Jump to content

Talk:Budapest/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Reference

Those who have written most of the article please provide your source. Thank you. Squash Racket 08:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Etymology of Pest

The word Pest (or Peshta) is thought to originate from the Bolgar language, (thought to be a Turkic language, not related to modern Bulgarian, which is a Slavic language) because at the time of the reign of the Bulgarian Khan Krum (approximately 796-814), the town was under Bulgar dominion.

The word means "oven" in archaic Hungarian as well as in most other Slavic languages. As far as I know, no Slavic etymological dictionary traces the word to Bulgar Turkic. It is very well integrated in the old layers of Slavic, and manifests classical sound correspondences and consonant alternations suggesting that it is a proto-Slavic root (Bulgarian пещ - Russian печь, etc). --91.148.159.4 10:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Added 2 important lines in intro

"Dubbed by Westerners as "Paris of the East", "Pearl of the Danube", "Little Paris" and "The City of Baths"[3], Budapest is considered an essential Central European hub[4], especially since the downfall of the Communist regime in Hungary." Something like this was sorely missed from the Eng. version -- seeing how Prague for instance was described as "one of the most beautiful cities in Europe" (I agree). Check my sources if you will. The page shows serious neglect when compared to the entries of other Central European capitals. Gregorik 21:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

See archived talk page on this. You may start an RfC, but for now please respect hardly reached concensus. Thank you.
I left in the other part of the sentence, but it sounds like a brochure, not an encyclopedia. Squash Racket 05:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Intro was essentially empty without these additional lines. OK, I am sorry, will respect. Gregorik 08:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Famous people of Budapest entry to be finalized later

When I have the time; please don't delete it, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregorik (talk • contribs) 10:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Layout

This page's layout is awful. "Buda by night" image that covers some text. Please, fix it. --84.122.25.184 (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC).

That was me. I'm sure you use a non-wide display. The page is now optimized for widescreen, as most pages should be as of 2007-8. I am sorry. Gregorik (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Too many photos!

Ok, the photos are nice to look at, but they are better served from a commons photo gallery. As I have not contributed greatly to the selection of these photographs I implore those involved to cut the content by at least half. 15:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I was the one to add most of the photos. I now agree that I overdid it, but a consensus should be reached as this IS one of the most beautiful cities I've ever seen and it should show in the article. Gregorik (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Famous people

I have moved this content to Budapest/famous people. The content definately doesn't belong in this article, possibly a category could be created that would be included in the articles of each of these individuals to link them to Budapest. Alan.ca (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That list involved plenty of work. For now I've relegated it to the back of the article (until a consensus is reached). I think similar 'famous people' lists should be commonplace in ALL articles about towns with some cultural significance. Would add tremendously to the articles. Gregorik (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
A current 'norm' does not have to mean that it's not debatable. I've looked into the 'Notable natives' discussion at WP:CITY and found that the intelligent entries there all argue for such sections within city articles. Much of the arguments against 'Notable natives' sections is ludicrous. Alan.ca and those involved, excuse me. I think it goes without saying that city articles suffer without 'famous natives' sections, but majority wins. Gregorik (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable references

I'm removing unreliable sources. From now on please add only reliable sources in encyclopedic format. Thank you. Squash Racket (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Status of Budapest through cleanup

I have initiated a clean-up of the Budapest article. I have forked the history content to History of Budapest. The goal is to clean up the new article and then provide a summary of it in the main Budapest article. This beautiful city has a lot of history to write about and I would appreciate any help I can get on this. Alan.ca (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll help as promised but I might add that forking to History of Budapest might've been an overkill. Started a cleanup of that article, a choice few of the photos may need to come back in Budapest, incl. a wide image. Excuse me for these remarks. Gregorik (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
It is my hope to improve this article through collaboration, in this endeavour your point of view has great value. If you can work to improve the history article, we can then summarize it in the main article. I forked the content because large, lower quality articles tend to stagnate. Alan.ca (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

POV in lead

I think this paragraph in the lead section is POV and I added {{Request quotation}}. I checked some of the sources and they didn't seem to verify what the article said. The text is also composed mostly of weasel words.

Widely regarded as one of the most beautiful cities in the world[1][need quotation to verify][2][need quotation to verify], Budapest is considered an important Central European hub[3][need quotation to verify] for business, culture and tourism. Its World Heritage Sites include the banks of the Danube, the Buda Castle Quarter, Andrássy Avenue and the Millennium Underground railway, the first on the European continent[1][4]. Budapest attracts over 20 million visitors a year[5], making it one of the top destinations in Europe.[need quotation to verify] The city ranks 74th on Mercer Consulting's 'World's Top 100 Most Livable Cities' list[6].

  1. ^ a b "Nomination of the banks of the Danube and the district of the Buda Castle" (PDF). International Council on Monuments and Sites. Retrieved 2008-01-31. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ "Budapest Is Stealing Some of Prague's Spotlight". The New York Times. 2006-10-03. Retrieved 2008-01-29. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  3. ^ "Doing Business : Budapest, the soul of Central Europe". International Herald Tribune. 2004-08-04. Retrieved 2008-01-29. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  4. ^ "World Heritage Committee Inscribes 9 New Sites on the World Heritage List". Unesco World Heritage Centre. Retrieved 2008-01-31. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  5. ^ "Budapest City Guide". European Rail Guide. Retrieved 2008-02-04. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  6. ^ "World's Top 100 Most Livable Cities". Business Week. Retrieved 2008-01-31. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Vints (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Quotations

ICOMOS:

However, a conservation policy for the whole of the urban area of Budapest, a metropolis with more than 2 million inhabitants, should be strongly recommended to the Hungarian government so that one of the most beautiful urban landscapes in the world may be preserved.

NYT:

A spectacularly beautiful and subversively lively old royal capital, Budapest

IHT:

Budapest is an expanding regional hub as Central Europe becomes integrated into the European Union.

