Talk:King of Hungary

Improvement need

This article has some very stilted English ("dethronised"??). I suspect, but not enough to add an NPOV tag, that it's also somewhat slanted towards a pro-Hungarian view of history. Cerowyn (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• 08-Dec-2008: Much of the wording has been fixed by now. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:25, 8-Dec-2008

Footnoted the capitalized Kings

08-Dec-2008: To avoid copyedit wars about uppercase term "Kings" (which is typically used in writing as lowercase word "kings"), I added the top footnote, as follows:

"The term "King of Hungary" is typically capitalized only as a title applied to a specific person; however, within this article, the terms "Kings of Hungary" or "Junior Kings" (etc.) are also shown in capital letters, as in the manner of philosophical writing which capitalizes concepts such as Truth, Kindness and Beauty.

Although it is unusual (across all of Wikipedia) to capitalize concepts (as in "Kings of Hungary"), the practice works well in the article, as has been customary for many decades in philosophy. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup December 2008

08-Dec-2008: The following cleanup actions were done:

• reworded several phrases, regarding use of verbs;
• split long sentences into shorter sentences;
• added commas between main clauses or run-on wording;
• lowered side navbox to fit beside text (History-of-Croatia box);
• put bottom sections Notes & References, per WP:GUIDE;
• capitalized & quoted title as "King";
• lowered the grandstanding cleanup tag-box into a section.

Typically, there is no need to flag an entire article as needing total cleanup. Instead, the top text is usually very clean, so lower a cleanup tag into the next section as

• {{Cleanup|section|date=December 2008}}

Don't forget to add "date=December 2008" (etc.), or else some bot will be sent to re-edit the page just to put the date. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian rulers

The title of Hungarian kings were Kings of Hungary and not Kings of Hungary-Croatia. Please check it on www.britannica.com . All articles were changed around February 2007. This is wrong and it should be corrected. --Bizso (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Move to Monarchy of Hungary

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: No consensus, page not moved  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

---

King of Hungary → Monarchy of Hungary — The article is not about the title of King of Hungary. It seems to be about the Hungarian monarchy (like Monarchy of Denmark, Monarchy of Spain, Monarchy of the Netherlands, etc). Many editors make links to King of Hungary believing that it would lead the reader to the List of Hungarian rulers - because such redirects usually lead to lists. Instead, they end up here. Surtsicna (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support it's seems reasonable but should King of Hungary redirect to List of Hungarian rulers.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. There was also one sovereign Queen of Hungary, and fits in with other article titles better. As for the comment by Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy, lists of monarchs should be separate from the article about the monarchy itself, where details about the role in government, prominent figures and events should be discussed. I know this is not always the case, but it is working towards that end. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 14:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • There were, in fact, two sovereign queens of Hungary but both were crowned and styled "king". I agree with you; a list should not be more than a list. Surtsicna (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The article seems relevant enough, and there's a link to "List of Hungarian rulers" in it. I think "King of Hungary" should lead the reader here. Besides, "Monarch of Hungary" is rarely — if ever — used in English. Squash Racket (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support per nom. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per the nom as it had no sensible or valid argument. This seems to be part of a pattern of moving several articles for the sake of moving them. Hobartimus (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, that's a very good way to oppose a move. Why say what's wrong with the proposed title? Why say what's good about the present title? Let's simply say that the nominator presented no sensible or valid argument and that many articles are being moved for the sake of moving them. That'll do. Huh. Surtsicna (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed it is. IIRC You also did try some "tricks" in one of the other votes. Let us say for example that 4 people provided no arguments for their opinion and you try to selectively attack one of them who voted differently than you. Saying that vote only(!) should be discarded. Maybe I misunderstood that situation as well. Maybe I also misunderstand the feeling I have that certain users are only interested in naming. When a user is primarily concerned about naming articles one can run out of articles to rename pretty fast... Then there is nothing left to do then try to rename articles that had a community consensus naming for 5-6 years now. (not talking about this one, this was opened in 2008 though) Even so contributing some content would help the wiki more. If we look at this article most of it was IP contributed. Hobartimus (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Of course a vote should be discarded! That is an accepted behavioral guideline. That's not an attack. And of course users should always aim at improving articles by trying to move them to a better title. You are opposing a move just because you dislike moving articles. How... odd. Surtsicna (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Of course only votes should be discarded that are different from yours? I find that curious. I don't dislike moving articles when done in an uncontroversial fashion. The RFM process was established to deal with controversial moves and even these are necessary, but after a certain frequency it becomes a chore wouldn't you agree? Hobartimus (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - the article appears to be about the monarchy of Hungary, rather than the specific title "King of Hungary". (Where "King of Hungary" redirects to is a separate matter.)--Kotniski (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Laconically, my vote is in unison with the previously given ones. But Kotniski should be invited to join the WikiProject Hungary if we so often encounter him.--Nmate (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that I'd be a lot of use there, though I did love Hungary when I visited it. Anyway, I don't know on what basis you "oppose" this move - the previous opposes don't seem to be supported by any rational arguments - can you explain your reasons explicitly?--Kotniski (talk) 09:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If you so think that "Monarchy of Hungary" is a needed article (it is not) then why don't you create it and move part of the information there? If someone really wanted that article of that name badly what would stop them? Why feel the need to move existing content (which was not written for that purpose) there, why not write your own content? Btw if the move goes through I will simply open the "King of Hungary" article again with some of the relevant content from this article so the end result will be the same. Hobartimus (talk) 11:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

And yes the article scope is the title and everything else that's connected with the title and the people who bore that title. Hobartimus (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The article about a title would say when the title was created, who created it and who bore the title. This article is about the Monarchy of Hungary, just like Monarchy of Denmark is about the Danish monarchy, Monarchy of the United Kingdom is about the British monarchy, Monarchy of Belgium is about the Belgian monarchy, etc. Anyway, threatening to create a POV fork is bad, bad way to win an argument. Surtsicna (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

From your usage it seems to me that you have no idea what a POV fork is... What I see is that you are not really fond of editing articles but renaming them. This is a very good thing true, as all aspects of wikipedia need people who tend to them, but once all articles are renamed, what then? The cycle starts again? I feel we are close to a point where all articles that could be uncontroversially renamed were renamed already. Hobartimus (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

An administrator will judge whether you threatened to create a POV fork. I hope you won't get offended, but my way of improving Wikipedia is hardly any of your business. Good luck justifying your vote that way. We shouldn't request moves that might be deemed controversial? I must say that I find your arguments hilarious. Surtsicna (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't find it hilarious I find it very similar to a user mass nominating articles for Afd. Sometimes the same article gets nominated a bunch of times, as well. I already well justified my opinion by pointing out that the move request is baseless and unsupported by sound reasoning and such the years established status quo wins out. I further pointed out ,it is a part of pattern of similar RFMs. Hobartimus (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Saying that it's "baseless and unsupported by sound reasoning" or that it shouldn't be moved because it's been here for years won't convince anyone. You need to say why the current title is better or why the proposed one is worse. So far, you've only shown us that you opposed the move because you didn't think that any article should be moved - which is hilarious. Surtsicna (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Look I have the opinion that articles shouldn't get moved or deleted without very strong reasons. In other words don't delete or move articles lightly. If such very strong reasons do not exist that for me is reason to oppose. You say the article content (as such as added by IPs) do not completely cover the supposed topic that you derived by the title. But what if the intended topic is just that the King of Hungary title and related subjects, its not like the article would be too long. But say even if the article scope would be so narrow as that, you could just as well solve this by removing the said content from the article. Instead of removing the objectionable content you are trying to change the scope. And of course under the new scope the old scope content will become instantly objectionable. Hobartimus (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

An article titled "King of Hungary" would be about a title created by the Pope, bestowed upon Saint Stephen and borne by his successors. An article titled "Kings of Hungary" would be a List of Hungarian rulers. An article titled "Monarchy of Hungary" would be about the origin of the Hungarian monarchy, its status in Europe, its succession rules, etc - in other words, it would be about what this article is about. Obviously, this article is about the Monarchy of Hungary and should be titled accordingly. It should not be left where it is just because a user generally opposes moving articles. Surtsicna (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

How about to rewrite this article to be about the title, who got the title how the title is bestowed, what are the attributes of the title rights and responsibilites of the title bearer etc? Hobartimus (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me get this clear: you'd rather revamp the article and change its content than move it to a title that reflects its present content? Surtsicna (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

How do you think that "content" got there? 90% of it was inserted within 3 days in 2008 [1] by an IP editor. Either it was copied from somewhere or the IP spent those days writing it from his memory, anyhow it wasn't substantially changed since. It didn't seem to be a problem for anyone until today but if it is really that horrible to have I will remove it since this seems to be the driving force behind all the problems. Hobartimus (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

And you still haven't answered why did you try to selectively "Of course a vote should be discarded! " discard only the opposing opinion to that of yours. Hobartimus (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I might respond to this when I decipher it... Surtsicna (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I also think it's strange how Nmate came to this discussion just to support Hobartimus, without saying why he himsels opposes the request. He did it at Talk:John Zápolya#Move to John Zapolya as well. When I think about it... so did Squash Racket! What a fun coincidence :) Surtsicna (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I also noticed this "phenomenon" in some old discussions. I have noticed that all members that oppose this move are members of WikiProject Hungary and the "supporting party" from other countries. - Just a little analysis, I hope nobody gets this wrong. Adrian (talk) 08:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This is all quite bizarre - Hobartimus, is there really any reason to become so emotional in defending a particular title for this page? It's simply being proposed to something that makes it more clear to the reader what the subject of the article is, and is more in line with the titles of similar articles. I can't really see, rationally, why anyone has a problem with that. --Kotniski (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note I have removed and tweaked most of the objectionable content that was the reasoning behind the nomination, as such there is no more reason for this move request, but I will edit the article further if needed. Hobartimus (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2010 (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.

Infobox

Since the move discussion reached to consensus, maybe we should, in light of what has been discussed, add a monarchy template, preferably {{Infobox former monarchy}}. I was about to do that, but I thought of asking you guys. So, what do you think? Should I add the infobox or not? Alexcoldcasefan (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)