Talk:Vienna Award

message: This imposed title is a bad title. Before the "award" there was an "arbitration" (or "diktat") that had the "award" as a result. --Vasile 00:35, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The reasons for the title of this article 

message: Do I understand correctly that HunTomy and Juro have agreed to move details out of here and to Second Vienna Award? If so, fine with me. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Vienna Award 

message: Nationality/language	1930 Romanian census	1930 Romanian census	1941 Hungarian census	1941 Hungarian census
Nationality/language	Nationality         	Language            	Nationality          	Language
Hungarian           	912,500             	1,007,200           	1,380,500            	1,344,000
Romanian            	1,176,900           	1,165,800           	1,029,000            	1,068,700
German              	68,300              	59,700              	44,600               	47,300
Jewish/Yiddish      	138,800             	99,600              	47,400               	48,500
Other               	96,800              	61,000              	76,600               	69,600
I think something like the above might be better for allowing the numbers to be compared than the prose currently in the article. What do others think? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is that the prose should be taken out FROM HERE, because it is also found in the Second Vienna Award article. I wrote this "prose" some 2-3 weeks ago, HERE, but then Juro moved it to the Second Vienna Award article - which i think it was a good thing, as this page is intended to be just a short introduction, and the two sections were becoming disproportionated in length and detail. Then last week Bonaparte reverted some edits of HunTomy and by doing this he also reverted Juro's edit and thus we arrived to the present situation. On the other way, I do not see at all the reason for having just a table here, for the sake of clarity - it is very confusing to have the data without any explanation. I suggest then to revert the page to  Juro's edit on 20:45, 27 November 2005. And maybe the table could go into the Second Vienna Award article, to replace the phrase which ennumerates the data from the two censuses. Algos 14:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree. The table and prose should be moved to Second Vienna A. and commented properly. There is no reason to discuss the same numbers twice in two articles. Jmabel is good at these things and knows Romanian history, so I invite him to do so, if nobody else will do so. Juro 17:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I'd remarked earlier, I'm perfectly glad to cut the discussion of the Second Vienna Award  to a couple of sentences here and handle it at Second Vienna Award. Since both articles are protected right now, I can't proceed on this. So are we basically in agreement, though, that this sea of numbers is better understood from a table, and better off at Second Vienna Award? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparative census numbers 

message: The article is now protected. Please engage in a constructive dialog to describe the controvery around this subject in a manner that is consistent with Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. When you have arrived to consensus on how to proceed, make a request to unprotect at WP:RFPP ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 18:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I even see what is disputed here. There seems to be something close to consensus to cut the section on the Second Vienna Award down to a couple of sentences, and to handle the matter at Second Vienna Award (which is itself protected at the moment, but which, in any event, seems to contain all of this). Unless someone objects in the next 48 hours, I plan to unprotect this article and simply cut that part down to a 2-sentence summary and a link. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Since HunTomy (the "revertor", who actually has brought us into this situation) does not react here and has not expressed his consent, I recommend to re-protect this article immediately after you have done that to prevent further edit wars and thereby save all of us further wasting of time. Juro 02:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I support Juro's proposal. Please do so Joe. -- Bonaparte  talk 11:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If no one has objected within the 48 hours, or if HunTomy explicitly agrees, please ping me on my talk page and I will deal with this next time I log on. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected