Talk:Budapest Voyage Tips and guide

This article was the Collaboration of the week between 27 June 2006 and 3 July 2006.

Contents

The following separation of districts is for Budapest articles; please use it when placing a new listing item. You can discuss the borders in #district borders discussion.

Mainland:

• the whole city west of Danube, except Castle Hill is Buda
• the whole city east of Danube is Pest
• everything inside the castle walls on Buda Hills is Castle Hill; everything outside castle walls is Buda

Islands (from North to South):

• Hajógyári-sziget island also called Óbuda island: Buda
• Margaret island: Pest
• Csepel island: Pest
• other smaller islands aren't interesting from the traveller point of view: (no decision needed)

Danube river:

• river attractions such as bridges on Danube that are not connected to either side: (no decision yet)

• See: move all details of district-related attractions to the appropriate district articles. Ensure that every item listed here in Budapest is at least mentioned in the district articles. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 09:32, 10 February 2007 (EST)

• Baths: Corinthia Grand Hotel Royal--rewrite neutrally, remove marketing bullshit (which also looks like a copy-vio from [1]?) --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 19:20, 9 February 2007 (EST)

• Sleep: provide some summary on camping in/around Budapest--as long as we have some listings (see Pest#Camping) --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 12:54, 18 February 2007 (EST)

• move islands-based and Danube venues and attractions to their respective districts according to the #District Borders. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 12:22, 20 February 2007 (EST)

• History: The sentence about the unification of Buda Pest and Obuda is plain wrong. It states that it happened in 1872 in the year of the great Compromise. Now there are two problems with that: the greap Compromise was in 1867 and the unification happened on 17 Nov 1873. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest#19th_Century --(WT-en) Atleta 13:29, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

(WT-en) Atleta, thanks. Would you plunge forward and fix it? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:04, 6 November 2007 (EST)

• See: House of Hungarian Wine, please provide information about this attraction that I read about a brochure from the Hungarian govt. Thanks. 202.73.127.252 12:20, 3 March 2007 (EST)

  Moved this request to Castle Hill todo list. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 05:59, 4 March 2007 (EST)

• See and Do: Prices, please provide more prices for the many attractions and activities. Thanks again! 202.73.127.252 12:20, 3 March 2007 (EST)

  As long as this is already in Buda and Pest district articles, I added this also to Castle Hill district article ToDo. For huge cities like Budapest, prices for individual attractions should be listed in district articles, not in the main article for the city. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 05:59, 4 March 2007 (EST)

The following links were removed from the external links section:

• Budapestweek.com - described as Venues, Restaurants, events - To me this looks like a weekly english language newspaper and could go into the Talk section.
• Budapest Party Site - contains lots of links for clubs for the Drink or Do sections. -- (WT-en) Huttite 17:15, 6 Jan 2005 (EST)
• Budapest Guide - This site is actually focusing on accommodation in Budapest, but it includes a wide range of inromation about Budapest: sights, map collection, wheather link collection, events, basic infos (climate, geography, figures...)...

Other links that might be helpful in research (please specify what's valuable in it for our future research):

• Hotspotter.hu, reportedly the most up-to-date list of wireless internet hotspots (both paid and free). Useful for expanding future additions to cafes-restaurants-hotels with info on Internet access; it also helps to find out a provider, and therefore prices for wifi airtime. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:17, 19 February 2007 (EST)

The New York Kávéház has been under renovation. I was in Budapest in September and wanted to go there, and it was closed: a major disappointment. If there has been no update, I can edit the main page.... (WT-en) Schizoid 22:37, Feb 29, 2004 (EST)

Is it time to split this article into districts? Budapest's a fairly big place and there's a very natural dividing line flowing through it. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:06, 21 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Done. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:58, 9 Nov 2004 (EST)

Budapest is currently listed on Project:Articles needing attention as:

• Budapest - Quite a bit of material, but needs a style overhaul.

Is this still the case? It looks pretty good to me. -- (WT-en) Hypatia 21:09, 14 Dec 2004 (EST)

I've taken it off. (WT-en) DanielC 16:44, 16 May 2005 (EDT)

DanielC's doing a good job, but there's quite a bit of content duplication right now: I would suggest removing all pointers to specific restaurants/nightspots/hotels from the main page and instead just describing the districts ("if you want to pay an arm and a leg for crappy food go eat at Vaci ut or Castle Hill, but Real Hungarian Food(tm) can be found in..."). (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:15, 16 May 2005 (EDT)

Thanks Jpatokal, but you seem to have done a lot more than me. I was trying to follow the guidlines given in Project:Huge city article template. Do you think that we should be using another method for Budapest? (WT-en) DanielC 08:15, 16 May 2005 (EDT)

No, instead. It works pretty well. Just as there was already so much valuable information on the page that making another subarticle seemed to be useful to get a better overlook. Check Castle Hill. I worked a bit by copying from Buda article. But there are plenty duplicated stuff still. I started to rearrange See sections in every District and main Budapest page. (WT-en) bujatt 08:25, 16 May 2005 (EDT)

As I was afraid there was starting to be a lot of inconsistency between the main and district pages, so I've now taken the drastic step of ripping out all listings from the main page and trying to make sure they're on the appropriate district pages instead.

I think the same should be done to See and Do: it's OK to leave references to interesting things, but the actual content should in the districts. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:30, 18 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Shouldn't we move it to Buda subarticle? (WT-en) bujatt 07:42, 16 May 2005 (EDT)

• Done (WT-en) DanielC 16:45, 16 May 2005 (EDT)
  • Wohoo, great! :) (WT-en) bujatt 19:20, 16 May 2005 (EDT)

Where should I put event listing magazines like Pesti Est or in your pocket (more useful guidebook for tourists)? -- (WT-en) bujatt 03:18, 18 May 2005 (EDT)

According to Evan, the answer is "nowhere". Please help me (and others) convince him he is wrong here. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:48, 18 May 2005 (EDT)

OK, I try my best :) entry -- (WT-en) bujatt 05:43, 18 May 2005 (EDT)

I lived in Budapest for most part of my life, but have travelled quite extensively. I think it's simply ridiculous that the wikivoyage article for Budapest suggests that it's not a safe place, whereas for example the one for London highlights how very safe that city is supposed be. Surely mugging is not considered a crime there anymore - a thing that never happened to me in Budapest during my 25+ years, and neither to any of the people I know there (family, friends, etc.).

A very good friend of mine is an Irish student who's been living in BP for over 3 years now. He always says how amazed he is at the calmness of the Budapest nightlife - he's never even seen a fight, even though he has his share of partying for sure.

Budapest has its downsides, of course, polluted air, dirty streets and buildings, overall shabbyness and suburbs (lakótelep) so horrible even Chris Cunningham would come out from them with his lips trembling, but if there's one bloody good thing about this city it's that it's safer than most metropolises with a population of 2 million. So please edit this article to reflect that.

