Wikipedia:Hungarian Wikipedians' notice board

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hungarian Wikipedians' notice board
Shortcut:
WP:HUNGARY
Hungary portal
WikiProject Hungary
Archive
Archives
  1. 5 June 2006—28 April 2007
RWNBs

GENERAL

BY REGION (A-Z)

 v • d • e 
Hungarian Collaboration of the Month
Recently created Hungary-related articles

Contents

[edit] Proposal to move Odorheiu Secuiesc to Székelyudvarhely

In case you are interested, there is a proposal to move the Odorheiu Secuiesc page to its native name Székelyudvarhely, similarly to Swedish settlements in Finnland, or German settlements in South Tyrol. For more, see the talk page of the article. Please remember that this is not simply a vote; your comments must include reasons to carry weight. Many Romanian users have already expressed their opinion there --KIDB 06:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Hungarians in Hungary

Could you please have a look at Talk:Hungarian_people#Numbers. Not that it matters very much if we write 14.5 or 15, but we should at least try to maintain some sort of consistency throughout the article. Editing different bits without any references and then changing back only some parts is certainly not a good practice. And unfortunately User:Öcsi's attitude is not something to be proud of. I'm finding it quite hard, not to answer to his sarcastic jokes. Alexrap 16:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time to...

Dear ALEXRAP,

Could you please explain this sentence, which can be found on your talk page: Time to exterminate all Magyars Thank you:Baxter9 12:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone didn't notice, that's an unsigned anonymous comment on Alexrap's talk page, ending in a question mark, and is most probably written by a hot-headed Hungarian. Baxter9, go read this article (and if I were you, I would also apologize). KissL 19:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It was written by HunTomy not by Alex. Zello 20:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course it was not me. I could never write (or even think) something like that. Alexrap 10:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, you are right! Please forgive me. Thank you for your answer. Baxter9 14:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hungarian names in Slovak and Serbian localities

Hi. Panonian has posted a new message at Talk:Odorheiu Secuiesc regarding the use of Romanian and Hungarian place names in Vojvodinan localities, while also writing a message to User:Juro about appplying the Odorheiu Secuiesc model to Slovak localities. I have looked at the pages of Šahy, Komárno and Želiezovce, all of which have Hungarian majorities, and it seems that the Hungarian name is only listed in the Komárno infobox, and even there in smaller font. I have added the Hungarian name at Šahy. However, I think there needs to be more discussion into this matter. Does Slovakia have a law similar to Romania's, where if a locality has a minority population of over 20%, their language becomes officially-recognised, bilingual signs, etc? I think it does, and consequently the infoboxes should be bilingual. Ronline ✉ 12:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: According to this site, Slovakia has a similar minority rights law to Romania: in areas where minorities make up more than 20% of the population, the minority language can be used with regard to local authorities, while access to education, justice and bilingual signage is provided. Consequently, all infoboxes where the Hungarian minority exceeds 20% should also contain the Hungarian name, as per the Romanian model. I am currently adding Hungarian names in brackets to localities such as Bodzianske Lúky. I'm surprised no-one has added these before. Ronline ✉ 12:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No one has dared to add them - you will see the reaction :) Zello 15:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have already thanked Ronline for adding Hungarian names to the leads of those articles, in which they were missing. This is perfectly in line with WP:NCGN and we have been adding Hungarian and German names to the articles about municipalities in Slovakia for a very long time. It is a gargantuan task because of a high number of municipalities. So, please, be patient or, even better, help us find Hungarian names of villages and add them to the articles whenever you have time.
But, as to infoboxes, I do not see any reason for adding alternative names there. The names are already listed in the lead and emphasized by italics, exactly as WP:NCGN suggests. Let me quote from the convention: "The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses... It is customary to bold the article title name, and its frequently used English language synonyms, and to italicize foreign or historic names represented in Roman script." According to my interpretation of the convention, Ronline's solution makes sense only in cases, in "which the local authority recognizes equally two or more names from different languages" (e.g. South Tyrol and other linguistic autonomous regions).
This is clearly not the case of Slovakia because the names in a minority language have a lower (not equal) legal status (see the Constitution of the Slovak Republic and the legal act Zákon 191/1994 Z.z. o označovaní obcí v jazyku národnostných menšín). Moreover, two or three names in an infobox are not only redundant (as they can be easily found in the very first sentence of an article), but also quite confusing. And what about the municipalities, in which two or three minorities (e.g. the Romani, Ukrainian, and Rusyn ones) have a significant proportion of population. Are we going to have four names in one infobox? Finally, a I understood, Ronline's solution was discussed on a talk page of a Romanian town or a village. No one has asked for the opinion of the editors of the articles about Slovak towns and I do not see any reason why we should implement an unofficial agreement among a handful of Romanian and Hungarian users in a completely different case. Tankred 15:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Even if the status of Hungarian in these communes is inferior to that of Slovak, it remains officially-recognised from what I understand. That is, it is written on bilingual signs, and the language is used in public administration. For this reason, the Hungarian name should be written in the infobox, even if it is in a smaller script. At the end of the day, however, I fail to understand and am surprised by the reticence of some editors to add these names. What exactly is the point of removing them? The argument of "four names in one infobox" is bunk: firstly, I'm not aware of any locality in Slovakia that has three, not to mention four, ethnic groups each with more than 20% population share. Secondly, even if this were the case, this small visual issue is secondary to providing detailed and pluralistic information. Thirdly, if you believe that so many names in an infobox are confusing, you can implement language tags either in the UK localities model (with three names) or the Scotland model, or you can even go for the Vojvodina model. This model has been implemented at Romanian localities, such as Miercurea-Ciuc, Socol, Bistra and Budeşti for ages; it hasn't provoked much discussion there and I don't see why there is a big fuss over it with regard to Slovakia, whose situation is very similar. Ronline ✉ 07:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
You ask "What exactly is the point of removing those names" and I would ask you "What exactly is the point of adding them?". How that would help to readers of English Wikipedia to know these names? In fact, names in the infoboxes do not help at all to such readers because he cannot see in the infobox which name came from which language, but if he have this name written in other part of the article which specifically claim which of these names is Hungarian, Romanian, Slovak, Serbian, etc, then it would mean something to him (contrary to this, the names in the infobox do not mean anything to most Wikipedia readers). PANONIAN 09:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I tend to work under the principle that it's always better to offer more information rather than less, particularly in the context of Wikipedia, where the cost of providing extra information (unlike in a printed encyclopedia) is virtually nil. The point of providing these names is that the viewer immediately sees the alternative name in Hungarian, and is made aware of the fact that the locality under question is a bilingual one (something which alternative names in italics don't provide an indication of). One way to get past the idea of the names being confusing it to label them with their language, as per Scotland, where the English name is labelled "(English)" and the Scottish name is labelled "(Scottish Gaelic)". Another way to do this would be the Wrexham or Glasgow model, where the alternative names are linked directly to the article of the language they are written in. Not to mention that at Vojvodina, we have around 7 lines of official names, and I think that it's a lot more useful that way than just having "Vojvodina". And if the names in the infobox don't mean anything to most Wikipedia readers, what is the point of removing them? I don't want to point fingers, but I find it odd that those who support the exclusion of minority names from infoboxes always tend to be from the majority group. Multilingual infoboxes are used all over Wikipedia, and I don't understand why there is a particular reticence with them being implemented at Slovak or Serbian locality articles. Romanian locality articles have had them for a long time. Ronline ✉ 12:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
If I had to add my own view to the debate, it would probably amount to 98% of what Ronline is saying here. Dahn 12:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
But again: the usual English reader cannot know that names in the infoboxes are Hungarian or Romanian (what ever) because infobox does not have description that these names are Hungarian or Romanian. In another words, such names are not useful. However, I could agree that such names could be written in some articles (for example in such bilingual areas which you described), but in some other articles, such names are not only unneccessary and unuseful, but they also could be seen as expression of irredentist or territorial claims of neighbouring countries (if you already started this political debate). You certainly do not want to insult ethnic Serbs who live in Vršac or Bela Crkva by posting into infobox Hungarian or Romanian name that by some of them could be seen as expression of territorial claims of these two countries towards their city, thus you indirectly by usage of these names send them a message that you will kill them or expel them from their city because this city should be rightfully Hungarian or Romanian (what ever) - and such irredentist claims of both countries towards these cities are well known. And you may say that such irredentist claims are not your intention, but no matter of your aims, many people see usage of those names as irredentist. Therefore, if we writte an scientific project, we should keep politics out of it, and since I do not see a scientific reason that we use these names in the infoboxes like this, there is no reason for us to open political Pandoras box that would only damage this project instead to improve it. PANONIAN 14:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, the English reader can know which names are Hungarian or Romanian, because as I have outlined repeatedly before, we can specifically tag each name with the language in brackets. Look at Scotland. The language of the name is written in brackets - Alba (Scottish Gaelic). Look at Wrexham. The Welsh name "Wrecsam" is linked to the Welsh language article (this is a more subtle and I think more confusing implementation than the Scotland one).
Of course, but there is one big difference: all these names listed in Scotland and Wales are native names of local population, while in the case of Central European regions, such names are also foreign names whose usage could be seen insulting by majority of local inhabitants, therefore, we must make a clear difference between areas where majority of local inhabitants might consider usage of these names insulting and areas where majority of local inhabitants spoke languages which use such names. PANONIAN 21:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Secondly, the point about irredentism is rather absurd. I don't see how putting the Hungarian or Romanian name under a Slovak or Serbian name could be interpreted as a territorial claim. If people do interpret it as such, then honestly it's not Wikipedia's fault, in the same way as it's not Wikipedia's fault is a Romanian nationalist interprets the bilingual naming at Miercurea-Ciuc as a "territorial claim" or as an attempt to "kill or expel Romanians" (!!!). I sincerely hope that we've moved past the stage where a minority-language name is seen as an insult or a threat to the majority group. In a united Europe, minority rights don't work that way. Writing the Hungarian name in the infobox at Dunajska Streda is not irredentism, but rather a reflection of 1) the fact that the town is majoritarily-Hungarian and the main local variant is the Hungarian (not the Slovak) name and 2) that the Hungarian name is officially-recognised on bilingual signs and the Hungarian language is also officially recognised by the local authority.
The point about irredentism is absurd? I am sorry, but you speak like somebody who came to Wikipedia yesterday and who have no idea about things that happening here all the time. I am really sorry that you don't see how usage of Hungarian or Romanian names for places in Serbia or Slovakia could be seen as insulting for Serbs or Slovaks (I for example can see how usage of Serbian names for places in Kosovo could be seen as insulting for Kosovar Albanians). Just remember how long Serbs and Slovaks fought for their independence from Hungarian rule or remember that Romania in 1918/1919 wanted to rule over entire serbian Banat, so once they achieved their independence, Serbs and Slovaks considered that they are now free to use their language and develop their culture and that nobody will ever again impose foreign culture (which include foreign names) on them. Therefore, usage of such names is seen by many people as threat for their freedom and for their independence. Also, in the same way that you said that it is not Wikipedia's purpose to respect such interpretations, I can say that it is also not Wikipedia's purpose to respect rights of ethnic minorities (especially in the manner which you proposing that we should to respect minorities but also to insult majorities). Of course, I do not speak here about places in Serbia and Slovakia where Hungarians or Romanians are in majority, but about places where Serbs and slovaks are in majority. PANONIAN
Panonian, you are setting up a straw man here. No, actually, I don't see how alternate names can be insulting. If you see them as insulting, then perhaps you should undertake some diversity training. The very reason why we have ethnic tension and conflict is because people don't tolerate difference, and this includes alternate names. Alternate names don't do any harm to the original name, they simply act as an extension of information (without doing any harm to the original name). By providing alternate names, you are not impacting on the "native" culture in any way. The fact that Slovaks and Serbs fought for their freedom does not now give them the right to oppress other ethnic groups and deny them the usage of their language, etc. Additionally, how exactly is the provision of alternative names insulting to the majority? It reminds me of the argument used by the far-right to oppose gay pride parades - that these manifestations are "insulting to the majority" and "discriminate against the majority". No people should be insulted by diversity. Period. Ronline ✉ 08:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Well stated, thank you. I agree 100%. K. Lásztocska 14:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
But, Ronline, Wikipedia is not a place where you should defend rights of "oppresed minorities". Nobody deny to these minorities right to use their language, but, man, this is Wikipedia in English and those minorities have Wikipedias in their languages where they can writte their names as much as they want. So, what is problem here really? PANONIAN 20:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
To wrap it all up, why is this case any different to that of Romanian localities? You're making it seem as if the implementation of multilingual infoboxes and the like is a very radical move with regard to Vojvodinian and Slovak locality articles, and yet this very implementation has been present at Romanian localities for a rather long time. And I don't think anyone complained of Hungarian irredentism there. In the same way as no Hungarians complained when the Romanian names got listed at localities such as Micherechi, Otlaca-Pusta and Chitigaz. Romanian and Hungarian editors have managed to agree on a consensus that is favourable to both sides and that is win-win. As I said before, I fail to understand why Slovak and Serbian editor(s) are particularly reticent about this, when the cases are so similar. Ronline ✉ 15:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand why a change in the "Town Slovakia" infobox is discussed here. I would suggest you initiate a discussion at Template talk:Infobox Town Slovakia and inform all the editors of the articles about municipalities in Slovakia. Almost none of them is aware that there is any Hungarian Wikipedians' notice board, with an interesting discussion taking place behind their backs. Tankred 16:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Good suggestion. In fact, all these place-articles have their own talk pages where questions regarding them could be discussed. This is really not a place to discuss about that (especially not about Romanian names). PANONIAN 21:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding whatever infoboxes, Panonian, your approach of only "English" people reading the Wikipedia is wrong. Sorry, there is a large number of minority Hungarians in some countries (no matter how they try to oppress them), and if ANYBODY, perhaps a Slovak or a Romanian would like to know some facts from the other side, (not the media-brainwashed side), why should't they be blocked? I.e. once I was in Presov, with Slovak friends(!), they asked m, what is this sign in a coffe bar "Eperjes", I told them it's the Hungarian name of Presov. They didn't know. To conclude, this is for EVERYBODY (even though I understand what you meant by "English"="English speaking"). Abdulka (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More on naming conventions

Sziasztok,

I'm going to ignore the nonsense that the above discussion has degenerated into, but I've been watching this long saga of the naming conventions for a while now, particularly the discussion about Székelyudvarhely. (Disclaimer: I had no political reason for using the Hungarian name just then, I simply can't spell the Romanian name.) I honestly think that pretty soon we're going to have to get right down to it and draft an official set of naming conventions for the former territory of Greater Hungary. I'm not sure whether we should have one blanket set of rules for all the "lands of the crown of St. Stephen" or whether we should have slightly different sets for Transylvania, southern Slovakia and Vojvodina, but it has to be done. Otherwise these debates will never end and we'll never be able to do anything else. Post-Trianon Central Europe is a unique enough geopolitical case that we can't keep inferring things from the South Tyrol guidelines, the UK guidelines, or the Karelia guidelines (?), we need a specific set of guidelines for this particular issue. It will be a long and arduous struggle, and I fear much blood may be spilled, but it has to be done. Anyone up for the challenge? K. Lásztocska 23:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, K. Lásztocska, would you please check your calendar where you can see that this is not 1907 but 2007, and that Kingdom of Hungary does not exist any more. Therefore, the naming policy of the places in Vojvodina should be same as naming policy of the places in other parts of Serbia, not as naming policies in any of the neighbouring countries. Same apply to other regions. PANONIAN 21:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I know it doesn't exist anymore, that's why I said "...the FORMER territory of Greater Hungary." K. Lásztocska 21:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

For your information: "Kingdom of Hungary" is never officially ceased, only "People's Republic" was started, we can argue that - under international law - it is not valid, as Hungary was under Soviet oppression in 1947, therefore not free to decide on their own. You have to know, that in Hungary you can have Kingdom without king (see Doctrine of the Holy Crown, as the highest power in the kingdom is not the king, but the people and the crown, in this order). We can argue more on how Trianon Peace Treaty (Dictatum, rather) is not valid also, according to international law. So what are we talking about? Abdulka (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

But why would anybody need to make an "official set of naming conventions for the former territory" if such territory does not exist? PANONIAN 21:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Like I said before, my first thought was just to write naming conventions for Transylvania, mainly about the issue of ethnic Hungarian towns and their names in officially Romanian areas. Once Vojvodina and southern Slovakia began to be issues as well, I figured we might as well apply the conventions to Hungarian communities throughout the former KoH. Then today Ronline pointed out that we might as well come up with guidelines for Central Europe in general, and I agreed. As it stands now, any conventions that we write will be for Central Europe in general. K. Lásztocska 22:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It cannot work because only half of Serbia is in Central Europe and another half in the Balkans and Serbia as an existing geographical unit is much more relevant as a mount than an former non-existing historical unit. PANONIAN 23:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh brother. So do we exclude the Balkans from the naming conventions we devise? That will hardly help anything. K. Lásztocska 00:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I'd just like to say that I am rather surprised and frustrated by the way this discussion has progressed. I didn't know that with regard to Serbia and Slovakia there was still so much reticence about minorities and so many nationalistic arguments advanced. I am pleased that in the Talk:Odorheiu Secuiesc we largely managed to avoid ethnic tension and nationalism, but am disappointed that Slovak and Serbian editors seem unable to do the same. When I look at the arguments advanced by users such as Panonian, it's like I'm being plunged back into the debates we used to have in Romania in the early 1990s.
Secondly - how can we solve the problem? I think that first of all any policy should not necessarily be "Hungaro-centric" or molded around the former territory of Greater Hungary. Rather, it should applied generally to multiethnic areas of Central Europe, which can include, for example, Romanian localities in Vojvodina or Serbian localities in Romania. I think, as a minimum, alternative names should be listed in the lead sentence and names which are officially-recognised should be listed in the infobox. It is not fair that Hungarian names are not even listed in the infoboxes of Hungarian-majority localities in Slovakia. It's not fair that multiethnic towns in Vojvodina, a region with six official languages, make no mention of alternative names at all in the lead sentence.
Thirdly, I believe one way out of the impasse may be to take this to WP:RfC or to get some external advice. It's not fair that uncompromising Serbian or Slovak users should be able to prevent legitimate changes to these articles. Just because a locality is in Serbia or Slovakia does not mean that Serbian or Slovak editors own those articles or have any more authority over them than Hungarian, Romanian or Portuguese editors. Ronline ✉ 08:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, Ronline, I remind you again: Wikipedia is not a place where you should defend rights of "oppresed" minorities, but scientific project and English-language readers really do not care whether they will see minority names in the infoboxes or not. Our only purpose in Wikipedia is to writte something that English-language readers would read or learn and for them it is completelly irrelevant where minority names would be written. In another words, English-language readers do not care at all for offiocial language policies in our countries and if we writte Wikipedia for them, then we have no reason to implement such policies. Regarding question whether I "own" these articles, I wrotte almost 90% of these articles, while you wrote almost nothing in them (instead of starting naming-policy revert war), so why you would be more relevant than me to say how naming in such articles should look? PANONIAN 21:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I too am disappointed in the recent trend, after being pleasantly surprised at how civilized everyone was on Odorheiu Secuiesc. (I can spell it when I copy-paste...) Of course, any guidelines don't have to be totally Hungarocentric. I first thought of this a few weeks ago while watching the Székelyudvarhely debate as "Wow, we really need a specific set of guidelines for Transylvania!" and yesterday as I noticed the Slovaks and Serbs had joined the debate, I realized we needed rules for an even larger area--Greater Hungary was the obvious next step up from Transylvania, but of course we can extend it to all of Central Europe. But how should we define the boundaries of "Central Europe"?
Incidentally, my own idea of what to do in the specific case of Székelyudvarhely was this: given that the Hungarians are an overwhelming majority in that town (95%, was it?) it can safely be assumed that the inhabitants call it "Székelyudvarhely". My vote would have been for renaming the article to the Hungarian name, and then in the lead sentence saying something like "Székelyudvarhely (official name Odorheiu Secuiesc) is a town in Romania...." with a footnote explaining that the only official language is Romanian but the population of this town was so overwhelmingly Hungarian that, according to the official Wikipedia Transylvanian naming conventions.......yes, the ones we haven't written yet...
I'm not going to try and re-open that case, but it's food for thought. I think that whenever we do write the naming conventions we should take common names into account almost as much as official names (and "recognized English names"--sorry, but what the @#*% does that even mean in this context??). After all, we have an article named "Tony Blair", not "Antony Charles Lyndon Blair." ;-)
Finally, as for WP:RfC, the only one of those that I ever took part in did next to nothing toward resolving the dispute, instead it just made it worse by giving the involved parties free rein, carte blance and a big soapbox to stand on and shout their grievances at the tops of their lungs. Also, there was no real outside input, it was just everyone who had been involved in the dispute to begin with. I won't try to stop anyone from launching an RfC but I would strongly urge contacting anybody we know from outside C. Europe for a fresh perspective, especially people who have been involved in previous naming convention debates (some Brits, maybe a few Germans, etc.). K. Lásztocska 14:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Ronline, I must say I do not understand your last comment. Why are you suggesting RfC before initiating any discussion with editors of the articles about municipalities in Slovakia? This is not a standard sequence of procedures. So far, you have asked for my opinion, I gave it to you. But there are a dozen of other active editors who may be interested in this discussion and perhaps reach an easy consensus. As I said, this is not an appropriate place for a discussion concerning Template:Infobox Town Slovakia. Why do not you start a discussion at Template talk:Infobox Town Slovakia and drop a line on the talk pages of Slovak editors? Disclaimer: I do not mean editors of the so-called Slovak ethnicity, but users frequently editing articles about Slovakia. Most of them have no idea this discussion is taking a place and have never visited the Hungarian Wikipedians' notice board. Tankred 14:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Tankred, this place is to discuss about the idea of K. Lásztocska above. No action have been taken by her so far. I suppose, if there will be a proposal, all interested parties will be informed in due time (and not only Slovakians, but others, too). I think, a discussion like this will take a lot of time until an agreement is reached so there is no need to worry.
Anyway, I propose that a policy is elaborated on a separate project page. All we need to know is if people are interested in elaborating one. --KIDB 15:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not think we need a separate policy page for this small difference. Moreover, there are several different infoboxes now in use and the rules should respect (1) their particular graphic layout and (2) cross-country differences in the legal status of minority languages. That is why I proposed to move this discussion to a template page. Alternatively, someone can propose a more general amendment to WP:NCGN, which already covers the text of articles, but not infoboxes. I am open to both alternatives (a particular solution for infoboxes of Slovakia's towns or a more general solution for all infoboxes in ethnically mixed territories as part of an existing policy), but I do not like very much an idea of a special policy page for such a small issue. There are already too many policy pages on Wikipedia. Tankred 16:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand your concern, but I'm not sure that Central European naming conventions is a "small issue"--we've all been kicking each other's teeth out over it for almost a week now, and these battles aren't exactly a rare occurence. My thought was that if we could standardize some guidelines once and for all, we could avoid getting habitually mired in these debates in the future. As it stands now, every time a name issue comes up, we drag out all the same old tired arguments, re-scrutinize every detail for the thousandth time, argue over precise census numbers and end up just throwing political and philosophical mud on each other. If we had a set of rules we could all agree on, we could avoid having to go through hell and high water every time there is a question over a place name. That was my intention in making this suggestion, anyway. K. Lásztocska 16:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. So, I suggest someone proposes an infobox amendment to WP:NCGN at its talk page, and we discuss it there. Tankred 17:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that everything depends on the users concerned and here we have only a handful of Central-European users. In this situation I think it is practically impossible to reach any compromise between people who debated a lot before without any success. This is not a question of good guidelines and policies but the question of persons. I admit that I have a lot of mistrust against 2-3 Slovak and Serb users, and I don't believe that arguing with them will change anything. I'm sure that this mistrust is mutual. So I think we should be delighted that many Hungarian and Romanian users reached a compromise in the case of Transylvanian and Hungarian placenames. We should maintain this agreement, improve and set as a guideline for the two countries. As for Slovakia and Serbia I would leave this problem for the next generation of wikipedians. Zello 21:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a proposal of solution that will solve all our problems: (1.) In the first sentences of the articles and in the infoboxes we can use only generally accepted most common English names (We primarily writte Wikipedia for English-language readers and we should not confuse them with so many names in the infoboxes and in the first paragraph of the article where other more important things should be, (2.) If English-language readers want to know other names used for the subject, such names could be written in the "Name" section where they easy can find them, and (3.) We can have separate article sections named "Language" where we can describe official language policies, i.e, we can say which languages are used as official by local or state authorities. PANONIAN 21:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
And of course, this is mother of all questions: why the hell (I apologize for my language) English Wikipedia should use so many non-English names in its articles? PANONIAN 21:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Fundamental misunderstanding--all of the town names in question are "non-English". They are Hungarian and Slovakian and Serbian and Romanian. "Common English names" is a pretty useless concept when we're talking about Transylvanian villages or whatever. K. Lásztocska 22:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
No, you are wrong. Just see any geographical atlas written in English language where you will see that most common English names are pretty much used for most localities in the World. As for places in Transylvania, here you have example of most common English name for Sfantu-Gheorghe: http://www.fallingrain.com/world/RO/15/SfantuGheorghe.html The English language did borrowed this name from Romanian, but once borrowed, this name is now also English whether somebody like it or not. PANONIAN 23:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not English, it is a Romanian name that is (apparently) standard usage in English. There is a difference, albeit slight. K. Lásztocska 00:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You are joking... I will never agree the "Vojvodinization" of Hungarian localities. Zello 22:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not joking, I am very serious, if we want to implement same model for all localities in entire Central Europe then the most acceptable model would be one based on pure science and most common names used in English. Everything else is just a politization of the problem. PANONIAN 23:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Better not to expect that Hungarian users will support your idea of deleting Hungarian names in the lead everywhere on wikipedia to summarise the content of your phantastic proposal. You enforced this change in Vojvodina but that should be enough. Zello 00:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

But I am not the one who proposing same conventions for entire Central Europe. I am just saying that if such new convention is created and implemented it is very likely that it will be much more close to my proposal than to yours. PANONIAN 00:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Most Central European countries have minority rights laws and give some official recognition to minority language place names so I wouldn't be so sure in your place. Bilingual infoboxes are in line with the legal situation in most countries. But to make it clear I strongly oppose any kind of naming convention for Central-Europe. I don't believe that we should co-operate - that never worked before and will never work. Zello 00:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine. My idea was obviously a bad one and now that this discussion has degenerated into yet another appallingly stupid political mud-slinging war, I am withdrawing from the debate. So much for trying to make progress. K. Lásztocska 02:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Lásztocska, you promised blood sweat and tears, but I can only see a couple of users sweating over convincing us that the status quo of constant edit wars is necessary to be maintained. The same time, most people seem to be tired of being involved in any discussion like this and I completely understand them. However, I am sorry that the majority remains silent and a few shouting dwarfs take the stage. --KIDB 20:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but I promised blood sweat and tears for an effort to set some guidelines that could put an END to these constant edit wars. I'm not trying to maintain this unfortunate status quo (I was trying to take a swipe at overturning it) but it clearly backfired anyway. K. Lásztocska 20:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
This is exactly what I wanted to say but my English seems to be somewhat weak these days. --KIDB 20:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
No problem, just a little misunderstanding. :-) Your English is quite good, certainly better than my Hungarian. K. Lásztocska 21:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For a good compromise common basic values, trust and good-will are needed. This is why we were able to talk with each other on the Székelyudvarhely talk page. I have this trust in Ronline, Dahn, Turgidson and I also had a reasonable and civilized debate with Alex. But to put it simply I don't have this trust in Tankred who began deleting Hungarian place names all over in wikipedia refering to a new guideline that was never really discussed with Hungarian users. And I don't have this trust in Panonian whose vehement reaction to Ronline's proposal anybody could have seen. A compromise for the sake of compromise is a mistake itself, and you will reach only a bad compromise in this way. Zello 21:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I really do not understand to what exactly you object. Look these articles: Subotica, Senta, Bečej, etc, etc. You may notice that naming policies used in these articles are 95% similar to your proposals, you have there Hungarian names in the infoboxes and in the first sentences and I have no intention to remove these names because Hungarians are majority in these areas and therefore names used by majority of local inhabitants indeed could be seen as relevant. But I really do not see a valid reason to writte such names into infoboxes of the articles about ethnic Serb cities (Contrary to this, all articles about places in Vojvodina with Hungarian majority are exactly in accordance with your wishes, so I do not see why we should create problem from any of these two naming models). PANONIAN 14:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
And by the way, even if proposal made by Ronline that minority names could be also written into infoboxes of the municipalies that have more than 15-20% of minority groups is implemented, that would make a difference only in 6-7 municipality articles and there is really no reason for anybody here to "fight" so much about infoboxes in 6-7 articles. PANONIAN 15:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Zello, thank you for leaving friendly comments on me all over Wikipedia. Your interpretation of the naming convention is very antagonistic and partially wrong. The discussion of the naming convention you are referring to was advertised on this very notice board. But in light of your comments in this new discussion, I can understand why you did not join that one. Too many non-Hungarians there. I am not sure what you mean by a "good" or "bad" compromise, but your comment suggests a "good" compromise is the one protecting your particular interest. That is not the most productive negotiating strategy. Whenever you find courage to reach a broader compromise, outside the circle of your buddies, you are welcome to. Until then, you are right, there is no point in continuing this discussion. Just do not forget that Wikipedia is not edited only by Hungarians. I am sorry if my comment sounds harsh, but I am kind of pissed by your incessant campaign against me. Carthago delenda est, as would say your great predecessor. Tankred 22:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The most productive negotiating strategy was using the opportunity that no Hungarian user discovered the importance of that discussion, and in their absence write a guideline which makes anachronism the rule of wikipedia. You can easily show your good-will after that, speaking always very politely, but your deeds speak more honestly. Indeed you are well aware that there is nothing we can discuss about, because everything had been already decided in that discussion. Zello 22:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hold on a minute, Zello. I just read through the new WP:NCGN page and I don't see anything that would ban us from using Hungarian names in historical context, or in articles about the history of the KoH. In fact, just the opposite: the following is a direct quote from the NCGN page:
*Gdańsk or Danzig? Discussion at Talk:Gdansk/Vote determined that Gdańsk is the single widely accepted English name in modern context, but Danzig is its widely accepted historical English name for certain historical contexts. There is no city of Danzig at present, but this term can be used in various historical contexts as described on the discussion page.
  • Volgograd or Stalingrad? Volgograd is the single widely accepted English name in modern context but Stalingrad is a widely accepted English name for certain historical contexts. Therefore during the Second World War there was a Battle of Stalingrad, not a Battle of Volgograd, and when referring to the city during the Stalinist era, the term Stalingrad is more correct than Volgograd; Battle of Stalingrad mentions Volgograd once in the text; three times in describing external links.
  • Istanbul or Constantinople? Istanbul is the single widely accepted English name in modern context, but Constantinople is a widely accepted historical English name. Now Constantinople is a separate article covering the history of Istanbul until 1453 and the term used to refer to the city in historical context before 1453.
  • Vilnius or Wilno? Vilnius is the single widely accepted English name in modern context, but Wilno is widely accepted in historical contexts where the Polish language was more popular than the Lithuanian language (during the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth).
Wouldn't we be able to extrapolate from that and say it is obvious that we CAN refer to pre-Trianon Bratislava as Pozsony or Pressburg, Cluj-Napoca as Kolozsvár, Timisoara as Temesvár? "Widely accepted historical English name in certain historical context" is pretty clear--unless somebody finds hordes of history books that call Roman Posonium "Bratislava", I'd say we have nothing to worry about--just the opposite, actually. K. Lásztocska 23:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I leave to Tankred the task to explain to you why we are not allowed to call Bratislava Pozsony or Pressburg before 1918. Or you can take a look at the talk page of Bratislava. Probably nobody noticed but Tankred deleted a lot of Hungarian place names in the past weeks in the name of the new guideline. Only some examples: Elisabeth of Hungary, Péter Pázmány, Alfred Tauber, Bálint Balassa, Cave Bath, Matej Bel, Gabriel Bethlen. Zello 23:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Zello, you know very well that I came to this notice board to discuss the convention and its possible interpretations before I made any of the edits you have mentioned. So, my explanation is already here, in Wikipedia:Hungarian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Applying_the_naming_convention. The Hungarian names can be found in the lead or in the special Names section of articles. Moreover, as K. Lásztocska has just pointed out and I have already encouraged you to do several times, you can easily reintroduce any name if you can prove that the name is widely accepted in the English language. You know, this is the English Wikipedia. You have had enough time to pick up any Slovak town and initiate such a discussion. Instead, you are misinterpreting both the convention and my own behavior. The same happened in the recent discussion about infoboxes, by the way. You decided not to engage because a compromise would be "bad". Tankred 15:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The naming comvention is fundamentally wrong because it makes anachronism the rule and only allows the usage of former official names as an exception with putting the burden of verification on me if I would like to use them. You are as fully aware as me that in the framework of this guideline the usage of Hungarian names is impossible. Zello 22:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No it's not impossible, Zello. Why don't we look for ways to get the Hungarian names in where we need them instead of sitting around and complaining? NCGN has gone through many revisions, this is probably not the final version. Until the guidelines change in a way that might make it easier, we just have to work a little harder than we might otherwise. Later today I will look through every European history book I own for references by name to Pozsony. I'm pretty sure I'll be able to find enough to let us put "Pozsony" alongside "Pressburg" in the lead for Bratislava. (Smaller towns will be harder.) So, the burden of verification is on us--then let's start verifying! I know the current rules are probably not 100% ideal from our standpoint, but it's still a better use of our time to try and find ways around any potential roadblocks rather than just whining about them. K. Lásztocska 22:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hungarian history was never a favourite topic of English historical literature. You won't find any English sources for the 95 % of the localities which means that according to the logic of the guideline you should use present-day official names. But the logic of this guideline is essentially wrong. Let us put aside Central Europe and go to a neutral area, for example ancient Roman Syria. The most important ancient town of this province was Antiochia (now called Antakya). You will find enough English hits using the old name, no problem. Then you will find a very interesting old 5th century monastery in another Syrian town, Ocurura (now called Qárá). You would like to write an article about the history of this town but if you follow faithfully the guideline (or Tankred's interpretation of the guideline) you are forced to call this town in the modern name (speaking about the 5th century!) because you have no English source. This is why I say the the whole framework (or the interpretation of it) is wrong. Anachronism can't be the rule. Zello 22:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that is a problem. Surely we must simply be missing something here? Does it really say (to stick with your example) we would have to say "Qárá" instead of "Ocurura"? Why not just do this: "The monastery at Ocurura (present-day Qárá) was very interesting and had great significance for (yada yada yada, etc.)..." I'll look into this further...K. Lásztocska 22:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Any good naming policy should be based on the ground principle that contemporary official names are the best, except when English historical literature uses another name. But then you should prove this, as an exception. It is basically the opposite logic what Tankred used. Zello 00:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am repeating myself, but Hungarian was NOT the official language in Hungary before the 1860's, nor the majority language in most settlements in Hungary, therefore - even ignoring any naming convention - Hungarian-language names, especially their current versions, are anachronistic exactly in the cases where Zello wants to have them (except for the short period of time around 1900). And on the contrary, many settlements in present-day Hungary would have Slavic names up to the 15th century. In sum, whether we allow for the naming convention, or for user comfort, or for contemporary names, using Hungarian names as a principle is always wrong. Juro 23:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC) P.S.: To illustrate this, Buda would be Budin in the 18th century and Ofen after 1800 and in certain medieval periods, analogous rules hold for Pest in the 18th and 19th century and most if not all towns in present-day Hungary up to cca. 1850 (German or Slavic majority). Juro 23:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And I also repeating myself saying that Hungarian became the official language of the KoH in 1835 and remained that except the 1849-1861 period. But the official language problem is misleading. We need the names not the official language generally. With a toponymycal dictionary in your hand you can easily discover which name was generally used in official documents. Orthography is always changing but the names rarely. If an 18th century source speaks about Pressporek both of us will now that this is Prešporok (intentionally using a Slovak example). Indeed I wouldn't like to disappoint you that according to my experiences medieval and later official documents used Hungarian and German names in most cases. But this is only a question of citations and discussions on the talk pages. Zello 00:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

ps. Your example is not far away from Danzig/Gdansk solution. In the end they established the usage of different names in different periods. Exactly what you proposed about Buda (although the content of your proposal obviously needs discussion on the talk page). Theoretically I'm absolutely not against something similar solution. Zello


Zello, wasn't Hungarian made the official language in 1844? That's what the book I currently have in front of me says ("The Hungarians" by Paul Lendvai, Princeton University Press, 2003.) (and wasn't Hungarian restored as the national language with the Nationalities Law in 1868?) Personally, I think the "Gdanzig protocol" is as close to an ideal solution as we are ever going to get, and the situation is very similar to Pozsony/Pressburg/Bratislava. I would suggest:
  • Post-Trianon uses the name Bratislava exclusively.
  • Pre-1844, Pressburg.
  • Between 1844 and 1849, and again between 1861 (1868?) and 1919, Pozsony.
  • As for the 1849-1861(68?) interlude, Pressburg again.
K. Lásztocska 00:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Or in 1844, but the 10 years do not change anything compared to the 900 years in question. Secondly, a name is defined by every single letter, not by its genetic origin, nor by guesses of a user of the wikipedia about its "similarity" to another name. Saying that Pressporek is the same name as Prešporok, is wrong, because these are clearly two different names (in most cases however the comparison will be much more difficult, because you have to know whether the author stems from Lower Bavaria, Upper Bavaria, Spiš, Lower Vojvodina, Budapest etc. etc. to know how he distorts the letters and even then the result is mostly disputable). The only thing Pressporek and Prešporok have in common is that they are in Slovak (and this is not clear in the case of Poson etc. for example). And Bratislava is quite well documented in terms of names, but despite this fact - actually exactly because of this fact (knowledge creates new questions) - every second name version for older namesis disputed in terms of linguistics or of its source, origin etc. You can also remember our dispute regarding one village in southern Slovakia, where it turned out (and you do not even hide that) that what you really want here are Hungarian names at any price and not contemporary names. You cannot persuade anybody that it is possible to discuss thousands of settlement this way here (that would be too much even for experts), especially not given the fact that I know from past experience with you that what you plan to do is to interprete any name not being explicitely non-Hungarian or Hungarian as Hungarian and to use the current or 19th century Hungarian name as the allegedly correct name of the settlement (that is what you wanted to do with the said village, it was very instructive for me). That will not work. And I also remember our "agreement" that we will use Latin names, but two weeks later you started to ignore the rule and to use Hungarian names instead. Very "trustworthy", I really wonder which trick you are going to present next. Juro 00:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to remind everybody that we are here to discuss naming conventions in Central Europe, not to comment on the past behavior, assumed motives, or trustworthiness of our fellow Wikipedians. Let's not allow this to degenerate into a personal debate please. K. Lásztocska 00:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The point is we had similar discussions here years ago and what I describe is the result of Zello's proposal to discuss each settlement separately (we have had such a discussion) or of an "agreement" with Zello in this field...As for your above table: It is pointless to discuss individual towns here and a separate arrangement for cities like Bratislava or Budapest is possible. I thought this was a general discussion of the issue here, so understand my comments as a reaction to a general naming procedure for KoH, not to these speacial cases. Juro 00:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I adapted those principles very easily from the Danzig/Gdansk solution, so it would be equally easy to apply them to other cities. I just used Pozsonislava as an example because we'd been talking about it. As I said, I think the general principles of the Danzig/Gdansk solution are as close to ideal as we can get, and we could/should consider applying some version of those general principles to the KoH. K. Lásztocska 01:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
As an example, the problem with your above table is that Bratislava was called Pressburg in English even after 1867 (see 1911 Britannica), iow. it had an English name (derived from German, like in most cases in English). Secondly, I understand that you have good intentions, but you must understand that such Gdansk arrangements are (1) confusing for the reader (and ridiculous IMO, but that is irrelevant), (2) only possible for really big towns and/or - in our case - for the period say after 1800. Older names are highly chaotic and inconsistent in 95 % of the cases with frequently changing language, spelling, ethnicity and "officiality" of authors. And I really do not understand how it helps anybody if a village has a different name in every sentence of a text regarding the period before 1800, given that one can put a table with the list of PRESERVED (i.e. definitely NOT ALL USED IN REALITY and not necessarily CORRECTLY WRITTEN ) names in the text of the article about the settlement. Juro 01:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
There's no need to SHOUT. ;-) In any event, I give up. This is probably an unresolvable issue. K. Lásztocska 01:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Claiming that orthographical differences mean different names is ridiculous. Mediavel people were crazy to have 240000 name for a town? No, only they didn't use standard written versions. There is a Hungarian proverb: nem akarásnak nyögés a vége. It means something like that: if you wouldn't like to do something you will say that it's impossible. Zello 13:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

ps. The Latin names agreement was never accepted by me as a final, general solution but a modus vivendi. In cases where we agreed about it I never deleted the Latin name, indeed Tankred deleted some of them recently... Zello 13:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

1836/III törv. - "About the national language", accepted by the Hungarian diet on 2 May 1836. After this date no discussion is needed only before it. Zello 13:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Again

Juro is blocked again indefinitely. It seems to me that the discussion above was superfluous. Zello 14:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, OK, that's one way to force an end to the war. Goodbye Juro (again), it was fun while it lasted. K. Lásztocska 15:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say that Juro at least understood my concerns about the situation altough he was firmly anti-Hungarian. In the past he showed many times more good-will than Tankred and Panonian. Even now he expressed that Pressburg is more appropriate in history sections than Bratislava (although he hated Pozsony, of course). Nothing will be better now. Zello 17:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Tankred acts in bad faith. We disagree a lot, but that's to be expected. I've actually found him to be quite nice, and he has always at least made an effort to consider my viewpoint and try to discuss things like a civilized human being instead of just yelling like a troll. As for the deleting-names thing, it's probably just a mutual misunderstanding of the NCGN and a reflection of how insanely complicated the issues of language and naming conventions get in C. Europe. Like the old saw "Never ascribe to malice what can be sufficiently explained by stupidity", although in this case I think it is just confusion and misunderstanding on all sides, not stupidity. K. Lásztocska 18:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You are more optimist than me. For me deeds are more important than politeness. Juro was rude but sometimes he was open to a real discussions, Tankred is very polite but he will wipe out Hungarian names all over wikipedia. That is how I see. Zello 18:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You raise a good point - again - about disruptive editors. (apropos the first one; that most will eventually cheat, e.g. with sockpuppets - does anyone really wonder who Koonjo is? [1]) - Its far easier to dismiss them when they wear the badge of profanity (go read here [2]) or complete rudeness. Be much more wary of those that know better...István 03:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attack against bilingual infoboxes in Romania

A Romanian user, Roamataa began deleting minority language names in the infoboxes, see for example Bistra and Moldoveneşti. Indeed Roamataa deleted Hungarian names all over the infoxes in Cluj County (about a dozen villages). As far as I know there was a consensus among Romanian users that they accept bilingual infoboxes (with 20 % population limit), and there was no problem with them in the past half year. I asked for help some Romanian users, and I hope they will find a solution but if you have time, express you opinion in the discussion, and check the changes. Zello 00:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake, not again. This is why I wanted to put some official naming conventions in writing, at least for Transylvania if nothing else, to be able to have some official policy to point to whenever something like this happens. Then we could say "See, you violate our consensus-approved policy by deleting these names" and that would be the end of it....K. Lásztocska 02:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Just an update: I think the infobox problem has been solved. I have agreed with Roamataa that the infobox should also contain the word "Comuna" and "kommuna" in order to make it evident that we are talking about communes. The bilingual names will remain. See Izvoru Crişului for an example. Ronline ✉ 13:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you indeed! Hopefully you won't be accused of this Magyarization thing too much. Zello 13:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delsort

not sure where else to put a link to this: please remember to keep an eye on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hungary

[edit] Proposal

I agree that we should write down the existing consensus, and I believe that we are able to succesfully cooperate with most Romanian users. I only opposed your greater, Central-European convention idea (after the Bač-discussion, probably you understand my reasons). As for new naming convention problem, I have an idea. I would like to add only one sentence to the existing convention: "Historical names can also be used when majority of the editors working on the article agree about their usage." This opens up the way to reach a reasonable agreement when it is possible without any obligation. I also ask users who are strongly against Hungarian names like Tankred and Panonian whether they accept such a solution. Hm? Zello 12:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely see now that applying one blanket set of rules to everywhere would be a very bad idea. I'm back to my original idea of just Transylvania. I heartily agree, we should make our agreement with the Romanians official as soon as possible. As for your sentence to be added to the NCGN--it's a good idea, will probably need a little polishing up and clarification before we officially add it, but the concept is good. I don't have time to work on naming conventions today but I'll help out wherever I can later in the week. K. Lásztocska 15:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't like to hurry with it, and I wait for every suggestion and opinion from users who followed the discussion. Zello 15:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I just posted a message on the Romanian noticeboard inviting them all to come express their opinions and help us finally finish this off. Hopefully we'll officially resolve this sometime soon. :) K. Lásztocska 17:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a hard time figuring out what stage this situation has reached, but I must say, yet again, that I endorse the compromise on naming per first appearance within articles (my original arguments still stand, but this has shown itself constructive), and, needless to say, I give my full endorsement to several languages in infoboxes. For this naming sample at least, the issue of "what language is official" is utterly irrelevant. Dahn 17:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If this is about localities in Romania and you want to discuss them with the Romanian editors, please express your proposal on Romanian Wikipedians' notice board and we can discuss it. --Roamataa 17:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is precisely the "our turf" attitude I feel shouldn't be encouraged. A note has been dropped there (reason why I am here), so moving this discussion around only serves to get people to repeat themselves. Btw: virtually everyone who ever showed interest in this topic has expressed his or her opinion several times by now; polls were set, consensus was reached, terms were clarified, and rationales were elaborated to death. If anything, we should even be discussing this, but simply reverting all changes that go against consensus, per NPOV policies. Dahn 18:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
My idea for what we should be (briefly) discussing was the exact specifications of the policy which we should put in writing so it's official. I was on wikibreak during the Odorheiu Székely debate, so I for one am not even 100% sure what the consensus was....ooops. K. Lásztocska 18:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, the consensus was that infoboxes be bilingual (and trilingual?) where the minority population is over 20% (as per Romanian law, but necessarily because of the Romanian law). The issue of Romanian localities with a minority Romanian population, and its consequences on the nmaes as appearing in the body of the article yielded a clear consensus as present in the introductory section here (i.e.: two bolded names). The poll at Talk:Odorheiu Secuiesc clarified that almost all users, irrespective of ethnicity and nationality, support this for localities with a clear non-Romanian majority. Most of those users (myself included) also proposed that this "double bolding" be done for localities with an over 20% minority population - I expect this last result to be more controversial and possibly subject to overturning, but I have and will endorse it for as long as most of us agree, and I will certainly endorse it for all Romanian localities where Romanians are a minority. Dahn 18:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Roamataa made an interesting point somewhere around here: should we also apply this "consensus" to the administrative division(development reg / counties / communes)? cause in romanian law these shouldn't be present on signs, not even with an "informative character", like those of the localities.Anonimu 18:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Now commune-centres don't have their own articles, they are included in the commune-articles itself. I suggested a change in this custom, not because of the infoboxes but I think natural settlement units (towns and villages) are more important than ever-changing administrative districts. Naturally the history, development, population, sights of the commune-centre makes up the majority of the text now. It would be a lot better to create a short summary-like article for the commune itself and leave the existing article for the town/main village. Without this separation AND deleting bilingual commune-infoboxes the most important villages will became monolingual in the infobox area, for example Sic with its 90 % Hung. majority. Zello 20:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Menuetto

Hi. Just to let you know that User:Menuetto is flaunting consensus on the articles on Hungarian-majority localities in Romania. See his contributions. I'm trying to deal with this as fast as possible, but I will be going offline soon. I am inclined to believe this is the same user as Erdeniss. Ronline ✉ 13:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slovak counties

We already have Juro's heir. A Slovak user, Svetovid moved a lot of old KoH county articles to anachronistic Slovak names. As everybody here certainly know Spiš county never existed as an official name. Anybody has got some energy for this? Zello 17:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I already tried to discuss the problem,[3], [4], [5], [6], instead renaming we should separate the articles.Baxter9 20:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, separation would be a good idea. The infobox is about the county system from the time of the Dual Monarchy anyway, there is no point in discussing wether the Latin or the Hungarian name should be used in the title. --KIDB 10:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New categories about Hungarian history

One of the users has created new categories like Category:Kingdom of Hungary, or Category:Geography of Transylvania and has been removing articles from History of Hungary, Transylvania and similar topics. Unfortunately, this was done without consultation with users active in these articles. I personally don't mind if these new categories are used, however, I do not support that the pages concerned are removed from their original places the same time. Can you please indicate here if you agree with the new situation. (I placed a similar note on the Romanian notice board)Thanks, --KIDB 05:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

User Francis Tyers · wants to delete the Anti-Hungarian sentiment article, he already added the {{{afd}}}template.Baxter9 20:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Counties of Hungary

There is a new discussion about the names and disambiguation of the Hungarian counties. Please help to find a solution. - Weekshigh 07:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dictionary

For those interested, there is a new on-line Romanian-Hungarian dictionary here. --KIDB 07:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Budapest Offensive

Requested article at Talk:Battle_of_Budapest#Budapest_Offensive.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ferenc Gyurcsány

Hi, there is a paragraph here about this guy's religious affiliation which was NPOVized and referenced a while back – by me – but this user keeps deleting it (and has also removed my warning from his talk page, along with all earlier comments). Anyone willing to provide a third opinion? Thanks, KissL 10:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with the paragraph and I haven't found any argument about the removal. I think we should keep it. Zello 14:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Reference is unoverseeable. --Beyond silence 21:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Zello for stepping in. However this edit war is still going on. BS now reverts without comment or argument, and has called me a vandal in an edit comment too. I'm not sure the sentences I'm not letting him remove couldn't be made more NPOV, but I have come up with my best idea and he just doesn't discuss. KissL 07:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laszlo Forizs

Hungarian author/translator Laszlo Forizs up for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laszlo Forizs. Input from wikipedians familiar with Hungarian literature would be appreciated. —David Eppstein 16:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KRG

Hi! Can anyone here help with the following puzzle? In the 1920s and 30s, the Hungarian government manufactured aircraft at a facility in Székesfehévár-Sóstó known by the initials "KRG". English-language sources consistently translate this as "Central Repair Workshops", and my sense is that it was not a specifically aviation-related facility but perhaps an army or even railway facility that was used for limited aircraft production as well (a very common arrangement in other parts of Europe at the time). I'd like to know what the letters stand for in Hungarian, if only to be able to disambiguate from other things at KRG. Even better, of course, is if someone has a source they can confirm some details with! Another clue - as well as building foreign aircraft under licence, KRG is most remembered for being the facility that built the "Avis" series of aircraft, amongst Hungary's first domestically-produced aircraft. --Rlandmann 21:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not knowledgeable in this topic, so I could only look on the net. This is the only page where I could find relevant information. It says that the Sóstó facility used serials beginning with ReGJÜ, short for Repülőgépjavító Üzem "Aircraft Repair Workshop". ("Repülőgépjavító" is a compound word made up of repülő + gép + javító; it is not uncommon in Hungarian to include the initial letters of components of such words in an initialism.) On this subpage (dealing with Fokker) it says explicitly that the name of the facility was "Székesfehérvár-Sóstó Központi Repülőgépjavító Üzem" (spelling corrected), which translates literally as "Székesfehérvár-Sóstó Central Aircraft Repair Workshop". KRG is probably an abbreviation of this name. From what it says on these pages, it seems though that it was indeed a site specifically used for (clandestine) aircraft production and repair.
Incidentally, I happen to know the author of this page: I spent one year as a PhD student at the same university department where he works (though I never knew he was so fond of military aircraft). He's a Polish professor who's been living in Hungary for decades now. If you want to confirm some details using the sources he mentions on his pages, he'll probably be happy to help you. His email address is at the bottom of this page. Regards, KissL 10:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you. I had actually looked at that site but somehow not seen the Fokker sub-page, which is the clue I needed: the KRG my references mention built Fokker aircraft. I have emailed Dr Dobrowiecki to find out more. Cheers --Rlandmann 20:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ??

Kedves magyar wikisek! Olvastátok azokat a cikkeket, amelyek északi szomszédunk "nemeseinek" a nevét, vagy híres személyeit tartalmazza? Én igen... A felsorolt egyének 90%-a magyar...

Sokkal durvább dolgok is vannak itt, a cikkek legnagyobb része borzalmas és minden nap tovább romlik amikor minden arrajáró idióta szabadon beleírhat.

[edit] Panonian

Panonian is now blocked. I am kindly asking all Hungarian contributors to make ONLY NPOV changes to "his" articles. --KIDB 09:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March laws

Could someone with a little more expertise on this topic than this poor computer guy flesh out this article a bit? I looked at hu:wiki, and we don't even have an article on this topic there, so I can't really start off without some research, which I have no time to do these days... KissL 14:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karthago band

Karthago looks notable from google and the Hungarian wikipedia, but it's hard for me to find solid evidence, maybe someone from here can help? Kappa

[edit] Category:Polish-Hungarian relations

I have created a new category; please help populate.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  11:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Eastern European Wikipedians' notice board

Perhaps our Hungarian colleagues would be interested in joining this project?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Budapest Offensive

I have created article on this major WWII operation, but I lack materials to expand it to DYK. Perhaps one of this board's readers would like to work on it?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voting on a hungarian related issue

There's a vote going on at Ausgleich, to rename it to an English equivalent. Using a German for a matter related to Austria Hungary (Hungarian was an official language too) is quite biased name, especially when an English term is also used. Have a look and shed your light.Rex 08:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Táltos

We've got a rather strange article here--I'm not well enough versed in this particular segment of Hungarian mythology to be of much use, but I'm pretty sure that for starters, the article should present the Táltos as a legendary and mythological figure rather than a historical fact...take a look at it and let's see what we can do. K. Lásztocska 15:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I started it. Why are you sure it is "legendary and mythological figure". Dioszeghy was putting Táltos to a Shaman, which is definitely not. Táltos is only a first step, I am building "Ancient Hungarian Religion" (Ősvallás), where I will put only facts, with original Latin references, questioning the now-known "mythology" approach. Abdulka (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Gothic architecture

I started a Hungary section in this list; please add the Gothic style buildings you know. – Alensha talk 21:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

1) Velemer 2) pesti plebaniatemplom hatso fele

3) Nyirbator??

nem sok van... a torok idoben eltuntek, meg nem is voltak igazan.

romanbol van 4, az tobb (Jak, Ocsa, Lebeny, Bakonybel) megy egy csomo rom, Jak, Varad, Szfvar, stb.

Erdely: ott van egy csomo szasz templom (szebentol Segesvarig vagy 50, Brasso fele meg 20-30), magyar templom (Derzs, Kolozsvar,egy csomo kicsi), azok jok? Felvideken is megmaradt egy tonna. --Vargatamas 20:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PANONIAN

