Talk:Battle of Szina

Naming
S warm  ♠  23:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC) I did not do "it again", moreover what I did is a basic standard regarding Hungary related articles, as well allowed by those WP conventions you enlisted in the edit log, as you know it very well regarding our earlier conversations - even if you like to apply better those rules in general and less that sometimes are allowed articles about historic names (especially targeting Hungary related articles). I assume you refer i.e. the Battle of Ilava article...then please remember you had not any problem with the article's core, only with the infobox. I only accepted that form because of the article's title, as it should bend to it. As you should accept the same way here, the equal way as I did there. Could you do this without really unnecessary filibustering? Really...in Slovak/Slovakia related articles I would never object Slovak names first...could you please this time show that type of flexibility that would be necessary in such cases? Please I cannot believe you don't see the real point...(KIENGIR (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC))
 * You should use a) the widely accepted English name b) if there is not such name, you should use the local name c) you should use modern names, older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources does the same;
 * There are cities with a special agreement/consenzus like Danzig/Gdansk and there are other cities for which policy is still debated, such as Vilnius.
 * Everything else is irrelvant. I can argue that these placenames “unrelated to Slovakia” are in Slovakia, that you e.g. use the Hungarian form from the 18th century for the event dated to the 16th century, but it is less important than wp rules.
 * I am restoring the previous state, before your last conflicting changes.
 * More, if “szina” is not the widely accepted English name and/or it is not used by substantial majority of EN sources, I am afraid that we have to rename the article (if it is, I have no problem). But this is another issue.Ditinili (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ditinili, could you once be generous and not necessearily render a possible conflict that could be easily avoided?


 * Btw, may I ask you this article was in your watchlist before I edited it?


 * You have to see and agree that recently you are the only user who are objecting Hungarian names or their order, but the more problematic is that as well in really Hungarian context/related articles, on the other hand, Slovak context/related articles do not suffer from "any of us" the same way. As well you have to see there are plenty, hundreds of articles the same way but there you don't object, like you object it personally if the edit is related to me, usually.


 * a, b, c, -> as you perfectly now, the standard that I applied or is being used not just only Hungarian, but Slovak, Romanian, German, etc. articles, but there I don't see you'd raise similar objections, that is apparent and not really fair...


 * d, I did not say that the placenames would be "unrelated to Slovakia", they are today in Slovakia and I did not delete any Slovak name. I just followed the article's correspondent context, without sparing the present-day status quo. Moreover, I did not use any modern Hungarian name - that was the base of your argumentation in the other article, i.e. - I used the contemporary name, as it is also referred by historians, so according to the WP rules it can be used without any problem as it is also done by other historic battles regarding other nations. Again, you should not just only refer one part of the rules, but also the permissive supplements.


 * e, You even applied the "shortening the first occurence" possibility/recommendation, as you do it usually by Slovak context articles when it is about the Hungarian names, so it is twice as apparent that put much effort against the occurence of Hungarian names that is totally inunderstandable - and even in little, low importance articles - ...you could have just simply avoid and leave the changes, since it should not hurt you personally, and you should not have applied double measure and better being open for a good, generous consensus, as I did it with you more times in the past. Otherwise, you can very hardly demonstrate that you would not have a personal problem with Hungarian matters...


 * f, I am expecting you to be flexible and open for a good consensus, not even to make attempts to change even the article's title just i.e. to forge another reason for the elimination/ordering of Hungarian names (in a Hungary-related, Hungarian context article about a historical Hungarian battle, for the sake of God...), i.e. you let the article's core as I wished, in return the infobox can remain as you wish, or vica versa, as we made this deal more times. However, the most generous and nice attitude would be - to be coherent to your own behavior and argumentation in the i.e. Ilava article - that as I respected the title, you respect also here and let to article bend to it, as it is evident in other articles. Let's see if you are able to break the ice...(KIENGIR (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC))
 * a, b, c, -> as you perfectly now, the standard that I applied.. I am referring to WP:WIAN, WP:MODERNPLACENAME and "Use English", not to the "standard" applied by you.
 * I did not use any modern Hungarian name - that was the base of your argumentation in the other article I hope this issue with Ilava is closed. It makes no sense to use modern HU name that even did not exist in the 14th, 15th or another century for contemporary events in EN wikipedia.
 * I used the contemporary name.... E.g. Szina is late Hungarian transcription from the 18th century. It makes no sense to use HU transcription from the 18th century in the EN article about the 16th. Of course, it is OK to use older names if they are used in majority of EN sources. If it is, no problem.
 * You even applied the "shortening the first occurence. Per WP:PLACE. Ditinili (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand you, you act if you would not understand and making a typical avoidance of the real subject of your attitude & behavior. Your answers did not gave anything new and just a deterioration of the real subject (typically the first sentence). Your second sentence as well is not belonging here since your answer has not any connection to the subject here, you repeat something irrelevant now and and hoping something that was already done, but you deny to apply some of it's achievments here, contradicting even yourself as it was referred earlier. Your third sentence is just your opinion, you ignore the title and how the battle is referred, and it is not a modern name. Your last sentence has again no relevance, since the shortening is not compulsory. You demonstrated you have no intention to be fair in an appropriate way, as well you did not even try resolve your own contradictions, as well you are not up to a generous consensus. I understood your standpoint against Hungarian names. Disappointing. Really this is your final station? ...Oh You forgot to answer an earlier question: this article was in your watchlist before I edited it?(KIENGIR (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC))
 * you ignore the title and how the battle is referred If you are able to document that e.g. Seňa is called Szina in majority of English sources (as a contemporary name or in general), I have no problem. Otherwise I will rename also the article title per WP:WIAN and WP:MODERNPLACENAME.Ditinili (talk) 08:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The second time you ignore my question, so again:


 * This article was in your watchlist before I edited it?


 * You cannot rename the article without consensus. Anyway the question about the details are more complex and not just and only depending on the title, it is again up to your fairness and attitude. However, if you wanted to check on...:


 * ,, , , , , (KIENGIR (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC))
 * Kiengir, 3 of your sources (1,3,6) are copies of wikipedia created by robots. Another one (7) is an online dictionary and the page referenced by you is just a script which simply returns text from Wikipedia ("wp_examples.php" = wikipedia examples).
 * I simply wrote about etymologies (including Seňa) as I have been doing for several months and I saw your change. Maybe you did several changes in articles in my watchlist, I don't remember and it does not matter.Ditinili (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I see, yes, those four I did not notice where it is rendered from. However, the rest are in valuable works and anyway the current title prevails in general. About my question, still I did not get a clear answer...yes or no (no other option possible)?(KIENGIR (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC))
 * "The rest" are 3 (three) works. This is anecdotal evidence and cannot be taken seriously. Ditinili (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Why it would not be taken seriously? Even a google search could be releavant in such questions in WP, etc. Again, because you did not answered clearly, was this article in your watchlist before I edited it? Just answer yes/no.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC))
 * Surely, google books and scholar are usefull tools. Something like: “name X 54,321 hits vs name Y 1,234 hits” is a relevant statistics. However, “I have found these 3 (three) references, so it is used by substantial majority of EN sources” is ehm... irrelevant. I would rather say that there is not any widely accepted EN name or the name obviously used by substantial majority of sources.Ditinili (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you speak in an ironic way, you can do it, however, surely you experienced in WP these policies. The subject is lesser popular, thus there may be less works, but the process is still the same. Ehhhm....the fifth time, please....would you answer my easy and simple question? You are so apparently avoiding it.....(KIENGIR (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC))

UTC)
 * I speak seriously. For now, we cannot make a conclusion about “szina” used by substantial majority of EN sources. Yes, the subject is less popular and there is not any widely accepted EN name. Ditinili (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree we don't know certainly, however, even there are a little number of samples, the recent situation shows in EN sources "Szina" prevails. If you speak seriously, then please, the sixth time, answer me my question (see above, repeated already more times). Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC))
 * What does it mean "prevail". You have found 3 (three sources). E.g. google search for '"seňa" battle"' (excluding wikipedia or its copies) return immediately EN info about the village and the battle (the first result) + scholar sources,  (+ additional 4,167 results, some of them referring the history of the village or the region, other irrelevant...)
 * Shortly, I have no problem with any name prevailing in EN sources, e.g. google scholar returns 157 results for "battle of rozgony" but only 20 for "battle of rozhanovce". That's OK. However, the same method applied to the "battle of szina" = 0. "battle of seňa" = 17, all hits are irrelevant and links to the Battle of Sena Galicia. Sorry, it does not seem that there is any widely accepted EN name. I am not pushing my view for every cost and I am open to change my opinion. Unfortunately, the "statistics" based on 3 sources is not very reliable, it is close to an anecdotal evidence and even the statement about "prevailing name" does not seem to be true. Ditinili (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * However, the "battle of XXX" is the proper search. For me "battle of szina" never returned 0, and yes, for the other version the Battle of Sena Galicia is coming up. It shows something...however, you still ignore my question...the seventh time: This article was in your watchlist before I edited it?(KIENGIR (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC))

google scholar:
 * "battle of szina": 0
 * "battle of seňa": 0
 * "battle of sena": 17, none of them is relevant, they are related to the battle of Sena Gallica (filter -gallica removes most of them automatically)

google books:
 * "battle of szina" -wikipedia: 1 (correct result, Humanism in Fifteenth-Century Europe)
 * "battle of seňa" -wikipedia -gallica -hasdrubal: 9, 2 correct results (scholar sources referenced in the previous discussion), 7 irrelevant
 * "battle of sena" -wikipedia -gallica -hasdrubal: the same as previous

google:
 * "battle of szina" -wikipedia: google claims 411 results, in fact there are only 39 and only 1 is relevant (see https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Google-only-return-50-pages-of-10-results-when-it-claims-that-there-are-560-000-results). Remaining 38 are copies/extracts of this article. This is clear especially from the incorrect text "Slovak: bitka pri Seňa" (should be "pri Seni" /locative case instead of nominative/, this mistake was corrected on 8 February 2018 but it is still present in most of copies).
 * "battle of seňa" -wikipedia -gallica: 9 results, 2 correct (seems to be the same group as was returned by books and scholar)
 * "battle of seňa" -wikipedia -gallica: the same as previous

It seems that none of the expressions "battle of szina", "battle of sena" or "battle of seňa" is well estabilished, widely accepted or clearly prevailing in the substantial majority of EN sources. More, the topic is so poorly covered by EN sources that it can raise questions about its notability (let's say that it is). The placename has not any widely accepted EN historic name as well. No doubt, the results can differ per country and we can also play with queries, e.g. "košice seňa john zapolya", "battle szapolay 1528", etc to get additional 1,2,3 pros/cons results. But until now, nothing seriously confirms your opinion. Ditinili (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's try it standalone - the 8th time - was this article in your watchlist before I edited it?(KIENGIR (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC))
 * What do you think about the statistics? Do you have any objections? Ditinili (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Again you don't answer my question. Answer it! What do you mean by objections?(KIENGIR (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC))
 * I mean, do you have any serious objections against the statistics/keywords/filters/etc?Ditinili (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I will answer your question after you answered mine - 10th attempt.... -(KIENGIR (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC))
 * I will not play any “games”. I provided the statistics and it does not support your opinion. It seems that you do not have any serious objections and/or there are not any new arguments supporting you opinion.Ditinili (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ditinili, you try to bagatellize my question, although it is very serious and important, and was under discussion between us in the past, and have also connection to certain rules and wikietiquette. So please answer it (btw., I have no time/intention for "games" or whatsoever). The whole summary is that "Szina" is at least in 3 "correct sources", that means it prevails vs. the other, however, the topic is very little mentioned and it is a fact there are a low number of samples.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC))
 * I am afraid that google scholar, google books nor google does not support your theory about the prevailing name. 3 of 6 (hardly found) references does not sound like the substantial majority. In addition, such low number of sources means that even a single reference can dramatically change the ratio, so it is not very reliable method. Ditinili (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, if we summarize everything, it supports, however - as I told - agreed that the number of samples are very low. However, not this is our main subject, you again ignored my question, and you may think as well about my consensus offers.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC))
 * If we summarize everything, your opinion was refuted at 13:44, 16 February 2018. There are not any new facts and further statistics did not confirmed your opinion as well.
 * Definition of substantial majority: substantial - considerable in quantity, significantly great, firmly constructed (Merriam-Webster dictionary). Szena "Szina" (corrected) does not meet this definition. Ditinili (talk) 12:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, my "opinion" was not refuted, you just grabbed one trial of your personal search in that comment. If we carefully check all the investigations made here, there are more "Szina" than other. About your last sentence: the form "Szena" was not even under discussion. The 12th time you avoid/ignore/deny the answer to my question..concentrate on this, better, please...(KIENGIR (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC))
 * Kiengir, there was not any new "investigation" since 13:44, 16 February 2018 from your side (= almost one week). You just repeat previous (refuted) statements and you did not provide any new data. Facts, please. If there are not any new facts, even the current title is untenable. Ditinili (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Your first sentence does not change anything pro or contra, so I repeat what I have said before (fact): "If we carefully check all the investigations made here, there are more "Szina" than other", the current title is tenable. I did not repeat any statement that would be "refuted". On the other hand, you repeatedly avoid/ignore/deny the answer to my question (since more than one, almost two weeks): "This article was in your watchlist before I edited it?" - (13th attempt)(KIENGIR (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC))

"If we carefully check all the investigations made here, there are more "Szina" than other".
 * The original "proof" (diff) included only references that fit your theory, it was not a serious research.
 * It was found that only 3 references are relevant, 4 are copies of this article (diff)
 * Then, it was stated that it is quite easy to find also 3 refs using the modern name (diff).
 * Then, I made google, gooogle scholar and google books statistics (diff). You had none objections against the methodology or the result.
 * So, it is questionable if "the battle of Szina" is the widely accepted EN name or the term used by substantial majority of reliable modern sources (except WP copies). You have not presented any new facts from 21:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)).Ditinili (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone wanna wade into this? It sounds like additional input would be useful at this point. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ditinili, without repeating my standpoint that is above - after you again repeated your version -, may I ask you the 14th time, this article was in your watchlist before I edited it?(KIENGIR (talk) 08:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC))
 * You probably missed my comment 23:15, 12 February 2018. This discussion could be significantly shorter, if it is focused on the topic and references instead of repetition. Ditinili (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I did not miss anything, you missed to answer the 14th time. Your comment on 23:15, 12 February 2018 did not answer my question, it was an obscure answer avoiding the point. This discussion could be significantly shorter, if it would be focused on my question, or you'd be open for good consensuses I offered...So again, the 15th time: Was this article was in your watchlist before I edited it? It's an easy "yes/no question".(KIENGIR (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC))
 * From my point of view, the answer was sufficient and feel free to report any inappropriate behavior. Ditinili (talk) 09:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ditinili, if "from your point of view, the answer was sufficient" that practically means you don't want/afraid to answer because it would not be "positive". On the other hand, you know ver well I am not that type who is running in a hypersensitive way to create reports or referring to i.e. "personal attacks" just because the description of a phenomenon or another opinion regarding and activity is expressed, I better prefer to discuss and solve the things by communication. So I warn you again - like once before - it is totally inappropriate to perform editing by chasing/persecuting a selected user's user contributions, and repeatedly confront with him, as it is described in the relevant WP rules.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC))
 * Firstly, I don't like this kind of "personal" discussions and I try to avoid them wherever it is possible because they never help to resolve technical issues. My explantation is reasonable and you can believe whatever. Secondly, you was not blocked in the past because of my "hypersensitive way to create reports", but because of your personal attacks (after several warnings and trials to ignore similar behaviour). This is absolutely not related to the current article. If we go back to the technical issue, I will appreciate any constructive contribution/statistics.
 * This is your point of view, maybe you don't like these discussions because they are going deep into the problem of a behavior, and maybe because of this the issues cannot be resolved easily. Your explanation is not reasonable, it is a clear avoiding and totally unfair. Your description about a former incident is again your point of view, I tested afterwards successfully that a "the description of a phenomenon or another opinion regarding and activity" unfortunately may be confused with personal attacks although even it is not the case, but you were told also about then but you simply ignored this. Your "warnings & trials" are totally hypersensitive as we could see also in the following paragraph regarding another user, not long ago, mainly if there is a discussion about your attitude and approach towards specfic things and i.e. you don't get positive feedback or you are criticized or you don't like it. Next to it you treat it as a deterioration of the topic, however, in many cases this is the root of everything. You speak about i.e. "appreciation", when you don't even want to answer a simple question (deeply connected to your attitude/behavior), moreover you identify it as "reasonable" (avoiding possible incovenient outcomes). Really, that's all about being fair, "honest", etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC))
 * KIENGIR, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. If you have some personal comments/opened issues, you can post them to my talk page. You can assume good faith or report to ANI, but stay focused on the topic. Ditinili (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ditinili, I know what Wikipedia is, and this is a talk page and because of you we are discussing here, and it is connected to the issue. I have more options than you informed me, and as always I am focusing to the topic. I assume good faith - as it is clearly seen in the discussion - despite not I am responsible for possible negative things (mentioning them is not against AGF), since if you would practise "good faith" you would've already answered a simple question and after 15th time, not to arrange it like non-asnwering is "reasonable/sufficient" or "you can believe whatever".(KIENGIR (talk) 09:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC))
 * KIENGIR, I am not interested in arguing with you. Your last trial to make some (questionable) statistics was on 12 February 2018, 21:10 (3 weeks ago), but this discussion is 10 screens long. It is a waste of time, I am leaving the discussion. Ditinili (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The interactions observed here between User:Ditinili and User:KIENGIR have been raised at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment and solution
I will probably live to regret this. Firstly, this is WP:TLDNR. I observe that the writing style makes it somewhat difficult to understand, in parts. There also appears to be more personal issues between the two proponents, which clouds the issue and which donot appear to assume good faith. I would observe that, if there are genuine grievances, this is not the place to pursue same. I have made some edits in accordance with my take on things. I am sure that this will probably be contrary to the views of one or both proponents.

