Talk:Counties of Hungary (1000–1920)

Untitled
Could someone tell me what is proto-magyar?Thanks.Baxter9 08:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The Hungarian word megye (or Latin mega) is derived from the old Slavic word medja (međa, међа) meaning approximately territorial border.

Well, the Hungarian language contains one specific word for territorial border, and it's "mezsgye". It is pronounced approximately "mezh-gye". "Megye" which means "county" is originated from somewhere else.

Blakszta 01:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracy?
Why is "county" inaccurate? This is how t he term is always translated in English. john k 03:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed the adverb until this is explained: county is, after all, the standard English for comitatus in England and France - and originates there; why is it inaccurate in Hungary? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, I make due changes. --peyerk (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Comitatus
I have landed in this article by chance, linking from Franz Liszt to his birth place Sopron County and from there to comitatus.

The article "Sopron County" says that "The Sopron comitatus arose as one of the first comitatus of the Kingdom of Hungary". It seems that the term comitatus is used in Hungary even today. I have found that in some languages (Italian, Czech, Finnish...) the equivalent article uses the term "comitatus" in the title. I do not propose to revert to this title, but to introduce the term in the heading of the article.--Auró (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Source: very problematic, verging on disaster
As far as I can tell, the entire article was created based on one source, John Paget (1840). This was until now in no way clear to the user, and I cannot vouch for it 100% either, as it is impossible for me timewise to check & confront every detail with Paget's original text. Until now, the source was indicated only in regard to one small paragraph, and in an utterly inadequate manner (hardly any details to go by – neither author, title, issue number, or page). It was done so in or before 2010, maybe the editor didn't know any better, whatever, but now we need to deal with it.

I have identified the source, and have added links to Google Books (PDF) plus an option with a searchable (but cumbersome, only searchable within the displayed page) HTML version with links to downloadable PDF and ePub versions. If anyone feels up to the task, good luck with sourcing each of this article's paragraphs by page, which is the required standard on enWiki – and not just for formal reasons, but we cannot actually go on editing the article properly w/o it.

Paget seems to be a good source, but given that he published this art. in 1840, the research is much more advanced and, even on such historical topics as the one at hand, it's not good to rely only on him. But adding and mixing in material from new sources before sourcing each existing paragraph back to Paget (with the specific page, and placing a ref template in each position) would only create a terrible mess.

I have reformulated the one ref template that we've had so far, in a simple form as "Paget (1840), p. ...", sending the user to the bibliography (which consists of only one title). There are smarter templates automatically doing this, but i don't master them, so feel free, but please: don't change the concept now, just add a degree of automatism (link to URL via "Bibliography"). Thanks. Another problem is that the page URLs are short for Google Books, but for the HTML text it's huge. It's not practical to do as I did, indicating both, for more than one time. Arminden (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)