I agree with this so much, I do a lot of photography at night so I spent countless nights walking around alone carrying lots of expensive equipment around random side alleys etc and I never felt unsafe once. Unlike other cities the amount of noise from party goers is extremely minimal, whereas get into London (safe apparently)... you could expect screaming totally drunken girls, guys shouting at random passers by and bottles being smashed left right and centre. Compared to London, Budapest feels safe as home. As for the dog feaces comment... I really dont know who and where this idea came from at all :/

I would emphasize that the 8th district is quite infamous for its unsafety, and even some locals refer to it as a ghetto. The situation is recognised by authorities, and police presence has rised in the area, however, I wouldn't suggest to a tourist to hang around after dark. As I would also avoid underpasses, having a very lot of homeless people, smell of pee and being absolutely deserted even by locals in night hours. Correct me if I'm wrong, I left Hungary five months ago (june2007). —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 138.195.152.134 (talk • contribs)

Would you plunge forward and mention it in the article? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 14:08, 20 November 2007 (EST)

I'd like some confirmation/denial by the locals beforehand. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 138.195.152.134 (talk • contribs)

I'm a local myself, and I can confirm it. Although the situation gets better slowly, the 8th district is better to be avoided after dark (even for locals). Generally I can say that Budapest has a much better safety level than Paris or London, but still, avoiding dark places like parks in the night is a good idea. Underpasses connecting to the subway however might be stinky and homeless people might be there, but I don't feel myself insecure in them.

I just visited Budapest 3 weeks ago and noticed that for travellers cheques the best exchange rate we got was actually at Ferihegy 2 terminal. We also exchanged at Nyugate PU but got a 20% worse exchange rate. For cash, the best exchange rate we found was in the Nyugate PU, from the booth on sides of the ticket offices. The other two in Nyugate again offered 20% less. Ferihegy was just a little less interesting. Any ideas where I could put this information? Is it worth starting a new heading?...(WT-en) Takatam 11:33, 29 Dec 2006

You can note this under the airports/train stations in question, or maybe as a subsection in Buy. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:16, 29 December 2006 (EST)

I am just back from a trip to Budapest; I took printed article for Budapest, but in a pre-depature did not notice that the article is not self-contained, rather content is distributed among Budapest, Buda, Pest and (!) Castle Hill. Now when I'm trying to find a place for my every other edits, I find that there's already ton of duplication between city-level article and the districts. This gave me several questions / suggestions:

• Are we really have enough content in these articles to split them into four(!) separate pages? I believe it's a best practice to split article into districts (or other parts) only when we have too much content to fit into a single article. In my belief, it is not really the case with Budapest.
• If consensus is to keep it split, do we really need Castle Hill? Compare it to Buda: they have tons of confusion and enough duplication. I would suggest to merge Castle Hill into Buda.
• Again, if consenus is to keep, I would suggest a CoTW to clean up all the duplication and misplacements that we have now.
• I suggest (and ready to implement it) to put a print version-only banner on top of Budapest reading something like

"When you print this article, keep in mind that most of the do-eat-sleep content is in district articles that are separate pages: Buda, Pest and Castle Hill. Consider taking (some of) them with you as well."

Of course, we could use that banner for other huge cities

• As I can see, we already had a major clean-up that was caused by separate articles. What if we put a editors-only warning (a commented piece of text) in both Eat, Sleep, Do and See encouraging editors to add specific places into respective districts instead of adding them on a city level? Again, I can show how can it look like--and implement everywhere in Budapest.

Opinions, please? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:31, 6 January 2007 (EST)

It would probably be nice to have a software feature that would print out a huge city and all its districts in one big chunk. --(WT-en) Evan 21:21, 6 January 2007 (EST)

Before we have such a software feature, do you mind if I add a print-only banner on the city article like described above? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 05:18, 7 January 2007 (EST)

See also: User:(WT-en) Elgaard#Wikivoyage as book. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 12:14, 5 February 2007 (EST)

Maintaining a districted city is a major headache, but unfortunately nobody has come up with a better way. Placing the commented warnings on the main page sections is a good start though. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:55, 6 January 2007 (EST)

Do you mean that for Budapest, merging three districts into a single article (or at least Castle Hill into Buda) is not a way to decrease headache both for editors and for readers? If you think so, would you explain why? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 05:18, 7 January 2007 (EST)

I think that the districts are fine as they are. If we merged them into the main article, it would become far too big. The separate articles also allow for expansion as more information is added. I do however agree that it would be useful if there were more prompt telling/reminding people of the district articles, especially when they are editing entries. (WT-en) DanielC 08:34, 8 January 2007 (EST)

I also think the districts are good as they are. --(WT-en) Evan 10:38, 8 January 2007 (EST)

I still disagree that districts do add value for Budapest, especially Budapest/Castle Hill--but I'll provide more arguments later. In a meanwhile, I added a banner on top of the article suggesting to print other articles along with this one, and added {{districtify}}-es to the most listings-full sections, just to stop the growth of the mess. Feel free to edit the banner text and design. If the banner find some support, I can make a template inserting banner like this--to eliminate HTML black magic from article page(s). --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:06, 5 February 2007 (EST)

The banner was removed by Maj; it can be seen in the previous version, however. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 03:16, 6 February 2007 (EST)

All major cities have district articles that are split off from the main article. While I understand your idea and appreciate your concerns, I think you are stating the obvious and therefore your friendly reminder is superfluous. Furthermore, 'banners' look ugly and should be used only as a means to alert the reader to temporary and urgent matters - such as a warning. Don't you agree? (WT-en) WindHorse 03:31, 6 February 2007 (EST)

I would argue with stating the obvious here: for occasional readers who come to Wikivoyage only to print an article or two on his next destination, the Budapest#Districts section printed doesn't give any idea that most of information he'll need on his trip is under the links that only appear once, under bullets giving, well, not so much information on first sight. Until he read the See section (which is page #9 in my FF Print Preview!) where the See the Buda and Pest articles for detailed listings of sightseeing. notice was added only recently, the reader will hardly figure out he actually needed to print anything else for his trip to Budapest. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 08:40, 10 February 2007 (EST)

Even for contributors, it's obviously non-obvious :-) -- see the amount of very detailed content I moved from Budapest to its district articles. Even now, looking at Budapest#See demonstrates that people keep adding detailed info right into the city article, having no idea there are districts. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 09:47, 10 February 2007 (EST)

If you think a banner or some other highlighting system is needed to alert the reader to other, nearby places, then perhaps you should propose it as an addition to the Project:Manual of Style. We want articles to generally look alike, so we Highly Discourage unique innovations. -- (WT-en) Colin 03:57, 6 February 2007 (EST)

(Side note: sorry I didn't a)find this discussion before removing the banner or b)making a comment when I did. I think I was distracted by the vandal last night and didn't get back to it.) Anyway, both WH and Cj have pretty much covered my objections above. Related articles and districts already have a place and, as you may have noticed, I'm not a fan of editorial commentary (ie "click here" "look there" "check this" "see photo") in the guides. I will concede that there is probably some value in developing design elements to highlight things like related stories and districts, but this would have to be a site-wide change. (WT-en) Maj 10:59, 6 February 2007 (EST)

First, my experience shows that no changes to policies can be realistically made unless we have enough precedents (cases in specific articles), and vice versa, no precedents can appear until we change the policies. It feels much like a vicious circle (even if it's not). Any suggestions how is it better to proceed with the matter?

