Talk:Harghita County

Basic information on naming

It is useful to know that Wikipedia has its own policy about naming places, which is first giving the official name in bold, then giving the other name-variants in parentheses and italics (as you can observe it in hundreds of other articles). Consistent deviation from this policy will be counted as vandalism and will have to be reverted, unless the policy is changed.

Adam78 28 June 2005 15:39 (UTC)

Follow the basic rules of respect for the country where you live in

Please follow the international rules of using the official language of the country when providing the names of Cities, Counties, Villages, Mountains, Rivers, etc. Harghita is a county in Romania , so the Romanian form of the names will be used first, and then the Szekler version.

Romanian name. Etymology is another thing. Bogdan | Talk 15:09, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hungarian versions of cities in Romania

i intend on removing the hungarian versions of cities towns and communes listed at the end of the article. reason: no gain for the english reader to know the hungarian name of a city in Romania that hasn't got even a stub article about it. the hungarian versions should be given in their respective articles. -- Criztu 28 June 2005 14:13 (UTC)

You removed the Hungarian names of counties and towns inside the article. Now this is, IMHO, totally unjustified: as Covasna and Harghita have a significant Hungarian population (a large majority in fact), it is fitting that the Hungarian versions of place names are given too. (Of course, after the official Romanian name.) What are your reasons for deleting them? And you should at least have asked our opinions before deleting a dozen or so names from the article unilaterally. What you did verges on v..., well, I don't want to use the V-word, that would be too strong, but really, please tell us first here on the talk page first, like you did about the communes at the end of the article.--Tamas 28 June 2005 14:25 (UTC)

As far as the communes are concerned, is it any gain to the English reader to know the names of communes in Romanian if there is not even a stub about them? I don't see why we should delete the Hungarian versions: the fact that these communes have widely-used Hungarian names reflects an important reality about the history, culture and ethnography of the county.--Tamas 28 June 2005 14:30 (UTC)

I think the best policy about placenames in Romania is the following: The wikiarticle of a city/river/place from Romania/AnyCountry should contain all versions of that name in all possible languages. But outside that placename's article no "in hungarian : hungarian version, in german : german version, in all possible languages : all possible language versions". -- Criztu 28 June 2005 17:16 (UTC)

as an example look at Alsace (french-german historical dispute) - in its wikiarticle there is the German version listed in the lead. But outside that article we don't see the german version of Alsace , see Nikolaus_Ager. -- Criztu 28 June 2005 17:16 (UTC)

But look at every place in Transylvania in Transylvanian related articles - it was effectively an English-Hungarian encyclopedia, all rivers, all cities, all mountains, all lakes, all placenames in Transylvania however insignificant, with a hungarian version in paranthesis . That's irredentism spree on Wikipedia -- Criztu 28 June 2005 17:16 (UTC)

(I asked Jmabel to have a look at this problem: he left a message on my talk page saying he didn't have time to engage the individual issues, but made his comments on the problem in general, which I qoute here with his permission--Tamas 28 June 2005 17:33 (UTC))

"Besides the fact that the Hungarian-language names in these areas still have quite a bit of currency among the local population, anyone looking at materials predating the incorporation of Transylvania into Romania is going to encounter these place names without Romanian equivalents, and needs to be able to look them up. Not only should all of these names be mentioned in the appropriate articles, they should be redirects wherever appropriate. For some geographic terms -- e.g. Székelyföld -- I have no idea what the Romanian would even be, and I say this as an English-speaker who reads a reasonable amount of Romanian and virtually no Hungarian. For Transylvania Romanian names should almost always be given first, but Hungarian and German names that have even historical importance should typically be included parenthetically on first mention, especially for places that are not famous. Which is to say that not every mention of Sibiu necessarily needs to say, parenthetically, "Hermannstadt", but for smaller towns most people won't know, these are an aid to the English-language reader." <end of qoute from Jmabel>

I think what he says could be a reasonable compromise: let's include the Hungarian/German equivalent parenthetically on the first mention, and only where the Hungarian/German name has historical importance or where there is a significant Hungarian/German population. I agree with you that we should not give the Hungarian equivalent of every little creek or of small villages without a single Hungarian inhabitant, but in places like Harghita, where the Hungarian names are used by the vast majority of the population, or places like Cluj, which have been referred to by their Hungarian/German names for centuries; we should. To do otherwise would be unfair and misleading. --Tamas 28 June 2005 17:33 (UTC)

I don't think it's a matter of percentage. There may be several Romanian towns and villages which don't have a significant Hungarian population any more, but which are important from a Hungarian perspective because a Hungarian personality was born there 100 or 200 years ago (see List of famous Hungarians who were born outside of present-day Hungary). These place names should be unambiguously identifiable both in Romanian and in Hungarian (if there is an article about them), irrespective of the current majority percentage. Remember that this is the English Wikipedia, not the Romanian one, and the interest of the English-speaking reader is that they should be able to locate and identify a place name whether in Romanian or in Hungarian. I don't think any harm will be to Romanian national pride if the towns and villages can be located and identified for an international audience. -- Adam78 28 June 2005 17:52 (UTC)

if one searches wikipedia for a place by its hungarian name, one should be redirected to that placename apropriate article as Jmabel rightfully says. If the place hapens to be in ROmania or Hungary or Serbia and its apropriate article has its hungarian version, the wikipedia will list the article, that's easy. see the example of Alsace, just search for Elsass -- Criztu 28 June 2005 18:00 (UTC)

Thank you the example of Alsace, I agree with you in that. This is the normal solution when beside the official variant, the alternative(s) is (are) given as well in italics, in parentheses. This is the practice which should be followed in the case of Romanian cities, towns, villages, rivers, creeks etc. as well (just like in the case of Hungarian cities, towns, villages, rivers, creeks etc.) because this is the general Wikipedia practice. Outside of the specific articles, no mentioning need to be given to the non-official place names, if the place name is linked to the article about that place providing other name versions in its first sentence – and the context is (historically speaking) present time. Since there is some advice in the Wikipedia Manual which should be remembered:

• Many place names have a historical context that should be preserved, but common sense should prevail. There can be few places that have not been parts of more than one culture or have had only one name. An article about Junipero Serra should say he lived in Alta Mexico not the U.S. state of California because the latter entity did not exist at the time of Junipero Serra. The Romans invaded Gaul, not France, and Thabo Mbeki is the president of the Republic of South Africa, not of the Cape Colony. To be clear, you may sometimes need to mention the current name of the area (for example "what is now France"), especially if no English name exists for that area in the relevant historical period. (source: Wikipedia:Proper names)

-- Adam78 28 June 2005 18:21 (UTC)

