Talk:Little Hungarian Plain

Can't we use a less hybrid name? :) Either Kisalföld or Small Plain or whatever? Alensha 23:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is how it is known in the English speaking world. See e.g. Britannica. Juro 23:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

70 percent of water goes into the new canal and only the rest remains in the old arm. What is the main arm of the Danube then? Zello 10:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure the Steierisches Hügelland belongs to the Little Alföld? Where is that region exactly? Zello 10:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am sure. It is a tiny territory in eastern Austria. Juro 21:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Migration question doesn't really important for me now. Could you tell me what settlements belong this Hügelland? Only because it seems very strange for me that any part of Styria could be situated in the Little Alföld region. I haven't found anything on the net about this territory. Zello 23:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is the Austrian name/continuation of the "Sopron-Vasi hordalékkúp-síkság" (it is not that "tiny", actually). It starts almost at the Leitha and goes on along the border to the south (I do not know where it ends, because my map ends there). And it is no wonder that you cannot find it on the net, geomorphology is not well represented on the net, because it is not among the "popular" topics. Juro 02:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Sopron-Vasi-síkság is the region between Körmend, Fertőd, Szombathely and Sárvár, ie. the flat Rába Valley between the hills of Alpokalja and Kemeneshát and it really belongs to the Little Alföld. According to your description St. Hügelland should be the same territory as Burgenland and South Styria. This region is certainly not a lowland but the foot-hills of the Alps ie. the same as Alpokalja in Hungary. It only borders the Little Alföld but not part of it. Zello 12:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, "Hügel" means "hill" in English, so it sounds plausible to imagine it as hilly, rather than flat. Adam78 13:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, it is part of Little Alföld (i.e. not of the Alps). After all, the Panonian Plain also includes hilly regions. You cannot derive things from the linguistic form of a geomorphological unit (i.e. "Panonian Plain and all hilly regions in the area up to XYm, unless they are part of the Alps or the Carpathians" would be too long for a name, I suppose :)))... )Juro 18:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that not the name matters but I say that this Hügelland is really part of the Alps because it is the foot-hills of Alps. The Hungarian Alpokalja region doesn't belong to the Little Alföld and that Hügelland is situated even west of Alpokalja. (If I understand you well and we are speaking about the Burgenland territory). Zello 19:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I have both a geomorp. map, and a list of the units and a normal text, all of which mention it as part of the Little Alföld and not part of the Alps (the book uses both Austrian and Hungarian sources). Also, I think to remember that when I have learned the Austrian mountains (Alps) as a child they did not reach to Hungary in the central part (but that is of course not so important). I am not a geologist, but there must be a reason for this. Secondly, what you mean by the Little Alföld in a narrower (popular, maybe geographical, but geologically wrong) sense, i.e. only the plain part of the actual Little Alföld, is not the "true" Little Alföld, but only the lower part of it. Juro 21:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found a very good geological map of the Carpathian Basin drawn in 1922 on wwww.mafi.hu (Hungarian Geological Institute). It is in the Hungarian page, under the title Képgalériák (Galeries)/Térképek (Maps). It is obvious that we are speaking of the microregion under number 11 ie. sedimentary rocks Pannonian-Pontian strata. You are right that Alps are of different origin (number 33-34) but as you see other parts of Little Alföld are geologically very diverse. It seems to me that Little Alföld is not a geological but only a geographical unit. The geographical classification of the University of Budapest (foldrajz.ttk.pte.hu/magyarorszag/ letoltes/karpat/tajak.rtf) even speaks about a more narrow Little Alföld without the Sopron-Vas Plain that is situated in the "Nyugat-Magyarországi peremividék" together with Alpokalja, although this is against common perception. But geographically Burgenland and South-Styria is certainly not part of the Little-Alföld. Zello 23:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it IS a geomorphological unit (which is not the same as geological or a tectonical or a orographical, do not ask me why) and as any higher geomorphological unit it consists of smaller units with different construction (the geomorphological units are conceived as a tree, so that the unit Carpathians for example certainly involves territories of various origin). We have a similar case with the Vienna Basin, where there is the Vienna Basin sensu stricto and the larger Vienna Basin as a geomorphological unit. And "normal" people in Austria only know the smaller one. As for the map of 1922, you mention, that is decisively too old - geomorphological divisions are updated regularly (just like animal taxonomy, although not so drastically). I do not know how this is in Hungary, but in Czechia, Slovakia and partly in Austria, there is one single permanently updated strict "official" geomorphological division for the territory, and everybody (incl. high school and university students) knows and learns it, so that these things are undisputed (usually it goes like this: province-subprovince-etc...). Now, I know that this is not the case in every country, but I am quite sure there must something like that in Hungary too. If it is not the case, then of course anything can be considered correct here and the result will be very disputed and will depend on what features you consider decisive in evaluating the units. I can write down for you the list of units of Little Alfold from the book I have, if you want, otherwise I do not know what else I could do from here... And as for "geographical" - that term actually means nothing, a "geographical" division can be anything, so you can always say that XY is a "geographical" unit. Juro 00:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the second link. The problem is that we do not know to what extent this is a standard division or a division for a special purpose, or to what extent this a new division or not (it is possible that there has been a recent change in the division, in which case the link would present the more correct division) etc. If we knew these things, we could simply mention this as a major alternative/recent alternative. Juro 00:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found a really good scientific study aboout the Little Alföld and West-Hungarian Border-zone regions on the homepage of the University of Szeged (Faculty of Geography). I don't know how to link it because it is a PDF document. Here is the way I reached: Google "sopron-vasi síkság szeged" and the 7. result on geo.u-szeged.hu PDF version. I think we should use this as the main source for the article because it seems really reliable. On the homepage of the Szent István University of Agriculture http://www.ktg.gau.hu/~podma/birtok/foldhasznalat.html there is a map from 1983 so it is certainly not some new standard. Zello 13:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but the second one seems to present only "natural" regions (whatever it is) and as for the PDF, I would like to see it, but I cannot find it, because unfortunately the google results are different for each language (I know this because I frequently encounter this problems). Isn't it possible to click "open in q new window" or something like that and save THAT link? Juro 23:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's this one, I suppose. Adam78 23:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for the link. Zello 01:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Das Steirische Hügelland does not belong to the Little Alföld, it is geologically different. The link http://www.ktg.gau.hu/~podma/birtok/foldhasznalat.html shows it in a very good way. If they were the same, then Austria would not count the region around the Neusiedler See to the LHP but to the Steir. Hügelland. Öcsi 11:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

What to do with this when this is also a result? --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 14:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One is for the exact phrase "Little Hungarian Plain", while the other is a search for pages with all three words (but not necessarily in a row). Olessi 18:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of districts

Which districts would you count to the Little Hungarian Plain? --Öcsi 18:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source

Which sentence in your "source" (which contains no numbers) do you consider a proof of your claim? I hope not this one "Az alapvetõen magyar lakosságú...". Juro 02:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that sentence. Since there are multiple definitions of what belongs to the plain and what doesn't, there is absolutely no point in trying to give any quantitative data on the population – the paragraph we have there is just fine. K issL 09:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Count the datas of your link please: 93.000 (Dunajská Streda) + 74.000 (Komárno) + 36.000 (Galanta) = 110.000+ 93.000 = 203.000 Hungarians.--Öcsi 13:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slowakians: 56.000 + 30.000 + 16.000 = 56.000 + 46.000 = 102.000; that's 101.000 people less.

And if we add Sala, it's still less: 102.000 + 33.000 = 135.000 Slowakians; 203.000 + 20.000 = 223.000 Hungarians. --Öcsi 13:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I have no time to count the datas of the hungarian counties and the austrian districts, but you can do it if you want to. --Öcsi 13:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely ridiculous. The plain ends where the Carpathians start and there is absolutely no doubt about that (both as a geomorphological, and as an orographical and as a geographic unit) and there is no source claiming the opposite (and this is even self-evident, you do not even need a source for this). You cannot just pick out districts you like, declare that THEY are the plain and then cite the numbers for those deliberately chosen districts. And I must add that I rarely have to face such ...ity, I am sorry, but that is what your claims always are. And each sentence you add makes you seem more incompetent. Juro 01:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]