Iadrian yu (talk | contribs) |
Hobartimus (talk | contribs) →Sibiu: new section |
||
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
So that none of us get accused of edit-warring, I suggest that we adopt a policy of no more than one revert per calendar day per article.--[[User:Toddy1|Toddy1]] ([[User talk:Toddy1|talk]]) 07:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC) |
So that none of us get accused of edit-warring, I suggest that we adopt a policy of no more than one revert per calendar day per article.--[[User:Toddy1|Toddy1]] ([[User talk:Toddy1|talk]]) 07:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
: I will not revert anything or do anymore edits on the problematic articles until this problem is solved. There is no point in edit warring or editing the article until this is solved. The important thing is that you are constructive and that we are talking. When the other party refuses to talk then it is a problem :). [[User:Iadrian yu|Adrian]] ([[User talk:Iadrian yu#top|talk]]) 07:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC) |
: I will not revert anything or do anymore edits on the problematic articles until this problem is solved. There is no point in edit warring or editing the article until this is solved. The important thing is that you are constructive and that we are talking. When the other party refuses to talk then it is a problem :). [[User:Iadrian yu|Adrian]] ([[User talk:Iadrian yu#top|talk]]) 07:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
== Sibiu == |
|||
In the case of Sibiu my opinion is the following. In terms of present day population both the Hungarian (2%) and the German (1.6%) name could be removed from the infobox. There might be justification to reinclude them because of historical significance (1910 population suggests Romanians Hungarians and Germans all had a significant presence in the city(8824, 7252, 16832 respectively) but this would have to be discussed on the talkpage. As far as I know the practice of using the 20% threshold comes from local Romanian law which says a language can become "locally official" or something similar at that level. Probably that's why it got connected with the infoboxes. [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 11:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:26, 13 August 2011
/Archive April,2010 |
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was "Arrrgh!" —PIRATICUS 13:7
We keep moving forward, opening new doors, and doing new things, because we're curious and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths. Walt Disney
New Section
Hungarian names in Transylvania
You need to be more circumspect about blatantly removing references to Hungarian in Transylvania. Hungarians constitute a significant minority in Transylvania and are historically more important than Romanians in that region. --Taivo (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I would like to ask you for some more good faith and without false accusations. Hungarians indeed constitute a significant minority and their status is important(Romanians as the oldest and historically most numerous population is more important, but anyway) but that has nothing to do with my edits. There is a consensus for all places in Transylvania where Hungarians represent less than 20% of the population the alternative names should not be present in the info box, exactly what I did here 1; [1] when your friend accused me of being some kind of ultra nationalist... He accused me also here [2], when you teamed up... Adrian (talk) 06:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- When this issue was discussed in March 2010, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive605#Hungarian names of Romanian_places 1, the conclusion was that "the correct method is that the article is housed at the Romanian placename, with the Hungarian placename in the infobox and lede.... unless the English language name is better known".--Toddy1 (talk) 08:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please read it more carefully and analyze other editors contributions also. There is a consensus about this issue, but I personally can`t find a direct reference to it. I have posted a reference from the admin`s table on your page. Quote "It was clearly agreed that >20%, Hungarian names should be bolded and put into the infobox, too. Everywhere else in Transylvania, even if the Hungarian population is less than 20%, Hungarian placename should be in brackets.". Please analyze it. Adrian (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- I did read the discussion, and I have reread more of it. It was depressing because it contained many familiar elements from other ethnic disputes, such as the citing of the national constitution (as if that were relevant), accusations of bad faith, and statements that reader X was blocked for edit-warring. It is probably more useful to focus on the conclusion, which was what I did in my remarks of 08:25, 13 August 2011.
