Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:26, 1 July 2008

Slovakia Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovakia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Slovakia 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.SlovakiaWikipedia:WikiProject SlovakiaTemplate:WikiProject SlovakiaSlovakia Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rivers Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers 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.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Alternative names

I really don't see the point of adding the {{cn}} template after every alternative name. What kind of sourcing is expected here? Proof that the alternative name exists, or proof that it meets the requirements of the WP:NCGN guideline? Those are: used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place. It's common knowledge that Hungarian and German were native languages in parts of Slovakia (definitely along the Váh), and Hungarian still is in the south. I think this is a big waste of time. Markussep 22:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Preferably both. Don't forget that WP:NCGN is a convention, while WP:CITE is a guideline.--Svetovid (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you meant WP:V. So what do you expect me to do, quote census results in this article, and a Hungarian encyclopedia to show that the name exists? Markussep 23:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Any English-language sources that use the name? --Elonka 01:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, for instance this bookand this. Hungarian is a native language in parts of Slovakia, also along the river Váh, for instance (2001 census results) in Šaľa 18% and Kolárovo 81%. German was a native language before WW2, for instance in Žilina (1910 census) 16%. Is it really necessary to source all this IMO rather obvious information? I don't see this kind of sourcing and debate about the German name for Strasbourg, for instance. Markussep 08:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Some cities had some minorities a long time ago. This is common in Europe, especially before WWII.
Please only list the relevant sources (you already listed 2), which use the foreign names in English. And please prove that those names are used in at least 10% of the English sources. 1 book for each name is obviously not enough.--Svetovid (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

"Some cities had some minorities a long time ago", "which use the foreign names in English":

Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language OR is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages,

"And please prove that those names are used in at least 10% of the English sources": OR is written there, not AND. Please try to read WP:NCGN before commenting, because you obviously don't see how it works. Squash Racket (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

"...used to live there" is a very vague phrase. Few towns along the river had minorities a long time ago. That is still irrelevant for the river as a whole.--Svetovid (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

"used to inhabit this geographical place" is the phrase WP:NCGN uses. I think the debate is again over.

BTW is it true that the river meets the Danube at Komárno? Is it possible that more Hungarians see that day by day than Slovaks? Squash Racket (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You are right it's over since you are not even willing to supply evidence for your claims. I will remove the names in the upcoming days if nobody else is willing to supply evidence.--Svetovid (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Start-Class Slovakia articles
• High-importance Slovakia articles
• All WikiProject Slovakia pages
• Unassessed River articles
• Unknown-importance River articles