Talk:Árva County

Untitled
Almost all time of existention of this comitatus was official name "Comitatus Arvensis" Name was changed in the time of magyarization. Its good to change name to be historicaly correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samofi (talk • contribs) 20:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent attemtps to remove Hungarian names
Unfortunately the subject is forced by a second revert, with a clear aim avoiding good faith or fair review. Thus I have to announce here there is no consensus for the latest reverts and edit about the removal of Hungarian names.

WP:English or WP:Naming conventions were not harmed, no objection may be raised for the former state of the article, where all English and Slovak names were present where it is relevant. After a long experience about contemporary/historical naming conventions, I have almost never met such case the correspondent unser introduced here, unless it was a clear anti-Hungarian aim to get rid of anything that may be Hungarian in an article. This users persist a trick and confusing the medieval administration - that existed only paper, never in practice or the common langauge of the Modern Era's official language status, that is a totally different concept.

Surprisingly, in any article the correspodent in the country's name and language can be used in the first place in the medieval times, surprisingly only some people want to get rid of the Hungarian, may I ask, will this mean that more thousand articles and more ten-thousand names will be rewritten in Latin and Slavic - the two major administration in countries, and no Engish, German, Italian, Spanish, French, Hungarian, Romanian names may be ever indicated?

Of course, with a little experience it is clear when how we have to do, since the article's context is also very important. If there is a historical English name, it can be used in the first place, if not, the contemporary country's name can be used in the first place - and it don't have to be written in Latin phonetics, that is most of the time the phonetic transcript of the originally used name - after, the modern-day max be indicated in brackets - most of the cases the English names are identical of the present-day native names. If it is about a modern era, were strictly and official langauge was introduced in a completely different terms and usage unlike the medieval times, that may be used in the fisrt place. If the context is releavant to an i.e. historical person from a different ethnicity - like a Saxon in Transylvania - i.e. the German names may be used in the first place despite they were not official, similarly in any other cases, etc.

This article is about mainly a comitatus of Hungary, a historical region for a long time inHungary thus the ignorance of the Hungarian names are not just against the contemporary naming conventions, but are totally outreagous as i.e. like the Romanian names would be ignored regarding the historical Moldavia, or German would be ingnored in Bavaria, etc. Also it has to be taken into account that article's series is highlighting that comitatus that existed anyway when Hungarian was also the official language, since there are also other articles about eralier counties, nota bene.

The article has an other section, a shorter one when it is about the period of Czeshoslovakia, of course noone want's to exile Czech or Slovak names anywhere.

Sharply:

- the historical comitatus' of Hungary have Hungarian names, and the English names are not Slovak or anything else

- the river names were indicated in all languges, thus the removal of the Hungarian name is a clear demonstration of an anti-Hungarian aim

- all other cities, villages were indicated in all langauges, thus the removal of the Hungarian name is a clear demonstration of an anti-Hungarian aim

- Removing (Hungarian Árva vára), the historical reference of the Orava castle, however, the English-Slovak name was presented in the first place is again a proof of an an anti-Hungarian aim

- no problem if we add more version of the names used in the relevant timeline, but the current situation is inacceptable and incorrect, if a new consensus is wanted regarding this article, first it has to be built!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC))
 * Shortly
 * - Bratislava before 1919 -> Pressburg, the widely accepted historical English name (not Pozsony as you changed in other article)
 * - Veličná in the context of longer historical period -> Veličná (other names), because there is not any widely accepted historical English name and the name had changed over the time. Particularly, if we speak about the 16th century it was not called "Nagyfalu" even in Hungarian
 * - Veličná in 1844-1918 -> Nagyfalu (other names), because there is not any widely accepted historical English name, Nagyfalu was the official name (Hungarian was the official language).
 * - Orava (river) -> Orava river, like High Tatras are High Tatras and not "Magas-Tátra (High Tatras, Veľké Tatry)", the widely accepted English geographic name.
 * - I don't think that mentioning every single name is the best way how to do things. Veličná (Nagyfalu) is OK, but a detailed list including Magna Villa, Welkeg Wsy, Veľké Vsy, Naghffalva, etc, etc belogs to Veličná->Names not to the general article.
 * - Here is the original [diff] made by you and reverted by me. Which names in which language were removed? I did not revert anything else. Ditinili (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * - The Pressburg cases are not under debate this article, however I consider in a relevant context - i.e. - official Hungarian capital to be mentioned, but this is not the subject here, I acknowledge the well-established and accepted English name status of "Pressburg".
 * - Not true, "Nagyfalu" is dated from 1420, anyway the original latin name was also the translation of the Hungarian name, so I support here Nagyfalu (and any other version in brackets you wish)
 * - OK
 * - I would accept "Orava river (Hungarian: Árva)" version since the section is designating the territory of the comitatus, as historical region of Hungary as well the period of the modern-era. In this case, the English-Slovak name would be in the first place, and the Hungarian name in brackets. High Tatras was not debated.
 * - this I let you to decide on your own, which version you consider relevant in the brackets in case Hungarian is in the first place - about particularly Veličná see above
 * - Not that edit was reverted by you, a latter one. Names: Árva, Zázriva, Árva vára, Nagyfalu, Alsókubin. Language: Hungarian.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC))
 * Kiengir, you systematically hid any modern English (or historical Slovak name) and then accused me from "anti-Hungarian aims" (as it is clear from the [diff]). This is very, very strange and unusual behavior.
 * Now, about the names:
 * - The opinion that Magna Villa is "the translation of the Hungarian name" is an unsourced speculation, because the first Hungarian name is recorded only 148 years later and not as Nagyfalu (what is the modern or later Hungarian name) but Nag Flaw.
 * - No matter how, the village is historically known under various names and we cannot prefer some of them just to make somebody (whoever) satisfied, but it should be done systematically. If the Hungarian language a) had no special position in 15-16th century in the town or in the region b) it was not an administrative language nor spoken by the majority population c) the town is known under various very different local names and d) there is not any widely accepted historic English name, then we should use "modern name (other names)". This is completely neutral, non-conflicting and apolitical approach compliant with all Wikipedia standards.
 * - The dependency on the "original etymology" as a "naming convention" has no support in Wikipedia rules. I think that this is a non-standard and poor approach. Etymology is often unclear, it will only raise new discussions and conflicts and in many cases the name is Quadi and not Slovak or Hungarian. Note, that it does not support your naming by the modern Hungarian names, e.g. Kubín is "kublin" (archaic Slovak: a smoked glade) and is documented (also before the Hungarian language became the official language) as Nizny Kubin and Dolny Kubin.
 * "Orava river (Hungarian: Árva)" is not necessary, but I am fine with it.I am not OK with Kis-Fátra/Nagy-Fátra instead of Lower Fatra, Lesser Fatra or Malá Fatra and similar exclusively Hungarian names as they are used in several related articles (see e.g. Turóc County).
 * P.S.: If you look e.g. on [this English map from 1833], Dolný Kubín in not Alsókubin but Kubini, Ružomberok is not Rózsahegy but Rosenberg, Kysucké Nové Mesto is not Kiszucaújhely but Novemeste, Trstená is not Trsztena but Terstina, Mníchova Lehota is not Barátszabadi but Mnichova, Trnava is not Nagyszombat but Trnau, etc, etc, like Bratislava is not Pozsony but Presburg. So, the usage of historical/later/modern Hungarian names in English Wikipedia (as it is applied now - in general and for every cost) is more than questionable.Ditinili (talk) 10:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear Ditinili.


 * -you ride on an old diff that was shortly overriden, since the article is part of the classical modern comitatus's of Kingdom of Hungary that has mainly a period with undebated Hungarian official language status and Hungarian context, it would have been also applicable that only the reference remains to English/Slovaks names, but an other editor warned me, we discussed explicitly about the question and after our deal also English/Slovak names were also shown.
 * - :) We have all the list of the latin names and systematically you see the pattern that mainly the two type of transcription and transliteration from Hungarian to Latin exists: 1. transcription of the Hungarian name with Latin phonetics 2. Transliterating the word. So it is not a "speculation", everyone knows who dealt with this topic. Anyway it does not matter here since the relevant timeline when it is mentioned already the Hungarian-Hungarian name was also referred, I think you surely wanted to be funny if "Nagfalw" could not be written or would not be equal with Nagyfalu... However, in 1487 it is mentioned already as "Nagyfalu" so we have not any problem here anymore....
 * - well, if would add also if the article and/or the context is about Hungary or related to Hungary or the Hungarian state then at least that Hungarian version should be indicated in the first place that was used that time, and of course also higlighting other important names along with the present-day name
 * - there is no debate many Hungarian names have Slavic origin, so I have no problem to put on the first place i.e. "Cublyn" or "Kublin" or similar in the relevant timeline and after in brackets the Hungarian and Slovak contemporary name, followed the present-day name. I put in Túróc the English names for the mountains, if you have further wishes please let me know
 * - I have no problem i.e., as mentioned above to use "Kubini" and after in brackets Hungarian, Slovak and present-day name.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC))
 * - "you ride on an old diff that was shortly overriden" Kiengir, did you systematically remove all references to the modern English names or historical Slovak or not? You did, [here is the proof] and [here is another proof] that you removed other than Hungarian names repeatedly (modern English or Slovak). Then, you wrote a long comment to my personal page, including some at least inaccurate (I would say also offensive) statements like "the final Slovak language were decided what to be exactly by Bernolák or other's" (you obviously do not distinguish between the language and the Codification (linguistics), but you repeat some cliches popular among Hungarian extremists), you complained to the administrator without sending me a link where exactly you did complain and to whom, you wrote numerous sentences about alleged anti-Hungarian aims and complained also to other Hungarian editors to coordinate. This is a very bad approach and you should change your attitude.
 * "Technical" issues:
 * - The statement: "mainly a period with undebated Hungarian official language status" is inheritly wrong. The first mention about the county is from 1370. Alleged "Hungarian official language status" was introduced 474 years later (!) only in 1844 and only for 5 years. Then again only from 1867 to 1918. Thus, in 553 years old history of the Orava county, the Hungarian language have had official status for 56 years. And now, I am asking why Hungarian names should be preferred over any other names, especially in the period when it was not the official nor administrative language, was not spoken by majority population and the Hungarian name differs from the modern name used in English (and there is not any widely accepted historic English name). I do not suggest Slovak names. I suggest modern names where the widely accepted historic English name do not exist and the historical records support various names. This is absolutely non-conflicting and neutral approach, compliant with all WP rules, consistent and applicable to any country. Tell me what's the problem and give me a reference to the rule which could be violated.
 * - "So it is not a "speculation", everyone knows who dealt with this topic." "Everyone who dealt with the topic" (please, do not use such wording for the future) knows that Magna Villa is not the transcription of the Hungarian name with Latin phonetic and Wekleg Vsy is not less Latin than Nag Falw. However, it is not relevant in the light of the previous point. Ditinili (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, again, you really do not want to understand, or just you want to deteriorate the attention....it is very tiring...surprisingly, your diffs as a "proof" contradicts you, since they proof I did NOT removed the references :) in one diff you again ignore it was shortly overriden and not this outdated edit is the subject here, and also on the other the Hungarian was added and the modern names were also indicated. You were told at least two times in more pages that a historical Hungarian comitatus does not have an English name that would be Slovak. The funny thing is that you start against me again an accusation list, although you were inaccurate right know and it seems instead of concentrating on peace you again give long accusations. You may understand everything in a calmer and more proper way, but as I experienced, you understand almost all the time everything totally different as it meant and mostly in a negative way, in my opinion, this attitude should be changed (this goes also about the Slovak language). I don't know any "clichés" about any "extremist" I would used or whatsoever. I don't know why I should have sent any link, since I did not mention you explicity and not any noticeboard issue were initiated (not my style). I don't see anything negative that in your personal page I tried to communicate with you and shared my experiences and concerns. I also don't see any problem that I make discussion with other Hungarian editors, anyway I did not even tell them exactly which article we are discussing. I don't see any bad approach here, unless that I do not spend necessarily my time in Wikipedia to chase other people's contributions and hunt anything to generate a conflict! Anyway, Wiki is not the place where anything may be hidden.
 * Again you pretend not to understand, although we discussed it already more times also in this talk page...normally I should redirect to read them again until you wish to understand. so I will try to be very short, and expanded you find it above:
 * - this series of articles are mainly created for the comitatus' of Kingdom of Hungary in the modern period, when Hungarian was the official language, even if there are allusion to the earlier history of them
 * - medieval administration status is not to be confused with modern official language status, also regarding other countries, nations etc. this is not excluding the usage of Hungarian names in Hungary, this is well-known pretext of some "benevolent" aims to exile Hungarian for those who does not like it, but they do not force similar i.e. in German, English, French, Spanish, Italian or Romanian pages, moreover it logically fails, since the medieval administration did not stated that would be an official language, that anyway people did not used but mostly on paper. The campaign for modern-names all the time is also a pretext for the same reason, but twice as more inunderstandable, since the modern-names were also indicated and it is a very common applied custom and reality by the contemporary naming conventions (maybe because if only the modern name would be, then only the Slovak version would be apparent, since almost always they are identical?). I even don't know what happened to you, yesterday you were totally moderate, today you are very grumpy like we did not even discussed...
 * - why I should not use such wordage? Anyway, this issue was again generated by you, not by me, I just reacted...(KIENGIR (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC))
 * Kiengir, you repeatedly hid other than Hungarian names, it was proven. "I did not remove references" means literally "you removed all non-Hungarian names (including those widely used in English) and you preserved only wikilinks, not visible to users". If you believe that wikilinks are sufficient, why do you complain that another user reverted your changes, but preserved wikilinks? I will not continue in this discussion and I will focus on technical issues.
 * "you pretend not to understand" WP:No personal attacks, WP:Assume good faith.
 * "medieval administration status is not to be confused with modern official language status" Of course, it cannot be confused. I am asking you, according to which WP rule we should prefer Hungarian names also for the period when it was not even the medieval administrative language, historic names were various and the modern local name is not the same as Hungarian. If you are not able to cite such rule, I will restore all names according to WP:Naming conventions (geographic names), particularly General guidelines and Use English.
 * "the campaign for modern-names all the time is also a pretext for the same reason" WP: Assume good faith
 * "this issue was again generated by you" Excuse me? Ditinili (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ditinili, it seems you again regard as a fool me and the Wikipedia community. You did not prove anything, just that you want to deteriorate the attention that you removed Hungarian names with a certain goal. Despite you focus on outdated and already overriden diffs. You removed Hungarian names although modern-names were also present. Point. That's why we are discussing here.
 * "you pretend not to understand" WP:No personal attacks, WP:Assume good faith. -> This is neither a personal attack, nor any assumption...if any person read this section, will have the same conclusion possibly, since the problem of interpretation or better to say the strange behavior of yours that you are oscillating day-by-day on different and controversial behavior and pattern is very apparent and quite a recurring problem also of other issues. I have the utmost good faith towards you, despite the vast majority of your manifestions is continously something negative towards Hungary related issues, and regardless how much you struggle, you cannot hinder this. "the campaign for modern-names all the time is also a pretext for the same reason" -> this was a general comment since we've met many of such failed attempts of a clear anti-Hungarian aim, also by some editors with name and also various IP adresses.
 * "this issue was again generated by you" -> see Magna Villa, that is undoubtedly the transcription of Nagyfalu. (and you still generate further conflicts although it's turned out it has nothing more to do with the current issue)
 * The answer to your question: as I have written this custom is used and applied everywhere in Wikipedia without any major problem, it is impossible that you would not know or meet with this. As we see, you in an enthusiast way, persistently want to find something against, moreover you make threats that what you will do and with this you justify the aim of removing Hungarian names. This has something to do with good faith? You do the same in other articles about other countries nations? I doubt it...What you forget, that this discussion is under an Administrator surveillance, and everything can be checked, I would suggest you not to do anything without consensus!
 * Let's see what we have - (if you would not know...):
 * "For example, the city now called Gdańsk is referred to as Danzig in historic contexts to which that name is more suited (e.g. when it was part of Germany or a Free City)."
 * "For example, we have articles called Istanbul, Dubrovnik, Volgograd and Saint Petersburg, these being the current names of these cities, although former names (Constantinople, Ragusa, Stalingrad or Leningrad) are also used when referring to appropriate historical periods (if any), including such article names as Battle of Stalingrad and Sieges of Constantinople; not to mention separate articles on Constantinople and Byzantium on the historic cities on the site of modern Istanbul – or part of it. It is sometimes common practice in English to use name forms from different languages to indicate cultural or political dominance. For example, Szczecin is often written as Stettin (the German name) for the period before 1945, likewise Gdańsk is called Danzig"
 * "Given the long shared history of Slovakia and Hungary, it is desirable to mention both the Slovak and the Hungarian name in several cases. This depends on the (historical) context in which it is used:"
 * "Before 1918: the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. "Eperjes (Prešov)" or "Prešov (Eperjes)". "
 * "For places that changed name (e.g. Štúrovo was called Parkan before 1948): follow the rules above, but use the contemporary Slovak or Hungarian name as the primary name, and also add the modern name as an alternative. Example: for a biography about a 19th century Slovak from Parkan/Párkány/Štúrovo, use "Parkan (Párkány, present Štúrovo)", and later "Parkan" exclusively", etc. etc.
 * Ditinili, I suggest you to open your heart and please try to co-exist in peace without generating conflicts, it would be better all of us. Just good faith and good aim is needed! You have to be aware that we RECOGNIZE if there is problem with the latter mentioned, also with our utmost good faith! (KIENGIR (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC))
 * "it seems you again regard as a fool me and the Wikipedia community" Kiengir, please, try to avoid personal attacks.
 * "see Magna Villa, that is undoubtedly the transcription of Nagyfalu". Who says? WP:No original research. The meaning is the same in all languages, I really don't know how did you come to this conclusion.
 * The problem is not in historic Hungarian names (like Parkan, renamed only later) nor in widely accepted historic English names (like Constantinopole or Stalingrad). I am asking the following question: if there is not any widely accepted historic English name AND Hungarian was not the official language for the most of the period covered by the article (let's say only cca 10%: 56 of 553 years) AND the town is known under various names WHY the Hungarian name should be preferred over any other name. If you are not able to explain it, I will restore naming conventions "modern name (other names)". For biographies of Hungarian personalities, I don't have any problem to respect existing consensus "the Hungarian name (other names)" (and vice versa).  Ditinili (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That you cited was not a personal attack, but a perception.
 * This is a talk page, where we are discussing, a talk page does not have that requirements like other pages, thus "who says" or similar may be only your personal inquiry. The conclusion is gained that Hungary has more then thousand historical names of settlements, villages, communes, and also the recorded version of names, even outside Hungary's borders and also their latin names, and those rules can be observated that I have presented you above. One large part of the names, the first Latin recorded name was created by the transliteration of the Hungarian name used, because it had to be turned to Latin. Where it was easier, they made transliteration, where harder, transcription into Latin phonetics mainly. It does not mean there are other, individual cases, but it was a common practice.
 * I already explained to you multiple times and answered your question, but you continously play this game of not understanding. I warn you again, if you do right now any change without consensus you can expect the Administrators to make steps, but this was the last time that I warned you with my good faith! Normally I should redirect you to read again what you don't want to understand, but I will help you with copy paste with the relevant sections:
 * - First of all, your question is misleading, since "WHY the Hungarian name should be preferred over any other name" is not necessarily holding, since I already told we may agree what other names can be listed in bracket next to the present-day name
 * - This series of articles are mainly created for the comitatus' of Kingdom of Hungary in the modern period, when Hungarian was the official language, even if there are allusion to the earlier history of them
 * - Medieval administration status is not to be confused with modern official language status, also regarding other countries, nations etc. this is not excluding the usage of Hungarian names in Hungary, this is well-known pretext of some "benevolent" aims to exile Hungarian for those who does not like it, but they do not force similar i.e. in German, English, French, Spanish, Italian or Romanian pages, moreover it logically fails, since the medieval administration did not stated that would be an official language, that anyway people did not used but mostly on paper. The campaign for modern-names all the time is also a pretext for the same reason, but twice as more inunderstandable, since the modern-names were also indicated and it is a very common applied custom and reality by the contemporary naming conventions
 * - For example, the city now called Gdańsk is referred to as Danzig in historic contexts to which that name is more suited (e.g. when it was part of Germany or a Free City)."
 * - It is sometimes common practice in English to use name forms from different languages to indicate cultural or political dominance. For example, Szczecin is often written as Stettin (the German name) for the period before 1945, likewise Gdańsk is called Danzig"
 * "Given the long shared history of Slovakia and Hungary, it is desirable to mention both the Slovak and the Hungarian name in several cases. This depends on the (historical) context in which it is used:"
 * - "Before 1918: the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. "Eperjes (Prešov)" or "Prešov (Eperjes)".
 * - "For places that changed name (e.g. Štúrovo was called Parkan before 1948): follow the rules above, but use the contemporary Slovak or Hungarian name as the primary name, and also add the modern name as an alternative. Example: for a biography about a 19th century Slovak from Parkan/Párkány/Štúrovo, use "Parkan (Párkány, present Štúrovo)", and later "Parkan" exclusively"
 * - Especially the consensus shown regarding Hungary-Slovakia matters, are not restricted only for "biographies for Hungarian persons" - it has also a section for this, but I did not copied here since it is not the case right now - but IN GENERAL, thus your statement about "The problem is not in historic Hungarian names (like Parkan, renamed only later)" is not coherent, since yet all matter are under discussion have and are historic Hungarian names.
 * - But let's not get blurry, I take the initiative possibly to summarize until what we agreed now and I hope you won't invent further conflict sources:
 * We agreed about the "Orava river (Hungarian: Árva)" version until now. As I see we have still a debate regarding the "Capitals" section, regarding (Magna Villa/Nagyfalu/Veličná and Alsókubin/Dolný Kubín. I suggest in the first case "Nagyfalu (present-day Veličná)" since in the relvant timeline "Nagyfalu" was the actual and latest record of the name. In the second case, I suggest "Kubini (Hungarian: Alsókubin, present-day Dolný Kubín)" because of the map you have shown. I hope your answer won't be again a "not-understanding" act and a new attempt of removing Hungarian names from an article of undoubtedly Hungarian historical context.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC))
 * "you really do not want to understand, ... you continously play this game of not understanding ..." Kiengir, please. Statements like that are not constructive, try to be polite.
 * Gdańsk and Szczecin are special cases, the towns that repeatedly moved from one policical entity to another (and back) with all the consequences. This is not our case. It would be the same (or similiar) case if we discussed exclusively changes related to 1918-1920.
 * I am asking very seriously. According to which wikipedia rule Hungarian names are systematically preferred and put on the first place for the period when Hungarian language had none special status (resp. 90% of the period), for the territories which were not ethnic Hungarian, Slovak and German names are recorded as well and Hungarian versions are not widely accepted historic English names.
 * I don't know how did you came to the conclusion that "Nagyfalu was the actual and latest record of the name", but its wrong (the last recored name during the existence of the county is surely Veličná and in the middle ages various names coexisted).
 * I do not agree even with "Kubini", because I have serious doubts if we can prove that this is the widely accepted historic English name. I provided this example and map just to demonstrate that Alsokubin does not seem to be the widely accepted historic English name. For now, it's just one of many recorded names. That's why I prefer "modern name (other names in the alphabetical order)" and I really cannot see any violation of WP standards and definitely not any "anti-Hungarian aims", etc, etc. Ditinili (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am definetly polite, I repeat a continous, long-term observation I describe, constructivity cannot be again a question from my side.
 * Danzig and Stettin are not just special cases, there are countless identical examples, they are famous cases - especially Dabzig - that's why these are mentioned. Since this article is having a pre-1918-1920 section, belonging to Hungary, the case is crystal-clear
 * Your question has been already answered - more times - you if you are insisting still on this, I can help you only to highlight again more clear the relevant sections...still not understanding is really a....but I better don't say anything more...
 * - This series of articles are mainly created for the comitatus' of Kingdom of Hungary in the modern period, when Hungarian was the official language, even if there are allusion to the earlier history of them
 * - Medieval administration status is not to be confused with modern official language status, also regarding other countries, nations etc. this is not excluding the usage of Hungarian names in Hungary, this is well-known pretext of some "benevolent" aims to exile Hungarian for those who does not like it, but they do not force similar i.e. in German, English, French, Spanish, Italian or Romanian pages, moreover it logically fails, since the medieval administration did not stated that would be an official language, that anyway people did not used but mostly on paper. The campaign for modern-names all the time is also a pretext for the same reason, but twice as more inunderstandable, since the modern-names were also indicated and it is a very common applied custom and reality by the contemporary naming conventions
 * - For example, the city now called Gdańsk is referred to as Danzig in historic contexts to which that name is more suited (e.g. when it was part of Germany or a Free City)."
 * - It is sometimes common practice in English to use name forms from different languages to indicate cultural or political dominance. For example, Szczecin is often written as Stettin (the German name) for the period before 1945, likewise Gdańsk is called Danzig"
 * It is meant to be a specification of guideline nr. 3 (about the use of a name in other articles) of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Given the long shared history of Slovakia and Hungary, it is desirable to mention both the Slovak and the Hungarian name in several cases. This depends on the (historical) context in which it is used: Before 1918: the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. "Eperjes (Prešov)" or "Prešov (Eperjes)".
 * From all of these, it has to be CLEAR why in an article with a Hungarian context before 1918 undoubtedly Hungarian names can be used in the first place, so pleace, finally get it once, please!
 * .....ahhhhh....read back ok? The written version "Nagyfalu" was recorded in 1487, and it is the actual regarding onwards, but definetly for 1520 in Hungarian timeline and context.
 * ......if you come up with a contemporary English map, why it could not be accepted? Are you serious? Moreover, I repeat almost the fifth or sixth time the the context and the article series were created meanly to cover the relevan ttimeline when the Hungarian was anyway the official language, but anyway as seen above before 1918 it's not a problem to use the Hungarian version. But since, because there are more versions, I can make consensus and let other - like offered now - names to be at first, but the "Alsókubin" form because of the earlier mentioned cannot be exiled from this article. Regarding the depth and factual deatails of this discussion regarding all circumstances, Kubini would the best neutral choice where both sides may agree. About "WP standards" or "possible anti-Hungarian aims" I have no further reaction as mentioned more times above. If your intention is not in every case to "deduct" that Hungarian names in Hungarian historical context and moreover before 1918 should be exiled from the first place, than maybe noone could raise doubts of any intention.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC))
 * "This series of articles are mainly created for the comitatus' of Kingdom of Hungary in the modern period, when Hungarian was the official language". No. This series of articles is about the historical administrative units that had existed for hundreds of years. Every single article deals with the origin of the county (sometimes in the 11th century), its medieval seats and also various medieval events. Thus, the statement that they deal mainly with the period after 1844 and before 1918 is inherently wrong.
 * '"to indicate cultural or political dominance"'. The historic medieval Kingdom of Hungary should not be confused with modern Hungary and the historic political nation (natio Hungarica) should not be confused with ethnic Hungarians (Magyars). The Germans and the Slovaks were absolutely the same members of natio Hungarica as the Magyars were. Of course, excluding various local privileges. A relatively well-known example is medieval Trnava were ethnic Magyars had not the same political rights as privileged Germans and Slovaks and they get equal rights only on 4 April 1551 (this is alleged "clear Hungarian context"). Otherwise, all nationalities were strictly equal and notably, if somebody had tried to declare some "dominance" over some other ethnicity, he could be also executed and lost his property (a real contemporary royal decree).
 * "the written version "Nagyfalu" was recorded in 1487, and it is the actual regarding onwards, but definetly for 1520 in Hungarian timeline and context" See my comments to the contemporary meaning of the word "Hungarian" above.
 * "if you come up with a contemporary English map, why it could not be accepted? Are you serious?" Yes, I am serious. One map is not enough to document that something is "the widely accepted English name".
 * The medieval conditions should not be confused with the political and cultural conditions from the late 19th century. I hope that we can agree that this historic equality and tolerance is a positive common heritage and should be followed also here. Ditinili (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * - No, the statement is quite ok, since there are other articles for medieval comitatus', however also in present-day comitatus almost identical information is present if there is a longer history section, but it does not matter anyway, since before 1918 Hungarian without problem may be on the first place, as demonstrated above.
 * - this has no connection to the current case, since cultural and political dominance meant mainly belonging to another country (like Stettin as part of German states), as also belonging to Hungary
 * - I am not sure what you refer of exactly
 * - well ok, if you don't want this name, than Hungarian can be at the first place with no problem...
 * - I don't know about any confusion, and I am the utmost follower of historic equality and tolerance, that's the former era of Hungary should as much respected, as i.e. the Czechoslovak or Slovak era after, where I do not met any harsh campaing to get rid of the Slovak names.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC))
 * "No, the statement is quite ok". The article is definitely about the historical county since the 14th century.
 * "political dominance meant mainly belonging to another country". Which "other" country? In contrast with Germany and Poland, both modern countries formed from the beginning as a common state and in this common state the political and cultural conditions in the middle ages were such that both ethnic groups formed a common political nation (of course, in medieval terms), were strictly equal and Hungarian (Magyar) language had none special status in the northern countries. Moreover, for a notable period covered by the article the center of the political life of the historical state was in present-day Slovakia, not in present-day Hungary (which cannot be confused with modern Hungary in that time mostly a part of the Ottoman Empire) so it could hardly "dominate" something . And in addition, the members of the Slovak ethnic group were the same Hungarians (but not Magyars) as ethnic Magyars, strictly distinguishing both terms. It's only a name, like Czechs were Bohemians and not Celts (Boemi), Ruthenians are Rusini and they are not Swedes (Routsi) and Magyars are Hungarians and they are not Onogurs (it's not about contemporary dominance).
 * "than Hungarian can be at the first place with no problem" On the ethnic Slovak territory and in the period when Hungarian language had no special status? Absolutely not, no way. Otherwise we have real curiosities, that in the county and in the period where it was documented only one ethnic Hungarian village, all names are presented in Hungarian (without any contemporary special status of the Hungarian language).
 * " i.e. the Czechoslovak or Slovak era after, where I do not met any harsh campaing to get rid of the Slovak names" It's not about a good will, it's about WP rules. Nobody "led campaign to get rid of Hungarians names", please avoid statements like that. Ditinili (talk) 08:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * - Read back, becase you did not understood properly what I have written. Anyway it does not matter, since pre-1918 Hungarian names can be used without any problem
 * - Of course, it means, unlike today, it was belonged to Hungary. What you write has no connection to the "political and cultural dominance" neither in term regarding Poland and Germany, neither Hungary. Read back again why the medieval administration should not be confused with language. It does not matter here what is in present-day Slovakia or Hungary, here only matters what was then, and the territory was part of Hungary. "(which cannot be confused with modern Hungary in that time mostly a part of the Ottoman Empire)" -> we have no information that modern Hungary would use a time machine and would became part of Ottoman Empire...Hungarian and Magyar are not exclusive terms to be distinguished, Hungarian also includes ethnic Magyars also. The contemporary territory, county, call as you want was dominated by Hungary.
 * - The territory was not exclusively inhabited by Slovaks and again read back why in medieval term any special language status is not needed, moreover regarding Nagyfalu, it was documented that time with this name, and again read back, that earlier 1918 Hungarian without any problem can be used in the first place. Even we do not struggle to put Hungarian names in the first place in the Czechoslovak era or Slovakia on those regions or cities where Hungarians have absolute majority. By offering "Kubini" I have shown I am not subjective and I am not against any wise consensus in compicated situations.
 * - But yes, it happened more times, it has a history as I have written, and those did not follow any WP:rule.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC))
 * "Anyway it does not matter, since pre-1918 Hungarian names can be used without any problem" Who said that they cannot be used?
 * "unlike today, it was belonged to Hungary." Maybe, you will be surprised, but this is a questionable statement. There are two very different views on the common Slovak-Hungarian history and both are presented by very respected and reliable historians (and lawyers).
 * a) historical Hungary is identical with modern Hungary, thus she lost some territories
 * b) historical Hungary is not identical with modern Hungary, there are completely different states and thus she could not loose anything and she also could not dominate over anything in your understanding (they share only the name)
 * Now, I will not argue which view is right or wrong, they are simply different and both are mainstrem views. Notably, this is not related to some "romantic nationalism", it is simply based on a different historical experience and perception.
 * "The territory was not exclusively inhabited by Slovaks" Nobody said that something was exclusively ihabited by Slovaks. I say that it is at least misguiding and strange, if all names are systematically written like "Hungarian (other)" on the historical context when Hungarian language had (mostly) no special status and for the territories where their population was marginal.Ditinili (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "By offering "Kubini...". I am against randomly selected names.
 * - Well, you had/have and opinion that Hungarian names should not be used in some cases, of course - as usual - you vary different approaches all the time.
 * - I am not surprised, I know the strange insanities or alternative history writing anyway your wordage like "identical" may be misunderstood, although I understand what you refer of. B) is obviously wrong but a great wish of some with deep anti-Hungarian aims, Hungary is one of the oldest countries in Europe, a continous entity with the same identity, border changes or territorrial losses does not change this, even de jure there is no question about this. B) is not a mainstream view, it is a primarily Slovak alternate POV, one of the greatest insanities ever invented or heard, the similar pattern like inventing back in time a designate people or entities etc. as Slovak/Slovaks who were definetly not just based on the present status quo back in time, a very dangerous thing.
 * - I proved despite the consensus allows it, other solution is some case are negotiable, about the language status of medieval terms I won't copy paste again what I have done more times, read it back why it is not a necessity.
 * - It was not a randomly selected name, you proposed it based on an English map, despite, you do not consider it proper, that is questionable.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC))
 * "you had/have and opinion that Hungarian names should not be used in some cases" NO. I say (again, again and again): if there is not any widely accepted historic English name, Hungarian language had not any special status in the longer historical period then follow: "modern name (other names)", especially for that territories where Hungarian population was not dominant.
 * " I am not surprised, I know the strange insanities or alternative history " Once again. Try to be polite and avoid similar attacks. I said that my goal is not to prove what opinion is correct or incorrect, they are simply different and you or me (as wikipedia editor) will not decide it.
 * "even de jure there is no question about this" Curiously, it is.
 * "is obviously wrong but a great wish of some with deep anti-Hungarian aims" Kiengir, please, be polite and don't be paranoic.
 * "I proved despite the consensus allows it, other solution is some case are negotiable" What are you talking about? There is not any consenzus, that Hungarian names should be always written on the first place. Thus, you proved that also my solution is perfectly acceptable.
 * "It was not a randomly selected name", Kiengir, PLEASE, read requirements for the widely accepted English name. It cannot be supported by one map (provided as an example).Ditinili (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * - Well this is the current version you ended up, and I won't repeat again what I have written about this in response, you may read it above.
 * - I am definetly polite and no attack has been made. I told my point of view about a subject. You don't have to repeat what you have written, I don't have the problem not to undestand things in the first place (AND PLEASE STOP TO TALK ABOUT "POLITENESS" AND "ATTACKS" IN EVERY CASE WHERE THE COMMENT HAS ZERO CONNECTION TO YOU OR YOUR PERSON, BUT ONLY ON THE SUBJECT, YOU THINK THE ADMINISTRATORS DO NOT NOTICE? THERE IS NO NEED TO GENERATE FURTHER CONFLICTS AND AVERT THE ATTENTION ON THE SUBJECT) Anyway, there is nothing to decide, since version b), is false.
 * - in reality there is nothing to be enquestioned, the fact there are enquestioning attempts, does not change this
 * - AGAIN: (PLEASE STOP TO TALK ABOUT "POLITENESS" AND "ATTACKS" IN EVERY CASE WHERE THE COMMENT HAS ZERO CONNECTION TO YOU OR YOUR PERSON, BUT ONLY ON THE SUBJECT, YOU THINK THE ADMINISTRATORS DO NOT NOTICE? THERE IS NO NEED TO GENERATE FURTHER CONFLICTS AND AVERT THE ATTENTION ON THE SUBJECT) - "Paranoic" is not a personal attack? should I regard it as like so? You know, in my opinion this expression would better fit to that activity if someone would chase in Wiki mainly other people's contributions and always thinking something is going on behind...
 * - "There is not any consenzus, that Hungarian names should be always written on the first place. Thus, you proved that also my solution is perfectly acceptable." -> first sentence: I did not said such. Second sentence: I did not prove that your solution would be perfectly acceptable.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC))
 * KIENGIR. Briefly, if you once more time label other opinions as "strange insanities", say something about "anti-Hungarian aims", use sentences like "you are pretending XYZ", "you again regard as a fool me and the Wikipedia community" or whatever similar I will immediately raise incident on WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Especially, you should avoid label any other opinion than yours as "anti-Hungarian" (as already Vanjagenije noticed, Vanjagenije, sorry for bothering you).
 * The opinion that using other primary name than Hungarian (in the historical context when Hungarian language had /mostly - 90% of the period/ none special status and for the territories where their population was marginal) is "anti-Hungarian", "dangerous", etc is simply wrong and cannot be used as an assumption for any serious work.
 * "in reality there is nothing to be enquestioned" Kiengir, this is your personal opinion. On Wikipedia, we should respect that various views on this problem exist and they are simply different.
 * ""There is not any consensus, that Hungarian names should be always written on the first place. Thus, you proved that also my solution is perfectly acceptable." -> first sentence: I did not said such. Second sentence: I did not prove that your solution would be perfectly acceptable." Kiengir, read your own posts (I mean e.g. the post about Prešov). "Modern name (other names)" is acceptable without any problems. Do you agree? If you agree, we can continue. Ditinili (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * - Ditinili, I am not afraid of you threats, these are again diversion attempts on the current topic, since your behavior is not proper regarding presecution and defamation also in other pages where you provocatively encounter uninvited, moreover just because you are afraid that you made such an improper remark like "paranoic" wee see again to fight-back attempt with something that again has nothing to with you or your person. You have to be aware that Vanjagenije is well aware of the happenings, since he just focused on the current case that's why he told it, he did not know in andvance your background and behavior in the past, as also my continous ever-lasting good faith and treatment towards you although I could have also act earlier, but it's not my style. However, having good faith or assuming good faith or assuming the assumption of good faith does not mean that a tendentious activity or phenomenon cannot be commented or recognized, it does not mean the ignorance on this principles. And again, if you would not understood I commented on a presented theory this time ( B) ), and I have the right and freedom to tell my opinion about a theory as you have also the freedom to comment any theory, IT IS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK. In any ANI incident right now they would track back the past and a totally different outcome you would achieve that you expect now. Do not think that with such negative methods or aims you can reach anything regarding other cases! Anyway they would also notice your very negative approach to Hungary related cases and the long-lasting discussion with raising always and always some other topics, remarks, new issues that have not any real connection to the current topic. If you are so much enjoying discussions with me, do it in my talk page!
 * - I don't know about this opinion, where the heck you got it?
 * - Again I don't know why you emphasize these things that does not belong here. My "personal opinion" is equal with the historical reality, and I always respected other opinions, in the measure of their validity and value, regarding b), I uphold what I have told and it is simply one of the most ridicoulus theories ever invented.
 * - I never had problems on my own posts, unlike others. You should read back those posts, the you'll see that "This depends on the (historical) context in which it is used", and Hungarian name (alternate name/modern name) before 1918 can be used without a problem.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC))

Abolishment of the county/Name
Norden1990,
 * Why do you think that another opinion is vandalism? []
 * Why the historic Slovak name (for the territory in present-day Slovakia and used also later) was removed (together with the Hungarian name used in some period as the official name)?
 * Why do you think that it is not the same county, only "transferred" to another state? --Ditinili (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 1, Wikipedia is not the place of unsourced "opinions".
 * 2, There is no "historic Slovak name".
 * 3, Because it became a different administrative division in a different county, under different official name and different conditions (for instance, the infobox map is totally useless and false for the condition after 1920. Go ahead and create the article under the name Orava County, whatever... Anyway your home wiki also distinguish the two division from each other.
 * +1: Anyway, sk wiki suggests that Oravská župa abolished in 1922 (I guess 31 Dec) and not 1 Jan 1923. So your contributions to the wiki project with unsourced claims and chauvinist-inspired fringe theories are quite harmful. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. If you need a reference then citation needed is better solution. Isn't it?
 * 2. :-) Of course, there is. You can be sure. Do you mean that non-Hungarian population used the Hungarian name (moreover, it was in the attribute "native_name"?
 * 3. I would rather say, that the county continued to exist, but belonged to another state. (I would also say that "my home wiki" is a little bit inconsistent, because the name contradicts the content and the info box /anyway Wikipedia is not a reliable source/).
 * "So your contributions to the wiki project with unsourced claims and chauvinist-inspired fringe theories are quite harmful." Please, try to avoid similar personal attacks. --Ditinili (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 1, No, you have to provide a source, if you decided to vandalise the article.
 * 2, Read WP:OR.
 * 3, "I would rather say", I don't care your opinion. Neither relevant works say that "Árva vármegye" existed until 1923 (or 1922?!) Or, should we merge Kingdom of Armenia, Armenian SSR and current Armenia into a single article? Nonsense and absurd. Anywy you also wrote that relevant territorial change happened in "Orava" between Czechoslovakia and Poland. So, "the county continued to exist, but belonged to another state", it's false. If you would like to write about the Czech adm. division, then create it. But in current form, it is totally misleading. I understand your goal: you intends to hide the Hungarian past of the territory in order to delete contemporary Hungarian and Latin names. But I warn you, chauvinist editors had very short career here before you too. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC):::
 * 1. No, I will provide source without any problem. Please, let me know the next time (e.g. cn template or ask me and do not revert).
 * 2. I am really surprised that you believe that autochthonous population living in some territory did not have a native name for the territory or the administrative unit. Anyway, I can provide source also for this elementary fact.
 * 3. "Árva vármegye" is only one of several names used in the history . If you want a reference that Czechoslovakia preserved this county system and the county literally continued to exist after 1918/1920, no problem. "Relevant territorial change" is the adjustment comparable with many other changes adopted during the history of these counties (or smaller), when sometimes whole districts were assigned from one to another.
 * Please, read carefully WP:Civility and WP:Assume good faith Ditinili (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 1, This is the usual procedure: everytime, you have to provide a source. I'm glad to inform you.
 * 2, Autochthonous? :) Be serious. Itself the "slovak" word exists since late 16th century, not mentioning the language (invented by Stúr).
 * 3, You have no valid arguments to my remarks (different name, different country, different map, different subdivisions etc.). Why I should accept your chauvinist and unsourced claims? --Norden1990 (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1, I am glad that you understand that asking for missing source is better way that accusing and offending other editors.
 * 2, I warned you.
 * 3, The same county in other country (the same name, only the official language has changed, the same subdivision, minor territorial adjustments). --Ditinili (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't care your hysteria anymore, since turned to the Administrators' noticeboard, you proved the resolution of the conflict is not your interest, but your anti-Hungarian POV pushing. Bye. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)