Talk:Anton Bernolák

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Slovakia Start‑class High‑importance

	Slovakia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovakia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Slovakia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SlovakiaWikipedia:WikiProject SlovakiaTemplate:WikiProject SlovakiaSlovakia articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hungarian names[edit]

please note, that the use of Hungarian names is unmerited, as Hungarian was not the official language in the period in question. The names should be mentioned either in Latin or in their present forms. I suggest the latter. Please also note, that the use of Pozsony is in conflict with WP:NCGN and Pressburg should be used instead, as it is an established English name. Wladthemlat (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, what you are doing is called wikistalking, and do not be astonished if anybody reports you for it. But to as WP:NCGN, interestingly enough that you omitted those sentences when reading this essay:

Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e., (Armenian name1, Belarusian name2, Czech name3). or (ar: name1, be: name2, cs: name3).

--Nmate (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, controlling the contributions of potentially disruptive editors is not Wikistalking and it's even encouraged in the very same article you're linking.

Second - i did not omit anything, this goes for articles about that specific place, it's not feasible to translate every single geographic name in all the articles. So in Trnava you have Tyrnau etc., but this is not the case in other articles mentioning the city. Wladthemlat (talk) 08:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK.It is another personal attack from you.--Nmate (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not and please, try to avoid frequent overreaction, it doesn't help anything. Thanks. Anything on topic you might want to add? Wladthemlat (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian names for places before 1867[edit]

As the official language of the Kingdom of Hungary was Latin until 1867 [1], using Hungarian names for cities etc. before this date is anachronistic. Since the Latin name that was used at the time can scarcely be found, we should list all the places with their modern names. --Bizovne (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This information is heavily incorrect and outdated, I am not surprised this user was banned because of sockpuppetry. On many wiki pages also other anti-Hungarians tried with this argumentation. Let's make it clear once and for all,as it is correspondent with the current Wikipedia consensus, the contemporary names can be used at first place. After, the modern name also can be mentioned. It is also a practice, if the current page is about a person that is i.e. ethnically different as the contemporary state major ethnic, only in the initial section and infobox we use the method mentioned above, the rest of the article we use the modern names, although the contemporary names are still not prohibited. There may be of course many particular situation we are able to combine these - by not harming any wikipedia rule or consenus - for the better quality of the article. Of course, regarding this is the English Wikipedia, if in the English context regardless of the ruling state/ruler/administration/official language we can use that name that is the most relevant by reference in the English context and language (the best example of this the usage of Pressburg in the first place). Moreover, not only the current official administration/language decides about the usage of contemporary names, since i.e. in the medieval ages most of Europe was used Latin/Slavic administratively/officially, but it does not mean we cannot use a German name in the Holy Roman Empire where Germans lived, or we cannot use a Romanian name, because of the Slavic administration, although the correspondent name was used by everybody, regarding official languages in many countries weren't introduced. Also in many situations, when the Crown is held by hereditary of a foreign ruler, but the country/state has his own constitution, diet, citizenship and is a separate state in the Empire/Monarchy ruled by the common King, it also does not mean only the King's linguistic or ethnic or allegiance status would decide the usage of names (i.e. Kingdom of Hungary's status with a Habsburg ruler, as also having an Anjou ruler would not mean Hungarian names cannot be used). Finally, Hungarian names before 1867 are of course not anachronistic, as some poor nationalists state, since the proper combinations of upper mentioned has to be applied, to say nothing of the Latin names were the transcriptions of the original Hungarian/Hungarian used names. Every place, country, state in any historical time can be judged fairly about the usage of the names, just professionalism and good sense is needed. Just consider, the time Michael The Brave ruled Principality of Transylvania, what lanuague is to be used? German? (as being a Habsburg vassal), Romanian (Michael The Brave's ethnicity), Latin? (a common used lanugage of administration), Hungarian? (the Transylvanian Diet's official lanugauge and administration was Hungarian, also Principality of Transylvania was the hereditary land of the Hungarian Crown held that by the Habsburgs). So, i.e. the solution of this equation regarding the policy, in this example: Hungarian can be used at the first place, regarding the hereditary status of Transylvania and the Diet's official language. German can be used in the first place, if in English context it is contemporarily more relevant. Romanian names can be always indicated on the second place, if the territory is now in modern-day Romania, but if there's any article to put a person with Romanian ethnicity the contemporary time and place, except the initial and the infobox Romanian names can be used at first, if there is no other relevan reason against. Just see the Ludovit Stur article, the Hungarian names were also indicated in the initial and the infobox, however, not in the first place - although it could be - but no one makes a war because of this since Stur is a Slovak person, the article is in a Slovak context, so we bear if the Hungarian names are in the second place.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]