Wikipedia:Hungarian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Request for Comment

I listed the Slovakization article for RfC. Zello 20:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Query:Rosenthal

Hi everyone. I recently added an article on Constantin Daniel Rosenthal. The man was Jewish-Hungarian, and it is highly unlikely that he did not have a Hungarian-language version for his name. If you know it, could you please provide it? Please, don't take a guess if you cannot find one: it is probable that he changed his name from something else altogether into the definitive form. Many thanks. Dahn 21:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

New or improved articles

I have some problems with the new section so I made changes.Zello 14:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
It's all right, I didn't write the first sentence anyway (of course). What's your opinion about the continuity? First I wrote the Kingdom of Hungary was restored and was immediatelly changed to the Hungarian state was restored by Pannonian. kelenbp 19:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It is very much disputed question in wikipedia because Slovak, Serb etc editors feel important to present the Kingdom of Hungary as something basically different than post-Trianon Hungary. Of course Hungarians think otherwise - we feel a strong sense of continuity. Sometime ago I wrote a section about this in the Kingdom of Hungary article and it was accepted by Juro and Panonian so it is probably near to NPOV. Perhaps you can rephrase it and use in the Trianon article. Of course they can refuse it now. Zello 20:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have corrected some absurd numbers about the minorities in post-Trianon Hungary. Zello 13:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
It looks much better now:) Can you tell me the easiest way to get the detailed Hungarian census data on nationality from censuses throughout the 20th century? (detailed by village -Without going to the KSH library...)kelenbp 20:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I only know where I'll find the book in OSZK :) Zello 20:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! :) Zello 14:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks :) – Alensha 寫 词 00:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Szinva Terrace, in Miskolc :) – Alensha 寫 词 00:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC) on the main page in DYK right now :) – Alensha 寫 词 12:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • New ecclesiastical history section about Nagyvárad (Oradea). I made only the copyedit. Zello 12:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • New history and a small language section in Upper Őrség written by me. Zello 14:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:Pécs question for someone who speaks some Latin. – Alensha 寫 词 15:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I answered there. Zello 18:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! – Alensha 寫 词 19:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Probably everybody of us have something to add :) but it seems to me that article will be a new battleground with Slovak and Roman editors. Zello 20:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Just make sure not to add too many controversial things to it, or it will turn out like the Anti-Romanian article. ;) —Khoikhoi 21:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
BTW, if anyone has pictures of the Hungarian names on Romanian city signs crossed out, that would go good in the article. —Khoikhoi 23:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Zello, Khoikhoi, if you are interested, I have some photos of a Hungarian village in Transylvania that Ceausescu completely flooded that I would be happy to contribute. You can see the former village's name too. Szerintem eleg jo peldakep a magyarellenessegre. Hunor-Koppany 02:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I expanded the article of Borsod county significantly (not Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén, which was already written, but the old Borsod county). Now it looks like an article that seriously lacks pictures... I wonder if we could put some pictures of old historical buildings (like castles) into it. – Alensha 寫 词 18:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • also, some of the events cannot be understood if the reader isn't familiar with Hungarian history. I decided to skip the explanations since anyone who's interested the history of a Hungarian county is likely to know enough about Hungarian history, and I don't really want to include all the history stuff in the articles of each city, town, county, village etc., it would be too redundant. what do you guys think? – Alensha 寫 词 18:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it's absolutely OK now. Zello 21:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I propose a move to Church of Jesus’ Heart, Kőszeg even now. I think there are thousands of churches in the world with the same name, and this is not the most important of them. Zello 20:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
okay, moved. btw why do you think this one is not the most important? the others don't even have an article, except for this one. :-P – Alensha 寫 词 21:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the most important is Sacré Coeur. Zello 21:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

that is Sacred Heart, not Jesus' Heart... oké, csak kötözködöm :-P

Talk:Municipality. – Alensha 寫 词 13:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem articles/edit wars

Edit war all over the Transylvanian county articles if you have time take a look at them whether they are OK or not at the moment because reverts are frequent. Zello 00:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Things are getting worse: Satu Mare County, Târnava River. I need some help. Zello 20:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
All Transylvania county articles, Târnava River, Lake Sfânta Ana. Definitely I need some help. Zello 23:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Oradea- we should help Ronline. kelenbp 10:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate Ronline's effort but I fear that most Romanian users won't tolerate the presence of Hungarian names in the infoboxes yet. I don't know whether our actions will help or provoke a stronger nationalistic counterreaction.

Ps: Of course I support the use of minority names in Hungarian infoboxes. Setting clear and generous rules in this question we can present a positive example. Zello 14:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting, though, that just Oradea and Satu Mare are reverted, when we've had bilingual names in infobox for months in a series of articles, such as Budeşti (Romani language), Miercurea-Ciuc, Târgu Mureş, Odorheiu Secuiesc, Sfântu Gheorghe, etc. They probably haven't removed them there because of the Hungarian majority in those UTAs, but legally, in terms of the minority rights law, there is no difference between Oradea and Miercurea-Ciuc - in both, Hungarian is officially-recognised. So I think that the Hungarian names have to stay there, because it's 100% conforming to Wikipedia convention. My idea was also that putting Hungarian names in Romanian infoboxes would set a positive "regional" precedent. From what I understand, the minority rights legislation in Hungary is very similar to that in Romania, in that a language becomes officially-recognised (education, justice, signage, etc) when more than 20% of a population is of a given minority group. As to the actions of Romanian editors, most of the established Romanian contributors are either supportive of Hungarian names or ambivalent. The difference is that the ones opposed make such a bigger deal out of it. Ronline ✉ 14:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

In Hungary the situation is more difficult because there is no set percentage in the law. I looked up, see down at the infobox paragraph. Zello 14:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I've just seen the article on Magyarization. I can not find the words...What the hell has the holocaust to do with magyarization e.g.? It looks really like a neo-nazi website. What do you think is possible to do with it? Or should we just leave it like that? --kelenbp 13:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a long conflict about these scrappy, ridiculous qoutes of User: Latinitas. I don't think we should leave it like that, even Panonian - who is certainly not a great friend of us - deleted the quotes once because no serious editor can tolerate such a thing. Zello 16:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you know sg about the colonization plan of Bácska by duke "Gražalković":) in the Magyarization articel by Panonian?--kelenbp 11:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I've just found sg. about Antal Grassalkovich, he called some German/Hungarian colonists to Délvidék because it was devastated after the Turkish occupation. Do somebody know more about that?
Now let us cry "Serbianisation" because they changed Grassalkovich to "Gražalković" ;o)) KissL 13:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That's quiet typical - such colonization programs were implemented by the landowners and the state everywhere on the territory of the former Ottoman "hódoltság". Grassalkovich and other noblemen settled Hungarians, Germans, Slovaks, Rusyns - everybody who undertook to began a new life on that devastated lands. For Panonian - this is Magyarization. But what about the same Grassalkovich who settled Slovaks in Pest county. Was it Slovakisation? That's simply falsification of history, the basic facts are OK but the interpretation is totally extorted. Only one thing is true - the landowners would like to supplant Serbs with other peoples. Not because they had a policy of Magyarization - manyt of them weren't Magyar at all - but because they needed obedient serfs. The Serbs fiercely defended their alleged freedom and privileges and stressed that they are free soldiers and not serfs. So they were in permanent fight with the landowners who tried to get rid of them. Zello 15:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Slovakization - Juro doesn't allow to write this article and tries to transform it to a second Magyarization article with the usual Slovak grievances. Zello 13:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In the current Afd process I changed my vote to delete because I think that is senseless. Zello 13:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Bač - Panonian doesn't allow to mention the possible Hungarian origin of the name of the town in spite of good sources. Zello 02:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Ok, over with a quite neutral and well-sourced version established. Zello 01:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Mancs -- up for deletion for the second time, please help me save it :( – Alensha  talk 13:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments, discussion

I think that we should breath life to Wikipedia:Hungarian Wikipedians' notice board. The Romanian version works really good, they speak about new articles, plans, problems etc. It seems they have COMMON things to do and I think Hungarians have too but we are not able to effectively cooperate yet. Regional noticeboards absolutely legal in wikipedia, people speak English and anybode can take part in the discussion. The frame is set only we should use it. Zello 06:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree. --KIDB 09:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • it's a good idea, now that more than a few Hungarians are active here. I support it. – Alensha 寫 词 11:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Ugy legyen Dsol 15:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I promise that in the future I always put here my new articles and other events of my "wikilife". I think if other people do the same (only two or three at the beginning), the notice board will begin working. Zello 12:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Hungarian settlement

I created a new infobox for the Hungarian towns and villages. I would like to insert this template into the all related articles. Few examples: Pécs | Keszthely | Zirc - Peppe83 12:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's absolutely OK. Zello 13:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Nice job. --KIDB 07:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's very nice. :) Can you somehow insert the coat of arms of the cities into it? (I'm not sure what their legal status is, but lots of city articles use them.) – Alensha 寫 词 21:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Because the legal status of the coas isn't clear, I'm not able to upload them to the Commons. When this problem will be solved, I will insert them into the template. - Peppe83 08:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I see that most coat-of-arms are uploaded with that red license tag as with Image:Miskolc cimer.JPG. What does that tag mean? Zello 08:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Transport in Hungary

I'm working on transport-related articles now, made some cleanup in Transport in Hungary but still needs some work; I also asked a question at Talk:Hungarian State Railways. New article: Public transport in Szeged, from Hungarian Wikipedia. – Alensha 寫 词 22:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

are metró and földalatti the same or is földalatti only that cute small yellow one? if any of you is from Bp., please check my edits. – Alensha 寫 词 22:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Alensha: is it you?! I thought cute things are only found in Miskolc. :) Földalatti is only used for Metro 1, that "cute small yellow one". :-) Adam78 02:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In Miskolc there are only very cute, extremely cute and undescribably adorable things, not mere cute things. :) – Alensha 寫 词 14:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hungarian Copyright issues

Hungarian Copyright Act No. 76 of 1999

For this Act, and for other Hungarian legislation, please visit: http://www.magyarorszag.hu/ugyintezo/jogszabalyok --KIDB 09:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Motorway Hungary.jpg

This is to inform you that I had a dispute over an image (Image:Motorway Hungary.jpg) and could save the image from deletion by quoting the Hungarian Copyright Act. According to the Act (Paragraph 1§(4)), laws, other means of regulation of the Hungarian State, etc., standards, made compulsory by law, etc., are not protected. --KIDB 09:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that the same is OK for coats-of-arms? Zello 09:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but according to the text of the Act, if something is defined by a regulation (jogszabály, rendelet), it is not protected. So if the coat of arms of a city is defined in a regulation by the city council, I think it can not be banned from Wikipedia. But I repeat: I am not a lawyer. --KIDB 09:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know every coats-of-arms are defined by local council regulations, so it seems OK. What's more it is impossible not to find a way to upload arms (they are really needed), so every legal form is OK that put out of the way the copyright issue :) Zello 10:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Many HU cities already have their coats of arms in their articles anyway (eg. Miskolc, Budapest, Debrecen). Infoboxes of other European cities also include coats of arms (Berlin, Genf, Brasov)--KIDB 10:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Consistency in article names

I looked around in Category:Budapest and lots of article names are inconsistent. In Category:Bridges in Budapest some bridges' names are translated (Liberty bridge, Margaret Bridge), some aren't (Erzsébet Bridge), same with Category:Streets and squares of Budapest where it's quite hard to find the correct translation for words like körtér, also, some place names are translated (Moscow Square?), some aren't. Category:Metro stations in Budapest is full of one-line articles, it'd be better to have one article listing all the stations if they're really needed. – Alensha 寫 词 20:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably transport-fans will enlarge later the metro station articles so I don't think we should delete them. As for the bridge and street names - I think some kind of inconsistency is inevitable but you are right: the present version is absolutely chaotic. Probably somebody should a buy a Lonely Planet Hungary volume and look up how these structures are called in English-language travel literature. Zello 10:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cemeteries in Budapest. – Alensha 寫 词 19:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hungary

question

The Bertalan Farkas article says he was to be a candidate at the 2006 elections. Does anyone have any info on this? I haven't found any. Surely if he had been a candidate, it would have been at least mentioned by the press... – Alensha 寫 词 21:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, he was indeed a candidate, try this link: http://index.hu/politika/belfold/urhajomdf02/ kelenbp 23:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll update his article. – Alensha 寫 词 23:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You can find some detailed info here as well. KissL 08:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikiportal Hungary

I did some redesigning on the portal (been planning it for a long time but now that your attention was called to the portal, I really had to do it before someone beats me to it :) I got the banner idea from German Wikipedia's Portal Ungarn, though theirs looks too dark so I created a new one. Also, I think the text was crammed between too many pictures, and we should include the links to the descriptions of the flag and coat of arms. Please take a look at it, I'd appreciate some opinion (esp. on how it looks on different resolutions, mine's 1024x768). – Alensha 寫 词 14:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

…on a further thought, I copy this message to the portal's talk page, it'd be better to continue the discussions (if there'll be any :) there. – Alensha 寫 词 14:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Portal updated for the first time. :) – Alensha 寫 词 17:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Jagello

YOur history also had its share of Jagello dynasty. The naming discussion of its ancestor has a new approval poll has begun, to discuss the matter of how to name the article currently at Władysław II Jagiełło. Interested editors are invited to participate, at Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło. Shilkanni 20:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Monuments and memorials in Hungary

Is there any chance this category is meant to be the same as hu:Kategória:Magyarország műemlékei? – Alensha 寫 词 14:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

I think we should move the István Verboczy article to István Werbőczy, the correct form. How can we do that? Zello 00:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

it could be simply moved, since there was no article at the correct spelling. – Alensha 寫 词 14:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanx! Zello 23:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Harghita

It seems that Criztu has returned from his long break and restarted immediately his campaign against any and all things Hungarian in Romania. See his edit on the Harghita page and his explanation for it. He's done the same thing all over Transylvania. If he's the same as before, he's got a lot of time on his hands for stubborn edit warring, so please help me protect Transylvania-related pages from his destructive actions. KissL 09:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm really fed up with this!!! (I'll keep an eye on the Harghita article). Zello 18:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Szerbusz. I've written a message about the Harghita problem at Wikipedia:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board and most people agree that the Hungarian name should be kept (to me it's obvious that it should be there). I don't think Criztu is bad-faith or anti-Hungarian, but rather has a very different interpretation of the way alternative names should be presented and the implications of these alternative names. Hopefully the issue will be solved. I am also looking at a proposal to include Hungarian names in the articles of other counties with a sizeable Hungarian population (say over 20%), such as Bihor, Satu Mare, etc. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 14:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your good-will and help. Alternative and minority names are mentioned in brackets all over wikipedia not depending on their official status or the size of the given minority. That two points-of-view should be considered when we are speaking about the parallalel usage of the names all over the article. But take a look at the Pécs article: in the introduction paragraph we mentioned all known alternative names ie. the Latin, Croatian, German, Serbian, Slovak, Turkish and Italian ones although there isn't any sizable minority living in the town now. Zello 18:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the Pécs article is a bit overdone in this respect, because all those names impair its readability to an extent, but I also believe that alternative names are important and informative. I use Wikipedia myself to find out alternative names because I think it's always good to have a knowledge of them. It's nice to tell someone the name of a locality in their native language. In any case, it seems Criztu has reverted the Harghita name once again, and has done the same at countless other county articles, with a very very illogical justification, and has formulated what I actually thought was quite humorous: "Ethnic minorities: Hungarians - (84.6%, 276,106)". Is today opposite day? In any case, you can follow the latest developments over at Talk:Harghita County, and some input would be great. Ronline ✉ 00:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm always happy seeing that a Roman or Slovak editor opposed an action like this. As a Hungarian my situation is worse because anybody can say that I'm "revisionist". Of course I'd never agree to delete the Romanian name of Gyula, Hungary, regardless of the present-day percentage of Romanians in the town because it is part of the history and culture of that city. Mentioning alternative names is a common minimum in wikipedia, see how much name is mentioned at Jerusalem, although there aren't Latins or Greeks living there. I think the real debates begin only that point ie. bilingual usage, historical usage etc. Zello 22:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

(I had to add Gyula, Hungary to my watchlist because I noticed some Hungarian Criztu in work) Zello 22:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Images in the Hungary page

Please give your opinions about what should or should not be done to the Hungary article. Recently someone added a lot of pictures, but I removed them for these reasons. However, I'm not against changing the looks of the article, and I certainly don't want to decide anything on my own... KissL 09:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I would not mind if there were some more pictures in the article, with certain limits, of course. I liked the Rubik's Cube, and I don't think that only Budapest should be displayed in the article, there are many other nice little or larger towns in the country. If there is an abundance of photos, these could be collected into a gallery at the end of the article. There could be a paragraph about tourism as well, also illustrated. I suggest to organise a vote about a list of photos. --KIDB 07:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Standard naming scheme

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Regional notice boards#A uniform naming scheme. Zocky | picture popups 00:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone pls do something about the list of famous people in the Budapest article – some of the names are in English name order, others in Hungarian name order, the whole list is not in alphabetical order, and it should have its own article anyway (more than 11 pages long). – Alensha 寫 词 18:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

btw why does this list include people who don't have much to do with Budapest? like László Tőkés, Miklós Zrínyi or Sándor Kőrösi Csoma? I doubt Kőrösi Csoma has even been to Budapest... – Alensha 寫 词 19:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hungarian language textbook

Hi,

Maybe you didn't even realize there is a Hungarian language book among WikiBooks which is well below the line. I tried to expand it but I'm sure I commited lots of mistakes as I'm not a linguist, and without the help of one it's an impossible job. So let's teach others our beautiful language :-)- Tylop

Budapest Portal

I started off Budapest Wikiportal which makes it easier to coordinate the huge work to be done on Budapest-related articles (mostly stubs or no articles at all) - Tylop

Comments on the talk page. – Alensha 寫 词 17:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Help with translation

I'm currently working on a script intended to create short articles on political parties on a variety of wikipedias simultaneously. However, in order for the technique to work I need help with translations to various languages. If you know any of the languages listed at User:Soman/Lang-Help , then please help by filling in the blanks. For example I need help with Hungarian. Thanks, --Soman 12:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"Lake Theiss"

I noticed that Lake Tisza is called Lake Theiss because somebody two years ago renamed the article. There was a similar attempt to move River Tisza to Theiss claiming that this is the proper English name (probably because 19th century encyclopaedias used the German name). The river remained Tisza but the Lake was renamed. I don't think we should accept "Lake Theiss". The reservoir didn't exist in the 19th century so there is no German name at all - Lake Theiss is incorrect even as a historical version. Zello 13:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anybody will oppose so I made the change. Zello 23:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Seeing the Romanian infobox-debate I thought we should think about the usage of minority language names in Hungarian infoboxes. There is one problem: the Hungarian minority law (1993/LXXVII) doesn't set a fixed percentage, only states:

"A települési önkormányzat az illetékességi területén működő helyi kisebbségi önkormányzat igényének megfelelően köteles biztosítani, hogy

a) rendeletének kihirdetése, hirdetményének közzététele - a magyar mellett - a kisebbség anyanyelvén is megtörténjék;

b) a közigazgatási eljárás során használt nyomtatványok a kisebbség anyanyelvén is rendelkezésre álljanak;

c) a helység és utcaneveket megjelölő, a közhivatalok, közszolgáltatást végző szervek elnevezését feltüntető táblák feliratai vagy ezek működésére vonatkozó közlemények - a magyar nyelvű szövegezés és írásmód mellett, azzal azonos tartalommal és formában - a kisebbség anyanyelvén is olvashatóak legyenek."

It seems to me there is only one criterion for official bilingualism - the local minority council should ask the local council. That's very liberal but we should do some reasearch about every settlement where is a chance for a more numerous minority. Zello 14:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

http://helynevtar.ksh.hu/ - here is the official source whether the minority language name is indicated on the village table or not. That's enough. Zello 22:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked through all the Hungarian towns and villages, and changed infoboxes to bilingual ones where it was justified by to the official helynévtár. Zello 00:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Restructuring of this noticeboard

This page gets more and more complicated. What if we made 3 different pages (new articles, problem articles, everything else) and this one would only link them together? (just like HuWiki's village pump.) It would be easier to archive them, too. – Alensha  talk 14:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it wood be better to archivate the old stuff somewhere. It's more convenient to use only one compact noticeboard. Zello 21:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move

It has been proposed that the Magyars article be moved under the title Hungarian people. You might want to enter the discussion here. KissL 09:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Magyar Cserkészlány Szövetség has been listed at WP:PNT

I noticed that one of the sections of this page is still in Hungarian. Could someone please translate it to English? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 19:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Done (Thanks, Zello). Also delisted from PNT now. KissL 14:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Requests

(Copied here from the portal's talk page.)

(in hungarian, german wikipedia as well) --Mt7 05:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

– Alensha  talk 20:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It will be a new battleground article... Zello 20:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

yes, but it is important to show two sides of a coin. --Mt7 21:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Nándor

Hi guys! I'm Bulgarian and am constantly reading on the web that Nándorfehérvár, your historical name of Belgrade, means "Bulgarian white city" (to distinguish it from other Fehérvárs like Alba Iulia/Gyulafehérvár and Székesfehérvár). Is that really true (I don't usually trust Bulgarian nationalist websites or forums :)) Could you also translate the first sentence of the hu:Belgrád article, where I see a reference to "dunai bolgár" in connection to the Nándorfehérvár name, and the hu:Nándor article lead (again Danubian Bulgarians are mentioned in what seems like a personal name article). Thanks in advance and kind regards from Bulgaria :) Todor→Bozhinov 12:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Nándor is in today Hungarian only first name, inspired from Ferdinand, but only since XIX. century, before war Nándor used == Bulgarian.--Mt7 13:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
since reform of hungarian language (first halt of XIX century)Nándorfehérvár, before after lándor == Danube Bulgarian Lándorfehérvár, lándor see to be the older version. --Mt7 14:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! So, basically, Nándor is an archaic form to refer to Bulgarians that's been dropped today and is only a personal name? Could you or someone else please clarify the Lándor and Nándor thing in more detail? And did Nándorfehérvár really mean "Bulgarian white city"? Also, what's the etymology (origin) of Lándor/Nándor?
This page and this essay (both in Hungarian) say, sadly without any reference, that "nándor"="Danube Bulgarian" (the former one also says "renewed or reinvented as a translation for 'Ferdinand' in the 19th century"). I can't find any better sources right now, maybe Mt7 will be able to clarify the etymology further. On a side note: in the name of locations, "fehér" was a metaphor referring to the loyalty of the place (to whoever gave the name to it); see [5] (also in Hungarian). Thus a less literal translation of "Nándorfehérvár" could also be "The Loyal Defence of the Danube Bulgarians". KissL 10:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

1956 for Article Improvement Drive

Szavazzatok! – Alensha  talk 13:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Köszönöm Alensha!! Great link and thanks for introducing me to the Hungarian Wikipedians hangout. Hajrá Magyarország!! K. Lastochka 14:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, guys, speaking of revolutions......anybody here live in Budapest, I just want to say STAY SAFE during the uprising. By all means go protest if you want, (hell, I wish I was there) just be careful and don't get hurt! SZABADSÁG!!! K. Lastochka

Come on guys, keep voting...K. Lastochka

KEEP VOTING! We're dropping behind! :( K. Lastochka

Just a Question, why did they put back the deadline to November, they miss the whole point. Anyway who cen we mobilize from huwiki (the main question, is there a limit on number of edits a user has to have in order to vote?)--Dami 15:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If we have the most votes by this Sunday we win, and we'll have a whole week of being in the spotlight for article improvement. I'm pretty sure you only have to have one contribution that isn't a vote for something to be able to vote on AID. As for mobilizing our friends from HuWiki, it's a great idea but I'm afraid I can't be of much help, my knowledge of the Magyar language is terribly rudimentary. :( Istvan? Alensha? Can you Magyar-speakers do this? K. Lastochka 18:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah--but I think they would have to register on EnWiki in order to vote. We just got about five more votes btw, we're up to 42!! K. Lastochka 18:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

1956 in other places

There was the idea on huwiki that Blood in The Water match should be a translation of the week once it is translated (it is now). I am putting it up as a candidate, but I fear it'll get rejected as the picture in it is not commons.

Another idea of mine, is to have a special Google logo on 23/10, I am sending them an e-mail about that (to their blog, as I couldn't find the apropriate contact us link...) hopefuly a month will be enough for it to go through the red tape. --Dami 15:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that's a really neat idea about the Google logo!!! K. Lastochka 18:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I wrote about that to them about a year ago but I didn't receive an answer (at least not a positive one). This time I wrote to their blog which isn't the most direct approach so it might be too late. On their help pages I didn't find direct contact info :( , maybe writing to their press office would be the most efficient approach, but I'll have to look into it, and also I have to wait some days before I write them again in order not to look too keen, and not to spam all their e-mail addresses. If these two approaches don't work and we still have time then I'll try contacting some Google fanatic blogs to lobby on our behalf (Google engineers tend to read them).--Dami 20:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Please vote here

--Dami 15:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Though its pointless, I felt that the Hungarian Collaboration of the Month (the link at the top of this page) was very sad being empty, so I made the revolution this and next month's project--Dami 20:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Köszönöm! K. Lastochka

We Won :)!--Dami 01:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

HAJRÁ MAGYARORSZÁG!!!!!!!!!!! K. Lastochka 03:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

6-3; Yes, we won - you know, the old curses may indeed be passing. You can now drive to Miskolc without risking you life, (and to Szeged without taking a bank loan), even clink your beer glass ...and yes, win at something now and then. What the heck do we have left to moan about? Im starting to feel odd already - someone please help. ;-) - Thanks to all who voted. Lets get to FA now.Istvan 19:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can moan about our terrible soccer league, the insufferable Slovaks yelling how they want to bomb Budapest to the ground, and our liar of a PM....but you're right, the future is looking pretty bright in dear old Magyar-land. :) Can't friggin' wait to get to Budapest and see for myself...K. Lastochka 20:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Demonstrations against Gyurcsány

2006 protests in Hungary – update please, I'd like to see it at the Main Page :-P – Alensha  talk 20:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool, it's mentioned now in the news section of the Main Page :) – Alensha  talk 12:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

1956 for Feature Article on 23 October

Its a safe assumption that most of us want to see 1956 on the main page on October 23. We are on the path, here's the way forward: Please take a moment to review and improve the 56 page which is chosen for this week's Article Improvement Drive (congrats to all who voted!). Please do what you can to improve it. Right now its getting some good attention from a few active editors, but needs more constructive help, including photos and material from HuWiki. To be FA on 23 Oct, it must comply with standards set here. On Sunday, it will finish its AID term, and it must go up immediately as a candidate feature article. It must be nominated here. We need to cooperate to support its candidacy and then nominate it specifically for 23 October. Please remember to help as you can. Istvan 20:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, upload any 56-os photos you may have into the commons. Its the single most important help for the 1956 article to become FA on 23 Oct. Istvan 00:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

NCurse's adminship voting

In case any of you don't know, the voting for NCurse to become an admin started here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NCurse. :-) – Alensha  talk 22:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The voting is over. NCurse has been made an admin! Congrats to him as well as to Wikipedia, as great things are to come! :)--Dami 19:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for name order

Thus, I have found my homeland,
the ground where my name is written faultlessly
above me by those who
would bury me, if they bury me.
(József Attila, 1937.[6])

As we all know, the name order for Hungarian people is always changed when writing about them in English Wikipedia, so Arany János becomes János Arany. Most of the time we don't even have redirects from the correct name.

I used to believe other cultures with family name first do the same here in enwiki, but I just came upon Template:Chinese name and Template:Japanese name. So I think it would be a good idea if we had a similar template too and used the correct names for Hungarian persons. (I know it would take a lot of work to move all of them, but we could do it, and the sooner the better, since I'm sure more articles will be created about Hungarian people). Actually I'm tired of seeing the names in this foreign order. (Redirects can of course be made from the Western name order versions of names; people who used their names in a foreign way like John von Neumann can stay where it is now; same for historical persons claimed by several nations as their own, like John Hunyadi).

What do you think? (this is supposed to be a small, non-official voting, so please write "support" or "oppose".) – Alensha  talk 20:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. What should we do now? Péter ✎ 20:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it'll be the best to start with Category:Hungarian people; but we should wait a few weeks for 2 reasons: to wait for the majority of active Hungarian editors to express their agreement because I wouldn't start this if they oppose; and because we have a more urgent thing to do now, to improve every 1956-related stuff so that it could be a great collection of articles by the anniversary. – Alensha  talk 20:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • support—of course! chery 20:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think you will come to see that this poses immense difficulties. If you agree that the form "Christian name-"family name" will still be needed for some cases, you will have a hell of a time figuring out which. On the other hand, all names for Hungarians do have a "Christian name"-"family name" variant, and keeping it will save you a lot of superfluous and potentially revertible work. Dahn 20:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • If we could figure out whether to use Hungarian or non-Hungarian names for people like the Zrínyis, who could be considered both Hungarians and Croatians, then I think we could figure out what to do about name order too. – Alensha  talk 20:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • support - with the condition, that it should be proposed to a wider audience should it gain support here (Village Pump - Policy/Proposals), and with the suggestion that controversial issues (like John Hunyadi, Francis II Rákoczi), be left the wy they are the only change being a.)redirect from Hungarian form and b.)in the article text where the Hungarian version of a persons name is mentioned, it be in the right order and possibly c.) in these cases to leave a message on the talk page, maybe at the top of it, so that its not changed back and forth by editors who are not familiar with the Hungarian system--Dami 20:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your conditions; also, there is a message left on the pages like this, see Chow Yun-Fat for an example. – Alensha  talk 21:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose - Wikipedia is not the place for such wide reaching language reforms.
    Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. en:Wikipedia:Naming_conventions
    Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.
    • IMHO someone speaking Hungarian is a specialist in EnWiki. Open any book or newspaper in English and you'll see that all Hungarian names are written in the Given name / Family name order. That's what English readers are used to and if you want to change that you can start a movement, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it.
    • BTW Shigeru Miyamoto for example is written in the English order, too, so I'm not sure I understand your argumnet.-- nyenyec ☎ 21:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Template:Japanese name was created almost a year ago and is currently used in a whopping 5 (five) articles... :-/ -- nyenyec ☎ 21:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, the Chinese name template is used more widely, though I agree that proportionately it still isn't the majority of articles about Chinese people.
Also there is the fact that we should have the right information as an encyclopedia versus wikiality, so I think it would be fair to at least in the article's text mention somehow the right order. Similarly as in the Jackie Chan article, though the phrase "known as" would be inappropriate, the form of giving the original name (or a transcription of it in this case) as the first word block of the article is a good idea. --Dami 21:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • support in principle, but I don't think it's really realistic...we might as well expect everyone to start saying "Magyarország" instead of "Hungary". It would be great, but it's not going to happen. K. Lastochka 23:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • support but like Quixote Don would. It *might* work if international names are not touched (e.g. Leó Szilárd). The English language does NOT require foreign given names to preceed foreign Family names - e.g. Koreans are always referred to family-first. The current convention stems from Hungarian conformance to Austrian preferences, not English. And besides, most English speakers dont know an Ady Endre from an Endre Ady (makes my teeth hurt) anyway. Istvan 04:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
"The current convention stems from Hungarian conformance to Austrian preferences..."......right then, that settles it! Out with the Hapsburgs and in with correct name order! May Liszt Ferenc never be referred to as Franz Liszt again! :) K. Lastochka 18:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose English-language texts today unanimously use the Western name order for all foreign names – I think Wikipedia should not be an exception. (You'll never find a newspaper that mentions "Hungarian PM Gyurcsány Ferenc (note that those stupid Hungarians put the last name first)" instead of "Hungarian PM Ferenc Gyurcsány".) I would, however, support a template called for example "Eastern name order" which would inform the reader that the name in its native form is used in a different order. This could then be placed at the top of the article, similarly to {{otheruses}} or {{lowercase}}. I believe this would serve the reader. KissL 08:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I created {{eastern name order}} and put it into János Arany to demonstrate the idea. KissL 08:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well done KissL! That will make most everybody happy. :) K. Lastochka 13:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

well... I still prefer using the original name order, but could settle with using this template if the majority is against changing the article titles. – Alensha  talk 13:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I prefer real name order too, but like Istvan said, Quixote Don would like it too. Unfortunate as it is, we Hungarians are only a small bunch of people and the Magyar language is completely incomprehensible to anyone for whom it is not a native tongue. (errr.....that includes me, though I'm trying to learn...) So for now, let's keep KissL's idea, we can still debate the pros and cons. K. Lastochka 13:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I support KissL's idea as there doesn't seem to be consensus about the renaming, though I would be a proponent of it even more wholeheartedly (see my support vote above) if Istvan's statement about the English language not requiring the Western name order was referenced (I guess I got wikititis that I want a reference everywhere :)--Dami 15:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

ref. Kim Jong-il and his father Kim Il-sung (OMG, did I just use those two as references?...Im off to wash my hands now) Istvan 22:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting template

Hi! I came across this template, while browsing the mailing list, though it's not we who should be using this template, but its good to know that it hangs above us if we write something too Hungary centric:

This article or section deals primarily with Hungary and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve the article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

ÓVAKODJ a Mumustól! Beware of the boogey-man! :) --Dami 16:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Cool template.....but it raises an interesting question, can anything really be too Hungary-focused? LOL K. Lastochka 19:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny, we have a template among competitors like the Muslim world, Europe and Canada! :) Even the category name wasn't replaced—officially we're Australia-centric. :) chery 21:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Chery, you're reading it upside-down Istvan 06:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
:) "Australia-centric" : Lets leave it at that and see how the Aussies deal with articles like I don't know Gulyás leves ... :) . Though seriously its interesting that anyone would notice a bias towards Hungary. But hey I'm not complaining as "We are here to represent the World"], or at least Europe (There is a template for UK bias and Hungary bias thats it...). --Dami 21:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of List of cities, towns, and villages in Bács-Kiskun county

Someone who knows how to do it, could put this up for deletion? This is basically a (less detailed) duplication of what we have in the article of the county itself. The deletion process here is terribly complicated and I never get it right... – Alensha  talk 14:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I {{prod}}-ded it. [7] KissL 15:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! – Alensha talk 22:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Railway stations of Budapest

See my message at User_talk:Doco#Railway_stations_of_Budapest – these articles were moved to their Hungarian names, which is, IMO, completely illogical. – Alensha talk 19:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Need 56-os forradalom photos!!

Just to make sure everyone noticed Istvan's post.....we really need any photos anyone might have from the 56 revolution!! Please upload anything you have to the commons and tell us about them here. Köszönöm szépen! K. Lastochka 00:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

1956 is now a Feature Article Candidate

Talpra magyar! Please visit the vastly improved Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and vote support via the link on the talk page to become feature article. This is necessary to see 56 remembered on 23 October as front page article. Istvan 20:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

TALPRA MAGYAR, HÍ A HAZA! ITT AZ IDŐ, MOST VAGY SOHA!!! Ahhh, I love the Nemzeti dal. Just went and voted btw....K. Lastochka 20:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As you visit the 1956 Feature Article Candidate page remember that your vote will not count unless you give a specific reason AND state if you have been involved in editing, as per WP:FAC -

"If you believe that the article meets all of the criteria, write *Support followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the article, please indicate this."

If necessary, please repair your votes so they arent skipped over when the tally is taken - thanks!. Istvan 15:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

WE'RE FA!!!!! pop the pezsgõ !!! lets get our nom up! Istvan 21:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Talpra magyar!!!

Hungarians! The ghosts of 56 are calling for our help! The article which so many of us have worked so hard on, that is now up for FAC, is being criticized for being too "POV". They want us to remove words like "dictatorship," say that using phrases like "crushed the revolution" is "sensationalist", and want us to present "alternate viewpoints"--perhaps they want us to draw a moral equivalence between unarmed protestors and the ÁVH thugs who murdered them?! We cannot stand for this. We cannot sit idly by as the story of our homeland's desperate cry for freedom is censored and watered down to make it more acceptable to "POV police"! It was a REVOLUTION, fueled by a passion for freedom and justice that burned in the hearts of all Hungarians, not (as Istvan put it) a species of tree frog or a list of bus stops. The story cannot be told in lifeless language, we cannot let it. Everyone, Hungarian or not, who can feel even the slightest flame burn inside them at the tragic story of the fearless, doomed freedom fighters of 1956, PLEASE, go vote your "strong support" on the FA page linked to from the 56 article. Show the nitpicking "neutrality" police that we will not let this story be censored. K. Lastochka 05:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You probably know, that voting with "strong support" en masse doesn't help much unless the specific concerns in the "oppose" votes are addressed.
Finding reliable sources for the unsourced statements will help the article much more than romantical rhetoric and vote stacking.
-- nyenyec ☎ 06:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right of course. :) I wrote that at about midnight my time zone and was a little loopy. I have too much fun being patriotic sometimes. :) K. Lastochka 13:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

1956 has the chance of being will be Featured on 23 October

56 is now FA on the EnWiki! Thank you to all who edited, reviewed, and supported the effort. The goal is of course to put 56 before the eyes of the world on 23 October. The request for this has been posted here. Thanks Istvan 02:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, those who are paying very close attention may want to look here. Istvan 04:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I suppose the above was a bit too subtle. OK - 56 will be "Today's Featured Article" on 23 October.

WE'RE UP THERE!!! K. Lastochka 00:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikinews and 56

Is it just me, or Wikinews really isn't reporting anything on the anniversary? --Dami 17:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a wiki, just like this one. Be bold! KissL 12:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OMG

Holy sh*t, you guys, I just heard that there's fighting in Budapest and I saw a terrible clip on YouTube with screams and gunshots and smoke everywhere! Are you guys (any Budapesters here?) all OK?!? K. Lastochka 17:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

We're ok in our homes, but I'm seriously glad that I chose yesterday to go see the events, not today. There is some serious shit going on, that I'm following on the net , while I can hear some shouting over the Danube (I don't live in the centre). The protesters are being dealt with quite seriously, but there might be some innocent people left in the crossfire on the streets, in the pubs and tube stations, an MP was hit with a rubber bullet and is injured.--Dami 18:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Glad you're OK. I feel sick to my stomach, I can't believe what's happening. Doesn't help that usually respectable news sites like the BBC are calling ALL the anti-Gyurcsi protestors "extremists" and "racists". I know there's some extremists out there, but isn't the main point of the protests that people are pissed that Gyurcsany has showed no respect for either his people or the democratic system itself?! I'd be out there in the streets if I could...K. Lastochka 18:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Stay NPOV please :), and I'll tell you what happened as I see it:

There were about max 1000 protesters (all legitimate at this point) in Kossuth tér, and they were asked to leave the square for maybe an hour after which they would have been allowed to return, because the police wanted to search the place for bombs (as about 15m from them kings, princes, presidents and PMs, would be standing in a couple of hours). Most of the protesters obliged, but not some, the police then emptied the square saying the protesters broke their agreement with the police. Ironicaly the police found some primitive bombs (coal brickets in socks that could be soaked in petrol (also found there) and then thrown like a Molotov-cocktail).

After this all hell broke loose with the police chasing the protesters all around the town. (the protesters weren't that peaceful either with stealing a tank , and a bus and using it as barricades, destroying a police car etc.)

In comparison there was a ~40000 peacuful demonstration of Fidesz (demanding also the removal of Gy.) in the centre without any incidents. So as I see the protesters are just vandalizing when they should be remembering. Also my brother is a policemen who is currrently working so its not all happy for me.(as a police men was stabbed with a knife earlier)--Dami 18:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarification--it's been impossible to get a straight story anywhere. :) I DEFINITELY don't support the more hooligan-like actions of the protestors (although I bet stealing the tank was fun), I was just disgusted when I heard that shots had been fired and protestors were getting chased all around town. Sounded too much like 56. :( Best wishes to your brother, hope he stays safe!! Hold on, Hungary! K. Lastochka 18:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The Bp rioting has, I am sure, increased interest in the Front Page 56 article - the sheer rapidity of edits, one after the other, makes it possible for vandalism to creep in undetected. Please everyone help keep the article clean and uncluttered, as the world needs to read about this story. Istvan 18:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Juro is back...

...and of course he is trolling again. He has deleted my contribs in Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary, without any explanations. Could you help me, please. (Kösz a segítséget). Öcsi 18:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

...I have no comment, if you are even unable to distinguish what belongs below a certain topic and what not, maybe you should take a look at a paper encyclopaedia. The fact that you are personally interested in something does not imply that you can place it anywhere you would like to. And stop classifying others trolls just because they show you are writing crap. And do not think I do not see your talks about me with your Hungarian colleagues. Juro 17:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, please take a look at Talk:Spiš#Requested move. – Alensha talk 16:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Juro, just a wild guess here, I think Öcsi's problem was that you deleted stuff without any explanation. Edits are welcome as long as they come with a valid explanation, "you're writing crap" isn't a very good explanation. K. Lastochka 19:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

good work on 56, everyone

As our 56 article nears the end of its day in the sun on the main page, I would like to thank everyone who worked on this project!! I know it might look like today was the biggest, most pathetic anticlimax of all time--us frantically mopping up stupid vandalism while Budapest nearly exploded--but I think that today has actually been a great success. Think about it, we took an article that a few months ago was the worst god-awful pile of confusing badly written garbage anyone had ever seen, and turned it into an excellent piece of work. Then today we put it before the eyes of the world, and I am certain that for every one vandal, there were a hundred people who actually READ and appreciated the article and took a moment to remember the fallen heroes of 56. Deepest thanks to everyone who voted for AID and FAC, thanks to the vigilant counter-vandalism people, thanks to the editors, from the lowliest corrector of typos and grammar errors to the best passage-rewriter to the most diligent source-citer. We were all great patriots today (I must say we handled ourselves better than a good chunk of Budapest) and I for one am very proud and grateful to have been able to work on this project. Cheers to all!! K. Lastochka 23:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity of Petőfi's father?

question is easy, Stephanus Petrovics, father of Sandor Petofi was Slovak or Serbian, is one version a mistake or not, both ok, see Talk:Sándor Petőfi?

thanks you --Mt7 22:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


I'm pretty sure his father was Serbian and his mother was Slovak...I'll check it out. K. Lastochka 22:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, damn, we're right back where we started. I just checked two books I have (right now my only accessible references) and they contradict each other! Enikő Molnár Basa, in his biography of Petőfi for Twayne's World Authors Series, says that Istvan Petrovics was of Serbian origin (although his family had lived in Hungary for several generations), but then István Deák, in "The Lawful Revolution" (very good book about 1848), says that Petőfi was of "purely Slovak origin". It doesn't look like there is any sort of scholarly consensus about Petőfi's exact ethnicity. K. Lastochka 23:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


No problem there. We don't want to actually find out. It's absolutely enough to just mention both versions with a good citation, and leave it at that. KissL 08:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

koszi szepen a helyreigazitast, most mar tudom, hogy ket magyar cikket elolvasni, es esetleg elgondolkozni rajta, mar nagy kutatas --Mt7 10:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Aha, good point KissL, forgot about NOR. Kösz! K. Lastochka 14:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Re "helyreigazítás" – I didn't intend to correct anyone but simply pointed out that it is against WP policy to evaluate by ourselves the statements published in scholarly works rather than leaving this kind of evaluation to the reader. Mt7, if I get your comment right, your problem is essentially with this policy, but you must understand that it is not something we can overlook with any reason. Let me add this in defence of the policy: if the case is as clear as you seem to believe it is, the presentation of the best available references will make the readers draw the same conclusion as you, even if that conclusion is not presented in the article as fact. (This obviously applies to any similar case, not just this one.) KissL 10:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Rulers of Transylvania

Hi.Recent changes in this article are Romanian-centered, and some are just spurious. Can you proof-read the list and make necessary changes? For one, the contributor copied the information from a Romanian-language list, which tends to Romanianize names - whereas the best version would be one that partly translates most of the names into "international form" where applicable (not Hungarian, not Romanian - "John Hunyadi"-style), and Hungarian where noy applicable. Also, the English used in the article is embarassing. Thanks. Dahn 19:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Blood in the water match requested move

Hi. Please comment at Talk:Blood In The Water match#Requested move about Blood In The Water match moved to Controversy in the 1956 Summer Olympics Water Polo Semi Final . Thanks --Dami 00:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

1956 -- Vote, please!

WP:DRV#Special moments of Hungary's 1956 uprising – Alensha talk 16:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

A big thank you to everyone who voted to keep! I'll add the sources from HuWiki. Please try to find a more encyclopedic title, I can't think of any. – Alensha talk 18:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

How about "Anecdotes from the Hungarian Revolution of 1956" ? K. Lastochka 23:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the meanings associated with the word anecdote in English, but in Hungarian anekdota means something that cannot be really verified, it's more like a hearsay thing. (now checking the Anecdote article here... the English meaning seems to be similar to the Hungarian one). Since the main reasoning for the deletion was that it's unsourced, I'd be happier with a title which doesn't imply anything unsourced here. – Alensha talk 00:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm, good point. I was using the other English meaning (basically just "story") but we should find something better. "Events of..." maybe? I should learn to speak my own native language better...K. Lastochka 01:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on pulling it back from ignomy. Now if we could do the same for Bibó István. BTW how are articles renamed? Only Admins can do this? And which name should we use? "Special Moments" is universally panned (undeletion is contingent upon its changing). "Trivia" is both inaccurate and inappropriate. "Anecdotes" is better but may be misunderstood as "unreferenced" in a strict sense. Just to be sure, Im going to try to copy the text to a userpage just so if it gets deleted again, at least we have text to weave into to the main page (or to make a subpage, as is Bibó's proclamation) István 01:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI I put the Bibó proclamation up on Deletion Review earlier today...maybe it will help...it's getting sort of ridiculous, you'd almost think there was a conspiracy to delete our articles. :)K. Lastochka 02:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

50 years later, there are some who think the Hungarians are still Revolting. Its a tough neighbourhood sometimes. István 02:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL! :) btw, I asked the people on deletion review if translating the proclamation ourselves would still be copyvio...someone said it WOULD, which I find very hard to believe or understand...K. Lastochka 02:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you please post the link to that discussion section? Thanks! István 02:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Here it is, can't believe I didn't post it earlier...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DRV#For_Freedom_and_Truth K. Lastochka 02:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

hey, István & K. (sorry, I don't know your first name :), have you not noticed that the whole text can be found in Wikisource? We can link to Wikisource from Wikipedia articles. The text itself indeed doesn't belong in Wikipedia since it is not an article but a historical text (WP doesn't include United States Declaration of Independence or Universal Declaration of Human Rights either, we just have articles of them and the ext itself is in Wikisource. As for the copyvio problem, let that be Wikisource's problem, nt ours :)) – Alensha talk 19:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that earlier. So maybe it's not such a big deal if it gets deleted off Wikipedia. As for my username, just call me Lástocska or KL. :) The K. doesn't really stand for anything right now--can't decide whether it means könyves, since I love to read, or kalandvágy, since I love to travel. :) Lastochka is a Russian word for a little bird, also the name of a cool anti-war song by Boris Grebenshikov. So, that's the saga of my username, sorry for the off-topic! :) K. Lástocska 20:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I always thought Lastochka was your real last name and K is your first initial :D – Alensha talk 13:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What is very telling, is that so many are quick to explicitly forbid, and none are willing to explicitly allow; even that which is clearly is allowed (i.e. GNU-released translation of public domain material). István 20:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Veeeeeery interesting. (Maybe it IS a conspiracy.) NCurse, can you help?! (so nice to have a magyar admin around...) K. Lástocska 20:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think its more mass-psychosis than conspiracy - the kind discussed in the book Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds - Because copyright law requires a huge time-investment to achieve a modicum of working knowledge, wikipedians quite dogmatically give "no" as the easiest answer. "yes" is only given indirectly or vaguely if at all. Belabouring the point further would only be whinging on my part so I'll just drop it now (the point that is, I'll not drop Bibó). (BTW thats a great book - the first 200 pages are golden reference material if you are still in University) István 20:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Mass psychosis! Awesome! :) although you'd think we'd be the ones with the most problem--I remember a great quote from Arthur Koestler: "To be Hungarian is a collective neurosis." :) Not quite sure what he was talking about, but it sounds good. English Wikipedia is so huge, there must be SOMEONE here who understands copyright law fully? Any lawyer Wikipedians?K. Lástocska 21:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

name of the Special Moments article (again :)

A user copyedited the article and now the first sentence says Listed below are some significant events in the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. What about "significant events" as a title? (may not be perfect, since these are actually not the most significant events but interesting tidbits, but would it be better than the "special moments" title? – Alensha talk 19:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I almost suggested that yesterday, or possibly something like "Incidents in the....." or "Stories from..." K. Lástocska 20:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, "Significant events..." is the best option going forward. Perhaps also some text stating that the material is referenced in Hungarian language and may be moved over to the main article as English-language sources are found? István 20:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is now renamed Significant Events of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 (note the capitalised "Events"). Thanks Alensha, for the tip. Im happy to learn new things and sometimes feel silly asking pedestrian questions about simple tasks. Now if someone can show me how to link to something in wikisource....István 20:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

oh, so the capitalised Events was intentional? I just moved it because I thought it was an accidental spelling mistake... should we move it back? – Alensha talk 13:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Unintentional. The move is fine.István 13:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikisource has a template like Commons has, but that puts the link to the end of the page in a box like the Commons template. If you want to link to it in the text, it can be done like this. But I see now that the letter was deleted from there too b/c of the copyright problems! :-O – Alensha talk 13:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems a running battle. I am working on a new translation which I will GNU-release when things have cooled off and we can put it back up again. István 13:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Puskás Öcsi

I assume by now everyone's heard about Puskás Ferenc. I made a memorial userbox if any of you would like to take it for your pages: K. Lastochka 23:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Rest in peace, Puskás Öcsi!!!


István's version:


Naming conventions

Come, and express your views, and maybe vote also Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Clarification needed. --Vince hey, yo! :-) 14:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ferenc Puskás for FA

Puskás Öcsi is the current "football collarboration of the week" which has the aim of preparing the article to achieve feature article status. Please browse by, make some improvements, and help to bring it up to FA status. If you have any noncopyvio media (or know where some is), then please put it up. This isnt an FA nom just yet.... but watch this space.... István 03:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Sounds like a fantastic idea! We have a good history with FA articles... :) I will not be around much for another week or so (sorry I ditched you guys in the midst of the Bibó battle) but as soon as I return I will help however I can for Puskás Öcsi. K. Lástocska 03:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Honvédség

A user mentioned in HuWiki that EnWiki has 2 articles about the same subject: Honvédség and Hungarian Ground Forces. Could someone pls check if the topic is indeed the same, and if yes, can someone merge them? I don't know anything about military stuff. Ceterum censeo this page should be archived. – Alensha talk 15:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Two different articles. The first one is about the historical army, the second is about the nowadays ground forces. I think it si better to have them separately.
Az első a történelmi katonaságról szó, a második a modernkori hadsereg szárazföldi erejéről. Szerintem jobb így külön. Misibacsi 22:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. – Alensha talk 14:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Vote: Category deletion

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_2#Category:Villages_in_Hungary – unnecessary category, more details there. – Alensha talk 17:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

New portal

Portal:Miskolc has been just started. :) – Alensha talk 21:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good! (Wow, I didn't know Reményi Ede was from Miskolc).... :) K. Lástocska 21:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Magyarország és Magyar Köztársaság

Similar to the Honvédség article issue mentioned above, only the other way around--I've noticed that "Republic of Hungary" just redirects to "Hungary". Should we create a separate article for the current Republic? It is confusing and potentially misleading when a search on the current state comes up with an article about the historical nation. There was also mass confusion over independence/foundation dates since the infobox on Hungary was titled "Magyar Köztársaság". There are separate articles for KoH and the People's Republic, we should probably have a separate article for the current Republic to avoid confusion. Your thoughts please? K. Lástocska 20:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is overcomplication of the matters. The Republic of Hungary is obviously the current form of the "eternal" Hungary. Other countries also changed their form of government many times but essentially remained the same. The KoH was a special case because 1, the loss of two third of the country meant a very substantial change and 2, Slovak, Romanian and Serb contributors sticked to a clear cesura. But I definitely oppose to chop Hungarian history into smaller pieces. Zello 18:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

...or to chop the country into smaller pieces, for that matter... articles should reflect that "Hungary" extends beyond the current republic or any of the ones before, and in a very real sense also outside the current borders. Someone wrote that Hungary was the only country who ended the war surrounded by itself. While not strictly unique in Europe, it's noteworthy nonetheless, certainly in an encyclopaedic view. István 20:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Might I point out that what is referred to above as "Historical Hungary" is to be found at Kingdom of Hungary? Why would you want to duplicate that? Dahn 20:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need any duplications. Let us leave things as they are now. Zello 22:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:RM

At Talk:Jovan Damjanić. Come, and express your views, and/or vote. Or not :) --Vince hey, yo! :-) 22:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Greetings to Romanians

I placed a greeting at the Romanian Wikipedians notice board, join me if you wish. --KIDB 15:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Köszönöm everybody. Hopefully, this moment consecrates the fact that both our countries will be letting their civil societies speak for them, and not collective fears or illusions of might. All the best to you all. (Yo, KIDB, good to see you're back!) Dahn 23:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

And a hearty "multumesc" to you! (Sorry if I spelled that wrong!) Can it really be happening? Are we really, finally going to see friendly relations between Hungary and Romania? I'm excited! K. Lástocska 23:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Setting aside the "friendship" of the Communist period, Romania and Hungary have had a treaty between them since 1995 (plus both are in NATO). You don't need Brussels bureucrats for peace, and they don't guarantee it either (Poland and Germany aren't great friends). Biruitorul 23:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh, but we can always hope...K. Lástocska 00:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Right. What I meant was that peace (and to some extent friendship) already exist. Joining some far-off bureaucracy doesn't determine whether that happens or not - rather, it's facts on the ground (cultural exchanges, inter-ethnic friendships, bilateral tourism, trade, cooperation amongst both nations' politicians, etc.). So for me January 1 means nothing - it doesn't alter the course of history in any significant way. Rapprochement is a lengthy, continuing process, not a one-day media stunt. Biruitorul 01:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks! I also hope that EU accession will strengthen the relationships between our two countries. We can do a lot more when we're together! Ronline ✉ 05:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Biru, yes, I agree. I'm not wildly in love with the EU either, but my position is: let's welcome the good things the EU can do while it's around, and when the whole bureaucratic mess falls in on itself, let's not waste much time crying for it. On this issue I try to see the good side of things. :) K. Lástocska 14:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Apparently people did cry, though, when Belgium broke apart a couple of days ago. Biruitorul 17:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, guys... I wanted to be the first to greet Romania and Bulgaria in the EU on January 1, but you stole my idea :D Anyway, I am (almost) wildly in love with the EU and I'm 99% sure it will solve lots of problems that stem from our not-too-harmonious histories... – Alensha talk 22:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

És elnézést, de elfelejtettem leírni, annyira magától értetődő: Isten hozta magyar testvéreinket a határok nélküli Európában. Boldog Karácsonyt kívánok mindannyiunknak. --KIDB 10:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

Hi all, Badbilltucker has proposed the creation of a WikiProject Eastern Europe here. List yourselves if you are interested. KissL 10:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Editing in HuWiki

Hi, I'm always interested to know why Hungarian-speaking editors choose to edit Wikipedias (EnWiki most of the time) instead of HuWiki.

The usual answers are:

  • EnWiki has a larger audience and is more complete
  • you can practice a foreign language
  • there is a larger editor community here

I'd like to know how you divide your wiki time between wiki projects and what are your personal reasons for it.

Your feedback would be very useful in making HuWiki more attractive for future editors.

I appreciate your help, nyenyec ☎ 15:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have only the above mentioned usual answers:

  • EnWiki has a larger audience and is more complete
  • you can practice a foreign language
  • there is a larger editor community here

although I guess HuWiki is far more peaceful than this place I contribute exclusively to EnWiki. Zello 19:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I contribute almost exclusively here because I think the English-language Wikipedia is the only one which is widely regarded as a trustworthy source worldwide (even though in many cases it is not quite so trustworthy). That's got something to do with the "larger audience" you're mentioning above. However, if one day HuWiki reaches a level where it becomes widely relied on (obviously not worldwide in this case...), I may become a regular contributor there too. KissL 12:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I contribute exclusively here because, as a half-Hungarian in "exile" in the States, I can barely speak magyar. :) However I am tentatively starting to translate some short articles from HuWiki to EnWiki, more in the future as my language skills improve. I do think that as for the problem of HuWiki not being as reliable a source (as KissL mentioned above), the best place to start for our esteemed fluent speakers of magyar would be to translate good articles from EnWiki to HuWiki. I will help as soon as I can... K. Lástocska 15:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If it goes to a foreign language, I choose russian, primarly :PPP Here, I'm just a dinamic IP in 70%-80% of my edits. Today, this is: 91.120.92.43 but won't contribute more today :D :P I'm tired. --91.120.92.43 15:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW we had some action in 2006, and were somtime a forrás (fountain :D - I know, wrong word, but funny) See: hu:Wikipédia:Wikipédia a sajtóban --91.120.92.43 15:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the feedback. -- nyenyec ☎ 21:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Another WikiProject proposal

Hi. I'm Lelkesa. I suppose many of you are interested in Hungarian culture. Would you be interested in such a WikiProject? The quality of these articles seem to be very poor (eg. Hungarian literature), and many important articles are yet to be written. I've recently made a WikiProject proposal and in case you're interested I would appreciate if you could add your name to the list of interested Wikipedians. Thanks, Lelkesa 09:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Curse of Turan

I've just discovered the article Curse of Turan and I can assert that it is an unbelievable mess. Obviously it's a valid concept to write about, but the article right now is a poorly written, unencyclopedic, unsourced, unreferenced soapbox for people to talk about how nasty the Hungarians are. It needs either massive cleanup or deletion--what do you guys think? K. Lástocska 04:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ibolya Dávid

Hi all! Some help about Hungarian politics is needed over at the Swedish Wikipedia. The article about sv:Ibolya David (hu:Dávid Ibolya) was proposed for speedy deletion as it was rather incomprehensibly written, but I contested it as the facts seemed to be correct from looking at the Hungarian article. However, I do not know any Hungarian, so it would be very nice if some Hungarian-speaking person could take a look at the article and verify that my educated guesses are correct. Right now, a quick-and-dirty translation of the Swedish article, keeping the bad grammar of the original, would be something like this:


Dávid Ibolya, born 1954.08.12. in Baja. Parents: Dávid Sándor (1927) Csilics Katalin (1929) [I didn't find anything about her parents on huwp, but it's not a very important fact IMHO, so it could be deleted if it can't be verified.] At Pécsi Tudományegyetem (university) [I assume this means the University of Pécs, but as the English article says the university was created in 2000, could it be one of its predecessors?] got a diploma in Law in 1981. Since 1989 January member of the party Magyar Demokrata Fórum (Hungarian Democratic Forum) Since 1990 Member of Parliament.
Her Hungarian homepage: http://www.davidibolya.hu/

Interestingly enough, the article doesn't mention her leadership of the Hungarian Democratic Forum, nor her ministerial post in the Orbán government (what does Igazságügy-miniszter mean by the way?). Any help would be appreciated. //sv:User:Essin 19:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Answers: 1. "Pécsi Tudományegyetem" surely is University of Pécs by it's new name (the university is a federation of several already existing faculties located in Pécs, including the Faculty of Law – where Ms. Dávid got her diploma. "Igazságügy-miniszter" is Minister of Justice! V79benno 20:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I've rewritten the article and moved it to the correct accented spelling. Are the other facts also correct so the {{disputed}} template can be removed? //sv:User:Essin 22:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Yes, all other facts are correct (her birthdate, her parents' name and the spelling also). But I've found some new materia for you in the official page of Hungarian National Assembly: Curriculum Vitae of Ibolya Dávid, it contains an official "curriculum vitae" of Ms. Dávid, and some fine details about her political carrier (+ a useful pic, free of copyright). Good Luck! V79benno 23:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Wonderful! I'll add some facts from the National Assembly page immediately, and add a bit more when I get a little more time. Thanks again! //sv:User:Essin 15:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I recommend using her bio from the Hungarian National Assembly website [14] - it is quite complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindseypa (talk • contribs) 21:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:HungarianPrimeMinisters

Greetings. I've cooked up the new template linked above. However, it's far from perfect - the division by regimes and the flags involved some guesswork on my part, for instance. So I leave it to you to play around with until it gets better before we start inserting it on the PMs' pages. (As an aside, I pointed out a while ago that, for instance, Gyurcsány is not the 6th Prime Minister of Hungary, as his article claims. He's the 6th post-Communist PM, which is an entirely different matter, and I think the numbering should be corrected.) Biruitorul 03:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a question about your edit, Istvan. Clearly, the key turning point from quasi-democracy to dictatorship came between Tildy and Rákosi/Nagy. But the People's Republic as such was not proclaimed until 1949. Should we maybe change the heading on the left side to a more generic "Communist Hungary", and link to the People's Republic article? Biruitorul 07:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've put the PM one in. Now, we can't forget the presidents. So here is what I've come up with. Again, feel free to improve it before it gets inserted. I would like to make the first column narrower, if anyone can help with that. Biruitorul 09:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've done the width change. Not much time today for anything more useful. KissL 14:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - that will do for now, so I've added it into the right spots, and we can always make further changes later. By the way, a lot of those articles seem much better on hu.wiki, if anyone is interested in doing some translation. Biruitorul 20:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move: Peace of Žitava → Peace of Zsitvatorok

on the page Talk:Peace of Žitava. – Alensha talk 20:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Juro's Wake

I noticed that Juro was blocked idefinitely for using sockpuppets. I'm really astonished, I thought that although he definitely hates us he is playing honestly. By the way I looked up the contribs of the confirmed sockpuppets and some of them made me really angry... Zello 11:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What on Earth are you going to do, now that Lincoln has lost his Douglas? I see his penchant for socks suddenly bloomed in late December (or these were the only ones he was using when he got checkuser-ed). Looking through the edits, its dissapointing to find only a few outrageous ones; in total, not a departure from his normal voice. One would have expected such a (ver)gifted editor to produce something jucier than this[15]. István 14:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought exactly this edit, it's really mean. By the way Juro is wikiholic so he will came back. A new wikighost like that unlucky Bonaparte. What on Earth am I going to do? Somehow I will live together with the loss :) Zello 21:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I too find I just can't live without wikihol. BTW, do you think Bonaparte's account got hijacked? Didn't he start out as a good editor and suddenly change? I avoid public computers for this (and other) very reason. István 03:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The first time I met Bonaparte he was already the worst troll I have ever seen in this place. I remember how he tried to delete my article about the Székelys of Bukovina with every possible trick. That time he had his own circle of agrssive friends here. Zello 21:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't give a damn for Juro, he is (was, uhh) a talented but rather mischievous editor, and talent isn't everything at all. Playing honestly? His little plays were anything but honest. Shouldn't waste a single word for him. Requiescat in pace. V79benno 15:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

All I've been able to achieve in little less than two years was to make him civil towards myself while he continued to be uncivil towards everyone else (and I was on the verge of starting NPA enforcement processes to have him blocked). I don't think I'll miss him. KissL 09:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm really surprised, you guys. You actually enjoyed having to deal with Bonnie and the rest? That makes me think about stuff like the Battle of Segesvár and the high suicide rate... :). If you really want to spice up your life, I'll leave a note on rowiki telling people there you miss a good vicious anti-Hungarian troll - they've got an endless supply of them over there, so just let me know when and I'll open the floodgates :). Dahn 21:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually the idealist in me is sad that this whole little "Hungarian Wikipedians vs Juro" war ended with him being banned – it would have been nicer to learn to accept each other's point of view. After all, he could be civilized if he wanted to. "Bonnie", LOL :) – Alensha talk 21:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It's really interesting that hardcore POV-pushers always break the other rules sooner or later. Theoretically it is possible to troll around without using sockpuppets but they are never able to surmount the temptation. Zello 21:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Very insightful indeed, Zello. Ironically, this post [16] from precisely one year ago might allay any lingering chronic idealism. At least he signed it - you gotta credit him for giving greater abuse under his own name than from his sockpuppets. István 02:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh...looks like our troubles are far from over though--another good friend of ours appears to have found Juro's crown in the gutter and picked it up on the tip of his sword: [17].

Really though, the irony of this whole thing is just magnificent. Juro, the guy who repeatedly, with righteous fury and indignation, accused basically all of us of being sockpuppets of "HunTomy" or "Arpad" (whoever they are)...is banned for sockpuppeting. I can't help but shake my head in wonder...K. Lásztocska 22:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

A new advocate

There is a user Erdeniss who, since yesterday, seems to have the mission to upload photos about Transylvanian orthodox churches, sculptures of Traianus and Decebal. He/she already Romanianized the Csíkszereda article by including an Orthodox Church right next to the paragraph about the catholic pilgrimage and filled the Deva, Medias, etc articles with his photos... --KIDB 11:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This user is not necessarily an anti-Hungarian Romanian patriot. I don't see how can adding the image of a church be seen as Romanianizing the page. He/she might be only a fervent religious Orthodox. (BTW there are Orthodox believers in Hungary too and there are Catholic Romanians too.)
The article's title is Csíkszereda, not "Roman Catholic pilgrimages to Csíkszereda". The orthodox church is nice, and it's in Csíkszereda, so it belongs there. And an article with pictures is always nicer that one without any pictures. There is somewhere an image request page where you can ask for photos for Csíkszereda's Catholic churches if you feel it's needed in the article. – Alensha talk 18:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
If you have a look at his/her contributions you will see a whole set of Romanianization icons, including Traianus and Decebalus sculptures, who were not orthodox catholics AFAIK. You are right in the case of the Csíkszereda photo, I realised that it doesn't hurt anybody to have it there.
Unfortunately there is still a group of Romanians (hopefully in minority) who think that Transylvanian towns are more beautiful if these sculptures are there. And if there is a catholic or protestant church somewhere, a couple of greater orthodox churches should be built around them. Sorry, but I always get p.. off when I encounter these kind of nationalists. --KIDB 10:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hagymakupolás honfoglalás - it's indeed a way to re-shape the townscape of Hungarian cities and villages with huge concrete neo-Byzantine cathedrals that shadow old Protestant and Catholic churches. I saw this many places in Transylvania for example in Magyargyerőmonostor, a really beatiful old village that should be part of Unesco world heritage I think. Old Transylvanian orthodox churches followed Western-European architectural styles and are in harmony with its surroundings. Present-day Orthodox Church doesn't follow this local tradition but tries to build a fake Byzantine Empire from concrete. The same happens in Vojvodina also. Although personally I think it is sad there is nothing we can do with it. The churches are standing and in an encyclopaedia pictures of existing buildings are certainly allowed. Zello 12:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The image in question has been removed from the article, and due to the fact that none of Erdeniss' recent church photos have sources, I think they will be deleted soon anyway. We're committed to maintaining the Csíkszereda/Miercurea-Ciuc article as NPOV as possible. Cheers, Ronline ✉ 23:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Seton-Watson

Seton-Watson as an "important scholar" and source for the Magyarization article. Obviously it will became an edit war because I'm not inclined to accept the worst WW1 anti-Hungarian propaganda writer as an academic source and serious historian. Zello 11:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I asked RfC in the Seton-Watson case. Zello 10:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for collaboration

Hi guys! Now that our community is together in this large foreign world of enwiki and have already achieved success (bringing '56 to FA), what about a collaboration to do something about our stub category? It would be nice to declare February a "de-stubbing month" and clean up some parts of it. (For start we should choose biographies, geography or any other neutral topic that isn't as bound to end up in wikiwars as history or politics.)

I already started sorting the stubs, and encountered two minor problems, one was that I did not know about its rules ([18]) the other can be followed from the page history of Template:Hungary-history-stub (I knew that the picture wasn't the best idea, but haven't found any better...)

