Talk:Central Europe

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Content moved from main article[edit]

selected trains[edit]

The following content was moved from the main article. A schedule should not be posted as it may change and as such be very labor intensive. However, a generalized paragraph or two explaining some of the more popular or useful routes is suggested. -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 12:12, 4 Nov 2005 (EST)

  • EC 24 Budapest-Keleti pu (9:30) - Budapest-Kelenföld - Györ - Hegyeshalom - Bruck a. d. Leitha - Wien Westbahnhof - St.Pölten Hbf - Linz Hbf - Wels Hbf - Neumarkt-Kallham - Schärding - Passau Hbf - Plattling - Regensburg Hbf - Nürnberg Hbf - Würzburg Hbf - Aschaffenburg Hbf - Frankfurt(Main)Hbf - Frankfurt(M) Flughafen Fernbf - Mainz Hbf - Koblenz Hbf - Bonn Hbf - Köln Hbf - Solingen-Ohligs - Wuppertal Hbf - Hagen Hbf - Dortmund Hbf (23:20)
  • EC 25 Dortmund Hbf (4:33) - Bochum Hbf - Essen Hbf - Duisburg Hbf - Düsseldorf Hbf - Köln Hbf - Bonn Hbf - Remagen - Andernach - Koblenz Hbf - Mainz Hbf - Frankfurt(M) Flughafen Fernbf - Frankfurt(Main)Hbf - Aschaffenburg Hbf - Würzburg Hbf - Nürnberg Hbf - Regensburg Hbf - Plattling - Passau Hbf - Schärding - Neumarkt-Kallham - Wels Hbf - Linz Hbf - St.Pölten Hbf - Wien Hütteldorf - Wien Westbahnhof - Bruck a. d. Leitha - Hegyeshalom - Györ - Budapest-Kelenföld - Budapest-Keleti pu (18:33)
  • EC 62 Budapest-Keleti pu (13:00) - Budapest-Kelenföld - Györ - Hegyeshalom - Bruck a. d. Leitha - Wien Westbahnhof - St.Pölten Hbf - Linz Hbf - Attnang-Puchheim - Salzburg Hbf - München Hbf (20:34)
  • EC 63 München Hbf (9:27) - Salzburg Hbf - Attnang-Puchheim - Linz Hbf - St.Pölten Hbf - Wien Hütteldorf - Wien Westbahnhof - Bruck a. d. Leitha - Hegyeshalom - Györ - Budapest-Kelenföld - Budapest-Keleti pu (17:03)
  • D 200/R 200 Krakow Glowny (22:50) - Trzebinia - Oswiecim - Czechowice Dziedzice - Zebrzydowice - Petrovice u Karvine - Bohumin - Ostrava hl.n. - Ostrava-Svinov - Hranice na Morave - Olomouc hl.n. - Zabreh na Morave - Ceska Trebova - Usti nad Orlici - Chocen - Pardubice hl.n. - Kolin(CZ) - Praha-Vrsovice - Praha hl.n. (7:25)
  • EN 268 Budapest-Keleti pu (20:25) - Budapest-Kelenföld - Györ - Hegyeshalom - Bruck a. d. Leitha - Wien Westbahnhof - St.Pölten Hbf - Melk - Pöchlarn - Amstetten(A) - St. Valentin - Linz Hbf - Wels Hbf - Attnang-Puchheim - Salzburg Hbf - Rosenheim - München Ost - München Hbf (6:20)
  • EN 269 München Hbf (23:44) - München Ost - Rosenheim - Salzburg Hbf - Attnang-Puchheim - Wels Hbf - Linz Hbf - St. Valentin - Amstetten(A) - Pöchlarn - St.Pölten Hbf - Wien Hütteldorf - Wien Westbahnhof - Bruck a. d. Leitha - Hegyeshalom - Györ - Budapest-Kelenföld - Budapest-Keleti pu (9:08)
  • IC 400 Bratislava-Petrzalka (5:47) - Bruck a. d. Leitha - Wien Meidling - Wien Westbahnhof (7:01)
  • IC 402 Bratislava (10:36) - Bratislava-Petrzalka - Kittsee - Bruck a. d. Leitha - Wien Meidling - Wien Westbahnhof (12:10)
  • IC 403 Wien Westbahnhof (15:55) - Wien Meidling - Bruck a. d. Leitha - Kittsee - Bratislava-Petrzalka - Bratislava (17:29)
  • IC 405/IC 13405 Wien Westbahnhof (8:20) - Wien Meidling - Bruck a. d. Leitha - Kittsee - Bratislava-Petrzalka - Bratislava - Leopoldov - Trencin - Zilina - Liptovsky Mikulas - Poprad-Tatry - Kysak - Kosice (15:28)
  • IC 407 Wien Westbahnhof (21:50) - Wien Meidling - Bruck a. d. Leitha - Kittsee - Bratislava-Petrzalka - Bratislava (23:26)
  • R 424 Humenne (18:16) - Strazske - Michalovce - Banovce nad Ondavou - Trebisov - Kosice - Kysak - Margecany - Spisska Nova Ves - Poprad-Tatry - Liptovsky Mikulas - Kralovany - Zilina - Cadca - Cesky Tesin - Ostrava hl.n. - Ostrava-Svinov - Hranice na Morave - Olomouc hl.n. - Ceska Trebova - Pardubice hl.n. - Kolin(CZ) - Praha-Vrsovice - Praha hl.n. (6:57)
  • EN 466 Budapest-Keleti pu (17:50) - Budapest-Kelenföld - Györ - Hegyeshalom - Bruck a. d. Leitha - Wien Westbahnhof - St.Pölten Hbf - Amstetten(A) - Linz Hbf - Wels Hbf - Salzburg Hbf - Innsbruck Hbf - Bludenz - Feldkirch - Buchs SG - Sargans - Zürich HB (6:20)
  • EN 467 Zürich HB (22:40) - Sargans - Buchs SG - Feldkirch - Bludenz - Innsbruck Hbf - Salzburg Hbf - Wels Hbf - Wels Hbf - Linz Hbf - Amstetten(A) - St.Pölten Hbf - Wien Hütteldorf - Wien Westbahnhof - Bruck a. d. Leitha - Hegyeshalom - Györ - Budapest-Kelenföld - Budapest-Keleti pu (11:28)
  • D 1458 Koper (22:30) - Hrpelje-Kozina - Divaca - Pivka - Postojna - Ljubljana - Celje - Maribor - Spielfeld-Straß - Leibnitz - Graz Hbf - Bruck a. d. Mur - Mürzzuschlag - Wiener Neustadt Hbf - Wien Meidling - Wien Südbahnhof Bstg. 11-19 (9:10)
  • ER 1850 Wien Südbahnhof Bstg. 1-9 (8:47) - Wien Simmering - Wien Erzherzog-Karl-Straße - Wien Leopoldau - Korneuburg - Stockerau - Hollabrunn - Hetzmanndorf-Wullersdorf - Guntersdorf - Platt - Zellerndorf - Retz - Satov - Znojmo (10:38)
  • ER 1851 Znojmo (5:28) - Satov - Retz - Zellerndorf - Platt - Guntersdorf - Hetzmanndorf-Wullersdorf - Hollabrunn - Sierndorf - Stockerau - Korneuburg - Wien Leopoldau - Wien Erzherzog-Karl-Straße - Wien Simmering - Wien Südbahnhof Bstg. 1-9 (7:27)
  • ER 1852 Wien Südbahnhof Bstg. 1-9 (11:47) - Wien Simmering - Wien Erzherzog-Karl-Straße - Wien Leopoldau - Korneuburg - Stockerau - Hollabrunn - Hetzmanndorf-Wullersdorf - Guntersdorf - Platt - Zellerndorf - Retz - Satov - Znojmo (13:38)
  • ER 1853 Znojmo (10:52) - Satov - Retz - Zellerndorf - Platt - Guntersdorf - Hetzmanndorf-Wullersdorf - Hollabrunn - Stockerau - Korneuburg - Wien Leopoldau - Wien Erzherzog-Karl-Straße - Wien Simmering - Wien Südbahnhof Bstg. 1-9 (12:47)
  • ER 1854 Wien Südbahnhof Bstg. 1-9 (15:47) - Wien Simmering - Wien Erzherzog-Karl-Straße - Wien Leopoldau - Korneuburg - Stockerau - Hollabrunn - Hetzmanndorf-Wullersdorf - Guntersdorf - Platt - Zellerndorf - Retz - Satov - Znojmo (17:38)
  • ER 1855 Znojmo (14:52) - Satov - Retz - Zellerndorf - Platt - Guntersdorf - Hetzmanndorf-Wullersdorf - Hollabrunn - Stockerau - Korneuburg - Wien Leopoldau - Wien Erzherzog-Karl-Straße - Wien Simmering - Wien Südbahnhof Bstg. 1-9 (16:44)
  • ER 1856 Wien Südbahnhof Bstg. 1-9 (15:47) - Wien Simmering - Wien Erzherzog-Karl-Straße - Wien Leopoldau - Korneuburg - Stockerau - Sierndorf - Göllersdorf - Hollabrunn - Zellerndorf - Retz - Satov - Znojmo (17:57)
  • ER 1857 Znojmo (19:53) - Satov - Retz - Zellerndorf - Platt - Guntersdorf - Hetzmanndorf-Wullersdorf - Hollabrunn - Breitenwaida - Göllersdorf - Schönborn-Mallebern - Höbersdorf - Sierndorf - Ober Olberndorf - Stockerau - Korneuburg - Wien Leopoldau - Wien Erzherzog-Karl-Straße - Wien Simmering - Wien Südbahnhof Bstg. 1-9 (21:58)
  • ER 1858 Wien Südbahnhof Bstg. 1-9 (19:47) - Wien Simmering - Wien Erzherzog-Karl-Straße - Wien Leopoldau - Korneuburg - Stockerau - Hollabrunn - Hetzmanndorf-Wullersdorf - Guntersdorf - Platt - Zellerndorf - Retz - Satov - Znojmo (21:38)
  • IC 13404/IC 404 Kosice (13:10) - Kysak - Poprad-Tatry - Liptovsky Mikulas - Zilina - Trencin - Leopoldov - Bratislava - Bratislava-Petrzalka - Kittsee - Bruck a. d. Leitha - Wien Meidling - Wien Westbahnhof (20:08)

Historically Mitteleuropa[edit]

Historically these are the countries of German "Mitteleuropa".

Historically, Mitteleuropa was a failed German policy to create some puppet states on the border with Russia during World War 1. So, if Germany is in Central Europe, and if the Central European countries are the countries of historical Mitteleuropa, then did the Germans want to create a puppet state of themselves? Maybe that's because this policy failed? Obviously, it's absurd and besides, it's irrelevant so I'm removing it.

(WT-en) CandleWithHare 17:40, 18 August 2006 (EDT)

Central European regions in States with other location[edit]

Is it possible to create this section including also e.g. South Tyrol? If not at least may I insert South Tyrol in the list of "Other destinations"? A lot of people who is visiting Central Europe decide to visit also South Tyrol which is historically and geographically Central Europe. For example also Slovenia is included in both Central and Mediterranean Europe. Bye. (WT-en) Strudl 20:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Same thing with Croatia. 20:53, 31 March 2010 (CET)

Understand Section[edit]

Hello! I would like to add that the general public (we) have never supported the soviet ideology, 1956, 1968, Polish Solidarity, history books on aftermath of 1945 etc. shows it, and for those not living here it should be evident too. I have experienced even in Western Europe people don't know this. For inserting the following, I was sent here to consult this first here. After a week (on November 19) I will replace the Understand section to the following if there is no objection from a Central European, italics inserted by me:

It is a common mistake by outsiders to label all the former Warsaw Pact states in the region as being in Eastern Europe. Almost uniformly, inhabitants of Central Europe will be flattered and pleased if you correctly describe their countries as "central European" both geographically and culturally. Conversely, they may be upset if you lapse into Cold War stereotypes, a system installed contrary to their consent, and levels of human development, and its disappearing after-effects most regard were deprivation from the level of west by the Soviets and their local servants. East and West Germany were countries with great differences, so better to call it now, with similar level of economy eastern and western Germany. The fall of the iron curtain, at the Germans the reunification is history and seen in a very or relatively positive light by most in all of Central Europe. Remember Germans are Germans but Austrians, Liechtensteiners and most Swiss and Luxembourgers all speak German, but are not German! Czech, Polish or Slovakian may sound similar to Russian, but inhabitants of these countries will not take kindly to assumptions of cultural overlap, which is not true, their culture is different from Eastern Europe. Lastly, keep in mind that the Czech Republic and Slovakia once shared a country as well and Slovaks in general are very proud of their new found independence. While they are not currently considered part of Central Europe, the regions of western Ukraine, Kaliningrad Oblast (Russia), Alsace and parts of Lorraine (France), Alto-Adige / South Tirol - province (Italy), and Croatia are sometimes also considered Central European. This is due either to their current and or past ethnic makeup and/or previous political histories and set of cultural attitudes. The Kaliningrad oblast spent most of its history as a German speaking region and South Tirol remains a largely German-speaking region in northern Italy maintaining strong cultural ties to Austria. Even though Ukraine is predominantly an orthodox country, its westernmost part for the centuries was part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and later passed to Austria-Hungary which to some extent influenced it's unique culture.

I would object, for two reasons. First, I can't see what value that adds for a traveler today: it seems to be adding more text for little additional information. Second, that's rather awkward English, and would need a substantial rewrite in any case. — (WT-en) D. Guillaime 14:36, 13 November 2010 (EST)
I agree; it's well-intentioned but too much detail for Wikivoyage. And in some cases the additions are simply redundant to text that's already there. (WT-en) LtPowers 15:55, 13 November 2010 (EST)
When I intend to add it I will give a shortened revision giving due weight to the issue here before it. It adds me value, the way tourists behave to me, in this case the core information would be good for them too. 14:33, 28 November 2010 (EST)
A justification for why they are upset is indeed missing from the understand section, this is not wishing for called being Central European but rightfully expecting acknowledgenment of the general state of the states. If anyone manages to insert the meaning of health and authority situation I agree with it. I find it important if I imagine myself to be a tourist who wants to travel there, if I only want to read about them I don't miss either. 15:55, 24 December 2010 (EST)
Omitting a justification for the whole region, immediately a statement about East and West Germany comes which I consider a mistake. Regarding them a sentence only mentioning that they were politically unified, omitting the results of unified pollution and industrial limits (same regulations, de-poisoning of land by now is finished everywhere) I think should be made better. Only a few advancements since the times the audience may get their associations from: air pollution level, cars in traffic are EURO III or IV standards required. Ringroads were built around many settlements, 100% sewer coverage and treatment was required to be reached by 2010 by their EU accession treaty for all settlements except the smallests. Here in Hungary 1200 km intra-settlement road was reconstructed in 2010. And I would take it kindly if I wouldn't be called a communist also, having memories of only the after-effects of it is still more revulsing than western media propaganda of it also. Supposing oppression of masses and mass willingness to follow it by tourists is contradictory in itself.[User:|]] 15:28, 24 December 2010 (EST)

The Central/Eastern Europe debate[edit]

Dear All,

the objection we, the Central Europeans have against being called Eastern European is very simple. It is not political correctness, as you might think, but something different. The Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are countries, which did A LOT of effort to get rid of what is normally connected to the term "Eastern Europe", namely massive organized crime, political instability, poverty, high HIV/AIDS rates, etc. I myself, as well as other Central European people, don't mind, what would be the name we would be given, but the only thing we want is - DO NOT PUT US TOGETHER WITH THE GROUP OF LOSERS FROM UKRAINE, MOLDOVA, BELAURS, RUSSIA, BOSNIA, SERBIA OR ALBANIA! Regardless of how you call them and how you call us, there shall be a clear line of division between us, because we are simply more different from them, than from, let's say, Sweden or Switzerland. -- 21:24, 6 December 2010 (EST)

Exactly what are you complaining about? No one here has "put [you] together" with those other countries. The Balkans are a separate article, as are Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. What more do you want? (WT-en) LtPowers 14:13, 7 December 2010 (EST)
Nothing, just claryfing why there is all the discussion my Polish colleague was involved in :) The Wikivoyage article is good as it is now. —The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs)
I would like to see a description which clearly states the differences of Central and Eastern Europe: obvious cultural, life-philosophical and historical differences. There women should be treated with a czarist rigidity of inequality and for what I as a Central European consider a healthy egalitarianist relationship or interaction there I am sure social exclusion comes for males. This is in my eyes, through my thinking can only be a compensation for lack of civilized democratic history or present, like 'still we are moral'. The second is that obviously Central Europe was annexed to the Soviet Empire against its will and existed in it with the constant will to break away, because of valuing democracy and comprehending democratic values there is no nostalgy for it in Central Europe. Here constant western support is not necessary to keep communists out of power [1]. No metro stations are over-ornamented here like the ones there built on the order of Stalin to overcompensate mass starvation caused by government allocation of resources, basically an economic policy depriving people of their human rights. I agree with the first speaker, I believe if you call us with this name, the border of Europe should be set at Poland, and North-Eurasian Countries or similar name should be in public use regarding the states whose government, because didn't have to be afraid of negative public opinion (this shows the general culture of the people) was willing to join CIS. Note: I don't consider the people of those states losers or suppose they don't wish for a better life, yet for tourists simply because of e.g. the public health situation (tapwater, corrosion-poisoning to say the simplest case without the case of getting to hospital) and dealing with authorities are two different worlds. A Central European police officer may be even more rational and less aggressive without someone obviously representing danger than a Western European one. The last one, which I didn't even associate to a moment before, problems of mines, rebels, checkpoints or rigidity in VISA issues (not letting you out of Schengen Zone for being late, they would arrest you only in case you were suspected you did crime as in Western Europe, otherwise they would just forbid you entering again for a few years, as it is the case with other EU and NATO countries or Australia and New Zealand) are unknown here. 09:27, 23 December 2010 (EST)
Frankly, we're not particularly interested in the politics here, or in disparaging any former Warsaw Pact member states. We just want to provide useful information to the traveler. All of the countries listed in this article are clearly Central European, and I don't think anyone's disputing that, so I really don't understand what this discussion is about. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:39, 23 December 2010 (EST)
Agreed, this is deteriorating into tangential political rants. If discussion continues unhinged to the actual article in question, it may become appropriate to revert. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:22, 23 December 2010 (EST)
Simply put my message: an average tourist may have preconceptions because of the Cold War. Only cultural difference is stated, general public health and authority situation is not even implied. If I were a tourist I wouldn't know whether they are missing because they are non-existent or because it is common knowledge and whether I have to prepare for it (vaccination, choice of food). I think it would be a good direction to add some information about this if anyone wishes. Generally it is the same for the whole region, I saw it. 15:10, 24 December 2010 (EST)
I'm afraid I still don't quite understand what you're looking for. Should we discuss problems that are widespread in Eastern Europe in the Central Europe article? Wouldn't that be better placed in the appropriate country or region articles? (WT-en) LtPowers 16:16, 28 December 2010 (EST)
A simple/few reference would be necessary and enough. It was in the Soviet Hemisphere, and in most people's mind there is only this Cold War east/west division. They should know explicitly not to expect those circumstances. (both geographically, culturally and economically. Conversely, they may be upset if you lapse into Cold War stereotypes: pollution has been eliminated by changing to Western technology and standards.) This is missing in my reading as an exclamation mark. Moreover, it is true. Ray-force dropped to one-tenth after replacing the military radars, by now the changeover rippled through all following spheres of the economy (power plants, factories, consumer electronics). 16:01, 2 January 2011 (EST)
Reference to what? I don't even know what "Ray-force" is. (WT-en) LtPowers 19:55, 2 January 2011 (EST)
Exactly to that. You know perfectly well what magnetic ray/magnetic field is else accept my condolences. I take this you build your self esteem by not recognizing the changes and not willing to tell them to tourists. 18:04, 3 January 2011 (EST)
Considering you didn't say anything about magnetism, I hope you can excuse me for not knowing that "Ray-force" means "magnetic ray/magnetic field". (Although I admit I actually don't know what a magnetic "ray" is.) Why don't you propose some specific wording, because I'm obviously not capable of figuring out what you mean? (WT-en) LtPowers 21:16, 3 January 2011 (EST)
I'm not entirely sure I understand the full discussion above, but it would be helpful to see a 1-2 paragraph example of the exact text that the user wants to see included in the article. If the relevant issues can't be condensed into 1-2 paragraphs then I suspect the discussion is probably out-of-scope for a travel guide. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:27, 4 January 2011 (EST)
Sure, I think this would be a better fit for "respect" than understand," but let me try:
As with virtually everywhere in the world, locals don't like to be conflated with their neighbors (particularly with neighbors they do not like), and in the case of Central Europeans, this means Eastern Europeans. For your own sake, try to steer conversation away from the tiresome and patronizing rants about Eastern Europe and towards something more useful to travelers like where to go next or what restaurants are worth visiting.
--(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:53, 4 January 2011 (EST)
What I would add: both geographically, culturally and economically. Conversely, they may be upset if you lapse into Cold War stereotypes: pollution has been eliminated by changing to Western technology. This shows uncomfortability doesn't come without reason. The sentence culminated in the horrors of the Second World War is historically false, here ethnic conflicts peaked in the 1840s and also around 1918, then it was probably even higher. What proves it: Hungary was in alliance with the surrounding states during WWII in spite in all nation state demands she is on one side. Anti-Jewism is an invention of Hitler and the characteristics of a handful of Nazis of any nation only. The hundreds of years suggests general narrowmindedness is damned to exist here for eternity. Moreover, it didn't exist in the Middle Ages. I would replace: Ethnic conflict was a major problem since 1800s and culminated in 1848 and 1918. With the recent expansion of the EU and Schengen Zone the problem finally seems to be resolved. It is true, Schengen is what is regarded as the basic solution. This two addition is all I would add currently. 14:32, 5 January 2011 (EST)

(unindent) To be honest, 86.101, that section on the History of Hungary talk page is pretty incomprehensible. To address the specific suggestions: Peter's wording seems like advice from Captain Obvious to me, and it's not clear whether it's the reader or his Central European acquaintances who would be engaging in "tiresome and patronizing rants". As for "pollution has been eliminated", that's an absurd claim. No place on earth has eliminated pollution entirely. And the elimination of any mention of World War II from the Understand section is simply unacceptable; it's what the majority of English-speaking travelers know about the region's history and a major factor in the region's history. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:02, 6 January 2011 (EST)

Sorry for confusion--my "proposal" was entirely tongue in cheek. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:03, 6 January 2011 (EST)
Sorry for misunderstandable wording of something I thought the intended meaning of which was obvious. Pollution difference has been largely eliminated. If you don't know what this means you don't know to what extent the communists didn't care about it. 07:39, 9 January 2011 (EST)

To the second argument: this means they know nothing about it, they only have distorted preconceptions through bad communication by news agencies. I repeat: the states were in alliance against the Soviet Union.(1) Any mention of that is unbased unjustness. Put it simply, to understand: framing is the implication of death camps.(2) Death camp was Hitler's and Stalin's invention (megalomaniacs), and indeed, nothing culminated in the Second World War, as there were no ethnic cleansing among nationalities. The only connection that can be found is that Hitler argued with the creation of a German Nation State by invading the Rhur-area, annexing Austria etc. By this explanation on the international stage he could avert war declaration. It only came when he attacked Poland, he couldn't justify that for taking back German-mayority territories, that was obviously conquest and war of aggression. Reinforcing a false belief instead of taking the stress of researching and finding out preconceptions are wrong is bad, moreover it causes unjustness not to you but to us, even in the interpersonal behaviour tourists have towards people here, not mentioning preconceptions of politicians when they try to negotiate. Get a history book, not articles in newspapers or television, which will have simplified references creating a completely false picture. I repeat: you demonstrated you lack basic knowledge about nationality-problems in Central Europe if you associate it to the anti-semitism and übermensch-theory of Nazis of the Second World War.

(1) Most leadership tried to jump out of the Nazi influence at the end of the war when thought it was possible (some for this have been replaced by national far-right regimes by the Germans in turn).

(2) You can only find death camps in Poland, all were created by German Nazis, because they didn't want to do it in their own country. There is no death camp (it wasn't even possible) associated with the national tensions of the former time. 07:39, 9 January 2011 (EST)

Could you just stop wasting our time and move this discussion elsewhere? Wikivoyage is a free online travel guide, so please use this space to discuss travel-related items and advice, instead of these historic/political nonsense. I suggest you take this discussion here, and help Wikivoyage by adding some good hotels and restaurants in your home city. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 10:55, 9 January 2011 (EST)

You are not interested in explanation. Ok. I stop telling my problem as soon as deframing stops. You publish a historical 'Understand' section so take its content and consumer feedback seriously. Edit: I thought PeterFritzgerald wrote this. My answer to you: congratulations for not comprehending that this is not nonsense, but a proof of the history of a region which you don't even recognize is being argued about whether it is presented well. 11:52, 9 January 2011 (EST)

Unexplainable revert by Jc8136. 13:55, 9 January 2011 (EST)

As far as I know responsibility of administrators is not that knowing they aren't professional in everything not to let changes go if they don't know if it is valid but to judge others' knowledge and rely on whose they can. Bad faith is assumed contradicting what I read in wikivoyage help, Wikivoyage:About and Tips for new contributors. 14:15, 9 January 2011 (EST)

To the Hungarian anon: Sorry for not imediately replying here but the discussion is already pretty long and seem not to come to a conclusion. I reverted your edits because they didn't added any value for travellers to CE. I have worked in the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Romania and with Hungarians. I'm a bit surprised about your changes concerning language (deviations from German) because this has bee lengthly discussed in the Swiss article and a contradictory position to your was the main consensus. I don't understand why stressing the differences is so important for you. If you would have more pride you would just smile them away. Don't waste our time like others told you. Admins don't know everything when something is wrong we are here to act. Start adding some sensible informations and yes, we start to assume bad faith with you. You are not constructive and don't try to make a positive change. (WT-en) jan 14:59, 9 January 2011 (EST)
The important policy here is Project:Consensus#Status quo bias. Unless you can convince others that we should have the changes you want, then your edits will be reverted. The edits in question, in my opinion, constituted a significant degradation in writing style and content. The recommendations given come off as extremely condescending to foreigners, to a ridiculous extent (seriously, telling people not to assume that Central Europeans hate individual liberty??). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:18, 9 January 2011 (EST)
Answer to jan: no, I do not smile when destructive statements are up on the page and I am not allowed to take them down. The qualification of me not being constructive to the precision of presenting of the region or not trying to make a positive change because it would replace the comfortable 'finished' banner from that part of the article is unacceptable. Only e.g. a British from comfortable seat can feel herself comfortable because that is not a false description about her. And I have a problem not with the content, but that the content multiplies itself. It sets itself the mission of representing something to a third party, from this point it has responsibility not only towards itself because it affects both the tourists and those who live there. Regardless of consensus, whether they are different versions of German or different languages (I meant the former), a person who learnt German will not easily understand these dialects, neither any of them if knows the others. This is only a scientific, fact-point of view. It should be mentioned that they speak German differently. I don't care whether the consensus accepted it as one language, as far as I know it is their pride to call themselves speaking German and define in their Constitution as such, and are only willing to accept they speak different versions of German. The discussion would have been finished if the changes with a constructive willingness were constructively accepted. 20:46, 11 January 2011 (EST)
Answer to the paragraph by Peter Fritzgerald: it is useful for those who live here. Probably it has to be rephrased in order to the content be publishable. I experience when people don't know what to expect and that behaviour is 1. a fact. 2. extremely condescending. Regardless of whether they acknowledge that they think that. Moreover from those who have no democratic immune-system. There people think they represent democracy, and have a compliance for being accepted so when the PRC demands taking down a publication they are in doubt before leaving it without modification. Here everyone would immediately say that because of press liberty it cannot be taken down and only writings can argue with it. The American phrase 'do x before we all murder you' while humorous shows exclusive attitude which contradicts democracy. To their defence, this phrase can occur when someone does something clearly out of the conventions of the group he is in.
I use prefect beautiful baroque-like sentences which here shows intelligence, these would be mirror-translations. It is only the English language that I met with that is so primitive that speakers of it only look for subject-verb-object order but if they meet with interjected subclauses referring to each other, they don't understand it, moreover they consider it as inferior in style regardless of whether the relations it shows is superior or done right in one sentence. In my reading they are perfect, only the chunks are constituted of phrases not words, for this reason are less stressed. Usage of more complicated sentences if they have better meaning would make them accepted as language is changed by the people. English in itself is able to grammatically concretely show roles of every part of a complex sentence. The content should be in the section regardless of the phrasing.
The statement about the second world war is false and framing. Real quality problem of wikivoyage that should have been replaced long ago.
All of them was significant addition in historical accuration and relevance to expectations from people with marginal knowledge -Eastern Europe-Communism(loud buses without quality or care for environment)-National Idiotism-.
If this contradiction to the facts of a subject, and letting experienced preconceptions grow, that I know well is not solved I know to what extent are the other parts trustworthy. I do no more edits and will only answer here to proposals. 20:17, 11 January 2011 (EST)
It is truly quite hard to understand your point. After 10 minutes of reading all the above, I'm not sure I understand what your issue is. I can't separate your comments and asides from the actual problems with the article you are raising. I don't know if you are aware, but your English language writing style is very hard to read, as you are obviously not a native speaker. However, try to keep your points simple, reference the article text, and don't get sidetracked into long pieces of writing and hopefully you can get your point across. --(WT-en) inas 21:15, 11 January 2011 (EST)
Thank you. Please, who reads this examine this: (understand section) in relation to the current and see if it is sensible to keep, or what to modify or remove in order to have a modified article. Edit: derivations I modify to dialects. I save a version in the history if they will sum up. 21:36, 11 January 2011 (EST)
Second: a grouping of states and statelets whose sizes and membership varied over time. I think they can consider the patchwork offending. 21:56, 11 January 2011 (EST)

Ljubljana or Bratislava?[edit]

I am in complete agreement with this edit, but the person who added Bratislava might have a point here. Ljubljana is certainly the most notable city in Slovenia, but Bratislava, the most notable city in Slovakia, is bigger and seems to have more attractions. On the other hand, Bratislava is very close to Vienna, so Ljubljana might be said to give us more geographic diversity. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:35, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

I would say that all capitals, with the exception of Vaduz (since Liechtenstein is the size of a city state), should be listed here. Keeping country capitals in these types of top-level region lists is pretty standard, and there would only be eight necessary. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:26, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
Really? This is the first time I've heard of that. I can't imagine switching out Geneva for Bern, for instance. (WT-en) LtPowers 19:55, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
As an aside, I deleted four places from Other destinations which are not articles, and added Białowieża National Park (the most important NP in the region) which was strangely missing.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:43, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
Can I join in your discussion? It does seem a bit strange for a 9 country region article to list the main cities of each, except for one. If there wouldn't be an interesting option, that would be fine, but Bratislava is lovely and has lots to see. I agree that it should be the most notable city (for travelers) rather than the capital, and I would definitely keep Geneva instead of Bern. Listing Munich as the second city of Germany is quite a fierce statement. It's a magnificent place in many ways, but Germany has several of those. Perhaps we should just replace Munich with Bratislava? Making it 10 wouldn't bother me either, but leaving Slovakia out, as the one exception, just doesn't seem right. (WT-en) Justme 04:58, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
The rule is a max of 9, so we should stick to that. Given that this region consists of 8 countries and 1 ministate, I think every country ought to be given 1 city except for Liechtenstein. Then the only problem is: which country gets 2 cities? I think Poland makes a good case, as both Krakow and Warsaw are very important ones. I don't agree that the capitals should always be listed though. I think Geneva is a more important city to travel to than Bern. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 09:26, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
I would agree with the proposal that 8 countries get 1 city and 1 country gets 2. Based on pure stats, Germany should get the 2. See: --(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:34, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
I'm not sure I'm a fan of dropping Krakow for either Ljubljana or Bratislava. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:03, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
I'd drop either Krakow or Munich to follow Burmesedays and Globe-trotter's basic metric. Yes Ljubljana is not a major tourist destination (Bratislava most certainly is [2], and rightly so), but I think it should be there for purposes of regional distribution/representation. Munich is a bigger destination for both tourist and business travel, so I think Krakow should be dropped here. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:29, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

I still think dropping Krakow is a mistake, but apparently I was outvoted? (WT-en) LtPowers 21:28, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

We might as well toss a coin, as there is no way to objectively choose between Munich or Krakow. Both are the second most important cities of the two largest countries and both are "huge" cities on Wikivoyage. I don't have strong feelings about it, I just picked Munich for the sake of it, taking the above discussion into account. The only neutral way we could maybe get to an agreement is by putting Vaduz up there, though I doubt if this would be an improvement.... --(WT-en) globe-trotter 21:41, 29 August 2011 (EDT)
Agreed. But if we keep Munich in favour of Krakow, at least there is some quantitative logic to fall back on: Germany gets many more visitors than Poland. --(WT-en) burmesedays 22:01, 29 August 2011 (EDT)
Obviously Munich should stay. It's Ljubljana and Bratislava that are questionable. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:38, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
In a region with this number of countries, showing one for each of them with the spare extra space going to the most visited country, seems perfectly logical to me.--(WT-en) burmesedays 10:10, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
We've already apparently agreed that Liechtenstein doesn't get a city listed; why can't we decide the same about Slovenia? Maybe I misread the discussion, but I didn't see a strong consensus for including Ljubljana at the expense of Krakow. (WT-en) LtPowers 12:33, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
Well, at least three users here agree that all the big countries get one city for geographic diversity. Slovenia is as small as Liechtenstein — Liechtenstein is a tiny mountainous state with 35,000 inhabitants, smaller than many municipalities in other countries. Slovenia is a an important European Union country with more than 2 million people and a relatively popular travel destination for the Alps. Omitting Ljubljana would be odd, as almost all visitors to Slovenia would be going there.
If city size would have prevalence over geographic diversity (which has been uncommon on WT), then we'd have to overhaul this list completely and most cities would be German or Polish. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 13:55, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
Well, neither should geographical diversity be the only metric. But my main complaint was that it didn't seem like we'd reached the conclusion that was implemented. I could be misreading the discussion, though, so if everyone's happy with this, then so be it. The map will need updating, though. (WT-en) LtPowers 17:12, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
The map needs updating anyway as it only shows 3 of the Other destinations. Would also be good to get the many road routes on there. I will make a start on inserting some country descriptions in the regionlist table as it looks very neglected. --(WT-en) burmesedays 21:43, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
Well, at the time I made the map, there were only five ODs, and two of them were the North Sea and the Baltic Sea (which are both on there). I continue to be opposed to putting transportation routes on political maps at this scale, so I won't be making that change. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:07, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

Croatia is Central Europe[edit]

Grossgliederung Europas-en.svg

For tourists it is important to know Croatia is:

  1. Mediterranean Europe
  2. Central Europe
  3. was Balkan some short but newer period of history

If a tourist claims to Croatian that Croatia is Balkan he will be considered offensive. I think it is similar to Slovenia who was also part of Yugoslavia during newer history as well as Czech R., Slovakia, Poland or Hungary when someone calls them Eastern Europe. That's not good and should be fixed as soon as possible. All countries and regions that were part of Habsburg Monarcy are Central Europe. See this map. Vrkach (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic, but Wikipedia doesn't show many sources that put Croatia in Central Europe. Perhaps we can come up with a name with less baggage than "Balkans" for southeastern Europe, but I don't think most people would expect Croatia to be in Central Europe. Slovenia is enough of a surprise, I think. It takes time for mental concepts to change. LtPowers (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with all of Vrkach's reasoning, though. The border between Croatia and Serbia, historically, was the border between the Austrian Empire and Ottoman Empire, and between Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity. Also, geographically, Croatia borders Hungary to the south. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Croatia#Croatia is CE It is not good for tourists to be misinformed that Croatia is Balkans. I'm from Croatia and know that.
This is quote from official site - in English: Whether walking the intricate grid of narrow white stone streets and alleys, or revelling in the teeming life of the port towns of Istria, Kvarner or Dalmatia, or climbing the green serpentines of Central Croatia to the fairy-like fortresses and castles, each step is an ever fresh experience, made special by the fact that on her territory as many as four cultural circles meet, intertwine and complement one another - west, east, Central European and the southern spirit of the Mediterranean. Croatia is a land of urban culture which numbers more cities than any other part of the Mediterranean.
If you are interested in the days of antiquity, you should start from the Roman amphitheatre in Pula, through Zadar and its forum - the largest excavated forum on the eastern shores of the Adriatic - and then to the magnificent palace of Emperor Diocletian in Split. Walk through time, from the pre-Romanesque Church of St. Domnius in Zadar dating from the 9th century, to the world of the Romanesque that is the magical monument city of Trogir, or the islands of Krk and Rab. Follow the Gothic period in Zagreb, Pazin, or, for instance, the town of Ston on the Pelješac peninsula. Discover the Renaissance in Osor on the island of Cres, Šibenik cathedral, the islands of Hvar and Korčula, and finally, the one and only Dubrovnik. The towns of Varaždin, Bjelovar and Vukovar glow with the splendour of the Baroque, while the heritage of the 19th century is at its best in Rijeka, Osijek and, of course, in downtown Zagreb.

Balkans not even mentioned.Vrkach (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Check this official link (for tourists) Useful information. It states there is Mediterranean part of country and Central European part of the country, no Balkans. Also, I think wiki users from Croatia would hesitate from participating in contibutions on wikivoyage project about Croatia topic if there would remain false information about Croatia as not part of Central Europe. Vrkach (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I think every single definition of the Balkans includes Croatia, actually. It just is geographically on the Balkan Peninsula. The EU seems to be under the impression that Croatia is part of the Balkans as a political concept too [3]. And I know the current (boring) political vogue is for every country in Europe to claim to be part of Central Europe, but I'm going to have to call shenanigans at the idea of Estonia in that grouping ;) I kind of wish tourism departments would try to take ownership of their history while forging a new future, rather than waging semantic and cartographic wars to whitewash history and "fool" tourists. If "Balkans" has a bad connotation, work to change the perception—that shouldn't be hard, given how beautiful the Balkans are.
The Balkans grouping is problematic, though, because it currently includes Romania (which is quite a stretch) and Moldova (which is ridiculous), and because it doesn't include Greece. I'm not a huge fan of directional names, but Southeastern Europe might make more sense. And assuage nationalist sensitivities, I guess... --Peter Talk 01:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
You're talking about politics, I was talking about culture in the interest of traveler. When talking about politics, only reason why Croatia was considered part of Balkans (and often still is) is that it was (unfortunately) part of Yugoslavia from 1918-1991. As Croats liberated themselfs from Serb dominated Yugoslavia they consider they liberated themselfs from further invasion of Balkan culture. You say "work to change the perception on Balkans" but the key point is that Croatians don't want to change perception on Balkans. We use that term when we want to describe something strange to our culture, usually something we consider bad etc. So, traveler coming to Croatia and speaking how Croatia is Balkans could easily be understood as someone without respect or with deep lack of knowledge about country where he came. In contrast, in Macedonia or Serbia people are proud to the term Balkans describing their lands, they don't feel it strange to their identity. That's why Romania and Moldova are Balkans. It's more a cultural/historical term than geographical. Regards, Vrkach (talk) 06:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
It seems like it would be important to include advice to visitors to avoid referring to Croatia as a Balkan country in the "Respect" section of Croatia - whether it is or not, in some quasi-objective sense, visitors evidently need to avoid saying so, for the reasons you explain. But I think Peter's argument is that geographically, Croatia is on the Balkan Peninsula. Mind you, I think your arguments based on history have some merit, as I indicated above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Croatia is geographically both Mediterranean country and bordering between Balkans and Central Europe, but as Croatia is politically and culturally part of Central Europe, its citizens usually prefer that definition. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

--LeoAdriaticus (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)I would like to know if it's possible to use the argument that even geographically speaking only a small percentage of Croatia can be viewed as being a part of the Balkan peninsula, i.e. Lika Region, southern parts of Central Croatia and the hinterland of Dalmatia? Because even if we take acknowledge the river Sava as being the border, it still leaves the whole of Eastern and Northern Croatia, Istria and Kvarner Regions, as well as a sizeable part of Central Croatia (with its most populous city, Zagreb,) within Central Europe which means that the majority of population is living in Central Europe. That would indicate that maybe 30 or 35% (tops) of the country is in the Balkan peninsula, so I really don't see the point in insisting that Croatia is in the Balkans considering the fact that Croatians don't view themselves as Balkanites nor do they share the history, tradition, architecture, culture, customs etc. with the aforementioned region.--LeoAdriaticus (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Cracow and the inconsistency[edit]

Why is Cracow mentioned in the main article Europe and cannot be mentioned here? —The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs)

Krakow is mentioned in Europe only in the context of describing which cities are visited by the bus company Eurolines. There's nothing keeping us from mentioning Krakow in a similar capacity on this article. LtPowers (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Don't you think Cracow is far more interesting than Ljubljana or even Warsaw? It has amazing exceptional atmosphere and if i were to choose whether Warsaw or Cracow should be listed in here, I would undoubtly pick Cracow. Warsaw is just like any other capital city mentioned there, Cracow is special. Please reconsider it and let me know if you have changed your mind. I would really appreciate to read your thoughts, especially if you have been to Warsaw or Cracow. 12:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
If you look at the discussion two sections up from here, you'll see that I was an advocate of keeping Krakow over Ljubljana (or possibly Bratislava). However, others felt it was more important to have all of the countries' capitals on the list. If you're proposing replacing Warsaw with Krakow, that's a slightly different discussion. I'm not sure how it would go. LtPowers (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I wasn't attacking you deliberately but if you felt so - then I apologise. As far as those cities are concerned what we can do about them? Should we propose a voting? 15:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, basically you say "I think we should remove Warsaw [or Ljubljana or Bratislava] and add Krakow in its place" and see how that goes over in discussion. We strongly discourage voting around here. LtPowers (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we should remove Warsaw or Ljubljana and add Cracow in its place[edit]

I think Cracow is far more interesting than Ljubljana or even Warsaw. It has amazing exceptional atmosphere and if i were to choose whether Warsaw or Cracow should be listed in here, I would undoubtly pick Cracow. Warsaw is just like any other capital city mentioned there, Cracow is special. Cracow is the most popular tourist destination in Poland and this supports much of the local economy. 14:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Kraków is super great but I'm against removing Ljubljana or Warsaw, it's good that the article lists all the capitals. Jjtkk (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Could you provide me some arguments which made you think that Krakow is less important and less attractive than the mentioned before? For example compare some of most known atractions of these cities. 1Arena1hu (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I think a lot of people like keeping the list to just the capitals plus Munich... even if the capitals may be less interesting for tourists than other cities. LtPowers (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Basically capitals are most visited and that's true in Poland as well. However, since the discussion took place in 2011 Kraków developed visibly and Munich still has issues with moving listings to districts etc... But I'm biased. Jjtkk (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question though. I thing you don't have really strong arguments since the reports about tourism in Krakow indicate that:

[I picked only some with full of recognised data but the tendency shows that it expands] Note: Year | Number of tourists (mln) | Number of visitors (mln) | estimated in total expandure (PLN bln)

  • 2003 - 1.2 - 5.5 - 1.8
  • 2004 - 1.5 - 6.4 - 2.0 (the year of EU access)
  • 2005 - 3.1 - 7.1 - 2.4
  • 2006 - 4.4 - 7.5 - 3.5

and so on...

Also, "according to statistics, in 2009 Kraków was visited by 7.3 million tourists including 2.1 million foreign travelers (over 30% of their grand total)".

Additionally, "during the closing Mass of the 2013 World Youth Day in Rio de Janeiro, Pope Francis announced that Kraków would host the next World Youth Day in 2016." for Warsaw it is easy to find (Warsaw |29| 2,925) - 2006 year, but for Ljubljana : unofficial but clearly (max in 2008 almost 300,000) and official but you have to find it (look for PDF), but it is the same as here.

Plus Munchen only for the sake of being complete and to prove it cannot be removed (if anyone in the future would say so).

I apologise for (little :P) chaotism. I hope you will get what I meant.
1Arena1hu (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
PS I found it may not be clear. If I were the author of this page, I would simply put Krakow instead of Ljubljana (why not Liechtenstein? practical reasons I know - map). But I know some of you would say it is nationalistic and biased (Poland should not be listed in here and that stuff). So then I proposed substituting Warsaw for Krakow (fair, isn't it?) and no Pole said it is not right yet. I'm to some extent Polish (by the matters of ancestry and interests - I really like this country). The solution would be engaging people outside Central Europe to decide (alas there's a possibility the do not understand the region.
1Arena1hu (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not being clear earlier. The reason no one answered your question is that I don't think anyone is actually claiming that Ljubljana is a more interesting or popular destination than Krakow. The reason Ljubljana is listed and Krakow isn't is simply because we thought it was unfair to leave out Slovenia's capital if all the other capital cities were included. LtPowers (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's important to list all the capital cities, and I'm also not sure why it is important to list Warsaw, rather than Krakow, if Krakow is a more pleasant place to visit (I haven't yet traveled to any part of Poland, so I have no dog in this fight, just commenting). Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Warsaw has more visitors than Kraków, see [4], and yes, these are probably business travelers but we cater to them as well. So I'm against replacing Warsaw with Kraków. A Pole. Jjtkk (talk) 06:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's important to list all the capital cities. So do I. I think we won't reach a consensus. My last proposition is replacing Ljubjana with Krakow. Please be clear now and just say yes or no so that we can close this discussion. 1Arena1hu (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the question has to be whether we 1) Use capitals +Munich (current), 2) use capitals +another city, or 3) use a custom list. I favor #1, because using the capitals is an easy way to ensure geographic spread, and because I can't think of a better alternative to Munich for the +1 city (Frankfurt?). I guess option 4) would be to just use the 8 capitals. --Peter Talk 23:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
That's true; nothing says we have to have nine. But it does leave the problem that a city many readers will be looking for -- Krakow -- will be less accessible than a city that fewer people will be looking for (Ljubljana, for instance). LtPowers (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
How about we drop Ljubljana and Bratislava, and add Frankfurt and Kraków? I think Frankfurt is a glaring omission, having the third busiest airport in Europe and a metro area of 6 million. Globe-trotter (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
It may be a good idea but I think we even didn't agree about Krakow. LtPowers & Jjtkk are still against it. 1Arena1hu (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
What makes you think I'm against it? LtPowers (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
The more I think about it, actually, I think Gobe-trotter's proposal makes sense. For the reason LtPowers just gave above. --Peter Talk 21:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
So Slovenia would get no listing in cities and ODs? OK, I think I go support splitting DACH countries at Talk:Europe#Regions.2C_again cause German destinations take too much - it's understandable because they're most popular but other areas get underrepresented. Jjtkk (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I am for option 1) Use capitals +Munich (current), the other relevant destinations are listed on individual countries' pages. I would vote against skipping Ljubljana and Bratislava, because it limits the geographical coverage.
If adding yet another German city, besides Berlin and Münich, for me an obvious option would be Hamburg (the third most visited city in Germany): see Zahlen, Daten, Fakten, 2012, page 9. Danapit (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
The graph shows that it's mostly Germans visiting it. It's not really an international tourist (and business) destination like Frankfurt. Globe-trotter (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

