Talk:Nicholas, Palatine of Hungary

Latest comment: 9 years ago by Norden1990 in topic Name

Name

edit

A number of his namesakes, such as Nicholas I Garay and Nicholas II Garay, were also palatines of Hungary. Can we come up with a better disambiguation? For example, Nicholas (palatine and ban) or something to that effect. Surtsicna (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Nicholas I and II Garai(! - not Garay) also served as Ban before becoming Palatine. In Hungarian publications, this Nicholas is often called "Miklós nádor" ("Palatine Nicholas"), and he is the only person among the palatines named Nicholas, whose family (or kindred) name is unknown. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I see. I am not sure, however, that we can expect our readers to know how each of those men is referred to in Hungarian historiography. The present disambiguation does not really... disambiguate. Wouldn't Nicholas (palatine and judge royal) or even Nicholas (palatine, ban and judge royal) do a better job? As for the Garais, why not move those pages? When I worked on Dorothy Garai, I noticed the family was nearly always called Garai. Yet we don't even have a redirect for Nicholas I Garai. Surtsicna (talk) 10:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
For instance, Nicholas Szécsi was either palatine, judge royal and ban. I think the current title is the most appropriate, in accordance with Denis, Palatine of Hungary or Mog, Palatine of Hungary. Maybe I can create a disambiguation page, similarly to Nicholas of Transylvania. It's a pretty tough question, I know, there are many identical names among the medieval office-holders in Hungary, but in this case, I cannot use a regnal number (like Ladislaus II and Ladislaus III Kán), because his kindred and origin is totally unknown (see Identification section in the article). For the Garai question: the two articles are really should to be move, because the Garay is an incorrect name (in 19th century works and literatures, they were sometimes called as "Gara", so the "Garay" name form is not even an archaic version, this is simply a misspelling). --Norden1990 (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply