This poll is now closed. Feel free to add comments, but please don't edit the Votes section below anymore.
Voters please indicate which of the reasons below you vote for, or if other reason pls specify.
Options:
Not included in the poll, I guess: provide - The relevant criteria is not as much their coincidence with the county grid inside the Kingdom of Hungary (which is literally coincidence, given the history of administration inside Romania - the link system proposed by Kissl is a pretty good idea, perhaps as a see also in the geography section), but the population numbers and their use in modern-day references (official and unofficial alike - see, for example,
this)
Dahn
22:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the survey listing in Criztu's absence. We had originally decided on a 2-week poll, which should therefore have ended on 1 August. (However, as all of the above votes were cast before this date, this is not a problem.) I see no reason to consider any of the votes invalid, which means that "provide" has a majority of 71.4%. This being above the 60% limit that was initially suggested (and not objected to by anyone), my reading is that consensus is reached. Kiss L 14:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
--- Târgu Mures
Encyclopædia Britannica Article Page 1 of 1
also spelled Tîrgu Mures, Hungarian Marosvásárhely, city, capital of Mures judet (county), north-central Romania. ---
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9072604&query=targu%20mures&ct=eb
-- Anittas 13:29, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Criztu, here is a formulation of the arguments for providing the names in other languages, replying to your points one by one. By your leave, I renumbered 3 and 4 that had been inverted.
(In this section, we're not addressing the "Lake Saint Ann issue", but let's go one at a time, I suppose.)
KissL 14:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
People, I really don't understand this obsession to delete knowledge. A name given to a geographic/administrative entity is knowledge. That means, there is - or there was once - a community, important enough to have its own name to design that entity. For example if there is an important Rroma community who calls Harghita say "Foo county", I would be happy to know that. Or if Sfanta Ana lake was called "Boo lake" under the Turks, I wouldn't delete that either. (And please don't send me to Rroma or Turkish wikipedia, I don't speak those languages..) Does this mean I'm a Rroma or Turkish irredentist?? As for the importance, we all have common sense to decide from which size a community can be considered important. And from which point an article is overcrowded with names. In this particular case - names in Transylvania -, several centuries of Hungarian dominance should justify considering Hungarian names as relevant. Competing only perhaps with Dacian names in the order of relevance.. :) Akiss 22:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Criztu, when are you going to put this stuff up on RfC? I think both sides have presented their views in much more detail than necessary enough detail. :)
KissL
07:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Wouldn't this survey be better placed on a more visible page, similar to the Talk:Gdansk/Vote page? The majority of contributors interested in the subject probably will not know about it when it is only on the Talk page for Harghita. Olessi 21:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
i intend on removing the hungarian versions of cities towns and communes listed at the end of the article. reason: no gain for the english reader to know the hungarian name of a city in Romania that hasn't got even a stub article about it. the hungarian versions should be given in their respective articles. -- Criztu 28 June 2005 14:13 (UTC)
I think the best policy about placenames in Romania is the following: The wikiarticle of a city/river/place from Romania/AnyCountry should contain all versions of that name in all possible languages. But outside that placename's article no "in hungarian : hungarian version, in german : german version, in all possible languages : all possible language versions". -- Criztu 28 June 2005 17:16 (UTC)
as an example look at Alsace (french-german historical dispute) - in its wikiarticle there is the German version listed in the lead. But outside that article we don't see the german version of Alsace , see Nikolaus_Ager. -- Criztu 28 June 2005 17:16 (UTC)
But look at every place in Transylvania in Transylvanian related articles - it was effectively an English-Hungarian encyclopedia, all rivers, all cities, all mountains, all lakes, all placenames in Transylvania however insignificant, with a hungarian version in paranthesis . That's irredentism spree on Wikipedia -- Criztu 28 June 2005 17:16 (UTC)
