Talk:Bratislava/Archive 2

message: I've put up this template because there is only one reference for the whole article. Since even basic facts go unreferenced, it only shows that nobody bothers to write their sources. The main reason for putting at the top is to inspire others, and I'll be working on the article if I find the time.--Svetovid 10:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tremendous effort! MikeGogulski 20:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm gonna focus on the education and tourism sections now, plus find sources for the history section. After that, I'll reorganize the whole article a little to be similar to other featured and good articles about towns.--Svetovid 20:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm almost down to having to clean up the remaining sport section... sure wish it could go to a "stuff MikeGogulski would rather not bother himself with" page ;) MikeGogulski 21:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced 

message: There is a nice image of the new city logo at :sk:Obrázok:Bratislava logo.png.  However, it's tagged fair use and it's on the sk wiki, not commons, which means I can't link to it from the infobox template.
Link to the announcement of the new logo, which might be useful to someone who wants to pursue getting a release for this, and moving it to commons: http://www.bratislava.sk/vismo5/dokumenty2.asp?u=700000&id_org=700000&id=72011 MikeGogulski 09:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This logo does not belong to creative commons since the city obviously states that it keeps all copyright rights. If you created the picture copying the original design, copyright for the picture still belongs to Bratislava. You need this license for it:
--Svetovid 11:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If they allow us to use the logo, you can download it from the official website and attach the appropriate license.--Svetovid 22:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I just sent a translation to the City official who replied to me last time.  Big thank you to MarkBA for quick, and very professional translation! MikeGogulski 22:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  City Logo 

message: Comments and translation welcome!  I would like to send this to the city as soon as possible. Also, if you are willing to take up this matter with the City directly, and you are a native Slovak speaker, please contact me. MikeGogulski 14:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they allow us to use the logo, you can download it from the official website and attach the appropriate license.--Svetovid 22:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request letter for licensing/release of logo

message: Dear MarkBA :)
Dear xxxx,
Thank you for your prompt and courteous reply of 7.5.2007 regarding use of the Bratislava logo on Wikipedia.  Per your request, I quickly deleted the SVG file from both Wikimedia sites where I had placed it.
Because the preferred graphical format for such a symbol on Wikipedia is SVG, and because the vector images you provided to me in EPS format are not compatible with most web browsers, I've created a new SVG (attached) which I believe accurately represents the logo as presented in your usage manual. I would like to donate this file to the city for unrestricted use, with credit given to me (inside the file) as merely the author of the SVG version derived from the original work, or without credit if that is your preference. If this interests you, please let me know and I will clean it up and complete the internal fields in order to deliver it to you as a donation.  Please note that my offer to donate the SVG is not contingent upon any particular decision you might make regarding release or licensing of the logo.
I have not yet posted this image to Wikipedia, nor do I intend to do so without the city's release. 
To reiterate a bit from my previous email, the best solution for Wikipedia would be to agree to release the donated SVG file under a Creative Commons license (http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licenses), but this may not be compatible with the city's goals. Wikipedia guidelines for managing logos suggest that using an SVG replica of the logo without city permission would not be acceptable under "fair use" guidelines, since such replica could be used to reproduce the logo at any resolution. The fair use guidelines also suggest that making a copy of a JPG, GIF, or PNG image of the logo (such as those provided at the city's website, or in the logo design manual) for illustrative purposes on Wikipedia with or without permission would not be a legal violation.
My personal wish is to satisfy as many of the interested parties as possible. To that end, I would like to make the following requests of the city, in order of my own preference:
*Release the SVG logo under a Creative Commons license, either to me or via upload to commons.wikipedia.org, or
*Issue a written statement saying that the SVG logo may be used only on Wikipedia websites, or
*Issue a written statement saying that any use of the GIF/JPG/PNG versions of the logo published at http://www.bratislava.sk/ (or a specific version you designate) may be used on Wikipedia.
Thank you very much for your time and assistance.
Best regards,
MikeGogulski 18:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just sent a translation to the City official who replied to me last time.  Big thank you to MarkBA for quick, and very professional translation! MikeGogulski 22:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New request letter

message: * Add information to the "Economy" section about boom in the construction industry and significant projects currently under construction.--Svetovid 10:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that this is a great idea, since as recently as 5 years ago, commentators were writing about a slump in the industry (http://www.slovakspectator.sk/clanok-9598.html), though I do see a place here for sourced statements about the huge projects on the riverfront, by the Nove Mesto train station, in Petrzalka and Dlhe diely... MikeGogulski 13:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Hostel impact to tourism added and sourced MikeGogulski 23:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: (removed unsourced paragraph, added sourced facts and figures MarkBA t/c/@ 07:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Can anyone think of anything we're really missing here that needs to be said? MikeGogulski 19:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: self-made SVG now in place MikeGogulski 19:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: (logo will be deleted MarkBA t/c/@ 07:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: new release request in process; if we fail, we'll take a fair-use image and close this MikeGogulski 19:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Open

message: Trimmed down the Sport section a bit, particularly football and hockey to a summary of the Sport in Bratislava article, though not sure about the other sports. I would like to suggest another to-do: Introduce citations to or replace/remove sentences with  tags. MarkBA t/c/@ 13:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked Boston, Massachusetts (an FA-class, top-priority City article) on this, and the prose format is used there, and looks good.  I believe converting it to prose is a good course to take.  There is an (unsourced) table of Bratislava's demographic evolution since 1850 at History_of_Bratislava#Demographic_evolution, which I believe was once part of the main article. MikeGogulski 14:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks great, thanks. MikeGogulski 16:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Good idea; I was thinking of this earlier, but forgot to add it to the list. MikeGogulski 19:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Expand the "Government" section and reflect that Bratislava is home to the Slovak Parliament, president, ministries, the highest court, as well as the regional government and  and so on, similarly to the featured article about Sarajevo. Or name it "Law, government and politics" and add information about crime and political parties' HQs as well (see San Jose, California) --Svetovid 10:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll merge the two into "Parks and lakes", which are commonly referred to together (see Google search). "Nature" (briefly about various fauna and flora) should be a sub-section of "Geography". What do you think?--Svetovid 13:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Then we can start including large numbers of krtko and ježko photos ;) MikeGogulski 11:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That's OK, you can do it. I've done Climate, with converting table into infobox and adding some more content. MarkBA t/c/@ 13:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: For now, I think a concise summary of national and major local media based in BA.  Slovensky rozhlas probably qualifies, Fun Radio probably doesn't; same for Slovak Spectator vs. the new Istropolitan free newspaper (though these minor outlets could just be listed without comment) MikeGogulski 11:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It'd be good to make it a separate article and include as many as possible.--Svetovid 17:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Probably because it's divided between the two - see this on SK wiki. Yes, probably unofficial parts can be listed in the respective articles - let's rework that table. Anyway, I was just thinking - wouldn't it be possible to merge Twin towns into Government section? After all, it's magistrate's decision who they'll be twinned with. MarkBA t/c/@ 11:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We seem to be thinking the same thoughts :)  I was just looking at Town twinning for insight on this; while it may be a governmental decision, the purpose stated in the article is more cultural, leaving me unsure which section it fits in better.  I wanted to survey the other FA-cities articles for placement of this.  A quick search shows most articles using a section like this have it standalone, but then most of those articles are stubs anyway. MikeGogulski 12:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually now that I look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/Proposed_Template, I see there that twin towns are kept as a separate section down near the end, so maybe no change needed there. MikeGogulski 20:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further commentary

message: Table for comparing Bratislava vs other FA-class Cities articles.  First entry is size, other things to be added as we think of them. MikeGogulski 19:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison with FA articles on cities 

message: Well, all but one are longer than 32, and the longest is some 93k.  I don't think we have much to worry about with article size being a barrier to FA status. MikeGogulski 20:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary re: article size

message: Above all, I would like to thank everyone for the excellent work. I have also a couple of ideas for further improvement before a GA (and later FA) nomination and I wonder what you think. First, the history section should be transformed into prose because this is one of the criteria in the GA and FA procedures. Second, I think we can delete the table containing foreign names because it can be found in History of Bratislava and the Etymology section of the main article already contains all the relevant names. I do not think we need a Dutch name in the main article. Third, the section Culture and points of interest is kind of messy. Do you think it is a good idea to create separate sections for Main sights (perhaps with subsections Bratislava Castle, the Old town, Parks, etc.), Culture (Theatres, Museums, etc.), and Sport? I believe readers would feel less lost. Finally, the Economy section is usually placed after the government section in FA articles, but this is just a minor point. Tankred 14:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How about this?

message: for anyone who wants to go trolling for new/better photos of things featured in the article, check out http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=bratislava&l=commderiv&z=t for CC-useable images. MikeGogulski 23:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new photo possibilities 

message: After extensive edits of past 2 weeks, I think it's time to consider sending this article to the GA review, because the major points needed have already been covered, particularly History and article is in a lot better state than 2 weeks ago. Any objections? MarkBA t/c/@ 12:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think it is an excellent candidate for GA and I would like to thank everyone for the great job. However, I would suggest to rewrite a bulleted list in the Main sights - City section into prose, to make that part more consistent with the beginning and the end of the section. What do you think? Tankred 16:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, not bad idea, but how? I can only imagine one thing - maybe split them into Old Town sights and other sights plus somehow write them in acceptable prose. I also had talk with User:MikeGogulski and he suggested another thing - merging Tourism into Economy and Etymology into History. What do you think? MarkBA t/c/@ 16:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I will transform that list into prose and it would be great if you, Mike, or Svetovid can check it afterwards. But I would rather leave the Etymology and Tourism sections untouched. Etymology is included because of WP:NCGN and it makes the article more NPOV. Tourism is quite important in the case of Bratislava, but it can be perhaps moved just after the Economy section. How is it in FA articles? Tankred 17:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and do it, I or someone else will check it. For the merge proposal, Delhi uses Etymology section as first, so let's leave it as is and for Tourism, I failed to find anything, so I don't know what to do with this one. MarkBA t/c/@ 17:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Tankred 17:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. That's fine series of contributions. Now I feel we should, after your changes, send article to GA review. MarkBA t/c/@ 18:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that was a rushed nomination. The to do list still has several points and the history section needs some trimming/improvements and references.--Svetovid 13:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what should I do?! Withdraw that nomination? I don't think it was rushed nomination, I was just waiting for one single point before I could place it, so it's rather delayed. And that list is for A-class rating, not necessarily GA-class rating, but in my opinion, major points have already been covered. And one more question: Why no query placed before I nominated? MarkBA t/c/@ 13:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let us wait. I think the article is already a good GA candidate. I do not think there is any problem precluding the success of the nomination. I have nominated Great Moravia and the article was successful despite a lower number of citations and pictures. Anyway, even if the nomination fails this time, we can get precious feedback and try it again. It is no big deal. Tankred 16:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I say. GA != FA in all ways... I think we have already big amount of references (64 as I count), though some sections aren't ideally cited. Even if we fail first time, every cloud has a silver lining - we might get some good feedback. MarkBA t/c/@ 17:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review consideration 

message: Can anyone suggest why the following edits should *not* be reported as suspected sockpuppetry?
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bratislava&diff=prev&oldid=131212671
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bratislava&diff=prev&oldid=131212086
Rationale:
*substance of edits currently under controversy at Talk:Bratislava
*substance of edits nearly identical to those at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bratislava&diff=prev&oldid=131047625
*User:Olivierdb appears to be a new account created entirely for the purpose of making these edits
MikeGogulski 10:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure no one thinks it is your sockpuppet. But it is apparently a disruptive sockpuppet account of someone and if it appears again, I encourage everyone to report it at the administrators' notice board. Tankred 15:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Please excuse me, John, if you assumed any accusation, none was meant for you. Why would an admin here with real-name reputation on the line bother for such a purpose? Very, very unlikely I think. I'm gonna go throw something on his talk page. MikeGogulski 18:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, sorry, I guess I misinterpreted/overreacted.  Definitely sockpuppets of banned users should be dealt with. john k 03:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries. After looking into this a bit more, I'm struck by the common "Odb" pattern in User:Olivierdb and User:Odbhss. Odbhss was confirmed as a sockpuppet of banned User:VinceB, and the several surrounding cases involved reports from User:Juro and User:Tankred, who both edit here. MikeGogulski 13:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Dearest whoever-you-are, if you click one of those userbox soldiers on my talk page, a single click more will bring you to a site where I maintain a paid account and profile containing a vast array of personal and commercial information about myself, including a copy of my CV. Why don't you go clicky-clicky over that way, then give me a phone call? Or better yet, send me a registered letter, just for glee's sake? I'll be more than happy to reply in kind. MikeGogulski 13:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this your first account or a sockpuppet? You never answered that question. I see that you use wikipedia to advertise your own name and services and to gain hits on google searches. This type of commercial exploitation of wikipedia is despicable, as wikipedia is not an advertising agency for you to gain higher rank on google search. It seems that you are not here to write an encylopedia but for other reasons. It seems you are pretty successful in advertising your talents and services though, already rank 4th with a few weeks old account.  Olivierdb 14:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For those interested in such things, Olivierdb has accused me of using my account as a commercial platform at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#using_Wikipedia_as_an_advertising_agency  In response to the question, this is my first account on Wikipedia, and not a sockpuppet. MikeGogulski 16:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sockpuppetry?

message: I just noticed something out of whack here:
*2001 census - 428,672 inhabitants
*2005 estimate - 425,459
*pop per borough: 5 data items total = 2001 pop. (okay)
*ethnic data leave ~8000 ppl unaccounted for against 2001 pop. (this is okay)
*age distribution: 3 brackets totaling 425,459 (2005 estimate -- NOT OKAY without clarification and citation)
*religion stats leave ~24,000 ppl unaccounted for against 2001 pop. (also okay)
MikeGogulski 21:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. I didn't want to wade into the figures myself. MikeGogulski 13:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This appears fixed now. MikeGogulski 20:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  census data 

message: ===Books===
*Already, so I decided to hit google to look at historical usages of names.  There are 2240 Google Books hits for "Pressburg".  Going through, many of them are from pre-1918 sources, but here's a variety from post-1945:
#The Reign of George III, 1760-1815 by David Steven (1960)
#Understanding Rabbinic Judaism, from Talmudic to Modern Times by Jacob Neusner (1974)
#Towards Modernity: The European Jewish Model by Jacob Katz (1987)
#http://books.google.com/books?id=zgF7xN-_7SsC&pg=PA151&dq=Pressburg&sig=FJzPjpH-q_Kzyj70Z2fQ4Tw1sio The Virtuoso Conductors: the Central European Tradition from Wagner to Karajan] by Raymond Holden (2005)
#Servants of the Sword: French Intendants of the Army 1630-1670 by Douglas Clark Baxter (1976)
#Beethoven's Concertos: history, style, performance by Leon B. Plantinga (1999)
#Dictionary of Jewish Biography by Geoffrey Wigoder (1991)
#Beethoven and His World: A Biographical Dictionary by Peter Cleve  (2001)
#Napoleon: A Political Life by Stephen Englund (2004)
#The World of the Yeshiva: An Intimate Portrait of Orthodox Jewry  by William B. Helmreich (2000)
#The New Grove Dictionary of Opera by Stanley Sadie (1992)
#http://books.google.com/books?id=vEJNBqanT_8C&pg=PA259&dq=Pressburg&sig=Y3q5E6AY58zrkIklbtubeQpGqCo The Realm of St Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526] by Pál Engel (2005)
:Anyway, that's just a start.  There's a lot of references to Pressburg, and a good percentage are from more recent sources.  Pozsony gets about 1200 hits, but a higher percentage seem to be from  post-45. On the other hand, a higher percentage seem to be books in Hungarian than hits for Pressburg which were books in German.  At any rate, Pressburg appears to be more popular.  I'm not sure how to do a search for "Bratislava" - obviously any search for Bratislava is going to reveal.  In Google Scholar, there's 629 hits in the history and humanities section for "Pressburg".  There's only 255 for "Pozsony".    At any rate, it seems fairly clear that "Pressburg" is a widely used historical name, and that it's used enough more than "Pozsony" to warrant its usage rather than the latter's.  john k 15:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Subsequently, Pressburg should be the accepted English name for now.What that means, however, is that articles in Wikipedia should reflect this and those using the Hungarian name Pozsony as the primary name should be changed to Pressburg. So, for example, Pozsony County should be called Pressburg County. While searching the Internet, it's apparent that the English name Pozsony County comes from Hungarian or Hungarian-inspired sources anyway. What do you all think?--Svetovid 15:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing to wait and see on further sources.  The issue is complicated, and perhaps we should hold off until we have a very good sense of what kinds of sources use which name.  It seems clear, for instance, that sources on Jewish and music history predominantly use "Pressburg."  I agree that "Pozsony" is generally used in Hungarian related sources for the city.  I'm less certain about the county - I think English usage on the county name is sufficiently limited that "hungarian-inspired sources" are going to be prominent.  I wouldn't mind using "Pressburg" for the city" and "Pozsony" for the county.  We also have yet to find any lengthy discussions of the city prior to the 15th  century, which was, I believe, one of your p revious issues with my point.  Anyway,  I'll wait on what others say. john k 15:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Here is the context, from p. 109: "Always closely united, the two Jagiellos  (Sigismund & Vladislaus) in these circumstances decided on a meeting, first with the Emperor's plenipotentiaries who came to Pressburg, then with Maximilian I himself. The Treaty of Vienna, signed in the summer of 1515..." Olessi 19:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The google scholar results indicate that the word "Bratislava" is dominant in English academic articles. The word "Pressburg" is used almost as often as Bratislava in the articles dealing with the recent history (Austrian Empire, Austria-Hungary), but it cannot be considered a widely accepted name of the city in the historical context as far as the academic journals are concerned. Tankred 16:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tankred, these tests are flawed, in that Bratislava is bound to be overrepresented in the results.  In the first place, any footnote which refers to a work published in Bratislava will turn up a hit for Bratislava - I see several instances of this in your results.  In the second place, even if the article refers to the city as Pressburg or Pozsony, it will often mention the modern name in parentheses. I see several  instances of this.  There's also the possibility of modern discussions of Bratislava mentioning historical figures.  Looking at your  Matthias Corvinus and  Maria Theresa searches, I see 12 of the Matthias Corvinus results being examples of one or other of the following, leaving the actual count 11 to 11 to 16, or thereabouts (although some of the Pressburg references also appear to be parenthesized).  For  Maria Theresa, I see at least 16 of the same.  In this case, Pressburg comes out ahead.  That being said, it's clear that all three names are used frequently.  I'm not sure what the upshot of that should be. john k 17:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your correction. I did not think about that. You are right that all three names are used with a similar frequency. We can now discuss what it means. In my opinion, it means that there is no widely accepted English name of Bratislava in the historical context because English sources do not prefer (at least not consistently) any of those three alternative names. Tankred 18:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say, tentatively, that the evidence seems to support the conclusion that there is no single widely accepted English name to refer to Bratislava before 1919.  All three names are used quite commonly, with Pressburg perhaps most common, at least for the more recent period.  The conclusion  to be drawn from this is, I think, somewhat unclear, and probably comes down to personal preference.  For me, I don't like to refer to places by a name that more or less didn't exist at the time referred to.  Using "Bratislava," thus, rubs me the wrong way.  But I can see how others might feel that the simplicity of using the same name throughout is an advantage.  I will say that I think in other articles, we should prefer either Pressburg or Pozsony (and I'd say that, specifically, Pozsony should be preferred, if at all, only in contexts where we are looking at the city from a Hungarian perspective, whereas broader perspective, either Europe-wide or Habsburg-empire wide, should use Pressburg).  For this article, I would, as I said before, prefer to use "Pressburg," which is, as Juro notes below, the term which was almost universally used in English before 1919, and which remains probably by some small margin the most prevalent English usage, at least for the Habsburg period.  But I think the important thing is to reach consensus. john k 21:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The form Pozsony was in use from the late 18th century only (earlier forms like Poson etc. are not necessarily the same name), the form Pressburg was in use (at least) from the 16th century. Iow, any use of Pozsony for a period before 1770 is wrong (anachronistic) irrespective of English usage. As for English texts, contemporary English texts use "Pressburg" (I can only repeat see the title in the 1911 Britannica or e.g. Treaty of Pressburg as two nice examples). If English texts today use Pozsony with reference to Bratislava before 1919, it is simply a translation error resulting from the translation of a Hungarian text without proper knowledge of the issue. In sum, the only two "correct" possibilities are Pressburg (because it is the contemporary English name) or Bratislava (becasue it is the current name). Juro 22:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is very problematic to claim  without any evidence that any historian using  "Pozsony" is making a "translation error" and is "without proper knowledge of the issue."  As far as I can tell, use of "Pozsony" is generally done as a conscious choice, using the Hungarian name because the city was, at the time, part of Hungary.  I don't know that I especially agree with the choice to use a Hungarian name which  was not really used by English-speaking contemporaries to refer to a city whose population was plurality German, but it is certainly not done out of ignorance. john k 00:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: My reading is that Pressburg is not a widely accepted English name of the city in the historical context, as far as the most prominent English encyclopedias are concerned. There is no consensus among or within the encyclopedias. Moreover, "Bratislava" is used more frequently than "Pressburg". Tankred 16:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Since our readers live in the 21st century, not before 1919, the use of geographic names should reflect the present-day practice, not the practice from before 1919. That is why only encyclopedias published after 1993 should be used in this discussion according to WP:NCGN. Tankred 18:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem in this specific case however, as I see it, is that the town was totally renamed in 1919 and that should be allowed for. Your argument would work without any problems for almost any other settlement in Slovakia, but not for this one...Juro 18:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this was a historical article for experts, it would be clear. However, this article is for average people who mostly know the name Bratislava only or, if from German-speaking countries, Pressburg.--Svetovid 21:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, but then the question is why we use historical names in the first place (my personal opinion is that all names in any encyclop. should be primarily current to make the texts user-friendly, but that is not the practice of this wikipedia).Juro 22:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of Constantinople in the Istanbul article doesn't seem particularly unfriendly to me. The only different there, perhaps, is that the prior name of the city is far more widely known than those of Bratislava. I was just looking at the Prince (musician) article for further inspiration, but didn't really find any, since the references used to the symbol he changed his name to are all references to the name itself. MikeGogulski 02:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Test... 

message: *Already, so I decided to hit google to look at historical usages of names.  There are 2240 Google Books hits for "Pressburg".  Going through, many of them are from pre-1918 sources, but here's a variety from post-1945:
#The Reign of George III, 1760-1815 by David Steven (1960)
#Understanding Rabbinic Judaism, from Talmudic to Modern Times by Jacob Neusner (1974)
#Towards Modernity: The European Jewish Model by Jacob Katz (1987)
#http://books.google.com/books?id=zgF7xN-_7SsC&pg=PA151&dq=Pressburg&sig=FJzPjpH-q_Kzyj70Z2fQ4Tw1sio The Virtuoso Conductors: the Central European Tradition from Wagner to Karajan] by Raymond Holden (2005)
#Servants of the Sword: French Intendants of the Army 1630-1670 by Douglas Clark Baxter (1976)
#Beethoven's Concertos: history, style, performance by Leon B. Plantinga (1999)
#Dictionary of Jewish Biography by Geoffrey Wigoder (1991)
#Beethoven and His World: A Biographical Dictionary by Peter Cleve  (2001)
#Napoleon: A Political Life by Stephen Englund (2004)
#The World of the Yeshiva: An Intimate Portrait of Orthodox Jewry  by William B. Helmreich (2000)
#The New Grove Dictionary of Opera by Stanley Sadie (1992)
#http://books.google.com/books?id=vEJNBqanT_8C&pg=PA259&dq=Pressburg&sig=Y3q5E6AY58zrkIklbtubeQpGqCo The Realm of St Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526] by Pál Engel (2005)
:Anyway, that's just a start.  There's a lot of references to Pressburg, and a good percentage are from more recent sources.  Pozsony gets about 1200 hits, but a higher percentage seem to be from  post-45. On the other hand, a higher percentage seem to be books in Hungarian than hits for Pressburg which were books in German.  At any rate, Pressburg appears to be more popular.  I'm not sure how to do a search for "Bratislava" - obviously any search for Bratislava is going to reveal.  In Google Scholar, there's 629 hits in the history and humanities section for "Pressburg".  There's only 255 for "Pozsony".    At any rate, it seems fairly clear that "Pressburg" is a widely used historical name, and that it's used enough more than "Pozsony" to warrant its usage rather than the latter's.  john k 15:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Subsequently, Pressburg should be the accepted English name for now.What that means, however, is that articles in Wikipedia should reflect this and those using the Hungarian name Pozsony as the primary name should be changed to Pressburg. So, for example, Pozsony County should be called Pressburg County. While searching the Internet, it's apparent that the English name Pozsony County comes from Hungarian or Hungarian-inspired sources anyway. What do you all think?--Svetovid 15:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing to wait and see on further sources.  The issue is complicated, and perhaps we should hold off until we have a very good sense of what kinds of sources use which name.  It seems clear, for instance, that sources on Jewish and music history predominantly use "Pressburg."  I agree that "Pozsony" is generally used in Hungarian related sources for the city.  I'm less certain about the county - I think English usage on the county name is sufficiently limited that "hungarian-inspired sources" are going to be prominent.  I wouldn't mind using "Pressburg" for the city" and "Pozsony" for the county.  We also have yet to find any lengthy discussions of the city prior to the 15th  century, which was, I believe, one of your p revious issues with my point.  Anyway,  I'll wait on what others say. john k 15:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Here is the context, from p. 109: "Always closely united, the two Jagiellos  (Sigismund & Vladislaus) in these circumstances decided on a meeting, first with the Emperor's plenipotentiaries who came to Pressburg, then with Maximilian I himself. The Treaty of Vienna, signed in the summer of 1515..." Olessi 19:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Books

message: *As a proxy for the pre-907 period, I used the phrase "Great Moravia". I counted only the articles including that phrase and published after 1919 in journals in humanitites and social sciences.
**Bratislava: 40 hits
**Pressburg: 7 hits
**Pozsony: 4 hits
*As a proxy for the independent Kingdom of Hungary period, I used the phrase "Matthias Corvinus" All other criteria are the same.
**Bratislava: 23 hits
**Pressburg: 11 hits
**Pozsony: 16 hits
*As a proxy for the period of the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary, I used the phrase "Maria Theresa". All other criteria are the same.
**Bratislava: 57 hits
**Pressburg: 51 hits
**Pozsony: 33 hits Tankred 16:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The google scholar results indicate that the word "Bratislava" is dominant in English academic articles. The word "Pressburg" is used almost as often as Bratislava in the articles dealing with the recent history (Austrian Empire, Austria-Hungary), but it cannot be considered a widely accepted name of the city in the historical context as far as the academic journals are concerned. Tankred 16:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tankred, these tests are flawed, in that Bratislava is bound to be overrepresented in the results.  In the first place, any footnote which refers to a work published in Bratislava will turn up a hit for Bratislava - I see several instances of this in your results.  In the second place, even if the article refers to the city as Pressburg or Pozsony, it will often mention the modern name in parentheses. I see several  instances of this.  There's also the possibility of modern discussions of Bratislava mentioning historical figures.  Looking at your  Matthias Corvinus and  Maria Theresa searches, I see 12 of the Matthias Corvinus results being examples of one or other of the following, leaving the actual count 11 to 11 to 16, or thereabouts (although some of the Pressburg references also appear to be parenthesized).  For  Maria Theresa, I see at least 16 of the same.  In this case, Pressburg comes out ahead.  That being said, it's clear that all three names are used frequently.  I'm not sure what the upshot of that should be. john k 17:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your correction. I did not think about that. You are right that all three names are used with a similar frequency. We can now discuss what it means. In my opinion, it means that there is no widely accepted English name of Bratislava in the historical context because English sources do not prefer (at least not consistently) any of those three alternative names. Tankred 18:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say, tentatively, that the evidence seems to support the conclusion that there is no single widely accepted English name to refer to Bratislava before 1919.  All three names are used quite commonly, with Pressburg perhaps most common, at least for the more recent period.  The conclusion  to be drawn from this is, I think, somewhat unclear, and probably comes down to personal preference.  For me, I don't like to refer to places by a name that more or less didn't exist at the time referred to.  Using "Bratislava," thus, rubs me the wrong way.  But I can see how others might feel that the simplicity of using the same name throughout is an advantage.  I will say that I think in other articles, we should prefer either Pressburg or Pozsony (and I'd say that, specifically, Pozsony should be preferred, if at all, only in contexts where we are looking at the city from a Hungarian perspective, whereas broader perspective, either Europe-wide or Habsburg-empire wide, should use Pressburg).  For this article, I would, as I said before, prefer to use "Pressburg," which is, as Juro notes below, the term which was almost universally used in English before 1919, and which remains probably by some small margin the most prevalent English usage, at least for the Habsburg period.  But I think the important thing is to reach consensus. john k 21:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The form Pozsony was in use from the late 18th century only (earlier forms like Poson etc. are not necessarily the same name), the form Pressburg was in use (at least) from the 16th century. Iow, any use of Pozsony for a period before 1770 is wrong (anachronistic) irrespective of English usage. As for English texts, contemporary English texts use "Pressburg" (I can only repeat see the title in the 1911 Britannica or e.g. Treaty of Pressburg as two nice examples). If English texts today use Pozsony with reference to Bratislava before 1919, it is simply a translation error resulting from the translation of a Hungarian text without proper knowledge of the issue. In sum, the only two "correct" possibilities are Pressburg (because it is the contemporary English name) or Bratislava (becasue it is the current name). Juro 22:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is very problematic to claim  without any evidence that any historian using  "Pozsony" is making a "translation error" and is "without proper knowledge of the issue."  As far as I can tell, use of "Pozsony" is generally done as a conscious choice, using the Hungarian name because the city was, at the time, part of Hungary.  I don't know that I especially agree with the choice to use a Hungarian name which  was not really used by English-speaking contemporaries to refer to a city whose population was plurality German, but it is certainly not done out of ignorance. john k 00:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Google Scholar

message: *Encyclopædia Britannica does not consistently use any of the names. Articles about Hungarians use "Pozsony (now Bratislava)". Articles about Germans and the Peace of Pressburg use "Presssburg (now Bratislava)". "Bratislava" is used in some other historical articles. Bratislava has 79 hits (not all of them in the historical context), Pressburg 29 hits, Pozsony 10 hits. Tankred 15:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My reading is that Pressburg is not a widely accepted English name of the city in the historical context, as far as the most prominent English encyclopedias are concerned. There is no consensus among or within the encyclopedias. Moreover, "Bratislava" is used more frequently than "Pressburg". Tankred 16:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Since our readers live in the 21st century, not before 1919, the use of geographic names should reflect the present-day practice, not the practice from before 1919. That is why only encyclopedias published after 1993 should be used in this discussion according to WP:NCGN. Tankred 18:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem in this specific case however, as I see it, is that the town was totally renamed in 1919 and that should be allowed for. Your argument would work without any problems for almost any other settlement in Slovakia, but not for this one...Juro 18:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this was a historical article for experts, it would be clear. However, this article is for average people who mostly know the name Bratislava only or, if from German-speaking countries, Pressburg.--Svetovid 21:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, but then the question is why we use historical names in the first place (my personal opinion is that all names in any encyclop. should be primarily current to make the texts user-friendly, but that is not the practice of this wikipedia).Juro 22:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of Constantinople in the Istanbul article doesn't seem particularly unfriendly to me. The only different there, perhaps, is that the prior name of the city is far more widely known than those of Bratislava. I was just looking at the Prince (musician) article for further inspiration, but didn't really find any, since the references used to the symbol he changed his name to are all references to the name itself. MikeGogulski 02:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopedias

message: Substituted at 20:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment