Talk:Slovakia Voyage Tips and guide

I removed the following sentence from talk:

"If you speak the international language Esperanto, you can take advantage of the network of Esperanto delegates scattered across Slovakia."

I don't really want to be mean to the Esperanto language, but with apparently 10,000 fluent speakers globally I find it hard to believe that this is going to be much use to use when you travel to Slovakia and ask for a hotel room.

Googling 'Esperanto' and 'slovakia' together also did not yield any particular affinity this country has with the language. Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Esperanto is more like a "hobby" for the speakers, a language that you probably can use at a few establishments but by no means need to study before traveling anywhere (unless you're going to some Esperanto event, but then you will likely already speak it). Members of the Esperanto speaking community probably know best where they can make use of it.

It might be that there are more Esperantists than the average in Slovakia, but I wouldn't say you would run into Esperanto language signs at least in northern or western Slovakia that I've visited. For being a former Eastern Bloc country they speak excellent English in Slovakia, by the way. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am living in Slovakia and you will need a lot of luck to meet a person, who at least know about Esperanto. As for English, it is much better, but I think using "excellent" in this context is somewhat inaccurate (but obviously as a Slovak, I don’t have direct travel experience ;) )Lubosb (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

English skills compared to e.g. Hungary, Poland to some extent, Lithuania and Russia. --ϒpsilon (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

So with this - let's just say "unorthodox" - edit, it may be worthwhile to ask ourselves whether the region division makes sense or not. I have been to Slovakia once quite some time ago and am thus no expert, but the way all our other articles handle region division would indicate to simply revert this "traditional region" addition. However, maybe it is worthwhile to assess whether tourist regions could or should be (partially) based on that. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Maybe, but for the time being, I reverted the edit, with the following edit summary: "Please discuss on the Talk page. I think this will confuse readers." I don't have an opinion about the optimal division, but that chart was way too complicated, I think. I believe User:Andree.sk is Slovak, and I would invite her (him?) to offer a suggestion of the most user-friendly way to handle the regional division of Slovakia. It's best to discuss things like revised regional divisions and come to a consensus. I would support anything that is decided based on a consensus that it's the most user-friendly and logical way to go, keeping in mind that we don't want to have articles about regions too small to contain at least 7 or so city and/or "other destinations" articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

The thing is, there are far too many cities/villages/places in Slovakia that don't really deserve a separate travel page (IMO). Thus my plan was to describe each region in a section of the respective country part page (like "Central Slovakia" -> "Liptov", "Horehronie"), until there's a enough content for it to have separate page. Sure, you can describe attractions in Liptov in each city's page, but often that doesn't even respect the geography. "Liptov" for example is basically a valley in Slovakia, where there are multiple things to do. Would you describe each "feature" in the page of the nearest city? "Central Slovakia" is too big to just put stuff there without any structure. The distances aren't prohibitively long to visit any of the parts within the sub-region from any of the cities inside (plus sometimes there are relations such that there would be tons of cross-linking). How will the traveller find the relations? I know that when I travel, the most irritating thing is that I cannot find any information "summarizing" the region and what to do there. Even quickly figuring out which region "Munich" in Germany belongs to is sometimes stupidly hard, and finding what to do outside the city even more so. I likely can't/won't describe whole Slovakia. But I think this was actually a good thing, because right now the Slovakia coverage is nearely 0 (apart from few touristy regions)... Someone can always rewrite/split it later - but more info is better than less IMO, esp. if it is structured logically. Andree.sk (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

As for the "too complicated" issue, I don't see that problem, but you may be right. Perhaps the region map from wikipedia could be "tagged", or recreated to a "click map". But I don't have time for that currently... So either the info will be just missing (good luck finding "Liptov" then, travellers), or... you can suggest a better way to summarize this info. Andree.sk (talk) 06:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

For the places that don't deserve a separate travel page but collectively merit one, I would offer the possible analogy of Rural Montgomery County, which is a Guide-level article on an area of countryside that includes a few towns without sufficient points of interest to have their own separate articles. Organizationally, it's treated as a city, not a region (as region articles are expected to point to city articles within the region), and given the Wikivoyage:Small city article template and its own map.

