Talk:Royal free city

Types of towns

What does it mean "towns with only partial privileges"? There were a lot of privileged towns that did not have a status of a free royal town (thus, the list is very incomplete). Other towns were "royal towns" but not "free royal towns". It is a little bit confusing. The article is about free royal towns. If these towns were not free royal towns, we can remove the second list. Ditinili (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Ditinili edit

I would not be surprised, if you again did not want to intervene with this edit as a totally "good faith" and "benevolent action". In 2015, you made a very unnatural edit in a historical Hungarian article where former Hungarian cities were listed and you put them to the second place, on the other hand the sources a referreing to the historical Hungarian names, not modern names - many of them - did not even existed, so this version you again made is not acceptable. "Widely accepted English name" is not always equal with the "modern/current English name", since the latter not even in English was the name fo the city in the time when it belonged to Hungary. This is historical article of Hungary thus Hungarian names are to be referred first and after the the other names, otherwise it is confusing. I.e. "Cluj-Napoca" was never a royal free city of Hungary, this name was created in 1974, not even the historical English name would be "Cluj" for this, as also the same holds for other names.

Thus, the preffered list is : Hungarian name - Current English name (and + one bracket i.e. Other names/Historical names where i.e. Pressburg or similar regarding other cities could be inserted)

@Fakirbakir:, @Borsoka:, what are your opinions?

Ditinili, now is the prefect chance you to prove that you have nothing against Hungarians, we'll see if you can bear that in a historical Hungarian article about historical Hungarian cities you'll be able to bear Hungarian names in the first place without inventing any pretext to have it different way!(KIENGIR (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC))

No, in the past (17:36, 30 November 2015‎ diff, I made an edit compliant with any wikipedia policy. In that time (one year ago) all English names (the widely accepted historic names or the modern names) were put at the first place, preserving all Hungarian names (and by the way ignoring any other language not mentioned in the previous version). This was (I believe) a very neutral change. After being involved in several similar disputes in the past moths, I avoided any change that can raise a similar problem or a potential conflict and I withdrew from similar discussions leaving your version. Unfortunately, you (and not me) opened this problem again (diff).

If there is a town like Cluj-Napoca which was renamed only later, this can be easily fixed as "Historic name X (now Y) without rewriting the list.

Thus, if you disagree and you really want to open this topic again then you should NOT contact users selected based on their known opinions but you can set up RFC. If you wish I can do it for you. Ditinili (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Ditinili, I did "NOT contacted users selected based on their known opinions", I contacted them because of their work on Wikiproject Hungary and related articles, on the other hand not always we have the same opinion. Better let's make a deal, I think we sould add a third column. Think about this, I'll write later the proposed details.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC))

If they are members of WikiProject Hungary then it is better to post to the WikiProject Hungary. And of course, also to other wikiprojects because the article covers the history of several countries. Ditinili (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

This is your point of view, it is also toally ok what I did, also having other Wikiprojects is not a necessity, I don't know how this article would the cover the history of several countries, anyway. I still don't understand instead of waiting and negotiating, why didn't you wait, since there was not any time for RFC at this phase.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC))

KIENGIR, these discussions last for weeks or months and sometimes they get heated. I don't want another neverending dispute. I want to keep it rational and I want a feedback from other editors. I will not comment that only few days ago it was suggested to post in these cases to wikiprojects and the first thing you did was pinging two users who supported you in similiar cases in the past. --Ditinili (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Ditinili, if you would not have wanted neverending disputes, you should not have done what you have done, unfortunatly I don't sense any rationality in your activity, if not to cause some turmoil again Hungary releated cases that may be agreed very easily. Maybe you have forgotten that your idea about multiple Wikiprojects was not supported. Pinging is an appropriate way (I even promised this instead of posting to personal pages), if the person is member of a Wikiproject it is marginal if you notify the Wikiproject also - it may be done and I did it in some more difficult cases, but right now it was not the case (nota bene the suggestion of using Wikiproject was not for me since also then and recently I used them if it was necessary). "two users who supported you in similiar cases in the past" -> actually we had debates also regarding such cases, anyway by me not the possible support but the objectivity and expertise counts.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC))

KIENGIR, the first revision (9 February 2015, diff) was clearly not compatible with WP:Naming conventions (geographic names) and was absolutely incomprehensible for any non-Hungarian reader. This initial mess was not fixed by me, by an anonymous user probably from Novi Sad (Serbia), or at least his IP address seems to be from the Serbian Academic Network (Akademska mreza Srbije). Thus, there is a little to complain about. Only thereafter (a year ago), the change was finished by me (per the above naming convention), preserving all Hungarian names (diff). Even if this change is compliant with the English Wikipedia naming convention, I avoided any similar change in last weeks + as I have already said I also withdrew from all similar discussions, because there are more attractive challenges. The problem was opened again by you (diff) and not by me, so do not complain. The idea about multiple wikiprojects was immediately supported by Daruet (diff) nevertheless also other users suggested to post to Wikiprojects not to a selected group of users. Ditinili (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Ditinili, it is useless to repeat or distort from the current case, it seem you are kinda whitewashing yourself or try to desperately justify somthing, but your actions are apparent. You should have left Hungarian names in the first place and next to them add the modern names, because of the context. Darouet supported in a way, but not neither the majority or any wiki official. Since I was the one who informed the people about Wikiprojects, it is ridicoulus now you try to explain the discussion in a different way as it happened with again truncated and selected fragments, nothing you have stated are contradicting me or anything else, notification of Wikiprojects - as I said - is due to weight - in the first place everything should be solved with discussion and the most easy way. The fact that you could not even wait for the discussion or RFC and you restored page again shows you simply cannot bear even a moment something would be fair, this fundamental hostility towards Hungarians is the most apparent from your side, regardless how you try to explain it out with a bunch of pretexts, it has nothing to do with good faith.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)).

This was discussed numerous times. In my opinion, the RFC is a standard dispute resolution process. If you mention once more some "hostility towards Hungarians", "anti-Hungarian activities" etc, instead of a rational discussion, I will escalate it to ANI as a personal attack, because I am really disgusted by these permanent accusations. I restored the last stable version before the conflict, following the same process as was followed by you or your colleagues in other cases and I will respect any result of the RFC. Wait and remember 3RR. Ditinili (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

That's why I don't know why you are repeating and distorting from the current subject. I consider funny you claim for a "rational discussion" since you was the one who deteriorated from it and did not even supported or waited for any discussion (opened and RFC without grasping the real root of the problem and waiting my detailed explanation), so do not put something on me that is not my responsibility, as instead of really rational discussion always planning to run to the ANI is also not a contructive approach. "Wait and remember 3RR" -> such provocative remarks I don't need and I consider disgusting that instead of continous conflicts you should have been generous, fair and nice and show a totally different attitude regarding Hungary-related articles, the same i.e. as we do for Slovak or other articles.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC))

KIENGIR, I tried to discuss for weeks. I respect, that we have different views and I will appreciate any independent input. I will not comment your or my alleged attitude. Ditinili (talk) 11:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Ditinili, I have been always a partner for discussion, even if it was inconvenient or not pleausureful, and every case has to be judged on it's own primarily. This case, you did not even wait 48 hours, although in advance I told you I will share further details. Better comment on the János Bihari article whether you agree on Steller's proposal, you did not make an answer yet.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC))

you did not make an answer yet ??? See: diff, diff. The user who was blocked for his repeated personal attacks (also at Talk:János Bihari) can hardly complain to "inconvenient" and "not pleausureful" discussion. Ditinili (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Aha, so your are not listening, The topic is about this: "His hometown is already mentioned in the Biography section, I don't think we need to include that in the lead." + "Seems OK to me." -> this you did not reacted, how is that possible that you confuse such a thing, you did not scroll down or what? There is no need to provocate further, that case about "personal attacks" are debated and still investigated as I told more times, until it has an end it is useless to comment on it - by the way you again did not concentrate on the current topic -, any yes I can complain since 4 months I am the victim of WP:HA and only my good faith made me not to do anything further (to say nothing of I could have also report personal attacks but I am better for constructive communication and not generating incidents). So please make an aswer instead of further provocations. "Good solution" is an opinion, yes, but reinforce the proposed replacement version.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC))

I don't have to comment every minor change. Your "good faith" was already evaluated by administrators. I will wait for the result of the RFC, I don't see any added value in these comments. Ditinili (talk) 12:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Anyway that an another admin also could not refute my claims, even admins can make mistakes, as we saw in other cases, having good faith is totally apparent viewing a discussion in a whole and not selected or truncated diffs. I am happy you finally get to the conclusion that there is no added value any discussion that deters from the current subject.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC))

RFC about the naming convention

Should the article use the widely accepted historic English place names (or the modern English names) at the first place, before the Hungarian names (the existing text and the text written in the future including tables)? Ditinili (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Ditinili, I did not ask you to make an RFC, on the other hand I don't understand why don't you wait since I told you that I will present in details what is the problem. Now with this action you show you do not even want to understand the real problem, because not that is necessarily the cause what you are asking in this RFC.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC))

Hungarian name	Current English name	Other historical names
Kolozsvár	Cluj-Napoca	Klausenburg, Cluj
Pozsony	Bratislava	Pressburg, Prešporok

Because of Ditinili's impatience, if there would be a question or demands, this presented form would satisfy all claims. Like in other historical articles of Hungary, it is evidential that the Hungarian name is in the first place since the article is covering the historical and not the modern conditions, and these cities were the free cities, not the modern cities with their modern names. The second column is represeting the present-day name with, so it can be clearly seen what we are speaking about. The third column is necessary ot attest about other historic names possibly, with the historic English name first if applicable. What Ditinili pushes, i.e. to mix in one the "widely accepted names" with "modern English names" is not a good solution, because it would again generate an other debate is some more difficult cases (unlike Pressburg) that which version would be accepted in a valid form, this is what Ditinili did not foreseen. But where is the good faith to ask an RFC before negotiation and generate a new case that would not even be necessary, since this proposal should be totally acceptable? Why Ditinili is bothered by the "first place" in a Hungarian article? Would he do the same in a Slovak, German, Romanian, etc. articles?(KIENGIR (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC))

Support The usage of the widely accepted historic English name at the first place is supported by the WP:Naming conventions (geographic names). If there is not any widely accepted historic English name, the modern name used in English should be used (and can be followed by other names). The argument that "these cities were the free cities, not the modern cities with their modern names" is at least confusing. Curiously, the alleged "modern names" used in English are in many cases older than the native Hungarian names. The article covers history of 5 or 6 countries and this is (I believe) the most neutral and the less conflicting approach. Everybody does not speak Hungarian. There is some probability that a non-Hungarian speaker will know something e.g. about Novi Sad, but Újvidék = cca 0%. It is not easy to read the text and to search in brackets for something meaningfull. Also, the tables are more comprehensible if the names used in English are at the first place and they are (by default) in English alphabetical order. Ditinili (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Support the usage of the box presented here. As Ditinili also well knows the context is important, this article has a pure Hungarian context, it is automatic and natural in such cases that Hungarian is in the first place. Nothing is confusing with "these cities were the free cities, not the modern cities with their modern names", and that English names would be older than Hungarian names is just simply ridicoulus. Tha article covers the history of Hungary, the royal free cities of Hungary, not "5 or 6 countries" (Jesus Christ how to state such??).

"There is some probability that a non-Hungarian speaker will know something e.g. about Novi Sad, but Újvidék = cca 0%. It is not easy to read the text and to search in brackets for something meaningfull. Also, the tables are more comprehensible if the names used in English are at the first place and they are (by default) in English alphabetical order." -> This argumentation is totally false, since the modern names are highlighted with refs and the non-Hungarian reader can easily drag the list and one second everything is there, there is not any difficulty, zero connection to any comprehensibility on the other hand, this claim would only be valid if modern names would not be presented at all.

As I see here unfortunately, I see justified the only aim is to remove the Hungarian names from the first place, he do not even care about valid alternate historical names or the other problem I demonstrated about formerly non-existent new names that are confusing (maybe that's why he did not even wait to finish our conversation and opened the RFC). The solution I offered similar to other pages is the most professional solution in this context. I am sorry that some editors aim are to target Hungarian names even in Hungarian context articles, such unnecessary issues are just a waste of precious time in Wikipedia, where is the drop of good faith, why is somebody so much bothered regarding Hungarians? This is not the right way!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC))