Jump to content

Wikipedia:Slovak Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Bratislava

Bratislava is a featured article candidate. You can vote or comment on the candidature at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bratislava/archive2. Tankred 15:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: Bratislava became the first featured article related to Slovakia. Let us hope it is just the beginning. Tankred 01:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Beneš decrees

Should we include Beneš decrees in the short overview of Slovakia's history at Slovakia? The discussion is ongoing at Talk:Slovakia#Beneš decrees. Tankred 15:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Geobox

Just a short notice about the new Geoboxes for settlements. It's preferable to call the template as {{Geobox|Settlement and set the settlement type (City, Town, Village etc.) in the category field. The first parameter, Settlement, adjusts the display or names of some fields in the output, e.g. it sets the symbol_type = Coat of arms thus you don't have to add this field manually. The support for calling the template with City, Town etc,. has been added for ease of use. It would be of course possible to make all parameters change the symbol_type (and other fields) but it would make the code unnecessary long.

I'm improving the conversion tool, it will be able to fully convert the Slovak Infobox to the Geobox 2. I just don't have much time now and I'm leaving for some Slovak mountains tomorrow so it'll be ready sometime next week. – Caroig (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

City or town?

Since the Slovak language does not distinguish cities from towns, articles on Slovak cities and towns use these words in an unsystematic, confusing way. Sometimes, a geobox says "city" while the text of the same article says "town". I think it would be useful to have some clear criteria. How about a threshold of 50,000 people? A mesto with a population of 50,000+ would be called "a city" and a mesto with a lower population would be referred to as "a town". I would welcome your comments on this idea. Tankred 23:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've thought about this one too, as the Slovak doesn't distinguish between cities and towns and as far as I know neither does law (it only specifies criteria). In a narrower sense only Bratislava and Košice are true cities, but what about regional centres? 50,000 is quite clear line (Prievidza is 51,000 and next town Zvolen about 43,000), though my opinion was/is for 30,000 or more and close calls (Piešťany). But good question raised, anyway. MarkBA t/c/@ 18:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
As there are no other editors interested in this question, can we agree on the threshold of 50,000 inhabitants and change the wording of articles accordingly? Tankred 22:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, let's do it. Looking back, I see that my line was too low, but everything has its reason, and now I see only regional centres plus three of them can be called cities. MarkBA t/c/@ 07:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I am happy we have reached consensus so easily. I have just changed the text of the problematic articles, so the threshold of 50,000 is used in a systematic way. Tankred 14:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, "village" and "town" are not clearly differentiated in English, while the Central European concept of a "village" (Dorf, dedina, wieś, falu, vesnice) doesn't fit places like a mountain resort, or a small spa, for instance. I'm not convinced of the usefulness of such categorization in (especially American) English, it seems like forcing Central European concepts onto English and representing them with words that often don't match. When I look for info about a place and find that it's labeled village, it doesn't tell me anything in English except that it's not a large metropolitan area (although it can be part of one) — population data, etc., do. It'll soon be like that in Central European metropolitan areas, too, it'll be meaningless to label Budakeszi or Pezinok a "village" (falu, dedina) as opposed to their neighbors Normafa or Rača that are within the city boundaries: they'll look exactly alike. Carca220nne 05:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Geobox maps

I've created a location map for the High Tatras and wanted to make one (larger) within the Prešov Region but it looks somehow odd as the mountains lie in its westernmost part. I've been planning to create more detailed maps for all Slovak regions but wouldn't it be better to cover Slovakia with a grid of more detailed maps of more or less the same size, in the same way touristic maps are laid out, i.e. so that the areas of interest are always on one sheet? I guess the map for the Žilina Region is just about the right size. – Caroig (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: something like this:

