Jump to content

Talk:Golubac Fortress/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Duplicate?

I've noticed that there is another article at Golubački grad that I suspect this article should be merged into. Anyone good with managing mergers want to take a look at this? jugander (t) 11:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed this as well, but I'm not sure whether it should go to the first page (Golubački grad) or this one. I believe Golubački grad is the Serbian Latin name, which means it should be in parentheses after the English name on this page instead. However, this page is the one that's actually the duplicate, so... Opinions? -Bbik 23:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I honestly don't know which way it should be merged, that's sort of why I didn't start merging. Hopefully your tagging will grab the attention of someone in the know regarding naming conventions, or who can tell us which name is actually used? Personally I don't feel that the order in which the articles were created is that important, lets just get it in the right place. So you're suggesting merge them both into a new article 'Golubac fortress (Golubački grad)'? Let's wait a few days and see what people think... jugander (t) 09:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
A double-name new page like that would be entirely too confusing. What I meant was the first sentence should have "(Serbian: Golubački grad)" not the page title itself. Though I can see a few ways to logically have the English name(s) in parentheses like that as well. I'll do some poking around and see if I can figure out which name is used. I wouldn't be surprised if it's not even all that big a deal, though, since pages can be redirected anyhow. -Bbik 12:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I clearly misunderstood you. Also I agree, it's not a big deal. See what you find and be bold, I guess! jugander (t) 13:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Built in...?

Can anyone verify whether it was built in the 13th century (1200's) or 14th century (1300's)? English sites I've found disagree, two German ones say 1300's, and I don't know Serbian, much less Cyrillic, to try and see what those sites say. I'm sticking with 1300's until it's figured out, since that's the more likely date if the contradiction is based on errors/confusion in understanding the -th century bit. -Bbik 04:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

For that matter, how about some clarification on dates when it was switching hands? A couple sites mentioned specific years, a couple other were more general, but the timeframe was also narrower. I went for skipping the window and just taking the latest date I found as a definitive end, should I have done it differently?
I also noticed that the first line of the name section is taken directly from the Golubac page. I didn't delete it because the (unreferenced) legend would be missing part without the translation, but perhaps the entire legend should be moved to the town's page, rather than stay here, if a reference can be found for it? Except, it's tied directly to the fortress, even it says it's the reason for the town's name... -Bbik 07:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Remaining questions

Although I'm calling the current version of this page "done" for now, there are still questions remaining that could fill in some of the gaps. If anyone has any of the answers but doesn't want to edit the page for some reason, let me know what the details are/where they came from and I'd be more than happy to add it in myself.

  1. How many of the "Temes"'s in the article are actually supposed to be "Timişoara"'s? Should it be just "Temes" or stay with "Temesian" (of/from Temes), like it would be "Timişoaran"? Fixed.
  2. Is there any sort of known timeframe for the Roman settlement?
  3. Does the reference at Projekt Rastko mention anything about Did the Turks pay Jeremija, after the Hungarians wouldn't? Currently, I have one source saying he wanted the compensation from Hungary but didn't get it, and another saying nothing about Hungary paying or not, rather that the Turks paid (perhaps more along the lines of a bribe?) and thereby got the fortress.
  4. "With selfless self-sacrifice Marko de Szentlaszlo saved the Hungarians of a catastrophe." (from here or the next page, see also my talk page for the surrounding (translated) text.) Who is this Marko de Szentlaszlo? Where did he come from? How is he related to the Rozgony's currently mentioned in this page, who are mentioned in several different sources, one of which[1] mentions a poem "Dame Rozgonyi" by István Kormos? Ignoring him.
  5. In the (half-translated) phrase "emperor jezičeski", what does jezičeski mean? Answered and added.
  6. When specifically was the peace of Szeged signed and/or the restoration of the Serbian Despotate?
    A) Is it the "Peace of Szeged", "Treaty of Szeged", "Peace of Edirne", or "Treaty of Edirne"? The two locations turn up fairly equal google hits, and peace vs treaty seems to depend on who wrote it more than anything else. If I create a (very basic) stub page, rather than trying to explain it in this one, what should I name it?
  7. What happened between 1456 and 1481? This link says Golubac went back to Hungary in 1458, but it's the only one so far to mention that, and there's no mention of returning to Ottoman by 1481, either. How does whatever happened in those years affect the timeline for the fighting in 1481? (see the hidden note in the article for two possibilities) It doesn't.
  8. Did Hungary abandon Golubac sometime soon after winning it at the end of the fighting in 1481-82? Why? Yes, only a raid.
  9. Who held Golubac during the dates with question marks? I've made guesses based on other events at those times, but confirmation one way or another would be nice. Likewise, confirmation of the non-question mark dates would be nice too, as they're based on Serbian/German wikis, though both are sourced, making them at least slightly more reliable.
1688-1690 -- Hapsburg Monarchy
1690-1718 -- ?? probably Ottoman
1718-1739 -- Austria
1739-1788 -- ?? Serb? Ottoman?
1788-1791 -- Kočina Krajina/Koča's Frontier (Serb rebels)
1791-1804 -- ?? probably Ottoman, though perhaps starting later than 1791
1804-1813 -- First Serbian Uprising (Serb rebels)
1813-1867 -- Ottoman
1867-present -- Serbian Principality (of Ottoman Empire)/Serbia

Thanks to anyone who helps! -Bbik 03:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

3.No.It just says that when Hungarians refused,he gave it to the Turks.

6.In 1444.On 22 of august Smederevo was re-entered and very soon all other parts of Despotate.

CrniBombarder!!! (†) 04:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Some notes:

  • Magyar életrajzi lexikon does refer to Cecilia and Istvan Rozgonyi.
  • The Lexicon mentions another Peter Perenyi; However, the "our" one seems to be the son of Simon Perenyi, [2], mentioned here in the history of Szikszo.
  • No traces of Marko de Szentlaszlo anywhere but in Ćorović's book, (and I tried multiple spellings). He probably was a medium-level military commander of the Hungarian army... or Ćorović got it wrong altogether.
  • I'm fairly sure that the said "Skender-paša" of Smederevo is not Skanderbeg. I can't locate who he was though.
    Update: That seems to be Mihaloğlu İskender Bey, Sanjak Bey of Bosnia [3]. Plenty of Ghits, all of them in Turkish :-(.

Duja► 09:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

  • By the "our" one, I'm assuming you mean the Peter Perenyi I mentioned here? In any case, the family tree seems to be the Perenyi branch of the Šubić tribe ("Another branch. . .from now on known as Perenyi (Peransky, de Perén, a Pernya) will be numbered amongst the magnates of Hungary up to the XX century." It also mentions Gabriel and Francis who died at Mohács, August 29, 1526, both of whom are in the family tree.).
  • There are way too many spellings for these names. Even considering language variations. And I swear when I was writing the whole mess up, I found a list of Beys somewhere, mixed in with other stuff, and most of the links actually existed. Wish I could find it again. I don't suppose this Mihaloğlu İskender Bey is also "Iskender Çelebi, son of Sinan Pasha" or that said Sinan Pasha is the same as the commander during the battle in 1428, are they? That Gbook cuts out all the good parts!
    Heh, and no, they're not all in Turkish. I've found one in German (and one in French, but it's some subscription thing, unfortunately.) that actually mentions Golubac, too (In fact, those are the only ones I found with that name and Golubac/Galamboc -- not even Turkish ones.). And not only that, it clears up some of the possession-timeline confusion. It's all starting to fall into place...
-Bbik 07:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Some replies:
1) All of the Temes's are Timisoara's. I guess it's better to stick to "Temes", as we're talking about historical contexts.
5) As for "jezičeski" I don't have any idea. The apparent modern cognate "jezički" means "linguistic"/"lingual". No GHits other than Corovic's book.

Update: using my Ru-1 knowledge and the context, I concluded from here that it means "paganic", "non-Christian" or like (The thread is about "New Year's Day -- a paganic holiday?"). I can verify on a Slavic forum if you like, but it does make sense in the context.

6) According to Britannica 1911, Treaty of Szeged was signed on July 1 1444. Here, here and here is some interesting material on the surrounding events.
Duja► 09:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

1) Naw, I'd just assume be accurate and switch it over. The confusion was only there at all because it was from a German site, and could've gone either way, or it would've been Timisoara to start.
6) According to page 23 of the third interesting material link, it was concluded June 12. Are concluded and signed the same thing, when it comes to treaties? Would seem like they should be... At any rate, last half (or maybe summer) 1444 it stays. I'm not a fan of disagreeing dates.
Ok, now that I've read it a bit better, it (and the forum link, for that matter, though it's not exactly citable) actually says the agreement itself, with Murad's oath, was concluded June 12, in Edirne, while the Hungarian oath didn't actually happen until August 15, and that was in Oradea/Várad, rather than the planned Szeged. July 1 isn't mentioned at all, for anything. The other link mentions the two parts (Edirne, Szeged) as well, though without dates. I'm wondering if Britannica just took a convenient date from the middle to keep it simple, considering how summarized the entire page is, though that seems a bit... unencyclopedic.
-Bbik 07:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessed per WP:ARCHA

This is a lovely article - suggest you submit for GA. Here's the automated 'peer review' from Andz:-

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)

  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 25 meters, use 25 meters, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 25 meters.[?]
  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): don't, wouldn't, didn't, doesn't, didn't, doesn't.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mcginnly | Natter 12:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

I have placed this article on hold per the following concerns. Once these are met I will give the article a more thorough review.

At a glance:

  • Convert the lists to prose.
  • Expand the lead to conform to WP:LEAD.
  • Either stub or lose the red links.
  • The location and history section is long. It should either be divided up into two sections, "Location" and "History." Or use WP:SUMMARY in an appropriate fashion.
  • In recent years belongs under "History".
  • I wonder, is their any conservation and/or protection effort here.
  • Split up the Notes and references sections.
  • External links sections go last, after everything else.

These are just a few things that will need to be fixed to pass GAC (probably). I can go through the prose and do a more in depth assessment too, but these should probably be addressed first. IvoShandor 08:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Further comments can be found at: User:IvoShandor/Notes on Gobulac. I copied the above comments to the article talk page as well. Feel free to edit the Notes page in my user space as tasks are complete or as discussion may arise. I have found the templates {{done}} and {{not done}} useful in the past, as opposed to striking out finished tasks. I will add to that page as I assess the article further. IvoShandor 09:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I have decided to pass this as a GA, based upon the timely meeting of the concerns outlined on the full GA Review page, which I will leave in my user space for future reference. Please address the architecture citations and add some citations to the significance section when possible. {Though the info is cited elsewhere, it is just easier for verification) Great job on the article. A full criteria passing outline appears below.

Good article review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (inline citations): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
  7. Pass/Fail:
    a Well written:
    b Factually accurate:
    c Broad in coverage:
    d NPOV:
    e Stable:
    f Images:
    g Overall:

If the article failed the nomination, the comments below will help in addressing the problems. Once these tasks are accomplished, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, please feel free to take it to a GA review. You can see how I, personally, applied the six criteria above at this link. I sincerely thank you for your work so far.

If your article passed the nomination, congratulations on making Wikipedia all the better. Your contributions are greatly appreciated. If you didn't know there is a groovy user box, {{User Good Articles}}, for those users who have significantly contributed to a good article. The "essay" linked above is also how the criteria are applied to passing articles as well. Thanks again for your hard work.

Review by: IvoShandor

IvoShandor 07:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Reassessment?

Definitely not GA-status.--Zoupan 22:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Zoupan, if you wish to start a Good Article Reassessment, please follow through on it based on the instructions at WP:GAR. Since you don't seem interested in doing an individual assessment, which is like a regular GA review, then do a community reassessment. Either way, you'll need to specify at least a few ways that it falls short of the GA criteria, and notify the main article editors and affected WikiProjects so they can work on addressing the issues raised (assuming they're interested in doing so). For now, I've removed the template from this page, since after five months you haven't followed the links to select which kind of reassessment you wanted. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Golubac Fortress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Golubac Fortress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Golubac_Fortress/Archive_1&oldid=1241855510"