Talk:Gerlachovský štít

message: What is better translation of Štít Legionárov: "Legionnaires’ Peak" or "Peak of Legionaries" ?
Unless you find a contemporaneus English language source, the second one...Juro 03:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation

message: But some parts read like an essay so needed to be changed.--Svetovid 19:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds good. As the original author of that section, I have absolutely no objection to your idea. Tankred (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, done. I'm not sure whether to treat the untranslated Velická próba and the other one (I agree that they're better that way) as names or stick them with the article like, e.g., the Via Veneto or the Schwarzwald, which I did. I'm not partial to one or the other option. Carca220nne (talk) 07:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job. But would it be possible to emphasize that a mountain guide is required for anyone climbing the peak unless they are members of UIAA? The present version is not as explicit in this regard as the previous one. As to your question, I would rather stick with the native names because their English translations are not really in use. It means I am totally fine with your version (Velicka proba ("Velicka Challenge"). Tankred (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for starting it. Sure, rephrase it. I merely wouldn't want the encyclopedic entry on such a symbolic mountain sound like a mouthpiece for a single institution, the Park management, and wanted to include the descriptive fact that scores of people (consider it their right to) climb it without being members or hiring guides, meaning include all the facts about the mountain, its visitors, and people's attitude to it rather than copying and showcasing the Park bylaws. I'd consider them rightly placed in the entry on the Park. How about putting them there, I already cross-referenced the entry on the Park here, or linking to them from there — http: // www.tanap.org / en / informations-for-visitors.php — or, possibly, from Gerlach if they are important to help us learn about it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carca220nne (talk • contribs) 17:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll have a go at making the table a bit more spiffy later tonight. If you have any particular suggestions let me know, otherwise I'll do something along the lines of List of countries by homicide rate and shade in some way by value. JMiall₰ 18:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are impressive tables. I look forward to seeing ones like that for the climate data. Carca220nne (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have drafted something at User:JMiall/Table. JMiall₰ 18:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks great. If you could, kindly, fit in the visibility row that I just added and then post your table, that would look very good here. Carca220nne (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A great, spiffy table. Thank you very much. Carca220nne (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It could also do with a brief passage on the flora and fauna at the summit (meaning not in the Tatras in general). I'd wait. Carca220nne (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice work. But the words "it may have been the most frequently renamed European peak" in the lead should be supported by a citation or changed to a fact that is actually known (e.g. the number of names). Otherwise, it will be sooner or later marked as unpublished original research. Although I do not consider this point very important (since all the data can be found in a geobox on the right side of the article), it is quite standard to reserve a prominent place near the beginning of the lead to the location (the mountain range and country). Decimal commas are not used in the English Wikipedia and a decimal point should be used instead. You can find more information at WP:UNITS#Decimal_points. Hope this helped. Tankred (talk) 01:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for fixing it. Tankred (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not have a go at it, then. My assumption was that the entry will get longer with some geology, biology, perhaps additions to history, plus whatever occurs to someone, in which case a brief-two-para lead might be in line with the guidelines vis-à-vis the length of the entry. Also, it may seem longer because of the box, but it's actually under 300 words. Carca220nne (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Well, if everyone else is fine with the current version (though particularly the second sentence of the 3rd lead para sounds bit weird to me) and there are no serious issues, I'd suggest to move ahead and nominate on the GA candidates page. MarkBA t/c/@ 18:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting. The original number was from peaklist.org, but I have no idea how they calculated it. summitpost.org also says "the prominence is well above 2,000 m". Perhaps they took it from the Polish side? Or from a lower altitude than Poprad? I do not know, but these two websites are usually pretty reliable. Tankred (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This data disqualifies them as reliable. If you take their prominence off Gerlach's height, 2,655 - 2,355 = 300 m amsl, you have to go all the way to a place somewhere near Prešov to get such a low elevation − that's 50 miles from Gerlach. The prominence of the Cliffs of Dover "above" Calais (20 mi.) would make more sense by comparison. The prominence from the Polish side is merely 1,800 m: 200 m less than from Poprad and you have to go as far as Zakopane (not a meaningful place to measure Gerlach's prominence from) to get it so "high". It's ca. 1,650 m from a more meaningful point in Poland. The other site, summitpost.org makes unfathomable claims, for instance, that Gerlach was in Poland/General Government during WW II (it was the other way round: Bratislava controlled some territories now in Poland), botches Greiner's first name, says that he was a "local gamekeeper", leaving a message at the trailhead "may" apply to Poland (it would be of little use in reality, the rangers-cashiers at trailheads knock off in the afternoon, so who would check who returns and who doesn't), but not Slovakia (no rangers at trailheads, so where and for whom would people leave their messages at the trailhead, under a rock for the marmots?), warns against hiking because of heavy storms late in the summer (meteorological averages show their incidence actually drops in the second half of August), tons of other nonsense (and Wki sops up such stuff like sponge). My experience with websites is check what I can myself (like here − simple math, maps, etc.), and then recheck and recheck. Websites quote each other without attribution on a massive scale, so having multiple web sources doesn't mean much without additional considerations. Carca220nne (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No need for the smiley, anonymous low countries, I'm grateful for the pointers. Disregarding the technical aspect, it does make sense to talk about elevations above whatever localities, above Zakopane (Gerlach is not visible from there), above Poprad, or above anywhere around (BTW, Poprad−Gerlach = 10 mi, Zakopane−Gerlach = 10 mi, Nowy Targ−Gerlach = 22 mi) albeit, I understand thanks to you, not about prominence in its topographic definition. Thanks again. Roger, wilco, and out. Carca220nne (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not quite sure what do you mean by 'low countries', I hope you wasn't trying to offend me and this is just a misunderstanding caused by my poor knowledge of English. :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.12.91.242 (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good job, Tankred

message: Proposal: Would anyone object if I rearranged the section on access?  I'd start with access rather than with the POV of the Mountain Service/Park management and would then repeatedly attribute "are allowed," etc., to the entity that mandates that.  I'd remove the claim that it has reduced the number of accidents on the route.
Justification: Some of the things, like the request that people leave no trace (an impossibility) may sound universally appealing, for instance, but that is a regulation, too.  All of them need to be phrased consistently as a description of a defined entity's mandates in effect in the area under discussion rather than as an endorsement of the policy, i.e, a POV. ♠♠♠♠ As to the number of accidents, such regulations have been in effect since the establishment of the Park, so what published before-and-after statistics show a drop; and they would be meaningless if they did—if more people used to be allowed to go somewhere and then their number is reduced, of course there will be fewer accidents, like if only those with a 20/20 vision and low testosterone were allowed to drive. Carca220nne (talk) 05:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds good. As the original author of that section, I have absolutely no objection to your idea. Tankred (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, done. I'm not sure whether to treat the untranslated Velická próba and the other one (I agree that they're better that way) as names or stick them with the article like, e.g., the Via Veneto or the Schwarzwald, which I did. I'm not partial to one or the other option. Carca220nne (talk) 07:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job. But would it be possible to emphasize that a mountain guide is required for anyone climbing the peak unless they are members of UIAA? The present version is not as explicit in this regard as the previous one. As to your question, I would rather stick with the native names because their English translations are not really in use. It means I am totally fine with your version (Velicka proba ("Velicka Challenge"). Tankred (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for starting it. Sure, rephrase it. I merely wouldn't want the encyclopedic entry on such a symbolic mountain sound like a mouthpiece for a single institution, the Park management, and wanted to include the descriptive fact that scores of people (consider it their right to) climb it without being members or hiring guides, meaning include all the facts about the mountain, its visitors, and people's attitude to it rather than copying and showcasing the Park bylaws. I'd consider them rightly placed in the entry on the Park. How about putting them there, I already cross-referenced the entry on the Park here, or linking to them from there — http: // www.tanap.org / en / informations-for-visitors.php — or, possibly, from Gerlach if they are important to help us learn about it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carca220nne (talk • contribs) 17:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Access

message: I wonder if anyone who has the skills could spare the time some day to improve the table in the "Climate" section, at least make the numbers align right, or give it a spiffier layout in general. Carca220nne (talk) 08:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have a go at making the table a bit more spiffy later tonight. If you have any particular suggestions let me know, otherwise I'll do something along the lines of List of countries by homicide rate and shade in some way by value. JMiall₰ 18:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are impressive tables. I look forward to seeing ones like that for the climate data. Carca220nne (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have drafted something at User:JMiall/Table. JMiall₰ 18:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks great. If you could, kindly, fit in the visibility row that I just added and then post your table, that would look very good here. Carca220nne (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A great, spiffy table. Thank you very much. Carca220nne (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Table