Second, compared to London or Paris, it's much less obvious for Budapest that it's separated into districts--if you don't start reading the article immediately when printing, of course. This is the reason I vote against having separate district articles for Budapest, and why I expect that arguments for London and Paris won't be as strong as they are for Budapest.

But, to be honest, I would vote for having a banner like this for London and Paris as well--to make them more usable for newcomers who're not several years with Wikivoyage as few of us are. Would anyone support my suggestion with banner if I follow with suggestions to MoS? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 13:07, 6 February 2007 (EST)

You are incorrect about the order of changes. Policies can be changed without precedent, and have done so many times. In addition, precedent is not enough to change policy. This is clear from our policies and guidelines: With rare exception, text and images should follow our Manual of style. Exceptions should gain wide consensus; in cases of controversy, the style manual trumps.

If you really want to make it easy for people to print out all the pages about Budapest, maybe you should do something with transclusion, like User:(WT-en) Evan/Budapest. --(WT-en) Evan 23:04, 6 February 2007 (EST)

Evan, thanks for clarification. I still believe it's hard to advocate a change to global policies before you have several real examples in hand--but you said "have been done so many times", could you help finding examples?

As for tranclusion, where can we put a link to a transclusion page like this? If the banner idea have no supporters, how can it look like?

BTW, I wonder why the content on the page you created drifts to the right--see indents in the end of User:(WT-en) Evan/Budapest; seen both in IE and FF. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 12:11, 7 February 2007 (EST)

It drifts because there are lists, extra paragraphs, templates, and other stuff inside the listing tags. MediaWiki can't handle that very well -- it tries to close all existing lists, etc. which indents things to the right.

I think if you wanted to put a brief banner at the top of the page, like Printable version of all Budapest district guides, that'd probably be OK. I don't see a big problem with it. Why don't we discuss on Project:Huge city article template? --(WT-en) Evan 10:53, 10 February 2007 (EST)

Thanks for encouragement, Evan. Let's meet there: Project:Huge city article template#a notice on districts on top of huge city articles. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 19:33, 10 February 2007 (EST)

OK, here's what cleanup I've done recently just to achieve some maintability and remove the duplication and inconsistencies that resulted from the splitting Budapest into 3 districts. A list of major things done follows. Most changes were made in the last 24 hours--you can find each of them in history. No objections on these edits?

• moved cross-district apartment providers from Buda and Pest to Budapest, leaving individual apartments in Buda and Pest
• moved Underground Caves from Castle Hill to Buda--we need to consider castle walls as a border of Castle Hills, otherwise we'll always deal with misplacements (I will detail on this tomorrow)
• removed outline of Castle Hill sightseeing from Buda:See:Castle Hill section, linking to Castle Hill article for all details
• splitted GetIn and GetAround spaghetti nightmare between Buda and Castle Hill
• districtified all restaurants from Budapest except cross-district restaurant chains
• districtified the Drink section of Budapest
• merged GetOut sections of districts, moved all content to Budapest#Go next: GetOut for districts make a little sense, not in district template after all
• removed all duplication I found between Castle Hills and Buda in EVERY possible section

Comments? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 21:04, 9 February 2007 (EST)

... a normal taxi. It's somewhat faster than the Airport Minibus and if you're not traveling alone it will also be cheaper; the official fare if you ask for an Airport Transfer is around 3500-4500 forints per car, depending on whether you go to Buda or Pest

About one week ago we paid 6000 HUF for taxi from Astra Hotel (near Castle Hill) to Terminal 2B. The taxi was ordered by our hotel (which we generally trust). I wonder whether the figures quoted above are outdated, or it costs cheaper to travel from the airport than to, or we just paid more then it costs. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 14:53, 10 January 2007 (EST)

Airport Transfer is in the 4000-5000 forint range now depending on the taxi firm, but not all firms have fixed airport transfer prices. It's usually does not matter if you go in or out of the city, except for Zóna taxi, which is cheaper to the city. 6000 HUF looks a little high from the castle. Either the taxi firm didn't have a fixed price, or the driver ripped you off.

How can I protect against taxist ripping off? Asking for the price in advance gave us 6000huf; as long as it was ordered by the hotel on our request, what could we better do to get other taxi company? Is Zona taxi the always win-win choice (and thus absolutely recommended to any traveller in any typical case), or it also has its drawbacks traveller should be aware of? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 13:45, 29 January 2007 (EST)

Well, as a tourist there's not much you can do unless you have a rough idea of how much the fare should realistically be. But that's true for anywhere in the world, and that's what these guides are for, right? As for Zóna Taxi, they are a new firm, just started up half a year ago I think. I have not heard anything bad reported about them in the media so far. (The airport taxi situation in Budapest was a mess even a year ago, far worse than it is now, so the media is keeping an eye on it.) As far as I know they only do airport transfer though, so for other purposes you have to go for another firm. I usually go with Tele5 or Taxi2000, and believe they're quite reliable. But I'm Hungarian, so I have less chance of being ripped off.(WT-en) Szutyok 17:44, 29 January 2007 (EST)

I'm not sure where to put this, but I think Zóna taxi is bit over-represented in this article (maybe to the point of advertisement). I think all major taxi companies are now quite reliable. Their prices are all within 10% of each other within the city, and most of them are within 15% of Zóna taxi when it comes to airport transfers. (I just checked Taxi 4, Tele5 taxi, 6x6 taxi and Főtaxi. Taxi2000 is currently under construction.) Anyway, as a Hungarian working in an office with quite a few international guests, I think the following few rules apply:

• Never get into a taxi on the street, always call for one on the phone. (Safer, cheaper, traceable)
• Make sure the meter is running. If it shows a too high amount, stop the taxi and get out. Be sure to ask for a receipt. If you called a taxi on the phone you can complain on the phone. (I think even long trips in peak time should not be more than 7-8000 Ft, although I'm not sure about this. I think trips during late night should not generally be more than 3-4000 Ft.)
• If you are going to/from the airport (Ferihegy), be sure to ask for the fixed transfer price (on the phone and from the driver too).
• If you want to pay with a credit card or if you need an Engligh-speaking driver, you must specificly ask for it.

Zóna only got the monopoly because this gives highest profit for the airport, not because they are much better than the others... --(WT-en) April's Fool 18:06, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Yepp. Zona haning a monopoly for airport transfer is false information. It would be illegal, anyone can see it. Zona actually has a monopoly, i.e. an exclusive contract with the airport, to have a taxy stand in the area of teh airport. Big difference. You can order a taxi to the airport from any company (obviously). They usually wait near the entrance of the airport car park. Zona is not cheap by any means. Some other companies also have flat rate services to the town. City, for example, used to be cheaper. Again, obviously since it doesn't have a stand there so it has to compete.

Also note that City Taxi is not the only safe taxi company in the town (though I personally use them for I have their discount card). Basically all big ones mentioned above are safe. They should be listed in the article with links to the websites. Calling one is safe because this way you can avoid the rippers who mask their cars to look as if they belonged to one of the companies. I would also include a warning *never* to bargain on the fare. This looks common sense, in any country BTW, still a lot of tourist try it. --(WT-en) Atleta

Anyone could fix the article to reflect these opinion(s)? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:09, 6 November 2007 (EST)

What do you mean by "never bargain on the fare"? Actually I highly recommend trying to bargain every time! (WT-en) Rklz2 00:16, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Some experiences from a 4 day stay in july. We took the taxi around town 4 times. Basing on the prices we got screwed twice, even with logoed cars. A ride to buda castle from a taxistand near Vaci street was around 1500 ft. The meter was placed in a direct line with the steering wheel, right above the center console. The ride back to Cont. Hotel zara was over 3000 ft - the meter was at like 1200 when the taxi was just coming down the hill. This time the meter was right next to the gearstick, and having a previous bad experience last night I was watching it like a hawk.. After the drive had started the driver pressed a button on the meter a few times, and based on how much more suddenly appeared on it, he pressed the basic fare button. When we were at the hotel, we asked about it, and based on the drivers facial expressions we were pretty sure the 3k wasn't the right price...

All in all, every time the meter wasn't in clear sight we got screwed over.

-- —The preceding comment was added by 88.112.96.176 (talk • contribs)

Jonboy, I vote for keeping the link you removed (although I did not add it): in my experience, this site helps traveller really a lot on finding a wifi spot--and is THE authoritative source for Budapest. It's not a guide or tout or agency--the site is dedicated exclusively to up-to-date, full information on wifi spots in the city. And it's just impossible to keep up with it by Wikivoyagers. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 01:29, 30 January 2007 (EST)

While all you say is no doubt true, it still violates the external links policy. It may seem a bit draconian to remove a potentially useful site because of this, but if we don't have a strict policy, we get flooded by people wanting to add their own guides. If you have a suggestion for how to allow useful links like this without suffering this problem, please propose it -- it's a recurring issue. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 08:49, 31 January 2007 (EST)

I don't know where to stick it right now on that page--but I've seen for many times a proposal I can second: let's allow a link if there's a consensus of the community that it is uniquely useful, and can't be realistically reproduced by Wikivoyagers in foreseeable future. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 11:22, 31 January 2007 (EST)

If you'd like to propose it, add a new section to that page. I could potentially support that change, if we could adequately define "consensus of the community". -- (WT-en) Jonboy 11:40, 31 January 2007 (EST)

Join us there: Wikivoyage_talk:External links#consensus: another attempt. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 13:19, 31 January 2007 (EST)

How does have a link to an online list of hotspots help someone who doesn't have internet access because they haven't found a hotspot yet? I'd rather we just listed a small number of internet cafes or specific hotspots -- I'm not too crazy about listing hotspot companies (as are still listed in that article) without listing any actual locations. -- (WT-en) Colin 13:23, 31 January 2007 (EST)

In my belief and experience, at least half of Wikivoyage value is for preparing a trip (comparing to helping when one's already reached the destination). For this preparation part, having a longlist of hotspots help to mark cafes, hotels or other places to be online--not just for finding more information one didn't prepare in advance, but also to do something beyond your travel logistics--post something to blog, update wikivoyage, drop emails to friends...

Yes, we started to list places which have online access: Malomto, Astra Hotel, so listing hotspot companies allow to compare prices, and to comment on their bandwidth, reliability etc. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 22:26, 8 February 2007 (EST)

I still believe hotspotter should be listed, as they now have an offline tool [2] to search for spots. I think this could be quite valuable. --(WT-en) April's Fool 17:11, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

I second your idea, especially with the offline available.

Objections? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 04:08, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

I removed the pieces saying that:

Gellért Baths ... is the tourist option

Széchényi Baths ... [are] much cheaper

In my experience in Jan-2007, they are equally non-touristic (especially if we compare to Danubius Grand Thermal Hotel), and they're much close to each other in price. Any objections? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:11, 5 February 2007 (EST)

Nammarci, would you please explain why you've removed the following piece?

In winter (Dec-Mar) Malév's Budapest Winter Invasion [3] offers discounted fares for international flights to Budapest, and its 45 partner hotels provide 4 nights accommodation for the price of 3.

--(WT-en) DenisYurkin 12:31, 5 February 2007 (EST)

I restored it; if there's any objections, please discuss them here. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 14:17, 9 February 2007 (EST)

Well, I didn't want to remove any important information, but don't you think that all the airlines offer cheap air tickets sometimes? I've just found a good offer from Budapest to New York City by Lufthansa, but I don't really think that I must put this information on the NYC guide. Isn't it an advertisement that should be removed from the site anyway? I don't know, just asking. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Nammarci‎ (talk • contribs)

I'm not aware of any policy that limits mention of recurring seasonal offers, as long as they are not single-time. If you can refer to such a rule, it would help a lot. Anyway, it's better to comment on removal on Talk page or at least in Edit Summary, especially when you are not sure.

Another reason I've included this is that it's not just a reduced fare, but a multi-component special offer which most airline booking agents won't even aware of (and this is how it's different from Lufthansa deal on flights to NYC that you mentioned). I would be happy knowing that information before my trip, but I did not--and Malev web site didn't give any hint, nor Malev office in Russia gave any mention of it. Hence this piece at Wikivoyage for future travellers. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:04, 9 February 2007 (EST)

Nammarci, as you removed this piece:

If you plan on visiting this sight, realize that it might provide you with entertainment for about fifteen minutes, while you'll have to wait ninety minutes for the only bus returning to the city (as of March 2006).

Do you mean that waiting for a return bus for long is not actually a problem any more? Are there more frequent buses since March 2006? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 06:43, 10 February 2007 (EST)

There has always been more frequent buses, but for a couple of months suburban buses going to Statue Park took another road due to the construction of a new bridge. The road is open now, and during the opening hours buses are never less frequent than 30 min. At peak hours run every 10 minutes, rarely 5 (!) (you can check timetables at http://www.menetrendek.hu/cgi-bin/menetrend/html.cgi, unfortunately only in Hungarian). I didn't indicated it, as it's not the fastest way to get from/to Budapest center, but at Statue park (at the opposite side of the main road) you can catch urban bus 50 to stop "Campona", then from there bus 3 to "Móricz Zsigmond körtér" in Buda center. Bus 50 runs 15 min every day, Saturday and Sunday 30 min. You are never supposed to wait more than 30 min, normally much less. --(WT-en) Nammarci 07:57, 10 February 2007 (EST)

I see, now it's clear. I clarified bus details in the article, as long as 10-30min is interval, not a travel time:

buses run every 10-30 minutes

--(WT-en) DenisYurkin 08:16, 10 February 2007 (EST)

From my experience of cleaning up the mess of misplacements and duplication between the districts, I propose to have district borders explicitly specified somewhere as a reference, very visible for editors and easy-to-point for any new contributor (top of Talk:Budapest, plus a link from top of every district article?)

Here is the division I propose -- I would especially welcome comments from the people who know Budapest really well, whether it reflects the order of things for citizens:

• Castle Hill is only limited to castle walls; everything outside castle walls is Buda
• Buda is the whole city west of Danube, except Castle Hill
• Pest is the whole city east of Danube
• Margaret Island, Hajógyári-sziget Island and other islands on Danube (are there any other?) are also part of Buda
• river attractions on Danube that are not connected to either side: Buda also?

Comments please? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 06:51, 10 February 2007 (EST)

Budapest's eventual division into Buda and Pest is logical. I'm not sure that the Castle must be separated from the rest of Buda; culturally they have been very coherent. As further subdivision will be needed anyway, I think it's better to merge Castle district with Buda. As for the islands, Csepel is urbanistically more Pest than Buda. Hajógyári sziget is more Buda then Pest; Margaret Island belongs administratively to Pest's 13th district since cca. 1950.

It would be useful to make some distinction between inner city and outer city, too. (The line of Nagykörút could be a border.) So, maybe Pest (center), Pest (outer zones), Buda (center), Buda (outer zones). --(WT-en) Nammarci 19:51, 10 February 2007 (EST)

In my belief we have just enough content for 3 districts, I think it's far too early to create even one more before we have enough content for it to separate into a new article.

As for the Castle, I don't like the idea of separating it either (see my thread #separating content by districts), but it's already separated with too much job, and merging it back will be another nightmare we hardly have human power for.

Thanks for clarification on the islands, however. If your version gain a consensus, I'll put the division rules on top of this talk page. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 03:33, 11 February 2007 (EST)

Even though historically the Castle is very associated with Buda, it has enough attractions to have its own page (similar to the Prague guide). But to be fair, there's probably just as much stuff around the Varosliget and no one's suggesting a separate page there. The idea of splitting it into the kiskörút/nagykörút has some merit. I don't think the islands have enough attractions to demand a whole separate page. --Sloshmo 16:13, 11 February 2007 (EST)

Sloshmo, thanks for your comment. And where would you assign each of the island mentioned above, to Buda or to Pest?

As for Varosliget vs Castle Hill, we have it as a legacy now: it was decided to split out 1.5 years ago, and it'd be really a pain to merge it back to Buda (I seriously considered that just 6 weeks ago).

Sidenote for rest of us non-Hungarians: kiskörút and nagykörút are Little Ring Road and Big Ring Road; Varosliget is obviously the City Park :-). --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 18:19, 11 February 2007 (EST)

As for the islands, Margit island is in Pest's XIII district, so Pest does make the most sense. Hajógyári sziget is really just a part of Óbuda island, which is in Buda's III district, so that makes the most sense. Csepel is harder to say, since it's its own district. It is very industrial, which is certainly more Pest than Buda, so that makes the most sense. There's no need to merge the Castle back into Buda, it makes the most sense to have it separate cause it has so much to do. Most of the attractions in Pest are within the kiskörút, but the nagykörút does have the city park, half of Andrassy út, the Applied Arts Museum and a few other things that could justify its own page. --Sloshmo 11:42, 12 February 2007 (EST)

I've added a #District Borders section to the top of this talk page--please verify it's correct. We don't have have any decision on river attractions on Danube that are not connected to either side, and are there any other islands on Danube that are not listed earlier? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 01:26, 20 February 2007 (EST)

I continue the discussion here. The reason why Castle Hill was put in a new district about 1.5 years ago is that there was plenty of informaton about the sights in Castle Hill. Also, Castle Hill is a place where you have to decide to go up, I mean it is both mentally and geographically separated from the rest of Buda.

Óbuda (or Hajógyári, as I cleared it up above) island can be reached only from Buda, like Csepel can be reached only from Pest. So their belonging is obvious.

Margit Island is absolutely in the between in people's mind. So I wouldn't think much about its administrative situation (belongs to XIII district in Pest). I would suggest to establish a new district Danube Bridges and Margitsziget which could include waterfront attraction on both riversides as well as the island itself. --(WT-en) bujatt 06:42, 21 February 2007 (EST)

I've just published recommendations on when to districtify which basically says that we should only create a new district article when we have enough content for it; to prepare that content, we can create a sub-section in respective listings section of Budapest where we'll place all the info on a district to be created. But for now, I think we have too little content even for creating such sections--what do you think? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 08:02, 21 February 2007 (EST)

I think Buda has enough content for create 4-5 new sub-section (maybe instead Buda). Please, please, please if you have an opinion share it.

My idee about this:

• The Mount area (Hegyvidék) comprises all of the 12th & 2nd districts. It is look somehow this Hegyvidék

• Óbuda (lit. Old Buda officially called Óbuda-Békásmegyer) is the entire 3rd district. - Or maybe because it is a bit bigger than Hegyvidék or Belbuda could be two part making. One for Óbuda which could be the southern half of 3rd district, and other could be Békásmegyer what is the northern part of the district.

• Belbuda (lit. Inner Buda) what is the 1st district. It is look somehow this Belbuda include, the existing sub district of it, the Castle Hill

• Újbuda-Tétény or 11th and 22th district - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

How is it better to rewrite the highlighted piece from the See section?

• Gül Baba Türbéje is the shrine where Gül Baba ... lies. ... When I visited the place hosted a modern art fair.

I'm not sure it's just right to remove this piece, but I'm in doubt how to rephrase it to something useful. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 09:40, 10 February 2007 (EST)

As we don't have a better version for now, I remove the highlighted piece until we have anything practical. In current edition, I think it is hardly useful for anyone. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 14:19, 18 February 2007 (EST)

Can we give an example of such a fusion restaurant for the highlighted piece? Was is Malomto or something else that the author meant?

As in other spheres, the Hungarian approach to food combines pride in their own traditions with a readiness to accept outside influences. The result is a vibrant restaurant scene where an Asian-Hungarian fusion restaurant may well be of genuine interest.

