YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE! Just click any blue "Edit" link and start writing!


From Wikitravel
Revision as of 11:30, 21 February 2007 by Bujatt (talk | contribs) (District Borders: islands cleanup)
Jump to: navigation, search

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

District Borders

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.


  • 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)

Article ToDo list

  • 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. --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]?) --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) --DenisYurkin 12:54, 18 February 2007 (EST)
  • move islands-based and Danube venues and attractions to their respective districts according to the #District Borders. --DenisYurkin 12:22, 20 February 2007 (EST)

Sources for future research

The following links were removed from the external links section:

  • - 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. -- 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):

  •, 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. --DenisYurkin 16:17, 19 February 2007 (EST)

New York Kávéház

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.... Schizoid 22:37, Feb 29, 2004 (EST)

Time to split into districts?

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. Jpatokal 09:06, 21 Sep 2004 (EDT)

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

Article needing attention?

Budapest is currently listed on Wikitravel: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. -- Hypatia 21:09, 14 Dec 2004 (EST)

I've taken it off. 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..."). 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 Wikitravel:Huge city article template. Do you think that we should be using another method for Budapest? 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. 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. Jpatokal 10:30, 18 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Statue Park

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

  • Done DanielC 16:45, 16 May 2005 (EDT)
    • Wohoo, great! :) 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)? -- 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. Jpatokal 03:48, 18 May 2005 (EDT)
OK, I try my best :) entry -- 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 wikitravel 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 :/

Money Exchange

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?...Takatam 11:33, 29 Dec 2006

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

separating content by districts

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? --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. --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? --DenisYurkin 05:18, 7 January 2007 (EST)
See also: User:Elgaard#Wikitravel as book. --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. 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? --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. DanielC 08:34, 8 January 2007 (EST)
I also think the districts are good as they are. --Evan 10:38, 8 January 2007 (EST)

A banner for those printing the article

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). --DenisYurkin 16:06, 5 February 2007 (EST)

The banner was removed by Maj; it can be seen in the previous version, however. --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? WindHorse 03:31, 6 February 2007 (EST)
I would argue with stating the obvious here: for occasional readers who come to Wikitravel 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. --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. --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 Wikitravel:Manual of Style. We want articles to generally look alike, so we Highly Discourage unique innovations. -- 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. 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 Wikitravel as few of us are. Would anyone support my suggestion with banner if I follow with suggestions to MoS? --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:Evan/Budapest. --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:Evan/Budapest; seen both in IE and FF. --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 Wikitravel:Huge city article template? --Evan 10:53, 10 February 2007 (EST)
Thanks for encouragement, Evan. Let's meet there: Wikitravel talk:Huge city article template#a notice on districts on top of huge city articles. --DenisYurkin 19:33, 10 February 2007 (EST)

Done clean-up

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#Get out: 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? --DenisYurkin 21:04, 9 February 2007 (EST)

taxi fares

... 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. --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? --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.Szutyok 17:44, 29 January 2007 (EST)


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 Wikitravellers. --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. -- 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 Wikitravellers in foreseeable future. --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". -- Jonboy 11:40, 31 January 2007 (EST)
Join us there: Wikitravel_talk:External links#consensus: another attempt. --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. -- Colin 13:23, 31 January 2007 (EST)

In my belief and experience, at least half of Wikitravel 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 wikitravel, 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. --DenisYurkin 22:26, 8 February 2007 (EST)

comparing Gellért and Széchényi

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? --DenisYurkin 16:11, 5 February 2007 (EST)

info on WinterInvasion

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

In winter (Dec-Mar) Malév's Budapest Winter Invasion [2] offers discounted fares for international flights to Budapest, and its 45 partner hotels provide 4 nights accommodation for the price of 3.

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

I restored it; if there's any objections, please discuss them here. --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 unsigned comment was added by Nammarci‎ (talkcontribs)

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 Wikitravel for future travellers. --DenisYurkin 16:04, 9 February 2007 (EST)

getting out from Statue Park

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? --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, 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. --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

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

district borders discussion

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? --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). --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. --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 :-). --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? --DenisYurkin 01:26, 20 February 2007 (EST)

rephrasing personal experince

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. --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. --DenisYurkin 14:19, 18 February 2007 (EST)

Asian-Hungarian fusion restaurant

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.

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