This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cris is an alternative name of Koros, as this river is physicaly shared by Hungary and Romania. on articles about ROmania where mention of Cris river is provided, the Romanian name is used, on articles about Hungary when mention of the river is provided, the Hungarian name is used. Criztu 18:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
"Crişana roughly corresponds to the historical region Partium of the Kingdom of Hungary."
I am not sure that this sentence is correct. According to the map provided in Partium article, Partium region did not included Crişana (Crişana in this time belonged to the Ottoman Eyalet of Temesvar). PANONIAN (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It all loks outlandishly improbable.
It all looks like either terribly sloppy editing, forced creation of connections ("original research"?), or plain vandalism. If it's neither of those, but just the result of fancyful mediaeval chronicles: say so, explain, elaborate, as then it's NOT quotable as "history", but only as ME court literature or legends. Arminden ( talk) 09:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cris is an alternative name of Koros, as this river is physicaly shared by Hungary and Romania. on articles about ROmania where mention of Cris river is provided, the Romanian name is used, on articles about Hungary when mention of the river is provided, the Hungarian name is used. Criztu 18:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
"Crişana roughly corresponds to the historical region Partium of the Kingdom of Hungary."
I am not sure that this sentence is correct. According to the map provided in Partium article, Partium region did not included Crişana (Crişana in this time belonged to the Ottoman Eyalet of Temesvar). PANONIAN (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It all loks outlandishly improbable.
It all looks like either terribly sloppy editing, forced creation of connections ("original research"?), or plain vandalism. If it's neither of those, but just the result of fancyful mediaeval chronicles: say so, explain, elaborate, as then it's NOT quotable as "history", but only as ME court literature or legends. Arminden ( talk) 09:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)