Talk:Goblinus

Placenames

@Gyalu22: This seems unnecessary to me. Shall we add German and Latin as well? Of these four languages, Hungarian seems least relevant from the perspective of the sources and the actual population in Goblinus' diocese. Srnec (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that it is not clear to a non-expert reader that Goblinus' life and activities are related to Kingdom of Hungary, not even that he was a bishop of a diocese which laid in Hungary during that time. --Norden1990 (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the opposite. The reason for my edit lies not in the ethnic composition of these cities. As Norden1990 said, these places were in Hungary in Goblinus' lifetime. For that reason, Hungarian (or probably any other country) history-related articles mention the modern name secondly. Gyalu22 (talk) 13:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the official language of Hungary at that time was Latin. And the primary sources are Latin. Do we use German for Provençal or Czech localities because the Holy Roman Emperor spoke it? What's more, you have repeated the linked word "Romanian" over and over. This is overkill by any measure. Srnec (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Holy Roman Empire was a confederation with self-ruling duchies and kingdoms, while the Diocese of Transylvania was an ecclesiastical district of the Kingdom of Hungary. That's why we first mention the Hungarian names here, and the French or Czech names first elsewhere. That's why we mention the Roman/Latin names firstly when we talk about ancient municipalities in Italy. And the list goes on. I don't see the rationale in why this article should be different. Hungarian history-related articles (e.g. Hungarian nobility or Stephen I of Hungary) were featured without any question that this is the right way to put it. Gyalu22 (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Hungarian kingdom, like every other kingdom, had many languages and ethnicities. There is no reason to prefer modern Hungarian because the kingdom's elite spoke an earlier version of it. Especially when the particular elite in question (Goblinus) probably spoke German as his first language. The idea that every place within the borders of medieval Hungary should always have the Hungarian placename given first is just a preference of yours. Hungarian history is not some walled garden. We don't use French names for early medieval Catalonia. We don't (necessarily) prefer Italian names to Greek when the Venetians ruled large parts of Greece. And the list goes on. Srnec (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transylvania was part of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary and even the earlier Hungarian grand principality the whole time without interruption. (That's roughly 600 years.) We're not talking about a territory like the Principality of Halych that was controlled only for a short time and was its own monarchy. You previously put forward members of the HRE as models. Now that it didn't work, you come up with Venetian overseas colonies (BTW they were also separate kingdoms). You don't need to convince me that you can have a whole list of these irrelevant examples, but you haven't reacted anything to my actually similar cases, instead just called this my preference. It's not even just featured articles, it's virtually all similar articles that do it this way. (Like - to say something tangible - all Hungarian history-related articles.) Also, the subject's language doesn't change anything. I've never seen a biography where that counts. Gyalu22 (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I stand by the HRE comparison. I dropped it because I did not want to waste time arguing with your description of the HRE as a confederation, which it wasn't. I am not denying that Transylvania was part of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary. I am denying that that necessitates the use of Hungarian! The Hungarian kingdom was multi-lingual. I did not use Hungarian names when I wrote the article because the sources I used mostly used German and Romanian. I saw no need to look up Hungarian names, which anybody could do for themselves by clicking the links. Srnec (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vlachs

Generally the current consensus (I don't know if it's an unspoken rule or if there was a discussion years ago) in Transylvanian villages and related is to include the Romanian, German and Hungarian names for historical purposes. This is the reasoning behind Gyalu22's edits. Romanian place names are also used in some places in Hungary with negligible Romanian populations in "exchange", and this practice also extends to for example the use of Romanian place names in Ukrainian Bessarabia and Bukovina. I'm not aware if this kind of approach is extended outside of Romania-related topics.

I am not opposed to the inclusion of Hungarian place names but it does seem pretty pointless to me to change the links of all Romanian localities mentioned in the article to their Hungarian-language redirects. I also don't think they're really necessary in the first place, this practice doesn't have to extend to absolutely everything Transylvania-related. Surely at least replacing the link to the articles with the Hungarian place names seems pointless to me, even if it could be appropriate to mention them somewhere in this article. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you do this—Vlachs (Romanians)—the reader does not know which link to click on or which is correct (better). It's just confusing. It's one or the other. I prefer the contemporary term Vlachs. We have an entire article dedicated to it for just such purposes as this. Srnec (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the text talks about an ethnic group but the linked article talks about something different. I would agree to adding a piped link showing the text "Vlachs" but linking to Romanians. This article has sufficient information regarding the term so readers clicking on the link will be able to understand why the link is piped. Would you agree to this? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If a link to Vlachs isn't appropriate here, I'm not sure what that article even exists for. Also, are you aware that It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects (WP:NOPIPE)? Srnec (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vlachs is WP:WORDISSUBJECT. It is a historical term applied on a set of ethnic groups today more commonly known in English under different names. Notable exception being the Timok Vlachs. The cited source seems to be about Vlach law, in Latin ius valachicum, which uses the term, but it is obvious it is referring to the Romanians and not talking about the term, thus liking to the article about the term is not as helpful. I just noticed by the way that Vlach law is presented as a "traditional Romanian common law" in the opening sentence so perhaps it could be uncontroversial to just replace "Vlachs" with "Romanians".

You can revert the piped links if you want, I will not push for them to be kept. Though I see it as absurd to use Hungarian-language redirects to link to every single Romanian locality mentioned in the article. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]