Talk:Counties of Hungary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

On disambiguation techniques[edit]

There are 6 counties that have an ambiguous name: Békés county, Csongrád, Heves, Pest (county), Tolna and Veszprém County. Of these, Csongrád, Heves and Tolna need to be split, since they currently cover the county and a town. I want to open a discussion on two things:

  • For all these except Pest and Veszprém, the county is far more significant than the town (Pest is a special case). I think for Békés, Csongrád, Heves and Tolna the article "X" should be about the county, with a reference to "X (town)".
  • Regardless the outcome of the previous point: the disambiguated articles should have uniform titles. We have three options in use now:
    • X county - also in use for some of the former Hungarian counties in Slovakia
    • X (county) - also in use for some of the former Hungarian counties
    • X County - standard for counties in several countries

Markussep 19:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the naming should be consistent; if in one case the town is the more significant, then why is in the other case the county the more significant? Also, the counties were, in a certain way, named after the towns (actually named for the castles in these towns.) I think the counties should have "County" added to their names; not only these counties, but the others too, in order to not mess up the templates; also, if other countries use this too, it would be more consistent. Alensha 13:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For me the criterium would be the size or historical significance of the town. It doesn't matter what was first, or what was named after what. What would the average user think of when reading "Tolna", the town or the county?

I totally agree about consistent naming. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Subnational entities/Naming you can see the current use for other countries' subdivisions. Personally, I prefer to use the subdivision term only when it's necessary for disambiguation, like it's done for all the countries with an asterisk in the list. If you're going to move them all to X County, there's no discussion about how significant the town is, that's an advantage. About the template, do you mean "Hungarian counties"? That's easily fixed with piping. BTW I think your split of Békés created a lot of wrong links (to the town instead of the county). Markussep 14:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll fix those wrong links. By template I meant the Template:HungaryCities, which is added to the article of every municipality. It would be easier if the naming were consistent, else probably we'll need two versions of the template.
About significance: I can't really tell what would the average user think when hearing "Tolna"; all the people I know say "Tolna county", "Heves county" etc., they leave "county" off only when the name of the county is long enough even without it. I agree that by Veszprém most people mean the city of Veszprém, and by Pest most people mean Budapest (actually calling it simply Pest is somewhat incorrect but very widespread) but the others are hard to decide. I'll ask the other Hungarians about this matter. Alensha 13:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I made a second template for Hungarian cities, which also takes care of diacritics troubles, see for instance Gyor. I think I changed all the "troublesome" cities. About counties, let's do it like Romania, the ambiguous counties get X County there. Markussep 14:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know whether the towns or the counties should be disambiguated by comments. Perhaps we do add the word "county" to counties in speech if they consist of only one element each. However, I wouldn't like to see them as "Tolna County", since "County" is not an official part of the name. I think I prefer the form "Tolna (county)" (also because of the option of piped linking); perhaps I could accept "Tolna county" as well, if it really has to be this way. Adam78 00:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For me also the capital C is weird, but I'm not a native English speaker. I've gradually stopped worrying about details like that. What I do still find important is what the user sees when he/she types for instance Tolna after ../wiki/ . But well, all this can be solved. I'm OK with your X (county) option (and consequently, X is about the town). Alensha? Markussep 01:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

X county or X (county) is fine. I prefer the one without brackets but it really doesn't matter as long as it's consistent. I agree that County with a capital C seems odd but I didn't know whether it's the proper English way to spell it. I'm fixing the links as soon as it's decided which name format will we use. Thanks for the second template.
I just noticed that in addition to these six counties we also have to disambiguate Nógrád because of a small town of the same name (I don't know when will it have an article but eventually it will.) Also, in several cases we also have a historical county that should be a separate article... should those be like "Nógrád (comitatus)"? Alensha 13:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

just to make things more complicated, it seems that Tolna is also the name of a US city... Alensha 13:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're right, Tolna, North Dakota, population 202, and they call it a city! Let's ignore that. About historical counties, if they have the same name as present counties, let's make them part of the history section of the present county.
X (county) it is, I'll try to move Veszprém and Békés, after that we can start splitting the others.Markussep 14:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I fixed the templates in the articles, now HungaryCities2 is used where (county) is after the county name, and HungaryCities is used when the name is without (county). I also disambiguated some things, but the "what links here" sections are refreshed very slowly. Alensha 23:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree about the need for consisteny, as required by the naming conventions on places guideline:

“All place names in an administrative division should share the same form. For example, when one article has been moved from "ShortName" to "ShortName [county]", then all the [counties] within a country should be moved to that form.”

So, even if in some cases the county is the primary topic, and the city (town, castle) after which it's named is a secondary topic, the article on the county should still be the one being disambiguated, for the predictability such consistency creates far outweights the issue of "what the primary topic is".

