Template talk:History of Hungary

Gap after 1920
There seems to be a gap between 1920 and the immediate pre-WWII times. Is there an article adequately covering this era? Miklós Horthy is a good candidate, but an article about a person wouldn't look very good in the History of Hungary series... KissL 07:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest removal of Royal Hungary, because Royal Hungary was situated mostly outside the borders of modern Hungary. This template deals with the history of Hungary, not of the Hungarians. Also, for the same reasons, I dismiss interpretations like "Kingdom of Hungary between the 18th and 19th centuries". The history of modern Hungary it`s not bound the the concept of "Kingdom of Hungary". For example, if I would want to make an article Neolithic Hungary, couldn`t I because at that time there was no Kingdom of Hungary? Or, how about we simply ignore (like it was prior I made the article) the 200 years of Ottoman Hungary (whose territory comprised over two thirds of modern Hungary), and instead focus all on "Royal Hungary" (which contained only minor parts of modern Hugnary), just because it was only in Royal Hungary were the term "Kingdom of Hungary" survived. Avaring 10:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"History of Transylvania" - You don`t seem to simply get over it, do you? :| Avaring 21:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

While we try to conceive "something" here i will revert the template to its original form. AFAIK History of Hungary = history of the hungarian statehood. --fz22 22:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It's obviously that AFAYK is not that far. "Hungarian statehood"??? First of all, undertand that you simply can't apply your ideas about ethnicity to the 16th century. Second, no Wikipedia rule allows for this to happen. Even if Transylvania was 100% Hungarian, today it has nothing to do with Hungary (Hungary as in the State of Hungary, not the state of Hungarians, and certaintly not a undefined, border-less entity, where criterium for a territory to belong or not, is whether any "Hungarian Statehood" existed there). Please, try to apply the laicity of the state, not only to nonconfessionality, but to it's history too. As for Transylvania, I guess I'll have to write a couple of articles or so. For example, I will start with the first ever Prince of the Independent Transylvania, István Majlát, who was nothing else but a Vlach, the one turned against John Zápolya, and created the Principality of Transylvania under Ottoman suzerainty. Avaring 08:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Transylvania can't be erased completely /backward!/ from the history of Hungary just beacase of Trianon. Saying History of Transylvania is not part of the History of Hungary is nothing but crap. The history of a state is more then just the history of its present day teritory. Could be funny to read such a historical book about the Hungarian conquest, saying: the Hungarians - 7 + 3 tribes - settled inside the Carpathians, but 5 of them settled outside Hungary's present day borders, so let's forget about them ... Your students will like this new twist on learning ;)--fz22 14:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Indeed, the Majlath family had been of Vlach ancestry. BUT never was a Prince just a voivode appointed by the King, and was inprisoned by the Ottomans just because he sided with Ferdinand and turned against the Ottoman's vasal John I. BTW he personaly led an army against Gritti, another person who was in the Ottoman's confidence ... --fz22 13:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don`t you throw in links to the History of Croatia and History of Slovakia while you`re at it? Avaring 12:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And don`t forget Magna Hungaria and Yugra too! Avaring 12:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Know what? Throw in the History of Sumer too... Avaring 12:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

So are you going to remove the link to the Kingdom of Hungary from History of Slovakia with the edit comment "[...] get that? Slovakia. Slo-va-kia..."? It is just evident that the history of Transylvania in the 1526-c.1700 period is part of the history of Hungary (and nobody has been putting it into a different context). Sumerian yourself! :) KissL 13:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

History of Transylvania, part II.
HoT was itegrant part of History of Hungary in June 3, 1920, but wasn't a day later?!? I can't understand this! History of Kosovo will be erased from the Serbian history ( = History of Serbia) one day after its independence will be proclaimed? We will place it under an "other" section??? I'll give you another example. Let's suppose in virtue of some miracle Transylvania would be under to Hungarian suzeranity again ... so in this case this short intermezzo (the Romanian rule) would be considered something similar to the 150 year Ottomans rule (neverthless, this is my personal POV), and the history of the land will be also reattached to the History of Hungary, in Wikipedia? And a new article will be created "Romanaian Hungary" ... Funny, isn't it? Or in 1920 Romania also procured the right over not just a land, economy, etc but over the history of the land backward, however has nothing to do with Transylvania in the predecing millenium?? --fz22 15:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, it's vitally important to the History of Hungary, but that section of the template is chronological from Pannonia to the current Republic of Hungary. Where does HoT, which covers from the 5th century to the present fit in that order? It doesn't. History of the Jews in Hungary and Military History of Hungary (both important to Hungarian History) also don't fit into the chronology, because they also cover a broad time range. If there was a History of Budapest it would also have to fit in the "other" section, although it would be just as important as HoT. So even if Transylvania were re-attached to Hungary, it would still fit in the "other" section because it's the whole history of a part of hungary, rather than part of the history of all of hungary. Erted? - TheMightyQuill 20:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, if you want, that's fine. It would be better if there was a separate Principality of Transylvania article, but until that time, this is fine. It might not please the Hungarian nationalists though, as it gives the impression that this was the only time Transylvania was part of Hungary. - TheMightyQuill 20:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hungarian Democratic Republic
Okay, you guys want to talk about this? I think normally, stub articles are not included in templates. If the History of Hungary article doesn't have a subsection about the Hungarian Democratic Republic, it's kind of weird to include it in the template. It's an important piece of Hungarian history, but considering it lasted less than half a year, how much is the article realistically going to grow? Then again, the Hungarian Soviet Republic only lasted a month or so longer, and it has a fairly decent article. Pannonian, I think if you channeled your efforts into expanding the article a little further, you'd have a lot less trouble convincing everyone that it deserves to be included in the template. Then the History of Hungary article could include subsections on each period. - TheMightyQuill 01:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Stub articles and red links do not get included on templates. The importance of the topic is debatable(if it deserves inclusion on the template or not in the end), but we can have that debate when there is a decent article to talk about. Also the space on the template is limited it can not be extended for every 1 sentence article you create. Hobartimus 04:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * After all, belongs to Hungary's history. No deletion.--Non-profit organizations 16:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on what qualifies this under-stub quality article to take up precious space on this important template? Can you give other examples of red-links, non-articles being on important templates before they would be developed into any sort of half-decent status? Also notice that are a lot of stuff that is Hungarian history that is not on the template even with a developed article. Hobartimus 17:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrofit topic year headers/subpages
09-Dec-2008: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2006" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well. Afterward, I added the title to the untitled topic "Gap after 1920". Then I added "Talk-page subpages" beside the TOC. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

New parameters boxclass, boxwidth, marginleft, marginright
09-Dec-2008: To allow the infobox "Template:History_of_Hungary" to be aligned and stacked on to the related infobox "Template:History_of_Croatia", then traits of the infobox must be changed by passing parameters. New parameters are:
 * boxclass=infobox - the CSS class of table (default: infobox)
 * boxwidth=220px - the width of the box table (default: 205px)
 * marginleft=0.1em - the width of the margin outside the left edge of the box (default: 1.0em).
 * marginright=0.1em - the width of the margin outside the right edge of the box (default: 0.0em).

Other parameters might be needed for further use of the infobox in more articles. The above parameters can be used when stacking along with other infoboxes along the right-side of a page. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Narrowing infobox
09-Dec-2008: To narrow the infobox, as a slim sidebar navbox, I defaulted the righthand margin to zero, as 0.0em. Also, I cut year "1989" as slightly shorter phrase "89", then put Modern-era years after colon ":" rather than in "". The shorter year allowed narrowing the infobox by 5% as 215px (from 225px), and then further omitting "(_)" allowed setting boxwidth as 205px. The box could be narrowed more, but now matches "Template:History of Croatia" at 205px. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:27, 9 Dec 2008 (revised at 05:33, 10 Dec).

Emphasis: bold, italic, or none
I could infer no particular reason for the various styles of emphasis given to the topics listed, and have unified them. If there is some purpose to the use of emphasis, perhaps someone would explain it. Thanks. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 23:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom of Hungary (1538–1867)
Its a original research and synthesis. It was a Royal Hungary and Habsburg Hungarian kingdom. Its 2 different things. Its no sources about term "Kingdom of Hungary (1538–1867)" http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Kingdom+of+Hungary+%281538%E2%80%931867%29%22&tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=sk In this time it was not used term Kingdom of Hungary but a Royal Hungary. Its 2650 hits about Royal Hungary (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Kingdom+of+Hungary+%281538%E2%80%931867%29%22&tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=sk#sclient=psy-ab&hl=sk&tbo=1&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=%22Royal+Hungary%22&pbx=1&oq=%22Royal+Hungary%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=135729l139409l0l140199l15l13l0l0l0l3l250l1930l1.11.1l13l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=ca7f4cea4f4eb571&biw=1680&bih=839) so it deserve an own article. And almost 900 about Habsburg Hungary: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Habsburg+Hungary%22&tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=sk --Samofi (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The title was different and nothing else. It was a Habsburg Kingdom from 1538(1526) to 1867. The rulers liked to use "Royal Hungary" instead of "Kingdom of Hungary" till the end of the 17th century. I can not follow you.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hungarian Conquest vs Hungarian Landtaking
Google Books results: 7180 for "conquest" vs 51 for "Landtaking"

It is not importnat how the original article is named. For example Carpathian Basin is widely used on Hungarian articles, even if it is only a redirect to Pannonian Basin Jaro88slav (talk) 11:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Roman Pannonia
Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion
Sorry, I have written wrong summary at my last editing. you can find the ongoing discussion about proper dates at talk page of Talk:Kingdom_of_Hungary_(1538–1867). Fakirbakir (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)