Talk:Transylvania/Archive 6

Etymology of Siebenbuergen
As far as I know, the meaning of "Siebenbürgen" is not exactly known. It is suspected, that it might stem from the seven chairs.

TakWah (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is obviously German: seven castles. Seven castles are also shown on the coat of arms. However, why is there not some discussion on this, since the search for Siebenbuergen redirects to the article on Transylvania?Skamnelis (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 December 2011
please correct the link to my page "Historical Literature about Transylvania and Neighbouring Territories" to:

http://www.zinnenwarte.de/Transylvania/Index.htm

on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transylvania

Thank you,

Kpopa (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC) Klaus Popa, Germany Kpopa (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Kpopa (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: The url you provided returns a 404 error. Rivertorch (talk) 08:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Trial of unprotection
alright then...let's give this a go, but can folks please alert if problems recur (which is not unlikely). I am busy and have absolutely no problem with another admin re-protecting if problems recur. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

File:1dec1918.jpg nominated for deletion
See Possibly_unfree_files/2014_June_20 Avpop (talk) 08:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Conquest of Transylvania and integration into the Kingdom of Hungary
The presence of Romanians in Transylvania before the arrival of the Magyar tribes is mentioned in the Hungarian chronicle Gesta Hungarorum. According to this document, Transylvania was inhabited by Romanians/Vlachs and Slavs at the time of the Magyar conquest and was ruled by the Vlach prince Gelou. After Gelou was killed by the Hungarians in a battle near the River Someş, his subjects elected Tuhutum as their prince.

Some historians consider the Gesta Hungarorum an unreliable source. For example the author thought Kende had been the father of Kurszán. In fact "kende" was a title of a Hungarian dignitary, probably the sacral ruler. It is also worth mentioning that the Gesta was written about 300 years after the Hungarians entered Transylvania. The author of Gesta also talks about Cuman people at the time of the arrival of the Hungarians in Transylvania, though their first appearance in the ancient homeland of the Hungarians (between the Lower Danube and the Don) is dated to the eleventh century.

The account of the Gesta Hungarorum is however repeated by Simon of Kéza who writes that the Vlachs remained after Attila left in Pannonia and Transylvania, and also that the Székely were settled "among the Vlachs" (sed cum Blakis) in the mountains. These words are repeated in the Chronicon Dubnicense, Chronicon Posoniense Anna Komnenos also mentions "Dacians" (Vlachs) North of the Danube in her Alexiad. Likewise, John Kinnamos writes in 1176 on the expedition of emperor Vatzates that there were Vlachs North of the Danube and that "it is said they are colonists arrived long ago from Italy." These statements are repeated by all humanist authors like Antonio Bonfini or Filip Callimachus who state the Vlachs were descendants of the Roman colonists in Transylvania. With the exception of István Szamosközy, it was not until the late 18th century that any historian cast doubt on the continuity of the Romanians in Dacia.

The Library of Congress in its country study about Romania: "Romanians descend from the Dacians, an ancient people who fell under Rome's dominance in the first century A.D., intermarried with Roman colonists, and adopted elements of Roman culture, including a Vulgar Latin that evolved into today's Romanian.". However, according to the same source, when the Magyars arrived in the Pannonian Basin (896 ad), they met local population: "A century later their king, Stephen I, integrated Transylvania into his Hungarian kingdom. The Hungarians constructed fortresses, founded a Roman Catholic bishopric, and began proselytizing Transylvania's indigenous people. There is little doubt that these included some Romanians who remained faithful to the Eastern Orthodox Church after the East-West Schism." Though, the US Library of Congress in its country study about Hungary simply points out that "Romanian and Hungarian historians disagree about the ethnicity of Transylvania's population before the Magyars' arrival [...]The Romanians assert that their Latin ancestors inhabited Transylvania and survived there through the Dark Ages [...] The Hungarians maintain that, when Hungarians conquered it in the 11th century, Transylvania was inhabited not by the ancestors of the Romanians but by Slavs".

These facts have fueled a centuries-long feud between Romanian and Hungarian historians over Transylvania.

The Romanian historians assert that their ancestors remained in Transylvania after Rome's exodus and that Romanians constitute the region's aboriginal inhabitants.

Hungarians assert, among other things, that the Roman population quit Dacia completely in 271, that the Romans could not have made a lasting impression on Transylvania's aboriginal population in only two centuries, and that Transylvania's Romanians descended from Balkan nomads who crossed northward over the Danube in the thirteenth century and flowed into Transylvania in any significant numbers only after Hungary opened its borders to foreigners. The Hungarians maintain that Transylvania was inhabited not by the ancestors of the Romanians but by Slavs and point out that the first mention of the Romanians' ancestors in Hungarian records, which appeared in the thirteenth century, described them as drifting herders.

Edit request on 6 May 2013
Hi _ I would like add in external links my site with the pictures from Transylvania
 * Transylvania pictures

Krisk79 (talk) 04:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Why? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Very nice pictures but if you wish to contribute to wikipedia I suggest uploading this images (since you are the owner of this pictures) to wikipedia and inserting some of them in articles. Adrian (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree - I work with graphics and photos daily and your photographs are outstanding. If you were prepared to give any of them a free license and upload them here or at Wikimedia Commons I'm certain they could and would be used to good effect. I can think of several articles they might improve. You certainly have a great deal of talent. Unfortunately, as external links to your blog/commercial site, they seem to fail the criteria for external links which you can see at WP:ELNO, so that wouldn't be the way to include them. If you need any help uploading any of the images, or sorting out any external links you may already have added, feel free to post on my talk page. Thanks. Begoon &thinsp; talk  11:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Copy editing and tags
I added tags and the request for copy editing because of the following issues with the history section: Hopefully the article will get on the WP:GOCE queue eventually and will get cleaned up by the experts. --Codrin.B (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It needs to be streamlined using History of Transylvania, Ancient history of Transylvania, History of Romania etc.
 * It should be put in sync with the above mentioned main articles
 * It needs to be shorter - the Brief survey section attempts to do some of the above but only duplicates some content.


 * I have done some basic copy editing throughout and removed the ce tag. I did not find the article confusing - just too long - and think this tag could be removed too. It seems to me that the introduction to the history section is sufficient for this article. The details are available elsewhere starting with History of Transylvania (which itself could perhaps now benefit from some of the edited sections of this article). Removing the other history sections would reduce the present size of the article substantially and leave room for expansion of the remaining sections or for new ones to be added. There is little on culture (art, literature, architecture, cuisine), politics, sports) and on the relationship with the rest of Romania. I don't think the article deserves a B at this stage. - Ipigott (talk) 11:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 June 2012
Dear Author(s),

The first written document about Walchs is from the 13th century. Better to write it into the article not to misslead people, that the area was "for sure" inhabited by Walchs". Otherwise i will correct it.

Thanks

89.135.67.210 (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. AndieM   (Am I behaving?'')  13:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Chiraleş in 1068
The Romanians and the Pechenegs fought against Magyars in 1068 at Chiraleş, in Transilvania and finally lost the battle

Sources: Русскій хронографъ, 2,Хронографъ Западно-Русской редакціи,in PSRL, XXII,2, Petrograd, 1914, p.211

V. Spinei, The Romanians and the Turkik nomads North of The Danube Delta from the Tenth to Mid Thirteen Century, Brill, 2009, p.118 Eurocentral (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Forest
Beyond which forest? 109.99.71.97 (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a good question. The answer is disputed. Some claim it it the forest of the Western Carpathian mountains; others, those of the Eastern Carpathians. Maproom (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Flag of Transylvania
Is there any source that indicates when was the flag pictured here in use? 86.126.33.217 (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Siebenbürgenlied
Why do some people not consider Siebenbürgenlied the anthem of Transylvania? Even if it was originally written for Transylvania Saxons, it's in wide use, even with Romanians and Hungarians in Transylvania. –– ♫ Mara ♫ 22:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Integration with Romania
It is stated twice at the beginning of two separated paragraphs that Transylvania became integrated to Romania as Austria began to disintegrate at the end of the first world war. It would be helpful if someone more knowledgeable on this subject than myself could combine the contents of the two paragraphs into one.Skamnelis (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Saying that the territory was "integrated" into Romania is a very generous way of putting things. The Allies convinced Romania to join the war in 1916 with offers of territory -- but Romania was defeated by the Central Powers and had to sign a separate peace...knocking it out of the war. The Allied blockade led to the disintegration of Austria-Hungary and then (and only then) did Romania repudiate its former peace treat and -- as part of the general allied victory....receive the territory of Transylvania. Romania's losing effort was rewarded with territory, based partly on the ethnic composition of the territory. Chesspride 172.164.20.73 (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Images
I removed many images from the article. There were so many images that the article looked awful, images were floating and were not connected to the section they should illustrate.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  08:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Transylvania flag 1 Dec 1918 - 11 Jan 1919?
Where is this flag mentioned as being "Transylvania flag 1 Dec 1918 - 11 Jan 1919"? 123Steller (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify your question?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  11:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

