Talk:List of cities and towns in Slovakia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

It may make more sense to place these entries in a table. --Milkmandan 04:26, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

You might want to move these in the List of cities in Slovakia. You can ask one of the admins if you want to delete and move instead of copy and past in order to keep the history. Unless you consider towns to be different from cities. Dori 22:26, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)

Should the Russian name also be given? The signs for towns in Eastern Slovakia have Slovak and Russian on them. —Chris Capoccia 17:03, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Of course not, this is not supposed to be a dictionary, the mentioning of German and Hungarian names has historical reasons. And they do not have "Russian" on it, but Ruthenian or Ukrainian. Juro 17:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is in a way strange for me. Article says that "ethnic minority represents 20% or more of the population, it has certain cultural and linguistic rights". 20%? For instance, in not so far history Klagenfurt was quite populated with Slovenes - (although in 2001 (Volkszählung 2001) according to de: wp there are 1.3% Slovenes living in the city (and even 3.3% Croats), and it is historically important to Slovenes; but I do not see any Slovene names in List of cities and towns in Austria. In Dobšiná in 2001 there were 0.63% Hungarians living in this town. Where is 20% and so forth...? --xJaM (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with XJamRastafire. New version will be without Magyar names, because alternative names are not important for English speakers. --Omen1229 (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of all cities and villages in Slovakia[edit]

I recently finished a (hopefully) complete list of all towns in Slovakia on the German Wiki, if somebody needs it try de:Liste der Städte und Gemeinden in der Slowakei. --murli 08:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Portal Slovakia.travel is official tourism portal in Slovakia. If you remove external link for these official information, I think it is not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.28.83.29 (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cities versus Towns[edit]

It should be considered and mentioned in this article that there is no Slovak vocabulary legal or otherwise that would distinguish between Cities and Towns as is done in Anglophone countries. Iswikinumber2 (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I added that to the lead section. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Tab[edit]

I suggest new tab, because current tab is obsolete. Czech republic and Hungary have good tabs. My version:

Name Top population Population Metropolitan area Area (km²) Region
Bratislava 471,061 (2009) 471,061 (2009) Increase 660,000 367.584 Bratislava Region
Košice 236,093 (2001) 233,886 (2010) Increase 341,000 242.768 Košice Region
Prešov 90,835 (2010) Decrease 161,000 70.40 Prešov Region
Žilina 85,129 (2010) 84,579 (2011) Decrease 160,000 80.03 Žilina Region
Nitra 87,285 (2001) 83,444 (2010) Increase 160,000 100.48 Nitra Region
Banská Bystrica 83,698(1991) 79,819 (2010) Decrease 110,000 103.37 Banská Bystrica Region
Trnava 67,368 (2010) Decrease 110,000 71.535 Trnava Region
Martin 57,987 (2010) Decrease 105,000 67.736 Žilina Region
Trenčín 56,403 (2010) Increase 100,000 81.996 Trenčín Region
Poprad 54,271 (2010) Decrease 100,000 62.997 Prešov Region
Prievidza 49,994 (2010) Decrease 80,000 43.063 Trenčín Region
Zvolen 42,206 (2010) Decrease 98.727 Banská Bystrica Region
Považská Bystrica 41,510 (2010) Decrease 90.555 Trenčín Region
Nové Zámky 40,094 (2010) Decrease 72.565 Nitra Region
Michalovce 39,322 (2010) Decrease 52.807 Košice Region
File:Coat of Arms of Spišská Nová Ves.svg Spišská Nová Ves 37,887 (2010) Decrease 66.672 Košice Region
Komárno 35,664 (2010) Decrease 102.807 Nitra Region
Levice 34,872 (2010) Decrease 60.996 Nitra Region
File:Coat of Arms of Humenné.svg Humenné 34,620 (2010) Decrease 28.762 Prešov Region
Bardejov 33,362 (2010) Increase 72.78 Prešov Region
Liptovský Mikuláš 32,284 (2010) Decrease 70.109 Žilina Region
Ružomberok 29,525 (2010) Decrease 126.72 Žilina Region
Piešťany 29,347 (2010) Decrease 44.201 Trnava Region
Topoľčany 28,271 (2010) Decrease 27.576 Nitra Region
Lučenec 27,348 (2010) Decrease 47.791 Banská Bystrica Region
Čadca 25,332 (2010) Decrease 56.792 Žilina Region
Dubnica nad Váhom 24,914 (2010) Decrease 49.137 Žilina Region
Partizánske 24,044 (2010) Decrease 22.375 Trenčín Region
Rimavská Sobota 24,040 (2010) Decrease 77.550 Banská Bystrica Region
File:Coat of Arms of Šaľa.svg Šaľa 23,645 (2010) Decrease 44.967 Nitra Region
File:Coat of Arms of Trebišov.svg Trebišov 23,521 (2010) Increase 70.160 Košice Region
Dunajská Streda 23,404 (2010) Decrease 31.451 Trnava Region
Vranov nad Topľou 23,069 (2010) Increase 31.10 Prešov Region
Pezinok 22,324 (2010) Increase 660,000 72.555 Bratislava Region
Hlohovec 22,232 (2010) Decrease 64.125 Trnava Region
Brezno 21,778 (2010) Decrease 121.957 Banská Bystrica Region
Snina 20,991 (2010) Decrease 59.41 Prešov Region
Senica 20,726 (2010) Decrease 50.316 Trnava Region

I will continue and replace old tab. --Omen1229 (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I second the new tab motion. Visually more appealing. Iswikinumber2 (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no consensus. Sirfurboy (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm, Reywas92, Eastmain, Mccapra, ミラP, Darwinek, Dream Focus, Pontificalibus, Bearian, and Yeetstuff: I propose the merger of List of German exonyms for places in Slovakia and of List of Hungarian exonyms for places in Slovakia with this article. Neither of these articles contain encyclopaedic content on their own, and the first of these was put up for deletion. The deletion discussion had a consensus for keep as the information in the article is of benefit to readers (unlike other such lists that are generally deleted), but not in this location. Both these lists appear to be spun out from this page, and could easily be incorporated back into the main table of this page, making this article fuller, broader and more encyclopaedic, and allowing editors to focus on one page instead of three.

I note that the width of the table would increase, and suggest removing either the 2001 population column or the % change column. It is not clear why 2001 should be a special date for comparison, and having both columns, in any case, is not necessary. Removing one of these columns will create enough space for the merge.

The resulting list will, in fact, be more in line with what external sites want from Wikipedia. C.f the Maps7 site that sources Wikipedia but chose to bring this information together as it is more in line with what their readers want. Likewise a train timetabling site did the same with data taken from Wikipedia. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The two effects I can foresee are 1. The table on this page will be unmanageably large and mess up the formatting and 2. The inclusion of old German names will upset Slovak nationalists who will keep trying to remove the names. Can we just leave everything as it is please, as each article appears to be doing its own job just fine? Mccapra (talk) 08:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. First, it would require a a complewte rw-write and coding from scratch. Secondly, German and Hungarian aren't even in the same family of languages (unless you believe in the unconfirmed Indo-Uralic languages hypothesis.). Just keep it as is. Bearian (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I expected concerns regarding width of the table and understand those. I will try an experiment and show a possible new layout in my sandbox when I get the time. That should allow an informed decision about what is proposed. I am a bit surprised by some of the other arguments for opposition though, and so will take a moment to deal with some of those. (1) The update is complex, requiring a table rewrite. This is not an argument! I will do the work. I expect I can write a simple script to do it. When dealing with structured text, that is usually not a problem. In any case, it is my time I am offering so this is not a reason not to do it. (2) The languages are not in the same families - but this is not the reason for the merge, and neither is it the reason we decided not to delete the lists. Per the AfD discussion, the reason these lists are useful is because of the history of Slovakia in the Austro-Hungarian empire, and the consequent German and Hungarian speaking minorities within the country. This is like having Welsh and English names on a list of place names in Wales (except perhaps for point 3 below). Further, it is useful information because many sources will refer to a town by a German or Hungarian name. That was the reason for keeping the lists and that is the reason for putting all information in one place (per the whole concept of a list). (3) Nationalists may deface the page. Yet I see no evidence they would. The minority languages coexist in Slovakia and are not oppressed. The current lists on the other pages are not being vandalised. I don’t see why this would become a target, and neither do I think we should curate our content because of the fear of possible retaliation by extremists, trolls or vandals. — Sirfurboy (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have created a test in my sandbox, here: User:Sirfurboy/sandbox showing the combined table as it would be. This answers the points regarding the difficulty of recoding and also allows you to see how the information would fit in the merged format. This table is now wider, but it will reflow down on smaller screen sizes. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.