Well, let me put it this way: it is absolutely correct if we only provide the Hungarian names of places in their appropriate articles. So I won't revert these names outside their appropriate articles, if you are so much bent on not having them there. But off the record, is it such a huge problem for you that the Hungarian version of Miercurea Ciuc is given in parentheses in the Harghita article? I mean, it is in parentheses, in italics: there is ample indication that the official name is the Romanian one. Nobody will be misled by this extra piece of information. This is not an attack against the unity of Romania or anything like that. --Tamas 28 June 2005 19:51 (UTC)

what's the purpose of writing the hungarian name of a city of Romania outside its apropriate article ? all i can think of is : 1. propagating hungarian lexicon in an english environment via romanian related wikiarticles 2. hungarian irredentism on wikipedia -- Criztu 28 June 2005 20:47 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I find the naming issues on these articles to be as disappointing. I find it interesting that it is described as "crushing once and for all" and "propaganda wars." I have not observed this to be the case. I have not seen vandalism and slander on the pages (look at German/Polish articles for that), rather just disagreement on how to provide names.

I am neither Romanian nor Hungarian, but an American. I use Wikipedia primarily for historical reference concerning locations and events I do not know a great deal about. My personal use of wiki is not geared toward the contemporary status of localities, but toward the various people who have lived there and the events they have experienced. Regarding contemporary information, I have no problem with it primarily listing names in the current state language. However, whenever it comes to historical issues, especially when different ethnicities involved, I expect Wiki to provide alternate names at least once. The goal of Wikipedia is to provide information- I say the more information the better. Everyone has the opportunity to improve or degrade the information here; if false information is posted, it will be removed. I see no reason to remove information if it is not factually incorrect. I believe that common sense should be used- we don't need the Bulgarian names when discussing events in Transylvania during World War II. However, I fully expect as much information to be provided as possible regarding the respective parties in a historical event. I appreciate the streamlining of names in articles if it is done for consistency; I just expect that a historically-relevant alternative names be provided for at least the first mentioning in an article.

Concerning the Harghita article, the text clearly states the overwhelmingly Szekler/Hungarian population. It is common sense to me to include the names used by the majority of the population in addition to the official names. Olessi 28 June 2005 23:17 (UTC)

I have no connections of any kind to the area, nor do I speak either of the languages involved. While I wouldn't see the point in, for example, including Hungarian names in an English-language article for places few Hungarians live in or visit, it makes good sense to me to include Hungarian names for places near the border where ethnic Hungarians do live, or Hungarian nationals do visit. Similarly, I would expect to see (to continue the example) Romanian names for places on the Hungarian side of the border if ethnic Romanians live there or Romanian nationals visit. Having more information is almost always better than having less. Katzenjammer 29 June 2005 19:56 (UTC)

This is ridiculous! I agre with Olessi and whomever was directly above them. Speaking as an American with mild interest in both Romanian and Hungarian history and culture, I find the idea of not noting the existence of a common or historically important Hungarian place name just because the state language of the area is Romanian. What the hell's the problem with naming it in Romanian, then naming its common or historically notable non-Romanian names in paranthesis? Considering you won't find usually more than maybe two (Hungarian and maybe German) alternate names for the most part, I also think there's merit in including the notable ones in parenthesis when linking to an article on the place - even and especially when there is no article there yet (redlink). It makes it easier to find if you don't know the official name! And assuming Wikipedia's coverage of that place is non-existant beyond "this is what it's called, and it's in Romania" (i.e. redlink, no article yet), it makes a lot of sense to include any notable Hungarian and in some cases German alternate names. How ELSE are you going to know what they're called, and thus be able to look them up elsewhere, if for instance, you don't know the Romanian name, but only the Hungarian or German one? What could be wrong with including both? o.O That whole argument seems ridiculous, and there's no point to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.235.45.169 (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

English encyclopedia or Encyclopedia for the english?

I found absolutely stunning the remark of User:Criztu "no gain for the english reader to know the hungarian name of a city in Romania that hasn't got even a stub article about it". And even more the actions he pursued in consequence:

• Are we writing an encyclopedia for the english or for anybody speaking english who might find it useful? I presonally feel it is my encyclopedia, and am happy to be able look up anything i might find interesting. And I'm rejoycing to see facts and objectivity emerging and strengthening.
• Those names you talk about, I find them informative and relevant, and there are lots of other people like me, so please don't delete them.
• Transylvania had a long Hungarian history, and every little creek and settlement has a Hungarian name, none of which is too insignificant to be mentioned only in Romanian. And please don't throw arguments like ".. and how many other names?", to lengthen the description list. If there is one name besides the official one that can be considered significant, well there is great chance that it is Hungarian. So please leave those names throughout. I can't believe anyone ever complained to remove those names in parantheses because they really reduce readability.
• ".. a city that hasn't got even a stub... " Deleting those names would be even worse than removing them from within an article body: It will make sure to leave no trace of the hungarian names wheresoever. However I try I can not find any good faith in such actions. I don't know if or how many such deletions actually occured, so this is only a warning call. But if it did happen, it cannot be called anything but vandalism.
• In general, think twice before removing information, and don't forget to assume the good faith of someone's edits. This applies to all of us, but especially if you have a long record of disputed edits. We would all be better off if you stuck to consturctive edits and refrain from your patriotic or philantropic duty to reshape the articles. You save a lot of useless effort both for yourself and the rest of us.

Akiss 28 June 2005 20:27 (UTC)

[Please Criztu, a bit of respect, don't cut my comment into pieces. Besides you are really difficult to follow. Your answers are all over the place. You would do better to concentrate your answers and spare the reader.] Akiss 28 June 2005 22:04 (UTC)

listen, there is the Tisza river, and there is the Mures river. You won't see me hunting down the articles where Tisza is mentioned and writing in parantheses that its Romanian name is Tisa. That is the problem in Romanian (actualy Transylvania related) articles, someone at somepoint went through all Transylvania related articles and put in the Hungarian versions for places in Romania hundreds of times. and edited the Transylvania related articles in a twisted irredentist anti-romanian fashion. That someone made me lost couple of days of my life, having to "crush once and for all" all of that someone's actions. If you go through all Transylvanian related articles and check their history you'll have the whole picture of this propaganda war. -- Criztu 28 June 2005 21:07 (UTC)

i don't delete the Hungarian version of a place in Romania if it is mentioned in that place's article. outside of its article, and adding other places too, it becomes a hungarian propaganda campaign about Transylvania on Wikipedia, and from there across the Internet, that falls into irredentism -- Criztu 28 June 2005 21:07 (UTC)

what's the gain for a reader of Wikipedia to read the Hungarian version of river Mures in each and every single article where Mures is mentioned ? The Hungarian version Maros is irrelevant, as it is simply a Hungarization of a name known since antiquity : river Marisus. It's like, you would go through all articles where Danube river is mentioned, and make sure every mention of Danube has a little hungarian version in paranthesis -- Criztu 28 June 2005 21:12 (UTC)

This is an ENGLISH environment. this is not about "hungarian traces" -- Criztu 28 June 2005 21:19 (UTC)

Dear Criztu, you are right in saying that recently someone went through many Transylvania-related pages and added a lot of nonsense to it. So I really appreciate that you removed all that misleading stuff. But I'm afraid in many cases you went too far and removed stuff which was absolutely OK and relevant. And you are right, we do not have to give the Hungarian equivalent of Mures in each and every article, that would be crazy. What I am asking for is to give the Hungarian versions of toponyms in the Harghita article, because there, and in the Covasna article too, this is a relevant peace of information, as indeed these are the names used by the vast majority of people there. Admittedly, there is no Wikipedia policy requiring this, it would only be a nice, decent, magnanimous thing on your part to leave that stuff there.--Tamas 29 June 2005 08:42 (UTC)

I think that localities have a historical load. Like, when in the Csík article of Counties in the Kingdom of Hungary: -- Criztu 29 June 2005 10:34 (UTC)

-"The capital of the Csik county was Miercurea Ciuc (Csíkszereda in Hungarian)" looks forced beurocracy to me

-"The capital of the Csik county was Csíkszereda (Miercurea Ciuc)" looks aesthetical to me.

But, rivers and mountains are not "historicaly tied by Hungary", so e.g.:

-"Turks fought Hungarians at river Duna/Maros (Danube/Mures) in Nagy Alfold (Pannonian plain)" is silly (aka hungarianization of the wikification)

-"Turks fought Hungarians at river Danube/Mures/Tisza in Pannonian plain" i consider ok.

-"Turks fought Hungarians at river Duna/Maros in Carpathian Basin (Nagy Alfold)" is worst.

however, for ancient times, when no current hungarian version for the river Danube/Mures/Tisza existed:

-"Dacians fought Romans on river Danube/Mures/Tisza in Pannonian plain" looks ok

-"Dacians fought Romans on river Danubius/Marisius/Tisia (Danube/Mures/Tisza) in Pannonian plain" looks aesthetical

-"Dacians fought Romans on river Danube/Mures (Duna/Maros) in Pannonian plain (Nagy Alfold)" looks like hungarization of wikipedia

-"Dacians fought Romans on river Duna/Maros in Carpathian Basin (Nagy Alfold) is worst

further, when an article refers to contemporary status quo of a city in Romania :

-"Romanians fought Germans at Alba Iulia (Gyulafehervar) in WW 2" is hungarian melancholia

-"Romanians fought Germans at Alba Iulia in WW 2" is ok

but in historical context where hungary is involved:

-"Hungarians fought Germans at Gyulafehervar (Alba Iulia) in 1876" is ok

-"Hungarians fought Germans at Alba Iulia (Gyulafehervar in Hungarian) in 1876" is too beaurocratic

-"Hungarians fought Germans at Alba Iulia in 1876" is unfair toward hungarians thats true

Your examples are perfectly OK, I could not agree more, but the whole discussion started about articles which give the topography of a region/county etc. in the present, not historical articles. Miercurea Ciuc is called Csíkszereda in the present by over 80% of the inhabitatants of Harghita county, that's why I think it would be nice to give this version too (in brackets, italics) in the Harghita article as well, not only in the Miercurea Ciuc article. Admittedly, no wikipolicy requires us to do so, that's where common sense, cooperation and things like that come into the picture.--Tamas 29 June 2005 16:14 (UTC)

I agree about cities that have that 20% hungarian to be accompanied by their hungarian version in paranthesis, after all this is the official policy about localities in Romania. But, Wikipedia is a media channel, and an english one; you'll never see on an english/hungarian media channel the name of say Bucureşti mentioned in parantheses everytime an info about Bucharest/Bukarest is broadcasted.. and that city is "purely 93%" romanian. same goes for "Lacul Sfanta Ana" (romanian); it is presented by the english media as "Saint Anne Lake", not "Szent Ana to" (hungarian). Szeklers might have an "ownership" for their history (names of cities inhabited by szeklers over time), but not for the territory(lakes, mountains, rivers) or present day administrative divisions of Romania. It's about sovereignty: allways mentioning the hungarian name of a geographical unit will identify it as "hungarian sovereign", or label it as "hungarian claimed", that i think will be the relevance of mentioning the hungarian version of a topographycal unit in ROmania outside its apropriate article. -- Criztu 29 June 2005 16:39 (UTC)

I see your point, and in general, you are right, but (1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a media channel, and (2) it is not about sovereignty: if we use the official name first, and alternative names only after it, in parentheses, this is ample indication that the first name is official, and the second, third etc. are just additional stuff. I guess that's what's nice in an Encyclopedia: it can go into details media channels can't. But all in all, you are right, the general practice is to only give the official (here: Romanian) version, but not so much for reasons of sovereignty but because that's the name on maps, road signs etc., which are usually monolingual, so it is for this practical reason. But actually the fact that the Hungarian names are there in their appropriate articles makes me quite happy already. And again, I understand your fears about the sovereignty issue, they are not entirely without ground, there are indeed some unregistered guys around here with revisionist agendas.--Tamas 29 June 2005 17:51 (UTC)

about Mures river vs Mures county: look up for Mures river in Britannica, and youll find the Hungarian version Maros (and that's only cuz the river Mures flows through Hungary also). Look up for Mures county in Britannica, no Hungarian version -- Criztu 29 June 2005 21:14 (UTC)

OK, but we are here to beat Britannica, aren't we? One way to beat them is to provide more information.:) (OK, just kidding.)

"allways mentioning the hungarian name of a geographical unit will identify it as "hungarian sovereign", or label it as "hungarian claimed", that i think will be the relevance of mentioning the hungarian version of a topographycal unit in ROmania outside its apropriate article."

WHAT? The hell? What about poor folks like me, who zig-zag between Hungarian-made and Romanian-made external sources, that may or may not bother to provide both names, though? How would I know a particular town (note, I'm not saying every creek, etc., but towns, larger and more politically and generally more historically important areas) is the one I'm looking for, if I've only seen the Hungarian name, and all that's provided is the Romanian? Even arguing that they're "almost the same" doesn't hold water; a slight spelling difference can mean the difference between someone figuring "oh that's the place" or "huh, there's a similarly named place that isn't named using the word I was looking for, which means it's probably not what I'm looking for". If the Hungarian (or occasionally German, for that matter) name is really, really, REALLY common, or historically of note, list it for God's sake. It's helpful for those of us trying to look up these places, and it does not "grant them sovereignty", that's ridiculous to say that. Words may have power, yadda yadda, but giving an alternate name, labeled as merely alternate? All that says is "this is the official name you'll find on most maps and such, though a lot of locals/historians/documents also call it this other name". Ridiculous, from a non-Romanian/non-Hungarian standpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.235.45.169 (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

a county in Transylvania region

since most of the discussion about places formerly hungarian, now romanian is here, i will address the "Transylvania region in ROmania" here as well: - there is no Transylvania region in Romania. take a look at Regions of Hungary. The same goes for Regions of Romania. the regions of ROmania are not Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia. the regions are CEntral, Southern, Northern, etc

-so when writing "Harghita is a county in Transylvania in ROmania" this is simply wrong.

-Harghita is a county in Romania, (and if you want to point the region, then it is in Central Region of ROmania.

-if you want to mention that the county is in what was once the voivodship/province/governorate/principality of Transylvania that is fine by me, altho' not encyclopedic. so mention it something like "Harghita is a county in Romania, in Transylvania".

i'd personaly(and probably will) remove this "in Transylvania", "in Wallachia", "in Moldavia" thing from the lead paragraphs and add details in the History section of Harghita/other counties, but for the moment i'm not so pretentious about Wikipedia. -- Criztu 2 July 2005 08:14 (UTC)

Come on, Criztu, can't you see the difference between region and administrative region? Transylvania is a region, I mean, what is it, is it a vehicle, an animal, a subatomic particle? Just because it is not an administrative region, it can be a region, and it is a region. I mean, I guess you too have used the word "Ardeal" several thousand times in your life, referring to the geopraphical region so called. Wikipedia is not an administrative-political encyclopaedia, it is a general encyclopaedia.--Tamas 2 July 2005 14:03 (UTC)

Transylvania refers to the territory recognised by the Treaty of Trianon as ROmanian sovereign, former teritory of Hungary betwen 1867 and 1918. This Transylvania is made up of four "regions" (which actually had a level of administration, thus they were administrative regions): Ardeal (proper Transylvania), Banat, Crisana and Maramures. thus Timisoara city is in Banat, Oradea in Crisana, Satu Mare in Maramures, Cluj in Ardeal. I'm ok for the moment with the formulation Timisoara is a city in Romania, in Transylvania, or Timisoara is a city in Romania, in Banat, but since everybody speaks of Euroregions these days, it would be confusing to think of Transylvania as a region, cuz it's not. If we treat Transylvania as a region, then it would refer to Ardeal only, and the information from the Transylvania article : In 978 Vatican missionaries established a church in a fort at the site of the present-day city of Oradea (which is actualy in Crisana "region") would be wrong-placed.

So, either we refer to:

Timisoara is a city in Transylvania, region of Romania (wrong, as it is in Banat)

Timisoara is a city in Transylvania, administrative region of Romania (wrong, as Romania doesn't have a Transylvania admin region)

Timisoara is a city in Transylvania, former teritory of Hungary (correct, but irredentist) -- Criztu 3 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)

Timisoara is a city in Romania, in Banat - perrrfect :)

Actualy this all thing with "Transylvania a region in Romania" i consider a hungarian propaganda. Its purpose is to propagate the impression that Transylvania has some "distinct unifying features" that are differentiating it from rest of Romania and gives it special status within ROmania, and those features would be the Hungarian features. that's crap -- Criztu 3 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)

Dear Criz, check out the Romania page, Geography section, map; I qoute what's written there: "Administrative map of Romania

Transylvania is green, Wallachia blue, the Moldavian region red, and Dobrogea yellow" So it is okay to talk about a Translyvania region in the Romania page, but it's not okay to do so in the Harghita page? How is that? And please-please realize that "region" can be used in a non-legal, non-administrative sense. The page Region has this to say: "A region can be any area that has some unifying feature. Typically they are, but are not necessarily, smaller than a country." It is not necessary that it be a legal entity.--Tamas 5 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)

that text is ambiguous. Those 41 counties are the Administrative divisions of RO; Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia are not represented on any Administrative map of RO. and these are the Administrative Regions of Romania http://www.rgic.ro/ana_regionale.html ; and these are the historical regions of Romania http://www.ici.ro/romania/images/turism/regiuni.jpg ... unfortunately there is not so much information on the net about "historical regions" of RO -- Criztu 9 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)

"Timisoara is a city in Romania, in Transylvania, or Timisoara is a city in Romania, in Banat, but since everybody speaks of Euroregions these days, it would be confusing to think of Transylvania as a region, cuz it's not. If we treat Transylvania as a region, then it would refer to Ardeal only, and the information from the Transylvania article"

Clearly you do not speak English as a native speaker. I do, so I can probably provide better perspective here, because clearly you've missed the point so badly as to "find" a completely different one that didn't even exist:

In English, "region" is the one of the vaguest words imaginable, no more specific than "area", not much more specific than "place" if at all, and only slightly more specific than "thing". In fact, "region" can be used almost interchangeably with "area", with the exception that most encyclopedic or educational resources will often refer to geographic areas as "regions" more than they will "areas". Saying "the region of Transylvania, Romania" does NOT I repeat, NOT NOT NOT mean, let alone imply, that Transylvania is the name of an "administrative region of Romania", it means "an area in Romania commonly called Transylvania in English description", which is 100% of that area - as far as English speakers are concerned, it is called "Transylvania", regardless of whether or not it's supposed to have any political power under that name or whatever (media reports about the filming of Cold Mountain for instance, mentioned it was filmed "in Transylvania"). To make this as clear as I can: The concept of a "region" and an "administrative region" are HUGELY different in English. The concept the word "region" evokes in English is almost completely different from that evoked by the words "administrative region"'. Furthermore, saying "in Romania, in Transylvania" means the exact opposite of the way you're attempting to use it; it implies that whatever town is in Romania, yes, but it also implies that Romania is within Transylvania, rather than a certain area of Romania being historically and popularly known - in English - under the name "Transylvania".

To reiterate: Region and administrative region are not the same thing in English! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.235.45.169 (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Survey: about providing alternates for the names of the counties of Romania in Transylvania

these are my points for an "against" in the Survey meant to solving the dispute resolution. please add your points for a "pro" or "against" before starting the Survey. -- Criztu 9 July 2005 15:25 (UTC)

Survey about providing Hungarian names of Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary as alternates for Romanian names of Counties of Romania in Transylvania.

Reasons for not providing the names of the Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary as alternates for the names of the Counties of Romania:

1. total mess - Administrative divisions of Romania can't be "former Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary". there is no continuity or "legacy" between the administration of the Kingdom of Hungary and the administration of Romania.

2. trespassing international conventions and Romanian sovereignty - present-day Romanian official names of Counties of Romania can't have Hungarian alternates. Nobody in the world uses the name of a county of the Kingdom of Hungary from 1900 when referring to a county of Romania from 2000 ... even if it is in Transylvania.

3. interference - providing the names of the administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary in the leading paragraph as alternates for the names of the counties of Romania from Transylvania attaches the message Transylvania is Hungarian to those articles..

4. not encyclopedic - Britannica doesn't provide the hungarian name of the administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary as alternates for the romanian names of the counties of Romania. see Mures county in Romania in Transylvania.

5. irredentism - claiming Transylvania is Hungarian, therefore the names of the counties of Kingdom of Hungary should be provided in the articles about the counties of Romania in Transylvania.

6. no relevance, no logic - what's the relevance, what's the logic in providing the name of a county of the Kingdom of Hungary as alternate for a county of Romania from Transylvania ? other than "Transylvania is Hungarian" ?----

• Where is this survey? I can't find it.

  I think those in favour of providing the names of the administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary as alternates for the names of the administrative divisions of ROmania should present their reasons, so the voters could understand both parts -- Criztu 11:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

  • This still doesn't answer my question as to where the survey is. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:00, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  I'm waiting for Hottentot (or anybody else) to present reasons for providing (or not providing) the names of the Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary as alternates for the names of the Administrative divisions of ROmania before starting the Survey -- Criztu 18:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

  • So do I understand that despite the heading of this section, there is no survey in progress? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:28, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Criztu, I think you are completely misunderstanding this.
  1. An encyclopedia is not only about the present. An article about a city should cover all of its history. One way or another, that should cover at least all of the names by which it has officially been known, and often should cover unofficial names in widespread use.
  2. As I was accurately quoted remarking above, many of these cities are better known historically by Hungarian or German names. People doing research from old books need to know that Sibiu was Hermannstadt.

     the Survey will be about providing the names of the Administrative divisions (counties) of the Kingdom of Hungary as alternates for the names of the administrative divisions(counties) of ROmania -- Criztu 11:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

  3. Culture and sovereignty are two separate matters. I cannot imagine us mentioning 8th Street in Miami without mentioning that it is better known as Calle Ocho, or Avenue B in Manhattan without mentioning that it is also known as Loisaida, a Spanglish formation off of Lower East Side. This does not challenge U.S sovereignty over these neighborhoods; it does reflect the culture of their inhabitants. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:11, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

     yeap, this is the problem : Administrative divisions of Romania can't be "better known by the names of the Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary" -- Criztu 11:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Other encylopedias does mention all versions of the name; one such example is Encyclopedia Britannica

• 1. Encyclopedia Britannica uses first the Romanian version, followed by the Hungarian and the German version of the names. Example:

--- Târgu Mures

Encyclopædia Britannica Article       

  Page  1  of  1     

also spelled Tîrgu Mures, Hungarian Marosvásárhely, city, capital of Mures judet (county), north-central Romania. ---

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9072604&query=targu%20mures&ct=eb

--Anittas 13:29, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Anittas, Criztu is talking about county/judeţ names, not city names. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 14:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Criztu, here is a formulation of the arguments for providing the names in other languages, replying to your points one by one. By your leave, I renumbered 3 and 4 that had been inverted.

• 1: There is a geographical continuity between the former Kingdom of Hungary administrative units and the current Romania units. (I'm not sure whether this applies to all judeţs in Transylvania, but it surely does apply to many.)
• 2 and 3: The non-Romanian names can (and should) be provided in a context which makes it clear that they are not the official name of the administrative unit, and thus can avoid any kind of implicit "Transylvania is Hungarian" message.
• 4: Other encyclopedias are not a benchmark for Wikipedia. Current Wikipedia policy, in turn, does not provide a decision in this question (either way). (I'd in fact remove both your point 4 and this counter-argument for this reason.)
• 5: "irredentism - claiming Transylvania is Hungarian" is your interpretation of things, not a fact. I haven't seen anyone claim that on Wikipedia yet. So same as 4, it should be removed.
• 6. The relevance of alternative names is, as stated in point 1, that they referred to precisely the same geographical location. As there will probably never be a separate article about the same area, one for the administrative unit, and another for the geographical unit, there is nowhere else the alternative names can go.

(In this section, we're not addressing the "Lake Saint Ann issue", but let's go one at a time, I suppose.)

KissL 14:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• What is the "Lake Saint Ann issue"? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:03, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

names of rivers/lakes/mountain/etc. entirely in ROmania should be designated by their Romanian name. names of rivers/lakes/mountains/etc. shared by Romania with its neighbours are designated by the name known in the country where the river/lake/mountain/etc. has a more consistent presence, and the name by which the river/lake/mountain/etc. is known in the country where it has a lesser presence is offered as alternate. See Tisza(Romanian: Tisa) and Somes(Hungarian: Szamos) rivers. Lake Saint Anne (Romanian: Sfanta Ana) is entirely in ROmania. therefore the hungarian name of the lake (Szent Anna) should be provided in the Magyar Wikipedia not in the English Wikipedia. -- Criztu 18:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, the "Lake Saint Ann issue" is about Lake Sfânta Ana. It is a lake, as Criztu says, entirely in Romania, but to my knowledge, there has never been a Romanian majority population in that area, at least not in the last one thousand years (see also Băile Tuşnad or just Harghita for current demographic data). I think that in such a case, although the Romanian name is the official one and therefore it should be used as the title of the article, the name used by the local majority population deserves mentioning (if for no other reason, then because an English-speaking tourist will find it much easier to get along with the locals using that name). You can see Criztu's opposing standpoint above. KissL 07:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

KissL and everyone, one more thing I don't understand is this recurring "english speaking tourist issue". Do we write the encyclopedia for them? Is their best interest the main criteria to organise/add/delete content? I think most of the users of these pages are non-english natives. Personally, if I invest time and contribute, then I expect to be served on my turn; I hope that my voice doesn't count for less than that of an "english tourist" in deciding what matters and can stay and what is to be deleted. And if you all are working on this english encyclopedia, it's surely because English is a federating language allowing knowledge from different sources to be put together - that will certainly never be the case with Hungarian, Romanian or any other language. Without meaning to offend, I thing Hungarian (or French or any "other" language) encyclopedia is a joke - written by people who don't speak English or are too blind/nationalist to realise the importance of English, or perhaps people who want to keep knowledge for their own community instead of sharing with the world. (Ok, i exagerate; I also wrote once or twice into those "other" encyclopedias. But always things that were already in the English one.) Akiss 08:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I said "English-speaking tourist" not "English tourist" (and also, "if for no other reason"). I think we write the encyclopedia for those who understand English. I'm not into discussing the importance of other encyclopedias in this thread. KissL 08:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course, "English speaking" I meant. And sure, the point was not discussing the importance of other encyclopedias. That "if for no other reason" was that I thought some might interpret as informing the "tourists" may be more important than preserving knowledge. Anyway the point was, are we writing for ourselves, or altruistically for others? To answer those who try to show us the door with "go away and write things that concern only your people into your people's encyclopedia". Akiss 09:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh right. Well, the Hungarian name remains "knowledge" only as long as many Hungarians live there, in which case the "tourist" analogy also applies; but, admitting that the English language encyclopedia is the most likely to attract worldwide interest (which seems to be disputed though I agree with it), your argument for the same thing is also valid IMO. KissL 09:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

