Talk:Bratislava

Presporok

Did anything change since we discussed this topic last time? I thought we agreed that Presporok is equally valid and has its place in the lead. Could you please present any counterarguments and quit the mindless revert war? Thanks  wlad 15:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Only because You and Yopie are continously saying that the name Presporok was as important as Pozsony and Pressburg were in the city's history, it is not enough on wikipedia. First of all, You should prove this. --Nmate (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Szt Gyorgy

Please see http://www.archive.org/details/ethnographiedero01czoe pp. 44. The name was used for the Szentgyorgymezo part of Esztergom (not Sturovo, I apologize). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wladthemlat (talk • contribs) 08:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Add link

{{editprotected}} Please change Čunovo Water Sports Centre in the Sport section to read Čunovo Water Sports Centre. It now has its own article (in the article name, Čunovo comes last). -- HowardMorland (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Linked as requested. -- Hoary (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The debate, which should have been about facts and Wikipedia's policies drifted yet again into pointless nationalistic and historic rants. The bottom line is that there is no widespread usage of Pozsony in today's English so using this name in the opening paragraph is simply against the rules and against the consensus reached by people who contributed to the article substantially and upgraded this article into the featured status. Pressburg is also not widely used in English, but at least the historical significance gives the suggestion of including it in the opening paragraph some merit. The fact that Pozsony is used in a few books in English as the historic name can only prove that the name deserves to be in the Names section.--86.44.152.107 (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Due to the renaming in 1919 old maps documents, contemporary sources and texts mention the city under a different, former official name, mentioning the historical names simply aid our readers identify the city formerly unknown under it's current name. As google search shows the former official name Pozsony and Pressburg are used all over the internet and helping the readers in this way costs us nothing really it is without a downside. I agree that all contributors of the article should be thanked for their work. It is interesting that you brought up the FA process, I don't know what consensus can you, a new user possibly refer to as this was almost two years ago. However would you call any such discussions neutral where one openly declares anti-Hungarian prejudice ? Did you abandon your suggestion of increasing the usage of "the city" or "it" in the article? Hobartimus (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"OK, I apologize for the strong reaction, but still, I have mild prejudice against some, but not all Hungarian users. " this is in your opinion "openly declaring anti-Hungarian prejudice". What a waste of time reading your submissions. However I´m glad that, at least for now, article names section is in neutral state - as it should be. --EllsworthSK (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

An edit came up on my review screen which I initially approved, with the intention of correcting the wording. When starting the revision, I saw the note about this topic (which wasn't on the review screen). After a little research, I find Pozsony is a valid name for Bratislava, listed in both sources I checked, including the OED. The wording that Pozsony is an earlier, alternative name seems reasonable.

Regards, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Climate is Cfb not continental

The climate fullfils the Oceanic climate -criteria and is not cold enough in winter (at least a 24-hr mean of -3 Celsius in one month) to be humid continental. And precipitation is well spread over the year, as seen here. Orcaborealis (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You refer to Köppen classification which the article does not claim to use (it also depends on whether you use the 0 or -3 Celsius threshold so it's moot anyway). The climate is widely referred to as continental in various local sources and popular use which is apparently reflected here. Anyways, planning some workout on the climate section...some time. Martin Gazdík (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As for threshold, using +0°C is used to some extent by US climatologist, rarely outside the US. As for climate classification, I do not think that using the feelings of cityweb editor is the best attitude for Wikipedia. Nor I think the editor made enough effort to verify his conclusions with the latest scientific knowledge. Bratislava was originally estimated to belong to the continental climate, using then-available data. This can be still seen on some charts available at Wikipedia. Even more, perhaps local people feel more comfortable with “continental climate” classification because of landlockedness of their country. Both of these facts could result in statements claiming Bratislava climate as "continental." But it lacks sufficient scientific ground. Climatologic scientists from Austria and Germany recently tried to update the original Köppen map with improved data. The result was published in trustworthy scientific magazine and it puts Bratislava and its surrounding (but not entire Slovakia) climate clearly into oceanic climate. See the reference in the article. Perhaps, one more detail could be useful for this discussion: the average temperature in Central Europe is increasing (see the same resource), and Bratislava will reach the US threshold within some 5 years. This will make Bratislava climate being oceanic in all three widely used climate classification schemes. Michal @ 9:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with scientific pows but they tend to change all the time until they settle down, and to ignore contexts. "Local people" in this case comprise all types of local sources (scientific and popular) and a general consensus in kind that has formed over periods of time (with or without Köppen) the original editor draws upon and this one can attest to, so he rests the case for someone competent to decide which to prefer on Wiki for a general non-scientific description, as the scientific classification(s) have been added in the meantime too. Continental as a summary attribute is likely to be of better information value to a random visitor both for general reference and in context, e.g. relative to Vienna, which is termed borderline oceanic/continental here, or within the general Pannonian Basin (continental and increasingly so on the scale towards the east). And I do not think an encyclopedia should anticipate trends including climate trends, so this should be left out entirely as an argument. Martin Gazdík (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Images

