Talk:Třinec

	Czech Republic portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Czech Republic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Czech RepublicWikipedia:WikiProject Czech RepublicTemplate:WikiProject Czech RepublicCzech Republic
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

Infobox native_name

Please see Prague, Chicago and Template_talk:Infobox_Settlement. Template says "native_name - for cities whose native name is not in English". Trzyniec is not English name nor native name. --mj41 19:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read § 29 odst. 2 zákona 128/2000 Sb. [1]. There is not that official name is also Trziniec. It is only about translations. Per [2] (2001) they are 17% Poles. --mj41 22:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have read the outdated version. Read the official government document at [3]. Trzyniec is also the second official name which can be used in the dealings with the government of the town. I am surprised you didn't know that when you live there and have Polish surname, too. P.S. And it is not "about translations", Trzyniec is older name for this town than Třinec by the way. - Darwinek 22:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I finished this edit war. I think it is not useful to have two official names. My name is not Polish, it is only adapted to English keyboard :-). Yes, I know that Trzyniec is older name. But this is about using Infobox properly. --mj41 10:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing personal to you. I just think I understand the "bilingualism" term a bit better. You think it is not useful to have two official names but it seems Czech lawgivers think the other way :). Cheers. - Darwinek 11:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are not right and that there is only one official name - Třinec. Trzyniec is allowed name, but not official. I think that version with Trzyniec in other_name [4] was the best we have. Try fultext on portal.gov.cz there is nothing as Trzyniec. --mj41 18:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) There must exist legal basis for official ussage of Polish exonym Trzynietz - namely the decision of municipal comitee for national minorities. Do anybody know, if such decision exist?

2) By the way - according to Turek's Místopisný rejstřík obcí Severomoravského kraje following names for Třinec are used in German archival documents: Tyncz (1457-1458), Trzenietz (1720-1893), Trženetz (1770), Trzinietz (1850), Trzynietz (1894-1945); polish name Trzyniec appears in Polish documents since 1850. --Qasinka 19:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox official_name

Per cs:Třinec and per discussions here and on cs:Diskuse:Třinec there is no evidence that Třinec's second official name is Trzyniec. Seem like all in Template:Polish municipalities in the Czech Republic has same issue. We should find consensus and synchronize Czech and English Wikipedia. --mj41 (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It remains unclear, as to the question if it is the second official name according to the Czech law. However, from the Czech Republic legislative concerning the minority rights, Polish names of the "Polish municipalities" are recognized by the Czech government. - Darwinek (talk) 12:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, I changed the parameter to "other_name" to avoid possible ambiguity or controversy. By the way, the article would benefit from some content expansion. - Darwinek (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits with no clear purpose

Hello FromCzech, we are going back and forth over a few minor changes that don't seem to have a very important purpose. Here is why I have been insisting on those details: 1. The standard way of writing large numbers is to add a comma after thousands. I don't know why you seem to think this is unnecessary, but if nothing else, it makes the number easier to read. 2. the prefix "www", or "https", is unnecessary when spelling out a url. Why add additional characters where they aren't needed? 3. I tend to add line breaks between images and text, for easier back-end legibility. Why remove them? They do not contravene MOS, but rather make an editor's job easier. I have deferred to you on all matters of content in this article, since you clearly know more about the topic than I do. Why keep fighting me over minutiae that don't harm anyone? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Revirvlkodlaku: Hello, here is my point of view:

1. The comma appears on the page for readers whether it is in the code or not, so it is needless. As I indicated in the edit summary, putting a comma here is not systematic when it is not in any other Czech city and even many other cities with 7+ numbers of inhabitants like Berlin or Paris don't use it. So I don't see it as any standard or help for writers (especially when it is edited not more than once a year). It is only your personal preference.

2. Similar reasons. I prefer to see if the website is https or http. I don't insist on it so much, but I like consistency and no one here has minded for years.

3. Similar reasons. The spaces make no diffence on how the page appears, personally they just distract me and I never needed them for orientation. As you noted, it's not a rule, so again, I only see disagreement in personal preference. No need to fix my work.

I'm also not happy that we argue about such little things. But I had to ask why here and why now? The website and the comma were the same here for years and even before I started to contribute, and they do not differ from other Czech cities and towns. It's just so completely random and unsystematic. And it looks weird when it happens right after I put so much work into that page, although it was certainly not intended with bad intentions. FromCzech (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FromCzech, thank you for the response, and thank you also for not reverting. I did that earlier, before writing you, and I realize that was a shitty thing to do. Allow me to respond to the points you made:

1. I didn't realize that the comma appears on the front end of the page, whether it is on the back end or not. Thank you for pointing that out. I'm not set on it, but it does occur to me that the comma makes the number easier to read. After all, that's why we place it there. That being the case, what's your reason for removing it? You mentioned consistency, but I wonder, why is that so important? Why is consistency more important than ease of use for the editor?

2. I didn't realize the "https://" part doesn't show up on the front end. That's the main reason I remove it, because I find it visually unappealing. Is there a particular reason you prefer seeing it in the code?

3. The line breaks make the article easier to navigate from the back end, in my opinion. Especially line breaks following images, because that way, the images are set off, which can be important when an editor is specifically trying to modify thm.

As to your last point, "why here and why now?" I think that's misplaced. I arrived at this article at a specific point in time, and that's when I began to edit it. It's as simple as that. Isn't that the case for everyone, except for the person who creates the article? As for your mention of other cities and towns, that strikes me like an argument for leaving things the way they've always been, which is not a good approach, in my opinion. After all, you could say the same about a poorly written article: that's the way it's always been, so why change it now?

For the record, my first edit on this page was on 25 June 2019. If you're interested, you can see that I made significant copy-editing corrections to it around that time, because it was quite messy. I only mention this so that it's clear that my interaction with the article isn't recent, and it doesn't have anything to do with you. Anyway, I don't want to keep bickering, you've made some compromises towards me, and I'm happy to do the same. I get the feeling that you edit more of this type of article than I do; when it comes to Czech content, I tend to focus on music, film, and television. So, "nepolezu ti do zelí" 😅 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. I can also ask in your own words "You mentioned legibility, but I wonder, why is that so important?", but we wouldn't get anywhere. In my opinion, the legibility benefit is simply zero.

2. It appears on the front end in the preview when the cursor hovers over it. I thought it might be important for someone, especially when some pages have an untrusted unofficial website under the official website. If you think it's out of the question, I'll let it be.

3. If you think so, OK. I said my opinion.

I will erase the comma as a small compromise; I still have to fix one of my mistakes which I found yesterday. Thank you for your corrections (your English is definitely better than mine) and good luck in your work ;) FromCzech (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Isn't that self-explanatory? Legibility. Isn't it important for an editor to be able to more easily read the code when editing?

2. Makes sense to me :)

Thanks for being willing to compromise :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since this discussion, I have encountered this problem several times where the missing https did not link the website to where it should be; last at Těchlovice (Děčín District) (http://techlovice-dc.cz/ vs https://techlovice-dc.cz/). I also had to notice that Darwinek also fixed the url here. So I will insist that it should be in that standardized form after all. FromCzech (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FromCzech there is no problem with the link missing the "https" in this case, so I don't see a good reason to put it back. Next time, please include an edit summary if you're going to revert my edits. Thank you. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But it could occur at any time. Will you check it every day to see if it's working properly? It is better to deal with it systemically. FromCzech (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you say it could occur at any time? Do web links just spontaneously break if they don't include "https"? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on that, but ... see the example above where this is what happened. And the decision to put back https was supported by another user. FromCzech (talk) 04:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that some web links do in fact break when https isn't included, but I make sure to always check that this isn't the case when I remove the prefix. In the case of this website, it seems to be fine without it. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying it is not systemical, it may not work permanently, obviously it's not just my preference and there are objective reasons to change it. The arguments for "https" prevail. FromCzech (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sold on your reasoning. Specifically, I don't understand why it wouldn't work permanently. I wonder if you have a reason to say that or if you're just speculating. Still, I won't insist on my position, feel free to change if you like :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]