Talk:Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Article Title

I am happy that we have a separate article about this topic. Regarding the title: in my opinion, we should omit the word "the" and simply call the article "Hungarian landtaking". See: Wikipedia:Article_titles#Article_title_format, where it is stated: "Avoid definite and indefinite articles: Do not place definite or indefinite articles (the, a and an) at the beginning of titles unless they are part of a proper name.". What do you think? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 03:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, we should use the title without "the".Fakirbakir (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Hungarian Conquest of the Carpathian Basin Mike Cline (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


The Hungarian landtaking → Hungarian Conquest of the Carpathian Basin – 14,200 occurences on Google. The current title has only 478 occurrences: [1]

Also frequently used in other Wikipedia articles: conquest of the Carpathian Basin relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Jaro88slav (talk) 05:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Later edit (April 25th) Hungarian Conquest would be even better, it is widely used in reliable sources (7180 for "conquest"). It is more concise, but still precise Jaro88slav (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: "Carpathian Basin" is the name of a geographical object, thus the word "Basin" should start with a capital letter. However, you are right with respect to the word "conquest". KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment Actually, this new name proposal "Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin" also sounds good. My only problem is the traditional Hungarian word for this subject "Honfoglalás" does not entirely fit with the English word "conquest". "Landtaking" suits better to the original meaning.Fakirbakir (talk) 08:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment Probably "Landtaking" suits better to the original meaning of the Hungarian word, but we should use the title that has prevalence in English-language sources. And that is Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin (I was wrong above, I should have written conquest instead of Conquest) Jaro88slav (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Weakly oppose: I concur with Fakirbakir. I could also accept renaming the article to "Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin", but the version "Hungarian landtaking" harmonizes better with the original term. The word "landtaking" is also often used in scholarly sources [2], even though the suggested "conquest" version is more widely applied. Additional advantages of the "landtaking" version are that it is shorter and more neutral than the "conquest" variant, thus it is more in line with guidelines of Wikipedia:Article_titles. Therefore, I weakly oppose the move, but I am open to discussion about additional pros and cons of these variants. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment As stated in the naming criteria, titles usually use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously. In my opinion the current title is not exact enough. The article is about People X achieving territory Y. Ommiting Y would leave the title incomplete. Titles are concise, and not overly long.. I don't think that a title containing 4 nouns and a preposition can be ranked as overly long. Our goal is not to make the most accurate translation of the Hungarian name, but to use the most common term from reliable sources.
I am not a Hungarian speaker, but conforming to http://translate.google.com/, Honfoglalás means Conquest. The search results provided by you [3] are highly misleading, because many of that books have no connection with this topic ("native land, taking with them the money they have earned in the United States", "Slavs in the Balkans, originating in their assumed erstwhile protohome, their invasion, in several waves, and landtaking of large portions of the Peninsula", "He has numerous colleagues scattered across the land. Take Mr. Frederic Jameson", "the English Navy is It does keep my forces on land taking" etc.). Let's make then a search containing the tag Honfoglalás (certainly the sources containing it refer to this particular event). For Honfoglalás + Conquest we have 1,100 results [4], whilst for Honfoglalás + Landtaking we have only 35 results[5] Jaro88slav (talk) 10:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it "highly misleading", you always get such mismatches. For example, even your refined search result [6], contains hits such as "uj honfoglalás, the conquest of the Danube valley by Jews in 1896", which is not the topic of this article. A partial reason why I (weakly) oppose the change is that the word "conquest" triggers opposite emotions as the original "honfoglalás", which literally means "taking up home". The word "landtaking" is more neutral. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
PS: Please, note that I also claimed in my previous comment that the "conquest version is more widely applied". There is no debate about that. The only question is whether it is enough in itself or we should also take other aspects into account. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Conforming to to google books sources a literally translation can also be "Conquest of the Fatherland" "[7] [8] or "Conquest of (the) Homeland"[9] [10] [11]
[...]the word "conquest" triggers opposite emotions - how can this be an argument? I don't understand in what way can the term conquest be biased. Even the main section of the article is called The_Hungarian_landtaking#The_conquest_of_the_Carpathian_Basin Are you saying that "taking up home" is more neutral? It is about respecting sources, not about emotions.Jaro88slav (talk) 11:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
No, I only said that the word "landtaking" was more neutral. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
If "landtaking" is more neutral, it is self-implied that in your opinion "conquest" is more biased.
If we are looking for the most accurate translation of "honfoglalás", we should choose the title "Hungarians' taking up of their home". But it is not the case, we need the English term that is most often used to describe the events, not the English term that is the best translation of the Hungarian term that describes the event Jaro88slav (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Weakly oppose. Hungary's neighbours prefer to use the word "conquest" instead of "landtaking" because of their different historical points of view. Hungarians prefer to use "landtaking" because Carpathian Basin became their new home. There is a significant momentum because the first stage (between 895 and 899) was mostly peaceful (the entry into the Great Hungarian Plain, the former Solitudo Avarorum) according to the researches. The second phase as opposed to the first part (899-902) was violent (destruction of Great Moravia or dissolution of Balaton Principality, campaign into Italy etc....). We should not pretend that we can not recognize the slight difference between "conquest" and "landtaking". The reason of the different meanings derives from the 18th century when romantic nationalism began to rise (Slovak, Hungarian, Romanian etc....). Actually I am very unsure but I believe this subject is an important part of Hungarian history and the word "Honfoglalás" has peaceful meaning contrary to the more violent word "conquest" and honestly after more than 1100 years usage of the more peaceable word "landtaking" would be better choice. We should not emphasize a kind of "hostility" in the title. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying that the concept of "conquest" was introduced by Romantic Slovak / Romanian nationalists? This theory is phantasmagoric! As Wladthemlat pointed out below, the term is widely used by Hungarian authors too. Jaro88slav (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Hungarian authors use it, because they can not translate it properly, unfortunately. And No, conquest was not introduced by them, however they preferred to emphasize its violent characteristic. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Uhm, actually you really shouldn't forget that in Hungarian the same term is used for both concepts (e.g. területfoglalási engedély vs. elfoglalás), so stating that Hungarians prefer this or that term is misleading. After all the term's "honfoglalás" (which literally translates to "conquest of the/a homeland"). And I won't be so confident on Hungary's neighbors' usage of the terms either. They don't seem to have developed a consistent term for it in their native languages either, let alone any English term. And personally I find the term "landtaking" much more offensive than conquest. -- CoolKoon (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - but I think "Carpathian Basin" is unnecessary, even Hungarian scholarly sources refer to it as simply "Hungarian conquest" [12] . If specification is deemed necessary, Pannonian Basin should be used to preserve the nomenclature across articles, see Pannonian Basin .
Also, quoting Koertefa himself: PS: Please, note that I also claimed in my previous comment that the "conquest version is more widely applied". There is no debate about that. - per WP:NAME the most used name is what we should go with, other aspects bear much less (if any) weight.
Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids. In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun[...], generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue.
Wladthemlat (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The above quote from WP:POVTITLE policy fits perfectly in this context. As long as conquest is most frequently used, it is less important if one of another finds it a little non-neutral Jaro88slav (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support - Like I stated above I think that the term "landtaking" sounds much worse than "conquest". My support is weak due to the fact that the presently proposed term seems to be far too long. Actually I even go as far as to agree with Wladthemlat on the fact that it could be just simply "Hungarian conquest". On the other hand this reminded me the Slovak ediors' weird insistence on the term "Pannonian basin" (this is even what they teach in Slovak schools, despite the fact that even colloquially the term "Carpathian basin" is used in Slovak too). You see according to ALL the contemporary interpretations (and most of the modern ones too) Pannonia=Hungary, hence Pannonian=Hungarian. Isn't "Carpathian basin" more neutral than "Hungarian basin"? :P -- CoolKoon (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I would say Coolkoon's offer is the best one "Hungarian conquest of the homeland". It sounds more neutral to me. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Please re-read CoolKoon's remarks. He did not propose "Hungarian conquest of the homeland", but "Hungarian conquest" Jaro88slav (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
It was not an offer, however, maybe it was the best translation of the word "Honfoglalás" (see above-- "which literally translates to "conquest of the/a homeland"").Fakirbakir (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Again, the title has not to be the translation of the Hungarian term for the 895-902 events. We should choose the most common English phrase that is used to describe the 895-902 events. Jaro88slav (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The thing is that there's NO "most common" or "officially used/adopted" English phrase for this event, mostly because the word honfoglalás doesn't translate well. My proposal was the use of "Hungarian conquest" for brevity, but "Hungarian conquest of the homeland" can do as well for the sake of clarity (and it's more descriptive too). -- CoolKoon (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
My preference is still the "Hungarian landtaking" (as I think it is the most neutral and I do not find it offensive as CoolKoon does), but I could also accept a "conquest" variant since, for example, they are more widely used in scholarly sources. If we stick to that, then from these "conquest" versions, I find the originally suggested "Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin" the best. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Look, my problem with the term "landtaking" is that it's essentially the same as "land robbery" (=földrablás=szabadrablás), which has been condone mostly by Communists and other bastards similar to them. -- CoolKoon (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, so you think that the current title should be changed. The next question is whether you could agree with the version proposed by Jaro88slav? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Is the title of the article on Pannonian Basin "Pannonian Basin"? Yes. Wouldn't it be best to preserve the terminology across articles? It not only clears things up, we can also presume that article has gone through a consensus process on its title and we don't have to waste time with details. Wladthemlat (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
There are many experts with diverse terminologies, so just because you find some who prefer a version, it does not mean that it is the best choice. From the "conquest" versions, I prefer the original, longer variant, since it is more precise. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
No, there are very many (7180) sources that prefer "Conquest" and very few (51) which prefer "Lantaking". It is not important what you yourself prefer, but what experts prefer. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased.' (WP:NPV#Naming) Jaro88slav (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, but it is also true for your original, longer (and more precise) variant. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

We should pay respect to the Hungarian historical traditions particularly in this case. "Honfoglalás" has 96,000 Google books hits [15]. However I can cope with a new title as "Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin" or "Hungarian conquest of the Homeland".Fakirbakir (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

"Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by." Jaro88slav (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Summary: It seems that, though we have different ideas and preferences (including myself), but the version "Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin" could be accepted by everybody (and this is the only version that can claim this). Moreover, this is also the most widely used name in English scholarly sources. We may wait another few days in hope we would get additional remarks, but otherwise we should go ahead with the move. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose - the "Hungarian Conquest of the Carpathian Basin" would not be accurate title because Hungarians did not conquered the whole Basin. Variant the "Hungarian Conquest in the Carpathian Basin" might be better. PANONIAN 09:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment. The occupied area was much bigger than territory of Carpathian Basin, !River Enns! was the border until 955 and we have to count with the Gyepűelve (March) as well. [16] [17]Fakirbakir (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment "Hungarian Conquest in the Carpathian Basin" has only 5 Google Books occurances [18] Jaro88slav (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Oppose - as above, if the basin is to be included, I'd much rather have it named Pannonian as that is what main article on it uses. Wladthemlat (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Dear Wladthemlat, I am quite confused: "as above"? Above you wrote that you supported (!) the move. You also said that: "per WP:NAME the most used name is what we should go with, other aspects bear much less (if any) weight.". Your suggested variant gives zero hits on Google books [19], so it is not used at all by scholars, while Jaro88slav's "Carpathian Basin" version is used by hundreds of scientific sources. Moreover, the words "Pannonian Basin" and "Carpathian Basin" are synonyms, so it looks strange that now you oppose the move (despite your previous support) just because you prefer a synonym. I hope your action has nothing to do with PANONIAN's vote. Anyway, I am more than happy with keeping the current "Hungarian landtaking" title (we should still remove the article "the", as per WP:AT). Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 00:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
You're right, the proposed wording is the most common one, I shall change my vote to support.Wladthemlat (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, no worries. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We should keep The Hungarian Landtaking (Honfoglalás). If we really need to change, 'Hungarian Conquest' might be better. --Norden1990 (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The title "Hungarian conquest" would be unacceptably imprecise, since it would indicate that it was the (one and only) Hungarian conquest over the history. However, e.g., before the conquest of the Carpathian Basin, the Hungarian tribes conquered the territory of their earlier principality (Etelköz) [20], later in the 11th century the Kingdom of Hungary conquered Croatia [21], then in the 15th century, under Matthias Corvinus, Vienna was conquered [22], etc., just to name a few. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 05:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
"We should keep The Hungarian Landtaking (Honfoglalás)" because ... ? Norden1990, please motivate your choice.
