Template:Did you know nominations/Michael of Hungary
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 11:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Michael of Hungary
[edit]- ... that almost all kings of Hungary after 1046 descended from Michael, the second son of Grand Prince Taksony?
- Reviewed: Rufus the Hawk
Created/expanded by Borsoka (talk). Nominated by Norden1990 (talk) at 19:27, 20 August 2013 (CET).
While I know that the hook is accurate, the DYK rules require the hook to be directly mentioned in the prose, along with an inline citation. Also, "kings" is a common noun and thus shouldn't be capitalized. Other than that, everything seems to be in order. Surtsicna (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Thanks for your work. I modified the hook according to your remark. Furthermore, I provided inline citation to that sentence which linked to the hook. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for addressing the issue. I've been trying to find out which post-1046 Hungarian kings were not descended from Michael, but I'm having a hard time. My first guess was Vladislaus I, but I was wrong; he is descended from Andrew I's daughter Anne, who married Vsevolod IV of Kiev. John I, my second guess, was also a descendant of Michael (through Béla III's daughter Constance). This leaves us with possibly one king who was not descended from Michael: Matthias I (and that's only if we disregard Gáspár Heltai's claim that Matthias I's father was Sigismund's illegitimate son). Therefore, it might be better to rephrase the hook a bit - perhaps to say that "all but one king of Hungary after 1046" descended from Michael. Another possibility would be to mention that Michael's descendants succeeded his fratricidal brother's descendants on the throne:
- This way we would intrigue readers more, but it's up to you, of course. Surtsicna (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- John Zápolya was not descended from Michael or House of Árpád, at all. However I could accept ALT1, but his murder theory is highly doubtful. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Are you sure about John? If his mother was Hedwig of Teschen as our article claims, then he most certainly was, through rulers of Teschen and a ruler of Galicia back to Constance, daughter of Béla III. Surtsicna (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, you are right. I hope the current version of article is megfelelő (=adequate) for the Did you know... section. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Are you sure about John? If his mother was Hedwig of Teschen as our article claims, then he most certainly was, through rulers of Teschen and a ruler of Galicia back to Constance, daughter of Béla III. Surtsicna (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- John Zápolya was not descended from Michael or House of Árpád, at all. However I could accept ALT1, but his murder theory is highly doubtful. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment. I agree with Surtsicna. It's probably better to be more specific, which leaves less room for ambiguity and appears to be more intriguing. As for ALT1 hook, the first claim is cited under #Life, and the second claim is cited under #Family. The article is well-written with no apparent issues. This article should be ready to be promoted. Alex ShihTalk 06:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
