Talk:Charles IV of Hungary's attempts to retake the throne
 | A fact from Charles IV of Hungary's attempts to retake the throne appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 April 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
[Untitled]
[edit]That's one more reason not to butcher the article title and make it into a nonsense. Hobartimus 10:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Is that a personal attack? One, this article was created under the Austrian title. Two, there was never a RM to move the page from the Austrian title all while calling for one to move it to the Austrian title (where it originally was). Three, Charles' article here is titled Charles I of Austria. Four, Charles I of Austria and Charles IV of Hungary are the same person, but imperial titles outrank noble ones. Five, Charles is most associated with his imperial title and less so with his royal title. Charles 06:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's a reply to the above did you know message box. You should note the date it's 5 July 2007, its a bit late to react to it now. (I only recently noticed that the banner on the top of this page changes along with the article title so it's a dynamic thing, not static). There is no need to do RM to uncontroversial moves. The current debate between us clearly shows that your latest move is highly controversial so you should now recognizing that fact should ask for RM. Hobartimus 06:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, how about this: Your move was controversial and undiscussed and I restored the article title to the initial form. Also, the title had "Austria" in it when DYK was added and obviously it wasn't butchered or alarming when it came up. It seems you are placing blame, fault or whatever on me when I could say just as much about you but also provide relevant page history to back it up. So, as I said before, I could react identically if I wanted to and say: The current debate between us clearly shows that your latest move is highly controversial so you should now recognizing that fact should ask for RM. Charles 07:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I agree with you completely. The current debate shows that the move is controversial. If you made the same arguments to me on July the 6th (A day after my move) or a week after it, I would simply see that my move was opposed and I would have asked for RM(or abandoned the issue). But the fact is my move was not opposed/reverted/commented on by anyone for months, which at the time suggested to me that it was uncontroversial. You see my side of the argument now? Hobartimus 07:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, how about this: Your move was controversial and undiscussed and I restored the article title to the initial form. Also, the title had "Austria" in it when DYK was added and obviously it wasn't butchered or alarming when it came up. It seems you are placing blame, fault or whatever on me when I could say just as much about you but also provide relevant page history to back it up. So, as I said before, I could react identically if I wanted to and say: The current debate between us clearly shows that your latest move is highly controversial so you should now recognizing that fact should ask for RM. Charles 07:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's a reply to the above did you know message box. You should note the date it's 5 July 2007, its a bit late to react to it now. (I only recently noticed that the banner on the top of this page changes along with the article title so it's a dynamic thing, not static). There is no need to do RM to uncontroversial moves. The current debate between us clearly shows that your latest move is highly controversial so you should now recognizing that fact should ask for RM. Hobartimus 06:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
While Emperor Charles I of Austria was also King Charles IV of Hungary, he was primarily known as Charles I of Austria. Article titles should have the most recognizable components to best reflect common usage. The fact that Charles I of Austria & IV of Hungary is the subject of an article titled Charles I of Austria is testament to this. Charles 23:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Quotes
[edit]There should be quotes around everything directly ripped out of Sakmyster's bio on Horthy. Simply putting a note after each paragraph, without any quotation marks within, implies that the material is paraphrased. Much of it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.10.71 (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
They left Hungary on 1st of November
[edit]They boarded on 1st of November on HMS Glowworm at Baja, and they left the country on the same day, so it was not only "hours later", when announcement was made in the parliament on the 3rd November. Baja is only cca 50 km far from the Serbian border so they left the country in few hours actually. 89.132.194.169 (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)