Talk:Košice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Slovakia (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovakia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Slovakia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Cities (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Town vs City[edit]

town vs city -- I guess calling Kosice a city rather than a town is better, since it's not a small place either by Slovakian or Central European standards. I usually use the word "city" for settlements that have more than 100,000 inhabitants. Also, if I'm correct, traditionally a settlement with a cathedral or university was called city, and Kosice definitely has a cathedral. (If it's Slovakia's 2nd largest city then I suppose it also has to have an university.) Alensha 22:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The rules for the use of town vs. city in English differ from source to source and from country to country. As a result, there is no genuine rule. For me, a city begins above 500 000 or 1000 000 inhabitants. But in medieval central Europe, for example, the legal term seems to be generally "town". Juro 18:57, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Easternmost Gothic cathedral?[edit]

a map of Central Europe

"easternmost gothic cathedral in Europe" -- check Cathedral of Saint Michael, Cluj-Napoca. Cluj-Napoca is 46°47′N 23°34′E -- that should be eastern. ;-) (Virgo47)

The article now states that it is the easternmost "in Central Europe", not the easternmost of all Europe. Lisa the Sociopath (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The online articles linked in the references section claim all of Europe, but that's probably wrong. Lisa the Sociopath (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Košice and Slovak Soviet Republic[edit]

There is quite a serious factual error in this article. Slovak Soviet Republic was established in the town of Prešov, not in Košice! In fact it was not even associated with it. Please view Slovak Soviet Republic article where it is mentioned. Please be so kind and delete this reference before someone stumbles on it... Thank youuuuuu

Matus

Redirect from Kosice?[edit]

I would like to point to the ongoing discussion about the Kosice article at User talk:Juro. If more editors are interested in this issue (Kosice as an article spearate from Košice or a redirect to Košice), feel free to state your opinion here or in the original discussion. Tankred 18:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation Request[edit]

Just to make thing easier for those who subvocalise, could we include phonetic pronunciations of both cities' names? Normally, I would recommend doing it on the individual pages, but as the town in the Czech Republic has no page... samwaltz 00:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Carpeted[edit]

Someone should create an article about how the city was attacked by a formation of unidentified bombers in mid-1941, which is both a long-standing historical mystery and had severe consequences, e.g. Hungary joined WWII (Operation Barbarossa) because of that. I would fill the article with info.

Citations?[edit]

Where do the data for the "Population in the past" section come from? Is there any source for these numbers? Tankred (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell User:Juro has added that list (though in bit different form), as shown in this diff. To complicate matters, he is banned and so we can't tell from where he could take information. So if we don't find adequate sourcing for the whole part, I'd suggest to remove this one. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 13:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, we should remove all the unsourced numbers from that list. Only 1910 and 1950 are referenced. Perhaps we can rewrite the section using these two years, but rather in good prose, without bullets. Tankred (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Removed. As a kind of "compensation" I've decided to include historical population. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 18:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Added referenced historical demographics. ilmari (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Why I changed the main picture[edit]

Sure, the artistic image of St.Elisabeth Cathedral is gorgeous. However, this is the article about the town, not one building. Therefore I hope you agree the current picture represents the town better. The picture of Dome would be appropriate for the separated article about this beautiful cathedral which is still missing.--Oficeri (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you like if the article consisted about the cathedral? Your wish has already passed into the reality! Just take a glace at St. Elisabeth Cathedral--Nmate (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I am always for the panorama or skyline image in infobox but the Reprezentatívne Košice.jpg image is of rather poor quality, it is seriously oversaturated and of tiny resolution. It simply doesn't deserve to be in the infobox. So try finding an image that shows the city but that is of higher quality.--Avala (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Purportedly, Happenstance and I are in dispute over content...[edit]

Happenstance, did you come here to cause me a lot of chagrin?--Nmate (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No, not at all. Your use of IPA is entirely illogical - /Kɒʃʃɒ/ makes absolutely no sense. One of those letters doesn't even exist in the IPA, and the rest is actually unpronounceable by human vocal cords. May I ask where your problem with the table of city names lies? I find it quite informative and it is sourced by a book published by the Slovak Academy of Sciences. —what a crazy random happenstance 13:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge: before the 20th century, this town had never ever been inhabited by significant Slovak population. I suggest gleaning the internet in order to prove that the town had a Slovak population as early as the 14th century because your source is scanty. However, I'd rather you fetched Engilsh sources instead of the Slovak ones, due to my bad experience with them.--Nmate (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe a politically-independent national academy of sciences in any free country would publish anything of questionable or below-par academic standards. It would be suicidal of them to do so, they would be discredited immediately. On the other hand, any whackjob can prattle off anything he wants to on the Internet. There is absolutely no contest between the two. 'To the best of your knowledge' is the pivotal phrase here - your knowledge is not comprehensive. Neither is mine, which is why I defer to an academic source. —what a crazy random happenstance 15:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
But what if there are no Hungarian sources being able to reinforce what the Slovak sources are saying?--Nmate (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The question is not whether there are additional sources that confirm it, the question whether there are academic sources that refute it. To the best of my knowledge there aren't, and there is no reason not to give full faith and credit to the initial source. —what a crazy random happenstance 06:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I like the table. It is based on two (2) scholarly publications, which are not very difficult to read, that are widely accepted as authoritative regarding the history of the names of various settlements in what is now Slovakia. Gocontributor 16:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gocontributor (talkcontribs)

Do you dispute the fact that the Slovak language never was officially recognized in the Kingdom of Hungary?--Nmate (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

How is the fact relevant? A government need not recognise a language for the language to exist and be used, as is obvious. —what a crazy random happenstance 06:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you. We Hungarians have been using the name Kassa.--Nmate (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Splendid, in 1880 in Košice cca 50 percent of population were Hungarian and 33 percent were Slovaks - ie you were wrong in the previous statement. Alas there is no need for any hungarian sources to reinforce the statement of Slovak Academy Science which is considered even by Hungarian academy science to be reliable scientific institution, in other words it is realiable source and we don´t need any hungarian source to reinforce it. However if Hungarian academy of science, or whoever else would attack this statement and provide some other claims than there would a problem and a reason for this discussion, but it didn´t happen. Also I hope you do not suggest that we should remove all sources from Hungarian academy of science and Hungarian historians from all Hungary-related articles, am I correct? Because that would a LOT of work. --EllsworthSK (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about the present day city of Košice and its history. An attempt to distinguish "Hungary" from "Slovakia" is pointless. Hungary ruled the area for nearly 1,000 years. The now Slovakia was Hungary until the end of World War I when the forced union of several eastern European lands made other countries such as Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and Ruthenia under the treaty of St. Germain and the treaty of Trianon. Until then it was Hungary. Whether or not the Hungarian government recognized "Slovak" as a language is pointless, the language existed and still does. The central government attempted to prohibit and remove that dialect of eastern European language, particularly in the 1800s under the oppressive "Maygar - ization". It failed and the language survived. Most Hungarians call Košice Kassa, so what - - - how do you pronounce Paris? Copenhagen? Louisville? Beijing? Does your pronounciation bring those cities under your county's control? Slovak is a language, but it can also be regarded as a regional dialect. "How are you?" is generally "Ako sa mat?" but in north eastern Slovakia it is "Jak sa maš?", much like Polish. The language and accents of those in Prague (Praha = Bohemia) differs from that in Brno = Moravia. It is known that some from Prague look at those from Brno as being somewhat colloquial and bumpkinish. This is not a forum to present your personal feelings about a subject but to provide what is factual and supported with accepted literature citations. If a citation is not in English it has no impact as long as it is a reliable source. Continued removal, undoing, reverting, etc. (fooling around) with a valid list of former names of the city borders on the Wikipedia definition of vandalism and those who continue to pursue this practice will be warned and perhaps banned. It is time to close the book on this and move to more productive writing.76.120.176.96 (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You are a very discerning man, certainly.--Nmate (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Page protected[edit]

Please contact myself or another administrator when you've come to an agreement about your content dispute.--Tznkai (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, why not, however I stand my ground - the name table, as seen in the article, is well sourced by Slovak academy of science - it removal by Nmate is nothing more than vandalism and I see no, absolutely not single one, reason why should anyone look for the same table in something published by Hungarian academy of science, as Nmate proposed, that´s just utter non-sense. --EllsworthSK (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
A full page protect hardly seems necessary considering it is only one editor who keeps reverting against a consensus reached by several others. It ought to be used only very sparingly, and it should not have been used here. The fairly brusque comment was also uncalled for. —what a crazy random happenstance 16:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's hide nothing under a bushel if Happenstance wants to have further colloquy![edit]

  • 1, It is strikingly perceptible that this list startes to obey the official laws immadiately after the treaty of Trianon for undecipherable and capricious reasons. But we do not know why.
  • 2, There is an official memory table on the inner wall of the Bratislava City Museum [1] indicating that Pozsony was also called Bratislava as early as the first half of the 19th century by the dwellers of the city, which is obviously ludicrous. So that the Slovak academic sources are hardly able to dissipate my scrupulous in connection with the credibility of this information.
  • 3, Just interesting to note that we know by Squash Racket's recounting that you Happenstance are also prone to delete sources that you do not sympathize with.--Nmate (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
You are hardly more trustworthy than academia. If you disagree with an academic resource, find another academic resource that refutes the former, don't just remove it. The incident to which you refer involved me removing content because it was irrelevant, and with the consent of other neutral editors. Here, you are removing content because, you, personally, find it disagreeable. There is a world of difference between the two, and even if there wasn't, what are you trying to say? That because you saw someone else do something that you believe is wrong, you should now get to do it too? —what a crazy random happenstance 23:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • 1, Or so do you say.
  • 2, A, Name Bratislava was first beeing used by the group around Štúr, that means in first half of 19th century.
  • 2, B, So now we should ignore WP:NOR because you declared yourself to be more reliable source than Slovak academy of science. Wow, just wow.
  • 3, Completely irrelevant. --EllsworthSK (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending Page Protection[edit]

This article has been excluded from the pending changes trial because there is lack of disruptive activity here that would justify applying any type of page protection here, specifically, semi-protection. If you think there is a need for this page to be protected, please make a request at WP:RFPP, as pages that are not candidates for page protection under current WP:PP is not to be protected under WP:PCP as well. 山本一郎 (会話) 03:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It was never going to get pending changes protection. PC is mainly to stop vandalism, not to add a new piece of ammunition to an edit war. I have now fully protected the article. GedUK  10:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Page protection[edit]

I've protected this page as it is currently the subject of an edit war. Please use the article talk page to reach agreement on whether the names section should stay in. Once consensus is agreed, it can be enforced, if necessary. GedUK  10:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It´s been more than a week since last edit on this talk-page so we can assume that agreement was reached. Please remove the lock. --EllsworthSK (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


Nick name[edit]

Kosice has no nickname. Sometime, rarely stupid adjective like town of tolerance (but Kosice is not more tolerant as other regions) is used but not as nicname. I am from Kosice, and I never heard about city of Rakoczi. Both are just rarely or never used fabulous adjectives but absolurly definitely not nickname. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.5.210.202 (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian name[edit]

I'd like to ask a third opinion about this edit. User:Nmate is a user I had many divergences with in the past and I am afraid that if I don't ask for assistance in this moment the things would degenerate into an edit war.

So the explanation of my revert is: The article already contains a Names section so it would be redundant to write the Hungarian name Kassa also in the lead. A similar example is the article about Novi Sad, where Hungarian is even a co-official language and it is not displayed in the lead, but in the Names section (Iaaasi (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC))

Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request (Disagreement on naming in the introduction):
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Košice and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

I think that the Hungarian name should not be displayed in the lead. If there is a specific naming section, then that should be utilised to provide alternative languages. Since there is clearly a need for the names section, it should be used. Whereas other articles have alternative names (which can cause confusion if there is a serious difference in spelling, such as Kastelorizo and Megisti (but there is no specific names section)) there is a need for more than one name in the introduction. However, since there is a name section, it should be used.—Panpanman (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC) If an alternative name redirects to an article, it should appear in the lead. If an alternative name does not redirect to an article, it should only appear in a Etymology/Names section. Panpanman (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That is nothing more than an opinion that has no binding power. I am not obliged to accept it, and I am not going to. Notwithstanding the fact that Cluj-Napoca has an ethymology section, Kolozsvár is also mentioned in the lead. Not to mention the fact that what Iaaasi is doing is Wikihounding. --Nmate (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

On reading your example of Cluj-Napoca, I am actually tempted to change my decision. I only focused on the example I knew of (as above) and the one provided. I would not normally revert a WP:3O decision, but since User:Nmate had made no comment prior to the third opinion, I will ask you both to provide two or three examples of any city, country or province that supports your argument to have the alternative name in the introduction or not. Panpanman (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Other examples:

For the record: difficult to take Iaaasi seriously if at all possible. Once I had reported this user for a violation of 3RR and soon after his interest in editing the article White Carpathians that I had edit just before I filled my 3RR report concerning Iaaasi, "resuscitated"[2]. (Nauneim is a confirmed sockpuppet of Iaaasi which was created on the ground that the user was unable to wait until his 3RR block comes to an end.) But after the 3RR block had expired, the user also continued editing the article with a 3O request there. [3]
Also, it is interesting to note that the user was blocked for indefinite time for having made a hate mongering type of user page aimed at Hungarians[4] .Then the user had made more than 15 confirmed sockpuppets.[5] and the fact that the user is allowed to edit the English Wikipedia , again, thanks to a very long a steadfast IRC canvassing with which he bamboozled some administrators by making a promise to be good. So that I have superabundantly enough reasons to ignore the user. In addition, the user keeps Wikihouunding me after he received his second chance type of unblock, and keeps posting a lot of spam messages on my talk page, for which I am upset. [6]--Nmate (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Nmate, your post is completely off-topiic. I don't see how your comments are relevant in the current discussion. If you have any accusation to make, a administrators' noticeboard is the right place, not the talk page of a specific article (Iaaasi (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC))

I've also been asked for an opinion. According to the map, Košice appears to be within 50km of the border with Hungary. Therefore it would seem likely that there is a sizeable enthic Hungarian populaion in Košice. Thus the Hungarian spelling in the lede is valid if there is such a population. The mention of other language names in the "Names" section may or may not be valid. I can understand German being there due to the occupation of the city during WWII. I see less justification for names in other languages, but I'm not going to start another war by removing them. If an editor wishes to propose removal of some/all names, and a concensus is formed, then that is fine by me. Again, removal without discussion is fine, as long as it is part of WP:BRD (i.e. if reverted, then the issue is discussed and not warred over). Mjroots (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the article, the Hungarians represent only 3,8% of the population. The German name is also relevant, as the city was under the control of the Habsburg dynasty between 1526 and 1918. (Iaaasi (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC))

If the alternative name links to the article then it should be included in the lead. In this example, Kassa redirects to Kosice, and such the name should appear in the lead. If an alternative name does not redirect to the article, then it should only appear in a Etymology/Names section. I have changed my decision, and hopefully will set up a good guide to when it should and should not appear in the introduction. I believe this is a fair test for the problem. Panpanman (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

WP PLACE:

