Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Eastern EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject Eastern EuropeTemplate:WikiProject Eastern EuropeEastern Europe articles
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romani people, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romani people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Romani peopleWikipedia:WikiProject Romani peopleTemplate:WikiProject Romani peopleRomani people articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city of Rome and ancient Roman history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomeWikipedia:WikiProject RomeTemplate:WikiProject RomeRome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles
As editors Dahn and Biruitorul consequently revert my changes, I would like to explain what I changed and why.
First of all, I must remark that I deleted practically nothing from existing text, neither changed it in any significant way, only inserted additional information. Where small pieces of information was, however, changed, I give the reason below. Aprt from this, the additional information does not contradict the already existing text, neither corrupts it. It must be noted, that prior to my editions, there had not been any single reference to any kind of verifiable sources which did not help to make the article more Wikipedia conform.
1.) I added to the text under the picture of Mures County Prefecture that it was built as a City Hall. The information is correct and relevant as many know and call this building as the Old City Hall. The article itself also calss it ‘city hall’ and not as Prefectire Building both in its History and in Tourist Attractions section, so my additional text helps avoid ambiguity.
2.) The Hungarian form of Marosvásárhely was given a bold font, the same way as given the Romanian name Târgu Mureş. As the city is inhabited by two communities, and is officially bilingual as stated by the article itself, this change is fair. Mures county was also given in its Hungarian form as well for the same reasons. I suggest collegues Dahn and Biruitorul to check how toponyms are handled in case of other ‘sensitive’ for some people cases, e.g. Danzig / Gdansk or Istanbul / Constantinople, and they will see that my solution using both name is fair taking into account that in the mentioned cases, in historical sections before Polish / Turkish era, the cities are exclusevely mentioned in the respective German and Greek forms.
4.) In new section on the city'с location a brief description of тхе geographical situation was given. Location is a usual content in case of cities, deletion doen not seem warranted.. A Geography section can be found in the Romanian article of the city as well.
5.) History
Both Hungarian and Romanian Wikipedia articles contain a lot more information than this article, and much of the information I added are contained this or that way by these two articles as well.
Whether a piece of information is useful or not is largely dependant on someone’s cultural affiliations. As a respect for Romanian readers and those who are interested in Târgu Mureş as a Romanian city, I did not delete any information related to Romanian aspects of the city’s history or present, but it may also be expected from editors Dahn and Biruitorul not to delete information which, the same way, may be important for Hungarian readers or for those who happen to be interested in Marosvásárhely’s history or (also) regard the city as a place playing an important role in the history of Hungarians (too) and which has a large Hungarian community even in these days (too).
I would only be happy, if the article were improved by additional information relevant to the Romanian history such as the activity of Romanian illuminators (P. Maior , Sincai or Papiu Illarian) in the city, but I would prefer to leave this job for colleagues who are more familiar with Romanian history than me.
5.1. The sentence containing that the ‘city was first documented in 1332 in the papal registry under the name Novum Forum Siculorum was amended with the half-sentence saying and as Sekulvasarhel in 1349. As the first mention of the city’s Hungarian form is from only a couple of years later than the Latin form, it seems worth mentioning it. More than that, the Hungarian word „vásárhely” is the main part of the name and was also used by the Romanian population as ‘Osorhei’ until the 20th century.
It seems useful to mention here that the information given at the year of 1616 with respect to the name Târgu Mureş as the equivalent of Marosvásárhely (târg and vásár mean "Market" in Romanian and Hungarian respectively)is misleading as (i) Vásárhely mean Marketplace and not Market and (ii) the name Târgu Mureş is used only from the 20th century. Respecting other peoples work, I did not delete it, however editor colleagues Dahn and Biruitorul who are familiar with the Romanian language might explain the history of the current Romanian name like on the Romanian Wikipage which contains interesting information on this issue. This would be a more constructive approach than simply deleting and reverting other people's work.
5.2. The original article contains practically no information with respect to the medieval era, although, some people may be interested in it and the city’s history was full of event in the middle ages being the most important city of the Szeklers and being located very close to Saxons and the counties where the nobility lived. On the one hand, I agree that mediaeval history may contain information which may not seem relevant for some people but this belongs to the nature of the history of a far-away county seat, on the other hand, the same applies for the period spent by Avram Iancu is the city as an assistant lawyer. However, I suggest editor colleagues Dahn and Biruitorul to add preferably that Avram Iancu lived in the city between 1846-48 and passed his lawyer’s exams here which is informative for people for whom Avram Iancu’s presence is important instead of deleting other piece of information that may be interesting for people looking for information from the point of view of another community.
5.3. The stay of Petőfi and Bem in the city was not deleted even from the Romanian language article of Târgu Mureş.
5.4. Teleki Library is an important cultural curiosity of the town and has a Wiki article as well, so it seemed useful to mention it.
5.5 The information on Szekler Martyrs is an important piece of information for those who are interested in the Hungarian aspect of the town’s history. Mentioning them is not offensive for anyone else. See. Romanian page of Târgu Mureş.
5.5. The Old City Hall and Cultural Palace were not actually built in Transylvanian Secession Style for two reasons:
- secession is usually referred to as Art Nouveau in English (see Wikipedia article;)
- their architects were not ‘Transylvanian’ architects but happened to be from Hungary, and worked in the so called Hungarian 'national style' propounded by Ödön Lechner.
A half sentence after Hungary was occupied by Germany in 1944 was added to the sentence that Jewish ghetto was established in the city which makes events clearer. According to the article Marosvásárhely re-entered the Romanian administration at the end of the war in October 1944., which is not true as Romanian civil administration was expulsed from Northern—Transylvania by the soviets in 1944.
Information for the Hungarian autonomous province was only made clearer, and reference was made to residential districts and the fertilizer production plant which deeply influenced and still characterize the city-shape and local economy.
6.) I simply do not see any reason why illustrious editors like colleagues Dahn or Biroitorul simply delete pictures of churches which does not belong to Romanian religous communities from the ’places of worship’ section leaving only the place of worship of Romanian Orthodox Church in place. I hope this is a simple mistake, otherwise self-explanatory for the editors intentions.
7.) .he district-names are given in the Hungarian language as well. As approximately Hungarians make up nearly half of the population of the city 'officially bilingual' according to the unreverted part of the article this seems fair, reasonable and informative. The map added is of better quality than the already attached one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokarudi (talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made some draft for changes in order to have a better look on my workshop. If someone has comments it isn highly appreciated.Rokarudi 01:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Extremely POV
I had to remove the sentence suggesting that "Fascist Hungary's anti-Romanian and anti-Semetic policies seriously undermined the cities economic and demographic development" this is incredibly biased and lacks any factual basis. There is no mention of Ceauşsecu's anti-Hungarian policies under his leadership, and his systematic dilution of the Hungarian population by bringing in migrants from south-eastern Romania.Sch. Dávid
"Ceausescu bringing in migrants from outside Transsylvania, in order to dillute the Hungarian minority" is a well known urban legend in Transsylvania, perpetrated by Hungarian extremists and belived generally by illiterate Hungarians. Of course, during the last 90 years, 550.000 Romanians from South and East settled in Transsylvania and 250.000 Romanians from Transsylvania settled in South and East Romania. The balance (difference) of abb. 300.000 results in a migratory increase of 4% of the populatiaon of Transsylvania. The explication is simple: Transsylvania has a population density of 69 inhabitants per square km and large mineral ressources, many industrial job opportunities, etc. The South Eastern regions of Romania have a population density of 107 inhabitants per square km and fewer oportunities for industrial employment. Internal, economical motivated migrations within a country are common place in the world: Rheinland in Germany, Manchester and Glasgow areas in UK, Florida, California, Alaska and Texas in US, Provence in France, Northen Italy, etc, etc.
A the statistical archives revealed, most of the incoming Romanians settled in cities whitout Hungarian majorities and found employment in industry. Moreover, there is no trace of communist involvment in the migratory trend which started in fact long before communism (during the inter-wars period).
Therefore PLEASE REMOVE IMMEDIATLY THE CRAP PARAGRAPHS ABOUT ROMANIAN COLONISATION OF TARGU MURES !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.105.123.228 (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you write something in all caps, it does not make it true. Look at historical records and you can see the Romanian population of the city at just a few hundred at the beginning of the 20th century. Yes, it's true that most of them came from Romanian villages in Transylvania, but it's also true, that Hungarians could not easily get jobs inside cities with high Hungarian percentage in the time of communism. So please end the hate speech, this is an encyclopedia. --131.188.3.21 (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that there is no bilingual institut operating in Targu Mures.
POV?
Some of this seems a bit POV, especially the paragraph that begins, "In March 1990..." The person who wrote this is obviously trying to be even-handed, but on delicate matters like this, it would probably be better to cite conflicting view from responsible sources. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:31, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
POV2
The following paragraphs are extremely POV:
"After 1918 the city of Târgu Mureş, like the rest of Transylvania, was taken out of the control of the Austro-Hungarian empire and become part of Romania. As a consequence it started to have a significant economic success that lasted until World War II. The old provincial appearance changed greatly in this period. The spectacular city hall was built thanks to the economic success of the 1920s.
From 1940, under the Second Vienna Award, the city of Mureş was temporarily occupied by then-fascist Hungary. The anti-Semitic and anti-Romanian policy promoted by fascist Hungary seriously undermined the economic and demographic potential of the city. It re-entered the Romanian administration after 1944 when the Romanian army succeeded in liberating it."
During the period in question, the huge majority of the inhabitants were Hungarians, so it's unlikely they objected to Hungarian rule and that they felt liberated by Romanian forces. --Tamas 15:43, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There is some true in it, but I agree that is written from the romanian POV. It should be re-written in a more neutral way. MihaiC 19:26, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
1944
The entry originally stated Romanian forces liberated TM in 1944. While Romanians living there must have indeed felt liberated, Hungarians (who were at the time a dominant majority in the city) probably did not, to put it mildly. So liberated seems highly POV in this context, therefore I changed it to more neutral reoccupied.--Tamas 22:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Population
I note that someone recently slightly changed the population number (and what percentage are Magyar). We could use a citation for both of these numbers (total and %), though these are certainly not way out of line. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:41, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
The article talks about the "anti-Romanian policy promoted by Hungary" in 1940-1944, and rightly so. However, there is not a single word about the anti-Hungarian policies of the nationalist-communist regime from 195x to 1989. This is a gross imbalance which we have to address somehow. Any ideas?--Tamas 30 June 2005 15:26 (UTC)
Comments on Tamas' addition
Tamas, it's very good that you explained the demographic change, but there's one word that should be changed, because it doesn't fit the dictionary definition:
immigrant n.
A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another.
Also, it would need a bit of clarification on the origin of those Romanian people: In early 20th century, in most regions of Transylvania (with the notable exception of the Szekely land), Romanians had a majority in rural areas, while the Hungarians in the cities. With the industrialization, cities grew and people from around the villages around the cities moved in the cities and changed the ethnic balance. This has not happened in areas where there were compact populations of Hungarians, both in rural in urban areas, like the Szekely Land, where the ethnic balance is pretty much unchanged. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 30 June 2005 16:33 (UTC)
Well, I just found out that there is already information about this in the article, a the end of paragraph 5. And I think that's enough, I mean, Criztu got really crazy about my addition, so I cut it, I mean, it's already there, in a shorter form, so there is no need to overemphasize it. Off the record, the funny thing is that Targu Mures is in the traditional Szekely Land, although in a sense it is on the brink of that region. So I agree that this process was generally a natural one, but in the case of TM, there were some manipulations, so I heard, like many workers were actually moved in from the Old Kingdom. But of course I can't prove it. And also, if you look at Miercurea Ciuc, pre-1920 it was something like 95% Hungarian, and now it's only 80%, although it is in the middle of a compact area. So, in short, the main reason was really this natural phenomenon you referred to, but probably there were some manipulations as well. But anyway, I'm fine with the formulation at the end of paragraph 5.--Tamas 30 June 2005 22:05 (UTC)
According to the 1992 census there were 51.66% ethnic Hungarians in Targu-Mures, yet in 2002 that percent dropped to 46.68 (in just 10 years hmm), do you suppose that this is also the result of some governmental scheme? Regarding Miercurea Ciuc, if I remember correctly a military garrison was formed there, couple that with the romanian speaking people (because most locals didn't speak romanian) brought into local administration by the communist regime, and take into account the fact that the city had a rather small population, and I think you'll be able to account for the most part of the missing percents (not all). In any case, since you've already agreed i removed that sentence. Staniol05:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The name (the combination) is not that common, in any case that young drummer is not famous and certainly doesn't belong in the same sentence with the other names. I never heard of another notable Felix Moldovan either. The user who made the addition also seems to have other random clownish edits (like this one or this). I'm removing it.
Panorama
The panorama was moved to the bottom with the comment "moved picture below according to Wiki's rule". What rule would that be? -- Jmabel | Talk23:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I noticed that Jmabel moved the page from Târgu Mureş to Târgu-Mureş. Is there any reason for this? The town is often written with the hyphen, but often also without. I don't object to the move, I just think that the hyphenated form may be less common (and stylistically, it is quite questionable, even if common, to hyphenate toponyms, in the form Miercurea-Ciuc, Târgu-Neamţ, etc.) Thanks, Ronline✉06:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The correct name is is with "-" like in the case of "Cluj-Napoca". I agree that there must be a redirect link from Târgu Mureş to Târgu-Mureş. Bonaparte talk07:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have no idea what is the official name of the city. You are just playing with the name. The official name of the city is Tîrgu Mureş.
You can't change it just because the Romanian orthography changed. The name of a city can be changed only by the government's decision. Even a change in a person's name requires the approval from the Ministry of the Interior. There is no hyphen in it. There is no "â" in it. Tell me, your name changes when there is a change in the orthography? You are contributing to this article and you even don't know the correct name. The example with "Târgu-Neamţ" is also incorrect.
Those who hold a birth certificate or a driving license from Tîrgu Mureş, can confirm that the name is written like this: Tîrgu Mureş, even after 1989.
So PLEASE stop playing with the name of the city.
on the city hall site [1] (the reference site) it's spelled Tîrgu-Mureş, while on the county council site [2] it's called Târgu Mures. I believe the later is wrong. If both the city hall and the county council are wrong, then it wouldn't be a big deal if wikipedia is wrong too. Qyd22:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the corect name is Tîrgu-Mureş...it's with î not with â - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.196.40.109 (talk • contribs) 23 May 2006.
I don't really care where the article unds up, just that the title match the article itself. Again, the reason I moved it is that the title did not match the article. If something else is more correct, fine, but please correct the article if/when you move it. - Jmabel | Talk03:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to Romanian alphabet the î in the middle of a word (as in Tîrgu Mureş) was abolished in 1993. About the hyphen: in Romanian wikipedia it's "Târgu Mureş", without hyphen, so I guess we should follow that. Markussep21:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no ojections, I'll request a move to "Târgu Mureş". There's edit history, so I can't move it myself. When it's moved I'll make sure the article text is adjusted. Markussep08:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
I think, that is Tîrgu Mureş .. I did not hear that names were changed from letters with 'î' to 'â' ..
I don't know very much, but see http://www.tirgumures.ro/e107/news.php << I think this is relevant .. If my name was one with 'i' in it, than my name will be changed?? I don't think so ..
Just as a suggestion :)
Sorry now seen, that this is discussed ... Correct one with 'î' .. I think also .. Somebody?
It is not "a" and "i", but "â" and "î" which in Romanian correspond to the same sound (/ɨ/). After the 1993 ortographic reform, the "î"'s which occur in the middle of words were replaced by "â". It is just an ortographic change, the pronounciation is the same. For more info, have a look at the Romanian language#Romanian alphabet. Mentatus10:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that .. That means .. If somebody who left Romania in 93 .. and sends a message to "Tîrgu Mureş", he get the letter back with a message "Inexistent city"? And if it was changed .. than the senior of Tg-Mures why put a table on city hall with "Tîrgu Mureş" and also on the net? That's just not right "CHANGING NAMES"? Who has this power? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.250.59.34 (talk) 09:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The letter will be sent correctly for both spellings. Even now in 2007 both can be found on inscriptions and companies official papers, so a lot of people still confound it. Most of us, however, tend to use "Tg. Mureş" instead, just to be sure. :) --V. Szabolcs05:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See ID cards, city hall tables, table at the entrance in the city and this letter from the mayor:
"Stimate domn,
În mod oficial, denumirea care prin lege a apărut în nomenclatorul localităţilor este ,,Tîrgu-Mureş". Aceasta nu a fost încă înlocuită printr-un alt act normativ, însă prin modificările gramaticale operate de Academia Română, este utilizată tot mai des denumirea ,,Târgu-Mureş". Aceasta nu a fost încă validată printr-o lege.
Purtător de cuvânt al Primăriei Tîrgu-Mureş, dir. exec. adj. Marius Paşcan"
Also see this comment from romanian wikipedia (sadly the city name is incorrectly written there too) >>
"Nu este vorba de cîrcoteală, ci de pura realitate (părerea mea e că faptul că numele oficial este ÎNCĂ Tîrgu Mureş este o informaţie utilă de trecut în Wiki). Oricine are un BI/CI de Tîrgu Mureş, vă poate confirma. Orice schimbare a denumirii unei localităţi se validează (conform legii) NUMAI în momentul în care apare în Monitorul Oficial (de altfel acest lucru este valabil pentru orice lege, nu numai pentru aceasta). De exemplu, numele Târnăveni este corect deoarece oraşul s-a ridicat la rang de municipiu şi atunci s-a publicat noul nume în Monitorul Oficial. Nimeni nu se înghesuie să facă shimbarea de nume pentru că acest lucru implică o groază de cheltuieli (schimbarea ştampilelor, a formularelor, a "firmelor" şamd). Aşa e cînd se votează legi fără ca nimeni să gîndească la consecinţe.
În ceea ce priveşte informaţiile de la Camera Deputaţilor, nu ar fi prima oară cînd se folosesc greşit informaţii. Dacă s-a dat vreo lege în care se foloseşte numele Tărgu-Mureş, probabil că aceasta ar putea fi lovită de nulitate..." Csabaengel06:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dahn ..
I can't see your point, because in ID cards , city hall and all other official documents are written with "î" ... In Romania (and many more countries) the names cannot be modified just like that. ... if you see my point... So I have an ID card from this year .. which says that i live in Tirgu Mures .. Also the letter above explains all ... In this momment the city where I LIVE is Tirgu Mures .. and NOT Targu Mures as you are suggesting. Probably in few years will be renamed .. but until than Targu Mures does not exist officially, that's the sad reality Elmao12:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elmao, please don't mix criteria. For starters, in order for your theory to stand, you would need to find a text using "î" in "Tîrgu Mureş", but "â" in all other words (with the academic exceptions I'm sure you are familiar with - composite words et al). Secondly, I have provided you with official texts that use "â" in all cases applicable, including in "Târgu Mureş" (their nature, btw, overrides the local inconsistencies). What you have managed to bring up so far is, as I have stressed before, the notion that not all the people who write Romanian write it according to academic rules (the situation is by no means new or unparalleled). Leaving aside your deduction, which is well-intentioned but spurious, I have to point out that this project has to apply a single rule, and that the rule in question would most logically be that of the language regulator (the most recent one passed).
As I side note: i don't particularly endorse this system otherwise than acknowledging that it is official; I have gotten used with â a long time ago, but I'll never get use nicio and niciun in my personal messages (as opposed to mainspace, if this should be the case). Dahn12:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To write only Romania with 'a'? :) ... oh .. and i'm not talking about rules or others .. I simply talking about ID cards .. and that says that I live in Tirgu Mures .. any objection? They wrote bullshits in my ID card?? on city hall? at the entrance of the city?? Elmao12:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was the academic rule at the time, replacing the earlier ruling that made no exception for the country name. Anyone who was in school back in the day will remember this being the case. Btw, the exception was not just for the country name, but also for its derivatives and for personal names that were never spelled with an "â" by their "owners" (such as "Brâncuşi" and "Agârbiceanu").
I don't see any merit in the "ID cards" argument, and I have explained above why it is of no relevancy to this discussion. For your claim that it is "official", you need to find a document saying that the "â" form is official, as opposed to the "î" form (good luck with that). The simple fact that the spelling varies, which is something we all knew in advance, does not weigh anything on the fact that, at least in this case, wiki guides itself by academic rules. Dahn12:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to be an academician to figure it out in which city do you live. So this story about academic rules does not matter.. the fact is that I live in Tirgu Mures according to all my official acts .. and what i already said .. And what do you say to the mayor's office? They are also wrong? funny .. So from now i will undo the article how much will require .. (if you don't have with talk about .. f*ck the rules .. and think logically .. the politics are greater then all rules Elmao12:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above does not strike me as a logical argument. The rules I mention apply to the Romanian language as a whole, and "Târgu[l]" is a word in that language (as is "Târgu Mureş" a name in that language). You say it is weird that they should apply to a city who, you contend, has not adopted the single rule due to some technicality. It is not the city's responsibility or privilege to regulate Romanian language, just as it is not its responsibility or privilege to regulate Hungarian or Chinese. I would find it exceptionally weird if that would be the case, and I have provided you official documents which designate the city with an "â", without ifs and buts. As for the mayor's office, it apparently uses both forms in chaotic fashion (it also uses no diacritics, but that doesn't mean that the city "is officially spelled without diacritics"...). Dahn12:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"academic rules are academic rules, and they are universal; any document you cite does not use â at all, and replaces it with î everywhere, not just in the city name. see my point?)" << you said .. >>> any document you cite does not use â at all, and replaces it with î everywhere .. that's right .. so it's used with 'i' .. officially . Elmao12:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand. it is common, both colloquially and officially, for people to drop "â" altogether, and replace it with "î" everywhere (except for "România" and its small lexical family). The academic rule is that this not to be done at all: we follow it in mainspace here (because we have to follow one rule), but people are at liberty to use whatever form they want in all other contexts. To complete my point, I have given you examples (official ones) where the â is not discarded anywhere, and as such is used in the city's name as well. The main thing you should focus on is that, if a document refuses to use "â" in all cases, it is not not proof that "Târgu Mureş" is an exception (since it will write "Tîrgu Mureş" in the same way someone would write "cîine" instead of "câine", "brînză" instead of "brânză" etc etc). See my point? Dahn12:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So this means .. the city has 2 names? Anyone knows about a city with 2 official names? Why do you insist to use with 'â'.. if oficially is with 'i'? I wish to know another opinions ... everyone? Elmao06:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What this means is that the language has two spellings, both of which can be used officially, only one of which is academic. The quirk in legal procedures adds nothing to this debate, since academic norms are prioritized in spelling every place name in central official documents, and since the fact that Târgu Mureş officials are unsure what to use makes no difference.
Erm. If this is what is discussed here: "known in Thai as Krung Thep Maha Nakhon or Krung Thep etc.". You say: "That city has also 1 official name ... also in thai 1 .. and another which is the shortest version". If that is supposed to indicate that "there are no two names", but that it is acceptable to have names of two different lengths, let me point out that the "two names" of Târgu Mureş are actually one, of the same length, written in two different ways. Which means that you are contradicting yourself.
And way to selectively pick comments to reply to. Why not do a little looking into the double names for Finnish cities, or for those in Xinjiang.
But, again, all this is beside the point, since I have made my case about what was of interest here a long time ago. Your apparent disbelief is evidence of a false dilemma, and relies on what is and is not familiar to you. Dahn13:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once and for all, the correct spelling is Tîrgu-Mureş. If you don't belive me please see http://www.tirgumures.ro/. This is the official web page of the city hall. Also, if this is not enaogh, please contact city hall in order to ask what is the correct speeling of the city. I did, and they said it's Tîrgu-Mureş. so please make all the changes, and if you insist to keep the wrong name I'll will contact someone in the wikipedia management. Hideg Andras
No, no, no. The arbiter of correct spelling in Romanian is the Romanian Academy (www.acad.ro), much like the Académie française in France. The city hall of Târgu Mureş has no authority to overthrow Romania's spelling reforms of 1993. --Sohoscribbler (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no. Just as we write Alecsandri and not Alexandri due to legal reasons (i.e. that was the guy's legal name), despite the fact that Academic rules of corect spelling stipulate that the "cs" sound should be written "x" in all contexts, we should definitely write Tîrgu Mureş and not Târgu Mureş for legal resons. Because Tîrgu Mureş is the official name of the city and thus the only correct name. The whole idea of the Romanian Academy having the power of regulating Romanian language rests on the concept that said power was given to it by the LAW. So the lawful official names of cities DOES very much constitute an exception even to the Academy's rules. Omulurimaru (talk) 07:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
March 30
Also, you are alleging that people who assert that it's Tîrgu Mureş are only contending that there are people that write it that way despite the Academy's rulings. That's false and a straw man's argument. The argument here is that the Academy regulates the spelling ordinarily, while there are special circumstances in which the rules do not apply (i.e. in the case of the name Alecsandri, which by the rules should be Alexandri, only it's not). Another important aspect is that it's not possible (in theory, in legal theory) for laws to contradict each other. The Academy has power to regulate the Romanian Language BY LAW (not by the grace of god, trust of the people, wizardry or alien intervention). So if there is another law which says that the correct name of the city is Tîrgu Mureş, than this can only mean that while the rule is to write with â, in the case of Tîrgu Mureş an exception exists and it's written with î, just as for Alecsandri while the rule is to write it with x, and exception exists in his case and it's written with cs.
But so far no one responded to this argument, that the rulings of the Academy do not necessarily mean that exceptions to the rule can't exist (they can, as proven), especially if said exceptions are codified by law, and especially since the only place the Academy gets its powet to regulate is the law.
So far everyone supporting writing with â has only used straw man arguments and it's been tried to allege that our argument is that there are private individuals that choose to disregard the Academy's rulings. While it is indeed true that such individuals do exist, that's not our argument. Our argument hasn't been answered. So, if no one answers it in a week's time I'll change the name to Tîrgu Mureş (its correct legal name) and I'll keep doing so untill my arguments cease being ignored. It's not a common noun people, it's a LEGAL NAME! One can even name a child Adriean for instance despite the fact it's gramatically wrong.Omulurimaru (talk) 10:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, please understand me, this discussion is old, what you are saying that the correct name of this city should be "Tirgu Mures" ? Adrian (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for the reasons stated by me above (and by other users in the previous discussion), which have not been addressed. As for the fact that the discussion is old as far as I can remember, policy is that nothing is set in stone on Wikipedia. These concers have not been answered, so the current consensus is not really a consensus after all. I know about about not flogging a dead horse, but this horse ain't dead at all trust me. Look if the city hall calls this city "Tirgu Mures" why are we insisting that the name IS "Targu Mures"? I mean, yeah, according to the grammatical rules that's what the name SHOULD be, but obviously we're dealing with an exception here since the city hall itself calls it "Tirgu". Maybe we'd LIKE it to be "Targu" maybe we think it OUGHT TO be "Targu", but the fact is that currently, despite the rule, its name is "Tirgu". Does anyone to state here that there can be no such thing as exceptions to spelling rules in Romanian (see the "Alecsandri" exception for that). Look, we all know that by the rules it should have been "Targu". Only it's not -- this is not a common noun it's a legal name and it's "Tirgu"; just look on the plates at the city hall.
Wikipedia's role isn't to advise local governments on what the correct spelling of a name SHOULD be, it's to accurately report what the name actually is, even if said name violates spelling rules. And in the current state the article does not reflect factual reality, it only reflects what we think SHOULD be. But the reality is different. Now, I'm not particularly attached to this issue, so if I see these arguments in some way addressed I'll let it go. Omulurimaru (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you are right. The official name of this city is spelled "Tirgu Mures", but according to the orthographic change from 1993, the "î" if occurs in the middle of one word should be replaced by "â". The pronunciation remains the same. Since this issue is unsolved I propose asking for a third opinion? I don`t know really.. I want to help but I don`t know which form would be the best in this case. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know what the spelling rules are. My main argument is that because this is a legal name, it is an exception and the correct form is the legal form, in the same way that Vasile Alecsandri, Adriean Videanu and Klaus Iohannis are correct, despite the fact that it should have been Vasile Alexandri, Adrian Videanu and Klaus Johannis. Indeed I would ask all interested to carefully review my argumentation and in some way address it. If the issue is in anyway addressed I'll drop it. But till now everyone seems to argue only about WHAT the correct spelling is. Ok, we know what the spelling is but the argument is that the spelling rule is irrelevant since this is a legal name and thus an exception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omulurimaru (talk • contribs) 20:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But Odorheiu Secuiesc has 96.7% romenian and Târgu Mureş is majority Romanian. We speak about this article now, so please explain your revert and please say why romenian name is added into this article? Tarile Romane17:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The cut-off point between bolding/not-bolding is still being discussed. If you would like to express your opinion of the compromise and how it should be worded, the proper place is at the aforementioned talk page, not here. Olessi17:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've got to be kidding me. Can you tell me why all the names in this article are in Hungarian and then translated into Romanian? This is Romanian. there is only one name of any given city/town/region, etc. One can translate that into any other language if one wants to. This is a Romanian teritory. Let's be serious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.174.198 (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Romanians are not barred from improving any Transylvania related or other article, if they have construtive additons ( other than reference to current political / territorial arramgements, and dominant ethnic position ). We have a lot of examples for good contributions. In sensitive cases, like this one, a formula satisfying all communities should be found. I do not see that names in minority languages should be treated as an offense by the country's dominant ethnie. The Romanian related content of the city, in my view, could be improved by adding relevant material. — (Unsigned by User:Rokarudi (User talk:Rokarudi) on 3 January 2010 15.28 (UTC))
I don't understand the original point being made here because it is in Romanian and, er, this is the English Wikipedia that requires that talk etc. be conducted in English. The gist of it that I get is concern over whether non-Romanian names should appear in this article (and others), and if so how much prominence be given to them.
Leaving aside the issue of this particular lead, here are the rules I use in my attempt for "a formula satisfying all communities" when using place names in articles that are different in different languages, and may be for places that are in different territories than they once were (e.g. Romanian, Croatian or Serbian places which were part of the Kingdom of Hungary):
At first use:
When the text is not about some event in the past, put the current name of the place first, in the majority language used in the territory it resides, and follow it with other names in other languages that are appropriate to the article's subject. For example, "Târgu Mureş (Template:Lang-hu)" may be appropriate to a Hungary-related article, but not to a Germany-related one.
When the text is about some event in the past, if the place went under a different name, put that name first (for example, "Vásárhely (now Târgu Mureş, Romania)". If even at that time it went under more than two names, put the one most closely related to the subject of the article first.
In either case, link to the place name as it currently stands, which is usually the name of the article. Linking to both is at best redundant, one being in general a redirect to the other, and worse may be misleading if it links to somewhere else.
For subsequent uses, just use the name as it was first used, which may be considered as the defining name solely for the purpose of that article (i.e., does not imply that it should be used thus in other articles). This just saves unnecessary repeats of the alternatives.
At all times I try to bear in mind what the likely reader will make more sense of. It is no surprise, for example, that articles I've edited about historical Hungarian subjects tend to say "Pozsony (now Bratislava, Slovakia)", for example, because a bald statement that such events happened at Bratislava, Slovakia is simply false.
I appreciate, though, that this is not the point under discussion here, which is, should the Hungarian be bolded in the lead? WP:LEAD#Foreign language is quite clear on this point: "Do not boldface foreign names not normally used in English, or variations included only to show etymology...". Here, we must assume (also considering that what goes before it) that "Târgu Mureş" is not itself considered "a foreign name not normally used in English", i.e. it would be (probably without the diacritical marks) the usual English name for the place, but even if not it is patent from the examples given that it's expected that the title name itself should be bolded.
Since this is a place in Romania there is no sense for selecting it as a Hungary project. If someone thinks different, if they could explain why, with valid reasons(not disputed regions that can`t compare with a normal country). Wiki projects x are mainly marked like that for people that live in x country regardless of ethnicity. Also it states This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Hungary and places that are not in Hungary are not in Hungary`s coverage. Adrian (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point as you have sometimes done in the past too. This tag does not mean that the town is part of Hungary, but only that it is part of a project (like Lviv (Poland, Ukraine), Wroclav (Poland, Germany), Ceuta (Portugals, Spain) or Pristina (Kosovo, Serbia). As editors from these two projects are the main contributors, I do not see any reason why you are so upset. Moreover, sorry to say, it was you who started this controversy by deleting the Hungary tag. However, I would personally be most happy if i was invited to particpate in wikiproject Romania (as one of the most active contributors to places in present-day Romania.Rokarudi --Rokarudi 23:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are comparing Kosovo with Romania ? Wikipedia is about facts not felling, you misunderstood me, I am not upset, it is just unreasonable as I said it before. I quote Moreover, sorry to say, it was you who started this controversy by deleting the Hungary tag - It was tagged as a Hungary project which is obviously wrong. What controversy is there about this? Can you explain it please? As I said, Wikiprojects are categorized by their country location and not by history. Using the "history logic" we can put in whole Eastern Europe that one was a part of Ottoman Empire as a Ottoman wiki project? It has no sense. Adrian (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After checking the examples you provided, only one was valid , Wroclav, since others are disputed regions/autonomous regions/cultural centers. Adrian (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Iadrian, I responded to your request adressed to me: Please check other examples and stop adding Hungary wiki project in innapropriate places. This can`t be both wiki projects since this location is only in RomaniaI proved that such examples do exist, more than that abudantly. Out of the examples only Pristina is a disputed territory, while Lviv and Ceuta has not more link to Poland or Portugal than Targu Mures / Marosvásárhelyare with Hungary. It will not be a fruitful discussion, if you always say, yes, BUT.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 12:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Eastern Europe, a WikiProject related to the nations of Eastern Europe. - As this place has a significant Hungarian population and this is an project covering Hungary(a nation in Eastern Europe, Hungarians) this projects covers this page perfectly.Adrian (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there nothing in this article about the Jews from Tirgu Mures who were rounded up and murdered in 1944?
There were thousands. Why is there nothing written about them?
My relatives were among them. I'd like to see something written here about the Jewish community that was exterminated. I know very little about it, but I'll bet some of the writers have information that could be added.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Support. The use of s-cedilla (ş) instead of the s-comma (ș) was due to technical limitations (see S-comma article for details). Now that those no longer exist, move to the correct spelling. If this request and related ones (here and here) are successful, I urge their application to all Romanian names. — AjaxSmack01:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your points, but bare in mind that Windows XP is 35.21% of the market, the other 65.79% are other systems :) that don`t have this problem. Romanian wiki probably did`t started this correction of the s-cedilla. Adrian (talk) 08:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Sapientia Hungarian University of Transilvania.jpg Nominated for Deletion
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
Since this is a problem now, I will try to explain in several points:
Please read how it is beign used the "native" section in the infobox [3]
Alternative name cannot have the same font size as the official one - I hope this is understandable also - see this
Also if you pursue the "native" name, ignoring the usage of it, can you prove that the Hungarian alternative name is the native one? Or the Latin one? Or after all the Romanian one?
The whole purpose of the usage on native name on English wikipedia is when the English version of the name is more popular than that nation`s version, and then we include that nations verion under "native", if that would be the problem here, the Romanian version would be under native and not any other alternative.
- Examples of the "native" usage on English wikipedia:
The Hague - Den Haag (Dutch) ;
Article Riga (Where the Russian population is similar to the Hungarian percentage here), go to edit the article and notice the difference.
Article Germany, all this examples illustrates the usage of "native_name" in the infobox, and none is using it`s alternative or minority names to display it here.
Other than to push for the alternative name to be more visible in font size (which is not according to other examples and no constructive purpose at all), what motive there is for a name, any name to present as a problem when under "other name" when the reader can`t see/know this difference except when editing? Adrian (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Main article photo
Isn't that photo a bit unrepresentative? For example, it doesn't have a clip of the Palace of Culture or the Mayor's Hall, but it has lesser insignificant churches in it and sunsets....
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose - This was discussed several times. According to the orthographic change from 1993, the "î" if occurs in the middle of one word should be replaced by "â". The pronunciation remains the same. Since then, the name of the city changed from "Tîrgu Mureş" to "Târgu Mureș". Also google hits shows that Târgu Mureș is used much more often ([837 000 hits] - Târgu Mureș, [292 000 hits]) Adrian (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - technically, the nominator does have a point; in some "official" way, it may be the name was never modified in or after 1993, and yes, some (not all) government bodies continue to use î.
In sum, there may be a legalistic argument for the move, but in practice, as Adrian points out, common usage prefers the present title, which also fits with similarly named places. There's no particular need to move. - BiruitorulTalk18:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
.svg)
Ronline ✉ 06:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
