I don't think we we will gather enough material for separate pages for Belianske and Western Tatras. I suggest we rename this into "TANAP" and provide information for all of those regions in one place.
- I am not opposed to consolidation into a single page, but what is meant by TANAP? Tatra National Park? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd never seen the word before. Apparently, it refers to real estate? But what does it mean in the context of "cadstral areas", and is it essential to use such a seemingly obscure word? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I took that translation from wiki page, it's in fact "Kataster" in slovak lingo... I can change it to something else, I guess it doesn't really have any value for travellers :) Andree.sk (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The Spiš article says that the High Tatras are in Spiš. Is that correct?
- That depends on the thing I was trying to do in the Slovakia article - Spiš is a traditional region. Oficially it's w:Prešov_Region :-) Andree.sk (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Another relatively small thing: I'm not sure I've seen other park articles with "Cities" sections. As a reader, I think this is fine, so I would tend to favor keeping it. But in terms of Wikivoyage organization, I'm not as sure. Would someone like to express an opinion on this? Another alternative would be to mention that these cities are in the park and link them but not have a dedicated "Cities" section. But to this reader, that would be less clear than keeping the section as is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, there's a mess in this - the cities don't really belong to this area (they do relate to the whole park though)... I cannot fix it all at once :) Andree.sk (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello @Andree.sk: and thank you for your edits. There are now several red links in this article, including for what I understand to be individual hikes. While there certainly are itinerary articles for relatively short strolls or hikes, it seems undesirable to have them left as red links for too long a time. Given that you are presumably the only or one of a few users here that has any in-depth first hand knowledge of the region, I defer to your judgment, but am quite confident to say that if you don't create the articles that you introduced the redlinks for, no one will in the foreseeable future. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hi! The reason for the links is that I'm not sure wheter it's better to "nudge" guests to add the content via 1 click - or prefer the non-red text :) But you are right - most of the hikes don't really deserve separate articles, so I'll drop most of the links... Andree.sk (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)