Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:17, 17 May 2007

Bratislava is currently a good article nominee. Nominated by an unspecified nominator at 13-05-2007 Please use the |page= parameter to specify the number of the next free GAN review page, or use {{subst:GAN}} instead to find the next free page automatically. This article is not categorized by subtopic. Please edit the |subtopic= parameter on this talk page to include one. For a list of subtopics, please see Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations.

Cities B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Template:V0.5

Old talk:Talk:Bratislava/Archive 1

Unreferenced

I've put up this template because there is only one reference for the whole article. Since even basic facts go unreferenced, it only shows that nobody bothers to write their sources. The main reason for putting at the top is to inspire others, and I'll be working on the article if I find the time.--Svetovid 10:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

So I did find the time and worked on the article. I added new references to already stated facts, significantly expanded the 'Climate', 'Culture and points of interest' and 'Economy' sections. The 'Economy' section now links to the main article, which was also expanded. I also corrected and updated other sections. Concrete statements/section are now marked as unreferenced. The 'History' section and the main article 'History of Bratislava' are completely unreferenced, so I flagged the main article. Some sections need expansion: Science, Music, Tourism, Education and especially Sport.--Svetovid 19:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Tremendous effort! MikeGogulski 20:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna focus on the education and tourism sections now, plus find sources for the history section. After that, I'll reorganize the whole article a little to be similar to other featured and good articles about towns.--Svetovid 20:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost down to having to clean up the remaining sport section... sure wish it could go to a "stuff MikeGogulski would rather not bother himself with" page ;) MikeGogulski 21:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

City Logo

There is a nice image of the new city logo at sk:Obrázok:Bratislava logo.png. However, it's tagged fair use and it's on the sk wiki, not commons, which means I can't link to it from the infobox template.

Link to the announcement of the new logo, which might be useful to someone who wants to pursue getting a release for this, and moving it to commons: http://www.bratislava.sk/vismo5/dokumenty2.asp?u=700000&id_org=700000&id=72011 MikeGogulski 09:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to note, the logo was formerly on the commons, but it was deleted some time ago. A fair use would be needed without permission, but for commons probably only with written permission from the city: link with basic description and conditions of use (in Slovak) MarkBA 16:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Ok, I see they want licensing for it. However, I just created my own identical logo in Excel, in less than 5 minutes. The logo is incredibly simple, 21 white boxes on a red background. If I turned this into an SVG it would be acceptable for use as my own work? MikeGogulski 17:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Though I'd like to see it first, but if it is exact or very similar (dark red would be better) to the official one, I'm not against. As that would be your own work, I think it's acceptable. You could then post it to the Commons so everyone (except sk.wikipedia, as they already have fair use image, and law restricts such usage without permission anyway) can use it. MarkBA 17:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

coming soon... MikeGogulski 17:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

So, check out (Image deleted). I believe it's accurate and usable. If you think so, should we get the thing approved by an admin or something before moving it to commons? MikeGogulski 19:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's accurate and usable. Upload it to the commons a.s.a.p. Approving from the admin? I don't think so, because it's yours and not from the city. Even some coats of arms were made by author and not the city and no one questioned them... MarkBA 19:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Done, and done! MikeGogulski 19:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This logo does not belong to creative commons since the city obviously states that it keeps all copyright rights. If you created the picture copying the original design, copyright for the picture still belongs to Bratislava. You need this license for it:

This is a representation of a government, military, regimental, family, or other symbol such as a flag, seal, emblem, coat of arms or crest. This symbol may be copyrighted by its holder. As well, it is known that the representation of this symbol is either copyrighted by the holder of the symbol or is not available under a free licence. There may also be other restrictions on reproduction, including but not limited to article 6ter of the Paris Convention. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such symbols to illustrate the symbol in question on the English-language Misplaced Pages, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as non-free use under the Copyright law of the United States. Any other uses of this image, on Misplaced Pages or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. Fair use //en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Bratislava true

To the uploader: Please add a detailed non-free use rationale for each article the image is used in, which must also declare compliance with the other parts of the non-free content criteria, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. For example non-free use rationales, see Misplaced Pages:Use rationale examples. To patrollers and administrators: If this image has an appropriate rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template.

--Svetovid 11:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Request letter for licensing/release of logo

Comments and translation welcome! I would like to send this to the city as soon as possible. Also, if you are willing to take up this matter with the City directly, and you are a native Slovak speaker, please contact me. MikeGogulski 14:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hlavné mesto SR Bratislava

referát komunikácie a marketingu

Primaciálne nám. 1, P.P. Box 192

814 99 Bratislava 1

tel.: +421 2 59 356 155

press@bratislava.sk

VIA EMAIL

RE: BRATISLAVA LOGO RELEASE/LICENSE REQUEST

To Whom it May Concern,

As part of my volunteer work improving the English-language Misplaced Pages page on the city of Bratislava (http://en.wikipedia.org/Bratislava), I have created a replica of the Bratislava City Logo in SVG (scalable vector graphics) format, and uploaded it to Misplaced Pages. I did this by simple visual reference to the logo, visible all over Bratislava as well as on the City's websites, and without resorting to analyzing or copying any elements of the official images, except the color value for the red background.

It is currently visible in the city article, and can be accessed directly at http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Bratislava_Logo.svg.

Because the information on your website at http://www.bratislava.sk/vismo5/dokumenty2.asp?u=700000&id_org=700000&id=74452&p1=52000 states that the logo is covered by rights of authorship, my action has been challenged by other Misplaced Pages editors.

While I would like to use the logo as part of the article (which serves to present the City in a fair and balanced manner to English-speaking Misplaced Pages users worldwide), it is also very important to me to respect both Slovak and international copyright law, as well as the wishes of the City of Bratislava, and the designer Martin Žilinský.

Questions:

• May I leave the logo in place while we discuss the matter, or would you prefer that I remove it immediately?
• Is the City willing to license use of the logo on Misplaced Pages? If so, there are two alternatives:
  • A "free" Creative Commons license, as described at http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licenses. I have currently tagged the image as CC-BY-SA, with attribution information both for myself as creator of the SVG, Mr. Žilinský as the original creator, and the City of Bratislava as a rightsholder. If the City elects this option, it should choose the Creative Commons license most appropriate to its goals for the Logo. This licensing option will ensure the useability of the image on Misplaced Pages sites in all languages.
  • A "Fair Use" permission, as described at http://en.wikipedia.org/Fair_use (brief Czech version: http://cs.wikipedia.org/Fair_use). This permission would provide the greatest protection for the City's interest in the logo, though it would restrict its use only to the English-language version of Misplaced Pages. The City Magistrate has previously granted this type of permission for use of the Bratislava Coat of Arms under the document MAGSOKSS-917-26642/2007 (issed by Ing. Anna Pavlovičová, riaditeľka magistrátu), visible at http://sk.wikipedia.org/Obr%C3%A1zok:Bratislava_erb.jpg. It should be noted also that the Slovak-language Misplaced Pages is using the logo at present (though in a different format) under the "Fair Use" doctrine (visible at http://sk.wikipedia.org/Bratislava and the specific file at http://sk.wikipedia.org/Obr%C3%A1zok:Bratislava_logo.png).

In the interest of resolving this matter, and making the logo useable on Misplaced Pages to the benefit of the City, I would request that we conduct any discussion of the matter via email until you are ready to issue a decision. At that time, I will submit an application for permission in printed form by post, and request a response in the same form.

Best regards,

MikeGogulski 14:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: I just emailed MarkBA's Slovak translation of this letter to the city, and will post relevant updates here as they are available. MikeGogulski 20:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: I received a reply from the City, stating that they have no problem with us using the logo, but that the use of the box-castle device without the word "BRATISLAVA" attached is not in accordance with their conditions. As such, I have submitted speedy deletion requests for my SVG, both on the EN wikipedia and on Commons.

As the City's design manual specifies the typeface for the word "BRATISLAVA" to be Frutiger Black, which at least is not included in my version of Windows, I won't be able to make an SVG for the logo without considerable work (which I'm not terribly interested in doing). I'll continue working on getting a proper release for a GIF or JPG version. MikeGogulski 16:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If they allow us to use the logo, you can download it from the official website and attach the appropriate license.--Svetovid 22:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

To-dos for an A rating review

MikeGogulski and others are maintaining this list as a running log. Feel free to modify, just please sign each change. MikeGogulski 13:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I've spent a lot of time on this article, trying to bring it closer to FA status. Here are the things I think still need work:

• Condense the Sport section a bit; the football section seems overly verbose (seat-count details, famous players)... perhaps move some of that to Sport in Bratislava

(completed by MarkBA

thank you MikeGogulski 13:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC))

• Expand the Music section or merge it with Theatre, under a new heading like "Performing Arts" (expanded and sourced MarkBA 08:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC))
• Add a Culture and points of interest section about annual events such as festivals (?)
• Somehow move the Demographics infobox to a position where it makes better sense

(converted to prose, though editing is still needed. MarkBA 15:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC))

Edited. MikeGogulski 16:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• * Expand Climate a bit, convert to use {{Infobox Weather}} and data from http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weatherall.php3?s=61811&refer=&units=us (converted table into infobox, added some more content. MarkBA 13:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC))
• Add a Communications and Media section. See FA-class Sarajevo#Communications and media

(added Media section, some editing would be useful to improve that section. MarkBA 11:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC))

edited... it's probably enough for now, we'll see what others think. MikeGogulski 13:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe add a couple more Important Events (though in reference to a comment above, I don't believe sports championships should go here)

(supplied three more. Is that enough? MarkBA 17:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC))

works for me, thanks MikeGogulski 17:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Fix the Parks section... I see the statement "few parks" as POV, but I haven't gotten around to doing anything about it as yet

(removed POV statement, and added a figure about total space of public green MarkBA 07:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC))

• Expand Tourism a bit. I'd like to add something referencing impact to the city from the film "Hostel", though this may be controversial

Hostel impact to tourism added and sourced MikeGogulski 23:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(removed unsourced paragraph, added sourced facts and figures MarkBA 07:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC))

• Replace as many web citations as reasonably possible with book/periodical references
• Search for and discuss any remaining NPOV issues (now should be killed off MarkBA 07:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC))
• Introduce citations to or replace/remove sentences with tags. MikeGogulski 13:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(done, I have introduce citations where they were missing or removed sentences. Please feel free to introduce new ones. MarkBA 08:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC))

• Get the city's logo (mentioned above) into Commons and on the page (possibly requires a release from the city government to use the image)MikeGogulski 14:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

self-made SVG now in place MikeGogulski 19:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(logo will be deleted MarkBA 07:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

• Add local government section (created on 29 April 2007)
• Archive old and heated talk page conversations; perhaps create a summary FAQ for things like the name, demographics, etc.

(archived, FAQ yet to be created)

• Restructure and make improvements based on practices used at other FA-class Cities articles MikeGogulski 14:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC) (reorganized the sections, based at other FA articles MarkBA 07:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC))
• Submit for review; implement assessment recommendations MikeGogulski 12:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Assessment requested at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Cities/Assessment

(not sure if we'll get assessment quickly, because the last edit excluding adding assessment requests was about 2½ months ago MarkBA 05:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC))

MikeGogulski 00:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Create the Slovak National Museum article.

--done but needs some more work--Svetovid 14:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Added interwiki, image, and bolded title. MarkBA 15:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Add information to the "Economy" section about boom in the construction industry and significant projects currently under construction.--Svetovid 10:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is a great idea, since as recently as 5 years ago, commentators were writing about a slump in the industry (http://www.slovakspectator.sk/clanok-9598.html), though I do see a place here for sourced statements about the huge projects on the riverfront, by the Nove Mesto train station, in Petrzalka and Dlhe diely... MikeGogulski 13:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Make the Territorial division section more aesthetically pleasing
• Add information about flora and fauna into the Geography section

Trimmed down the Sport section a bit, particularly football and hockey to a summary of the Sport in Bratislava article, though not sure about the other sports. I would like to suggest another to-do: Introduce citations to or replace/remove sentences with {{Fact}} tags. MarkBA 13:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to do with that Demographics table. We can either move it or convert it into prose, as is, e.g. suggested here. I just would need to find a table with evolution of population since, as far as I know, 18th century. Any suggestions? MarkBA 13:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I just checked Boston, Massachusetts (an FA-class, top-priority City article) on this, and the prose format is used there, and looks good. I believe converting it to prose is a good course to take. There is an (unsourced) table of Bratislava's demographic evolution since 1850 at History_of_Bratislava#Demographic_evolution, which I believe was once part of the main article. MikeGogulski 14:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll convert that table into prose, possibly using facts and figures from here. Per the Boston, Massachusetts article, I'll place demographics between climate and history. Feel free then to check it for errors and such. We can try to look up evolution of population later. MarkBA 14:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks. MikeGogulski 16:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we add something about local government? I have a link prepared to get the basic info from: here it is. MarkBA 18:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea; I was thinking of this earlier, but forgot to add it to the list. MikeGogulski 19:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Expand the "Government" section and reflect that Bratislava is home to the Slovak Parliament, president, ministries, the highest court, as well as the regional government and and so on, similarly to the featured article about Sarajevo. Or name it "Law, government and politics" and add information about crime and political parties' HQs as well (see San Jose, California) --Svetovid 10:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Implemented suggestion by Svetovid. As I see it now, we've already done some tasks but we have yet a long way to go. Probably these should be done first: Expand music section or merge it with theatre, expand Parks, or I suggest merging it with Lakes under new name 'Nature' and expanding it from there and of course, flushing out those tags and POV statements. MarkBA 11:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll merge the two into "Parks and lakes", which are commonly referred to together (see Google search). "Nature" (briefly about various fauna and flora) should be a sub-section of "Geography". What do you think?--Svetovid 13:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Then we can start including large numbers of krtko and ježko photos ;) MikeGogulski 11:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's OK, you can do it. I've done Climate, with converting table into infobox and adding some more content. MarkBA 13:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I see a request for new Communications & Media section to be included. I would like to just know, what should be included there: seat of national TV stations? radio? newspapers (only national or also local)? MarkBA 17:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

For now, I think a concise summary of national and major local media based in BA. Slovensky rozhlas probably qualifies, Fun Radio probably doesn't; same for Slovak Spectator vs. the new Istropolitan free newspaper (though these minor outlets could just be listed without comment) MikeGogulski 11:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I did something with Tourism and Parks, though Tourism should have more, because the unsourced paragraphs was removed and replaced with sources facts and figures. All that otherwise needs work is Music. Then we should try to find sources to the History of Bratislava article, which is tagged with unreferenced template. MarkBA 07:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

