Talk:Battle of Ilava

Please, all standars were applied here, you were right to use the name from the proper epoch, it has been done. This a Hungarian context article, not a Slovak one, events happened in the Kingdom of Hungary, so Hungarian versions can be used in the first place as basic standard - however everywhere where contemporary naming counts, and the article is not in a special (i.e. Slovak) context. So I don't see any reason for your revert and I don't why you start again, why it is hurting you if the Hungarian name is the first place legally, also we do not demand from 1920 in Czechoslovak, Slovak articles Hungarian names in the first place, but we respect i.e. Slovak ones. Please do not render unnecesary conflict for little things...you had a bad day yesterday? Why to start again? Who hurt you? Please...(KIENGIR (talk) 10:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC))
 * WP:Naming conventions (geographic names) does not say anything about Hungarian (whatever this word could mean in the 15th century) or Slovak context.
 * Using the Hungarian name from the 19th century (Illava) for the event from the 15th century is at least non-systematic, chaotic, unreasonable and confusing.
 * Similarly, it is non-systematic to use forgotten names like Lewa/Lewe/Leva at the first place (it is reasonable to say that it is unknown for most of Slovaks but also Hungarians, and totally unknown for English readers), when there is a well established English name, and this name is used also in the title. Ditinili (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Contemporary naming follows basic standards, struggling for teh best fit for the actual status qou, adminsitration, etc. (we discussed it multiple times). The rest is a good faith, flipbusterings regarding Hungary occur mostly on ground that some persons have dislike - even if itis not openly admitted.
 * You again refer to an already outdated matter - I draw your attention also to it in my reyponse in my personal page - it seems, you wish to use everything to argue against and other standpoint than yours, but it is too apparent. In my latest edit Illava was not even present...
 * It is not about if a name is forgotten or not, it does not work like so. Ad hoc you may put on any old name that it "is forgotten". Lewa is a perfect solution, and I supported it, depsite, in German or Romanian etc. pages even the historic names, version are mostly written in a modern form, despite of contemporary cyrillic, Slavic or Latin or any other administration, and there are not any fuss to introduce or push similar actions as you do regarding Hungarian names. Since the Slovak name was present by any means in my edit, so for English readers are totally aware of the situation, since it is immediately following.
 * Similarly, as I wrote in the other affected talk page: better admit your dislike, or be generous for a good consensus, since existing consensus do not exlude neither your or my preference, regardless of some special debates of interpretations, it is suggesting in the pre-Czechoslovak, Slovak era tha fairness of order, as vica versa, that is anyway a standard by other countries, similarly.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC))
 * Lewa/Lewe/Leva is not a perfect solution, it is a forgotten name, not used even in Slovak or Hungarian sources. Use the widelly accepted historic English name or the modern English name. Ditinili (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is doubtful what would be the widely accepted historic English name. But I see your motivation, anything is ok, but no Hungarian, always have a good reason for it (the best when in your interpretation, your preferred versions would be equal just with the Slovak names). Remember what I have written about fairness and generosity.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC))
 * I can make similiar accusations. Use the widelly accepted historic English name or the modern English name (it is OK to mention other alternative names). Ditinili (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * But what you have to acknowledge, I operate things very systematically. I do not wish to do the same you do here with Czechoslovak, Slovak articles in their era. I try to be as fair as possible about naming, and I also do not ignore "other names", it is not about that, you simply cannot bear sometimes if any Hungarian version is at the first place, although in the relevant situation and context you should bear it, as we also do with other articles. This can be recognized, despite what else you try to reference. You should be more flexible and generous, as with other articles about other nations there is not a similar opposition. You have to understand this. In this context, Hungarian is not "just another alternative name", it is the primary one.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC))
 * Kiegir, it is not about your "wish". You simply cannot replace names from the "Czechoslovak era" (= modern English names in modern context) or put Hungarian names at the first place, because it contradicts WP:Naming conventions (geographic names). Ditinili (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not even wanted that. I spoke about the respect about both eras, and regarding other countries there is not such problem, and this you sometimes ignore. As well, it should not be your wish to raise conflicts and oppose in some evident situations such forms and practice that would be proper, as well of course noone raise any dispute if it's not about Hungary, but any other country. I repeat if both forms are compliant and may be accepted, just because of your wish you should not just force one version, you may make gestures and compromises for a correct balance, not just always struggling in a way against Hungarian names.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC))
 * Kiengir, if both forms are compliant and may be accepted, I don't see any reason to systematically magyarize all names because of your "daily rutine" (as you wrote in another discussion). Such approach clearly tent to start conflicts. Ditinili (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please, be careful what you state, I don't "magyarize all names because of my "daily routine", I wrote "My edit did not introduce anything new, it was a basic applied standard, a daily routine". "Daily routine" is not just applied in Hungary related pages necessarily, but contemporary naming is applied accordingly in all pages. Anyway it has no connection to any "Magyarization", since also other/modern names ar kept, accordingly to the customs and rules, just put in the first place in the relevant timeline. As you know this concept very well. PLEASE you should not to always make a imprecise (politic-vulpine) statement to drag me or defamate or make me appear in a negative way with such things, because such approach clearly tent to start conflicts (I took this quote from you, but properly, not as you did with me). As I referred in the other page, if both forms are compliant, you should apply a gesture and not oppose in Hungarian timeline those practices, that are not opposed if it is not about about Hungary or another country. Simple as this. I hope you finally understand the point and you don't try to identify the things differently as their are. A drop of good faith, understanding, tolerance, not always get stressed on Hungary matters, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC))
 * Kiengir, please... If both forms are compliant, do not fix what is not broken and use common name. Ditinili (talk) 07:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ditinili please...if both forms are compliant, sometimes make gestures and understanding and let also another form if wished.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC))
 * What gesture? Ilava is common English name, Leva/Lewa/Lewe is forgotten and not used by English sources. Of course, it can be mentioned as an alternative name.--Ditinili (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You can play this. Read back the whole discussion - if you missed/forgotten/still don't (wnat to) understand some parts -. Gesture is a thing, something more than average, a deep understanding combined with good faith.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC))
 * I don't see the need for a gesture like "we will use forgotten name, not used in English (even in other language) instead of the common name" (at the first place). Ditinili (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This discussion also became more general, as in the other article, because of the title I tend to accept this right now, but I uphold everything else I tried to explain, regarding relevant the context, etc. you should be more flexible, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC))