't see any problem that I make discussion with other Hungarian editors, anyway I did not even tell them exactly which article we are discussing. I don't see any bad approach here, unless that I do not spend necessarily my time in Wikipedia to chase other people's contributions and hunt anything to generate a conflict! Anyway, Wiki is not the place where anything may be hidden.

Again you pretend not to understand, although we discussed it already more times also in this talk page...normally I should redirect to read them again until you wish to understand. so I will try to be very short, and expanded you find it above:

- this series of articles are mainly created for the comitatus' of Kingdom of Hungary in the modern period, when Hungarian was the official language, even if there are allusion to the earlier history of them

- medieval administration status is not to be confused with modern official language status, also regarding other countries, nations etc. this is not excluding the usage of Hungarian names in Hungary, this is well-known pretext of some "benevolent" aims to exile Hungarian for those who does not like it, but they do not force similar i.e. in German, English, French, Spanish, Italian or Romanian pages, moreover it logically fails, since the medieval administration did not stated that would be an official language, that anyway people did not used but mostly on paper. The campaign for modern-names all the time is also a pretext for the same reason, but twice as more inunderstandable, since the modern-names were also indicated and it is a very common applied custom and reality by the contemporary naming conventions (maybe because if only the modern name would be, then only the Slovak version would be apparent, since almost always they are identical?). I even don't know what happened to you, yesterday you were totally moderate, today you are very grumpy like we did not even discussed...

- why I should not use such wordage? Anyway, this issue was again generated by you, not by me, I just reacted...(KIENGIR (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC))

Kiengir, you repeatedly hid other than Hungarian names, it was proven. "I did not remove references" means literally "you removed all non-Hungarian names (including those widely used in English) and you preserved only wikilinks, not visible to users". If you believe that wikilinks are sufficient, why do you complain that another user reverted your changes, but preserved wikilinks? I will not continue in this discussion and I will focus on technical issues.

"you pretend not to understand" WP:No personal attacks, WP:Assume good faith.

"medieval administration status is not to be confused with modern official language status" Of course, it cannot be confused. I am asking you, according to which WP rule we should prefer Hungarian names also for the period when it was not even the medieval administrative language, historic names were various and the modern local name is not the same as Hungarian. If you are not able to cite such rule, I will restore all names according to WP:Naming conventions (geographic names), particularly General guidelines and Use English.

"the campaign for modern-names all the time is also a pretext for the same reason" WP: Assume good faith

"this issue was again generated by you" Excuse me? Ditinili (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)