message: I've watched this article developing, and now I think it should meet WP:WIAGA criteria for good article or fall short of them. However, there are two things that dog me: 1. Is there anything to be added on Geology? Browsing GA articles on mountains like this one, each seems to contain such section or be as content somewhere. and 2. The current lead looks bit short to me, though I don't know what to add more. MarkBA t/c/@ 14:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could also do with a brief passage on the flora and fauna at the summit (meaning not in the Tatras in general). I'd wait. Carca220nne (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice work. But the words "it may have been the most frequently renamed European peak" in the lead should be supported by a citation or changed to a fact that is actually known (e.g. the number of names). Otherwise, it will be sooner or later marked as unpublished original research. Although I do not consider this point very important (since all the data can be found in a geobox on the right side of the article), it is quite standard to reserve a prominent place near the beginning of the lead to the location (the mountain range and country). Decimal commas are not used in the English Wikipedia and a decimal point should be used instead. You can find more information at WP:UNITS#Decimal_points. Hope this helped. Tankred (talk) 01:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for fixing it. Tankred (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not have a go at it, then. My assumption was that the entry will get longer with some geology, biology, perhaps additions to history, plus whatever occurs to someone, in which case a brief-two-para lead might be in line with the guidelines vis-à-vis the length of the entry. Also, it may seem longer because of the box, but it's actually under 300 words. Carca220nne (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Well, if everyone else is fine with the current version (though particularly the second sentence of the 3rd lead para sounds bit weird to me) and there are no serious issues, I'd suggest to move ahead and nominate on the GA candidates page. MarkBA t/c/@ 18:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article candidature

message: How was Gerlach's prominence of 2355 m (7,726 ft) calculated? Wiki gives the elevation of Poprad, the nearest lowest place, as 672 m AMSL, which translates to "about 2000 m" as the lead said, but the box lists the 15% higher value. Carca220nne (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. The original number was from peaklist.org, but I have no idea how they calculated it. summitpost.org also says "the prominence is well above 2,000 m". Perhaps they took it from the Polish side? Or from a lower altitude than Poprad? I do not know, but these two websites are usually pretty reliable. Tankred (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This data disqualifies them as reliable. If you take their prominence off Gerlach's height, 2,655 - 2,355 = 300 m amsl, you have to go all the way to a place somewhere near Prešov to get such a low elevation − that's 50 miles from Gerlach. The prominence of the Cliffs of Dover "above" Calais (20 mi.) would make more sense by comparison. The prominence from the Polish side is merely 1,800 m: 200 m less than from Poprad and you have to go as far as Zakopane (not a meaningful place to measure Gerlach's prominence from) to get it so "high". It's ca. 1,650 m from a more meaningful point in Poland. The other site, summitpost.org makes unfathomable claims, for instance, that Gerlach was in Poland/General Government during WW II (it was the other way round: Bratislava controlled some territories now in Poland), botches Greiner's first name, says that he was a "local gamekeeper", leaving a message at the trailhead "may" apply to Poland (it would be of little use in reality, the rangers-cashiers at trailheads knock off in the afternoon, so who would check who returns and who doesn't), but not Slovakia (no rangers at trailheads, so where and for whom would people leave their messages at the trailhead, under a rock for the marmots?), warns against hiking because of heavy storms late in the summer (meteorological averages show their incidence actually drops in the second half of August), tons of other nonsense (and Wki sops up such stuff like sponge). My experience with websites is check what I can myself (like here − simple math, maps, etc.), and then recheck and recheck. Websites quote each other without attribution on a massive scale, so having multiple web sources doesn't mean much without additional considerations. Carca220nne (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No need for the smiley, anonymous low countries, I'm grateful for the pointers. Disregarding the technical aspect, it does make sense to talk about elevations above whatever localities, above Zakopane (Gerlach is not visible from there), above Poprad, or above anywhere around (BTW, Poprad−Gerlach = 10 mi, Zakopane−Gerlach = 10 mi, Nowy Targ−Gerlach = 22 mi) albeit, I understand thanks to you, not about prominence in its topographic definition. Thanks again. Roger, wilco, and out. Carca220nne (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not quite sure what do you mean by 'low countries', I hope you wasn't trying to offend me and this is just a misunderstanding caused by my poor knowledge of English. :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.12.91.242 (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prominence

message: What's the policy on Central European personal first-baptismal names? Greiner, Count Sachsen-Coburg's highly qualified land management director (rather than one of the foresters), was born in "Germany" (Karpatendeutsches biographisches Lexikon), or more specifically "Lichtentanne" (Révai Lexikon), western Saxony, so he was doubtless baptized Ludwig. The way things go in Central Europe, Hungarian sources call him Lajos, Slovak sources Ľudovít, German sources Ludwig. He first came to the Kingdom of Hungary (its Slovak-majority area) at the age of 32 and lived there for the rest of his life (died at 86). There's no info on whether he may have learned any Slovak or Hungarian, or how much. There's a good chance that he continued to call himself Ludwig and that the Kingdom's authorities sometimes spelled his name as Lajos, especially towards the end of the century. Is there a reason to opt for the Slovak rather than the German version of his first name in this entry, or should all versions be listed (if so, which ones should be parenthesized), or...? Carca220nne (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although all three names can (and probably should) be listed in a still-to-be-written article about him, we should choose only one name here. It is usually the name from the title of the article about that person, but this is not the case here, as there is no article about Greiner. We generally follow English sources if any exist and if they consistently use one of the variants. Google scholar, google books, and google (with a language filter enabled) can be of some help. If we cannot use this criterion either, I would probably use the Slovak variant because most publications on Gerlachovsky stit are written in Slovak. So, Greiner's name is more likely appear in most sources as Ludovit than Ludwig. Tankred (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Greiner - policy on names

message: I'm not sure about the Tatra National Park being entered under "Range".  The Park is an administrative unit, not a mountain chain. It was under "Municipality" first, which was not perfect given that, unlike a municipality, the Park is not run by an elected body, but it was the closest label to identifying the body that administers the territory of Gerlach.  I'd rather not see the Park at all in the box than see it misrepresented as the name of a natural feature.  At the same time, I think it's good to know what body administers a territory in general, especially since a passage in this entry turns into the Park's warning sign, so it would be useful to see the Park fitted in somewhere in the box. Carca220nne 16:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Municipality/Range

message: If you are putting this for GA, the units need to be fixed. Not all have imperial conversions, and those that do, apart from a couple I fixed are not correctly formatted - spell out metric, abbreviate imperial. Jimfbleak (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Units

message: I have reviewed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria and have placed the article on hold until the following issues are addressed. As you address each issue, either strike through the statement/place a check mark next to the issue and state how you addressed it.
#"The view from the top is readily enhanced by the hikers' hard-to-beet feeling that in about a 200-degree arc, no one is standing taller than they are, except thousands of miles away, far beyond the curvature of the earth." Is it supposed to be "hard-to-beat"? Also, it would probably be best to add an inline citation for this statement.
:typo fixed.
:I've rather removed that statement until a citation is found. I just hope it doesn't affect the flow in the rest. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 20:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review: On Hold

message: Good job on addressing the above issues. I have passed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. Concerning the the past and present sections, I just figured they would go in timeline order, but if editors of the article like it the way it is that's fine. Although it's likely there's no mention of the flora/fauna, still keep an eye open for any articles on the topic. Continue to improve the article, making sure that all new information is properly sourced and neutral.
Also, to anyone that is reading this review, please consider reviewing an article or two at WP:GAN to help with the large backlog. Instructions can be found here. Each new reviewer that helps to review articles will help to reduce the time that articles wait to be reviewed. Keep up the good work, and I hope that you continue to bring articles up to Good Article status. If anyone disagrees with this review, an alternate opinion can be sought at Good article reassessment. If you have any further questions about this review, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA passed

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gerlachovský štít. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://encyklopedia.interia.pl/obiekty/cc.html?hid=71667
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071109205147/http://www.vysoke-tatry.info:80/vyklad.php?tatry=121 to http://www.vysoke-tatry.info/vyklad.php?tatry=121
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: IMO, the English name of this peak should be Gerlachov peak and NOT "Gerlach peak". Why? Because it takes its name from the village of Gerlachov! The colloquial Slovak name "Gerlach" is just a popular name and is not official at all! I propose changing the name. Johnnyjanko (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  English translation of the name 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gerlachovský štít. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070819103625/http://www.tatry.nfo.sk/stite.php to http://www.tatry.nfo.sk/stite.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't quite understand the statement "With the travel restrictions imposed by the Eastern Bloc, the mountain was particularly treasured by Czechs, East Germans, Hungarians, Poles, and Slovaks as the highest point available for them to climb" as it implies something incorrect. There have been higher mountains in the Eastern Bloc even outside the USSR. The highest mountain of the Eastern Bloc outside the Soviet Union itself was the Musala in Bulgaria at 2925 m (9,600 ft). Mountains of Yugoslavia and Albania have been higher than Gerlach as well. The highest mountain of the European part of the Soviet Union was the Elbrus, the highest mountain of Europe. Professional climbers could fly to Almaty and climb Khan Tengri or Victory Peak. The highest mountain of the Soviet Union was Communism Peak. But certainly most Czechs, East Germans, Hungarians, Poles and Slovaks could afford to go to the Rila Mountains and climb Musala, so Musala was more likely the "highest point available for them to climb". Hence, such a statement would be more fitting to Musala (but with making it more specific) but Gerlach by far wasn't the highest mountain of the Eastern Bloc (just of the more northern part of the Bloc). Glasfaser Wien (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Glasfaser Wien (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gerlach wasn't the highest mountain of the Eastern Bloc