--(WT-en) DenisYurkin 10:29, 10 February 2007 (EST)

Wouldn't it be better to split theaters, operas and cinemas listings into district articles--leaving only a general overview at the city article? The only reason I didn't do that with Baths is that introduction text is very interconnected with individual baths, and splitting them into districts would make much harder to understand both the whole picture and individual usage details. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 01:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I think that sounds right... – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 02:43, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

It sounds right, but. Theatre and cinema sections I wrote are only general overviews. I wanted to offer tourists a possibility to choose among opera, musical, experimental, dance and alternative performances. If we split theatre and cinema section into districts, new born sections won't offer a general overview anymore. I'd like to leave theater and cinema sections as they are, and later prepare disticrified and more complete listings of theatres and mainly cinemas, as I only mentioned about 15% of them.

Another difficulty is that some of the theatres I mentioned are buildings, other are companies. It would be hard or impossible to districtify companies who today perform in Buda, but tomorrow maybe they'll perform in Pest or in the castle district.

I also want to write a "festival" section; splitting festivals into district articles will be similarly impossible. OK, the major wine festival is held in Buda; but what about Budapest Autumn Festival, whose permormances are held in Buda and in Pest, too? Districtification has a crucial importance, but not in these cases, I think. Opinions?

--(WT-en) Nammarci 12:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I restored a link to http://www.spasbudapest.com/furdo.php?idx=14 for Szechenyi Spa as I believe it to be the official link: it's the site of "Budapest Spas and Hot Springs Inc", the operator for all major Budapest baths. See its History section, and explore the site to find every evidence for it being official. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:32, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Hey there, since Budapest is a huge city, it's been divided into districts, and the individual listings are located on those pages, not on this main one... you'll find that Camping Haller is already on Budapest/Pest. Please don't re-add it to the main Budapest article again. Thanks! – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 23:46, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

I wonder why Gundel and Mátyás Pince were rated as tourist traps by this edit

Some of the most famous tourist traps are: Gundel and Mátyás Pince....

Exanut, could you please provide some reasoning on this? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 07:36, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

I grew up in Budapest. I returned often to visit family, including this year. Hungarians do not frequent these two specific restaurants. They are set up to appear "Hungarian", or at least what tourists imagine Hungarian to be. Gundel once used to be a top quality restaurant, and they will always be famous for their "Gundel Palacsinta", but now they and Mátyás Pince both serve extreemly expensive food that can be had elsewhere for a much more reasonable price.~~exanut~~

Would you share that other places then? ;-) --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 12:47, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Before we have any alternatives to recommend, I have removed recommendation of these 2 specific places from Budapest#Eat. Please share places that can be recommended instead of Gundel and Matyas Pince in Budapest/Pest#Restaurants. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 06:34, 20 July 2008 (EDT)

I restored the notice on homeless people which was removed by 89.138.175.78. The reason for having this kind of info is to match aesthetic expectations with reality. Of course, this can't be the reason why a reader decide not to visit Budapest at all, but it makes him more informed on what to expect, if he cares.

Maybe we should have a better place for information like this, but I don't have an idea at the moment. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 13:07, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

I found that the recent major edit in Get around has removed the following pieces:

• The yellow M1 line runs shorter trains and sometimes still uses old wooden metro cars--a fun change from the ordinary, Soviet-style steel metro cars seen on the red M2 line and the blue M3 line. M1 stations are also surprising, like as you find a tram in a normal pedestrian underpass.

• Hungarians are really proud of having the oldest continental subway.

• You might get lost in Budapest or be unable to find a bus or tramline using the maps found in some foreign published guidebooks. Many tourists experience this problem. Buy a map of Budapest published in Hungary, which may help prevent problems. You can get them at Budapest bookshops (konyvesbolt or konyvaruhaz in Hungarian) for about HUF 1000-1300.

I find each piece valuable for a traveler--can we restore each of them? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 03:28, 8 January 2008 (EST)

"The yellow M1 (...) sometimes still uses old wooden metro cars" - unfortunately it's not true, since the 1972-73 renovation you see old wooden cars only in the Underground Transportation Museum.

But the cars in M1 are definitely very different from M2 and M3 (I've been in Budapest just a year ago, and seen they're different)--and they are worth seeing. I think it's better to place in See section, however. As for those on display in Underground Transportation Museum, currently the article doesn't give details on it--could you share your knowledge there? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 18:09, 10 January 2008 (EST)

"...a fun change from the ordinary, Soviet-style steel metro cars seen on the red M2 line and the blue M3 line." I deleted "fun change" as I found the term too personal and of little use. (What is a "fun change"?) The fact that M1 can be interesting for tourists is underlined by the sentence "the beautifully rebuilt, tile covered stations are a gorgeous historical memory of Budapest's richest period (1880-1910)".

I think difference in cars should be also mentioned, not only features of stations. Geeks like myself are fascinated with engineering artifacts, but not necessary with architecture. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 18:09, 10 January 2008 (EST)

"M1 stations are also surprising, like as you find a tram in a normal pedestrian underpass." I don't understand it at all. Why do the stations remind the author an underpass and why the cars look like a tram? I would let tourists form personal impressions like these by theirselves.

As M1 stations are just 2m deep under the ground, which make them look more like an underpass (a subway) than a metro station. And as long as trains are shorter, they look more like a tram than like a metro trains. I believe that without emotional component like this, we are becoming encyclopedical and boring, which we don't want to: see Project:Tone. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 18:09, 10 January 2008 (EST)

"You might get lost in Budapest or be unable to find a bus or tramline using the maps found in some foreign published guidebooks. Many tourists experience this problem. Buy a map of Budapest published in Hungary, which may help prevent problems. You can get them at Budapest bookshops (konyvesbolt or konyvaruhaz in Hungarian) for about HUF 1000-1300." I found the whole pharagraph redundant. You could substitute "Budapest" with any city name of the world. It's almost always true that recently published local maps are more reliable than foreign guide books, often based on aged information. In addition, buying a map in the touristy areas is not a problem (hotels, newspaper stands, souvenir stands, museums, BKV ticket offices), so the glossary is really not needed.

Agreed. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 18:09, 10 January 2008 (EST)

But what if we leave something like "up-to-date maps in Hungarian are widely available in bookshops, for about HUF 1000-1300"? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 03:18, 11 January 2008 (EST)

"Hungarians are really proud of having the oldest continental subway." Maybe I shouldn't have removed it, but I'm not sure wether its best place is the Get around section.

I agree that Get around is not the best place for it. Maybe we move the whole M1 stuff into the See section? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 18:09, 10 January 2008 (EST)

In a practical guide like this, I would avoid too personal, superficial opinions, repetitions, general or too long descriptions and - obviously - mistakes. That was my main goal when deleting the sentences you cited. However, if you still feel that important pieces of information have been lost, feel free to restore them.

(WT-en) Nammarci 09:06, 10 January 2008 (EST)

As 213.114.134.13 removed some details on Gellert Baths, can we have a reason for each removal here?

Gellert:

> Specialties: In shower area, there're also a strange stool without a seat, with a stream of water from the bottom (bidet?)--not used by anyone, though.

It's clearly not really a practical info, but it's an interesting thing for an inquiring mind, at least until we solve the mistery.

Széchényi:

> Prices get cheaper after 19:00, but some facilities are closed then.

> In the swimming pool, swimming caps are mandatory and strictly enforced

--(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:32, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

As far as I know, swimming caps are NOT mandatory anymore.

(WT-en) Nammarci 06:26, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

No, they're not. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 21:18, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

On a related note, Gellért and Széchenyi are both spelt wrong above. Just wrong apostrophes tough. Also, they are not traditional at all. Rudas, Kiraly, etc are the traditional turkish baths, but I guess tourists don't like them because they are also the places of gay orgies. (WT-en) Rklz2 00:38, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Re this edit: [4]

There's a swimming tube (a whirling corridor): round- (outdoors) or rectangle-shaped (indoors) pool with artificial flow; a unique feature that can't be found elsewhere.

I've changed the removed piece to this--everyone agrees with the new wording?

There's a swimming tube (a whirling corridor): round- (outdoors) or rectangle-shaped (indoors) pool with artificial flow, a feature difficult to find elsewhere.

--(WT-en) DenisYurkin 15:56, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

though the wording is not perfect (mentioned twice in a row) but my colleague can confirm it is real as of 02/2010. he narrowly escaped from the elevator thanks to this page. so definitely keep it... he was approached by 2 girls "from Austria" and went with them for a small drink in a nearby bar. nothing occurred to him but when in elevator he remembered the warning from this page and excused himself for a little phone call and ran away. —The preceding comment was added by 212.65.228.30 (talk • contribs)

The introduction is written like advertisement blurb: With green filled parks full of charming pleasures, museums that will inspire, and a pulsating nightlife that is on par with its European counterparts, Budapest is one of Europe's most delightful and enjoyable cities. Thanks to the perfect location, inhabitants' hospitality and memorable monuments is it mentioned as "Little Paris of Central Europe" and "Pearl of Danube".

The epithet "little Paris of Central Europe" is doubly absurd. First of, Paris is arguably located in Central Europe, and Budapest in Eastern Europe. Secondly, Budapest is by no means "little". Thirdly, comparisons with Paris are a dime a dozen.

Thanks, (WT-en) maikel 03:43, 2 March 2011 (EST)

There is no way Paris is in Central Europe, and Hungary is usually considered Central Europe these days. (WT-en) LtPowers 21:22, 3 March 2011 (EST)

The picture shown on the top is an image of the Bulgarian Parlament! OrsolyaVirág (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it's because our image was named "Parliament.jpg", and there's also a different image on Wikimedia Commons called "Parliament.jpg". This will be repaired once our image of the Hungarian Parliament building is imported (with a new filename) to Commons; then a bot will come through and fix the reference in this article. Please be patient; note the sitenotice at the top that says "We're still in beta". LtPowers (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I worked on it a bit, but what really should happen is that it should be focused more narrowly on the history of Buda and Pest themselves, with national politics much more briefly sketched with Budapest specifically in mind. The remainder of the history section is good and should be merged into the History section of the Hungary guide as appropriate. I'd start working on this right now, but I'm too tired, so I'm posting this for whomever would like to take on this mission. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

From your edits so far, you seem to have a good knowledge of the complexities and a fluent prose style. Much of this article hasn't been edited for many years so I wouldn't hold your breath.

Why exactly do you think the width of the first image should be exactly 350px wide rather than sized proportionately according to the width chosen (or not) by registered readers (or not) and advised by larger Wikimedia Foundation projects? Is this some kind of semi-religious thing? --118.93nzp (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please argue about proportional thumbnail sizes in the appropriate place, and without polemics, as you know I don't have a problem with them, myself. You also know very well what the state of that argument is, as you took part in it. From now on, any time you mention it outside of the dedicated thread about it, I will ignore your remarks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

The arguments for allowing readers to choose their thumbnail image sizes have already been displayed. No argument against choice has been advanced. There was no visible consensus made to bar the approved image syntax for thumbnail widths where it is felt that it should not be left at the default. Hence my question as to why you incessantly go around restoring weird fixed thumbnail image widths that are a hangover from the times when our software did not allow proportional sizes/most editors were ignorant of their use/the default image width was much smaller than the current 220px... Until and unless it is policy not to use MediaWiki image syntax correctly and appropriately, I will from time to time reserve the right to question weird fixed thumbnail widths in individual articles. --118.93nzp (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

[Unindent] I'd like to get back to the subject: The "History" section. I think it's way too long and too focused on Hungarian, rather than specifically Budapest history. What do you all think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

In theory, I wouldn't say you're wrong.

I say "in theory" because many of our readers may not ever bother to read the History article in the country article about Hungary. For those people, this section isn't violently skewed and keeps putting things in a Budapest context every few paragraphs. I'd say leave it be until we have something more focussed to replace it. --118.93nzp (talk) 09:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I suggest to create new districts instead of Buda: Belbuda, Óbuda, Hegyvidék, Újbuda and Tétény - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 12:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please illustrate or explain in detail where the boundaries of these districts would be. Will they hold roughly an equal number of listings? We need to agree before you do any more work on this, so please hold off on creating these. Otherwise it just creates a lot of extra work to be done if we end up deciding on a different plan. Texugo (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Belbuda is district I., Óbuda is district III., Hegyvidék is district II. and III., Újbuda and Tétény is district XI. and XXII. - List of districts in BudapestGlobetrotter19 (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Altough the WP map is a start, and the site linked from it has some maps, it would be good if you could draw a map with the districts marked on, or tell us the main sights in each new district. Please allow a week or three for others to join in the discussion. Are you also thinking of dividing Pest into smaller districts? When we have agreed on the districts then they should be created as sub-pages of Budapest. I am not against the principle of creating more districts, as we now have quite a few listings in Buda. AlasdairW (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

About listings in Buda: On Buda site everybody could see 'all' sights in diff. chapter. I think Óbuda listing is 'finished' cca. 90%, Belbuda listing include Castle Hill in same situ. The Hegyvidék districts which,-on my idee,-the II.nd district is arond 90%, but the XII.th district around 60-70% percent 'finished'. And also Újbuda and Tétény listings is around on halfway to the "complete" version. - - About Pest That is a total other story, of course there will be also splitting maybe 4-5 section, but now just half of the district started at all - - About the map: I never did before, so I asked some help, but I did't get answer (yet). Maybe I try to using a simple painter program, if it is ok? After I must upload to commons or where to? - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 11:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

P.S. All subject is out from Buda's Belbuda section, which means Buda now with all part (incl. Castle Hill) is around 250k size.

Districts

P.S. Here is an other without Pest splitting - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK, where are we with that? We've got Belbuda, but also Buda and Castle Hill separately... What's going on? Which districts are to stay, and which ones to go? PrinceGloria (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

My idee is Buda need to reverting, bcoz that is now empty Globetrotter19 (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

If I get you right, the separate article on Buda is now redundant as all has been split into further district, so I just redirected it to Budapest. There's still a lot of mess to clean up, including any links to Budapest/Buda that I may have missed - there are some that apparently exist (proven by "What links here" - see left hand side menu bar), but I can't find them.

While we are at that, let me make two proposal regarding districtification:

1. Do we really need for the Budapest/Castle Hill and Budapest/Belbuda being separate? I hate this kind of "matrioshka" structures. If anything, Castle Hill should be a district directly marked on the map as one of the districts of Budapest.
2. I would move to split out another district from Budapest/Pest, consisting of official districts VI, VII and VIII (Terez-, Erzsebet- and Jozsefvaros). Our guide to Pest is quite large and unwieldy as it is, comprising both POIs within walking distance from Belvaros-Lipotvaros and ones at the outskirts of town. The area formed by the VI, VII and VIII is IMHO compact, walkable and packed-full with POIs - even if not sights per se, it has the vast majority of hotels in Pest, two important train stations and other important points.

What do you guys think?

First. Yes 100 percent agree Budapest/Castle Hill must to move in Belbuda.

About Budapest/Pest. I'd like the idee to form a (or more) new district(s) on Pest. Just the interests of clarity I thought, we need North, East and South districts, but your idee also seems logical. Globetrotter19 (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Also agree with merging Budapest/Castle Hill to Budapest/Belbuda, and PrinceGloria's suggestion of splitting out one more district sounds reasonable. Given the concentration pattern of the listings, I'm not sure splitting it into more than that would make any sense. Texugo (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Merging, ready! Globetrotter19 (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Here is a version for final(?) splitting. Now the chapter 'see' include around 250 places (only cca. 150 with POI), means all four new district 'will get' 50-70 'see' places plus others (do, eat, buy etc)

Any idee? Globetrotter19 (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

No contest, please proceed and let us know where and how to help you - I just don't want to get in your way. PrinceGloria (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

No contest, of course, but please share with me your idee! Becoz still I do not know are you agree with my splitting version or not? Can I starting the Pest Central? What do you think about the names of districts, wish You suggest any other? - I just do not want to start before we agreed. Globetrotter19 (talk) 08:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

"No contest" = "I have no objections". It's a "go ahead" from me, if you care for others' opinions please wait for them to voice them. PrinceGloria (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Right now Budapest/East Pest and Budapest/South Pest are supposed to have separate district articles, but both link to Budapest/Pest. Shall we combine the 2 in the overview?--Renek78 (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think I can answer this question myself: Since the current Budapest/Pest article is so loaded with information it definitely makes sense to split it into 2. Gonna start as soon as I can.--Renek78 (talk) 07:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

East & South Pest are still mapping to Pest, is this second thoughts or work still in progress? Also some overlap with Central Pest. I've reviewed all the city accommodation but haven't tried to re-assign by district. I found prices were little changed on 2014/15, main edit was to clarify & simplify directions. These gave a lot of info about metro lines while missing stuff like direction & distance from centre. I did this reluctantly, as someone's obviously put in great effort here, but Budapest metro is fairly simple and there's extensive info in "Get in / Get around" sections. Grahamsands (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

In the Hebrew Wikivoyage we are currently using this banner instead of the one which is currently used here. Do you think too that this banner would would better than the existing one? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I prefer the existing one. It's the same view and both pictures are great, but the night view is much more striking. PerryPlanet (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Agree with PerryPlanet. Texugo (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I agree, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

The grain of the day pic provides for a really eye-irritating rendering at banner resolution. PrinceGloria (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I like both. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

An anonymous contributor added a lot of info to this article (Special:Diff/2729595/2747659), calling it "lost content". I'm not sure if this content was previously moved to district articles or what happened, but since it includes XML-style listings there is a danger that it is being copied from WT without attribution, so I've reverted the change pending further clarification. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Looks like stuff that has been moved into city districts when they districtified Budapest last year. But newbies likely don't know that individual listings should be in the districts and therefore think those theaters and opera houses have been "lost". ϒpsilon (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

While I was in Budapest earlier this year, I found a great place where you can rent baby carriers. It was a life safer for getting around Budapest, which isn't super stroller friendly, and it was quite cheap. I'd love to add this as a tip, but I'm not sure where it should go? Any ideas? A new section? Thanks. - 178.203.232.129 07:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's not mentioned at Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it, but I believe the Budapest#Cope section is the right place. ϒpsilon (talk) 07:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

[Edit conflict] I was thinking maybe "Cope", but that section is entirely filled with embassies. So my other thought was, create a section in "Get around". Baby carriers are, after all, a way for babies to get around! I think putting the subsection at the end of the "Get around" section would be a good way to go. Thanks for asking! Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Saw this article, sounds like something I'd want to see, wonder if WV covers it: http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/columbo-statue —The preceding comment was added by Pashley (talk • contribs)

I would like to propose to change the name and order of some articles due to the following reasons:

• "Belbuda" is not an official name. Várkerület (Buda Castle District) is the official name of District I.
• "Belváros" is just the south part of District V, the east part called Lipótváros.
• "Pest Central" is too general name. Terézváros and Erzsébetváros are the official names of district VI-VII.
• "Pest Central" is too large area. Each districts (Terézváros, Erzsébetváros, Józsefváros) have enough content to make them separated articles.
• District IX is core part of the inner city with important places like Great Market Hall (Nagyvásárcsarnok) and the National Theatre. I would create a new article for District VIII-IX called "Józsefváros and Ferencváros".
• District IX is core part of the inner city with important places like Great Market Hall (Nagyvásárcsarnok) and the National Theatre. I would create a new article called "Ferencváros".
• "South Buda" would be a better name for Districts XI and XXII, because this area contains more suburbs than Újbuda and Tétény.

The proposed structure:

--City-busz (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi City-busz, looks good. What I personally don't like so far ist the order of the districts. If this could be sorted according to the relevance for the traveller it would be better I guess.--Renek78 (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I updated my proposal with more subregions, because the inner districts will have a lot of content. --City-busz (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

To the right is the map with all Wikidata ID's for the city. Just click on a district to get the corresponding Wikidata ID. This should simplify the work in case we want to change the district set-up in the future. The tool Wikidata Extractor has been used to create the mapshapes.--Renek78 (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

What's up with all those green markers in a districtified article? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

In case anyone thinks the new banner is dark (which is what I think too), you can take a look at my brighter version. Jankela121 (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)Reply