Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Slovenia

Slovenia Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Slovenia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Slovenia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SloveniaWikipedia:WikiProject SloveniaTemplate:WikiProject SloveniaSlovenia articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. WikiProject Slovenia to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks you can do (watch): Requests: Jože Tisnikar (sl), Protestant Reformation in the Slovene Lands (sl), Metlika black (sl) Wikify: Russia–Slovenia relations Unreferenced: Inner Carniola, Litostroj, Pavel Golia, Predjama Castle Cleanup: Edvard Ravnikar, Škofja Loka, Inex-Adria Aviopromet Flight 1308 Expand: Education in Slovenia Stubs: Ajdovi žganci, Čop Street, Omar Naber, Radenska NPOV: Gregorij Rožman, Siddharta (band) Portal maintenance: Update News, Did you know, announcements, and suggest Selected article and picture Help assess the quality of 61 unassessed articles Take/Add requested photographs

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

German soldier that dropped his gun to stand besides Yugoslav partisans about to be shot. Help would be needed to find sources offline and in Serbo-Croat, especially about the monument in Lokve.^walk victor falk ^talk 07:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page falls within your scope:-) Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the article was tagged as POV on the notice board, so I suggested some minor changes to the wording on the talk page. Any input/help would be appreciated. TomorrowTime (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Slovenia to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Slovenia/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 01:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the addition. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 22:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the article Prešeren Day is going to appear on the Main Page on 8 February, I invite all interested editors to expand it, copyedit it and especially to provide sources for it (especially for its third paragraph) so that we get rid of the annoying unsourced templates before the event. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 22:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The event has been left out for "lacks references, stub". Some work has to be done. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 00:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki Culture.si is operated by the Slovenian Ministry of Culture. Its texts are available under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license[1] (the same license as used by Wikipedia), so they may be freely copied into Wikipedia, under the provision of appropriate attribution. See Enhance Wikipedia! and Terms of Use. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm a member of both projects (i.e. Wikipedia and Culture.si), so if anybody has any questions about the Culture.si, feel free to ask. If anyone's interested, we'd be happy to organize a meetup between WikiProject Slovenia and Culture.si at Ljudmila (where we work) some time in May. Zocky | picture popups 13:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Elleasar, thanks for the kind letter. Zocky | picture popups 13:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd be interested in the meetup and collaboration but am quite busy right now with exams and am till the middle of June mostly not in Ljubljana. (I'll have more time in July and in October). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm asking for the community input on the proposal that the settlements called 'mesto' (see the list on pg. 28) in Slovenia should be described here as cities not towns (for example Trebnje, Radeče etc). The arguments to use the word city:

• [2] - the 'official' translation of the word 'mesto' as 'city' in PISRS.
• according to the article city, numerous settlements with less than 3000 inhabitants (limit for 'mesto' in Slovenia) are called city in the English-speaking world.

I'm also proposing that the articles should describe either the settlement or the municipality. To avoid misunderstandings, it would probably make sense to create separate articles for all the 211 municipalities of Slovenia (as it has been done in the Slovene Wikipedia) and present statistical data for the municipality there. Otherwise, for example the infobox in the article about the settlement Hotemež (it's in the Municipality of Radeče) gives data for the settlement, whereas the infobox in the article about the settlement Radeče gives data about the municipality, which is inconsistent and confusing. Even more so, as the infobox is named 'Infobox Settlement'.

For both proposals, see also User talk:Kaktus999#Settlement/municipality distinction. Thanks for your opinions. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, cities that have a formal city status should be noted as such. Also, I strongly feel that descriptions of settlements and municipalities should be separated. Time and will are the issues, though. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The PISRS had changed the translation to 'town',[3] and per a recent conversation I suggest that only the seats of city municipalities (11) are named city, and others of the listed town. That's because "a city municipality is a municipality comprising of a larger town", i.e. a city) ("mestna občina je občina, ki zaobseže večje mesto").[4] (pg. 10) This makes the distinction similar to the German Stadt / Großstadt.[5] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A town can obtain the status of a city municipality if it has more than 20,000 residents and at least 15,000 workplaces.(page 28) --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody was kind enough to notify this WikiProject, I am notifying you of the request for move discussion currently ongoing at Talk:Anže Kopitar. - Darwinek (talk) 10:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would this WikiProject be concerned about ice hockey articles? GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because it's a discussion about a Slovene hockey player? — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ya mean Darwinek is trying to rally the troops? GoodDay (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that we're his army? — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a request for move, which may interest members of this WikiProject, at Talk:Martin Ruzicka. - Darwinek (talk) 10:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And another one here. --Sporti (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just thought I would pass along to you that the article for DJ Umek is in horrible shape. I added tags about it the other day because it needs cleaned up badly. It's pretty much just a cut and paste job. I would do it myself but I don't know a whole lot about him, aside from the song "Posing as Me". So if anyone could help it would really make a BIG difference. Crash Underride 00:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is underway regarding the use of diacritics in proper nouns from languages such as Slovene. Comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC. Prolog (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know guys, that you have Željko Ražnatović in the Infobox Ethnic group in the article Serbs in Slovenia. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that's probably not the best choice. Among other things, he didn't have much in common with Slovenia, apart from being born there. And, regarding the template, 3/6 people are basketball players and 4/6 are sportsmen. Surely we can have some people from other fields as well? Suggestions? --Tone 20:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately no suggestions from me. BTW, I know that there are lots of Slovenian people who have Serbian origin in Slovenia, but how do they declare them selves in real life? For example, does Milivoje Novakovič declares himself as Slovenian footballer or Serbian-Slovenian footballer or something else? Maybe ethnic identity: Serb & nationality: Slovenian? And one more thing if somebody knows, all other article titles are like Serbs of Country not Serbs in Country like here Slovenia is? --Kebeta (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically, probably Slovenians of (partially) Serbian ancestry? Serbian-Slovenian footballer for me would mean someone who has both citizenships or something like that. For example, Jakov Fak is originally from Croatia but has adopted Slovenian citizenship and competes for the Slovenian national team. So, as his article says, he is a Croatian-Slovenian biathlete. Otherwise, I'd say it's really on the case-to-case basis. --Tone 21:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Visoko#BiH town primary topic?. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the suggestion of user TechnoSymbiosis, I am requesting commentary on the scholarly sources being deleted by user Doncsecz from the article Slovene dialects. Citations of Benedik, Logar, Priestly, Toporišič, Rigler, Zorko, Slavistična revija, Jezik in slovstvo, SP 2001, SSKJ, SAZU, and Slovenska matica are repeatedly being deleted as unreliable. Doremo (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also requesting commentary on user Doncsecz's proposal that the Prekmurje dialect be deleted from the list of Slovenian dialects. I do not agree with that proposal, but I would like to attain consensus on the issue. Doremo (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastično Doremo! Odtod prosiš "pomoč," čeprav tukaj ne verjamem, da boš dobil neutralni odgovor, saj nekateri člani Wikiprojekt Slovenije so tudi enostranski v vprašanju pa bi se poskusili posmehovati te vire, ki so iz Prekmurja od Kuzmiča, Novaka, Smeja in drugih. Eleasar je eden izmed teh uporabnikov, ki zakrknjeno goni prekmursko temo in poskusi tako naslikati celo stvar, če bi bila šala, da Slovenija je enotna in nedeljiva, dokler Prekmurci brez konca vprašajo, ali zakaj jih ne spoštujejo Osrednji Slovenci? Zdaj spet tiste iščeš, ki tudi ni neutralni v tem vprašanju. Škoda, da nimamo posebnega projekta o Prekmurju. In: Slavistična revija je publicirala tudi take članke, ki trdijo drugačno mnenje proti tistemu mnenju, ki je "vir" Doremoja. (The essence: Doremo once again lookking for those, who non-neutrals.) Doncsecz^talk 17:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This issue appears to be resolved due to a 3O on 13 Sept. and the involvement of an additional user. Of course, any future commentary or help with the Slovene dialect article(s) is appreciated. Doremo (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to let everyone know that the Eastern Europe and Macedonia general sanctions have been ruled to apply to Slovenia per the rulings here and here. The sanctions are summarized under the Digwuren and Macedonia subsections here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please tend to Category:Slovenian given names -> Category:Slovene given names. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done - changed into category redirects. --Sporti (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What should be the preferred naming style for streets? Čop Street or Čopova Street? (etc.) Some examples can be found in Category:Streets by city (for example Category:Streets in Warsaw and others). See also the discussion at my and Doremo's talk page. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment reposted from Eleassar's talk page for convenience): I agree with discussion at WP:SLO. However, streets shouldn't be treated in isolation from squares, bridges, parks, and buildings. In any case, I think it's necessary to have the native names available as well; for example, "Congress Square (Slovene: Kongresni trg) ...", "The Dragon Bridge (Slovene: Zmajski most) ...", "Čop Street (Slovene: Čopova ulica) ...", "Cankar Hall (Slovene: Cankarjev dom) ..." etc. as these articles currently have them. I would disagree with renaming them Kongresni Square, Zmajski Bridge, Čopova Street, Cankarjev Hall etc. Doremo (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, we've been following the same logic with lakes - Lake Cerknica (not Lake Cerkniško), Lake Palčje (not Lake Palško), etc. Don't know what's correct, though, might be worth to ask some expert. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yerpo is referring to what I always think of as the "Berlin Wall principle" (German: Berliner Mauer), which is pretty typical for this stuff in most languages: the generic element (Mauer 'wall') gets translated and the specific element (Berliner 'Berlin') is stripped of native derivational morphology (e.g., German: -er), translated if necessary (e.g., Italian: Berlino, Czech: Berlín), and then any other morphology (e.g., Slovene: -ski, Czech: -ská) or necessary syntax (e.g., Italian: di, apposition, compounding, adnominal genitive, etc.) is applied to it. Thus:

Germ. Berliner Mauer → Eng. Berlin Wall, Sln. Berlinski zid, Ital. Muro di Berlino, Cz. Berlínská zeď, etc.

Sln. Ljubljanski grad → Eng. Ljubljana Castle, Germ. Burg Laibach, Ital. Castello di Lubiana, Cz. Lublaňský hrad, etc.

Ital. Piazza San Pietro → Eng. St. Peter's Square, Sln. Trg Svetega Petra, Germ. Petersplatz, Cz. Svatopetrské náměstí, etc.

The English names Lake Cerknica, Čop Street, etc. faithfully follow this principle. Doremo (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per analogy to Berliner Mauer, Slovenska cesta should therefore be Slovenia Road, Slovene Road or Slovenian Road? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by analogy Slovenia Street or Slovene/Slovenian Street (one can justify either the noun or adjective form; cf. Canada/Canadian Avenue, for example, in various cities.). But also including the native name (Slovenska cesta) at first mention is a good idea, especially if there's no linked article where it's discussed in more detail. That way nothing is ambiguous. Doremo (talk) 07:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It goes without saying that the native name has to be stated in the intro of all of the articles on local topics. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to express my reservations about such naming, as some names have been extensively translated with keeping the original Slovenian suffix. For example, Celovška cesta has been mainly translated as Celovška Road (3,230 hits by Google) or Celovška Street (1,410 hits) compared to Celovec Road (8 hits) or Celovec Street (1 hit), Klagenfurt Street (1 hit) or Klagenfurt Road (55 hits, not all relevant). Perhaps, there may be other cases where there is no established English name, but as far as I understand WP:ENGLISH, if such a widely established use does exist, we should use the most common name regardless of which one is the linguistically preferred one. The choice of the name should therefore be considered from case to case. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, case-to-case is important here. If there were an established English name for Celovška cesta it would be Klagenfurt Street, but there simply isn't an established name (because it's not important enough in the English world to have merited much, if any, discussion independent of travel guides). That doesn't mean that Klagenfurt Street isn't a good translation, or not even the "right" one—just that it's not being used. In the case you've cited here, the morphological shock to Slovenian speakers is greater because of the exonym/endonym contrast of Celovec/Klagenfurt (i.e., it looks really different). With, say, Podutiška cesta → Podutik Street (like Blejsko jezero → Lake Bled) there's no "shock" and it seems natural. A similar "shock" is produced with Dunajska cesta → Vienna Street or Tržaška cesta → Trieste Street (and should be produced by Filozofska fakulteta → Faculty of Arts, except that everyone's used to it, although a few folks are probably still talking about the "Philosophical Faculty"). What's at stake is when things in Slovenia (e.g., some streets) are named after things that are not in Slovenia (e.g., some cities). I think if there were a Čikaska/Pariška/Njujorška cesta I'd probably want to call it Chicago/Paris/New York Street rather than Čikago/Pariz/Njujork Street. Another nice example is Ulica Janeza Pavla II., which really has to be John Paul II Street (not Janez Pavel II. Street) because that's the referent's name in English. Or my recent article on the St. Stanislaus Institute, where I used Stanislaus (and not Stanislav, as the institute's website does) because it's named after Saint Stanislaus, as he's known in English, regardless of the Slovene exonym (Stanislav) or the Polish endonym (Stanisław). But that's the nice thing about Wikipedia; we've got lots of time to think these things over and also to change our minds when it seems right. Doremo (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to keep strictly to "Road" for "cesta" and "Street" for "ulica". In English it's more natural to say "Road" when talking about the main (historical) route out of a town or city towards another one (often in another country). So "Rimska cesta", "Dunajska cesta" and "Celovška cesta" should surely be "Rome Road", "Vienna Road" and "Klagenfurt Road" - if they're going to be translated at all. In Britain "London Road" (often "the London Road") is a common name throughout the country - never "London Street". "Street" suggests a purely local feature inside a town or city, like "Market Street" or "Church Street".213.127.210.95 (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenian uses cesta and ulica more or less randomly today (e.g., every street, even the smallest, in Ljubljana's Rožna Dolina neighborhood is a cesta). There is no point in trying to impose an artificial consistency on something that isn't consistent in the source language/system. Doremo (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can one translate Gosposka ulica? Lord Street? I came across this when editing National and University Library of Slovenia. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've found the translation Gentry Street had been used in Stopar, I., Prelovšek, D. Walks in old Ljubljana: a guide to its culture and history (1992), pg. 97. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 21:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Gentry Street is good. I always like to check for other instances (to see if it's plausible); this one is named after a family named Gentry, and so it isn't a good model. However, the name has been used here (in an Eastern European context) as well as here and here, so it seems like an appropriate translation. It's got my approval for sounding natural. Doremo (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd always thought the name referred to "Gospod" as in "the Lord", i.e. God. Does anyone know what it was called in German in Laibach days? That might provide a clue. There are streets with the same name elsewhere in Slovenia. And "Gentry Street" sounds un-English to me.213.127.210.95 (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The name Gosposka ulica has nothing to do with God; that's why we check historical sources to avoid such mistakes. It was called Herrengasse in German. No clues are needed; the meaning is well attested in many sources. Gentry Street is a very natural English name; just Google it for examples or see the links already provided above. Doremo (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Culture.si This is a portal by the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Slovenia with over 2000 articles about Slovene culture. The text is under the same license as Wikipedia; you have to atrivute the source. Just wanted to let you know about this. --U5K0 (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As already proposed (see above), we could organise a common meeting with the Culture.si administrators to find some synergy. In an e-mail exchange last year, it was planned that it would take place in March 2010, but was not realised then. What they especially stressed was the need for more biographies as they do not cover them: "Povezave na konkretne članke oz. relevantne vsebine na wikipediji že sedaj objavljamo pod External links. Še posebej nam pridejo prav povezave na članke o posameznikih, saj jih ta portal ne pokriva." / (Translation: Links to specific articles and relevant topics in Wikipedia are already being added as External links. We particuarly value links to articles about people, as they are not in the scope of our portal. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've created an attribution template for the site, {{culture.si}}. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to invite discussion of the name of the article Nabrežina; it seems to me that it should appear under Aurisina because it's in Italy, regardless of other factors. The "original name" argument on the talk page is irrelevant (most European cities would not be recognizable under their etymologically "original names"), and the "majority population" argument is also a dangerous one because it invites inconsistency (for example, by this logic some small Slovenian settlements should be listed under Roma names, not Slovenian ones). Doremo (talk) 13:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand the discussion, the main arguments are that the area is bilingual (so both names are official), and the Slovene name is more commonly used in various sources when referencing notable Slovenes connected to the village. I'm not familiar with the subject, so I can't say whether this is true, but if it is, then the title is quite appropriate. — Yerpo ^Eh? 15:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the Slovene sources Atlas Slovenije and Geopedia both give preference to Aurisina (i.e., they list that name first/above). Doremo (talk) 16:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if official bilingualism and majority ethnic group are the criteria, then Hodoš and Dobrovnik ought to be moved to Hodos and Dobronak because of their Hungarian majorities. I don't support such a move, but I bring it up because it would be consistent with keeping the Aurisina article at Nabrežina. Doremo (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone reading a non-Slovenian map - and the vast majority of maps in the world are inevitably non-Slovenian! - will find "Aurisina". So I think we have to keep to the names known to the rest of the world, unless the context is quite specifically Slovenian (and even then I think both names should be used, with a slash). There's simply no point in saying "Celovec" if 99.99% of the world now knows the place as "Klagenfurt". And Slovenian names just happen to be very different from the names used across the border (even something as "simple" as Devin/Duino).213.127.210.95 (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted spread a piece of holiday good news. Today, The Category:Slovenia articles missing geocoordinate data was has been reduced to 99 75 69 43 26 19 8 7 6 4 2 articles from about 440 which it had in 2008. It would be great if we could get it to 0 by 2013. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 22:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good news and your incentive is a good one too. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone can add 45 57 N, 15 29 E for Lower Sava Valley (the same as Krško, which is pretty much in the middle of the area). I would do so, but I'm not familiar enough with all the parameters in the geocoordinates. Doremo (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Now at 98! --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 13:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few more to enter: Center, Ljubljana 46 03 06 N, 14 30 22 E, Dragonja 45 28 14 N, 13 35 42 E, Dravlje, Ljubljana 46 04 49 N, 14 28 38 E, Golovec, Ljubljana 46 02 40 N, 14 31 35 E, Inner Carniola 45 43 00 N, 14 25 00 E, Jarše, Ljubljana 46 04 51 N, 14 32 57 E, Lower Carniola 45 52 00 N, 14 59 00 E, Polje, Ljubljana 46 03 28 N, 14 35 16 E, Posavje, Ljubljana 46 05 43 N, 14 30 24 E, Rožnik, Ljubljana 46 03 17 N, 14 28 38 E, Rudnik, Ljubljana 46 01 25 N, 14 32 31 E, Šentvid, Ljubljana 46 05 50 N, 14 27 56 E, Šiška, Ljubljana 46 04 29 N, 14 28 22 E, Šmarna Gora, Ljubljana 46 07 08 N, 14 27 51 E, Sostro, Ljubljana 46 02 10 N, 14 36 33 E, Trnovo, Ljubljana 46 02 21 N, 14 30 17 E, Upper Carniola 46 17 11 N, 14 11 47 E, Črnuče, Ljubljana 46 06 12 N, 14 32 13 E. Thanks for your efforts! Doremo (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck out the coordinates that I've entered. It seems that additional parameters are still needed (e.g., specifying type/region/scale etc.) because the resulting map views are too detailed, but I still haven't learned how to specify these parameters. Doremo (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You will notice that there is this text under the map in Geolocator:

3. Set/update/improve location using map:

   search/zoom/move the map as required
   place the location marker using [Ctrl+click] or [Alt+click]
   optionally improve marker position by dragging it
   optionally set heading (cam. direction) using [Shift+click]
   optionally set viewing diameter using [Ctrl+Shift+click]

--U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 16:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I've hit the right scale now with Prekmurje. Geolocator doesn't seem to give a rescaled map as I change parameters (and hit "Apply"), but the coding is very useful. I'll touch up the scale on the other regions I've entered. Doremo (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great.--U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 16:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are now at 8 articles, the same as Luxembourg. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 22:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hereby, have a look at [6]. Probably, a similar project could be carried in Slovenia too - place QR codes across Slovenia to articles published in the English and Slovene Wikipedia. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of QR codes, you should know that at least one town in the country already has its own internal QR project (example). I did contacted the town tourist agency about expanding what were very short entries at the time using english wikipedia and Culture.si but received no response. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 16:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, It's now at ZERO! --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 22:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which coordinates are actually the correct ones? For Litostrojska 54 (the new location of SORS), Google Earth gives the coordinates 46° 4'51.75"N, 14°29'41.41"E, whereas the ITIS map gives: 14.49865421 E, 46.08162071 N.[7] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was watching the Slovenes article and saw that there isnt any pictures of famous Slovenes in the infobox like they are in other nations (examples: Austrians, Serbs, Croats, Germans, Italians etc..). Instead there is only a white-blue-read flag of Slovene nation. I suggest that members of the WikiProject Slovenia would work togheter and pick togheter about 16 most prominent Slovenes in history and put them in the infobox (in the same order as some of the mentioned above articles). Now, I would do it myself but I feel that a general consensus should be reached before deciding who would be put there (I dont want to start an edit war or something:). I suggest that anyone who wish to participate in the selection would join on the article's talk page. Lep pozdrav, Ratipok (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a collage previously but was deleted due to copyright problems; see history. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I wanted to inform you that new page was created few days ago.

List of Yugoslav World War II monuments and memorials

And i wanted to invite you to add monuments from your country, and create your local list. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 15:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Slovenia will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in Slovenia's history, society and culture. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, any additional comment at Template talk:Ljubljana regarding the translation of the phrase četrtna skupnost and the alphabetisation of Slovene names and places would be welcome. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 February 2012, there will be a meeting in Ljubljana, as the Slovene Wikipedia celebrates its 10th anniversary (on 26 February). The meeting will be attended by a delegation of the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, see sl:Wikipedija:V živo/Desetletnica/Gradivo. Everyone is invited and welcome to come. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can someone please have a look at referencing, coverage and accuracy of the article Adriatic Sea and tick the B-class criteria if they are met? I prefer not to do it because I edited the article. Thanks. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be advised of the discussion regarding the spelling Kračman/Kracman at Talk:Andrej_Kracman. Comments are welcome. Doremo (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Applications and sign up if you're interested. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 21:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you noticed? The project contains just over 10,000 articles now. Congratulations to everyone participating! --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you fellow editors to add some core article to your watchlists. It is unacceptable that vandal changes, like [8], stay on the site for two days, when I was not at home. Thanks a lot. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a great resource for more up-to-date data on Slovenia, and from a reputable source no less. (http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/slovenia/)--Zurkhardo (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been thinking whether it makes more sense to title the administrative centre of a municipality as 'Settlement, municipality' or just as 'Settlement' and name the article about the municipality as 'Municipality of Settlement'. With an example, is it better that the article 'Bovec' or 'Horjul' describes the town or the municipality? That's:

1. 'Bovec' about the town and 'Municipality of Bovec' about the municipality.
2. 'Bovec, Bovec' about the town and 'Bovec' about the municipality.

I'd support the first option. What the majority is interested in is the town, not the administrative entity of which it is part, and this format seems less clumsy to me. What do you think? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the first option; for me the settlement is primary. Also, the municipalities tend to come and go, but the settlements are permanent. There are two structural choices: a) Municipality of Horjul (cf. Province of Turin, Province of Cádiz, Municipality of Prilep) and b) Horjul (municipality) (cf. Washington (state), Salzburg (state), Rhône (department)). For a), all Slovene municipality articles should be renamed for consistency (Municipality of Dobrova–Polhov Gradec, Municipality of Horjul, etc.) (using en dashes without spaces for the compound names: Hoče–Slivnica, Hrpelje–Kozina, etc.). For b), only ambiguous articles need be renamed (Horjul (municipality), Dobrova–Polhov Gradec). Doremo (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that per Wikipedia policies (WP:PRECISION) the form 'Municipality of X' should be used, because it is a "natural disambiguation"; i.e. the official name of the mentioned municipality is 'Municipality of Horjul' (Slovene: 'Občina Horjul'). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. If others agree with this (or do not object), then they should all be renamed Municipality of X for consistency. That will free up space to simplify awkward titles like Horjul, Horjul and Grad, Grad. Doremo (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some cases would remain in any case, e.g. Jesenice, Jesenice, with a number of eponymous entities. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems unavoidable in some cases because Jesenice should be reserved for the disambiguation, and then the simplest disambiguation for the town is Jesenice, Jesenice. It also looks like Grad, Grad is here to stay, unfortunately. Doremo (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although one could also title the article 'Jesenice, Municipality of Jesenice'. Or even 'Jesenice (town in Slovenia)'. This seems to go with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Disambiguation. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some similar awkward cases, just for comparison: Chihuahua, Chihuahua, Aguascalientes, Aguascalientes, Zacatecas, Zacatecas, Rhode Island, Rhode Island (redirected to Aquidneck Island), New York, New York (redirected to New York City). Doremo (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure where did you get the idea that the form "Settlement municipality" (or "Settlement Municipality") is gramatically incorrect. After all, the official name of the entity is "Občina Horjul", not "Horjulska občina", "Občina Horjula" or just "Horjul". Compare Aomori Prefecture. I absolutely agree that towns should have the priority in naming, but we don't have to invent a natural disambiguation if we can get it by simply translating the official name. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is not grammatically incorrect, but judged by this very conversation I'd say that it is. I'll ask Doremo to say his opinion, since he is knowledgeable in this regard. Otherwise, using the form 'Town (municipality)' would be ok for me too, if this is preferred by other users; although it means a lot of work with renaming all the categories and correcting the links. I'd still vote for the 'Municipality of X' option, because titles like 'Category:Populated places in Ajdovščina (municipality)' seem unnatural to me. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The formulation the X Municipality doesn't feel intuitively natural to me. The term municipality seems not to generally be used as an administrative term in the UK or the U.S. (with terms like district, council, borough, town, etc. more frequent), so there's little native (domestic) English material to draw upon. One reliable native (domestic) source is the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (click "Search Domestic Names" and then search the term Municipality at "Feature Name"). The predominant pattern returned is Municipality of X. This lends some support to my intuitive preference for the Municipality of Horjul over the Horjul Municipality. The pattern with specific and generic nouns depends on the particular generic noun; for example, I'm very confident of "the city/town/village of X" and not "the X city/town/village." However, I'm also comfortable with "the X Diocese" even though "the Diocese of X" is preferable as more frequent. But comparisons to town or diocese or prefecture aren't informative for how the noun municipality works. Doremo (talk) 12:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The formulation Horjul (municipality) vs. Horjul (town) would also be linguistically natural as article titles, but in running text I would still write "... in the Municipality of Horjul ..." and "... near the town of Horjul ..." when needed. Doremo (talk) 12:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the formulation X municipality lacks the correct English capitalisation. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To complicate things a bit, the ISO 3166-2:SI standard lists the names of subdivisions of Slovenia without the qualifier and calls them "communes". So if we only considered that, "X (commune)" would be most correct. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should use what the majority of secondary and tertiary sources use, which is 'municipality'. The term 'communes' was used from 1955 until 1995.[9]--Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch, I agree. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Yerpo's edit summary on this: it would be even worse. For me (and probably for most English speakers), commune brings to mind "free-love refuges for flower children" as the lede to this article comments. Doremo (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: For me not. But still I think "municipality" is more clear. JelgavaLV (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in:

• evidence for "X Municipality" at Talk:Municipalities of Slovenia#Evidence for X Municipality
• a list of sets of municipalities from other countries using X Classname at Talk:Municipalities of Slovenia#Article naming
• a list of other sets of territorial entities in Slovenia using X Classname at Talk:Municipalities of Slovenia#Article naming

JelgavaLV (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should abandoned villages like Ašelice, Starološki Grič, and Stari Tabor have their own articles or should they be incorporated into the articles for the villages that their territory has been annexed to (in these cases, Mašelj, Planina, and Brezovica pri Črmošnjicah)? I think there are three choices:

• Keep as separate articles and list in the municipality template as settlements. Comment: there are other examples of settlements with population 0 or no permanent residents (e.g., Čohovo), and there is probably enough reference material for viable articles on these places.
• Keep as separate articles but list in the municipality template as former settlements (separate section). Comment: this would be more accurate for places that are not currently defined as settlements, and some templates already have more categories than the basic Settlement, Landmarks, Notable people (e.g., Template:Celje).
• Incorporate into articles for annexing villages. Comment: redirects would make them still easy to find. However, disadvantages would be losing the Infobox data (skyline images, pushpin maps, latitude, longitude, elevation, etc.) specific to the individual places. Doremo (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The second option seems best (templates with section: Settlements, subsection: Former). It is completely fine to make new articles about such settlements, as long as a comprehensive review of them can be written. I'd advise against incorporation into existant villages, because the places have their own and different history. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like this (Template:Semič)? Or without the "Current" label? Doremo (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Current" label seems a bit redundant. Otherwise, that's it. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and modified. Doremo (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've readded the "Current" label, for a better alignment and to not overemphasise the former settlements. I hope that's ok. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK with me; actually, I think it balances better that way too. Doremo (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there enough abandoned places to create Category:Former populated places in Slovenia by municipality categorization or would just Category:Former populated places in Slovenia do? --Sporti (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would definitely be sensible to create categories by municipalities. There's no criteria how many articles should be in a category (although there sometimes - mostly? - many, see e.g. Template:Kočevje) and categories of individual municipalities that have been or will be created are expected to contain all articles related to an individual municipality. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Created special categories for municipalities with several abandoned places, but used the main category for places like Kukovo (only abandoned place of the municipality). --Sporti (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the categories! There are quite a few former settlements in other municipalities as well, but often as the result of incorporation (like all the former villages now part of Ljubljana) rather than devastation. Potentially, comprehensive separate articles could be created for most of these as well because they've all got distinct histories. The Gottschee villages are a special case, but it could also be useful to mark Črnuče, Šentvid, etc. in such a category in Template:Ljubljana (simply linking to the article on the districts with the same name), along with former settlements like Podgora, Pržan, Trata, etc. that don't have independent articles now. There's quite a lot that could be written about all of these. Doremo (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should Ruđer Bošković article be tagged with WPSLOVENIA tag? Bošković visited Laibach, the capital of Carniola (now Ljubljana, Slovenia), at least in 1757, 1758, and 1763, and made contact with the Jesuits and the Franciscan Friars in the town. The Jesuits incorporated his teachings into their lectures at the Laibach Jesuit College. --WhiteWriter^speaks 08:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably too vague to merit the inclusion in the Wikiproject. IMO. --Tone 10:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, probably you should also express your dissent at Talk:Ruđer Bošković#WikiProject Slovenia and Serbia?. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering if I should add geographical coordinates of embassies to the following articles about ambassadors to slovenia:

• United States Ambassador to Slovenia
• List of Ambassadors of the United Kingdom to Slovenia
• Albanian Ambassador to Slovenia

So, any opinions? --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 19:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems ok to me for the the third one in its present state, not the first and the second one, which are about a post and about people. For the first one, I'd suggest that an article about Vila Podrožnik is created and tagged. The second and the third article need text information about the location of embassy. For the second one, it is the TR3 skyscraper, which also needs its own article. For the third one, it is Sela Mansion; that article already has the coordinates. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 23:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should the word 'Občina' in native names of Slovene municipalities in the introductory sentences of articles about them be written with uncapitalised 'občina'? It is written this way at the SURS portal (e.g. here), and it seems to me to make sense, because it designates an area in contrast to the organisation, which would be written capitalised. However, judging by [10], [11], and [12], it's only correct to write the names of specific municipalities capitalised. Or should we write both forms? For now, I'll write the entire name capitalised. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should use whatever form is stipulated by official normative Slovene orthographic rules because it is cited as a Slovene phrase (in italics). It's a question that native speakers of Slovene should decide on. Doremo (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to notify this WikiProject that this article for a Slovenian music group has been nominated for deletion. Considering that they are Slovenian, I assumed sources were going to be mostly Slovenian and, yes, Google News provided several Slovenian results. Would a user or two go through these links and confirm if they are sufficient for Wikipedia:Notability (music)? Additionally, users should free to comment at the debate, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Mentony Band. Thanks!SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are. I added to the article and the discussion. Don't worry, several of editors active in this project have Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Slovenia in their watchlists. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check this map - it's a visualization of all geotagged entries on Slovenia in the English Wiki. All the dots are clickable. There is a couple of blank (or nearly so) regions, such as Pohorje, Dinaric Karst, and Triglav national park, but this looks quite decent. Another such map is at Visual.ly, but I haven't been able to zoom in. Too bad none of those have analyzed Slovene Wikipedia yet, but that's bound to happen someday. — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, although the majority of articles are stubs about settlements, this brings new information. It seems that we'll have to focus some more of our energy on writing articles about less covered areas and natural features, like mountains, lakes etc. The directions don't always exactly match with Geopedia (cf. the line between Triglav and Škrlatica). I'm not sure what's the reason for this. It's also interesting that major areas of Ljubljana are completely unrepresented. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, there are plenty of articles missing from both those maps. A lot of what I Geotagged in the last year is missing. If you want a better idea of what things look like (still not perfect but better) go to google maps and select Wikipedia in the rolldown menu in the top right corner of the map. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 20:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the major areas of Ljubljana, as Eleassar points out, this is very interesting. It highlights the need for individual coverage of the former settlements in the City Municipality of Ljubljana (as has been done for Kočevje, Dolenjske Toplice, etc.). Because places like Bizovik, Dobrunje, Fužine, Hrušica, Slape, Vevče, etc. have been absorbed into Ljubljana, it's inappropriate to cover them all in detail in the Ljubljana article itself (which tends to focus in central Ljubljana), and so they've become information black holes, as the geotagging map clearly shows (and the Google Map as well—thanks for pointing this out, U5K0). It looks like there's a similar (but smaller) black hole around the city of Maribor. I'm currently working on a Dobrunje article that I'll roll out soon. Doremo (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

