Talk:Bratislava/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Where are we?

So where are we on this, exactly? I think we are in the enviable position of being more or less agreed upon the factual questions:

1. In historical contexts, three names are all frequently used to refer to the city: the German name, Pressburg, the Hungarian name, Pozsony, and the modern Slovak name, Bratislava.
2. The name Bratislava was not the name of the city until 1919.
3. Prior to 1919, the city was called "Pressburg" in English. At least one historical event associated with the city, the treaty ending the 1805 war between France and Austria, is always called the "Treaty of Pressburg."

Unfortunately, we seem to be at something of an impasse about what principle is to be applied in determining how to refer to the city, in spite of our agreement on facts. As far as I can tell, there have been several different interpretations:

1. We should always use the modern name in articles, or at least in the article on the city itself, as otherwise it can be confusing and jarring. I think this is Svetovid's argument.
2. We should use the modern name, unless it is clear that a single historical name is the dominant English usage for a particular period of time. This would appear to be Tankred's position, and perhaps Mark's.
3. Due to the fact that the city was not actually called Bratislava before 1919, we should use one of the historical names (probably Pressburg), for historical discussion, from the high middle ages or so until 1919. This is my position, and would seem to be Juro's, and Mike's position, as well. (And anyone, correct me if I've mischaracterized your position on this)

I think that position 1 has some merit, and it is, more or less, the way Britannica does it, but I think it's fairly evident that this is not how wikipedia does it. Mike noted Istanbul, for instance, and there's others. Option 1 would be a matter for a major overhaul of WP:NCGN, and shouldn't be applied here in the absence of consensus to make it general policy. But between 2 and 3, I really am uncertain. My personal preference is for the one, but I can see where the other would make life easier, and I think it's really arguable either way. What's the general sense on this? john k

Thank you for an excellent summary. I think no one disputes the facts, so let us move to our alternative solutions. I would rather discard the option #1 because it would violate WP:NCGN. Obviously, I prefer #2, but I am also open to #3. My reasons for #2 are: First, we failed to prove that there is one widely accepted English name of the city in the historical context. WP:NCGN says we should use the modern name in such a situation. Second, Pressburg is historically relevant for an important, yet short period of time. If we decide to call Bratislava Pressburg whenever we refer to the city in the 18th century, how would we call Bratislava in the 13th century? How about the year 907? And the Celtic oppidum before the Roman era? There is no clear answer in case we decide for #3. What do you suggest? Third, I believe the consistent use of one name will be the least confusing solution for the reader. However, the etymology section should be expanded in order to explain significance of the name Pressburg (perhaps also citing Treaty of Pressburg as an example) if we decide for #2. As to the procedure, I hope we will be able to reach consensus here. If not, we can always have a formal survey at the end. Tankred 14:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is balancing between alternatives 1 and 2, but is slightly closer to 2. Because we failed to provide a reference of wide usage of Pressburg in English in historical context, I'm discarding 3. I think 2 is the best solution, as this isn't some scientific article but general article for wide audience, but we would have to expand Names section and provide some light to that complicated name situation. And yes, before 15th or 16th century, we don't have a widely used name, so Bratislava should be used to that period. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 14:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the current format works fairly well - use "Bratislava" up to the point where the name Pressburg appears, then use Pressburg until 1919, then back to Bratislava, at least in the context of the relatively short history section in this article (I'd need to look at History of Bratislava to see if it would work as well there). [After Edit Conflict]: Mark, I think it's clear that Pressburg is widely used in English in historical context, it's merely not universally used - both Bratislava and Pozsony are also widely used. I'm not sure in such a situation that it is at all clear how we are to resolve it. john k 15:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

John, thank you for your comment and sorry for my hostility earlier. But I think we need to clearly draw a line until where Bratislava will be used (sometime 15th/16th century, but no clearly defined event) so we can clearly define from when will be Pressburg used until 1919. I'm sure we will be able to solve this matter once and for all. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 15:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If we want to use Pressburg, I think 1526 would be a good year to choose. After that year, Bratislava became part of the Habsburg empire. As the example of Universitas Istropolitana shows, significant events in the 15th century did not appear under the name of Pressburg. So, in case we decide for Pressburg, I suggest 1526-1919. On the other hand, it seems the solution #2 is better acceptable than the more extreme solutions 1 and 3. Would it be acceptable also for you, John, Juro, and Mike? Of course, we would explain the role of the name Pressburg in greater detail in the Etymology section. Tankred 15:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

So I think either 1526 (Battle of Mohács) or 1536 (Bratislava becomes capital of Hungary) would be the line dividing usage of Bratislava and Pressburg. What do you think? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 15:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

1526-1919 would work for me. In terms of how to do it, I'd rather not see option 2 as a compromise position between 1 and 3. Options 1 and 2 are more or less the same in terms of the result - both end up with the city being called "Bratislava" throughout. It's just that 2 is based on a defensible interpretation of WP:NCGN, while 1 is not. If there's a consensus for 2, it would not be entirely unacceptable to me, assuming we also expand discussion of the various names in the etymology section. But I'd continue to prefer 3, once again on grounds of "I'd rather not use an anachronistic name when we don't have to." (We "have to" use an anachronistic name when there's no name which is widely used in English which is not anachronistic. Thus, for the early history of Bratislava, any name we choose would be anachronistic, so we may as well go with Bratislava. But we don't have to when there's a commonly used English alternative which was also used at the time, as is the case for Pressburg from the 16th century down to 1919.) At any event, I think either choice is acceptable, but I'd prefer 3. I also hope that we're all agreed that translations of proper names, or quotations from sources, should be direct. john k 15:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

My opinion falls somewhere between #2 and #3 without a strong preference either way. As I look at the text in the History section at least, as it stands at this moment reads pretty well to me. "Bratislava" is used in places describing periods prior to the existence of the name, but it's done in such a way that it makes clear that it refers to "the territory today called Bratislava". "Pressburg" seems to be used appropriately. If we held a vote right now, and one of the choices was "things related to the name of the city in the article right now are just fine", my vote would be "support".

As for WP:NCGN, I think the weakness as it stands now is that it depends upon a standard of "wide acceptance", which is difficult to judge and open to much debate, especially given that the various historians we might refer to in asserting "wide acceptance" may themselves had their own active or passive POV reasons for choosing a particular name for the city in their writings about it, and might also lead us into debates about which historians are more valid or neutral than others, which could be endless. I would rather that the WP:NCGN refer instead to the official name of the city at the time in question, which except in cases of war should mostly result in an unambiguous single answer at every point in history, or at least as far back as the idea of "one territory, one sovereignty, one name" might be applied. If someone could come up with references demonstrating that the official name of the city was "Posonium", "Pozsony", or "Prešporok" (I've been hunting for this, so far without result), I would support amending the article with those names in the relevant periods, and including the citations.

Overall, I'm not passionate about the issue, except insofar as resolving it with wide acceptability helps us move the article closer to FA status.MikeGogulski 20:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that "Pozsony" may have been the official name from 1867 to 1918. Certainly it appears on old maps of the Austria-Hungary from that time period. In terms of official names, I think that, in the absence of a specifically English name (e.g. Rome, Nuremberg, Munich, Seville), this actually makes a fair amount of sense, although it is not the current policy. It would lead to some complicated cases though, especially for territories with frequently changing sovereignty. Strasbourg, for instance, would be Strassburg to 1681, Strasbourg 1681-1871, Strassburg again 1871-1918, and then Strasbourg again since 1918. Lviv would be Lwow to 1772, then Lemberg to 1918, then Lwow again to 1945, then Lvov to 1991, and finally Lviv. This could presumably get somewhat awkward. On the other hand, it's a lot clearer, and would allow us to dispense with worrying about what the most used name was in cases where it's entirely unclear. john k 22:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In my own view, Strassburg = Strasbourg and Lviv = Lvov = Lwow. These are orthographic changes which don't reflect an underlying difference in name. As a hypothetical example, if my Polish ancestors had migrated to Slovakia (or whatever it was called at the time), my own surname might have changed from Gogulski to Gogulský or even Hohulský or Hohuľský. These are not changes of identity. These orthographic variations are of interest, but probably best catalogued and discussed at History of Bratislava rather than in the main article. If this point is accepted, that still leaves us with an apparently open question as to what to do with Posonium/Pozsony. MikeGogulski 10:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That seems fair, although the same might be said of Gdansk/Danzig, or Bombay/Mumbai, and in both those cases we do change which name we use. I think one thing coming out of this is that it's really difficult to devise a satisfactory rule that will work in all cases. And I'd add that there are definite changes of identity involved in Strassburg/Strasbourg, and perhaps in Lwow/Lvov. They are, indeed, merely orthographic, but orthography can be as important to identity as actual different roots. john k 15:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The concept of "official names" (unlike that of official "languages") can be applied only from about 1800 / the late 19th century (depending on the definition) for the KoH. In addition, what John says above is correct: Pozsony was official somewhere from the 1860's, but even then the ENGLISH name remained Pressburg (see e.g. the article in the 1911 Britannica), because Bratislava as the former capital of a country, place of several battles etc. is among those cities in Europe that have (had) an English name, namely Pressburg. Juro 23:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It may be a real difference of opinion, but if the official name of the city was Pozsony in 1911, and Britannica used Pressburg instead, I would count it as Britannica's error, as the difference is lexical rather than orthographic. I would have imagined, though, that the KoH would have issued some sort of official decree changing a city's name when that was done, and that references could be found for this; I may well be wrong about it, which means my "official name" test is only very narrowly useful to us here. MikeGogulski 10:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not an error. Britannica clearly knew that the city was officially Pozsony - the article on Hungary calls it "Pozsony (Pressburg)". So obviously they were going with a "name most commonly used in English" rule, rather than an "official name" rule. As when we call the Chinese city of Guangzhou "Canton," even though that has a different etymology, deriving from "Guangdong," not from "Guangzhou". And I doubt there was any official decree - I imagine they just started referring to it as "Pozsony" in official acts (which were, after all, written in Hungarian, where that had been the name all along), making maps that called it "Pozsony," and so forth. The more I think about it, the more I think using official name is a can of worms - taken to its logical extreme, it would require using Latin names for medieval and early modern cities, which is just silly. john k 15:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess you're right... it is a big, messy, stinking can of worms! I guess I have to pull the "official name" test off the table based on your observations here, though I was hopeful that it would lead us to clarity. Back to our remaining criterion, "wide acceptance" among historians, the texts I've seen on city history (in English and Slovak) generally use a mixture of "Bratislava" and "Pressburg" to refer to the city in historical contexts. I haven't seen one yet which uses "Pozsony" as anything but a parenthetical reference to the Hungarian name. I have attribution for some variant of Pressburg now back to 1438-55, from an image I just uploaded to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pressburg_city_plan_1438-55.jpg and will link shortly to the History article. MikeGogulski 16:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• And here too; when did the Hungarian Diet stop using Latin? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Another general question: Are we going to vote now (if we have a consensus)?Juro 23:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems you've just recently lost your voice here :( MikeGogulski 10:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll talk to some historians and let you know what they think.--Svetovid 12:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My general perception that English-language publications generally use the form Bratislava for Great Moravia, then Pressburg from the Middle Ages (or Late Middle Ages) until 1919, and Bratislava from then on.
Of course, that means little without examples of usage. I will be looking in the next days. Just to start: The Times Atlas of World History, Fourth Edition, London, 1994, ISBN 0-7230-0534-6, uses:

• Bratislava for the 9th & 10th centuries (page 111 — but in the index of p. 353 it figures as Pressburg)
• Pressburg from the 10th century to 1918 (p. 118, 187, 193, 207, 249)
  Or from 1526 to 1918, if we discard the first instance of p. 118 as "inconsistent" with p. 111.
• Bratislava from 1939 (p. 265, 290, 291)

I like John K's proposal, but before taking a clear position on the issue I will wait to see if my general perception is confirmed by what I find in the next days, or not :-) Best regards, Ev 16:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Street names in English

I just reverted Mike's change from Pribinová Street back to Pribina Street, but it made me thinking. Pribinová Street is indeed incorrect because when a street is named after a person it goes without the acute accent. However, it's quite possible that the original form "Pribinova Street", in this case, is used in English too. I prefer changing it to the basic name form - Einstein Street in case of Einsteinova ulica and so on. How do they translate street names in guide books or is there any policy or guideline in Wikipedia already?--Svetovid 20:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the accent was an error on my part, it should be "Pribinova ulica". I'm considering moving Šancová street to Šancová ulica (cf. Váci utca and Juro's comment at Talk:Šancová Street), though, so I'd be interested to know the guideline as well. MikeGogulski 20:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Names in the lead

I want to ask everybody to stop editing the lead until we reach at least some consensus here.--Svetovid 12:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, both with the request, and with the edit to remove all the alternates from the lead. Discussing them under Names or History seems more appropriate to me. MikeGogulski 12:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. We need to reach some sort of agreement first. We can't edit war over this issue forever, as it threatens stability of the article and particularly now, when it's GA candidate. But I think after we will agree somehow on some issues, we should create an FAQ. And I think we should archive this one soon, as it already shows around 100kb (just a question, into current archive or into new archive?) MarkBA ^t/c/@ 16:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. And I suggest we vote as soon as possible because all the arguments are already here. Tankred 17:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I worry that taking a vote now is somewhat premature, and that the results would be challenged later on during peer review, for instance. My feeling is that most of us who are likely to participate in any poll now are a bit too close to the issue, since with the exception of John, we all have a direct connection to Bratislava as a Slovak city (in the case of Mark and I, it's where we live, for instance). John is actually the only one of us involved in this debate who can be seen as impartial, because he isn't Slovak, far as we know, and doesn't live in Slovakia. John's also got some independent credibility as a PhD candidate in European history. If we're to have a poll now, I would propose that we ask John to draft a proposal for resolving the name issue throughout the article, post it to talk, and then vote on it. MikeGogulski 17:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

As another suggestion, we could submit the question at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography and see if anyone bites on it. If nobody objects by tomorrow, I'll do this myself. MikeGogulski 19:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how many people would comment from there. Bringing it up at the talk page for WP:NCGN might be the best way to inspire broader participation. Beyond that, I would say that if I had to propose something, I've edited the article to more or less conform to what I'd think is a fairly clear usage of the two names. Permalink is here, in case it gets edited. Basically, confusion arises out of going back and forth. So this way, it is called "Bratislava" until the point where the name "Pressburg" is introduced. Then, it is called "Pressburg" until the point where it is renamed "Bratislava" in March 1919. Perhaps we should simply vote on whether to do it this way, or whether to call it "Bratislava" throughout. I think notices both on RFC and on WP:NCGN would be good for trying to bring in outside opinions. john k 21:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Tankred posted to WP:NCGN a couple days ago. I just posted to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. MikeGogulski 15:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll bite. The article as it stands now seems fine to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the other names that were in the introduction are all archaic, with the exception of Pressburg, which is just the German name for the city, similar to Gdansk/Danzig, etc. Since there isn't a naming controvsery, such as Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud), there really isn't a need to use any other name in the introduction. As for what name is used in the body of the article, I would think it best to use Bratislava throughout the article, and only mention Pressburg as the German name for the city. Parsecboy 16:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence of a naming controversy (outside WP) at Shatt al-Arab either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment from WP:NCGN: My understanding of the guideline's advice on alternate names in the lead is that it is for cases like Cracow, where several names can be commonly found in current writing in English. Pressburg may be current German usage, although the German wikipedia doesn't use it; but that doesn't matter for us. We don't put alternate names in London or New York, although almost every other language has its own version (Londres, Londra,...) of one of them. (New York does mention the local official name, but that's Bratislava here.) Would there be objection to "has been known by other names", so that someone following the Pressburg redirect is not confused as to what he's doing here? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Septentrionalis, as usual. Also for clarity & readability I prefer to see one single name in the lead, and then a "Name" section (as in this article) to discuss all alternatives and languages in detail. – However, since the form Pressburg has been the common English name until less than a century ago, and continues to be widely used in historical contexts (I just finished reading Duff Cooper's biography of Talleyrand), to avoid any confusion I would propose adding a sentence at the end of the first paragraph: "Until 1919 it was known as Pressburg", or something to that effect. - Ev 15:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how to fit that smoothly after the present first paragraph, which ends by mentioning that it borders both Austria and Hungary; but I've modified the third, where it mentions the AH Empire. Feel free to tweak. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, of course. How about incorporating it in the middle of the first paragraph: "Bratislava, formerly known as Pressburg, is located in the south west of Slovakia" ? The idea being to present the reader with the alternative name at the first look (?) mmhh... coup d'oeil, as a clear indication that he's at the right place :-) Regards, Ev 16:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I like it the way it is now: with the name Pressburg in the introduction, but not the first paragraph. ¿SFGiДnts! ☺ ☻ 00:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources/refs cleanup

Ideally, and according to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English, all of our references would be to sources would be in the English language. At the same time, we should prefer print sources over web sources, per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources. I could see the comment easily being made that, for FA, we've got too many web sources in preference to print sources.

Problem is, most of the material I have available to try and start replacing the web references with book reference is in Slovak, not English. The two policies linked above don't establish a priority system which makes it easy to determine whether a Slovak print source should be preferred over an English-language web source.

Comments, thoughts? MikeGogulski 17:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not an article about a scientific issue, so I do not see any major problem with web sources. However, we should check them frequently and replace them by another source whenever the original website ceases to exist. A reliable website in English contributes to verifiability more than a book written in Slovak and unaccessible to readers from outside Slovakia. The best solution would be to use books included in Google Books:-) Tankred 17:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The "check frequently and update" part there kinda puts more burden on people (namely, me) than I'd prefer. Good idea about Google books, though. Here's a link to a search which includes a bunch of the historical names... a place to start at least: http://www.google.com/books?lr=&as_brr=1&q=bratislava+OR+pressburg+OR+posonium+OR+poszony+OR+pre%C5%A1porok+OR+prespurk+OR+presburk+OR+posoniensis&btnG=Search+Books MikeGogulski 18:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That begins with the old Cambridge Modern History, edited by Lord Acton, in 1907. Pressburg was common English usage a century ago. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Although I do not currently see problem with web citations, I think we should replace them with "hard" literature, preferably in English. Unfortunately, I don't have much English sources right now, so I can't place English citations. Another problem is that not all information may be included in the English version and usage of Slovak source is then unavoidable. To verifiability, web citations can be checked straight away, but there is a risk of external link "going dead". Books on the other hand do not change their content (:-)), but they cannot be verified outside authors or owners of that book. Lastly, although we have quite large amount of sources strengthening verifiability, quite considerable part of them comes from Bratislava website or from any of its organisations. I think introducing reliable sources outside these pages would be good. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 18:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism/compromising the NPOV of the article

Svetovid, MarkBA, and all the others, please stop reverting the changes I made. As you might have noticed, all my statements are properly sourced, so if you're reverting the changes I've made to it, you'll compromise the NPOV of the article. I hope you don't want to do that, as I presume you want to improve the quality of the article. Believe me, I want to do the same. Coolkoon 20:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but although some edits were good-faithed, the sentence about demolishing is true (particularly Nový most) but leaving it unsourced or sourced with some random photogallery (no article!) will quickly get those {{Fact}} tags. Also, something stinks fishy, as you have similar account, User:CoolKoon, which may raise thoughts about sockpuppetry, though there's no block as I see, but the dates are strange. And please refrain from edit summaries like "POV vandal" when you know it isn't true, as that's bad faith assuming, and repeated offences lead to block and that userpage of yours also raises suspicions about vandalising and bad intentions. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, my mom's family was living in Petržalka before the whole village (except for the small part around the cemetery and the even smaller part next to University of Economics) went down to be replaced by these awful paneláks. And also plese tell me how to source the look of e.g. Dunajská before OD Prior was built? With some descriptions? Then I could go on to try to describe a certain color for someone who's been blind since he was born. The same applies for Petržalka, the Jewish part of the historical centre, the area between the Danube and the Castle etc.

And about that account thing, that's not a similar account, that's the same one I'm logged in now. Also may I ask that what dates are strange to you?

The contents of my userpage might be suspicious, but I've put it there today (I didn't have one for 2 years and was fine with it...) because I was accused of vandalism/being a troll. And you didn't show a good intention either when you deleted all my modifications when I was about to provide some sources for them....Coolkoon 21:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Then try to combine the two... article plus some photos. What I found odd is as CoolKoon you reverted Slovakization article on 18 May, and now as Coolkoon reverted again on 22 May... that's why it raises suspicion about sockpuppetry to me. And I haven't deleted everything you did, just this History section... MarkBA ^t/c/@ 21:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I realised just now that I did commit sockpuppetry indeed. As CoolKoon doesn't equal to Coolkoon. But now I found myself in a really odd situation, since I have a different watchlist in each of the accounts. Couldn't these accounts be "merged"? (Bah! I'm an idiot! Can't notice the difference between k and K...).

Anyway, yeah, I guess you've deleted only the history session, but in a pretty speedy way. And I'd love to quote some articles about the demolitions done by the communists, however I can't find any online sources to that. A bummer too that I don't have related books about it...I guess all I can offer are the pictures.CoolKoon 22:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I accepted some changes, but don't add information that is unnecessary in the main article. And the lesson to be taken here is don't add a lot of crap because it will be removed with the little good you also may add.--Svetovid 20:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If you say that Bezenye is unnecessary then please also remove Hainburg an der Donau (AT) and Marchegg (AT) too and at least one of these: Rovinka, Dunajská Lužná or Šamorín as they are unnecessary too. As for the demolition parts I'd say that those 1.5 sentences really deserve to be there, since those steps have radically changed the city's outlook and from that time, Bratislava will never be the same again....Coolkoon 21:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but it's TMI in the main article. The history section should probably be trimmed down a little still. And good call, I removed some small villages.--Svetovid 22:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the fire, Coolkoon! Overall, I don't think that the edits related to the demolition of historic places were at all controversial, except possible for the use of the word "most" instead of "many" (times). There are any number of books and articles documenting it. The details belong at History of Bratislava, but a phrase mentioning it such as Coolkoon provided, with a decent print source, seems quite appropriate in my mind (hint: see http://www.slovakspectator.sk/). These events are part of the living history of the city, fresh in the minds of many residents, and having real cultural significance. — Mike Gogulski ^{↗C•@•T↗} 22:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This information should go into the city sights section IMO. Oh and that section should probably be renamed into something like "Cityscape and architecture."--Svetovid 00:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Section renamed. Solid idea, IMHO. I've been looking for a substitute for that heading for a long time :) — Mike Gogulski ^{↗C•@•T↗} 02:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

question

I don't intend to make anything hit the fan while a civilized discussion/poll is going on, but are there any contexts in which it is appropriate to use the Hungarian name, Pozsony? K. Lásztocska 00:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If there are, I want to see evidence of it. The Hungarian name has been very important to the city's history. That this is so, I think (and speaking as someone far removed from the local passions) is beyond question. The challenge is to agree upon a single policy for reference to the city's name through history. Besides this poll, our guidance is WP:NCGN which, though as it is not "official" inasmuch as anything written here can be, and subject to override at any time by solid historical evidence, is nonetheless applicable guiding on the basis of precedent. Bring sources to the table which document the fact; I'll change my own "weak support" with pleasure, as the reference in WP:NCGN to English-language historians, as applied to periods before around, say, 1650, seems awfully provincial. I would prefer to see the article's usage reflect the prevailing names of the times described, but as I've mentioned previously, it's hard to make this happen without controversy, and the payoff is extremely small when compared to the inertia against other proposals. — Mike Gogulski ^{↗C•@•T↗} 01:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Remember, this is the English wikipedia. We should use what our readers are likely to have seen; I encourage the Magyar Wikipeda to use Pozsony. Part of translation is adjusting proper names to the new language.

Both "contemporary usage" and "usage of local historians" have a problem, which can be summed up by considering Rome - do we ever want to use Roma in running text, as opposed to mentioning the fact that it is the Italian and Latin name for the city? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"Pozsony" is used in English sometimes. I've seen it a fair bit, in fact. In terms of "contemporary usage" and the like, I think my main issue would be that there's a difference between different forms of the same name, and entirely different names. We do, for instance, call Istanbul "Byzantium" when talking about it before 330 AD. john k 17:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Review--on hold

This article is quite good, but needs some attention to be passed as GA.

Clearly, the name issue needs to be resolved, which seems to be on track. Once that is done sentences such as these should be able to be fixed so the prose is less awkward (in all cases the prose needs work, sometimes because of the name issue):

• The city, then called Pressburg, was a key economic and administrative centre of the Habsburg (Austrian) monarchy. When was it called that?

Y - clarified (until 1919)

• The name Braslava or Preslava was also found on an old coin minted by Stephen I (Štefan I.) in 1038. Who is Stephen I?

Y - clarified (King of the KoH)

• Before 1919, English-speakers generally referred to the city by its German name, Pressburg, most often so spelt. Rework

Y - copyedited the whole section, hopefully an overall improvement as well as clean-up of this issue. — Mike Gogulski ^{↗C•@•T↗} 00:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Even though Bratislava is one of the youngest capital cities in Europe (since 1993)... ambiguous--the city isn't young, its status as a capital is. Also, young could refer to the age of its inhabitants.

Y - copyedited the section, hopefully clarifying this sentence. — Mike Gogulski ^{↗C•@•T↗} 00:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• This also destined the city to be a site of frequent attacks and battles. Awkward... Also, what caused the city to be the site of frequent attacks? Its location on the frontier or its status as a regional center?

Y - copyedited, also → strategic position (hopefully more clear now) Tankred 15:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Many significant sporting events, such as World and European Championships, have been held in Bratislava. Such as?

Y - Examples added. Tankred 15:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• The photos need to be reformatted within the article to allow it to flow better.

I am not sure what you mean. Could you be more specific please? Tankred 15:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Are you meaning resizing, moving them elsewhere, reducing number, increase or something else? Also, please check our edits and see if they're OK. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 18:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The photo layout creates lots of white space throughout the article, by rearranging them, you can eliminate the white space and improve the flow of the article.Argos'Dad 18:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... so I guess you are talking about Names, History, Demographics and Territorial division sections, if I'm right. So that needs some reorganization to eliminate white spaces, without adding any new images? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 19:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

We have just limited TOC to major headings to kill off some white space and in Transportation sections increased size of images to remove white space... though not sure if limiting the TOC is OK with the Manual of Style. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Finally, I am unclear whether the city's COA without the name is approved. - Not sure what do you mean. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Y - To the coat-of-arms issue specifically, it's covered by the license attached to [[Image:Bratislava_erb.jpg]], which covers the legal basis for the usage as well as includes a release from the city's Magistrate. The logo, however, is a separate issue (discussed above at #City logo). — Mike Gogulski ^{↗C•@•T↗} 20:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That clarifies that point. Thanks!

I will check back in seven days to see if these issues have been resolved. By all means, keep improving the article and reach consensus on Pressburg/Bratislava. Argos'Dad 20:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If you make the GA status conditional on the resolution of the naming issue, we will close the poll. But I think everyone here would prefer some more time to get more input from other editors. Since the editors participating in the discussion have promised to protect whichever alternative gains more support and there is no edit war over the issue, even an unresolved poll would not threaten stability of this article. We would appreciate if you could tell us whether we should resolve this issue before your decision. Tankred 15:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not making GA conditional on the naming issue, but the naming issue (and the contortions you all are making to avoid stepping on each others toes) seems to impede the straight-forward editing. That said, you all seem to be reaching some consensus about the name at various times, and the edits so far are excellent, and I think we are almost there. Argos'Dad 18:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I regard GA as a broken process. I request that this nomination be withdrawn; this article is too good, and has undergone too much work to be insulted by comparison with the worthless articles which have that tag. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as this is my nomination, I disagree this request because this is already on hold and there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to stop it. Had you told me before User:Argos'Dad started reviewing it, I could do so. Sure, there are better options than GA nominations, but breaking the nomination isn't really good idea when it's already in progress. We can think about some better options after we will finish this one (that is peer-review or something similar). MarkBA ^t/c/@ 21:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Broken or not, I wouldn't care to judge. I'm delighted to have a critical set of eyes offering constructive suggestions here. A GA award should increase the article's visibility, and possibly attract other interested editors to help bring it to FA status. We could have asked also for WP:Peer Review, but I've seen that done more often between GA and FA, myself. I'd say if GA is a problem, then it's a good problem for the article to have. — Mike Gogulski ^{↗C•@•T↗} 21:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Mike. I hope that a fresh set of eyes is helpful. If anyone disagrees with my suggestions, I am happy to discuss them; if they are unreasonable or unrealistic, to modify or remove them.Argos'Dad 02:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to say that this article which was nominated for good article status has succeeded. This is how the article, as of May 29, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Prose is clear, concise and encyclopedic in tone

2. Factually accurate?: All extraordinary statements are sourced and there is sufficient data to establish the accuracy of claims and data

3. Broad in coverage?: Article covers all of the main topics fully and provides appropriate detail in sub-topics

4. Neutral point of view?: No issues of POV present

5. Article stability? Some discussions have been lively, but there is no edit-warring going on

6. Images?: They are numerous, appropriate and complete and give some visual representation of the city. All are appropriately tagged and have captions

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status. — Argos'Dad 18:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Poll

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 Proposal B. Tankred 20:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

To sum up our discussion, there is an argument that "Pressburg" is a widely accepted historic English name of Bratislava in a historical context and should be used while refering to the city in 1526-1918. Evidence required by WP:NCGN has been presented and thoroughfully discussed on this talk page. I believe, we can now take the next step and proceed to a poll,as has been suggested several times above. Two alternatives have emerged and a straw poll may show how much support the proposed solutions really get. A poll with a strong result can also discourage future vandalism. Please, take your time, read the discussion again, and ask questions, if you are in doubt. Of course, any new evidence will be welcomed. Last, but not least, I would like to thank all the participants for an intelligent and civil discussion that sets up an excellent example for other similar cases.

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, possibly adding brief comments afterwards. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion".

Poll closure

As this poll was run for one month and despite advertising we have done couldn't attract very much attention, I am closing this poll as a simple majority for Proposal B, i.e. for Bratislava consistency. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal A

When referring to Bratislava in a specific historical context, the following names of the city should be used:

• "Bratislava" for the period before 1526;
• "Pressburg" for the period between 1526 and 1918 (note: the starting year may be modified in the ongoing discussion);
• "Bratislava" for the period from 1919 onwards.

Please, remember that the use of the name Pressburg in the articles other than Bratislava should follow WP:NCGN: In cases when a widely accepted historic English name is used, it should be followed by the modern English name in parentheses on the first occurrence of the name in applicable sections of the article in the format: "historical name (modern name)." This resembles linking; it should not be done to the detriment of style. On the other hand, it is probably better to do too often than too rarely.

1. Support, with the caveat noted below. john k 13:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

   An additional point - including the current name in parentheses is only to be done in other articles. In this article it would be ridiculous, since we will have made clear several times that Pressburg is Bratislava. john k 15:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

   Comment: You are right, I have changed it to a better formulation "in the articles other than Bratislava". Tankred 18:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

2. Support and agree with John. Using Bratislava during the Early Modern Era seems anachronistic to me, similar to early usage of Kaliningrad or Istanbul. Olessi 14:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Support in general, for the same reasons Byzantium/Constantinople/Istambul is used: it's the usage our readers would commonly find in English-language publications (the main criterion of our ±naming conventions on geographic names) and thus it's clearer for our readers. However, I also disagree with using 1526 as the dividing date. Let's take more time to look for books dealing with the Middle Ages, and see what form they use for the period. - Ev 14:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

   it's the usage our readers would commonly find in English-language publications

   .. Well, the problem is that that is not always true.--Svetovid 18:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

4. Support I agree with Ev, as often; including his quibble with 1526. Becoming the Hungarian capital (as much as any Renaissance kingdom had a capital) didn't change the name of the city either at the time or in current writing; it simply made references to it more common. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Support, see others above. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       17:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal B

"Bratislava", the modern English name of the city, should be used to refer to the city in the modern as well as historical context. The role of other significant names should be explained in the Etymology section of Bratislava, in History of Bratislava, and in the articles with an alternative name of Bratislava in the title (e.g. Treaty of Pressburg).

1. Weak support. The presented evidence shows that both "Pressburg" and "Bratislava" are widely accepted English names in the historical context. Although I prefer a consistent use of one name, I will be happy to change my vote and strengthen the consensus if a majority of editors support Proposal A. Tankred 05:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. Although there is a presented evidence of using both "Pressburg" and "Bratislava" of using them in the historical context, I prefer to keep name consistency, as there is already note that English speakers usually referred to the city as Pressburg until 1919. I don't know if this is related, but I've just taken a look at Sarajevo (FA-class article for some time) and it uses consistently Sarajevo, so no Ottoman name there, though it may be completely different case. Although I'm supporting this alternative, I'm happy to change my vote if there will be a strong consensus for Proposal A. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 06:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Weak support. Proposal A seems flawed to me based on the specification of the dates, since the use of Pressburg (or variants) can be demonstrated prior to 1526 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pressburg_city_plan_1438-55.jpg for one example). So long as we are not pushing any kind of attempt to change history, and the fact of the city's colorful nomenclature in the past is clearly pointed out, I think it's sufficient. At the same time, I would not accept B if it meant that a parenthetical reference to the name current at the time being referenced, say, by an image caption (e.g. "Bratislava (Pressburg) in the 15th century") is to be banned by this policy. I would support a form of A very strongly, however, if compelling references could be produced to support the widely-accepted English name of the city in each historical period. Doing so, though, seems extremely burdensome, and the end result of the project is not going to substantially affect the value of the article to the general public. — Mike Gogulski ^{↗C•@•T↗} 09:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Support. I think the standardized usage of Bratislava is best for a couple of reasons. First, for consistency's sake; we shouldn't be confusing the casual reader with two different names. Also, as MikeGogulski states above, the amount of work it would take to solidly define when the name should be used is inversely proportional to the amount the article is improved. Likewise, if consensus determines option A is the better choice, I'll go along with it. Parsecboy 11:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Very Weak Support. I think that Bratislava up until 19198 is an anachronism, but for the sake of the reader, an anachronism would be better in this case. ¿SFGiДnts! ☺ ☻ 22:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Support. Or just use present day/today's Bratislava or just "the city" to avoid confusion.
   I spoke with some Slovak historians and they think that Bratislava should be used (even though the case is a little different when it comes to English indeed).
   Comparison to Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul is meaningless since that city and its previous names are a lot more known.
   Also nobody who is actually interested in finding more could be confused or misled because the name Pressburg and all about it is clearly explained in the main and history articles.--Svetovid 01:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Support. Wikipedia doesn't need more revisionism.Rex 17:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I agree with Gogulski that proposal A is flawed. I like the current format of the article, where it introduces "Pressburg" as a 15th century name, and then calls it that until 1919. The case of Sarajevo, I think, is entirely different, as it's never called anything else in English historical literature - I wasn't even aware that it had another name. On the other hand, if you study pre-WWI European history, it's hard to avoid coming across the name "Pressburg". At any rate, if everyone else prefers "Bratislava," that's alright, I'll be glad to have hashed the issue out, and also to have insured that we got it so the translation of the newspaper's name doesn't say "Bratislava" anymore. john k 13:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I picked up the year 1526 because most participants in our discussion seemed to prefer it as a clear, yet necessarily arbitrary delimitation of the use of Pressburg. Although the name Pressburg is older, it is difficult to argue for its use in the 15th century. For example, Universitas Istropolitana was founded in 1465 in Istropolis, not in Pressburg. But if most editors want another starting year, we can always change it. Tankred 18:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was used way more in the 15th century than "Bratislava," certainly - and, more broadly, "Pressburg" or a related form was used for much of the middle ages, whereas Bratislava, so far as I can tell, simply wasn't. The name we give as the first form ever given for the city's name, "Brezalauspurc," appears to be a form from which "Pressburg" was derived. So there would be good reason to use Pressburg from the 10th century on. Before that, I definitely agree on Bratislava, but for the high/late middle ages, I think Pressburg makes more sense. john k 19:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been crossing my eyes and squinting at that historical names table for so long I've convinced myself that Brezalauspurch is the linguistic origin for both Pressburg and Bratislava, and I would love to settle the question one way or another, but the evidence will be tough to find. Maybe instead I'll go off and find a page to use as a platform to promote my theory that the modern Bratislava is derived from Slovak brat(stvo) [brother(hood)] combined with sláva (glory), and that the city's name is actually a Slovak realization of Philadelphia thereby....... :) :) :) — Mike Gogulski ^{↗C•@•T↗} 22:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Though I can't prove it (yet), I believe that Istropolis was never either an official name for the city (outside Greece), or the widely-used English appellation. My suspicion is that the use of the Greek name for the university was part of an attempt to lend credibility to the institution by reference to ancient Greek scholarship, as an early form of branding. — Mike Gogulski ^{↗C•@•T↗} 22:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal, which says to call Bratislava Pressburg in historical context from 1526-1919. But then again why won't you call it Posonium in the years before 1526? AFAIK the official language of Hungary was Latin, so in corresponding sources you'd only find Posonium. CoolKoon 21:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

In principle, I agree with you, but this wouldn't conform with WP:NCGN as it stands; we haven't seen much evidence that Posonium or its variants was ever the widely-accepted English name for the city, either commonly or among historians. — Mike Gogulski ^{↗C•@•T↗} 22:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That's true but around and before 1526, Latin was the official language in most of the countries throughout Europe, right? CoolKoon 01:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This may be true, but if you look back on this page's current version for "official" you'll find discussion of this. WP:NCGN doesn't make reference to contemporaneous official designations. Perhaps it should. This is certainly a point on which the policy should be challenged (at least, until those vigorous enough to care to participate in the debate are fatigued into something as imperfect and error-prone as voting). Can you document the "official" name of any given European city at any given point, say, from 1 AD to 1300 AD? If so, you've got a Ph.D. in European History coming to you, and your time here is possibly better spent writing your dissertation. (please excuse any flippancy read into this posting) — Mike Gogulski ^{↗C•@•T↗} 01:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What about Presburg? It probably should be mentioned as an alternative spelling of the English version. There are many older maps on this page using this name and there was Presburg Street in London and there still is road|Presburg Road, LONDON (NEW MALDEN), KT3. And Google search shows that it's a surname too, especially because the name with a single s seems to be preferred in other languages (French...).--Svetovid 10:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I dunno about Presburg in English usage, but if it really exists or is widespread alternative to Pressburg, I think it should be listed in the History of Bratislava article, because here we should list only names notable in the city history. Anyway, it seems we are stalled with the solution of the historical name usage, but we can't wait for outcome forever. I think everyone wishes to press this article forward (from recently gained GA), so we need to clear this up, though I don't know if this could be challenged during peer review or similar. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 11:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming poll summary as of 1 June 2007

Since this has been open for a week, I just wanted to post a brief summary of the progress so far.

Proposal A: 4 supporting votes
Proposal B: 6 supporting votes

However this is quite inconclusive, as 4 of the "support" votes for B also say some version of "I'd support A if...", turning on issues of broader consensus for it, or better documentation being forthcoming.

I suggest that we leave the poll open through the peer review that MarkBA requested, in hopes of attracting still more perspectives on the subject. Forcing a tally now wouldn't help much, and the discussion has at least arrived at the point where people interested are channeling the discussion constructively here rather than into edit-warring.
— Mike Gogulski ^{↗C•@•T↗} 17:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A good edit war on the other hand ... nah, I think you are right :)--Svetovid 17:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to leave the poll open until the peer review is completed and the recommendations are implemented. We should definitely settle this issue before applying for an FA status. But that is the only deadline we have. Tankred 20:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Poll summary as of 8 June 2007

Since this is the second week, I would like to post a brief summary of the progress so far:

A: 4 votes
B: 6 votes

what is the same as last week. Peer review doesn't seem to touch this discussion so far, thus leaving the number of votes unchanged. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

June 12, 2007

• A: 5 votes
• B: 7 votes

Whatever the result is, we will need to close the poll before applying for an FA status. But we still have some time. Tankred 18:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

19 June 2007

• A: 5 votes
• B: 7 votes

The votes cast some days ago haven't changed net score at all; it is inconclusive, but should be settled before applying for an FA status. Peer review hasn't touched this one so far. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 19:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Let us choose a deadline, so we can move on to an FA application. Twelve votes in a month is not an extremely impressive result, but I think we have already done everything we could do to advertise this poll. I suggest we close the whole thing by July 1. Tankred 15:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess so... we can't let this poll run forever. I have three deadlines in my mind: 4 or 5 weeks after opening (i.e. 22 or 29 June), two weeks after last peer review (right now 23 June) or as suggested, 1 July. But as the result goes, it is inconclusive and I have two possible actions: leave the current version as is, or change Bratislava (before 15th century) → Pressburg (until 1919) → Bratislava (from 1919) to Bratislava → Bratislava → Bratislava, as this was the state before it was challenged. I think discussing article content and improvements are better use of our time than arguing about historical names, but on the other hand, this discussion has avoided uncontrollable edit warring. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 15:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be legitimate to accept any result supported by a relative majority of editors. Since no one expressed strong feelings about the issue, I do not think it is a big deal anyway. I believe we have a more important problem: The recent FA application of Krakow (btw, an article of lower quality than our Bratislava:-) got criticized because the article cites excessively websites. Although it could be justified in other sections, the history section should rely solely (or at least mostly) on books. People participating in that discussion also stressed that Wikipedia does not prefer English sources to the sources in foreign languages, but it does prefer books to websites. As you are in Slovakia, do you think you can find any books containing the trivial data, such as the number of the crowned kings (and other facts taken from visit.bratislava.sk)? Perhaps any "Dejiny Slovenska" tome? Tankred 16:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well... to the poll, I think it should be closed as maybe inconclusive or something more for Bratislava consistency. To the raised problem with websites vs. books, my opinion is that books can cover these things: Names, partly Geography, History and (partly) Arch. and cityscape. Right now, we have just around 10 citations from books (from total 131), mostly on History of course, but even A-class grade says "It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from "hard" (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature rather than websites.", so more citations from books would be good to avoid criticism in the FA candidature. I think I have "Kronika Slovenska" book, so there is a slight chance that I may find some facts, or maybe I'll go out on Saturday (to see Sitina Tunnel opening ceremony anyway :-) and try to see if there is something better. Though, I think that even Svetovid or Mike could help with this one. But aside that, History should be trimmed, as is seen on comments, e.g. the part on Slovak national movement is unnecessarily long for main article, and should be more discussed in the History of Bratislava article. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 17:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I did my best. I think we can also remove the "Notable events held in Bratislava" sub-section because most of the mentioned events can be found in the main text (in prose). We will save some space and also improve the flow of the text. How about that? Tankred 17:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... let's check. Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 5 are mentioned some way and 6 very indirectly. This is another of the relics of the old version and FA reviewers I think do not like listy things. So what is not mentioned: either integrate (but section ought to be summary of the main article, so personally I'm discarding this option) or integrate to the text in the History of Bratislava article. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 17:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have moved them all to History of Bratislava. Tankred 17:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Good. Now I see another issue, this time with the lead - quoting "Bratislava was home to the Slovak national movement in the 19th century and many other Slovak historical figures, including Milan Rastislav Štefánik and Alexander Dubček.". What I see as a problem is that neither Štefánik nor Dubček are mentioned later, so it should be either removed or adding these into the main text. And also I was thinking about this - adding something about cinema or trade shows or such here, but I'm not sure if this is good topic to cover. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 17:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that Štefánik and Dubček are not mentioned later because they are well known figures. They are in the lead to stress in the lead section how important Bratislava was.
I would add more information about the Slovak national movement back, however, because it is very important for Bratislava's history (there maybe would not be any Bratislava without it, or not that soon), and there is other not that important info kept.--Svetovid 20:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Re-add it if you want, but I don't think it is good to unpack these in full detail here - that's what is History of Bratislava for. Here we should only briefly summarize the city's history, including the movement (and when we should keep size of the section down). MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the lead is concise and I would leave it as it is. I do not think cinema and trade shows deserve to be put there. Tankred 10:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I'm not going to change anything with the lead, nor add anything from my ideas. So what we got is to replace as many web citations as possible with books, and although I think we have sufficient number of refs, some places may be still empty. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 10:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA - Congratulations and thanks

To everyone who contributed here, thank you! Blahoželám, gratulujem!

Thanks also to our reviewer, User:Argos'Dad for great input and a quick pass :) — Mike Gogulski ^{↗C•@•T↗} 19:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, congrats to all who contributed. BTW, there is a lot of information about tourism in Bratislava in this article (in Slovak).--Svetovid 22:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The results of the 2001 Census could be found at statistics.sk.--Svetovid 18:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems that this talk page is somehow quiet, so I'll try to enliven it with this comparison with FA criteria (which is our goal of course). This is my opinion as it stands against criteria now:

1.

• • Well written: Reasonably is, but copyediting would be needed.
  • Comprehensive: With a few exceptions, it should be.
  • Accurate: It should have reliable sources, but few places are still without citations.
  • Neutral: At present it shouldn't have POV issues, but as one of the authors I can't tell easily if it is true or not.
  • Stable: Sometimes lively, but without edit wars in general

2.

• • Lead: Three paragraphs should be enough, but I'm not sure on this one.
  • Headings: It does have system of headings
  • ToC: It has substantial but not overwhelming Table of Contents
  • Formatting: Constant inline referencing with {{cite web}} and similar templates is used, though not sure about books.

3. Images: All except flag and coat of arms in the infobox should have captions and acceptable copyright status

4. Length: The History section is bit overwhelming, but everything else should be OK

And of course a preferable option would be to close this name poll before we'll send this one to candidates page, but no votes have been cast for some time so I'm unsure what to do, otherwise this seems to be an open wound. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Austrian (Habsburg) empire?

Pressburg was part of the Kingdom of Hungary until 1919, since the Ausgleich. It definitely wasn't part of Austria at the time the article implies, so I've added a clarifying reference to Kingdom of Hungary and Austria-Hungary. 86.147.115.122 20:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

All I have to say that Austrian may be incorrect, but Kingdom of Hungary even after 1867 still had personal union with Austrian lands, so I think it's correct to say that it was part of the Habsburg monarchy, even though Pressburg was under Hungarian rule. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, all you had to say was to remove an improvement over an earlier version of the article, which simply covered more ground and was more accurate. I have a sneaking suspicion that you have an axe to grind. Pressburg was part of the Kingdom of Hungary in the duality, that's a well-known fact. In fact, both articles linked earlier mention this, even you're not denying it.

So what are we arguing about at all? Pressburg was a part of Hungary until 1919, that's a fact. Hungary was part of Austria-Hungary (and not Kingdom of Austria, look up the definition) that's a fact too. The Kingdom of Austria was the other part of the duality, since the Ausgleich. Please get your facts straight especially when all it would take to know about them is a click of a hyperlink.

FYI, Hungary did have it's own king during the duality, hence the title "K und K".

86.147.115.122 20:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, and Royal Hungary says nothing to you? That's why I think is more correct to say in the lead "of the Habsburg monarchy" as that includes 16th century until 1919. But the Habsburgs were kings both of Austria and Hungary, so no own king of Hungary from Ausgleich. But I'm not going to argue over history, what we should argue here is the quality of the article. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Right then, what's your beef with the current wording of 'Hungarian Kingdom as part of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire'. There was a significant timespan when Pressburg had nothing to do with the Austrians (in fact, that was a longer period), so by your logic, it should only state the Kingdom of Hungary. The quality of the article -first and foremost- depends on the historical accuracy of the text, so arguing history about a historical segment is far from pointless. 86.147.115.122 20:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Because IMHO, Austro-Hungarian Empire refers to the period between 1867-1918, so saying this is incorrect for 17th or 18th century, when there was no thing like Austria-Hungary. That's why I prefer centre of the (maybe Kingdom of Hungary and) Habsburg Empire, and we include the medieval period, status of Bratislava being a capital (1536-1848) plus after the Ausgleich. But as I said, it is pointless being at odds over historical fact which is undeniable. Period. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 21:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't confuse people in the lead. First, 'Austrian monarchy' is an alternative name to 'Habsburg monarchy' - more info Habsburg_monarchy#Terminology. Second, it was mentioned because it was the most important monarchy/kingdom Bratislava was part of in history, and it was superior to the Kingdom of Hungary at the time. Again, anybody will find details in the History section and in the History of Bratislava article. I say revert it to the pre-86.147.115.122's edit version and maybe use just Habsburg Monarchy.--Svetovid 21:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I still think it's more than confusing. The city has it's roots in hungarian history (and yes, the history of Bratislava article does a good job of conveying these facts), so claiming in the lead that until 1919 it was part of Austria by implying it with carefully chosen terminology is just wrong, and not only takes away from the historical accuracy, but also plants false impressions in the reader. Then again, when consensus rules, the zealous will prevail. I -personally- couldn't care less if you guys want to change history. I give up.

German language and culture were dominant indeed.--Svetovid 23:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Now somebody else has added what I think is not confusing at all. It was a "key centre of the Kingdom of Hungary", referring to until the first third of the 16th century and of the Habsburg Empire (from 16th century up to 1919), including Royal Hungary, Austria-Hungary, blah blah blah... MarkBA ^t/c/@ 21:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Official name till 1919

I'd like to note that stating that "the official name of the city was Pressburg until 1919" is incorrect. As it has already been mentioned before, it was the part of Hungary, a seat of a vármegye (comitatus), and even if the German-speaking element was dominant there, the official name was Hungarian, i.e. Pozsony and not Pressburg. (Until 1844 probably the Latin version, Posonium was used officially, but German was very rarely used as an official language of Hungary for short periods.) I thought I would tell you this, before changing the article. --80.98.102.48 14:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an English encyclopedia. You figure the rest.--Svetovid 10:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Not English but Hungarian was the official language in Hungary. You figure the rest. --80.99.1.51 12:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

So as an English encyclopedia, let's erase anything from history that is not used today? Brilliant logic. Another reason why Wikipedia is a home for the ignorant.

What a poor attempt at a straw man. BTW, the first section is called 'Names' and guess what's in there.--Svetovid 16:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

We should say that the name normally used in English before 1919 was Pressburg, not that it was the official name. Certainly after 1867, Pozsony was the official name - I've seen it on official maps of Austria-Hungary from that time period, for instance. john k 18:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you stop arguing about this? The version you're talking about is the thing of past, so anyone talking what's related to the old version is pissing to the wind. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 15:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Mention in Eurotrip?

Shouldn't there be some test on the page about Bratislava's mention in the movie [Eurotrip]? I know its a highly negative mention in the movie but still.

Loveshams 07:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I will strongly oppose any mention of it for two reasons. First, we have already Hostel and I think it is already enough to make us burst and second, we don't need to push through any low-quality American junk, when they particularly don't know how it goes. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 08:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hungarian name (Pozsony)

I think you should give the Hungarian name in the first line because of the history of the city. Squash Racket 10:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No, because this is nicely explained in Bratislava#Names and there is no need to push someone's point of view right in the lead. And it is there because there are five historical names and they would just clutter the lead. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 11:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not a POV thing to me. There are a lot of Hungarian speakers in the city for obvious reasons. I just don't know if there's a law in Slovakia that because of the number of Hungarian inhabitants you must also post such a city's name in Hungarian too. Squash Racket 11:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there's a law that requires to post minority names if the percentage of that town's population crosses 20% (mostly for cases of Hungarians and Rusyns). However, Bratislava has 4% of Hungarians (and that's not really lot, comparing e.g. to 70 years ago) and the city has no obligation to post minority names anywhere. And I view it as POV because someone who would post to the first line thinks that the town is Hungarian today, but it is not. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 11:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If only 4% is Hungarian in that city, you're right. However, just because someone mentions the German name of Strasbourg I don't think anyone would consider it a German city. Squash Racket 11:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

To finish this "skirmish", the Names section was created because there were more than three historical names per WP:NCGN (though same should be done for other cities as well). Honestly you have four different roots: current Bratislava, German Pressburg, Pozsony and Greek Istropolis. That's why I don't want any other names in the lead, maybe only giving anchor link down (#). MarkBA ^t/c/@ 11:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to see here; move along.--Svetovid 16:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a simple time-waster; someone wasn't carefully reading. And I'd like to avoid discussions like this, when someone doesn't understand the system how it is done. There's nothing to comment in it current form; move forward. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 19:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Really? For at least 15 million people this city is still called Pozsony, so let's not avoid uncomfortable discussions, OK? Squash Racket 19:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous; read carefully again and you'll see that Hungarians still use Hungarian names and that's all. Hungarian Wikipedia may use it as it sees fit, but this is an English one and not a place to push Hungarian nationalism. And don't you think this discussion isn't necessary at all? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 19:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous! You are treating the Hungarian name Pozsony just like the other archaic names although it is still used by inhabitants of the city today. Squash Racket 19:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And don't edit my comments please! Thanks. Squash Racket 19:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop being silly! I don't know what I've done to you, but I'm explaining it last time! I don't treat that name like archaism, if I'd do, I would simply insert that this is historical and wouldn't do anything about it. And inhabitants of the city?? Sorry, but what's this kind of joke? We aren't living in 1907 plus 3.84% isn't much inhabitants... And I haven't edited your comments at all, I have just edited formatting, which is distinct from the comment itself. Now can you retreat back behind your borders? I care a fig about your Budapest dispute and don't make suggestions that stir up a hornet's nest, OK? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 19:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop being silly! I'm sure that all inhabitants do not understand and use the Hungarian name Pozsony regularly, right? It is mentioned together with archaic forms so what would you think? Squash Racket 20:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark, do not feed a troll. I suggest we ignore this thread and move on to copyediting of the article. All the arguments are already here and most readers will surely be able to understand them. Tankred 20:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Feed a troll? Stop personal attacks please. Squash Racket 16:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Names and History

First of all, history and clear origin of some of those names are not (exactly) known. Having said that, have a look at this table from Bratislava museum that shows when the various name where first mentioned. There was a ridiculous claim that the Latin names came from the Hungarian.
History: I suggest removing the following because it's not that important:
"As a result of frequent insurrections against Habsburgs, the suburbs were ravaged, and the city and the castle were conquered in 1619 by troops of Gabriel Bethlen, who held the town until 1621, when it was reconquered by the Habsburgs again. The city, but not the castle was conquered again by Imre Thököly troops in 1683, with the Battle of Vienna taking place. After the Turks were defeated, the imperial troops rushed to drive out Kuruc rebels with Thököly. The period of insurrections ended in 1711, with the signing of the Peace of Szatmár.[26]"
Also, 20th century should be trimmed down.--Svetovid 23:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That's true that some names origin isn't exactly known, but to say that Latin Posonium does come from whichever Hungarian name is ridiculous? Where it says that Latin name doesn't come from Hungarian? To History, please, can you tell me why you've avoided candidature discussion for two weeks and commenting history it once that nomination is in the archive? You could object to that when the remake of History was suggested and done, I even invited you to join in, but you've looked away, so commenting it now is a slight impudence, sorry. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 06:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It's ridiculous because it doesn't make sense, copies the myth that Hungarian language was important before Magyarization and is not supported by any serious source I've seen (including talking to historians). The fact that it was spelt Posony before "z" was added to sound more Hungarian should gives a big hint already.
The Wilson city story is interesting for the History of BA article but it is unnecessary in the name section and in the main article.
Using Magyars instead of Hungarians goes against consistency in the article. Also, "Magyar" is a barely used word outside from Hungarian sources.
I didn't participate in the discussion because I didn't have much time and the discussion was messy. Speaking of which, I noticed that any remark or suggestion in the discussion is accepted without any critical thought. Remember, it's a discussion about improving the article and not directions that you have to accept without objecting to any of them.--Svetovid 10:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

As summarized in my edit, one author is not enough to proclaim a definite history of Bratislava's names, which is unclear and disputed. The best version of the article is without the information and any definitive statements.
It'd be sad if Wikipedia started to be used as a trusted source of this information in the future when the article is featured.--Svetovid 14:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh well... Looks like those name history disputes have no end as is now. But what surprises me more that after some significant action's done (this time promotion), you will go noticing what is and what isn't good enough. As I don't want to threaten stability edit warring with you, all I can do is to do maintenance until something definitive has been found. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 14:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think historians will resolve this any time soon, if ever. I'd oppose the second FA nomination (or changed that part) if I knew there was one :).--Svetovid 15:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? You don't watch enough what is going on :-). But seriously, it's probably we have different interests, though credit also belongs to you because you've started the way to the FA status, don't you think? So let's just keep this bronze star and improve further the article (and our topics as well), shall we? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 15:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

Relax. All I did was straighten out the English and add a few serial commas per Wikipedia guidelines. If you want my opinion as to content, I think it's an adequate intro. --Milkbreath 18:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The Government section makes no mention of election methods. Is there universal suffrage? Who is elected, and who is appointed, and by whom? The passage "The current mayor, Andrej Ďurkovský, was nominated in 2006 by a coalition of the KDH and the SDKÚ, starting his second term in the office" would seem to indicate that nomination alone is sufficient to install a mayor. --Milkbreath 11:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That means I should reword that passage to indicate that he was nominated by these parties and won the elections. To the universal suffrage, you mean who can vote (minimal age, how long someone needs to live etc.)? As far as I can tell only mayor and the city council are elected and others are appointed. I'll try to research some information for this. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 11:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I copyedited the lead again. The mention of "Pressburg" was incongruous in its sentence, and it's covered under "Names", so I removed it. If you need to have "Pressburg" in the lead, I'll try to stick it in somewhere, if you want. The lead says that the city was later capital of the Habsburg Monarchy, but I could find no such thing in the "History" section, so we need a date somewhere. --Milkbreath 17:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it didn't. Maybe unfortunate wording (...administrative centre...) but it never was a capital of whole Habsburg monarchy. That would be a first-class nonsense. So the original version was IMHO better, maybe just worded bit other way, to better indicate it was the capital of KoH (or more exactly of Royal Hungary). That "Pressburg" thingy is strange. Some can live without it, some want it, but I think blurb in the lead is the best option, as it is now. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 17:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunate wording. I had a fifty-fifty chance and I blew it. I misunderstood the original sentence, which was: "Known as Pressburg until 1919, the city was a key economic and administrative centre of the Kingdom of Hungary, being once its capital in 1536–1783 and later of the Habsburg Monarchy." The last phrase, "of the Habsburg monarchy", was too far from the first "of" for me. I've corrected my mistake and put back Pressburg. Take a look. Also, I've been looking at this article for a long time now, and I've decided that an honest copyeditor would remove the mention of names in the first sentence, which I've now done. The first sentence of an article should be downright terse. And Bratislava is not "known by other names", anyway. It used to be, but not now. The Slovaks can call their capital city whatever they want to, and we have to call it that, too. English-speaking readers, who this article is for, might well find it helpful to be told that the "Pressburg" they'd seen in books is really Bratislava (like Batavia/Jakarta), but the rest of the names business is of tangential interest only, especially in the lead. --Milkbreath 19:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Epbr123 20:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Order of nationalities

There was a reason I moved "Germans" to the front of the line. When I added "long known by the German name 'Pressburg'", it made sense to name them first. It reads better that way, too. I hadn't noticed they were alphabetical. I suppose the reason is political, but, speaking for myself, I'm happy to annoy anybody so touchy as to take offense that their nationality appears later in such an inconsequential list. --Milkbreath 12:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Two awkward bits

First, The Hungarian name (which is still in use among Hungarians, although it was spelled as Posony before the 19th century) come from Božaň, an 11th-century ruler of Bratislava Castle, and the Latin name Posonium is derived from the Hungarian. "Although" here seems very odd. I could try to fix this, but worry that I may misunderstand something and realize that the matter of Hungarian names seems to arouse bizarrely strong feelings hereabouts.

Secondly, the Slovak National Museum (Slovenské národné múzeum) is the highest institution focusing on scientific research and cultural education in the field of museological activity in Slovakia. I've read that several times and I still don't know for sure whether it means that SNM is Slovakia's top museum focusing on scientific research and cultural education, or, if it doesn't mean this, what else it might mean. Indeed, even if it does mean that it's "Slovakia's top museum focusing on scientific research and cultural education", I'm not at all sure what this means: it strikes me as less expository than corporatese. -- Hoary 04:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

1. That seems quite odd to me, too. Maybe it is there to show difference in spelling, but I think it isn't needed, so I'll remove "although it".

2. I think the former should be right. Otherwise I can't think of anything else to your question. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 07:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Now the first one is fixed, I think. Good. The second now reads: It is the highest institution focusing on scientific research and cultural education in the field of museological activity in Slovakia. Certain fiddles to this are obvious (notably deleting "the field of"). But what does it mean? To me, it's bland, inexpressive corporatespeak. That's a pity, because the rest of the article warmly deserves an FA. -- Hoary 08:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, hmm... "the field of" can be removed without change in the meaning, but what about rest? Right now, the paragraph about the museum has three sentences, and if I'd remove this one, it would be too short in my opinion. But I don't have any replacement so far. Maybe better wording instead? But thank you anyway. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 08:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't suggest rewording, because I don't know what it means. There's a link to a source, but the source is similarly bland. Perhaps it just means: "It is Slovakia's foremost museum". Or maybe it's a polite way to say: "It receives a more generous state subsidy than do any of its rivals." Or possibly it actually means "It runs courses in museology for students intending to work elsewhere as well as within it." I'd imagine that there's plenty of information about this in Slovak, yet another of the thousands of languages that I can't read at all. (Hmm, I think I can't, but then I look at something in Finnish and realize that by contrast, yes, I can pick out the occasional word of Slovak.) -- Hoary 08:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Something else is a bit off here. The claim, whatever it is, seems to be for the preeminence of this museum in something or other. The source for the claim: the museum itself. "This museum is the greatest.<ref>This is what the museum says.</ref>" Er ... perhaps not. -- Hoary 08:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, it can receive state subsidies as it is state museum (why then it has National in it?). But, looking from other sources (though most are guides), I have one other wording in mind. Change from "It is the highest institution focusing on scientific research and cultural education in museological activity in Slovakia." to "It is the largest museum and cultural institution in Slovakia." How about that? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 08:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That's certainly fine if that's indeed what the assertion means. I can actually understand it. -- Hoary 12:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 13:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

FA congratulations

Congratulations. This article has been through the wringer, and I'm happy to see it succeed. Thanks to all involved for making this a great article about a groovy city. I enjoyed reading it, all ten times. --Milkbreath 03:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It took some necessary experience and a bit of patience to get this featured. What I need to do now is to prevent weeds growing in it. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 07:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

IPA Pronunciation

The article currently gives [ˈbratjɪslava] as a pronunciation. Wouldn't that rather be [ˈbracɪslava]? Szabi 10:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I don't know wholly the IPA pronunciation key, as a native I pronounce it the first way. Do you have some dictionary or other reference which would list other pronunciation(s)? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 17:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

IPA [c] is not the same sound as what is written c in Slovak (that would be IPA [ts]) :-) IPA [c] is the voiceless palatal plosive, in several languages the palatalised version of [t]. The IPA pronunciation given on the page suggests that [t] and [j] are pronunced separately, distinctly (possibly even in different syllables?) I'm not a native speaker of Slovak, but what I know of phonetics and how I remember to have heard Bratislava pronounced there I really suspect, that it's rather [ˈbra.cɪ.sla.va] than [ˈbrat.jɪ.sla.va]. But as said, I'm not competent to judge and that's why I posted the question in the talk page. It would be great, if someone native Slovak speaker with linguistik profession (or good command of IPA) would have a look at the question.

I'd like to cite the Slovak language article to support my point: it states, that di, li, ni, ti are orthographic conventions to write what would be written ďi, ľi, ňi, ťi (as there is not IPA [di], [li], [ni], [ti] sound sequence in Slovak, in other words, /i/ always palatalises /d/, /l/, /n/, /t/, except for in some old words and foreign words, as it's explained later). The IPA transcription of ť is given in the same article as [c] or [tʲ] which are indeed synonym notations in IPA. However IPA [tj] is very distinct from IPA [tʲ].

So the "Slovak language" Wikipedia article fully supports my point, but not being a native speaker, I ask someone more knowledgeable to have a look at this. Szabi 16:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you know much more about IPA than I do, but I think the best solution would be to leave that to someone knowledgeable with linguistic profession. Just to be clear, the current pronunciation was copied from the German wikipedia so it's possible that here it is "expressed" in a different way. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 16:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The pronunciation in the German Wikipedia was added in 2004 by an anonymous IP. I discussed the same issue in the German Talk page and got confirmation. It seems, that it should be [c]. I'll correct that in the article. -- Szabi (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)