People, I really don't understand this obsession to delete knowledge. A name given to a geographic/administrative entity is knowledge. That means, there is - or there was once - a community, important enough to have its own name to design that entity. For example if there is an important Rroma community who calls Harghita say "Foo county", I would be happy to know that. Or if Sfanta Ana lake was called "Boo lake" under the Turks, I wouldn't delete that either. (And please don't send me to Rroma or Turkish wikipedia, I don't speak those languages..) Does this mean I'm a Rroma or Turkish irredentist?? As for the importance, we all have common sense to decide from which size a community can be considered important. And from which point an article is overcrowded with names. In this particular case - names in Transylvania -, several centuries of Hungarian dominance should justify considering Hungarian names as relevant. Competing only perhaps with Dacian names in the order of relevance.. :) Akiss 22:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Criztu, when are you going to put this stuff up on RfC? I think both sides have presented their views in much more detail than necessary enough detail. :) KissL 07:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Survey Placement

Wouldn't this survey be better placed on a more visible page, similar to the Talk:Gdansk/Vote page? The majority of contributors interested in the subject probably will not know about it when it is only on the Talk page for Harghita. Olessi 21:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

---

i've reverted Hottentot's deletion of the discussion. He moved "stuff" over to Talk:Harghita/Vote. Hottentot, don't think your gamble with linking to my userpage will win you votes. I think this discussion shoud stay here, and i think Hottentot's decision to start the vote on a Talk:Harghita/Vote is not best action. I posted the survey here explicitely for everybody interested in this matter to make an input to the content of the survey, that would have been then moved to a Talk:Counties of Romania/Vote. We should have came to a common agreement to where the Survey should have been put to. Like, if i find it more apropriate, should i remove Hottentot's Talk:Harghita/Vote to Talk:Alba/Vote without reaching an agreement first ? -- Criztu 21:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Survey result

The survey is closed. See the result here. KissL 14:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Hungarian Names

Hello! Oh my god, I cannot believe that the Hungarian names I added so many months ago would be such a heated debate topic:))Dear Criztu, after reading the whole talk page I would like to add that actually the Hungarian name of Harghita county is actually official as the county has over 20% Hungarians, and it is displayed in 2 languages on road signs as you enter the county:) I don't understand what this has to be revisionism or nationalism, why is it so terrible if the Hungarian names of places with Hungarian majorities are displayed? I would have no problem if Méhkerék, a Romanian community in Hungary has the Romanian name displayed on the Békés county wikipage. Anyway i don't think it is worse discussing so much...Sch. Dávid (22 Oct 2005)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)

in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) page,

paragraph 2.

The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parenthesis: {name1, name2, name3, etc.}. Any archaic names in the list (including names used before the standardization of English orthography) should be clearly marked as such, i.e.: (name1 arch.). Relevant foreign language names[3] are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e.: (Armenian: name1, Belarusian: name2, Czech: name3). Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a names section immediately following the lead. In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced with the following text: (known also by several alternative namesNames). Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line.

Definition

^ The geographic location is considered to have a single widely accepted English name in modern context (swaEn) if the following two conditions are satisfied simultaneously: The English-language encyclopedias (Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia and Encarta) consistently use this name in all articles where the corresponding location is mentioned in modern context. This name obtains the largest number (75% or more of total hits considering all possible variants) of Google Scholar and Google Books hits (count only articles and books, not number of times the world is used in them) when searched over English language articles and books where the corresponding location is mentioned in modern context. If the name of the location coincides with the name of another entity, care should be taken to exclude inapropriate pages from the count.

internet hits returned 11.800 results of "Hargita county" and 154 000 results of "Harghita county". English encyclopedias consistently use the name "Harghita county"

there was a voting meant to settle this problem, concluded with 5 votes in favour of providing the HU names against 2. the relevancy of that vote is reduced to 7 people voting,

considering the relevancy of English Encyclopedias and Wikipedia naming conventions

i here by remove the names of hungarian kingdom administrative divisions provided as alternates for names of romanian administrative divisions from the lead of the article. refer to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) for any debate on this matter Criztu 07:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)criztu

Criztu, I think you should read what you copypasted here a bit more carefully. You are permitted to move the hu: names out of the lead into a separate "Names" section (which I personally think would be overkill, but feel free...) Just removing the Hungarian name from the entire article is not acceptable and not justified by the (btw only proposed) policy cited above. KissL 09:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

i am refering to the Wikipedia naming convention Definition paragraph in removing the names from the lead. the reknown encyclopedias do not mention the names of hungarian kingdom administrative divisions as alternates for the names of contemporary romanian state administrative divisions. altho u reverted my edits, i will wait until other editors i informed about my intention on aligning Wikipedia to the reknown Encyclopedias express their point, befor i continue with my actions Criztu 10:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC) criztu

i have started the Wikipedia:Alternative name article, in order to present the process through which an alternative name is employed or discarded by established encyclopediasCriztu 19:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Criztu, I think there are no reasonable grouns for removing the Hungarian name. We're not talking about some obscure alternative name here, but the name used by the majority of the county's population. Harghita as a whole has no official language, since official languages are the responsibility of local governments (and the national government), not county governments. However, the vast majority of localities in Harghita County have Hungarian as an official language, alongside Romanian. Bilingual signs are virtually everywhere in Harghita County. For this reason, this name must stay. Covasna and Mureş should also have the Hungarian name. (We give alternative names in brackets for cities where minorities make up far smaller percentages and are not even recognised officially). In fact, more correct would be to include the Hungarian name of Miercurea-Ciuc in the lead as well, considering that the city has two official languages: Romanian and Hungarian. Ronline ✉ 07:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

there are reasonable grounds to remove magyar alternative name from lead paragraph and place it in the paragraph dealing with the ethnic magyar minority living in Harghita. just look at the word "county", the romanian word for county, "judet" is written in lead paragraph next to it. could one ask the magyar name of county and judet to be mentioned in the lead paragraph or not ? what makes u decide a magyar name of Harghita in the lead paragraph is a must. yet the magyar name of county and judet isnt a must ? I am asking for aligning wikipedia naming convention to Britannica naming convention. i will proceed to other means of achieving this, as i see u dont understand Britannica's standard . Criztu 13:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

page template

please consult other pages about Counties of Romania and Subdivisions of Romania before making edits about the quality of Harghita as a county of Romania. I edited all pages about Counties of Romania, trying to remain objective, and by objective i mean putting every information where it belongs, according to following convention(that is present in Britannica also). Counties of Romania are first of all administrative divisions of Romania. they are not shared with Hungary. the lead paragraph ofer information about Harghita county as an administrative division of Romania. the name of Harghita county by which hungarians refer to this county is offered in the paragraph about the hungarian ethnic minority. I dont contest there is a large number of Hungarians in Harghita county, but u cant present the demographic population in terms of "who's majoritary" in its teritory, as ethnic majority and an ethnic minority applies to States, not to their administrative divisions. Demographics are presented as nationality of the state, romanian, and ethnic minorities. cities in Harghita are cities of Romania. In their respective articles the name by which hungarians reffer to these cities is given in the lead paragraph. pls understand that i am trying to follow a convention that is also a convention employed by Britannica. If there was an unencyclopedic formulation in this article, it is not me to try to reach a consensus about that formulation being unencyclopedic since i use Britannica as a guide, it is those who want to revert to what i consider erroneus formulation that have to demonstrate Britannica convention are erroneus. Criztu 22:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Criztu, I just had to revert that. Not only because of the lack of alternative name, but because of the absurd statement (or implication) that Hungarians are an ethnic minority in Harghita. I support your idea of changing the county infobox to development regions rather than historical regions. But the thing that really gets me is the absurdity of reading this in the demographics section of an article:

• Romanians - (14.1%)
• Ethnic minorities: Hungarians - (84.6%, 276,106); Roma - (1.2%), and others.

Who said that ethnic majority and ethnic minority applies to states only? And why is it that you can't look at any administrative unit, be it a sector of Bucharest or a small village, and say that that unit has an ethnic majority of XYZ or a minority of ABC? This isn't about legalistic considerations, but about ethnic groups. In Harghita County, Hungarians form an ethnic majority. Period. There isn't anything incorrect with that statement, it doesn't even imply anything to do with a state or politics. You can extend that by saying that the ethnic majority is a recognised ethnic minority in the rest of Romania, but saying that Hungarians are an "ethnic minority" of Harghita is absurd! Moreover, your combination of all ethnic minorities into a single bullet point has discriminatory undertones. Your alleging that the former construction had revisionist, propagandist undertones. Well, the current version has discriminatory undertones. And as a citizen of Romania, I'm not OK with that. Just putting Romanians on a single line implies that they have more rights or that the other ethnic groups are somehow of a different, "tolerated" status.

Harghita is a county of Romania; Hungarians are an "Ethnic minority of Romania". they are not an "Ethnic minority of Romania and Ethnic majority of Harghita". I dont want to put all ethnic minorities under a single bullet, i didnt find a better way to group them as ethnic minorities Criztu 08:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Why aren't they an "Ethnic minority of Romania and ethnic majority of Harghita"? Don't think about that in a legal sense. An ethnic group doesn't have to be officially-recognised for it to be an ethnic group. France, for example, recognises no ethnic groups. But do you think it would be incorrect to say that, for example, Clichy-sous-Bois has a Maghrebian majority (I don't know if it does, but you get the point)? What would be wrong with that? Hungarians form an ethnic majority in Harghita, in the same way that Romanians form an ethnic majority in Topliţa, in the same way that Roma form an ethnic majority in Ferentari and Basques form an ethnic majority in Vitoria-Gasteiz. That demographic information is not political at all, it's just fact. So, it's perfectly correct to say that Hungarians, which are an (officially-regonised) ethnic minority in Romania, form an (ethnic) majority in Harghita. Ronline ✉ 09:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I support "Ethnic hungarians form the majority of a city population", and "Ethnic hungarians form the majority of the Harghita county population", i wrote that myself in the article. "The primary Hungarian group, the Székely (Romanian Secui), form majorities in most municipalities of the county.". I see i failed to write "Ethnic hungarians form the majority of Harghita county population" writing only "Harghita having the highest percentage of Hungarians in Romania, alongside Covasna county". Criztu 11:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, why did you remove the Hungarian names in brackets for the cities of Harghita? We're having this argument here about counties because of a little loophole in the minority rights legislation which says that counties have no control over language policy, but cities do. And, like it or not, but in those cities, Hungarian is an official language and thus has to be listed alongside the Romanian name. That name is no longer "alternative" but is actually the officially-recognised name of that city, appearing on bilingual signage, etc. Ronline ✉ 00:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The convention about city names is "giving the alternative name of a city in the lead paragraph in its corespondig article, and using it as such where the historic context requires it" (eg, "Battle of Marosvasarhely"). By giving a hungarian alternative name across wikipedia where any mention of that city apears with no regard to historic context, creates the image of that city being a city of Hungary. You dont see an official map having alternate hungarian name for a city in Romania, even if hungarian language is enabled in administration. Criztu 08:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but cities like Sfântu Gheorghe or Odorheiu Secuiesc have two official names - one in Romanian, and one in Hungarian. The name is Hungarian is no longer alternative or unrecognised, but is actually the co-official name of that city, as can be seen on all signs and at the city hall. So, it doesn't create the image of that city being in Hungary (otherwise the link would be in Hungarian) but rather shows people that the Hungarian name is officially-recognised. Why then is Nagyvarad listed under "Oradea" in the Oradea infobox? Finally, it's obvious that a Romanian-language official map wouldn't have the names, because it's a Romanian-language map, in the same way that the Hungarian Wikipedia has articles about the cities at the Hungarian name, not the Romanian one. And a map wouldn't have the second official names anyway for space and layout reasons. But in Wikipedia that's not an issue. We do, however, have to list all official names for the city, not just the Romanian one. Ronline ✉ 08:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not expert here, but i think u refer to the "employment of the language of the hungarian minority in local administration is enabled". But, the official site refers to Oradea as municipiul Oradea from the headear of the site and across all of its sections, it doesnt have "Nagyvarod" next to Oradea, as if the city would have 2 official names. The alternative names provided at the entrance of the city and on its official HQ building doesnt mean it is refered to in all documents of the state of Romania as a "city with two official names" but, "hungarian minority not speaking/understanding romanian, should be able to identify buildings of administration". Criztu 11:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that technically speaking you could argue that Hungarian doesn't have the status of "official language", because cities can't set official languages. However, the law says that in localities where Hungarians make up over 20% of the population, bilingual signage is to be provided (for streets, public institutions, etc), as well as education, access to public administration and access to justice. So, in this way, the local government effectively becomes bilingual, with Hungarian for all practical purposes being "co-official" or at least "officially-recognised". The Oradea cemetery, for example, has signs in both Romanian and Hungarian, as does the state theatre. The Municipality also published its newsletter (available also on the website) in both Romanian and Hungarian - that is, the city is effectively bilingual in local administration. Ronline ✉ 11:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You refer to "hungarian ethnics not speaking/understanding romanian have to be able to identify buildings of administration and public utilities at local level". This doesnt make Hungarian Official language of ROmania. A hungarian ethnic from Harghita, unable to speak/understand romanian, if he travels to Bucharest, will not be able to read a Hungarian alternative name for the cityhall of Bucharest. English Wikipedia is not for "ethnic minorities unable to read english or romanian", Hungarian Wikipedia is for that Criztu 11:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand u dont have an expert understanding of these matters, i am not expert either. but Britannica can be considered Expert, and it uses a convention that i am trying to reach it here on wikipedia Criztu 08:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

True, even though I know what the minority rights legislation entails. I wouldn't really consider Britannica expert either in this matter. You claim that Britannica didn't include the Hungarian name there for political reasons, because it knew what it was doing. However, it could just as well have been an oversight, or the articles were generated in a series and Hungarian names weren't provided. It doesn't have to be interpreted as a political statement, and in any case, Britannica has a somewhat anti-minority bias, as can be seen by the fact that it doesn't recognise, for example, an Aromanian language separate from Romania, or a Voro language separate from Estonia. It tends to have quite a stale and conservative view on these issues. Ronline ✉ 09:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

you dont seem to consider the convention that gives the meaning "a thing administrated by two countries has alternative names in the languages of the respective countries" Criztu 12:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but languages don't belong to states! Giving a Romanian and Hungarian name for an administrative unit doesn't mean it's shared between Hungary and Romania. The usage of Hungarian anywhere doesn't have anything to do with the Republic of Hungary. So, yes, a unit administered by two countries would have an alternative name in the official languages of the respective countries. But that's not the only situation where alternative names are used (Oradea, for example, isn't administered in a shared way by Romania and Hungary). Ronline ✉ 12:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope i am not repeating myself. The law in Romania says (paraphrasing) "an ethnic minority citizen of ROmania not understanding/speaking ROmanian has to be able to identify buildings of administration and public utilities, in localities where the ethnic minority he belongs to reaches at least 20%". this is the usage of alternative ethnic minoritary language of localities in Romania. a citizen of an ethnic minority who doesnt understand/speak romanian, would be helpless if he travels in localities of ROmania that dont have 20% of his ethnic minority. I am not aware of another official use of the name of a locality in ROmania. as for Oradea, its official site mentions the name "municipalitatea Oradea" and continues with the name Oradea throughout the site. I think the infobox of Oradea on Wikipedia should be corrected in this sense. english Wikipedia is not intended on "helping an citizen of an ethnic minority not understanding ROmanian to identify buildings of administration and public utilities" Criztu 22:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as a native English speaker...

...Yes, insofar as I am concerned with this region, the Hungarian names are almost as important to me as the Romanian ones. This is for two closely interrelated reasons:

1. For much of its history, this territory was under Hungarian domination. Therefore, in dealing with older books, the placenames are liable to be Hungarian. A search on that name in Wikipedia will bring me to the side-by-side present-day Romanian name.
2. The region is largely Hungarian-speaking, and I gather that the Hungarian names of virtually all of these places remain in common use today, even on signage. These are absolutely "live" names.

I could go on, but I think this is enough. Ultimately, the issue here is what serves the reader, and in this case I cannot imagine how removal of Hungarian names serves the reader. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, in the Infobox, what do we gain by removing the regional designation Transylvania, one that will mean something to most people in the English-speaking world and give them some sense of the character of the place, and replacing it with Centru (development region), a designation that is moderately obscure even within Romania? - Jmabel | Talk 07:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ideally, we should have both. The historical region (Transylvania) is important in a cultural-historical sense, and, as you said, enables people to gauge the character of the county. The development region is also important to a degree, particularly in the context of the European Union and statistics (the EU uses these as NUTS-2 regions in its publications and research, and they are also used for Regional Development Plans and the distribution of funds, so they are of some importance). Ronline ✉ 09:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: I have no objection to the inclusion of Centru (development region), my issue is entirlely about the removal of Transylvania. - Jmabel | Talk 19:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried adding a distinct historical region in the template, but I apparently mucked the syntax and I don't have time to work on it right now (lunch break ends in 5 minutes or so). If someone can fix this, it would be appreciated. - Jmabel | Talk 19:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added historic region to the template. So far, I've only filled it in for a few counties.

I have no idea why the development region is showing up with double square brackets around it, but that problem already existed before I edited. - Jmabel | Talk 22:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request

Hi, I am not the official mediator, but I will try to help. You may wish to appeal to a broader community for input by asking at the Village pump, posting a Wikiquette alert, or filing a Request for Comment. --Ideogram 17:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Demographics history of Harghita County

Harghita County has a demographics section already, this does not warrant a separate article. Flat Out let's discuss it 13:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• I support a new article to be expanded. 2QW4 (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
• Agree, Demographics history of Harghita County does not contain new information, it is merely a duplicate text. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The above user is using proxy IPs...2QW4 (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Any proof? Stop vandalism and study the basic rules of Wikipedia, User:Hortobagy. Happy new year! ;) --Norden1990 (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The timing and the fact that your IPs is supporting your edits. I am not user Hortobagy. 2QW4 (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as you have made 2 reports you dont need to shop your allegations any further.Flat Out let's discuss it 14:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Perfect, but why they got so much intense nerved? 2QW4 (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support: sockpuppetry issues aside, the article is a small section split away from a short article, and I can see no reason to split it. Ruby Murray 13:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support turning the article into a redirect - Demographics history of Harghita County contains nothing that it not already in Harghita County#Demographics. Indeed the latter has more useful information.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support redirect - yes I agree there is no point in merging when there is no additional information. Good call Flat Out let's discuss it 14:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harghita County. 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/20090816034908/http://www.recensamant.ro/pagini/tabele/t40a.pdf to http://www.recensamant.ro/pagini/tabele/t40a.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.harghita.insse.ro/phpfiles/Comunicat_DATE_PROVIZORII_RPL_2011_JUD_HR.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)