In terms of finding out which region Munich is in, the breadcrumb trail at the top of its page shows that it's in Upper Bavaria, and the first sentence of its article states that "Munich is the capital city of the German federal state of Bavaria." And the "Go next" section at the end of the article gives information about a bunch of places within a 2-hour drive or train ride. The Munich article and its district articles actually got worked on quite a bit, and Munich was featured on the front page not too long ago. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Okay. I didn't mean "Munich" as literary example regarding wikivoyage, but anyhow - I will have a look on the county guide above, and maybe I can figure out some similar solution for this (I still think that mentioning the regional names is a good thing, you really still see it used in many places in Slovakia). Andree.sk (talk) 08:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think you're right that mentioning the regional names is useful, but I think where it will probably be most useful is in region articles, where the traditional regions within whichever larger regions we choose to use as traveller-friendly divisions of Slovakia can be laid out in a fashion that might be less likely to overwhelm a reader. That's my thought, anyway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Regional names can be mentioned in the "regionnitems" parameters in the Regionlist template. See an example at United States of America#Regions. Powers ^(talk) 15:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

So I was thinking... and "found out" that West/Central/East Slovakia is no more official than the "Traditional" regions division (compare with Czech republic, which is also in fact "culturally" divided only to 2 or 3 parts). Thus I am thinking that, once I gain some more permissions, I would do some reorganizing to match the official Slovakia regions - w:Regions_of_Slovakia , and perhaps mention the traditional region names only there... What do you guys think? Of course I don't want to start this and find in the middle of the process some stuff was reverted, figuring out which. And I'd like to do it in few hours time top, as to not have it inconsistent... Andree.sk (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your work is not going to be reverted if it's talked out and people are fine with it. I would say, make a proposal for how you'd like to divide the country for the purposes of Wikivoyage. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I think this will be optimal solution:

The regions will be changed from West/Central/East Slovakia to w:Regions_of_Slovakia . This should cover most of the needs.

The special/interesting tourism regions:

can then be mentioned like it's done in South_Moravia, after the cities, in the respective political regions... Some (well, most) areas like Spiš do reside in multiple regions, but probably it won't hurt to have such areas mentioned in both political regions (or just in the one that mostly contains it).

We could go deeper, similarly as shown above in United States of America#Regions. But while politically Slovakia is subdivided into districts like that, I'd say we won't find enough content for each district - most of the time, the main city articles should be IMO enough to cover them...

Andree.sk (talk) 06:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for making a proposal. My question would be: How many city articles (including articles about several villages put together, given a WV:Small city article template) and/or "other destinations" articles do you think each of these regions could contain? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'd say approx. <10-15 references could be in each (except of course Bratislava), but it's hard to predict... In any case, it would be more useful than current division - "Central Slovakia" is a very incoherrent pack of areas (polically, culturally and naturally). Perhaps we could create the regions pages first, then fix west/central/east pages, and fix this main page as the last step. I'm esp. not sure if I'll have the patience to create the map :)) Andree.sk (talk) 10:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

There are some great mapmakers on this site. Anyway, with 10-15 links, that's quite a handful, so I would give you my blessings. If there is no objection within a day or two, I'd suggest you go ahead with creating the new region articles and putting the appropriate links in the "Cities" and "Other destinations" sections. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have created a sample region page, please check it out - Žilina Region - and we can discuss there... I think it kind of makes sense and isn't too overwhelming. The tourist regions can nicely cover a few attractions found around the cities - or can be at least used for orientation for the travellers. After we agree it's good, I will add the rest of the regions and replace the division on this page. I think we can use the existing wikipedia maps (with small modifications, light "graying-out" the non-relevant parts) until someone reworks them to wikivoyage style, they are quite nice (except for printing)... Andree.sk (talk) 07:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for creating that article! I see you created a "Regions" section. Do you intend to subdivide every region into smaller regions that get their own articles? If not, I would suggest not using the Regions Template, but instead, simply giving the names of cities. However, you can use subregions as subtitles if that makes for ease in organizing the "Cities" list. "Notable villages" should be a subset of "Cities"; "Other destinations" are not primarily defined as settlements (cities, towns, villages) but as parks, wildlife preserves, islands, etc.

In terms of the maps, I need to go to bed now but would suggest asking in the Travellers' pub whether anyone would like to make them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

OK, if you are going to subdivide each region into other regions, don't list all the cities. Instead, have a "Regions" section and then a "Cities" section that lists no more than 9 cities (including villages), just as in country-level articles. It's only in the articles for bottom-level regions that are not subdivided into smaller regions that all cities, no matter how many there are articles for, are listed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have added an alternative version of the article to Talk:Žilina Region. I think the current one looks better though, so I'll probably stick with it for now. I'll try to adjust the template. But I kind of like the Regionlist template, so I'd keep it there - plus add the few notable entries into the "Cities" section. It can be all reorganized later, if needed (or if there's not enough content or whatever). But I'd say putting it on a single page won't be good - it could look like Northern Hungary, which is IMO quite overwhelming. Andree.sk (talk) 12:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just to clarify: If there will be articles about the subregions you are listing in the Žilina article, you should use "Regions", "Cities" and "Other destinations" sections, just as in a country-level article. However, you should not list and link every city. The basic organizational concept of WV:Breadcrumb navigation is that it is only in bottom-level region articles (that is, for regions that we don't further subdivide into smaller regions) that every city (and village) for which there's an article should be and must be listed. For everything above a bottom-level region in the hierarchy, the 7+2 rule applies. If you have any questions about any of this, please post them below. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I discovered https://fr.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Slovaquie_orientale ... so it seems that the split into smaller regions is justified, there is plenty of possible content (if someone finds time translating it also to english). The only decision to be made is whether to keep eastern/central/western slovakia, or split it at main page into political regions (and then further to tourist regions), or split it directly into the tourist regions... I'd say the last would be probably the best, I reckon no tourist really needs the policital region map. Andree.sk (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Have you looked at our guidance for dividing geographical units? We try not to exceed nine subregions to a region. There are a few exceptions, but I really think the 20+ tourist regions are way too many to list at once. It's going to overwhelm most people who know nothing about Slovakia.

If you think that long-term there can be enough content to support most of those tourist regions, I'd suggest leaving the Western/Central/Eastern split in place and start adding the missing destinations to those regions. Maybe pick one and focus on it. Once there are more cities and other destinations, I think we'll have a better idea of whether each tourist region can support its own guide or if some of them should be combined.

I'm happy to help out with revising the map if needed. -Shaundd (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

After a bit of tinkering (see User:Andree.sk, I came to the same conclusion... Let's leave the current split, and just add another level (with contents like fr:Abov)... I'd like to do it in one run, because the current regions are a mess anyhow - and want I to leave behind a smaller mess (esp. if I get bored/interrupted/...). I think the region list should be semifinal, so if someone wants to take and from that create siblings to for west/central Slovakia , I'll only be thankful :-) PS: I got SVG from the author of the east, if needed. Andree.sk (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Even after looking at the work done on French Wikivoyage, I'm not convinced we need to create 20+ sub-regions. The current regions strike me as being fairly clean but not very useful because they don't do anything other than list cities. Creating 20 useful region guides is *a lot* of work and there isn't a whole lot of content to start with. Rather than creating a region list template with red links (or nearly empty region articles), have you considered breaking the list of destinations down by tourist region and adding a good description of the place, kind of like the Okanagan? If things go well, pages for the tourist regions can be created later. -Shaundd (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Update: here's a rough example of what I meant [1]. The brief region descriptions would need to be improved, but this is the general idea of what I was suggesting. -Shaundd (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I mean - sure, I'm not going to describe whole Slovakia (most likely I'll only translate east + add some central slovakia stuff). As you said - it's a ton of work. But if there is no base "infrastructure", adding content is hard for new-comers. It's the reason why I'm doing this, and why I first made so many mistakes - a new guy just wants to add some information, not discover for 5 days, what the organization should be... So yes - initially, the contents will be empty for some places, some (~half) regions will be red links. But I don't see your example being too much clearer than just doing the "right thing" from the start. We can still make the current east/central/west regions more verbese, at least until reasonable content is added/moved into the 20 regions... 20 regions is IMO ok, because it's [+- http://slovakia.travel/en/places-to-go/tourist-regions official tourist regions split] (also for me as a local it +- makes sense). Bottom line is - it seems we can agree on the split, so I'll just do it this weekend. Adjustments can be done later, ok? Andree.sk (talk) 07:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Individual attractions, restaurants and the likes should go into city articles. You also have to remember that the vast majority of the readers here is not Slovak and does not speak Slovak. I would prefer a number of subregions smaller than 20, to be quite honest. If the current three are unworkable, maybe something like five to nine subregions might work? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi all. The damage is done for now... Since I don't feel like spending another day making maps, I suggest we leave the merging of some of the regions for the guy who does it. But I'd say we should stick to the official tourist regions, I'm sure someone more knowledgable than us decided it's a good idea... Also I suggest the discussion is moved under the respective regions. But since there's hardly any real activity there, I think I'll be the only one adding content there in the near future :) In any case, I'll try to keep the wikivoyage rules as much as possible - feel free to fix what's needed. Andree.sk (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

"Learn" is not envisioned on Wikivoyage as a section with a list of universities and such. Even at the local (city or district) level, where listings are appropriate, they should be only for schools where a non-matriculated student can take or audit classes during a ~2-week visit. Instead of all these links, there should be an overview in prose in the "Learn" section for the country that can mention the highest highlights of universities that admit foreign students. Schools in Bratislava should be listed in the Bratislava article if they give ~2-week courses for non-matriculated students, not here, and listings shouldn't be just a name, description and link. These were the contents of the "Learn" section:

The most important universities in Slovakia include:

• Comenius Univerzity - the oldest existing Slovak university, in Bratislava
• Slovak University of Technology - located in Bratislava, technical subjects such as IT, engineering, physics etc.
• [2] - the university of Trnava
• [3] - a university in Banská Bystrica
• University of Economics - located in Bratislava, focus on business and economics
• Selye János University - in Komarno, the only university in Slovakia offering tuition in Hungarian
• University of St Ciril and Methodeus - a university in Trnava
• Technical University in Kosice - a technical university in Kosice
• [4] Pavol Jozef Šafárik University in Košice, it was established in 1959 as the second classical University in Slovakia
• Catholic university in Ružomberok

At the secondary schooling level, there are several bilingual schools in Slovakia. The International Baccalaureate program with international recognition and transferability that is taught entirely in English can be studied at Gymnazium Jura Hronca in Bratislava.

• [5] - The first state language school in Bratislava
• [6] - The oldest private language school in Bratislava and the fourth oldest school in the country.

Video to help you learn about Slovakia can be found at High Tatras TV [7].

Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

Hi guys. For whatever reason, Slovakia was mapped using the obsolete political (and too generic) division. I am on the crusade of redoing this in the following days, and I could use someone experienced to create wikivoyage-style maps. For now, I'll just adjust wikipedia svg's (political region and tourist region maps of Slovakia) - maybe that will be best start. Volunteers please head to talk:Slovakia, thanks! :-) Andree.sk (talk) 08:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Andree.sk: It looks like you've been here a couple of weeks--we're happy to have you. Have you looked at Wikivoyage:Mapmaking Expedition? You may have some luck posting there. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why is there a section called 'Relax' in this article? Does its inclusion have any foundation in policy in certain cases? There's certainly no such section in the Wikivoyage:Country article template.

Assuming the section is not allowed, information (about spas and water parks) must be moved, what do people think is the best course of action? The obvious choice to me would be to put it in 'Do', but perhaps others will have a better idea. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

24 hours later, no reply, so I have plunged forward and moved the info to 'Do'. If anyone has anything to say, your thoughts are still welcome. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Below is the map with all Wikidata items for the districts of Slovakia. 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) 16:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

48°42′25″N 19°38′38″E

Map of Slovakia

https://dennikn.sk/minuta/1796420/?ref=mpm

Seems Slovakia may have temporarily closed it's border? 14:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)