Talk:Spiš

message: The present article contains significant misinformation regarding the early history of Szepes county, since the residents of the ten lance bearer districts were in fact Székely border guards, as attested by contemporary documents and original place names. Árpád 03:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Székely population in Szepes county 

message: I have copyedited the article to conform to standard English. Also I have sought to remove POVs where I found them. I have removed the description of the Czechoslovak-Polish border dispute (1918-1947) to a separate article, as it unbalanced the present article. Lastly I have taken out information about contemporary Spiš to a new article Spiš region, Slovakia so as to prevent confusion.Smerus 13:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to the article

message: This part definitely needs expansion - all assistance welcomed Smerus 14:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 16th to 19th Century

message: Spis region and Szepes county aren't the same! Nor geographically, nor historically. --VinceB 17:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS FOR PAGE MOVE, per discussion below.  It appears the consensus is to create a second article to split off informtion about the historical county.  In that case, whatever material is split from the current article will be at a new location, without its GFDL history, and there doesn't seem to be an elegant way to split the page history.  Thus, a note should be made in the initial edit summary (and maybe at the top of the new talk page) that the earlier history can be found here.  If you need admin assistance with anything relating to the split, please feel free to ask me. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spis region and Szepes county 

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support --VinceB 09:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Why this article is listed as "disputed territory"? Who dispute what here? PANONIAN (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand Border conflicts between Poland and Czechoslovakia correctly, the issue was solved in 1958. I'll remove the category. Markussep 09:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The intro of the article says that the region is partly in Poland, so IMO it can stay in that category. I don't think the presently Polish part of Spiš stopped being Spiš or Spisz. Markussep 10:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed territory?

message: I've moved it to Szepesség because this is a historical regio.Nmate (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See the discussion above. The article was split into an article about the region (located at Spiš) and one about the historical county (located at Szepes (county)). No need to move this to a Hungarian name. Markussep Talk 15:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Szepesség

message: For all involved, the policy of wikipedia is to use native names unless an academically prevalent name exists. This has everything to do with the english wikipedia. Apparently non-native speakers are getting involved.
* An english title exists for this topic. 
* English spelling is preferred to that of non-English languages. 
* The spelling that reflects the majority of items on the page is preferred to less common alternatives.
see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names
This website is incorrectly named as it stands, as there are english alternatives. As a rule of thumb, you should ask, would an english speaker type Spiš into the search bar? Probably not. For the sake of easy access to information, I suggest that the creator of this website change the name. If someone can provide clear academic evidence that this is not the case, this would be required in order to adhere to wikipedia standards.
Academic Evidence of English Name
Valdis O. Lumans
Central European History , Vol. 15, No. 3 (Sep., 1982), pp. 266-296
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4545962
*Czechoslovakia during the War: III—Slovakia and Ruthenia
J. R.
Bulletin of International News , Vol. 21, No. 25 (Dec. 9, 1944), pp. 1047-1054
Published by: Royal Institute of International Affairs
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25643728
*Education in Slovakia
Anton Štefánek
The Slavonic Review , Vol. 2, No. 5 (Dec., 1923), pp. 308-327
Published by: the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and East European Studies
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4201732
*Mining and German Settlement in Slovakia, an Historical Summary
Helmut Schröcke
GeoJournal , Vol. 32, No. 2, In Commemoration of Georgius Agricola, 1494–1555 (February 1994), pp. 127-135
Published by: Springer
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41146718
*Beiträge zur bairischen und ostfränkischen Dialektologie: Ergebnisse der Zweiten Bayerisch-Österreichischen Dialektologentagung Wien, 27. bis 30. September 1983 by Peter Wiesinger
Review by: Herbert Penzl
Language , Vol. 62, No. 1 (Mar., 1986), pp. 216-217
Published by: Linguistic Society of America
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/415630
*Czechoslovakia Before Munich: The German Minority Problems and British Appeasement Policy. by J. W. Bruegel; Czechoslovakia: The Party and the People. by Andrew Oxley; Alex Pravada; Andrew Ritchie
Review by: Frank Dinka
Political Science Quarterly , Vol. 89, No. 1 (Mar., 1974), pp. 217-220
Published by: The Academy of Political Science
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2148142
*An Informal History of the German Language: With Chapters on Dutch and Afrikaans, Frisian and Yiddish by W. B. Lockwood
Review by: W. E. Collinson
The Modern Language Review , Vol. 62, No. 1 (Jan., 1967), pp. 150-151
Published by: Modern Humanities Research Association
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3724155
Agentxp22 (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I have no problem with that. In fact I believe the naming policy on alternative names very much suggests it (unless they changed it since the last time I took a look at it).VolunteerMarek 22:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adherence to WIkipedia Language Policy