Template talk:Inner North-Eastern Carpathians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Romania (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
Stock post message.svg
To-do list for Template:Inner North-Eastern Carpathians:
No to-do list assigned.

2006 discussion in user space prior to the creation of the template[edit]

Organizing Maramures, Zakarpattia, etc[edit]

I suggest to keep this discussion in English for a while, just in case we need to talk with non-Romanians, so we don't waste time later on translating. That's the only reason, otherwise I don't mind talking in Romanian if you prefer. Also, feel free to make big edits on this page. In particular, we should somehow create a simple to do/done list in the top and discuss below. If you have alternative suggestions for organizing this page, just implement them, I don't mind at all.:Dc76 04:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Old discussion[edit]

Hello. I've done some cleanup on your article and I would like to point out that the number of articles dealing with roughly the same area is growing rather high: Maramureş (disambiguation), Northern Maramureş, Máramaros, Carpathian Ruthenia, Carpatho-Ukraine, Zakarpattia Oblast, Maramureş County, Maramureş (historical region), etc. Granted, they all deal with distinct entities, but a few of us should make a concerted effort to reduce overlap, harmonize the information contained within, create links to the other articles where needed, etc. Also, maybe we could have one page where all the differences between these are summarized, though I'm not sure what you'd call it (perhaps the pre-existing Maramureş page could be used, though probably we should pick a more neutral name since Hungary and Ukraine also have links to the region). Biruitorul 06:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry that I answer late. Thank you very much for your work in the article. Your observations are logical and I agree that we should decide on how to deal with this. I will try to summarize how I see one possible solution (of course I am open to any suggestions and modifications, that's exactly why I am telling you):