It is an interesting idea, but I see a couple of potential problems here. First, regional maps can be easily interpreted and offer some comparative framework across articles. Readers might feel lost if each article has a different map. Some maps may look unfamiliar (especially if they show territories far from the easily identifiable national borders, in central Slovakia for instance). It would be different with names of major towns, rivers, and mountain ranges on the map, but "blind" maps can look too strange to be helpful.
Second, the ideal number of detailed maps is much higher than the number of frames on the picture above. Clearly, Banska Bystrica can be located on a map of the Banska Bystrica Region and Ruzomberok on the map of the Zilina Region. But Nizke Tatry, located between these two towns, would look better on a map centered somewhere... well in Nizke Tatry. As we have many cases of objects located at the border or a region or the country, we would need (ideally) a high number of maps if we go the way you have proposed. The ideal size of a detailed map can be different too. For example, it would be really great to have a detailed map of Vysoke Tatry in the articles about the peaks in the Tatras. A region-sized map would not help the article about Gerlachovsky Stit as much as a more detailed map would. But a locator of towns is obviously more meaningful if it works with region-sized maps.
I do not know if I make sense. So, to sum up, I see two alternatives: 8 regional maps would serve the purpose of comparison, but also give more detail than the map of Slovakia. The second alternative would be to taylor new maps to the needs of individual articles. I would support either of these options, but the first one seems to be more feasible. What I am uneasy about, is the space between these two alternatives, with a small number of region-sized maps (say 10-12), which would decrease the comparative value, but serve only some articles.
Anyway, it is an interesting question and I am curious what other people think. I think the solution will be sooner or later adopted by other countries too (after they discover geoboxes), so we should be careful. Tankred 22:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I just asked as I hadn't known whether creating maps for all Slovak rgeions would be worthwhile. The suggested grid is not a suggestion it was just created to explain my point. It might have looked completely different in the end. Anyway I was just aking about the basic grid. It would indeed be better if it covered all the Slovak regions first, I guess settlements should always be displayed on a region map. I didn't exclude having even more detailed maps for specific area, the High and Low Tatras were exactly those I had on my mind. But all in due time, I'm so busy even without Wikipedia. Adding the regional maps, when they exist, can be always done esily and automatically using the AWB or the Geobox conversion tool (aka the Geoboxer ???) – Caroig (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I really like the Geoboxer's name:-) Tankred 02:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Hello. I propose converting towns with {{Infobox Town Slovakia}} to Infobox Settlement or Geobox. After such conversion the old Slovak template should be nominated for WP:TFD. What do you think? - Darwinek 12:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It is already possible to convert data from Infobox Town Slovakia to Geobox. As the old infobox is by those 'boxes considered obsolete, we can propose it into deletion or (maybe) leave a redirect. MarkBA t/c/@ 13:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
We are working hard on this conversion. As of today, most cities and towns with a population of over 18,000 and many towns and villages with a lower population already have a geobox instead of an old infobox. I anticipate completion of this task in two weeks. I fully support your idea to TFD the old infobox template after the conversion is completed. Tankred 13:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the special page of the template links I estimate we have around 80–90 articles with the old infobox. MarkBA t/c/@ 21:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you please look at this: Template talk:Geobox#Geobox Slovakia & Czechia? – Caroig (talk)

Geoboxer 3.0

The new Geoboxer has been launched. See at Geobox News. It can now convert or add a Geobox to any Slovak settlement, with or withour Geoboxes. Do you agree with the way it formats the fields? It can also extract the regions of tourism from the Slovak Wikipedia yet I'm not sure on some standardized names, the List of tourism regions of Slovakia is not very helpful. I've given the new Geoboxer a kick-off at Runina, I only manualy removed the map of the region and moved the image to the Geobox, everything else is the tools work. – Caroig (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Thank you for another of your great semi-automated tools. There is a couple of issues that I would like to draw attention to. First, I am not sure if it is a good idea to include informal (and sometimes confusing) "Tourism regions". Second, the established year is linked at Runina, but is not linked at Piestany. Does the new Geoboxer wikify this field automatically or you did it manually for Runina? I think it would be helpful to link it automatically. Third, the mayor's political affiliation has been added to the geobox at Piestany. Again, I am not sure if it is a good idea (it seems to be). But if we include this information, each abbreviation should link to the article about the corresponding party. Otherwise, this abbreviation would not very meaningful for readers. "NEKA" stands for an independent candidate, so it should be perhaps converted into "independent" or "ind.". What do you think about these issues? Tankred 01:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
After playing around with the new Geoboxer, I am pretty sure we should exclude the "tourism region" field. The Slovak Wikipedia is not very consistent in its use. Sometimes, the scope is as large as a region (e.g. Zemplin), sometimes as small as a valley (e.g. Staroorska dolina). It can even produce weird names (e.g. "Pozdola Bystrice" for villages around Banska Bystrica). Also, leave me a message if you need a list of Slovak political parties. Tankred 01:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I've made the tool initially understand and use each and every field of the Slovak infobox. There's nothing easier than to remove undesirable fields. The Tourism reason is out. The year of establishment is not processed by the Geobox code so if it should get wikilinked, it must be harcoded. I'm not sure why I haven't put auto wikilinking to the code, there might have been some reason but I don't remember. When I'm thinking of it now I can't find a reason why this shouldn't be there. Runina probably had the year wikilinked and the tool only copied that. So should I rather put this feature to the Geobox code by default? As of mayors personally I don't think there need to be in the English Wikipedia at all, perhaps except the largest cities but otherwise this piece of data is, in my view, of no information value, even old population data gives you some information about how large the settlement but a name, often out-of-date - who updates this piece of information regularly?, of a local citizen … . Yet some users prefer to add this field so I simply made the tool copy it. If you think the mayor's name together with the party shouldn't be copied, I can take this out. If you want to keep both and send me list of polical parties and abbreviations I can added it to Geoboxer. – Caroig (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
It would be cool if the tool wikifies the year of the first mention automatically. Btw, it does not always put there established_type = First mentioned, so this should be done manually in many cases. You are right about the mayor field. I will stop adding it for villages and small towns because it may be out of date. I can add links to parties manually (as I have already done in many cases), but if you have time to play with the code, it would be nice to do it automatically and to wikify them:
Tankred 15:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The Geoboxer hadn't had support for adding established_type = First mentioned automatically, it does now when fetching data from the Slovak wiki. Established dates are now a field which gets wikilinked by the Geobox template code if the appropriate article/year exists, similarly to most fields. So they don't need to be manually wikilinked anymore. If the field is wikilinked but with no pipe, the Geoboxer removes the square brackets as it does for other auto-wikilnked fields. I've added the party links to the update_slovak_settlement routine which is run on any Slovak settlemnt no matter where its data comes from. As most large towns have already been Geoboxed I've removed fetching the mayor and mayor party from Slovak Wikipedia. – Caroig (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
One more question. Do you want the Geoboxer to add the timezones? I don't think they're particularly important in a country (actually nearly the whole continent) that lies within a single one. – Caroig (talk)
I do not have any strong feelings about this. IT would be perhaps a good idea to have time zones in the case of Bratislava (and perhaps some other major cities), but you are right there is no need to add them to every single village. Tankred 16:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Neither do I. The tool doesn't remove any data from the article's Geobox so iif it already contains the timezone it goes unaffected. – Caroig (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Progress

Category Geobox Slovakia not found

We have now geoboxes in all the articles about Slovakia's cities and towns. Although some boroughs of Bratislava and a couple of hundreds villages are still without a geobox, the first goal (cities and towns) has already been achieved. Let us move on to the next level (villages). Tankred 19:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me be brief this time: WOW :-) – Caroig (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If we want to deleted deprecated 'box asap, I think we should convert the remaining villages and boroughs with that 'box first. Then of course slowly convert all of 'em (but some are just of type "X is a village and municipality in the Y district in the Z region of Slovakia" + maybe history). MarkBA t/c/@ 19:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: All articles should have Geobox now. Now, if there aren't more to change, I think we could nominate Infobox Town Slovakia to the TFD soon. MarkBA t/c/@ 17:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've just discovered the <categorytree> wiki tag. Comes in handy, I guess. – Caroig (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion, see the TfD page. MarkBA t/c/@ 19:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Now we don't need to bother with this matter. MarkBA t/c/@ 18:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Maps

Hi, I've finished creating the maps of regions so now there is a detailed, calibrated map for every region. The Geoboxer tool reflects this as well. Some calibrations might need slight manual adjustment. There's one issue though. If you compare the region maps at e.g. Košice, Nitra and Trnava you'll see the maps are of different size. Košice and Nitra display the region map at the default width of 256px while for Trnava I've manualy set the size to a half, i.e. 128px. The latter, in my view, looks better than the rather huge map of the Nitra region. Any ideas? The geoboxer can be set up to add the map1_size parameter for those maps whose "height" is bigger than their "width". Hope the maps serve well. – Caroig (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work! I agree it was better to resize the map of the Trnava Region. Have you tried to do something similar in the case of the Nitra Region? It is quite big too now, but I am not sure if it would look any better if made smaller. Tankred 17:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The maps can be dynamically resized using the map1_size parameter, by default it equals 256 (NB, no px). It's the Geoboxer template that handles that. You can play with the map1_size parameter (without saving the pages, just "Preview" them) and once we decide on the default size for every region I'll set up the Geoboxer do that (add the map1_size parameter) automatically. I was also thinking about dividing the Košice and Prešov maps into Eastern and Western parts, we would thus get all region maps in more or less the same scale. – Caroig (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I would propose to set the map of the Trencin Region to 200px (see Trenčianske Teplice) and the one of the Nitra Region to 180px (see Zlaté Moravce). I look forward to your comments on this proposal. Tankred 19:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
And what about setting the sizes so that the 50km line would get displayed in the same length in all these maps? The default length might be the one from the Banská Bystrica Region (e.g. Zvolen) as this is the widest one (provided the Prešov and Košice Region get divided in two). – Caroig (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Sounds interesting. It is just hard to imagine for me. Do you have an idea what the approximate sizes would be of other regions would be? Tankred 19:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
That's pretty easy. It's now all set up in Geoboxer. All region maps should now be in more or less the same scale after they've been run thru Geoboxer (it adds the map autamatically if it's missing). The Prešov Region divides in two parts, which part is to be used is evaluated automatically based on the district. I've tried at least one settlement per region and seems there's no problem. – Caroig (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Tankred 01:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC at Category talk:Esterházy

We discuss if the Hungarian noble family Esterházy needs the category 'Slovak noble house'. All credible sources state this is a Hungarian noble family (see lead of House of Esterházy). Including the category Slovak noble house seems to be misleading. Perhaps a new category called something like "Noblemen who lived in the territory of Slovakia" would be acceptable at the individuals' articles, not for the whole family. English speakers don't even know that Eszterházy is a Hungarian name so it's clearly confusing. Squash Racket 17:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Geobox categories

I've reenabled the auto categorization taking into account some of the objections raised against it. There's a more detailed description how it behaves at Template talk:Geobox#News as of 2007-11-11. As of Slovakia and settlements it puts them all into categories based on the category field. See Category:Settlements in Slovakia with geodata. It can be set up to create just one category, as you deem more useful. After all Slovakia settlements have been geoboxed, these categories might be changed into just Category:Villages in Slovakia or anything like that. There's probably no need to add similar categories manually (such as Category:Villages in Slovakia). If you wish to change anything, just update Template:Geobox category/settlement/Slovakia. Given most (all?) cities and towns have been geoboxed, this subtemplate might be set up to put the articles to Category:Cities and towns in Slovakia, not all articles have been correctly categorized with this line. The existing articles will be put into those categories after the Wiki software purges their cache, this can be speed up by saving those pages manually. – Caroig (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the geodata categories as a recreation of deleted content. If editors feel that the CfD which led to their deletion was improperly closed. WP:DRV is available. --14:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Slovak-labeled vandalism

User Hiderek has now inserted *[ [ A r v i n B r d á r e v i c ] ] (my spacing out) in Cinema of Slovakia twice. Spurious insertions in various Wiki entries of the same name and a claim that the name belonged to a "Slovak director" were reported for another user, Ohsunnysgod, in August 2007, who was subsequently blocked. User Hiderek appears to have made only 8 micro-contributions − "cleaned up" some (e.g., removed a weird insertion by an unregistered user made only 12 hours earlier − that would be a good way to make one's vandalism disappear among one's apparent "good deeds" that fix previous anonymous vandalism, perhaps by the same person); inserted spurious names 4 times, and subsequently mis-cross-referenced one. Googling the name of the presumed Slovak director AB (I'm not retyping the name not to increase and confuse possible future search results, which is may be a goal of these insertions) comes up with merely 9 hits, all of which seem to have originated in Wiki. Carca220nne (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for posting it. I will add Cinema of Slovakia to my watchlist and revert the spammer. If you suspect that user is a sockpuppet, you can file a request at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets or at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser (depending on how much evidence you have). Tankred (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. The nature of his mischievous edits and sequencing of unexpected anonymous vandalism followed by his equally unexpected benign corrections show that he is, but he's so careful now (must have scores of accounts) that it doesn't begin to approach what's needed to report it. I'll keep my eyes peeled, too. Carca220nne (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Good day gentlemen. I am he. To answer some of your questions:
  • Yes Hiderek and Ohsunnysgod are one.
  • The only genuine edit made in Hiderek, something about White People in Africa, was not some large strategic game plan as you all are looking into. I was reading that article and saw the vandalism (which by the way, is rubbish compared to the shit I pull off) so I simply removed it. Especially since now that I look back on the history, no admins acted on it for half a day...
  • You should check out [1].
  • I can't believe none of you have heard of the great Arvin Brdárevic, his works are legendary.
Oh and by the way, I'm a girl, stop calling me HE.
- Sonnenbuhlians Unite (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonnenbuhlians Unite (talk • contribs) 10:56, June 7, 2008