KIENGIR edit
What was this? First of all, you removed a source. Why? It was a dead link, yes, but WP:LR says "Do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer." You also added that it is a subject of dispute if Transylvania was occupied by Hungary. How's that? You have some reliable source that says it was not occupied?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  08:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi,


 * ok, sorry, I did not know properly the dead link rules, I'll keep it untouched, but then please do the needful by yourself! On the other case I did not add any dispute tag, I used that phrase that is also used in other similar viewpoints above, and you misunderstand the case, since Hungary was founded in 1000 A.D. including Transylvania, so it was already occupied before, anyway, I did not remove any source, I just added an other one. I hope you've got all the answers you wanted. (KIENGIR (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC))
 * I still do not understand your edit. You write that It is also subject of dispute if Transylvania was occupied by Hungarians in several stages between the 10th and 13th centuries . What exactly is a "subject of dispute"? Is it disputed that Transylvania was occupied by Hungarians? Or is it disputed that it was occupied between the 10th and 13th centuries?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  08:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought it is obvious regarding my former answer, but to make it totally explicitly clear:
 * the subject of dispute is the latter one you wrote, because the territory of Hungary was obviously occupied at the time by Hungarians when Hungary was founded.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC))
 * In that case maybe we should write it somehow differently. It is confusing as it stands now. I sounds like there a dispute whether Hungarians did or did not occupy the territory. But, that is not disputed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  13:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How about this?


 * "Some historians assert Transylvania was occupied by Hungarians in several stages between the 10th and 13th centuries,[12][13] but it is disputed since the earliest Hungarian artifacts found in the region are dated to the first half of the 10th century.[14]"(KIENGIR (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC))
 * But, if the earliest Hungarian artifacts found in the region are dated to the first half of the 10th century, isn't that actually an evidence supporting the idea that Hungarians occupied Transylvania between 10th and 13th century?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there are different POVs. A Romanian POV says that Transylvania was settled by Hungarians in phases between the 10th and 13th centuries. A Hungarian POV states that some HU population had already lived in Transylvania since the 10th century (e.g. Gyula's tribe). It seems obvious that Transylvania had been controlled by the Hungarians since the 10th century. The actual ethnic composition of Transylvania between the 10th and 13th centuries is another question. Therefore, regarding the conversation above, "occupation" may be a misleading word. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Vanjagenije, it is not a supporting evidence for that, it is a supporting evidence for that Hungarians already were present at Transylvania that time. I could raise again my poetrical question, if Hungary was founded in 1000 A.D. (including Transylvania), how Hungarians could found a country where they would not be present? Fakirbakir pinpointed the situation, also we may present evidence / theories about Hungarian presence already in the 9th century, but we respect the neutral point of view of the article, so if we feel any imbalance we present also the other side of the coin. Consider, if the Gyulafehérvár / Alba Iulia archbishopry was founded by St. Stephen in 1009, the Hungarians would have needed 200 years to "occupy" the remainder tiny territory until the Carpathians? I agree with Fakirbakir, the word occupation is more likely to be used for cases when a (foreign) territory is (re)occupied, not when "somebody" would occupy it's own country's territory, although that territory was part of it's own country since it was founded (since ~ 200 years), and they were already present there....so you may feel how weird the Romanian POW is...(KIENGIR (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC))
 * Ok, than maybe: Some historians assert Transylvania was settled by Hungarians in several stages between the 10th and 13th centuries,[12][13] while others claim that is was settled even before that, since the earliest Hungarian artifacts found in the region are dated to the first half of the 10th century.[14] I guess that is what you want to say. But, in that case we really need some sources that claim Hungarians settled before 10th century. We can't just say that it was just because artifacts were found, that would be our WP:original research.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  13:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I would not complicate it too much, because if we would tend to the official theory of the landtaking - 895/896 A.D. -, we speak about 5-4 years from the 9th century, to say nothing of I could also ask how much time is needed to leave an artifact, etc., so the 10th century I think is totally enough, because anyway the source tells about this. On the other hand - since I did not read in original the first two sources - I do not know if the planned change from "occupied" is legal to "settled", regardless if we agree if the word occupied is proper or not. Thus, I would propose:


 * "Some historians assert Transylvania was occupied?/settled? by Hungarians in several stages between the 10th and 13th centuries,[12][13] while others claim that it was already settled, since the earliest Hungarian artifacts found in the region are dated to the first half of the 10th century.[14]"


 * Fakirbakir, if you have a comment on this, please let us also to know!(KIENGIR (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC))
 * Gyula's tribe originally settled in today's Banat (region of Tisza and Maros rivers). Historians assume that Gyula moved his centre to Alba Iulia after 950, however the exact date is still debated. It's also supposed that he founded an Orthodox church there for bishop Hierotheos. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, but do we have a source that specifically says that it was already settled?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  08:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do. For instance, this one: Fakirbakir (talk) 09:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, then I agree with your proposal. (I opt for the "settled" variant).  Vanjagenije  (talk)  11:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, then I'll modify sentence according our discussion.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC))

Introduction Section
Most of the good information in the "introduction section" is covered in the "Origin of the Romanians" and "History of Transylvania" pages. This has to be trimmed down. Very little has citations. In the end, it does no good for Transylvania's current residents to do this. The controversies about historic ethnic dominance of the region can go on, just move them elsewhere. The introduction section of this page shouldn't be a forum for this kind of discussion. It should prepare the reader for learning about Transylvania, an interesting, beautiful place that has been inhabited by people for a long long time and like all such places it has a rich history of inter-ethnic cooperation and conflict. It has mountains, forests, engangered species, special crops, dances, rivers, old cities, and cultural relics from pre-historic, roman-era, medeival, and renaissance times. Many of its people practice a simple way of life with a high level of civlization, but a low environmental impact. Native wild vegetation includes fruits and nuts that are now enjoyed worldwide. The dairy products are superb especially when the milk comes from the local bivolitas. Its people practice a variety of religions and speak a variety of languages. It is a peaceful place with good healthcare, people like living here. It is a place with a large number of skilled workers who speak English ... get the picture? My question is why does the page have to start with ethnic conflict? If the people on all sides of the conflict really value what they are fighting for, the land, then why can't they talk about how nice it is there instead of who was there first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samueldee (talk • contribs) 23:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

yeah, this article is continually swamped by ethnic bickering over the "Origin of Romanians" thing. Both Romanians and Hungarians are to blame for this. I really cannot understand why people so eager to cover one topic will insist on going on about it on a completely different article instead of the one dedicated to it. History of Romania is a standalone article. The "History" section should be the briefest summary of that, one page max. That's not even beginning to mention "Origin of Romanians" which is completely marginal here and should probably not even be mentioned, or at the extreme maximum in one brief sentence. --dab (𒁳) 08:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * IMHO that ethnic history should be in the intro because when people look up "Transylvania" on Wikipedia...they are not looking for information on native fruits and nuts. They are doing so for three reasons 1) Dracula  2) Vlad the Impaler (yes, he was Wallachian but people still look for him -- see # 1) and resistance to the Ottomans, or 3) why a territory that was part of AUSTRIA-HUNGARY for centuries was transferred over to Romania after WW 1.  That's it.   Chesspride 172.164.20.73 (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Complete rubbish - people come to Wiki for all sorts of reasons, including information on geography, geology, etc., etc. 98.67.179.12 (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Transylvania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.itcnet.ro/folk_festival/culture.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's OK.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Current population update
As you can see, the demographic data presented in the article is outdated. According to the results of the 2011 Population Census, the total population of Transylvania was 6.789.250 inhabitants and the ethnic groups where: Romanians - 70,62%, Hungarians - 17,92%, Roma - 3,99%, Ukrainians - 0,63%, Germans - 0,49%, other - 0,77%. Some 378.298 inhabitants (5,58%) have not declared their ethnicity. The presented data are from http://www.recensamantromania.ro/rezultate-2, the Table no. 7. Please update the article !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.2.192.213 (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Languages in introduction
Wikipedia's policies are quite clear, languages used in introduction need to be relevant to the topic, we don't list every existing name. No reason has been given for why Polish or Turkish are relevant in a region where neither Polish nor Turkish are spoken. The fact that the user responsible for it reverts on sight without even reading through the reverts, reinserting obvious mistakes, make it seem as borderline disruptive issue. Jeppiz (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Latin is not a spoken language in the region, either. Yet but the Latin name for the region - Transylvania, is relevant to the article as it is a historical name of the region. Likewise, the Polish and Turkish names are relevant due to some Hungarian princes/kings also ruling Poland and that the region was under suzerainty of the Ottoman Turks. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * is absolutely right. Only the most relevant names should be in the lead.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 's initial reason for removing the Polish and Turkish names was that Polish and Turkish are not as widely spoken in the region as is German or Hungarian. But neither is Latin. The user removing the Polish and Turkish names but leaving the Latin name seems arbitrary according to his/her excuse for removing them. Leaving those names up is consistent with the fact that those are the historical names of the region. I think that they should remain.
 * Actually, my leaving Latin was a mistake in my editing, I thought I had removed it. Yes, Latin should also go; almost every European region has a Latin name and they are almost never relevant. In this article, the Romanian and Hungarian names are obviously relevant. German is still spoken to a small extent, and used to be significant until recently, so probably also belongs. An argument could even be made for Ukrainian, but doubtful. I would suggest we go with Romanian, Hungarian and German. Jeppiz (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , I disagree. The Latin name is a historical name of the region among other toponyms in Europe. The historical names are relevant. The Polish and Turkish names along with the Latin, Hungarian, Romanian, and German names of the region are entirely relevant because they represent the geo-political history of Transylvania. Your edits seem arbitrary. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In my opinion - as dealing with plenty of historical articles - Latin names are important and should be in the lead, especially regarding history-related articles and historical regions. Plus, I have no objection regarding further historical names in different languages.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC))

Vanjagenije, what objections do you have for removing two historical names for the region of Transylvania from the lead? TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Polish and Turkish names are historically relevant too. Transylvania was an Ottoman vassal state in the 16th and the 17th centuries. The Transylvanian voivode Stephen Báthory was also King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Those languages are simply not relevant enough to be included in the lead section. This is English Wikipedia, intended to be read by people who speak English languages. Foreign names may be included in the lead section if they can help readers in understanding the topic. This area belongs to Romania, but is also inhabited by large number of Hungarians, and belonged to Hungary until relatively recent times. Thus, Romanian and Hungarian names are relevant. Adding other names just because the area once belonged to Turks or Poles is not helpful because it does not help the English reader in understanding, it just clutters the opening paragraph. Many areas in Europe were ruled by several, sometimes dozens of different states during the history. That does not mean that every name should be listed in the first sentence. Just look on other similar articles. Bear in mind that this is English Wikipedia, written for speakers of English language.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This arcticle isn't just about the region of the modern nation state of Romania, but about the history of the region across history. The Polish and Turkish names are relevant because they are historic names of the region. Tranylvania has been a region of kingdoms, empires, and a principality in it's own right. This article is about Transylvania and not just the modern Romanian region of Transylvania. The names should stay. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but your argument is nonsense, and in stark contrast to Wikipedia practice. To take a few examples: looking at Jerusalem, Palestine or Lebanon, I don't see Turkish, Persian, Aramaic, Greek or Assyrian names. No Turkish names for Tunisia or Libya, nor any Punic names for that matter. Italian regions like Lombardy or Veneto don't give the German names. In each of these cases, the connection is at least as strong, and usually stronger, than Polish or Turkish for Transylvania. It really is quite simple: just finding some connection in history is not enough to justify using the name in the lead, not even having had foreign rule for long periods is a reason. This is the common WP policy. If you want to overturn it, this is not the place for that discussion. Jeppiz (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Jeppiz, I seem to recall that it is you who made unilateral edits to the lead without census, while I aim to restore the status quo of the page. I have given ample justification why the languages should stay. Two other editors mirror the same arguments as mine. You alone made this an issue so you need to thoroughly justify your reasons other than hand waving and deflecting to other irrelevant wiki pages. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit, you present no argument at all, except misrepresenting the situation. I'm hardly "alone", as Vanjagenije has made the same arguments and edits. I'd also like to point out that Wikipedia isn't a WP:VOTE, as you seem to think. Referring to the common practice at Wikipedia, as I did, is hardly "irrelevant". Vanjagenije and I have explained our arguments in some detail. If you feel that we should make an exception on this page, the onus is on you to explain why. Jeppiz (talk) 07:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

4 year old tag and citation needed?
In August 2012: " Between 1003[dubious – discuss] and 1526, Transylvania was a voivodeship in the Kingdom of Hungary, led by a voivode appointed by the King of Hungary.[citation needed] " - no discussion in the Talk Page was opened by the Anon IP. While the dubious portion can be removed at this point, I think, if anyone can provide a reference for this statement it would be helpful. 104.169.17.29 (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Nickname
The nickname is not a nickname but the translation from Latin and the Hungarian root word for Erdély. As a Transylvanian, this is rustling my jimmies, as they say in the darker corners of the American internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.23.26 (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Vampires
Is it true that only the "English-speaking world" associates Transylvania with vampires? Is the book only available in English? If so, then that would explain why it is the "English-speaking world" that associates Transylvania with vampires. Sam Tomato (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Current population
The current population section says nothing about the current population. Am I correct that "current population" is an inconsistency? Since Transylvania does not officially exist there cannot be a current population, correct? Sam Tomato (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Historical flag
User:PetrusdictusA, why you remove systematically the historical flag of Transylvania?(KIENGIR (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC))
 * This article is not about the historic Principality of Transylvania, but about the modern region. The modern region does not have a flag.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh sure, thank you!(KIENGIR (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC))
 * It would be interesting to know when the flag was adopted by the Principality of Transylvania. 123Steller (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 123Steller, I've made a little research and it seems such flag would officially never been adopted (especially if we speak about that flag, or flags in general). If we speak about the Coat of Arms enacted by Maria Theresia some Saxon roots of planning are claimed, as well a description of a flag where only the description remained, no other evidence. It has also connection to the colors that was adopted later by Romania, some claim it from the Coat of Arms of the Hunyadis but other's consider it unverified, it is generally claimed of royal grants, etc. by Michael The Brave, however earlier to him also Gabriel Bethlen used the blue, red, yellow colors, that are representing the three nations (I just guess maybe red goes to Hungarians, yellow to Saxons and blue for the Székelys, but I did no check on this right now). I have found and interesting summarization also, the same in Hungarian, and Romanian , and a flag from 1617 by Bethlen: . Well, I became also interested after all this that the flag in question really existed then or not....(KIENGIR (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC))
 * Thanks for your answer. If this flag was never adopted, I guess that we should we remove the blue-red-yellow flag from the infobox of the article Principality of Transylvania (1711–1867). 123Steller (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The blue, red, yellow is the nowadays proposed flag for Transylvania. But not the former flag of the Principality. After the abdication of Charles IV of A Habsburg and before the union with Romania Transylvania had a red, green, white horizontal flag in use. PetrusdictusA (talk).  —Preceding undated comment added 12:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Transylvania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090303212328/http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS047.pdf to http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS047.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170202185918/http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/transy/transy03.htm to http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/transy/transy03.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304035718/http://www.ms.ro/upload/CLASIFICAREA%20SPITALELOR-1.pdf to http://www.ms.ro/upload/CLASIFICAREA%20SPITALELOR-1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Misspelled city name and missing city in list
1. Change Schäßurg (misspelled) to Schäßburg 2. Add Bistrița city, population 75,076, to Transylvania proper list of cities M.pacurar (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC))