Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment

Shortcut

Ground rules

This page is an experiment, as part of my (Elonka's) involvement with the ArbCom-designated Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. As I write this, there seems to be a dispute involving Hungarian and Slovakian articles. The dispute is de-centralized, and is taking place in edit summaries, userpages, talkpages, and administrator noticeboards. The dispute seems to involve multiple editors, and some anonymous accounts. Since it is extremely difficult to follow everything that's going on on every page, I have created this central page, and recommend adding a pointer to this page from all the locations of disputes.

I am an uninvolved administrator in this discussion, I have no preference for either side. However, I do insist that:

  • Participants remain civil
  • Edit wars cease
  • Anyplace that an article is reverted, that an explanation either be posted on that article's talkpage, or a pointer be placed on that article's talkpage, which links interested editors to here.

It is my hope that with a centralized point of discussion, that we'll be able to reduce the confusion, and those editors who are genuinely interested in having civil discussions towards determining consensus, will be able to do so.

Please feel free to start any threads here that you want, and invite anyone that you wish.

--Elonka 06:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator boards and other threads

Active threads

Archived threads

Naming convention

(previous discussions and polls can be seen in Archive 2)


The naming convention for places in Slovakia. It is meant to be a specification of guideline nr. 3 (about the use of a name in other articles) of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Given the long shared history of Slovakia and Hungary, it is desirable to mention both the Slovak and the Hungarian name in several cases. This depends on the (historical) context in which it is used:

  • Before 1918: the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. "Eperjes (Prešov)" or "Prešov (Eperjes)".
    • In biographies of clearly Slovak persons, the name should be used in the form "Prešov (Eperjes)" and later "Prešov" exclusively
    • In biographies of clearly Hungarian persons, the name should be used in the form "Eperjes (Prešov)" and later "Eperjes" exclusively
    • In other cases the order of the names, and which name is used in the rest of the article is arbitrary. If a dispute arises, the name most used in the given context in reliable sources (see WP:NCGN) should be used first, and the other name(s) should be listed in parentheses at the first occurrence
  • After 1918: use the Slovak name. Use Hungarian (or other minority languages) at least once for places with significant Hungarian (or other minority) population, either in the form "Eperjes (Prešov)" and later "Eperjes" exclusively, or in the form "Prešov (Eperjes)" and later "Prešov" exclusively. Significant is more than 20% of the population by contemporary census.
  • For places that changed name (e.g. Štúrovo was called Parkan before 1948): follow the rules above, but use the contemporary Slovak or Hungarian name as the primary name, and also add the modern name as an alternative. Example: for a biography about a 19th century Slovak from Parkan/Párkány/Štúrovo, use "Parkan (Párkány, present Štúrovo)", and later "Parkan" exclusively
  • For places that have another widely accepted (historic) name in English (e.g. Pressburg for Bratislava before 1919): use that name, and mention the modern name and relevant alternative names at the first occurrence.

New home

Okay, this "Experiment" has been going really well, and I am very proud of all that we have accomplished.  :) I have seen many people learn new ways of dealing with disputes, and some really good articles are developing. I've also been getting positive feedback from other Wikipedia administrators, that they liked what we've done here, and would like to try out some of the techniques in other areas of conflict on Wikipedia. So congratulations!  :) I know that some of the things that we did here were not easy, but I really appreciate how much everyone was working hard to learn new ways to communicate and edit. I have especially been pleased when I saw people reaching out to former enemies, and be willing to forgive and move forward.

As the first step of formalizing this Experiment into something that other people can study, I'd like to move this page to a new home, so it's no longer an "experiment". Any ideas on what a good name would be? Other projects have used things like "Cooperation board" or "Reconciliation project", but we're open to new suggestions as well. I am also open to any feedback that anyone has about how this Experiment developed over the last month or two, and ways that we could have done things better. Or, if there was anything that you thought was particularly helpful, which we should be sure to teach to other folks who are trying to deal with complex disputes, please bring it up! Thanks, --Elonka 04:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Selling the format, huh? :) I think this page should stay as a common notice and talkboard for this topic, and should be renamed to reflect that. My suggestion would be "Slovak-Hungarian common talkboard" or something similar. --Rembaoud (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice suggestion. Or something like "Cooperation board Slovak-Hungarian topics". One of my concerns is that several editors dropped out of the discussion, the main reason seems to be frustration over misbehaviour of other (incl. anonymous) editors, it might be a good idea to ask them why they left. IMO the main advantages of the experiment are the "no revert restrictions" and someone (Elonka) who instructs the participants to discuss in a civil way. Markussep Talk 20:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is really good idea. I hope that editors who seem to have left Wikipedia for a time would later rejoin us. Borsoka (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I left because I am interested in serious editing, that is addition of new and sourced facts and correction of any inaccuracies. I am not interested in petty arguments about editors' personal goals and interests that don't seem to have much with what Wikipedia should be.--Svetovid (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that the editors who "left" have gone on to other hobbies. It is fairly typicaly that people in online communities participate for a period of time (usually 6-18 months), and then they move on. But as older voices leave, newer voices arrive. It's a constant flow.  :) So, for a new title, Cooperation board for Slovak-Hungarian topics works for everyone? --Elonka 04:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK with me. Markussep Talk 22:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Community review

Hi all.  :) A question has come up about some of my methods on managing articles, and whether or not I am using good judgment as an administrator. I therefore invite anyone within reach of this page who has an opinion on the matter (good or bad) to participate in the discussion: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka. --Elonka 18:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Elonka, I think you have been in an extremly sensitive position, because as we have experienced, even the existence of certain former states may be a crucial issue in our region. I think you assisted us to understand that the history of our region can be interpreted in several ways, and interpretations that differ from the ones we have learnt may be valid, as well. My feeling is that there are several editors on both sides who cannot accept this diversity of views, but I hope that step by step a kind of consesus would develop among us. Borsoka (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary–Slovakia relations

I´m not quite sure if this page is still active but I´m gonna give a shot. Over past few weeks there has been flame war in Hungary–Slovakia relations article between primary myself and Hobartimus about the look of the page. My point of view can be seen on discussion page, Horbatimus probably as well but it´s going nowhere and I really don´t have neither patiente or time to watch over every edit of Horbatimus, and I guess he either don´t have mood for protecting it before my edits. I asked already for third party to help end this flame war, but the response haven´t arrived yet. Major concerns in article are primary in language law section. Especially about deleting or not deleting the memorial passage and than interpretation and forcing the point of view in article. If you could be take the position of third party in this case and resolve it, it would be great, I want to just stabilaze this article. --EllsworthSK (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:HU-SK