Talk:Bratislava/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Unreferenced

I've put up this template because there is only one reference for the whole article. Since even basic facts go unreferenced, it only shows that nobody bothers to write their sources. The main reason for putting at the top is to inspire others, and I'll be working on the article if I find the time.--Svetovid 10:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

So I did find the time and worked on the article. I added new references to already stated facts, significantly expanded the 'Climate', 'Culture and points of interest' and 'Economy' sections. The 'Economy' section now links to the main article, which was also expanded. I also corrected and updated other sections. Concrete statements/section are now marked as unreferenced. The 'History' section and the main article 'History of Bratislava' are completely unreferenced, so I flagged the main article. Some sections need expansion: Science, Music, Tourism, Education and especially Sport.--Svetovid 19:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Tremendous effort! MikeGogulski 20:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm gonna focus on the education and tourism sections now, plus find sources for the history section. After that, I'll reorganize the whole article a little to be similar to other featured and good articles about towns.--Svetovid 20:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm almost down to having to clean up the remaining sport section... sure wish it could go to a "stuff MikeGogulski would rather not bother himself with" page ;) MikeGogulski 21:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

City Logo

There is a nice image of the new city logo at sk:Obrázok:Bratislava logo.png. However, it's tagged fair use and it's on the sk wiki, not commons, which means I can't link to it from the infobox template.

Link to the announcement of the new logo, which might be useful to someone who wants to pursue getting a release for this, and moving it to commons: http://www.bratislava.sk/vismo5/dokumenty2.asp?u=700000&id_org=700000&id=72011 MikeGogulski 09:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to note, the logo was formerly on the commons, but it was deleted some time ago. A fair use would be needed without permission, but for commons probably only with written permission from the city: link with basic description and conditions of use (in Slovak) MarkBA t/c/@ 16:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Ok, I see they want licensing for it. However, I just created my own identical logo in Excel, in less than 5 minutes. The logo is incredibly simple, 21 white boxes on a red background. If I turned this into an SVG it would be acceptable for use as my own work? MikeGogulski 17:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Though I'd like to see it first, but if it is exact or very similar (dark red would be better) to the official one, I'm not against. As that would be your own work, I think it's acceptable. You could then post it to the Commons so everyone (except sk.wikipedia, as they already have fair use image, and law restricts such usage without permission anyway) can use it. MarkBA t/c/@ 17:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

coming soon... MikeGogulski 17:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

So, check out (Image deleted). I believe it's accurate and usable. If you think so, should we get the thing approved by an admin or something before moving it to commons? MikeGogulski 19:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's accurate and usable. Upload it to the commons a.s.a.p. Approving from the admin? I don't think so, because it's yours and not from the city. Even some coats of arms were made by author and not the city and no one questioned them... MarkBA t/c/@ 19:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Done, and done! MikeGogulski 19:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This logo does not belong to creative commons since the city obviously states that it keeps all copyright rights. If you created the picture copying the original design, copyright for the picture still belongs to Bratislava. You need this license for it:
Copyrighted This is a representation of a government, military, regimental, family, or other symbol such as a flag, seal, emblem, coat of arms or crest. This symbol may be copyrighted by its holder. As well, it is known that the representation of this symbol is either copyrighted by the holder of the symbol, or is available under a free licence. There may also be other restrictions on reproduction, including but not limited to article 6ter of the Paris Convention. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such symbols

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content.

To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. As well, if this image is available under a free licence, please also add the appropriate free licence tag.

--Svetovid 11:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Request letter for licensing/release of logo

Comments and translation welcome! I would like to send this to the city as soon as possible. Also, if you are willing to take up this matter with the City directly, and you are a native Slovak speaker, please contact me. MikeGogulski 14:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


Hlavné mesto SR Bratislava

referát komunikácie a marketingu

Primaciálne nám. 1, P.P. Box 192

814 99 Bratislava 1

tel.: +421 2 59 356 155

press@bratislava.sk

VIA EMAIL

RE: BRATISLAVA LOGO RELEASE/LICENSE REQUEST

To Whom it May Concern,

As part of my volunteer work improving the English-language Wikipedia page on the city of Bratislava (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bratislava), I have created a replica of the Bratislava City Logo in SVG (scalable vector graphics) format, and uploaded it to Wikipedia. I did this by simple visual reference to the logo, visible all over Bratislava as well as on the City's websites, and without resorting to analyzing or copying any elements of the official images, except the color value for the red background.

It is currently visible in the city article, and can be accessed directly at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bratislava_Logo.svg.

Because the information on your website at http://www.bratislava.sk/vismo5/dokumenty2.asp?u=700000&id_org=700000&id=74452&p1=52000 states that the logo is covered by rights of authorship, my action has been challenged by other Wikipedia editors.

While I would like to use the logo as part of the article (which serves to present the City in a fair and balanced manner to English-speaking Wikipedia users worldwide), it is also very important to me to respect both Slovak and international copyright law, as well as the wishes of the City of Bratislava, and the designer Martin Žilinský.

Questions:

  • May I leave the logo in place while we discuss the matter, or would you prefer that I remove it immediately?
  • Is the City willing to license use of the logo on Wikipedia? If so, there are two alternatives:

In the interest of resolving this matter, and making the logo useable on Wikipedia to the benefit of the City, I would request that we conduct any discussion of the matter via email until you are ready to issue a decision. At that time, I will submit an application for permission in printed form by post, and request a response in the same form.

Best regards,

MikeGogulski 14:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: I just emailed MarkBA's Slovak translation of this letter to the city, and will post relevant updates here as they are available. MikeGogulski 20:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: I received a reply from the City, stating that they have no problem with us using the logo, but that the use of the box-castle device without the word "BRATISLAVA" attached is not in accordance with their conditions. As such, I have submitted speedy deletion requests for my SVG, both on the EN wikipedia and on Commons.

As the City's design manual specifies the typeface for the word "BRATISLAVA" to be Frutiger Black, which at least is not included in my version of Windows, I won't be able to make an SVG for the logo without considerable work (which I'm not terribly interested in doing). I'll continue working on getting a proper release for a GIF or JPG version. MikeGogulski 16:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If they allow us to use the logo, you can download it from the official website and attach the appropriate license.--Svetovid 22:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

New request letter

Dear MarkBA :)

Dear xxxx,

Thank you for your prompt and courteous reply of 7.5.2007 regarding use of the Bratislava logo on Wikipedia. Per your request, I quickly deleted the SVG file from both Wikimedia sites where I had placed it.

Because the preferred graphical format for such a symbol on Wikipedia is SVG, and because the vector images you provided to me in EPS format are not compatible with most web browsers, I've created a new SVG (attached) which I believe accurately represents the logo as presented in your usage manual. I would like to donate this file to the city for unrestricted use, with credit given to me (inside the file) as merely the author of the SVG version derived from the original work, or without credit if that is your preference. If this interests you, please let me know and I will clean it up and complete the internal fields in order to deliver it to you as a donation. Please note that my offer to donate the SVG is not contingent upon any particular decision you might make regarding release or licensing of the logo.

I have not yet posted this image to Wikipedia, nor do I intend to do so without the city's release.

To reiterate a bit from my previous email, the best solution for Wikipedia would be to agree to release the donated SVG file under a Creative Commons license (http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licenses), but this may not be compatible with the city's goals. Wikipedia guidelines for managing logos suggest that using an SVG replica of the logo without city permission would not be acceptable under "fair use" guidelines, since such replica could be used to reproduce the logo at any resolution. The fair use guidelines also suggest that making a copy of a JPG, GIF, or PNG image of the logo (such as those provided at the city's website, or in the logo design manual) for illustrative purposes on Wikipedia with or without permission would not be a legal violation.

My personal wish is to satisfy as many of the interested parties as possible. To that end, I would like to make the following requests of the city, in order of my own preference:

  • Release the SVG logo under a Creative Commons license, either to me or via upload to commons.wikipedia.org, or
  • Issue a written statement saying that the SVG logo may be used only on Wikipedia websites, or
  • Issue a written statement saying that any use of the GIF/JPG/PNG versions of the logo published at http://www.bratislava.sk/ (or a specific version you designate) may be used on Wikipedia.

Thank you very much for your time and assistance.

Best regards,
MikeGogulski 18:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I just sent a translation to the City official who replied to me last time. Big thank you to MarkBA for quick, and very professional translation! MikeGogulski 22:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

To-dos for an A rating review

MikeGogulski and others are maintaining this list as a running log. Feel free to modify, just please sign each change. MikeGogulski 13:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I've started floating all the still-open tasks to the bottom, and split the commentary out into a subsection MikeGogulski 19:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I've spent a lot of time on this article, trying to bring it closer to FA status. Here are the things I think still need work:

Closed

  • Condense the Sport section a bit; the football section seems overly verbose (seat-count details, famous players)... perhaps move some of that to Sport in Bratislava
(completed by MarkBA
thank you MikeGogulski 13:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC))
  • Expand the Music section or merge it with Theatre, under a new heading like "Performing Arts"
(expanded and sourced MarkBA t/c/@ 08:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC))
completed some time ago MikeGogulski 19:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Somehow move the Demographics infobox to a position where it makes better sense
(converted to prose, though editing is still needed. MarkBA t/c/@ 15:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC))
Edited. MikeGogulski 16:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
(converted table into infobox, added some more content. MarkBA t/c/@ 13:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC))
(added Media section, some editing would be useful to improve that section. MarkBA t/c/@ 11:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC))
edited... it's probably enough for now, we'll see what others think. MikeGogulski 13:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe add a couple more Important Events (though in reference to a comment above, I don't believe sports championships should go here)
(supplied three more. Is that enough? MarkBA t/c/@ 17:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC))
works for me, thanks MikeGogulski 17:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Fix the Parks section... I see the statement "few parks" as POV, but I haven't gotten around to doing anything about it as yet
(removed POV statement, and added a figure about total space of public green MarkBA t/c/@ 07:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC))
  • Search for and discuss any remaining NPOV issues
(now should be killed off MarkBA t/c/@ 07:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC))
  • Introduce citations to or replace/remove sentences with {{Fact}} tags. MikeGogulski 13:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
(done, I have introduce citations where they were missing or removed sentences. Please feel free to introduce new ones. MarkBA t/c/@ 08:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC))
  • Add local government section
(created on 29 April 2007)
  • Archive old and heated talk page conversations;
(archived, FAQ yet to be created)
  • Restructure based on practices used at other FA-class Cities articles MikeGogulski 14:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
(reorganized the sections, based at other FA articles MarkBA t/c/@ 07:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC))
  • Submit for review; implement assessment recommendations MikeGogulski 12:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Assessment requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/Assessment
(not sure if we'll get assessment quickly, because the last edit excluding adding assessment requests was about 2½ months ago MarkBA t/c/@ 05:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC))
Stricken; Cities project assessment apparently abandoned MikeGogulski 19:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

MikeGogulski 00:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Rewrite the history section, get rid of the bullet list and names table, and add more information. --Svetovid 22:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm on it - you can see the progress on my sandbox page. It's a little long at the moment, but I haven't even finished the first draft yet.--Svetovid 15:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Not very polite, but I transferred what was typed from sandbox to the article, adding only end to the 20th century and adding a ref. MarkBA t/c/@ 08:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
--done but needs some more work--Svetovid 14:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Added interwiki, image, and bolded title. MarkBA t/c/@ 15:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Open

  • Add information to the "Economy" section about boom in the construction industry and significant projects currently under construction.--Svetovid 10:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this is a great idea, since as recently as 5 years ago, commentators were writing about a slump in the industry (http://www.slovakspectator.sk/clanok-9598.html), though I do see a place here for sourced statements about the huge projects on the riverfront, by the Nove Mesto train station, in Petrzalka and Dlhe diely... MikeGogulski 13:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Make the Territorial division section more aesthetically pleasing
  • Add information about flora and fauna into the Geography section
  • Expand Tourism a bit. I'd like to add something referencing impact to the city from the film "Hostel", though this may be controversial
Hostel impact to tourism added and sourced MikeGogulski 23:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
(removed unsourced paragraph, added sourced facts and figures MarkBA t/c/@ 07:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC))
Can anyone think of anything we're really missing here that needs to be said? MikeGogulski 19:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Replace as many web citations as reasonably possible with book/periodical references
  • Get the city's logo (mentioned above) into Commons and on the page (possibly requires a release from the city government to use the image)MikeGogulski 14:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
self-made SVG now in place MikeGogulski 19:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
(logo will be deleted MarkBA t/c/@ 07:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC))
new release request in process; if we fail, we'll take a fair-use image and close this MikeGogulski 19:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • perhaps create a summary FAQ for things like the name, demographics, etc.
  • make improvements based on practices used at other FA-class Cities articles

Further commentary

Trimmed down the Sport section a bit, particularly football and hockey to a summary of the Sport in Bratislava article, though not sure about the other sports. I would like to suggest another to-do: Introduce citations to or replace/remove sentences with {{Fact}} tags. MarkBA t/c/@ 13:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to do with that Demographics table. We can either move it or convert it into prose, as is, e.g. suggested here. I just would need to find a table with evolution of population since, as far as I know, 18th century. Any suggestions? MarkBA t/c/@ 13:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I just checked Boston, Massachusetts (an FA-class, top-priority City article) on this, and the prose format is used there, and looks good. I believe converting it to prose is a good course to take. There is an (unsourced) table of Bratislava's demographic evolution since 1850 at History_of_Bratislava#Demographic_evolution, which I believe was once part of the main article. MikeGogulski 14:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll convert that table into prose, possibly using facts and figures from here. Per the Boston, Massachusetts article, I'll place demographics between climate and history. Feel free then to check it for errors and such. We can try to look up evolution of population later. MarkBA t/c/@ 14:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks. MikeGogulski 16:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we add something about local government? I have a link prepared to get the basic info from: here it is. MarkBA t/c/@ 18:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea; I was thinking of this earlier, but forgot to add it to the list. MikeGogulski 19:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Expand the "Government" section and reflect that Bratislava is home to the Slovak Parliament, president, ministries, the highest court, as well as the regional government and and so on, similarly to the featured article about Sarajevo. Or name it "Law, government and politics" and add information about crime and political parties' HQs as well (see San Jose, California) --Svetovid 10:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Implemented suggestion by Svetovid. As I see it now, we've already done some tasks but we have yet a long way to go. Probably these should be done first: Expand music section or merge it with theatre, expand Parks, or I suggest merging it with Lakes under new name 'Nature' and expanding it from there and of course, flushing out those {{Fact}} tags and POV statements. MarkBA t/c/@ 11:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll merge the two into "Parks and lakes", which are commonly referred to together (see Google search). "Nature" (briefly about various fauna and flora) should be a sub-section of "Geography". What do you think?--Svetovid 13:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Then we can start including large numbers of krtko and ježko photos ;) MikeGogulski 11:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
That's OK, you can do it. I've done Climate, with converting table into infobox and adding some more content. MarkBA t/c/@ 13:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I see a request for new Communications & Media section to be included. I would like to just know, what should be included there: seat of national TV stations? radio? newspapers (only national or also local)? MarkBA t/c/@ 17:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

For now, I think a concise summary of national and major local media based in BA. Slovensky rozhlas probably qualifies, Fun Radio probably doesn't; same for Slovak Spectator vs. the new Istropolitan free newspaper (though these minor outlets could just be listed without comment) MikeGogulski 11:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I did something with Tourism and Parks, though Tourism should have more, because the unsourced paragraphs was removed and replaced with sources facts and figures. All that otherwise needs work is Music. Then we should try to find sources to the History of Bratislava article, which is tagged with unreferenced template. MarkBA t/c/@ 07:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

So I did some research and expanded Music and flushed out remaining {{Fact}} tags. Now we can focus our attention elsewhere. MarkBA t/c/@ 08:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

When I would like to add list about annual events, what should be included? Festivals or maybe trade shows? In some sense it somewhat overlaps some other sections of the article. Anyway, it would be good to supply few references to the main sights section - I don't see any. MarkBA t/c/@ 21:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It'd be good to make it a separate article and include as many as possible.--Svetovid 17:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


was just thinking, shouldn't we branch off some of the information in the Bratislava#Culture and points of interest section to new article, for example named Culture in Bratislava or such? Because I am sure that section will surely grow even more and should be kept in a summary style. MarkBA t/c/@ 07:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What is unsourced in this sentence from the Etymology section? "It was used subsequently by members of the Slovak movement in the 1840s, and occasionally also afterwards. [citation needed]". The whole sentence or the second part? MarkBA t/c/@ 16:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

To the "make the territorial division section more attractive" to-do item, check the table at http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bratislava#D.C4.9Blen.C3.AD_m.C4.9Bsta Not sure this format will adapt itself well to the expanded data in the EN article, though. It might be worth considering whether the "unofficial" divisions are necessary in the main article. (Yes, MarkBA, this was the table I was trying to find the other day) MikeGogulski 11:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, how can "Dolné hony" appear under both Podunajské Biskupice AND Vrakuňa??? MikeGogulski 11:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably because it's divided between the two - see this on SK wiki. Yes, probably unofficial parts can be listed in the respective articles - let's rework that table. Anyway, I was just thinking - wouldn't it be possible to merge Twin towns into Government section? After all, it's magistrate's decision who they'll be twinned with. MarkBA t/c/@ 11:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
We seem to be thinking the same thoughts :) I was just looking at Town twinning for insight on this; while it may be a governmental decision, the purpose stated in the article is more cultural, leaving me unsure which section it fits in better. I wanted to survey the other FA-cities articles for placement of this. A quick search shows most articles using a section like this have it standalone, but then most of those articles are stubs anyway. MikeGogulski 12:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually now that I look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/Proposed_Template, I see there that twin towns are kept as a separate section down near the end, so maybe no change needed there. MikeGogulski 20:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comparison with FA articles on cities

Table for comparing Bratislava vs other FA-class Cities articles. First entry is size, other things to be added as we think of them. MikeGogulski 19:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

(Size as of 3 May 2007, sections as of 12 May 2007, for Bratislava both as of 15 May 2007)

Article Size Number of sections
Bratislava 74kb 16 sections, 23 subsections
Ahmedabad 44kb 14 sections
Ann Arbor, Michigan 51kb 15 sections, 2 subsections
Bangalore 53kb 14 sections
Belgrade 66kb 12 sections, 16 subsections
Boston, Massachusetts 70kb 16 sections, 2 subsections
Canberra 49kb 10 sections, 8 subsections
Cape Town 46kb 13 sections, 1 subsection
Chennai 51kb 14 sections, 4 subsections
Cleveland, Ohio 61kb 12 sections, 8 subsections
Darjeeling 39kb 15 sections
Dawson Creek, British Columbia 33kb 9 sections
Delhi 58kb 17 sections
Detroit, Michigan 84kb 14 sections, 11 subsections
Dhaka 49kb 13 sections
Dundee 57kb 13 sections, 11 subsections
Gangtok <32kb 14 sections
Louisville, Kentucky 64kb 13 sections, 14 subsections, 1 subsubsection
Marshall, Texas 34kb 9 sections, 6 subsections, 12 subsubsections
Mumbai 41kb 17 sections
San Francisco, California 93kb 14 sections, 13 subsections
San Jose, California 73kb 19 sections, 20 subsections
Sarajevo 41kb 16 sections, 3 subsections
Seattle, Washington 93kb 15 sections, 17 subsections, 1 subsubsection
Sheffield 52kb 10 sections, 9 subsections
Vancouver 84kb 15 sections, 1 subsection
Weymouth 37kb 9 sections, 1 subsection


Summary re: article size

Well, all but one are longer than 32, and the longest is some 93k. I don't think we have much to worry about with article size being a barrier to FA status. MikeGogulski 20:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

POV/NPOV review

Statements/words I think could be viewed as POV (by section):

*Introduction

important, most, cosmopolitan, famous

*Climate

lies in the moderate zone -- huh?

(well, i didn't get very far before sleep MikeGogulski 00:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

  • Government
"key" issues (removed this word MarkBA t/c/@ 15:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC))
  • History
"important" events (changed into significant MarkBA t/c/@ 15:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC))
  • Main sights
"picturesque" (twice once) (both removed MarkBA t/c/@ 19:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC))
"time immemorial" not really POV, just needs a different expression (changed into specific period and sourced MarkBA t/c/@ 07:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC))
"excellent" location (strategic?) (changed to strategic MarkBA t/c/@ 15:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC))
"important" laws
"known" memorial... i just don't understand this statement (removed known MarkBA t/c/@ 15:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC))
  • Education and science
"important" art school (replaced by oldest Tankred 19:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC))
  • Economy
"important" region (changed to prosperous MarkBA t/c/@ 19:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC))
"thriving" (re-word somehow) (tried to replaced with "prospering" but I don't know if it's a good expression MarkBA t/c/@ 07:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
"important" companies (removed this word MarkBA t/c/@ 19:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC))
"strategic" companies (removed this word MarkBA t/c/@ 19:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC))
  • Transport
"important" railway station (removed from both of 'em... mea culpa MarkBA t/c/@ 15:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC))
"comprehensive" (imhd.sk, yes, I wrote it myself :P ) (removed whole sentence, because it was redundant, as the link was already under external link section MarkBA t/c/@ 15:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC))

That's it for my review, at least as it stands now. Please strike these off as you fix them. MikeGogulski 14:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

important and most -- relevant and referenced in all cases;
The sentences "Bratislava still retains its cosmopolitan spirit. It hosts many festivals and trade shows and is famous for its night life and leisure facilities." should probably be rewritten.
changed to "north temperate zone" --Svetovid 09:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the sentence and rewritten that paragraph.--Svetovid 13:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Struck Svetovid's fixes off the list MikeGogulski 14:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

How about this?

Above all, I would like to thank everyone for the excellent work. I have also a couple of ideas for further improvement before a GA (and later FA) nomination and I wonder what you think. First, the history section should be transformed into prose because this is one of the criteria in the GA and FA procedures. Second, I think we can delete the table containing foreign names because it can be found in History of Bratislava and the Etymology section of the main article already contains all the relevant names. I do not think we need a Dutch name in the main article. Third, the section Culture and points of interest is kind of messy. Do you think it is a good idea to create separate sections for Main sights (perhaps with subsections Bratislava Castle, the Old town, Parks, etc.), Culture (Theatres, Museums, etc.), and Sport? I believe readers would feel less lost. Finally, the Economy section is usually placed after the government section in FA articles, but this is just a minor point. Tankred 14:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  1. The history section transfer into prose is already in progress here.
  2. The names table can be removed, I agree, as it was moved to the History of Bratislava article.
  3. Probably should be, good idea. I think per Cleveland, Ohio article Culture should include Theatres, Museums, Music, Media and probably Sport.
  4. Probably the economy section should be moved up, as I've seen in FA articles, it's 5th or around that section of the article. MarkBA t/c/@ 14:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

new photo possibilities

for anyone who wants to go trolling for new/better photos of things featured in the article, check out http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=bratislava&l=commderiv&z=t for CC-useable images. MikeGogulski 23:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

GA review consideration

After extensive edits of past 2 weeks, I think it's time to consider sending this article to the GA review, because the major points needed have already been covered, particularly History and article is in a lot better state than 2 weeks ago. Any objections? MarkBA t/c/@ 12:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think it is an excellent candidate for GA and I would like to thank everyone for the great job. However, I would suggest to rewrite a bulleted list in the Main sights - City section into prose, to make that part more consistent with the beginning and the end of the section. What do you think? Tankred 16:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, not bad idea, but how? I can only imagine one thing - maybe split them into Old Town sights and other sights plus somehow write them in acceptable prose. I also had talk with User:MikeGogulski and he suggested another thing - merging Tourism into Economy and Etymology into History. What do you think? MarkBA t/c/@ 16:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I will transform that list into prose and it would be great if you, Mike, or Svetovid can check it afterwards. But I would rather leave the Etymology and Tourism sections untouched. Etymology is included because of WP:NCGN and it makes the article more NPOV. Tourism is quite important in the case of Bratislava, but it can be perhaps moved just after the Economy section. How is it in FA articles? Tankred 17:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead and do it, I or someone else will check it. For the merge proposal, Delhi uses Etymology section as first, so let's leave it as is and for Tourism, I failed to find anything, so I don't know what to do with this one. MarkBA t/c/@ 17:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Done. Tankred 17:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. That's fine series of contributions. Now I feel we should, after your changes, send article to GA review. MarkBA t/c/@ 18:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is already placed to the good article candidates page. MarkBA t/c/@ 20:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that was a rushed nomination. The to do list still has several points and the history section needs some trimming/improvements and references.--Svetovid 13:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
So what should I do?! Withdraw that nomination? I don't think it was rushed nomination, I was just waiting for one single point before I could place it, so it's rather delayed. And that list is for A-class rating, not necessarily GA-class rating, but in my opinion, major points have already been covered. And one more question: Why no query placed before I nominated? MarkBA t/c/@ 13:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Let us wait. I think the article is already a good GA candidate. I do not think there is any problem precluding the success of the nomination. I have nominated Great Moravia and the article was successful despite a lower number of citations and pictures. Anyway, even if the nomination fails this time, we can get precious feedback and try it again. It is no big deal. Tankred 16:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
That's what I say. GA != FA in all ways... I think we have already big amount of references (64 as I count), though some sections aren't ideally cited. Even if we fail first time, every cloud has a silver lining - we might get some good feedback. MarkBA t/c/@ 17:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Names

The former/alternate names should be listed in the article intro, and the history section should call the city Pressburg in sections talking about pre-1919 history. This isn't even an instance, like Gdansk/Danzig, of two names long in use in different languages, and one replacing the other in English after a population exchange. This is, so far as I can tell, a pretty clear cut case of a name change - the name Bratislava was not used before 1919. We don't talk about the Byzantine emperors in Istanbul, or the Battle of Volgograd, or the siege of St. Petersburg, or any number of other such things. john k 15:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I discussed my reason for making the change here. Please explain why you object rather than simply reverting. When a city's name is changed, we refer to it by the name it was known by at the time we are speaking of, not its current name. I'll add the self-evident fact that Slovakia did not exist as a place with any political, as opposed to cultural, significance prior to 1918 - it was administered as part of Hungary. Referring to the first whatever in Slovakia before 1918 gives the false impression that there was some clearly defined "Slovakia" of which Pressburg was part. This simply isn't the case. We call Gdansk "Danzig" before 1945, and it's always been known as Gdansk in Polish. Bratislava was a new name, invented in the 1830s and only officially adopted in any way in 1919. We shouldn't use it before then. john k 16:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is fully compliant with WP:NCGN. Alternative names are listed in a special section jut below the lead. The case is not as straightforward as Danzig/Gdansk because different groups used different names of the city. Moreover, the official languages of the state (Kingdom of Hungary as an independent polity, as part of the Austrian Empire, and as part of Austria-Hungary) were different in different periods: mostly Latin and for short periods Hungarian or German. Bratislava is referred to in various languages in historical documents, so it is not easy to determine a one particular historical name. However, if you believe there is a name widely accepted in English sources about history of Bratislava, feel free to initiate a discussion here, after providing the evidence required by WP:NCGN. Tankred 16:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
That's the point. It's obvious redundancy to have them twice when they are in special dedicated section. And as Tankred said, this one isn't so straightforward like Gdansk or St. Petersburg cases. But I prefer discussion over edit-warring, as making two reverts would threaten the good article stability criterion, and that's what we don't want. MarkBA t/c/@ 16:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
"Bratislava" barely appears in modern times prior to 1919, as far as I can gather. Pressburg was the name used in English before 1919, and i s still generally used in historical works. The 1911 Britannica article on Pressburg is an example of the former. For the latter, I don't have any good sources in front of me right now, but I do know that "Treaty of Pressburg" is always used for the 1805 treaty, and given some time could find any number of other sources that still use "Pressburg". In terms of the intro, it is typical practice to give alternate or former names in the introduction. See Ceske Budejovice, Lviv, Regensburg, and just about any other article on a city with multiple names. I'm fairly certain that there's a policy somewhere which suggests this, but I can't find it right now. As to different groups using different names, my understanding is that this is less true with regard to the name "Bratislava" than it is with "Gdansk," in that this article itself makes no real case for usage of Bratislava before 1919, except in certain nationalist writings of the early 19th century. The first Slovak newspaper was called the Presspurske Nowiny - so even Slovaks were calling the place Pressburg at that time. Pressburg was not even a Slovak town in 1911 - the population was, according to Britannica, half German, and many of the remainder were Magyars (or, I guess, Jews). I simply don't see how the case for Bratislava is possibly stronger than the case for Gdansk, which was, at least, always the Polish name. john k 17:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
John, please read WP:NCGN. Alternative names should be listed in the lead when they are not discussed in detail. If there are more than two relevant alternative names, or etymology is discussed, a separate section should be created. That is why we have a separate section devoted just to historical names placed after the lead. As to the use of historical names in the text, Bratislava should be replaced by Pressburg only if Pressburg can be proven to be a widely accepted English name of the city in the historical context. Again, if you look at the policy page (WP:NCGN), you will find a precise procedure and a list of evidence you should use. I am sure everyone here will greatly appreciate if you familiarize yourself with the policy before returning to this interesting discussion you have started. Tankred 17:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you appear to be right about the lead. I withdraw my objections on that front (although I don't like the policy). Pressburg is of course a widely accepted English name of the city in the historical context. I'll note again the complete lack of use of "Treaty of Bratislava", and get back to you with more examples soon. john k 18:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
For the last time, "Bratislava" is used instead of "present day Bratislava" because it is obvious and made clear countless times. And again, this is the usual practice when writing historical articles about cities or countries.--Svetovid 18:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
For the last time, I'm not saying to use "present day Bratislava." I'm saying to use "Pressburg." I'm also saying it is standard practice in wikipedia to use historical names for historical subjects, which is easily verified. now, I will accept Tankred's suggestion to find sources for use of "Pressburg" in order to demonstrate that it's a commonly used historical name. But your argument is just wrong - historical names are used, and all the time. john k 19:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry John Kenney, if I must call it such, but this version, which is currently saved, does provide an explanation, especially when you know that Pressburg or Pozsony was the official or widely used name before 1919 and since then, Bratislava is the official name. Period. There's nothing more to explain. The article would look really strange when we would apply all those "Pressburg"s to the History section. Another think that I'm wondering about is that you have already contributed here several times, and you should know what the atmosphere and attitude are here and that's no joke. Just look at the archive. In short, I agree with Svetovid and particularly Tankred that the current version is fine. By the way, why don't you provide some feedback for improving instead of quarrelling about historical names? MarkBA t/c/@ 19:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I concur. John k, you could help us and suggest some real improvements to the article.--Svetovid 20:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, this article as it is barely suggests that "Pressburg" or "Pozsony" were the officially or widely used names before 1919. The current article is highly misleading - the fact that, in the 18th century, a clear derivative of "Pressburg" was the Slovak name of the city is, for instance, ignored, so that the Slovak newspaper's name is translated "Bratislava Newspaper," when the word "Bratislava" appears nowhere in the Slovak name of the newspaper. Given the length of the history section, the article would not look at all strange if we applied the Pressburgs to the history section. That's exactly what's done at, for instance, Gdansk, or at Istanbul. As it stands, I'm not sure what to do here. I would go to my books and try to demonstrate that "Pressburg" is by far the dominant usage in English historical sources discussing the pre-1919 city. I'm not even sure that's necessary. This seems to be a clear instance of a full-on name change, where we can actually pinpoint a date of change. In such cases we normally use the name which was used at the time. As to providing feedback for improving, the article looks generally pretty decent to me, and I'm not an expert. I am interested in the naming issue, but I don't think I have much to contribute to the rest of the article. This issue is a real one, and I don't see how my opinions can be ignored simply because I'm not all that interested in the rest of the article. john k 21:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Names are covered in the Etymology section and the History of Bratislava article. Using different names in the main article would be confusing. As for Presspurske Nowiny, if Posonium is translated and referred to as Pressburg in English, feel free to rename that translation.--Svetovid 22:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
As John states, the issue is a real one. I have changed "Bratislava Newspaper" to "Pressburg Newspaper" as I see that instance as one where the use of "Bratislava" is clearly inappropriate, given the historical context.
As for Gdansk vs. Danzig, I don't see the issue as compelling in this case, as the amateur etymologist in me views "Gdansk" and "Danzig" as merely different representations of the same underlying name, much as Pressburg, Pressburgh, Presburg, Prešporok, Prešburk, etc. are all connected to a common root, though passed through different linguistic lenses.
Constantinople vs. Istanbul is a much clearer parallel with Bratislava, and a case where a new name of different linguistic origin was imposed on a city. In fact, the Istanbul article's history section may provide useful guidance to us in reworking Bratislava#History into a more historically-accurate form. What I don't know, however, is how to resolve the apparent problem of the city having been referred to by multiple names simultaneously without a lot of excess verbiage (see the 16th-century map in the History section, which shows both Pressburg and Posonium). I know nothing of Hungarian aside from the basics of pronunciation, but I don't see Hungarian Pozsony (which would render in Slovak approximately as Požoň) as connected to Pressburg/Prešporok/Prešburk, but rather to the Latin Posonium. MikeGogulski 00:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the issue is somewhat complicated, especially with the existence of two sets of names used simultaneously - one derived from the Latin Posonium, the other from the German "Pressburg." I would, in this instance, say that "Pressburg" ought to be the way to go, since it is the name used in English. But I can see that it's a bit problematic. john k 15:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, except for obvious cases like Presspurske Nowiny, I'm still strongly against renaming almost whole History into Pressburg, when you know it's absolutely unnecessary. It is already clearly indicated that Pressburg or Pozsony were used as official/widely used named before 1919 and no such things such as Bratislava or its forms existed before 19th century and that's it. No more to discuss about. I will change my opinion only under two conditions: when you can clearly demonstrate usage of Pressburg or similar before 1919 and there is consensus to do so. And please avoid usage of "northern Hungary" phrase, as it is considered offensive and if some nationalist would read this, he probably would beat you up. MarkBA t/c/@ 05:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't "know" anything. In terms of "northern Hungary", I did stop using it after the first edit, and it was ill-judged. Slovakia was, of course, the northern part of Hungary before 1918, but it wasn't a formal region at all, under any name. I do think that we ought to be careful with our tenses. That 1891 bridge may be the oldest bridge in Slovakia, but it is not the first bridge built in Slovakia, if that makes any sense - perhaps this is a nuance that is more troubling to me as a native speaker of English than to you all. Beyond that, I'm happy to try to provide some sources for usage of "Pressburg" in English language sources when discussing the city prior to 1919. john k 15:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't mix up that bridge here. You don't need to teach me that the Old Bridge is the oldest one, as I know for sure that there were bridges sometime in the 15th or 16th centuries in Bratislava, but were quickly destroyed by floods or frosts. OK, that consensus condition was bit harsh and I withdraw it, but one thing is that when it is clearly provided in that Names section that XY was used in English before 1919, then it's absolutely unneeded to throw those "Pressburg"s in there when you know what Bratislava means in the 16th century (Posonium) or 19th century (Pressburg/Pozsony). I think you have picked up quite unfortunate topic, as touching to the names, which were long standing in the article, is like stirring up a hornet's nest and causes trouble, in which we are right now. MarkBA t/c/@ 15:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
MarkBA - my point about the bridges was one of contextual reading in English, not any issue of bridges built in the 15th or 16th centuries. My point was this - to say that something is "the oldest bridge in Slovakia" makes it clear that you are talking about Slovakia as a present-day country. That the bridge was built before Slovakia was created is irrelevant to the meaning. To say that something is "the first bridge built in Slovakia since the 16th century" (say) implies, I think, that Slovakia existed at the time in question. As to name's being a hornet's nest, they certainly can be, but this discussion so far has actually been more civil than some similar ones I've gotten into. I hope this can be resolved quickly and in a way that satisfies everyone. john k 15:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Two things in response to this:
  • So long as someone has a pointed interest in making a change here, based on historically-verifiable facts, and there is disagreement, "consensus" does not exist. The introduction into the article of sources documenting the official historical names of the city through history should serve to change what consensus exists. Additionally, see Argumentum ad populum on the dangers of "consensus".
  • The territory of the present-day Slovak Republic was, factually, "northern Hungary" (or, "the northern portion of the territory controlled by the Kingdom of Hungary") immediately prior to WWI. Who might or might not be offended by history does not seem germane to the verifiability of information in an encyclopedia article. Also, see Article 301 (Turkish penal code) on the dangers of Political correctness.
WP:NCGN is controlling here. Frankly, I see the policy as somewhat flawed, but it is part of the framework that we contribute under. The key question seems to be "did Bratislava have widely-accepted English names in certain historical contexts prior to 1919?" and if so, what are they? The answer to the first part is a resounding "yes" unless one takes the untenable position that the city was never mentioned in the English language prior to 1919, or that there was no consensus on an English-language appellation. The answer to the second part is discoverable and citable.
MikeGogulski 09:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the vagueness of the wording of WP:NCGN actually makes the case a bit weaker. Of course the city was called "Pressburg" (or perhaps occasionally "Pozsony" prior to 1919. I think the issue that we are meant to determine, however, is what name is used in recent historical scholarship to refer to the city before 1919. I know that I've come across a few books which make a point of using current names for almost all cities in central and eastern Europe, and which thus use "Bratislava," but most that I'm aware of use Pressburg (a few use Pozsony when talking about the city between 1867 and 1919). I'll try to demonstrate this.
The word "Slovakia" in the text obviously refers to the territory of present-day Slovakia and not to the polity. For stylistic reasons, we cannot describe it every time by long constructs, such as "territory of present-day Slovakia". I think it is clear for most readers. The situation is similar to the case of Brittany, which does not exist administratively since the French Revolution, and to the case of Italy, which did not exist as a political entity in its present borders until the late unification. Most readers understand that the word Brittany in the articles about the present refer to a territory, not to a medieval polity and the word Italy in articles about history refers to the Apennine peninsula, not to a smaller nominal kingdom of that name. Tankred 16:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not at all obvious. Brittany was a clear region with a clear history, and Italy was also a clear geographical entity. The same is not at all true of Slovakia, which did not exist prior to 1918. Slovakia means "those parts of Hungary before 1918 which were incorporated into Czechoslovakia, and which were not Ruthenia." The term "Slovakia" does not occur in the 1911 Britannica, for instance, whereas Brittany has its own article, and Italy certainly had articles in encyclopedias published prior to 1861. The cases aren't comparable. Slovakia was a new country carved out of the Slovak-inhabited parts of Hungary. Italy was a long-standing geographical term, like Iberia or the Low Countries today, and Brittany was a historical province which used to exist. There had never been a political entity called "Slovakia" before 1918, nor was it a widely used geographical term. The area was simply the northern part of Hungary. As it stands, the text implies, as you suggest, that Slovakia before 1918 was analogous to Italy before 1861. That analogy is entirely false. Not only was that name not used, there was no clearly defined area which we might see as a predecessor to modern Slovakia. Slovakia was created in 1918. The proper analogy is with Pakistan, say. john k 17:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
(directed at the thread, not at John, who just happened to be the last poster) We could argue as well that "Slovakia" should mean "historical (or current) lands of the Slovak people" versus the commonly-understood "territory of the sovereign Slovak Republic" or even "the Slovak government and all it controls", but it won't lead us to any clarity regarding Bratislava. I would like to suggest that the specific issue of the use of the term "Slovakia" be moved off this page and taken to Talk:History of Slovakia or Talk:Slovakia, where it is more on point, and where a wider audience of editors to consider it is available. I appreciate raising it to draw a parallel, but arguing the point here will have little value in improving the Bratislava article. MikeGogulski 00:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
This makes sense. I think it's okay to sometimes use "Slovakia", but that we should be careful that it is not misleading to do so. john k 15:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what you are trying to pull, john, but as an administrator, you should know that it's best to discuss such significant changes first. As mentioned above, it's redundant to always use "present day Slovakia" instead of "Slovakia" and "present day Bratislava" (or a longer form) instead of "Bratislava" if this was clearly written previously in the section.
For example, look at History of London, and the name itself suggests that they used similar logic to ours, otherwise it should indeed be called History of present day London. The same applies to New York City, for example. I don't see formerly known as New Amsterdam there. Do you also think that because the New York City article is written that way, people may falsely think that the area there has always been called New York City?
If you again change the whole article the way you did, I'll regard is as vandalism and report as such.--Svetovid 17:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I am suggesting we use "Pressburg" instead of "Bratislava." As for Slovakia, we should damn well use "present day Slovakia", because Slovakia simply didn't exist in any way before 1918. As to New York, it stopped being New Amsterdam four centuries ago, and it was a tiny place of little importance when it changed its name. Pressburg was a major city for centuries before the name got changed. john k 17:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
There are obvious hints: "...the territory has...", "The area fell...", "The first written reference to Bratislava (as Brezalauspurc)", "...the territory of Bratislava." I changed "On March 27, 1919, the name Bratislava was officially adopted." to "On March 27, 1919, the name Bratislava was officially adopted for the first time." to make it even clearer.
If you look at any other article, official website of any other city, in history books or tourist guides, you would see that the current name of a city is used although the city wasn't called like that back then and (almost) everybody understands it.
As for Slovakia, I've added "present day" when it's mentioned for the first time. If one wishes to find out about history of Slovakia, the Kingdom of Hungary or the Habsburg Monarchy, all interlinks are there.--Svetovid 17:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
No, as noted, most other articles use former names in historical discussions. john k 18:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


I don't feel strongly about this one way or the other, but I'm happy to see anyone taking interest in the article (Welcome, John!). For me, and maybe I'm too close to the problem, I think that enough information is presented to enable to unfamiliar reader to infer that the word "Bratislava", when used during the various periods prior to 1918, means "the territory currently known as Bratislava". As I looked back at the article in light of John's comments and changes, though, one thing that *does* strike me as deserving of change is the caption for the photo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bratislava_in_16th_century.jpg ("Bratislava in the 16th century"). The drawing itself is labeled "Posonium" and "Pres(s)burg", and, when it was created, no entity known as "Bratislava" existed.

I would like to support the request of other editors to avoid making sweeping changes that are likely to be controversial prior to discussion, however. I suspect that all of us posting on this talk page share similar goals, and hope we can work together to approach them more closely, rather than bashing heads. MikeGogulski 20:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Mike - my issue i s not so much that the word "Bratislava" means "the territory currently known as Bratislava." It seems to me that this latter is fine when we are talking about settlements of unknown name in the ancient world. But when the "territory currently known as Bratislava" is an actual major European city, the capital of the kingdom of Hungary and the site of the Hungarian parliament, the site of a treaty ending a major war between France and Austria, and so forth, it seems misleading to use "Bratislava." Because "the territory currently known as Bratislava" was not the capital of Hungary. The city of Pressburg, or Pozsony, was. That city's name was then changed to Bratislava in 1919, in exactly the manner that the name of Constantinople was changed to Istanbul in 1930, or Danzig was changed to Gdansk in 1945, or St. Petersburg was changed to Petrograd in 1914, to Leningrad in 1924, and then back to St. Petersburg in 1991. A similar issue is use of "Slovakia" before 1919. I'm happy to use that a shorthand for "the territory that is now Slovakia", but only in instances where it is clear that this is what is meant. In cases of possible confusion, we ought to avoid the term. "it became the largest city in Slovakia," for instance, strongly implies the existence of something called "Slovakia" at the time under discussion, and I'd prefer to avoid that. The history section is lengthy, and using "Pressburg" before 1919 would be no more confusing than any of these other instances. Beyond that, I'm happy to wait to make any further changes, although I'm dubious that what I did really constitutes a "sweeping change". I would, however, like to have some input into this issue from users other than those of you who've been regular editors of the page. john k 21:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Following your reasoning, the name Pressburg should not be used before the 15th century, when it first appeared. Nevertheless, you used it. Moreover, the Latin name Posonium should be used if any other than Bratislava.
I reworded that part about Slovakia to "...the largest and most important town in the territory of present day Slovakia and Hungary."--Svetovid 22:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The issue is more "what name do historians use when discussing the city in earlier times," rather than "what name was used at the time." The variations of medieval form would make the former a very difficult standard to follow. john k 15:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
(@ John) Sorry, your change was really not "sweeping" as I wrote, but controversial nonetheless. I apologize for the overreaction.
I wonder if, in the History section at least, we might resolve this problem simply by including a disclaimer at the beginning, along the lines of "Note that when the word 'Bratislava' is used in this section, it refers to the territory presently comprising the city, which has been known by various different names prior to 1919"?
To your comment regarding getting some fresh eyes in here, I completely agree. There are 4 or 5 of us who have had our noses close to this article for some time, and are also (i daresay) biased toward the city's current appellation by virtue of our own associations with the city. Do you know anyone who can help provide more compelling information to your points? I, at least, would love to hear from them as well.
(@ Svetovid) I think you're correct here also, assuming your statement about 15th-century attestation is correct (I don't know). I'm going to dig into my sources for a history of the "official names" of the city, if such a thing really exists. We could resolve all ambiguity by reference to the documented city appellation of the empire/kingdom/state in power at any given time. MikeGogulski 00:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I've made some changes and now it should please most people.
My Conclusion:
- Do not use the name Pressburg before the 15th century because it doesn't follow you own reasoning of using then known names. It's also mentioned that the name Pressburg appeared in the 15th century so people should not be confused.
- Do not use Hungary instead of "present day Slovakia and Hungary" (or similar form or when it's understood that Slovakia refers to today's Slovakia), because in today's context, connection to Slovakia is relevant and important.--Svetovid 09:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry?

Can anyone suggest why the following edits should *not* be reported as suspected sockpuppetry?

Rationale:

MikeGogulski 10:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have never created a sockpuppet, and I'm not about to start now. I previously expressed my willingness to not revert anymore until something could be worked out. I am somewhat offended by this failure to assume good faith on my part. john k 15:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sure no one thinks it is your sockpuppet. But it is apparently a disruptive sockpuppet account of someone and if it appears again, I encourage everyone to report it at the administrators' notice board. Tankred 15:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Please excuse me, John, if you assumed any accusation, none was meant for you. Why would an admin here with real-name reputation on the line bother for such a purpose? Very, very unlikely I think. I'm gonna go throw something on his talk page. MikeGogulski 18:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, sorry, I guess I misinterpreted/overreacted. Definitely sockpuppets of banned users should be dealt with. john k 03:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
No worries. After looking into this a bit more, I'm struck by the common "Odb" pattern in User:Olivierdb and User:Odbhss. Odbhss was confirmed as a sockpuppet of banned User:VinceB, and the several surrounding cases involved reports from User:Juro and User:Tankred, who both edit here. MikeGogulski 13:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think MikeGogulski could be reported as a sockpuppet. This account is only a few weeks old. On his first day he started developing his user page with an army of (possibly false) userboxes.

He is focused on a small number of articles, most importantly on Bratislava where he made almost all of his edits, suggesting that he is a single purpose account. Starts aggressive accusations of sockpuppetry as a personal attack against editors including an administrator (yes i see you tried to explain it away, your original post is clear however). Olivierdb 13:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Dearest whoever-you-are, if you click one of those userbox soldiers on my talk page, a single click more will bring you to a site where I maintain a paid account and profile containing a vast array of personal and commercial information about myself, including a copy of my CV. Why don't you go clicky-clicky over that way, then give me a phone call? Or better yet, send me a registered letter, just for glee's sake? I'll be more than happy to reply in kind. MikeGogulski 13:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Is this your first account or a sockpuppet? You never answered that question. I see that you use wikipedia to advertise your own name and services and to gain hits on google searches. This type of commercial exploitation of wikipedia is despicable, as wikipedia is not an advertising agency for you to gain higher rank on google search. It seems that you are not here to write an encylopedia but for other reasons. It seems you are pretty successful in advertising your talents and services though, already rank 4th with a few weeks old account. [1] Olivierdb 14:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Do not feed the trolls
Do not feed the trolls

--Svetovid 14:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

For those interested in such things, Olivierdb has accused me of using my account as a commercial platform at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#using_Wikipedia_as_an_advertising_agency In response to the question, this is my first account on Wikipedia, and not a sockpuppet. MikeGogulski 16:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

census data

I just noticed something out of whack here:

  • 2001 census - 428,672 inhabitants
  • 2005 estimate - 425,459
  • pop per borough: 5 data items total = 2001 pop. (okay)
  • ethnic data leave ~8000 ppl unaccounted for against 2001 pop. (this is okay)
  • age distribution: 3 brackets totaling 425,459 (2005 estimate -- NOT OKAY without clarification and citation)
  • religion stats leave ~24,000 ppl unaccounted for against 2001 pop. (also okay)

MikeGogulski 21:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I know this issue, but I can't find age distribution from 2001. I am sourcing my data from here [2]. Unless I can find data with this kind of information, I propose adding behind the data on what it is based (either 2001 census or 2005 estimate). Okay? MarkBA t/c/@ 12:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. I didn't want to wade into the figures myself. MikeGogulski 13:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
This appears fixed now. MikeGogulski 20:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Test...

Books

  • Already, so I decided to hit google to look at historical usages of names. There are 2240 Google Books hits for "Pressburg". Going through, many of them are from pre-1918 sources, but here's a variety from post-1945:
  1. The Reign of George III, 1760-1815 by David Steven (1960)
  2. Understanding Rabbinic Judaism, from Talmudic to Modern Times by Jacob Neusner (1974)
  3. Towards Modernity: The European Jewish Model by Jacob Katz (1987)
  4. http://books.google.com/books?id=zgF7xN-_7SsC&pg=PA151&dq=Pressburg&sig=FJzPjpH-q_Kzyj70Z2fQ4Tw1sio The Virtuoso Conductors: the Central European Tradition from Wagner to Karajan] by Raymond Holden (2005)
  5. Servants of the Sword: French Intendants of the Army 1630-1670 by Douglas Clark Baxter (1976)
  6. Beethoven's Concertos: history, style, performance by Leon B. Plantinga (1999)
  7. Dictionary of Jewish Biography by Geoffrey Wigoder (1991)
  8. Beethoven and His World: A Biographical Dictionary by Peter Cleve (2001)
  9. Napoleon: A Political Life by Stephen Englund (2004)
  10. The World of the Yeshiva: An Intimate Portrait of Orthodox Jewry by William B. Helmreich (2000)
  11. The New Grove Dictionary of Opera by Stanley Sadie (1992)
  12. http://books.google.com/books?id=vEJNBqanT_8C&pg=PA259&dq=Pressburg&sig=Y3q5E6AY58zrkIklbtubeQpGqCo The Realm of St Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526] by Pál Engel (2005)
Anyway, that's just a start. There's a lot of references to Pressburg, and a good percentage are from more recent sources. Pozsony gets about 1200 hits, but a higher percentage seem to be from post-45. On the other hand, a higher percentage seem to be books in Hungarian than hits for Pressburg which were books in German. At any rate, Pressburg appears to be more popular. I'm not sure how to do a search for "Bratislava" - obviously any search for Bratislava is going to reveal. In Google Scholar, there's 629 hits in the history and humanities section for "Pressburg". There's only 255 for "Pozsony". At any rate, it seems fairly clear that "Pressburg" is a widely used historical name, and that it's used enough more than "Pozsony" to warrant its usage rather than the latter's. john k 15:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Subsequently, Pressburg should be the accepted English name for now.
What that means, however, is that articles in Wikipedia should reflect this and those using the Hungarian name Pozsony as the primary name should be changed to Pressburg. So, for example, Pozsony County should be called Pressburg County. While searching the Internet, it's apparent that the English name Pozsony County comes from Hungarian or Hungarian-inspired sources anyway. What do you all think?--Svetovid 15:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm willing to wait and see on further sources. The issue is complicated, and perhaps we should hold off until we have a very good sense of what kinds of sources use which name. It seems clear, for instance, that sources on Jewish and music history predominantly use "Pressburg." I agree that "Pozsony" is generally used in Hungarian related sources for the city. I'm less certain about the county - I think English usage on the county name is sufficiently limited that "hungarian-inspired sources" are going to be prominent. I wouldn't mind using "Pressburg" for the city" and "Pozsony" for the county. We also have yet to find any lengthy discussions of the city prior to the 15th century, which was, I believe, one of your p revious issues with my point. Anyway, I'll wait on what others say. john k 15:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The Library of Congress Country Studies use "Bratislava" in the historical context.[3] Tankred 16:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The Hungary study uses Pozsony once, translating as Bratislava; and (Diet of) Pressburg once. (And Bratislava a second time; but that's about 1986, when I trust we are all agreed to use it.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a listing of how the city is referred to pre-1918 in English language books immediately accessible to me. Olessi 16:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  • J. Christopher Herold. The Age of Napoleon. 1963: Pressburg (Bratislava)
  • C. V. Wedgwood. The Thirty Years War. 1961: Pressburg
  • Geoffrey Parker. The Thirty Years War. 1997: Bratislava
  • Webster's Geographical Dictionary. 1966: listed under Bratislava; includes "As Pressburg an old town dating back to 9th cent."
  • Barbara Jelavich. The Habsburg Empire in European Affairs, 1814-1918. 1969: Bratislava (Pressburg), listed on a map
  • Oscar Halecki. A History of Poland. 1981: Pressburg
  • László Kontler. A History of Hungary. 2002: first mention as Pressburg/Bratislava/Pozsony, subsequently Pozsony
  • H. W. Koch. A History of Prussia. 1993: Bratislava (as in Peace of Bratislava)
  • Hajo Hoborn. A History of Modern Germany: The Reformation. 1982: Pressburg
  • Hajo Holborn. A History of Modern Germany: 1648-1840. 1964: Pressburg
  • Friedrich Heer. The Holy Roman Empire. 2002: Pressburg
  • Friedrich Heer. The Medieval World: Europe 1100-1350. 1961: Pressburg

Very nice. Most of these are clearly discussing pre-1918; what date is Halecki writing about? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the context, from p. 109: "Always closely united, the two Jagiellos (Sigismund & Vladislaus) in these circumstances decided on a meeting, first with the Emperor's plenipotentiaries who came to Pressburg, then with Maximilian I himself. The Treaty of Vienna, signed in the summer of 1515..." Olessi 19:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

A few more books:

  • David Sturdy. Fractured Europe, 1600-1721. 2002: Pressburg.
    Early Modern History professor at Ulster University.
  • Anthony F. Upton. Europe 1600-1789. Oxford Universy Press, 2001: Pressburg (in "Diet of Pressburg" of 1687).
    Modern History professor at St Andrews University.
  • Leon Plantinga. Beethoven's Concertos: History, Style, Performance. 1999: Pressburg (Bratislava) the first time, then Pressburg.
    Music professor at Yale.
  • Grete Klingenstein. The meanings of 'Austria' and 'Austrian' in the eighteenth century: Pressburg (Bratislava) the first time, then Pressburg.
    Modern History professor at Graz University.
    In Robert Oresko (ed), G. C. Gibbs (ed), H. M. Scott (ed). Royal and Republican Sovereignty in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge University Press, 1997.
  • László Kontler. A History of Hungary. 2002: Pozsony, mentions Bratislava twice, and Pressburg in the index only.
    History professor at Central European University, Budapest.
  • Stanislav J. Kirschbaum. A History of Slovakia: The Struggle for Survival. 1995: Bratislava.
    International Studies professor at York University.
  • Adam Zamoyski. The Polish Way. 1987: Pressburg (Maximilian I's meeting with Sigismund & Louis/Ladislaus, 1515).
  • Lord Kinross. The Ottoman Centuries, 1977: Pressburg (in "Treaty of Pressburg" of 1805).

Best regards, Ev 20:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Google Scholar

  • As a proxy for the pre-907 period, I used the phrase "Great Moravia". I counted only the articles including that phrase and published after 1919 in journals in humanitites and social sciences.
    • Bratislava: 40 hits[4]
    • Pressburg: 7 hits[5]
    • Pozsony: 4 hits[6]
  • As a proxy for the independent Kingdom of Hungary period, I used the phrase "Matthias Corvinus" All other criteria are the same.
    • Bratislava: 23 hits[7]
    • Pressburg: 11 hits[8]
    • Pozsony: 16 hits[9]
  • As a proxy for the period of the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary, I used the phrase "Maria Theresa". All other criteria are the same.
    • Bratislava: 57 hits[10]
    • Pressburg: 51 hits[11]
    • Pozsony: 33 hits[12] Tankred 16:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The google scholar results indicate that the word "Bratislava" is dominant in English academic articles. The word "Pressburg" is used almost as often as Bratislava in the articles dealing with the recent history (Austrian Empire, Austria-Hungary), but it cannot be considered a widely accepted name of the city in the historical context as far as the academic journals are concerned. Tankred 16:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Tankred, these tests are flawed, in that Bratislava is bound to be overrepresented in the results. In the first place, any footnote which refers to a work published in Bratislava will turn up a hit for Bratislava - I see several instances of this in your results. In the second place, even if the article refers to the city as Pressburg or Pozsony, it will often mention the modern name in parentheses. I see several instances of this. There's also the possibility of modern discussions of Bratislava mentioning historical figures. Looking at your Matthias Corvinus and Maria Theresa searches, I see 12 of the Matthias Corvinus results being examples of one or other of the following, leaving the actual count 11 to 11 to 16, or thereabouts (although some of the Pressburg references also appear to be parenthesized). For Maria Theresa, I see at least 16 of the same. In this case, Pressburg comes out ahead. That being said, it's clear that all three names are used frequently. I'm not sure what the upshot of that should be. john k 17:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your correction. I did not think about that. You are right that all three names are used with a similar frequency. We can now discuss what it means. In my opinion, it means that there is no widely accepted English name of Bratislava in the historical context because English sources do not prefer (at least not consistently) any of those three alternative names. Tankred 18:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I would say, tentatively, that the evidence seems to support the conclusion that there is no single widely accepted English name to refer to Bratislava before 1919. All three names are used quite commonly, with Pressburg perhaps most common, at least for the more recent period. The conclusion to be drawn from this is, I think, somewhat unclear, and probably comes down to personal preference. For me, I don't like to refer to places by a name that more or less didn't exist at the time referred to. Using "Bratislava," thus, rubs me the wrong way. But I can see how others might feel that the simplicity of using the same name throughout is an advantage. I will say that I think in other articles, we should prefer either Pressburg or Pozsony (and I'd say that, specifically, Pozsony should be preferred, if at all, only in contexts where we are looking at the city from a Hungarian perspective, whereas broader perspective, either Europe-wide or Habsburg-empire wide, should use Pressburg). For this article, I would, as I said before, prefer to use "Pressburg," which is, as Juro notes below, the term which was almost universally used in English before 1919, and which remains probably by some small margin the most prevalent English usage, at least for the Habsburg period. But I think the important thing is to reach consensus. john k 21:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The form Pozsony was in use from the late 18th century only (earlier forms like Poson etc. are not necessarily the same name), the form Pressburg was in use (at least) from the 16th century. Iow, any use of Pozsony for a period before 1770 is wrong (anachronistic) irrespective of English usage. As for English texts, contemporary English texts use "Pressburg" (I can only repeat see the title in the 1911 Britannica or e.g. Treaty of Pressburg as two nice examples). If English texts today use Pozsony with reference to Bratislava before 1919, it is simply a translation error resulting from the translation of a Hungarian text without proper knowledge of the issue. In sum, the only two "correct" possibilities are Pressburg (because it is the contemporary English name) or Bratislava (becasue it is the current name). Juro 22:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it is very problematic to claim without any evidence that any historian using "Pozsony" is making a "translation error" and is "without proper knowledge of the issue." As far as I can tell, use of "Pozsony" is generally done as a conscious choice, using the Hungarian name because the city was, at the time, part of Hungary. I don't know that I especially agree with the choice to use a Hungarian name which was not really used by English-speaking contemporaries to refer to a city whose population was plurality German, but it is certainly not done out of ignorance. john k 00:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Tankred: Please look at your search results, don't just count them. Of the 40 hits on Bratislava and Great Moravia, all but a dozen are street addresses or places of publication. Of the remainder, one, on the first page, refers to the 1730's in the snippet google gives, and several are contructs like "90 km from the Slovak capital Bratislava" or "findings of this survey in the Slovak publishing house Epocha in Bratislava", referring to the modern city. The same problem exists for Pressburg and Poszony; one hit refers to Bratislava in giving a link to this article; another is asking the question: "How is one to realize that Pozsony (Hungarian), Pressburg (German), and Bratislava (Slovak) are one and the sa[m]e city?" I think I'll go read that, instead. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedias

  • Encyclopædia Britannica does not consistently use any of the names. Articles about Hungarians use "Pozsony (now Bratislava)".[13] Articles about Germans and the Peace of Pressburg use "Presssburg (now Bratislava)".[14] "Bratislava" is used in some other historical articles.[15] Bratislava has 79 hits (not all of them in the historical context), Pressburg 29 hits, Pozsony 10 hits. Tankred 15:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Columbia Encyclopedia: "Bratislava" is used in the historical context in the main article,[16] as well as in other articles.[17] Pressburg is used in the articles mentioning the Treaty of Pressburg. Bratislava has 13 hits (most, but not all of them historical), Pressburg 13 (referring to the Treaty of Pressburg), and Pozsony 3 (only one used in an actual article).
  • MSN Encarta gives search results for 8 articles mentioning Bratislava, including article itself [18], 2 for Pressburg, although one redirects to Bratislava [19] and one for Pozsony, redirecting to Bratislava [20].
My reading is that Pressburg is not a widely accepted English name of the city in the historical context, as far as the most prominent English encyclopedias are concerned. There is no consensus among or within the encyclopedias. Moreover, "Bratislava" is used more frequently than "Pressburg". Tankred 16:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no preference regarding Bratislava and Pressburg for the pre-1919-period, but I would like to point out that if you read old texts, the English (analogously French etc.) name of Bratislava in pre-1919-texts was almost exclusively Pressburg (see e.g. the 1911 Britannica at a time when the Hungarian language was binding for all names etc.) In other words IMO Pressburg is the English historical name of Presporok and that should be the decisive factor here, unless we decide not to complicate things and take the current name...On the other hand, the use of Bratislava for the early Middle Ages is beyond any doubt, because no official and permanent name is known for that period, so that any form other than the current name would be certainly more wrong than the current name.Juro 18:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Since our readers live in the 21st century, not before 1919, the use of geographic names should reflect the present-day practice, not the practice from before 1919. That is why only encyclopedias published after 1993 should be used in this discussion according to WP:NCGN. Tankred 18:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem in this specific case however, as I see it, is that the town was totally renamed in 1919 and that should be allowed for. Your argument would work without any problems for almost any other settlement in Slovakia, but not for this one...Juro 18:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
If this was a historical article for experts, it would be clear. However, this article is for average people who mostly know the name Bratislava only or, if from German-speaking countries, Pressburg.--Svetovid 21:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, but then the question is why we use historical names in the first place (my personal opinion is that all names in any encyclop. should be primarily current to make the texts user-friendly, but that is not the practice of this wikipedia).Juro 22:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The use of Constantinople in the Istanbul article doesn't seem particularly unfriendly to me. The only different there, perhaps, is that the prior name of the city is far more widely known than those of Bratislava. I was just looking at the Prince (musician) article for further inspiration, but didn't really find any, since the references used to the symbol he changed his name to are all references to the name itself. MikeGogulski 02:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Where are we?

So where are we on this, exactly? I think we are in the enviable position of being more or less agreed upon the factual questions:

  1. In historical contexts, three names are all frequently used to refer to the city: the German name, Pressburg, the Hungarian name, Pozsony, and the modern Slovak name, Bratislava.
  2. The name Bratislava was not the name of the city until 1919.
  3. Prior to 1919, the city was called "Pressburg" in English. At least one historical event associated with the city, the treaty ending the 1805 war between France and Austria, is always called the "Treaty of Pressburg."

Unfortunately, we seem to be at something of an impasse about what principle is to be applied in determining how to refer to the city, in spite of our agreement on facts. As far as I can tell, there have been several different interpretations:

  1. We should always use the modern name in articles, or at least in the article on the city itself, as otherwise it can be confusing and jarring. I think this is Svetovid's argument.
  2. We should use the modern name, unless it is clear that a single historical name is the dominant English usage for a particular period of time. This would appear to be Tankred's position, and perhaps Mark's.
  3. Due to the fact that the city was not actually called Bratislava before 1919, we should use one of the historical names (probably Pressburg), for historical discussion, from the high middle ages or so until 1919. This is my position, and would seem to be Juro's, and Mike's position, as well. (And anyone, correct me if I've mischaracterized your position on this)

I think that position 1 has some merit, and it is, more or less, the way Britannica does it, but I think it's fairly evident that this is not how wikipedia does it. Mike noted Istanbul, for instance, and there's others. Option 1 would be a matter for a major overhaul of WP:NCGN, and shouldn't be applied here in the absence of consensus to make it general policy. But between 2 and 3, I really am uncertain. My personal preference is for the one, but I can see where the other would make life easier, and I think it's really arguable either way. What's the general sense on this? john k

Thank you for an excellent summary. I think no one disputes the facts, so let us move to our alternative solutions. I would rather discard the option #1 because it would violate WP:NCGN. Obviously, I prefer #2, but I am also open to #3. My reasons for #2 are: First, we failed to prove that there is one widely accepted English name of the city in the historical context. WP:NCGN says we should use the modern name in such a situation. Second, Pressburg is historically relevant for an important, yet short period of time. If we decide to call Bratislava Pressburg whenever we refer to the city in the 18th century, how would we call Bratislava in the 13th century? How about the year 907? And the Celtic oppidum before the Roman era? There is no clear answer in case we decide for #3. What do you suggest? Third, I believe the consistent use of one name will be the least confusing solution for the reader. However, the etymology section should be expanded in order to explain significance of the name Pressburg (perhaps also citing Treaty of Pressburg as an example) if we decide for #2. As to the procedure, I hope we will be able to reach consensus here. If not, we can always have a formal survey at the end. Tankred 14:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
My opinion is balancing between alternatives 1 and 2, but is slightly closer to 2. Because we failed to provide a reference of wide usage of Pressburg in English in historical context, I'm discarding 3. I think 2 is the best solution, as this isn't some scientific article but general article for wide audience, but we would have to expand Names section and provide some light to that complicated name situation. And yes, before 15th or 16th century, we don't have a widely used name, so Bratislava should be used to that period. MarkBA t/c/@ 14:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that the current format works fairly well - use "Bratislava" up to the point where the name Pressburg appears, then use Pressburg until 1919, then back to Bratislava, at least in the context of the relatively short history section in this article (I'd need to look at History of Bratislava to see if it would work as well there). [After Edit Conflict]: Mark, I think it's clear that Pressburg is widely used in English in historical context, it's merely not universally used - both Bratislava and Pozsony are also widely used. I'm not sure in such a situation that it is at all clear how we are to resolve it. john k 15:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
John, thank you for your comment and sorry for my hostility earlier. But I think we need to clearly draw a line until where Bratislava will be used (sometime 15th/16th century, but no clearly defined event) so we can clearly define from when will be Pressburg used until 1919. I'm sure we will be able to solve this matter once and for all. MarkBA t/c/@ 15:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
If we want to use Pressburg, I think 1526 would be a good year to choose. After that year, Bratislava became part of the Habsburg empire. As the example of Universitas Istropolitana shows, significant events in the 15th century did not appear under the name of Pressburg. So, in case we decide for Pressburg, I suggest 1526-1919. On the other hand, it seems the solution #2 is better acceptable than the more extreme solutions 1 and 3. Would it be acceptable also for you, John, Juro, and Mike? Of course, we would explain the role of the name Pressburg in greater detail in the Etymology section. Tankred 15:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
So I think either 1526 (Battle of Mohács) or 1536 (Bratislava becomes capital of Hungary) would be the line dividing usage of Bratislava and Pressburg. What do you think? MarkBA t/c/@ 15:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
1526-1919 would work for me. In terms of how to do it, I'd rather not see option 2 as a compromise position between 1 and 3. Options 1 and 2 are more or less the same in terms of the result - both end up with the city being called "Bratislava" throughout. It's just that 2 is based on a defensible interpretation of WP:NCGN, while 1 is not. If there's a consensus for 2, it would not be entirely unacceptable to me, assuming we also expand discussion of the various names in the etymology section. But I'd continue to prefer 3, once again on grounds of "I'd rather not use an anachronistic name when we don't have to." (We "have to" use an anachronistic name when there's no name which is widely used in English which is not anachronistic. Thus, for the early history of Bratislava, any name we choose would be anachronistic, so we may as well go with Bratislava. But we don't have to when there's a commonly used English alternative which was also used at the time, as is the case for Pressburg from the 16th century down to 1919.) At any event, I think either choice is acceptable, but I'd prefer 3. I also hope that we're all agreed that translations of proper names, or quotations from sources, should be direct. john k 15:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
My opinion falls somewhere between #2 and #3 without a strong preference either way. As I look at the text in the History section at least, as it stands at this moment reads pretty well to me. "Bratislava" is used in places describing periods prior to the existence of the name, but it's done in such a way that it makes clear that it refers to "the territory today called Bratislava". "Pressburg" seems to be used appropriately. If we held a vote right now, and one of the choices was "things related to the name of the city in the article right now are just fine", my vote would be "support".
As for WP:NCGN, I think the weakness as it stands now is that it depends upon a standard of "wide acceptance", which is difficult to judge and open to much debate, especially given that the various historians we might refer to in asserting "wide acceptance" may themselves had their own active or passive POV reasons for choosing a particular name for the city in their writings about it, and might also lead us into debates about which historians are more valid or neutral than others, which could be endless. I would rather that the WP:NCGN refer instead to the official name of the city at the time in question, which except in cases of war should mostly result in an unambiguous single answer at every point in history, or at least as far back as the idea of "one territory, one sovereignty, one name" might be applied. If someone could come up with references demonstrating that the official name of the city was "Posonium", "Pozsony", or "Prešporok" (I've been hunting for this, so far without result), I would support amending the article with those names in the relevant periods, and including the citations.
Overall, I'm not passionate about the issue, except insofar as resolving it with wide acceptability helps us move the article closer to FA status.MikeGogulski 20:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe that "Pozsony" may have been the official name from 1867 to 1918. Certainly it appears on old maps of the Austria-Hungary from that time period. In terms of official names, I think that, in the absence of a specifically English name (e.g. Rome, Nuremberg, Munich, Seville), this actually makes a fair amount of sense, although it is not the current policy. It would lead to some complicated cases though, especially for territories with frequently changing sovereignty. Strasbourg, for instance, would be Strassburg to 1681, Strasbourg 1681-1871, Strassburg again 1871-1918, and then Strasbourg again since 1918. Lviv would be Lwow to 1772, then Lemberg to 1918, then Lwow again to 1945, then Lvov to 1991, and finally Lviv. This could presumably get somewhat awkward. On the other hand, it's a lot clearer, and would allow us to dispense with worrying about what the most used name was in cases where it's entirely unclear. john k 22:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
In my own view, Strassburg = Strasbourg and Lviv = Lvov = Lwow. These are orthographic changes which don't reflect an underlying difference in name. As a hypothetical example, if my Polish ancestors had migrated to Slovakia (or whatever it was called at the time), my own surname might have changed from Gogulski to Gogulský or even Hohulský or Hohuľský. These are not changes of identity. These orthographic variations are of interest, but probably best catalogued and discussed at History of Bratislava rather than in the main article. If this point is accepted, that still leaves us with an apparently open question as to what to do with Posonium/Pozsony. MikeGogulski 10:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
That seems fair, although the same might be said of Gdansk/Danzig, or Bombay/Mumbai, and in both those cases we do change which name we use. I think one thing coming out of this is that it's really difficult to devise a satisfactory rule that will work in all cases. And I'd add that there are definite changes of identity involved in Strassburg/Strasbourg, and perhaps in Lwow/Lvov. They are, indeed, merely orthographic, but orthography can be as important to identity as actual different roots. john k 15:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The concept of "official names" (unlike that of official "languages") can be applied only from about 1800 / the late 19th century (depending on the definition) for the KoH. In addition, what John says above is correct: Pozsony was official somewhere from the 1860's, but even then the ENGLISH name remained Pressburg (see e.g. the article in the 1911 Britannica), because Bratislava as the former capital of a country, place of several battles etc. is among those cities in Europe that have (had) an English name, namely Pressburg. Juro 23:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
It may be a real difference of opinion, but if the official name of the city was Pozsony in 1911, and Britannica used Pressburg instead, I would count it as Britannica's error, as the difference is lexical rather than orthographic. I would have imagined, though, that the KoH would have issued some sort of official decree changing a city's name when that was done, and that references could be found for this; I may well be wrong about it, which means my "official name" test is only very narrowly useful to us here. MikeGogulski 10:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not an error. Britannica clearly knew that the city was officially Pozsony - the article on Hungary calls it "Pozsony (Pressburg)". So obviously they were going with a "name most commonly used in English" rule, rather than an "official name" rule. As when we call the Chinese city of Guangzhou "Canton," even though that has a different etymology, deriving from "Guangdong," not from "Guangzhou". And I doubt there was any official decree - I imagine they just started referring to it as "Pozsony" in official acts (which were, after all, written in Hungarian, where that had been the name all along), making maps that called it "Pozsony," and so forth. The more I think about it, the more I think using official name is a can of worms - taken to its logical extreme, it would require using Latin names for medieval and early modern cities, which is just silly. john k 15:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I guess you're right... it is a big, messy, stinking can of worms! I guess I have to pull the "official name" test off the table based on your observations here, though I was hopeful that it would lead us to clarity. Back to our remaining criterion, "wide acceptance" among historians, the texts I've seen on city history (in English and Slovak) generally use a mixture of "Bratislava" and "Pressburg" to refer to the city in historical contexts. I haven't seen one yet which uses "Pozsony" as anything but a parenthetical reference to the Hungarian name. I have attribution for some variant of Pressburg now back to 1438-55, from an image I just uploaded to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pressburg_city_plan_1438-55.jpg and will link shortly to the History article. MikeGogulski 16:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Another general question: Are we going to vote now (if we have a consensus)?Juro 23:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems you've just recently lost your voice here :( MikeGogulski 10:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll talk to some historians and let you know what they think.--Svetovid 12:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My general perception that English-language publications generally use the form Bratislava for Great Moravia, then Pressburg from the Middle Ages (or Late Middle Ages) until 1919, and Bratislava from then on.
Of course, that means little without examples of usage. I will be looking in the next days. Just to start: The Times Atlas of World History, Fourth Edition, London, 1994, ISBN 0-7230-0534-6, uses:

  • Bratislava for the 9th & 10th centuries (page 111 — but in the index of p. 353 it figures as Pressburg)
  • Pressburg from the 10th century to 1918 (p. 118, 187, 193, 207, 249)
    Or from 1526 to 1918, if we discard the first instance of p. 118 as "inconsistent" with p. 111.
  • Bratislava from 1939 (p. 265, 290, 291)

I like John K's proposal, but before taking a clear position on the issue I will wait to see if my general perception is confirmed by what I find in the next days, or not :-) Best regards, Ev 16:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Street names in English

I just reverted Mike's change from Pribinová Street back to Pribina Street, but it made me thinking. Pribinová Street is indeed incorrect because when a street is named after a person it goes without the acute accent. However, it's quite possible that the original form "Pribinova Street", in this case, is used in English too. I prefer changing it to the basic name form - Einstein Street in case of Einsteinova ulica and so on. How do they translate street names in guide books or is there any policy or guideline in Wikipedia already?--Svetovid 20:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the accent was an error on my part, it should be "Pribinova ulica". I'm considering moving Šancová street to Šancová ulica (cf. Váci utca and Juro's comment at Talk:Šancová Street), though, so I'd be interested to know the guideline as well. MikeGogulski 20:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Names in the lead

I want to ask everybody to stop editing the lead until we reach at least some consensus here.--Svetovid 12:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, both with the request, and with the edit to remove all the alternates from the lead. Discussing them under Names or History seems more appropriate to me. MikeGogulski 12:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree. We need to reach some sort of agreement first. We can't edit war over this issue forever, as it threatens stability of the article and particularly now, when it's GA candidate. But I think after we will agree somehow on some issues, we should create an FAQ. And I think we should archive this one soon, as it already shows around 100kb (just a question, into current archive or into new archive?) MarkBA t/c/@ 16:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree. And I suggest we vote as soon as possible because all the arguments are already here. Tankred 17:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I worry that taking a vote now is somewhat premature, and that the results would be challenged later on during peer review, for instance. My feeling is that most of us who are likely to participate in any poll now are a bit too close to the issue, since with the exception of John, we all have a direct connection to Bratislava as a Slovak city (in the case of Mark and I, it's where we live, for instance). John is actually the only one of us involved in this debate who can be seen as impartial, because he isn't Slovak, far as we know, and doesn't live in Slovakia. John's also got some independent credibility as a PhD candidate in European history. If we're to have a poll now, I would propose that we ask John to draft a proposal for resolving the name issue throughout the article, post it to talk, and then vote on it. MikeGogulski 17:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
As another suggestion, we could submit the question at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography and see if anyone bites on it. If nobody objects by tomorrow, I'll do this myself. MikeGogulski 19:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how many people would comment from there. Bringing it up at the talk page for WP:NCGN might be the best way to inspire broader participation. Beyond that, I would say that if I had to propose something, I've edited the article to more or less conform to what I'd think is a fairly clear usage of the two names. Permalink is here, in case it gets edited. Basically, confusion arises out of going back and forth. So this way, it is called "Bratislava" until the point where the name "Pressburg" is introduced. Then, it is called "Pressburg" until the point where it is renamed "Bratislava" in March 1919. Perhaps we should simply vote on whether to do it this way, or whether to call it "Bratislava" throughout. I think notices both on RFC and on WP:NCGN would be good for trying to bring in outside opinions. john k 21:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Tankred posted to WP:NCGN a couple days ago. I just posted to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. MikeGogulski 15:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll bite. The article as it stands now seems fine to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the other names that were in the introduction are all archaic, with the exception of Pressburg, which is just the German name for the city, similar to Gdansk/Danzig, etc. Since there isn't a naming controvsery, such as Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud), there really isn't a need to use any other name in the introduction. As for what name is used in the body of the article, I would think it best to use Bratislava throughout the article, and only mention Pressburg as the German name for the city. Parsecboy 16:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no evidence of a naming controversy (outside WP) at Shatt al-Arab either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment from WP:NCGN: My understanding of the guideline's advice on alternate names in the lead is that it is for cases like Cracow, where several names can be commonly found in current writing in English. Pressburg may be current German usage, although the German wikipedia doesn't use it; but that doesn't matter for us. We don't put alternate names in London or New York, although almost every other language has its own version (Londres, Londra,...) of one of them. (New York does mention the local official name, but that's Bratislava here.) Would there be objection to "has been known by other names", so that someone following the Pressburg redirect is not confused as to what he's doing here? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Septentrionalis, as usual. Also for clarity & readability I prefer to see one single name in the lead, and then a "Name" section (as in this article) to discuss all alternatives and languages in detail. – However, since the form Pressburg has been the common English name until less than a century ago, and continues to be widely used in historical contexts (I just finished reading Duff Cooper's biography of Talleyrand), to avoid any confusion I would propose adding a sentence at the end of the first paragraph: "Until 1919 it was known as Pressburg", or something to that effect. - Ev 15:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how to fit that smoothly after the present first paragraph, which ends by mentioning that it borders both Austria and Hungary; but I've modified the third, where it mentions the AH Empire. Feel free to tweak. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
You're right, of course. How about incorporating it in the middle of the first paragraph: "Bratislava, formerly known as Pressburg, is located in the south west of Slovakia" ? The idea being to present the reader with the alternative name at the first look (?) mmhh... coup d'oeil, as a clear indication that he's at the right place :-) Regards, Ev 16:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Go for it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I like it the way it is now: with the name Pressburg in the introduction, but not the first paragraph. ¿SFGiДnts! ☺ ☻ 00:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources/refs cleanup

Ideally, and according to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English, all of our references would be to sources would be in the English language. At the same time, we should prefer print sources over web sources, per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources. I could see the comment easily being made that, for FA, we've got too many web sources in preference to print sources.

Problem is, most of the material I have available to try and start replacing the web references with book reference is in Slovak, not English. The two policies linked above don't establish a priority system which makes it easy to determine whether a Slovak print source should be preferred over an English-language web source.

Comments, thoughts? MikeGogulski 17:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not an article about a scientific issue, so I do not see any major problem with web sources. However, we should check them frequently and replace them by another source whenever the original website ceases to exist. A reliable website in English contributes to verifiability more than a book written in Slovak and unaccessible to readers from outside Slovakia. The best solution would be to use books included in Google Books:-) Tankred 17:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The "check frequently and update" part there kinda puts more burden on people (namely, me) than I'd prefer. Good idea about Google books, though. Here's a link to a search which includes a bunch of the historical names... a place to start at least: http://www.google.com/books?lr=&as_brr=1&q=bratislava+OR+pressburg+OR+posonium+OR+poszony+OR+pre%C5%A1porok+OR+prespurk+OR+presburk+OR+posoniensis&btnG=Search+Books MikeGogulski 18:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
That begins with the old Cambridge Modern History, edited by Lord Acton, in 1907. Pressburg was common English usage a century ago. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] Although I do not currently see problem with web citations, I think we should replace them with "hard" literature, preferably in English. Unfortunately, I don't have much English sources right now, so I can't place English citations. Another problem is that not all information may be included in the English version and usage of Slovak source is then unavoidable. To verifiability, web citations can be checked straight away, but there is a risk of external link "going dead". Books on the other hand do not change their content (:-)), but they cannot be verified outside authors or owners of that book. Lastly, although we have quite large amount of sources strengthening verifiability, quite considerable part of them comes from Bratislava website or from any of its organisations. I think introducing reliable sources outside these pages would be good. MarkBA t/c/@ 18:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism/compromising the NPOV of the article

Svetovid, MarkBA, and all the others, please stop reverting the changes I made. As you might have noticed, all my statements are properly sourced, so if you're reverting the changes I've made to it, you'll compromise the NPOV of the article. I hope you don't want to do that, as I presume you want to improve the quality of the article. Believe me, I want to do the same. Coolkoon 20:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but although some edits were good-faithed, the sentence about demolishing is true (particularly Nový most) but leaving it unsourced or sourced with some random photogallery (no article!) will quickly get those {{Fact}} tags. Also, something stinks fishy, as you have similar account, User:CoolKoon, which may raise thoughts about sockpuppetry, though there's no block as I see, but the dates are strange. And please refrain from edit summaries like "POV vandal" when you know it isn't true, as that's bad faith assuming, and repeated offences lead to block and that userpage of yours also raises suspicions about vandalising and bad intentions. MarkBA t/c/@ 20:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, my mom's family was living in Petržalka before the whole village (except for the small part around the cemetery and the even smaller part next to University of Economics) went down to be replaced by these awful paneláks. And also plese tell me how to source the look of e.g. Dunajská before OD Prior was built? With some descriptions? Then I could go on to try to describe a certain color for someone who's been blind since he was born. The same applies for Petržalka, the Jewish part of the historical centre, the area between the Danube and the Castle etc.
And about that account thing, that's not a similar account, that's the same one I'm logged in now. Also may I ask that what dates are strange to you?
The contents of my userpage might be suspicious, but I've put it there today (I didn't have one for 2 years and was fine with it...) because I was accused of vandalism/being a troll. And you didn't show a good intention either when you deleted all my modifications when I was about to provide some sources for them....Coolkoon 21:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Then try to combine the two... article plus some photos. What I found odd is as CoolKoon you reverted Slovakization article on 18 May, and now as Coolkoon reverted again on 22 May... that's why it raises suspicion about sockpuppetry to me. And I haven't deleted everything you did, just this History section... MarkBA t/c/@ 21:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
You're right. I realised just now that I did commit sockpuppetry indeed. As CoolKoon doesn't equal to Coolkoon. But now I found myself in a really odd situation, since I have a different watchlist in each of the accounts. Couldn't these accounts be "merged"? (Bah! I'm an idiot! Can't notice the difference between k and K...).
Anyway, yeah, I guess you've deleted only the history session, but in a pretty speedy way. And I'd love to quote some articles about the demolitions done by the communists, however I can't find any online sources to that. A bummer too that I don't have related books about it...I guess all I can offer are the pictures.CoolKoon 22:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I accepted some changes, but don't add information that is unnecessary in the main article. And the lesson to be taken here is don't add a lot of crap because it will be removed with the little good you also may add.--Svetovid 20:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
If you say that Bezenye is unnecessary then please also remove Hainburg an der Donau (AT) and Marchegg (AT) too and at least one of these: Rovinka, Dunajská Lužná or Šamorín as they are unnecessary too. As for the demolition parts I'd say that those 1.5 sentences really deserve to be there, since those steps have radically changed the city's outlook and from that time, Bratislava will never be the same again....Coolkoon 21:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but it's TMI in the main article. The history section should probably be trimmed down a little still. And good call, I removed some small villages.--Svetovid 22:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the fire, Coolkoon! Overall, I don't think that the edits related to the demolition of historic places were at all controversial, except possible for the use of the word "most" instead of "many" (times). There are any number of books and articles documenting it. The details belong at History of Bratislava, but a phrase mentioning it such as Coolkoon provided, with a decent print source, seems quite appropriate in my mind (hint: see http://www.slovakspectator.sk/). These events are part of the living history of the city, fresh in the minds of many residents, and having real cultural significance. — Mike Gogulski ↗C•@•T↗ 22:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This information should go into the city sights section IMO. Oh and that section should probably be renamed into something like "Cityscape and architecture."--Svetovid 00:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Section renamed. Solid idea, IMHO. I've been looking for a substitute for that heading for a long time :) — Mike Gogulski ↗C•@•T↗ 02:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

question

I don't intend to make anything hit the fan while a civilized discussion/poll is going on, but are there any contexts in which it is appropriate to use the Hungarian name, Pozsony? K. Lásztocska 00:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If there are, I want to see evidence of it. The Hungarian name has been very important to the city's history. That this is so, I think (and speaking as someone far removed from the local passions) is beyond question. The challenge is to agree upon a single policy for reference to the city's name through history. Besides this poll, our guidance is WP:NCGN which, though as it is not "official" inasmuch as anything written here can be, and subject to override at any time by solid historical evidence, is nonetheless applicable guiding on the basis of precedent. Bring sources to the table which document the fact; I'll change my own "weak support" with pleasure, as the reference in WP:NCGN to English-language historians, as applied to periods before around, say, 1650, seems awfully provincial. I would prefer to see the article's usage reflect the prevailing names of the times described, but as I've mentioned previously, it's hard to make this happen without controversy, and the payoff is extremely small when compared to the inertia against other proposals. — Mike Gogulski ↗C•@•T↗ 01:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Remember, this is the English wikipedia. We should use what our readers are likely to have seen; I encourage the Magyar Wikipeda to use Pozsony. Part of translation is adjusting proper names to the new language.
Both "contemporary usage" and "usage of local historians" have a problem, which can be summed up by considering Rome - do we ever want to use Roma in running text, as opposed to mentioning the fact that it is the Italian and Latin name for the city? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
"Pozsony" is used in English sometimes. I've seen it a fair bit, in fact. In terms of "contemporary usage" and the like, I think my main issue would be that there's a difference between different forms of the same name, and entirely different names. We do, for instance, call Istanbul "Byzantium" when talking about it before 330 AD. john k 17:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


GA Review--on hold

This article is quite good, but needs some attention to be passed as GA.

Clearly, the name issue needs to be resolved, which seems to be on track. Once that is done sentences such as these should be able to be fixed so the prose is less awkward (in all cases the prose needs work, sometimes because of the name issue):

  • The city, then called Pressburg, was a key economic and administrative centre of the Habsburg (Austrian) monarchy. When was it called that?
Y - clarified (until 1919)
  • The name Braslava or Preslava was also found on an old coin minted by Stephen I (Štefan I.) in 1038. Who is Stephen I?
Y - clarified (King of the KoH)
  • Before 1919, English-speakers generally referred to the city by its German name, Pressburg, most often so spelt. Rework
Y - copyedited the whole section, hopefully an overall improvement as well as clean-up of this issue. — Mike Gogulski ↗C•@•T↗ 00:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Even though Bratislava is one of the youngest capital cities in Europe (since 1993)... ambiguous--the city isn't young, its status as a capital is. Also, young could refer to the age of its inhabitants.
Y - copyedited the section, hopefully clarifying this sentence. — Mike Gogulski ↗C•@•T↗ 00:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This also destined the city to be a site of frequent attacks and battles. Awkward... Also, what caused the city to be the site of frequent attacks? Its location on the frontier or its status as a regional center?
Y - copyedited, also → strategic position (hopefully more clear now) Tankred 15:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Many significant sporting events, such as World and European Championships, have been held in Bratislava. Such as?
Y - Examples added. Tankred 15:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The photos need to be reformatted within the article to allow it to flow better.
I am not sure what you mean. Could you be more specific please? Tankred 15:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I concur. Are you meaning resizing, moving them elsewhere, reducing number, increase or something else? Also, please check our edits and see if they're OK. MarkBA t/c/@ 18:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The photo layout creates lots of white space throughout the article, by rearranging them, you can eliminate the white space and improve the flow of the article.Argos'Dad 18:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... so I guess you are talking about Names, History, Demographics and Territorial division sections, if I'm right. So that needs some reorganization to eliminate white spaces, without adding any new images? MarkBA t/c/@ 19:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
We have just limited TOC to major headings to kill off some white space and in Transportation sections increased size of images to remove white space... though not sure if limiting the TOC is OK with the Manual of Style. MarkBA t/c/@ 20:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Finally, I am unclear whether the city's COA without the name is approved. - Not sure what do you mean. MarkBA t/c/@ 20:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Y - To the coat-of-arms issue specifically, it's covered by the license attached to [[Image:Bratislava_erb.jpg]], which covers the legal basis for the usage as well as includes a release from the city's Magistrate. The logo, however, is a separate issue (discussed above at #City logo). — Mike Gogulski ↗C•@•T↗ 20:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. That clarifies that point. Thanks!

I will check back in seven days to see if these issues have been resolved. By all means, keep improving the article and reach consensus on Pressburg/Bratislava. Argos'Dad 20:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If you make the GA status conditional on the resolution of the naming issue, we will close the poll. But I think everyone here would prefer some more time to get more input from other editors. Since the editors participating in the discussion have promised to protect whichever alternative gains more support and there is no edit war over the issue, even an unresolved poll would not threaten stability of this article. We would appreciate if you could tell us whether we should resolve this issue before your decision. Tankred 15:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not making GA conditional on the naming issue, but the naming issue (and the contortions you all are making to avoid stepping on each others toes) seems to impede the straight-forward editing. That said, you all seem to be reaching some consensus about the name at various times, and the edits so far are excellent, and I think we are almost there. Argos'Dad 18:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I regard GA as a broken process. I request that this nomination be withdrawn; this article is too good, and has undergone too much work to be insulted by comparison with the worthless articles which have that tag. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, as this is my nomination, I disagree this request because this is already on hold and there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to stop it. Had you told me before User:Argos'Dad started reviewing it, I could do so. Sure, there are better options than GA nominations, but breaking the nomination isn't really good idea when it's already in progress. We can think about some better options after we will finish this one (that is peer-review or something similar). MarkBA t/c/@ 21:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Broken or not, I wouldn't care to judge. I'm delighted to have a critical set of eyes offering constructive suggestions here. A GA award should increase the article's visibility, and possibly attract other interested editors to help bring it to FA status. We could have asked also for WP:Peer Review, but I've seen that done more often between GA and FA, myself. I'd say if GA is a problem, then it's a good problem for the article to have. — Mike Gogulski ↗C•@•T↗ 21:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Mike. I hope that a fresh set of eyes is helpful. If anyone disagrees with my suggestions, I am happy to discuss them; if they are unreasonable or unrealistic, to modify or remove them.Argos'Dad 02:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Passed GA Review

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to say that this article which was nominated for good article status has succeeded. This is how the article, as of May 29, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Prose is clear, concise and encyclopedic in tone
2. Factually accurate?: All extraordinary statements are sourced and there is sufficient data to establish the accuracy of claims and data
3. Broad in coverage?: Article covers all of the main topics fully and provides appropriate detail in sub-topics
4. Neutral point of view?: No issues of POV present
5. Article stability? Some discussions have been lively, but there is no edit-warring going on
6. Images?: They are numerous, appropriate and complete and give some visual representation of the city. All are appropriately tagged and have captions

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status. — Argos'Dad 18:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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.

The result of the debate was Proposal B. Tankred 20:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

To sum up our discussion, there is an argument that "Pressburg" is a widely accepted historic English name of Bratislava in a historical context and should be used while refering to the city in 1526-1918. Evidence required by WP:NCGN has been presented and thoroughfully discussed on this talk page. I believe, we can now take the next step and proceed to a poll,as has been suggested several times above. Two alternatives have emerged and a straw poll may show how much support the proposed solutions really get. A poll with a strong result can also discourage future vandalism. Please, take your time, read the discussion again, and ask questions, if you are in doubt. Of course, any new evidence will be welcomed. Last, but not least, I would like to thank all the participants for an intelligent and civil discussion that sets up an excellent example for other similar cases.

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, possibly adding brief comments afterwards. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion".

Poll closure

As this poll was run for one month and despite advertising we have done couldn't attract very much attention, I am closing this poll as a simple majority for Proposal B, i.e. for Bratislava consistency. MarkBA t/c/@ 20:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal A

When referring to Bratislava in a specific historical context, the following names of the city should be used:

  • "Bratislava" for the period before 1526;
  • "Pressburg" for the period between 1526 and 1918 (note: the starting year may be modified in the ongoing discussion);
  • "Bratislava" for the period from 1919 onwards.

Please, remember that the use of the name Pressburg in the articles other than Bratislava should follow WP:NCGN: 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)." This resembles linking; it should not be done to the detriment of style. On the other hand, it is probably better to do too often than too rarely.

  1. Support, with the caveat noted below. john k 13:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    An additional point - including the current name in parentheses is only to be done in other articles. In this article it would be ridiculous, since we will have made clear several times that Pressburg is Bratislava. john k 15:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: You are right, I have changed it to a better formulation "in the articles other than Bratislava". Tankred 18:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support and agree with John. Using Bratislava during the Early Modern Era seems anachronistic to me, similar to early usage of Kaliningrad or Istanbul. Olessi 14:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support in general, for the same reasons Byzantium/Constantinople/Istambul is used: it's the usage our readers would commonly find in English-language publications (the main criterion of our ±naming conventions on geographic names) and thus it's clearer for our readers. However, I also disagree with using 1526 as the dividing date. Let's take more time to look for books dealing with the Middle Ages, and see what form they use for the period. - Ev 14:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

    it's the usage our readers would commonly find in English-language publications

    .. Well, the problem is that that is not always true.--Svetovid 18:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support I agree with Ev, as often; including his quibble with 1526. Becoming the Hungarian capital (as much as any Renaissance kingdom had a capital) didn't change the name of the city either at the time or in current writing; it simply made references to it more common. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support, see others above. -- Matthead discuß!     O       17:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal B

"Bratislava", the modern English name of the city, should be used to refer to the city in the modern as well as historical context. The role of other significant names should be explained in the Etymology section of Bratislava, in History of Bratislava, and in the articles with an alternative name of Bratislava in the title (e.g. Treaty of Pressburg).

  1. Weak support. The presented evidence shows that both "Pressburg" and "Bratislava" are widely accepted English names in the historical context. Although I prefer a consistent use of one name, I will be happy to change my vote and strengthen the consensus if a majority of editors support Proposal A. Tankred 05:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. Although there is a presented evidence of using both "Pressburg" and "Bratislava" of using them in the historical context, I prefer to keep name consistency, as there is already note that English speakers usually referred to the city as Pressburg until 1919. I don't know if this is related, but I've just taken a look at Sarajevo (FA-class article for some time) and it uses consistently Sarajevo, so no Ottoman name there, though it may be completely different case. Although I'm supporting this alternative, I'm happy to change my vote if there will be a strong consensus for Proposal A. MarkBA t/c/@ 06:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Weak support. Proposal A seems flawed to me based on the specification of the dates, since the use of Pressburg (or variants) can be demonstrated prior to 1526 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pressburg_city_plan_1438-55.jpg for one example). So long as we are not pushing any kind of attempt to change history, and the fact of the city's colorful nomenclature in the past is clearly pointed out, I think it's sufficient. At the same time, I would not accept B if it meant that a parenthetical reference to the name current at the time being referenced, say, by an image caption (e.g. "Bratislava (Pressburg) in the 15th century") is to be banned by this policy. I would support a form of A very strongly, however, if compelling references could be produced to support the widely-accepted English name of the city in each historical period. Doing so, though, seems extremely burdensome, and the end result of the project is not going to substantially affect the value of the article to the general public. — Mike Gogulski ↗C•@•T↗ 09:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. I think the standardized usage of Bratislava is best for a couple of reasons. First, for consistency's sake; we shouldn't be confusing the casual reader with two different names. Also, as MikeGogulski states above, the amount of work it would take to solidly define when the name should be used is inversely proportional to the amount the article is improved. Likewise, if consensus determines option A is the better choice, I'll go along with it. Parsecboy 11:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Very Weak Support. I think that Bratislava up until 19198 is an anachronism, but for the sake of the reader, an anachronism would be better in this case. ¿SFGiДnts! ☺ ☻ 22:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. Or just use present day/today's Bratislava or just "the city" to avoid confusion.
    I spoke with some Slovak historians and they think that Bratislava should be used (even though the case is a little different when it comes to English indeed).
    Comparison to Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul is meaningless since that city and its previous names are a lot more known.
    Also nobody who is actually interested in finding more could be confused or misled because the name Pressburg and all about it is clearly explained in the main and history articles.--Svetovid 01:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support. Wikipedia doesn't need more revisionism.Rex 17:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I agree with Gogulski that proposal A is flawed. I like the current format of the article, where it introduces "Pressburg" as a 15th century name, and then calls it that until 1919. The case of Sarajevo, I think, is entirely different, as it's never called anything else in English historical literature - I wasn't even aware that it had another name. On the other hand, if you study pre-WWI European history, it's hard to avoid coming across the name "Pressburg". At any rate, if everyone else prefers "Bratislava," that's alright, I'll be glad to have hashed the issue out, and also to have insured that we got it so the translation of the newspaper's name doesn't say "Bratislava" anymore. john k 13:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I picked up the year 1526 because most participants in our discussion seemed to prefer it as a clear, yet necessarily arbitrary delimitation of the use of Pressburg. Although the name Pressburg is older, it is difficult to argue for its use in the 15th century. For example, Universitas Istropolitana was founded in 1465 in Istropolis, not in Pressburg. But if most editors want another starting year, we can always change it. Tankred 18:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it was used way more in the 15th century than "Bratislava," certainly - and, more broadly, "Pressburg" or a related form was used for much of the middle ages, whereas Bratislava, so far as I can tell, simply wasn't. The name we give as the first form ever given for the city's name, "Brezalauspurc," appears to be a form from which "Pressburg" was derived. So there would be good reason to use Pressburg from the 10th century on. Before that, I definitely agree on Bratislava, but for the high/late middle ages, I think Pressburg makes more sense. john k 19:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I've been crossing my eyes and squinting at that historical names table for so long I've convinced myself that Brezalauspurch is the linguistic origin for both Pressburg and Bratislava, and I would love to settle the question one way or another, but the evidence will be tough to find. Maybe instead I'll go off and find a page to use as a platform to promote my theory that the modern Bratislava is derived from Slovak brat(stvo) [brother(hood)] combined with sláva (glory), and that the city's name is actually a Slovak realization of Philadelphia thereby....... :) :) :) — Mike Gogulski ↗C•@•T↗ 22:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Though I can't prove it (yet), I believe that Istropolis was never either an official name for the city (outside Greece), or the widely-used English appellation. My suspicion is that the use of the Greek name for the university was part of an attempt to lend credibility to the institution by reference to ancient Greek scholarship, as an early form of branding. — Mike Gogulski ↗C•@•T↗ 22:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal, which says to call Bratislava Pressburg in historical context from 1526-1919. But then again why won't you call it Posonium in the years before 1526? AFAIK the official language of Hungary was Latin, so in corresponding sources you'd only find Posonium. CoolKoon 21:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

In principle, I agree with you, but this wouldn't conform with WP:NCGN as it stands; we haven't seen much evidence that Posonium or its variants was ever the widely-accepted English name for the city, either commonly or among historians. — Mike Gogulski ↗C•@•T↗ 22:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
That's true but around and before 1526, Latin was the official language in most of the countries throughout Europe, right? CoolKoon 01:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
This may be true, but if you look back on this page's current version for "official" you'll find discussion of this. WP:NCGN doesn't make reference to contemporaneous official designations. Perhaps it should. This is certainly a point on which the policy should be challenged (at least, until those vigorous enough to care to participate in the debate are fatigued into something as imperfect and error-prone as voting). Can you document the "official" name of any given European city at any given point, say, from 1 AD to 1300 AD? If so, you've got a Ph.D. in European History coming to you, and your time here is possibly better spent writing your dissertation. (please excuse any flippancy read into this posting) — Mike Gogulski ↗C•@•T↗ 01:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What about Presburg? It probably should be mentioned as an alternative spelling of the English version. There are many older maps on this page using this name and there was Presburg Street in London and there still is road|Presburg Road, LONDON (NEW MALDEN), KT3. And Google search shows that it's a surname too, especially because the name with a single s seems to be preferred in other languages (French...).--Svetovid 10:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I dunno about Presburg in English usage, but if it really exists or is widespread alternative to Pressburg, I think it should be listed in the History of Bratislava article, because here we should list only names notable in the city history. Anyway, it seems we are stalled with the solution of the historical name usage, but we can't wait for outcome forever. I think everyone wishes to press this article forward (from recently gained GA), so we need to clear this up, though I don't know if this could be challenged during peer review or similar. MarkBA t/c/@ 11:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming poll summary as of 1 June 2007

Since this has been open for a week, I just wanted to post a brief summary of the progress so far.

Proposal A: 4 supporting votes
Proposal B: 6 supporting votes

However this is quite inconclusive, as 4 of the "support" votes for B also say some version of "I'd support A if...", turning on issues of broader consensus for it, or better documentation being forthcoming.

I suggest that we leave the poll open through the peer review that MarkBA requested, in hopes of attracting still more perspectives on the subject. Forcing a tally now wouldn't help much, and the discussion has at least arrived at the point where people interested are channeling the discussion constructively here rather than into edit-warring.
— Mike Gogulski ↗C•@•T↗ 17:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A good edit war on the other hand ... nah, I think you are right :)--Svetovid 17:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to leave the poll open until the peer review is completed and the recommendations are implemented. We should definitely settle this issue before applying for an FA status. But that is the only deadline we have. Tankred 20:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Poll summary as of 8 June 2007

Since this is the second week, I would like to post a brief summary of the progress so far:

A: 4 votes
B: 6 votes

what is the same as last week. Peer review doesn't seem to touch this discussion so far, thus leaving the number of votes unchanged. MarkBA t/c/@ 20:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

June 12, 2007

  • A: 5 votes
  • B: 7 votes

Whatever the result is, we will need to close the poll before applying for an FA status. But we still have some time. Tankred 18:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

19 June 2007

  • A: 5 votes
  • B: 7 votes

The votes cast some days ago haven't changed net score at all; it is inconclusive, but should be settled before applying for an FA status. Peer review hasn't touched this one so far. MarkBA t/c/@ 19:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Let us choose a deadline, so we can move on to an FA application. Twelve votes in a month is not an extremely impressive result, but I think we have already done everything we could do to advertise this poll. I suggest we close the whole thing by July 1. Tankred 15:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess so... we can't let this poll run forever. I have three deadlines in my mind: 4 or 5 weeks after opening (i.e. 22 or 29 June), two weeks after last peer review (right now 23 June) or as suggested, 1 July. But as the result goes, it is inconclusive and I have two possible actions: leave the current version as is, or change Bratislava (before 15th century) → Pressburg (until 1919) → Bratislava (from 1919) to Bratislava → Bratislava → Bratislava, as this was the state before it was challenged. I think discussing article content and improvements are better use of our time than arguing about historical names, but on the other hand, this discussion has avoided uncontrollable edit warring. MarkBA t/c/@ 15:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be legitimate to accept any result supported by a relative majority of editors. Since no one expressed strong feelings about the issue, I do not think it is a big deal anyway. I believe we have a more important problem: The recent FA application of Krakow (btw, an article of lower quality than our Bratislava:-) got criticized because the article cites excessively websites. Although it could be justified in other sections, the history section should rely solely (or at least mostly) on books. People participating in that discussion also stressed that Wikipedia does not prefer English sources to the sources in foreign languages, but it does prefer books to websites. As you are in Slovakia, do you think you can find any books containing the trivial data, such as the number of the crowned kings (and other facts taken from visit.bratislava.sk)? Perhaps any "Dejiny Slovenska" tome? Tankred 16:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Well... to the poll, I think it should be closed as maybe inconclusive or something more for Bratislava consistency. To the raised problem with websites vs. books, my opinion is that books can cover these things: Names, partly Geography, History and (partly) Arch. and cityscape. Right now, we have just around 10 citations from books (from total 131), mostly on History of course, but even A-class grade says "It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from "hard" (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature rather than websites.", so more citations from books would be good to avoid criticism in the FA candidature. I think I have "Kronika Slovenska" book, so there is a slight chance that I may find some facts, or maybe I'll go out on Saturday (to see Sitina Tunnel opening ceremony anyway :-) and try to see if there is something better. Though, I think that even Svetovid or Mike could help with this one. But aside that, History should be trimmed, as is seen on comments, e.g. the part on Slovak national movement is unnecessarily long for main article, and should be more discussed in the History of Bratislava article. MarkBA t/c/@ 17:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I did my best. I think we can also remove the "Notable events held in Bratislava" sub-section because most of the mentioned events can be found in the main text (in prose). We will save some space and also improve the flow of the text. How about that? Tankred 17:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... let's check. Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 5 are mentioned some way and 6 very indirectly. This is another of the relics of the old version and FA reviewers I think do not like listy things. So what is not mentioned: either integrate (but section ought to be summary of the main article, so personally I'm discarding this option) or integrate to the text in the History of Bratislava article. MarkBA t/c/@ 17:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I have moved them all to History of Bratislava. Tankred 17:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Good. Now I see another issue, this time with the lead - quoting "Bratislava was home to the Slovak national movement in the 19th century and many other Slovak historical figures, including Milan Rastislav Štefánik and Alexander Dubček.". What I see as a problem is that neither Štefánik nor Dubček are mentioned later, so it should be either removed or adding these into the main text. And also I was thinking about this - adding something about cinema or trade shows or such here, but I'm not sure if this is good topic to cover. MarkBA t/c/@ 17:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter that Štefánik and Dubček are not mentioned later because they are well known figures. They are in the lead to stress in the lead section how important Bratislava was.
I would add more information about the Slovak national movement back, however, because it is very important for Bratislava's history (there maybe would not be any Bratislava without it, or not that soon), and there is other not that important info kept.--Svetovid 20:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Re-add it if you want, but I don't think it is good to unpack these in full detail here - that's what is History of Bratislava for. Here we should only briefly summarize the city's history, including the movement (and when we should keep size of the section down). MarkBA t/c/@ 20:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the lead is concise and I would leave it as it is. I do not think cinema and trade shows deserve to be put there. Tankred 10:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, so I'm not going to change anything with the lead, nor add anything from my ideas. So what we got is to replace as many web citations as possible with books, and although I think we have sufficient number of refs, some places may be still empty. MarkBA t/c/@ 10:54, 21 June 2007 (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.

GA - Congratulations and thanks

To everyone who contributed here, thank you! Blahoželám, gratulujem!

Thanks also to our reviewer, User:Argos'Dad for great input and a quick pass :) — Mike Gogulski ↗C•@•T↗ 19:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, congrats to all who contributed. BTW, there is a lot of information about tourism in Bratislava in this article (in Slovak).--Svetovid 22:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The results of the 2001 Census could be found at statistics.sk.--Svetovid 18:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems that this talk page is somehow quiet, so I'll try to enliven it with this comparison with FA criteria (which is our goal of course). This is my opinion as it stands against criteria now:

1.

    • Well written: Reasonably is, but copyediting would be needed.
    • Comprehensive: With a few exceptions, it should be.
    • Accurate: It should have reliable sources, but few places are still without citations.
    • Neutral: At present it shouldn't have POV issues, but as one of the authors I can't tell easily if it is true or not.
    • Stable: Sometimes lively, but without edit wars in general

2.

    • Lead: Three paragraphs should be enough, but I'm not sure on this one.
    • Headings: It does have system of headings
    • ToC: It has substantial but not overwhelming Table of Contents
    • Formatting: Constant inline referencing with {{cite web}} and similar templates is used, though not sure about books.

3. Images: All except flag and coat of arms in the infobox should have captions and acceptable copyright status

4. Length: The History section is bit overwhelming, but everything else should be OK

And of course a preferable option would be to close this name poll before we'll send this one to candidates page, but no votes have been cast for some time so I'm unsure what to do, otherwise this seems to be an open wound. MarkBA t/c/@ 20:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


Austrian (Habsburg) empire?

Pressburg was part of the Kingdom of Hungary until 1919, since the Ausgleich. It definitely wasn't part of Austria at the time the article implies, so I've added a clarifying reference to Kingdom of Hungary and Austria-Hungary. 86.147.115.122 20:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

All I have to say that Austrian may be incorrect, but Kingdom of Hungary even after 1867 still had personal union with Austrian lands, so I think it's correct to say that it was part of the Habsburg monarchy, even though Pressburg was under Hungarian rule. MarkBA t/c/@ 20:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
No, all you had to say was to remove an improvement over an earlier version of the article, which simply covered more ground and was more accurate. I have a sneaking suspicion that you have an axe to grind. Pressburg was part of the Kingdom of Hungary in the duality, that's a well-known fact. In fact, both articles linked earlier mention this, even you're not denying it.
So what are we arguing about at all? Pressburg was a part of Hungary until 1919, that's a fact. Hungary was part of Austria-Hungary (and not Kingdom of Austria, look up the definition) that's a fact too. The Kingdom of Austria was the other part of the duality, since the Ausgleich. Please get your facts straight especially when all it would take to know about them is a click of a hyperlink.
FYI, Hungary did have it's own king during the duality, hence the title "K und K".
86.147.115.122 20:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh please, and Royal Hungary says nothing to you? That's why I think is more correct to say in the lead "of the Habsburg monarchy" as that includes 16th century until 1919. But the Habsburgs were kings both of Austria and Hungary, so no own king of Hungary from Ausgleich. But I'm not going to argue over history, what we should argue here is the quality of the article. MarkBA t/c/@ 20:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Right then, what's your beef with the current wording of 'Hungarian Kingdom as part of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire'. There was a significant timespan when Pressburg had nothing to do with the Austrians (in fact, that was a longer period), so by your logic, it should only state the Kingdom of Hungary. The quality of the article -first and foremost- depends on the historical accuracy of the text, so arguing history about a historical segment is far from pointless. 86.147.115.122 20:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Because IMHO, Austro-Hungarian Empire refers to the period between 1867-1918, so saying this is incorrect for 17th or 18th century, when there was no thing like Austria-Hungary. That's why I prefer centre of the (maybe Kingdom of Hungary and) Habsburg Empire, and we include the medieval period, status of Bratislava being a capital (1536-1848) plus after the Ausgleich. But as I said, it is pointless being at odds over historical fact which is undeniable. Period. MarkBA t/c/@ 21:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't confuse people in the lead. First, 'Austrian monarchy' is an alternative name to 'Habsburg monarchy' - more info Habsburg_monarchy#Terminology. Second, it was mentioned because it was the most important monarchy/kingdom Bratislava was part of in history, and it was superior to the Kingdom of Hungary at the time. Again, anybody will find details in the History section and in the History of Bratislava article. I say revert it to the pre-86.147.115.122's edit version and maybe use just Habsburg Monarchy.--Svetovid 21:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I still think it's more than confusing. The city has it's roots in hungarian history (and yes, the history of Bratislava article does a good job of conveying these facts), so claiming in the lead that until 1919 it was part of Austria by implying it with carefully chosen terminology is just wrong, and not only takes away from the historical accuracy, but also plants false impressions in the reader. Then again, when consensus rules, the zealous will prevail. I -personally- couldn't care less if you guys want to change history. I give up.
German language and culture were dominant indeed.--Svetovid 23:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Now somebody else has added what I think is not confusing at all. It was a "key centre of the Kingdom of Hungary", referring to until the first third of the 16th century and of the Habsburg Empire (from 16th century up to 1919), including Royal Hungary, Austria-Hungary, blah blah blah... MarkBA t/c/@ 21:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Official name till 1919

I'd like to note that stating that "the official name of the city was Pressburg until 1919" is incorrect. As it has already been mentioned before, it was the part of Hungary, a seat of a vármegye (comitatus), and even if the German-speaking element was dominant there, the official name was Hungarian, i.e. Pozsony and not Pressburg. (Until 1844 probably the Latin version, Posonium was used officially, but German was very rarely used as an official language of Hungary for short periods.) I thought I would tell you this, before changing the article. --80.98.102.48 14:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an English encyclopedia. You figure the rest.--Svetovid 10:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Not English but Hungarian was the official language in Hungary. You figure the rest. --80.99.1.51 12:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
So as an English encyclopedia, let's erase anything from history that is not used today? Brilliant logic. Another reason why Wikipedia is a home for the ignorant.
What a poor attempt at a straw man. BTW, the first section is called 'Names' and guess what's in there.--Svetovid 16:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

We should say that the name normally used in English before 1919 was Pressburg, not that it was the official name. Certainly after 1867, Pozsony was the official name - I've seen it on official maps of Austria-Hungary from that time period, for instance. john k 18:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you stop arguing about this? The version you're talking about is the thing of past, so anyone talking what's related to the old version is pissing to the wind. MarkBA t/c/@ 15:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Mention in Eurotrip?

Shouldn't there be some test on the page about Bratislava's mention in the movie [Eurotrip]? I know its a highly negative mention in the movie but still.

Loveshams 07:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I will strongly oppose any mention of it for two reasons. First, we have already Hostel and I think it is already enough to make us burst and second, we don't need to push through any low-quality American junk, when they particularly don't know how it goes. MarkBA t/c/@ 08:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hungarian name (Pozsony)

I think you should give the Hungarian name in the first line because of the history of the city. Squash Racket 10:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No, because this is nicely explained in Bratislava#Names and there is no need to push someone's point of view right in the lead. And it is there because there are five historical names and they would just clutter the lead. MarkBA t/c/@ 11:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
That's not a POV thing to me. There are a lot of Hungarian speakers in the city for obvious reasons. I just don't know if there's a law in Slovakia that because of the number of Hungarian inhabitants you must also post such a city's name in Hungarian too. Squash Racket 11:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there's a law that requires to post minority names if the percentage of that town's population crosses 20% (mostly for cases of Hungarians and Rusyns). However, Bratislava has 4% of Hungarians (and that's not really lot, comparing e.g. to 70 years ago) and the city has no obligation to post minority names anywhere. And I view it as POV because someone who would post to the first line thinks that the town is Hungarian today, but it is not. MarkBA t/c/@ 11:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
If only 4% is Hungarian in that city, you're right. However, just because someone mentions the German name of Strasbourg I don't think anyone would consider it a German city. Squash Racket 11:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
To finish this "skirmish", the Names section was created because there were more than three historical names per WP:NCGN (though same should be done for other cities as well). Honestly you have four different roots: current Bratislava, German Pressburg, Pozsony and Greek Istropolis. That's why I don't want any other names in the lead, maybe only giving anchor link down (#). MarkBA t/c/@ 11:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Nothing to see here; move along.--Svetovid 16:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a simple time-waster; someone wasn't carefully reading. And I'd like to avoid discussions like this, when someone doesn't understand the system how it is done. There's nothing to comment in it current form; move forward. MarkBA t/c/@ 19:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Really? For at least 15 million people this city is still called Pozsony, so let's not avoid uncomfortable discussions, OK? Squash Racket 19:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous; read carefully again and you'll see that Hungarians still use Hungarian names and that's all. Hungarian Wikipedia may use it as it sees fit, but this is an English one and not a place to push Hungarian nationalism. And don't you think this discussion isn't necessary at all? MarkBA t/c/@ 19:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous! You are treating the Hungarian name Pozsony just like the other archaic names although it is still used by inhabitants of the city today. Squash Racket 19:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
And don't edit my comments please! Thanks. Squash Racket 19:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Please stop being silly! I don't know what I've done to you, but I'm explaining it last time! I don't treat that name like archaism, if I'd do, I would simply insert that this is historical and wouldn't do anything about it. And inhabitants of the city?? Sorry, but what's this kind of joke? We aren't living in 1907 plus 3.84% isn't much inhabitants... And I haven't edited your comments at all, I have just edited formatting, which is distinct from the comment itself. Now can you retreat back behind your borders? I care a fig about your Budapest dispute and don't make suggestions that stir up a hornet's nest, OK? MarkBA t/c/@ 19:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Please stop being silly! I'm sure that all inhabitants do not understand and use the Hungarian name Pozsony regularly, right? It is mentioned together with archaic forms so what would you think? Squash Racket 20:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark, do not feed a troll. I suggest we ignore this thread and move on to copyediting of the article. All the arguments are already here and most readers will surely be able to understand them. Tankred 20:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Feed a troll? Stop personal attacks please. Squash Racket 16:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Names and History

First of all, history and clear origin of some of those names are not (exactly) known. Having said that, have a look at this table from Bratislava museum that shows when the various name where first mentioned. There was a ridiculous claim that the Latin names came from the Hungarian.
History: I suggest removing the following because it's not that important:
"As a result of frequent insurrections against Habsburgs, the suburbs were ravaged, and the city and the castle were conquered in 1619 by troops of Gabriel Bethlen, who held the town until 1621, when it was reconquered by the Habsburgs again. The city, but not the castle was conquered again by Imre Thököly troops in 1683, with the Battle of Vienna taking place. After the Turks were defeated, the imperial troops rushed to drive out Kuruc rebels with Thököly. The period of insurrections ended in 1711, with the signing of the Peace of Szatmár.[26]"
Also, 20th century should be trimmed down.--Svetovid 23:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That's true that some names origin isn't exactly known, but to say that Latin Posonium does come from whichever Hungarian name is ridiculous? Where it says that Latin name doesn't come from Hungarian? To History, please, can you tell me why you've avoided candidature discussion for two weeks and commenting history it once that nomination is in the archive? You could object to that when the remake of History was suggested and done, I even invited you to join in, but you've looked away, so commenting it now is a slight impudence, sorry. MarkBA t/c/@ 06:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
It's ridiculous because it doesn't make sense, copies the myth that Hungarian language was important before Magyarization and is not supported by any serious source I've seen (including talking to historians). The fact that it was spelt Posony before "z" was added to sound more Hungarian should gives a big hint already.
The Wilson city story is interesting for the History of BA article but it is unnecessary in the name section and in the main article.
Using Magyars instead of Hungarians goes against consistency in the article. Also, "Magyar" is a barely used word outside from Hungarian sources.
I didn't participate in the discussion because I didn't have much time and the discussion was messy. Speaking of which, I noticed that any remark or suggestion in the discussion is accepted without any critical thought. Remember, it's a discussion about improving the article and not directions that you have to accept without objecting to any of them.--Svetovid 10:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
As summarized in my edit, one author is not enough to proclaim a definite history of Bratislava's names, which is unclear and disputed. The best version of the article is without the information and any definitive statements.
It'd be sad if Wikipedia started to be used as a trusted source of this information in the future when the article is featured.--Svetovid 14:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh well... Looks like those name history disputes have no end as is now. But what surprises me more that after some significant action's done (this time promotion), you will go noticing what is and what isn't good enough. As I don't want to threaten stability edit warring with you, all I can do is to do maintenance until something definitive has been found. MarkBA t/c/@ 14:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think historians will resolve this any time soon, if ever. I'd oppose the second FA nomination (or changed that part) if I knew there was one :).--Svetovid 15:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Huh? You don't watch enough what is going on :-). But seriously, it's probably we have different interests, though credit also belongs to you because you've started the way to the FA status, don't you think? So let's just keep this bronze star and improve further the article (and our topics as well), shall we? MarkBA t/c/@ 15:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

Relax. All I did was straighten out the English and add a few serial commas per Wikipedia guidelines. If you want my opinion as to content, I think it's an adequate intro. --Milkbreath 18:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The Government section makes no mention of election methods. Is there universal suffrage? Who is elected, and who is appointed, and by whom? The passage "The current mayor, Andrej Ďurkovský, was nominated in 2006 by a coalition of the KDH and the SDKÚ, starting his second term in the office" would seem to indicate that nomination alone is sufficient to install a mayor. --Milkbreath 11:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That means I should reword that passage to indicate that he was nominated by these parties and won the elections. To the universal suffrage, you mean who can vote (minimal age, how long someone needs to live etc.)? As far as I can tell only mayor and the city council are elected and others are appointed. I'll try to research some information for this. MarkBA t/c/@ 11:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in September 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
  • Copyeditor(s): Cricketgirl 20:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I copyedited the lead again. The mention of "Pressburg" was incongruous in its sentence, and it's covered under "Names", so I removed it. If you need to have "Pressburg" in the lead, I'll try to stick it in somewhere, if you want. The lead says that the city was later capital of the Habsburg Monarchy, but I could find no such thing in the "History" section, so we need a date somewhere. --Milkbreath 17:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it didn't. Maybe unfortunate wording (...administrative centre...) but it never was a capital of whole Habsburg monarchy. That would be a first-class nonsense. So the original version was IMHO better, maybe just worded bit other way, to better indicate it was the capital of KoH (or more exactly of Royal Hungary). That "Pressburg" thingy is strange. Some can live without it, some want it, but I think blurb in the lead is the best option, as it is now. MarkBA t/c/@ 17:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, unfortunate wording. I had a fifty-fifty chance and I blew it. I misunderstood the original sentence, which was: "Known as Pressburg until 1919, the city was a key economic and administrative centre of the Kingdom of Hungary, being once its capital in 1536–1783 and later of the Habsburg Monarchy." The last phrase, "of the Habsburg monarchy", was too far from the first "of" for me. I've corrected my mistake and put back Pressburg. Take a look. Also, I've been looking at this article for a long time now, and I've decided that an honest copyeditor would remove the mention of names in the first sentence, which I've now done. The first sentence of an article should be downright terse. And Bratislava is not "known by other names", anyway. It used to be, but not now. The Slovaks can call their capital city whatever they want to, and we have to call it that, too. English-speaking readers, who this article is for, might well find it helpful to be told that the "Pressburg" they'd seen in books is really Bratislava (like Batavia/Jakarta), but the rest of the names business is of tangential interest only, especially in the lead. --Milkbreath 19:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Epbr123 20:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Order of nationalities

There was a reason I moved "Germans" to the front of the line. When I added "long known by the German name 'Pressburg'", it made sense to name them first. It reads better that way, too. I hadn't noticed they were alphabetical. I suppose the reason is political, but, speaking for myself, I'm happy to annoy anybody so touchy as to take offense that their nationality appears later in such an inconsequential list. --Milkbreath 12:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Two awkward bits

First, The Hungarian name (which is still in use among Hungarians, although it was spelled as Posony before the 19th century) come from Božaň, an 11th-century ruler of Bratislava Castle, and the Latin name Posonium is derived from the Hungarian. "Although" here seems very odd. I could try to fix this, but worry that I may misunderstand something and realize that the matter of Hungarian names seems to arouse bizarrely strong feelings hereabouts.

Secondly, the Slovak National Museum (Slovenské národné múzeum) is the highest institution focusing on scientific research and cultural education in the field of museological activity in Slovakia. I've read that several times and I still don't know for sure whether it means that SNM is Slovakia's top museum focusing on scientific research and cultural education, or, if it doesn't mean this, what else it might mean. Indeed, even if it does mean that it's "Slovakia's top museum focusing on scientific research and cultural education", I'm not at all sure what this means: it strikes me as less expository than corporatese. -- Hoary 04:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

1. That seems quite odd to me, too. Maybe it is there to show difference in spelling, but I think it isn't needed, so I'll remove "although it".
2. I think the former should be right. Otherwise I can't think of anything else to your question. MarkBA t/c/@ 07:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Now the first one is fixed, I think. Good. The second now reads: It is the highest institution focusing on scientific research and cultural education in the field of museological activity in Slovakia. Certain fiddles to this are obvious (notably deleting "the field of"). But what does it mean? To me, it's bland, inexpressive corporatespeak. That's a pity, because the rest of the article warmly deserves an FA. -- Hoary 08:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, hmm... "the field of" can be removed without change in the meaning, but what about rest? Right now, the paragraph about the museum has three sentences, and if I'd remove this one, it would be too short in my opinion. But I don't have any replacement so far. Maybe better wording instead? But thank you anyway. MarkBA t/c/@ 08:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't suggest rewording, because I don't know what it means. There's a link to a source, but the source is similarly bland. Perhaps it just means: "It is Slovakia's foremost museum". Or maybe it's a polite way to say: "It receives a more generous state subsidy than do any of its rivals." Or possibly it actually means "It runs courses in museology for students intending to work elsewhere as well as within it." I'd imagine that there's plenty of information about this in Slovak, yet another of the thousands of languages that I can't read at all. (Hmm, I think I can't, but then I look at something in Finnish and realize that by contrast, yes, I can pick out the occasional word of Slovak.) -- Hoary 08:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Something else is a bit off here. The claim, whatever it is, seems to be for the preeminence of this museum in something or other. The source for the claim: the museum itself. "This museum is the greatest.<ref>This is what the museum says.</ref>" Er ... perhaps not. -- Hoary 08:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, it can receive state subsidies as it is state museum (why then it has National in it?). But, looking from other sources (though most are guides), I have one other wording in mind. Change from "It is the highest institution focusing on scientific research and cultural education in museological activity in Slovakia." to "It is the largest museum and cultural institution in Slovakia." How about that? MarkBA t/c/@ 08:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
That's certainly fine if that's indeed what the assertion means. I can actually understand it. -- Hoary 12:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. MarkBA t/c/@ 13:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

FA congratulations

Congratulations. This article has been through the wringer, and I'm happy to see it succeed. Thanks to all involved for making this a great article about a groovy city. I enjoyed reading it, all ten times. --Milkbreath 03:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It took some necessary experience and a bit of patience to get this featured. What I need to do now is to prevent weeds growing in it. MarkBA t/c/@ 07:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

IPA Pronunciation

The article currently gives [ˈbratjɪslava] as a pronunciation. Wouldn't that rather be [ˈbracɪslava]? Szabi 10:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I don't know wholly the IPA pronunciation key, as a native I pronounce it the first way. Do you have some dictionary or other reference which would list other pronunciation(s)? MarkBA t/c/@ 17:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
IPA [c] is not the same sound as what is written c in Slovak (that would be IPA [ts]) :-) IPA [c] is the voiceless palatal plosive, in several languages the palatalised version of [t]. The IPA pronunciation given on the page suggests that [t] and [j] are pronunced separately, distinctly (possibly even in different syllables?) I'm not a native speaker of Slovak, but what I know of phonetics and how I remember to have heard Bratislava pronounced there I really suspect, that it's rather [ˈbra.cɪ.sla.va] than [ˈbrat.jɪ.sla.va]. But as said, I'm not competent to judge and that's why I posted the question in the talk page. It would be great, if someone native Slovak speaker with linguistik profession (or good command of IPA) would have a look at the question.
I'd like to cite the Slovak language article to support my point: it states, that di, li, ni, ti are orthographic conventions to write what would be written ďi, ľi, ňi, ťi (as there is not IPA [di], [li], [ni], [ti] sound sequence in Slovak, in other words, /i/ always palatalises /d/, /l/, /n/, /t/, except for in some old words and foreign words, as it's explained later). The IPA transcription of ť is given in the same article as [c] or [tʲ] which are indeed synonym notations in IPA. However IPA [tj] is very distinct from IPA [tʲ].
So the "Slovak language" Wikipedia article fully supports my point, but not being a native speaker, I ask someone more knowledgeable to have a look at this. Szabi 16:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, you know much more about IPA than I do, but I think the best solution would be to leave that to someone knowledgeable with linguistic profession. Just to be clear, the current pronunciation was copied from the German wikipedia so it's possible that here it is "expressed" in a different way. MarkBA t/c/@ 16:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The pronunciation in the German Wikipedia was added in 2004 by an anonymous IP. I discussed the same issue in the German Talk page and got confirmation. It seems, that it should be [c]. I'll correct that in the article. -- Szabi (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)