Talk:Cluj-Napoca/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Removed part

Cluj-Napoca became the only growing city developing between Bucharest and Budapest

This is also referenced from the Financial Times article.

What does it mean by "growing city"? Economically, virtually all the cities in Romania have been getting better recently. If it means population, there are other cities "between Bucharest and Budapest" which have increased their population. bogdan (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please abstain from removing such content that is referenced, because I wont allow that.--Danutz (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

But that's an obvious false information! There are several cities in Hungary which had population increase. I didn't check for Romania, but there could be some as well. Just because it's referenced, it doesn't mean it's true. bogdan (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Until someone brings a source saying different, I don't think it would be a probleme to include that source. BTW, which are those cities in Hungary that grew? --Danutz (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

For instance, Szeged:

• 2000 - 158,158
• 2005 - 162,889
• 2006 - 163,259
• 2007 - 164,883

bogdan (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, we twice mention "City Hall officials" in the lead, which makes this sound either like a news report or a press release; maybe some rewording or cutting would solve the issue. Biruitorul (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not a press release, but both sentences that contain the wording "city hall officials" reffer to the population, and, I think that the beaureau for "evidenţa populaţiei" is part of the city hall. About Szeged, where from do you have that numbers, please give me a source.--Danutz (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it is a press release, but that having the phrase, especially twice, makes it sound like one, and that ideally we could find some way around this. Biruitorul (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe you propose something more adequate for rephrasal, I'm not very well in English.--Danutz (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

• Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?

• If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?

• Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

I am in the process of reviewing this article. My first assessments are that it is very good, and can be promoted to GA with a couple of minor adjustments. Additionally, I have been making some minor copyedits along the way, cleaning up a few little things. Some of the major things that need to be addressed include:

• Statement in lead: "Monocle magazine identified Cluj-Napoca as one of the top five places worldwide that are due their turn in the international spotlight during 2008." Why is this significant? This is just speculation at this point, and only reflects the POV of the authors of the magazine in question.

In my opinion this is highly significant.--Danutz (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• "In 1541 Klausenburg became part of the independent Principality of Transylvania after the Ottoman Turks occupied the Hungarian Kingdom; a period of economic and especially cultural flourishing followed." The words "especially cultural flourishing" seems to put more weight on the cultural aspects, and makes the sentence sound awkward. I would remove the word "especially" here. There should also be a comma after 'in 1541'.

Done.--Danutz (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• The 'citation needed' tag in the crime section needs to be addressed before GA status. The section starts out focusing on one specific case from about 30 years ago, instead of focusing on crime in the current crime in the city. This should be fixed as well.

It starts focusing on what happened years ago, because that was the most dangerous criminal in the history of the city, and as this article about Cluj-Napoca starts with history, this section also does. I find more logical that a section should start with history. I added sources, rephrased, and inserted more recent history.--Danutz (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Fix this seriously long run-on sentence: "Efforts made by local authorities in the Cluj-Napoca district at the end of the 1990s to reform the system to protect the rights of children and to assist street children proved insufficient due to a lack of funding, coherent policy and the absence of any real collaboration between the actors involved (Child Rights Protection Direction, Social Assistance Service within the District Directorate for Labour and Social Protection, Minors Receiving Centre, Guardian Authority within the City Hall, Police)."

I somewhat rephrased this sentence.--Danutz (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Please see the 'dubious' tag added regarding the "according to an official from city hall" comment. An official from city hall is not a reliable source, and the citation provided is in Romanian, which can't be verified by English-speaking readers. The sentence needs to be rephrased, and a better source should be found.

The source gives a quote of Sorin Apostu, director of the Technical Service of the Cluj-Napoca City Hall: "at this moment, in the city live 504 thousand people, including sudents and other non-residents". I didn't find another Internet source saying that, but I think the afirmation should be included in ther article, maybe only rephrased. Can you propose something perhaps? --Danutz (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I disputed that figure, too. As long as it's not an officially released figure, it's just speculation. Also, students are supposed to register with the local authorities for their stay in the city. Some of them fail to do that, but certainly not enough to boost the population from 300,000 to 500,000. bogdan (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Just the non-resident students make up more than 100.000. The figure is official, don't worry, it is not a number invented by that person, just that we donnot have an Internet source about that. The population in the city, might be even higher than that number. However, I'll continue to search for a source.--Danutz (talk) 09:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I added a new source, and official data from the Statistical Office.--Danutz (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• "but Regele Ferdinand and 21 December 1989 avenues also feature high rental costs." I'm confused at this statement. What does the date of Dec 21, 1989 have to do with this? is that part of the name of the company or something. I would rephrase this to clarify exactly what is being said here.

21 Decembrie 1989 is an avenue. But it should stay 21 Decembrie 1989 with quotetion marks, but I see now somebody translated it, and it removed those marks.--Danutz (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have reviewed up to and through the 'economy' section thus far. I will finish reviewing in the next couple of hours. In the meantime, I have adjusted the GA status to on hold and posted a few comments that you can work on in the meantime. Thanks! Dr. Cash (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• The 'arts and culture' section is a bit awkward beginning with the large panoramic image, and very little introductory text. There should be more of an introduction here, and the panoramic image should probably be moved and/or reduced in size.

Done. However, I maintained the photo, as it is a panoramic image, and I see many other articles contain such panaromic pictures.--Danutz (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• "An important eclectic ensemble is Iuliu Maniu street, built completely symmetrically after the Haussmann urbanistic trend." -- built 'completely symmetrically' just doesn't sound right. This could be phrased better.

Rephrased.--Danutz (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• "Performing arts are one of Cluj-Napoca's strongest cultural elements..." -- says who? This could be interpreted as a matter of opinion.

• Why is "Transylvania" in "Transylvania" Philarmonic in quotes here? It should be referred to as the name of the orchestra, and quotes are unnecessary.

• There are several red links to bands in the 'music and nightlife' section, and there's no citation on these bands. I suspect that someone may have inserted some relatively non-notable and insignificant bands here, and their articles were ultimately removed. The red links should be fixed, and citations should be added to insure that these bands are indeed notable. Please see 'fact' tags inserted.

• Please address the red link to National Museum of Transylvanian History. While red links to nonexistant are still acceptable at this stage, they shouldn't be used in image captions.

Done.--Danutz (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There's now a red link in the image caption for the Szeky Palace photo. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• "while the others are restricted to the city limits" -- are they in fact, limited to the city limits. It seems like it might be better to say that they're limited to the metropolitan area, since radio & television airwaves often travel further than arbitrary city limits?

• Education seems to focus more on higher education only, and has very little information on the primary & secondary (K-12, or the european equivalent, whatever that is) schools.

I don't think that is notably for the city. There are tens of highschools, and the definition of the system is eligible to Education in Romania, and not this article. Universities are notable to this cities, as it features the largest university in the country as well as the largest number of such institutions in the country, reported to its inhabitants.

