Talk:Realm of Stefan Dragutin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Naming Hungarian Banates

The agreement here was to use Hungarian names: Talk:Banate_of_Macsó#Requested_move. "Talk:Banate_of_Macsó#Requested_move IS NOT AN SOURCE!!! official language was latin. please do not add names from 19th century into 14th century. article about Banate of "Macsó" will be changed to in proper time" - I've never claimed it's a source, only that it's an an agreement, an agreement of wikipedia editors and we should follow it. When you change the agreement in "proper time", only then should you change the Hungarian names. Go ahead. And anyway, your argument doesn't stand - everywhere in Wikipedia history articles use historiographical names (even when it's controversial: Holy Roman Emperor, Danzig) so there is no rule that original Latin names should be used. Zhmr (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Agrement of few nationalist hungarian users is not valid agreement. These users are nationalists known to push hungarian names just everywhere and they are in constant conflict with multuple users from neighboring countries because of that. Besides that, it was „agreement“ abbout name of that article, not about names that should be in use in other articles. I see no any relation with this article. I repeat: in medival Kingdom of Hungary OFFICIAL LANGUAGE WAS LATIN. Because of that official historical Latin names should be used and in case of Mačva, that historic name is Machoviensis. Hungarian names are not "historiographical names" because they are invented in 19th century. we talk here about 13th century. Please stop with your support for nationalists from countries around Serbia. 186.92.124.108 (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The "Latin" argument doesn't matter, as I've already explained. For exaple, historiographical names often have precedence - see the given examples. If it was agreed there, in the main article on the Banate_of_Macsó, then it is valid everywhere on wikipedia. You calling everybody nationalist doesn't make them nationalist, the only evidence of nationalism (via chauvinist personal attacks and unselective vandalism from an open proxy so you can't get banned) was actually given by you. This will be reported as edit warring - I'm notifying you here since you're an unregistered multiple IPs user. Zhmr (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't claim hungarian names were historiographic names - perhaps they are, perhaps not - that's to be discussed when you reopen the Talk:Banate_of_Macsó#Requested_move agreement. I was merely showing your argument about original names having precedence wasn't valid. So we're back to square one, meaning back to what was agreed upon. Zhmr (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Let start with this: can you show Wikipedia rule which say that name "Macsó" must be used everywhere in Wikipedia if article "Banate_of_Macsó" have that name. There is no such rule and if multiple names for something are used in English then all those names can be used anywhere in Wikipedia. Article "Banate of Macsó" should be also renamed to "Banate of Machoviensis" but that thing is UNRELATED TO ARTICLE WITH NAME KINGDOM OF SYRMIA. Do you have any source which say that name "Macsó" was in use in 13th century? Without that source even article with name "Banate of Macsó" have unsourced name and you want to spread an obvious mistake from one article to other articles. 186.92.124.108 (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

If agreements don't have to be followed there would be little point in having them. The name "Banate of Macsó" (not just "Macsó", when the subject isn't the Banate but the region I've used "Mačva", since I'm not a nationalist but take care to be neutral) doesn't have to be used everywhere, but you have no right to enter revert wars if I write "Banate of Macsó" (and declare you're reverting "POV nationalist pushing" in the edit summary). The name did not have to be used originally, as I've already explained above and given examples. Do I need to mention the Byzantine Empire? Zhmr (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear user 186.92.124.108, there was no "official" language. Latin was the language of administration in Kingdom of Hungary as everywhere else in Europe.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Kingdom of Syrmia

Is there a reliable source written in English which uses the term "Kingdom of Syrmia"? If there is one, please name it. For the time being, the article looks like a hoax. Borsoka (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Some sources for Borsoka:

• [1], „This large area, ruled by Dragutin, was called Srem“
• [2], „in 1314 there were thus two Serbian states: the contemporaries referred to the kingdom of Rascia ("regnum Rassie") of King Milutin and the Kingdom of Serbia ("regnum Servie") of King Dragutin.“
• [3], „Dragutin's chief area of operations was in the north. There he created for all practical purposes a second kingdom — with its own loyal nobility — and took on all the trappings of an independent king“
• [4] , „Драгутинова сремска краљевина“ (English: Kingdom of Syrmia of Dragutin“)
• [5], „Драгутинова држава“ („State of Dragutin“)
• [6], „границе Драгутинове државе“ („borders of the state of Dragutin“) 212.200.146.197 (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I assumed. There is no English reliable sources using the term "Kingdom of Syrmia". Instead "Srem" and " Kingdom of Serbia ("regnum Servie") of King Dragutin" is used. Therefore, the present title of the article cannot be substantiated. Borsoka (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

There was another move to a Latin title, and then I moved it to a rough English translation that at least tries to adhere to WP:UE and WP:NDESC. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)