Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hungary/Archive 2

Kaspar Bekes or Békés
Hello, I have a quick question regarding spelling of a name for a military commander of Stephen Bathory of Poland. I am not sure if his last name should have diacritics (Békés) or not (Bekes). He died in 1570 and was buried in Kalnai Park in Vilnius. Could anyone help? Thanks, Renata (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the correct name is Békés. Hobartimus (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What about Gaspar Bekesy? Is it more correct? I have info about him and I would like to create a stub, but I cannot figure out the best title for the article. Renata (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Békésy means "from Békés" it's pretty standard form for Hungarian nobility. It's somewhat used today but with i instead of y indicating non-noble use which is hence more common nowdays. Gáspár is a standard given name but it can have variations. Hobartimus (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Komondor


Now do you think this dog is a representative Komondor? This kid have seen this picture on Westminster Dog Show article on Wikipedia and now he is editwarring that the Komondors are small dogs and this picture is absolutely correct, just because this animal has been shown at the Westminster Dog Show, and that means that this can not be wrong. First I thougt this dog was a Puli. I was arguing miles about this stupid picture on that talk page, that it is misrepresenting the Komondor breed, and gives the wrong idea about the breed, and indeed it does. I was trying to put a remark in the picture that this is a small dog but he constantly reverts it. And keers adding Komondorok.

Warrington (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Now the kid goes and makes adits like this: (I copied his last version:)

Appearance, Size, and Proportions
The Komondors appearance is dignified and commands respect, people unfamiliar with the breed are often surprised by how quick and agile the dogs are.

The AKC Breed Standard states the following for size, weight and proportions of the Komondor:

''Males 27½ inches and up at the withers; Females 25½ inches and up at the withers. Males are approximately 100 pounds and up, Females, approximately 80 pounds and up at maturity, with plenty of bone and substance. While large size is important, type, character, symmetry, movement and ruggedness are of the greatest importance and are on no account to be sacrificed for size alone. The body is slightly longer than the height at the withers. Height below the minimum is a fault.''

The Fédération Cynologique Internationale Hungarian Standard states the following for size weight and proportions of the Komondor:

IMPORTANT PROPORTIONS

•	The body length sligthly exceeds the height at the withers.

•	The deepest point of the brisket is approximately on a level with half of the height at the withers.

•	The muzzle is slightly shorter than half of the length of the head.

HEIGHT AT WITHERS

Males:	Minimum 70 cm. 

Females: Minimum 65 cm.

WEIGHT

Males:	50 – 60 kg. 

Females: 40 – 50 kg.

The breed shows few faults in type and is largely uniform as it has always been bred with the same target.

Who cares about the American standard? This is a Hungarian dog, and it is also as I found out a Hungarian national tresure, what adoes it matter what the Acf says. It shoul not be put there as a first referrence, and the edits are lousy, and he probably have never seen a Komondor all his life.

Warrington (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:15, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Bratislava
Crossposted in Wikiprojects Cities, Hungary, Slovakia [alphabetical order]

Since a long-running and banal edit war over the names by which the Bratislava article should refer to the town was going nowhere, I locked the article down three weeks ago and invited informed and persuasive discussion. There has been none, and today I've turned down a request to unlock the article as I've no reason to think that the edit war wouldn't resume.

This is a Featured Article into which a number of thinking editors have put a lot of work, and it would be a great pity if it ended up listed in WP:LAME. Your informed, dispassionate input would be most welcome on that talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

GAR for Rubik's Cube
The article Rubik's Cube is tagged as being a part of this WikiProject, so I am letting the members know that I have started a Good Article Reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. You can find a list of my concerns on the article's talk page. Thanks and good luck! Nikki ♥  311  00:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for a 200-WikiProject contest
A proposal has been posted for a contest between all 200 country WikiProjects. We're looking for judges, coordinators, ideas, and feedback.

The Transhumanist 00:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Szalonna (bacon)
Given the current bacon fad in the United States, now would be a good time to expand Szalonna (bacon), especially with some photos of szalonna cooking over a campfire. --Una Smith (talk) 05:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine Arts in Hungary
Is it the case that there is no large-scale article on this subject? "Hungarian Art" is largely limited to architecture. I do not have the art historical knowledge to write such an article, nor am I Hungarian (fools rush in ...), but will someone in the Hungarian Wiki-community please write one! voxclamans (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject TRANSWIKI
You are all invited to join WikiProject TRANSWIKI and join the Hungarian language transwiki project. The aim is to draw up a full directory of missing articles from Hungarian wikipedia and build a team of translators to work at bridging the gaps in knowledge and to improve existing articles by translation. We need your help, so if there are any Hungarian speakers here please join up as your language skills are crucial. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 09:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The first theatre and actors in Hungary
What was the first theatre in Hungary with professional actors of both genders? Who is counted as the first professional actor and actress respectively? Thank you in advance for those who can answer!--Aciram (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The net say the first modern theatre in the country was founded in 1760. What was it called? And who were the first actors and actresses there? I am very interested in theatre history. I would be grateful if anyone could reply on my talkpage. Regards--Aciram (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Images of the Danube river
I posted this query on 20 June 2009 in the Danube talk page: ''The two images, 'The Danube by Visegrád', and 'The Danube by Esztergom', are a bit confusing as to which side is Slovakia and which is Hungary. In both images, the bend in the river would indicate that they were photographed from the Slovak side of the river as it flows south. Unless, they are reversed negatives or the Danube has a reverse "S" curve where the images were taken? Just curious.''

I revisited the page for additional info, and after studying the Google maps for Visegrád, I noticed that the images may be correct as there is a reverse S curve in the river, north of the town. However, I am still curious as to where were these photos taken from. Would anyone be familiar with the area?--Ineuw (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the translation protocol?
I would like to translate the http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagybaczoni_Nagy_Vilmos article to English, as requested under translations. This being my first effort, should I place a note to this effect in the translated article, and is there anything else I should do to indicate this at WikiProject Hungary? Any advice is greatly appreciated.--Ineuw (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There are not that many translations from Hungarian, so I'm not sure. I can think of using first user space until the translation is not ready, and then moving it into article space. In the article it could be indicated but I don't think it's a must to do so. After all it will be open for editing just the same and become your average article edited by different people who all add a little bit to it. Hobartimus (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just found this page . It seems that you need to add the translated banner to the talkpage to become compliant (?) as it is with the case of the translation Érsekújvár (see it's talk page) Hobartimus (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That is correct; use . There is also an equivalent at Hungarian WP, see Vita/John Harvey Kellogg for example. SimonTrew (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent articles
I've been working with on Sülysáp, Telekes and Abony which are not strictly "new" articles but were more or less empty stubs before, so are effectively new articles (we'll be doing more of the geo-stubs but are starting small!). I don't know if it is good or bad form to add them to the recent articles list? If it is considered good form, can someone add them or tell me to do so. Most of the edits are literally mine, but Monkap did most of the translation (I just do the Wikipedia "scaffolding" etc and brushing up the English a bit).

I'm currently working on a template (User:SimonTrew/Hungarian settlement) which makes the infoboxes for Hungarian places much simpler to put in. There's a test case at User:SimonTrew/Abony and it should work for more complicated things too. There are still a few things to iron out, though, for example the population density is computed a little too well (too specific!). Once it is done I am likely to create a template which just maps the Hungarian field names, so that one can simply cut and paste the infobox from Hungarian WP with little or no change (probably just date format changes etc). Does this sound good? I've also created Template:KSH2008 which creates a reference to the page of statisitcal data for a settlement linking to the Hungarian Central Statistical Office website; again this is not perfect (in particular I am not sure if it is reasonable to pin it down to the year 2008) so any advice etc. there would be handy. That can be at the individual pages if you wish, since they are all on my watchlist.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess these get added to the recent articles automatically (through categorisation, so make sure the proper categories are there).
 * Thank you for your efforts. Squash Racket (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Recent articles are BOT GENERATED, we should have another one that can be updated manually. For example "Hungarian Central Statistical Office (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) by SimonTrew (talk · contribs) started at 16:12, 17 September 2009" is added automaticly, because it's a new article. Older articles that are currently under expansion could go in the new subpage. I started a new subpage WikiProject Hungary/Recent Articles2 where the manual additions can go. Hobartimus (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Copied part of a comment from my talk page for everyone to see: I've ironed out most of the creases at User:SimonTrew/Hungarian settlement, there are still a couple of small bugs: it does do the not do the population density for metro and urban population splits properly. However it is mostly working and you may wish to take a look/copy of it and test it out, to iron out any misconceptions. It has no documentation yet, though the fields you can use are documented if you bring up the article itself.

You'll find User:SimonTrew/Abony, User:SimonTrew/Sulysap (no accents!) and User:SimonTrew/Budapest (cut down) which use the new template for testing.

I guess there are three or four things to do:
 * 1) Write the documentation in English!
 * 2) Decide on an appropraite name and put it into Template: namespace.
 * 3) Perhaps make a Hungarian wrapper template, so that geo articles' infoboxes can just be cut-and-paste into English articles. I'd be glad of yours and others' opinions on whether this is good, bad or indifferent idea. (...)

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we are not in a hurry to write documentation, but it should be bugfree before we move it into Template: namespace. Opinions on the wrapper template? I think this is not necessary (if it's complicated), an easy-to-use and bugfree infobox template would be enough for now. Regarding the bug: do we have separate data for metro and urban density at all? There are only a couple of larger cities in Hungary, I guess this is important only in the case of Budapest. So possibly this bug could be literally erased. Squash Racket (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the manual recent articles template. Recent Articles2 this is undisturbed by the bot so Abony and others can be added freely. Hobartimus (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The wrapping template is done, at ; the English version is at . These are "self-documenting" i.e. you just get a "sample" infobox with (most of) the fields you can add put in as the text; unfortunately the underlying insists on some things being numeric so that one can't put the field names in. (Notably the coordinate fields, area total and elevation).


 * I am not sure if anything is ever truly "bug-free" but this seems to work in practice, and of course nobody is forced to use it. The main nasty, which I have not tracked down, is that does not correctly pick up the ksh_code_2008 properly, so you only get a link to the main page of the KSH, not to the page for the particular article.


 * Supporting templates (see category Hungary geographic name conversion templates) are reasonably well documented, and include test cases (a link is included at the bottom of each template's page).


 * Hope this is all OK. SimonTrew (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the Revent Articles2 thing. I added Apaj to it. May I just suggest that on the Project page itself, it has a different title in its box than the "Recent articles" one? It just is a little confusing to know which is which. I suggest "Recently expanded articles", though perhaps that is rather vague. I also wonder if I should put the new templates in there, since of course they are not strictly speaking articles. They *would* come up under a "new templates" search though, as they really are new. SimonTrew (talk) 08:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done the renaming. If you find a better name later you can change the text in the code, which currently says "recently expanded articles". Hobartimus (talk) 09:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article Review (2009)
Please note, Featured_article_review/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956/archive1 Fifelfoo (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

English article about Vilmos Nagy of Nagybaczon
I nearly completed the translation, to English, of the Hungarian article and expect to copy a regular page by tomorrow evening. To prevent duplications, how is it possible to remove the notice from the WikiProject Hungary Main page Translation request box? The English translation can be viewed on my user sub page at: .--Ineuw (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

56
Talpra!

I'm presuming this project is dead
Is anyone other than Monkap and I actually editing articles on Hungary? Forget the bot feeds, does anyone other than us actually do anything to improve content about Hungary, shout about it, complain about it, discuss it, anything? It seems not. Sheesh I am only English with a Hungarian girlfriend and even I have done more on the Hungarian project than most of the subscribers here. What a waste of time subscribing to this project.

It is not just this project, the whole project concept on Wikipedia does not work. People sign up for a while, on someone's request, and get no guidance or advice or anything. Complete waste of time. We are very much thinking of just not bothering with the project and carrying on as we always did, just editing Wikipedia as best we can.

I hope someone will prove me wrong. Si Trew (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not actually true. In some sense you are right that some people just subscribe to many projects and then not do anything in them, while on the other hand many people edit project articles without being subscribed. But it's not all bad for example the new articles created by you two are now being watchlisted by me. This means being regularly checked for vandalism with many other articles as long as I edit wikipedia. On "guidance" the problem is most people don't appreciate being told what to do. I personally think you can help the project most by adding sources and improving the most important articles (most important being, where most of our readers are according to the viewership stats, the Hungary and Budapest articles). Other important articles are here. Many of these could be in much better shape by adding a few sources. You esp. could have access to high quality English sources in a library or somewhere that could be used to massively improve these articles. Also you can turn email on to facilitate communication with other wikipedians. And by editing articles related to Hungarians and Hungary you help just as much without ever bothering with the project. I think there are two useful features of the project, one is the new article alert bot and the other is the article categorization system. Hobartimus (talk) 10:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually one of the projects featured articles Hungarian Revolution of 1956 was recently kept at featured article review, with many people commenting and making minor edits to the article . So there is definitely people editing Hungary-related articles just not a huge number of them. And activity in both editing and readership centers around a few important articles. Hobartimus (talk) 11:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Hobartimus, perhaps I am waving, not drowning. The difficulty, in a sense, with "most important" articles is that it is very subjective. Actually Monkap and I have as our kinda medium-term project to sort out the Hungarian Revolution of 1848. This is purely subjective, but I feel that this is more likely to be of interest to a non-Hungarian audience (e.g. those interested in [military] history generally) than a Hungarian poet or artist whose work is not known outside of Hungary. We are starting at the bottom up and adding and improving the individual battles first, then we will try to pull them together in the larger overview articles, since no doubt if we just went in and tackled those there would be an immediate kerfuffle. For example, only yesterday did we notice that even in the template Battle of Szőreg had the wrong accents in, and we knew for a while two or three battles were entirely missing, others are very scant compared to other languages &mdash; another example, I think, of someone deciding on a good idea and then giving up very quickly into it.


 * Yes we do (finally) have access to good library resources (Cambridge Central Library was closed for about three years, and one can only use the college libraries if one is a graduate of Cambridge, I am not as I graduated elsewhere, though I could probably do so if necesssary through a friend or something), but the library resources on Hungary are frankly appallingly scant.


 * Well, thanks at least for the reply. Nice to know someone is watching! Si Trew (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The 1848 revolution is a massively important topic as well just not written well currently so that's a very good idea indeed. Also most battles are missing yes, so there is much room for improvement that way as well. One measure of importance could be the number of readers each article has, this can be checked for each individual article exl.  . On the 1848 topic I have some resources on it as well, if you start working on a battle for example note it somewhere or write me an email. I'll comment on your map as well very promising, I'd love to know more about svg editing, how it's done what programs to use etc. Hobartimus (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * One battle left, as you probably have noticed. Of course that is only the start, but a good start I think: At least we have everything that is in HU:WP, reasonably well translated I hope, though the battle articles that did exist we will go over. It's not just doing these seven battle articles of course: there's all kinds of wikignoming along the way, and creating biographies and geographical articles and transferring pics to Commons etc etc as we are doing it. So, it is much much more than seven articles. It means, I hope, by the time we arrive at the summit of Hungarian Revolution of 1848 there will be a lot of ancillary information (being able to do and so forth) already present, and admittedly not perfectly sourced but at least sourced from HU:WP: We take the translated tag to mean that is a source, since, er, it says so.


 * On some subsidiary points:
 * I noticed in Battles of Komárom you changed "Hungarian insurgents" to something else (Hungarian Revolutionary Army or something). This is something that has been bothering me for a while, but we decided to hold off until all the battle articles were done, because there are numerous inconsistencies of this sort that need consensus and it seemed better to wait until they were all translated (unless you can point me to any talk where consensus was already reached before? Similary, using the modern flags for Poland and Italy I think bad because I doubt very much they were the flags in use at the time (And Italy didn't really exist as a nation state at the time), but those are the ones used at HU:WP. I had considered creating a template to cover these, probably taking one parameter e.g. HU-MP or HU-Perczel (or perhaps just Perczel) would mean Hungarian, Mór Perczel and generate his flag and name. That way, the main commanders could be expressed consistently throughout these articles and others.
 * In the Infobox, the belligerents are expressed with the Hungarians second (to the right). In HU:WP they are the other way around. While the infobox both internally and as displayed is scrupulously neutral, it would seem to me to make more sense to put the Hungarians on the left side, since Hungary the would ALWAYS be on the left whereas the combatants on the right tend to change. I realise this is a slight shift kinda towards the Hungarian side, but it seems to me only practical and sensible that if we are gathering these under the "Hungarian Revolution of 1848" then, in natural reading order, Hungary comes first. We have tried, in translation, to avoid words like "the enemy" etc. which crop up in the Hungarian, because of course e.g. to Austria, Hungary was the enemy.


 * I hope you like the quality of our work so far, we are not military historians and as I see it our job kinda stops with a good completed translation, not with rooting out facts. Once well translated, assuming a reasonable level of accuracy (and I would say in my biased opinion our translations are scrupulously done, which is not to say of course that the original facts are correct) someone more expert in the field can take it on without having to know Hungarian. Si Trew (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes the modern flags should be avoided or used consistently. (e.g. if modern flags are used for some countries they should be used for all or none). So yes Italian and other modern flags should not be used. The translation is of high quality and in one case I checked the original text is too (checked Battle of Szőreg and it's facts in the original text are correct). And yes you are right that inconsistencies could be solved to give the articles a more unified look and feel, you two as the main editors of the article class should come to a consensus first amongst yourselves :) and then I'm sure it will be supported whatever it may be.
 * These articles could be greatly enhanced by images, and there is no copyright on any of them I mean any image from the era. Some people even started collecting images of this kind http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:1848%E2%80%931849-es_m%C5%B1hely/K%C3%A9pek Hobartimus (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

New map for Kingdom of Hungary, your comments appreciated
I'm working on a four-colour SVG map of Hungary based on File:Kingdom of Hungary counties.svg (from which it is marked as a PD derivative work) where there is more meaningful metadata. My version also corrects some errors in the original (copy paste errors etc) and uses meaningful identifiers for each entity.

Not perfect yet, but have the counties, borders, labels etc split into separate layers with styles, so to change colours etc one only has to change the style, not change 80 or 200 individual items. I append an example at right, as I say this is NOT FINISHED and deliberately the lines are too thick and colours not great etc so that you can see it is (comparatively) easy to change if you open it as a text file and know about style sheets (CSS) (I don't, much, but they're not very tricky). Example at right. The original also had a spelling mistake in it ("Poszsony") which had been marked in early 2008 and nothing had been done about it. This is not just used on EN:WP, either. The aim of mine is not as an end in itself, but to let other editors easily grab it and take what they need from it (e.g. by hiding layers, changing colours, etc) without having to replicate the geo data every time, which is the real pain.

The main thing I want to work on now is the text, it's just awful at the moment. At the moment all the text picks up the same style as I've not split it according to the colours of the counties, which I want to do so if you choose a dark colour for e.g. the red counties you can choose a light colour for their labels.

This is a bit of a test run as really I want to do it more for a current map of hungary, but any comments on what you think would be useful to have as a kinda generic map that can then be used (e.g. via XSLT) to generate the other maps, that would be very useful to know.

I'd add this to a "recent media" list, if there was one.

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 12:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like a good facelift of the old counties map. If someone wanted to edit it, for example adding rivers, and cities on different layers, that could be switched on and off depending on the type of map you want to create. How could one do something like that? Hobartimus (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the geo data is the same as the old one – and of course (once I get the text sorted) one can effectively regenerate the old diagram just by seting all four county styles to have brown fill. I agree, I think the rivers could be on another layer (probably moving Balaton to that layer too), there is already a style for water, which Balaton uses, this does not show up too clearly at the moment as it is not distinct enough from the bluish colour used for the counties.


 * Cities etc could indeed be added as another layer, or perhaps two or three depending on their importance, and similarly a campaign might have a layer with its battlegrounds etc. This could of course all be done on derivative diagrams, or by using XSLT one could have essentially one master map that then generates all the "sub-maps". I would, ideally, like to know how to be able to map real world coordinates (lat and long) to this map, but this may be difficult as I do not know what map projection it was drawn in. But that is the basic idea, yes. Si Trew (talk)


 * Yes I would be interested in this "master map" that then could be used to create more historical maps. Hobartimus (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I used Inkscape to find all the IDs, but then edited the SVG by hand in a text editor to put them in, to put the things into layers, etc etc. In particular Inkscape understands the cascading style sheets but does not seem to have any facilities for editing them, and it seems to like to add the styles back onto each individual items as you edit them, which rather defeats the style sheets as it overrides them. While this CAN be useful for making individual variations away from the style sheet, because it does it for the whole style, it effectively completely blocks out the style sheet.


 * Layers can be moved up and down in order (think of them as transparencies, but you can change the opacity of them, so changing it to an opacity of 0% effectively hides it completely, 100% it will hide everything below it). SVG is not really very difficult, it's just an XML language that specifies the graphics as paths of lines and curves, and then styles such as fill colors, stroke widths etc etc. I think the power of it comes really from being to add meaningful metadata and using XML tools such as XSLT to auto generate stuff from it. For example, the individual images that pick out each county against the map of the Kingdom of Hungary could be generated with a bit of XSLT, rather than needing to be generated each by hand. I'm very new at it, and it has its limitations, but it seems the way to go as, being a vector graphics format, it is also very compact and the results are scaleable. (as the term Scaleable Vector Graphics might imply!). Si Trew (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Noticed one tiny thing: an accent is missing at "Veszprem -> Veszprém", but you noted it wasn't finished yet. Squash Racket (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, I'll check it, it may be missing in the original too, I have either faithfully copied the error or I have introduced my own. I don't really know why the text looks so so awful, but I intend to basically readjust it all anyway. Si Trew (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it was in the original file, so I fixed that too and uploaded new versions of both. If you spot any others I shall be glad to hear of them. Si Trew (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

György Szondy
I've wikified this article and added some pics. I've added some redirects too. I notice that User:Nmate left a message at User:Squash Racket's talk page wondering about what to do here, and suggesting there may be a Slovakian/Hungarian POV war going on here (which does not surprise me but I am not privy to it).

I notice that shortly after I completed my wikifying User:Squash Racket removed many Slovak versions of names, which I had put second (as the chap does rather seem to be a Hungarian), but still it smacks to me rather of fuelling, rather than putting out, any POV war about Slovakian/Hungarian, and I was tempted to restore them, if for no other reason than that it is very easy to remove material but difficult to get off your arse and actually make content better. In my opinion, it would be right for the Slovak to come second in an article about a Hungarian living in Hungary, but I don't see why it should be deleted entirely.

I'll give the analogy of Wales: In more Welsh-speaking parts of Wales, the Welsh comes first on road signs etc, in the more English-speaking parts the English comes first. Not ideal, of course, but seems a sensible compromise. As for his being a Slovakian hero, so what if he is? What has that to do with his nationality?

On a small point, his surname is spelt with a final Y in the Hungarian so we followed that. We will soon add in translated info from HU:WP, which includes the fact that it was -i but he (I think) changed to -y; as you know these are used to indicate status (nobility). His statue pictured is engraved with his name as a Y, and his article is so called at HU:WP. Of course there are redirects set up from -i.

Just to let you know.

Si Trew (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "User:Squash Racket removed many Slovak versions of names"? I removed the guy's and his brother's non-existant/irrelevant "Slovak names", probably because ALL English references refer to him by his real name (I checked Google Books). I don't see in my edits removing any other Slovak names. Would you clarify? Squash Racket (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * On the names issue it's worth noting that not only Szondy was not Slovak and had nothing to do with Slovaks, Slovaks did not exist at the time when Szondy lived. Most Slavs of the area spoke a language similar to today's Ukranian language and the formation of the Slovak consciousness/nation took place at a later time according to Slovak historians. It is the same thing as saying that Vannius, (born 2000 years before Slovakia was created) was a Slovak or that Vannius or Samo was ruler of Slovakia, I've seen both done. To some people everyone is a Slovak who was born or spent time in the territory of present day Slovakia regardless of anything else. Unfortunately these things happen some such edits stay for years some not so much. However it is the original text by the similarly named user was pretty atrocious if I've seen it correctly. Hobartimus (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The points there are taken, and I think in wikifying I made it quite clear he was Hungarian. That does not push aside the point that if in present-day Slovakia names of towns or people are widely known differently, then it is reasonable that they are presented as such, at least as a parenthesis after. Since the edit summary for the removal of these names did not make it clear the exact purpose of the edit summary it did make me raise an eyebrow why it was being done, even though I know Squash Racket is a good egg. I can only suggest that perhaps a clearer edit summary would have been in order. Simply removing a name cos you don't know the Slovakian form of the name Jacob is very weak, I think; in the alternate saying that no reference to him with that name could be found is stronger (which is kinda what SR said, but somewhat cryptically), but then, there is not much to find on him with the Hungarian name either.


 * I will concede, though, that if he is such a Slovak hero, one might expect an article at SK:WP. As I stated, I did basically Magyarize it (and wikified it, added pics etc) but I saw no harm in leaving the Slovakian names there, at least for a while.

Si Trew (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yes the present day names should be noted in parenthesis, as far as I've seen it was done already in the article for example Turiec. However this is not because the name is Slovak or German or whatever but due to being the present day name so instead "Turóc (Slovak Turiec)" I think the form what is better used is "Turóc (today Turiec)" should be used in the first instance a name is mentioned but it's not really a big difference. Hobartimus (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * But that is exactly what I did. Si Trew (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way I did not say – or at least did not mean – that the towns, people etc. had to be in present-day Slovakia, just that they had to be known that way in present-day Slovakia. I meant to say, that since EN:WP may be used as a second or last resort if there is no SK:WP entry, it bodes us well to provide those names on areas that have changed hands so many times over the years. Same for Romania, Austria, whatever. Si Trew (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * May I give another example of the edit summaries adding fuel to the fire (or certainly my ire)? The last two by User:Baxter9, both specifically removing Slovakia, are "(removed wrong category)" and "(removed the unreferenced, fake information)". Er, no mention there of Slovakia, and since the article has at the top, which I added when I made the big wikifying edit, it is hardly surprising it is unreferenced. It may not be that these are intentional – empty edit summaries are far worse – but I can certainly see how when one is explicitly deleting references to Slovakia and not saying so, an assumption of good faith tends to wane a little.


 * I should also thank Squash Racket to have the good grace to hold off editing while I had slapped on it, as I imagine he may have been itching to have a go at it himself. Si Trew (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I also started a bit of editing added two references, well the unreferenced banner, I took it down after that, I will try to add some more sources shortly. Hobartimus (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we'll try to transfer relevant information from HU:WP tomorrow, considering the obvious contentiousness of this I better get a native Hungarian on the case rather than end up in language wars when there are enough other wars around. Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You can also check the sources I added, they are not the best but better than nothing. The problem is the standards on the HU:WP are a bit low when it comes to sourcing often an article has a single editor and there is no need to support statements with sources since there is no debate or anything. Hobartimus (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I am going to leave Szondy alone until any edit war dies down. I do realise that the regulars here are not edit warring by removing Slovakia, I am only saying that without exceptional care it can seems so. Considering how close it is to the Slovakian border, I find it entirely unsurprising that the name would be well known in Slovakia, and it seems purely practical to keep those names if they exist.


 * By the way looking at the Hungarian I realised (though I had asked) his brother was Jakab, not Jákob. So I changed that.


 * The difficulty with Hungarian sources I think is twofold. Firstly of course they are in Hungarian (and probably in Hungary) and so, however technically RS they are, in practice they are very difficult for other editors to check. I realise that an RS is an RS in some ideal world, but in practice if others can't check if, it's not much use. Secondly yes the attitude to inline citations at HU:WP does seem somewhat different to here. (i.e. nonexistent.) It is of course then very hard to retrofit the citations into the articles. Thanks for trying to source those articles, anything is better than nothing.


 * Related, I wikified etc. Drégely Castle which was in pretty poor shape, and got information from HU:WP at Drégely vara (the articles is not a translation of the HU one). The English one has pretty much everything the Hungarian one does, and the few bits it didn't we added. – external links and a couple of references, also put a pic onto Commons and put that in. Do you think that the battle information from this article and from the Szondy article is best placed into an article of its own and referenced from both? I'll "formally" propose a split/merge if you want, but I'd like your opinion first. I also realise that this could perhaps best be continued on the article talk page(s), but might as well leave it where it lies for now.


 * We also had a brief look at Danube-Ipoly National Park and added a lead and infobox, as it was linked from one of the Drégély articles, we'll probably do the rest of it as it seems basically a big list (of species or something).


 * Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any "edit war" going on here. I checked Google Books for the supposed Slovak name, and as it basically yielded no results, I decided to remove it. The editor also added something about Slovakia and Hungary's merge(?) to form the Kingdom of Hungary. You don't need to take seriously everything added by a new editor without references. Squash Racket (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I don't see any war going on either. Si Trew (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dregely Castle

 * I thought the same thing earlier that Drégely Castle could have it's own article. The info from the Szondy article is not a huge amount but it's enough for a start. Hobartimus (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems someone already created Drégely Castle article a few months back and it's already updated in the past few days with the new material from the Szondy article, good job. Drégely Castle article was a bit hard to find before, as the orphaned template notes almost nothing linked to it. Hobartimus (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A bot removed the orphan template a couple of days ago. I'd left it there cos it does say "few or no articles" or something like that, i.e. the fact it had just a couple of rather incestuous links I didn't know whether that made it worthwhile removing it. Si Trew (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, most of the battle history was already there at the castle article, it was not pasted in from Szondy. We checked the Hungarian equivalents of both articles too, and it all matches up. I think there is redundancy here and wonder if the battle should be made into its own article, your advice please. Si Trew (talk) 09:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Location map Kingdom of Hungary
Unrelated, I've created but have no easy way of finding the coordinates of the westernmost, easternmost and southermost points here. I tried using Croatia for the westernmost and southernmost but I've got that wrong. (northernmost was quite easy as I took Polica after studying an old map at Árva). If you've got a good old map you could measure it from, that would be greatly appreciated; I can try the library but it's quite a walk to town, and their resources are not brilliant on that kind of thing. The eastermost point is quite a long way into Romania at the moment. Si Trew (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)