Individual schools at that level, in a list, yes you're correct. Barely notable. It might be worthwhile to add some general statistics of the overall system or school districts; how many students, how many teachers. If any schools have national or international recognition, that might be worthwhile, too. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• The teams listed in the sports table don't seem to be very clear on which sport they play. I'm guessing they are soccer (football) teams, since the table was placed immediately following the intro sentence on football. Though, that is a poor placement of a table, with very short intro text, followed by a big table, and then more text (rest of section). I moved the table to the end, but I still think the table should be fixed up to make it more obvious what these teams are.

The table is placed imediately after the first sentence, because it adressed this sentence. Also notice the ":" mark after the sentence, and before the table. I rephrased the sentence, maybe now it is better understood.

You might want to put the table at the very beginning of the section, because it just looks very bad with it after a very short introduction. I also notice that the teams are generally all soccer teams, and not different sports. Usually, the sports section of city articles has a table with all of the top-level, professional teams in the section; other club sports are just noted in the prose. Unless these are all professional teams, I would strongly recommend eliminating the table and converting to prose. It would also not be hard to do, as the as 'notes' column already has some good prose. I think if you do that, the sports section will look A LOT better. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• The 'gallery' section is acceptable, but I would place it as the very last section before 'see also'.

• The 'Portrayal in film and fiction' section seems incomplete. Two bullet points, and the quote wasn't very obvious to me that it was part of the second bullet point. It might make more sense to include this with the 'media' section; for example, rename 'media' to 'media and popular culture'. I'd recommend trying to convert the bullet points to prose, and discuss how the city is tied to various films & movies. IMDB can be a huge resource for this. For an example of how to do this better, see Flagstaff, Arizona.

Done.--Danutz (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Not real crazy about the extra panoramic image in the 'external links' section. It almost seems as if editors are trying to cram an extra image in the article, as images are very rarely placed in the section. I won't hold up GA for this one, but I think the image could be better placed.

• Not a huge issue, but the images 'Image:Cladirea biscuite Cluj-Napoca.jpg' and 'Image:BRD tower Cluj-Napoca.jpg' does not have an image description.

• The image 'Image:Palatul Banffy interior.jpg' appears to be a copyrighted image with no attribution to the photographer. Permission needs to be provided here.

The permission is granted, I translated the sentence in its description at Image:Palatul Banffy interior.jpg.

I think once all of these issues are addressed, the article will meet the Good Article criteria and can be listed. Please, also see the comments below in the subsection, as they are also important to GA promotion. Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words

The intro section has three instances of weasel words:

according to an official from City Hall

according to Sorin Aposto, director of the Technical Service within the City Hall ("Apostu a precizat cã, în prezent, în municipiu locuiesc 504.000 de oameni, cu tot cu “studenti şi flotanti”. ")--Danutz (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

according to real estate experts

according to an analisis of the real estate agency "Profesional Casa" ("arată o analiză a agenţiei Profesional Casa")--Danutz (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

according to officials at City Hall

idem 1; i just didn't thought it is so relevant to insert such data like the names of the real estate experts. But you can well insert them.--Danutz (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me quote the source article: Cluj has more than 100,000 students spread over nine universities, and while this attracts employers tempted by the pool of skilled labour, population growth is projected to lead to the city’s population more than doubling in the next 10 years.

It doesn't say who made the projection. Of course, you can assume that it was the local authorities. If that is so, was it published anyware? bogdan (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

bogdan (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious from the article. I'll make it more clear to you: "population growth is projected to lead to the city’s population more than doubling in the next 10 years." This is a source of pride to city fathers. Sorin Apostu, a manager at City Hall, says: “We are the only growing city developing between Bucharest and Budapest.” What do you understand by that? For me is clear that the article narates briefly what Sorin Apostu said in an interview, otherwise, of what would he be proud. And saying that Cluj is the only growing city developing between Bucharest and Budapest, without specifying the projection. If I didn't make myself clear, please point again what you didn't understand, so I can explain further. --Danutz (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

also, throughout the article:

"the origin of the name Napoca or Napuca is also disputed between historians. Some put its genesis"

"others relate it to"

"another group asserts"

bogdan (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I also rephrased the Etimology section.--Danutz (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added this section as a subsection under the GA review because these issues should be addressed prior to GA status. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

GA status

I believe that most of the issues have been addressed, although I'm still not too crazy about the Monocle magazine thing (bordering on POV). Though it is cited, so I'll let it pass GA. Not sure if this would pass WP:FAC review or not, though? I'd still recommending demoting the 'law and government' section, but this is mostly semantics. I think most US & north american city articles have the government section near the end (government, education, transportation as the last three main sections); european cities seem to have a greater emphasis on government sections in their articles. Oh well,... the debate continues.

Overall, good work! Informative article. Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Banca Transilvania

as the largest Romanian-owned commercial bank

Misleading: it's not wholly Romanian-owned. 38% of its shares are owned by foreign citizens and foreign-owned companies. bogdan (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The majority of shares is Romanian, that means Romanians control the bank.--Danutz (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Relatively small area

The boundaries of the municipality contain a relatively small area, of 179.52 square kilometres (69.31 sq mi).

Relatively small compared to what? Bucharest, which has more than six times the population, has an area of 228 sq. km. Other Romanian cities with similar population have smaller area: Timişoara 129 sq.km. or Iaşi 93.9 sq.km. bogdan (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, rephrased.--Danutz (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Population projections

I fail to see the need to emphasize this so many times. We have 2002 data; we'll have 2012 data in a few years. It's not like the population is tripling or something - modest growth, to be sure, and by all means let's have a 2007/8 estimate in there, but it doesn't seem to me we need to focus excessively on this one point. Biruitorul (talk) 06:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I added this data because it reffers to the population present in the city, and the method of calculus is different. However, the data is as official as that of the census, and it is more recent than that of the census (the difference is 6 years). --Danutz (talk) 08:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said, "let's have a 2007/8 estimate in there". That doesn't mean, for instance, we have to repeat the flotanţi bit twice; once is probably enough. Biruitorul (talk) 06:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Those are not details in my opinion, details would be a defalced situation of the floating population (on years). --Danutz (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Arts and culture paragraph

This might need some work. Two immediate questions: how does the ancient Roman town speak to "cultural life"? Might we cite for the "resurgence of its Romanian culture" claim? Brubaker makes the point that the city remained quite Hungarian up until the war, and Romanians frequently complained about this. They tried to create a second, "Romanian", centre around the Orthodox cathedral, though. Biruitorul (talk) 06:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The Roman town speaks to cultural life by its urban layout, preserved until today. This remark is important, as the introduction focuses on the migration of the center (from the old Roman town, to the Hungarian "foeter" (Piaţa Unirii), and the Avram Iancu Square —with the Romanian Cathedral). I clarified a little, I also added notes from Brubaker.--Danutz (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sentence in the lead

Thus Cluj-Napoca became the only growing city developing between Bucharest and Budapest

This is an opinion of Sorin Apostu, a manager at City Hall and though it is referenced, it doesn't seem to be true (neither on the Romanian nor on the Hungarian side). Squash Racket (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Pilsner Desk (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Twin cities

Sister cities are usually listed towards the end of an article about a city. The infobox is there for a quick overview of the most important data. What do other editors think? Squash Racket (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

We can give it a try. I wonder if the cities part of the infobox can be made collapsible? Biruitorul ^Talk 19:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Economy

I've cut out a few passages introduced by User:Sobelisk - they seem a bit repetitive - but I'll put them here for discussion.

Foreign investors over the past few years have included the Missouri-based Emerson Electric, which employs 400 people in its research facility in Cluj-Napoca. Emerson have also announced they will be investing €125 million to build five plants in Cluj, estimating a need for up to 2,000 employees. [...] A report in the Financial Times in March 2008 highlights Cluj-Napoca as the latest hot investment prospect. [...] Cluj-Napoca is home to more than 100,000 students spread over 10 universities, resulting in a highly qualified and skilled workforce - an attractive prospect for employers. Much of the software and IT activity in Romania is concentrated in Cluj, making it a major European IT centre. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Nickname - Treasure City

I live in Cluj Napoca, never heard of the nickname - Treasure City. Never. And it's stupid. I can't figure out what it should mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.82.44.61 (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You learn something new every day. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Capital of Transylvania

1. Every Romanian region does have an informal "capital": Dobrogea has Constanţa (whatever it was in the 19th century, it's the second-largest city in Romania these days); Moldavia has Iaşi (and your argument about it being a "real political capital" is invalid: what were Alba Iulia, Sibiu and Cluj if not the real political capitals of Transylvania?); Crişana has Oradea; the Banat has Timişoara; Oltenia has Craiova; Muntenia of course has Bucharest, and formerly Târgovişte. I don't think any of this is subject to real dispute.

2. I'm sorry, but the notion that saying Cluj is the "capital of the historical province of Transylvania" will lead to "misinterpretation" doesn't stand. Romanian sources routinely refer to it as such: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. The same is true of English-language sources: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15].

This seems to work smoothly for other countries: no one raises the spectre of "misinterpretation" if we say Évora is the capital of the Alentejo or that Poitiers is the capital of Poitou, even though neither of those has had any administrative capacity for decades or even centuries. Why act differently for a city in Romania? - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Biruitorul,

In this case we have facts:

1. Between 1790-1848 and 1861-1867, Cluj was the administrative city of (Grand Principality of) Transylvania (under the control of Habsburg (Austrian) Empire);

So, we could say that Cluj-Napoca is one of the historical capitals of Transylvania or Between 1790-1848 and 1861-1867, Cluj-Napoca was the capital of Transylvania;

2. Romania is organized administratively into 41 counties and one municipality (According to the Constitution of Romania);

So, no doubt, Cluj-Napoca is the capital (seat) of Cluj County;

3. To co-ordinate regional development projects and manage funds from the European Union and for statistical purposes, Romania is also divided into 8 development regions (according to the European regulations issued by Eurostat for the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics NUTS II territorial level). Romania's development regions do not have an administrative status, but each of these subdivision types does have a capital.

So, it is fair to say that Cluj-Napoca is the capital of Nord-Vest development region (exactly like Évora and Poitiers);

4. Considering the richest cultural traditions, we can say, of course, that Cluj-Napoca is the cultural capital of Transylvania;

P.S.:

I: The political (sub)divisions of the any territory is a very serious matter;

II. Alentejo is one of the 7 regions part of NUTS II subdivision in Portugalia (similar to Nord-Vest development region in our case);

III. Poitou-Charentes is one of the 22 administrative regions from metropolitan France, part of NUTS II subdivision in France (similar to Nord-Vest development region in our case);

IV. BTW, Constanta is the fifth largest city in Romania, last time when Constanta was recorded as the second largest city was in 1992 (but, actually, we can consider that is equal in size with Timisoara, Iasi, Cluj, Craiova, Galati and Brasov);

We want Wikipedia as a credible source of information, so we need our contributions to be with no vainglory, right?

Thank you,

(Rgvis (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC))

You didn't really address my points. At heart, this isn't about development regions, or counties, or the specific years when Cluj was the capital of the Principality of Transylvania. It's about the fact that today, each of Romania's historic regions (whether or not they have administrative capacity - and they do not) has what is commonly referred to as a capital. And it's about the fact that sources in English and Romanian (and no doubt Hungarian) routinely refer to Cluj as the "capital of Transylvania". This isn't some esoteric invention of mine - it's right there in the sources. Now please discuss these points, because that's what we're really arguing about. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Biruitorul,

Your references (sources) are personal opinions. Your explanation "the point is it's still the regional capital today, even without formal powers as such" is your personal opinion, I respect it, but, on the other hand, at heart, other persons consider Alba-Iulia, Blaj, Sibiu, or Brasov "the capital of Transylvania".

I consider that "Cluj-Napoca is the capital of the historical province of Transylvania" is not an acceptable wording in this context. The sentence needs to be changed in order to address a politically correct point of view and to avoid any misinterpretation or misinformation (from the heart or mind).

You came with Évora and Poitiers as examples, and I explained you why they are officially called the capitals of Alentejo and Poitou (facts).

The difference between fact and opinion: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Examples.

I have found official informations about Cluj-Napoca at [[16]], [[17]], [[18]], [[19]], [[20]].

I do not consider there is something to argue here. This is a false issue!

Thank you,

(Rgvis (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC))

Let's please stop with this purism and consider the importance this has for the reader: Cluj is generally and casually considered the capital of a historical region. It is also vital and informative, not tto say common sense, to at least mention the name Trnasylvania in the lede. Solomonially, the way to solve this is to add an "informal" in front of capital and be done with this. Dahn (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution, Dahn,

Yes, I totally agree, "Let's please stop with this purism and consider the importance this has for the reader".

We can say, indeed, that casually, or occasionally, Cluj is considered, by some persons, the, so called, capital of Transylvania, but this term, or definition, is accepted for other cities from Transylvania, too.

Historically, Transylvania has been an urbanized territory with more than one city in the "central place" (if you are interested: Central place theory). It was not only Cluj the city that dominated the social, political or cultural aspects of Transylvania, there were Sibiu, Brasov, Alba-Iulia (and still there are). So, saying that "Cluj is the capital of Transylvania" as an "exhaustive definition" is like showing disrespect for others (historically speaking, of course and ... common sense, right?).

What is Braşov if not a wonderful commercial, financial and cultural capital of Transylvania, not to say that it was the largest city for a long period of time, and, nowadays, is still larger than Cluj-Napoca considering metropolitan area? What is Sibiu if not a pride cultural, commercial, not to say an administrative capital of Transylvania? What is Alba-Iulia if not the sacred cultural and historical capital of Transylvania, not to say a political and administrative city for Transylvania, for more than 100 years?

Which one is, at the present time, more or less, "the informal capital of Transylvania"? This is more about personal feelings than an absolute truth!

My personal opinion is different than your personal opinion:

I do consider that "Cluj-Napoca is one of the historical capitals of Transylvania and one of the most important (cultural, economical, financial, commercial, etc.) cities in Romania, not only Transylvania".

Let's pay respect to other important cities from Transylvania, too!

P.S.: It would be very nice if you tried to keep your temper down! I will not pay attention to and I will not tolerate any rude and disruptive behavior. (I'm sorry but this is what all your "answers" show)

If you are not acting in a civilized manner, I can assure you that I am going to totally ignore you.

Thank you,

(Rgvis (talk) 09:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC))

First of all, I don't believe I have been rude to you, let alone uncivilized - I have pointed out, in clear terms, that simply moving an article around because you don't like its title is not a solution, especially since you don't seem to be aware/care about the consequences of that move. The remainder of your posts is an appeal to emotion, an equivocation of your personal personal POV and your original research with that present in the huge number of cited sources, and a false, nay, absurd claim that not getting things your way will result in confusion for the reader. This is why I don't consider the info you're removing even subject to a discussion - you're giving me no serious reason to do so. Dahn (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

What ever does this mean?

"Monocle magazine identified Cluj-Napoca as one of the top five places worldwide that are due their turn in the international spotlight during 2008." What is meant by a city being "due its turn in the international spotlight" in a particular year? Give that 2008 has come and gone, is it no longer due its turn? Or does this perhaps mean to say (slightly less cryptically, though still a bit oddly) "Monocle magazine identified Cluj-Napoca in 2008 as one of the top five places worldwide that are due their turn in the international spotlight"? - Jmabel | Talk 02:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the footnotes, and it appears that at the end of 2007, Monocle did indeed predict that Cluj-Napoca (together with Brazil, Vietnam, Malta and three Swedish cities) would be "in the headlines for all the right reasons over the coming year" (i.e., 2008). Since 2008 is, as you note, over, I think we may as well cut that particular sentence. Monocle's expired predictions don't seem to be of that lasting a relevance, although the previous two sentences ("Today, the city is one of the most important..."), also drawn from Monocle, are worth keeping. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Memorandum

1. Without providing an exhaustive history of Romanians in Transylvania, it's quite right to sketch out a general view of their situation. Remember, this is also for readers in Toledo and Peoria, not just those in Turda and Szeged, so we can't assume familiarity. This is especially true in regard to the Memorandum, which was quite a crucial episode for them. No objection to mentioning the Memorandists' amnesty. And yes, the sources do seem to agree they received "long" sentences. Also, street signs are a recurring issue in Transylvania generally and Cluj in particular, so we'll mention that as well.

2. We really don't need to bring in the sterile King/Emperor distinction here. Yes, he was King of the Hungarian lands. However, Romanians tended to regard him as an Emperor - their Emperor, rather than King, as Hungarians saw him. More important, modern English-language sources (such as Brubaker) call him "Emperor" in regard to his Transylvanian role, so there's no reason we shouldn't as well.

3. We will not simply eliminate mention of Horthy. Sure, during the Ceauşescu era, there was a tendency in Romanian historiography to play up and even exaggerate his crimes; obviously, that should be avoided. But neither should his name simply vanish. Again, it may have been excised out of a desire to have this a "Cluj-only" article, which is understandable, but a few words of context will be helpful. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As to 1 . The relevance of the Memorendum issue in this article is not more than the trial was here. The rest should go the relevant article. By the way, the leader of the Memorandists was sentenced for 5 years, the rest of them received between 2 months to 2,5 years in "state captivity", which was reserved for duellists and similar gentlemen, so the 'long years of prison' is misleading. I am convinced that the long exposion of the problem here is to present the topic of the "Hungarian oppression" before 1918, not the relevance of the issue itself.

As to 2. The Emperor / King distinction is more than relevant here, as this explains why the Hungarian government over-reacted the memorandum and why the participants were indicted for treason. The Memorandists sent the memorandum to the "Emperor" (of Austria ie. ruler of a foreign state) which was reminiscent for the Hungarian government of the 1948-1849 Romanian stance as well as Romanian position with respect to the retaliations by the "Emperors's" government after 1849. Franz Joseph's rule as of a duly coronized king of Hungary was regarded as the expression of the end of the Austrian rule in Hungary further to the Constitutional Compromise.

As to 3. After the German occupation, it was not Horthy who was directly responsible for the deportations. If you want to mention someone personally it is Döme Sztójay. When it was thought useful, Romanian authorities themselves were active in anti Jewish massacres in Bessarabia and Odessa, therefore, I do see that the emphatic mention of Horthy is aimed at presenting here some anti-Hungarian agenda (fascism and the return of Northern-Transylvania to Hungary which was ended by Romanian liberation). As per above, I think that the neutrality of this section is questionable. Rokarudi --Rokarudi 13:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

1. At times, trial venue can cause a specific case to be connected to it, even if the crime took place elsewhere. To give one famous example, even though Nazi crimes happened across Europe, they're often associated with Nuremberg, because that's where they were adjudicated. Or take Sacco and Vanzetti: the crime took place in Braintree, but a focus of attention is often the Norfolk County Courthouse in Dedham, where they were tried. Now, in this instance, let us recall that there were large demonstrations in Cluj and that the trial was the occasion for some stirring rhetoric. Moreover, the episode is rather vividly alive there: an imposing monument, also featured on the coat of arms. Yes, these are the work of Funar, and Funar is a bad man, but no moves to alter them have been made in the 6 years since he left office, and they seem to have stuck for now in the city's fabric.

And by the way, the city's small Romanian minority were oppressed at that time. They were not participating in governing an autonomous Transylvania, in spite of being a slight majority or strong plurality there; instead, they were a small minority within the much larger Hungarian Crown Lands. And within Cluj, they were decidedly second-class citizens. Now, of course, this isn't the place to launch lamentations and air nationalist grievances. But this history, when presented neutrally, is relevant to the city.

Finally, and this isn't always a convincing argument, but it does give us something to say about the late 19th century. Why not consult Hungarian sources and add a sentence about how the 1896 celebrations had an echo in Cluj, if such was the case?

2. In the spirit of <joke>Compromise</joke>, I've altered the phrasing a little. I called him Emperor-King to begin with (there are English sources that do so), then "Emperor" in his capacity of dealing with Romanians, but "King" when acting upon his Hungarian premier's advice. How does that strike you?

3. First, I never said Romania did not participate in the Holocaust, so let's drop that line. Second, no, naming the leader of Hungary is not anti-Hungarian, and mere naming is not "emphatic". While not really a fascist himself, Horthy was surrounded by them, especially after the German occupation. And yes, terrible crimes did take place under his administration. In Northern Transylvania, these started right away in 1940, though more often targeted at Romanians than at Jews. Moreover, the article does not speak of his being responsible for deportations, but for "severe sanctions". Now, lest we forget, the first anti-Semitic legislation in Hungary dates to May 1938 - limiting Jewish activity in the economy to 20%. A year later, that was reduced to 6% and defined "Jew" by race. The third law of 1941 mirrored the Nuremberg Laws and formally turned Jews into second-class citizens. Granted, although their civil and economic rights were limited, their lives were still safe until March 1944, but one cannot say that these laws, passed when Horthy was in full control of an unoccupied Hungary, did not amount to "severe sanctions".

We could, though, do this: "Despite facing severe sanctions from Miklós Horthy's Hungarian administration" becomes "Despite facing severe sanctions from the Hungarian administration", and "In 1940, Cluj, along with the rest of Northern Transylvania, was given back to Hungary" becomes "In 1940, Cluj, along with the rest of Northern Transylvania, was given back to Miklós Horthy's Hungary". How does this sound? - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I am engaged in a monotonous and time-consuming project at Harghita county, so it would be an irresponsible undertaking to embark on editing this article too. I would like to say that your recent edits improve the article, and I agree with your suggestions, however, the modern history section, in my view, still does not comply with good article quality standards. It has a tendency for (1) over-emphasizing Romanian-related topics as to pre-1960 era when the city had had a Hungarian character (2) deals in more than necessary details with controversial or symbolic issues (3) uses POV formulas and redaction. Examples:

-"Ethnic Romanians in Transylvania suffered oppression and persecution." Persecution is an obvious exaggeration for the late 19th century. Oppression may be mentioned in the proper context: Transylvania has been a place of competing national aspirations since the end of Ottoman suzerainity; Romanians in Transylvania were not more oppressed between 1867-1918 than Hungarians have been since 1918. Moreover, it is not primarily the individual Romanian or Hungarian that is or was oppressed, but the respective national communities were/are restricted in their political aspirations. If oppression is mentioned, it must be done both ways. If you want to present the motives behind the memorandum, we can bravely speak about unequal treatment or Hungarian dominance, or even political discrimination instead of oppression. I would personally prefer omitting the whole “oppression issue" from a settlement article, and would restrict myself to the presentation of those particular facts which are relevant in the city's history without smuggling the ethnic conflic element into the article. If we bring the background up, all the background must be brought up which easily leads to controversial issues and far beyond the scope of a settlement article. If we raise placename issue, beside the ban on using Romanian placenames in official life, we must also mention that the same applies for post-WWI Romanian practices vica versa, or that under Ceausescu, the Hungarian name of the city became Kolozsvár-Napoca (kolozsvár-napocai Állami Magyar Színház:).

- Presentation of the second Vienna award is POV ("imposed by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy", instead of simply Germany and Italy, or simply second Vienna Award). It suggests that the award was a bad thing, as it was passed by Nazi and Fascist. In reality, the arbitration took place between two allies of two regional powers, upon request of Romania (it being the closest ally) The award had nothing to do with ideology, it was based on pure geo-poltical and ethnic considerations. In the given case the encyclopaedic fact is that Cluj / Kolozsvár, unlike nearby Turda that remained on the other-dide of the border, had a clear Hungarian majority, this is why it was adjudged to Hungary. It is also a city-related fact that most of the locals welcomed the return to Hungary as a liberation. The name of Horthy may be mentioned in the context of his solemn march into Kolozsvár in 1940 as it was a notable event at least for the Hungarian community of Transylvania, and is preserved on a film which may be a link.

- As to Horthy: After German occupation Horthy lived in recluse in the Buda castle and came back to politics in Juin 1944 when stopped the deportation of the Budapest Jewry. It is not accurate to speak about "his" administration, as in June 1944 the key-people of "his" administration were already either deported to concentration camps (e.g Ferenc Keresztes-Fischer) or hiding (e.g István Bethlen), or in asylum in a foreign embassy (e.g Miklós Kállay). Miklós Horthy, Jr. was himself deported to Dachau later. If a settlement article contains that that Romanian militiamen killed X Hungarian civilians here in 1849, it may be NPOV in itself, but it is likely to be POV to say Romanian militiamen of Avram Iancu killed X Hungarian civilians here.

-It is obviously not the previous anti-jewish legislation of the Horthy-era that is meant under "serious sanctions" (In Romania, such legislation preceded in time the Hungarian one) but unspecified wartime sanctions, such as execution on the spot for attempting to illegaly cross the border or similar, therefore, the name of Horthy is only mentioned here to give a negative connotation for the Hungarians. For NPOV, it would be enough to speak about sanctions by the authorities.

"Liquidation of the 16,148 captured Jews occurred through six deportations to Auschwitz in May-June 1944." The context suggest that the Hungarian authorities were directly involved in the concrete act of liquidation. NPOV is stating facts as they were "In June, 1944 deportation of 16,148 Jews took place in six transports to concentration camps in the Third Reich, out of them X were killed in Aushwitz etc." When we speak about pro-Jewish activity, a city-related fact may be mentioned: Áron Márton was preaching in the St. Michael Church against deportations, and was very active in favour of the persecuted Jews.

- The city was captured only by the Soviet Red Army (27th army, 18 infantry division), not by the Romanian Army and the Soviet Army. Hungarian troops gave up Kolozsvár 10th October, 1944 Soviet troops marched into the city one day thereafter and it became the administrative center of northern-Transylvania. Romanian authorities were expulsed from northern-Transylvania by general Vinogradov (because of the activity of the Voluntarii pentru Ardeal »Iuliu Maniu«) so the city was "autonomous" until spring 1946 when Cluj came under Romanian control.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 22:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm about to leave for a week, and cannot possibly do justice to all your points in the time I have left. That must wait for next month. However:

• The article was largely written by Romanians. We tried to be fair, but none of us knows much Hungarian. Naturally, more sources in Hungarian providing a more well-rounded view would be welcomed. But remember, everything should be tightly sourced.
• At some point we have to start making more use of the History of Cluj-Napoca article. This may mean transferring some Memorandum content there. It may mean using it to develop some of the themes you mention here. Anyway, something to think about.
• According to the New York Times of the day, Cluj was taken by the Red Army "with the aid of Rumanian troops". According to the Romanian Defence Ministry, it was taken by the 18th Infantry Division from the NW and by the 2nd Mountain Division from the W, with help from the 104th Soviet Corps, who made a frontal assault. Now, perhaps it was actually the Romanians assisting the Soviets and not vice versa, but the point is the same: Romanian troops definitely participated in liberating the city. (And, yes, taking a city from Ferenc Szálasi counts as a liberation, at least on talk pages.)
• It's standard practice to call 1933-45 Germany "Nazi Germany" and 1922-43 Italy "Fascist Italy". We are not talking about Willy Brandt's Germany; we are not talking about Giulio Andreotti's Italy; and we may as well state it.
• It may be there were valid geopolitical or ethnic reasons for the second Vienna Award. That said, the notion that this was a neutral, voluntary arbitration between two states acting in good faith is not supported by the sources. Let me quote a few recent ones:
  • Romania had to cede Northern Transylvania to Hungary
  • a weak Romania was forced to cede Transylvania back to Hungary
  • Hitler forced King Carol to cede northern Transylvania to Hungary
  • under German pressue, Romania was forced to cede Transylvania...to Hungary
  • King Carol...was forced by Hitler to cede northern Transylvania to Germany's ally Hungary
  • To keep Hungary quiet, Hitler forced Rumania to cede Northern Transylvania to satisfy Hungarian claims
  • Romania was forced to cede Northwestern Transylvania to Hungary
  • Hitler, mediating the territorial dispute between his allies, obliged Romania to cede...
    

As you can see, Romania did not give up her territory willingly. And what prompted the Award? Hungary, sensing Romania's weakness (Bessarabia had just been forcibly ceded), twice massed troops on the border, forcing Hitler's hand. What happened then? The King who had ceded the territory without a fight was forced to abdicate days later, and his successor spent the entire war trying to persuade Hitler to reverse the award. But I agree, either here or at the "history of" article, we may mention Hungarian joy at the event.

• See you in a week. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Napoca and present day Cluj-Napoca

The discussion is about the inclusion or the non-inclusion of this words:[21] (Iaaasi (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

"There are no references to urban settlement on the site for the better part of a millennium thereafter" (Brubaker et al. 2006, p.89) (Iaaasi (talk) 09:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC))

A few observations:

1. Just because Mr. Brubaker doesn't know about any, it doesn't mean that there are none or that there won't be any ever found. I guess this topic has to be expanded anyway as it has only one view (WP:NPOV). Even if it was theoretical gap of one millennium, which to me defines logic and common sense given the city is in the middle of Europe and on the path of migrations, and there was no known asteroid, volcano eruption or ice age in that period. It was a simple conquest by others, which happen throughout the history all the time. The native population was wiped out, assimilated, enslaved, dominated (most likely in my opinion), whatever. But it doesn't make sense to assume a waste land for 1000 years, after a significant ancient history and with so many invaders.
2. The Dacian and Roman ruins and artifacts are in the middle of the medieval city and not 50 km away as in other situations. Even if there are speculations that the native Daco-Roman population disappeared or was wiped out by the new invaders, the new comers obviously built their "new" town exactly on top of the ruined ancient city. They even probably named it after the Castrum Clus/clausa as described in the etymology, thus they insured continuity and created a clear link to the ancient city. Napoca was under new management. Why they didn't call it Napoca anymore? There are many possibilities, one being a desire to impose a new culture, to erase previous history.
3. Having the Napoca name appended back to Cluj, is questionable and debatable, can be deemed political or protochronistic, but at the end of the day, not entirely unfair, as the city obviously has a very significant and rich ancient history that happen exactly in the same place where the medieval Cluj was. The municipium is depicted as a major city on Tabula Peutingeriana section of Roman Dacia, on equal footing with Apula, Axiopolis, Ratiaria, Serdica and this speaks about the importance, size etc. So the ancient history part of the city deserves it equal share on an encyclopedic article like this. Cluj-Napoca is obviously not just a medieval city.
4. The section on ancient history also doesn't mentions the Celtic presence at all. See also Celts in Transylvania and also the National Museum of Transylvanian History. Nothing about rich archaeological finds either. A lot of content is missing and deserves its place here.

--Codrin.B (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This is original research, you need a valid source for your statements. I have brought one that supports mine, if don't do the same I think there is no reason to continue the discussion(Iaaasi (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC))

What?! All of this is original research? Is Tabula Peutingeriana not a source to you? Most of these facts are already on Wikipedia, with sources. But I will bring sources and verified content to this article regarding ancient Napoca, no worries. --Codrin.B (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing those sources (really, I am interested in this subject). But when using the Tabula, let's keep in mind WP:PSTS: "any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". While you or I can see that Napuca on the map is probably a predecessor of the modern Cluj-Napoca, we do need a secondary source making the link explicit. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I see, no problem. Can do that too. --Codrin.B (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You have to proof that the name from Tabula Peutingeriana is in Dacian Language (we could assume that it is in Latin) and that the ancient settlement is the same with the modern one (and that is false that Cluj was build later on the place of old Napoca). For similar reasons I've reverted your edit on Alba Iulia article (Iaaasi (talk) 06:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC))

I think you should stop all this Medieval vs Ancient Latin nonsense, it clearly shows a dubious agenda. How can you remove Apulum from Alba-Iulia?! That is the Roman name of the city, in LATIN, the latinized Apula. I never seen something more outrageous. What are you trying to prove here? Your theories that Romans and Dacians never existed?! --Codrin.B (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Please try to be calm and civil (WP:CIVIL). I will explain again: Apulum is the name of the ancient city in Roman Dacia, while Alba Iulia / Gyulafehérvár / Weißenburg was first mentioned in the 9th century. There are 2 different towns that existed in 2 different ages on close sites(Iaaasi (talk))

Close sites?! They are in DOWNTOWN! Unlike others cities, where the medieval and the ancient cities are 50 km away. All you are trying to do here is impose your WP:POV about the theory that Dacia was empty, a barren land, no people or animals, ready for the migratory invaders to settle in without encountering any human beings. And that is WP:FRINGE. You are trying to combat the continuity theory (disputed but main stream) with nonsense. You are giving WP:UNDUE weight to medieval times trying to eliminate the ancient times from the equation and severing the links. The name and origin of Napoca is already described in the etymology section. As is Apulum in the corresponding article. I will bring more content and verified sources. I will not let your revisionism or WP:FRINGE succeed. I promise. --Codrin.B (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It is ironical how some users accuse me of being anti-Hungarian while you accuse me to be a Hungarian revisionist (Iaaasi (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

I don't what and who you are, what you do, what conflicts you have with others, but you are obviously looking for conflict with your changes. I hope you realize at least that part. If too many people tell you that you are drunk, then go to sleep. Take a good look at Istanbul and Paris, how they mention the historic names, ancient history, medieval history. They have been destroyed, conquered, changed hands forever, yet no one is making nonsense claims that the ruins in downtown and the historic names, belong to ANOTHER city. It is preposterous and way beyond WP:FRINGE. Those articles are the model to follow. Period. --Codrin.B (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

How would be for example to add the greek name Tomis in the lead of Constanta and the name Pelendava in the lead of Craiova? I am not looking for conflicts, I've brought a source (Brubaker et al. 2006, p.89) for my assertion, while you bring only accusations (Iaaasi (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

Great examples. Look at this intro: "Constanţa (Romanian pronunciation: [konˈstant͡sa]; historical names: Tomis, Greek: Κωνστάντια or Konstantia, Turkish: Köstence, Bulgarian: Кюстенджа or Kyustendzha) is the oldest living city in Romania, founded around 600 BC." Similar to the intro for Istanbul: "Istanbul (Turkish: İstanbul), historically known as Byzantium and Constantinople[6] (see Names of Istanbul for further information)." Cluj-Napoca and Alba-Iulia need a similar intro, and I'll make sure is there.--Codrin.B (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, I hadn't seen the Greek name Tomis in the lead, but in these case the continuity is widely accepted. In case of Cluj the continuity is disputed, so my personal opinion is that the name Napoca should not be included in the first sentence (Iaaasi (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

Again the economy section

The city also houses regional or national headquarters of [...] Groupama [22].

