Talk:Mary, Queen of Hungary

message: Removed this bit: "Sigismund and Mary had a daughter named Elisabeth. Elisabeth , wife of Casimir IV named the "mother of the Jagiellos", descended from their daughter Elisabeth."
I believe the first mentioned Elisabeth was daughter of Sigismund and his second wife Barbara of Cilli, not a daughter of Sigismund and his first wife Mary. -- Someone else 21:51 Apr 2, 2003 (UTC)
:You were right to remove that, Elisabeth was from the second marriage, moreover, I don't think anyone was descended from her since her only child died childless.
one more thing: isn't Slovak language called "Slovakian" in English? Alensha 00:08, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support as nominator. Michael  Sanders 23:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The source you give does not name her "Maria I" - it is an unreliable source that at best could source her as a pretender. It does not evidence her as "Maria I". Michael  Sanders 11:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, the fact that she is attested as a pretender, led Michaelsanders to remove the Category:Hungarian pretenders, from the biography of that Maria. I have warned Michaelsanders from "blind" edits. Marrtel (talk) 12:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: What happen to her birthdate?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthdate 

message: I had to force myself to bring this up, but the subject of this article is not the primary topic for "Mary, Queen of Hungary". It is most evident when one searches for Queen Mary of Hungary. Virtually all hits refer to Mary of Hungary (governor of the Netherlands). I think this is something that should be considered. Surtsicna (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You do not need to force yourself. :)  She was the only reigning queen of Hungary named Mary. Consequently, we should use the present title. As far as I remember, the other Queen Mary of Hungary is frequently mentioned as Mary of Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this Mary was a queen regnant and the other was a queen consort, but does it really change the fact that the latter is the one historians refer to when they say "Queen Mary of Hungary"? The present title makes sense per one guideline (WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)) but is against another (WP:Primary topic). I ignored this problem until I went about creating the redirect Queen Mary of Hungary for this article, only to realize that "Queen Mary of Hungary" always refers to another woman. What makes sense for us, who are used to Wiki guidelines, does not necessarily make sense for readers. Surtsicna (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of the article 

message: The names of 29 people in the ancestry chart include the territorial designation. That's how it's always been. Why should one of them be an exception? Surtsicna (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) This is not good solution and this not an argument that it's always been. 2) Władysław I of Poland could be Władysław I Herman. 3) You still did not argument your whole revert, so I am sure that you reverting my edition blindly. Swetoniusz (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I did explain the whole revert. I argued for consistency. Władysław I of Poland could theoretically be Władysław I Herman but it never refers to him. That's why Władysław I of Poland redirects to Władysław I the Elbow-high. Also, please read WP:BRD for once. If somebody reverts your edit, it's up to you to explain on the talk page why the edit should be made, not up to the reverter to explain why it should be reverted. Surtsicna (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  You clearly revert my editions without reading, what I should explain? Some weeks ago you reverted my edition and restored false information in one article . I wrote several times: read carefully what you reverted. You reverted more than you write here about. Swetoniusz (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  And I explained everything I reverted, in the edit summaries and here. When somebody reverts your edit, you are supposed to go the talk page to discuss. Surtsicna (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, you do not explained everything. I asked you several time to read carefully. Now, I see that you clearly blindly reverted my editions. Swetoniusz (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did explain each and every edit. There are very detailed edit summaries in the page history for everyone to see. Denying that makes you, to call a spade a spade, a liar. Asking me to "read carefully" does not explain your edits but serves to merely patronize those who disagree with you. Surtsicna (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, because you did not write about Jadwiga of Poland and Jadwiga of Kalisz. There is three possibilities: you do not read carefully (as I suppose), or you are lying, or this is a some kind of trolling. Swetoniusz (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

text: Władysław I of Poland almost always refers to the King of Poland. That is why Władysław I of Poland redirects there. Poland is relevant in the table. Mary was meant to rule it. Surtsicna (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why you want put unclear information into article, that could mislead readers? Swetoniusz (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:Primary meaning. I have asked you to do that several times already. Sometimes a name commonly refers to a single individual even though it might apply to others as well. Thus we have Queen Victoria, Maria Theresa, Charles X, Władysław I of Poland, etc. Władysław I of Poland commonly refers to the King of Poland. Hence the redirect. Surtsicna (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please read WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I see that you constantly putting unclear information into articles, which mislead readers. I think this need an administrator intervention, because this is disturbing behaviour. Swetoniusz (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please do seek an intervention. You have no intention to ever learn how to build this encyclopaedia, so I give up explaining it to you. Surtsicna (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancestry 

message: Why do you think that the form "Władysław I the Elbow-high" is better in the context than the stable form "Władysław I of Poland" which is fully in line with the forms otherwise used in the ahnetapfel "First name (Number) of Country". Please remember that, for instance, Britannica calls him simply Władysław I (king of Poland) (), so we cannot say that the stable form cannot be verified. Borsoka (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please also remember that the discussion under the above subtitle shows that  also prefer the form "Władysław I of Poland" and you ignored Surtsicna's concern when making unilateral change. Borsoka (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The present version does not mislead leaders. You have not answered my first question. Borsoka (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  You could not compare academic publication with popular encyclopedia. I clearly show that this version mislead version. You said: The present version does not mislead leaders. Please, use real arguments. Swetoniusz (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not proved anything. You have been making empty declarations and you have not answered my first question. Borsoka (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I show academic publications and clearly proofed that Władysław I of Poland mislead readers. I do not who on Wikipedia invented this form in tables of ancestries, but please see some academic publications. Nobody use this form. Please, stop edit war and mislead readers. Swetoniusz (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please show them. Borsoka (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Read carefully this talk page. Swetoniusz (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

text: You have not referred to a single academic work which states (or implies) that Władysław I the Elbow-high cannot be mentioned as Władysław I of Poland. Borsoka (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  But I did note claim that thing. Swetoniusz (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If you did not claim that thing, why have you been reverting our edits? We say that in this context the physical features of Wladislaus are less relevant than the fact that he was a ruler of Poland. Borsoka (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please again, read talk page carefully. 1) Władysław I of Poland mislead readers, because could be either Władysław I Herman, either Władysław I the Elbow-high. 2) Using "First name (Number) of Country" is an invention of some Wikipedians. I see no reason for not using more proper version. See any academic publications about medieval genealogy, eg. Wdowiszewski, Wywód przodków Kazimierza Wielkiego , p. 130. This is ahnentafeln of son of Władysław I the Elbow-high. Swetoniusz (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) There is a wikilink to Władysław I the Elbow-high, consequently nobody is mislead. Furthermore, nobody who have whenever read about Władysław I Herman would think that he could have been Mary's grandfather, because Władysław I Herman died in 1102 and Mary was born in 1371. (2) Oscar Halecki's work cited in the article also contains an ahnentafeln, which is more relevant in the context of this article, because it was published in English and it shows the ancestors of Mary's sister, Jadwiga. This ahnentafeln mentions "Władysław I Łokietek x1260 +1333 King of Poland 1320-1333". Consequently, it also suggests that an ahnentafeln should mention Poland in connection with Wladislaw. Since there is a wikilink to Władysław I the Elbow-high, we do not need to mention all information about this monarch here.  Borsoka (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Two ahnentafeln in academic publications use Władysław I Łokietek. The answer is clear, but Borsoka knows better. Lol. Swetoniusz (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: And at least one of them, the one published in English, also refers to Poland. Borsoka (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

text: This "read carefully" thing is starting to crack me up :D Surtsicna (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: The problem with :Category:Queens of Hungary is that it should include both consorts and female monarchs. The consorts were just as much queens as the monarchs were. One might even argue that the consorts belong to that category more than the female monarchs do because the latter were officially titled kings. Either way, Mary and Maria Theresa ought to be grouped with the other Hungarian monarchs. Surtsicna (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: What about :Category:Queens regnant of Hungary to avoid confusion? If you agree, I will create it. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be much clearer! I suppose it would be a non-diffusing category and would be included along with :Category:Hungarian monarchs. Surtsicna (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queens of Hungary 

message: Article even states that she was crowned King. She was not a queen.  98.109.137.129 (talk) 10:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  King not Queen