I am afraid I can not tolerate anymore User:PANONIAN's behavior: his agressive and disruptive style, edit warring, bad faith, absurd accusations, and pushing Serbian ultra-nationalist agenda and anti-Hungarian POV, calling Hungarians barbarians etc. I would like to request a block or ban on him, but I don't how to do it, so I need some advise. I also would like to ask: what is your opinion? Thanks. --Koppany 16:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could try a Request for Arbitration or a Request for Comment, but those tend to get huge and tiresome. Then again, I guess dealing with an obnoxious user can be just as tiresome, so it's your call. K. Lásztocska 16:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I would gladly join in any request for a block and/or ban on PANONIAN. You can seek out user:Fcsaba and user:Rjecina who also had to suffer frequent personal attacks from him. It's very possible that there are a lot more users who are willing to state that his edits are considered extreme POV/propaganda (his work/edits were called that by a LOT of ppl for example in a vote on commons). Hobartimus 15:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
My experience has been that his problem is not actually ultranationalism on his part, but an extreme sensitivity approaching paranoia about criticism of Serbia. I can understand where that comes from (Serbs do have an unnecessarily bad reputation in the West, and I can totally sympathize with wanting to counteract that) but in his case, he ends up blowing his top any time someone posts even a well-sourced fact that might reflect negatively on Serbia or Serbs. Then he gets uncivil and calls the poster a "Greater **** ultranationalist", and it goes downhill from there. So I think the problem is not that he outright intends to post propaganda, but more a massive failure to ever assume good faith. K. Lásztocska 18:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem is with after the going downhill part, then his behaviour becomes such that only blocks and bans can stop him at that point I think. Also at times he can fake being civil at one talk page while making personal attacks on you elsewhere. I've also seen him conscript meat/sock puppets when he ran out of reverts (propably posted on a Serbian forum instructing users, go here and here revert this and this etc). Hobartimus 19:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree about the going downhill part, I just wanted to make sure we weren't unfairly assigning a false motive to him. No comment on the meatpuppets, as I have seen no hard evidence one way or the other, but I agree that some sort of disciplinary action will eventually be necessary if he continues along this needlessly belligerent path. K. Lásztocska 20:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I've just expressed my thanks on his talk page, because he added the Hungarian name of a Vojvodina village, I regarded it as a gesture of good will from both parts, but he immediately after this accused me being a sockpuppet of VinceB and asked to check my IP. --Koppany 13:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
He STILL thinks you're Vince? Cripes, you don't even write like him. That's just paranoia on his part. (On the other hand, if we choose to interpret it a certain way, we can be flattered: clearly Panonian believes that there is only one obnoxious Hungarian in the whole entire world, and therefore any Hungarian whom he dislikes must of course be a reappearance of that one solitary rude Hungarian. It's nice that he has such a high opinion of our people!) ;-) :P K. Lásztocska 16:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Or he knows very well, that his accusations are absurd, but still makes them in bad faith, hoping some mud will somehow stick. I think he hopes that together with personal attacks, this type of behaviour will deter ppl from having the slightest bit of disagreement, or content dispute with him. Hobartimus 17:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
That's precisely it - a süni sticking out his quills. So long as he 1)continues to contribute quality material (he does put up some interesting maps and maintains his "patch" - to a fault) 2) doesn't "seek" trouble outside his "patch" then I think you can just stick to reverting him. If he becomes a bigger troublemaker (like other unnamed editors) then there is a policy WP:RBI The fact that there has NOT been an army of serbian nationals rushing to his defense speaks volumes (and speaks well for serbian wikipedians). István 20:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Hobartimus, I suspect that he carefully plans some of his actions. Often his aim is to generate nationalistic reactions from other editors. On the other hand, yes, many of the maps he created are correct. Eg. the map on the ethnic setup of Székely Land is OK, he precisely copied the original one. But if you have a look at other maps, there comes the surprise: he also precisely copies works of Serbian nationalists. He includes maps on (possibly) imaginary states of the Gesta Hungarorum, without leaving a notice that these maps may not be correct. --KIDB 07:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

PANONIAN is very inteligent and this is possible to see in his misleading edits or maps. Have you seen his map Serbia02.png (in article Vojvodina). How he is showing Austrian province Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat in color of Principality of Serbia so that everybody which do not know our history will think that they are 1 state !! --Rjecina 15:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know much about Serbian history so I can't comment on the accuracy of Pani's maps, but if he is uploading misleading maps (especially if it's a deliberate attempt to mislead) then that would definitely deserve some closer attention. K. Lásztocska 16:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't you mean Kingdom of Serbia? :) And yeah, that map is incorrect - but I didn't notice any other incorrect... --PaxEquilibrium 14:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Panonian's map

Hi, Hungarian users.
I have something interesting for you.
Here's a map, latest version by PANONIAN, from 31 Aug 2007 [7].
His previous version was this one [8], from 8 July 2007.
I don't know if you're informed, but there's a deletion request for this image on the Commons.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Serbia1918.png
His map of "Serbia 1918." deals with parts of todays Hungarian territory (e.g. Pécs) as part of Serbia, misrepresenting this [9].
If you look better, his "new" map is the same as previous, only with Pécs removed, but with the same borders.
Please, give your opinion there.
Sincerely, Kubura 01:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes an intresting tactic "faking a compromise" (he removes the names of Pécs, doesn't display the names of Baja, Siklós, Villány, while leaves the map completely unchanged).
But this comment by PANONIAN is even more intresting "Serbs cannot "stole" their own land (no matter which occupier ruled over that land in which part of the history, but land populated by Serbs is Serb land)." (proof [10]) Just repeat this once more. "Land populated by Serbs is Serb land". Isn't this the very definition of Great Serbian extremism? "Look, that village across the border is not Croatia, it's SERB LAND", The war against Croatia and other countries suddenly makes perfect sense, it's not attacking a foreign country it's just naturally defending Serb land. Other people may beleive that a village in question is Croatian land (part of Croatia), just because of the small fact that it lies within the international borders of Croatia but not PANONIAN, to him if the village or area is Serb populated it's Serb land. Hobartimus 03:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Careful now. Panonian's personal political opinions should not be discussed here, what should be discussed is his behavior and the relative merits and demerits of his contributions to Wikipedia. Being a nationalist or a socialist or a monarchist or anything else has no real bearing on a person's potential worth as a contributor, all that matters is...their contributions, both to the encyclopedia and to the community of editors.In this case, if this map was indeed motivated by a nationalistic propaganda bias, it would be his allowing of his political views to interfere with the neutrality and accuracy of his editing that would be the problem, not his adherence to those views in itself. Sorry for splitting hairs, but I just wanted to make sure we don't head down the wrong path here. K. Lásztocska 04:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion once he used the quoted sentence in a wikipedia debate, argument it's no longer in the realm of personal opinion. It's not from his personal blog or user page it's from a wikipedia deletion debate, where he argues why that map created by him should be retained and as such it is part of his contributions. Now the map has it's own problems as expressed above by Kubura. The deletion debate [11] contains an intresting exchange and many opinions on the work of PANONIAN. Hobartimus 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Hungary!

So as it stands right now, basically every country but us has a WikiProject dedicated to them. If enough people express interest, we may be able to fix that oversight. :) K. Lásztocska 05:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] obsolate list

cannot this list be deleted? List of rulers of Slovakia, the question is long open..--Vargatamas 20:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's really crazy. They list a dude who ruled a germanic tribe from 20-50 AD and other large bunch of nonsense. We should really list all the Roman Emperors as Rulers of Hungary starting with Augustus Caesar. Hobartimus 05:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

There is a Request for Comment going on whether to include the Beneš decrees in the article about Slovakia or not. Please add your comments if interested at Talk:Slovakia. Squash Racket 15:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bél Mátyás = Matej Bel?

"his mother was Hungarian, but he declared himself Slovak" interesting thoeory, in the Hungarian version and attached website not much on it..

He also wanted to publish his book titled "Descriptio Imperio Slovaceai et Lingua Slovacicea" but the Hungarian publisher changed its title in secret

Julius Ceasarov could have also established a Slovak Empire, but unfortunately he was killed by the Hungarian bribed Brutusov..

Same to Slovak language, the burgers were speaking Slovak in the 13-14th century (unfortunately all evidencies were destroyed by Hungarians, while 20 volumes Hungarian works survived)

And the malicious Hungarian historians write the towns were populated by Germans and Vallons.., do not mention Slovaks)

Does anyone know from when the 1st surviving Slovakian document was written? and where is it actually? Since no sources are listed. Try in the Anjou kori okmanytar (Szeged, JATE) in 40 volumes (be patious, there is not much).

--Vargatamas 17:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD on Denial of Soviet occupation

This AfD may be of interest to members of this project. Comments are welcome. K. Lásztocska 11:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moses the Hungarian

Requesting an article for that saint. Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I could find this with google, "The Venerable Moses the Hungarian (26th July / 8th August) is yet another Saint of Russia, although as his title indicates he was not a Russian by birth. ..." I was wondering why I can't remember anything about this fellow, the reason is that he lived in Russia. Google has about 250 hits on him. Hobartimus 21:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Stub created. KissL 11:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Moses the Hu is from the Kyev Cave Monastery's Paternikon (see amazon.com, Harvard Univ Ukrainian Literature, Translation volume I). A saint from the early Rus--Vargatamas (talk) 08:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Literature and Croatian and Hungarian translations

Hi.
I'm planning to research and enrich Wikipedian articles with the data, on which languages were Croatian writers' works translated.
So, I'd like to know if you know any Croatian writer (novelist, poet, essayist, publicist), whose work was translated in Hungarian language. If you didn't had specially distincted former Yugoslav writers by language, no problem. Just write them here, it'll be easy for me to tell you whome belonged certain writer. Some writers wrote in more languages; e.g., Nobel prize winner Andrić, in his earlier works, wrote in Croat language, while in his later works, he wrote in Serb language. Also, there're some contemporary writers, that write in more languages.
In return, I'm also willing to provide you informations about the Hungarian writers, whose works were translated in Croatian (probably you don't know that information).
This exchange of information'll be excellent thing for enriching the wiki-articles.
As a first hand, here's one:
These works of Ferenc Molnar were translated in Croatian:
"Heroes' of Paul's street" (A Palutcai fiuk) had few translations:
earlier translation, "Junaci Pavlove ulice", by L. Matijević (Editions from: ... 1964 [12],..., 1971,..., 1978,...,1985, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991) 1971 editions - this translation had at least 16 editions; edition from 1971 was the 5th one
"Dječaci Pavlove ulice" - translation by Neven Ušumović (2002, 2006)[13] - this was the 2nd edition "Junaci Pavlove ulice" - translation by Zlatko Glik. It has at least three editions, 1996, 1998 and 2002 [14]
Then this work.
I believe, by Ferenc Deák (library info says "Ference Deak", I think it's a typo). Was that author the same one as Hungarian statesman?
"Szivany" - translated as "Razbojnik", in 1978, translation by Ivana Bauman
Ha en felnott volnek of author Eva Janikovszky.
"Da sam odrastao", translation by Ljerka Damjanov Pintar from 2001 [15].
Greetings, Kubura 14:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's more.
Eva Janikovszky.
"Te is tudof"/ - translated as "Znaš li i ti?", translation by Ljerka Damjanov-Pintar (in 1978; ) [16]. For this work I don't know is this the same or different work, or it's simply a typo in library catalogue. It's differently titled in Hungarian "Te is tudod", and Croatian translation, by Ljerka Damjanov-Pintar, from 1997, a little differs, "Znaš li ti?" [17].
"Jo nekem!" - translated as "Baš me veseli", translation by Ljerka Damjanov-Pintar (1978) [18]
That work was later translated as "Baš se veselim", by same translator, in 1996 [19].
"Bertalas es Bernabas" - translated as "Bucko i Mucko" by Kalman Mesarić in 1969 [20] (I'm not 100% sure that this is translation in Croatian, but 95% I am sure :); if anyone is interested why I have some doubts, I'll explain why)
"Ha en felnott volnek" - translated as "Kad bih bio...", by Ljerka Damjanov-Pintar, in 1977 [21].
"Felelj szepen, ha kerdeznek" - translated as "Kako da odgovorim" by Ljerka Damjanov-Pintar, ed. from 1978 and 1997 [22]
"Ila en felott voluek" - translated as "Da sam odrastao..." by Ljerka Damjanov-Pintar in 1996 [23]
Greetings, Kubura 15:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

More to go :)
Klara Feher.
Leasz nekem egy azigetem - translated as "Imat ću svoj otok ; Indijančev vrt" by Ljerka Damjanov in 1980 [24]
Again Eva Janikovszky :) .
"Malnaszorp es szalmaszal. A nagy zuhe" - translated as "Malinovac i slamčica ; Veliki pljusak" by Ljerka Damjanov-Pintar and Zlatko Glik in 1985 [25].
Greetings, Kubura 15:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You will find this information on the www.oszk.hu homepage, the online catalogue of the National Library if you search for the authors. For example Ivo Andrić's main work was published in Hungarian in 1965 under the title Híd a Drinán. Zello 00:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

For those interested, Hungary and Hungarian culture was a topic in Croatian cultural magazine, Kolo (autumn 2002).
Here're few interesting links:
- Kolo Mađarski kulturoskop
- Kolo Márai
Those who deal with cultural topics, might find this interesting. Kubura (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC at Category talk:Esterházy

We discuss if the Hungarian noble family Esterházy needs categories referring to other nations. All credible sources state this is a Hungarian noble family (see lead of House of Esterházy). Including the category Slovak noble house seems to be misleading. Perhaps a new category called something like "Noblemen who lived in the territory of Slovakia" would be acceptable at the individuals' articles, not for the whole family. English speakers don't even know that Eszterházy is a Hungarian name so it's clearly confusing. Squash Racket 17:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Slovak nobility is a nonsens indeed, but Esterházys not only lived in Austria, but also hold Austrian and German imperial noble titles, so maybe Austrian nobility is fine. --Koppany 19:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
You have reference for Austrian and German noble titles? Squash Racket 19:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

They were princes of the Holy Roman Empire but the Hungarian nobility of the family was much older. By the way it is not a real solution to put them in the "Austrian nobility" category because the great majority of the Hungarian nobles in Upper Hungary didn't held German titles so the problem will resurface again. The Slovaks should have to learn to live together with their history or we should have to to learn to live together with their rewrited, Slovakized version. Zello 21:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Question is, will Britannica also change or Wikipedia proves to be more reliable. Squash Racket 04:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Slovaks

This list has some inhabitants which strike me as somewhat out-of-place; namely, Rákóczi and Kossuth. I can understand (although strongly disagree with) the rationale for putting Kossuth on such a list, with his family's distant Slovak origin, but Rákóczi? No Slovak blood, no Slovak identity, didn't even spend most of his life there as far as I can remember. Thoughts? K. Lásztocska 22:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not to use Talk:List of Slovaks if you want to seriously discuss that article? Tankred 22:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Oy. Good thought. No idea why I didn't think to go there first...in my defense I just got out of a really grueling orchestra rehearsal and my brain is tired. Anyone with thoughts to share, please post them on Talk:List of Slovaks. K. Lásztocska 22:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] György Almásy

Completed Translation ----- (hu) Almásy György → (en) György Almásy ---- (more info)
 

We need a proof-reader for this translation. Köszönöm! --The Palatine 22:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to those who proof-read it. --Palatinus Regni! 15:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

There are two articles describing the same historical event. Please feel free to discuss how to merge them at Talk:Wesselényi conspiracy. Tankred 02:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heavy vandalism at Kingdom of Hungary

The article was hit by massive "deletion of content" type vandalism by a very suspicious account, and its possible that more is to come, be on the lookout if your intrested in that article. Hobartimus (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hungarian occupation of Czechoslovakia

May soon be created; see this deletion discussion and this newly created disambig. I believe that this is not a content created with the best of intentions.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hungarian Guard

Would anyone be interested in starting to translate Magyar Gárda? It's received big coverage in the English-language press (and presumably even bigger in Hungary), and may well be around for a while, so it seems like a notable enough phenomenon to merit an article. Thank you to whoever takes this up. Biruitorul (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Now it turns out they were dumb enough and the chief prosecutor of Budapest has found enough evidence to file a request for their dissolution. Hopefully this sad story will have a happy ending soon. --KIDB (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, good to hear! They should still have an article on enwiki though, they're certainly notable enough. I may try taking a shot at some preliminary translation once my exams are over in a few days! K. Lásztocskatalk 15:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I can imagine thousands of more notable things about Hungary than 100 frustrated dumbass... Zello (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

lol... – Alensha talk 17:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Me too, but we all know that notability guidelines are pretty lax around here. They're worth a few lines, nothing more. :) K. Lásztocskatalk 17:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Good luck! --KIDB (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of guideline

A guideline is any document that aims to streamline particular processes according to a set routine. By definition, following a guideline is never mandatory (protocol would be a better term for a mandatory procedure).
Just to know the difference between guideline and rule. Thank you. Squash Racket (talk) 05:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course you are right. Also, sadly wikipedia guidelines are often abused to violate important policies like WP:NPOV or WP:NOT (battleground) as they can provide some cover even when used in bad faith. Since a guideline is just that a guideline when in doubt you should seek WP:3O (3rd opinion) and use the talk page of the edited article for discussion. Hobartimus (talk) 09:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Gerg%u0151 Kis to Gergő Kis

[edit] History of Transylvania

Would anybody volunteer to write on the article part independent Transylvania? At the moment Michail the Brave's 3 year occupation makes 2 paragraph, and seems it was the most significant event during the 150 years. His picture and coat of arms the only one from the period.

Maybe Bathory and Betlen worth to have the same place as him... at least in this geographical content..

I do not say it is wrong have him in, but others need to have the same place.

Also would be clever to split the subject in subarticles as the Kingdom of Hungary, because Roman issues, modern issues have not much to do with each other.

Thnx

--Vargatamas (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hungarian placenames in historic context

(...)The problem is that in most Hungary-related articles usually after a lot of Hungarian placenames suddenly Slavic placenames show up which is obvious after the Treaty of Trianon. Having those names there is OK, but to keep consistency of the article I think we can also use the Hungarian names there. Should we force every single English/American reader to learn about the Treaty of Trianon to fully understand a Hungarian biography? If other English language sources don't have a problem with that, why should Wikipedia be an exception?
I was not here when this guideline was negotiated and the amount of 'evidence' you should present for every single name is ridiculous. An encyclopedia's main goal is intelligibility and this 'one and only widely accepted' name usage doesn't help that in a historical context. Squash Racket 05:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

We base our decisions on one question: what name is now used in English about the place in that historic context. As an immediately parallel example, present writing about nineteenth century Brno usually calls it Brünn. Our six methods are merely suggestions how to answer this; any one of them should do, unless by chance they disagree; so we don't need vast amounts of evidence, just a little research. (...) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


Forgot to mention it, but we received an answer for an important question at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). Still I think some edits in Hungary-related articles make it harder for a neutral English-speaking reader to understand the whole article when Hungarian names get removed. So the guideline itself should be modified. Squash Racket (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Explanation: The above cited comment from a talk page was not an answer to your question (what question, by the way?), but a proposal to amend WP:NCGN. Tankred (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested article: Hungarian science fiction

In category Category:Science fiction by country. We have articles on Polish science fiction, Czech science fiction... I would very much like to read about Hungarian one, too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about this, sorry. I think ours wouldn't be as long as the Polish one. Squash Racket (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ányos Jedlik

Please take a look. Squash Racket (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Hungary

The WikiProject Hungary project page is now operational. WikiProject Hungary is a WikiProject whose aim is to increase the quality of articles related to Hungary and Hungarians. It is chiefly designed to help users collaborate on articles, but also to resolve disputes, and to coordinate work on vandalism clean-up. As a long term plan it was suggested that this notice board should be integrated into the WikiProject as it was done in the case of Poland. Intrested Wikipedians should sign up at the participants page. Discussion about Banners and other issues takes place at the project discussion page. Hobartimus (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] News

The Wikimedia Foundation is celebrating the ten millionth Wikipedia article, written in Hungarian about the English artist Nicholas Hilliard. (Read the press release)

Congrats to Pataki Márta. Squash Racket (talk) 09:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hungarian-Slovakian disputes

To deal with some wide-ranging disputes involving Hungarian and Slovakian issues, I have created a centralized discussion page at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. Anyone interested in bringing up issues, or concerns about editor conduct in these issues, is welcome to join in. --Elonka 05:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing poll and discussion about a new naming convention at User_talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian_experiment#Proposed_naming_convention. Please take a look. Squash Racket (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)