Talk:Battle of Trnava (1430)

Title
Per Wp:COMMONNAME:

Google Books results for Trnava Hussites 1430: 24 works

Google Books results for Nagyszombat Hussites 1430: 3 works (only one is English and it also uses the name Trnava, so it is 	mutual)

Another English source that uses Trnava is Hazard, H. W. (ed.) / The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries (1975) XVII: The Crusades Against the Hussites Transerd (talk) 08:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the source, which refers to the area as Slovakia... in the 15th century. No comment. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Settlement names in the article
Dear User:Norden1990

please write me some logical argument for your Magyar POV - name Nagyszombat (valid 1863–1913) > in the multilingual and multiethnic Kingdom of Hungary and with the official language Latin until the 19th century ("Hungary used to be a polyglot country with Latin as the official language until 1844." and "Hungarian: it was minority language up to 1844") and city in present-day Slovakia and for article title Battle of Trnava? All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. So your version with anachronistic term for the middle ages does not respect this fundamental principle - NPOV.

Nevertheless, we should use the Slovak name Trnava.

Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#General_guidelines at point no 3 you can read

"The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article, unless there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context. In cases when a widely accepted historic English name is used"

Google Books sources referring to the historical context (posted by User:Transerd above) use the name Trnava. So there is no reason to use the Hungarian name according to WP rules (and these rules we must respect). --Omen1229 (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't care your Slovak POV. In most countries Latin was the official language, so using of Latin names of these towns unreasonable and non-transparent. There was no Slovakia in the 15th century so using of Trnava is anachronistic. if you have problem with me, do not report me, try to discuss. I strive for a neutral point of view, unlike you. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The policy invoked by Omen1229 is very interesting. There is no widely accepted historic English for this particlar historical context (the sources provided above confirm this), so we must use the modern name Trnava Transerd (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But that gives the impression that Nagyszombat (Trnava) was not belong to Hungary until the First World War. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do you think this? The article explicitly says that Trnava was part of the K. of Hungary Transerd (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for courteous reply, but your argument fails, because also "there was no Hungary in the 15th century so using of Nagyszombat is anachronistic." - only multilingual and multiethnic Kingdom of Hungary and with the official language Latin until the 19th century. Hungary is not Kingdom of Hungary. And fact is that Trnava is city in Slovakia. Also Czech historians use name Trnava and this article too belongs to Template:History of the Czech Republic (Hussite Wars). Nevertheless, WP rule is clear at point no. 3 --Omen1229 (talk) 10:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So there was no Hungary until 1918. Congratulations to the misinterpretation of history. Hungary is equal to the Kingdom of Hungary, like France with the Fourth French Republic or the Kingdom of France. The kingdom is only a form of government. In this case its multilingual and multiethnic characteristics were secondary. Tha nationality was not relevant in the 15th century. Trnava is a Slovak name of the town, the town which belongs to Slovakia since 1993. I repeat, there was no Slovakia in the 15th century, unlike Hungary. using of Trnava is anachronistic, misleading and misinterpreted. It wants to interpret current political conditions to a previous existing situation. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is important that Trnava is the name used in English sources. A similar case is the name Battle of Pressburg (907), which is called like that even if the name Pressburg appears later in the Middle Ages. Transerd (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Trnava used in English translations of Czech or Slovak works. : not citable, because its said "(...) under Prokop tile Short, went into Moravia and Slovakia, and met a Hungarian army sent out upon Sigismund's orders near the city of Trnava." Slovakia is in the 15th century, indeed., , , Slovak works in English language. , , : these reproduces the above quote. , , : Slovak works.