I don't think it's a matter of percentage. There may be several Romanian towns and villages which don't have a significant Hungarian population any more, but which are important from a Hungarian perspective because a Hungarian personality was born there 100 or 200 years ago (see List of famous Hungarians who were born outside of present-day Hungary). These place names should be unambiguously identifiable both in Romanian and in Hungarian (if there is an article about them), irrespective of the current majority percentage. Remember that this is the English Wikipedia, not the Romanian one, and the interest of the English-speaking reader is that they should be able to locate and identify a place name whether in Romanian or in Hungarian. I don't think any harm will be to Romanian national pride if the towns and villages can be located and identified for an international audience. -- Adam78 28 June 2005 17:52 (UTC)
Thank you the example of Alsace, I agree with you in that. This is the normal solution when beside the official variant, the alternative(s) is (are) given as well in italics, in parentheses. This is the practice which should be followed in the case of Romanian cities, towns, villages, rivers, creeks etc. as well (just like in the case of Hungarian cities, towns, villages, rivers, creeks etc.) because this is the general Wikipedia practice. Outside of the specific articles, no mentioning need to be given to the non-official place names, if the place name is linked to the article about that place providing other name versions in its first sentence – and the context is (historically speaking) present time. Since there is some advice in the Wikipedia Manual which should be remembered:
-- Adam78 28 June 2005 18:21 (UTC)
Well, let me put it this way: it is absolutely correct if we only provide the Hungarian names of places in their appropriate articles. So I won't revert these names outside their appropriate articles, if you are so much bent on not having them there. But off the record, is it such a huge problem for you that the Hungarian version of Miercurea Ciuc is given in parentheses in the Harghita article? I mean, it is in parentheses, in italics: there is ample indication that the official name is the Romanian one. Nobody will be misled by this extra piece of information. This is not an attack against the unity of Romania or anything like that. -- Tamas 28 June 2005 19:51 (UTC)
I have no connections of any kind to the area, nor do I speak either of the languages involved. While I wouldn't see the point in, for example, including Hungarian names in an English-language article for places few Hungarians live in or visit, it makes good sense to me to include Hungarian names for places near the border where ethnic Hungarians do live, or Hungarian nationals do visit. Similarly, I would expect to see (to continue the example) Romanian names for places on the Hungarian side of the border if ethnic Romanians live there or Romanian nationals visit. Having more information is almost always better than having less. Katzenjammer 29 June 2005 19:56 (UTC)
I found absolutely stunning the remark of User:Criztu "no gain for the english reader to know the hungarian name of a city in Romania that hasn't got even a stub article about it". And even more the actions he pursued in consequence:
Akiss 28 June 2005 20:27 (UTC)
-"The capital of the Csik county was Miercurea Ciuc (Csíkszereda in Hungarian)" looks forced beurocracy to me
-"The capital of the Csik county was Csíkszereda ( Miercurea Ciuc)" looks aesthetical to me.
But, rivers and mountains are not "historicaly tied by Hungary", so e.g.:
-"Turks fought Hungarians at river Duna/Maros ( Danube/ Mures) in Nagy Alfold ( Pannonian plain)" is silly (aka hungarianization of the wikification)
-"Turks fought Hungarians at river Danube/ Mures/ Tisza in Pannonian plain" i consider ok.
-"Turks fought Hungarians at river Duna/ Maros in Carpathian Basin (Nagy Alfold)" is worst.
however, for ancient times, when no current hungarian version for the river Danube/Mures/Tisza existed:
-"Dacians fought Romans on river Danube/ Mures/ Tisza in Pannonian plain" looks ok
-"Dacians fought Romans on river Danubius/Marisius/Tisia ( Danube/ Mures/ Tisza) in Pannonian plain" looks aesthetical
-"Dacians fought Romans on river Danube/ Mures (Duna/Maros) in Pannonian plain (Nagy Alfold)" looks like hungarization of wikipedia
-"Dacians fought Romans on river Duna/ Maros in Carpathian Basin (Nagy Alfold) is worst
further, when an article refers to contemporary status quo of a city in Romania :
-"Romanians fought Germans at Alba Iulia (Gyulafehervar) in WW 2" is hungarian melancholia
-"Romanians fought Germans at Alba Iulia in WW 2" is ok
but in historical context where hungary is involved:
-"Hungarians fought Germans at Gyulafehervar ( Alba Iulia) in 1876" is ok
-"Hungarians fought Germans at Alba Iulia (Gyulafehervar in Hungarian) in 1876" is too beaurocratic
-"Hungarians fought Germans at Alba Iulia in 1876" is unfair toward hungarians thats true
since most of the discussion about places formerly hungarian, now romanian is here, i will address the "Transylvania region in ROmania" here as well: - there is no Transylvania region in Romania. take a look at Regions of Hungary. The same goes for Regions of Romania. the regions of ROmania are not Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia. the regions are CEntral, Southern, Northern, etc
-so when writing "Harghita is a county in Transylvania in ROmania" this is simply wrong.