  • merge Carpathian Ruthenia and Carpatho-Ukraine. They deal with the same thing: the area inhabitted by Rusins/Ukrainians/Boiko/Lemko/Hutsul on the inner slopes of the Carpathians. I see this article as containing (among other things) everything about their history up to 1945, as well as explanations of what Rusins/Ukrainians/Boiko/Lemko/Hutsul are. I don't see the reason for the existance of a separe article Carpatho-Ukraine, because that formation existed only 1 day (15-16 March 1939), and its article is in fact practically a copy of Carpathian Ruthenia. Of course, if someone writes a specific article about 15-16 March 1939, that would make sense. But noone hinders one to do this in the future. A separate article is desearved by the Subcarpathian Rus, the name of the autonomuous region of Czechoslovakia in 1920-1939, but again, someone would have to write a specific article about 1920-1939 politics/economy/events/population etc - that subject is covered very superficially so far on wikipedia, and again one can start such an article in the future. We can leave a note in the "See also" section of the merged article: "If you have additional info, and want to create separate articles about the political entities of 1920-1939, 15-16 March 1939, please do, but when talking about info prior to 1920, link to this article (Carpathian Ruthenia) in order to avoid content forking.".
  • Zakarpattia Oblast is a legitimate article that deals with the political entity: region of Ukrainian SSR, and later of Ukraine, so it should cover everything after 1945, and geography/economy/politics/etc, but not go too far into history, rather link to Carpathian Ruthenia for that.
  • My impression is that the article Zakarpattia Oblast would in time become bigger, so subthemes would be derived from it. I see the article Northern Maramureş as one such theme. (Other such themes could be the Boiko region, the region inhabitted by Hungarians, themes about ecology and Carpathian mountains, themes for differnt cities, and obviously links to the pages of the historic counties Ung, Bereg and Ugocsa (the other 3)). When talking about history, Northern Maramureş will not focuss only on Ruthenians (ethnic group), but on Maramureş (geographical region). In fact, you can talk about Ukrainians in Maramures only from 16th centruy on, unlike the rest of Zakarpattia Oblast, so we are forced to talk about the region, not about an ethnic group. When talking about geography, population, economy, Northern Maramureş will only mention local stuff that is not mentioned in Zakarpattia Oblast, and basics that are necessary for understanding, but when talking about historic monuments, some ecological parks, local traditions, it seems to me logical to do this in Northern Maramureş, not in Zakarpattia Oblast. This will only enhance the richness of the culture of Zakarpattia Oblast.
  • Maramureş County has the same legitimacy as Zakarpattia Oblast, so again, events after 1920 go here, and everything about population/economy/modern politics etc
  • Máramaros or Maramureş I see as an article dealing with the region prior to 1918-1920, especially when it is about history. So, it is like Carpathian Ruthenia, only it's geographical, not ethnical. I have not included yet history in the article Northern Maramureş - if we create this article Máramaros or Maramureş, then most of history prior to 1918 should go here, while Northern Maramureş should contain only later events, and only short reference to older ones with direct link to the other article. The problem that arises here, is whether Máramaros was meant to be an article about the region (county, voevodate, and before) in general, or only about the county Máramaros in 1870-1918. We should ask the main editors of that article what was/is their intention. If 1870-1918, then ok, then just add that events prior to 1870 go to another article called simply Maramureş, and those after 1918 - to Zakarpattia Oblast and Maramureş County. Also, I see the name Maramureş as perfectly neutral, provided we say immmediately that in Hungarian is Máramaros, in German is..., in Ukrainian... The preferred English name happens to come from the Romanian, so what? Just like Ugocsa and Ung, the English names happen to come from Hungarian, not from the Romanian Ugocea and Unguras, or Transylavania happens not to come from Romanian either - I don't see any problem. We have to use the name that is more often used in English, or established as the standard form in English.
  • Maramureş (historical region) - honestly, I suggest to delete this article; here is why: only after 1965 the name Maramures was extended (and only informally, and not evryone accepted or understood this) not only over Maramures county, but also over Satu Mare county. There is no official region Maramures (in the sence or "region" being something bigger than "county", something contianing several counties). The name is only used unofficially by a very limitted amount of people. I rather see "Northern Transylvania(historical and statistical region)", containing 6 counties: Maramures, Satu Mare, Salaj, Oradea, Cluj and Bistrita-Nasaud. I do not confuse it with "Northern Transylvania(1940-1944)", which does not contain all of the former, and contains also something extra from the Southern Transylvania (parts of Mures, Harghita and Covasna). I see legitimate for Crisana to have a separate article as a historic region, because it containes 3 counties: Arad, Oradea and Satu Mare, but I don't understand why some want to artificially create a region Maramures just because they do not want to see the combination of words "Crisana and Maramures" as 3+1 counties, but prefer 2+2 counties. It is like playing with geographical names.
Now, that does not mean that Tara Oasului, Almasul Salajan, Ciceu, etc are not close culturally with Maramures - they are, but they are close to Bistrita or Salaj in the same degree, and there are also important local specificities. Being situated in a territory which is rich in culture, they desearve (in time) separate articles. So what if that refers to small regions of 100,000 or 200,000 people? If there is something interesting and specific - by all means, they will have articles of their own, obviously linked to the articles about bigger regions (counties, Crisana, Transylvania, Romania, etc)
If we agree that my view described above holds (more or less), then Maramureş (disambiguation) can look like this:

Maramureş may refer to one of the following:

