Talk:Syrmia County

13th century

By the 13th century, two counties were formed in this region: Szerém (in the east) and Valko (in the west).

This needs to be referenced and/or integrated into Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary. --Joy [shallot] 00:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

---

• Well, the reference I have is a historic map of Hungary from the 13th century, in which these 2 counties are shown. I do not know exactly were they formed in the 12th or in the 13th century. User:PANONIAN

Here is the map if you can find it useful:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hungary18.gif

User:PANONIAN

---

Requested move

Syrmia (former county) → Szerém – previous moves of Hungarian counties to current names were not discussed. Please discuss at Talk:Križevci (former county). -  AjaxSmack  17:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The move of the names was discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Administrative_divisions_of_the_Kingdom_of_Hungary#Naming_issues Since nobody opposed my proposal for move, I moved these names. These counties were part of the autonomous region Croatia-Slavonia where Croatian was official language, thus names of the counties are written in Croatian. PANONIAN (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Location map (Kingdom of Hungary)

Hello there. I wonder if anyone can help me.

I have been working on updating the File:Kingdom of Hungary counties.svg map, in particular to weed out some duplications, I fixed a couple of errors with missing accents (at least, if we are using the Hungarian names), separated out the text etc onto separate layers, put good IDs for all the elements so that, for example, the ID for the polygon for Lika-Krbava is (surprise) "Lika-Krbava", and made it a four colour map. The results are at File:Kingdom of Hungary counties-2.svg, a more in-depth discussion is at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Hungary. The counties etc are done in four styles, so one can change the colours just by changing the style, or of course modifying the style for an individual county to ovveride the settings.

This is all still a work in progress and I need a bit of help to get it to a stage where it could be used in articles. First, the text style is just awful, don't worry I will fix this (actually I will have four styles, one for each map colour, so that if an editor changes one of the colours to, say, be very dark, they can change the text style to be very light, for contrast). I just haven't got around to it yet.

Second, and more important, I want to get a coordinate fix so I can make it into a location map. I've made one at Template:Location map Kingdom of Hungary but the coordinates are bollox. Naively, I stole the western and southern coordinates from Template:Location map Croatia but Modrus-Fiume seems to have grown a bit, and Lika-Krbava is certainly not the southernmost point of modern Croatia. It may seem stupid to ask, because of course I could look these up in an old atlas, but my local central library is absolutely appalling on this (or I am looking in the wrong place). I only need the coordinates to about 1 decimal point of a degree, so if there are any towns near the western border of Modrus-Fiume or the southern border of Lika-Krbava I can just take those as a fix. I'm quite happy to fiddle to adjust the coords but it would be good to get a nice starting fix. At the top, miles away from Croatia of course, I have used mount Polica as the fix, and on the east I am just guessing cos I could not find anything on the old maps that has coordinates.

Sorry to bother you about this as it might seem that this has little to do with Croatia and a lot to do with Hungary, but I am hoping that once I have a nice standard map of the Kingdom of Hungary then it can be tweaked to be used in other articles, slowly replacing the rather boring old map (which I am also maintaining with changing the small slips in that map), and to be able to e.g. cut and paste or change the labels into other languages, if appropriate, without having to do too much hard work because they are on a separate layer. I don't really know where all this will go, whether it will be the "definitive" map that others then derive from using XSLT transformations or whatever, or whether it gets split very early just as a cut-and-paste job e.g. to highlight counties etc. Anyway, if you could help with the coordinate fix I think that would be useful to both the Croatian and Hungarian projects.

Thanks and best wishes Si Trew (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Problems

Ok, DIRECTOR, let discuss this:

• 1. German name in the infobox is of historical importance because this county was formed in 1745 when German language was dominant in the country (i.e. in the Austrian Empire - Dual Monarchy was formed in 1867).
• 2. What exactly (by your opinion) would be criteria for order in which we would mention modern countries if not the size of this historic territory that they include?
• 3. Why you constantly removing any reference to Serbian language from naming descriptions when Serbs were largest ethnic group in this county and most of it is part of modern Serbia?
• 4. About what kind of provocation you speak about? How exactly I am provoking you? PANONIAN 17:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

(Points no.2 and no.4 overlap)

