User talk:Norden1990

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12

Hello! What is your opinion about this?

Talk:Hungary#Ottoman Hungary OrionNimrod (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I noticed you write a lot about the Hungarian clergy, and wanted you to know that I created an article about Nicolaus Bogantius. I don't speak Hungarian, however, if you ever feel inspired, you can contribute to this article as well. Governor Sheng (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Governor Sheng:, I checked sources and – despite his ecclesiastical office in Hungary – I can say that this person is relatively unknown in Hungarian historiography. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the information and your effort. Governor Sheng (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Norden1990, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Tibai family, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tibai family.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|MicrobiologyMarcus}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 23:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear @MicrobiologyMarcus:, I responded at page of deletion discussion and I also placed Under construction template. --Norden1990 (talk) 08:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If the article needs significant work and expansion, would it not have been better to draft the article in draftspace or your sandbox instead? I would amicably endorse a userify vote at AfD. Kindly, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:NagyEmil.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, deleted on HuWP for apparently missing permission

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mednyánszky family has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Norden1990. Thank you for your work on Stephen Nagymihályi. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Szia. Néhány hónapnyi munka után elkészítettem egy részletes szócikket a szabadságharcról. Wordban 98 oldalt tesz ki. Egy halom térképet is készítettem hozzá. Az ismerőseimnek elküldtem, hogy javítsák ki az esetleges angol nyelvi hibákat. A kérdésem az lenne, hogy amikor felteszem, a meglevő Hungarian Revolution of 1848 oldalra tegyem ki, vagy pedig készítsek egy külön oldalt Hungarian War of Independence of 1848-49 címmel? Habár szerintem a Hungarian Revolution of 1848 oldal szabadságharc része nagy szerkesztésekre szorul, mert olyan, mintha az egész szabadságharc nem állt volna másból, mint a románok, szlovákok, szerbek és horvátok "hősies harcából" az "elnyomó magyarok ellen". De ahogy látom, a szócikk védett, és nem is nagyon lehet szerkeszteni. Kérdés, hogy ki védte le?.. Ha nem tévedek, én is szerettem volna a részt vevő erők dobozába beírni a szerb, román, szlovák harcosok számát, és most nem látom benne. Pedig ezek is részt vettek a magyarok ellen. Ha pedig külön szócikkben megírom a Szabadságharcot, és nem szerkesztem a Hungarian Revolution of 1848-t, akkor az én cikkem megkapja-e a védettséget, mint amaz, hogy ne lehessen kitörölni, átírni, elrontani, stb. Ha gondolod, elküldöm neked, hogy átnézd, és lásd, hogy ennél tárgyilagosabban nem lehet megírni a szabadságharc történetét. A legkomolyabb forrásokból dolgoztam. Nem hallgattam el egyik velünk élő nép tetteit sem, és az ő szempontjukat is figyelembe vettem. Tehát nem hinném, hogy szükség lenne valamilyen javításra, átírásra a cikkben. Főleg ha elkészül a nyelvi javítás is. Azért lenne ez fontos, mert ha már a Hungarian War of Independence of 1848-49 szabadságharc része az ő szájuk íze szerint van megírva, legalább legyen egy olyan cikk is, amely tárgyilagosan mutatja be az eseményeket, amelyet beírásukkal nem rontanak el, úgy, mint az előzőt. És amely kijavítása lehetetlen. Köszi. Sylvain1975 (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sylvain1975:, nagyon köszi a munkádat. Az a cikk régóta átszabásra szorul. Örülök, hogy a '48-as témát továbbra is bővíted, javítod. Új cikket semmiképp sem hozz létre, mert egy témáról csak egyetlen szócikk lehet. Tehát, nemhogy védettséget kapna, hanem törölnék. Van egy javaslatom: egyelőre hozd létre egy allapon. User:Sylvain1975/Hungarian Revolution of 1848. Ide másold be a nyelvtani áttekintés utáni szöveget. Én is ránézek, ha kell, javítom (pl. hivatkozásokat stb.), érzékeny részeket. Utána meg felül lehet írni a jelenlegit, egyáltalán nem kár érte. Az eredeti cikk az állandó szerkesztési háborúk miatt védett. A "Hungarian Revolution of 1848" cikkcímet azért javaslom inkább, mert az a nyugati munkákban sokkal elterjedtebb és összhangban van a korszak többi forradalmaival. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sziasztok! Sylvain1975

Azért lett a 1848-as cikk védett mert IP és vadiúj felhasználók (valószínű zoknibábok) támadásai alatt volt, ilyenek ellen lett védve. Nagyjából az említett dolgot még fokozni próbálta az IP, pl törölt fontos katonai eseményeket, Buda ostromát, törölte magát a "szabadságharc" fejezetet átírva "kisebbségek helyzetére" és a szabadságharc helyett az amerikai rabszolgasággal mosta össze a kisebbségek helyzetét, és természetesen törölte hogy Európa első kisebbségi törvényét a forradalmi kormány csinálta, stb. De a védelem előbb utóbb lejár, egyébként ha 500 szerkesztésed lesz amit nem nehéz elérni, akkor extended confirmed user leszel és máris tudod szerkeszteni, az ilyen felhasználókra nem vonatkozik az a védelem. OrionNimrod (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Szia, köszi a választ. Én emlékszem, hogy évekkel ezelőtt az Avram Iancu cikkbe beírtam a csapatai által elkövetett tömeggyilkosságokat, és kijavítottam a nevetséges számadatokat (egy maroknyi móc győzött le hatalmas magyar hadseregeket, miközben a helyzet pont az ellenkezője volt), és hiába lábjegyzeteltem tudományos munkákkal, egyből törölték, majd miután újból feltettem vagy kétszer, büntetésből kaptam egy hónapos letiltást. Hogy van, hogy más mindenki írhat be mindenféle hazugságot magyar szócikkekbe, de ha mi próbálunk kijavítani egy cikket, amelyben ellenünk való tendenciózus "tévedések" vannak, akkor büntetést kapunk?

És, ha lejár a szabadságharc cikk védettsége, akkor megint beírkálhatnak, amit akarnak? Nem lehet azt megújítani?

És honnan tudhatom meg, hogy hány szerkesztésem van? Nem vagyok nagy wikipédia szakértő. Kizárólag csak szerkesztéssel foglalkozok. Sylvain1975 (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Köszi szépen. De remélem, hogy több hónapos munkámat nem fogják hazugságokkal szétcincálni. Minden mondatát komoly munkákkal adatoltam. Sylvain1975 (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvain1975 Szia! Hiteles modern akademikus forrasokbol dolgozzal, abba nem lehet belekotni, de ugyelj arra hogy ne legyen copyright problema. Nyilvan figyelni kell a cikkeket, ha rongalas van akkor lehet tapasztalt felhasznaloktol vagy adminoktol segitseget kerni. Talk page valo a vita megbeszelesere, es vannak vitarendezo oldalak is. Nem tudom mi tortent korabban, gondolom azert tiltottak mert szerkesztesi haboruztal es 3nal tobb revertet csinaltal 1 nap alatt. Ugyelj a szabalyokra es nem lesz baj. Inkabb talk pagen probald megoldani a vitat mint szerkesztesi haboruzni. Uj fiokot se csinalj mert az csalas es azert is tiltas jar. OrionNimrod (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Szia, elkészítettem az első részt. Gondolom így jól van: User:Sylvain1975/Hungarian Revolution of 1848 Sylvain1975 (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Szia, elkészítettem az első részt. Gondolom így jól van: User:Sylvain1975/Hungarian Revolution of 1848. Sylvain1975 (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sylvain1975:, van egy mondat, ami nincs lefordítva: "Az utász zászlóaljaknak komoly szerep jutott az 1849 téli hadjáratban, amikor gyakran embertelen körülmények között kellett lehetővé tenniük a csapatok továbbhaladását.[22] A szabadságharc végéig összesen négy utász zászlóaljat szerveztek meg.[22]" Át fogom nézni a szöveget, de elöljáróban annyit, hogy a honvédségnek ily nagyfokú bemutatása szerintem meghaladja egy olyan alap főcikk, mint a "Hungarian Revolution of 1848" témáját. Ahhoz túlrészletes, csökkenteni kellene a lényegre. Viszont ez a szöveg tökéletes egy másik cikk magjához: az 1848-as honvédseregről (angolul legtöbbször "Hungarian Revolutionary Army" címen hivatkoznak rá), amelyről még nem létezik szócikk az angol Wikipédián. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sylvain1975 mobilon nezve gyors mutatja hogy tobb mint 7000 szerkesztesed van az angol wikin, tehat tudnod kellene szerkeszteni neked az 1848as cikket https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Norden1990&diff=prev&oldid=1215982387&title=User_talk%3ANorden1990&diffonly=1 OrionNimrod (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Szia, köszi, hogy felhívtad a figyelmem. Kijavítottam. Úgy OK., hogy külön cikket hozzak számára létre. De sajnos nekem már nincs több erőm, hogy elkezdjem csökkenteni. Megírtam 99 oldalt, lefordítottam. Azt már nem fogom tudni csökkenteni, úgy, hogy értelme is legyen az egésznek. Mert úgy random nem vehetek ki belőle mondatokat, mert akkor érthetetlen, összefüggés nélküli lesz az egész. És ugyanilyen részletesek a hadjáratokat, következményeket tárgyaló részek is. Én ezért gondoltam egy külön szócikket írni a szabadságharc katonai oldaláról, és az, amit leírtam, az szerintem megállná a helyét. És akkor ez mind egy szócikkbe lekerülhetne. Az amerikai polgárháborút összefoglaló szócikk is több, mint száz word oldalt tesz ki. Egyébként úgy gondoltam, hogy a csatákat tartalmazó templatet is átlakítsam, és a téli, tavaszi, őszi, erdélyi, délvidéki, stb. ablalkokra bontsam, amelyek az oda tartozó csatákat és ütközeteket tartalmazzák, pont úgy, mint az American Civil war-nál. És akkor meg lehet szabadulni az Avram Iancut istenítő cikktől is a templateból. Mert tervezem, hogy a kisebb ütközeteket, ostromokat is megírom. Ha a Fennvaló erőt ad, mert az utóbbi időben abból egyre kevesebb van.

Vagy, a 99 oldalas nagy cikket felosztom: 1848 nyári szerb felkelés (vagy kiegészítem a már meglevő, szerbek által írt cikket, de ezt biztosan nem tűrnék - habár teljesen tárgyilagos...), őszi hadjárat (vagy a Jelacic elleni hadműveletek), téli hadjárat, tavaszi hadjárat és nyári hadjárat cikkekre, és külön cikkben a következmények, megtorlás, stb. De ahhoz valakinek egy rövidebb cikket kellene összehozzon, amely a Hungarian Revolution of 1848 cikkbe bekerül. Sylvain1975 (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sylvain1975:, szerintem illeszd be a teljes cikket, mind a 99 oldalt, az általad létrehozott allapba és akkor együtt átnézzük. Ha nagyon hosszú, segítek megbontani, a teljes szövegek mehetnek meg a különböző cikkekbe, a lényeg pedig a főcikkbe. A mostani "Hungarian Revolution of 1848" tényleg katasztrofális, a tavaszi hadjáratról pl. semmi sincs benne jószerivel. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mielott vedett lett a cikk az IP kemeny szerkesztesi haborut csinalt, tavaszi hadjaratrol semmi, buda ostromat kiszedte, de helyette olvashattunk Kossuthrol mint az amerikai rabszolgasagrol es idoutazasrol a kesobbi amerikai polgarhaboruval kapcsolatban :) ja es persze hogy mindenki kegyetlenul el lett magyarositva majdnem mar az amerikai rabszolgak is mikor Kossuth Amerikaban jart… OrionNimrod (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sajnos csak a 19. oldalig van a cikk angolsága átnézve. A többi már az én hibás konyhaangolságommal íródott. :) Sylvain1975 (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akkor egyelőre a 19. oldalig. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Szia, én feltettem az egészet, és a térképeket, amelyeket készítettem. :) Sylvain1975 (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Szia, azért tettem fel az egészet és nemcsak a 19 oldalt, mert nincs nagyon esély, hogy valamelyik ismerősöm átnézze. Az angol ismerősömet már nem kérhetem meg, hogy folytassa, mert már ez is hatalmas segítség volt, és mondta, hogy nincs ideje. Azonkívül én kiírtam az angol nyelvű 48-49-es csopotrba, amelynek tagja vagyok, hogy segítséget kérek, és lájkokon és szívecskéken kívül semmilyen választ nem kaptam. Tehát ha át szeretném nézetni, akkor az egyedüli út egy fordítói iroda lenne, amelynek fizetnem kellene... Ezért remélem, hogy lesz a wikipédián magyar youtuber, aki át tudná nézni a cikket és kijavítaná. Sylvain1975 (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Szep munka a terkepek. Te csinaltad? OrionNimrod (talk) 09:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Köszi szépen. Igen, én készítettem. Sylvain1975 (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angolra hasznald a Chatgpt-t, bemasolsz neki egy fejezetet megkerded helyes e angolul es atirja gyorsan ha megsem vagy feljavitja. OrionNimrod (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Köszi az ötletet, de ehhez előfizetés kell, 20 dollár havonta... És attól félek, hogy majd nem tudok lelépni róla, és minden hónapban leszed tőlem 20 dollárt. Sylvain1975 (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Azonkívül kijavíthatja a szögletes zárójeles részeket és az idézéseket. Sylvain1975 (talk) 06:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sylvain1975:, két kérdésem lenne. 1, az előzményekről nem írtál? Gondolok itt pl. a reformkorra, 12 pont, áprilisi törvények stb. Ahogy nézem, a cikk inkább a hadi vonalat tárgyalja. 2, A térképek mellé még jó lenne képeket is beilleszteni, különböző csatákról, személyekről rengeteg festmény vagy fotó van. --Norden1990 (talk) 07:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Igen, én, ahogy már először is megírtam, ezt egy külön cikknek terveztem, amely csak a katonai történetről, tehát a szabadságharcról szól. Ezért is ajánlottam a Hungarian War of Independence címet. A forradalom, előzmények, politikai történet maradt volna az eredeti, Hungarian Revolution of 1848-ban.

Persze, más képeket is belé tervezek tenni, de én ide most csak az általam készített átfogó térképeket tettem. A többi képet majd ki lehet szedni az adott cikkekből. Ezenkívül találtam a Maps Hungaricanán egy nagyon jó 1848 februárjában készült térképet, amely azt mutatja, hogy a magyarországon toborzott csapatok hol voltak elhelyezve a birodalmon belül, de a licenszénél azt írta, hogy ahhoz, hogy felhasználhassam, engedélyt kell tőlük kérnem. Még várom az engedélyt. Sylvain1975 (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tehát azért szól csak a szabadságharcról. A forradalomnak, és politikai történetnek nem is vagyok annyira a szakértője. Egyébként az eléggé jól meg is van írva a "Revolution" cikkben. A katonai részt cincálták szét. Sylvain1975 (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oké, értem. Köszi a választ. Ha nem bánod, akkor belejavítgatok a szövegbe. --Norden1990 (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvain1975 en ingyenesen hasznalom, az alap chatgpt nem fizetos, csak be kell regisztralni. Ezenkivul az Edge bongeszobe bele is raktak alapbol. Nyilvan at kell nezni mindent amit fordit hogy tenyleg jo-e. Akar lehet aprankent is csinalni par mondatokka, hogy atlathatobb legyen. Megkerded helyes e ez igy angolul, idezojelbe rakod az angol szoveget es kijavitja gyorsan. OrionNimrod (talk) 08:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

En nem gondolom hogy licensz kellene egy majdnem 200 eves terkephez, ott mar nincs copyright. De akar azt is lehet csinalni ha jo vagy terkeprajzolasban hogy azt lemasolod modernebb formaban es megjelolod azt mint forrast. OrionNimrod (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Én a ChatGpt-re a meglévő google fiókommal léptem fel, akkor nem kért pénzt, de amikor a szövegjavítót használni akartam, akkor azt írta, hogy ez már fizetős: 20 dolláros havi előfizetés kell hozzá. https://chat.openai.com/g/g-FmpWpbNpd-free-grammar-checker

A Free változat szürkített, tehát nem lehet használni, csak a 20 dollárost.

A térképpel kapcsolatban. Már a tegnapelőtt elküldtem a kérést nekik, ha nem váálaszolnak, akkor egyszerűen felteszem és kész. Sylvain1975 (talk) 09:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Én köszönöm. Természetesen, javíts bele! Sylvain1975 (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akkor használd a sima chatgpt-t, írj be pár mondatot és kijavítja. Nekem működik ingyen. Kérdezd meg hogy helyes-e így angolul, és átírja ha nem. OrionNimrod (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to 2014 Hungarian parliamentary election has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Norden1990. Thank you for your work on Eusidinus. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Szia, látom, hogy az együttlakó kárpát medencei népek a Kossuth szócikket is megfertőzték a szokásos hazugsággal, hogy Kossuth milyen gonosz volt a szegény nemzetiségiekkel. A Minority Rights alcímre célzok. Természetesen egy szó sincs az 1848 augusztus-szeptemberi nemzetiségi törvénytervezetről, sem pedig az 1849 júliusi nemzetiségi törvényről, amely az első ilyen volt a világtörténelemben. Kossuth ugyebár úgy elnyomta és gyűlölte a nemzetiségieket, hogy a Kossuth bankón szerb-horvát, szlovák, német és román felirat is volt! Mutassanak a románok, szlovákok, szerbek ma olyan pénzt, amelyen magyar felirat is van. És ha ezt megmutatták, akkor folytathatják Kossuth és a magyar forradalom szidását, de addig kussoljanak! Én most pillanatnyilag az 1848-49-es délvidéki ütközetek szócikkjein dolgozok. Már több, mint 20-at elkészítettem, de még nem közöltem ezeket, wordban vannak, és csak azután teszem meg, miután angol ismerősöm átnézi a nagy 48-49-es szabadságharc cikkemet. Addig ezeket wordon tartom. Akkor majd megint felkereslek, hogy beszéljük meg, hogy hogyan lesz a nagy cikk feltéve: darabokban, vagy egészben? Sylvain1975 (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sylvain1975:, igen, én is igyekszem a következő időszakban folytatni az átnézést (leginkább persze formai szerkesztések), csak mostanában limitált az időm. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Sylvain1975 (talk) 09:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Spokesperson of the Government of Hungary has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources, please consider merging.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 01:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Norden1990, I am editing the entry for the "Treaty of Trianon", and have written the first sentence as "The Treaty of Trianon was a peace agreement signed on 4 June 1920 and entered into force on 26 July 1921". You deleted it and qualified it as "nonsense". Can you explain what you mean by that or what part of the sentence does not make sense? NobleGre38 (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, how rookie editors are aware of the rules and functioning of Wikipedia. --Norden1990 (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This reply looks like an argumentum ad hominem. Anyway, I see a point in putting "Trianon Dictate" in the footnotes, as it is more related to how the Trianon Treaty is remembered in Hungary and not about the Treaty itself. But my feeling is that it might be even better to put it in a section about the legacy of the treaty.

I also think it would be better to add a qualifier to the Trianon Treaty - namely that it was a "peace treaty" (see the entry for the Versailles Treaty of 1919). Otherwise one might wonder what the nature of the Treaty of Trianon was. NobleGre38 (talk) 11:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word "peace" appears 12 times in the lead section alone, much more than the other articles of the Paris Peace Conference (Neuilly-sur-Seine, Sèvres, Saint-Germain-en-Laye). If it was confusing for you, a rookie editor, the appearance of word "dictate" in the lead section, but there is a place for common alternative names in the Notes section, at least. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why you're so hostile to him? Being a "rookie" editor doesn't make someone automatically wrong, as can be seen from how long the eventually permabanned editor KIENGIR was allowed to rampage. Azure94 (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And now you're erasing parts of Apponiy's speech, even though they are highly relevant. Your POV bias is starting to show. Azure94 (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't bother me with your with your sick anti-Hungarian views on my own talk page, thanks! --Norden1990 (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Szerinted is csak neonácikat vert a csaj? 84.206.11.96 (talk) 09:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is the third "third-party" opinion you've asked. Please read WP:CANVAS. Polygnotus (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keresztény Magyarok Gesztája kimaradt. Egy jó cikk róla, innen letölthető: https://www.academia.edu/39894850/Kereszt%C3%A9ny_magyarok_geszt%C3%A1ja?email_work_card=titleKereszteny_magyarok_gesztaja.pdf

--Mandliners (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Igen, köszi, tervezem a cikket megírni a közeljövőben, többek között az általad linkelt tanulmány alapján. :) --Norden1990 (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A 407. oldaltól kezdődik!

--Mandliners (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Could you check this? The articles says Bela II and Helena married in 1129, I dont understand Elizabeth how born in 1128?

Béla II of Hungary

Helena of Serbia, Queen of Hungary

Elizabeth of Hungary, Duchess of Greater Poland

https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erzsébet_magyar_királyi_hercegnő_(%3F–1154)

https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/II._Béla_magyar_király

OrionNimrod (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Her parentage is uncertain, near-contemporary Polish chronicles only say that she was a daughter of "a Hungarian king" (the 15th-century historian Jan Długosz was the first who referred to Elizabeth as the child of Béla II). It is possible that her father, in fact, was Stephen II or even "king" Álmos. --Norden1990 (talk) 08:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Norden1990. Thank you for your work on Marco da Saliceto. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article! I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Szia!

Eleg szegenyes szovegben a magyar cimer cikk. Ismersz jo forrasokat amiket lehetne hasznalni? OrionNimrod (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OrionNimrod:, Bertényi Iván: Magyar címertan, ez minden magyar heraldikai mű alfája és omegája, továbbá Laszlovszky József: A magyar címer története. Ezek nagyon jó összefoglalók. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koszonom szepen! OrionNimrod (talk) 08:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bulcsú (chieftain), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gesta.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I would like to thank you for being the only one to support my article during the deletion discussion for "Báthory Family (Aba Clan)." I truly appreciate your contribution. After reviewing your edits on Wikipedia, I can see that you are indeed well-versed in Hungarian history, particularly with regard to the medieval Hungarian nobility. I am reaching out to you because I feel that many participants in the deletion discussion are not fully familiar with the content of the article or the significance of the sources included. It is crucial that an editor who understands the subject, like yourself, thoroughly reviews the article and the sources I have presented. I would kindly ask you to consider the arguments I have put forward and, if possible, represent your views in the deletion discussion as an informed editor. Unfortunately, many people even in Hungary are also unaware, that the name "Báthory" was used by four distinct historical families from two different clans, which has led to numerous misunderstandings about the topic. It is essential to recognize that until the two families are adequately distinguished in separate articles, any encyclopedic information regarding their contributions and historical contexts risks being conflated, potentially leading to misinformation. This is particularly evident in related articles, such as the one on Aba (gens), which inaccurately attributes aspects of the Aba Báthory family to the Gutkeled Báthory family. I wish to clarify this, and I believe that preventing such a misconception is an important task. I would be extremely grateful if you could take the time to review the article and express your opinion. I believe your expertise is essential for a balanced and professional conclusion to the discussion. A. Kenessey Kenessey Aurél (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kenessey Aurél:, yes, the Bátori de Gagy family was not related the Báthorys of the Gutkeled clan (Somlyó, Ecsed and Szaniszlófi branches). However, I am not sure that Nicholas Sirokai was progenitor of the Bátori de Gagy family. According to the genealogical works of János Karácsonyi and Pál Engel (which are still the most frequently used works in this subject), this Nicholas (son of Peter) was a member of the Aba clan's Szalánc branch, while the Bátoris descended from the same clan's Atyina branch (from a certain Gereven, whose name is mentioned once in 1285). --Norden1990 (talk) 21:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response! Unfortunately, it seems from your message that you haven't reviewed the sources provided in the article. The historians you mentioned are, unfortunately, mistaken. You should consider the accounts of Iván Nagy, which are supported by the 1678 family tree held by the Központi Antikvárium [1]. In the lower section of the family tree, you can read the exact lineage in Latin, which clarifies that Péter of Szalánc had six sons, the eldest being Miklós, also called Gereven, who was the Voivode of Transylvania. This original family tree refutes all other incorrect claims.[2]https://www.arcanum.com/hu/online-kiadvanyok/Nagyivan-nagy-ivan-magyarorszag-csaladai-1/tizedik-kotet-9475/sirokai-csalad-sirokai-9C84/ [3] [4] [5] [6] Please take a thorough look at the attached sources. I hope this will be a convincing argument. Kenessey Aurél (talk) 06:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Báthory (nem Bátori) [7] Kenessey Aurél (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The historians you mentioned were likely confused by the fact that Miklós was sometimes referred to as Gereven, due to his title (Grafen or Greven, the German count title). He was also documented under the name Sirokai, after his father's new estate. You can read about this in the description of the Sirokai family, which explains that Péter of Szalánc was occasionally called Péter of Siroka after exchanging Szalánc Castle with William Drugeth for, among other things, the Siroka estates. Kenessey Aurél (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The German encyclopedia states: "Greven" is an archaic German term meaning "counts" or "earls." It is an old variation of "Graf," which is the title for a count in the German nobility system. "Greven" was used in certain regions or older texts as a synonym for "Graf. Kenessey Aurél (talk) 07:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Comes," meaning count, appears often as "Grewin," "Greven," or "Gereven." in archaic documents not only in Hungary. Kenessey Aurél (talk) 08:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Norden,

In case you didn't get the message from my page:

Dear Norden,

Here is yet another perfect piece of evidence [14]. The document's text refers to Gereven. If you look at the original document, you will see and read the names if you are accustomed to reading archaic Latin texts. On the back of the document, it says in Latin: "Tractatus inter Nicolaum, Vajvodam Transylvaniae, et religiosos fratres congregationis, ratione discordiae inter Laurentium Vitez et Nicolaum de Peren, occasione qua praenominatus Laurentius de Vitez Korlathfalva etc. sibi expropriatus fuit etc." The English translation of this text is as follows: 'Agreement between Nicholas, Voivode of Transylvania, and the religious brothers of the congregation, regarding the dispute between Laurentius Vitez and Nicholas of Peren, on the occasion that the aforementioned Laurentius of Vitez was dispossessed of Korlathfalva, etc.' In the original document, Gereven is mentioned, but on the back, they write Nicholas the Voivode. I suggest, if you do not believe me, to have the text of the charter reviewed by someone knowledgeable! Kenessey Aurél (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply][reply]

I reviewed the text of the archaic latin document, and it mentions 'voivodam Gereven' in more than 20 places! [15] What can you say to that now? I hope that after this you will acknowledge that Voivode Miklós's nickname was Gereven.

Please be kind and be friend and modify your opinion on my page of deletion.

Thank you!!!!!

Kenessey Aurél (talk) 12:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Norden,

I’ve found the mistake! I apologize for all the back and forth in our discussions. I couldn't understand how it was possible that the Bertóthy family, whose archive contributed countless medieval documents to the National Museum, could have been mistaken about their own family tree. Several researchers have identified Gereven Miklós, the Voivode of Transylvania, as the founder of the Gagyi and Báthory families. These notes can also be found in the National Archives. The correct explanation is in Tóth Sándor's book and can be read in the monography of Sáros County, Volume I, on pages 213 and 325. Gereven is none other than Voivode Miklós, who held the position three times between 1272 and 1274. I will rewrite the Báthory family (of the Aba clan) page accordingly, provided it’s not deleted in the meantime.

Thank you for your understanding! Kenessey Aurél (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Kenessey Aurél:, this is another outdated information, that voivode is Nicholas Geregye whose clan (Geregye) originated in Transdanubia and and it has nothing to do with the Aba kindred. I checked the aforementioned work and it contains, even compared to the standard of the time, incorrect data regarding the descent of the Abas (for instance, Tóth did not consider that Finta, Amadeus and Peter were brothers e.g.) --Norden1990 (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the family itself is notable enough to have its own article, but the current status does not reach the level. I deleted some of the inappropriate, essay-like wording, but why does the article not contain factual information about individual members of the family, from the 14th century to 1689? --Norden1990 (talk) 10:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback regarding the article. I completely agree that the family is notable enough to have its own article. I appreciate your efforts in refining the content! I want to assure you that I will be adding the missing information about the key family members from the 14th century to 1689 shortly. The copies of the documents related to the book are all original archival records, providing us with credible sources to support our claims, but additionally, I will be gathering more online evidence to further support our claims and enrich the content. I truly appreciate your assistance in this process, and I would be happy if wi could collaborate on creating a professional and comprehensive article. Thanks again, Aurél Kenessey Aurél (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, I asked Tibor (we are relatives) about your questions. He pointed out the complexity of historical research, especially in the case of a dual-gens family that operated in the eastern part of Hungary. Since the family prefixes, such as "somlyói" or "gagyi," were not always recorded, there are often errors related to individuals with the same name. Tibor has also found several instances online where names that are certainly connected to the Báthory of Gagy family are listed only as "Báthory," which further complicates identification. This issue is compounded by the difficulty of selecting and verifying the correct references from among the hundreds available online. Since Wikipedia does not accept original research and documents, Tibor assured me that he will search for the appropriate sources among the reliable online references and use them to add the missing key family members. Kenessey Aurél (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Norden,

I believe I have finally uncovered the source of the misunderstandings. Please allow me to explain.

The 1330 document, in which the Drugeth and Szalánci families exchange the Szalánc estate for the Pertolat, Frich, Hedri, and Siroka estates, is not disputed. It is also mentioned in Iván Nagy’s writings. However, Nagy also states that Voivode Gereven acquired the Gagy estates, which is corroborated by the Anjoukori Oklevéltár (Charter of the Angevin Period) VII. 1323 that you shared. Gereven acquired the Gagy estates before the exchange of Szalánc. In the 1323 document, it is described how, under the orders of King Charles, royal men, along with Gereven’s sons Lawrence, Michael, and Nicholas, separated the Gagy estates from neighboring properties. The names match 100% with the Báthory family tree.

You sent the Drugeth document to prove that Gagy was not part of the exchange. But that was never in dispute. The original family tree simply noted that Gereven founded the Gagy family after acquiring the Gagy and Bátor estates. In 1344, Gereven was granted the right of the pallos (sword) for the Jobbágy estate, and it is likely that some of his sons lived there, but the family ultimately settled in Gagy and Bátor. In Gagy, they built both a residential and fortified castle, while in Bátor they constructed a residential one. This could explain why there are no later traces of the Jobbágyi family.

The 1285 date associated with Gereven is probably an estimate of his birth year. The names Sirokai and Jobbágyi might have been used in the documents when he lived there. Even his father, Péter, is referred to as "Sirokai" in some documents. Believe me, Iván Nagy put together an accurate summary of the family. The ownership of Szalánc castle has always been attributed to the three brothers: Finta, Péter, and Amadeus, according to historical accounts.

I hope this finally resolves the source of the confusion. If we could meet in person, we could discuss the arguments for and against more thoroughly.

Have a nice day! Kenessey Aurél (talk) 06:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Az alábbi szövegben az is olvasható, hogy Miklós c. (comes) akit Gerevennek neveztek [8] szintén jelen volt.

Az egri kápt. I. Károly király (H) 1323. május 27-i meghagyására (233. sz.) jelenti, hogy embere, Voyk fia István pap, Kalathay-i Pál királyi emberrel június 12-én kiment Januk (1398: Janók) birtokra és a hozzátartozó birtokokra, és az összehívott szomszédok - Peder-i Domonkos, Ine fia István fiai: Pál és Petheu, szintén Peder-iek, továbbá Merhard fia Imre fia Miklós, ugyanazon Merhard fia János fiainak: Simonnak és Lászlónak az officiálisa, Domonkos, Hulych, ugyanazok Mokrouch-i bírója, valamint Kana fia András, Boyg fia Fábián, és az ő fia Péter, végül Gereuen fiai: Lőrinc, Miklós és Mihály, Kordos (dict.) Miklós c. és officiálisa, István és Otih fia Hernich fia János - jelenlétében Januk birtokot a szomszédoktól ellentmondás nélkül elválasztották. Kenessey Aurél (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holec was talking about Hungarian made Trianon hoaxes. Azure94 (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you have it. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original text is in Slovak, which you don't speak. That might explain your confusion. The text clearly talks about Hungarian-made Trianon hoaxes. Do you want me to contact Holec himself to tell you that you're wrong?Azure94 (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know me that you write so confidently, I don't understand Slovak? I tend to read Slovak historiography. Please, contact with him, I recognize his work. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you say you can read Slovak, then surely you can mention what Holec meant when he used the term "Trianon Hoaxes". Think hard about your answer, because I have actually emailed Holec some time ago about this. Which means we'll easily see if your definition correlates with what Holec actually meant. Azure94 (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please inform me when the contact has been made. Unfortunately, I borrowed the book during the summer, I don't have my own copy. But I remember some text saying that this is also one of the "Trianon hoaxes" that burden the relationship between the two peoples. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...Right. I said in my previous comment that I've contacted Holec about this in the past. So I don't understand why you're acting as if this contact has not already been made. Do you want me to post a screencap of the email conversation, or is copypasting the relevant parts in here enough? Azure94 (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the relevant section of the book (page 192) is enough. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...do you understand English? I'm asking if you want a screencap of Holec's direct email comments about the inaccuracies you defend in the article. Please re-read my previous comment. Azure94 (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if you could also cite the relevant part of the book, I would be grateful. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to imply that you understand Holec's book more than Holec himself? And please stop avoiding my question. I'll ask you for the third time: Do you want a screencap of my conversation with Holec or is it OK if I just quote from it? Azure94 (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote that "You don't seem to have the original text", so I guess you have. Please, could you provide the text of the relevant section (page 192) and Holec's conversation with you? Obviously I need to know what Holec reacted to. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holec was reacting to the wikipedia text. I will provide Holec's conversation once you finally answer my question in which format you want it presented to you. I've asked you this three times and you've ignored my question three times. Hopefully you'll answer this time. Azure94 (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, post a screencap of the email conversation, and the original text from the book, if available at all. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I will post a screencap to prove my claim of talking with Holec about this wikipedia article, and in return, I expect that you will prove your claim to have "borrowed during summer" this book by posting a screencap of this page. Surely, we can both prove our claims and you won't invent any excuses to refuse doing this. Azure94 (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No response. Go figure. I promised to post screencaps of my email conversation with Holec, but what's the point as long as @Norden1990 is unwilling to post a screencap of page 192 of the book he "borrowed this summer"? Does Norden1990 really believe that he's exempt from proving his claims? Whatever. I'll now talk about my conversation with Holec.

I asked Holec to compare the Slovak Wikipedia and English Wikipedia section about Osusky meeting Apponyi, and tell me which one is correct and which one isn't, and where.

Holec's response boiled down to these points:

Both Slovak and English Wikipedia are correct to say that Osusky's claim about meeting Apponyi is untrue. Holec calls Osusky's story "romantic fiction".

However, the extra addition in English Wikipedia that mentions Osusky's story being part of "numerous Trianon hoaxes" is inaccurate. Holec hopes that this inaccuracy wasn't intentional on the part of the person who added it.

According to Holec, when he wrote about "numerous Trianon hoaxes" in his book, he was referring primarily to Hungarian-made fabrications. Holec stressed that there's an entire constellation ("cela plejada") of Hungarian-made Trianon hoaxes, whose purpose was to explain the supposed anti-Hungarian bias of Western politicians. He added that for Slovaks Trianon was not an important topic, so they had no need to fabricate any notable amount of stories.

The current English Wikipedia text therefore gives the impression of there being "numerous" Slovak-made Trianon hoaxes. But Holec used that term to talk about Hungarian fabrication. To remove this obvious inaccuracy, we can either remove the mention of "Trianon Hoaxes" (which will make the text in-line with Slovak Wikipedia, with which Holec had no complaints about) or we can keep it while specifying that the vast majority of these "numerous Trianon Hoaxes" were invented by Hungarians.

Now then. I have a screencap of my email correspondence with Holec, which I'm willing to provide as long as Norden promises to provide screencaps of page 192. Azure94 (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think I said I don't have the book anymore? That's why I said that if you have it, quote the relevant part of page 192 (since you wrote "you don't seem to have the original text", I assumed you have the book). I read the book in the summer, then I inserted the excerpt with the given source. Actually the wording is irrelevant, the point is that this story with Apponyi is not true. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I made this decision, and forget to notify you first here, but the article IMO is chaotic and misleading. You can debate me on deletion talks, if you want. Hörgő (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Leader of the Opposition (Hungary) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leader of the Opposition (Hungary) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Hörgő (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Norden1990. Could you expand on this edit summary of yours? I still don't understand the removal of the categories. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby.is.on:, I fixed the problem. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "they are parent categories"? Robby.is.on (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CATEGORY. For example, if there is a football player, you do not categorize his article to both Category:Footballers and Category:Hungarian footballers, because the former is the parent category of the latter. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. you do not categorize his article to both Category:Footballers and Category:Hungarian footballers, because the former is the parent category of the latter Yes, I know that. How does that relate to the league categories? Please clarify. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nemzeti Bajnokság I is not a category for persons. It is the parent category of Category:Nemzeti Bajnokság I players. I fixed it. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow. Only now I see that the categories were simply missing the "players" bit. Thanks for fixing that. Happy editing, Robby.is.on (talk) 09:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]