Talk:Hungary

Unnecessary extra pages
Please who could help me!

Candidates for reverting (how I think)!


 * 1) Bükk. A National Park but not any special I think We should merging to Northern Hungary.
 * 2) Hortobágy. There is enough info on Great Hungarian Plain
 * 3) Nyírtass. Which is described: "...no hotels, motels, pensions...", "nothing to buy", my suggestion should merging in Great Hungarian Plain
 * 4) Bikal, where is absolute nothing just a many star Palace Hotel! This is only PROMOTION!

Thanks for any comment!- - Globetrotter19 (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Bükk: except for the caves there's not really any info in the article - delete. Hortobágy: not very much content in the article but being an UNESCO World Heritage Site and somebody having made a banner for it makes me want to keep it. Nyírtass: if you cannot sleep there it's a good indication the place shouldn't have an article. Bikal: the lead is horrid and there's indeed nothing else but the hotel, but on the other hand why not try to add to the article rather than delete/redirect it. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Use official tourism regions of Hungary
Currently this article defines some very large regions (Transdanubia, Great Hungarian Plain), which can be hardly described altogether. I want to propose to split these regions, and use the nine official tourism regions of Hungary defined by the law. The English description of these tourism regions can be found here. See also: Tourism in Hungary.

This structure allows to put more details on each article, and the county articles can be replaced by them. The proposed structure:

--City-busz (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * If we use these 9 regions, how many city articles would there currently be for each region, or if you plan on starting more city articles, how many would there be in each region after that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Here is the list of cities by region:
 * Budapest and Central Danube: Budakeszi, Budaörs, Budapest, Cegléd, Dunakeszi, Érd, Esztergom, Gödöllő, Nagykőrös, Ócsa, Pilisvörösvár, Pomáz, Rétság, Ráckeve, Szentendre, Vác, Visegrád
 * Lake Balaton: Balatonfüred, Fonyód, Hévíz, Keszthely, Marcali, Siófok, Tapolca, Tihany, Zalakaros
 * Western Transdanubia: Bük, Győr, Kőszeg, Mosonmagyaróvár, Nagykanizsa, Pannonhalma, Sárvár, Sopron, Szombathely, Zalaegerszeg
 * Northern Hungary: Aggtelek, Balassagyarmat, Eger, Gyöngyös, Hollókő, Mezőkövesd, Miskolc, Salgótarján, Sárospatak, Sátoraljaújhely, Szilvásvárad, Tokaj
 * Northern Great Plain: Balmazújváros, Debrecen, Hajdúszoboszló, Hortobágy, Jászberény, Mátészalka, Nyírbátor, Nyíregyháza, Szolnok
 * Southern Great Plain: Baja, Békéscsaba, Gyula, Hódmezővásárhely, Kalocsa, Kecskemét, Szarvas, Szeged, Szentes
 * Central Transdanubia: Gárdony, Komárom, Martonvásár, Pápa, Sümeg, Székesfehérvár, Tata, Tatabánya, Veszprém
 * Southern Transdanubia: Barcs, Harkány, Kaposvár, Mohács, Paks, Pécs, Siklós, Szekszárd, Szigetvár
 * Lake Tisza: Karcag, Tiszafüred
 * --City-busz (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for that detailed response!


 * Some questions: Does Lake Tisza have any "Other destinations" articles? 2 is normally really too few for its own region. Could it be included in another region ("Region X and Lake Tisza")? Also, some of the other regions have only a couple of existing articles. Would you plan on starting articles for the red-linked towns, and do they have enough things to see and do or places to eat and sleep to merit their own articles? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Lake Tisza region can be joined with Northern Great Plain. It does not really have any "Other destinations" article.


 * I would like to start the non-existent city articles, but it's probably a long process. I'm sure that most of them have enough things to see. Furthermore, I omitted some existing articles about small places, which have no significant tourist attraction, and should be deleted/merged I think: Balatonszemes, Bikal, Bugac, Dobogókő, Nyírtass. --City-busz (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * No problem. Go ahead and merge the information where you think it should go, then turn the article into a redirect to the target article.


 * So the regions that are still at issue are Southern Great Plain, Central Transdanubia and Southern Transdanubia. How many city/other destinations articles do you think each of those regions merits? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * All of these regions would have 8-9 city articles as listed above. Other destination articles could be (these articles are not created yet):
 * Southern Great Plain: Kiskunság National Park, Körös-Maros National Park.
 * Central Transdanubia: Lake Velence, Vértes, Gerecse (part of Danube-Ipoly National Park), Bakony (part of Balaton Uplands National Park)
 * Southern Transdanubia: Danube-Drava National Park (including Gemenc, Mecsek, Villány Mountains and Zselic)
 * --City-busz (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, in that case, 8 regions sounds good to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I am satisfied by the detailed answers given here, and think the proposed change would be an improvement. Let's wait for some more views, however. Thanks to both of you for asking pertinent questions (Ikan) and providing sound, logical answers (City-busz). --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with ThunderingTyphoons. Good questions, good answers. I support User:City-busz's proposed reorganization. Ground Zero (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting (to say the least) that you want to create an article for Kiskunság National Park and delete the one for Bugac, which is where the national park should exactly be mentioned. And if you delete/redirect Bugac, where else could you list the Kurultáj?
 * Ditto for Dobogókő: when I was hiking there in 2015 (and I was there as a "tourist"), I saw lots of people doing the same, and even more people on the summit having a good time. Sure, most, if not all, of them were Hungarians, I guess, but it was obvious that the place was a destination for lots of people. I'll admit that the current article leaves much to be desired, but if it existed back then, I might be able to do the journey up there without the help of a Hungarian friend of mine who decided to travel with me—without her invaluable assistance, I don't think I would be able to make all those transfers between the busses and even a ferry and find the trailhead onto an almost mythical hill. Vidimian (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to this show (seems like some work is already in progress), but still - I don't see any reason against this. The country is vast and some more fine-grained subdivision for sure won't hurt, especially if some region-introductory texts would be added too. If knows the country, it'd be great if (s)he could also take a look at the bottom-level regions, such as Veszprém County, and split them further :-)  did great job gathering all the POIs, but we could for sure use some more logical structure, to have it more useful for regular reader... -- andree.sk  (talk) 07:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to start splitting the articles: --City-busz (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Great Plain will become Northern Great Plain and Southern Great Plain.
 * Transdanubia will become Western Transdanubia, Central Transdanubia and Southern Transdanubia.
 * Great! Thank you.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)