See WP:MOS#Images; this article has mutliple instances of text sandwiched between images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

A thorough WP:MOS review is needed here; I left sample edits, and I see even more. Also, portals are not external links, and see WP:MOS#ALLCAPS in citations. This article has significantly deteriorated from the version promoted three years ago, and could warrant a revisit of its featured status at FAR if issues aren't addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Population count

Last edits by 195.91.55.214 does not seem to be correct. Where is the information coming from? I cant find it on the internet using google. Can someone confirm the data or make sure that reverting is the correct thing to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.167.72.156 (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

pronunciation

Shouldn't this be the English pronunciation for the English-language version of W'pedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Added. - filelakeshoe 10:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hungarian and German name

Filelakeshoe, I see no reason why these two names are included into first sentence of this articles. These are foreign names, not spoken by inhabitants of this city, not used in modern English, not official, and thus not important in any way. Furthermore, these are names used by former countries that oppressed Slovaks and I see no other reason why somebody would place these names there instead to "remind Slovaks about their former slavery". Also, in your article version, these names are first info that stick the eyes of the readers, i.e. readers would first read how name of this city is named in German and Hungarian and only after that that Bratislava "is the capital of Slovakia". I say that info that Bratislava is the capital of Slovakia is much more important than info how this city is named in some other languages. Also, if you say that these names should be there because these names where used by former countries that ruled over this city I can give you very good examples of how this issue is covered in some other articles: New York City was ruled by British Empire, but first sentence of this article does not have name in British English, Moscow was ruled by Tatars, but first sentence of this article does not have name in Tatar language, Bejing was ruled by Manchy dinasty, but first sentence of this article does not have name in Manchu language, etc, etc. Why Bratislava should be a different case? PANONIAN 21:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

"not spoken by inhabitants of this city"--Tell it to the minorities of the city. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Minorities? 16,541 Hungarians and 1,200 Germans? (And most members of these two groups are probably speaking Slovak by now). There are much more minorities in 3 World cities that I mentioned, but there are no minority names in their first sentences. So, I will reapeat the question: why Bratislava should be a different case? PANONIAN 22:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Filelakeshoe

Prague ( /ˈprɑːɡ/; Czech: Praha pronounced [ˈpraɦa] ( listen)) is the capital and largest city of the Czech Republic and fourteenth largest city in the European Union.[5

Warsaw (Polish: Warszawa [varˈʂava] ( listen); see also other names) is the capital and largest city of Poland.

Belgrade ( /ˈbɛlɡreɪd/; Serbian: Београд / Beograd; [beǒɡrad] ( listen); names in other languages) is the capital and largest city of Serbia

Budapest Budapest ( /ˈbuːdəpɛst/, /ˈbuːdəpɛʃt/ or /ˈbʊdəpɛst/; Hungarian pronunciation: [ˈbudɒpɛʃt] ( listen); names in other languages) is the capital and the largest city of Hungary

Riga (Latvian: Rīga, pronounced [riːɡa] ( listen)) is the capital and largest city of Latvia.

Sarajevo (Cyrillic: Сарајево) (pronounced [sǎrajɛʋɔ]) is the capital and largest city of Bosnia and Herzegovina, with an estimated population of over 311,161 people within its administrative limits.

Sofia (Bulgarian: София, pronounced [ˈsɔfijɐ] ( listen)) is the capital and largest city of Bulgaria and the 15th largest city in the European Union with a population of 1.2 million people.[

I agree: London has a quarter of a million Indian born residents but that article does not start with a Hindi or other non-English spelling. It makes even less sense here to include foreign names, both as the communities are far smaller and as it is in both English and Slovak so two languages are dealt with.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Those examples do not apply here ,however, there are similar examples in Central Europe that may be worth following : Gdańsk ,Szczecin, Wrocław. Also, the lead has been stable for many years and there is no reason to change it. As for "remind Slovaks about their former slavery", it is a rather inflammatory statement to make, and considering that this talk page is frequently read by Hungarian users as well, they can take it as a personal affront. Furthermore, I suggest to PANONIAN is to refrain from edit warring on including alternative names with articles related to Central Europe for the following reasons: he is subject to an arbitration case related to Serbian history [1] and in case he should appeal it, edit warring over alternative names, and making inflammatory statements will not leave him a chance for success there.--Nmate (talk) 08:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Nmate, I suggest that you pull back these false accusations for "revert warring" against me. I only had one single original edit in several articles and users who reverted my edits should be warned for edit warring, not myself, since I did not reverted these articles after their revert. Also, I did not said anything inflammatory - expressing my own opinion about inflammatory nature of inclusion of foreign names into this article is not "inflammatory statement"; it is just one important issue that one should have in mind when dealing with this subject. You will not find my single statement anywhere that aimed to insult members of any ethnicity. PANONIAN 12:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