Maps in Geoboxes

There have been some questions raised at my talk page concerning the maps in Geoboxes. There was some confusion as to the two maps, esp. the detailed one. There are two ideas:

You could also combine the two options Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought it that way, these are two good ideas which can both be used :-) There's just logical AND missing between the two bullets. – Caroig (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

New "good article" nominee

Gerlachovský štít is a new good article nominee. If you have not contributed to this article, you can decide whether it should pass or fail based on the good article criteria as outlined on the nominations page. Tankred (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Franz

If this policy on names — "We generally follow English sources if any exist and if they consistently use one of the variants." (Tankred, Nov. 22) — still applies, I'll move A.F. Kollár to A. Franz Kollár and set up redirects for his other names. There is no English source that uses any other name but Franz for him; additionally, the Slovak František didn't begin to appear in Slovak papers on him until the mid-20th century. He himself always used either Franciscus or Franz in his publications. I'll keep the -á- in Kollár, because some English (and German) sources do while using Franz at the same time. Comments? Carca220nne 05:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you wait with such a controversial move for a couple of days, until it is properly discussed. Names are a hot issue in Wikipedia, so it is always a good idea to propose a move at the article's talk page. If no one objects to your arguments, you can safely move the article to the proposed name. But in many similar cases, there have been disputes followed by voting. Tankred 08:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the title should be left at the current name, primarily because of nationality but mention that Franz is used in English and German sources and he himself signed as such. MarkBA t/c/@ 12:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
?? "with such a controversial move" ??
It's merely an application of what you said wk policy was. It wouldn't occur to me without your statement. I don't understand then − is "We generally follow English sources if any exist and if they consistently use one of the variants." an agreed-on policy, or is it not − is it a matter of vote? What's the relevance of what you said on 11/22? Carca220nne 15:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
My words are still relevant, but Wikipedia is a collective endeavor and rules are flexible. Let me quote the beginning of Wikipedia's naming convention: "[This rule] is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this page's talk page." I would love to edit a Wikipedia with strict and clear rules, but there is no such thing. Wikipedia's "law" is customary and still developing. Believe me, I have seen many fights here over seemingly innocent issues, such as a title of an article. That is why I recommend a discussion before we move the article. Without a consensus among several editors, there is always a risk someone else will move the article back to its old name. As for my own opinion on this issue, I will need a couple of days to check English sources because I am swamped right now. Until I have enough evidence, I cannot offer any informed opinion. Tankred 16:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Wasted time, then. I don't see anyone asking for its move to Franz, including myself, if the move is required by a rule that isn't a rule. I'll vote for staying with František should Tankred insist on and call a vote, MarkBA has already voted the same way. No one else is showing any concern, so the straw vote in favor of František stands at 2:0 at the moment. That'll be all from me on the posted "rule". Carca220nne 18:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

Žiadosti

Wk seems to have no entries on the various Slovak žiadosti from the 19th cent., but there are a few references to them in other entries. Is there any interest in agreeing on a standard English rendition? I mean these, perhaps more:

  • 1848—March—Liptovský Mikuláš
  • 1848—April—Brezová pod Bradlom
  • 1848—May—Liptovský Mikuláš
  • 1861—June—Martin − I'd stick to the usual Memorandum here.

One possibility is appeal(s), another option might be petition(s), or demand(s) (although those tend to be verbal or conceptual rather than actual documents, and often informal). I've come across requests in wk, but that strikes me as little desirable; the entry on Štúr calls them the petition Žiadosti. English histories of the Slovaks use demands (Kirschbaum, 1995; Toma-Kováč, 2001; Spiesz, 2006), but the texts of the latter two don't sound particularly convincing about some issues. Comments? Carca220nne 02:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


Evanjelický

Although Evangelical occurs fairly often as its equivalent in English papers on Slovak topics and the very literal rendition of the formal name of the Lutheran Church in Slovakia indeed is the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession, the word Evangelical is highly confusing in English because of the American Evangelicals who bear little resemblance to the Slovak Lutherans now or in the past. I'd strongly propose that any occurrence of evanjelický/evanjelik be always rendered only as Lutheran, or, acceptably, Protestant (but never as that similar-sounding English word). Comments? Carca220nne 02:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this issue here, so more people can be aware of it. I have found this problem a long time ago and fixed it in a number of articles (especially the ones on cities and towns of Slovakia). But I am sure there must be a large number of articles still plagued by this error. Whenever you find the word "Evangelical" in a wrong context, please replace it with the correct term "Lutheran". Protestants in Slovakia also include Calvinists, so the words "Protestant" and "Lutheran" are not interchangeable. Tankred 05:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out that Protestants would actually cover more than the Lutherans. I'll avoid it. Carca220nne 07:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Project Slovakia

There is missing WikiProject Slovakia, would anyone be interested in that ? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 17:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not, but personally I see two possible problems: whether we can assemble enough interested editors and to do maintenance afterwards... MarkBA t/c/@ 17:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Quality not Quantity :) ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 17:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like a good idea. But I am afraid there are not enough Slovak editors around here to maintain a WikiProject. Even Portal:Slovakia has not been updated for ages, although it serves a similar purpose. I am really happy about the rising number and quality of articles related to Slovakia. I am also glad this notice board has put several editors interested in Slovakia-related topics together. But there are so few of us that we probably should not overstretch ourselves. On the other hand, I will be happy to participate in Wikipedia:WikiProject Slovakia if there are at least 3-4 other editors interested in it. Tankred (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Ditto to ≈Tulkolahten≈, MarkBA, and Tankred. People's interests don't seem to intersect much except in geographic entries. Carca220nne (talk) 07:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's give it try Wikipedia:WikiProject_Slovakia. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 07:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Geoboxes

I have added geoboxes to all the villages that have a picture uploaded in commons and known geographic coordinates. Most articles about settlements in Slovakia (and all articles about notable settlements in Slovakia) now have at least some basic information, a map, and a picture (if available). Tankred (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Banská Bystrica

Hello everyone. I have been working on Banská Bystrica for a while and I hope to nominate this article for a good article status soon. But there are two major obstacles: the missing economy section and a mediocre prose. If you come across any economic data or any sources about Banská Bystrica's economy, please feel free to expand the article. If you do not feel like doing it, you can also point me to the source you have found. Also, if your English is better than mine, I would appreciate if you could look at the article and do some copyediting. Thanks. Tankred (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

After Carca220nne's excellent copyediting, I have nominated Banská Bystrica for consideration for good article status. If you think the article should be promoted and you have not significantly contributed to it, you can pass the article at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. Tankred (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Attention needed

Some of our Hungarian friends are trying to rename List of Slovaks to "List of people born in present-day Slovakia". Your input will be appreciated at Talk:List_of_Slovaks#page_name. Tankred (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

IPA

I doubt the usefulness of the IPA in Wikipedia (probably fewer than 0.0001% users can read it). Košice transcribed as [kosheetseh] would make more sense to most people. Although the IPA can't hurt when done right, there are errors in the transcriptions of the Slovak place names and some feature IPA symbols for sounds that do not exist in Slovak, e.g.: [ˈkɒʃɪtsə] (as of 1/29/08) - neither [ɒ] nor [ə] are legitimate Slovak sounds.

