|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
In tatry birds fly very messy sorry fly very good in polish birdsy than ptaki Mr. Harold Wondan
I suggest that since the High Tatras, Western Tatras and Eastern Tatras are simply a logical subdivision of the Tatra mountains, it would actually be better for the moment to merge all three into one main article. Those articles are generally pretty short, and the average surfer is going to have no idea that the info at High Tatras is even there. Any objections? Stevage 02:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- If you want to do it, no, but I think eventually we will have to split them off again.-- 18:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Now there's a map, but the what space for Poland isn't labeled, making it pretty useless for many users.18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
the meaning or etymology of tatra
Slovak misunderstanding of the "Tatry' term
Hi there. Surfing on the slovak wiki or any slovak Tatry-associated websites, it's unlikely not to be given an impression that Slovaks mistakenly take whole and entire Tatra range for Vysoke Tatry only. In other words, for Slovaks Tatry=Vysoke Tatry, as if the Zapadne Tatry and Belianske Tatry didn't exist at all. Maybe that's because of the name of the city which lies at the foot of Vysoke Tatry, called Vysoke Tatry (city) as well. The other probable cause might be the existance of totally separate and different mountain range, situated about 40 km south of Tatras, called Nizke Tatry (Low Tatras). As far as I'm concerned, they were originally named Niżnie Tatry, which could be translated into Southern Tatras. The error occured when non-slovak and non-polish cartographists (austro-hungarian) notoriously mistaken original slavic names for geographical objects. And so we had e.g. Velky Tatransky Krivan instead of Velky FATRANSKY Krivan, etc. It's for all to see on the old maps available on the internet.
This issue is being quite problematic, because whilst someone looks for an accomodation in Vysoke Tatry, a given slovak website shows him the search outcome in which there is e.g. Liptovsky Mikulas (which lies under Zapadne, not Vysoke Tatry) as well, etc.
Summa summarum, Slovaks cannot simply distinguish their greatest national treasure being all those amazingly carpathians subranges, a pearl of which being Tatry. Now this is quite sad, because a major part of that beautiful country is mountainous, so theoretically, you could expet the inhabitants to be fully aware of what is what and which range is which. Best regards to Slovaks. Please shift your conciousness in those terms. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Please add more images!!!!!!!!
Seriously this page is ridiculous. It's more like a travel brochure than an encyclopedic entry. About half of them do not add or enhance the reader's understanding of the subject but only serve to show more scenes of pretty mountain panoramas. TBH none of the images are actually that important, two or three should serve to address the area. That should be enough, shouldn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Tone of the article
Phrases such as "The Tatra "Mountains" (especially the High Tatras) are kindergarten compared to the Alps." or "[Tatras] can't be plains though, because they rise steeply from the surrounding landscape, which is known to particularly frustrate Slovenian tourists who are in general used to the less arduous trekking around Alps." do not conform to the impartial tone required by Wikipedia policy. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Impartial_tone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, this isn't a proper tone for an encyclopedia. It also doesn't make sense when it says "They are called mountains for historical reasons" - they're surely called mountains because they are mountains... (See the various definitions at mountain.) I'll remove these sentences. --David Edgar (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Why is there an entire paragraph in the section (curiously) entitled human involvement discussing a 2004 wind storm. What is the human angle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
needs more copy editing
Many parts of the article, including especially the sections "Memberships and border" and "Human engagement", need editing to fix bad English, apparently due to poor translation by people not fluent in English. I've done some but more is needed. --Thnidu (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)