This guideline documents an English Wikipedia naming convention. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.--Nmate (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"In 1910, 75.4% of the population claimed Hungarian" in the census. The striking difference as opposed to the present day should be better explained in the article. Ethnic cleansing, Slovakization, or what happened since 75.4% to the present day numbers? Hobartimus (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


Košice/Kassa - pre-Trianon:

I am English, and although I have an interest in Hungarian history, I do not have any particular axe to grind re post-Trianon (or even pre-Trianon) Hungary/Slovakia. But, just on a point of logic, shouldn't Košice be referred to as Kassa in the History section while it was still a Hungarian city (i.e. part of Hungary - irrespective of the population proportions)? It was, after all, called Kassa during that time (not Košice). To me, the use of the name Košice seems out of place when reading an article about the time when it was a Hungarian city - it would be a bit like reading an article on modern-day Slovakia and seeing the capital called Poszony.

Paul Haynes (I can't sign this as I have no idea how!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.182.192 (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Etymology[edit]

The phrase though according to other sources the city name may stem from an ancient Hungarian first name which begins with "Ko" such as Kokos-Kakas, Kolumbán-Kálmán, or Kopov-Kopó. is supported by an unreliable source, namely an ordinaty website (WP:SPS). I've elimininated that text from the article, but it can be readded whenever a valid reference is provided (Iaaasi (talk) 06:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC))

This is definitely not a reliable source. Here's what I wrote at WP:RSN:

Looking around the site with the help of Google Translate, I found the About page, which seems to indicate that they're a charity site specifically designed to "support the versatility of the institutions to safeguard the identity of Hungarians in Slovakia, all in the native culture and education institutions." This site certainly doesn't have any academic editing, nor does it even indicate that the creators are experts in the field. Thus, it does not appear to meet WP:RS. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

As such, I am removing the sentence and citation from the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Alternative names[edit]

Today, Nmate refused to respect the guidelines - WP:PLACE, even if I informed him 2 times about this policy. He switched the order of alternative names in the lead of the article about Košice and engaged into an edit war on this subject: [7] [8] [9]. According to the rule: "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages", but he disregards this. Note that Hungarian language has no official status in Košice (Iaaasi (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

And if you ask for a second 3O request, then what will happen? I plainly expressed that I was not willing to accept your abusive 3O request forgeries, and I won't.--Nmate (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Nmate, can you please point at a specific policy or guideline for supporting your point of view? Let's detach the personas from the discussion and focus on the content of the issue. Hasteur (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, It is not possible to detach the personal issue as user Iaaasi would have never interested in editing the artice if I hadn't edited it beforhand. Also, WP:PLACE is not a part of policy but a guideline--Nmate (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Just because isn`t an official policy it doesn`t mean that we should`t respect it when it doesn`t agree with us (to change it if you disagree with it in this case only). I quote from the WP:PLACE - "This guideline documents an English Wikipedia naming convention. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.". Since this isn`t a special case as some places where the Hungarian minority represents =>80% (ex:Miercurea-Ciuc) of the population, it is common sense to follow this guideline - in this case (article). Alphabetical order of alternative names should be followed without any problems... Adrian (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I am very happy just by your "ubiquitousness". Also, you did a personal attack on me here[10] which is not forgotten.--Nmate (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Please try to assume good faith. As for the personal attack, there is no need to follow me and to "publish it" at every instance of our interaction, and I really don`t understand what should your sentence (in this context) mean... If you considered that I attacked you personally, please file a report and present your case there, don`t bother me (or anybody else) by some off-topic data.. Try to be constructive ant to talk about the content not about the editor. If you wish to talk about any editor (including me) there is an appropriate place for that. About the problem, can you please explain why do you think this guideline shoul`d be respected here? Adrian (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
By the way, in that report, I was agreeing with you.. If you misunderstood me I will explain (I agreed that IP editor(his edits) may had a nationalistic connotation) Adrian (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, it does not cause me too much merriment that I am often obliged to encounter you. As for why "we" should swerve from what is written in WP:PLACE is obvious. This city was founded by Hungarians. This city had been part of Hungary for more than 1000 years (between 895 and 1918; and then between 1938 and 1944) and had been one of the most important centre of the Hungarian culture. For instace, there was the centre of the Hungarian neologism movement in this city, and one of the first Hungarian theater was built here , ...one of the first Hungarian newspaper also has a strong connection to this city etc. etc.

