Talk:Abaúj County

Untitled

Shouldn't be the title of the article Abaúj instead of Abov? I know I'm opening a can of worms here, as it's hard to reach a consensus about historical Hungarian/Slovakian/Romanian/etc. names… here are my arguments:

According to many sources, Czechoslovakia got 48% of the territory of Abaúj-Torna, so the majority of the county – 52% – stayed with Hungary. (I don't have data about Abaúj itself, only about A.-T., though.)
The name Abaúj is recognizably an intelligible word in Hungarian, coming from the name of the Aba clan and the word új (meaning "new", referring to a new castle built by the clan, which stood near modern-day Abaújvár, which is still in Hungary). Even the Latinized form and the German spelling and translation are from the Hungarian original. Does the name Abov have an etymology in Slovak, or is it simply a Slovakized version of the Hungarian word?
The article says Abov is just an informal name for the territory in Slovakia, while in Hungary Abaúj forms a part of the official county name Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén.

– Alensha

^talk 23:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not that you want to move the article, the problem are your "arguments". You cannot argue like this. It is completely irrelevant from what language the name originally (1000 years ago !) arose - using your logics, Esztergom should be under the Slovak name then. And it is also completely irrelevant that it also forms part of the name Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén - so what???, do you think Abov does not form part of various names in Slovakia too?. Secondly, the Latin names cited here are usually new forms from the 18th and 19th century artificially derived from Magyar names. Thirdly, Abov is not an administrative unit (neither in SK nor in H), but it is an official tourism region, for example, in SK. The only "valid" (although somehow ridiculous) point is that indeed slightly more %s seem to be in H than in SK, so if you find that a sufficient argument, move the article. We have no rules for such cases and, frankly, I have just resigned on this months ago. And, please, try to think in a more complex way (like Spock, if it helps you :)) )Juro 03:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S:The name is derived from the name of King Aba Samuel (1041-1044). Abov literally means !Abai" in Hungarian in this case (Aba's Castle)....And note that what is not "recognizable" to you because you do not know the language, is well "recognizable" to those who know the language (this is trivial, but it seems that nobody has told you this yet). Juro 03:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know it can be recognizable to those who speak the language... that's why I asked if it has some meaning/etymology etc. in Slovak.

so, would you really have no problem with a move to Abaúj? Based on that 52%? then I'll move it. thanks! :) – Alensha

^talk 12:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be clear from the above, that I personally am against this, but for the sake of this project (and since the other frontier counties have been moved as well) I agree. Juro 15:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any moves that add diacritical marks to titles without good reason. That just makes it harder for English speakers to search for articles. The evidence presented so far doesn't indicate to me that this variant is significantly more acceptable, so I think it should be kept at the simplest spelling. Kafziel 17:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The diacritics don't prevent users to find the article, Abauj is a redirect. I'm slightly in favour of Abaúj, but the difference (52-48) is very small. Markussep 19:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too small to necessitate a move, in my opinion. I agree that it won't prevent users from finding it, but it will make it that much less likely that they will search for the correct term (or link to it when writing articles). There's no way to enter the suggested title in the search box without copying and pasting the special characters from elsewhere, which nobody is going to do. Kafziel 20:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

when writing articles it won't be much of a problem, because articles about Hungarian topics are likely to be written by Hungarian Wikipedians, and anyway, a redirect always solves the problem. – Alensha

^talk 14:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian Wikipedians are, of course, welcome to contribute. But they should not expect the English Wikipedia to alter its articles to suit them. Kafziel 15:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diacritics cannot be an argument against a name. According to your logic the city of Košice should call Kassa, because that name didn't contain diacritics :) Zello 16:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the usage was as evenly split as this one is, then I would support changing that one as well. Kafziel 17:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. – Axman (☏) 12:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Zello 15:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Not because 52-48 %, this doesn't matter, but because the Latin name, used in the former Kingdom of Hungary until 1844, was simply derived from Abaúj. In the second half of the 19th century (until 1918) only the Hungarian name was the official one, and after that the historical county ceased to exist. So the Slovak name, Abov, never had an official status. Zello 15:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, the Latin name in the article is a relatively new creation (see e.g. the article in the Latin wikipedia). Secondly, we are not talking about moving the article to the LATIN but to the Magyar name. Thirdly, the point is that the word Abov has an official status NOW, and before 1867 (800 years or so) its status was as (non)official as that of the word Abaúj. Juro 15:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Abov has an official status now - but the historical county ceased to exist in 1921. Abov is a present-day touristical region in Slovakia not the Abaúj county of the KoH. Speaking about the Slovak and Magyar name it is a fact that Abaúj was official since 1844, and the former Latin form was also derived from it, but the Slovak name has never been official when this county existed. Zello 16:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not since 1844, because German was official 1859-1867. But that is not important, the important point is whether say 40 years of Magyar being the official language compared to say 900 years of Latin being the official language justify a move to the Magyar name instead of a move to the Latin name and the answer is - based only on this issue - clearly no. The other point here is, what this article is really about:

a region that is very alive today (and that region has - so to say by the way - a history), which should have separate articles for the Slovak and Hungarian part,
or about a historical administrative unit, which should be under its Latin name if we are supposed to be correct (cf. 40 vs. 900 years of its history; another problem is then, which Latin name is the most "historical" one). And note that "Abaujvar(iensis)" is still different from Abaúj, even if it is derived from the latter.Juro 16:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to that homepage (a Slovak one) the Latinized Magyar name was used in 1560 in official documents (Regesta decimarum comitatus Abaujvariensis), ref: http://www.cassovia.sk/obce/geca/ So the name is not a new creation from the 19th century. Zello 16:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, I wont check this; so this county is quite an exceptation (no wonder given that it is named after a king). Juro 16:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is certainly about the historical administrative unit. We should create two different articles under the names Abov and Abaúj (region) about the present-day regions (with disambiguation pages and redirects). Zello 17:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that. If everyone is in agreement, we can stop the debate; nothing needs to be moved. The redirect at Abaúj can be changed into a proper article and the information here can be moved to where it needs to be. Disambiguation links at the top of the pages are all that's needed. Kafziel 17:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be a good idea to have two different articles. Thanks to everyone who took part in the discussion. – Alensha

^talk 18:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I re-arranged the three articles as Abaúj, Abov and Abaúj (region) (only a stub now). We should work to improve them. Zello 18:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up

I think some of the information in the article is really about Abaúj-Torna, for instance some (or all?) of the census data. The 1910 data are definitely for Abaúj-Torna, 1941 most probably as well. I moved them to Abaúj-Torna.

I'm not sure about the districts listed here. It can't be early 20th century Abaúj, because it didn't exist then, and they're not the districts of 1882-1918 Abaúj-Torna. Since they're all in the southern half, they could be the districts of interbellum Hungarian Abaúj-Torna. Alensha, since you added most of these data, could you check this? Markussep 17:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]