Open main menu

Wikipedia β


Languages in introductionEdit

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)
Jeppiz is absolutely right. Only the most relevant names should be in the lead. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Jeppiz'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)
Jeppiz, 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?Edit

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. (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Historical flagEdit

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 [1], and Romanian [2], and a flag from 1617 by Bethlen: [3]. 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)
Return to "Transylvania" page.