Talk:Gabriel Bethlen

message: The Wikipedia conventions are still being discussed, but for an article such as this (referring to a particular period in history), I believe that we should use the place names most commonly used in English-language sources (encyclopaedias, history books) when referrring to that period of history. Thus Pressburg (rather than Bratislava) and Klausenberg (rather than Cluj-Napoca). Also Peace of Nikolsburg (rather than Mikulov). Links, of course, should be to the official modern names of the cities. Scott Moore 16:20, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Convention for Naming Places

message: Gdańsk or Danzig? Discussion at Talk:Gdansk/Vote determined that Gdańsk is the single widely accepted English name in modern context, but Danzig is its widely accepted historical English name for certain historical contexts. There is no city of Danzig at present, but this term can be used in various historical contexts as described on the discussion page.
:::*Volgograd or Stalingrad? Volgograd is the single widely accepted English name in modern context but Stalingrad is a widely accepted English name for certain historical contexts. Therefore during the Second World War there was a Battle of Stalingrad, not a Battle of Volgograd, and when referring to the city during the Stalinist era, the term Stalingrad is more correct than Volgograd; Battle of Stalingrad mentions Volgograd once in the text; three times in describing external links.  
:::*Istanbul or Constantinople? Istanbul is the single widely accepted English name in modern context, but Constantinople is a widely accepted historical English name. Now Constantinople is a separate article covering the history of Istanbul until 1453 and the term used to refer to the city in historical context before 1453.
:::*Vilnius or Wilno? Vilnius is the single widely accepted English name in modern context, but Wilno is  widely accepted  in historical contexts where the Polish language was more popular than the Lithuanian language (during the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth).
Someone found these in the guideline and they seem to allow usage of Hungarian names in historical context. Squash Racket 18:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the whole convention. It describes what you should do if you believe a particular historic name is widely accepted in English sources in a very clear way. Tankred 16:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hungarian]] names 

message: As the names of Kosice, Banska Bystrica etc. are not established in English in Slovak or Hungarian and the only official name in the period the article is dealing with was Latin, all the names should be mentioned like that. Hungarian names are blatantly anachronistic as they use modern spelling (e.g. Banska Bystrica was known in Hungarian as Byztherzebana and its countless variations). Pozsony is established in English as Pressburg, therefore the English name should be used. Wladthemlat (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Having seen your previous edits I do not believe that you would want to argue about anything.--Nmate (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Another personal attack from you. I have asked you politely on your talk  to avoid such behaviour. I do so again here. If you have no constructive counterarguments, it suggests, that your changes to the article are not made in good faith. I still wait for you to engage in a rational discussion. Wladthemlat (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Hungarian names pt II

message: As the official language of the Kingdom of Hungary was Latin until 1867 , 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.Wladthemlat (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hungarian names for places before 1867