Jump to content

Talk:Vukovar-Srijem County

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 21:44, 10 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Croatia}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

use of the term Syrmia in modern-day administrative subdivision names

[edit]

Please see Talk:Syrmia#use of the term Syrmia in modern-day administrative subdivision names. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vukovar-Srijem County. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Proposal to rename article

[edit]

Based on the exchange of opinions at the talk-page of Wiki-Project Croatia (most up to date contribution) I propose that this article is renamed/moved to Vukovar-Syrmia County. There are two spellings used for the region in English (Syrmia/Sirmium) yet Wikipedia uses Syrmia for the region itself and Sirmium for the ancient Roman city. The name of the Croatian county is derived from the name of the region and I therefore propose Syrmia version in the title as well. I will propose similar change for Osijek-Baranja County in which you may be interested as well.--MirkoS18 (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, User:MirkoS18, why did you not advertise this at Wikipedia:Requested moves? We do not move articles by RfC, and this one was not particularly well advertised anyway (I admit, I was barely active in June anyway). There was a 2014 discussion between myself, User:Joy and User:Anastan at Talk:Syrmia#use of the term Syrmia in modern-day administrative subdivision names. "Syrmia" is not a well-attested term in English, and the main reason we use it as the name of the main article is a compromise. It should not be used for all derived meanings where it does not have a common usage. Now that the category tree and whatnot has been moved, it's quite inconvenient to revert, but well, I object... No such user (talk)
Dear User:No such user, first of all let me thank you for your feedback. Apologies for not sharing it on the Requested moves page. I forgot about that page, and I anyway believed that majority of interested users will see it on the talk page of the WP:Croatia. It is okay that you were not active in June, self-evidently in no way it prevents you from sharing your ides now. I was aware of the discussion from 6 years ago that you mentioned. This was in fact why I initially asked others for their opinion. My reasoning is explained in my posts on the WP:Croatia. While the 2014 discussion was insightful, I thought there were other aspects which were not considered at that time. It also looked to me more as an friendly exchange of opinions than some formal decision making. Anyway, to acknowledge earlier contributions and opinions I made this specific edit. Now, I don't completely grasp if your current comment aim at certain proposal or it is more for the record? I certainly appreciate your feedback. If it is proposal, while I would't like for this to be interpreted in any way as my push on the rest of community, I also would't really like to revert anything myself as I think the current version is better one. Hope you can understand this point.--MirkoS18 (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah this should be summarily reverted on procedural grounds, WP:RM is the way to move articles, not this. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Joy summarily reverting it one month after the change only on procedural ground sounds quite contrary to WP not bureaucracy policy, plus WP:RM is not the only and mandatory procedure. Despite my omission (and it was nothing more) you should not just ignore that I posted this proposal both here and on the WP Croatia and that until now there was no opposition to relatively massive changes on factual grounds. If it is to be reverted it probably deserve some factual reasoning and not only procedural one.--MirkoS18 (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The best way forward is that we open a fresh RM from the current title so as to have a proven consensus one way or another, and to hopefully settle the issue for good. Procedural reverting is simply impractical given the number of articles affected (via categories) and the time lapsed (over a month). No such user (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like reasonable way forward that gives me a fair chance at "defending my case", plus it appreciate significant (and unopposed) effort at manually moving everything. Summary revert would be rather frustrating honestly. As far as I see the key point of your earlier comment was that this was not a common name. I would like to try to find evidence that it is in fact, and to answer to some other claims, logical conclusions and facts which I think were partially misrepresented or completely missed. New RM can provide me a platform (of course, to everyone else as well). If possible (if there is a precedent), it would be great if a new RM can ask for the confirmation of this title so that my original unfortunate omission is addressed?--MirkoS18 (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The passage of time makes no difference to whether the change was correct or not. We already had these discussions for years, so I find it utterly weird that you think that your opinion in one particular month now suddenly magically trumps everything else. That is not a bureaucratic distinction, it's a question of what is actually learning from history and what is in the spirit of collaboration. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The passage of time most certainly makes no difference whether the change was correct or not but I don't know where do you see I claimed it? My earlier comment stated exactly that a change on bureaucratic distinction is not justified here especially since my earlier moves did stabilize for some time and may therefore probably better suit process of Move review. Now, all of those years you mention are referenced at one (not that conclusive) exchange of opinions in 2014. Now, you may say that that my disagreement with your 2014 opinion is utterly weird and phantasmagoric but I think that you (while I assume your best intention) were not completely correct for following reasons:
1) On 30 June 2014 you said "I don't currently see we can source either of those terms. If "Syrmia" was actually a common English word, there would be no debate, but it's really just another relatively obscure toponym.". I think it is as either Syrmia or Sirmium is used by International Organizations (OSCE: 1, CoE: 1, UNSC: UNTAES, 1023, 1025, 1037, 1043, 1069, 1079, 1120, 1145, ALDA: [1], CEMR: 1), Foreign Governments (CIA: 1, 2, State Department: 1, US Board on Geographic Names: 1, Bosnia SIPA: 1, Assembly of Vojvodina: 1, Official Journal of the European Union: 1, Slovak Consulate: 1), Academia (JSTOR results: 1 and 2, CEEOL results regular translation: 1, Springer: 1 and 2 and 2 and locally HRČAK: 1 and 2) and Media (1, 2, 3), as well as locally (Ministry: 1, in statistics: 1 in tourism: 1, by local bodies: 1, companies: 1). Google Books in fact do provide results both for Syrmia and Sirmium. In addition, my quotes here are not exhaustive but simply exemplary in nature (I can provide additional if needed). You can also look into sources for Syrmian Front and other moments which all make term's usage a bit less "obscure".
2) I believe that this proves that Sirmium or Syrmia is/are common English language name(s) for the region. The fact that there is some variance should not lead us to a logical mistake. It is not -1+1=0, it is 1+1=2 as both are common English term for the region. I addressed this HERE.
3) Even the claim that there is a clear line between the usage of Srijem in Croatia and Srem in Serbia is only partially (even if mostly) correct. Ekavian is common among local Serb, Rysin and at least historically relevant Croat community (if there is need for references I can provide them). This is so much so that it marginally leads even to the co-oficial usage of it: in case you know Cyrillic take a look at ekavian official inscriptions in Vukovar which are now vandalized but which are officially used in other units.
4) Now, there will certainly be opposite examples, but I for example don't see how is Carinthia less "obscure" term, but we still have Carinthia Statistical Region, Carinthia (Slovenia), 2018 Carinthian state election... and many other. This (and other states and regions there and elsewhere) is in no way obligatory, but it does have persuasive characteristics.
5) Last but not least, the fact is that 6 years of different Wikipedia practice certainly influenced the type of sources available online as even Google itself provide reference to Wikipedia.
All of this may be my weird phantasmagoria, but I think this argument is stronger than what was provided in exchange of opinions in 2014. I am really sorry I missed one common step in procedure but I count on your assumption of my good faith. I haven't tried to do anything against the spirit of collaboration here as it seems to me was maybe alleged.--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What prevented you from posting this tl;dr rant in WP:RM originally? IOW this actually makes me less willing to accommodate you after a repetitive refusal to accept responsibility for such a basic oversight. "I am right, therefore whatever I do is right, too!" --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Joy I apologized for my omission repeatedly. I think that my initial good intention is visible from the fact that I initiated discussion both here and at the WP:Croatia. I am sorry that this makes you annoyed or dissatisfied as I appreciate your contribution to the project. I do not ask you to accommodate me in any way, but if you say that my contribution was incorrect you should not really say that my answer is too long to read rant once I present my argument. Insistence on procedural omission certainly does not seem like there is any effort to "accommodate" me. I try my best to be constructive here. I proposed Move review if there is reason to believe I was incorrect on factual ground. Nobody here would be happier than me if I knew I need to put it on WP:RM from the beginning. I did not avoid it intentionally (which editor would like to be treated in this way intentionally). Your proposal is only to revert everything on procedural ground, but even that is not strictly in line with procedure when a new undiscussed (in fact discussed but on "wrong" places) title stabilize. Mass procedural revert should only motivate me to open a new WP:RM right after that. There must be another way to work together and to assume that everyone here have a good intention without name calling and undermining other editors or their contributions. Please, let us be reasonable. You have much more experience here, I don't believe that there is only one thing which can be done.--MirkoS18 (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I went through a dozen of the links you posted and they do not actually all advance your argument. To clarify, we need info about the English naming of the region, but more specifically we need info about the English naming of the county. Many of those links are references to the region during the times of Yugoslavia, and many are simple searches to the English/Latin phrases. They're not all references to the county name. You shoud present links that clarify that some source refers to the actual county using some phrase. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As an example, compare these three:
So it's fairly obvious that a proper review of sources will require us to actually delve a little bit more into this. Most obviously, because these numbers are very bad for your argument, but also because the excerpts might actually not be representative. I also observed one usage of the phrase "County of X and Y", so there could be some ambiguity in searches in that regard as well. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First of all thank you for your renewed interest in this topic and for looking into provided sources. I am not sure which one of them do not advance my argument. I will just rollback a bit for an overview which you are of course free to challenge in part or in full:
  • there was no conclusive consensus in 2014 which is claimed. There was also a claim that a common English word for Syrmia does not exist. I proved that Syrmia or Sirmium is in fact a common English name for the region (used before, during and after Yugoslavia for the region by reliable international sources, although I do not see what was the issue with reliable sources from any period).
  • It is a common practice to use the English language names of regions for all Croatian counties where common English names do exist. Therefore we have Požega-Slavonia (not Požega-Slavonija), Split-Dalmatia (not Split-Dalmacija), Istria County (not Istra) counties. This was shared in the original exchange on the WP Croatia (idea that it is contradictory to use one name for the region, and another when it is used in county's name). In fact, with Istria there is Slovene Istria, Istria County while there seems not to be a special Italian unit.
  • If we are to use original name I don't see why we don't use Vukovarsko-srijemska County? While one of statistically common "translation" of Vukovarsko-srijemska may be Vukovar-Srijem it is not the literal translation of the term. The situation is comparable with much more notable Austria-Hungary case where the full name is not Austria-Hungary Empire but Austro-Hungarian Empire. JSTOR in fact provides some sources using Vukovarsko-srijemska County term as well.
  • As for JSTOR, it is certainly something we should strongly take into consideration. JSTOR in fact do not provide strong and conclusive argument in this case. As for Vukovar-Syrmia or Vukovar-Sirmium "dilema" I have zero preference and if you propose at any time to rename Vukovar-Syrmia to Vukovar-Sirmium I will support it. Also, it seems your search missed some JSTOR sources: for example Vukovar-Syrmia (just to point out it is not 0). Since you put some question on international sources created during the Yugoslav time, I will feel free to feel some doubt on neutrality of some sources created by local authors during or in the aftermath of the War when the region was contested and the place of conflict. The fact is that in this time international community and media insisted on the term Sirmium as it is clearly visible in my sources and elsewhere. While I do not question neutrality of any provided JSTOR sources at the time (at least not without detailed analysis), the fact is that they were almost all written by local authors.
  • In the end, I can't free myself from the feeling that the insistence on Vukovar-Srijem term is insistence on Croatisation which will distinguish it from the Serbian term Srem, and not only on statistics. That is why I prefer neutral English name both to Srijem and Srem terms. When there is no insistence on Croatisation in the case of other counties, I see no reason why to insist in the case where there is in fact the highest proportion of the local population which may not use it.
  • As for some English language references for the region itself (some repeated):
I don't quite like the conflation of raw Croatian terms plus the English word "county", that just seems like something that wouldn't be found in an English-language manual of style. I like the argument about Dalmatia and Slavonia, but that's a very shaky argument because those two terms may be much more common in English, and also because for some reason we seem to have kept Primorje in that county's name and didn't use Littoral despite the fact Croatian Littoral seems to exist as an English term, and there's no ambiguity like Syrmia/Sirmium/Srem/Srijem there... You may be right that there could be some Croatisation at play, but if we were to counteract that, we have to actually use proper sources, and when the sources themselves don't consistently use one set of English terms, it's hard to make a coherent argument for that. Likewise, if we were to apply that logic here, it would make sense to do the same with Srem District, but what if there review of sources there tilts ever so slightly more in the direction of that term (as opposed to a "Syrmia District"), and we create an even worse inconsistency?
The issue with these link farms that you've been posting remains the same - they're not necessarily contributing to a coherent argument. For example, The World Factbook actually lists the raw Croatian names there, while stripped of diacritics, and then places what you advocate for in parentheses. Does that mean that they want people to use the first listed term as canonical, or the second one, even if it's parens? Also, they preface that list with saying they relay something from the US Board on Geographic Names, hence, it's not even a secondary source but a tertiary one? Then there's an unsigned press release from a Bosnian state agency that mentions a couple of Croatian counties in passing, in parentheses - how are we supposed to be sure that their English terms are supposed to be authoritative? Then there's a seemingly useful website of a Serbian state agency, but as soon as I looked, they used "Srem" elsewhere in English text in [2]. Their own inconsistency in English usage does not instill a lot of confidence. I didn't click through everything, but I'm far from certain that everything else is fine. Hence I'd prefer that we get help from someone else, preferably native English speakers with some experience sifting through sources to figure things like this out. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, your last comment certainly sounds like something much more agreeable (maybe I misinterpreted earlier comments). Anyone's additional input and help is certainly welcome. As for my argument, my effort was to show that the preferred English term is referenced by variety of (not in any way linked) reliable sources. This Croatisation part is additionally slightly problematic as the term Vukovar-Srijem will subsequently be used in a large number of secondary articles (many of them related to minority communities, settlements or topics). As for Srem District my argument apply there in principle as well. Admittedly I am much less involved/informed on this topic so I will trust you on this one. But yes, maybe this tiresome discussion should be addressed by somebody else. I'm just not sure where we can find good souls willing to invest their time in reading all of this and making neutral and balanced decision preferably based on substance and not on my procedural clumsiness.--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In general I'm not convinced that there's organized Croatisation at play here when their official web site at http://www.vusz.hr/ doesn't even seem to have an English version to promote such a variant. Seems more likely that they merely helped create an organically messy situation because they don't quite care much about English usage. And, to be honest, we here helped enlarge that mess by hoping we could translate as much of these county names as possible, but that might not be entirely possible after all. Anyway, I don't think we should try to approach it from the point of view of how it affects minority-related articles - in every such case, they're always going to be affected by majority-related terminology, this county or otherwise. For English readers, what needs to be done is to explain what the terms they may see on signposts or elsewhere, so e.g. if there's real-world references to a county by several names, then all that should be included wherever is logical in order to explain. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly the reason why I included several names in the article's intro. As for the first part we would probably disagree at least in part. But if anyone else (experienced native English language editors) is willing to give us their opinion it would be great.--MirkoS18 (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 June 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. It is clear that the generally accepted English name of the county proper is the proposed title, regardless of the name of the name of Syrmia/Srijem itself. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vukovar-Syrmia County → Vukovar-Srijem County – I'm initiating this formal discussion here in order to formalize earlier discussions, cf. #RfC on Proposal to rename article above. While there is some credence to using the historical anglicized title in the name of the historical region, the modern-day region of Vukovarsko-srijemska županija isn't really consistently named Vukovar-Syrmia County in the preponderance of relevant sources. There is some consistency to it, in relation to names of some of the other (but definitely not all) Croatian counties, and some inconsistency, primarily in relation to Srem District. We should have neutral editors examine this and decide what is the best course of action. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to repeat all of my earlier arguments from the section above RfC on Proposal to rename article. As for the Srem District I acknowledge the inconsistency (there was also some discussion on the talk page of that article last year under the -Name-) yet I think it is much more appropriate to look for standardization with other Croatian counties and not with different type of administrative unit in another country. In case of other Croatian counties common English names seem to be used regularly in the names of counties and it seems to me that Syrmia is quite common English name for the region. Based on all of this I reaffirm my clear preference for the current title, but I am of course always willing to listen to good arguments why we should use original Croatian name (be it the one you propose or maybe even Vukovarsko-srijemska County).--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note, this discussion may also be relevant for the earlier category move.--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the discussions above this section, I'm also not a fan of conflating Croatian and English terms. Foreign readers probably expect an unified (and neutral) English-sounding name for the region and its derivatives, and that is "Syrmia". Domestic readers all know "Srem" and "Srijem" refer to the same thing, but foreigners probably don't. All "Srijem" and "Srem" article titles should be adapted to "Syrmia" if possible. -Vipz (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about we do what we're supposed to do: check (official, reviewed, reliable, professionally translated, high quality) sources?
Ponor (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the whole point here is that there are multiple reliable sources which do not all use only one version of the title. Vukovar-Srijem and Vukovar-Syrmia are not actually two substantially different options, it's only that one version uses standard Croatian name of the region, and another English. I think original implication here was that English version is unreferenced which I think I showed is clearly not correct as there are multiple reliable sources listed in discussions here, in 2020 and on WP Croatia quoted in 2020 discussion. There is also no difference in way in which historical and contemporary name of the region is used, there is only one word and that is why we have Byzantine Syrmia (567-582), Syrmia County (medieval), Sanjak of Syrmia, Syrmia County, Syrmia Oblast while this proposal would rename Vukovar-Syrmia County into Vukovar-Srijem County. Some of reliable sources using translated version of the name I of course listed in this edit and this one as well in 2020. Interestingly enough, even some organizations you listed also use Vukovar-Syrmia at other points: for example EU funds for HR projects, safu.hr (2014), Council of Europe. There is also relatively similar European Commission 2022, 2022, Local Development Agency, Tourist Association of Vinkovci... And all of the mentioned are actually references on the county itself, ignoring the overwhelming number of references for the name of the region of Syrmia itself which is of curse the direct translation of the word Srijem (I do not really understand why do we insist on ignoring the fact that Syrmia is English name of the region). Consulted sources would clearly imply that translated version of the title is certainly not unreferenced, while there are all of the other advantages of translated title mentioned in previous discussion(s). Now, it seems to me that when references on the name of the region of Syrmia are ignored and we include only references to the administrative unit, original Croatian title may be somewhat more usual, yet with everything provided earlier it is far from conclusive and from giving us the right to claim that Vukovar-Syrmia is not referenced term which is used quite often when referring to the county. Also, if we are to rename this article, should we rename articles on other counties which use English names for their regions?--MirkoS18 (talk) 05:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not up to us, Wikipedians Anonymous, to choose our favorite name for the counties. We need to find the most prevalent name in published sources. Our typical English reader from Berlin, New Jersey does not wake up in the morning thinking (in English) oh, I need to look up Vukovar-Sirmium County on Wikipedia, she most likely stumbles upon the term reading about the country, in a travel guide or a government paper. From what I can tell, she's most likely to come upon the name "Vukovar-Srijem County" for the Croatian county of "Vukovarsko-srijemska županija" (en: "Vukovarian-Syrmian County"). Their own tourist board (visitvukovar-srijem.com) calls it Vukovar-Srijem, and numerous official hr/eu papers do too. It does not matter what the larger region (Syrmia/Sirmium) is called in English or Latin. The entity is "V-s županija"/"V-S County", and it has its English names: the most prevalent one is Vukovar-Srijem County, folowed by Vukovar-Syrmia and Vukovar-Sirmium. The article should be renamed to reflect this. Other usual names will remain in the first sentence. Same rule applies to all other counties; I repeat, it's not up to us to seek naming consistency, (luckily) the names have already been chosen for us. Ponor (talk) 09:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And in your interpretation how does it affect subcategory articles which at the moment use the name of the county? It seems to me that the Croatization aspect (aimed at distinguishing it from Serbian version Srem) here comes mostly into the forefront. One close exemple for me, this change would for example mean that the village of Banovci, Vukovar-Syrmia County would be Banovci, Vukovar-Srijem County despite the fact that probably nobody in local population would use the word Srijem? So, the village would firstly loose the possessive Šidski (derived from the Serbian town of Šid- this is real world change which we can just describe of course) and would now be added Croatian standard version for Syrmia which would in fact be our choice. Maybe it goes all the way to Wikipedia being neutral, but it's existence not being neutral but I think using statistics exclusively while ignoring numbers for the region itself is suboptimal choice. But I mean, it wont be me who will decide and I can only share my argument hoping that someone who will be closing it will be willing to read it all and willing to look if there actually is concensus for this proposed move.--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MirkoS18, the county is one of the 20+1 primary administrative subdivisions of the Republic of Croatia. It's a name made-up some 30 years ago by the Croatian government, so there is no much (English language) tradition associated with it.
If we agree that the name Vukovar-Srijem County is the one most often used in English sources, then the Croatian village of Banovci will have to be "Banovci, Vukovar-Srijem County" in English Wikipedia, because there are other villages called Banovci, and because the village is part of the Croatian county called Vukovar-Srijem County. This has nothing to do with any local names; we don't call the Croatian city of Rijeka – Rekà (local Chakavian name), because its official Croatian name is ­Rijeka. Nothing will change the way Banovci is called in Serbia(n language), if it's Banovci Šidski, it stays Banovci Šidski.
Our article here is Czech Republic, and not Bohemia (historical English name) or Czechia (new official name), because Czech Republic is still the most prevalent name; see — it has nothing to do with anyone's wishes: the title is just the name for the count(r)y that is most often used in English publications. In the present case, I believe (we have shown) that's Vukovar-Srijem County. Ponor (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If internet statistics is the sole and only reference maybe you are right and considering any other argument is in that case pointless. I of course find this whole argument about our "objectivity" a bit amusing and not entirely convincing considering digital consequences of any choice we make, and some feeling that there is almost some nationalist POV-pushing with insistence on local name in this particular case. I think original creator of the page Joy may share some a part my understanding on consequentiality of our choice if I read his edit correctly (third sentence). Now I think there was an original mistake in claim that Syrmia is not a a common English name for the region when the page was created on 7 February 2004 (it was firstly moved in 2006) and when it was renamed in 2014. It would be of course interesting to see what kind of digital sources we may get if we divide our search into 2004-2006, 2006-2014, 2014-2020 and 26 June 2020-today. Of course, I find it contradictory to claim that Syrmia is obscure term and Vukovar-Srijem well established one, probably the opposite would be more correct. Plus, it is not just my POV-pushing, here are other editors who agreed in full or in part beyond the 2020 and the current discussion on this page (I don't know if they would change their opinion now based on some new arguments): 23 April 2006, 16 June 2020.--MirkoS18 (talk) 10:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MirkoS18 (et al.): I can only repeat myself – it doesn't matter what any of us think or feel is the right (English) name. POV-pushing? IDK... which country should decide what Croatian counties should be called? As Vukovar-Srijem County contains only a part of Syrmia (the "Srijem" part, so to speak, that is in Croatia) it makes even more sense to call the county Vukovar-Srijem. Our policies like WP:COMMONNAME and WP:MODERNPLACENAME say use most common name (i.e. count sources) and use modern name or local name, if there is no established English name. Glosbe.com is 150 : 12 in favor of Vukovar-Srijem (see my first comment). Council of Europe document search 58 : 13 : 2. Ponor (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the question "which country" should have insinuated that there is someone from the outside trying to impose something, well, I'll just say it is implying something completely wrong. But that's something very well visible from the entire conversation. After all, I'm certainly not outsider as someone living in the county in question and as mentioned previously this is the county with the lowest proportion of people who may actually use what I described as partially POV name (so I don't know if only the national name would be counted as a local name). Besides that, we certainly should not say Srijem part of Syrmia and Srem part of Syrmia as this would be completely meaningless-but you know that. There is no such division. As for statistics, I don't know what would be statistically significant data set in digital search. The only new thing that I can think of which may be useful would be to see how other language projects are treating the topic, for example in German, French, Italian, Spanish etc. As for my feelings or opinions which you underlined once again, well I certainly do have them and don't hide them, but I don't think this should disqualify me. Neutral editor will be able to take into consideration everything what was said-hope they will have nerve to do it.--MirkoS18 (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm on record disliking the overuse of "Syrmia" in derived names, and this one certainly counts. Per the evidence above, the county which is the subject of this article is usually called "Vukovar-Srijem County" in (the handful of) English-language publications that mention it. The current name is akin to have Ragusa-Narenta County. No such user (talk) 11:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see that there is something akin to having Ragusa-Neretva County. Ragusa would be clearly historical term for Dubrovnik in English language, while Syrmia is contemporary name of the cross-border multicultural region. Syrmia certainly sounds the most neutral in which one standard is not over-imposed over another, in particular since state borders do not represent language usage borders among various communities. Is there any English source talking about Ragusa-Neretva? There are numerous talking about Vukovar-Syrmia, consider just some I mentioned in previous discussion, even if they are maybe numerically not the most numerous. Vukovar-Syrmia is much more akin to Istria County (instead of Istra County), Požega-Slavonia (instead of Požega-Slavonija), Split-Dalmatia (instead of Split-Dalmacija). In fact, even editors proposing return to Croatian version acknowledge it as one of versions out there, maybe just less common one.--MirkoS18 (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Contemporariness" of "Syrmia" is certainly the bone of contention here. Let's leave it at that. I hardly ever heard the term before Wikipedia. No such user (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was warned that our opinions are not to be taken as arguments, something similar probably can be said about our ignorance. I checked only JSTOR and there is at least 211 references to Syrmia (mostly recent publications covering different topics and periods). Now, even if you were right, why would Wikipedia community look for some "compromise" title in that case instead of simply counting if there is more Srem or Srijem references? Simply because two countries are involved? In the end I don't want to create troubles for anyone and the conversation is getting a bit repetitive. I just want to strongly underline that language usage does not strictly follow the state border as the map in the article may misleadingly imply. Therefore there are communities (articles) on both sides where it is certainly more appropriate at least to use neutral version of the name. I don't know what is the best way to address this concert but I think that it is a legitimate concern which can not just be disregarded with 'neutrality of Wikipedia procedures' argument. My idea is simply to use already existing English word Syrmia which is already mentioned as a compromise title- although I would say it is just a common name. This name also removes the trouble with reference to English pronunciation of Srijem or Srem word as my guess is that we can't just assume the same local pronunciation if we claim that those are now English loan words.--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Update on further clarification request

[edit]

It may be relevant for the rest of Wikipedia community to check my further clarification request on closing editor's talk page. I added the request following the outcome of the upper discussion. MirkoS18 (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:SmokeyJoe recommend to share the entire question with other editors here and to remove it from the talk page of closing editor User:Mellohi!. The question was: "Hello! Earlier today I saw your move decision on the Vukovar-Syrmia request. Needless to say, it's not what I was hoping for, but that being said and done I wanted to ask for additional clarification on the specific issue I underlined in the discussion which was not at all addressed in the end. Related to minority communities in Vukovar-Syrmia, I wanted to ask how appropriate it is to continue the usage of the more neutral old version in those specific articles as an redirect to the main article. The principle of neutral compromise is already acknowledged in the Syrmia title. I would like to know if now the official position of the project is to impose the exclusive usage of Croatian version of the new title in articles related to minority communities (in this case I would like it to be explicit and citable) or it is legitimate to use the old version in specific set of topics/ locations? This remained completely unaddressed in your decision so I would really appreciate some further clarification. Best regards." If nobody has strong arguments against my proposal would be to define the set of geographic (minority and multicultural local communities) and cultural articles (religious buildings, associations etc) where "Vukovar-Syrmia" redirect would still be used (with option to make a less inclusive list recommendation which would avoid any controversial choices if it will help). If we can reach some sort of compromise on this I am willing to help make changes influenced by this decision in other articles.--MirkoS18 (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vukovar-Srijem_County&oldid=1205960826"