koontz1973 wrote:Leaving Poland of the map would be wrong historically as Poland was a benefactor of the treaty.
So now we have the reason for Poland being on the map. And I am sure that no one can claim that Poland should not be part of the map.
about what you talk here? who told that Poland should not be on the map?
koontz1973 wrote:We get to the names of the two territs.
When I posted my initial draft, I called them Trencsen and Arve. This was corrected by Oneyed and called Orawa and Spisz in the next version.
? this is what I noticed from the start:
Oneyed wrote:to the map and names - where you have Orawa now is nothing Polish. you can do Turoc larger and add this part to Turoc. Orawa is where you have Spisz now. Spisz could be at the west-norht part of Szepes. Szepes, Spiš and Spisz is the same.
Oneyed
koontz1973 wrote:These two names are wrong as the regions where not called this at the time and are modern names for the regions. After further correction they became Arva and Szepes. These names are correct for the time in history and have been on the map since version 8.
I explained you several times that these names (Orawa, Spisz) are not modern. these names are Polish versions. if any names would be modern these are Árva or Szepes, because Hungars only changed old Polish/Slovak names to hungarian language.
to the names, you have them all wrong outside Hungary. your map shows situation after Trianon. these lands (in Slovakia, Serbia, Croatia, Romania) were no more Hungarians and all these lands had names in native languages. so when you can have them correct make them so.
koontz1973 wrote:And here is the second map from Oneyed.
- Click image to enlarge.
As you can see from this map, all he has done is move the territ line so Lipto does not hold both. And once again I rejected it. Here is my reasoning behind this one.
It does not as Oneyed suggested make the territs move to the correct place.How can I say that, well look back at the county map which I posted and Oneyed copied for his Polish white bits.
yes. and all what you should do is move them too. it is your stubbornness that you do not want. you changed names of some regions, so why not placement?
koontz1973 wrote:Arva on that map connects to Lipto, Trencsen and Turoc.
Szepes on that map connects to Lipto, Saros, Gomor-kis-hont and Abauj-torna.
Now on my map.
Arva connects to Turoc
Szepes connects to Lipto
also what you called Turoc is wrong. as averybody can see Turoc is the smallest region there. better name should be Trencsen (or Trenčín because after Trianon it was Czechoslovak area). and reason "they connects" is weak here, because you have space and possibility to add them to correct place.
koontz1973 wrote:So why not move Arva to lipto and Sezpes to Saros. What benefit does it give to the map? None what so ever. The only benefit would be that this thread would be about 5 pages shorter.
what is benefit? and what was benefit when you changed names of some regions following some advices? benefit is accuracy.
koontz1973 wrote:So now I have explained why they are called what they are, why I rejected Oneyeds first suggestion and why it was rejected the second time.
your explaintation is a little demagogy ("modern names" are not modern for example)...
koontz1973 wrote:Why have I given names to territs the way I have. For history. These names are correct for the time period.
as I explained here - your names are wrong. you do not respect that after Trianon were all countries independent and their regions had names in native languages. so why you have all names in Hungarian language?
koontz1973 wrote:name changes that where given by Oneyed where added until a better option was given.
and again demagogy. you did not change names following my advices. you told that these names are "modern", the truth is explained by me several times to you and also thereinbefore in this post.
koontz1973 wrote:Oneyed wanted me to change the placement of two territs. His first reason was rejected and again so was the second. I explained myself completely in the thread throughout. At no time in this thread have I not explained myself.
as I said, you changed history, geography and you had no reason for this, because there is enough space in map to move these two regions.
koontz1973 wrote:thehippo8 wrote:Sure, oneyed did no favours for himself in the way he has been posting but frankly what's he supposed to do when he is just being ignored (and then tag team bullied!).
You do yourself a disservice here hippo. At no time has Oneyed been ignored or tag teamed against. I have posted replies to all of his suggestions and the reason why they where rejected. Go find one where I have not.
I believe that hippo means that I was ignored by cartographers...
thenobodies80 wrote:Last koontz post is the tangible proof of why I was and I am on his side on this "issue".
In addition it makes very clear because it was picked for a foundry assistan role.
after my last post you can see that he is not so right as you think. koontz told to everybody that names are correct for this time period. as I explained they are not, as one example.
thenobodies80 wrote:If I've cut the discussion is just because there are some occasions in which if a mapmaker, a foundry assistant, a CA, the foundry foreman and also an admin tried to explain the very same thing to someone and in the end that person doesn't want to accept or listen,
and why nobody listen to me? I understand all yours explaintations and I tried to explain to you (all) that you are wrong.
thenobodies80 wrote:I don't like to be rude, but soemtimes it needs to be done.
believe me nobodies or not, I am fine. only what I do not like is as you made dumb-ass from me when you said: "after any research both maps are wrong". you know that this is not truth...
thenobodies80 wrote:then in that case i don't want that all those listed person have to waste their time to speak with a deaf ear when they can use the very same time to contribute where ears are eager to listen.
I have 4 month old boy, I have my own business and some more troubles, so it is not pleasure to "waste" my time here only for this map. hm, "waste" - I never think that help anybody to make better map is "wasting" time... but as you can see (in this my lat post) koontz made more mistakes as only placement of these two regions and he presented them as historic accuracy - using hungarian names for region in independent states as example.
and I am tired to explain the same thing 100 times. koontz what is impossible to understand for you that Orawa/Orava, Spisz/Spiš are old names used by Polish/Slovak and they are not modern as you "explain"? do you know that Árva, Szepes are just hungarian version of something what was before hungars become to this area?
Oneyed