Regarding the disambiguation technique only (excluding for the moment the issue of "primary topic"), am I reading the above discussion correctly in understanding that there's an agreement on the following:

  • When the name of the county is unique (as in Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg), no disambiguation is used.
  • When the name of the county requires disambiguation, parentheses are used: Name (county) as the article's title, and having Name county & Name County as redirects.

Best regards, Ev 21:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, my mistake. After reading the discussion again, I see no clear agreement yet. The three issues are:

  1. Do we add a qualifier (be it (county), county or County") to all 19 Hungarian counties, or only those that need disambiguation ?
  2. What qualifier do we use: Name (county), Name county or Name County ?
  3. What do we do when the county, and not the city (town, castle), is the primary topic ?

Let's see where we stand on each case:

  1. I prefer to add a qualifier to all 19 counties, because such total consistency helps readers unfamiliar with the subject (as myself). It enhances predictability & tells readers what kind of political division they are facing since the very title. But I can live with the alternative :-)
  2. I prefer either Name County or Name county (depending on whether the word "county" is part of the official name or not) over Name (county): because it looks better :-) especially if we are to use it in all 19 cases, including "Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg C/county".
    However, if we were to add a qualifier only to those counties that require a disambiguation, I won't object to using Name (county).
  3. Following the naming conventions on places guideline, I believe that, in this specific cases, the benefits of consistency trump "primary topic".
    However, at least in some cases, we can have it both ways :-) For example, in the case of "Tolna", because there are other places of that name, we can have the article on the county with qualifier, the article on the city at "Tolna, Hungary" and the "simple, plain Tolna" as a redirect to the article on the county. That is, of course, it it really is the primary topic. In principle, I prefer to have "simple, plain Tolna" as a redirect to "Tolna (disambiguation)" or as a disambiguation page itself.

Best regards, Ev 22:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed this discussion via WP:RM, and just thought I'd offer an opinion. I personally prefer <Name (disambiguation)> using parentheses, as this allows the "pipe trick" to be used. That is, if you write [[Pest (county)|]] with nothing after the pipe, it will appear as Pest, which allows for a little less typing. With Pest county, the only way to drop the disambiguation term (which can be desirable if writing a prose sentence) is to write [[Pest county|Pest]]. Hope this helps in your final decision. Regards, --DeLarge 23:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I prefer the Name County form in each case. I think this is the best solution a we should move the articles there. - Weekshigh 07:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The 2005 discussion between Alensha, Adam78 and myself did lead to consensus to use "X (county)", and that's where the counties that needed disambiguation were moved to subsequently. I'm not sure how to interpret Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#Maintain consistency within each country. What I think is meant is that you shouldn't use "X (county)" and "X county" within the same higher administrative division. Not that if one article needs disambiguation, all are disambiguated. Anyway, some articles (Pest, Békés and Csongrád) were moved to other forms later, which needs to be repaired. Markussep Talk 07:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh my God, I didn't notice the year of that discussion. As there's no consistency right now, and Alensha's last comment is dated June 4 (I missed the "2005" part), I thought the discussion was still ongoing :-)
I agree with your interpretation of the guideline, Markussep. That's why I don't mention that guideline when dealing with point 1, about whether to add the qualifier to all 19 counties or only to those that need disambiguation. — Personally, I prefer to use it in all cases if we use "X County" or "X county", but I don't think the guideline requires us to do so.
So, in short:
  • There's a previous consensus to use "X (county)" only in those cases that need a disambiguation.
  • DeLarge encourages us to use "X (county)" to take advantage of the "pipe trick".
  • Weekshigh & I (Ev) prefer to use "X C/county" in all cases.
I would propose to follow the previous consensus, and swiftly move the articles that need disambiguation back to "X (county)". Then, if somebody wants to do so (I don't), a general move of all counties from "X (county)" to "X C/county" can always be proposed at a later time. — So, may I get those articles moved back to their "X (county)" places right now ? :-) Best regards, Ev 09:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Done. Markussep Talk 11:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. - Weekshigh 14:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, and sorry for my previous lack of attention to details. - Ev 23:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


Below the county (megye) level, there is another layer of administration known as "kistérség". Is the best english equivalent of this the "micro-region"? This is what I have been able to find most prevelent on English-translated megye websites. I wish to know because I will soon create an article about this layer, to include all of the proper maps. Thank you. Rarelibra 21:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Central Statistical Office of Hungary publishes its official yearly gazetteer in Hungarian and English. Thus English terminology of administrative division and units is well-defined.
--peyerk 06:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, CSO uses the term subregion rather than micro-region.
--peyerk 16:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
CSO seems to be the only reference that uses that terminology - even the counties say "micro-region". Rarelibra 00:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)