Talk:Géza II of Hungary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconA version of this article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors on June 8, 2015. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 

Incorrect Year of Birth?[edit]

This article lists Géza II year of birth as 1030; I believe this may be a typo and more likely his year of birth was 1130? (Based on his year of death 1162, and other Internet articles about him.) I have nothing that I would consider verifiable, just an observation based on other dates in the article. I hope this is an acceptable Talk Page item, apologies if it is not. I am brand new to Wikipedia. Celique 07:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

References[edit]

This page lists three references, the second one is for "http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/G%C3%A9za_II_of_Hungary" This web page is a wikipedia mirror, so it shouldn't be used as a reference. Dracunculus (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 02:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Borsoka, I will engage in a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Borsoka, I apologize for the delay, but I've finally completed a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article. I find that it exceeds all the criteria outlined for passage to Good Article status. Prior to its passage, however, I have shared below some comments and questions that should first be addressed. It has been a pleasure to review another of your well crafted articles! -- West Virginian (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
West Virginian, thank you for your thorough and comprehensive review. Please find my comments below. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Lede

  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines Géza II, establishes Géza's necessary context, and explains why Géza is otherwise notable.
  • The info box for the ship is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
  • The image of Géza's royal seal is released into the public domain and is therefore suitable for use here.
  • In the second paragraph of the lede, German–Hungarian should be rendered with the em dash in the center, as it is in the "Crusaders' march across Hungary" subsection.
    • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Early years

  • In introducing Géza follow his birth, his father Béla II of Hungary is rendered as Béla the Blind. I wonder if it is possible to also include Béla's royal title at that point, as he was not yet crowned monarch of Hungary. This would give the reader notice that Géza was born to an heir apparent to the Hungarian throne.
    • Thank you. I preferred to write that Béla the Blind was a cousin of the ruling king, because around that time King Stephen II's nephew, Saul of Hungary was the official heir to the monarch. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This may be too tangential for Géza's article, but would it hurt to also mention that Béla was blinded along with his father by his uncle Coloman? The would provide more familial context, since his father's blinding was committed within the family over a power play. This would also lay the groundwork for the later discussion of Coloman's wife Eufemia of Kiev.
    • Thank you. Expanded. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Does Arad refer to Arad, Romania? If so, it should be wiki-linked here.
    • Thank you. WL added. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Reign
Minor king (1141–1146)

  • The image of young Géza is released not the Public Domain and is therefore suitable for use here.
  • In the final sentence of the first paragraph, and in the final sentence of the second paragraph, the inline citations should appear in numerical order from left to right.
    • Thank you. Both modified. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Do we know what specific privileges young Géza bestows upon the citizens of Split?
    • I assume that their right to chose their magistrates was confirmed, but I do not know for sure. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I would just briefly mention in the parentheses "present-day Bratislava, Slovakia." I would also do this with Lajta (Leitha, Austria).
    • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This subsection is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Crusaders' march across Hungary (1146–1147)

  • The image of Conrad III of Germany has been released into the public domain and is therefore acceptable for use here.
  • This subsection is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.

Active foreign policy (1147–1155)

  • I would wiki-link heterodox to Heterodoxy, as I had not heard of it before, and other readers may have not heard of this term either.
    • Thank you. WL added. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The image of Géza meeting King Louis VII of France has been released to the public domain and is therefore suitable for use here.
  • I would wiki-link the first mention of Transylvania, which is in the fifth paragraph of this section.
    • Thank you. WL added. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This subsection is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Last years (1155–1162)

  • The image of Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Komnenos has been released into the public domain and is therefore suitable for use here in this article.
  • The last two sentences can probably be merged into one, but if a place for Géza's death can be named they can remain two sentences.
    • Thank you. We do not know the place for Géza's death. The two sentences were merged. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This subsection is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Family

  • This subsection is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.
Borsoka, thank you for addressing my comments in such a timely and thorough manner. I've re-reviewed the article and find that it is ready to be passed to Good Article status. I appreciate your continued contributions to Wikipedia, and it is always a privilege to review your latest work. I hereby pass this article to Good Article status. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 11 October 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved  — Amakuru (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)



Géza II of HungaryGeza II of Hungary – WP:English. About 2100 mentions in Books.Google Swetoniusz (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Swetoniusz:, before requesting a move, please try to read the sources you are citing to substantiate your proposal. For instance, Segregation – Integration – Assimilation: Religious and Ethnic Groups in the Medieval Towns of Central and Eastern Europe, Ritual and Symbolic Communication in Medieval Hungary under the Árpád Dynasty (1000 - 1301), Church and Society in Hungary and in the Hungarian Diaspora and East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500 use the Géza form in accordance with the article. Borsoka (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@Borsoka: Please avoid personal attacks. I can show many other publications using the version Geza like The Oxford history of medieval Europe. It's more common. Swetoniusz (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Just for the record, you have not verified that Geza is the most common form, because the list you presented above contains books that use the "Géza" form. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks before accusing me of such misconduct. Please also remember that an administrator informed you about the serious consequences of baseless personal attacks and similar acts of vandalism ([1]). Borsoka (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@Piotrus:, as far as I can remember there was a long discussion about the use of diacritical marks in WP articles and you activelly participated in it. I would highly appreciate if you could summarize the result of the discussion. Borsoka (talk) 02:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose As a misreading of WP:UE. Part of the Use English policy states "The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works)" AusLondonder (talk) 06:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Géza" is a Hungarian native name, it has no English variant. GB results do no confirm the nominator's claim, while he also misinterpret WP:English. Just an example: majority of English news and commentars use Viktor Orbán's name without accent ("Orban"). But that does not mean that we should rename that article. I am curious what is Swetoniusz's opinion about the article names Władysław II Jagiełło, Bolesław IV the Curly or Jadwiga of Poland, which definitely are not most common forms... --Norden1990 (talk) 08:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:UE and WP:CONSISTENCY with other articles on European royalty. We have articles on Charlemagne, Napoleon, and Saladin; not "Karl der Große", "Napoléon", and "Salah ad-Din". Academicoffee71 (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Interesting argument. You've changed your tune. Remember arguing in vain we didn't need consistency between Grand Duchy of Kraków and Kraków. AusLondonder (talk) 08:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Diacritics are used in English literature. When they are not used this is because of laziness or (less common now) technical issues. We should not allow either to influence us. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:UE does not mandate that we remove all accents. Géza is perfectly common in English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2017 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.