Talk:Battle of Posada

message: I passed this article into the realm of "good articles" because I think it meets all 6 requirements at WP:WIAGA.  1.) very well-written. 2.) seems accurate and has refferences 3.) comprehensive. 4.) NPOV, 5.) stable, and 6.)  images, all of which are appropriately tagged with their copyright status.   Congratulations GtstrickyTalk or C 14:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot! --Eurocopter (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: And it has been delisted from being a good article since 2021... you're replying to a comment from 2008... Alin2808 (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article passing

message: The lead and the template use the form Charles I Robert of Hungary. Is there any evidence that this form of his name has ever been used except within this aricle and derivations from it? Jan1naD (talk • contrib) 22:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles I Robert of Hungary ? 

message: The article doesn't go into the necessary background of what the conflict was technically about.  Also, many lines have been tagged for references without response. 50.111.45.222 (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  not enough detail and missing ref's 

message: Being that there are differing historical sources on this event, and how wikipedia tries to take all sides, we need to add the fact that Romanian sources dispute the armistice. Anyone using Google translate can simply go to the Romanian Language Wikipedia page and notice the difference, and the Hungarian language one as well. I don't want to start ethnic tensions in any way, so to avoid this I suggest we simply state this is disputed, so that an edit war doesn't begin where either nationality comes in editing the page back and forth because of "their version". 2A02:2F07:4109:1F00:5D4E:683D:D3F7:CB5F (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but that is no way to edit Wikipedia, the way you did it. For one, Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source (WP:NOTSOURCE), so saying "quoting Romanian Wikipedia" is in no way reliable, let alone that the Ro-wiki page has many problems regarding inline citations. And this is the next thing, Wikipedia requires inline citations (WP:IC), so when saying "Romanian historians dispute the fact that an armistice ever took place", you need to add the references to who and where they say that, see WP:CITE. Alin2808 (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Sure, if you can give me the source. On the Ro-wiki article it only says that A.D. Xenopol doubted an armistice happened, but there is no citation. Only at the end the book "Istoria Românilor din Dacia Traiană" by A.D. Xenopol is mentioned, but that's it, no page, no chapter, nothing else, Alin2808 (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

text: First of all, yes, that's the source and that's one way of citing sources. It has the author name, it has the page and is fully mentioned in the references with further details (book title, ISBN, publisher). If you cared enough to look into it, you'll find that the reference is: "Długosz, Jan & Michael, Maurice. The Annals of Jan Długosz. (Abridged edition). IM Publications, 1997. ISBN 1-901019-00-4". And the source is not in Hungarian, don't know where you even got that from. Długosz (Jan Długosz) was Polish and the source cited is in English, you can search for it by its ISBN, see. So, now you know what you need from a source, why don't you go and bring the source to back the your claim (and the claim on Ro-wiki)? You are more than welcome to do so. Also don't forget to sign your posts with ~~~~ at the end of your reply. Cheers! Alin2808 (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  If someone dislikes my edit about the armistice please rewrite it but do not remove it.