– Alensha talk 15:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Székely language

Someone with some knowledge on Hungarian dialects should check this article: I suspect it's either POV, full of nonsense or completely unrelated to the subject. bogdan 16:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone should propose the article for deletion. There is no such ting as "Székely language". The content is mainly history, culture etc that belongs to other articles. Theoretically I can imagine a good article about linguistic peculiarities of the Székely dialect but this is definitely not the case now. Zello 17:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

...and the references are mostly about the Csángó, not about the Szeklely. bogdan 18:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think, it's only an attempt of a (probably romanian) vandal, who has been vandalizing the hungarian-related articles in the german wikipedia since three months, there he has created the same article (already deleted): [19]. I recommend speedy deletion of this article, thanks. Regards, --Öcsi 19:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to Székely dialect and rewritten it. But it still contains nothing on the differences between the dialect and standard Hungarian. Anyone more knowledgeable in here? bogdan 20:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes but I'm not a linguist so I can't really improve. But I think the present stub poses no problems. Sooner or later somebody with linguistic knowledge will discover it. Zello 22:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is it now? The links are red... – Alensha talk 17:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Khoikhoi deleted it. It doesn't really matter, anyway. Zello 22:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hungarian Revolution of 1848-1849

We need an article on hu:1848–49-es forradalom és szabadságharc (Polish anf Russian wikis also have dedicated articles). Currnetly we have no uniform name for this even on en wiki, and the links are either red of point to two places: Revolutions_of_1848_in_the_Habsburg_areas#Revolution_in_the_Kingdom_of_Hungary and History_of_Hungary#The_1848_Revolution_.281848_-_1849.29, each of which directs the reader to each other for further information. I strongly suggest creating an article Hungarian Revolution of 1848-1849 or under a name you think is better and piping all the relavant links through redirects and pipes to that single article. Considering that Hungarian Revolution of 1956 is an excellent FA it's a shame that the event from a previous century is not even an article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea!! I have been very bothered by the lack of a proper article about 48 for a long time, and was planning to try and get one started as soon as I return from my de facto wikibreak (should be in about 2 weeks.) It's getting near the time of year to be remembering 1848 anyway. :) Looking forward to this new project, K. Lásztocska 03:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been bothered by it too, but this needs a lot of work and collaboration (another similar topic is the Ottoman rule in Hungary, which doesn't have an article either, and nobody feels like writing it...) I think the article's name should be Hungarian Revolution and Fight for Freedom of 1848-49 (or something similar; in schools it's taught that it was a revolution which escalated into a big fight for freedom, and it's always mentioned by this long name, including both forradalom and szabadságharc.) It would be nice to finish it by the 160th anniversary next year. – Alensha talk 14:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe Revolutions of 1848 in Hungary is most correct and follows convention (check out the link box on that page). "Revolution" because the government was changed by force, and simply "1848" as this follows convention - i.e. the dates for the French and Russian Revolutions are often noted as 1789 and 1917 respectively. The "szabadságharc" did not really end at Arad, but continued politically through the Ausgleich and following agreements, arguably even up to 1914 (but that is a very liberal interpretation). The 48 revolutions were remarkably pan-European and although the one "in Hungary" was arguably the most robust, its causes were generally shared by those elsewhere. István 15:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As a start, I copied text from the articles History of Hungary and Revolutions of 1848 in the Habsburg areas to a new, Revolutions of 1848 in Hungary article, which used to be a redirect. Still a stub. I'm not much of an expert on this part of our history, but will expand it from huwiki. – Alensha talk 16:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Esztergom

According to Talk:Esztergom, parts of the history section of that page are a direct translation from this Hungarian link. I'm not sure if this situation qualies as a copy-vio, but the article could certainly use editing by someone familiar with the city. Olessi 16:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask our Esztergom fanatic :) (hu:user:Villy) – Alensha talk 21:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

big 1848 project

As we approach March 15, I've been thinking a good deal about the events of 1848-49, and as has already been already pointed out, Wikipedia doesn't yet have a very good article about our forradalom. But I just realized...nobody else's revolution has a very good article either, in fact, overall coverage of the Springtime of Peoples is shamefully bad here on the Wiki. I hope for as much success with '48 as we had with '56 last year, but it will be much more difficult. István pointed out to me earlier that one of the most important and fascinating things about 1848 is how international the whole thing was, how all of Europe exploded in revolution in just that one moment, and how every country's events were connected with every other country's events. So I have proposed a general WikiProject:Revolutions of 1848 here. Go join! More later... K. Lásztocska 22:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


Contest announcement!

Everybody's favorite crazy Romanian and I have been messaging back and forth about this for a while, and here it is: The first-ever Hungaro-Romanian New Article Challenge!

Greetings, fellow Hungarians! I am pleased to announce round 1 of what will hopefully prove an enduring Hungarian-Romanian positive rivalry on Wikipedia. The rules of the contest are as follows:
1. Participants are to translate hu:Rákóczi-szabadságharc into English (at Rákóczi's War for Independence) You may add supplementary material.
2. Starting Saturday, March 17 at 08:00, Wikipedia time, you may nominate the resulting article for DYK. The team whose article gets DYKed first is the winner.
3. If the Romanians lose, all Romanians who significantly contributed to the article must write, for one week, atop their user pages: "This user supports the cession of Transylvania to Hungary". If the Hungarians lose, all Hungarians who significantly contributed to the article must write, for one week, atop their user pages: "Long live the Treaty of Trianon!" (In the event of a tie, both teams win.)

Let's do it! A little healthy competition and friendly rivalry is fun for us, and the resulting new articles can only be good for the Wiki. :) K. Lásztocska 00:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks user:Zello

nagyon szepen koszonom zellonak a szlovakiai komarom cikkben megtett rugalmas allaspontjat. --Mt7 06:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

a véleményem mit sem változott az ügyben, de nincs kedvem belemenni egy újabb értelmetlen csatározásba egy ilyen hülyeség miatt. legfeljebb jókai foroghat a sírjában... Zello 22:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

New attack

We have a new Romanian nationalist working to eliminiate traces of Hungarian history in the cases of Kolozsvár and István Bocskai. Zello 20:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Before you call me Romanian nationalist you might check this Wikipedia rule WP:NCGN, and please also this WP:CIVIL, WP:ATTACK, thanks --Heavypiece 20:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

According the my experiences editors who tried to delete Hungarian place names always pushed through other nationalistic motivated changes. So I expect that same from you sooner or later. But better if I made a mistake. Zello 20:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I can say about you as well, you delete Romanian place name, and romanian names of people as well. So I expect that same from you sooner or later, too. Yeah, better if I'm mistaken too --Heavypiece 20:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted Romanian place names because they were used anachronistically not because they are Romanian. I have'nt tried to change Iaşi to Jászvásár or anything like that. Zello 20:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You deleted the Romanian name of him. --Heavypiece 20:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That was unintentional I noticed only the toponymy changes but I put it back now. Zello 20:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Kösönöm --Heavypiece 20:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, as you deleted the whole history of Cluj between the 6th century and 1918 (?!?) I think anybody can decide whether I was right when I feared a nationalistic attack or not. Zello 21:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It was not deleted but moved to a specific main article. Please calm down - both of you. --Roamataa 21:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It was moved to create a totally misleading picture about an ever-Romanian town without a 1000 year old Hungarian interruption. You are simply playing a game. Zello 22:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Applying the naming convention

Hello. I am sorry to spam this forum, I am trying to reach the most prolific editors of the articles related to Central Europe. As you have probably already realized, there is a naming convention regulating the use of geographic names in English Wikipedia. If you have not yet had chance to read it, you can find it at WP:NCGN. We all have already done a very good job in applying some parts of the convention, such as inclusion of all the relevant names either in the lead or in a separate “Names” section of the main article. However, the use of geographic names in the historical context is still very inconsistent and sometimes flagrantly violating the convention. That is why I would like to encourage everyone to familiarize with and to apply WP:NCGN. Here is the relevant part of the convention:

“The same name as in title should be used consistently throughout the article. Exceptions are allowed only if there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context.”

Let us take an example: There is an article about a town called Kremnica. Unless we are able to prove that a different name is widely accepted in the English-speaking world (this is the case of Constantinople and Istanbul, for instance), all articles in Wikipedia should use the word “Kremnica” while referring to that town.

WP:NCGN also lists evidence required to identify a “widely accepted English name”: especially consensus among main English-language encyclopedias published after 1993, Google Scholar and Google Books hits when searched over English language articles and books where the corresponding location is mentioned in relation to the period in question, and consensus among other standard histories and scientific studies (such as Cambridge Histories) written in English.

As to the rules of discussion, WP:NCGN states:

“If there is a dispute regarding the naming convention in the contents of the article, to prevent revert wars the name from the title of the relevant article should be used in all occurrences until a consensus is reached on the relevant talk page(s). If the dispute is affecting more than one article, it should be discussed on the talk page of the main article about the place in question”

I would like to start applying the aforementioned parts of the convention in the articles on my watchlist. I advertise the convention here to insure that my edits will not trigger revert wars caused by misunderstanding or ignorance of the convention. One of the aims of WP:NCGN is to reduce nationalist edit warring and I am confident we can achieve this goal if we all follow the actual convention.

Tankred 01:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in title should be used consistently throughout the article. Exceptions are allowed only if there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context. In cases when a historic name is used, it should be followed by the modern English name in parentheses on the first occurrence of the name in applicable sections of the article in the format: "historical name (modern name)." This resembles linking; it should not be done to the detriment of style. On the other hand, it is probably better to do too often than too rarely. If more than one historic name is applicable for a given historical context, the other names should be added after the modern English name, i.e.: "historical name (English name, other historical names)".

The same naming convention approves the usage of historical names with the modern name in parenthesis. So if you began to delete Hungarian names in historical context you are triggering an edit war again in the question.

But I let other Hungarian editors to cope with your constant attempt to rewrite history. I forgot again that I shouldn't edit any Hungarian related article. Zello 18:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Zello, I would greatly appreciate if you refrain from personal attacks ("your constant attempt to rewrite history") and threats ("if you began... you are triggering an edit war"). Let us focus on the topic. I believe your interpretation is wrong. The "historical name" in this section of the convention obviously refers to the "a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context", not to any random historical name. If you read the whole paragraph again, you will see that "a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context" is the only exception from the more general rule (use of the name from the title in the main body of articles). The rest of the paragraph just describes in more detail this exception. It does not create a new exception. The whole formulation "a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context" was not repeated in every sentence solely because of stylistic reasons. Do you wish to challenge this interpretation? If you do, I will ask for other opinions at the talk page. Tankred 18:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As there are no real English names, nor historical nor modern, the only possible conclusion is that English name is always the same with regional name used in English publications. In the case of this region present-day English texts mainly use the present-day official names while pre-1918 English texts used the old official names ie. the Hungarian ones. Look up the 1911 Britannica for example... Zello 18:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW: The English historical names for major towns in the KoH after 1526 were German in the past (even in 1911, at the height of Magyarisation and when Hungarian was the official language in any respect, you will find Pressburg for Bratislava in the 1911 Britannica). We can use German names if you like. The most "correct" "historical" names (i.e. ignoring current names) however would be either (a) the names as preserved for the years in question (which you personally do not like), (2) three names in most cases (Latin, German and local), (3) Latin only - as you know very well - but you do not ahere to this past arrangement of us. But take this only as a set of thoughts, the decive argument here should be the naming conventions.Juro 19:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
You are basically right. The convention also lists relevant sources and they should reflect the situation in the English language now, not in 1911. That is why the encyclopedias required as evidence for widely accepted English name should be published after 1993. It means that the name from the title will be used in most cases. However, we will be perhaps able to find a widely accepted English name in some other cases (maybe for Bratislava?). Until that time, the name from the title should be used even for those cases. Can we agree on the interpretation of the convention or there is any other unclear point? I would like to resolve all the issues before I make actual edits. Tankred 19:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I will never accept anachronistic names for history sections but I rarely edit any Hungarian related articles since the Slovak-Hungarian conflict last year (except my mistake last evening), so discuss your proposal with other editors. Zello 20:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

We all know that the right name to use for a specific historical context would be the name used by the majority of the local population (or its modern version if changes are only ortographical) since, as Zello correctly states, there never existed an English-language name for a vast majority of the places in question, and the name in any English-language source would be up to the author's preference or, lacking that, effectively a random choice among all the possible names in use. However, given that there is no consensus (even among scholars, let alone Wikipedia editors...) regarding the ethnic composition of the population in huge areas around here, this cannot be reached, consequently any guideline or policy which plans to resolve the situation will obviously be flawed. The policy could then, at least, be "fair" in the sense that it "distributes" disputed cases about evenly, but using the modern official name is not fair even in this sense, since practically none of the localities disputed by Hungarians and another group belong today to Hungary.

I am aware that it would be best to express this on the policy talk page, since this is essentially an argument against the proposed convention, but I unfortunately don't have enough time to get involved there. Anyone who's more active there is most welcome to explain this though (or even copy what I said above).

Regards, KissL 14:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that any policy in such a sensitive area would be regarded by many people as unfair. It took more than two years to prepare WP:NCGN and I believe it is the most reasonable consensus we could reach. Application of this policy (it is not a proposal, the convention is actually in force) is needed to make articles about Central Europe more user-friendly. If we use "Bratislava" in one article, "Pozsony" in another one, and in some other articles "Pressburg", a random English-speaking reader has no idea that we talk about the same town. And constructs like "introduced taxes for common people, the minting of coins (initially in Posonium - Hungarian: Pozsony, German: Pressburg, today's Bratislava), and..." are not only often contested, but they also damage the style of articles. WP:NCGN is an official policy on the English Wikipedia. But it is also relatively new and I hope editors from Central Europe will find time to read it. Tankred 16:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we're all getting mixed up about present-day names/articles and historical ones. Let's take the Pozsonislava issue as example: in an article about Roman times, we should call it Posonium but the first time it appears in the article write "Posonium (today Bratislava, Slovakia)". In our article about 1848, we'd call it Pressburg, and in later 19th c. history articles Pozsony (or however that works, I'm still mixed up about that one). In articles about anything post-Trianon, it should of course be called Bratislava. In other words, call it what it was called in the time we're writing about. Tankred, I understand your concern that it would be confusing to the average English reader, but so long as we say "Pozsony (today Bratislava)" and link to the Bratislava article, there will be no reason for anyone to get too confused.

For modern times? Well, the problem with Central Europe is there ARE no "standard English names" for most of our towns. So we should, as a rule, use its current official name in the language of the country it currently belongs to. So, magyarok, no matter how much we might like Pozsony, Kolozsvár and Kassa, we have to call them Bratislava, Cluj-Napoca and Košice. :) I stress again that this is in articles about MODERN times--for historical articles, I explained my position above. I hope I made my viewpoint clear and not too confusing... K. Lásztocska 14:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the convention in force, the case you described concerns only the cities with a "widely accepted historic English name". In other words, if the English scholarly literature and (current) English encyclopedias consistently use "Pozsony" for Bratislava in 1866-1918, it should be used in the same way as you described. Use in English is the only criterion here because, as one editor reminded us during the discussion about the convention while it was still only a proposal, it would violate other policies otherwise. Moreover, it would be more difficult to base our judgment on anything else. Even in the period when Latin was the administrative language of Hungary, local people called their towns in their languages. For example, a Hungarian inhabitant of Bratislava would call it Pozsony, a German Pressburg, and a Slovak Presporok (all three words with varying spelling) despite the "official" Latin name Posonium. Therefore, the use in English is a less controversial criterion for articles in the English Wikipedia and the convention adopted it. Perhaps we will be able to find a "widely accepted historic English name" for big cities of the former Kingdom of Hungary. But I doubt there is any such name for smaller towns. In those cases, a modern English name (usually the same as the modern official name) should be used (according to the Wikipedia's policy) also in historic context. The same policy also states that we should include all the relevant historic names either in the lead or in a separate section of the main article (Bratislava in this case), so a reader can easily find them there. Tankred 15:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ehhhh, good point. I'm just a stupid little student, and not even a real Hungarian (I can't speak Hungarian) so I probably shouldn't have even bothered trying to enter this debate. Sorry. K. Lásztocska 15:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Bratislava was invented in 1918. Pre 1918 sources, like olda lexicons will call the place Pozsony, or even older ones as Pressburg. BTW it was a widely used name, so this one is no question. On the other hand, it is history falsifying to mention the city as Bratislava in articles abt pre 1918 issues/things etc. Like calling Tenochtitlan Mexico city pre 1520something in the Mayas article. Absolute false. Vince 21:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NCGN states: "The same name as in title should be used consistently throughout the article. Exceptions are allowed only if there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context." The convention also lists evidence required to identify a widely accepted English name. Any discussion based on this evidence should occur on the talk page of the main article (Bratislava in this case). Tankred 21:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for reminding us to have a look at the naming conventions. See my comment below under Wikipedia:Hungarian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Effect_of_the_Naming_Convention_on_Hungarian_settelements_in_neighbouring_countries. --KIDB 10:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for move

Talk:1944-1945 Killings in Bačka. Come, comment, discuss and vote. Thanks. --Vince hey, yo! :-) 15:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to say that voting cannot be considered legal if VinceB called you to vote - it is against voting practice. PANONIAN (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Stefan Dunjov

Hi there! I've written a short article about Colonel Stefan Dunjov (Dunyov István), but the article in Hungarian seems to be a lot more detailed. Could someone use it and the sources it cites to expand the English article? Thanks! Todor→Bozhinov 12:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Károly Khuen-Héderváry

Hey guys. I noticed there were two articles about the same person: Károly Khuen-Héderváry and Dragutin Károly Khuen-Héderváry. As I'm not a native speaker, I can't say for sure what "Dragutin" means, but can someone please point me in the right direction on what the best title is? Thanks, Khoikhoi 20:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Curse of Turan

May I ask your opinion on [20]? I'm no expert on pre-Christian Hungary, but I imagine it was overwhelmingly Pagan, with maybe a few Muslims floating around - this edit gives the impression that Islam was equally important, which I somewhat doubt. Biruitorul 20:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

One must assume there were Islamic magyars at the time, though no record of their being more numerous than any other sect. There is clear record of established Judaism amongst the Khazar tribes (which did not convert) but I'm aware of none indicating that Islam outnumbered say zoroaster, mazdaism or any other you can name. I read the edit(s) as probably POV but would welcome any hard facts to the contrary. István 00:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Effect of the Naming Convention on Hungarian settlements in neighbouring countries

According to the rules set in the Naming Conventions (rule 1 and rule 2) the more widely used local version of a municipality name should be in the title and be used consequently in the text. Good news: this means, that all settlements where Hungarians are in majority, the local Hungarian names are to be used in Wikipedia. Consequently, dosens of settlement names have wrong titles at present and these should be changed.
Example: Csíkszentdomokos is the original Hungarian name of a Transylvanian village. If you go there, locals will call the place this way because 98% of the population is Hungarian. It is also official along with the Romanian name, according to Romanian legislation, because more than 20% of the inhabitants is Hungarian.
For examples about the application of these rules, please visit Category:Cities and towns in South Tyrol
Fortunately, we have exact data about the population ratio from the oficial censuses. Where the Hungarian population is over 50%, the article titles should be changed accordingly. I know that a few Romanian and Slovak users will be extremely disappointed, but there will be others too,who can imagine why it is a very bad feeling when your native settlement is renamed by others. --KIDB 07:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The South Tyrol compromise was worked out over months (years?) of discussion, involved the Mediation Cabal, and, as far as I can tell, was only intended for use with South Tyrol. Instead of trying to apply those results to Transylvanian localities piecemeal, such as at Talk:Odorheiu Secuiesc, I advise those interested to discuss the naming issue at a central location (WT:NC:CITY, WT:NC(GN), etc.) and come to a consensus first. Olessi 16:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The South Tyrol example is very similar to the Hungarian inhabited parts of Transylvania or Slovakia in many aspects. Please tell me, what major differences are there.
The long process itself you mentioned provides a result that should be utilised and can be an excellent model for other regions. --KIDB 16:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Then you should propose your thoughts and rationale at a naming conventions page instead of at a regional noticeboard. Olessi 16:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The South Tyrol and Szekely Land cases are mostly similar, excepting the fact that Szekely Land does not have any form of formal devolution. On a local level, however, the Hungarian language is officially recognised, meaning practically equal access to Romanian in the areas of signage, access to public administration, justice and education. In Oradea, where the Hungarian population makes up slightly less than 30%, the City Hall, along with other public institutions such as the State Theatre and the Municipal Cemetery, display bilingual signs in Hungarian. In fact, the law also stipulates that in cases where Hungarians form a majority, council meetings can be held in Hungarian, as long as minutes are also provided in Romanian.
I understand your concern regarding the anomaly that settlements of 98% Hungarian composition are named in Romanian. It is a similar to the anomaly that, for example, Basque cities should be named with their Spanish names, or Romanian-majority settlements in Ukraine should use the Ukrainian name. Mind you, it's a similar anomaly that the web page of the Odorheiu Secuiesc city hall in only offered in Hungarian. I'm honestly not sure what to suggest in this case. I've added the Hungarian names in brackets at Template:Municipalities and Towns of Harghita County. My political answer would be that the Romanian state should either provide autonomy for Szekely Land with equal rights to Romanian and Hungarian (that means bilingual websites as well), under the Welsh model, or should rename these localities so that the official name in both languages is a composite of Romanian and Hungarian, as per Vitoria-Gasteiz. I don't know how acceptable the latter solution would be to Hungarians as well, though. Ronline ✉ 02:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to stress something for the record: I too consider the situation an anomaly, I agree with Ronline that the situation could be changed, and I'm open to the idea of regional autonomy for Szekely Land. However, I consider that the situation in this case has little to do with these concerns: Romania has an official recognition of Romanian, and a local recognition of Hungarian; I do not agree with Ronline's view that this is official recognition - since autonomy does not exist in Romania, and since the Romanian centralized structure, for better or worse, is not multingual. That is to say I would consider changing the names of such articles an anomaly on wikipedia, at least until the Romanian state changes its ways (if ever). For the same reasons Ajaccio is not moved to Aiacciu and Saint-Florent is not moved to San Fiurenzzu. Dahn 02:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
There is, however, a difference between Ajaccio and, say, Odorheiu Secuiesc. In Ajaccio, the Corsican language has no official recognition whatsoever, it is not used by the local government at all. In Odorheiu Secuiesc, however, Hungarian is the predominant language of the public administration, and it is also used in all public services, including signs, education and justice. While this may not make Hungarian a formalised official language – the minority languages law makes no mention of the word "official language" – it still amounts to official recognition and usage. It is for this reason that the templates should contain the Hungarian name in brackets. Ronline ✉ 07:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Might I also complain about the addition of Hungarian names to the Harghita County template?
a) The Hu names were there, but were removed following a consensus.
b) It looks bad now (from an aesthetic point of view).
c) The names are not co-official. The linguistic majority has the famous rights of signage, schooling, etc., but that doesn't make Magyar official.
d) Other names are but a click away, and redirects as well.
e) Are you willing to do this for the rest of Transylvania? What if someone wants more names (like German names for Saxon cities, even if they're <20% German today)? This sort of action opens up a can of worms, which is why it's better to just stick with one name in templates and titles, so as to keep things simple. As Dahn says, if Romania or Transylvania adopts additional official languages, there will be a strong case to reconsider. But that time is yet far off. Biruitorul 03:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You say that doesn't make Magyar official. Perhaps, from a formal, legal point of view, that is correct - the minority rights legislation makes no mention of the term "official language" in regard to the 20% rule. However, I believe that Hungarian is officially-recognised, which it makes it practically the same as being an official language for local government. It's similar to the status of Swedish in Sweden, which officially has no formally-declared "official language". Ronline ✉ 07:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
My point was a slightly narrower one - namely, that because Hungarian is not official, we shouldn't include Hungarian names in the template, for the reasons listed above. When a reader looks at those articles, he is left in no doubt as to the cities' rather Hungarian nature. Templates, though, are usually simpler. Point e) is especially pertinent here - are you willing to do this for the rest of Transylvania?
For the record, the big difference with Sweden is twofold: a) Romania does have an official language (which is not Hungarian); b) the vast majority of people in Sweden speak Swedish; Hungarian is spoken by, let us say, 7% of the population in Romania. It's automatic that Swedish would function as official, but Hungarian needs to be granted that status before we can call it de jure official. Biruitorul 08:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Hungarian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board/Archive_1&oldid=1143728162"