New discussion[edit]

The absence of Krakow continues to be a sticking point, but keeping Ljubljana and Bratislava has the merit of being fair and egalitarian. I can see both arguments, but we should really come to a decision one way or another. Powers (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Other Destinations[edit]

I think it's too German-centric: 5 out of 9. I propose removing Baltic Sea Coast, Black Forest, East Frisian Islands and Romantic Road and adding something from other countries. Jjtkk (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

"Something" is a bit too amorphous. What existing 'other destinations' would you like to see added? LtPowers (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, OK:

or possibly Heligoland instead of East Frisian Islands cause it's fun to have an island destination and this one's something more than just a map. Jjtkk (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the goal of these lists is to get people to the destinations they're most likely to be seeking. So I don't think I'd support removing the Black Forest. (Besides, removing four out of five would leave Central Europe's largest country with only one OD.) The others I don't know enough about to say. LtPowers (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I tried to balance popularity, diversity and also quality of WV article - I mean EFI are little more than a template and RR is an itinerary so I think it shouldn't be OD anyway. Jjtkk (talk) 09:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm against removing Baltic Sea Coast (too important to the region nonetheless it is nothing extraordinary) and Black Forest (it's essential for Germany). I would get rid off East Frisian Islands, Romantic Road and Neuschwanstein Castle.
My propositions:

  • Slovakia and Hungary:
    • The Caves of Aggtelek Karst and Slovak Karst - (UNESCO World Heritage) 712 caves in total; features include the world's highest stalagmite and an ice filled abyss.
    • I would move Vysoke Tatry to Tatra Mountains, but it not a priority.
  • Poland:
    • Auschwitz-Birkenau - a lack of that place make me think you were right when you've said it was too German-centric.
  • Czech Republic
    • This one is strongly biased but I am truly amazed by the city of Litomysl.

1Arena1hu (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Neuschwanstein Castle should stay, it's very popular (around 1,5 million visitors a year). Litomysl is a town so it technically doesn't fit. Jjtkk (talk) 09:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, but we both mentioned Auschwitz-Birkenau so we basicly can supersede Romantic Road.
I agree 5 is a bit much. Romantic Road can go because Neuschwanstein is already included. I also think the Baltic Sea Coast can go—or at least it should point to a place that includes the Polish coast as well. Globe-trotter (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I also support the idea of replacing East Frisian Islands by Heligoland: not that Heligoland would be a much better destination (quite the opposite, I would say), but the Heligoland article is far more informative at the moment. Danapit (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
But we've never selected those links based on our coverage, they were chosen on how important they are in general for travelers (and based on geographical diversity). Globe-trotter (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, but that's a bit connected. If East Frisian Islands attracted virtually no contributors since 2008 they're probably not that popular and the slot can be used more effectively. Jjtkk (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I feel it'd be a bit of overkill to remove 4 of 5 German destinations. Let's replace East Frisian Islands (little content in the article, not very different destination from the Baltic Sea Coast) with a non-German destination. When I look at the map for the region it looks like all the "other destinations" are located on the "edges" of the region, so let's pick something from "Central Central Europe", why not some Czech destination? Karlovy Vary, České_Budějovice or Pilsen for example? ϒpsilon (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Those are cities so they don't count for this list. But Bohemian Paradise would work. Globe-trotter (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Bohemian Paradise looks good. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


(I hope I spelled this word correctly, it always trips me up) Why is there so little in the itinerary section and why is it so "hidden" in the article, couldn't it be put directly under the "other destinations" and we could put some of those deleted (justifiedly so, as they are not really "destinations" but rather itineraries) back in such as the Romantic Road. Or is there some sort of rule/policy that says the i has to cross country/region lines?Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Croatia now listed in two regions[edit]

I know this a possibly dicey subject, but we now have Croatia listed in two regions: Balkans and Central Europe. I have a hunch that this is at least very uncommon and for a reason. I really don't care either way and I know that this a potential political can of worms, but I think we need to find consensus before making any changes on such a thing. I will however not revert the latest edits, not as an endorsement of either side, but to avoid an edit war. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You may always feel free to revert undiscussed changes to the geographical hierarchy at this level, especially so when they create overlap. All changes to the European hierarchy must be discussed at Talk:Europe/Hierarchy. Powers (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
ok. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
For future reference, there are a small number of instances that are caveats to the normal "plunge forward" mantra, and they are called out at Wikivoyage:Plunge forward#...but don't be reckless!. All of these exceptions aside from the "controversial edits" bullet point involve unilateral changes to something that was the end result of long discussions, and changes to the geographic hierarchy is thus the fourth of the five bullet points. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Why Geneva and not Zurich?[edit]

Is there any good reason to list the second biggest city of Switzerland but not the biggest? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I haven't been to either, but I would say there is a good reason, which is that Switzerland, as a headquarters for important United Nations organizations, is in that sense a more international city. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
That makes some sense. By the way, what do you say about my attempts to write new blurbs? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I like the new text but it's bordering on too long. One-liner listings are supposed to be short and sweet. Powers (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I think either choice will be fine (I've lived in both cities). Zurich is definitely the more popular choice for leisure and probably has more to offer on that side, but Geneva is more high profile and will be more interesting to business travellers etc., so while this could be changed, I don't think it needs to be. Drat70 (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Zürich would be fine. /Yvwv (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Bump in light of this Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't care, but not both! Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think there's a strong case to change, but neither is Geneva obviously much better than Zurich. They both hold little appeal for me in any case, for tourism purposes at least. The slight edge Geneva has is in its UN credentials and its Francophone status, unique on this list that would otherwise have four Germanophone cities. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Until #Ljubljana or Bratislava? above (also see #Cracow and the inconsistency and the thread after that), Krakow was one of the 9 cities. Do you think it's of more interest than any Swiss city and should be put back into the list? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I couldn't say definitively, as I've been to Krakow and not the Swiss cities in question. But I'm inclined to think Krakow has much greater tourist appeal, though of course that's only one factor in travel (and nobody could say that Geneva and Zurich don't get a lot of business visitors). These large continental regions are always going to be difficult to boil down to lists of 9 for each thing, so it's not hugely important to fiddle around in my opinion. After all, every potential candidate city will be prominently listed at the national level. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
That's quite true. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Warsaw is already listed, hence if Krakow is added we'll have two Polish articles. Geneva is of course a major business destination, but there's certainly also a lot of interesting things both in the city and nearby. On the downside, if we're looking for a more "purely" Central European city, Zürich would be a better choice. I'd say let's keep the status quo. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


In light of recent additions to the Respect section, is it not common sense that behaving like a Nazi in Europe, least of all this part of Europe, is not a good idea? I'd like to think that we wouldn't mollycoddle the sort of person (ignorant at best, malicious at worst) who would be tempted to 'heil' in public with a caution against doing what they should already know not to do. We should moreover assume the vast majority of our readers are intelligent non-racists who don't need such advice.

This seems obvious to me, but what do others think?--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)