The IPA symbols for the Slovak [a] and for the sounds that differ from the Slovak letters used for them are below. The sounds represented by the letters e, o and i/y can be transcribed with the symbols in the third row below, too, because their Slovak pronunciation varies somewhat.

a á c č ď dz dž e/ä é h ch i/y í/ý ľ ĺ ň o ó ŕ š ť ú ž
a aː ʦ ʧ ɟ ʣ ʤ ɛ ɛː ɦ x ɪ iː ʎ lː ɲ ɔ ɔː rː ʃ c uː ʒ
e eː i o oː

The above is based on The Lexical Phonology of Slovak and sources concerning the IPA, Slavic and Central European languages. More IPA symbols would be needed to make the transcriptions of the Slovak place names truly correct - r̩ for the r in Trnovec, ŋ for the n in Banka, various markers for the diphthongs, etc.

ilmari (talk) 06:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not familiar with IPA, so I never touch it in articles. Thank you for this useful table. Whenever you find an error, please feel free to correct it. You seem to have all the needed expertise . Although I agree that most editors (including myself) have no idea what the IPA characters mean, they are usually used in the articles about places in Central Europe. I think we should respect this convention. Tankred (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Will do, didn't want to step on anyone's toes. ilmari (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

User:Richc80 has proposed a merger of List of Slovak companies and Economy of Slovakia. You are welcome to discuss the proposal here. Tankred (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Tokaj

Another merge proposal is being discussed at Talk:Tokaj (Slovakia). Your input will be appreciated. Tankred (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Missing women

What is striking, the famous Slovaks on the infobox pictures at Slovaks are all dead old men. I wanted to add some pictures of famous Slovak women (e.g. Sklenarikova and Zuzulova), but I could not find their portraits in Commons. In general, there are not many good pictures of people from Slovakia there. It is pretty sad and I hope someone will be able to upload more quality pictures of famous Slovaks (especially those that are still alive) soon. Tankred (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Recording voice - breath noise

When we have to be close to the mike, it picks up the air that comes out with each word as noise that obscures the voice. A stretched piece of cloth, the thinner the better, between the speaker's mouth and the mike (not directly on the mike) should take care of much of that noise. There are wind screens for mikes, but those might be rather costly. ilmari (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I admit that my recordings aren't of best quality, but I'm limited with what I have. But I still hope that these so far are acceptable, especially when there had been no recordings for Slovakia-related topics. I'll see if I can do anything better. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 19:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I applaud your effort and dedication. I only listened to "Prešov," and then to one or two afterwards to see whether it happened with any regularity. The sound files are for non-native speakers, who can't listen "through" the noise. The noise is part and parcel of what a non-native speaker hears. In "Prešov," e.g., it's not clear what the final sound is supposed to be. Consider listening to this, this, or this, imagine them overlaid with breath noise like the Slovak ones, and someone trying to imitate them then. If you keep a stretched piece of thin cloth between you and the mike, the sound files may end up closer to the clarity of the Norwegian ones (the Finnish one is too faint). ilmari (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your tip. I've tried that out and it obviously improved the quality in my opinion. Try listening to the example of Prešov now and tell me whether the result was something you meant. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 22:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sweet, perfetto... And it's great that you're adding the pronunciation to the articles. ilmari (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. Good that your suggestion has worked. Now I think I'm going to replace the already loaded ones for new ones, if I'll get an improvement in quality. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 14:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK traffic stats

For interest's sake, this is the increase in traffic the listing of a relatively obscure topic (Krivan) on DYK can generate to the main article and to the links in it. The number of hits on 3/15 (the day before DYK) → 3/16 (DYK). The main article: Kriváň (peak) 28 → 1,300. Links in the article: Frederick Augustus II of Saxony 30 → 532; Skaldowie 8 → 455. Those two links were to topics that were part of the DYK hook. The next group of links in Krivan didn't register the same highs, but the hits went up significantly above their previous averages: the High Tatras 63 → 146; Liptovský Mikuláš 18 → 38; Spišská Nová Ves 20 → 31; Lomnický štít 10 → 27; Kazimierz Przerwa-Tetmajer 5 → 23; Tokaj (Slovakia) 6 → 21; Matica slovenská 8 → 18; Zeman (nobleman) 8 → 18; Važec 5 → 14; Samo Chalupka 3 → 14; Janko Kráľ 4 → 14. People found little more than stubs or bare-bones starts with most of the topics they got interested in. The traffic to the other links in Kriváň matched their previous averages. ilmari (talk) 04:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I just wonder, from where you get this information? MarkBA what's up?/my mess 14:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The counter is here. ilmari (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Jan Slota

I know nothing about Slovak politics, but I've had this article on my watchlist for a while because it appears to be a target for vandalism and political bomb-throwing. Anon editors have recently added a bunch of contentious, but sourced, items; I'd appreciate it if someone who knows more about this, or at least speaks the language, can look it over for neutrality and BLP issues. Chubbles (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Although strong material, I think this is quite good summary of what was in recent days presented in media here in Slovakia. --Ruziklan (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian disputes

To address the issue of widespread edit-warring and incivility, I have created a page at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. If there are any issues about article disruption or editor behavior in this topic area, please bring it up there. Thanks, Elonka 12:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing poll and discussion about a new naming convention at User_talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian_experiment#Proposed_naming_convention. Please take a look. Squash Racket (talk) 06:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

An Invitation from the Philippine Wikipedia Community

Hello folks,

The Philippine Wikipedia Community will be holding its 1st Meet-up in Cebu City (the fourth one in the Philippines) on June 23-24, 2008. This coincides with the first Philippine Open Source Summit, also to be held in Cebu. The Philippine Wikipedia Community is an Implementing Partner of the Open Source Summit. We invite you to join us in this event. If you are in the IT or IT-enabled services industry, this would be a great opportunity to meet people from the 4th best outsourcing city in the world. This is also a good excuse to visit our beautiful beaches :)

If you're interested in joining the Wikipedia meet-up, please join our discussion. You can register for the Open Source Summit here. If you would like some assistance with local accomodations, you may email User:Bentong Isles.

The Philippine Wikipedia Community
WP:PINOY

RfC notification

A new discussion on wording changes to the current guideline to clarify the use of diacritics for subjects whose native names contain them has been initiated. It can be found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

page of Zeman (nobleman)

I would like to ask your opinions in connection with this topic. There is a dispute about merging. See: Talk:Zeman_(nobleman)#Merge
Thank you in advance! Fakirbakir (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Debate on inclusion of Esterhazy in article on Gasparovic

Hello, I am trying to establish consensus on whether or not to include of a section describing a controversy on Gasparovic's comments on Esterhazy. A fellow editor believes that the controversy is noted and such, and properly sourced, I believe that it gives undue weight to a marginal issue. For the full discussion, please see the article's Talk page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ivan_Ga%C5%A1parovi%C4%8D#Re:_Gasparovic_revision 89.173.110.130 (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Košice2013

Hallo everybody - I am a part time resident in Slovakia and run a music festival at Levoča - I am working with the organising committee of Košice2013, who are creating the programme for next year when Kosice will become a European Capital of Culture. (See here). It has struck me that it would be good to incorporate (if possible) some Wikipedia event/events as part of K2013, which could lead to more and better articles on the Košice and Prešov regions in Slovak and English Wikipedias (and others as well maybe). If people think this is a good idea I will put it up to the K2013 committee. Can anyone tell me, is there an active community of Slovak Wikipedists on Slovak Wikipedia? - and if so, how to contact them? All opinions welcome, either here and/or on my home page. With thanks,--Smerus (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Of course, there is an active comunity on skwiki (though relatively small). You can try to put a notice at skwiki "village pump" (Proposals or Misc subpage). There is also a (forming) Slovak WMF chapter, you can try to contact them too on wikiproject talk page or directly ([2]). Regards, --Teslaton (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for this , I have put it up on both of these pages, also on the Embassy page.--Smerus (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Assessment Process

Hello. I'm an American who has never been to Slovakia in her life but has heard some things about the country and knows that the capital is Bratislava. My main interest is trying to fix up 2 articles about the country during World War II (Slovakia during World War II and Slovak Republic (1939–1945)), and I was hoping for a clearer process on how to submit articles for assessment, because even though there's an Assessment department for the wikiproject, it doesn't outline a submission process but rather talks about the legend key for Quality and Importance of articles. Buspirtraz (talk) 10:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit: I'm curious about the process because the WikiProject Slovakia may have different thoughts on the process of assessment requests than what other WikiProjects have set up.Buspirtraz (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Slovak_Wikipedians%27_notice_board/Archive_1&oldid=1180727425"