 * In contrast, the works which used "Nagyszombat", useful resources with NPOV. Perfectly proves this that the work written by Hungarian historian László Kontler also used the form "Trnava", in a spirit of fair, impartial and objective historiography. The other two works are French publications. So, the Western historiography proposes the Hungarian name of the town (Nagyszombat). However, in order to encyclopedic style, we also should mention that the town belongs to Slovakia today and the current name is Trnava. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * hussites trnava - 665 results, hussites Nagyszombat - 120 results --Omen1229 (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, "Slovak History", "Illustrated History of Slovakia", "Slovakia A to Z". They are not neutral and independent scientific works. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In this case its multilingual and multiethnic characteristics were secondary. > only for you
 * Tha nationality was not relevant in the 15th century. Trnava is a Slovak name of the town > so what is problem for you?
 * I repeat, there was no Slovakia in the 15th century, unlike Hungary. > and I repeat, there was no Hungary
 * using of Trnava is anachronistic, misleading and misinterpreted. > 1437 Trnawsky (adjective), 1451 Trnawie, 1483 w Trnawie, 1512 Trnawie, 1512 miesta Trnawy (Chaloupecky, Stredoveke listy ze Slovenska, s. 9 − 10, č. 7, s. 56, č. 59), Latin: 1402 civitas Tirnauie, 1419 civitas Tirnaviensis, 1431 oppidum Ternavie, 1453 civitas Tyrnauiensis...
 * It wants to interpret current political conditions to a previous existing situation. > ? Trnava (Nagyszombat), Kingdom of Hungary (today in Slovakia) - I do not see any manipulation.--Omen1229 (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop the expression of false statements about existence of Hungary. The multilingual and multiethnic characteristics were secondary in the 15th century. There was not nationalism in the modern sense. The Slovak language did not exist in the Middle Ages, so Trnava is an anachronistic name for this battle. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from false and provokative affirmations about other editors' language ("The Slovak language did not exist in the Middle Ages"). If the name Trnava did not exist in 15h century, where did the Latin name Tyrnavia come from, huh?Transerd (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Slovak Trnava name did come from the Latin name. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? Etymology: The name is derived from Slovak "tŕň", a "thorn" and reminds of its rich occurence in the locality. There is also a stream Trnava (today diminutive form Trnávka) 1256 - ryppam, que Tyrna nuncupatur, 1275 - aqua Tyrna. Only you are trying to push your POV + nationalist issues, "Trnava is an anachronistic name for this battle" - are you kidding me? And write me even that only "Nagyszombat" is correct and in Kingdom of Hungary lived 100% Magayrs and all used Magyar language. --Omen1229 (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please, calm down. :) Don't try to devolve your nationalism to me. In this form (Trnava), never used in the 15th century. The Slovak language was created by Anton Bernolák in the late 18th century. And the Hungarian people are call as Hungarian in English language. I neither do start call Slovaks as Tóts. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am very calm, but do you know the definition creating and codification? --Omen1229 (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, but in this situation creating is the right word. Naturally, this does not detract from the value of the Slovaks. I love Slovakia and the Slovak people and I strive to neutral point of view. you are the editor, who continually deletes the Hungarian name of current Trnava. I don't know what would you say in a reverse situation. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Magyar" is also an English word, see Hungarian people: "Hungarians, also known as Magyars" Transerd (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right. User:Norden1990 aslo wrote "I neither do start call Slovaks as Tóts". Who are Tóts? I used term Magyar, but User:Norden1990 used term Tóts... --Omen1229 (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * At least don't lie... --Norden1990 (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your personal "opinions" are not important here, but this statement is very "interesting" - "you are the editor, who continually deletes the Hungarian name of current Trnava" - so please write me according to which WP rules did you proceed here? --Omen1229 (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:COMMONNAME. Perhaps you also admit that Bratislava County completely meaningless and ahistorical. Wikipedia is a lexicon, not a political theater of war. Your personal "opinion" is erroneous, untruthful Slovak POV which contradicts the fact that Nagyszombat was part of Hungary from the 9th century until 1920. Thus even during that battle in 1430. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. ([[WP:COMMONNAME]]). Trnava is most often used Transerd (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's right. And your English sources were not reliable sources, the same text in several places (Slovakia in the 15th century, absurdity...), English translations of Slovak works. The reliable English and French works used the name of Nagyszombat. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please be serious etc --Omen1229 (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that Norden1990 is right. We should follow the historical naming conventions, otherwise, there will be endless disputes in every historical article in this region. K &oelig;rte F  a   { ταλκ }  18:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What "historical naming convetions"? There is no such rule Transerd (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The situation is simple. Would you use the current form of Ho Chi Minh City for a historical event before the 20th century? I don't think so. The Trnava-Nagyszombat debate is the same problem. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It counts what name the sources referring to the event are using Transerd (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The same text in different works does not mean different sources. Especially if that publication talks about Slovakia as a political entity in the 15th century... --Norden1990 (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's right, it would be funny to talk about Ho Chi Minh City during the Vietnam War. We also have an (experimental) guideline. It was proposed by administrator Elonka, it has been enjoying support form many editors working on these topics (e.g., ) and it has been working well. Unfortunately, it is also not clear-cut guideline, but according to this, the absolute minimum is to give the Hungarian name, as well. Furthermore, check this: and . Cheers,  K &oelig;rte F  a   { ταλκ }  18:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, experimental guideline and this is WP:Naming conventions rules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#General_guidelines at point no 3 you can read "The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article, unless there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context. In cases when a widely accepted historic English name is used" - so I will accept general guidelines, because "Elonka experimental guideline" is not intended to overrule all other guidelines. --Omen1229 (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Koertefa is right. Actually Elonka's guideline is more important than the general rules. Wiki is a community. Hungarian and Slovak related topics required special arbitration by admins because of continuous disputes. User_talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian_experiment Fakirbakir (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There was not a clear consensus to implement Elonka's guideline, so it has not to be followed. According to EdJohnson I can't say whether this reflects a consensus and Elonka affirmed Considering that most of the editors who are saying "there is consensus" are the more Hungarian-leaning editors, I recommend proceeding cautiously (User_talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian_experiment/Archive_2). There were not enough participating Slovak editors, it was rather a consensus between Hungarian editors Transerd (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I think that the guideline is fair and contains a neutral approach that is a step towards solving endless disputes. Note that it is accepted even by Omen1229, so it should be fine with you, as well. Cheers, K &oelig;rte F  a   { ταλκ }  17:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you think... Note that it is accepted even by Omen1229, so it should be fine with you, as well. > No, as I wrote above I will accept general guidelines, because "Elonka experimental guideline" is not intended to overrule all other guidelines. --Omen1229 (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a quite strange and inconsistent behavior, since you happily cite Elonka's guideline if it supports your opinion... K &oelig;rte F  a   { ταλκ }  21:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Naming
I copy partially what I answered to you in my personal page:

