Talk:Târnava

Naming question

I want to raise the question if the Hungarian and German names should be listed for this river. Criztu has pointed out that the river runs completely through Romania, but it runs through cities which have or have had significant ethnic minorities. Wikipedia users should not have to go to an article in another language to find out a historically-relevant name. The name used throughout the article should be "Târnava" of course, but I see no harm in providing the name in other languages once in the beginning of the article. Olessi 30 June 2005 22:28 (UTC)

simplest way is that it doesn't flow through HU, so a german/english/russian/etc. encyclopedia will list the name by which the river is known in german/english/russian/etc. and also give its "name of the country/countries in which it flows through". not "name by which the minorities in the country/countries it flows through know the river". i personaly consider this "we want a HU version for places in ROmania that once were in Hungary" as a form of irredentism (i'm not implying that about you Olessi)

I understand now what you said about nationalist agendas on Wiki, especially when alternative names for cities are listed at every mention of a place in an article. Sometimes that does seem to be irredentism (especially with Transylvanian cities). However, mentioning a relevant alternate name once at the beginning of an article and once in the history section is not irredentism to me. A lot of my history books are older or based on German sources and therefore have German names for locations. I see no need to have German names for Spanish rivers, but if I find the name Kokel river (which was quite important to the Transylvanian Saxons), I would like to be able to find more information on it. However, I do not support removing relevant information because of some bad apples out there. If they are pushing a nationalist agenda, we will repair their changes. Olessi 2 July 2005 15:13 (UTC)

this is internet, crosslinking Tarnava to Deutsch wikipedia or Magyar wikipedia should be easy to do, so if you search for Kukulo, you'll find it in DE and HU wikipedias. since Tarnava doesn't flow through HUngary, mentioning its hungarian name would put the english in error, thinking it flows thorugh Hungary. sorry, this wouldn't be information, but messing up conventions, resulting in an erroneus encyclopedia. -- Criztu 3 July 2005 13:01 (UTC)

I have added a sentence stating that the Târnava is completely within Romania. Olessi 3 July 2005 20:02 (UTC)

Criztu, I thought you had agreed to including the alternate names. On the Talk:Harghita/Vote page you stated:

"I think the best policy about placenames in Romania is the following: The wikiarticle of a city/river/place from Romania/AnyCountry should contain all versions of that name in all possible languages. But outside that placename's article no "in hungarian : hungarian version, in german : german version, in all possible languages : all possible language versions". -- Criztu 28 June 2005 17:16 (UTC)"

Also, should we create separate articles for the Târnava Mare and Târnava Mica? We could include their own foreign names there to avoid cluttering up the main Târnava article. Olessi 16:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

When i read in the Tisza article the name of the Tisza river in Hungarian, Ukrainian, Romanian, Serbian and Slovakian in parantheses, i implicitly understand that the river flows through Hungary, Ukraine, Romania, Serbia and Slovakia. -- Criztu 19:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the reason/purpose behind providing in parantheses (as alternate) the Hungarian names of rivers, lakes & mountains entirely in ROmania (more specificaly in that territory of Romania that was under administration of the Kingdom of Hungary) is a form of irredentism (claiming/propagating the "hungaricity"/"hungarian legacy" of that river, lake, mountain). that usually the contributors who provide the hungarian versions of those rivers, lakes & mountains, also provide the German names of those rivers, lakes & mountains, i think is a strategy masking the above stated purpose -- Criztu 19:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I realize you see it as irredentism, Criztu, you've mentioned it before. The majority of Wikipedia contributors do not agree with your interpretation. I am wondering what has led you to change your mind from your previously quoted statement. In my opinion, I do not assume that just because multiple names are listed that a river flows through each country. On the contrary, multiple names just tell me that a river is known by different names by different peoples, no more, no less. Olessi 22:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

designing a convention for providing names of places is definately a must for wikipedia. e.g.:

"Thames (in English; Romanian Tamisa, French Tamise, Hungarian Tamisza, Italian Tamigi Dutch Theems German Themse etc etc etc.) is a river in England" in the lead paragraph certainly is redundant and unestetical. I'd like to know how people call this river in all langs of the earth i do, but as i said, providing the names of a place in other languages in paranthese in the lead paragrapgh means there is more then "this is how people of a country calls a place in a country on the other side of the earth", but "the place is shared by the countries that the alternate name is provided in parantheses in the lead paragraph" . Considering that this is an internet encyclopedia, effort must be put into translating the english articles in other languages, so a reader may have the possibility to read the name of a place in all langs. I really feel uncomfortable that Hungarian contriubutors keep add the Hungarian names on Romanian/Slovakia/Serbian related articles, more precisely for places in the territories that were under administration of the Kingdom of Hungary. What i think you Hungarian contributors should better do is creating the articles in the Hungarian Wikipedia. -- Criztu 12:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

As I have already stated, I disagree with your assumption that alternate names indicate that a river flows through the native country of each listed language. I would be interested in finding out how other contributors interpret this situation. I still would like to know what has led you to change your mind from your previous statement which is perfectly applicable to this article. Olessi 16:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

can you explain to me why is it nobody has this "urge for knowledge", providing the name of river Thames in Italian, French, Dutch, German, etc. in the Thames river article ? -- Criztu 15:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, non-English communities living along the Thames have not referred to the river with a non-English name to a large degree. Including Hungarian and German names (subordinated through italics and parentheses) is relevant because substantial numbers of those ethnicities live or have lived in localities along the Târnava and its sources and they refer to it with a name other than Târnava. You see including Hungarian/German names as irredentism, I do not. Olessi 16:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

well, are you willing to start a Survey on "providing the Hungarian names as alternate for the names of rivers that dont flow through Hungary" cuz as far as i know, such thing occures nowhere else but in the wikiarticles about "places that once were under administration of Kingdom of Hungary" -- Criztu 16:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not see the need for one. I do not support adding in alternate names because they are "Hungarian", rather I support adding in alternate names where they are historically relevant, regardless of national origin. The majority of names that I have added in are German (not Hungarian) on relevant articles throughout Europe. These additions have been encouraged, with the exception of changes to Romanian-related articles. There are numerous river articles on Wikipedia with alternate names where the river does not run through the country of each language. See: Vltava, Ohře, Opava River, Olza, Morava, Svitava, Alzette, Chiers, Savinja, Sava, Lielupe, Gauja, Daugava, Noteć, Warta etc. I do not understand why it is acceptable for cities to have alternate names listed but not for rivers. And you still haven't mentioned why you changed your mind. ;-) Olessi 22:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I was born in Medias, the river goes right through it and I must confess that I've never seen the hungarian or german names for Tarnava Mare or Tarnava Mica. However, as these minorities in the region are notable, I believe the names should stay. It won't hurt anyone. There is no comparison between these rivers and Thames, UK has a different history as a country. Mariushm 09:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Article name suggestion

Because this article currently discuss three rivers (Târnava, Târnava Mică, Târnava Mică Mare), what does everyone think about moving the article to Târnava rivers, following the example of Morava rivers, Serbia? Olessi 23:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Dispute

Criztu, how can you say that the Hungarian and German names for this river are irrelevant? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and in my opinion, the most information that is offered to the reader, than the better the encyclopedia becomes. Plus, I don't see how you can successfully argue that the names are irrelevant, when the area does have Hungarian and German heritage. Additionally, I find it a bit ironic that the Romanian Wikipedia article on this river (ro:Râul Târnava) gives both the Hungarian and the German names, and there has been no dispute about that over there, but here in the English Wikipedia there is all this edit-warring. Ronline ✉ 02:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont remove the Hungarian and German names. I move them from the Lead , where they may be considered as Alternative names in English sources. These names are relevant for an English Encyclopedia as the Hungarian and German names for London are. They are not used in english sources, they are used only in Hungarian sources and German sources. Criztu 19:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

1) Moving from the lead is against Wikipedia convention. The convention states that relevant alternative names are to be included in the first sentence, or if there are more of them and need explanation, in a section called "Names". 2) Don't try to fool people with the London example. There is a big difference. The Hungarian and German minorities in London are much less numerically-significant than in the areas where the Târnava flows through. The area is also of significance to Hungarians and Germans, particularly in a historical sense. Another relevant name would also be the Romani name, considering that they're Transylvania's third-largest minority. Ronline ✉ 08:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)