We should not forget that Bratislava is a multicultural city it has German, Slovak and Hungarian historical cultural heritages. London is bad example, London was not capital of a "Hindi sultanate" as opposed to Bratislava (it was capital of Kingdom of Hungary in the past). Fakirbakir (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Fakirbakir, history of Bratislava belongs to History section--Omen1229 (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with PANONIAN. Germans do not use these names for modern Bratislava, only Hungarians and this is the English wikipedia, right? German and Hungarian names are mentioned in the Names section, so please delete these repetitive information.--Omen1229 (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

What about Gdańsk ,Szczecin, and Wrocław? --Nmate (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

And what about Budapest, Prague, Warsaw...?--Omen1229 (talk) 09:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit the "names" section gives us information enough about names of the city in the past. Actually Pressburg was triplicated. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

As for "Budapest, Prague, Warsaw", it is not an apple to apple comparsion, which is very obvious.--Nmate (talk) 09:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, it would be better to provide these name variants in the lead, as well. These are not "foreign" names: for example, according to the 2011 Slovak Census, there are more than 500,000 Slovak citizens whose mother tongue is Hungarian. Bratislava is their capital, as well. Moreover, there are hundreds of thousand English works (books, articles, etc.) which use these name variants of the town (e.g., in a historical context) [2][3]. Providing these names would help those who came to this article by following Pressburg or Pozsony links/searches to quickly see that it is the very same town. Furthermore, reliable sources, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, also give both of these additional variants (Pressburg, Pozsony) in their Bratislava articles [4][5][6][7][8]. The London example is totally misleading, since most of those Slovak citizens who have other mother tongues than Slovak are not immigrants, they were born in Slovakia. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

PS: I think that many can find PANONIAN's sentence "I see no other reason why somebody would place these names there instead to "remind Slovaks about their former slavery"" offensive and xenophobic. Following such a twisted logic, one might say that those Slovak (or Serb or Romanian, etc.) citizens, whose mother tongue is not Slovak (or Serb or Romanian, etc.) are "slaves" in their countries. I fully disagree with this and find such comments disruptive. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand your POV. Each state has a minorities and Slovakia has probably 50 ethnic groups. So in the lead will be 50 language variants? By the way Bratislava has 16,541 Hungarians > 3,57% population.--Omen1229 (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

WTF?! I'm sorry to say this to you Panonian, but obviously you're not only clueless, but paranoid as well. First of all I WAS born in Bratislava, I AM a resident of Bratislava and I DO speak Hungarian (obviously I'd never call it anything else but Pozsony in Hungarian). The only reason Germans usually say "Bratislava" is because they don't know its original name (Preßburg) and that's what they're being told by Slovaks anyway. But let me tell you something: have you EVER traveled to Vienna from Bratislava (without using the highway)? Well, I did, and guess what have I found there? "Preßburger Reichstraße" in almost ALL the villages I went through all the way to Schwechat. I think that that tells a LOT about the German usage of Pressburg/Preßburg (or lack thereof).

As for the cluelessness you obviously don't know and don't WANT TO know the importance the city has played in Hungary's history (e.g. it was Hungary's capital for centuries, the parliament seated here, Kossuth and Széchenyi have presented all of their arguments in here, Hungarian kings were crowned here for centuries, this was the place where the Hungarian elite has assured Maria Theresa of its support etcetc.). Thus (weren't for the minority present there) the Hungarian name should be included for historical reasons as well. But like I said there's a considerable Hungarian minority STILL living there (in fact I know from personal experience that you should NEVER talk rude to anybody in Hungarian, because chances are that the person's either Hungarian or speaks Hungarian well enough to understand you), so the Hungarian name's there to stay (along with the German one). And since I'm actually member of that minority, I have to refuse any arguments that try to dismiss the presence of those minorities.

As for your inflammatory statement (Furthermore, these are names used by former countries that oppressed Slovaks and I see no other reason why somebody would place these names there instead to "remind Slovaks about their former slavery") I don't think that it needs any further comment (even if it meant to be ironic or something, because it's tasteless even for that) as the others have already said everything that needed to be told about it.

Also JohnBlackburne please do not compare London to Bratislava in this manner. Hungarians and Germans of Bratislava constitute an indigenous population of the city/Slovakia and NOT immigrants (as ALL the Slovak nationalists assert). In my case even my grandmother was born in Bratislava (and lived there almost her entire life) and my great-grandfather (her father) was born in Jelka (a village now in Slovakia, but the time of his birth was in Hungary), but spent most of his life in Bratislava too. So arguing with Indians, Arabs and whatnot would be akin to arguing that e.g. the Scots or Welsh are immigrants in Britain (and I'm sure that they'd be pissed as hell of such assertion). Hence please refrain from comparing apples to oranges.

@Omen1229: I'm sorry to disappoint you, but in Wikipedia there's no language law and other such nuisance meant to make the minorities' (especially Hungarians') lives miserable. Hence the "20% rule" definitely does NOT apply. So arguing that Hungarian/German name should NOT be added because they constitute "only" 1,2,3,4 etc. percent of the total population is kinda pointless.

Also let me provide a brief history lesson for the "uninitiated" ones: the city of Pressburg had a Hungarian AND German (and Jewish, as they constituted mostly the urban population) dominance, Slovaks have constituted a minority there. After 1920 however its population has been radically altered by displacement of original Hungarian population (a lot of which have sought refuge in Hungary and lived in train wagons around the major train stations of Budapest for years), mass immigration of Czech government officers (and generally intelligentsia meant do displace the former Hungarian one) and statistical chicanery at censuses. Thus the Hungarian in Bratislava have ceased to have minority rights by the 1930s. An even more radical ethnic cleansing took place after WWII, when the German population (like I said mostly indigenous population, not immigrants as Slovak nationalists assert) has been expulsed by the Beneš decrees and the Hungarian population has either fell victim of a genocide (some mass graves have been filled in Petržalka with Hungarians AFTER the war), was deported to the Sudetenland in cattle wagons (usually the ones that were previously used to deport first the Jews, then the Germans) or was forcible deported to Hungary during the "population exchange". This has left Bratislava with a decreased number of Hungarians to begin with, who has been further assimilated e.g. by having the number of their schools reduced, voluntary assimilation etc. Yet there are STILL some Hungarians (and Germans) present in Bratislava, who constitute the most notable minorities of the city. -- CoolKoon (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice essay, but history of Bratislava belongs to History section and your original research belongs to your diary.--Omen1229 (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that it'd be MUCH more comforting for you if the stuff I've written above would be "original research", but I have LOADS of sources to back every single of those statements. And believe me, I WILL do so when I get down to adding content for the appropriate section at the Slovakization article, so you'll get to check all of them. This however is a talk page, hence I don't have to source everything I say.

Also, thanks for reminding me to check out the "History of Bratislava" article and the appropriate section in this article. I'll surely do that in the foreseeable future as well. -- CoolKoon (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly sorry for taking so long to comment here - I was away for a lot longer than I expected last night. The reason, for example, "Kassa" and "Pressburg" are relevant enough to go in the lede is because they were used by English sources in the relatively near past. Before WW1, Hungarian names for cities now in Slovakia were the expected form in English. So many English sources use these names, and the point of introducing them straightaway is to inform the reader who might have read about "Kassa" in a pre-Trianon source (or indeed the treaty of Trianon itself) that this is the same city as "Košice". It's nothing to do with there being Hungarians in Slovakia (so comparison to "the Hindi name for London" misses the point), it's to do with the Hungarian names being used in English sources. Many city articles also mention Latin names in the lede for the same reason.

I do understand however that WP:NCGN and WP:LEAD advise to "avoid clutter", therefore I agree for example that listing every official name of Novi Sad in the lede sentence is overload, and there might be a case to reduce the amount of names in the Bratislava article too - but there should be a clear link to a lower section, "other names". But I really think the Hungarian name should be given in Slovak city articles. Arguments about "reminding Slovaks of slavery" are moot, we're trying to write an encyclopedia here, if people get offended by history that isn't our problem.

As for Bratislava, I was skeptical about whether "Pozsony" was used in English, but Koertefa showed me I was rather mistaken. Having thought about this more I don't see a problem with an "other names" link like in Belgrade/Budapest examples given above, and still mentioning that it was formerly known as Pressburg (I get the feeling that should be spelled with ss rather than ß) in English in the 3rd paragraph as now. - filelakeshoe 15:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to congratulate User:PANONIAN to stirring up tensions: you were so successful in sowing the wind (and reaping the whirlwind) that the article's been protected for 2 days (see this ANI entry for details). Was this your goal or something? -- CoolKoon (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Filelakeshoe, for finally inserting a bit of sense into this incredibly stupid and misdirected discussion. Yet another instance of this lame old "who gets their favourite name mentioned in a lead" game. Sigh. To express Filelakeshoe's point in somewhat stronger terms: everybody in the previous debate above has been dead wrong, on both sides, because you have all been debating based on a wrong-headed premise.

Get this into your heads: Whether or not to mention a name in the lead has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with the existence of minorities, or the role of this or that ethnicity in the history of a place. There is only one single criterion that really counts for this question: whether a name has had currency in English. Nothing else. Everybody who has been evaluating this proposal with arguments about the historical importance of this or that ethnicity for the city, or the importance of the city for this or that ethnicity: please go away and bang your heads against a brick wall or something, until you have managed to disabuse yourselves of this bizarre notion that mentioning – or not mentioning – a name variant in an article lead should be used as a symbolic badge of recognition in favour of some ethnicity or other. </rant> Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, guess what, you're lucky that you haven't been born a few additional hundred km to the east. Otherwise you'd probably have a somewhat different view on this whole issue :P Anyway like I said it was PANONIAN's post that set the tone for the rest of the discussion (e.g. it's different to ask people to talk about "those big-nosed bastards who control the world"/"goddamn retarded niggas who'll eat us out of our money" than to have them talk about "problems of globalization"/"social aspects of racism". I'm afraid that the first case has happened here, which's sad, I admit. But what now? Pozsony is featured in English sources just like Bratislava or Pressburg, so I think that none of them should be removed. In short, I agree with you. -- CoolKoon (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, that was one major tl;dr there. Relevancy to the discussion was next to none, yet I saw there more OR than in any other article ever. Also, everytime someone uses 1910 consensus as reference to his claim, god kills a kitten.

What Fut.Perf. said is true so if we look at books.google.com (because I am bloody lazy to check anything else) Pozsony will get 193,000 results [9], Pressburg 437,000 [10] and Bratislava 3,300,000 [11]. Pressburg and Poszony thus make cca 630,000 references, so give or take 20 percent of those three combined. Hence they are significantly used, they should stay. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

"Whether or not to mention a name in the lead has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with the existence of minorities, or the role of this or that ethnicity in the history of a place. There is only one single criterion that really counts for this question: whether a name has had currency in English. Nothing else." Istanbul at books.google.com will get 9,440,000 results[12], Constantinople 15,400,000[13] and I see only one name in the lead.--Omen1229 (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I see three. Byzantium and Constantinople are both explained, in prose, in the 2nd paragraph - as "Pressburg" is in the current version of this article. - filelakeshoe 10:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Several reliable English encyclopedias mention these variants immediately after Bratislava [14][15][16][17][18][19], hence, the easiest solution is to keep the lead as it was before the whole issue [20]. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I used your references for "Istanbul Constantinople" [21] [22] [23] [24]. At books.google.com "Istanbul Constantinople encyclopedia" will get 1,030,000 results[25] and "Bratislava Pozsony Pressburg encyclopedia" will get 497 results[26]. --Omen1229 (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, and what's your point? That if the no. of results for Pozsony and Pressburg are below X, they are unnecessary? Because if not, how about just agreeing to a consensus that the Hungarian and former English/German name should stay? -- CoolKoon (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Who talk about "unnecessary names"? You do not understand what Future Perfect at Sunrise wrote[27]? Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. We talk about position the names in article and Istanbul is good example for this article. And what's your point?--Omen1229 (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

My point? My point is that neither Pozsony nor Pressburg should be removed from the lead and I also think that Istanbul is a VERY bad idea, since after the Ottomans' conquest there ceased to be a continuity between the Byzantine Empire and the Ottoman Empire (<offtopic>on a side note I think that the Turks have regretted this lack of legitimation from Western POV and thus every now and then try to make some efforts to try to get "back" into the "geopolitical" mainstream, hence the desire for the EU membership, NATO membership etc. </offtopic>). On the other hand I think that the Kaliningrad article would be a MUCH better example, especially since its fate is much closer to that of Bratislava too. Still, like I said earlier "sue me" (i.e. feel free to report me at ANI like Bizovne did) if you disagree with me. -- CoolKoon (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Kaliningrad article has wrong structure and dubious neutrality(The site now occupied by Kaliningrad, occupied?), the name Königsberg is duplicated in the lead and does not contain section - Etymology as Bratislava or Istanbul. --Omen1229 (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Kaliningrad article has wrong structure" (according to what?) "and dubious neutrality"? Having an etymology section is not obligatory (BTW, the "Etymology" section of this article is also more like a collection of names). I do not see heated discussions about the neutrality of the Kaliningrad article on its Talkpage, either; and the phrase "the site now occupied by" is neutral, it does not imply an ethical judgement (see how it is used in other contexts [28]). Nevertheless, there are several other examples which are all better than Istanbul, such as Târgu Mureş, Deva, Miercurea Ciuc, Trieste, Gdańsk, Poznan, Bydgoszcz, Nice, Wroclaw, Strasbourg, etc., etc., KœrteFa {ταλκ} 06:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

And there are also several other examples: London, Delhi, Riga, Vilnius, Tallinn, Warsaw, Baku, Belgrade, Zagreb, Sarajevo, Vatican City, Budapest, etc., etc. --Omen1229 (talk) 07:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Do any of your recent examples have alternative names which are (in appropriate contexts) widely used by reliable English sources, like "Pressburg" [29] and "Pozsony" [30] for "Bratislava"; or "Königsberg" [31] for "Kaliningrad"; or "Breslau" [32] for "Wrocław"; or "Nizza" [33] for "Nice"; or "Marosvásárhely" [34] for "Târgu Mureș", etc.? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"Istanbul Constantinople encyclopedia" will get 1,030,000 results[35] and "Bratislava Pozsony Pressburg encyclopedia" will get 497 results[36], Warschau[37] for Warsaw, Wilna[38] for Vilnius, Cité du Vatican[39] for Vatican City, Londres[40], Londen[41], Londinium[42], Llundain[43] for London etc. etc., so what is your point?.--Omen1229 (talk) 08:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Omen, what is your point? You're not telling us what these inane google hit stats are meant to demonstrate. And the Istanbul article DOES mention the name Constantinople (and Byzantium) in the lede. - filelakeshoe 09:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Now these stats are inane? My point is that names in other languages belong to Etymology section or here without duplicated / triplicated info. Istanbul - yes, in the 2nd paragraph - as "Pressburg" is in the current version of this article. And what is your point?--Omen1229 (talk) 09:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the point again. Most of the cities you've cited above have either had a homogenous native population for centuries (i.e. its original population hasn't been expelled, displaced, deported, killed, scared off, "resettled" etc. as in case of Bratislava, Kaliningrad etc.) or they have no significant minorities either. On the other hand the examples cited by Koertefa mention cities which were under a (linguistically) different rule (some even for centuries) and thus a LOT of the English sources refer to them by another name as the one used today. Hence Koertefa's list is MUCH better. Also, please keep in mind that Bratislava was basically RENAMED in 1920, because the name used today didn't exist before at all (even Slovaks have referred to it as "Prešporok"). Thus the inclusion at least of the Hungarian and German (and possibly the old Slovak) name of the city is very desirable in the lead. The etymology section can then go on to to explain the etymology of all the names mentioned in the lead, including the modern name (which -as we know- comes from Štúr's misinterpretation of the city's name used in medieval sources). -- CoolKoon (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I will ignore your original research and anti-Slovak POV. So read again what Future Perfect at Sunrise wrote[44].--Omen1229 (talk) 09:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

OR? Anti-Slovak POV? Which portion of my reply have you found to be anti-Slovak? Care to be more specific about it? -- CoolKoon (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It was a fairly innocuous message on CoolKoon's part, Imho.--Nmate (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, most of Omen1229's examples are not admissible, for example, almost all Goolge Books results for "Cité du Vatican" are in French (or cite French phrases), similarly, almost all Google Books results for "Warschau" are in German (or cite German sentences). These names do not seem to be widely used by English sources (in contrast to, e.g., "Königsberg" or "Pressburg"). The only acceptable (counter?)example so far is Istanbul. It indeed does not mention immediately the names "Byzantium" and "Constantinople" after "Istanbul", but they are still there in the lead, in the 2nd paragraph. I note however, that both Byzantium and Constantinople have their own articles (which is not the case here). As CoolKoon has also pointed out, the examples that I have mentioned all have similarities with Bratislava, for example, there were changes in their official names in the past century (for Nice, the change was a bit earlier, in 1860), that's why there are lot of English sources that use or mention them (which may explain why their Wikipedia articles immediately provide these variants after the official names). Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

almost all Google Books results for "Warschau" are in German (or cite German sentences). These names do not seem to be widely used by English sources (in contrast to, e.g., "Königsberg" or "Pressburg") > Remarkable original resarch [45] [46] [47]

Byzantium and Constantinople have their own articles, but it has nothing to do with position in the lead. By the way Königsberg has also own article.--Omen1229 (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

What's this obsession of yours with calling everything said by somebody else "original research"?! Is it a term you've just recently looked up in the dictionary and thus are you trying your best to use it whenever you can? Let me clear this up for you then: the topic of this discussion (the Hungarian and German name of the city) is NOT "original research". Besides, it's not like anybody (me, Koertefa, Nmate or anybody else) is trying to push for a fringe theory or something, so please check WP:OR before applying it universally to every single argument you don't agree with (besides, OR is used for content that's added to the articles, thus its extensive usage in reference to your counterarguments might make you look even more ridiculous).

I've checked the links you've provided and guess what: most of the English sources referring to "Warschau" have either had the German name in German context, or the term "Warschau" was part of a geographical/organizational unit's/event's name i.e. most of the time it has been used to refer to ANYTHING BUT the city itself. Thus Koertefa's argument remains to be valid.

Let me ask you this in the end: what's the real reason you don't want the Hungarian and German name to appear in the article's lead section for? -- CoolKoon (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I think fighting over the inclusion of those two names in the lead is childish, the city is in fact called Pozsony by Hungarians even today (I may have objections to that practice, but they hardly matter here), the German name is on the other hand what English historiography uses most frequently (and it's inclusion in the first paragraph helps the reader to connect the dots). Don't see a problem with them both being in the lead. Wladthemlat (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, in an old version (from 2006) of this article also had those names included. I do not really understand why is so important to remove those names if we "tolerated" for 6 years. I also want to point that fact, you really not saving space, the two version's length almost the same. Moreover, many references mentioning the city on those names, and those nations still calling the city as "Pozsony" or "Pressburg", even the Czech calling it somtimes as "Prešpurk", today. Csendesmark (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, let see: firstly, this is an geographical article not a historical one. So, the only thing that is important here is whether any other name instead Bratislava is currently used in English language, currently official in the city or currently spoken by most inhabitants of the city. The question of how these things were regulated 100 years ago is fully irrelevant since this is year 2012 and not 1912. That is the main point. If nobody here does not provide the evidence that German and Hungarian name are today used in English, today official in the city or today used by majority of city inhabitants then such names are having no place in the first sentence because they are fully irrelevant in the year 2012. Of course, these names should be mentioned in relevant parts of the article that are dealing with history or etymology. PANONIAN 04:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

No, the article is also about the history of the city. And as it was demonstrated earlier, about 20% of the English sources use (in appropriate contexts) the names "Pressburg" or "Pozsony". It was also pointed out that several encyclopedias, including the 2012 edition of the prestigious Encyclopaedia Britannica [48], also provide both of these variants. Therefore, these names are widely used by English sources, it's hard to argue with that. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 06:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I fully disagree - this is entirely geographical subject. As other geographical subjects, it have a "History" section that describing historical development of the area, but this article is about city of Bratislava in the year 2012 and only about that. Also English sources that you speak about are outdated and are not speaking about Bratislava in 2012. Also, Encyclopedia Britannica mention these two names, but from the link that you provided is clear that this encyclopedia says that these are German name and Hungarian name (not "names used in English language in year 2012"). This is, by all means, not an evidence that these two names are used in English language in year 2012. Also, page of Encyclopedia Britannica does not have an "Names" subsection and thus Hungarian and German name there are mentioned in the lead. Contrary to this, our Bratislava article have "Name" section where both names are already mentioned, and therefore, it is fully pointless to repeat them in the lead. PANONIAN 07:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, let me support my position with quotations from Wikipedia naming conventions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#General_guidelines

• Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves.
• In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced by a link to the section phrased, for example: "(known also by several alternative names)".
• Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line.

We clearly have more than 3 alternative names for Bratislava, they are mentioned in separate naming section and Wikipedia guideline clearly states that they should not be moved back to the first line. PANONIAN 08:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

That's just an option, that part starts with the word "alternatively". Moreover, we only have two significant alternative names which are widely used by English sources. Let me quote the main guideline (not an alternative possibility):

• The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses, e.g.: Gulf of Finland (Estonian: Soome laht; Finnish: Suomenlahti; [Финский залив, Finskiy zaliv] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help); Swedish: Finska viken) is a large bay in the easternmost arm of the Baltic Sea.

The original lead [49], which was stable for years, was fully in line with this guideline. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Let solve this with voting

Anyway, we all can vote to solve this dispute. PANONIAN 07:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this some popularity contest?

And who are that "we", have you recruited a team for voting purposes?

All parties are reminded that brevity is a virtue, and that admins don't make decisions based on who has the highest word count. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Csendesmark (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Users who think that Hungarian and German name should not be in the lead

• PANONIAN 07:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• Omen1229 12:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC) I agree with PANONIAN. If nobody here does not provide the evidence that German and Hungarian name are today used in English for modern Bratislava... then such names are having no place in the first sentence because they are fully irrelevant in the year 2012.--Omen1229 (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• Nelliette - Bratislava is actually the capital of Slovak republic, and mostly with slovakian citizens. Than, I find this problem not on the table. Is it on the first place Bratislava. Thank you. -Nelliette (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• I was only "looking" over this discussion from the beginning without participating because I was undecided (both (if I may say "sides") have valid arguments), but after reading this I was convinced for excluding this names. To be more precise, according to WP:PLACE - this section , it states Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves.. My personal opinion is that both criteria is meet on the article Bratislava. Adrian (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I am glad that you are trying to discuss this issue, but can I remind you that consensus is not a vote. Remember - consensus will be determined by the side which displays the strongest arguments, according to Wikipedia policies. It might be worth taking this to the dispute resolution noticeboard, where mediators with experience in solving this kind of dispute can help you to reach a resolution. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Voting can`t solve much at this point. The discussion should be continued and we should reach a consensus if possible. Adrian (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

NOTE This proposal means the historical names should be deleted in the lead. The current version of the article contains Pressburg in the lead (third paragraph).Fakirbakir (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• JohnBlackburne I agree. Gave my reasons 4 days ago but if we're !voteing then +me.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Users who think that Hungarian and German name should be in the lead

This voting does not make sense. The question is whether

• the historical names should follow Bratislava in the first sentence and we should also mention them in the third paragraph (in the lead) (and in the section of names) or
• the historical names should be mentioned only in the first sentence (and in the section of names) or
• the historical names should be mentioned somewhere else in the lead (not in the first sentence); (and in the section of names) or
• historical names should not be in the lead instead they would have to be in the section of etymology (section of names).

It is a difficult question. First I thought we should not mention Pressburg 3 times (in the first sentence, in the lead (third paragraph), in the section of names), however I got unsure. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not democracy, nothing will be solved by voting and you won´t get consensus one way or another. If you don´t believe me look at this

• Oppose per arguments stated above

See? EllsworthSK (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Agree, keep em' all! Csendesmark (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Sad to see, some editors get a topic-ban (1) for his/her favorite topic, then systematically redact (Kassa, Nagyszombat, Besztercebánya, Nyitra, Újvidék 2) Hungarian names from articles in his/her freetime, instead of building a better encyclopedia. No wonder this is not an FA anymore. :(

This whole thing's getting WAY over my head now. Since a consensus has been reached on this matter numerous times in the past (I'm sorry, but I just can't bring myself to digging up all the diffs for this, not today anyway), I think that User:PANONIAN has made a grave mistake on going ahead and bringing this up again (like I said earlier: he has sown the wind and reaped the whirlwind). Just on how many more occasions do you want to discuss this topic over and over again? Every time a nationalist/extremists/fanatic/lunatic who doesn't like Hungarian/German (or Hungarians/Germans) comes around and changes the lead? Besides, up until PANONIAN's sudden appearance more or less a consensus was in place for quite a few years (ever since 2006 IIRC). Now came a self-proclaimed expert on Hungarian-Slovak relations (who's neither Hungarian nor Slovak nor seems to be clued about the whole issue) and all the effort made in the past is lost. Why?
I've repeated numerous times already that the Hungarian and German name should be kept in the very first paragraph of the article. Why? Because of historical reasons, all the arguments above AND because it conforms Wikipedia's rules too: Fut.Perf. was wrong when he asserted that it's only the mentions in the English sources that count. The naming conventions page says 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. Both in case of Hungarian and Germans these criteria apply. What's so hard to understand about this then?
User:Fakirbakir had a point when objected to the practice of mentioning the Hungarian and German name at least in 3 different parts. Thus I propose the following: the Hungarian and German name (Pozsony and Pressburg) should be mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead. In addition to this the Hungarian and German's name should be explained in the "Names" secion (or a separate "Etymology" section should be created). In the remainder of the article the name Pressburg should be used in historical context up until 1920 and Bratislava should be used in the remainder of the article (i.e. keep the current consensus for the rest of the article). -- CoolKoon (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not provoking or being sarcastic (or anything in bad faith) I am genuinely asking, because you mentioned that a consensus was reached on this subject numerous times in the past - can you please provide a link to the consensus in question? Thank you. Adrian (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, feel free to dig through all the archived content that deals with this. Other than that my point is that nobody seemed to challenge the appearance of the terms Pozsony and Pressburg for a long time (IIRC everybody was arguing about its place within the article itself instead). THIS is the consensus I've referred to. -- CoolKoon (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I can find in this 2 links talk about this , 1 and 2. In the first link they start talking about this but finish with the conclusion in what period of history which name to use. In the other 2 links you provided as far as I can conclude they are not talking about the lead names. At the 2 links they do talk about this, but a consensus states to mention alternative names in later the first paragraph - but not in the lead. Maybe I can`t find it, can you please help me find it? I can`t really manage in all this discussion. Can you point more precise to a consensus? Adrian (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Pressburg is the primary name used in English for this city when discussing it prior to 1920. It absolutely should be in the lead. Pozsony also has some currency in English, and I think it should also be in the lead. It is tedious that we keep having to have this discussion. Panonian has been intermittently crusading on this point for about a decade at this point. The basic point is that any name that English-speaking readers are likely to come across should be in the lead, and that's quite clearly the case for both of these names (but especially for Pressburg). john k (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I personally don`t insist on either solution, I just thought that I could re-start the discussion in the interest to resolve this. Adrian (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It was solved many times, but time to time we found some editor who start a "rampage" over some articles. Csendesmark (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, john k, I "been intermittently crusading on this point" with the only goal to implement Naming conventions and NPOV policy. Is there any reason why an geographical article in 2012 should implement issues from before WW1? There is no a single word about "special importance of pre-WW1 names" in Wikipedia naming conventions. Either we will implement these conventions either we will have chaos. In fact, if NPOV policies and Naming conventions are not implemented there will be constant disputes about usage of alternative names in many articles about towns in Eastern Europe. There are many other users who sharing my opinion and the basic problem here is that some people are trying to implement one kind of solutions for cities in Eastern Europe and another kind of solutions for cities in rest of the World. My efforts for NPOV approach are certainly not the problem here - problem is POV-isation, double standards, disrespect towards wiki policies and tolerance towards various forms of nationalism. In another words, these different standards for cities in Eastern Europe are exactly forced because of tolerance towards various nationalisms: if Greater Hungarian nationalists are thinking that Bratislava should be a part of Greater Hungary then Hungarian name is forced into first paragraph of this article, if Greater German nationalists are thinking that Kaliningrad should be a part of Greater Germany then German name is forced into first paragraph of that article, if Greater Polish nationalists are thinking that Lvov should be a part of Greater Poland then Polish name is forced into first paragraph of that article, etc, etc. That is the source of all problems and disputes in Wikipedia about Eastern European articles. PANONIAN 19:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• If it was not clear from my previous comments, I think that both "Pressburg" and "Pozsony" should be mentioned in the lead, based on the arguments previously presented. More precisely, I could accept the first three variants of Fakirbakir's list, but I prefer the very first one, namely: to keep everything as it was before the whole issue. I also think that this voting is futile, the decision should be based on arguments and not on (potentially only emotionally motivated) "votes". In case there were no more arguments, I think we should seek for a third, neutral opinion on the issue, for example, in form of an RfC or a dispute resolution. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)