-Harghita is a county in Romania, (and if you want to point the region, then it is in Central Region of ROmania.
-if you want to mention that the county is in what was once the voivodship/province/governorate/principality of Transylvania that is fine by me, altho' not encyclopedic. so mention it something like "Harghita is a county in Romania, in Transylvania".
i'd personaly(and probably will) remove this "in Transylvania", "in Wallachia", "in Moldavia" thing from the lead paragraphs and add details in the History section of Harghita/other counties, but for the moment i'm not so pretentious about Wikipedia. -- Criztu 2 July 2005 08:14 (UTC)
Timisoara is a city in Transylvania, region of Romania (wrong, as it is in Banat)
Timisoara is a city in Transylvania, administrative region of Romania (wrong, as Romania doesn't have a Transylvania admin region)
Timisoara is a city in Transylvania, former teritory of Hungary (correct, but irredentist) -- Criztu 3 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)
Timisoara is a city in Romania, in Banat - perrrfect :)
Transylvania is green, Wallachia blue, the Moldavian region red, and Dobrogea yellow" So it is okay to talk about a Translyvania region in the Romania page, but it's not okay to do so in the Harghita page? How is that? And please-please realize that "region" can be used in a non-legal, non-administrative sense. The page Region has this to say: "A region can be any area that has some unifying feature. Typically they are, but are not necessarily, smaller than a country." It is not necessary that it be a legal entity.-- Tamas 5 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)
My intention was to debate and come to an agreement on how the Survey should look like, before starting the VOte. Currently the survey/poll is split in 2, one part at the top (the "Survey"), the other at the bottom (the "Poll"). If we submitt a badly organised Survey/Poll, how do you want the voters to understand what's the vote about. My point should have been clear . "Providing or not providing the names of the Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary as alternates for the names of the Counties of Romania . I am not voting on "including the Hungarian/German names of Counties of Romania" -- Criztu 16:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree. We have clearly not reached a consensus about:
KissL 16:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Criztu, could you then please remove the listing from Current surveys? I can see it's done, thanks.
KissL
16:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
So, let's not mess up everything again, I'm starting subsections below here.
I suggest two separate statements, to be voted on separately (that also shows my position, but everyone knows it by now anyway):
KissL 16:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I suggest we decide the statement first, then write our arguments up, and then summarize. KissL 16:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I suggest 2 weeks. KissL 16:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I suggest the following:
Discount all votes from:
If either "Support" or "Oppose" has at least 60% of the votes, conclude that a consensus has been reached. Otherwise, continue discussion (eg. ask for more votes, extend the deadline, whatever).
KissL 16:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
When the regions are not "95% identical" to former Hungarian regions, then we probably need a separate article on that former Hungarian region, linked as a "See also" from the modern territories it overlaps (and, reciprocally, linking to them). This is essentially what we do with former regions in the U.S., for example. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:07, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
I think the survey as it's worded now ("about providing or not providing the Hungarian names of Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary as alternates for the Romanian names of Counties of Romania in Transylvania"), is not right. Take Harghita for instance, the Hungarian name (which I think should be given, with such a large Hungarian majority there) is apparently Hargita. In the history section, references should be made to the Kingdom of Hungary county Csík. All KoH counties have references to present counties etc., why not do the same vice versa, it's interesting information. There are very few RO counties that have a 90%+ overlap with a KoH county, maybe Hunedoara, Bistriţa-Năsăud, Sălaj, Cluj. Markussep 10:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I have presented my reasons for not providing the names of Administrative divisions of the kingdom of Hungary as alternates for the counties of Romania. when are you guys intending on presenting the "reasons for" ? -- Criztu 12:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
well, i;'ve listed the survey over at Current Surveys page, waiting for 2 weeks see what people think -- Criztu 12:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
This is a list I picked from hu:Románia. Some of these were counties of the kingdom of Hungary, some like Fehér and Maros before 1876. Hargita and Kovászna weren't names for KoH counties. Maybe someone knowns which of these have significant (e.g. over 5%) Hungarian population. Markussep 12:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
i have opened a case regarding the naming convention of administrative divisions of Romania at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-17 names of administrative divisions of Romania Criztu 16:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
This poll is now closed. Feel free to add comments, but please don't edit the Votes section below anymore.