- Please read it more carefully and analyze other editors contributions also. There is a consensus about this issue, but I personally can`t find a direct reference to it. I have posted a reference from the admin`s table on your page. Quote "It was clearly agreed that >20%, Hungarian names should be bolded and put into the infobox, too. Everywhere else in Transylvania, even if the Hungarian population is less than 20%, Hungarian placename should be in brackets.". Please analyze it. Adrian (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- When this issue was discussed in March 2010, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive605#Hungarian names of Romanian_places 1, the conclusion was that "the correct method is that the article is housed at the Romanian placename, with the Hungarian placename in the infobox and lede.... unless the English language name is better known".--Toddy1 (talk) 08:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- The statement you are quoting is at the start of the discussion - it was not the conclusion. Having said that, I have no objection to your putting the Hungarian name in the infobox in brackets. I only object to your removing it.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- It is from the start of the discussion because this particual problem was about something else, but there it has been stated by another user about this practice of infobox use for alternative names(less than 20% of the population that language name should`t be present in the infobox). Since I have no evidence of this consensus (I can`t find it), I suggest to wait for the Buritorul`s answer. I think he is more familiar with this issue than me. I have posted a message on his talk page and hope to get an answer from him today to resolve this problem. Adrian (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please see this [3]. Adrian (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- The statement you are quoting is at the start of the discussion - it was not the conclusion. Having said that, I have no objection to your putting the Hungarian name in the infobox in brackets. I only object to your removing it.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have not accused you of anything, Iadrian yu, other than removing Hungarian names from the infobox and asking that you be more circumspect about it. Had I not assumed good faith, my wording would have been a lot more pointed. As far as the matter itself is concerned, there are two issues here. First, why do you insist on removing the Hungarian names in the first place? It certainly does no harm to have them there. Indeed, in the case of Sighisoara, the "official" name of the city is simply a Romanicization of the Hungarian name. Second, why do you remove the Hungarian name and leave the German one even when the German minority is virtually nonexistent compared to the Hungarian minority? These are valid questions for you to answer. --Taivo (talk) 08:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- "Blatantly removing references to Hungarians in Transylvania" wasn`t really - "How are you".
- 1) I have removed Hungarian names from the infobox because of the already old consensus for Transylvania, if a certain minority is under 20% of the population that language name should not be present in the infobox. In Sibiu and Sigisoara the Hungarian minority represent under 20% of the population. [4]
- 2) I have left the German name of the city Sibiu because it is considered a center/capital for the German minority in Romania, and as such it should have German name present in the infobox even if there isn`t a single German man living in that city :).
- Hope I have answered your questions. If I did`t answered something, please don`t hesitate to write to me. Adrian (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- "Blatantly removing references to Hungarians in Transylvania" wasn`t really - "How are you".
- I have not accused you of anything, Iadrian yu, other than removing Hungarian names from the infobox and asking that you be more circumspect about it. Had I not assumed good faith, my wording would have been a lot more pointed. As far as the matter itself is concerned, there are two issues here. First, why do you insist on removing the Hungarian names in the first place? It certainly does no harm to have them there. Indeed, in the case of Sighisoara, the "official" name of the city is simply a Romanicization of the Hungarian name. Second, why do you remove the Hungarian name and leave the German one even when the German minority is virtually nonexistent compared to the Hungarian minority? These are valid questions for you to answer. --Taivo (talk) 08:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Avoiding accusations of edit warring
So that none of us get accused of edit-warring, I suggest that we adopt a policy of no more than one revert per calendar day per article.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- I will not revert anything or do anymore edits on the problematic articles until this problem is solved. There is no point in edit warring or editing the article until this is solved. The important thing is that you are constructive and that we are talking. When the other party refuses to talk then it is a problem :). Adrian (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Sibiu
In the case of Sibiu my opinion is the following. In terms of present day population both the Hungarian (2%) and the German (1.6%) name could be removed from the infobox. There might be justification to reinclude them because of historical significance (1910 population suggests Romanians Hungarians and Germans all had a significant presence in the city(8824, 7252, 16832 respectively) but this would have to be discussed on the talkpage. As far as I know the practice of using the 20% threshold comes from local Romanian law which says a language can become "locally official" or something similar at that level. Probably that's why it got connected with the infoboxes. Hobartimus (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)