There are several examples on Wikipedia ,where WP: PLACE is not applied, see: Gdańsk--Nmate (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are not ready to cooperate with others (anybody) on wikipedia maybe you should reconsider your presence here. We are all colleagues here and to make anything possible we should cooperate. This is one of the fundamental principles to contribute on this project. About the topic, Many cities were a part of Kingdom of Hungary for that period of time and only in places where Hungarian minority represent the majority of the local population we make exceptions (as the guideline says). At Miercurea-Ciuc we can see that example (Hungarian in from of German). Gdańsk may be the most complicated case on wikipedia where everything was established by special consensus. This is not the case here. I think that mentioning Hungarian name in the lead (while the alternative section names exists) is more than enough to specify it`s importance to the Hungarian culture. Don`t forget that the Hungarian population is under 4%... Even in Romania(Transylvania) we don`t mention alternative names if the minority doesn`t make at least 20% of the population... You are trying to make an exception about this article while that exception doesn`t exist. Adrian (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but it sounds ridiculous to me. Hungarians have a mutual history with Slovaks. 1000 years. Hungarians have a right to use their name here, Slovaks (and everybody) are able to understand it and accept it, except the though nationalists. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I never said we/they don`t need/have a right to use it, I am just saying we should follow the guildline about alphabetical order about alternative names in the lead. I quote "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e., (Finnish: Suomenlahti; Russian: Финский залив, Finskiy zaliv; Swedish: Finska viken; Estonian: Soome laht). or (ar: name1, be: name2, cs: name3). As an exception to alphabetical order, the local official name should be listed before other alternate names if it differs from a widely accepted English name." Adrian (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I notice that Bratislava have the same/similar circumstances as Kosice, and there WP:PLACE (alphabetical order) is respected... Adrian (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Not the similar, as that city had a dominant German population in the past and its German name is used in contemporary historical English sources. As for I am not ready to cooperate with others, I am willing to, but I do not want with everybody, and it is not a coincidence that I do not edit too many Transylvanian related topics on WP.--Nmate (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry, but if you don`t want to cooperate I can`t force you to do so. In that case we can`t discuss really anything. When you are ready to cooperate let me know. Until then I guess no changes to the article. I will revert it to pre-conflict state. Adrian (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, the city has two Hungarian schools. [11][12]--Nmate (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Should we remove the city names of national minorities at town of Mohacs? There is a Hungarian majority and Croat and Serbian minorities are almost disappeared, No Turkish, German is also very low by now. There was a big German majority before WW1, however, after that, they almost entirely vanished as happened with Hungarians in Kassa (Croatian and Bunjevac: Mohač, Serbian: Мохач, German: Mohatsch, Turkish: Mohaç). Residents of Mohacs respect the traditions of the city and they do not want to deny it`s history.Fakirbakir (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, I was ready to accept the version(even if the names section already exists...) that respects the wiki guidelines(current version). Your example isn`t really applicable in this case because alternative names (in this article) are not deleted. Please check the special section Names where you can find all relevant historical names of this city. Adrian (talk) 05:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request:
While I typically tend to agree with items such as PLACE that are not necessarily policies, but rather commonly-accepted practices, my thought on this specific article is that the Hungarian name ought to be listed prior to the German one. The city's history seems to dictate that there is more Hungarian influence than German and that the Hungarian name is probably more common in the region than the German. I would like to point out, however, that - in the big picture of creating an encyclopedia and improving the article - this appears to be a rather trivial disagreement. In my opinion, if the information is correct and verifiable, it should not matter in what order it is listed.—Strikerforce (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
It is done. I followed what Strikerforce had proposed.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate the third opinion but as you can see the bottom line of the third opinion is " I would like to point out, however, that - in the big picture of creating an encyclopedia and improving the article - this appears to be a rather trivial disagreement. In my opinion, if the information is correct and verifiable, it should not matter in what order it is listed.". does not really support this change. Since we already have a guild-line for this matter, it is better to respect it and avoid unnecessary confusion. If you wish to establish a special case (although Hungarian minority is only 3.8%) we could invite some Slovak,German and Hungarian editors and form a new consensus if this is needed. Don`t forget that all this alternative names are present in the special section. Mentioning it in the lead(again) shows it`s importance to other minorities. The pre-conflict state did`t mention any alternative name in the lead. Adrian (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Please do not attempt to refactor or otherwise interpret my words. My opinion on the issue at hand is that the Hungarian name ought to be listed first, due to the influence on the city by Hungary and those of Hungarian descent, versus the amount of German influence. The "bottom line" as you called it was merely a passing statement that I found the amount of text that has been dedicated to this discussion to be rather counterproductive, not a dismissal of the issue at hand. Strikerforce (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I apologize, I did`t had that intention, but you said at the finish - what you said. I interpreted exactly as you have written it. We have many opinions on this matter, for and against, and since this can be a sensitive matter, it is best to follow the guild-line already exists in situations like this. If there is a need for a special case, I explained in my last comment.Adrian (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Also we have many other examples of the same situation. ex:Bratislava where this guild-line is respected with no problems. Adrian (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Bratislava is different, there was a vast 'German effect' as opposed to Kosice, Kassa. Kosice was an entirely Hungarian city in the past. I think we should respect the tradition of the city and we should not ignore the point of view of the third opinion.Fakirbakir (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I am sorry, but I disagree, also with the fact that it was entirely a Hungarian city. German influence was strong in Kosice also. Third opinion wasn`t very clear also. If this city would have a seizable Hungarian minority then no problems, but in cases where it is only 3.8% Hungarian name should`t take precedence and by that it is not a special case. If you wish, as I said before, we could invite some Slovak,German and Hungarian editors and establish a special case at this article only(vote). Don`t get me wrong, I am not saying this in bad faith, but to act against a well-established guild-line whenever somebody thinks something is special I don`t support. If we make an exception here, we could make exceptions on 1000 more places and that disrupts wikipedia more than building it. Adrian (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

