Jump to content

Talk:Sfântu Gheorghe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History

[edit]

I added the history info from the German interlang link, which seems to have taken its info from this link. Olessi 30 June 2005 00:41 (UTC).

Danube Delta

[edit]

There is also a village named Sfantu Gheorghe in the Danube Delta. It is at the Black Sea coast, at the most southern branch of the Danube. In this small and remote village there is a remarkably large cinema-resort, which is home to the annual Anonimul International Independent Film Festival. The village is only to be reached with a min. 2 hour boat trip from Tulcea. --145.99.202.92 23:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 September 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Consensus that this is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (closed by non-admin page mover) SilverLocust 💬 21:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sfântu Gheorghe, Transylvania → Sfântu Gheorghe – This page was moved unilaterally after 20 years. I contend it should be moved back, because this is the primary topic. This Sfântu Gheorghe is a city and a county seat, the others are villages. If we must disambiguate, the proper target is “Sfântu Gheorghe, Covasna”, because Transylvania is not an extant administrative unit. Biruitorul Talk 15:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There is no such thing as "Sfântu Gheorghe, Transylvania", only the city of Sfântu Gheorghe, in Covasna County, Romania (plus some communes and villages by the same name here and there) — the only such city by this exact same name. What's next, move the Paris page to Paris, France, in order to avoid possible confusion with Paris, Texas? OK, I'm exaggerating a bit, but still. Turgidson (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Biruitorul and Turgidson. I've interacted with Stickhandler before. Mostly good edits but they do not seem to understand the concept of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Stickhandler, if a topic with a certain name is much more popular or well-known than other topics with the same name, it is considered that it does not need any disambiguation. Even if it did, the correct procedure would be to request a formal move (WP:RM) or to initiate a discussion on the talk page.
Stickhandler, you had already messed up when moving Ion Creangă, the clear primary topic, without discussion. I made it be moved back but there is now over a hundred of indirect links due to the move you made because other editors instantly disambiguate the links of an article with many incoming links (without checking if there might be an explanation for there suddenly being hundreds of links needing disambiguation, Onel5969). And now you have created the same situation again, which someone will have to clean up. Stickhandler, may you please follow Wikipedia procedures and stop moving pages without discussion? There might be a reason why they've kept the same name in a project with millions of users for decades, don't you think? Super Ψ Dro 10:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested the move to be reverted at WP:RM/TR [1]. Super Ψ Dro 10:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sfântu Gheorghe: 2130 views in the last 30 days. Sfântu Gheorghe, Tulcea: 128; Sfântu Gheorghe, Ialomița: 18; Iernut (from now on the villages don't even have their own pages but redirect to the commune they belong to): 166; Băneasa, Giurgiu: 28; Crevedia Mare: 30; Sfântu Gheorghe branch: 142. The move is problematic, and the former name is not, as this town is the clear primary topic. Super Ψ Dro 10:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason you prefer Sfântu Gheorghe, Covasna County when we currently have Belin, Covasna, Bixad, Covasna, Bodoc, Covasna, Catalina, Covasna, Cernat, Covasna, Mereni, Covasna, Turia, Covasna, Vâlcele, Covasna and Valea Mare, Covasna — all without “County”? Biruitorul Talk 12:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no. Simply putting Covasna would definitely work. Right now, that exists, but points to the dab page, so we could simply retarget. Onel5969 TT me 16:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- the "Transylvania" move frankly makes no sense, and any "Covasna" addition seems just as redundant. Dahn (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Though idk why the nom didn't simply revert the move themselves or did so via WP:RM/TR as a page can have the title reverted provided it was only at that title for a short while (up to a year) per WP:RMUM.
  • Oppose - I'm with @Onel5969: on this one, regardless of low-grade sniping. Besides the evident language barrier, s/he's a local and is too close to the subject for proper editorial remove. Unfortunately most of the other supporters are all foreign editors. I needed to disambiguate when I found a passage Russia–Turkey_relations#Black_Sea_Grain_Initiative here that Sfântu Gheorghe (without the move, in Covasna County) resolved into a non sequitur inland instead of on the Black Sea. Hideous abuse of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by a distasteful @Super Dromaeosaurus:. Stickhandler (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment is beside the point. Yes, we occasionally have to link to other places called Sfântu Gheorghe. No, that doesn’t mean the Covasna Sfântu Gheorghe isn’t the primary topic. That it is the primary topic has been demonstrated by page views. We can go further, citing incoming links, population, size, status (county seat versus village), history and so forth. By every available measure, the subject of this page is the primary topic and needs no disambiguation. Biruitorul Talk 14:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if you think others are engaged in "low-grade sniping", you should not accuse other editors of "hideous abuse" and call them "distasteful". That is a personal attack. Toadspike [Talk] 12:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why would any editor supposedly being "local" (meaning what: from Sfântu Gheorghe? Covasna County? Transylvania? Romania? Europe?) or "foreign" (again, what exactly does that mean in the context of Wikipedia?) have anything to do with anything regarding this discussion? Actually, I do find this non sequitur distasteful. Turgidson (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. then Romanian if @Turgidson: prefers. This wikipedia is English and caters to English-as-a-first-language natives. I find this complaint to be querulous. The Romanian-language wikipedia might have other priorities because the city is located in Romania. As a Romanian-language it would be fine like @Biruitorul: says.
Then why stop at this change (done out of the blue, after 20 years when no one ever had any issue with the name of this page, as far as I know), and not start changing all similar pages, according to the same criteria. E.g., why leave Bistrița alone, and not change it to Bistrița, Transylvania, or perhaps Bistrița, Bistrița-Năsăud? After all, there are more localities, rivers, mountains, etc with this name (in full or in part) than with the name Sfântu Gheorghe. Likewise for Baia, a commune in Suceava County, when there are all sorts of other localities with this name, in all sorts of countries. Wouldn't this lead us into WP:CANOFWORMS territory? Turgidson (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Stickhandler: Not wishing to dismiss your comments above as a childish canard, I will take them at face value: may you please explain what precise reason would make "Romanian editors" prefer Sfântu Gheorghe, and educated, enlightened, "non-foreign editors", favor Sfântu Gheorghe, Transylvania, or the like? What, pray tell, is the implied assumption here? If it is that "non-foreign editors" are objective on this issue, why not go directly to stating what is objectively preferable about Sfântu Gheorghe, Transylvania, instead of trolling your fellow editors? (Prima facie, the attacks you spew appear a desperate attempt to draw in the taskforce imposing discretionary sanctions on Eastern European topics, by trying to make this dispute into an ethnic issue. When in fact it is a common-sense issue: "Sfântu Gheorghe in Covasna is/isn't a primary topic".) Dahn (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also this: "The Romanian-language wikipedia might have other priorities because the city is located in Romania." What does that even mean, Stickhandler? Aren't all other Sfântu Gheorghes also "located in Romania"? Dahn (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an English-language page, @Anonimu:'s proposal of Sfântu Gheorghe, Covasna is fine with me, and as @Onel5969: says: "standards for city pages are to include a modifier, if needed. There are other locations in Romania with this name," so a dab is indeed warranted.
Stickhandler (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Sfântu Gheorghe, Transylvania is obviously wrong. However, I think that "Sfântu Gheorghe" is rather ambiguous at least in the non-Transylvanian parts of Romania. A rough Google Books search in English language books using the mention of the Danube as a discriminator indicates a 3:2 preference for the town in Covasna over the village in Tulcea, which is pretty weak IMHO. Thus, my preferred title would be Sfântu Gheorghe, Covasna. Anonimu (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I find it perplexing that, in a context where the Danube is mentioned, the town in Covasna, which is located smack-bang in the middle of Romania and some 330 kilometers from the Danube (shortest distance) still wins by a 3:2 margin over a populated place on the actual Danube. And that this margin is then deemed "pretty weak". Dahn (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In case it wasn’t clear, I assumed that a hit on Sfântu Gheorghe along with a hit on the Danube implies Tulcea, while a hit on Sfântu Gheorghe with no hit on the Danube implies Covasna. Google Books shows about 5000 matches in English with Sfântu Gheorghe, I don’t have time to go through enough of them to figure out the ratio any other way. Anonimu (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be realistic here: Sfântu Gheorghe, Tulcea, a little village of 639 people, is simply not in the same league as the Sfântu Gheorghe, a town in the Székely Land of over 50,000 people, and one of only 41 county seats in Romania. The only geographical feature or locality containing "Sfântu Gheorghe" in its name remotely in the same league would be the Sfântu Gheorghe branch of the Danube. But those words always go together, like the Sulina branch, which simply cannot be confused with Sulina, or the Chilia branch, which cannot be confused with Chilia (now Kiliia), unless one tries very hard. Turgidson (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically you should be right, but Tulcea's Sfântu Gheorghe's strategic location provides it with a visibility far above the one you would expect for such a small village. The film festival and the fact that is seen as a hip tourist destination also add to this visibility. Furthermore, the fact that around three quarters of Covasna's Sfântu Gheorghe inhabitants rarely call their city by this name also makes me wonder if the town is really the Sfântu Gheorghe. Anonimu (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anonimu: Again, if I understood you correctly, you are suggesting that, per your own query combining "Sfântu Gheorghe" and "Danube", the town in Covasna still comes out on top. This would indicate that it is preeminent even in contexts where the Danube is mentioned on the exact same page -- with Covasna being nowhere near the Danube. Did I get this right? Because, if I did, then it looks to me like an argument for precisely why Sfântu Gheorghe of Covasna is the primary topic, the default "Sfântu Gheorghe". (This would also not be affected by Sfântu Gheorghe also having a more ancient Hungarian name, preferred by its majority inhabitants -- as long as wikipedia accepts the official name as a criterion, that point is moot. If the standard would be that the name used by most inhabitants is the article title, then sure, we would have it as Sepsiszentgyörgy and that would be that.) Dahn (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sfântu_Gheorghe&oldid=1249226028"