I always try to avoid conflicts, now you were the one who initiated again one, from the middle of nowheere, partially unnecessary. The article could be easily renamed to Battle of Nagyszombat, it is a gesture if we leave it as it is now, and the title of the article has not any conenction on naming, where basic standards are used. So please, have that flexibility and gestures that I also applied towards you recently. We also do no claim from 1920 in any Czechoslovakia, Slovakia articles Hungarian names on the first place, but we respect Slovak names. I this case it's a historical article about Hungary, the events happened in Hungary, contemporarily Nagyszombat is the proper name, and also the Slovak name indicated, as per basic standards of naming, so your claim is overexaggerated and it's only goal to exile Nagyszombat somewhere behind. I though we are already after such unprofessional attempts(KIENGIR (talk) 10:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)).
 * Kiengir, full stop. There is absolute none consensus or rule that the Hungarian names should be used on the first place for all geographic names in present-day Slovakia before 1920 (why not before 1918). This is your own invention, it is not compliant with previous discussions, it is not compliant with existing compromise solutions to avoid similar conflicts, especially with Elonka's Slovak-Hungarian experiment. You (not me) again violated status-quo, so I am really very skeptic about statements like "I always try to avoid conflicts". Please, try to avoid changes which clearly tends to open conflicts, focus on topic, etc. I am restoring previous version and remember 3RR. Ditinili (talk) 10:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You repeat yourself, considering discussions we have already made and discussed entirely. It is not my own invention, it is compliant with the previous discussions, it is compliant with existing solutions and similar conflicts, also the 1918-1920 have been discussed. I did not violate anything Wikipedia is working by bold edits, not any rules were harmed, you are reverting unnecessarily and suddenly. Your are skeptic? You started reverting despite of the things. Please stop aaccusing me again about starting conflicts, because you did that, you made unnecessary reverts on basic standards well-known and applied for years. To tell me that I should "remember 3RR", is a provocation again. Btw. Elonka's consensus is fully supporting the version I finally established. Could you tell me yesterday who hurt you or what motivation made you to encounter with me again? And you tell me I should focus on topic, when you don't do that, just want to eliminate namings you don't like? You think seriously this is the proper way on?(KIENGIR (talk) 10:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC))
 * Unfortunately, I have to repeat myself. There is not any Wikipedia rule according to which all geographic names in present-day Slovakia before 1920 or 1918 should be mentioned by their Hungarian name at the first place. Especially, if there is a widely accepted English name. It's clear that such changes always open unnecessary "wars", so please try to avoid them. Thank you very much.
 * More, the content should be consistent with the title. If the title is "Battle of Trnava", try to use consistent naming convention. I have no problem with mentioning other alternative names. Ditinili (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, unfortunately, you repeat yourself, and avoiding the real problem, that almost you are the only one recently in Wikipedia who is rendering such "wars". I already told that the title has no connection to what you say. The existing consensus allows that form that I initiated, and this is the point (anyway a basic standard form contemporary naming, well above Hungarian or Slovak matters). The rest would be your good faith, sense and wise collaboration. If not, finally it can be concluded, that only because of your personal dislike you oppose that form, because you cannot bear Hungarian names even in the fisrt place when the the article, context, timeline is in the Hungarian Era, although Hungarians do not have such claims in the Czechoslovak, Slovak Era. Better admit, and than we have a clear standpoint, and it is much more fair than to find any other excuses. My edit did not introduce anything new, it was a basic applied standard, a daily routine. I am aware that the existing consensus supports/does not exclude also the form you and support/does not exclude as well mine, however it suggests, explicitly before 1918 in a way the Hungarian should be favorized in the first place. I repeat, the rest is your good faith towards Hungarians and Hungary matters, if you really want to avoid conflicts. Prove it, and be generous!(KIENGIR (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC))
 * The existing consenzus allows the names as they were before your changes. So, I will not "prove anything", I simply suggest to avoid changes which can lead to unnecessary conflicts. Otherwise, another editor can also apply "a daily rutine" and she can change names again and we will play stupid games for years instead of improving the article. Ditinili (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So you so start your sentence with something I already referred (it does not change anything regarding the situation I was speaking about). As well, instead of "stupid games", I was for consensus, collaboration and good faith. Yes, you should prove something, becuase this would prove your good faith, as I just demonstrated. Simply just avoiding is not a solution, we should make a fair, generous agreement. This should be a main future interest, hopefully for you also.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC))
 * Ok, if you are for a collaboration then preserve status quo and you can e.g. check how reliable is Magyar Katolikus Lexikon. It seems that it contains wrong date (I checked it against several sources + some primary sources and fixed it) and some other inaccuracies, especially if I compare data with other sources about the topic (= detailed description of the Hussite raids not a generic Lexikon). Thank you. Ditinili (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will do it, but I need one or two days, until now I did not met such problems with the lexikon. On the other topic, good/generous agreements can be made, but both parties have to struggle. You have to be aware - although I noticed some improvements of flexibility from your side in the past months - that if you want to keep this here, than next time you should be more flexible and understanding, and have not always a problem in a clear Hungarian context, and as well respect those principles that are not even questioned if it's about Germans, Frenchs, or Romanians, etc., the same respect to the Hungarian Era as for the Czechoslovak, Slovak Era.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC))
 * Kiengir, I really don't want to argue over the names. Please, avoid changes that always start conflicts and check the reliability of the Lexikon. I prefer and I strongly suggest to cite works dedicated to military history and the Hussite "beautiful raids" instead of catholic lexicons. Ditinili (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course you don't want to argue, since it is inconvenient to you. Such copy-paste repeats like "Please, avoid changes that always start conflicts" please ignore, since it makes the false impression that any change would not be proper, although not any deliberate conflicts are raised by me, since the changes does not imply that and were fully consistent and compliant, I don't wish to repeat the details above. Simply you should revise you part, that you are overreacting and are not totally as fair some of these situations, with much inflexibility, even when the indisputable subject and scope is strictly Hungary in her own era. Just because the current version also can be accepted it does not mean you should never make any compromise and gesture, and always things will go like now, since we also do not demand else in the Czechoslovak or Slovak period. Keep this in mind. I will check the lexikon but as I said, I need more days.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC))
 * I am not overreacting. I simply do not agree with systematic rewriting of the articles as you do. You can demand whatever for the Czechoslovak or Slovak period until it is compliant with Wikipedia policies. Ditinili (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is your opinion. It is apparently an overreaction if on clear Hungarian timeline and context you are bothered having Hungarian names in the first place. I am not necessarily "rewriting" articles but apply that form of naming that is also made in other pages regarding other countries, carefully, as we could work together also among the disputes how we should determine the perfect name fitting, if more could be. That means, if I imply some changes that are compliant as well with the existing consensus, you should not immediately react negatively, but accept if it follows the same practice as with other countries on their timeline. Even if the former version is compliant with the consensus. If you make such gestures, then it will be much more mutual, and finally we can left behind any possible clashes, and this would be just good for the encylopedia and it's future, and the same should be with any other affairs if the two sides would have many disputes.
 * About the lexikon case, the issue is not easy, could not really find a good work where everything is altogether, but it seems, that there are more documented confusion about this. After a long search and assessment (http://www.militaria.hu/hadtorteneti-intezet-es-muzeum/hadtortenelmi-kozlemenyek-letoltes/1918.pdf) here I noticed - the same that the Katolikus Lexikon refers, i.e. (Horváth M. II:448. - Kerékgyártó 1875:251. - Huber II:415. - Mo. hadtört. I:92. (Palackýtól eltérő adatokkal - az →illavai ütközettel összekeverve!) - Palacký 1986:483. -> "operating with different dates than Palacký"), that there are more different Hungarian and foreign sources and there's a dispute over when really the battle took part. In the pdf, you'll find this beginning from p. 12., until approx. 17.


 * Some details:
 * "One of the writers of the source took part in the campaign, but does not mention a battle."
 * "Mars Moravicus 544 —54G. lap. - I cannot avoid to mention that my own desciprion may not be questionable, because the soure of Pray puts the battle into 1429....this is reinforced by Windercke by his interpretation about he Brandeburg events that took also place in the same year.....Bartosek wrotes about 1430 w/o localization, but it seems another desciption and two sepeare battles may have been concluded....Tóth— Szabó i. m. 99. lap) attest that Sigimund openly propagated and uprising battle in Nagyszombat in 1429.....1430 may be the assignation of Palacký...it seems two different battles may have been....


 * So the lexikon is not necessarily wrong, as it also refers to the confusion, and now another source reinforced this, so it may been more clashes at Nagyszombat/Trnava.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC))
 * I don't know what do you mean by the contemporary naming (contemporarily Nagyszombat is the proper name). Let me list known contemporary names from the 15th century : 1380-1410 Tyrna, 1402 civitas Tirnavie, 1406 Tirnach, 1417 Tirnaw, 1419 civitas Tirnaviensis vulgo hungaricali Nazonbath appelate, 1431/1488 oppidum Ternavie, 1437 Trnawsky (Trnavian), 1452 Tirna, 1453 civotas Tyrnauiensis, 1482 civitas Thirnaviensis, 1482 Stath Thierna, 1483 w Trnawie (in Trnava), 1490 Tirnauia, 1490 Nagzobath.
 * Thus, Trnava (and its Latinized and Germanized forms) was not only a contemporary name, its was clearly prevailing name. The alternative form Nagyszombat (resp. the Latinized form) was rare.
 * However, it is not about a contemporary name. If the widely used English name exists it should be used, if it does not then the modern English name should be used. In specific cases like Gdansk/Danzig there is another agreement, but this is not a general rule that allows you to always use Hungarian forms at the first place. There is no such agreement, there is not any rule about "Hungarian timeline" which can support such approach or about any national timelines in general. Whatever the word "Hungarian" could mean in the 15th century.
 * The name used in the title should be used consistently in the article. --Ditinili (talk) 06:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * - You have sucessfully repeated what you have already told as well, not wishing to show understanding although you very well understand it, you know everything since we discussed it many times, just try to sway always to your arguments how to ignore something that you don't like. You missed "Zumbotel" from the list, however, even in your list the article's current timeline Nazonbath is present, etc.
 * - There is an existing agreement, similar to the Danzig case, however there are disputable parts, I already told what it's suggest, and it is also compliant with that version when Hungarian is mentioned at the first place and the modern/Slovak - call it as you wish - after, as you know it very well
 * - Another repeat (however only this claim may be considerable). Simply you don't like Hungarian in the first place sometimes even even if it would be totally ok and you don't want to apply that practice that is applied without problem if it's not about Hungary in some cases. That's all. Easier to admit than repeat again the same that does not invalidate any arguments of mine, since both - your and mine - considerations are accepted by the existing consensus. I hope once you'll change in this and you'll show more tolerance.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC))
 * No. This is English Wikipedia, Trnava is common English name, it is consistent with the title and it is also prevailing contemporary name.--Ditinili (talk) 04:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, you act if you would not understand. Trnava is not necessarily prevailing in 1430. This is the English Wikipedia, that allows by contemporary naming, as well another consensus in such cases to have also that name in the first place, and the modern after. As you know it. You repeat the nth time things you already told, and forcing me as well because you act if you would not get it. So I repeat also, currently only the case with title have stronger validity by arguments. I am sorry you make no willing to say i.e. "I will try to be in the future less sensitive and also will agree in more cases that part of the consensus that allows i.e. Hungarian in the first place". This whole discussion is about your intentions, flexibility and tolerance towards Hungarians (as you expect the same for Slovaks).(KIENGIR (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC))
 * No, this is discussion about a consistency, WP:COMMON and WP:Naming conventions (geographic names). Ditinili (talk) 07:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is your version and imagination, all details relevant have been already discussed as well in the past. As I referred, just because of the title I tend to accept the current version, but it does not mean in any case you should always push by any argumentation your supported version and ignore the others that are also fully compliant with Naming conventions and supplementary consensuses, with a healthy and wise balance, especially in relevant Hungarian context. Keep this in mind, and be as fair as possible, as collaborative, as tolerant as possible.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC))

Jan Mátik "of Tolovec"
In the Hungarian source referenced in the article he is referenced as "Jan Mátik z Tolovec" - obviously the Czech form of the name. The Czech genitive "z Tolovec" cannot be translated as "of Tolovec". In example, "z Brna" is not in English "of Brna" but "of Brno". I guess it should be "of Tolovce" (or something similar), but it is safer to preserve the original form with Czech "z". Ditinili (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "In case, is the "Velek Koudelník of Březnice" is correct or should be modified as well?"
 * The translation "z Březnice" -> "of Březnice" is OK. The declension of Březnice is like ulice - the same form in the nominative and the genitive. So, the "English" name is really Březnice (i.e. Březnice (Tábor District), Březnice (Příbram District), Březnice (Zlín District)).