English WP is just that. It is not a language lesson. It is not appropriate to provide multiple translations for "Battle of X" if all they do is provide a literal translation that is the same! This is not done for other battles in En WP for battles between non-English belligerents. It may be appropriate if they are known by totally different names. This is not the case. I have stricken both references. It is appropriate to report variations in spelling in the sources. This is done per "The Battle of Szina or Seňa". Per Naming conventions (geographic names), it is appropriate to use names contemporaneous with the event and, if applicable, the corresponding modern location. Per the guidance, names in multiple languages are the exception and not the rule. The locations are in modern Slovakia, and I see no reason for an exception from Slovak. I have edited accordingly. I have provided an independent third opinion. Any change should be based on a consensus, which is established by "strength of arguement" or the weight of facts. This does not include spurious arguements of personal preference, national ties (to non-English speaking countries) or any other extraneous considerations such as have been put up so far. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This battle is part of the Hungarian history, took place in the Kingdom of Hungary, and it was fought between two rival kings of Hungary (after the Battle of Mohács, there was a civil war lasted until 1538/41). The battle is not covered by English historiography, as the skirmish had no international affiliations and consequences. Hungarian historiography use "szinai csata" (= Battle of Szina) to describe the event: the contemporary name of the village with modern orthography. Note: the current Hungarian name of the settlement Seňa is Abaújszina, which laid in present-day Slovakia. Thus the current title is correct and well-established. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The battle is part of the common history. It does not matter which name is used or well-established in Hungarian historiography. This is English Wikipedia.
 * It is quite common that some places have several different names. In this case, the Slovak name Seňa was adopted by Hungarians as Szina, but e.g. Germans (who had majority in the village in 13th-16th centuries) preserved the original name. There are some rules like WP:WIAN and WP:MPN. Ditinili (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * For you, "common history" means the Slovakization of medieval events, places and personalities, who were active in the territory of present-day Slovakia. However, as you said, this is English Wikipedia, and there is no place for such anachronistic trends here. I suspect this battle is insignificant and "totally unknown" in Slovakian historiography, which described the history of that integrated territory of the Hungarian kingdom, where today's Slovakia is located. "the Slovak name Seňa was adopted by Hungarians as Szina", its nonsense and doubtful. Is it your claim or another statement from Slovakian pseudo-scientific linguistic works? The name is Slavic origin, from which today's Hungarian ans Slovak versions emerged. --Norden1990 (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest to focus on WP rules instead of personal attacks. Today's Slovak version did not emerged from Slavic (what does it mean? Proto-Slavic disappeared in the 10th century), but from German (Germans preserved the original name). However, this is not relevant.Ditinili (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

If the foregoing discussion was a request to move the article to a new name, then this was not clear! There is a process for this. I observe that this battle was a civil war between competing claimants for the Hungarian throne that occurred within the boundaries of the Hungarian Kingdom. The primacy of the naming rest with the belligerents and the naming in the sources cited (particularly given there is no precedent to English)? If other sources differ, add these and improve the article and then make a case! With respect to some of the WP guidance cited - please do not cherrypick. I have referred to Naming conventions (geographic names), more fully. The issue, if it is the name of the battle, is just that (the name of the battle), even if it is eponymous with a location. The criteria for naming the battle are not the same as the name of the location (at the time). This may be a subtle distinction but it is, nonetheless the "Devil" in the detail. I see no reason, to date, to rename the article. If this matter is not resolved, then, please clearly define what this discussion is actually about, make a case and seek a consensus. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I personally don't see any cherrypicking. It seems that there is not any well established EN name of the event used by a substantial majority of EN sources. What can we do in this situation is to use widely accepted historic EN name (if it exists). It doesn't. Thereafter, it seems to be reasonable to use modern name which is by the way also one of contemporary names. I am open for discussion, but I am missing serious feedback. I tried to make statistics (see the discussion above), but there are not any new arguments. Renaming may be or may be not reasonable, but I want to clarify the issue. Ditinili (talk) 09:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * @Ditinili, I would make these observation. I have underlined sections of my previous comment. Is this discussion about a move to rename the article? This has still not been clarified. Criteria for naming the battle are not the same as for naming the eponymous location. I think I have provided the serious feedback you wish! Per cherrypicking, I quote "It is sometimes common practice in English to use name forms from different languages to indicate cultural or political dominance." from Naming conventions (geographic names) but this was not my only reason for making this observation. It does not seem "to be reasonable to use [the] modern name which is by the way also one of contemporary names." Can I suggest that you reconsider my most recent previous response? I have given substantive reasons to the contrary already. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Is this discussion about a move to rename the article?" Yes. (not from the beginning, but after some research it is).
 * "It is sometimes common practice in English to use name forms from different languages to indicate cultural or political dominance." Sometimes. This is not a general rule and there were long discussions about cases like Gdansk/Danzig, another are still being disputed.
 * "The primacy of the naming rest with the belligerents and the naming in the sources cited (particularly given there is no precedent to English)" SK sources use Seňa (obviously, why they should use HU name?), HU probably Szina (I guess). EN barely exist and there is not any name used by substantial majority.
 * If the place does not exist any more, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. If there is no such name in English, use the historical name that is now used locally – for more, see Use modern names, below (WP:PLACENAME).
 * Note: It literally did not held a different name. Sena was used by the local population (in this case and period Germans) and it has been used continuously in two variants a) early Slovak/Slavic name->German->modern Slovak name (Sena) b)early Slovak/Slavic -> Hungarian (just phonetically adopted to Szina) as was noticed e.g. by Branislav Varsik (The settlement of the Kosice Basin I, chapter Seňa). Ditinili (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * @Ditinili, as I have indicated before, If this is a request to move and rename (as you now indicate), please follow the process. As to the naming of the location, I do not disagree with you to the extent that this is not the issue. The issue is the name of the battle (as I observed before, a subtle but nonetheless critical distinction) - a distinction which you have not addressed. You disagree with my comment per primacy but do not provide an arguement of weight that addresses the reasons for my saying this. I pointed out before that this is, in part, a matter of the sources cited that deal with the battle (as opposed to those that mention it in passing). As I said before, if there are other sources that deal with the battle and name it differently - improve the article and then make a case to rename/move it. I declare that I have no ethnic ties to this discussion. I also have no interest in this article except to provide some resolution to what is apparently a dispute. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Cinderella157 Thank you for you feedback. Could you clarify what do you mean by the distinction between the name of the battle and a place name which I have not addressed? I explicitly mentioned "the name of the event" and not only a place name and also the statistics were focused on the name of the battle (diff).
 * "if there are other sources that deal with the battle and name it differently - improve the article and then make a case to rename/move it". WP:WIAN describes how to handle these situations. It is not by counting the references under the article (of course, improvement is a good idea).
 * "make a case to rename/move it" Surely, this is the best way and I will consider it. Ditinili (talk) 09:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * My point is, there are two sources sited in the article and both are Hungarian and hence, the substance of my comment - improve the article. There is also the matter of primacy, which you have not addressed. Naming conventions (geographic names) touches on this is an historical context. However, it is not the benchmark for naming an eponymous battle - WP:WWIAN does not describe how to handle these situations. The guideline deals with naming a location, not a battle. This should rely on reliable sources that deal with the substance of the battle rather than mentioning it in passing. I go back to my original point in this post. Per everything that has gone before: from the very start, I commented that this was WP:TLDNR. Further, we are now only just unraveling that the issue is renaming the article. I would observe (politely) that you are "picking" at the edges of my reasoning and not at its substance. If you are to convince me otherwise, provide evidence and weight of agruement that goes to the substance of my reasons. Again, the "best" way to do this is to improve the article. This discussion (in total) is already many more times greater in size than the actual article. This is an effort that would clearly be more productively spent in improving the article rather than arguing over the semantics of the name of the article. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)