Talk:Carpathian Basin

vs. Pannonian Basin

Hobartimus (talk · contribs), why are you content forking the existing article? Do you really think that these two terms differ sufficiently for each to have its own article? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not content forking the article, as you can compare the map in the Pannonian Basin article it is completely different from the maps depicting the Carpathian Basin. You can see the difference that the actual Carpathians (hence the name Carpathian Basin) are not even included on that map. The shapes are not even similar. This makes it clear that we can't have two completely different areas bungled up together. Just by knowing some maps I would estimate that the map of the Carpathian Basin includes 300 000km² while the one in the Pannonian Basin article includes just about 170 000km ². You can see this by comparing the maps in relation to the borders. You need to click on the map enlarge it and compare the borders that way. Compare this and this with the Pannonian Basin you will have to enlarge the map in your browser but once you do you will really see the difference when looking at the borders of the two basins. Hobartimus (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This is all in mutual conflict, because there's also a third article for Pannonian Plain. IMHO this is all silly to keep apart because there isn't enough content for three articles here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you read this talk page? I opened a section header about Pannonian plain vs Basin about an hour before you wrote the above post about the "third article Pannonian Plain" explaining the same thing and also explaining the difference these terms have compared to Carpathian Basin which is pretty evident. You just have to look at the respective maps and see for yourself. If anything those two could be easily merged as they are cover the same topic. Hobartimus (talk) 07:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It's all merge material because it was already merged for since 2004 until you forked it yesterday. That's seven years without an objection, and suddenly we have a problem... I'm thinking all this began when someone screwed up the description at Pannonian Basin to include only the plain. I'll go look at the history there. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If it's all merge material please first merge Pannonian basin into Pannonian plain. Those topics are much more closely related to each other in both their names and their content. Per the map (discussed in "the main issue the map section") the areas are completely different and the confusion comes especially from having content on different areas in the same article. Hobartimus (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and just for the record I see the hint of Hungarian vs. Romanian rivalry here. You and everyone else should be aware that this can easily be considered a Balkans issue for which discretionary sanctions may be applied. Tread lightly. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Pannonian Plain vs Pannonian Basin

If you are looking for identical articles I suggest you look at these two which are very similar to each other. The key difference to Carpathian Basin is the presence of mountains included in the geographical term. While these other two very similar terms include the low-lands only the "plain" part. Since large areas of the Carpathian Basin are mountain ranges, and in fact the name itself comes from a mountain range, this geographical area is much much larger than the plain part which is also depicted in the map in the Pannonian Basin article as explained in the post above. Hobartimus (talk) 06:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The main issue, the map

The following map claims to show the Pannonian Basin in Europe and is sourced to "Według / according to Bolesław Augustowski Wielkie regiony naturalne Europy, w / in: Antoni Wrzosek (ed.) Geografia powszechna - tom III, Warszawa 1965" [1] If this map is accurate for the Pannonian basin then it is an entirely different area from the Carpathian basin. The article also states that "The term "Pannonian Basin" was not in use until the end of World War I.[1]" seems like it's a newer term, maybe that's why it's not really well defined? I know on the other hand that the geographical term, Carpathian basin goes back a lot more than that and has a clear definition as to it's boundaries. Hobartimus (talk) 08:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit strange that my google books search within the book for the Polish term listed there - fails. Maybe it's just a fluke. In any case, I'm not happy with that whole approach "let's redefine terms in categories that aren't particularly different but we like them better" and then make a mess of what are supposed to be encyclopedic articles. The plain is clearly a subset of the basin and describing one without describing the bulk of the other is completely incoherent. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well yes that could work, but the issue here is if the Pannonian Basin is used as a synonim for the plain, or not. What really is the Pannonian Basin? Is it just a synonim for the Carpathian Basin or the Pannonian Plain? We can all agree that those two are vastly different. The difference is so large than in any historical context it would make sentences flat out incorrect. Example: "XY happened in the Pannonian Plain (or Basin if synonim)" vs "XY happened in the Carpathian Basin", now there is clearly an issue if one is about twice as large and the other and various issues. For example Kosice is in the Carpathian Basin but NOT in the Pannonian Plain (and Basin used as a synonim for Plain as in the map) as well as numerous other cities locales etc. So the issue is a bit more complex as Pannonian plain and Carpathian basin refer to vastly different areas even if one can be considered mostly subset of the other. Hobartimus (talk) 08:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

My main problem with is that we use two different sets of parameters that produce silly results - for example, the Papuk and Psunj, mountains almost 1km high, are regularly included in the "plain" because their orogeny mostly doesn't match that of the Dinarides or the Carpathians. Yet, the new Polish map we saw earlier omits the elevated ground in the Danube-Ipoly National Park from the "plain" - despite the fact it's substantially lower than the former. Clearly the flatland terrain of most of Hungary doesn't match the hilly terrain of most of Transylvania or Slovakia, but it's all intertwined - Košice seems to be at around 300 m.a.s.l. and the flatland to its south is even lower, because it's on the same set of slopes. Furthermore, the human history of the plain and the basin is completely intertwined. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh and I also don't like to take advice from people who try to spell nizina in Croatian and then fail. :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Pannonian plain vs Carpathian Basin

These two are most certainly different right? One is a plain and one is named after a mountain range, including a lot of mountains. If the Pannonian plain article was copy-paste merged into the Pannonian basin article, then now it's clear that the Carpathian Basin is a different term, than the topic of that article for obvious reasons. Hobartimus (talk) 08:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

To me, this is like describing a circle and then failing to mention it has a circumference, or vice versa. If there was a lot of content with a lot of references for each separate topic, then this would be a legitimate argument - but now it's just splitting hairs. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The Hungarian version does have some extra content that could be used [2] It could be used to expand the Carpathian Basin article.Hobartimus (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)