This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hey! What do you think if we delete "Category:Bánfi family" in favor of "Category:Bánffy family"? 1st one contained only "Katalin Bánffy" page which I moved to the 2nd one. Name "Bánfi" also looks wrong since all interwiki I've found are using "Bánffy" instead. So maybe we could recreate a different subcategory for some Bánffy families under the main category when there will be enough pages about the family members. PeterLemenkov ( talk) 16:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
There is no agreement that these categories are to be non-diffusing. Category:Hungarian Roman Catholic bishops is going to be renamed Roman Catholic bishops in Hungary as are all the other former nationality categories. Rathfelder ( talk) 16:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I think being a cardinal trumps being a bishop. He was also a priest. We go for the senior title, dont we? And the cardinal categories are definitely tied to nationality. Rathfelder ( talk) 18:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Regarding your recent edit a consensus was reached a year ago that the English variant should be used. MOS:SAINTS says that an English Wikipedia should use the English variant for the names of Catholic saints, and WP:COMMONNAME reinforces this case, as the English variant of his name has double the results on Google over the Hungarian variant. Azure94 ( talk) 07:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Do you have any third-party information about the reliability of this website? I've so far only found wikipedia articles about it on the Hungarian and Romanian websites, the latter mentions it was first founded before WW2 as a revisionist and irredentist journal. Here is an academic paper on this topic. It makes me suspicious about its content when many decades later, this journal ends up being resurrected under the same name, despite its odious history. Azure94 ( talk) 15:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I saw you changed my edit on the position of Jobbik. I was just trying to make it more inline with what information I have read suggested it currently is. I am not a big expert on the issue though, and would love to learn a little bit more about it if you have better information. Thanks! -- Et64 nova ( talk) 22:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Et64 nova (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Regarding this, a reminder that Wikipedia policy says at WP:PROXYING:
Beyond My Ken ( talk) 22:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, sources for ideologies and political positions have to be cited in the article, especially for "Ecofascism" and the text below. There isn't a source "Vida 2010" in the article but you probably meant to say "Vida 2011" so that's alright, it happens. I can't read Hungarian, so if you can, leave me the translation here and I'll promptly read it. In the future, be sure to add sources for ideologies and such in the infobox, or in the article text. Thanks, Vacant0 ( talk) 19:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
When Zoltán Medveczki became Party President in March 1993, the party gradually changed its political position from moderate to radical right-wing. The MZP adopted anti-liberal, anti-communist, anti-Semitic and pro-fascist elements to its program and also criticized privatization and market economy." doesn't have references besides them. As I have previously said, I can't read Hungarian, nor I can read the book in any possible way. If those ideologies are actually cited, then you can add the source to the infobox and the sentences. Vacant0 ( talk) 19:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Why reverting the public profile picture and replacing it with ugly zoomed photo taken by mobile?
Hello, Norden1990,
Thank you for creating Lawrence Nánabeszter.
I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
The article on Lawrence Nánabeszter is very well done - I've only added the more references tag in the hope somebody is able to find fully digitized sources, which are more easily verifiable.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|ThadeusOfNazereth}}
. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
. For broader editing help, please visit the
Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
ThadeusOfNazereth Talk to Me! 00:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
are you sure that there are 9 DK MP's in the parliament? Isn't it 8 DK + 1 MLP? -- Arasakacorp ( talk) 20:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
In Hungarian the names appeared in a different order, so I just put it that way. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 19:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Norden1990!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
Ken Tony
Shall we discuss?
17:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
|
Sorry for this edit it was a mistake of the visual editor. -- RaphaelQS ( talk) 22:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Why are you retreating my changes ? Im not a new person in editing wikipedia, i have a long experience in doing so... Which excaty mistakes do you see in my work ?
Here are my arguments for the few articles on Josip Jelačić:
- hungaryian army had a ceasefire with Jelačić after battle of Pakozd, as described on wikipedia on relevant article about the battle of Pakozd, so they werent pursuing him after that battle towards Vienna. They went to war with him after the suppressing of qvienna revolt...
- Vienna had little soldiers in that moment as mentioned in article and as can be seen from the given sources on wikipedia; There was 20 000 Austrian soldiers given to Jelačić while he still had some 40 000 of his troops after sending home 10 000 croatian soldiers. 53 000 he had on the beggining of the campaign as described in wikipedia articles...
- In the battle of Schwecwacht croatian soldiers were fighting in the first lines of the battle, a s can be seen on the map of the battle that is shown in the article, while austrian soldiers were fighting behind them. Most of austrian troops didnt even engage in the battle, especially Windshitz-Gratz troops.
- Austrian troops werent acapable of protecting their own emperor in the Vienna, who had to flee during the events...
- After Jelačić had left Hungary Austrians lost everything he conquered in Hungary and flee back to Austria...
So we cant describe in those articles as the Austrian troops were the the dominant force in the battles, and the articles are written in that manner. Jelacic forces were crucial in the battles. We have to tell the truth on the wikipedia, and not use it for spreading of myths...
Ugrin Csak was the main force behind Charles Robert, he was a Hungaryian, however his oligarch domain was dominantly in slavonia region which explains his close ties with the croatian nobility. Also, his soldiers were mostly Croatians from his domain in slavonia region. Stephen Csak had his lands also south of Danube. If Stephen Csak commanded the siege of Buda it is a logical presumption that soldiers in this siege were his own soldiers from his oligarch domain in slavonia, so we can expect that most of his soldiers were Croatians for that particular siege.
Before Yugoslavia slavonia was everything south of Danube all the way to Zemun/Belgrade - before Ottoman conquest Croats were living therw, not Serbs, and that was the domain of Ugrin Csak. As for Stephen Csak, we are talking about Stephen II Csak. You say he had no interests in Croatia, but Csak dominion split in power south and north of the river. I quote wikipedia article here:
"Stephen's economic interests were different from his cousins'. He acquired lands south of the Danube, while Matthew III and Csák built dominions north of the river. As a result, according to the genealogy, Stephen founded a Transdanubian side branch within the Trencsén branch."
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Six years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Why is SME not an acceptable source? This article is an interview with the historian Ľubomír Bosák, who's been studying Maurice Benyovszky for over 20 years. I don't have a strong opinion on what nationality he really was, but I do think it's weird that right now the article on wikipedia mentions that he's highly regarded in Slovakia, but not WHY. There is no reason why it shouldn't be mentioned why Slovaks claim him as one of their own. The Article on Nicola Tesla does say that multiple nations claim him as his, why can't we do this here? Azure94 ( talk) 14:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Móric Beňovský was a Slovak. hungarians were abusing Slovaks. Jakub Galbavý ( talk) 16:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Szia! Örülök, hogy tetszik, a "választás közeli" időszak ösztönzött erre. Bizony, mondasz valamit a 2011 előtti válastókerületekkel kapcsolatban is... (mondjuk az tényleg hatalmas téma). Ahogy van egy kis szabadidőm megpróbálok haladni ezzel a projektel. Minden jót Neked! -- Kov 93 ( talk) 19:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Norden. Regarding this edit the source was removed because the book in question was written by Krunoslav Draganović, a fascist official in the Independent State of Croatia, and doesn't fall under WP:RS. Besides this obvious disqualifier, the book also falls under WP:OLDSOURCES, so this move doesn't strike me as being particularly controversial. Your thoughts? Amanuensis Balkanicus ( talk) 00:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
An article you recently created,
Sal Hahót, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (
verifiability is of
central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to
draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's
general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ||
Tajwar.thesuperman
💬
12:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited András Fekete-Győr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HVG.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
See the talkpage, where article name is being discussed. But "Assassination" is an Americanism, and not widely used in UK articles anyway. It's already been moved about three times, can we please discuss this instead od unilaterally moving to controversial names? Joseph 2302 ( talk) 14:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Since there's at least someone who knows Hungarian, I need an ask to check the Ministry of Internal Affairs III structure section. Shamefully, I had to rely on online translations. Ominae ( talk) 04:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello:
The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Hungarian Civil War (1264–1265) has been completed.
Please read through the article carefully to make sure any changes have not altered the correct meaning. I did find a number of issues detailed here that I feel need fixing:
In the Preparing for war section the following appears (3rd paragraph):
Stephen Rátót also left the royal court and defected to Duke Stephen in 1264, because of his fear following the dismissal and imprisonment of Csák[clarification needed] from the Ugod branch of the gens Csák (Csák clan).
Which Csák is this referring to? Is it Peter mentioned in the next section?
In the Prolonged siege at Feketehalom section (2nd paragraph):
This sentence needs clarification. During the retreat, his army dispersed with reality.
In the final paragraph this sentence As a result, Stephen intended to send a special envoy, Demetrius Rosd, to his parents to seek mercy, but the besiegers captured him and Lawrence tortured the prisoner "bitterly".
needs explaining. "Bitterly" makes no sense. Since the word appears in quotations, it needs to be cited.
In the Peace process section this sentence She urged her niece to intervene with her husband Ottokar II to provide military assistance to Béla IV, what her husband – i.e. Bolesław the Chaste – is also ready.
needs clarification.
In the Ongoing strife section (1st paragraph) This sentence The Cumans decided to leave Hungary, which, however, the political leadership could not afford because of their essential military strength.
needs clarification.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Best of luck with the article moving forward.
Regards,
Twofingered Typist ( talk) 13:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Dear @ Twofingered Typist:, thank you for your hard and precise work. You will find the answers wedged between the lines above. -- Norden1990 ( talk) 19:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Norden1990: You're very welcome. I enjoyed working on the article. I have taken the liberty of clarifying the points I raised with the information you've provided and removed the remaining tags. I hope I have summed things up the way you intended. Regards Twofingered Typist ( talk) 20:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Why did you canceled my changes about Móric Beňovský. He was a SLOVAK, he was king of Madagascar and he WAS NOT hungarian. Jakub Galbavý ( talk) 15:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
There have to be "?" in the firt sentence. Jakub Galbavý ( talk) 15:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Mszdp logó.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. HapHaxion ( talk / contribs) 21:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Why??? -- Panam2014 ( talk) 03:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:MDF party logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. HapHaxion ( talk / contribs) 05:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)