Jump to content

Talk:Bratislava/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Bratislava. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Population count

Last edits by 195.91.55.214 does not seem to be correct. Where is the information coming from? I cant find it on the internet using google. Can someone confirm the data or make sure that reverting is the correct thing to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.167.72.156 (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it is worth noting that for several reasons many actual inhabitants of the city do not get registered here. Therefore, based on this research, the actual number of people living in Bratislava is estimated as 666.000 and further 130.000 live here during work days. This is a significantly different number than the official based on census and brings the city to almost to 800.000 during work days. SOURCE: https://ekonomika.sme.sk/c/20542623/v-bratislave-zije-stvrt-miliona-cepeckarov-najviac-ich-nie-je-v-petrzalke.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortunemanpc (talk • contribs) 16:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Bratislava. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Climate is Cfb not continental

The climate fullfils the Oceanic climate -criteria and is not cold enough in winter (at least a 24-hr mean of -3 Celsius in one month) to be humid continental. And precipitation is well spread over the year, as seen here. Orcaborealis (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You refer to Köppen classification which the article does not claim to use (it also depends on whether you use the 0 or -3 Celsius threshold so it's moot anyway). The climate is widely referred to as continental in various local sources and popular use which is apparently reflected here. Anyways, planning some workout on the climate section...some time. Martin Gazdík (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
As for threshold, using +0°C is used to some extent by US climatologist, rarely outside the US. As for climate classification, I do not think that using the feelings of cityweb editor is the best attitude for Wikipedia. Nor I think the editor made enough effort to verify his conclusions with the latest scientific knowledge. Bratislava was originally estimated to belong to the continental climate, using then-available data. This can be still seen on some charts available at Wikipedia. Even more, perhaps local people feel more comfortable with “continental climate” classification because of landlockedness of their country. Both of these facts could result in statements claiming Bratislava climate as "continental." But it lacks sufficient scientific ground. Climatologic scientists from Austria and Germany recently tried to update the original Köppen map with improved data. The result was published in trustworthy scientific magazine and it puts Bratislava and its surrounding (but not entire Slovakia) climate clearly into oceanic climate. See the reference in the article. Perhaps, one more detail could be useful for this discussion: the average temperature in Central Europe is increasing (see the same resource), and Bratislava will reach the US threshold within some 5 years. This will make Bratislava climate being oceanic in all three widely used climate classification schemes. Michal @ 9:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with scientific pows but they tend to change all the time until they settle down, and to ignore contexts. "Local people" in this case comprise all types of local sources (scientific and popular) and a general consensus in kind that has formed over periods of time (with or without Köppen) the original editor draws upon and this one can attest to, so he rests the case for someone competent to decide which to prefer on Wiki for a general non-scientific description, as the scientific classification(s) have been added in the meantime too. Continental as a summary attribute is likely to be of better information value to a random visitor both for general reference and in context, e.g. relative to Vienna, which is termed borderline oceanic/continental here, or within the general Pannonian Basin (continental and increasingly so on the scale towards the east). And I do not think an encyclopedia should anticipate trends including climate trends, so this should be left out entirely as an argument. Martin Gazdík (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I feel that Dfa (not Cfb and not Dfb, a: Hot summer, warmest month averages above 22 °C (71.6 °F) - please note /average/, not mean) is the closest match because "Summers are cool ... Oceanic climates are defined as having a monthly mean temperature below 22 °C (72 °F) in the warmest month" and here we rarely see summers without at least one month averaging above 22 (sometimes up to 24) and I'd say that such years are as rare as seeing three months with average reaching at least 22. I am no authority but I think that some (maybe even most) years not matching 1 month in winter but most matching up to 3 months in summer is logically more accurate description. You can refer to collected METAR data from Bratislava airport [1] 07:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://meteomanz.com/sy4?l=1&ind=11816&y1=2003

The article could really use including the official city logo. I'm not sure which version would be most appropriate, here are the main ones (the first one is definitely seen most commonly, whilst the third one is perhaps most appropriate for an article with a white background - the red-and-blue versions see very little use nowadays): https://bratislava.sk/sk/logo-bratislavy --85.216.149.248 (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Ip edit

Dear IP,

please do not remove historic names, they do no harm, Bratislava is on the top, highlighed, don't worry. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC))

@Peter1170:,
Nobody removed Bratislava from the top, so your argumentation flaws.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC))
Also Istanbul has a lot of historic names - Byzantium, Constantinopol or Stamboul, but as you can see, its not in the main infobox there. Different names are associated with different phases of history. Other historic names for Bratislava are in the article, if you check Etymology. Other alternative names of the city in the past include Greek: Ιστρόπολις Istropolis, Czech: Prešpurk, French: Presbourg, Italian: Presburgo, Latin: Posonium, Romanian: Pojon and Serbo-Croatian: Požun / Пожун.... Should we write all names to infobox to make all countries happy? Name in Slovak and English is enough for English Wikipedia. Peter1170 (talk) 12:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
In this area usually also we identify relevent names related in the infobox, the city is not related to Slovaks, but Hungarians and Germans also share it's history, until today, so Istanbul is not really a best comparison.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC))

Pressburg redirect

Currently Pressburg (the German name of the city) redirects to History of Bratislava. This is a little surprising and seems to be out of line with general practice: Poszony (Bratislava's Hungarian name) redirects to Bratislava, Breslau redirects to Wrocław, Kattowitz redirects to Katowice, etc. If a visitor wants details on the history of Bratislava they can easily navigate there from the main article. Would anyone object if I change the redirect? Rublov (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No, you may proceed.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC))
This makes no sense - as pointed out before a few years ago, Bratislava is the German name too. Pressburg is only used in a historical context. Braveheart (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Not really...(KIENGIR (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC))
Wrote the indefinitely banned user ;-) Braveheart (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Can you provide another example on Wikipedia where <former name of city> redirects to <History of city>? Rublov (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I've put together a survey of how this is handled in other cases at User:Rublov/City-name redirects. In short, former names of cities almost always either redirect to the city's article under its current name (e.g., Danzig → Gdańsk), or have their own dedicated article (e.g., Königsberg and Kaliningrad). I think the most analogous cases are Kattowitz/Katowice and Kaschau/Košice (not to mention Poszony/Bratislava): in each case, a city was formerly known in English by its German name but is now known in both English and German by its Slavic name. And in both cases, the old name of the city is a redirect to the city's main article. Besides the argument from consistency, I find it more likely that someone entering "Pressburg" into the search box would intend to go to Bratislava rather than History of Bratislava, as I noted in my original post. Rublov (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@Braveheart: Courtesy ping. Rublov (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
@Rublov: Thanks for the ping, solution works for me. We had the same discussion on German Wikipedia about 12 years ago, so this is not an uncommon problem to have when using redirects. Braveheart (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @Buidhe: who changed the redirect last year. I would change the target of the redirect back to Bratislava as per Rublov. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


New website in English

I think the "external links" portion should now also have a link to the English version of the new official website of the city (https://bratislava.sk/en), rather than just the page of the tourism board. Conversely, I don't think the Slovak national tourism web page is relevant to the city. 188.167.56.2 (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

1919 events

Hi Azure94,

could you tell me why do you remove the Hungarian-USA academic source?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bratislava&diff=next&oldid=1172181738

I see you mentioned that the Slovak sources write about the fire, but why do you remove the victims which are presented in the academic source?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bratislava&diff=next&oldid=1172183246 OrionNimrod (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi OrionNimrod
Could you tell me why you keep removing Marcell Jankovics's name from the article? He was the one who claimed the demonstration was peaceful. Why do you remove this sourced info? Azure94 (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
The marked source is "Marcel Jankovics", I do not have problem to keep his name.
This is a very reliable academic source: http://real.mtak.hu/14159/ It is not surprising the Hungarian viewpoint and the Slovak viewpoint is different we should present both.
While your source just a website, is this reliable academic source? https://bratislava.sme.sk/c/22039519/legionari-sa-branili-pred-utokmi.html
Would you mention the author Vladimír Tomčík like we mention Marcel Jankovics? OrionNimrod (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Vladimír Tomčík is a professional academic historian: https://reginazapad.rtvs.sk/clanky/vyrocia-historia/234881/historik-vladimir-tomcik-oslavuje-jubileum
"I do not have problem to keep his name"
Then why do you keep deleting it with your edits? You did it twice now. Azure94 (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, accidentaly confusion by many copy paste edits from history revision. OrionNimrod (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
It's not the only confusion you added. Hronsky wrote a precise chronology of day by day events. You inserted your text into the middle of this, putting December where November was and vice versa. Azure94 (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I think I edited first, then you broke it removing my sourced content. OrionNimrod (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The official name is "Czechoslovak Legions", and not "Czech Legions", like you're inserting. I even added the numbers on the ethnic composition of the legionaries. False information will have to be removed. Azure94 (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