Voters please indicate which of the reasons below you vote for, or if other reason pls specify.
Options:
Not included in the poll, I guess: provide - The relevant criteria is not as much their coincidence with the county grid inside the Kingdom of Hungary (which is literally coincidence, given the history of administration inside Romania - the link system proposed by Kissl is a pretty good idea, perhaps as a see also in the geography section), but the population numbers and their use in modern-day references (official and unofficial alike - see, for example,
this)
Dahn
22:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the survey listing in Criztu's absence. We had originally decided on a 2-week poll, which should therefore have ended on 1 August. (However, as all of the above votes were cast before this date, this is not a problem.) I see no reason to consider any of the votes invalid, which means that "provide" has a majority of 71.4%. This being above the 60% limit that was initially suggested (and not objected to by anyone), my reading is that consensus is reached. Kiss L 14:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
--- Târgu Mures
Encyclopædia Britannica Article Page 1 of 1
also spelled Tîrgu Mures, Hungarian Marosvásárhely, city, capital of Mures judet (county), north-central Romania. ---
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9072604&query=targu%20mures&ct=eb
-- Anittas 13:29, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Criztu, here is a formulation of the arguments for providing the names in other languages, replying to your points one by one. By your leave, I renumbered 3 and 4 that had been inverted.
(In this section, we're not addressing the "Lake Saint Ann issue", but let's go one at a time, I suppose.)
KissL 14:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
People, I really don't understand this obsession to delete knowledge. A name given to a geographic/administrative entity is knowledge. That means, there is - or there was once - a community, important enough to have its own name to design that entity. For example if there is an important Rroma community who calls Harghita say "Foo county", I would be happy to know that. Or if Sfanta Ana lake was called "Boo lake" under the Turks, I wouldn't delete that either. (And please don't send me to Rroma or Turkish wikipedia, I don't speak those languages..) Does this mean I'm a Rroma or Turkish irredentist?? As for the importance, we all have common sense to decide from which size a community can be considered important. And from which point an article is overcrowded with names. In this particular case - names in Transylvania -, several centuries of Hungarian dominance should justify considering Hungarian names as relevant. Competing only perhaps with Dacian names in the order of relevance.. :) Akiss 22:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Criztu, when are you going to put this stuff up on RfC? I think both sides have presented their views in much more detail than necessary enough detail. :)
KissL
07:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Wouldn't this survey be better placed on a more visible page, similar to the Talk:Gdansk/Vote page? The majority of contributors interested in the subject probably will not know about it when it is only on the Talk page for Harghita. Olessi 21:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
i intend on removing the hungarian versions of cities towns and communes listed at the end of the article. reason: no gain for the english reader to know the hungarian name of a city in Romania that hasn't got even a stub article about it. the hungarian versions should be given in their respective articles. -- Criztu 28 June 2005 14:13 (UTC)
I think the best policy about placenames in Romania is the following: The wikiarticle of a city/river/place from Romania/AnyCountry should contain all versions of that name in all possible languages. But outside that placename's article no "in hungarian : hungarian version, in german : german version, in all possible languages : all possible language versions". -- Criztu 28 June 2005 17:16 (UTC)
as an example look at Alsace (french-german historical dispute) - in its wikiarticle there is the German version listed in the lead. But outside that article we don't see the german version of Alsace , see Nikolaus_Ager. -- Criztu 28 June 2005 17:16 (UTC)
But look at every place in Transylvania in Transylvanian related articles - it was effectively an English-Hungarian encyclopedia, all rivers, all cities, all mountains, all lakes, all placenames in Transylvania however insignificant, with a hungarian version in paranthesis . That's irredentism spree on Wikipedia -- Criztu 28 June 2005 17:16 (UTC)
I don't think it's a matter of percentage. There may be several Romanian towns and villages which don't have a significant Hungarian population any more, but which are important from a Hungarian perspective because a Hungarian personality was born there 100 or 200 years ago (see List of famous Hungarians who were born outside of present-day Hungary). These place names should be unambiguously identifiable both in Romanian and in Hungarian (if there is an article about them), irrespective of the current majority percentage. Remember that this is the English Wikipedia, not the Romanian one, and the interest of the English-speaking reader is that they should be able to locate and identify a place name whether in Romanian or in Hungarian. I don't think any harm will be to Romanian national pride if the towns and villages can be located and identified for an international audience. -- Adam78 28 June 2005 17:52 (UTC)
Thank you the example of Alsace, I agree with you in that. This is the normal solution when beside the official variant, the alternative(s) is (are) given as well in italics, in parentheses. This is the practice which should be followed in the case of Romanian cities, towns, villages, rivers, creeks etc. as well (just like in the case of Hungarian cities, towns, villages, rivers, creeks etc.) because this is the general Wikipedia practice. Outside of the specific articles, no mentioning need to be given to the non-official place names, if the place name is linked to the article about that place providing other name versions in its first sentence – and the context is (historically speaking) present time. Since there is some advice in the Wikipedia Manual which should be remembered:
-- Adam78 28 June 2005 18:21 (UTC)
Well, let me put it this way: it is absolutely correct if we only provide the Hungarian names of places in their appropriate articles. So I won't revert these names outside their appropriate articles, if you are so much bent on not having them there. But off the record, is it such a huge problem for you that the Hungarian version of Miercurea Ciuc is given in parentheses in the Harghita article? I mean, it is in parentheses, in italics: there is ample indication that the official name is the Romanian one. Nobody will be misled by this extra piece of information. This is not an attack against the unity of Romania or anything like that. -- Tamas 28 June 2005 19:51 (UTC)
I have no connections of any kind to the area, nor do I speak either of the languages involved. While I wouldn't see the point in, for example, including Hungarian names in an English-language article for places few Hungarians live in or visit, it makes good sense to me to include Hungarian names for places near the border where ethnic Hungarians do live, or Hungarian nationals do visit. Similarly, I would expect to see (to continue the example) Romanian names for places on the Hungarian side of the border if ethnic Romanians live there or Romanian nationals visit. Having more information is almost always better than having less. Katzenjammer 29 June 2005 19:56 (UTC)
I found absolutely stunning the remark of User:Criztu "no gain for the english reader to know the hungarian name of a city in Romania that hasn't got even a stub article about it". And even more the actions he pursued in consequence:
Akiss 28 June 2005 20:27 (UTC)
-"The capital of the Csik county was Miercurea Ciuc (Csíkszereda in Hungarian)" looks forced beurocracy to me
-"The capital of the Csik county was Csíkszereda ( Miercurea Ciuc)" looks aesthetical to me.
But, rivers and mountains are not "historicaly tied by Hungary", so e.g.:
-"Turks fought Hungarians at river Duna/Maros ( Danube/ Mures) in Nagy Alfold ( Pannonian plain)" is silly (aka hungarianization of the wikification)
-"Turks fought Hungarians at river Danube/ Mures/ Tisza in Pannonian plain" i consider ok.
-"Turks fought Hungarians at river Duna/ Maros in Carpathian Basin (Nagy Alfold)" is worst.
however, for ancient times, when no current hungarian version for the river Danube/Mures/Tisza existed:
-"Dacians fought Romans on river Danube/ Mures/ Tisza in Pannonian plain" looks ok
-"Dacians fought Romans on river Danubius/Marisius/Tisia ( Danube/ Mures/ Tisza) in Pannonian plain" looks aesthetical
-"Dacians fought Romans on river Danube/ Mures (Duna/Maros) in Pannonian plain (Nagy Alfold)" looks like hungarization of wikipedia
-"Dacians fought Romans on river Duna/ Maros in Carpathian Basin (Nagy Alfold) is worst
further, when an article refers to contemporary status quo of a city in Romania :
-"Romanians fought Germans at Alba Iulia (Gyulafehervar) in WW 2" is hungarian melancholia
-"Romanians fought Germans at Alba Iulia in WW 2" is ok
but in historical context where hungary is involved:
-"Hungarians fought Germans at Gyulafehervar ( Alba Iulia) in 1876" is ok
-"Hungarians fought Germans at Alba Iulia (Gyulafehervar in Hungarian) in 1876" is too beaurocratic
-"Hungarians fought Germans at Alba Iulia in 1876" is unfair toward hungarians thats true
since most of the discussion about places formerly hungarian, now romanian is here, i will address the "Transylvania region in ROmania" here as well: - there is no Transylvania region in Romania. take a look at Regions of Hungary. The same goes for Regions of Romania. the regions of ROmania are not Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia. the regions are CEntral, Southern, Northern, etc
-so when writing "Harghita is a county in Transylvania in ROmania" this is simply wrong.
-Harghita is a county in Romania, (and if you want to point the region, then it is in Central Region of ROmania.
-if you want to mention that the county is in what was once the voivodship/province/governorate/principality of Transylvania that is fine by me, altho' not encyclopedic. so mention it something like "Harghita is a county in Romania, in Transylvania".
i'd personaly(and probably will) remove this "in Transylvania", "in Wallachia", "in Moldavia" thing from the lead paragraphs and add details in the History section of Harghita/other counties, but for the moment i'm not so pretentious about Wikipedia. -- Criztu 2 July 2005 08:14 (UTC)
Timisoara is a city in Transylvania, region of Romania (wrong, as it is in Banat)
Timisoara is a city in Transylvania, administrative region of Romania (wrong, as Romania doesn't have a Transylvania admin region)
Timisoara is a city in Transylvania, former teritory of Hungary (correct, but irredentist) -- Criztu 3 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)
Timisoara is a city in Romania, in Banat - perrrfect :)
Transylvania is green, Wallachia blue, the Moldavian region red, and Dobrogea yellow" So it is okay to talk about a Translyvania region in the Romania page, but it's not okay to do so in the Harghita page? How is that? And please-please realize that "region" can be used in a non-legal, non-administrative sense. The page Region has this to say: "A region can be any area that has some unifying feature. Typically they are, but are not necessarily, smaller than a country." It is not necessary that it be a legal entity.-- Tamas 5 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)
My intention was to debate and come to an agreement on how the Survey should look like, before starting the VOte. Currently the survey/poll is split in 2, one part at the top (the "Survey"), the other at the bottom (the "Poll"). If we submitt a badly organised Survey/Poll, how do you want the voters to understand what's the vote about. My point should have been clear . "Providing or not providing the names of the Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary as alternates for the names of the Counties of Romania . I am not voting on "including the Hungarian/German names of Counties of Romania" -- Criztu 16:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree. We have clearly not reached a consensus about:
KissL 16:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Criztu, could you then please remove the listing from Current surveys? I can see it's done, thanks.
KissL
16:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
So, let's not mess up everything again, I'm starting subsections below here.
I suggest two separate statements, to be voted on separately (that also shows my position, but everyone knows it by now anyway):
KissL 16:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I suggest we decide the statement first, then write our arguments up, and then summarize. KissL 16:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I suggest 2 weeks. KissL 16:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I suggest the following:
Discount all votes from:
If either "Support" or "Oppose" has at least 60% of the votes, conclude that a consensus has been reached. Otherwise, continue discussion (eg. ask for more votes, extend the deadline, whatever).
KissL 16:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
When the regions are not "95% identical" to former Hungarian regions, then we probably need a separate article on that former Hungarian region, linked as a "See also" from the modern territories it overlaps (and, reciprocally, linking to them). This is essentially what we do with former regions in the U.S., for example. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:07, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
I think the survey as it's worded now ("about providing or not providing the Hungarian names of Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary as alternates for the Romanian names of Counties of Romania in Transylvania"), is not right. Take Harghita for instance, the Hungarian name (which I think should be given, with such a large Hungarian majority there) is apparently Hargita. In the history section, references should be made to the Kingdom of Hungary county Csík. All KoH counties have references to present counties etc., why not do the same vice versa, it's interesting information. There are very few RO counties that have a 90%+ overlap with a KoH county, maybe Hunedoara, Bistriţa-Năsăud, Sălaj, Cluj. Markussep 10:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I have presented my reasons for not providing the names of Administrative divisions of the kingdom of Hungary as alternates for the counties of Romania. when are you guys intending on presenting the "reasons for" ? -- Criztu 12:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
well, i;'ve listed the survey over at Current Surveys page, waiting for 2 weeks see what people think -- Criztu 12:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
This is a list I picked from hu:Románia. Some of these were counties of the kingdom of Hungary, some like Fehér and Maros before 1876. Hargita and Kovászna weren't names for KoH counties. Maybe someone knowns which of these have significant (e.g. over 5%) Hungarian population. Markussep 12:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
i have opened a case regarding the naming convention of administrative divisions of Romania at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-17 names of administrative divisions of Romania Criztu 16:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)