Talk:Andrew II of Hungary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

I'd also add Pal Engel's 'The Crown of St Stephen - A History of Medieval Hungary' (I'm pretty sure that's the title, I have it in England but I live in Japan at the moment) as a thorough source in English for this reign. I'm not adding any info to the Hungarian kings, because pretty much anything I could write would just be taken ad vertabim from Engel's book. I reccomend it though, for anyone with an interest in this area - especially as it gives a lot of info on the more obscure kings such as Stephen II or Bela I etc

Simon

Illogical[edit]

" After a drawn battle with the Turks on the Jordan River on November 10, 1217 and fruitless assaults on the fortresses of the Lebanon and on Mount Tabor, Andrew started home (January 18, 1218). On the way home, he negotiated with King Levon I of Armenia, the Emperor Theodore I Laskaris of Nicaea and Tsar Ivan Asen II of Bulgaria and arranged several marriage contracts between his children and the courts he visited. When he was staying in Nicaea, his cousins, who had been living there, made an unsuccesfull attempt on his life."

Then why he is the "King of Jerusalem"? And why all preceeding kings have called themselves, too, "King of Jerusalem" Abdulka (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither he or his predecessors styled themselves "King of Jerusalem". The first King of Hungary who used the title was Charles II, but he inherited it as King of Naples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.134.28.71 (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect, all Hungarian kings after him called themselves, as one of the titles, "King of Jerusalem". Did Naples conquer Jerusalem? Abdulka (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

After the crusades, the title "King of Jerusalem" was just a symbolic title, which was confered by the papacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.251.227 (talk) 09:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Death[edit]

According to the article, he died on September 21. Articles on other wikipedias are talking about October 26. Moreover, he is to be found at the deaths on October 26 of the english wikipedia. What is true? Any source?--Kostisl (talk) 11:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Andrew II of Hungary/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 14:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


  • One DAB link
  • I don't think there needs to be red links throughout the article if there is no article for it.
  • The two or thee line paragraphs could be consolidated into previous paragraph or into one paragraph. For instance, in "New institutions" and campaigns in Halych (1205–1217), the paragraph beginning "Andrew and Leszek of Poland" and the following beginning "A new officer of state," could be just one paragraph together.
  • Same for the first two paragraphs of Golden Bull (1218–1222). It just looks more concise.
Outcome

Thanks for your patience. To be honest, that's all I can fault! If one could even call them faults. This article is well written. I think you should take this forward for FA (obviously do peer review first). But for a GA, I can't find anything else that needs work. On hold for 7 days. I have over 2,300 articles on my watch list so ping me when you need me.  — ₳aron 13:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Calvin999, thank you for your review. Upon your suggestion, I changed the red links and consolidated the short paragraphs. However, I have not found the DAB link. Please let me know if further action is needed. Borsoka (talk) 04:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
It may have been one of the red links. Great, well done :)  — ₳aron 09:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


WP:NOR, WP:English[edit]

Szegedi László, as I mentioned it during our last discussion, WP:NOR is a basic policy of our community. Please avoid adding unsourced material to a well-referenced article. All unsourced information will be deleted. Please also take into account that this is the English version of WP, consequently we should use the English version of the names. Borsoka (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Szegedi László, please also read WP:3RR, because unexplained reverts may have had serious consequences. Borsoka (talk) 10:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC on verification[edit]

WP:SNOW consensus that only confirmed ancestors should be included (while sourced ambiguity can be addressed in notes or footnotes) and that names of unsourced ancestors be deleted.Winged Blades Godric 13:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the names of (alleged) ancestors of a monarch be deleted from an Ahnentafel ("ancestor table") in an article if their relationship with the same monarch was not verified by a citation to a reliable source? Thank you for your comments. Borsoka (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes - only confirmed ancestors should be included, and sourced ambiguity can be addressed in notes or footnotes. Yvarta (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove per Yvarta. Pincrete (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, per Yvarta. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes Confirmation is necessary when dealing with ancestors. Notable ambiguity (Oxford and Princeton and other professors say Bob was his uncle, but we don't have definite proof) can have a footnote as Yvarta stated above. L3X1 (distant write) 14:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes Candidly, I haven't researched whether a particular WP policy or guideline applies, but on the face of it, removal seems fully reasonable, and supportive of community consensus to make the encyclopedia more reliable, not less. DonFB (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.