Talk:Maria Komnene, Queen of Hungary

Two Queens
There exist two pieces of Maria Komnene, Queen consort of Hungary.Borgatya (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Move to Maria Komnene, Queen of Hungary

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: move. DrKiernan (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Maria Komnene (d. 1190)→Maria Komnene, Queen of Hungary — The guideline does not prohibit using marital titles to distinguish between namesakes. Gryffindor is aware (or should be aware) of several similar discussions that have taken place - they have all resulted in moving X of Y (xxxx-yyyy) to X of Y, Queen of Z because such disambugation is much more useful. Is this woman notable for being a queen or for having died in 1190? Is she better known as Maria Komnene, Queen of Hungary or as Maria Komnene who died in 1190?

We need some sort of disambiguation. However, putting the year of death in the article title is not the best way to do it. When going through categories or disambiguation pages, it is much easier to realize that Maria Komnene, Queen of Hungary, is the Maria Komnene you're looking for. Surtsicna (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support move, the proposed name is both better as a description and uses her most eminent characteristic for disambiguation... Constantine  ✍  18:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support, but it should be Comnena, as in the Britannica - the only English source for this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, let's not re-raise the whole ODB issue again... If every other Komnenian article uses the "Komnenos/Komnene" form, it would be silly to make an exception for this one. Its not as if the form is unknown in English literature Constantine   ✍  07:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we solve the disambiguation problem first and deal with the spelling later, since the spelling affects more articles? Surtsicna (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support, dates are again an inferior method of disambiguation (the spelling can be decided in a separate discussion).--Kotniski (talk) 11:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Much clearer and a convention commonly used in the literature. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Assessed for WP: Womens History
The article was assessed as Stub-class for its lack of solid information about the subject, and its confusing rendition of history. Boneyard90 (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. MER-C 12:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)