Talk:Cluj-Napoca

More information in the introduction please

I think that the introduction should also include information on the Middle Ages within it, in order to be an accurate summary of the history section as well. In other words, the introduction should also include information on the fact that the Transylvanian Saxons developed the city during the Middle Ages and that they lived there in majority before the Transylvanian Hungarians became the dominant ethnic group followed by the Transylvanian Romanians later. The Transylvanian Saxons re-populated the city starting in the 13th century. Of course, everything historical pertaining to these claims should be very well referenced.

For some odd way of reason, it was decided that a previous edit which summed up those things (as later described in the history section) was 'poorly' formulated or written, although it was historically accurate and without any grammar or vocabulary errors at all, just as in the history section. I am not going to write this again, because it is superfluous and counterproductive given the fact that it's very likely going to be deleted again (because it is allegedly 'poorly' formulated), although there is no proper reason for that at all. Instead, I am asking for consensus here, if possible, on behalf of other users. Going all of a sudden to the Modern Age in the introduction and skipping the Middle Ages altogether is not only historically inaccurate, in my humble opinion, but also not entirely alright encyclopaedically as well. In addition, information should be better chronologically ordered overall (it obviously gives a better and more logical reading experience). Any thoughts please? Thank you very much in advance!

P.S.: But, before the Middle Ages, I strongly think that the introduction should also include information on the ancient age/late antiquity with respect to the city, in order to have a complete historical overview, well-established, neutral, and accurate. The English version of this page/article should be consistent as much as possible in terms of introduction with the Romanian version which includes the information I have requested and, not only that, but even more in-depth historically accurate information as well. All the best and thank you for your time, attention, and readership! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, for the late antiquity, there should be mentioned that the city was previously inhabited by Dacians and then by Celts before being ultimately conquered by the Romans. This also appears on the Romanian version of this page and is well referenced there. Ideally, the very same thing should be applied here with at least one reference supporting these claims. But, before doing this (or any other user with good faith edits), I truly need consensus because it would be deleted altogether otherwise... Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Cluj-Napoca Cluj Arena 5.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary flag symbol

Sumek101, if we want to reach an agreement, the problem should be clear: Cluj-Napoca was part of Hungary, not Austria. Therefore, the Austrian flag is incorrect. Also in an informal way for the same reason you disliked the third one. Also in a way where it signifies the Habsburg family. So what do you think about using the Hungarian flag? Gyalu22 (talk) 06:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Austria-Hungary was a Dual Monarhcy, only the military, foreign affairs, and monetary was common. Austrian emperor was crowned as King of Hungary. Hungary and Austria had a separate citizenships inside the monarhcy. This city belonged to the Kingdom of Hungary, so the Kingdom of Hungary flag for that period is correct. List of Hungarian flags

https://hungarymap360.com/img/1200/ancient-hungary-map.jpg.webp

https://tile.loc.gov/image-services/iiif/service:gmd:gmd6:g6030:g6030:ct002033/full/pct:25/0/default.jpg OrionNimrod (talk) 12:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Gyalu22 Thank you for starting this discussion thread. First of all, the black-yellow flag was not simply the „flag of Austria”. This is „Reichsfarben flag” (imperial colours flag) of Habsburg dynasty ruling the Austria-Hungary and often used as a symbol of this country, as the most important thing that unites it. It is certainly a better representative of this country than the ensign of the merchant navy (the use of which to represent land formations is bizarre). The nationality of this city can also be correctly represented as part of the Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen (under the Hungarian flag) in Austria-Hungary. But please don't use the merchant navy ensign here (luckily we finally got rid of this terrible mistake from en wiki). Regards Sumek101 (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I see it was many debates about the flag in the Austria-Hungary topic, honestly I do not understand. Austria-Hungary was in the beginning of the 20th century not in the time of the cavemen. It should be know what was the flag, maybe it was not a common flag just raised the Austrian and Hungarian flag together. I think it would be good to ask experienced local historians about this. OrionNimrod (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The internal situation of this country was exceptionally complicated compared to other countries at the turn of the 19th and 20th century. For this reason, this country has never created anything like a state flag. Any use of flags in the context of the entire country was only unofficial and, apart from a few situations, was not regulated - that is why these problems arise. Austria-Hungary does not fit into our modern habit of perceiving countries and their individual flags as something obvious. Sumek101 (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary did not have a complicated structure. Read this legal history stuff here, and you will understand it: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Austro-Hungarian_Compromise_of_1867 The constitutional structure of USA or Switzerland were always much more complex than the Austro-Hungarian.--Pharaph (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

• There are uncited passages in the article, including entire paragraphs. There is also a "citation needed" tag from 2016.
• The "History" section does not give much information post-1989, while the 20th century gets several paragraphs. I think the history section needs to be trimmed and some recent events included.
• The article, at over 11,000 words, is considered WP:TOOBIG and should probably be trimmed or information spun out I think lots of information, such as prose in "Sports" and "Culture and media", can be removed.

Is anyone interested in fixing up this article, or should it go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Cluj-Napoca

The following discussion 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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

There are uncited passages in the article, including entire paragraphs. There is also a "citation needed" tag from 2016. The "History" section does not give much information post-1989, while the 20th century gets several paragraphs. I think the history section needs to be trimmed and some recent events included. The article, at over 11,000 words, is considered WP:TOOBIG and should probably be trimmed or information spun out. I think lots of information, including some prose in "Sports" and "Culture and media", can be removed. Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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.