So I did some research and expanded Music and flushed out remaining tags. Now we can focus our attention elsewhere. MarkBA 08:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

When I would like to add list about annual events, what should be included? Festivals or maybe trade shows? In some sense it somewhat overlaps some other sections of the article. Anyway, it would be good to supply few references to the main sights section - I don't see any. MarkBA 21:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It'd be good to make it a separate article and include as many as possible.--Svetovid 17:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Rewrite the history section, get rid of the bullet list and names table, and add more information.--Svetovid 22:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it - you can see the progress on my sandbox page. It's a little long at the moment, but I haven't even finished the first draft yet.--Svetovid 15:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Not very polite, but I transferred what was typed from sandbox to the article, adding only end to the 20th century and adding a ref. MarkBA 08:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

was just thinking, shouldn't we branch off some of the information in the Bratislava#Culture and points of interest section to new article, for example named Culture in Bratislava or such? Because I am sure that section will surely grow even more and should be kept in a summary style. MarkBA 07:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What is unsourced in this sentence from the Etymology section? "It was used subsequently by members of the Slovak movement in the 1840s, and occasionally also afterwards. ". The whole sentence or the second part? MarkBA 16:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

To the "make the territorial division section more attractive" to-do item, check the table at http://cs.wikipedia.org/Bratislava#D.C4.9Blen.C3.AD_m.C4.9Bsta Not sure this format will adapt itself well to the expanded data in the EN article, though. It might be worth considering whether the "unofficial" divisions are necessary in the main article. (Yes, MarkBA, this was the table I was trying to find the other day) MikeGogulski 11:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, how can "Dolné hony" appear under both Podunajské Biskupice AND Vrakuňa??? MikeGogulski 11:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably because it's divided between the two - see this on SK wiki. Yes, probably unofficial parts can be listed in the respective articles - let's rework that table. Anyway, I was just thinking - wouldn't it be possible to merge Twin towns into Government section? After all, it's magistrate's decision who they'll be twinned with. MarkBA 11:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be thinking the same thoughts :) I was just looking at Town twinning for insight on this; while it may be a governmental decision, the purpose stated in the article is more cultural, leaving me unsure which section it fits in better. I wanted to survey the other FA-cities articles for placement of this. A quick search shows most articles using a section like this have it standalone, but then most of those articles are stubs anyway. MikeGogulski 12:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually now that I look at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Cities/Proposed_Template, I see there that twin towns are kept as a separate section down near the end, so maybe no change needed there. MikeGogulski 20:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comparison with FA articles on cities

Table for comparing Bratislava vs other FA-class Cities articles. First entry is size, other things to be added as we think of them. MikeGogulski 19:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

(Size as of 3 May 2007, sections as of 12 May 2007, for Bratislava both as of 15 May 2007)

Article	Size	Number of sections
Bratislava	74kb	16 sections, 23 subsections
Ahmedabad	44kb	14 sections
Ann Arbor, Michigan	51kb	15 sections, 2 subsections
Bangalore	53kb	14 sections
Belgrade	66kb	12 sections, 16 subsections
Boston, Massachusetts	70kb	16 sections, 2 subsections
Canberra	49kb	10 sections, 8 subsections
Cape Town	46kb	13 sections, 1 subsection
Chennai	51kb	14 sections, 4 subsections
Cleveland, Ohio	61kb	12 sections, 8 subsections
Darjeeling	39kb	15 sections
Dawson Creek, British Columbia	33kb	9 sections
Delhi	58kb	17 sections
Detroit, Michigan	84kb	14 sections, 11 subsections
Dhaka	49kb	13 sections
Dundee	57kb	13 sections, 11 subsections
Gangtok	<32kb	14 sections
Louisville, Kentucky	64kb	13 sections, 14 subsections, 1 subsubsection
Marshall, Texas	34kb	9 sections, 6 subsections, 12 subsubsections
Mumbai	41kb	17 sections
San Francisco, California	93kb	14 sections, 13 subsections
San Jose, California	73kb	19 sections, 20 subsections
Sarajevo	41kb	16 sections, 3 subsections
Seattle, Washington	93kb	15 sections, 17 subsections, 1 subsubsection
Sheffield	52kb	10 sections, 9 subsections
Vancouver	84kb	15 sections, 1 subsection
Weymouth	37kb	9 sections, 1 subsection

Summary re: article size

Well, all but one are longer than 32, and the longest is some 93k. I don't think we have much to worry about with article size being a barrier to FA status. MikeGogulski 20:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

POV/NPOV review

Statements/words I think could be viewed as POV (by section):

*Introduction

important, most, cosmopolitan, famous

*Climate

lies in the moderate zone -- huh?

(well, i didn't get very far before sleep MikeGogulski 00:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

• Government

"key" issues (removed this word MarkBA 15:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC))

• History

"important" events (changed into significant MarkBA 15:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC))

• Main sights

"picturesque" (twice once) (both removed MarkBA 19:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC))

"time immemorial" not really POV, just needs a different expression (changed into specific period and sourced MarkBA 07:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

"excellent" location (strategic?) (changed to strategic MarkBA 15:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC))

"important" laws

"known" memorial... i just don't understand this statement (removed known MarkBA 15:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC))

• Education and science

"important" art school (replaced by oldest Tankred 19:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

• Economy

"important" region (changed to prosperous MarkBA 19:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC))

"thriving" (re-word somehow) (tried to replaced with "prospering" but I don't know if it's a good expression MarkBA 07:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"important" companies (removed this word MarkBA 19:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC))

"strategic" companies (removed this word MarkBA 19:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC))

• Transport

"important" railway station (removed from both of 'em... mea culpa MarkBA 15:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC))

"comprehensive" (imhd.sk, yes, I wrote it myself :P ) (removed whole sentence, because it was redundant, as the link was already under external link section MarkBA 15:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC))

That's it for my review, at least as it stands now. Please strike these off as you fix them. MikeGogulski 14:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

important and most -- relevant and referenced in all cases;

The sentences "Bratislava still retains its cosmopolitan spirit. It hosts many festivals and trade shows and is famous for its night life and leisure facilities." should probably be rewritten.

changed to "north temperate zone" --Svetovid 09:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence and rewritten that paragraph.--Svetovid 13:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Struck Svetovid's fixes off the list MikeGogulski 14:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

How about this?

Above all, I would like to thank everyone for the excellent work. I have also a couple of ideas for further improvement before a GA (and later FA) nomination and I wonder what you think. First, the history section should be transformed into prose because this is one of the criteria in the GA and FA procedures. Second, I think we can delete the table containing foreign names because it can be found in History of Bratislava and the Etymology section of the main article already contains all the relevant names. I do not think we need a Dutch name in the main article. Third, the section Culture and points of interest is kind of messy. Do you think it is a good idea to create separate sections for Main sights (perhaps with subsections Bratislava Castle, the Old town, Parks, etc.), Culture (Theatres, Museums, etc.), and Sport? I believe readers would feel less lost. Finally, the Economy section is usually placed after the government section in FA articles, but this is just a minor point. Tankred 14:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

1. The history section transfer into prose is already in progress here.
2. The names table can be removed, I agree, as it was moved to the History of Bratislava article.
3. Probably should be, good idea. I think per Cleveland, Ohio article Culture should include Theatres, Museums, Music, Media and probably Sport.
4. Probably the economy section should be moved up, as I've seen in FA articles, it's 5th or around that section of the article. MarkBA 14:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

new photo possibilities

for anyone who wants to go trolling for new/better photos of things featured in the article, check out http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=bratislava&l=commderiv&z=t for CC-useable images. MikeGogulski 23:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

GA review consideration

After extensive edits of past 2 weeks, I think it's time to consider sending this article to the GA review, because the major points needed have already been covered, particularly History and article is in a lot better state than 2 weeks ago. Any objections? MarkBA 12:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think it is an excellent candidate for GA and I would like to thank everyone for the great job. However, I would suggest to rewrite a bulleted list in the Main sights - City section into prose, to make that part more consistent with the beginning and the end of the section. What do you think? Tankred 16:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, not bad idea, but how? I can only imagine one thing - maybe split them into Old Town sights and other sights plus somehow write them in acceptable prose. I also had talk with User:MikeGogulski and he suggested another thing - merging Tourism into Economy and Etymology into History. What do you think? MarkBA 16:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will transform that list into prose and it would be great if you, Mike, or Svetovid can check it afterwards. But I would rather leave the Etymology and Tourism sections untouched. Etymology is included because of WP:NCGN and it makes the article more NPOV. Tourism is quite important in the case of Bratislava, but it can be perhaps moved just after the Economy section. How is it in FA articles? Tankred 17:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and do it, I or someone else will check it. For the merge proposal, Delhi uses Etymology section as first, so let's leave it as is and for Tourism, I failed to find anything, so I don't know what to do with this one. MarkBA 17:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Tankred 17:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's fine series of contributions. Now I feel we should, after your changes, send article to GA review. MarkBA 18:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is already placed to the good article candidates page. MarkBA 20:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that was a rushed nomination. The to do list still has several points and the history section needs some trimming/improvements and references.--Svetovid 13:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

So what should I do?! Withdraw that nomination? I don't think it was rushed nomination, I was just waiting for one single point before I could place it, so it's rather delayed. And that list is for A-class rating, not necessarily GA-class rating, but in my opinion, major points have already been covered. And one more question: Why no query placed before I nominated? MarkBA 13:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Let us wait. I think the article is already a good GA candidate. I do not think there is any problem precluding the success of the nomination. I have nominated Great Moravia and the article was successful despite a lower number of citations and pictures. Anyway, even if the nomination fails this time, we can get precious feedback and try it again. It is no big deal. Tankred 16:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I say. GA != FA in all ways... I think we have already big amount of references (64 as I count), though some sections aren't ideally cited. Even if we fail first time, every cloud has a silver lining - we might get some good feedback. MarkBA 17:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Names

The former/alternate names should be listed in the article intro, and the history section should call the city Pressburg in sections talking about pre-1919 history. This isn't even an instance, like Gdansk/Danzig, of two names long in use in different languages, and one replacing the other in English after a population exchange. This is, so far as I can tell, a pretty clear cut case of a name change - the name Bratislava was not used before 1919. We don't talk about the Byzantine emperors in Istanbul, or the Battle of Volgograd, or the siege of St. Petersburg, or any number of other such things. john k 15:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I discussed my reason for making the change here. Please explain why you object rather than simply reverting. When a city's name is changed, we refer to it by the name it was known by at the time we are speaking of, not its current name. I'll add the self-evident fact that Slovakia did not exist as a place with any political, as opposed to cultural, significance prior to 1918 - it was administered as part of Hungary. Referring to the first whatever in Slovakia before 1918 gives the false impression that there was some clearly defined "Slovakia" of which Pressburg was part. This simply isn't the case. We call Gdansk "Danzig" before 1945, and it's always been known as Gdansk in Polish. Bratislava was a new name, invented in the 1830s and only officially adopted in any way in 1919. We shouldn't use it before then. john k 16:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is fully compliant with WP:NCGN. Alternative names are listed in a special section jut below the lead. The case is not as straightforward as Danzig/Gdansk because different groups used different names of the city. Moreover, the official languages of the state (Kingdom of Hungary as an independent polity, as part of the Austrian Empire, and as part of Austria-Hungary) were different in different periods: mostly Latin and for short periods Hungarian or German. Bratislava is referred to in various languages in historical documents, so it is not easy to determine a one particular historical name. However, if you believe there is a name widely accepted in English sources about history of Bratislava, feel free to initiate a discussion here, after providing the evidence required by WP:NCGN. Tankred 16:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That's the point. It's obvious redundancy to have them twice when they are in special dedicated section. And as Tankred said, this one isn't so straightforward like Gdansk or St. Petersburg cases. But I prefer discussion over edit-warring, as making two reverts would threaten the good article stability criterion, and that's what we don't want. MarkBA 16:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Bratislava" barely appears in modern times prior to 1919, as far as I can gather. Pressburg was the name used in English before 1919, and i s still generally used in historical works. The 1911 Britannica article on Pressburg is an example of the former. For the latter, I don't have any good sources in front of me right now, but I do know that "Treaty of Pressburg" is always used for the 1805 treaty, and given some time could find any number of other sources that still use "Pressburg". In terms of the intro, it is typical practice to give alternate or former names in the introduction. See Ceske Budejovice, Lviv, Regensburg, and just about any other article on a city with multiple names. I'm fairly certain that there's a policy somewhere which suggests this, but I can't find it right now. As to different groups using different names, my understanding is that this is less true with regard to the name "Bratislava" than it is with "Gdansk," in that this article itself makes no real case for usage of Bratislava before 1919, except in certain nationalist writings of the early 19th century. The first Slovak newspaper was called the Presspurske Nowiny - so even Slovaks were calling the place Pressburg at that time. Pressburg was not even a Slovak town in 1911 - the population was, according to Britannica, half German, and many of the remainder were Magyars (or, I guess, Jews). I simply don't see how the case for Bratislava is possibly stronger than the case for Gdansk, which was, at least, always the Polish name. john k 17:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

John, please read WP:NCGN. Alternative names should be listed in the lead when they are not discussed in detail. If there are more than two relevant alternative names, or etymology is discussed, a separate section should be created. That is why we have a separate section devoted just to historical names placed after the lead. As to the use of historical names in the text, Bratislava should be replaced by Pressburg only if Pressburg can be proven to be a widely accepted English name of the city in the historical context. Again, if you look at the policy page (WP:NCGN), you will find a precise procedure and a list of evidence you should use. I am sure everyone here will greatly appreciate if you familiarize yourself with the policy before returning to this interesting discussion you have started. Tankred 17:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you appear to be right about the lead. I withdraw my objections on that front (although I don't like the policy). Pressburg is of course a widely accepted English name of the city in the historical context. I'll note again the complete lack of use of "Treaty of Bratislava", and get back to you with more examples soon. john k 18:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

For the last time, "Bratislava" is used instead of "present day Bratislava" because it is obvious and made clear countless times. And again, this is the usual practice when writing historical articles about cities or countries.--Svetovid 18:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