European Rail Guide:

Lying in north-central Hungary on the banks of the river Danube, Budapest attracts almost twenty four million visitors annually.

Squash Racket (talk) 11:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I did check the sources before requesting quotes. ICOMOS doesn't say it is "widely regarded...", neither does NYT, and European Rail Guide doesn't say it is "one of the top destinations in Europe". IHT says Budapest is "expanding regional hub" (keep in mind that Central Europe includes rich countries like Switzerland and Germany). Mercer Consulting's list does, imo, not belong in the lead of an encyclopedic article. Compare for example the corresponding articles in Encarta and Columbia Encyclopedia, [1] [2]. Vints (talk) 07:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I changed [3] to "Regarded by many as a beautiful city", and removed the sentences about "an important Central European hub" (the lead already says "serves as the country's principal political, cultural, commercial, industrial and transportation center") and the 'World's Top 100 Most Livable Cities' list. The list perhaps belongs to some section in the article. Vints (talk) 07:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Source says "one of the most beautiful urban landscapes in the world" (probably ICOMOS knows a thing or two about that). (In fact I changed it to "Regarded by many", you removed the sourced part.) "Important Central European hub" describes what the source says, the other sentence only mentions Budapest as Hungary's most important center.
Feel free to move the list from Business Week to another (possibly new) section of the article, but your simple deletion will be reinserted. Thank you. Squash Racket (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
ICOMOS doesn't say "widely regarded": yes, they simply say it is one of the most beautiful urban landscapes in the world.
European Rail Guide doesn't say "one of the top destinations in Europe": yes, but if you have 24 million visitors a year, maybe that is simply true (removed that part btw).
If you cite sources in the exact same way as the original, it is considered copyright violation here on Wikipedia, so you need to change the sentences at least a bit.
It would be constructive to help the article grow and not hold it to FA standards, as right now it is not even a GA. Squash Racket (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was the one who wrote about 75% of the lead back then, and it's sad to see it being dismantled by Vints, who almost seems to have something personal against this city. Again, when ICOMOS says it is one of the most beautiful urban landscapes in the world, it reflects a.) expert opinion, b.) international consensus on the subject, and nothing to do with weasel words. Excuse me, Vints. Gregorik (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Budapest.com is an unreliable source

Budapest.com is not an independent source. The city tried to buy it, but it is still in the hands of Tamás Pick [4]. I advise editors to remove all references to budapest.com and replace those with reliable sources. Squash Racket (talk) 08:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Agreed. It is also full of advertisements. May qualify as linkspam. Alan.ca (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The city did not try to buy the domain from the owner, but they wanted to sue him to get it. Anyway the domain is handled by hungarian company from the end of 2007. A new portal has been launched in April 2008 and its aim is to promote Budapest and services available and to serve leisure and business travellers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Szaboz 75 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone check this edit?

Major juggle of images. Anonymous, unsummarized. Appears to involve additions, removals, and moves. Intent completely unclear. I haven't been working on the article lately, so I leave it to someone else to judge. - Jmabel | Talk 15:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sport?!

This is the first city article I've come across without a Sport section. Can someone remedy this? Grunners (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian Grand Prix at Hungaroring

football team's from Budapest in Hungary's highest level league (Hungarian National Championship I):

Missing

There is no geography section in the article and climate data is also missing. I looked up the average monthly temperatures for Budapest: [5]. If anyone knows how to make nice tables and charts, please don't hesitate to help out. Thanks, (Einstein00 (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC))

Nevermind. I just did it. (Einstein00 (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC))
I added some extra info about the climate today - I came across the data in two books on my shelf and some research on the Hungarian Meteorology Office's website. Since I'm Hungarian, this caused no problems. I will also take a look at the other sections. Fibratus (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Created separate Climate of Budapest article, the text became too long and doesn't fit in the article. Only the main table remained in the Budapest article. Fibratus (talk) 12:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong photo for St Elisabeth church

Well, it's the church of St Elisabeth of Hungary on the given photography, but not the one in Budapest. In the Hungarian capital, the church lies in the German presbytary, along a street heading to the banks of the Danube, and there is absolutely no square lying at its doors. Then, The St Elisabeth church in Budapest is from baroque era, unlike the one on the photo. Please remove or replace it. QMCM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.64.233 (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Population decline

The graph in this article shows a huge decline in population, roughly 15-20% it looks like, from the mid-'70s into the first decade of the 21st century. No explanation is given in the city's history. Perhaps this should be noted...? RobertM525 (talk) 04:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Tel Aviv coatofarms.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Second infobox & history list

I have removed the second infobox on the article. The UNESCO heritage template clutters the article and doesn't align cleanly with the settlement infobox describing the city statistics. I am also forking the history time line into it's own article as it disrupts the readability of the article. Alan.ca (talk) 05:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you also plan to write and produce the same amount of quality content as the space occupied by the timeline or just remove. I don't think the article can in it's present form withstand any more removals. Hobartimus (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
My hope in removing the list is to make the article easier to read. Individuals wishing to go into more detail about the subject have the forked content in the history article. In reviewing other articles about cities, I find the featured articles tend to use lists sparingly and keep them short. Such examples would include San Fransciso, Hamilton, Ontario and Boston. A list of these examples can be seen at [6]. It is my hope that we can get this article to FA status one day. Alan.ca (talk) 05:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I get what you are trying to do and I agree with the removal of the unesco box for example. But I fear if we take such a major bit of content without adding anything we just gut the article and make it devoid of content. The successful articles you mention have a lot more attention and people working on them so if stuff gets removed people tend to fill in the space with new content quickly. I just say we should do the "add" part first and remove the list only when we have enough content to at least display the pictures that currently get displayed near the timeline. What the article could also use is more sourcing. Hobartimus (talk) 05:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
How about we compromise and move the list to the end of the article? Alan.ca (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. As long as we can keep the images it's ok with me. Hobartimus (talk) 07:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree with your last revert (01.02) Alan.ca, some improvements were reinstated there. Hobartimus (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead panorama

The lead panorama has been deleted on commons (as a copyviol); can someone look into a suitable free image to replace it. Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It will be sorely missed, as it pretty much made the article. Someone with a capable camera should volunteer... Gregorik (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I commented it out for the moment, could you give a link to the deletion discussion, who uploaded it? Hobartimus (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
There's a number of Budapest panoramas on Flicker, some of the photographers should be contacted randomly. Gregorik (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've uploaded a panorama I shot several days ago of Budapest. I don't know what the old one looked like or where it went (or where this one might go), but I'd be glad to offer it for this article.

Panorama of Budapest, facing across the Danube River to the Pest side from the walls of Buda Castle.

Shane Lin (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not extremely familiar with the peculiarities of Wikipedia style and the Manual of Style entries offer seemingly more leeway than is helpful in this case, but it seems to me that the above panorama could fit well as a wide image across immediately under the Geography heading. The panorama is probably more illustrative of the geography of Budapest than the current image, which is actually very similar to the very next image of the Hungarian parliament. One of those two could probably be moved to the gallery farther down. Any objections to this? Shane Lin (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I added it for now, but if a better one comes up, we'll replace it. Squash Racket (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Shane, thanks for the panorama. It's good but the best photos of Budapest are arguably taken from one of the bridges at dawn. You might've left the city already but if you return feel free to take an even more spectacular panorama (for example from Margaret bridge) that could find a permanent niche on the Budapest article. Cheers. Gregorik (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes. This probably isn't the best location to show both sides of the river, but it does get a good view of the iconic river and the parliament building. Dawn/Dusk shots are certainly very dramatic, but I figured that the highest level of detail of the city itself can only be obtained during daylight. And, at 167 million pixels, this one is not likely to be surpassed soon in detail (until the next generation of digital cameras or someone shoots a pano with a medium format camera). Shane Lin (talk) 07:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

religious breakdown- should be organized by biggest percentages first not randomly as it seems. -TB july 17, 09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.166.103.188 (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Historical population

Edits of Squash Racket, Baxter9, Hobartimus: [7]: Deletion of a book source. As we know, Budapest was, like Bratislava, multi-national city. Many of people were Germans, Slovaks, etc. It should be mentioned in the article, because now, there is only a data from one year, not the complete history of the population. Also, I think that it is quite big and important city, that has other versions of name, used abroad. It also should be mentioned, it we want this article to be complete. --Wizzard (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Budapest (Pest-Buda) was a multienthnic city in the 19th century, but at the turn of the century became lunguistically homogeneous, people from all over the Hungarian Kingdom were magyarized, and I think it's very interesting, see: Demographics of Budapest. Until Ausgleich Budapest and the surroundings was German-speaking, for exaple my great-grandparents spoke German, Hungarian was only their second language. Nowadays Budapest is a single-language city, there are only Hungarian signs (but in the renewed Metro 2 there are English signs also:)).--Rovibroni (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Wide majority of Slovakians were villager. Slovak people existed in cities towns. But their ratio wasn't determinative (as majority) in today's Slovakian big cities until Trianon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celebration1981 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "like Bratislava"? In Pozsony, around (1910) the number of Slovaks was very small around 14% of total population. Also I don't seem recall that Budapest was ever the capital city of Slovakia. If it becomes the capital for 200 years than it will be a meaningful analogy. You may have some valid points but the comparsion of Budapest to Pozsony(Bratislava) is I think not one of them. Hobartimus (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
"Edits of...Baxter9...",Excuse me, but I did not make any edits at this article. However, in this case I agree with Hobartimus.Baxter9 (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Baxter9 was not there. I know that Slovaks in 1910 was only a minority in Bratislava, most of people had German nationality. Also like in Budapest, where also lived Hungarians, Slovaks, etc. Yes, it was not the Slovak capital, just the biggest Slovak city. I was talking about this. --Wizzard (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

A population analysis of the German, Jewish and Hungarian population of Budapest would be OK, but specifically of the Slovak population per WP:Undue Weight not really.
According to archives of Budapest around 1850 the majority of Budapest's population was German/German-speaking Jewish, about a quarter is Hungarian, and 1/10 is Slavic peoples combined.
And you are complaining about my edits after repeatedly adding the next throwaway website? Squash Racket (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This may be also a valuable information, could you please add it to the article? --Wizzard (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Unlike in the article Pozsony, most of the sources are English here, I try to refrain from adding a Hungarian source if not necessary. There are reliable, neutral, English references about the history and population of Budapest. Squash Racket (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
According to that tourist guide site, Cyril and Method were also Slovaks! "Famous Slovaks: Cyril and Method" :D LOL![8]Baxter9 (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure? I cite: Cyril and Method were two Greek missionary brothers, who arrived in Great Moravia on the request of prince Rastislav, in 863. --Wizzard (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Famous Slovaks: Cyril and Method

Quote end. Exactly how many times do you plan to break 3RR today? Squash Racket (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure. Any famous person who has ever set a toe on today's Slovakia is slovak, according to that site. NOT RELIABLE!Baxter9 (talk)
Sorry? --Wizzard (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Wizzard, You maybe missed the huge fonted part in the link [9] where it says "Famous Slovaks: Cyril and Method". Don't you find C&M as famous Slovaks a bit rediculous? Hobartimus (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but did you ever read that page, or you just added it as a reference:"Famous Slovaks". I dont want to repeat my comment above.Baxter9 (talk)

And he revert warred that website four times into the article Jozef Karol Hell and he revert warred out the "according to Slovak sources" part. Squash Racket (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

[10]Baxter9 (talk)

I made a quick search on "Marko A., Martinický P." (authors of the "book source" inserted by Wizzard). Besides playing around with Hungarian and Slovak population numbers they are the very definition of bias. Example: they say that those Hungarians who declared themselves Hungarian after the Re-Slovakization process was over had been persecuted for their Slovak(?!) ethnicity by the Communists. They also openly protest against autonomy demands of the Hungarian minority as in their minds that would lead to border changes. The author of that review even warns that English- and German-speaking readers may take what these two say seriously.
So thank you, third party, English language sources are still preferred in this top-importance article. Squash Racket (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I made a quick search on "Andrew L. Simon" and his book "Made in Hungary" and found an interesting feedback:
A tribute to Hungary's best and brightest deserves cogent writing. In Made in Hungary, Mr. Simon, fails to even utilize basic English grammer. The errors are too common, too glaring and time and time again I found myself wondering who could have edited and published a book with so many obvious errors. In addition, throughout thebook Mr. Simon makes numerous unsupportable and sometimes outrageous statements. My advice is to pass this book up and wait until someone with some writing ability tackles the subject.
And this is a "source" used in many articles at English Wikipedia. --Wizzard (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a comment on amazon.com by a random commenter called "A customer" without mentioning one example. It could be written by you. Another comment just above this one:

This book is excellent! I wanted to learn more about Hungary, its history, its ways, its contributions to the world, and this book covers it. It begins with a historical perspective, 'Milestones of Progress', and then covers Hungary's impact from the Arts and Social Sciences to Engineering, and even Sports. It is not a 'cover to cover' read, but can be read either a chapter at a time, or as a reference book to look up information as needed. If you are looking for a book that covers Hungary from an interesting and to the point perspective, this is it!

I hope you realize this is not a review of the book. Squash Racket (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I also recommend to look for Francis (Ferenc) Wagner, who was a Hungarian born in Krupina, Slovakia, and his books are also widely used as the references here, for example "Hungarian Contributions to World Civilization". --Wizzard (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem with him? Squash Racket (talk) 08:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. Francis S. Wagner, Hungarian Contribution to World Civilization, 2nd ed. (1991) is used by Encyclopædia Britannica(!) as a reference.

Also:

Francis Stephen Wagner, former Hungarian diplomat and subject cataloguer at the Library of Congress, died on April 14, 1999, at the age of 88.

Wagner, who had received three doctoral degrees (in history, philosophy, and literature) from Hungary's University of Szeged, taught at the Budapest Teachers College and served (1946–48) as consul general in Czechoslovakia.

Wagner arrived in the United States in 1949 and worked in various jobs while learning English. He ultimately joined the Library of Congress, where he worked for 29 years.

Author of several books, Wagner was also a contributor to the AHA publication, Guide to Historical Literature. Copyright © American Historical Association


His book is an excellent source. Next time, please do some research yourself. Squash Racket (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wizzard, I am still waiting for your comment on the link [11] where it says "Famous Slovaks: Cyril and Method". What is your opinion on C&M as famous Slovaks? Hobartimus (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The Martinicky book is a normal scientific book without any factual errors, the above citation is based on a Hungarian pamphlet trying to critise a version that is the result of a wrong English translation. Given that all the Hungarian users here are involved in turning all pre-1918 Slovaks into "Hungarians", the repeating citing of some occurrence of calling some guys Slovaks just because they spent a lot of time in Slovakia is ridiculous. By contrast, Wizzard could fill the whole discussion page with alleged "Hungarians". But of course, Hungarian books are always "perfect" (written by scientists or freaks, that does not matter, and all others are "nationalists"). The more interesting point here is the permanent harassment of all Slovak users by these and other Hungarian users in this wikipedia and, more specifically in this case, the fact that they have managed to eliminate information on the fact that almost none of the towns in Hungary was an ethnic Hungarian town before the end of the 19th century, including Budapest itself, while they insist on inserting information about alleged (and for the time before 1980 invented) "Hungarianess" of towns in the neigbouring countries and on turning all names into Hungarian ones. I really wonder how it is possible that nobody has noticed this for years here and that a discussion like this is not suspicious for anybody. Curiouscurious (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I made a quick search on "Marko A., Martinický P." (authors of the "book source" inserted by Wizzard). Besides playing around with Hungarian and Slovak population numbers they are the very definition of bias. Example: they say that those Hungarians who declared themselves Hungarian after the Re-Slovakization process was over had been persecuted for their Slovak(?!) ethnicity by the Communists. They also openly protest against autonomy demands of the Hungarian minority as in their minds that would lead to border changes. The author of that review even warns that English- and German-speaking readers may take what these two say seriously.
So thank you, third party, English language sources are still preferred in this top-importance article. Squash Racket (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The point was not that you are supposed to use Slovak sources, but that the link you provide as "argument" above is "the very definition of bias" and I have explained why. In general, please do not be ridiculous and stop citing all Hungarian nationalist pamphlets you can find on the internet (those in English are the worst ones, because they are intended to manipulate people outside Hungary), there are thousands of them, while the number of equivalent pamphlets with Slovak or Romanian origin is negligible given that those countries do not try to lie about their neigbouring countries and their history to explain to everybody that some territory is actually "still theirs". As for the topic: This article deliberately hides foreign language names of this town, while the same users who try to hide them are eager to insert Hungarian names all over the English wikipedia even for times when the Hungarian names did not even exist (example:Pozsony). I wonder how this can be considered in line with any wikipedia policy or neutrality requirement (the answer is: it cannot). Secondly, this article deliberately ignores detailed information about the fact (and related issues) that Budapest, in percentage terms, had almost no ethnic Hungarian inhabitants for centuries, exact numbers are available in many sources; on the other hand, the same user who try to hide this information are eager to add information about ethnic Hungarians in Slovakia and Romania all over this wikipedia (actually, they have already completed their work, so they do not have to be eager anymore). Finally, not only the said users deliberately hide informtion, they even harass a user trying to fix those errors. Again, someone should explain - maybe the admins (are there admins in this wikipedia??) - how such an "approach" is possible in this version of the wikipedia. Curiouscurious (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think your comment doesn't address the book review:

Besides playing around with Hungarian and Slovak population numbers they are the very definition of bias. Example: they say that those Hungarians who declared themselves Hungarian after the Re-Slovakization process was over had been persecuted for their Slovak(?!) ethnicity by the Communists. They also openly protest against autonomy demands of the Hungarian minority as in their minds that would lead to border changes. The author of that review even warns that English- and German-speaking readers may take what these two say seriously.

I think that review is pretty specific on what the problems with these two authors are (citing examples).
There are no notable foreign names of Budapest. Pozsony IS used in English. Squash Racket (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have explained above, why your quote is irrelevant in general. But the quote is irrelevant even without any comment on my part, because anyone can see that what is pretended to be an argument (see the "?!" part) is simply a technical translation or language error. Repeating the same quote for a fourth time will not turn it into a relevant, i.e. contentual, argument, especially for the discussion at hand...And as for your statement "Pozsony IS used in English" - this tells its own tale. No comment needed. Curiouscurious (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think your comment doesn't address the book review:

Besides playing around with Hungarian and Slovak population numbers they are the very definition of bias. Example: they say that those Hungarians who declared themselves Hungarian after the Re-Slovakization process was over had been persecuted for their Slovak(?!) ethnicity by the Communists. They also openly protest against autonomy demands of the Hungarian minority as in their minds that would lead to border changes. The author of that review even warns that English- and German-speaking readers may take what these two say seriously.

The (?!) sign was added by me, I highlighted a deliberate false statement, NOT a language error. Pozsony IS used in English in a historical sense, yes, no further comment needed, this is a fact. Squash Racket (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course, and Budapest was built by Slovaks[citation needed] :D --Wizzard (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
According to the two "honest" Slovak authors mentioned above? Squash Racket (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you did not notice, while you were joking about Bratislava, I was joking about Budapešť. --Wizzard (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't remember "my joke" about Pozsony. In a historical sense the Hungarian form is definitely used in English. Squash Racket (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
It seems we have to wait for a long time for an honest answer. Were Cyril and Method famous Slovaks or not? Hobartimus (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It rather seems we have to "wait for a long time for" a honest answer to the questions:

  • how a question about Cyril and Method is relevant for the topic at hand, i.e. for this article (and how your repeating of such a question can be interpreted in a way not implying the only thing you are interested in is Hungarian nationalism)
  • why this article hides information about the ethnic composition of the town in the past
  • why this article hides information about foreign language names of the town.

Actually, this is a question for admins, but since this wikipedia version is in an acute state of anarchy and gang-building, I am asking this "whom ever this may concern". Curiouscurious (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you've waited too long for honest answers here so far (at least not from most editors here). So I don't understand your first sentence.
Answer:
  • if an editor inserts weak websites with false statements into other articles, it damages his credibility when he tries to insert non-English/non-reliable websites into other articles
  • this article only "hides information" coming from two Slovak authors, who already had manipulated population numbers in the past and were making false statements about the Re-Slovakization process; historical analysis of the ethnic composition belongs into Demographics of Budapest, though the fact that the city had a German and German-speaking Jewish majority is worth mentioning (based on neutral, reliable, English references of course)
  • large, relevant populations include Hungarian, German and Jewish — all of them use the "Budapest" form. There was an archaic "Budapesth" form in German that was also used in a few English documents, somebody deleted this from the history section, it may be added again. Squash Racket (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
"how a question about Cyril and Method is relevant for the topic at hand"? It's relevant because the statement that Cyril and Method are famous Slovaks were found on a website we were discussing. This is a simple question if Cyril and Method were really famous Slovaks or is this statement indicative of something else? Hobartimus (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Main montage

I made a montage for the article and it would be greatly appreciated if you would direct all licensing inquiries, and other issues with the file to me so that I can make any necessary additions or adjustments, preventing the file from being deleted from Wikipedia. Thanks -- mcshadypl TC 00:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Over 60 images

There is an excessive amount of images in this article. Opening the main article with the ambiguous ('The View') panorama section makes the article appear more like a travel advertisement than an encyclopedia article. Please consider revising the amount of images and their placement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.235.108 (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Vulgarity

There is a quite rude and inaccurate comment registered under the climate chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.34.186 (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Twin towns and sister cities

I am a bit confused about the list of twin towns and sister cities. Currently, there are more than 20 cities listed in the article, but on the official website of Budapest, there are only 8 [12]. Are there different types of sister/twin city statuses (in that case the status should also be mentioned), or some of the cities currently listed in the article are not sister/twin cities of Budapest? What do you think? Koertefa (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an answer to the question above, but I do have another question. Why are some cities in the list bolded? This should be explained somewhere. --Robthepiper (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
There is no logical reason for some cities to be in bold so I've removed that format.
There are actually ten cities listed on the Budapest official website.[1]
As for why there are more cities listed in the article, Budapest is divided into districts and some of these districts are twinned to small cities or districts of other big cities, for details see the article: List of districts and towns in Budapest.
Marek.69 talk 01:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
References
  1. ^ "Budapest - Testvérvárosok". Budapest Főváros Önkormányzatának hivatalos oldala [Official site of the Municipality of Budapest] (in Hungarian). Retrieved 2013-08-14. {{cite web}}: Check |archiveurl= value (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

New Budapest Flag

Because the local council has voted another one with hungarian red-white-green instead of the "romanian" red-yellow-blue.Bigshotnews 11:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigshotnews (talk • contribs)

Contrary to the popular belief the old flag is not "Romanian". The city choose to have the red-gold-blue flag to honor the reunification of Transylvania into Hungary after the [| Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867]. Traditionally these colors were the colors of the flag and coat of arms of Transylvania. The resemblence to the Romanian flag came later as Romania adopted its flag. Although different sources claim the pre-Romanian flag was the same as the flag of Budapest. But the city didn't intentionally copied the Romanian or pre-Romanian flag. It's only a matter of understanding that "Budapest has the Romanian flag" or "Romania has the flag of Budapest". They didn't want to change the flag of Romania because it resembled the flag of the Hungarian capital. During the '30s the city council changed the flag slightly. Replacing the blue with green. This red-gold-green flag was used during the most politically right-wing time of the city. -- BoKriF (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Demonym

Demonym should be "budapesti". The current version "Budapester" is German. (I tried to edit, but it didn't allow.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Admc (talk • contribs) 16:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree: Demonym should be "budapesti". Neither in Hungarian, nor in English "Budapester". That one is in German. --Szekelyga (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Note

I have removed a statement in the intro that stated that the city is "recognized as a financial hub in Central Europe" and cited to a dead link. This 2010 article in the Financial Times cites Hungary's desire to make the capital a financial center as an ambition, but not the reality. This 2014 column from EmergingMarkets.org notes that "Stock exchange number one is the Warsaw Stock Exchange (WSE). Many in the early 1990s tipped Budapest or Prague to emerge as the leading securities trading hub in central and eastern Europe. Neither did: combined Prague-Budapest turnover in the first quarter of 2014 was €7.1bn, less than a third of the WSE’s turnover..."

Given these facts, the "financial hub" reference seemed to me to be overstatement. Thanks, Neutralitytalk 08:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Correction

I corrected a picture discription which said "New Fast Light Innovative Regional Train, ..." for "New Siemens Desiro, ..." as the train on the picture is a Desiro DMU, Class 6342 in Hungary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankyLon (talk • contribs) 12:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Budapest

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Too Many Images

In my opinion, this article has way too many images and it definitely needs a cleanup. Wikipedia is not a travel-guide, or a photo-gallery, and I do not see the point of having more than one picture of the Royal Castle, Chain Bridge, or presenting an image for every important building (or street, sculpture, university, theater, etc.) of the city. For example, one picture showing a stadium in Budapest is more than enough for that kind of buildings. I am open to a discussion about what pictures we should keep, but currently the article is overloaded with them. Pictures which show something not even mentioned in the main text should surely go (like Groupama Arena, Solaris electric bus, etc.). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 23:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above: too many images, like a travel guide. I suggest keeping most of the older historical images and deleting most of the modern ones, including Cityscape, office buildings, stadium, metro map, and others. Even then, there would be a lot of images. Littlewindow (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I've made a start by deleting some of the most obviously irreverent images. There are still too many. Littlewindow (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I agree with most of your removals. I prefer keeping the picture of the Megyeri Bridge, as this is a recently built bridge and it is not everyday that a city builds a new bridge, so it is worth an illustration. The article is much better now, in my opinion. Nevertheless, there seems to be some IP editors who disagree. Let's invite them here: please, share your opinions about the image removals. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Sure, whatever -- I'm not going to object to any particular images, as long as most of the "travel magazine" ones are gone. Littlewindow (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Budapest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Distances to other cities

At the Geography section, on what is based the selection of cities, used to show the distance between them and Budapest? Is it arbitrary, WP:NOR, or it is correctly to have such a list? The same topic is raised at Talk:Sofia and is discussed between me and another editor, so I am looking for WP:30. He/she/it insists either only neighboring capitals to be included or the whole table to be deleted, while I point out that some capitals, such as Budapest are closer to Sofia than two neighboring capitals - Ankara and Athens. So I had created such a list, it was challenged and I can't conclude how to modify and what to include in such a list and now I think to delete it. Thoughts?--Serdik (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 26 external links on Budapest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Budapest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Budapest/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I've reassessed the article as a B-Class. Reason: I've put much work in it (and I'm far from finished) and the article has now grown greatly in size and perhaps in quality. Compare to other B-Class capital articles. Gregorik 22:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 10:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Budapest főváros

Google doesn't support the form, what is the source?Xx236 (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Budapest. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 05:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

A Photo of Prince Charles and Camilla?

Why would British Royals be featured on the Budapest page, and especially in a Synagogue? Seems a strange choice to this reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.191.255.143 (talk) 08:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Budapest. 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) 21:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Budapest. 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) 18:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Rail transport

Re: "Budapest is one of the main stops of the on its Central and Eastern European route.[186] "
Looking at the reference, I think this should be: "Budapest was one of the main stops of the Orient Express on its Central and Eastern European route.[186]" (The article on the Orient Express lists it ended in 1009.)Darci (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Have you a reliable source for this statament?, if yes, please add it!.--AlfaRocket (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Rehauling the History section

Did some major rehaul but others might object. Much of the text comes from http://www.budapest.com/history.html, but revised. Seems it's all approved by tom@budapest.com. Timeline is translated from http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest. Gregorik 13:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The history section does have a lot of good information, but it seems to take up a bit too much of this article, which is on all aspects of Budapest, not just its history. As of now, no "History of Budapest" article exists; maybe this information should be used to create it, with only a brief summary of Budapest's history given here. Also, the intro seems to contain information that would better fit in the History section of the article. Just some suggestions. Rising*From*Ashes (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I am extremely sceptical about this "Ak Ink" name. This appears to be a clumsy attempt by a contributor to a mid-19th Century edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica to explain the name by reference to his idea of how ancient Celts spoke - in grunting monosyllables as befits a "barbarian" people. A settlement whose name meant "abundant spring water" would be something like *digandikodubro-. I think we must look elsewhere for the etymology of the Roman name. -Paul S 21:30 9 April 2008

I'm curious about all the references to Bulgarians as far north as Budapest. I am very familiar with Hungarian history and archeology, but have never seen any reference to them in this area. There would have been another people, the Avars, in the area, before the Hungarians, and for a while, the Franks of Charlemagne. I don't know of settlements they built here, though. Could this be rectified? vitéz 12:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavszabo (talk • contribs)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Budapest. 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) 04:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Budapest. 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) 18:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Budapest. 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) 07:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

One of the most densely populated cities? And one of the largest ones?

The first claim is not substantiated at all by the references given, which is not surprising if we consider the fact that Bp. is in fact LESS densely populated than your average major European city. It doesn't figure on this list either, and with a population density of 3,351 it would definitely rank way below any of the cities listed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_cities_proper_by_population_density Consequently, I'll completely remove this claim if nobody objects.

As for the "one of the largest cities in the European Union" claim, Budapest comes 10th on the list of cities in the European Union by population within city limits, comes 14th on the larger urban zone list, comes 15th on the list of urban areas (20th if we sort the list by the UN data). So, in my opinion, it's misleading to say "one of the largest" - no other Wikipedia article says that about other cities that are truly one of the largest, either. Therefore, I'll change this to the usual and more specific "tenth-largest city in the European Union by population within city limits" passage, if nobody objects. Zigomer trubahin (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I also removed the passage "and making it one of the largest regional economies in the European Union", seen as Central Hungary, the region comprising Budapest, comes about 50th on this list. Zigomer trubahin (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The original Hungarian pronounciation can be heard on http://hu.forvo.com/word/budapest/. I am Hungarian, I can tell you it is correct. N.11.6 (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Where do the first three pronounciations come from? They are just simply incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.251.135 (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

(Somehow it's even inconsiderate.) However, being non informative or rather misinformative, they should simply be removed, IMO. Most nationalities are unable to pronounce the Hungarian "A", so the first one without the length mark [:] may be considered as informative (however still incorrect). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.63.113 (talk) 09:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it, and made the correction, not to cause even more confusion. However there is some compatibility issue at the moment with the IPA characters. Could someone please check it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.99.33 (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Just it's now mixed up, and the correct version is the one that is lost. I mean the more or less correct one. I try to make some improvements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.47.20 (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, incorrect again. The correct one was the 'budapesht' pronounciation of the three, not the 'budapest' one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.226.12.175 (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No, the accepted pronunciation is "budapest". Check any dictionary. Pronouncing it "budapesht" is like pronouncing Paris "pa-ree" or Mexico "may-heeco". — kwami (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

How do you mean accepted pronunciation? What does it actually mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.226.12.175 (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

German site was correct, made the refinement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.119.128.143 (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The IPA gives the Hungarian pronunciation with /ʃ/ but then the audio-recording sounds like it has a very sharp /s/, which would be "Budapeszt". The English translations are listed in a footnote at the bottom, but the audio-recording sounds neither like an English pronunciation with /s/ or the Hungarian pronunciation with /ʃ/. Janadume (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia, and the pronunciation guide must follow English standards. Any foreign pronunciation, including Hungarian pronunciation, is optional per policy. Per MOS:LEADPRON the English pronunciation comes first, so there is no question that the current IPA rendering, which represents a foreign pronunciation, must be removed or moved to a lower section in the body of the article. The universal pronunciation of the last half of the word, modulo some completely regular and predictable pronunciation variance between AE and BE (such as with tune) is precisely the pronunciation of the English word pest. I'll take care of this. Mathglot (talk) 07:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)  Done Mathglot (talk) 07:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

In this WP page the Hungarian "listen" pronunciation is wrong. The right one: [ˈbudɒpɛʃt] and not [ˈbudɒpɛst]. --62.77.231.162 (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The only Hungarian "listen" pronunciation I see, is the one in the #Etymology and pronunciation section, linked here; and the pronunciation in that file is correct. Are you referring to something else? Mathglot (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Mathglot, I admire you foreign people that you know better how to pronunciate Budapest in Hungarian... In that file its wrong. That's it. --62.77.231.162 (talk) 08:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

62.77.231.162 You seem to be under the impression that this is Hungarian Wikipedia. It is not. This is English Wikipedia. And in English, the pronunciation is as shown. The "foreign people" here, is you. Mathglot (talk) 10:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Whole introduction smells like fairy tale

"Over 40 colleges and universities are located in Budapest, including the Eötvös Loránd University, Semmelweis University and Budapest University of Technology and Economics, which have been ranked among the top 500 in the world" - There is nothing special in being ranked in one of top 500 in the world. Also there are so many rankings in this introduction, that they seem cherry picked. I feel I'm reading travel advertisement, not science article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.122.9 (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Inflated numbers

A lot of numbers are purely lies, just inflated numbers. This article should be revised. Skyhighway (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, WP does not work like so, it is a sourced content, you have to support with something your claims if you wish to remove it. You can do it in the talk page, here.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC))
So, what is the source where Budapest has 141 Billion GDP when total Hungary has less than that.... ??????? Again double standards and lies from Hungarian editor KIENGIER and others. So why do you persist in lies and not correct??? Skyhighway (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't see the reason to react, I already wrote above what should be done on your behalf. I sense WP:NOTHERE by you, regarding your abusive and agressive personal attacks, incivilities.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC))
When you don't agree the facts, the numbers you accuse the others on personal attacks? How easy from you. Skyhighway (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I never did such you insist here, and I like facts and numbers. Please remember, not I was the first one who accused you with personal attacks, but anyway it is not an accusation, personal attacks you commited, just read back yourself here or your messages you sent me into my talk page.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC))
Just present the real numbers, you talk too much. Skyhighway (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Still you don't get how WP is working, you have the obligation, not me, but you were told about this in multiple places. I talk too much? Again an accusation, you were the one again who does not stop and don't concentrate on the subject. I finished here.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC))
You don't understand to bring the numbers, again you talk too much. I know why you talk like that, because you don't have reliable sources. Skyhighway (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

About these numbers

I've been looking at the sources and the numbers and I have to conclude that calculations constitute original research, and are probably incorrect (by a fairly significant margin). The material I am referring to, for reference:

The Budapest metropolitan area had a GDP of $141.0 billion (€129.4 billion) in 2016, accounting for 49.6 percent of the GDP of Hungary

The above number isn't stated in any source, but is mathematically derived. This may be fine, if done properly per WP:CALC. I note the explanation of how this was done is: English: 49,6% of the country's GDP produced in Budapest metropolitan area, in Central Hungary (Budapest and Pest county). Hungary's GDP PPP in 2017 is $284.266 billion (IMF) x 49,6% = $141.0 billion.

Problem 1) 49.6% is derived from a 2014 source here. The source is two years out of date in 2016 and cannot be reasonably used to derive GDP PPP in 2016. More importantly, the source – which says 49% not 49.6% – is discussing economic activity from 2009, making it a further 5 years out of date (7 years in total). The second source here is from 2012 and, if I am interpreting it correctly, states 40% which is well shy of the 49.6% used in the calculation.
Problem 2) The calculation uses Hungary's GDP PPP in 2017, to work out Budapest's GDP PPP in 2016. That doesn't work. You have to use 2016 numbers to make this calculation at all. Moreover, the IMF puts Hungary's GDP PPP as 283.592 in 2017 and 270.093 in 2016.[13] Assuming that Budapest's share of Hungary's GDP production was constant from 2009 to 2016 – which I hasten to add, we cannot do as that would constitute original research – than 270.093 * 0.49 = 132.35 which =/= 141.

In short, if you can find a source that gives Budapest's share of Hungary's GDP PPP in 2016 then doing the simple calculation may be acceptable. Or alternatively find a source that gives Budapest's GDP directly, as that would be preferred over any calculation from editors. Using years out of date numbers to infer facts about more recent ones, however, is unacceptable by any standard. The material should be removed as unverifiable and OR. I have similar concerns about all the other derived numbers which are using the same sourced. They too fail to pass WP:V for me. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Very good work. Thank you. Skyhighway (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Climate

IP User 92.221.199.118 keeps adding the claim to the article that Budapest has a humid subtropical climate, without providing any sources. I would like to ask 92.221.199.118 to provide reliable sources for this claim. Thanks, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Main Picture

I understand that this is not an objective matter at all, but the main picture, I feel, isn't strongly representative of the city. There's something austere or even severe about it -- to me. Does anyone else feel this way? Again, not a question of right and wrong here, just wondering. Korossyl (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, Budapest would deserve a much better main picture. The current one is mediocre at most. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

My edits

My edits were - as I think - correct. Don't change them if not necessary, otherwise I need DETAILED explanation.Kapeter77 (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kapeter77: Your edits were not an improvement to the article, and numerous editors have removed them. You have made six attempts in the last 26 hours to insert your content into the article. Do not edit war in an attempt to enforce your point of view; instead, discuss here with other editors about the changes you wish to make, and why you believe they are an improvement. The burden of proof is not on other editors to give you a detailed explanation, rather, the burden is on you to achieve consensus by persuading editors that your view is the correct one. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Mathglot Why not, EXPLAIN ME! What is bad with the word 'within' or that I do not want to 'and's at the beginning of the article? On my talk page I have written about my reasons but nobody answers. Anyway, it was like this: 'Forming' is shorter, no need too many 'and's. 'Arrive in' is not good, rather arrive 'at'. I think 'region' is also better because its rather historical, not like 'area'. Buda was only ONE of the settlements! Era is also more historical. City is better because Budapest appears too often in the article. The word 'famous' implicates that only the famous monuments are mentioned.And I know this town quite well. Kapeter77 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I have the greatest respect for your bilingualism, and wish I could speak Hungarian half as well as you speak English. But the fact is, that your English is not at a native level, and this is not the proper venue to argue about points of English. You are more than welcome to edit the article to add points of fact about Budapest, along with citations to reliable sources, and it won’t matter at all if the English is not perfect—other editors will come along and fix it up. But if you make changes that are only about correcting the English grammar and usage in the article, I am afraid you will be in for a lot of frustration as you are reverted time and time again. There is no need for other editors here to explain how English works or why your “corrections” to English usage are incorrect, and that would be improper usage of this talk page.
So instead of trying to correct the English in the article, instead, why not improve the content of the article with respect to history, culture, cuisine, or other aspects, which can be verified against reliable sources? You will have better luck as an editor here that way. Responding to your individual points about English here would be a waste of time. Please just trust native speaker editors to get the English right, while you add substantial new, sourced content to the article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Mathglot Well you don't show me a SINGLE example what was wrong in my edits but you just undo ALL my one-hour work. Thanks for that. Kapeter77 (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Correction: I undid none of your work. All I did was offer you advice on what was wrong with your edits, and how best to get yourself unblocked. Advice which you removed from your Talk page within two minutes of my posting them. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

At the top, it's written "Pest-Buda became a global city with the unification of Buda, Óbuda, and Pest on 17 November 1873, with the name 'Budapest' given to the new capital." I cannot parse what that is trying to say at all, it became a city called "Pest-Buda" and the capital city of the city is Budapest??? In the etymology section it is explained clearly as "The previously separate towns of Buda, Óbuda, and Pest were in 1873 officially unified[44] and given the new name Budapest. Before this, the towns together had sometimes been referred to colloquially as "Pest-Buda"." 173.220.72.100 (talk) 12:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The sentence in lead tries to convey the same meaning as the other sentences you quoted. It’s pretty obvious for me, and I have no other idea how to say it. If you have, don’t hesitate to change it in the article directly. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Removing access date of book sources with URL

@Trappist the monk: In this edit, you removed access dates of a {{cite book}} and a {{cite encyclopedia}}. Why? Both have URLs, which may get rotten or point to different content after some time—AFAIK this is why access dates are important. (Other changes in your edit are absolutely worth them, of course.) —Tacsipacsi (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Neither are ephemeral sources. In the case of A History of Hungary, the {{cite book}} template specifies the |year=1990 publication and |url= links to a google facsimile of the physical book. It might be argued that |access-date= is necessary for the Encyclopædia Britannica template. But, that template has a |year=2008 publication date which implies that the original editor consulted a 2008 edition of the encyclopedia and provided the link to the on-line article as a courtesy link (2008 does not appear in this archived snapshot of that page made on the access date).
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Budapest/Archive_3&oldid=1183103729"