It seems the website says that their headquarters is in Bucharest:

Groupama Asigurări SA; J40/2857/2010; CUI 6291812; Bucureşti, Str. Mihai Eminescu nr. 45, sector 1, 010513;

bogdan (talk) 09:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, about Nokia:

• they closed down their research center in Cluj, firing all 120 employees in April 2011 [23]
• they're closing their factory near Cluj, firing all 2000 employees in December 2011 [24]

The article should reflect these developments. bogdan (talk) 09:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Irisbus-Cluj3.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Irisbus-Cluj3.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? 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. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Irisbus-Cluj3.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

other names

Quality wiki pages need Other names section Readder (talk) 06:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. The alternative names should be moved, per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#General_guidelines, to the names section:

1. • Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves.
     • In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced by a link to the section phrased, for example: "(known also by several [[#Names|alternative names]])". When there are several significant alternate names, the case for mentioning the names prominently is at least as strong as with two.
       
     • Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead "(Foreign language: Local name; known also by several alternative names)".129.110.5.90 (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

That's just an option, that part starts with the word "alternatively". The main guideline states:

• The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses, e.g.: Gulf of Finland (Estonian: Soome laht; Finnish: Suomenlahti; [Финский залив, Finskiy zaliv] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help); Swedish: Finska viken) is a large bay in the easternmost arm of the Baltic Sea.

Thus, the original lead is fine. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. The condition is accomplished, so the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line 129.110.5.90 (talk) 08:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Please, read the guide again. It's only an alternative possibility, it should not be taken as the main rule. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

We recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves - both of these conditions are accomplished, so we must respect the recommendation 129.110.5.90 (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, this is just an option, a possibility, these statements are in a section starting with the word "alternatively". The main guideline actually supports the original lead, which contains the other name variants. Please, read this again (quote from the second point of the guideline):

• The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses, e.g.: Gulf of Finland (Estonian: Soome laht; Finnish: Suomenlahti; [Финский залив, Finskiy zaliv] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help); Swedish: Finska viken) is a large bay in the easternmost arm of the Baltic Sea.

Please, also observe how many alternative variants are displayed. Four, yet, this is in the main guideline (and the version that you cherry-picked is in the last section of this point which discusses an alternative possibility). Moreover, the original lead is in line with the convention and consensus of similar articles. Please, leave this part of the lead as it was for years. Thanks, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It is more than an alternative possibility, it is a recommendation. Also please acknowledge that once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. Compared with Gulf of Finland, an additional element here, besides the >3 no of names, is the description of the etymology and the history of the names. I will ask right now for a neutral opinion. 202.137.28.114 (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with 202.137.28.114 - Naming conventions are clearly stating that if there are more than 3 alternative names they should be moved to "Name" section and should not be moved back. I do not see why naming conventions should not be respected here. PANONIAN 19:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Following some contributions of editors, I found this talk page where the subject is the same as Bratislava article - the place of alternative names. I argee with User:PANONIAN, it is clear, this is recommendation of wikipaedists. Why do we ignore this recommendation of WP, which is so unambiguous? --Omen1229 (talk) 09:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sports

• Shouldn't the expression "1/8 finals" be changed to "quarter finals". I'm sure this is a typo, but was reluctant to just go ahead and change it myself.... Noble Korhedron 15:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noble Korhedron (talk • contribs)

"moved into the city, some by force"

I am not aware of any case in which people were forced to move into a city. I know that a lot of people wanted to move from rural areas to the cities for better living standards, better prospects, etc. Forced residence used to be outside the cities, in isolated places (like the villages of Bărăgan). Do you have any reference claiming otherwise? bogdan (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Article title

This Transylvanian city Kolozsvár has been known as Kolozsvár for many centuries and should be identified as Kolozsvár also, not 'cluj napoca', which is a Ceausescu invention from the 1970's.

If the city is "commonly known as Cluj", why is that name not used as the article title? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Because Cluj-Napoca is currently the official name. Other are simply shorten names. Here you can read more about it`s name and history [25]. Adrian (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but WP:COMMONNAME applies: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." The article itself says that the city is "commonly known" as Cluj. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I can think of a couple of reasons:

• With the exception of Bucharest (which has a well-established name in English), our articles on every Romanian city, town and commune use the official Romanian name. In day-to-day popular usage, yes, this city is usually known as "Cluj", just as Drobeta-Turnu Severin is almost invariably "Turnu Severin" or Sarmizegetusa is "Grădişte". Unwieldy and unpleasant in origin as the modern addition of "Napoca" may be, there's something to be said for having a single, consistent standard, rather than attempt an arbitrary measure of what may be more common, and ending up with titles like Piatra or Baia or Vâlcea.

• While the man on the street may say "Cluj", the press does tend toward "Cluj-Napoca", as seen in five random articles in five leading papers from the past month. Not to mention official contexts, city hall for starters.

In sum, this is another one of those cases, like Rio, Santa Cruz, Ypsi, Hull, Newcastle, Stoke, Aix or Boulogne where informal popular usage says one thing, but printed and official contexts offer a slightly different name. "Cluj" should be and is mentioned in the text, but not used as the title. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Are people forgetting why Cluj - Kolozsvár was renamed to 'Cluj Napoca' in 1974? It was Communist dictator and Hungarian hater Nicolae Ceausescu who gave this once beautiful Hungarian city 'Napoca' in an attempt to further intimidate the local Hungarian population. Kolozsvár had a Hungarian majority population until around 1960. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.171.3 (talk) 13:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Nickname

It's very odd to translate any nickname in Hungarian for this city. As if let's translate now the New York into Hungarian or other city....2QW4 (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It is very odd why you are so ignorant of the Hungarian history of Kolozsvár, a Transylvanian city which had a Hungarian majority population up until around 1960. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.171.3 (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You might have not had a chance to learn of the town's history: it used to be inhabited by Hungarians and Germans. "Kincses város" is the original (Hungarian) nickname of the town, which was translated into Romanian some decades ago. You may not have many information of New York either: although there were and are many Hungarians living in that town, but Hungarians never formed the majority of that town's population. Please read more about the history of the towns before referring to them or editing the articles about them. Borsoka (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