• 1. I don't see why we're supposed to add every language that was ever official to the infobox. Latin was still official there in the 18th century, why not include it too? I'm just saying its silly: the entry "native name" is for the name that was being used by the native population: "Srem" or "Srijem".
• 2. There is no "criteria" - that is just the point. Making an edit just to switch Serbia in front of Croatia seems to me quite petty and unnecessary. It is completely redundant to alter the original version in this respect.
• 3. Yes, I am removing Serbian. I am also removing Croatian, therefore I must have an anti-Croatian agenda. :) Two reasons: a) the language in use at the time in Austria-Hungary was known as "Croatian or Serbian" (i.e. Serbo-Croatian). So we are more accurate historically. b) The two are essentially the same macrolanguage, the languages should not be listed separately when it is necessary to list more than one of them. The differences in spelling ("Srem" and "Srijem") are extremely minor.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Yes, Latin should be included too. However, I do not know Latin name, but I know German. You can include Latin name if you know it but I do not see valid reason that German one is removed. What harm this name could do to the infobox?

2. Well, I listed these countries in order with some criteria, while order that you including does not follow any - it can mislead readers to think that most of the county is today in Croatia. That is very valid reason for name order change. Perhaps we can also mention that larger part of the county is now in Serbia.

3. Ok, I can accept that explanation and usage of Serbo-Croatian instead Croatian and Serbian, but then there should be also description "Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic script", not just "Cyrillic script". However, the proper order in which we should use Croatian and Serbian name is that if we speak about historical county we use first Croatian and then Serbian, but if speak about modern Syrmia region we should use first Serbian and then Croatian since larger part of this area is in Serbia and larger number of people is using Serbian name. PANONIAN 17:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• The parameter is "native name=". Was Latin or German the "native language". Its ok to list them in the lead, but the infobox parameter is I think quite specific. The harm is in swarming the infobox with irrelevant, non-native names.
• Misleading? Disagree. The sentence does not say which of the countries controls more territory. "today the county is part of Croatia and Serbia". The point of the sentence is that those two countries control the territory - how is the message of the sentence misleading?
• It is the standard mode for the languages with more than one alphabet. Note: the languages are separated with ";", while the different versions of the same language with ",". Also the link leads to "Serbian Cyrillic alphabet". Ambiguous?

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

1.Well, if parameter is native name, then German name is native too because many Germans lived in the county (there was actually more Germans than Hungarians according to 1910 census and Hungarian name is listed as native name, while German is not).

2.The sentence is misleading because if we mention Croatia first it might led to conclusion that Croatia control larger part of the county. The symbolics of the words is sometimes important as much as words themselves. However, I already proposed that sentence should be expanded and that we should say which country control more territory. Finally, the order of the names cannot be based simply without any criteria. If you want to list Croatia first, you simply must have good reason and good explanation why. So far, you did not offered any.

3.Can you show me where exactly is described that it is a standard? PANONIAN 19:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That is your own personal iterpretation. Like I said, I disagree that mentioning Serbia or Croatia in front of wither of them somehow suggests the one is larger while the otehr is smaller. Again: the sentence has nothing to say on which modern country controls more territory.

The fact that the Cyrillic is Serbo-Croatian is well-shown in the text. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Came here from geopolitical noticeboard.

1) German should probably be in, due to the (according to demographics section) significant German minority coupled with the fact German was an official language of the country.

2) Alphabetical order is usually an excellent default, and there are no implications about size in the ordering at all.

3) Perhaps just include both without stating it is cyrillic, readers should be able to tell. That's the practice used on Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, and Russia at any rate.

That's my opinion, hope it helps. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikiproject Hungary?

I restored the Wikiproject:Hungary listing because the article says "According to other sources, it belonged to main part of the Kingdom of Hungary, outside of the Kingdom of Croatia" in the 12th century, and at various times it was governed as part of the Kingdom of Hungary, directly or indirectly. And there were still Hungarians living there as late as 1910. And, more to the point, it is not the job of random people not involved with the Hungarian Wikiproject to go around saying which articles on the Balkans the project may be interested in helping maintain. If they aren't interested in helping or feel it is outside their area of interest, let them remove the tag. Brianyoumans (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)