|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cluj-Napoca article.|
|Archives: 1, 2|
|Cluj-Napoca has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Threads older than 90 days may be archived by.|
Edit protection implemented by Romanian extremists
Kolozsvár should be included in the name of this Transylvania Hungarian city. This city was known as Kolozsvár for many centuries. 'Cluj-napoca' is a Ceausescu implemented decree from the 1970's.
Romanian fascists and chauvinists have constantly been editing and blocking Hungarian additions and edits on thsi page.
Kolozsvár, has over the last few decades, become a victim of aggressive Romanian ethnic cleansing, since the Diktat of Trianon in 1920, which has resulted in the formerly Hungarian majority population becoming a minority in their own home city.
This is FACT: On October 16, 1974, when the city celebrated 1850 years since its first mention as Napoca, Dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu of the Communist government changed the name of the city by adding "Napoca" to it. My question is why is this being removed by Biruitorul? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magyarcsaba (talk • contribs) 16:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
This Transylvanian city Kolozsvár has been known as Kolozsvár for many centuries and should be identified as Kolozsvár also, not 'cluj napoca', which is a Ceausescu invention from the 1970's.
- Because Cluj-Napoca is currently the official name. Other are simply shorten names. Here you can read more about it`s name and history . Adrian (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but WP:COMMONNAME applies: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." The article itself says that the city is "commonly known" as Cluj. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I can think of a couple of reasons:
- With the exception of Bucharest (which has a well-established name in English), our articles on every Romanian city, town and commune use the official Romanian name. In day-to-day popular usage, yes, this city is usually known as "Cluj", just as Drobeta-Turnu Severin is almost invariably "Turnu Severin" or Sarmizegetusa is "Grădişte". Unwieldy and unpleasant in origin as the modern addition of "Napoca" may be, there's something to be said for having a single, consistent standard, rather than attempt an arbitrary measure of what may be more common, and ending up with titles like Piatra or Baia or Vâlcea.
- While the man on the street may say "Cluj", the press does tend toward "Cluj-Napoca", as seen in five random articles in five leading papers from the past month. Not to mention official contexts, city hall for starters.
In sum, this is another one of those cases, like Rio, Santa Cruz, Ypsi, Hull, Newcastle, Stoke, Aix or Boulogne where informal popular usage says one thing, but printed and official contexts offer a slightly different name. "Cluj" should be and is mentioned in the text, but not used as the title. - Biruitorul Talk 19:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Are people forgetting why Cluj - Kolozsvár was renamed to 'Cluj Napoca' in 1974? It was Communist dictator and Hungarian hater Nicolae Ceausescu who gave this once beautiful Hungarian city 'Napoca' in an attempt to further intimidate the local Hungarian population. Kolozsvár had a Hungarian majority population until around 1960. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
It is very odd why you are so ignorant of the Hungarian history of Kolozsvár, a Transylvanian city which had a Hungarian majority population up until around 1960. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- You might have not had a chance to learn of the town's history: it used to be inhabited by Hungarians and Germans. "Kincses város" is the original (Hungarian) nickname of the town, which was translated into Romanian some decades ago. You may not have many information of New York either: although there were and are many Hungarians living in that town, but Hungarians never formed the majority of that town's population. Please read more about the history of the towns before referring to them or editing the articles about them. Borsoka (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- That is really confusing from you and manipulating. "Toponimul Clus are semnificația de „închis” în latină și se referă la dealurile care înconjoară orașul." The city has a history of more than 2000 years... where were the hungarians 2000 years ago? because they ain't here for sure..2QW4 (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Kolozsvár did have a Hungarian majority population until around 1960. Where were Hungarians 2,000 years ago? We had our own alphabet and culture. Romanians were not even thought of 2,000 years ago. Romania was created only in 1859, and you were known as Wallachs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- I am not even interested, that's why I don't think the reader is interested about the nickname in a specific language other then the English one and of course the national one. Now you tell me, if this city belong to Romania for more than 2000 years now, why you keep POV fork here??! can you cite a source to say that Hungarians were the majority in Transylvania ever ?? You see, you were never a majority, so, keep your POV fork elsewhere.2QW4 (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I do not understand your remark's relevance here. There is a reliable source proving that the Hungarian version is the original one. You can add sources revealing when the Romanian translation of this Hungarian nickname was first used. Instead of being upset, you should search for this reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Ignoring for now 2QW4's trolling, I would like to explain why my own version of this should prevail:
- Per MOS:INFOBOX, "keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". Now, I have no reluctance to admit that the nickname first appeared in Hungarian, but I do think that is a matter for the article text, rather than the box. The nickname itself is a key fact, not when it originated.
- I don't know when the Romanian version appeared, nor am I likely to find out in the immediate future. Personally, I don't see that as an issue requiring tagging, as long as it's made clear (as the prose does) which came first.
- Do we have any further issues, or can we put this rather pathetic episode behind us and enjoy the New Year? - Biruitorul Talk 15:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Happy New Year! :) Borsoka (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2014
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
I would like to request to include the following external link to this webpage - www.bestcityineurope.com - because it is currently the best source of knowledge for foreign tourists who consider visiting or even relocating to Cluj. Adriandocea (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. per who is this site the best source? Cannolis (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu of the Communist government changed the name of the city by adding "Napoca"
This is FACT: On October 16, 1974, when the city celebrated 1850 years since its first mention as Napoca, Dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu of the Communist government changed the name of the city by adding "Napoca" to it. My question is why is this being removed by Biruitorul? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magyarcsaba (talk • contribs) 16:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)