@Fakirbakir According to a Hungarian source, Kosice had German ethnic majority until the mid-16th century (Iaaasi (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC))
You are right, I always learn something new. But, they got this data from analysis of names. How was that with Hunyadi? You said we can not use this type of researches because these are just names, origins of the names.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
If this interpretation is made by a reliable source, it should be accepted, even if we don't agree with it. (Iaaasi (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC))

The order of alternative names in the artcile about Košice[edit]

The thread is above. According to WP:PLACE foreign names should be listed in alphabetic order, but a user refuses to accept this guideline (giving no reason for his refusal) (Iaaasi (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

As I explained in my [comment] above, this isn`t any special case therefore this guideline should be followed without any problems...User:Iaaasi Don`t get me wrong WP:AGF, but this isn`t such a big problem to make this much "fuzz" about it. In my opinion, there is no need for all this... As 2 experienced editors, you should be able to solve this problems easily without any edit warring or similar. Hope I helped. Greetings to everybody. Adrian (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Demographics[edit]

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=y3JYwHGYn7MC&pg=PA48&dq=hungary+1910+demographers&hl=en&ei=mvrJToi7IMTJmQXizLAF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hungary%201910%20demographers&f=false

The books says Magyarization did not affect rural areas, where the ethnic borders remained established since 18th-19th century but << the Magyarization and assimilation procedures after the Austrian-Hungarian Compromise in 1867 mainly affected the urban population>>. Kassa / Košice was an urban settlement