That info is in the academic source: http://real.mtak.hu/14159/ That talk about the general situation everywhere (not about one region) and mention only the Czech soldiers from Italy. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I do not awara that source would be irredentist :D how can be irredentist? :D
I see you removed again many contents instead of rewrite that word. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Hronsky is an academic source and he mentions the presence of Slovak soldiers in these regiments. The information you're using is incomplete.
Either way, their official name is Czechoslovak Legion. This is a fact, even if you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Azure94 (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I see you think that you can exclusievly show the nationalist Slovak narrative and you think you can remove every single Hungarian narratives, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bratislava&curid=18933194&diff=1172194173&oldid=1172191837 Article should be balanced. I have no problem to show the Slovak narrative, but Hungarian narrative should be presented in general about a common Slovak-Hungarian history event. Are you agree or not? OrionNimrod (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Hronsky is not a "nationalist Slovak". Just because you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT what he says doesn't make him a nationalist Slovak.
The presence of Slovak soldiers in the Czechoslovak Legions from Italy is well documented. Azure94 (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I asked as general. My source also not a nationalist source, also published in USA University.
Btw on the funeral of the victims a Czech soldier shot a 14 years old Hungarian boy who just bent down to tie his shoelace, the soldier thought he shows his back to him. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Btw you seem to be emotionally invested in these historical events. It would be perhaps a good idea for you to step back for a while and calm yourself. It's becoming clear that you're holding a very personal hatred of the Czechs. Azure94 (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I asked as general. I ask again: a common Slovak-Hungarian history event I think both Slovak and Hungarian academic narrative should be presented. Are you agree or not?
Could you answer me?
I do not have any hate towards people, (while you blacklisted several Hungarian historians using bad speech) I really do not know which edit of me was hate... mentioning the fire? It was already in the topic and historical fact. I am focusing only Hungarian related contents, and this content is clearly relating to Hungarian history.
Rather I see you have emotionally obsession with my edits, I bet if I would not edit this article you would not here as you follow me on every topic and attack exclusively my edits as personal harassments: User talk:Diannaa#Copyright problem at Chronica Hungarorum OrionNimrod (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a place for facts, not narratives. The fact is that Slovak soldiers and officers were present in the Italian Czechoslovak Legion. This is a well documented fact. The sources that call it a "Czech Legion" and deny (either out of ignorance or out of malice) the presence of Slovak soldiers go against the established facts.
(while you blacklisted several Hungarian historians using bad speech)
You were the one who blacklisted the Hungarian historian Eva S. Balogh, and also smeared her as "paid by Soros". Don't be a hypocrite.
I really do not know which edit of me was hate
Your unprompted, off-topic mention of some Czech shooting a Hungarian boy in the back. This is not the first time you complained about Czech brutality out of nowhere. It's obvious to me that you spend a lot of time thinking about Czechs committing atrocities against the Hungarians. Which means you lack a WP:NPOV.
And I'm not gonna bother responding to your clumsy attempts to smear me at Diannaa's talk page. If you have a problem with me pointing out your usage of copyrighted text, go file a WP:RFAA. Azure94 (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I ask again at the third times: a common Slovak-Hungarian history event I think both Slovak and Hungarian academic narrative should be presented. Are you agree or not?
I do not hate anybody, however I see this is not the first time when you want to remove the "peaceful" word in the context of the Hungarians: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hungary#Agressive edit war on Hungarian topics Why it is a xenophobic obsession that the Hungrians cannot be peaceful?
"Attila Simon is Hungarian. And the other soruces used before mention that the demonstrators" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bratislava&diff=prev&oldid=1172200821
Again I see you have a racial problem if an co-author in a big book is "Hungarian" which published by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences + Columbia University
(I just said we should present Slovak and Hungarian authors both) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_racists
That is the language of the American-Hungarian academic source which published by USA University. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bratislava&diff=prev&oldid=1172199715
"You were the one who blacklisted the Hungarian historian Eva S. Balogh, and also smeared her as "paid by Soros". Don't be a hypocrite."
Myself I sourced Balogh in the article, because I think it was a good source for a historical term.
"Your unprompted, off-topic mention of some Czech shooting a Hungarian boy in the back. This is not the first time you complained about Czech brutality out of nowhere."
"brutality" ??? I do not remember...show me please
"you spend a lot of time thinking about Czechs committing atrocities against the Hungarians."
So you think it is a hatred when I talk about a boy victim who was shot in the talk page, but it is very ok when you write in the article very detailed "about atrocities by local Hungarians who was not happy with the occupation againts mostly non local armed Czechoslovak soldiers so the soldiers rightfully killed Hungarians"
Double standard again?
"a mob spat on our soldiers, tore down badges from their hats, physically attacked them and shot on them from windows." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bratislava&diff=next&oldid=1171996815
"physically attacked the soldiers"
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bratislava&diff=prev&oldid=1172200821
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bratislava&diff=prev&oldid=1172191837
Removing Hungarian sources, and presenting only Slovak narrative:
"contradictory claim about "peaceful demonstration" when further sources mention violent attacks by the demonstration."
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bratislava&diff=prev&oldid=1172183529
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bratislava&diff=next&oldid=1172144811 OrionNimrod (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a place for facts, not narratives. We will not add narratives. We will only add facts. And it's a fact that the Czechoslovak legion had Slovak soldiers and officiers. It's a fact that academic historian Hronsky reported Legionares being attacked by demonstrators. Your only response to these facts are personal atacks, with your clumsy attempts to smear me as a "xenophobe" with a "racial problem". I expect that soon you'll also accuse me of being paid by Soros, like you accused the Hungarian historian Eva S. Balogh after she dared to criticize your favorite pro-Orban propaganda institute VERITAS. Azure94 (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I do not talked about Czechoslovak legion. I said rename it.
I talked about the "peacful Hungarian demonstration" which is in the reliable academic source, its linked, you can read. Please show me the Slovak author in English or link? Maybe it was more demonstrations in the city.
So you answered that Hungarian sources are not allowed is not matching with Slovak (even nationalist) "fact". So you think the fact is that Slovak sources ok but Hungarian sources are not ok if those do not repeat the Slovak narrative? Right?
Here I collected 30+ academic sources from different countries, those were not enough good for you because you have different personal viewpoint that the "Hungarians cannot be peacful": Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hungary#Agressive edit war on Hungarian topics
It is really not surprising that in many historical topic there are many different views, we can present them if they are not fringe, my source is very reliable, but I see you do not like the Hungarian author in that.
Sorry I never sourced anything from Veritas (however it is academic), just a historian interview :) and I do not care where is that historian working. While you are mostly sourcing simple websites. Actually you blamed me that historian paid by Orban and not allowed to use, and you showed me Balogh and her Hungarian Spectrum, clicking the website I see "financed by Soros", dont blame me that I can read, you teached me this :) Ironically Balogh which I sourced myself together with other historians wrote the same "peaceful"... OrionNimrod (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bratislava/Archive_6&oldid=1227402400"