Talk:Târnăveni

[Untitled]
Up until the early twentieth century, this town was part of either independent Transylvania (administered in Hungarian/German), Hungary, or the Austro-Hungarian Empire. "Târnava Mică" county did not yet exist, and Blaj and Cetatea de Baltă were officially called by their Hungarian names. Now, if we're going to insist on calling 98%-Hungarian villages like Csíkszentdomokos by their Romanian names on Wikipedia (in this case Sândominic) simply because they currently exist within Romania (I actually like this policy), isn't it consistent to call places like Blaj and Cetatea de Baltă and (most glaringly) "Târnava Mică county" by their Hungarian names when we talk about a period in history when they were ruled by Hungarians as part of Hungarian states?

Calling Kis-Küküllő by some Romanian translation of its name is exactly the same as calling judeţul Mureş "Maros megye." "Maros megye" is a useful phrase and should be included here on Wikipedia, but to put it as the first variant is a little strange and somewhat politically suspect.

Can we all agree that we should give first references to places in the official language of the administration at the time? (i.e. by all means call it Blaj [Balázsfalva] after the Unirea, but before it, stick to Balázsfalva [Blaj]) ?

If someone disagrees with me, please leave a comment! Hubacelgrand 01:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand the dispute: what is special about Târnăveni, compared to other cities in the region, to deserve the explicit sentence about having been part of Hungary/ Austro-Hungary/ Transylvania? Mentioning that all cities in Transylvania belonged to the above states before 1918 is factually correct but out of context, possibly misleading and somewhat politically motivated. Why not mention even the Roman occupation, or the Dacian period before it? It is clear for the readers that Târnăveni shared the history of the whole of Transylvania, which should be detailed in the corresponding article Transylvania. Icar 10:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Icar, I tend to agree with you. The sentence explicitly stating that it was part of the Hungarian political sphere seems unnecessary, especially given subsequent references to Târnăveni's history as a county capital. I will change it and we'll see how we all like it afterward. Hubacelgrand 00:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks ok to me Icar 07:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This is what the user Khoikhoi wrote to me: The official language of the Kingdom of Hungary was Latin until 1844, and Hungarian from 1867 onwards. The official language was never Romanian. (from 1918 is) So if you want to be fair it would have to write the latin names of cities and villiges in Transylvania not in any other language. you added the hungarian name in the context of 1502 when it's shure that the name used was latin. I don't understeand how you want to use hungarian names when at the begining of all articles there are all posible names in all language it makes it only dificult to understeand about what you are writting.

Calling Kis-Küküllő by some Romanian translation of its name is exactly the same as calling judeţul Mureş "Maros megye." "Maros megye" is a useful phrase and should be included here on Wikipedia, but to put it as the first variant is a little strange and somewhat politically suspect. If you don't know just hungarian history please don't intervine, Tarnava Mica was a county between the two great wars. So it's not a translation of Kukullo megye it's just the county that continuate it, the administration of Kis Kukullo megye and then Tarnava Mica was in 3 cities, Dumbraveni - justice, Tarnaveni - finances, and only in Romania Blaj took all administrativ decisions after 1938. For a few years the administration was halted in Tarnaveni. If Maros megye it's useful you should know that in hungarian wikipedia it already included and it's the place where it belongs.Olario 20:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Olario, I was not trying to insinuate that Târnavă Mică never existed. I misread it as a translation of the earlier comitatus. That was my mistake and I apologize. And I would also say that Maros megye is useful even in English wikipedia, although I'm not saying it should be in this article. As for my "not intervening," I find it useful to have both people who are better with Hungarian history and people who are better with Romanian history working on Transylvanian articles, especially when we can sort out our differences on a talk page like this. Hubacelgrand 18:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Another contradiction
"For a few centuries until the half of the XX century, the city proved to be of great importance within Transylvania as the capital of Hungary's Kis-Küküllő county". This is incorrect since in recent history, Transylvania became part of Hungary only in 1866. I suggest removing "Hungary's" which is out of place. Icar 07:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's not telling the whole story, but Kis-Küküllő county was a late addition (formed in administrative restructuring of 1876) that came about during Hungarian control. Does anyone know if Târnăveni was ever the capital or sub-capital of "regular" pre-1876 Küküllő county, or if it had any regional importance before the Ausgleich? Maybe we should simply change the date from the vague "few centuries" to "from 1876 onward." Hubacelgrand 17:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)