That is really confusing from you and manipulating. "Toponimul Clus are semnificația de „închis” în latină și se referă la dealurile care înconjoară orașul." The city has a history of more than 2000 years... where were the hungarians 2000 years ago? because they ain't here for sure..2QW4 (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Kolozsvár did have a Hungarian majority population until around 1960. Where were Hungarians 2,000 years ago? We had our own alphabet and culture. Romanians were not even thought of 2,000 years ago. Romania was created only in 1859, and you were known as Wallachs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.171.3 (talk) 09:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you make a distinction between a town's name and nickname? Can you cite a reliable source stating that Kolozsvár's nickname was recorded 2000 years ago? Borsoka (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not even interested, that's why I don't think the reader is interested about the nickname in a specific language other then the English one and of course the national one. Now you tell me, if this city belong to Romania for more than 2000 years now, why you keep POV fork here??! can you cite a source to say that Hungarians were the majority in Transylvania ever ?? You see, you were never a majority, so, keep your POV fork elsewhere.2QW4 (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your remark's relevance here. There is a reliable source proving that the Hungarian version is the original one. You can add sources revealing when the Romanian translation of this Hungarian nickname was first used. Instead of being upset, you should search for this reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring for now 2QW4's trolling, I would like to explain why my own version of this should prevail:

• Per MOS:INFOBOX, "keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". Now, I have no reluctance to admit that the nickname first appeared in Hungarian, but I do think that is a matter for the article text, rather than the box. The nickname itself is a key fact, not when it originated.
• I don't know when the Romanian version appeared, nor am I likely to find out in the immediate future. Personally, I don't see that as an issue requiring tagging, as long as it's made clear (as the prose does) which came first.
• Do we have any further issues, or can we put this rather pathetic episode behind us and enjoy the New Year? - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year! :) Borsoka (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Come now, a little more creativity! - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year! well, I am not a troll. I am not even Romanian.2QW4 (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2014

I would like to request to include the following external link to this webpage - www.bestcityineurope.com - because it is currently the best source of knowledge for foreign tourists who consider visiting or even relocating to Cluj. Adriandocea (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. per who is this site the best source? Cannolis (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit protection implemented by Romanian extremists

Kolozsvár should be included in the name of this Transylvania Hungarian city. This city was known as Kolozsvár for many centuries. 'Cluj-napoca' is a Ceausescu implemented decree from the 1970's.

Romanian fascists and chauvinists have constantly been editing and blocking Hungarian additions and edits on thsi page.

Kolozsvár, has over the last few decades, become a victim of aggressive Romanian ethnic cleansing, since the Diktat of Trianon in 1920, which has resulted in the formerly Hungarian majority population becoming a minority in their own home city.

This is FACT: On October 16, 1974, when the city celebrated 1850 years since its first mention as Napoca, Dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu of the Communist government changed the name of the city by adding "Napoca" to it. My question is why is this being removed by Biruitorul? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magyarcsaba (talk • contribs) 16:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu of the Communist government changed the name of the city by adding "Napoca"

This is FACT: On October 16, 1974, when the city celebrated 1850 years since its first mention as Napoca, Dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu of the Communist government changed the name of the city by adding "Napoca" to it. My question is why is this being removed by Biruitorul? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magyarcsaba (talk • contribs) 16:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2015

Consider this cover for Cluj instead: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cluj-Napoca_Montage_Cover.jpg Ammended the cover image for Cluj-Napoca as one image was repeating itself Jeffry2 (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: That picture is currently in a deletion request at the commons. Let's hold off until we see the results. Kharkiv07^Talk 12:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Cluj-NapocaKolozsvár. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081207090923/http://www.szabadsag.ro:80/archivum/2000/0sep-19.htm to http://www.szabadsag.ro/archivum/2000/0sep-19.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081207090427/http://www.szabadsag.ro:80/archivum/2003/08/3aug-04.htm to http://www.szabadsag.ro/archivum/2003/08/3aug-04.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100822094410/http://dictionar.referinte.transindex.ro:80/index.php3?action=betu&betu=k&kezd=60&co=nemet to http://dictionar.referinte.transindex.ro/index.php3?action=betu&betu=k&kezd=60&co=nemet
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090111003156/http://store.eiu.com:80/product/30000203KM-sample.html to http://store.eiu.com/product/30000203KM-sample.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090824084341/http://www.aegon.ro:80/ro/contact to http://www.aegon.ro/ro/contact
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140531232648/http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/feedarticle/7503389 to http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/feedarticle/7503389

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2015

For the sports section, you can mention the Dreamhack Open Cluj Napoca / Kolozsvár, the last CSGO major held in 2015. It's considered an e-sport by many people and is extremely popular, even more popular than certain sports like racing etc. PCK11800 (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 18:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cluj-Napoca Kolozsvár. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080307032943/http://www.ucluj.ro:80/fotbal-u-cluj/istorie.php to http://www.ucluj.ro/fotbal-u-cluj/istorie.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Kolozsvár and 'Napoca'

Kolozsvár should be more prominent in the naming of this historically Hungarian city. This city has been known as Kolozsvár for many hundreds of years longer than it has been known as Cluj or Cluj-Napoca - something that Communist dictator added to its name in 1974.

Why do Romanians still use Napoca when this was added by Nicolae Ceausescu to Cluj? They don't call Brasov Orasul Stalin any longer do they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.201.254 (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I checked the article earlier regarding the naming, I think now it is totally fine regarding Wikipedia standards, the naming follows the actual status quo or in some special cases the English naming conventions, or any other Wiki customs.

Well, as Orasul Stalin is an apparent communist name (as similarly in other countries with former Soviet influence), the addition Napoca is mostly associated with the nearby location with a Dacian heritage, that is very popular in Romania. I think this may be a proper explanation.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cluj-Napoca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080211102226/http://www.ziuadecj.ro:80/action/article?ID=8558 to http://www.ziuadecj.ro/action/article?ID=8558

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cluj-Napoca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ziuadecj.ro/action/article?ID=20381
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080313104221/http://www.cluj4all.com:80/ to http://www.cluj4all.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517082724/http://encarta.msn.com:80/map_701510572/cluj-napoca.html to http://encarta.msn.com/map_701510572/Cluj-Napoca.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Review data

Please make sure all information is correct. For example, Cluj is definitely not the second biggest town of Romania! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulpacurar (talk • contribs) 10:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The pronunciation guide shows stress on the second syllable of Napoca [ˈkluʒ naˈpoka], but the audio file sounds to me like it's stressed on the first syllable [ˈkluʒ ˈnapoka]. Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABehrens (talk • contribs) 04:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Cluj-Napoca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921053537/http://www.recensamantromania.ro/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/sR_TAB_13.xls to http://www.recensamantromania.ro/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/sR_TAB_13.xls
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.primariaclujnapoca.ro/proiecte-dezbateri/04-05-06/Material%20modificat%20in%20urma%20dezbaterii%20publice%20%283%29.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080302111710/http://www.ziuadecj.ro/action/article?ID=9480 to http://www.ziuadecj.ro/action/article?ID=9480
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.realitateacluj.ro/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=642%3AGARDIANUL-REGIONAL---Cotidianul-na%C8%9Bional-Gardianul-%C3%AE%C8%99i-lanseaz%C4%83-edi%C8%9Bie-regioanal%C4%83_2008-04-15-03-19-55&catid=12%3Asocial&Itemid=13
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cluj4all.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/map_701510572/cluj-napoca.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)