For the last time, I'm not saying to use "present day Bratislava." I'm saying to use "Pressburg." I'm also saying it is standard practice in wikipedia to use historical names for historical subjects, which is easily verified. now, I will accept Tankred's suggestion to find sources for use of "Pressburg" in order to demonstrate that it's a commonly used historical name. But your argument is just wrong - historical names are used, and all the time. john k 19:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry John Kenney, if I must call it such, but this version, which is currently saved, does provide an explanation, especially when you know that Pressburg or Pozsony was the official or widely used name before 1919 and since then, Bratislava is the official name. Period. There's nothing more to explain. The article would look really strange when we would apply all those "Pressburg"s to the History section. Another think that I'm wondering about is that you have already contributed here several times, and you should know what the atmosphere and attitude are here and that's no joke. Just look at the archive. In short, I agree with Svetovid and particularly Tankred that the current version is fine. By the way, why don't you provide some feedback for improving instead of quarrelling about historical names? MarkBA 19:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur. John k, you could help us and suggest some real improvements to the article.--Svetovid 20:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, this article as it is barely suggests that "Pressburg" or "Pozsony" were the officially or widely used names before 1919. The current article is highly misleading - the fact that, in the 18th century, a clear derivative of "Pressburg" was the Slovak name of the city is, for instance, ignored, so that the Slovak newspaper's name is translated "Bratislava Newspaper," when the word "Bratislava" appears nowhere in the Slovak name of the newspaper. Given the length of the history section, the article would not look at all strange if we applied the Pressburgs to the history section. That's exactly what's done at, for instance, Gdansk, or at Istanbul. As it stands, I'm not sure what to do here. I would go to my books and try to demonstrate that "Pressburg" is by far the dominant usage in English historical sources discussing the pre-1919 city. I'm not even sure that's necessary. This seems to be a clear instance of a full-on name change, where we can actually pinpoint a date of change. In such cases we normally use the name which was used at the time. As to providing feedback for improving, the article looks generally pretty decent to me, and I'm not an expert. I am interested in the naming issue, but I don't think I have much to contribute to the rest of the article. This issue is a real one, and I don't see how my opinions can be ignored simply because I'm not all that interested in the rest of the article. john k 21:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Names are covered in the Etymology section and the History of Bratislava article. Using different names in the main article would be confusing. As for Presspurske Nowiny, if Posonium is translated and referred to as Pressburg in English, feel free to rename that translation.--Svetovid 22:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As John states, the issue is a real one. I have changed "Bratislava Newspaper" to "Pressburg Newspaper" as I see that instance as one where the use of "Bratislava" is clearly inappropriate, given the historical context.

As for Gdansk vs. Danzig, I don't see the issue as compelling in this case, as the amateur etymologist in me views "Gdansk" and "Danzig" as merely different representations of the same underlying name, much as Pressburg, Pressburgh, Presburg, Prešporok, Prešburk, etc. are all connected to a common root, though passed through different linguistic lenses.

Constantinople vs. Istanbul is a much clearer parallel with Bratislava, and a case where a new name of different linguistic origin was imposed on a city. In fact, the Istanbul article's history section may provide useful guidance to us in reworking Bratislava#History into a more historically-accurate form. What I don't know, however, is how to resolve the apparent problem of the city having been referred to by multiple names simultaneously without a lot of excess verbiage (see the 16th-century map in the History section, which shows both Pressburg and Posonium). I know nothing of Hungarian aside from the basics of pronunciation, but I don't see Hungarian Pozsony (which would render in Slovak approximately as Požoň) as connected to Pressburg/Prešporok/Prešburk, but rather to the Latin Posonium. MikeGogulski 00:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the issue is somewhat complicated, especially with the existence of two sets of names used simultaneously - one derived from the Latin Posonium, the other from the German "Pressburg." I would, in this instance, say that "Pressburg" ought to be the way to go, since it is the name used in English. But I can see that it's a bit problematic. john k 15:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, except for obvious cases like Presspurske Nowiny, I'm still strongly against renaming almost whole History into Pressburg, when you know it's absolutely unnecessary. It is already clearly indicated that Pressburg or Pozsony were used as official/widely used named before 1919 and no such things such as Bratislava or its forms existed before 19th century and that's it. No more to discuss about. I will change my opinion only under two conditions: when you can clearly demonstrate usage of Pressburg or similar before 1919 and there is consensus to do so. And please avoid usage of "northern Hungary" phrase, as it is considered offensive and if some nationalist would read this, he probably would beat you up. MarkBA 05:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't "know" anything. In terms of "northern Hungary", I did stop using it after the first edit, and it was ill-judged. Slovakia was, of course, the northern part of Hungary before 1918, but it wasn't a formal region at all, under any name. I do think that we ought to be careful with our tenses. That 1891 bridge may be the oldest bridge in Slovakia, but it is not the first bridge built in Slovakia, if that makes any sense - perhaps this is a nuance that is more troubling to me as a native speaker of English than to you all. Beyond that, I'm happy to try to provide some sources for usage of "Pressburg" in English language sources when discussing the city prior to 1919. john k 15:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't mix up that bridge here. You don't need to teach me that the Old Bridge is the oldest one, as I know for sure that there were bridges sometime in the 15th or 16th centuries in Bratislava, but were quickly destroyed by floods or frosts. OK, that consensus condition was bit harsh and I withdraw it, but one thing is that when it is clearly provided in that Names section that XY was used in English before 1919, then it's absolutely unneeded to throw those "Pressburg"s in there when you know what Bratislava means in the 16th century (Posonium) or 19th century (Pressburg/Pozsony). I think you have picked up quite unfortunate topic, as touching to the names, which were long standing in the article, is like stirring up a hornet's nest and causes trouble, in which we are right now. MarkBA 15:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

MarkBA - my point about the bridges was one of contextual reading in English, not any issue of bridges built in the 15th or 16th centuries. My point was this - to say that something is "the oldest bridge in Slovakia" makes it clear that you are talking about Slovakia as a present-day country. That the bridge was built before Slovakia was created is irrelevant to the meaning. To say that something is "the first bridge built in Slovakia since the 16th century" (say) implies, I think, that Slovakia existed at the time in question. As to name's being a hornet's nest, they certainly can be, but this discussion so far has actually been more civil than some similar ones I've gotten into. I hope this can be resolved quickly and in a way that satisfies everyone. john k 15:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Two things in response to this:

• So long as someone has a pointed interest in making a change here, based on historically-verifiable facts, and there is disagreement, "consensus" does not exist. The introduction into the article of sources documenting the official historical names of the city through history should serve to change what consensus exists. Additionally, see Argumentum ad populum on the dangers of "consensus".
• The territory of the present-day Slovak Republic was, factually, "northern Hungary" (or, "the northern portion of the territory controlled by the Kingdom of Hungary") immediately prior to WWI. Who might or might not be offended by history does not seem germane to the verifiability of information in an encyclopedia article. Also, see Article 301 (Turkish penal code) on the dangers of Political correctness.

WP:NCGN is controlling here. Frankly, I see the policy as somewhat flawed, but it is part of the framework that we contribute under. The key question seems to be "did Bratislava have widely-accepted English names in certain historical contexts prior to 1919?" and if so, what are they? The answer to the first part is a resounding "yes" unless one takes the untenable position that the city was never mentioned in the English language prior to 1919, or that there was no consensus on an English-language appellation. The answer to the second part is discoverable and citable.

MikeGogulski 09:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the vagueness of the wording of WP:NCGN actually makes the case a bit weaker. Of course the city was called "Pressburg" (or perhaps occasionally "Pozsony" prior to 1919. I think the issue that we are meant to determine, however, is what name is used in recent historical scholarship to refer to the city before 1919. I know that I've come across a few books which make a point of using current names for almost all cities in central and eastern Europe, and which thus use "Bratislava," but most that I'm aware of use Pressburg (a few use Pozsony when talking about the city between 1867 and 1919). I'll try to demonstrate this.

The word "Slovakia" in the text obviously refers to the territory of present-day Slovakia and not to the polity. For stylistic reasons, we cannot describe it every time by long constructs, such as "territory of present-day Slovakia". I think it is clear for most readers. The situation is similar to the case of Brittany, which does not exist administratively since the French Revolution, and to the case of Italy, which did not exist as a political entity in its present borders until the late unification. Most readers understand that the word Brittany in the articles about the present refer to a territory, not to a medieval polity and the word Italy in articles about history refers to the Apennine peninsula, not to a smaller nominal kingdom of that name. Tankred 16:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not at all obvious. Brittany was a clear region with a clear history, and Italy was also a clear geographical entity. The same is not at all true of Slovakia, which did not exist prior to 1918. Slovakia means "those parts of Hungary before 1918 which were incorporated into Czechoslovakia, and which were not Ruthenia." The term "Slovakia" does not occur in the 1911 Britannica, for instance, whereas Brittany has its own article, and Italy certainly had articles in encyclopedias published prior to 1861. The cases aren't comparable. Slovakia was a new country carved out of the Slovak-inhabited parts of Hungary. Italy was a long-standing geographical term, like Iberia or the Low Countries today, and Brittany was a historical province which used to exist. There had never been a political entity called "Slovakia" before 1918, nor was it a widely used geographical term. The area was simply the northern part of Hungary. As it stands, the text implies, as you suggest, that Slovakia before 1918 was analogous to Italy before 1861. That analogy is entirely false. Not only was that name not used, there was no clearly defined area which we might see as a predecessor to modern Slovakia. Slovakia was created in 1918. The proper analogy is with Pakistan, say. john k 17:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(directed at the thread, not at John, who just happened to be the last poster) We could argue as well that "Slovakia" should mean "historical (or current) lands of the Slovak people" versus the commonly-understood "territory of the sovereign Slovak Republic" or even "the Slovak government and all it controls", but it won't lead us to any clarity regarding Bratislava. I would like to suggest that the specific issue of the use of the term "Slovakia" be moved off this page and taken to Talk:History of Slovakia or Talk:Slovakia, where it is more on point, and where a wider audience of editors to consider it is available. I appreciate raising it to draw a parallel, but arguing the point here will have little value in improving the Bratislava article. MikeGogulski 00:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This makes sense. I think it's okay to sometimes use "Slovakia", but that we should be careful that it is not misleading to do so. john k 15:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you are trying to pull, john, but as an administrator, you should know that it's best to discuss such significant changes first. As mentioned above, it's redundant to always use "present day Slovakia" instead of "Slovakia" and "present day Bratislava" (or a longer form) instead of "Bratislava" if this was clearly written previously in the section.
For example, look at History of London, and the name itself suggests that they used similar logic to ours, otherwise it should indeed be called History of present day London. The same applies to New York City, for example. I don't see formerly known as New Amsterdam there. Do you also think that because the New York City article is written that way, people may falsely think that the area there has always been called New York City?
If you again change the whole article the way you did, I'll regard is as vandalism and report as such.--Svetovid 17:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am suggesting we use "Pressburg" instead of "Bratislava." As for Slovakia, we should damn well use "present day Slovakia", because Slovakia simply didn't exist in any way before 1918. As to New York, it stopped being New Amsterdam four centuries ago, and it was a tiny place of little importance when it changed its name. Pressburg was a major city for centuries before the name got changed. john k 17:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There are obvious hints: "...the territory has...", "The area fell...", "The first written reference to Bratislava (as Brezalauspurc)", "...the territory of Bratislava." I changed "On March 27, 1919, the name Bratislava was officially adopted." to "On March 27, 1919, the name Bratislava was officially adopted for the first time." to make it even clearer.
If you look at any other article, official website of any other city, in history books or tourist guides, you would see that the current name of a city is used although the city wasn't called like that back then and (almost) everybody understands it.
As for Slovakia, I've added "present day" when it's mentioned for the first time. If one wishes to find out about history of Slovakia, the Kingdom of Hungary or the Habsburg Monarchy, all interlinks are there.--Svetovid 17:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No, as noted, most other articles use former names in historical discussions. john k 18:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about this one way or the other, but I'm happy to see anyone taking interest in the article (Welcome, John!). For me, and maybe I'm too close to the problem, I think that enough information is presented to enable to unfamiliar reader to infer that the word "Bratislava", when used during the various periods prior to 1918, means "the territory currently known as Bratislava". As I looked back at the article in light of John's comments and changes, though, one thing that *does* strike me as deserving of change is the caption for the photo http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Bratislava_in_16th_century.jpg ("Bratislava in the 16th century"). The drawing itself is labeled "Posonium" and "Pres(s)burg", and, when it was created, no entity known as "Bratislava" existed.

I would like to support the request of other editors to avoid making sweeping changes that are likely to be controversial prior to discussion, however. I suspect that all of us posting on this talk page share similar goals, and hope we can work together to approach them more closely, rather than bashing heads. MikeGogulski 20:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Mike - my issue i s not so much that the word "Bratislava" means "the territory currently known as Bratislava." It seems to me that this latter is fine when we are talking about settlements of unknown name in the ancient world. But when the "territory currently known as Bratislava" is an actual major European city, the capital of the kingdom of Hungary and the site of the Hungarian parliament, the site of a treaty ending a major war between France and Austria, and so forth, it seems misleading to use "Bratislava." Because "the territory currently known as Bratislava" was not the capital of Hungary. The city of Pressburg, or Pozsony, was. That city's name was then changed to Bratislava in 1919, in exactly the manner that the name of Constantinople was changed to Istanbul in 1930, or Danzig was changed to Gdansk in 1945, or St. Petersburg was changed to Petrograd in 1914, to Leningrad in 1924, and then back to St. Petersburg in 1991. A similar issue is use of "Slovakia" before 1919. I'm happy to use that a shorthand for "the territory that is now Slovakia", but only in instances where it is clear that this is what is meant. In cases of possible confusion, we ought to avoid the term. "it became the largest city in Slovakia," for instance, strongly implies the existence of something called "Slovakia" at the time under discussion, and I'd prefer to avoid that. The history section is lengthy, and using "Pressburg" before 1919 would be no more confusing than any of these other instances. Beyond that, I'm happy to wait to make any further changes, although I'm dubious that what I did really constitutes a "sweeping change". I would, however, like to have some input into this issue from users other than those of you who've been regular editors of the page. john k 21:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Following your reasoning, the name Pressburg should not be used before the 15th century, when it first appeared. Nevertheless, you used it. Moreover, the Latin name Posonium should be used if any other than Bratislava.
I reworded that part about Slovakia to "...the largest and most important town in the territory of present day Slovakia and Hungary."--Svetovid 22:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue is more "what name do historians use when discussing the city in earlier times," rather than "what name was used at the time." The variations of medieval form would make the former a very difficult standard to follow. john k 15:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

(@ John) Sorry, your change was really not "sweeping" as I wrote, but controversial nonetheless. I apologize for the overreaction.

I wonder if, in the History section at least, we might resolve this problem simply by including a disclaimer at the beginning, along the lines of "Note that when the word 'Bratislava' is used in this section, it refers to the territory presently comprising the city, which has been known by various different names prior to 1919"?

To your comment regarding getting some fresh eyes in here, I completely agree. There are 4 or 5 of us who have had our noses close to this article for some time, and are also (i daresay) biased toward the city's current appellation by virtue of our own associations with the city. Do you know anyone who can help provide more compelling information to your points? I, at least, would love to hear from them as well.

(@ Svetovid) I think you're correct here also, assuming your statement about 15th-century attestation is correct (I don't know). I'm going to dig into my sources for a history of the "official names" of the city, if such a thing really exists. We could resolve all ambiguity by reference to the documented city appellation of the empire/kingdom/state in power at any given time. MikeGogulski 00:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made some changes and now it should please most people.
My Conclusion:
- Do not use the name Pressburg before the 15th century because it doesn't follow you own reasoning of using then known names. It's also mentioned that the name Pressburg appeared in the 15th century so people should not be confused.
- Do not use Hungary instead of "present day Slovakia and Hungary" (or similar form or when it's understood that Slovakia refers to today's Slovakia), because in today's context, connection to Slovakia is relevant and important.--Svetovid 09:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry?

Can anyone suggest why the following edits should *not* be reported as suspected sockpuppetry?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bratislava&diff=prev&oldid=131212671
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bratislava&diff=prev&oldid=131212086

Rationale:

• substance of edits currently under controversy at Talk:Bratislava
• substance of edits nearly identical to those at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bratislava&diff=prev&oldid=131047625
• User:Olivierdb appears to be a new account created entirely for the purpose of making these edits

MikeGogulski 10:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have never created a sockpuppet, and I'm not about to start now. I previously expressed my willingness to not revert anymore until something could be worked out. I am somewhat offended by this failure to assume good faith on my part. john k 15:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sure no one thinks it is your sockpuppet. But it is apparently a disruptive sockpuppet account of someone and if it appears again, I encourage everyone to report it at the administrators' notice board. Tankred 15:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse me, John, if you assumed any accusation, none was meant for you. Why would an admin here with real-name reputation on the line bother for such a purpose? Very, very unlikely I think. I'm gonna go throw something on his talk page. MikeGogulski 18:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, I guess I misinterpreted/overreacted. Definitely sockpuppets of banned users should be dealt with. john k 03:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think MikeGogulski could be reported as a sockpuppet. This account is only a few weeks old. On his first day he started developing his user page with an army of (possibly false) userboxes.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User%3AMikeGogulski&diff=124998317&oldid=124863267

He is focused on a small number of articles, most importantly on Bratislava where he made almost all of his edits, suggesting that he is a single purpose account. Starts aggressive accusations of sockpuppetry as a personal attack against editors including an administrator (yes i see you tried to explain it away, your original post is clear however). Olivierdb 13:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

census data

I just noticed something out of whack here:

• 2001 census - 428,672 inhabitants
• 2005 estimate - 425,459

• pop per borough: 5 data items total = 2001 pop. (okay)
• ethnic data leave ~8000 ppl unaccounted for against 2001 pop. (this is okay)
• age distribution: 3 brackets totaling 425,459 (2005 estimate -- NOT OKAY without clarification and citation)
• religion stats leave ~24,000 ppl unaccounted for against 2001 pop. (also okay)

MikeGogulski 21:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• I know this issue, but I can't find age distribution from 2001. I am sourcing my data from here . Unless I can find data with this kind of information, I propose adding behind the data on what it is based (either 2001 census or 2005 estimate). Okay? MarkBA 12:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I didn't want to wade into the figures myself. MikeGogulski 13:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Test...

Books

• Already, so I decided to hit google to look at historical usages of names. There are 2240 Google Books hits for "Pressburg". Going through, many of them are from pre-1918 sources, but here's a variety from post-1945:

1. The Reign of George III, 1760-1815 by David Steven (1960)
2. Understanding Rabbinic Judaism, from Talmudic to Modern Times by Jacob Neusner (1974)
3. Towards Modernity: The European Jewish Model by Jacob Katz (1987)
4. http://books.google.com/books?id=zgF7xN-_7SsC&pg=PA151&dq=Pressburg&sig=FJzPjpH-q_Kzyj70Z2fQ4Tw1sio The Virtuoso Conductors: the Central European Tradition from Wagner to Karajan] by Raymond Holden (2005)
5. Servants of the Sword: French Intendants of the Army 1630-1670 by Douglas Clark Baxter (1976)
6. Beethoven's Concertos: history, style, performance by Leon B. Plantinga (1999)
7. Dictionary of Jewish Biography by Geoffrey Wigoder (1991)
8. Beethoven and His World: A Biographical Dictionary by Peter Cleve (2001)
9. Napoleon: A Political Life by Stephen Englund (2004)
10. The World of the Yeshiva: An Intimate Portrait of Orthodox Jewry by William B. Helmreich (2000)
11. The New Grove Dictionary of Opera by Stanley Sadie (1992)
12. http://books.google.com/books?id=vEJNBqanT_8C&pg=PA259&dq=Pressburg&sig=Y3q5E6AY58zrkIklbtubeQpGqCo The Realm of St Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526] by Pál Engel (2005)

Anyway, that's just a start. There's a lot of references to Pressburg, and a good percentage are from more recent sources. Pozsony gets about 1200 hits, but a higher percentage seem to be from post-45. On the other hand, a higher percentage seem to be books in Hungarian than hits for Pressburg which were books in German. At any rate, Pressburg appears to be more popular. I'm not sure how to do a search for "Bratislava" - obviously any search for Bratislava is going to reveal. In Google Scholar, there's 629 hits in the history and humanities section for "Pressburg". There's only 255 for "Pozsony". At any rate, it seems fairly clear that "Pressburg" is a widely used historical name, and that it's used enough more than "Pozsony" to warrant its usage rather than the latter's. john k 15:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Subsequently, Pressburg should be the accepted English name for now.
What that means, however, is that articles in Misplaced Pages should reflect this and those using the Hungarian name Pozsony as the primary name should be changed to Pressburg. So, for example, Pozsony County should be called Pressburg County. While searching the Internet, it's apparent that the English name Pozsony County comes from Hungarian or Hungarian-inspired sources anyway. What do you all think?--Svetovid 15:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to wait and see on further sources. The issue is complicated, and perhaps we should hold off until we have a very good sense of what kinds of sources use which name. It seems clear, for instance, that sources on Jewish and music history predominantly use "Pressburg." I agree that "Pozsony" is generally used in Hungarian related sources for the city. I'm less certain about the county - I think English usage on the county name is sufficiently limited that "hungarian-inspired sources" are going to be prominent. I wouldn't mind using "Pressburg" for the city" and "Pozsony" for the county. We also have yet to find any lengthy discussions of the city prior to the 15th century, which was, I believe, one of your p revious issues with my point. Anyway, I'll wait on what others say. john k 15:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• The Library of Congress Country Studies use "Bratislava" in the historical context. Tankred 16:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Google Scholar

• As a proxy for the pre-907 period, I used the phrase "Great Moravia". I counted only the articles including that phrase and published after 1919 in journals in humanitites and social sciences.
  • Bratislava: 40 hits
  • Pressburg: 7 hits
  • Pozsony: 4 hits
• As a proxy for the independent Kingdom of Hungary period, I used the phrase "Matthias Corvinus" All other criteria are the same.
  • Bratislava: 23 hits
  • Pressburg: 11 hits
  • Pozsony: 16 hits
• As a proxy for the period of the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary, I used the phrase "Maria Theresa". All other criteria are the same.
  • Bratislava: 57 hits
  • Pressburg: 51 hits
  • Pozsony: 33 hits Tankred 16:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The google scholar results indicate that the word "Bratislava" is dominant in English academic articles. The word "Pressburg" is used almost as often as Bratislava in the articles dealing with the recent history (Austrian Empire, Austria-Hungary), but it cannot be considered a widely accepted name of the city in the historical context as far as the academic journals are concerned. Tankred 16:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Tankred, these tests are flawed, in that Bratislava is bound to be overrepresented in the results. In the first place, any footnote which refers to a work published in Bratislava will turn up a hit for Bratislava - I see several instances of this in your results. In the second place, even if the article refers to the city as Pressburg or Pozsony, it will often mention the modern name in parentheses. I see several instances of this. There's also the possibility of modern discussions of Bratislava mentioning historical figures. Looking at your Matthias Corvinus and Maria Theresa searches, I see 12 of the Matthias Corvinus results being examples of one or other of the following, leaving the actual count 11 to 11 to 16, or thereabouts (although some of the Pressburg references also appear to be parenthesized). For Maria Theresa, I see at least 16 of the same. In this case, Pressburg comes out ahead. That being said, it's clear that all three names are used frequently. I'm not sure what the upshot of that should be. john k 17:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your correction. I did not think about that. You are right that all three names are used with a similar frequency. We can now discuss what it means. In my opinion, it means that there is no widely accepted English name of Bratislava in the historical context because English sources do not prefer (at least not consistently) any of those three alternative names. Tankred 18:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say, tentatively, that the evidence seems to support the conclusion that there is no single widely accepted English name to refer to Bratislava before 1919. All three names are used quite commonly, with Pressburg perhaps most common, at least for the more recent period. The conclusion to be drawn from this is, I think, somewhat unclear, and probably comes down to personal preference. For me, I don't like to refer to places by a name that more or less didn't exist at the time referred to. Using "Bratislava," thus, rubs me the wrong way. But I can see how others might feel that the simplicity of using the same name throughout is an advantage. I will say that I think in other articles, we should prefer either Pressburg or Pozsony (and I'd say that, specifically, Pozsony should be preferred, if at all, only in contexts where we are looking at the city from a Hungarian perspective, whereas broader perspective, either Europe-wide or Habsburg-empire wide, should use Pressburg). For this article, I would, as I said before, prefer to use "Pressburg," which is, as Juro notes below, the term which was almost universally used in English before 1919, and which remains probably by some small margin the most prevalent English usage, at least for the Habsburg period. But I think the important thing is to reach consensus. john k 21:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The form Pozsony was in use from the late 18th century only (earlier forms like Poson etc. are not necessarily the same name), the form Pressburg was in use (at least) from the 16th century. Iow, any use of Pozsony for a period before 1770 is wrong (anachronistic) irrespective of English usage. As for English texts, contemporary English texts use "Pressburg" (I can only repeat see the title in the 1911 Britannica or e.g. Treaty of Pressburg as two nice examples). If English texts today use Pozsony with reference to Bratislava before 1919, it is simply a translation error resulting from the translation of a Hungarian text without proper knowledge of the issue. In sum, the only two "correct" possibilities are Pressburg (because it is the contemporary English name) or Bratislava (becasue it is the current name). Juro 22:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is very problematic to claim without any evidence that any historian using "Pozsony" is making a "translation error" and is "without proper knowledge of the issue." As far as I can tell, use of "Pozsony" is generally done as a conscious choice, using the Hungarian name because the city was, at the time, part of Hungary. I don't know that I especially agree with the choice to use a Hungarian name which was not really used by English-speaking contemporaries to refer to a city whose population was plurality German, but it is certainly not done out of ignorance. john k 00:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedias

• Encyclopædia Britannica does not consistently use any of the names. Articles about Hungarians use "Pozsony (now Bratislava)". Articles about Germans and the Peace of Pressburg use "Presssburg (now Bratislava)". "Bratislava" is used in some other historical articles. Bratislava has 79 hits (not all of them in the historical context), Pressburg 29 hits, Pozsony 10 hits. Tankred 15:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Columbia Encyclopedia: "Bratislava" is used in the historical context in the main article, as well as in other articles. Pressburg is used in the articles mentioning the Treaty of Pressburg. Bratislava has 13 hits (most, but not all of them historical), Pressburg 13 (referring to the Treaty of Pressburg), and Pozsony 3 (only one used in an actual article).
• MSN Encarta gives search results for 8 articles mentioning Bratislava, including article itself , 2 for Pressburg, although one redirects to Bratislava and one for Pozsony, redirecting to Bratislava .

My reading is that Pressburg is not a widely accepted English name of the city in the historical context, as far as the most prominent English encyclopedias are concerned. There is no consensus among or within the encyclopedias. Moreover, "Bratislava" is used more frequently than "Pressburg". Tankred 16:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no preference regarding Bratislava and Pressburg for the pre-1919-period, but I would like to point out that if you read old texts, the English (analogously French etc.) name of Bratislava in pre-1919-texts was almost exclusively Pressburg (see e.g. the 1911 Britannica at a time when the Hungarian language was binding for all names etc.) In other words IMO Pressburg is the English historical name of Presporok and that should be the decisive factor here, unless we decide not to complicate things and take the current name...On the other hand, the use of Bratislava for the early Middle Ages is beyond any doubt, because no official and permanent name is known for that period, so that any form other than the current name would be certainly more wrong than the current name.Juro 18:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Since our readers live in the 21st century, not before 1919, the use of geographic names should reflect the present-day practice, not the practice from before 1919. That is why only encyclopedias published after 1993 should be used in this discussion according to WP:NCGN. Tankred 18:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem in this specific case however, as I see it, is that the town was totally renamed in 1919 and that should be allowed for. Your argument would work without any problems for almost any other settlement in Slovakia, but not for this one...Juro 18:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If this was a historical article for experts, it would be clear. However, this article is for average people who mostly know the name Bratislava only or, if from German-speaking countries, Pressburg.--Svetovid 21:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, but then the question is why we use historical names in the first place (my personal opinion is that all names in any encyclop. should be primarily current to make the texts user-friendly, but that is not the practice of this wikipedia).Juro 22:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The use of Constantinople in the Istanbul article doesn't seem particularly unfriendly to me. The only different there, perhaps, is that the prior name of the city is far more widely known than those of Bratislava. I was just looking at the Prince (musician) article for further inspiration, but didn't really find any, since the references used to the symbol he changed his name to are all references to the name itself. MikeGogulski 02:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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?

• GAN error
• Good article nominees
• Good article nominees on review
• Good article nominees without a subtopic
• B-Class WikiProject Cities articles
• All WikiProject Cities pages
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists