Talk:Budapest/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive of threads started pre-2007

HÉV

it's operated by BKV not MAV as the article says

Then, correct it. --Cserlajos ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

An Article, or a Gallery?

This is the question. The section "Tourism" is now a long gallery of truly beautiful images, but. Shouldn't these pictures be moved to a separate article? I think its not okay now: this is an encyclopedia, not Flickr. Any opposition, suggestion? --Cserlajos ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added the {{cleanup-gallery}} tag there again, so if someone wants to remove it, they should discuss it here first.--Svetovid 08:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Universities

Some information on Universities and Education in Budapest would be usefull and helpfull. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.182.216.255 (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Source ctiations

It would be wonderful if someone who had local access to resources could find source citations for the key information in this article. I have created a references section that will display any references includes using the guidelines in WP:FOOT. Alan.ca 07:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

WEST END

The text says West End Shopping Center, but in the picture we see Árkád Shopping Center (NOT THE SAME)

Beware of falsifications!

I've added an official census data instead of estimations, and because the previous reference, http://english.budapest.hu was abused. It estimates the population around 2 million [1], not 1 610 000 what this article stated, citing english.budapest.hu, so it is clear, that the reference was abused. Beware of falsifications!

John —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.120.101.155 (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Buda-Pesth?

I've been living in the city in question for 22 years, and being a native Hungarian and a fluent English speaker, I don't remember ever having met this spelling, except maybe in historical documents. I doubt whether dooyoo.co.uk is a sound source of information in this question.

Should there be a section on historical & foreign names, including the standard historical name 'Pest-Buda' and possibly spelling in Slovak, Serbian, Romanian etc., this version might be appropriate to include. But IMHO it should definitely disappear from the article head.

No wish to initiate an edit war on such a trifle, but I'll feel tempted to remove it again if no answer comes here in a few days. (I meant to leave a similar note here that time, but the server chose that moment to break down.) 84.0.217.31 16:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Buda-Pesth is an archaic variant of Budapest most common in the nineteenth century, from the merger of Buda and Pesth. Budapest is really just a neologism but in any case, Buda-Pesth is still commonly used, especially in the English language. If you read Dracula, the name of the city is mentioned several times and spelled in the aforementioned way. Since this is an encyclopaedia, I see no reason to remove the variant. It's not doing any more harm than it is good, is it?

Reginmund 22:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Buda-Pesth is a very obsolete and rarely used variant, see Google results: Budapest vs. Buda-Pesth : 64500000 vs. 13700. So it should be removed from the head. - Weekshigh 05:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I just picked up on 19,100 on Google... http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Buda-Pesth&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

and I'm not debating over which one is more popular; of course Budapest is and it should stay that way but nearly 20,000 hits shows that it is quite common. Therefore it is a variant and there is absolutely no reason it should be removed. What harm is it doing anyhow? Reginmund 06:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• 1: 65000000 results vs ~20000 results: it's lower than 0,1%.
• 2: Buda-Pesth isn't an official name, not even in English.
• 3: The Nuttall Encyclopædia is older than 100 years, so it's totally obsolete.

- Weekshigh 12:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If we accept Google hit count as an acceptable indicator, a lot of foreign spelling versions (try Budapesta, Budimpešta, Budapešť, Budapeszt), along with "Pest-Buda", well beat "Buda-Pesth". Again, I suggest making a "see other versions" link to the page on alternative names for European cities, where Buda-Pesth could be featured as an archaic English (Latin, whatever) spelling variant, see the article on Prague for example. The spelling found in the novel Dracula I find irrelevant, since the named work is unlikely to value accuracy over exoticism :-) - 81.182.216.203 18:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

All of those other names are in different languages and were never accepted into the English lexicon. Although, the archaic form was used in English and still sometimes is spelled that way. In the case of its usage in an obscure novel, it isn't inaccurate, it was the more common spelling at that time. Yes, I am aware that Buda-Pesth is not the official toponym, although the official toponym is in Hungarian and this is the English Wikipedia. In the case of obsessing over official toponyms, we might as well just change the names of Prague to Praha, Rome to Roma, Vienna to Wien, etc.... after all, aren't they are the official names?

Reginmund 18:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

NE ÁLLÍTSD VISSZA A FASZsÁGODAT!

2007-et írunk, vadbarom. és igen. merészeltem nem angolul írni.

Why is it so important to write Buda-Pesth in the head of the article? Is it really "commonly used"??? I've never heard about this form. Then why don't you write there all the other forms, e.g. Pest-Buda. I also suggest a "See other names" page. I don't think that an encyclopaedia from 1907! is the best reference. Or it should be mentioned that it's a historical variant. Mb731 13:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That would depend on how many other names there are. "Buda-Pesth" is actually an English variant. Reginmund 21:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Never heard of that even though lived in the city and know it well. Even if you mention it as an archaic form absolutely NO WAY in the beginning!!!

Buda-Pesth is an English toponym and this is the English Wikipedia. Just because you have never heard of something doesn't mean it isn't there. That is what sources are for. Also, what authority do you have to say that there is "no way" that the toponym should be at the beginning? Not very high, I assume, especially for someone who doesn't even sign his posts. Reginmund 16:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just read the things posted above, now I understand what kind of person I'm dealing with. We can play this game if you like. Yeah I know you think it's an English thing, but I've read enough English stuff about Budapest in my whole life and never seen this. So, me or someone else will delete this sooner or later if you're trying. Squash Racket 17:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've looked into your 100-year-old 'source'. Not good enough though. If people see that 'name' for the first time they think they really can use this nowadays. NOT true. Squash Racket 18:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are challenging me to an edit war, I may have to report you to an administrator. This is not a game. It is a cited fact. One of the only few cited sources on this article. Reginmund 19:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've already reported our little case. No problem. 'Paris of the East'? Most common name for Bucharest, capital of Romania. Yeah and I see that you clashed with everyone here. An administrator should look into this really. Squash Racket 20:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem you have with cited sources. Just because you haven't heard of something, doesn't mean it isn't there. That is what sources are for. Explain why this source is a problem. Reginmund 20:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It's 100 years old, clearly out of picture. Fromoldbooks.org? You serious? Squash Racket 21:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am serious. Regardless of it's age, it is still a source and it is still a toponym. Also, what is wrong with the two sources that say that Budapest is called "Paris of the East"? Reginmund 21:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Most people who REALLY live here could cite 100000 sources telling 'Paris of the East' is Bucharest, Romania. But obviously you are not from here. Squash Racket 21:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Start citing sources... I'm already two ahead of you. Reginmund 21:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

For example look at that: Bucharest. I hope you won't vandalise that page too. Squash Racket 21:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to vandalise that page, I'm not even vandalising this one. What are you talking about? Reginmund 21:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, then look up PAGE HISTORY, non-vandaliser. Squash Racket 21:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I see a pointless edit war between a Wikipedian that cites a source and another Wikpiedian who is too stubborn to accept the source either because he has never heard of it or he thinks that it is useless because of its date of authorship. Reginmund 21:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

For example look at that: Bucharest. I hope you won't vandalise that page too. Squash Racket 21:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You just said that. I just explained myself. Reginmund 22:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

My two cents: Budapest is what it is (currently) known by. I've seen Buda-Pest before, but not Buda-Pesth. But, I'm no expert, and Reginmund has a source. That said, an uncommon name (and no longer current name) does not need to be afforded equal status to the common name. Placing Buda-Pesth right beside Budapest in the first line suggests that it is a very common useage. It does not seem to be. Why not "Budapest (formerly Buda-Pesth)..." if it's going to be at the top. That way it's parenthetic and unbolded. However, consensus above seems to say that it should not be in the first link. I think it would be better later in the para when, perhaps as the closing line. "...with Pest on the left (east) bank. This is reflected in its earlier name Buda-Pesth." Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 22:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That works. Reginmund 22:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It is NOT a former name. I've never heard that in my life. Have you heard that ever? Budapest's former name is Buda and Pest, because it was two cities earlier. I've heard Pest-Buda, but Buda-Pesth never and nowhere. I would recall it, it's the capital of my home country. Squash Racket 22:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the guy was an 'alien' here and simply spelt it wrong, he did not speak Hungarian I suppose. Squash Racket 22:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It could be mentioned at the bottom of the page, but if a Hungarian sees it, just watch that page, sooner or later it will be deleted. The article is too important to mess it up with that. It hurts me, even though I lived there only for a year. Squash Racket 22:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just did a Google search and I found numerous examples of Buda-Pesth. It may reflect an old spelling (seeing as its in film titles from 90 years ago), but there are multiple sources showing it exists. Wikipedia is about compromise sometimes. I'm not trying to change history or offend the sensibilities of a nation. But the edit warring is disruptive and I'm sure you both have other things you'd rather do with you Wikipedia time. Let's talk about it for a couple of more hours. Or try to see if another third party can come up with another solution. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 22:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm very sorry you feel that way, but even for the sake of every liberal German, we won't delete the Holocaust page. It is an English term used in the English lexicon and in English literature. If this was the Hungarian Wikipedia, I wouldn't argue but it isn't. No need to say you have never heard of "Buda-Pesth" any more. I already found an outlet for you. (Not counting Dracula) Reginmund 22:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Bottom of page OK, otherwise it will be deleted by someone who reads it. First line? I don't think it's anywhere as important. Squash Racket 22:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That's OK, I'll make sure nobody deletes it. What you "think" is not a variable here. That's called circumstantal evidence. In that case, I "think" it should stay up top. Reginmund 22:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, 'archaically'. At least British tourists won't try to write it down like that, hopefully. It would make them so ridiculous here. Squash Racket 23:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would, seeing as it is a lexical difference. If you are really that xenophobic, you might find that most other languages have other ways of spelling, let alone saying "Budapest" or "Buda-Pesth". Reginmund 23:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Xenophobic? Let's just hope that's not a personal attack from someone who declares himself a Celtic Grammar Nazi! Squash Racket 08:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not a personal attack. May I be enlightened as to how it is a personal attack from a Celtic Grammar Nazi? (if you even know what that is) Reginmund 05:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a theory about the Buda-Pesth writing that I haven't had time to look into yet. As part of the Austro-Hungarian empire, German was an official language. German spelling would have been used by other languages. There was a revision in German orthography in 1901 which lead to "H" being lost in most spelling (compare Neanderthal versus modern Neandertal; see Neanderthal#Etymology and classification). If my (speculative) theory is correct, then Buda-Pesth is a rendering of Buda-Pest in older German orthography. I looked at German Wikipedia, and there is a page] with Budapesth on it (look under O - Ofen). Google translates the second sentence at the top of the page as saying that historical designations, which are generally no longer used, are in italics; Pesth is in italics. This seems to support what I'm writing. I need to look into it more, though. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 03:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, but if it's no longer used - not even in German -, should it be in the first line with bold text? Squash Racket 07:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It is still a variant in English. Lest we not forget, otherwise, I wouldn't be aware of it. Reginmund 08:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The book you are citing (Nuttall at fromoldbooks.org) was written in 1907, six years after the German reform, so their mistake is acceptable. It's still 100 years old. Language is changing faster than that as you can see. Squash Racket 12:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've done some poking around, and while you can find instances of Budapesth and Buda-Pesth, they are generally in older publications. [This page shows them to be archaic or alternate names for the city. And we don't prominently display the other many names. Both Budapesth and Buda-Pesth redirect to Budapest, so anyone looking for the article under those names will find it. I'd suggest putting this Buda-Pesth business at the end of the first paragraph for now, or preferably into a short etymology section on the name of the city or history of the name (e.g. see Paris), incorporating some of the other bits already there (Pest and Buda as separate towns to Pest-Buda to Buda-Pest to Budapest, if I remember right.) Then just put Budapesth and Buda-Pesth parenthetically as alternate or archaic spelling. What are your opinions? Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Putting it at the end of the paragraph with the explanation of the name seems reasonable to me. DrKiernan 15:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"If we accept Google hit count as an acceptable indicator, a lot of foreign spelling versions (try Budapesta, Budimpešta, Budapešť, Budapeszt), along with "Pest-Buda", well beat "Buda-Pesth". Again, I suggest making a "see other versions" link to the page on alternative names for European cities, where Buda-Pesth could be featured as an archaic English (Latin, whatever) spelling variant,"
I copied this here, from above. After all, Budapest is a top-rated article in the English Wikipedia. Squash Racket 17:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but those are foreign from English and Buda-Pesth is one English alternative, all other names should go under Names of European cities in different languages. Although, since this is the English Wikipedia, I don't see how that would fit. Reginmund 18:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that Buda-Pesth is at best a very infrequently used name, and probably exclusively an archaic form. It is probably useful to have it in the article, but not in the prominent position in the first sentence of the lead. That would be giving undue weight to the current importance of that name. I think it makes more sense to have it in an etymology/history of the name section or at the end of the first paragraph where there already is some complementary information. Again, that is just my opinion. I am just another editor with pretty much nothing invested in this whole issue (a third party). Feel free to see what another neutral third party feels. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 18:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea. It does have signifigance enough to be in the article but probably not in the first sentence, better mentioned as a historical alternative. Reginmund 19:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is in the start phase, but top-rated. Which means many Hungarians will read it and sooner or later it will be deleted from the first paragraph altogether. But if Flyguy insists it's OK with me. I don't know why would you risk another edit war when the article gets a more 'mature' status. No bold text. Misleading. Squash Racket 19:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand your warning that good-faith, but unresourceful edits may occasionally plague the page. As a recent changes patroller, I would gladly combat at this. :) Reginmund 05:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked up the page alternative names for European cities and in fact it already contains old German and old Italian forms just like Buda-Pesth which is also old German. You unintentionally did not tell the truth about this page. Squash Racket 11:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh very funny! And you had the gut-nerve to call me a liar after you added it in! FOR SHAME![2] Reginmund 19:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I added in only Buda-Pesth if you see the history page. Yeah you're not afraid of telling lies as I can see right now. Squash Racket 07:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the accusations of bad faith. I'm working on what I think might work. It may take a day or so, but I will post it here where we will discuss it prior to it going into the article, ok? I'll put it in a Proposal section. Please be patient -- I have off-Wiki things to do, too! Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 20:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Squash Racket is trying to frame me! Reginmund 20:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed solution re: Buda-Pesth

1. Based on the reading I've done for this, the spellings Buda-Pesth/Budapesth are not current, only archaic (interestingly, Bram Stoker's Dracula uses Buda-Pesth). I've placed the Buda-Pesth information in the History section. This is the section that this information is best-suited to.
2. Remember that both Buda-Pesth and Budapesth redirect to Budapest, so anyone searching those terms will find the correct article.
3. I added that the unamalgamated Pest, Óbuda, and Buda were referred to as Pest-Buda.
4. These changes have required a tweaking of the Lead paragraph.
   1. I have made explicit that the IPA pronunciation is for Hungarian, using Barcelona as an example. Note that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation) would require first the English IPA, and then the Hungarian, but the English pronunciation is obvious.
5. Note also that I am also adding a References section to this article. I can fix the reference format of the reset of the article to fit this later.

Please leave your comments in the Comments Section below. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 06:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Lead Paragraph:

Budapest (Hungarian IPA: [ˈbudɔpɛʃt]) is the capital city of Hungary and the country's principal political, cultural, commercial, industrial and transportation center. The official language spoken is Hungarian. Budapest had 1,697,343 inhabitants in 2005 (with official agglomeration 2,421,831), down from a mid-1980s peak of 2.1 million. Budapest became a single city occupying both banks of the river Danube with the amalgamation on 17 November 1873 of right-bank (west) Buda (Ofen in German) and Óbuda (Old Buda or Alt-Ofen) together with Pest on the left (east) bank.

In the History section: (fifth paragraph)

It was Pest, a bustling commercial town, which enjoyed the faster growth rate in the 18th and 19th century and contributed the overwhelming majority of the cities' combined growth in the 19th century. By 1800 its population was larger than that of Buda and Óbuda combined. The population of Pest grew twenty-fold in the following century to 600,000, while that of Buda and Óbuda quintupled. Although the three cities remained separate, they were collectively referred to as Pest-Buda.

The first attempt to amalgamate the three cities under a single administration was enacted by the Hungarian revolutionary government in 1849 but was revoked on the subsequent restoration of Habsburg authority. Amalgamation was finally effected by the autonomous Hungarian royal government established under the Austro-Hungarian Ausgleich ("Compromise") of 1867; see Austria-Hungary. The total population of the unified Budapest (archaically spelled "Budapesth" or "Buda-Pesth" in English, via German) grew nearly sevenfold between 1840 and 1900 to 730,000.

==References==

Please leave your comments in the Comments Section below. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 06:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments on proposed solution

• I like it. It seems necessary to mention the English spelling in the history section. (Dracula was actually where I came across it) Reginmund 07:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• How about, "(archaically written Buda-Pesth or Budapesth in English)"? Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 07:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an old German form which the English used. I already mentioned where it belongs with other old variations. Flyguy, the etymology section contains important data on the merger of Buda and Pest, it's not about old German forms. Bram Stoker used it in 1897's Dracula, but he used old exotic words in his book to create 'myterious' atmosphere. Anyway, the whole Budapest article needs serious rewriting and I don't wanna fight more with a teenager on a city of two million.
If you say 'archaically written' in the main article people will think it's not an OLD AND EXOTIC version IN GERMAN but a real alternative to Budapest which is again misleading. Squash Racket 07:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, but I was trying to avoid giving this too much attention and adding the whole German etymology part is giving a lot of attention. Also, it's original research on my part: I don't have any proof that show the H is due to German, but it certainly makes sense. Anyway, it was the English spelling of the turn-of-the-20th-century. I understand "archaically" to mean no longer written. See archaic: Old-fashioned, antiquated. Also, for example, the word "olde". No-one would write "old" that way today, and it is defined as archaic. Is there a different wording you can suggest? -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 07:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't Buda-Pesth used BESIDES Budapest these times? I mean Dracula is the only source? If H is not due to German how did they pronounce it? Is it worth more than mentioning it in alternative names for European cities? Squash Racket 07:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I found lots of pages other than Dracula, including scholarly articles, and a US Supreme court decision from 1900. It is pretty obvious to me that they were the English spellings, or at worst a variant spellings, that decreased in use through 1925 or so. I don't know when it died out. That the name of the city was spelled differently in English 100 years ago is (to me) encyclopedic. It's not a huge point, but let's make it and move on to improving the important details in the article. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 07:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

And I am sure it came from German: there is evidence on the German Wikipedia. I imagine people would have known not to pronounce the H (as in Neanderthal), but that there would be a proportion of people that would pronounce is Budapesth (which probably makes you recoil) ;) Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 07:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Then we should say 'archaically ALSO written' as...? Even in English it was used besides Budapest, right? Anyway you're right let's move on. I just wanted to clear that up now because as you can see above some people already had fights over this with Reginmund in the past and you don't want another edit war. Squash Racket 07:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. How about "(Buda-Pesth and Budapesth are archaic English spellings)" or "(archaically spelled Budapesth or Buda-Pesth in English)"? It's 4 am here. I'm heading to bed. If Squash Racket and Reginmund are ok with this final wording, I'll ask for page unprotection, and make the changes. Ok? Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 08:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Even better, ""(archaically spelled Budapesth or Buda-Pesth in English, via German)". Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 08:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

OK with me. Only consider main article history section (archaically also (?) spelled as Buda-Pesth) or alternative names for European cities? But I trust you on this. Budapesth: another version of variant 'Buda-Pesth'? Squash Racket 08:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The use of it in parentheses seems to interruptive in the paragraph. How about putting this at the end of the paragraph "In older texts, Budapest was commonly rendered as "Buda-Pesth" or "Budapesth". Buda-Pesth entered the English lexicon prevelently enough as an English toponym for the city and if there is evidence that it is a German alternative, it also belongs on the alternative names for European cities page, but there is enough to put it on the Budapest article itself. When Bram Stoker used it, he didn't use words that may have seemed exotic in their day. They were just in common parlance. That includes Buda-Pesth. Stop pigeon-holing me as a Scottish teenager. Where you read that I was a teenager what else did it say on the user box? Reginmund 16:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Reginmund is a Scottish teenager or Sean Connery. There are editors of all ages, and indeed administrators of all ages including teenagers. Focus on his contributions, please!

Now, as for the Buda-Pesth business, I like parentheses, however some don't. Here are three possibilities (#1 is the same as above with some minor changes):

1. The first attempt to amalgamate the three cities under a single administration was enacted by the Hungarian revolutionary government in 1849 but was revoked on the subsequent restoration of Habsburg authority. Amalgamation was finally effected by the autonomous Hungarian royal government established under the Austro-Hungarian Ausgleich ("Compromise") of 1867; see Austria-Hungary. The total population of the unified Budapest (archaically spelled "Budapesth" or "Buda-Pesth" in English, via German) grew nearly sevenfold between 1840 and 1900 to 730,000.
2. The first attempt to amalgamate the three cities under a single administration was enacted by the Hungarian revolutionary government in 1849 but was revoked on the subsequent restoration of Habsburg authority. Amalgamation was finally effected by the autonomous Hungarian royal government established under the Austro-Hungarian Ausgleich ("Compromise") of 1867; see Austria-Hungary. The total population of the unified Budapest, archaically spelled "Budapesth" or "Buda-Pesth" in English via German, grew nearly sevenfold between 1840 and 1900 to 730,000.
3. The first attempt to amalgamate the three cities under a single administration was enacted by the Hungarian revolutionary government in 1849 but was revoked on the subsequent restoration of Habsburg authority. Amalgamation was finally effected by the autonomous Hungarian royal government established under the Austro-Hungarian Ausgleich ("Compromise") of 1867; see Austria-Hungary. The total population of the unified Budapest grew nearly sevenfold between 1840 and 1900 to 730,000. In texts from around that period, Budapest was commonly rendered as "Buda-Pesth" or "Budapesth".

I don't mind #3, but whatever. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 05:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Number three looks to be the best one as it explains why the spelling was intact at the time. Reginmund 06:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You really need two versions of the name as I already asked above? 1 is acceptable. Number 3 is most likely to cause another edit war, brings too much emphasis on the issue. And once again I ask: shouldn't we write 'archaically ALSO spelled as...'? It was used BESIDES Budapest and not instead of it even in this period, right? Squash Racket 06:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What emphasis? It cites the fact that Budapest was rendered as Buda-Pesth at the time. We need not omit a phrase because we are afraid that some people might delete it. They would have to provide a good reason. Reginmund 06:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Squash Racket, I don't see why it would spark an edit war. It is a fact that Budapest was spelled with that H back in the day I we reach consensus on a wording that is acceptable (even grudgingly) to all, then if anyone changes it without changing consensus via further discussion, then it gets reverted back. Proposed wording # 3743: "... In texts from around that period, Budapest was commonly rendered as "Buda-Pesth" (or "Budapesth") in English." I've added back the English bit, just to be clear that it wasn't Hungarian. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 13:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we write 'archaically ALSO spelled as...'? It was used BESIDES Budapest and not instead of it even in this period, right? You think Budapesth was the ONLY used formula these days in English? Squash Racket 14:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell if it was coincident with no H spelling, or only with H. I only have on-line resources, and they are not great for older articles. I don't think it matters whether it was with H only, or if that was an alternate spelling. The "Texts of that period" implies that the spelling is archaic. A modern alternate spelling would probably be in the Lead paragraph, right next to Budapest... and this whole exercise has determined that that is not the place for it. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You really need two versions of the name as I already asked above? I mean Budapesth OR Buda-Pesth is not enough, you need both versions in the main article? Squash Racket 16:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's for completeness. Is it critical? probably not. But I don't think there's much downside in including it. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, don't wanna fight over this. Squash Racket 18:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Why would it be necessary to add in "archaic"? It's just superfluous when we already mention the spellings used at the time. It also says that it was commonly rendered as Buda-Pesth, not exclusively. What is wrong with two versions in the article? Reginmund 18:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

So, in that case, we might as well go with the third example. Reginmund 19:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Because I think number 1 or 2 versions by Flyguy are more acceptable than number 3 which is a whole sentence just on this subject. That would be overemphasizing this which I still think belongs to alternative names for European cities just like the other archaic forms. If you find 16000 hits vs. 36 000 000 mainly because of Dracula than it's just another form not worth mentioning in the main article in two versions. Squash Racket 19:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Please don't edit my stuff. You don't like that either. And don't answer your own questions please. Please keep the discussion page formula. Squash Racket 19:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Why would it put too much emphasis with a whole sentence at the end of the paragraph? It is a statement. An entire sentence is needed to explain when it was used and due to what occurence. To properly explain the wording, one would need to know why Buda-Pesth was spelled that way. Next time if you don't want me to edit your response, put it in the right place, at the bottom. Next time you don't want me to answer my own questions, answer them for me and don't complain about "fighting". Reginmund 19:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't put it in alternative names because it is an English name and it isn't alternative, it is archaic. One sentence is enough of a summary for a spelling history. How does that over-emphasise? Reginmund 23:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

We're not adding in this spelling only because of Dracula, we are adding it in because it was an alternative spelling and we have other sources to point that out. Can we finally agree on number three? Somehow, I don't think that one sentence at the end of the paragraph is two much emphasis to explain the toponymy of two popular alternate spellings at the time. And can you please post your further comments after this one and not hide them in other parts of the discussion. If there is a point their that you would like to make in relation to a new one, just copy it and put it with the new one after this statement. Reginmund 07:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think #3 will do for now. We've already spent an enormous amount of time arguing about this wording. Let's put it in. I will put more detail in hidden comments, but because my research was original, I am not comfortable putting in the German etymology of those spellings directly in the text. We can tweak as necessary, but please no edit warring. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 13:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with #3, but if there is a concensus, I will respect it. Please make the changes in the article. Squash Racket 14:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've amendend my comment #1 below under the Unprotection section to address this. This isn't the final, going to the press, never to be changed version! Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I see Pest-Buda but where is Buda-Pesth on the page? Reginmund 17:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

End of the sixth paragraph in the history section. --OnoremDil 17:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It was originally in two paragraphs, but because there were no blank lines between paragraphs 5 and 6, they showed up as one paragraph. I have made them separate now. Extremely minor change. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 18:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, it looks good where it is now. I'm going to consider citing some sources on here. This article looks ugly with the tag at the top. Could we also make a descision between AmE and BrE? I have noticed some Americanisms and Briticisms throughout the page and I think we should stick to one dialect. It's just a personal preference of mine, but I would like to go with BrE. Reginmund 20:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's move discussion of this to a new section ok? Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 22:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Add a GDP per capita to the information box

I think adding GDP per capita would be very useful. (the only problem is that I cannot personally figure out how to do that)

The current figure is EUR 26,526, that is USD35,518. Source: http://www.observatoribarcelona.org/eng/Indicadors.php?IdentificadorTema=&Identificador=11

So if someone could add that, It would be great.

Great idea, but I would urge you to be careful before adding this figure. There are several incompatible ways to calculate GDP, and the information is only valuable if Wikipedia is internally consistent. I don't know whether there is a consensus on what source to use. 81.182.216.203 18:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Paris of the East

Personally, I think the two sources given are not reliable. We should use quotes from literature, not self-published tourist agency pages. DrKiernan 08:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

See Administrators' Noticeboard! Topic on that at the bottom. Squash Racket 08:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. My point is, I want to know who first coined the term and when. Just using a tourist board slogan (in the same way that the phrase "Paris of the East" is used by Bucharest, Prague, Warsaw and Istanbul) isn't particularly notable. This is an encyclopedia, not an advert for travel agencies. So, in other words, I, like you, would favour removal in the absence of a literary quote from an established author. DrKiernan 08:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right. In fact, for Bucharest it is really used, but I don't know about someone notable who said it first. Squash Racket 08:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Bucharest 'once considered itself the Paris of the East', according to the Britannica Student Encyclopedia, and 'is often called "The Paris of the East"', according to the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, so the phrase is probably OK to use for that city. DrKiernan 08:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It already stands there in the Bucharest article. But isn't it strange having two 'Parises of the East' in neighboring countries? Squash Racket 09:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There are obviously several cities claiming "Paris of the East" status. It's almost not notable since there are so many. And it is a bit tourist-pamphlet-ey. Does the article need it? no. Is it harmed by having it? no. Incidently, I checked to see if Paris is considered as the Budapest of the West or the Bucharest of the West. Surprisingly, it's just Paris. I think it's better not to have it. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Accepted. Squash Racket 17:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent)There are already at least two Entertainment Capitals of the World. It also turns out that Shanghai was called Paris of the East![3]. "Budapest Paris of the East" has a significantly larger amount of hits on Google compared to "Bucharest Paris of the East" (2,380,000 vs. 2,070,000). The persistent use by travels companies must have its roots somewhere as they didn't all just make it up at once. If it is well-known as "Paris of the East" (moreso compared to Bucharest) why not just leave it as it is? Reginmund 18:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Two third parties advised NOT to include it. Me too. Squash Racket 19:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not the argument here. Budapest is more recognised as Paris of the East on Google. Reginmund 23:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You see, it's not sure if any nicknames will be included but this one certainly NOT. Where do the other ones come from? Perhaps I've heard about 'Pearl of the Danube'. I know that you're an expert on Hungary. Read about the Treaty of Trianon before you try to make Budapest 'Paris of the East'. Squash Racket 05:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

And just what authority on here do you have to say certainly NOT? Perhaps I have also heard of "Paris of the East". In that case, your circumstantial evidence has as much leverage as mine, so I say: certainly YES! Reginmund 05:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) I have refactored the discussion with indentation to make it easier to follow the converstation. Reginmund, on this one, I don't see the point in having it. There are at least four "Parises of the East". As I wrote previously, that is pushing the bounds of non-notable. Besides, Budapest already has three other nicknames. Nicknames aren't terribly important, anyway. And the sobriquet seems to be more geared to travel agencies pushing Budapest as a destination. There are four opinions on this: three against including, and one for. We can leave this for a couple of more days, but I see that as consensus against the inclusion of "Paris of the East". Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 06:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why that is a problem to have four Parises of the East. There are 34 Springfields and as for monikers, Entertainment Capitals of the World. The fact that Budapest has already has three other nicknames doesn't mean it is limited to another. The use of it by traves agencies seems quite prevelent enough as it has flooded the web and they couldn't have all made it up concidentially. I know have three against me but I ask you to look at this rule and this comparison: "Budapest Paris of the East" gets 2,340,000 hits on Google[4] while "Bucharest Paris of the East] gets 2,150,000[5]. I would say that they are both common enough to be used on both of their pages but Budapest noticeably has 190,000 more than Bucharest, making more popularly know as "Paris of the East". Whith this in mind, I see no reason to remove it. Reginmund 16:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there has been no poll. This is WP:CONSENSUS. I know wikipedia is not a democracy. And you are right, the article doesn't hinge on the "Paris of the East" nickname. However, I don't think there's consensus to keep it in. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 19:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth in this pretty nonsensical discussion, this slogan does not add any valuable information to any page ("it is sometimes called yadeyade", there might be a group of people calling Budapest "the Istanbul of the West" for what do you know but that does not mean it should be included here), especially not if it is used by multiple cities, so as far as I'm concerned leave it out. Adderbak 19:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What about the fact that it gets more hits than Bucharest? If there are enough people calling it Istanbul of the West, then why not? The use of the nickname is just a reminder that it is used, and that has already been proven with a significant degree of usage. Reginmund 21:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really in favour of "Paris of the East" for any city, mostly because it compares the city to another. However, we're not talking about other cities. The consensus here, for Budapest, is clearly against "Paris of the East". -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 05:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't bold my comments. Thanks. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 06:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, did not want to repeat myself again and again and again... Squash Racket 06:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does make it sound subordinate to Paris, but I didn't coin the term. I'm not taking into consideration the integrity of Budapest, I'm taking into consideration the integrity of Wikipedia. I honestly have no opinion about the name personally but As an encyclopaedia, I think we should honour its place in parlance as long as it is in mainstream usage. I don't see how not liking the name is a valid reason to remove it. Correct me if I'm wrong, Squash Racket, but from reading about the Treaty of Trianon, your consensus as to why "Paris of the East" shouldn't be included is because of anti-Parisian sentiment? This is all the consensus that I am hearing. Reginmund 06:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What's next step if Reginmund decided not to respect concensus on an issue? Squash Racket 06:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What is your argument? Anti-Parisian sentiment? So far, I haven't heard a good reason out of you to conflict with the term's popularity. Get back to the subject please. Reginmund 06:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What's next step if Reginmund decided not to respect concensus on an issue? Squash Racket 06:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to explain your defence or just be repetitive because I honestly don't understand your reasons for omission of the nickname. Reginmund 06:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we can stop whispering. I just realized that a small comment above wasn't closed with </small>. As I just wrote on Squash Racket's talk page, I'm hopeful that we can have the page unprotected later today, and make (at the very least) the changes talked about a couple of sections above. As for the "Paris of the East" (I'm going to start calling this "POTE". Ha!), I agree that Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should try to present all knowledge. However, I don't think POTE is encyclopedic; it's (to me) a marketing hook/slogan (hey, you can't afford to go to Paris? Well, there's always the Paris of the East! And there's not just one, there are many! Four Parises!). It is my preference that we work this out on the this talk page. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 06:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the small text. It was affecting the successive text. I like the acronym. It seems that the obstacle here is that it is a travel agency term (including it doesn't actually violate the advertising policy on Wikipedia), although I think that the prevelent use of it didn't drop out of the sky (presumably from a commercial airliner) so it must have its roots somewhere. If you think that it should be removed until I can pull up an encyclopaedic source, then that seems reasonable. Reginmund 07:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree to that - I would drop my opposition if a literary source was given. (BTW, I can unprotect the page once we are agreed.) DrKiernan 07:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Need to clear up some questions above, but I think we are close to a solution. Squash Racket 07:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I've fixed my statement above to emphasise that I believe we should work things out here, on this talk page. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 13:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Reginmund, sometimes marketing slogans do just appear out of nowhere. Do you think millions of people referred to Coca-Cola as "The pause that refreshes" before the Coca-Cola Corporation decided to adopt that as part of their marketing campaign? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.160.170.22 (talk • contribs) 05:05, July 17, 2007 (UTC)

Oh I'm sure you're right about Coca-Cola but I surely cannot imagine Budapest as an enterprise making up an advertising slogan for themselves... Is Budapest a corporate entity? Also, can you please sign your posts using the four tidles? Reginmund 05:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Un-protecting

I am going to request unprotection:

1. I will put in the changes we've more-or-less agreed to, with variant #3 wording for now. (Sometimes seeing changes in the context of the whole article makes the seem better or worse, or makes other possibilities apparent.)
2. I will add hidden comments for some of these to point to the extensive discussion we've had.
3. The Paris of the East nickname is coming out for now, although that is not to say that it cannot be re-inserted should Reginmund (or someone else) find a suitable scholarly reference.
4. Should the edit warring return, I will immediately request page protection again. I hope future disagreements will be discussed on the Talk page.

Regards, Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Add #5: It may be better that Squash Racket and Reginmund not make potentially controversial changes for at least a few days. Ask a neutral party to make them, instead. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

British English or American?

(copied from above)Could we also make a descision between AmE and BrE? I have noticed some Americanisms and Briticisms throughout the page and I think we should stick to one dialect. It's just a personal preference of mine, but I would like to go with BrE. Reginmund 20:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I prefer British, but it's probably easiest to make it consistent with the majority. Or with the earliest evidence of style in the history. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 22:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

OK then I'll add in the Briticisms. Reginmund 22:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Dates have a significane in MoS don't they? Reginmund 22:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Per your talk page. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 22:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

County

I would like to mention that Budapest is a county itself, and not a part of Pest county...

Sister cities

Please someone go through the sister cities of Budapest. There are way less mentioned on the official website than here. Squash Racket 10:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The official website gives a restricted list hardly to see as correct. I don't know why, probably it is an almost 10 years old state of affairs (see the years shown).

Sometimes it is not clear what the term "sister city" means. In 2003 a conference of all sister cities of Ankara was held and Budapest was represented. There was no reason to reject the kind invitation but Budapest officially does not regard Ankara a sister city. This may occur because several levels and different terminologies exist regarding international relations of municipalities. Furthermore, Budapest does have a certain level contacts and agreements with Central Asian cities like Astana, Bishkek, Almaty as a result of an official visit of mayor Demszky in the early 2000's.

The list shown in the article comes from different sources and is far better than the "official" one. So even if it is not fully based on sources linked I suggest to keep that, including Bucharest.

--peyerk 10:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because the Mayor visits a place, it won't become a sister city. This list is not OK this way, I just want a credible source with the full list. There may be partner cities, but then they need a different section. I deleted Bucharest, because Budapest was not mentioned there either and I found no source on the web claiming them sister cities.
I guess it's quite clear, a formal 'contract' between the two cities. Maybe I will look into this. Squash Racket 10:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I might have been unclear. Mayor Demszky did sign agreements with the Central Asian cities and the General Assembly did ratify them. And it is not always so clear to categorize a written agreement. I know very much of it but I wish to keep my real life far from here.

I just wanted to say that it is simply impossible to find all the necessary informátions on the internet. It is sad but true.

--peyerk 10:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Then provide ANY source. Signing agreements is not declaring yourselves sister cities. Of course the Mayor travels here and there, but he is not Budapest. Or you would include Central Asian cities and Bucharest just because there is no credible source for that?
Peyerk, may I ask you kindly not to delete credible sources from the article? Squash Racket 11:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a solution: there are only a few sister cities of Budapest, other mentioned cities have only partnerships with districts of Budapest, but these don't belong here. Squash Racket 11:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)