What do you think? :Dc76 22:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Please, find my answers pointwise:Dc76 00:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you've made some useful suggestions, but I beg to differ on a couple of counts.
You don't have to beg, I am rational person who hears and understand. :) :Dc76 00:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
"I beg to differ" is an expression, maybe akin to "daţi-mi voie să-mi exprim dezacordul". I'm not literally begging you. Biruitorul 02:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
sorry, I hope i did not offend you. :):Dc76 03:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
First, I think Carpatho-Ukraine is useful because it's very in-depth and because it was in fact an independent state, briefly. It naturally covers a lot more than just that one day, though, because that wouldn't be a very interesting article and because you need to discuss the previous few months in order to understand March 14-16, 1939 properly. It basically stops at the end of March, which is good, and Carpathian Ruthenia mainly covers the pre-1938 history, with Zakarpattia Oblast going forward.
Well, in that case we should make that clearly at the very begining of the article, somthing like "This article deals with Carpatho-Ukraine, the political entity that existed in March 1939 For other periods, see Carpathian Ruthenia and Zakarpattia Oblast". Or something like that. And, I think I saw a better map in a non-English wikipedia, either in the Slovak or in the Hungarian one, one with the exact booundary in 1939, which is slightly, not very much different from todays. So that article would have to have some small adjustments, but preserved.
BTW, on 14 March Slovakia declared independence, Carpatho-Ukraine declared independence from 1-day independent Slovakia on the next day. :) But, yes, the events (1938-1939) leading to that, do have the merit to be mentioned here rather than somewhere else. Just as in Northern Maramures I intend to mention the enevts that led to the separation (1918-1920) in that article and not somewhere else. :Dc76 00:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the note sounds like a good idea. Also it occurred to me that maybe a vertical template like this one might be good. Biruitorul 02:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yes, the problem is .... I don't know to do tamplates. Once you started it, I will figure out how to adjust is, if necessary. But, could you please start this template?:Dc76 03:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Northern Maramureş covers, well, Northern Maramureş, which is not all of Transcarpathia, so that too is legitimate. Likewise with Maramureş County, a present-day political unit.
yeap :Dc76
But now it gets tricky. I agree that Máramaros and Maramureş should be used for pre-1918 history. Maybe the first for 1870-1918, the second for pre-1870.
Yes, if you want two separate articles. It does not cost anything to ask the main editors of Máramaros if they have any objection to writing a single article for pre-1918 or two for the periods that you have indicated. :Dc76 00:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
That would be User:Markussep. Biruitorul 02:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
All right, i will have to write him. thanks:Dc76 03:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
And they would cover, I think, present-day Southern (Romanian) and Northern (Ukrainian) Maramureş, right?
That is correct, "and". Well ... present day Maramures county contains some extra lands (Baia Mare in particular) that prior to 1918 were part of Satu Mare county, but that changes nothing for our discussion. :Dc76 00:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
And yes, Maramureş (historical region) seems silly (we could write something called "Sătmar" for the historical region); Maramureş will supplant that.
Yea, that makes sense :Dc76 00:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Historically speaking, then, I see a nice template forming to guide people through history: Maramureş (pre-1870) | Máramaros (1870-1918) | Carpathian Ruthenia (1918-1939) and ro:Judeţul Maramureş (interbelic) (1927 (de jure)-1938) | ...OK, it gets pretty complicated after that.
Oh, now I see your point about Máramaros (1870-1918) as a separate article. But I don't understand one thing: when you want to write an article say ro:Judeţul Maramureş (interbelic) (1927 (de jure)-1938), what else but area, capital, and list of localities will you include? You surely don't want to include a geography of Maramures in every article 1927-1938, 1938-1940, etc etc. Or do you? So the question is: what info exactly goes in these articles 1927-1938, etc? I can understan what goes in the "oldest" (most of history) and in the "newest" (most of geography, population, economy):Dc76 00:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
All right, let me try to explain better. Essentially, the idea is that Romania underwent a number of geographic reconfigurations between 1918 and 1968, when the current judeţ boundaries were essentially set. I don't know what the divisions were from 1918 to 1927. From 1927-38 you had these. Then from 1938-40 Maramureş was here. Then from 1940 to 1948 (I think) the old judeţe came back. I don't know about '48-'52 and '60-'68, but from 1952-60 it was in Regiunea Baia Mare (map: here). In terms of political subdivisions with hard statistics (population, religion, etc.), we will eventually have articles for all of those, for the whole country. But it would be absurd to write an article for Romanian Maramureş (1918-27), Romanian Maramureş (1927-38), etc. So to simplify matters, let's plan on one article discussing mainly history that covers Maramureş in Romania (1918-1968), with a similar title, and then Maramureş County would deal with post-1968. None of this is definitive, but do you now see what I'm aiming at? Biruitorul 02:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I see what you are aiming at, and I agree with you. But I would rather include all post-1918 history in the "latest" Maramures County. You know, although the administrative division was changed in 1968, that was a minor event in the history of the territory. And how are you going for example to divide the Sighet prison into pre-1968 and post-1968 detainees? :) Anyway, if you find something to accomodated both your last suggestion, and this my obsrevation, I agree with you beforehand.:Dc76 03:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
But the idea of a template is a good one, I think, to help us sort things out. Biruitorul 00:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the idea is good. Just bear with me a little longer, and help me regarding to my last question above, so I understand it now rather that having to discuss this again and again later. :Dc76 00:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Biruitorul, I re-read Máramaros, and it only deals with 1870-1918. In fact it can be taken as a good format for other articles, except that it does not contain "economy". (it need a couple small fixes, but of course in time) Since we will create articles for Maramures for 1927-38, 1952-1960 etc, I don't think that it makessense any longer to merge Máramaros with a new article Maramures, but just create that new article. In fact better, instead of creating a new article Maramures, we can re-write the existing one Maramures (historical region) for that purpose (prior to 1870 it was voevodate/county/unorganized, so the name historical region fits perfectly), and put there mostly history. First of course we will have to empty Maramures (historical region) by moving its info gradually into articles about modern Romania's subdivisions.

However, we should also (eventually) ask User:Markussep his oppinion in general about what we are doing when we get the things a little moving. :Dc76 04:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Templates[edit]

Here's an rough outline:

Very, very preliminary. Feel free to play around with it all you want as we decide on a more final form. Biruitorul 04:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the format is good. thanks! Just to know that I asked: are we creating one template for both Maramures and Zakarpattia or two separate, possibly with overlapping entries? I don't have a preference. :Dc76 04:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
A few details about the years.
  • If I remember correctly, Soviet and Romanian troups got to the region in October 1944. Zakarpattia was formally cedeed to USSR in mid-1945 by a treaty between USSR and Czechoslovakia, and I don't think the Czechoslovak authority was restored in 1944-1945 (but I better ask someone Czech or Slovak, to be sure). So, I don't know where to include this year. Unless Czechs confirm us they had authority over the region, albeit only formaly in 1944-45, I incline to simply put this year to USSR/Romania.
  • The problem is not only for USSR, as only when Groza got to power, there was an agreement in late March 1945 (I think) returning Northern Transylvania to Romania, before - it was in flux. Stalin simply took time to take his decision. :)
  • The same for 1918-1920, although their I know more or less exactly who had what territory under military control.
  • also some localities were cedded to Hungary in 1938, one year before 1939. Headacke!!
  • At least until 1920 or 1923 noone changed any county boundary in Transylvania. The authorities changed, and some border coounties had the territory changed, but I'm sure 100% nothing happened till 1920, I am sure 90% nothing happend till 1923 (the new Constitution), and possibly even till 1927 (I would say I am 50% sure). Just look at the boundaries of pre-1918 and post-1927 in Transylvania. Are they so much different? So, how different then they could have been in 1920-1927 ?
  • 1948-1952 I have absolutely no idea
  • 1960-1968 Are you sure the regions existed only till 1960?
  • if a few villages change from one county to another, I guess we don't call that a change in the administrative-territorial subdivision. We might run accross such small chages from time to time:Dc76 05:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The key to templates is to balance accuracy with brevity. We can't expect to show every little change. We might even put a footnote, something like (From 1918 to 1920 and from 1938 to 1945, the geopolitical situation of the region fluctuated widely. This template merely presents an overview of those changes; see individual articles for greater detail.)

A Slovak or Czech might know some of the finer details, or maybe Dahn (sau eşti certat cu el?).

I also wonder about pre-1870 divisions. Our main concern for that period will be historical, not political, but it might be worth looking into.

Regions existed till '68, I think, but the boundaries changed in '60. I think both of the maps here are from that period.

Have you notified anyone else about this project? Maybe a message on the Romanian noticeboard, and Khoikhoi should probably know. Riurik and Irpen are two good Ukrainians we should be talking to. Mzajac also. We don't seem to have that many Slovaks, but try Smith2006, Liberal Nationalist, Pavel Vozenilek (a Czech), Dezidor (another Czech). The more people working on this, the more accurate the final product will be, and the less work for us. Biruitorul 05:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

How about this?


  • Before 1867, according tothis, all 4 counties that come here about were counties, presumably with more or less hte same border, since the formation fo the counties 1214, 1261, 1262, resp. 1303, except that during 1785-90 and again during 1849-1860, they were abolished and part of the military district Kaschau. Also, they were usualy known by their Latin names. They also changed hands many times: part of Principality of Transylvania, part of Austria, part of Hungarian Republic (1948-49), in 12-13 century Ung, Bereg and Ugosca were for a while in Galicia. How much can I for example find specifically about Ung in 1848-49 or in 1849-1860?
  • so, I guess the idea is, that when boundaries change a little, we just mention that in the articles, without adding an additional interval of years in the template?
  • I have not notified yet anyone about this project. Let's just get it a little under way, make a summary on this page of what we propose and what is to be done; then one of us can leave a short message to all of these users, so that they don't have to read our all discussion, but sufficient its outcome (of course, they are always welcome to read everything). I don;t know so many users as you do. :) I agree Riurik and Irpen are two good Ukrainians we should be talking to, only that none of them is from the western Ukraine, where Subcartpathian Ruthenia is located. I don't know Mzajac, apparently he's American or smth - anyway he is more than welcome. So in adition to these three, we should invite also someone from the western Ukraine, but I was unable to find anyone yet.
  • I am not "quarelled" with Dahn. We talked about whether Moldavians can declare themselves in the census as Moldavian, and claim they are Romanians as well. I said yes, he said no. Unfortunately, he brought up the discussion so that he conditioned: either I accept his POV, or else all Moldavians are "stupid", "morons" and "cretins, all 3 million of them". Now, he did not say directly so, he said that "for Moldavians to declare themselves Romanians, and to mean that they are Romanians as well, they must be given these characterizations, which is unlikely". So, either they are indid "morons", or they did not mean what they meant. Mind puzling! Apparently (to me) he believes that Moldavains are not "true Romanians", he even gave me the example of true Scotish. :) He also used words like "hell" and "damn" before, I never use such words. Now, I hope that he will say that I misunderstood him, and that the issue of whether the notion Romanian is inlcusive/exclusive is no longer conditioned by 3 million people being "morons". Hopefully. :Dc76 03:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the first two names should be in the languages where the region is situated nowadyas? Also corrected a year mistake. Can you help fix Hungary's flag? :Dc76 19:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. It makes more sense to have it in chronological order, because that's how the rest of the tempalte is. It seems to be a historic template anyways. Khoikhoi 19:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
But the origin of the name is not Hungarian, it is Romanian, the region was a Romanian vevodate before becomeing a county in the Kingdom of Hungary in 1303. Should we put the Latin name first? :) Just asking ... nothing is fixed, everything is open to discussion.:Dc76 20:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, was the region historically predominately Romanian? I guess we don't have to have the Hungarian name first, but weren't there more Slavs than Romanians in Máramaros? You seem to know a lot more about this than I do. :-) Khoikhoi 20:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
First, I sincerely don't care even if it is Chinese first. I was too quick in changing, I am sincerely sorry for that.
Second, as far as I read. Don't take my impression and reading for more than it's worth - the impresion of a human.
So, as far as I know, only Ung, Bereg and Ugocsa were Ruthenian prior to 16th century. But in 16th century several migrations took place, two of them concern the region. The part (NW) from localities Hust till Tiachiv/Teceu Rusyns from Bereg moved in. The part (NE) from the pass to Galicia till Velikii Bychkiv Hutsuls from Galicia moved in. Now, "moved in" is an expression, because
  • in both cases from point A to point B there is no more than 50 km
  • we are talking about very small numbers: today, with population increased 3 fold only in the last century, the 2 subregions have approx 200,000 resp 70,000. Imagine in 16th century!
  • imagine what was the population (Romanian) of those subregions before the move --> conclusion: it was quite sparcely populated, especially when you go deep into the mountains, maybe some places where now is a village before was a single house
  • first was a pure socio-economical migration that took several generations (sometimes simply people married in the next village!), the second, although politicaly in agreement (they needed to cross the "border" from poland, i.e. become someone else subjects; they never forget about taxes in middle ages :) ), was de facto also socio-economic
  • sometimes Ruthenians would build new villages where there was nothing before, just forest or place for sheeps to eat grass (pastures), so who's place was that before if where now ther are 3 Ukrainian villages before was one Romanian, and smaller?
  • from approx 1700 till 1717 there was a disaster there: a Kuruc revolt, driven by Habsburgs from Hungarian planes moved in (organized even worse than Jean l'Hermite's "crisade") and then Tatars pludered and burned down a lot (the whole tesaurus of Sziget was plundered, because they have hidden it in the central church, and Tatars broke in) --> conclusion: work-loving population was desperately needed
  • this was not just one direction migration, during 12-15 century there was migration in the other way by Vlah highlanders, who raised sheeps, they moved through the mountains as far as Moravia and "interbred" with local population.
  • there was the same religious problem for both Romanians and Ruthenians: Unianism, and they even had the same catholic bishopric for Bereg, Ugocsa and Maramures --> so there was a lot in common which helped the cohabitation and mix.
Now, going back to before 16th century, Louis Anjou's appointment to brothers Balc and Drag as "voivods and counts of Maramures" mentions the villages that Bogdan left in 1359 and which go Balc and Drag - that's basically all northern and central Maramures, and they all had Romanian names and nothing Ruthenian is mentioned, nor about language, nor people, no names - in complete contrast with just 50-100km away in Bereg, where almost everything was in Ruthenian.
Just before that time, Ung, Bereg and Ugosca were received by the prince of Halich ... I forgot his name, the son of the guy that founded Lvov. When Hungary wanted them back in 1308, local Ruthenian nobles revolted, mainly because of Catholic/Orthodox. But as usual, priveldges and money (if the king is wise) settled everything better than any war. But for Maramures - big contrast at that time.
The valleys of the creeks that fall into Tisza from the left were (except the 2 towns- Szyget and Viseu) and remain today Romanian, the "mix" and "moving in" was only in the northern part.
If one goes to the region, then the locals of all ethnicities are very friendly with each other, there is never any "national problem": In Maramures, in all of Zakarpattia, in Northern Bukovina, etc. The only problems are with "administrators" and "instruction" that are sent from outside the region. The order in which the names are mentioned would matter to them just as much as to me matters if I buy the 47655th or the 47656th copy of a book. I would rather look at the quality of the copy :), and so will they. :Dc76 21:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

New Discussion[edit]

Hi Dc76. I'm happy that you've come a long way in this project, but I'm still not convinced that giving the name Maramureş a priority is the NPOV way to go yet. Why should we pick the Romanian name first? Is the Hungarian name, Máramaros, less important? Perhaps we could use both? What do you think? Khoikhoi 02:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Khoikhoi. Everything on this page is just a suggestion, everything is open to discussion, that's why we did not put it up yet, it is in initial stage. In fact, Biruitorul has asked the same question somewhere in the discussion above (if you have time to read, you will find it here). We agreed that the "English name" should be for the template name. But we did not discuss yet which is the "English name" :) And to put both names is also possible, and I think Biruitorul or I also sayd about this above. To be fair we will have to then put also the German name. Again, I don't have a definite opinion on this yes. This is all preliminary, feel free to come up with many such issues. :130.225.20.50 03:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, sounds good. :-) I would prefer something along the lines of this:
Máramaros / Maramureş / Мармарощина
You see, in this case, I don't think a neutral and/or English name for this region exists. We have the Latin name, Marmatia, but I think it's hardly relevant in this context because the Romans did not play a large part (if any) in the history of Maramureş. Khoikhoi 03:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes, since there is no official English name. I suggest this: Máramaros / Maramureş / Мармарощина / Maramoros (Maramuresch). The last one is German. The reason: there was a big German community, over 50,000, esp. in Viseu subdistrict. Now Maramuresch aparently is the modern name, while Maramoros is the one used historically (by google-ing with "de" option). Also is Latin, not only Marmatia (with "t" pronouced "ts", the usual rule in Latin), but also in middle ages I see comitatus or districtus Maramarosiensis. Plenty to choose from :)
The Romans did play a significant part in the history of Maramures, the northern boundary of the empire was the southern boundary of Maramures. But I agree, English, not Latin is now the "international language", so I only suggest to include German as well. But which one, Maramoros, Maramuresch, or Maramoros (Maramuresch)? :Dc76 04:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm. To complicate matters further, we must not forget about the Jews of Mar(). They spoke Hungarian and Ukranian/Rusyn (and probably also German, I'm not sure), but they also spoke Yiddish. I'm not sure if Máramaros has a Yiddish name, however. Here's a good link you might want to look into.
My great-grandmother is from present-day Maramureş County (back when it was Máramaros vármegye [pronounced "Mar-mar-osh"]). I have a picture of her grandparents, who came from a small village on the Tisza River. They could speak Ukranian and Yiddish, but not Hungarian. So my guess is that the Jews became largely Magyarized, but originally did not speak Hungarian. Khoikhoi 04:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
If you want to write an article about the Jews in Maramures (is it spelled Marmaros in Yiddish? <--- I am guessing from the link you gave above), be my guest. Just don't forget to add it in the template of Maramures/etc. And somehow avoid content forking with Jews of Subcarpathian Ruthenia.
I can only speculate: since the Jews came to the region mainly from Galicia, etc (I think, I am not sure), the fact that they knew Ukrainian is logical. Also by that time, Northern Maramures became more Ukrainian than Romanian, so again Ukrainian is logical. Do you know the name of the village? (Knowing which village will surely explain.) Being a small village, it would have been ilogical to expect to know better Hungarian than Ukrainian. If it were Hust or Sighet/Sziget, it would have been possibly`different. Again, all this is speculation, I am just using your real-life example to check the veridity of what I learned from reading different sourses. Apparently it fits, so I guess the sourses are not lying.
Nice to know so much about your great-great-great-grandparents. I only know my great-grandparents, and about some, but not all my great-great-grandparents, and picture only of grandparents and maybe 1 or 2 great-grandparents.:Dc76 05:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the village was called Lonka. You can actually see it here (it's to the left of "Már. Sziget" and right below Nagybocskó). Today I think it's split between Romania (where it is known as Lunca la Tisa) and Ukraine (where it is known as "Luh"). Khoikhoi 05:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Coooool! :) I can see it, even the village. Nagybocskó is the first town of Hutsul "country", it is Vel. Bichkiv or something like that in Ukrainian. The boundary there is almost, but not precise to the former subdistrict boundary (subdistrict is Tisza/Tissa/Tisa). I suppose you know that both Lunca and Luh translate into English as everglade. "la Tisa" instead of "pe Tisa" is also a characteristic of Transylvania, or at least of northern Carpathians. Cool! Did you ever visit it? You should, you will definitevely not regreat going there. BTW, just currious, when did she leave the region, I suppose before WWII, because during WWII Northern Trasylvania and Subcarpathian Ruthenia was one or the worst in Europe, they deported almost everyone. :Dc76 05:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah! :-) You can actually see an interesting email about a woman who went to Nagybocskó, and she describes the same scenario as Lonka: the northern part in Ukraine is known as Velykyy Bychkiv, and the southern part in Romania is called Bocicoiu Mare. I was wondering if you know of any examples when towns get split like this. I wasn't aware that Lunca meant "everglade"—I wonder if there were/are marshlands in the area. No, I've never been to Eastern Europe, but I hope to go there someday. My great-grandmother came to America in 1921, so yes it was before WWII. It is indeed unfortunate what happened to the ones that never left. Khoikhoi 06:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What are we discussing again? The template title? Personally, I'd say Maramureş / Мармарощина / Máramaros, etc., simply because most of the region is in Romania today (and that's the most common English name), followed by Ukraine; none of it is in Hungary today. Culturally, too, it's not very Hungarian, though that's a less quantifiable criterion. But as Dc76 said, it really doesn't matter that much. By the way, and I know this is still very much in flux, but I'd prefer the template to be something more along my model, simply because templates are meant to help with navigation and to have some sort of chronological or geographical order; otherwise, disambiguation pages are enough. For a fully-formed template that we could use as a template for our own template (so to speak), see this one. Biruitorul 00:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

aaaaaaah :), now I see what you mean by template. So everything that I put at "other relevant articles" must go in the template itself in a logical way. But my question then is, what is the name of the template, or better, what are we covering?:Dc76 01:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Hm, I wonder. I guess the name would be something like "Maramureş / Мармарощина (etc.) and related topics" (and then maybe a separate one for Carpathian Ruthenia. I suppose we're covering history, culture, ethnicities, language, and anything else that might logically fit in. I'm not sure at this point what would be the best way to structure it, but let's think it over for a couple of days and I'm sure we'll come up with something. Biruitorul 03:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)