Talk:Peter, King of Hungary/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Peter, King of Hungary. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Untitled
this is incorect to include female line in dynastic tree.
- May be this is not entirely correct, but it corresponds to the traditions.
Not necessarily. Some female line descendants are considered to be part of the dynasty/house from that female ancestors. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was Move. The article on Samuel Aba, King of Hungary will need its own discussion.Cúchullain t/c 14:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Peter Orseolo, King of Hungary → Peter, King of Hungary or, alternatively, Peter Orseolo - The article should be consistent with articles about other kings of Hungary. The article about King Coloman is not titled Coloman Arpad, King of Hungary, the article about Queen Mary is not titled Mary the Angevin, Queen of Hungary, etc. In case one would prefer his surname instead of the title, there is John Zápolya, who is not called John Zápolya of Hungary, and Matthias Corvinus, who is not called Matthias Corvinus of Hungary. Anyway, having both the surname and the title is unneccessary and looks sloppy and inconsistent. For example, hu.wiki calls him Péter magyar király. I would also suggest moving Samuel Aba, King of Hungary to either Samuel Aba or Samuel, King of Hungary. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Surtsicna (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Either proposed title is better than the current one. I would agree about Samuel Aba as well. Srnec (talk) 04:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't know Hungarian history but there is probably something significant about his name and Samuel's, which distinguish them from the main line of the Arpad dynasty. And Arpad was never a surname for the dynasty.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- If you don't know what it is, i.e. why his and Samuel's family name should be included and family names of other Hungarian kings shouldn't, then you haven't given any reason at all. Árpád was as much a surname as Aba or Orseolo. Besides, you completely ignored John Zápolya, Matthias Corvinus and all the other kings of Hungary. This isn't voting. Surtsicna (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Arpad was not a surname. Coloman is hu:Kálmán magyar király, and all of the Hungarian titles for members of the Arpad dynasty leave out the Arpad and only occasionaly mentions "Árpád-ház". Yes, Peter is called hu:Péter magyar király, but Samuel is hu:Aba Sámuel magyar király showing that even the Hungarian wikipedia has problems with remaining consistent in their naming. Matthias Corvinus and John Zápolya are the best known individual of those names. Peter has Pietro I Orseolo, a saint, and Pietro II Orseolo, a Venician doge, to share the spotlight with. One more thing he and Samuel should be included as a member of the Arpad dynasty. Male line descent doesn't always dictate which house one belongs to.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- OK - let's say that Árpád is not a surname while Orseolo is. Isn't Zápolya a surname? Anyway, en.wiki does not have to be inconsistent if hu.wiki is. Besides, as you yourself noted, the title of their article about King Peter excludes the last name as well, as does the title of their article about King Coloman (and all others). There is no other Peter, King of Hungary that would make it neccessary to name the article Peter Orseolo, King of Hungary, in contradiction with normal practice, so your argument is weak. In addition to the afore mentioned kings of Hungary, we have Anne, Queen of Great Britain rather than Anne Stuart, Queen of Great Britain, Hugh Capet rather than Hugh Capet of France, Christina, Queen of Sweden rather than Christina Vasa, Queen of Sweden, etc. You still haven't explained why this article should stand out and why it is neccessary to stick the last name to the title. Surtsicna (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Samuel Aba, King of Hungary.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- What about him? My proposal includes him as well. Surtsicna (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Samuel Aba, King of Hungary.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- OK - let's say that Árpád is not a surname while Orseolo is. Isn't Zápolya a surname? Anyway, en.wiki does not have to be inconsistent if hu.wiki is. Besides, as you yourself noted, the title of their article about King Peter excludes the last name as well, as does the title of their article about King Coloman (and all others). There is no other Peter, King of Hungary that would make it neccessary to name the article Peter Orseolo, King of Hungary, in contradiction with normal practice, so your argument is weak. In addition to the afore mentioned kings of Hungary, we have Anne, Queen of Great Britain rather than Anne Stuart, Queen of Great Britain, Hugh Capet rather than Hugh Capet of France, Christina, Queen of Sweden rather than Christina Vasa, Queen of Sweden, etc. You still haven't explained why this article should stand out and why it is neccessary to stick the last name to the title. Surtsicna (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Arpad was not a surname. Coloman is hu:Kálmán magyar király, and all of the Hungarian titles for members of the Arpad dynasty leave out the Arpad and only occasionaly mentions "Árpád-ház". Yes, Peter is called hu:Péter magyar király, but Samuel is hu:Aba Sámuel magyar király showing that even the Hungarian wikipedia has problems with remaining consistent in their naming. Matthias Corvinus and John Zápolya are the best known individual of those names. Peter has Pietro I Orseolo, a saint, and Pietro II Orseolo, a Venician doge, to share the spotlight with. One more thing he and Samuel should be included as a member of the Arpad dynasty. Male line descent doesn't always dictate which house one belongs to.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- If you don't know what it is, i.e. why his and Samuel's family name should be included and family names of other Hungarian kings shouldn't, then you haven't given any reason at all. Árpád was as much a surname as Aba or Orseolo. Besides, you completely ignored John Zápolya, Matthias Corvinus and all the other kings of Hungary. This isn't voting. Surtsicna (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Peter, King of Hungary; we don't use surnames to distinguish between monarchs of different dynasties. However, if he is better known in English as Peter Orseolo, then I'd go by that. By the way, Árpád is the name of the founder of the dynasty, not the surname of the family. The name was given to them by historians; they probably didn't use the name "Arpad dynasty" to refer to themselves. Reigen (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.