Category talk:Kingdom of Hungary

Moved from category header
This category should be split to disambiguate topics pertaining to:
 * Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages
 * Royal Hungary
 * Kingdom of Hungary 1700–1918 (Habsburg Monarchy)
 * Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbachmann (talk • contribs)

Categorization
Marcocapelle, former countries are usually categorized as subcategories of current countries, as they cover one part of their history. You said in your edit summary that "Habsburg parent category should be a child category instead". Can you explain why you think that? Habsburg period in the history of modern Hungary is not entirelly covered by topic with name "Kingdom of Hungary" since there were some separate Habsburg provinces which covered territory of modern Hungary, but which were not part of Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary. Now, question is: are you not aware of that fact or you are aware, but you simply ignoring it? Also, historical Kingdom of Hungary covered territories of modern Slovakia and modern Transylvania. However, you removed these two countries as parent categories of this category. Why? There is no any logic in your changes. Categories with names "Slovakia in the Kingdom of Hungary" or "Transylvania in the Kingdom of Hungary" are simply reffering to part of the history of modern Slovakia or modern Transylvania which were covered by existence of former Kingdom of Hungary. There were no historical political units named "Slovakia" or "Transylvania" which were part of the former Kingdom of Hungary. Sure, it is not fully correct statement for Transylvania, as there was Duchy of Transylvania in medieval Kingdom of Hungary, but Principality of Transylvania from later time periods which was Ottoman vassal state and Habsburg crownland was not part of the Kingdom of Hungary until 1867. In 1867, political unit with name Transylvania was abolished and only then its territory was included into Kingdom of Hungary. So, since you created category with name "Transylvania in the Kingdom of Hungary" can you explain to what exactly is this category supposed to reffer? Does it refer to medieval duchy or to "geographical Transylvania" after 1867? If this is not defined then it could refer to both time periods, between which there is a big hole. As for Slovakia, there was never an political unit with name "Slovakia" in the former "Kingdom of Hungary". So, how one non-existing political unit can be categorizad as a subcategory of the Kingdom of Hungary? With this categorization, wikipedia readers will think that there was some province with name "Slovakia" in the former Kingdom of Hungary and there was no one. By my understanding term "Slovakia in the Kingdom of Hungary" can refer only to "one period in the history of the territory of modern Slovakia". So, it is history of modern geographical area and not history of former political unit. Your way of categorization mislead the readers implying that there was a such political unit in history. Redbluelighting (talk) 08:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A lot of questions :-)
 * Question 1 regarding the Habsburg period. It's not really relevant if the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary wasn't identical under the Habsburgs when compared to the medieval territory. The territory may also have been different in 1400 when compared to 1100. It might have been an issue only if the territory would have been very different, but that's not the case.
 * Question 2 regarding child/parent relationships in categorization. It's really not appropriate to have Category:History of Slovakia as a parent category of Category:Kingdom of Hungary because the current Slovakia territory was only a minor part of the former Kingdom of Hungary. Child categories should - at least for the larger part - have a narrower scope than the parent category, not a broader scope.
 * Question 3 regarding Transylvania. I noted that there is content available that covers the longer period Hungarian involvement in Transylvania, such as Category:Kingdom of Hungary counties in Transylvania, Category:Hungarian nobility in Transylvania‎, Anti-Romanian sentiment, Transylvanian Saxons which justifies a Kingdom of Hungary subcategory for the local history of Transylvania. So to answer your question: it's meant as an intersection category between Kingdom of Hungary (1000-1918) and History of Transylvania. The name of Transylvania is not an issue, because even after there was no longer a duchy or principality with that name, the name has still continued to exist as a historical region.
 * Question 4 regarding Slovakia. This is similar to Transylvania except you're completely right there has never been a political unit with the name of Slovakia. I admit this is an issue and if you have suggestions regarding a better category name please tell me and we'll nominate the category for renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

You missed my main point about difference in territory. Here is how you categorized this:
 * Kingdom of Hungary (parent category)
 * Habsburg period in the history of Hungary‎ (child category)
 * Banat of Temeswar, Military Frontier‎, Voivodeship of Serbia and Banat of Temeschwar‎, etc (child categories)

I have problem with that because this way of categorization imply that Banat of Temeswar, Military Frontier‎ and Voivodeship of Serbia and Banat of Temeschwar were parts of the Kingdom of Hungary and they were not. They were separate Habsburg provinces, which covered one part of the territory of modern Hungary. Therefore, they are indeed part of the "Habsburg period in the history of Hungary", but they were not part of the Kingdom of Hungary. This way of categorization is therefore incorrect and misleading.

So, "Kingdom of Hungary", which covers topic of former country should be a child category of history categories of each modern country or region whose territory it covered (this includes Hungary, Slovakia and Transylvania as well).

Speaking about Transylvania, its periods of history should be divided into following categories: "Transylvania in the Kingdom of Hungary (medieval)", "Principality of Transylvania (Ottoman)", "Principality of Transylvania (Habsburg)", "Transylvania in the Kingdom of Hungary (1867-1918)". If there are topics which are related to both periods when Transylvania was part of the Kingdom of Hungary (medieval and 1867-1918) then such topics should be child categories/articles of both these categories.

Slovakia category should be at least divided into two categories: "Slovakia in the Kingdom of Hungary (medieval)" and "Slovakia in the Kingdom of Hungary (Habsburg)". However, my main objection was not a name of this category but its parent-child relation to "Kingdom of Hungary" category. Since "Kingdom of Hungary" was a former country then child categories of this category should be only its factual former regions or provinces, not modern ones. In another words, such former regions are counties of the Kingdom of Hungary located in the territory of modern Slovakia. However, it is simply wrong and incorrect to categorize modern country as a subcategory of an former country. Redbluelighting (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, speaking about your statement that "child categories should - at least for the larger part - have a narrower scope than the parent category, not a broader scope", I fully agree with that, but with addition that they should also cover same time periods. You cannot mix here geography and history. "Current Slovakia territory" cannot be in any "narrower - broader" relation with "territory of former Kingdom of Hungary" simply because the two did not existed in same time period. You can implement this "narrower - broader" categorization only to territories from same time period. You can compare size of former Hungarian counties in Slovakia with size of the Kingdom of Hungary and implement this "narrower - broader" logic there, but it is a standard practice that modern countries are always parent categories, while former countries are usually their child categories. Let me implement "narrower - broader" logic which mix history and geography in this specific case: category "Huns" is a child category of "Ancient Hungary" category (which it should to be). However, if we see a history map we will conclude that Hunnic Empire was much bigger than current Hungary and therefore we might conclude that Hunnic Empire is a topic of broader scope than Hungary and that we should place Hungary as a child category of the Hunnic Empire. This just shows where mixing of history and geography would led us. Redbluelighting (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * 1. I missed the point indeed, thanks for clarifying. Which means that Banat of Temeswar, Military Frontier‎, Voivodeship of Serbia and Banat of Temeschwar‎ should be parented to "Habsburg Monarchy" instead of "Habsburg period in the history of Hungary", right?
 * 2. As you may expect based on my previous comments, I don't agree that Kingdom of Hungary should be a child category of History of Transylvania or History of Slovakia for the reason that the larger part of the Kingdom of Hungary category isn't about Transylvania or Slovakia in particular, so that's a matter of WP:NONDEF. Basically I agree with your analysis on mixing geographic and periodical categories, but the implication simply is that one category can't be a parent of the other and vice versa. There are two good solutions in case there is some overlap between two categories from different trees (like there's some overlap between (periodical) Kingdom of Hungary and (geographic) History of Slovakia): one solution is create an intersection category and parent this new category to the former two categories, which I did with Slovakia in the Kingdom of Hungary. And if there's really very little overlap, another solution is to only parent individual articles to Kingdom of Hungary and History of Slovakia if these articles refer to both.
 * 3. With renaming or splitting Transylvania and Slovakia categories (which is what you're proposing, right?), please go ahead nominating them at CFD. I don't have a problem with what you're proposing. Do you know how to? If needed, I can help.
 * 4. With the Huns, please note that this is quite a special case. They are only parented to history of Hungary, Ukraine and Romania because it seems the center of gravity of Hunnic activity was in these countries. But it's not parented to the history of any other countries although the Hunnic Empire has been much bigger than these three countries. So I wouldn't really object against this construction. Theoretically it might be more elegant to have a child category "History of Hungary in the Hunnic period" etc., but I'm not going to create a category like that because I expect there wouldn't be too much content that can be separated per current country, so this idea would fail per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Answer:
 * you missunderstood me again regarding Habsburg issue. 3 Habsburg provinces which I mentioned are parts of the history of Hungary as they included territory of modern Hungary. Now, when I say "Hungary", I mean modern Hungary with its borders as they are in 2015. History of every current country (as they are defined in 2015) includes history of whole geographical area of that country (as defined in 2015). In Wikipedia there is distinction in articles between names "Hungary" (current country) and "Kingdom of Hungary" (former country). So, if we have category with name "Habsburg period in the history of Hungary" (where there is no word "Kingdom" in such name) it is obvious that this category refers to geographical territory of modern Hungary (as it is defined in 2015). If you wanted to have category which refers to Habsburg period of the former Kindom of Hungary, you should rather create some category with name "Habsburg period in the history of the Kingom of Hungary" (with word "Kingdom" in it). And to be fully clear: articles Banat of Temeswar, Military Frontier‎, Voivodeship of Serbia and Banat of Temeschwar‎ should be parented to category "Habsburg period in the history of Hungary", but category "Habsburg period in the history of Hungary" should not be parented to category "Kingdom of Hungary".
 * now about your statement: "I don't agree that Kingdom of Hungary should be a child category of History of Transylvania or History of Slovakia for the reason that the larger part of the Kingdom of Hungary category isn't about Transylvania or Slovakia in particular" - well, if you examine territorial issues regarding Treaty of Trianon you will see that most of the territory of the former Kingdom of Hungary is not located within borders of modern Hungary, but within borders of neighbouring countries. You will also see that most of the people who lived in the Kingdom of Hungary were not ethnic Hungarians. Excluding 1867-1918 period, Kingdom of Hungary for most of its history was an multiethnic country in which official language was Latin. So, history of this former country is part of the histories of countries like Romania, Slovakia, Croatia, Serbia, etc. History of different ethnic groups which lived in the Kingdom of Hungary was not limited to territories which are not part of modern Hungary. Hungarian capital Budapest was also cultural center for other ethnic groups, etc. But, nevertheless, main point of categorization is that Kingdom of Hungary as an former country should be categorized under history category of each country whose territory it covered. I do not agree that here we have parts of this kingdom of lesser or larger importance. There were time periods when kingdom of Hungary did not even included most of the area of modern Hungary. For example look this reference: There, Kingdom of Hungary included only small parts of western Croatia, western Hungary, western Slovakia and eastern Austria (reference shows period in 1678-1683). So, what is exactly "main" part of the Kingdom of Hungary according to you? If we examine these borders from 1678-1683 we can see that Kingdom of Hungary from that period in fact included larger part of modern Croatia than of modern Hungary. So, my basic point here is that history of the Kingdom of Hungary is a common legacy of all succesor states and that it should be subcategory of all these states. Redbluelighting (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should base our conversation on an exceptional period, when Hungary was largely occupied by Turkish Empire.
 * The main point of reference is when Kingdom of Hungary ceased to exist, because that's the point where the old polity/-ies and the new polity/-ies intersect. There are two points of view possible, either you think that current Hungary is the successor state of the Kingdom of Hungary in which case it's perfectly valid to parent Kingdom to Hungary to History of Hungary but not to other countries' histories. Or you may argue that Kingdom of Hungary has simply disappeared, similar to the disappearance of the Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire, in which case it's not valid to parent it to any current countries' histories. You wouldn't want to parent Roman Empire to all southern and middle European current countries, would you? Marcocapelle (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * With the history of regions you mentioned (Banat of Temeswar, Military Frontier‎, Voivodeship of Serbia and Banat of Temeschwar), it seems like you're making this more difficult than needed. If these regions did not belong to the Kingdom of Hungary they should not be in the tree of Kingdom of Hungary but in the tree of history by location, and also in the tree of Habsburg Monarchy. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not see in which way is Ottoman period in the history of Hungary "exceptional"? As for succession issue, if you read text of the Treaty of Trianon, you will see that this Treaty consider that several countries are successors of the Kingdom of Hungary, as all these countries were obligated to accept part of the state debt of the government of the former Kingdom of Hungary. Therefore, from the point of view of international law, Kingdom of Hungary ceased to exist and several countries became its successors, just like in the recent case of the breakup of Yugoslavia. Now, you again missed my main point: parts of the territory of modern Hungary were not within borders of the former Kingdom of Hungary not just in Ottoman period but also in Habsburg period. So, I am not the one who "making this more difficult than needed" - this issue is complicated with or without my involvement and we should respect all this complicity and adjust categorization accordingly. Yes, these Habsburg provinces which were not part of the Kingdom of Hungary should not be in the tree of Kingdom of Hungary, but they should be in the tree of Hungary as they covered part of the territory of modern Hungary. I mean what exactly you see as problem here? I will try to explain this to you with this map: http://mapsof.net/uploads/static-maps/Balkans_historical_map_1815_1859.png If you examine it, you will see that Habsburg land named "Serbian Voivodina and Banat of Temesvar" (or "Voivodeship of Serbia and Banat of Temeschwar" as it is named in Wikipedia) was not part of Habsburg land named "Hungary" (or "Kingdom of Hungary" in Wikipedia). Now you see detailed map of this Habsburg land: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Vojvodina_map.png You can see there that this province also included town of Baja, which is today part of Hungary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baja,_Hungary So, town of Baja, which is today part of modern Hungary was not part of the former Kingdom of Hungary in 1849-1860 period, but it was ruled by Habsburgs and was part of one of the Habsburg crownlands. Do you understand the complexity of this now and do you see why we need separate Habsburg category related also to modern Hungary instead only to former Kingdom of Hungary? Redbluelighting (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)