Koertefa, you say the title "Hungarian conquest" would be unacceptably imprecise. Why is "Hungarian Landtaking" more precise? Because it does not specify which land is taken! For instance in the case of Slavic Landtaking of the Balkans it is obvious, it refers to Slavs occupying the Balkans. "Hungarian Landtaking" suggests only that Hungarians took a land. Which land is still hidden Jaro88slav (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The word "landtaking" is primarily used in this context (w.r.t. Hungarians), while the word "conquest" is used in other contexts, as well, that's why it needs further refinement (i.e., the region that was conquered). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have not read all of the above, but I insert this out of context for what it is worth. The word honfoglalás appears both etymologically and in historical practice to mean "occupation [of the homeland]". Hon means "home, homeland" (German "Heimat"); the modern meanings of foglalás include "reservation" (which accords with "occupying"), and less relevant derived senses such as "distress" (as a legal term: "seizure"). The root verb can mean "occupy" pretty directly: helyet foglal means something like "to take a seat, to take one's place". As the article has it: "the Honfoglalás (i.e., the occupation of the territory) ...". Occupation seems like a perfectly natural term in English for the topic of the article. Should it be taken seriously as an option as a component of the title? Seems reasonable. This Googlebook search makes interesting browsing. NoeticaTea? 10:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC) ♥
Thanks for your comment. According to Wikipedia, "occupation" is the "effective provisional control of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign". Consequently, even if this word is used by some sources for "honfoglalás", it does not seem appropriate here (e.g., the Hungarian presence is not "provisional"). Moreover, the word "conquest" is much more widely used by scholarly sources [23]. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Fine. Of course the traditional English associations have to be got right. Still ... occupancy? Settlement seems pretty close, I have to say. NoeticaTea? 10:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I fail to understand the goal of the semantic analysis of the term honfoglalás. I repeat what I said above: we are looking for English name (event), not for English translation (Hungarian name (event)) Jaro88slav (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually the term Settlement of Hungary seems to be the most reasonable one so far. The mentions of the term is fairly frequent among sources (1430 results in Google Books, though some use the term in an entirely different context) and it even satisfies Jaro88slav's insistence on avoiding a direct Hungarian translation (which's hard to achieve anyway). It's also reasonably short. -- CoolKoon (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
My issues with these variants are: (1) in that time there was no Hungary and so talking about "Hungary" seems a bit anachronistic; (2) the occupied territory was much larger than the area of the present-day Hungary (even went beyond the Carpathian Basin, as Fakirbakir pointed out); (3) the phrase "Hungarian settlement" is used in other context, as well, so it should be made more precise. I still think that the two best variants so far are: the "Hungarian landtaking" and the "Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin". This latter one is the most widely used in English scholarly sources, so probably we should use that one. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 03:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Relisting comment - As this discussion proceeds, please be clear as to what alternative titles are under discussion and what title alternatives have been dismissed. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Settlement of Hungary is not a good title. Most of the sources (1430 results in Google Books use this string of words when talking about something else (I did not calculate the percentages, but "settlement of Hungary" + 895 give only 5 results) Jaro88slav (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The title of Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin is the best solution because this version enjoys the support of majority .Fakirbakir (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I support that one (although I still think that "Hungarian conquest" would be shorter :P) -- CoolKoon (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Copyedit

Per request, hit this. Feedback encouraged! Comments:

  • There are streams of ???? that I did not know how to address.
  • The archaeological section might be shortened, as it has details that don't seem to move the story along.

Cheers! Lfstevens (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DCI2026 (talk · contribs) 19:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC) I will be reviewing this article as soon as possible. dci | TALK 19:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Content review and analysis

  • The lead is well-written; no major issues are evident there. dci | TALK 23:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
    • In general, I would suggest refraining from stating in the lead that "[article subject] is a term that refers to...". Instead, "[article subject] is..." is advisable. Given the nature of this topic, I understand why the current wording is appropriate. dci | TALK 23:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Background

  • The Mattsee Abbey charter is said to have established the presence of another Turkish group in the region. How does this support claims of an Avar presence (other than cultural similarities)? dci | TALK 23:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I rewrote the relevant part in order to make it clear that there were at least two different peoples of Turkic origin in the Carpathian Basin: the Avars (they are attested by the Conversion of the Bavarians and Carantanians) and the Onogurs (their presence is suggested by the Mattsee Abbey).
  • Identifying the importance of Cyril and Methodius might be helpful to a reader of the article, who would likely be familiar with their accomplishments, but might be unfamiliar with some of the other events and actions portrayed in the same paragraph. dci | TALK 23:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not understand your above suggestion. Should their acitivity in Moravia be described in more details? I think that in the context of their article their only role is to demonstrate that Rastislav of Moravia sought independence of East Francia.
I had been thinking of the glagolitic alphabet; I am OK with this remaining as it currently is. dci | TALK 20:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I think it should be noted that the Moravians were not just wantonly pillaging the Carolingian frontier but opposing a "renegade" Carolingian overlord, Arnulf, while strengthening ties to Charles the Fat. dci | TALK 23:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Why do you think it is important? Would you please suggest a source to be cited?
I didn't mean you ought to add in a new sentence; I think I can probably handle this myself (I have to run right now, and will add the change in momentarily). dci | TALK 20:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The "eve of the Conquest" section is very well-researched and reads very smoothly. Its detail-packed nature, however, may confuse a reader. If you see any way to simplify some paragraphs, I would suggest doing so, but this in itself is not a problem in a GA review. dci | TALK 23:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your above suggestion. I deleted some less important sentences and reorganized a little bit this part of the article. Borsoka (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The Hungarian conquest

  • Is there any general consensus as to whether the Hungarians came in as foes of the Moravian king or as "guests" (as suggested by the white horse tale)? When I read the section, I came across thinking that the Hungarians seized their land by fighting the Moravians, but that there is no certainty regarding this matter. Would that be correct? dci | TALK 23:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
There is no consensus on the matter. The earliest Hungarian raids in Central Europe seem to have been made in alliance with the Moravians (in 860 and 881), but this is only a scholarly assumption based on Theotmar of Salzburg's letter. In the first phase of the Conquest, the Hungarians seem to have settled in the eastern parts of the Carpathian Basin (east of the river Danube). These territories seem to have been sparsely inhabited. Therefore, it is impossible to determine whether they had been under Moravian rule before the Hungarians' arrival. Borsoka (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I would check for spelling consistency when it comes to such words as "margrave". dci | TALK 23:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Consequences

  • This is the only section that I think needs some improvement to make it to the GA standards. Below is the relevant commentary. dci | TALK 23:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Generally, source names are not parenthesized when there is a reference beside them; there is really no need to identify Fine as he is mentioned immediately afterward.
    • How does the conquest of Transylvania serve as an example of leaving marches along the borders?
    • How does the information regarding Hungarian outposts relate to anything else in the paragraph, or the main point of the section?
    • Is there any better explanation of why the Hungarians feared the Pechenegs? Also, is the quote currently present properly copied? I am not sure that "numberous" is a word. dci | TALK 23:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Why were the Hungarian leaders convinced that a sedentary lifestyle must be adopted? Because of their defeats at the named battles?
    • Could more background info be given in the last sentence of the last paragraph, discussing King Stephen? Also, do you mean "or" instead of "and"?
  • Sorry to seem nitpicky; if any of the above comments are unreasonable, please indicate so. dci | TALK 23:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


Dear DCI, thank you for your hard work. For a couple of days I will be busy in my real life, so I can only reflect to your suggestions in the next weekend. Borsoka (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
As mentioned on your talk page, I have no problems whatsoever with this. dci | TALK 19:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Given that there are no other problems with the article (stable content, no copyvios, etc), I am going to pass this for GA. Sorry for the delay; I had foolishly forgotten about this, thinking I had passed it at some point last week. dci | TALK 19:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Template parameters missing

While I completely trust that the article's images are in the public domain and therefore passed the article for GA, it would be nice if the missing template parameters on some of the images could be cleared up. The ones in question are:

Thanks for any clarification. dci | TALK 19:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hungarian_conquest_of_the_Carpathian_Basin/Archive_1&oldid=1202392243"