U5K0, are you sure you're seeing English Wikipedia links in Google Maps? All I see are Slovene Wikipedia links, which is probably due to Google detecting my location. When zooming out, it combines English and Slovene links, and there's no obvious way that I could find to filter out either. Stable link to what I see is https://maps.google.com/?ll=46.147492,15.523682&spn=1.461387,2.296143&t=h&z=9&lci=org.wikipedia.sl . The links just dissappear if I replace .sl with .en at the end. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see only English WP links (which go to English WP articles) on my display when using both U5K0's method and Yerpo's stable link. Doremo (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I set my google account to be all english all the time a few months ago because randomly switching between languages makes the back of my eyes hurt. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 13:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is sort of interesting to browse the Slovene Wikipedia category Ljubljana and notice how many articles don't have an english equivalent. I wouldn't have noticed if not for the fact that Gruberjev kanal is one of them. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 10:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to get an automatically generated list of all the Slovenia related articles which exist on non-English wikipedias but don't on the English one? --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 22:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not easily, I think. There's CatScan which you can run twice for :en and :sl then compare output, but with any greater depth, it'll get sidetracked because the category tree isn't really a tree (except on small scale). Plus, it limits output to 1000. Could be useful for small-scale queries, though, such as "Mountains in Slovenia". Wikidata will be more suited for such tasks once it is finished. — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found another map at http://www.geonames.org/maps/wikipedia.html It has the limitation of displaying only 50 points on any level of zoom, so it's only useful for areas in which there are fewer than 50 geotagged items. I don't know yet how often it's updated. — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is Jasmin a male given name in Slovenia, or is Jasmin Handanović unique? I've heard of plenty of Jasmines, but it's always a female name in English as far as I know. --BDD (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a Bosnian given name, where the player's family comes from, and is a fairly common male given name there - see bs:Special:PrefixIndex/Jasmin. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks! --BDD (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to notify this project that this Slovenian-Croatian record label has been nominated for deletion. I have commented there and noted that Google News and Google News archives provided results and I would appreciate if a user went through the links and verified if they are sufficient and reliable. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 21:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you probably know, there is a multitude of different regionalisations of Slovenia. I'm trying to organise the categories 'X in Slovenia' by regions, to make them smaller and therefore more practical (everything still functions on a regional basis in this country), but would ask you for your opinion about whether it is better to categorise by traditional regions or by statistical regions. Traditional regions seem better to me, because they're not so small (the number of articles is still limited) and they're much better known. However, there are certain municipalities that are divided between the traditional regions (e.g. Brežice), but are part of only one statistical region. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the traditional regions are psychologically more reified for people. However, if the traditional regions are used, one must choose which version of the traditional region to use. For example, Carinthia is now larger than it was in the past (having absorbed part of Slovene Styria, and apparently still expanding according to locals), and Inner Carniola is now smaller than it was in the past (part of it having been absorbed by the Littoral). Doremo (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should follow the borders as given in reliable sources of course, e.g. Slovenija: pokrajina in ljudje by Perko and Orožen Adamič (1998). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 22:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Would anyone be interested in checking out this FLC, NK Maribor players? The article has two Supports, but it probably needs one or two more to receive the FL star. Check it out and feel free to write your thoughts on the article's talk page if there is anything that needs to be fixed. Any help would be appreciated.Ratipok (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

image:EuDrivingLicense-Slovenia-2010.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the translation of Zdravljica by Janko Lavrin in Zdravljica#Lyrics is copyrighted and not irreplaceable. Would anyone be willing to translate the poem with his own words? This a particular honour in my opinion: the first free translation of Zdravljica. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If someone does translate it, I'd like to suggest that it be a simple, literal translation, not one that tries to imitate the rhyme and meter of the Slovene original. Doremo (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We could do as Hungarians have done: they've published a free literal and a free poetic version. See Himnusz. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English_exonyms#Slovenia. Section is empty. Can someone check this please. See also article Talk. Many thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A CFD discussion has produced a consensus to rename Category:Featured articles needing translation from Slovenian Wikipedia to [[:Category:Featured articles needing translation from Slovene Wikipedia].

However, this decision appears to be impossible to implement for technical reasons, which i have set out in the discussion. The category is populated by Template:Expand language, which relies on a language code, in this case "sl". That code is turned into a word by the inbuilt parser function {{#language:{{{langcode|}}}|en}}, in this case {{#language:sl|en}} ... which produces the output Slovenian.

I presume that it would in theory be possible to have this changed at the server level, but unless the parser functions are changed, the category must remain "Slovenian".

Does this project want to seek such a change? It would have wide implications for templates.

I note that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Slovenian vs Slovene) is marked as historical guidance. Does the project have a current consensus on this terminology? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some disagreement about whether the things related to Slovenia (the country) should be called Slovene or Slovenian, but as to the language and the nation, a general agreement that these should be called Slovene. If it is possible to implement such a change at the server level, go ahead and propose/implement it, it will be much appreciated. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would reiterate the commentary at the conventions page that there is no consistent preference for Slovene or Slovenian among English speakers with regard to language/nation/noun/adjective etc. Although I do not oppose any such change (and am indifferent to which form is used), it would merely be a cosmetic change. Doremo (talk) 08:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but I think that we all aim for consistency and we already have the article titled Slovene Wikipedia (since the move in 2008, without anyone disagreeing). Should we move it back due to a server setting or should we update the server setting (in accordance with the consensus at Talk:Slovene language)? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 18:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with getting the server setting changed.

In the meantime, there is no no point in having duplicate categories, so I have closed the discussion and merged to Category:Featured articles needing translation from Slovenian Wikipedia. Feel free to rename it if and when he server is updated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User talk:Yerpo — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yerpo. I've restored the sourced historical names for the Kandrše articles because they are relevant information. There are many similar examples on WP; compare Plzeň, Znojmo, Břeclav, etc. Thank you for your interest in the articles. Doremo (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe putting this information in the lead gives a wrong impression, and should be included elsewhere. All the examples you mention are still strongly affiliated with German-speaking areas, so they aren't comparable, besides, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Generally, exonyms aren't featured so prominently where they have no modern relevance. The solution that you implemented in Kandrše, Zagorje ob Savi (i.e. making a separate section for etymology and including the historical name there) is much better, now the translation can be removed from the lead without losing sourced info. — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. I think the exonym should be retained in the lead because it's covered by the guideline here: "The lead: ... Relevant foreign language names (... or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted." Part of the population in the area was German-speaking, and so it’s a historically and culturally relevant name. In the case of the Czech towns, the German population was expelled, so there is not a stronger affiliatiation with German-speaking areas, but the names are nonetheless included as historically and culturally relevant. WP:NCGN also offers a "known also by several alternative names" link option, but that would be longer and more complicated than the current solution. In the specific case of Kandrše, it was also the administrative center of a local district, and so the German name had administrative relevance, in addition to cultural and historical, and thus appears in various administrative contexts (e.g., here [13]). The lead also won't give any "wrong impressions" (of modern bilingualism?) because a truly bilingual place would would use conventions like boldface and "or" in the lead and in the infobox (e.g., Uccle, Forest, Graubünden, etc.). Doremo (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no modern relevance exists here, only historical. The exonym doesn't exist outside archives, so it isn't used by any group of people (unless you find a modern reference, which I couldn't). Therefore, it is not covered by the guideline you mention. Besides, to understand the difference between bold and italic in this case, you have to be very familiar with Wikipedia conventions, which casual readers aren't, so yes, it would imply bilingualism to the average visitor. The name is historically relevant for the reasons you mention, but that belongs to the body of the article. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline cited above, "used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place," appears to clearly cover this. It doesn't mention modern references. Even without modern references, it still retains modern relevance for people trying to find Kandersche today. Doremo (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You left out the key word: "is used by a group of people" - present tense, implying recent use (which makes a lot of practical sense if you think about it). As far as I can tell, it hasn't been used in over a century. Moving the exonym out of the lead while retaining it in the body would in no way affect searching, but would resolve the ambiguity that I mentioned above. — Yerpo ^Eh? 15:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to raise the topic on the article's talk page to be discussed by additional contributors. Doremo (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the discussion to an even more public place, instead. So if I understand correctly, you have no counter-arguments to my last comment? — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the intent of the guideline is that historical names are forfeited after all emigrants have died, then I can't offer a counterargument (although I also can't prove that all of the area's former German-speaking residents are now dead). It's unlikely that a casual reader of the Kandrše article will be confused by the italicized name Kandersche in parentheses, given the title, the bold in the lead, the infobox, and the map label. Because there is only one exonym, it would be inefficient to add a "known also by an alternative name" link in the lead—and, if the article had no Name section (most don't), then there would be no such section to link to. Doremo (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline, as I understand it, doesn't refer to anyone dying, but to actual usage of an exonym - which can be easily proven by recent references. And there is a third choice, beside putting the name itself or a reference to it in the lead - moving it away to the "History" or "Name" section of the article. Position in the lead always implies direct and tangible relevance to the article's subject - which just doesn't exist in this case, so it is misleading to feature the exonym so prominently. But let's hear other opinions before going further. — Yerpo ^Eh? 21:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that only the name actually in use is in the introduction. As opposed to multi-lingual regions, such as the Littoral. --Tone 10:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary on the appropriateness of recent edits to the Jesenice article (see Talk:Jesenice,_Jesenice) and the Velenje article (see Talk:Velenje) and contributions by additional editors would be welcome. Doremo (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to understand why these are needed. Thanks. 198.143.0.153 (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For German translations, one user thinks that they're relevant and he doesn't let us convince him otherwise. You're welcome to give it a try at the section above. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's an edit conflict going on at Party of Slovenian People, involving User:Jazbar and myself. See Talk:Party of Slovenian People and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit warring and threats by User:Jazbar. Other opinions welcome (it's a controversial subject). — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles within Category:LGBT in Europe may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pleas add information about this country to this articles.--Kaiyr (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently doing an edit-a-thon of the most important geologic units and structures in Slovenia. Can somebody help me with Slovene pronunciation and minor corrections. There are also some longer bonus assignments (for which I need the help of a native speaker). I will add all pages I create to this list: --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• List of faults in Slovenia
• Donat Fault
• Idrija Fault
• Lavanttal Fault (Labot Fault in Slovenian?)
• Bonus: Create Fault (geology) on Slovene Wikipedia
• Raša Fault
• Šoštanj Fault
• Žužemberk Fault
• Gorenjska Basin

 Done. I have added the pronunciations and endonyms. Doremo (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! I did one more. I'll try to do a few more tomorrow. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Geological Survey of Slovenia (Would benefit from native speaker, translating more information)
• Slatnik Formation
• Brežice Fault
• Hochstuhl Fault
• Kneža Fault
• Sava Fault --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slipped outside of Slovenia for a bit with my edit-a-thon, but this unit is again in Slovenia High Karst Unit. Tobias1984 (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please help translate the following text into Slovenian:

Please do not contribute text in Slovenian to English Wikipedia. Your contributions are more than welcome at the Slovenian Wikipedia.

It will be used for a warning template at Template:Not English.– Gilliam (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prosimo, ne objavljajte slovenskega besedila v angleški Wikipediji. Tovrstni prispevki pa so dobrodošli v slovenski Wikipediji.

Cheers, — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! You may inspect the new template at Template:Contrib-sl1.– Gilliam (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I would like to draw your attention to the article on the Lipizzan. However, before we do that, let's take a quick look at how the French Wikipedia approaches the subject. Here is their lead paragraph:

Le lipizzan est une race de chevaux originaire de Slovénie, culturellement liée à l'École espagnole de Vienne en Autriche. Cette célèbre école, qui tire par ailleurs son nom des chevaux espagnols qui furent à l'origine de la race lipizzane, n'utilise en effet que des lipizzans. L'élevage du lipizzan remonte au xvie siècle, lorsque la famille impériale des Habsbourg décide de fonder un nouveau haras dans la localité slovène de Lipica dans la région vallonnée du Kras qui appartenait à l'époque à l'Empire autrichien. La race des lipizzans est menacée de disparition lors de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, mais l'intervention du général américain George S. Patton permet de sauver 250 chevaux, assurant la préservation de cette race à la longue histoire.

Even if you -- like me -- don't speak French, the above should be fairly easy to follow. It's a pretty standard description of the Lipizzan's origin, and most language editions of Wikipedia follow a similar pattern.

Now let's take a look at the first two paragraphs of the English-language edition -- the one that falls under the auspices of WikiProject Slovenia:

The Lipizzan or Lipizzaner (Czech: Lipicán, Croatian: Lipicanac, Hungarian: Lipicai, Italian: Lipizzano, Slovene: Lipicanec), is a breed of horse closely associated with the Spanish Riding School of Vienna, Austria, where they demonstrate the haute école or "high school" movements of classical dressage, including the highly controlled, stylized jumps and other movements known as the "airs above the ground." The horses at the Spanish Riding School are trained using traditional methods that date back hundreds of years, based on the principles of classical dressage.

The Lipizzan breed dates back to the 16th century, when it was developed with the support of the Habsburg nobility. The breed takes its name from one of the earliest stud farms established, located near the Karst Plateau village of Lipica (spelled "Lipizza" in Italian), in modern-day Slovenia. The breed has been endangered numerous times by warfare sweeping Europe, including during the War of the First Coalition, World War I and World War II. The rescue of the LThe ipizzans during World War II by American troops was made famous by the Disney movie Miracle of the White Stallions. Along with the Disney movie, Lipizzans have also starred or played supporting roles in many movies, TV shows, books and other media.

Notice anything? Compared to just about any other source, the role of the Lipica stud farm is thoroughly minimized. And that's not all. This is how the Lipizzan's country of origin is described in the Infobox:

Developed by the House of Habsburg from Arab, Barb, Spanish and Neapolitan stock.[1] Today associated with nations of Austria, Hungary, Slovenia and Croatia.

Several users have attempted to at least add a mention of Lipica to this line, but they have always been reverted. I was recently called a "Slovenian nationalist" for including a reference to Lipica. According to the editor who reverted my addition, Lipica is just one of many stud farms where the breed originated and should never be singled out. (I'm still scratching my head over this "theory of many origins.")

In other words, there appears to be a significant discrepancy between the English-language article on the Lipizzan and just about any other source (incl. Wikipedia articles in other languages). Maybe the article is simply more accurate, and everyone else has been brainwashed by Slovenian nationalist propaganda. Of course, the other option is that its editors are pushing a point of view that is neither neutral nor accurate.

I frankly don't have the nerves for this childish name-calling, but if someone here -- preferably with some knowledge of Lipica -- believes the article should be improved, perhaps it deserves a minute or two of your time. --LJU2ORD (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A requested move discussion has been initiated for RK Gorenje to be moved to RK Gorenje Velenje. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(timestamp may not be accurate) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Believer (talk • contribs) 15:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Mount Saint Mary#Name. --Sporti (talk) 10:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This is getting out of hand. He is making unsubstantiated and unilateral moves of articles and it seems he is failing (or not willing) to present his arguments. He has also made a move of the Ljudski vrt article to "People's Garden Stadium" and this for the second time (that I know of - once in 2012). I have reverted all of his edits regarding Ljudski vrt and warned him on his talk page to stop with this vandalism as he has no consensus. I have also presented my case on the article's talk page. I don't expect a response.. Regards, Ratipok (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Category:Slovenian literature should be merged with Category:Slovene literature (which is not tagged on its talk page as "within the scope of WikiProject Slovenia"). I suppose that Category:Slovenian literature should be empty (like Category:Slovenian given names). I also think that Category:Slovene books by writer should be moved to Category:Books by Slovene writers. (Edit: Whoops ...different meaning of "by".) I'll edit the affected pages when I get time. If it matters to you, please beat me to it or tell me I'm wrong. Tim Ivorson 2015-07-12

Category:Slovenian people of World War II, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found some Slovenia-related articles recently. When I was looking through them, I noticed that some city, district, or settlement title disambiguators used the "comma, region" method (example: Dolgo Brdo, Ljubljana) while others used the "parentheses for region" method (example: Slape (Ljubljana).) Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), the standard recommendation is to use the "comma, region" method unless there is a specific exception mentioned in the "Region-specific guidance" section. Since I noticed that on Template:Ljubljana that there are several examples of both naming methods, is there a set precedent in how place title disambiguation is done for Slovenia-related place articles? (Has this been discussed in the past?) Steel1943 (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: If there is no response here in regards to this in about a week, my plan is to add a "Slovenia" section to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) stating that the preferred method is the default presented on the page (comma, region). Steel1943 (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I am unaware of any such discussion on this topic for Slovenia. Because parentheses are typically used to imply "who/which is a(n)"—for example, John Smith (athlete) = "John Smith, who is an athlete"—the standard comma pattern "Slape, Ljubljana" seems preferable. Doremo (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rotor ship article, for example, was plagiarised, contains OR, and is rife with other problems. Please consider letting articles become good (GF) -- or improving them, yourselves, in the English WP -- before propagating such stolen, unsourced, or otherwise poor quality content to other encyclopedias. 50.232.187.66 (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The entry Socialistična federativna republika Jugoslavija needs to be fixed - it lacks dative, locative and instrumental forms. I didn't want to put wrong forms in there, so I left blank space there. Please help. Peter238 (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from any interested editors would be welcome at Talk:Salt Mud Slide#RFC: Should "Salt Mud Slide" be moved to "Slano Blato landslide"?. Should this article, "Salt Mud Slide" (which is a translation into English from its Slovenian name), be moved to "Slano Blato landslide" (which is based on its place name in Slovenia)? Thank you. — Gorthian (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editors interested in Slovenian village topics are welcome to participate in helping resolve some recent issues and establishing consensus regarding Ježica content, deletions of interesting information here. Thank you.--Grabyton (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editors interested in particular Slovenian topics are welcome to participate in helping resolve some recent issues and establishing consensus regarding mass grave content for every village in Slovenia (Author Doremo) and determine whether it is politically oriented propaganda.:
Talk:Brezovica pri Borovnici

Talk:Marija Reka

Gornji Dolič

Mislinja (settlement)

Dovže

Vrhnika

Talk:Žeje pri Komendi

Kranjska Gora

Vincarje

Crngrob

and many more... Thank you. --Grabyton (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not gathering information in one central article about mass graves and make a one-sentence links in the village articles under the history section instead? In any case, it's good to have a centralized discussion. --Tone 18:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grabyton misrepresents the situation; only about 290 of the approximately 6,000 settlements in Slovenia contain mass graves (less than 5% of Slovenian villages, certainly not "every village in Slovenia"). Covering the 600 mass grave sites in one single article (there is already a centralized article with links: see Mass graves in Slovenia) would be cumbersome and would remove local history from many articles, where it is much better contextualized. Doremo (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From what I saw this is undoubtedly some kind of political propaganda by Doremo. If you look carefully to Doremo profile, you can see he is frequently adding material about mass graves to Wikipedia, undoubtedly trying to show all crimes of one political group. This crimes deserves to be mention (with an explanation why this has occurred!), but certainly not every hole there is. One article about mass graves in Slovenia is enough, maximum few articles for every region in Slovenia. Some might think, Slovenia is just one big grave.--Drevoveren (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make unfounded ad hominem political accusations against other editors (see WP:PA). Either these historical events and sites exist or they do not, and either there are sources to back them up or there are not. The objection to the content sounds a lot like WP:JDL. Doremo (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that people prefer content of mass graves in one article or in lesser number, but certainly not for every village. Therefore I urge the author of mass graves, to move the content to more appropriate article, before the content will be deleted. I suggest the content is moved to articles like: Mass graves in Styria, Upper Carniola...or other geographical units. --Grabyton (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a suggestion to delete sourced local historical information from about 290 articles. Broader consensus is needed for such a large-scale change. It is also functionally equivalent to declaring that no village article should include any information on, say, local castles, or ponds, or churches. The content is being targeted on the basis of WP:JDL. Doremo (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no argument that would ever convince you. Nobody can never convince you in anything, so there is no use for making consensus with you. Because of you, Wikipedia will just stay a game, who ever win with his persistence. And yes I know, my coment is WP:JDL, WP:PA or even something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grabyton (talk • contribs) 10:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are agreeing that your objection is WP:JDL, then it should be withdrawn. And please review WP:NPA. Doremo (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Širom (band) and comment if it is notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge ‎ has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. If anybody here would like to contribute to a European one or would rather contribute to a sub one specifically for Slovenia like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Slovenia) based on Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic), sign your name under the section for Slovenia and I'll start it if there is enough support. For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Slovene and European content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon. If you would like to see this happening for Slovenia and European nations, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings WikiProject Slovenia Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Klemen Pisk is about a Slovenian author. The sources are in a variety of languages including Slovenian, Polish, Lithuanian, German, Slovak and English. If you don't wish to, or are not qualified to do a full AFC review please post your comments to the Draft's Talk page. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask for help all users and admins. User user:Doremo is violating agreement from year 2016, when we decided mass grave content should not be written under every Slovene village, but written as separate article. He is adding mass grave content to every article, showing his political frustration and representing our country as one big mass grave.

If you find village, town or any other place with this content, use EDIT and erase mass grave section. Have an eye on your article. He will not stop adding this content, showing the weak supervision of Wikipedia vandalism.Grabyton (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Though this is very specialised content the inclusion of which makes many articles on places imbalanced because this is the only content on their history, I don't remember such a discussion. Can you please provide a link? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 00:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grabyton, WP is not the place for political warfare to promote your personal likes or dislikes. If you believe that sources for historical material are unreliable, you should challenge those sources on the article talk page, not engage in mass deletions. I agree that the history sections of many articles need to be expanded. That is not a reason to delete well-sourced historical information already there. You can add an Expand section tag to articles that need additional material in their history sections. WP grows piece by piece, not by destroying sections that are incomplete. Doremo (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that Grabyton's suggestion is a classic example of cherrypicking content. It is equivalent to declaring that no settlement articles should have sections on, say, churches, but that there should be only one separate article on churches in Slovenia. Doremo (talk) 03:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this discussion 5 sections higher with title Opinion about extensive mass grave content for every village in Slovenia. Discussion about this content was also active on Talk:Brezovica pri Borovnici. This is absolute violation of the Wikipedia rules. All mass grave content was again reverted by user Doremo. Content will be again deleted after this discussion. If Doremo will again violate rules after this, I suggest user should be banned from Wikipedia. Political frustrations should not be part of Wikipedia and should not represent our country. All settlements on the world have dead people buried under them, with this and other reasons. How would it look if all places would have only grave content? This is the last discussion about mass grave and should not be restored again after one year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grabyton (talk • contribs) 09:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant issue here is whether information is factual, well-sourced, and presented in a neutral and scholarly manner. Regarding "How would it look...", please remember that WP is not a travel guide (WP:NOTTRAVEL). If you are seeking to promote an image of Slovenia, Wikivoyage would be a good place to contribute. Doremo (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that mass graves do not belong to every article. They give wrong impression and show obvious intention of the author.ViktorPošpoš (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I remember discussion about this from last year. This is one big disgrace for all administrators and Wikipedia who allow this kind of vandalism and do not punish authors like Doremo. We were all against mass grave content, but again the most persistent user won. Even though he is only one who thinks mass graves belong to every article. Wikipedia is loosing good reputation and the blame should go to administrators. Drevoveren (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above are rather WP:SOCKY posts; the first is a new user with no other editing history. The second is from another mysterious non-contributor that also suddenly appeared from nowhere (e.g., here) to support the user Grabyton. All three accounts (Grabyton, ViktorPošpoš, Drevoveren) show identical language errors. Doremo (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: all of these accounts (Grabyton, ViktorPošpoš, Drevoveren) have been blocked indefinitely for abusively using multiple accounts. Doremo (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just start a RFC on the topic. Many discussions already took place on different talkpages, it is hard to keep track. --Tone 10:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was an initiative by a (now blocked) user that apparently had some sort of non-objective (personal or emotional) connection to the topic. Doremo (talk) 11:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed an unsourced claim this morning that France Bezlaj was of Albanian descent. Does anyone have a source for this? Doremo (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, over the past few weeks the article Free Territory of Trieste has been edited to contend that it was never dissolved, and still exists as a sovereign state. This seems to me to be manifestly wrong and a fringe theory (see for example this website), and I don't think the cited sources support this contention at all. Similar content seems to have been previously inserted into the article years ago and subsequently removed, as documented on the article's talk page. I have no expertise on the matter, so thought I would alert potentially interested parties. Portwalrus (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:History of Istria#NPOV problems. 72.201.104.140 (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Slovenia/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Slovenia.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Slovenia, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Slovenia

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 18:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, we would like your input on where FR Yugoslavia's results at the Olympics should be listed. Here is the relevant discussion. JoshMartini007 (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are welcome to comment on a requested move at Talk:Cankar Centre. Doremo (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In May 2018, in conjunction with m:Wikimedia CEE Spring 2018/Article Lists, Women in Red is focusing on the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We hope there will be contributions on Slovene women.

		Welcome to Women in Red's May 2018 worldwide online editathons. File:Soraya Aghaee4.jpg New: "Women of the Sea" New: "Villains" New: "Women in Sports" New: "Central and Eastern European women" Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you have time, please take a look on meta at this page m:Wiki4MediaFreedom contest. It's an event organized by Rossella Vignola (OBC), there is a list of articles to improve also on English wikipedia.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of an ongoing disagreement on whether Slovenia's Municipality of Dobrovnik and Municipality of Hodoš should be titled using Slovenian or Hungarian names. Doremo (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary on the problem in order to build consensus for the appropriate page names would be appreciated. Doremo (talk) 05:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place concerning a possible move of Committee for the Defence of Human Rights to Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (Slovenia). Your feedback is welcome at WT:WPDIS#Committee for the Defense of Human Rights. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC on moving the year from the end to the start of article titles (e.g. South African general election, 2019 to 2019 South African general election) has been reopened for further comment, including on whether a bot could be used move the articles if it closed in favour of the change: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Proposed change to election/referendum naming format. Cheers, Number 57 15:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear members of WikiProject Slovenia,

as per discussion of the talk page of the Slovene Lands, I would like to establish a consensus for historic names. Since I have taken part, cared, involved many of such cases regarding i.e. mainly the former Kingdom of Hungary (not exclusively, sometimes to the Austrian Empire, or Germany, however, there is no limitation), I would add my proposals as having more years experience.

- Generally, in the existing WP articles contemporary (= historic) namings are applied without any doubt in the infobox and regarding the place of birth (sometimes it discussed whether which should be in the first place, but nothing else)

- Based on the context of the article (when the article refers to a specific historic context, or the article itself is about such a context, or a biography of a person is at that historic context) we apply historic namings (first place order sometimes discussed)

- Generally, in case to decide, the following is applied (in order of succesion and applicability; i.e. if one is fulfilled we don't go further):

a, specify the current status quo of date and time, if it has a well-established historic English name (like Pressburg) it will be applied.

b, if there is not an official language of the country (that was mainly applied in the modern era), we use the name recorded in documents the most near to the current time in the first place, after the modern name (if the recorded name corresponds to the general used name by the people, the orthography may be bended in written that is used by the country's language - sometimes applied to Latin records, that are used only in written but never in real life)

c, if there is an official language then, the name is written according to this - if changing during the administration, bending to that that is the most near to the current date and time - in the first place, after the modern name comes the second place

Practically, I care about much precisity to follow this order, to be the most accuarate.

1, My proposal would be, that in clearly Slovenia related articles at least when contemporary conditions are referred, let the Hungarian names in the second place in brackets to identify

2, In Hungary related articles please allow contemporary Hungarian names in the first place and the modern name the second, unless

- the article of a clearly Slovene person (= not a Hungarian or not considering itself Hungarian or not of mixed background) or clearly Slovene context, this case let only the infobox/birtplace data in the contemporary order, but the rest of the article only in the second place identify comtemporary name at first occurence

This proposal is not necessarily more that is applied and accepted the same regarding, Austria, Slovakia, Ukraine, Romania, Serbia and Crotia. Thank you for your time and your comments are welcome - would suggest despite the reference above to an article's talk page, let's discuss here. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]

I think historical names are interesting and that they always should be available at articles where what they refer to is the primary topic. However, sprinkling them inconsistently through running text when they are not the topic of the article (and are already clearly available at the links), as at Slovene Lands, simply degrades readability. Thank you for taking the discussion to WikiProject Slovenia. Doremo (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doremo, (I reply also here and will continue here since the same message you posted in the other article's talk page), as you may notice, on the contrary I am hyper-sharply consistent and careful, and only apply it when it is about the topic. I have to reinforce, that in such cases, only the link would not be enough, since a few people check and even not necessarily now the former status quo or identified there, because sometimes anyway a location has more historic names because of a mixed population (but it should not be confused of that validity and arbitration of the names, as referred above). With this it makes clear in proper environments what is it about, otherwise it the whole meaning ofd the concept would loose.

Respectively, in the Slovenian Lands article I was totally consistent and accurate, similary as thousands of other other articles regarding the naming convention. The fact only I dealt with former contemporary Hungarian names as per status quo, it does not raise inconsistency, also in that relevant section the non-Hungarian cases may be applied, as per former status quo (= we should not be against any improvement just because it is not fully completed, later it may be developed, as it is done generally in Wiki articles, also out of this context.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Please could someone take a look at Draft:Ana Kersnik Žvab and advise whether this appears to be a notable person? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the subject does not meet the WP:GNG, substantial coverage independent of the subject. Some interviews for websites do not count as significant. Perhaps at some point in future. --Tone 21:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would not consider the person notable at this point. Just my own opinion. Doremo (talk) 04:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, if you are interested, there is discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 20 about the renaming of a category relating to Slovenian Chetniks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Mickl, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Ajdovščina is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ajdovščina until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Simon Jecl has been orphaned for more than ten years. Can anyone improve it and connect it to other articles? Mccapra (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for opinions on whether municipal coats of arms should appear only at municipality articles (e.g., Municipality of Apače) or also at the article for the settlement that serves as the municipal seat (e.g., Apače). The latter seems odd to me. Thanks. Doremo (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some cases are clear-cut, such as Ljubljana (urban municipality), or Škofja Loka, seat of a municipality -these are historic coats of arms. Many of those small municipalities formed after the independence and the seals were created on purpose for the municipality, not the settlement. So, for those, probably just for municipality. --Tone 18:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Demographics of the Western Balkans has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This draft was declined for a reason that doesn't really make sense. I think it probably could be an article, but I hate accepting thinly sourced articles about massacres in the area of ethno-national disputes without being able to read good sources myself. Thoughts? Should this be accepted? Is this legitimate? All potential sources seem to be in languages I don't speak. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm compiling a list of the first women MPs in each country, but have been unable to find the answer for Slovenia. I'm guessing they would have been elected in the 1945 Yugoslavian parliamentary election or possibly one of the early elections to the legislature of SR Slovenia. If anyone can point me to a definitive source, it would be much appreciated. Cheers, Number 57 18:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be grateful if other editors in the Slovenia project might offer comments at Talk:Rogaška Slatina on whether they feel a recent edit at the page is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Thanks. Doremo (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is now resolved after another editor created a separate section and the material was moved. Doremo (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you know the answer, make sure to add it to relevant wiki pages, especially to List of highest railways by country. Thanks! Zach (Talk) 21:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hear from a local expert that it's Bohinjka between Jesenica and Bled. I don't have a reliable source at the moment, though. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC) Update: highest station is actually Postojna per the Slovenian Railways [14] (or in English [15]) at an elevation of 582m. I'm engaging in some WP:SYNTH here, but this source [16] on the page titled "vlaki na kočevski progi" says that another rail point is (at 581m) third in altitude, following Postojna station and another point in the network. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zach, I dug a little more and found a book source Die Südbahn und ihre Vorläufer, which was listed as a source on the Slovenian wikipedia. Searching for Postojna, one can see enough on Google Books to see that the Postojna railline opened in 1856. Anyway, this is a start. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks so much for this fast answer. Will add Slovenia to the list soon. Zach (Talk) 12:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article could use some attention.4meter4 (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking input/consensus from other editors on the modern image choice for the article Russian Chapel on the Vršič Pass at its talk page. Thanks. Doremo (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a Slovenian silversmith [17], wants an article:Wikipedia:Help_desk#Biography. I found these sources [18][19] which hints an article may be possible, but I don't know the language and can't tell the difference between a Slovenian Daily Mail and the Slovenian Washington Post. Can someone find some more WP:BLP-good WP:RS? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Both sources are reliable. Dnevnik is one of the two/three key daily newspapers in Slovenia and Mladina is a respected left-wing weekly magazine. I also found an interview with the Slovenian press agency here and an event he held at the National Museum. I'd say the sources are there, and the good thing is that they span about a decade. --Tone 06:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tone Thank you very much, I may have a go at it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tone Btw, do you know the language? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: what do you need? (My Slovenian is not so great, but I can probably get help.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Russ Woodroofe Thanks for asking. Christoph Steidl Porenta is now in mainspace. If someone could check for horrible translation, that would be good. The Mladina source is mostly behind paywall, it may have some good stuff if someone has access. I called him "Porenta" in article-text, maybe it should be "Steidl Porenta", but I didn't see any help on that in sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And if anyone has an opinion for the afd, go for it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I got a native speaker to look through the current article and sourcing, and she didn't see at least any glaring problems. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Russ Woodroofe Thanks! You have a point that Slovenia is small and national is almost local, but I think it still counts as national. He uploaded some nice images:[20] I think the tree-thing is that reliquary mentioned in the article, but it would be good if you could confirm it. If possibe, a usable ref for Anemone Schneck-Steidl [de] being his mother. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Our of boredom, I am trying to identify the languages of inscriptions on a fountain located in central Budapest. I could easily identify some languages such as Hebrew, Armenian, Russian, English, French, Spanish etc. but I have trouble with some, mostly Slavic, languages which I do not speak myself. I guess that they must include Czech (or Slovak), Slovene, Croatian/Serbian/Bosniak, Macedonian, Bulgarian and/or maybe others.

Translations of 'The place is ours':

• Trg je naš / Площадьт е наш (pretty sure that's Bulgarian) / Naš trg / Nas trg / [unreadable] naše je námestie

Translations of 'Non potable water':

• Водата не е за пиене / Voda ni pitna / Непитна вода / Nepitná voda / Nepitka voda / Voda nije za piće

Translations of 'Open lawn':

• Ходенето по тревата е разрешено / Dozvoljeno je gaziti (ǧaziti?) po travi / Dozvoljeno gaženje trave

I also do not manage to identify the language in 3 other inscriptions for which glossaries easily available online did not help. Could it be Romani?

• Náj lasó ráji / Ámáro szi o placo / Pécsár saj ustarén

Is anyone here able to tell which is which? Note that many inscriptions (such as in French and Greek) have spelling mistakes and inconsistent respect of diacritics.

Pictures of the fountain:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Place Clichy (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Place Clichy. The following translations would be fine in Slovene: Trg je naš, Naš trg, Voda ni pitna. The rest is not Slovene. --TadejM ^{my talk} 00:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have translated sl:Predloga:SloBio to en:Template:SloBio. It would be appreciated if someone can take a look and edit it as appropriate as I'm not sure all issues have been resolved. --TadejM ^{my talk} 18:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of articles in Category:Draft-Class Slovenia articles that meet WP:GNG but must have references added so that they may be moved to the article (Main) namespace. Any help will be highly appreciated. Drafts may be deleted after 6 months of no editing, so we should edit them without delay if we want to keep them. --TadejM ^{my talk} 15:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've put forward the proposal to blacklist nova24tv.si. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Nova24tv.si. --TadejM ^{my talk} 09:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a list of valued natural features of Slovenia with coordinates and classification of significance available at Pisrs.si, but I have no idea what coordinate system has been used. If anyone can help with this, it will be appreciated. This would be a valuable contribution both to the English Wikipedia and Wikidata. If it is of any help, the Nuskova source has the coordinates 46°48′38″N 16°01′31″E / 46.810521°N 16.025228°E / 46.810521; 16.025228 in the Slovene Wikipedia. --TadejM ^{my talk} 12:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Olm for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gornji Log, Slovenska Bistrica#Requested move 28 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 22:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Črete#Requested move 22 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 16:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists. This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted-in to support B-checklists (B1-B6) in your project banner. DFlhb (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We had a discussion relisted at Talk:May 1992 Yugoslavian parliamentary election#Requested move 3 November 2023 that could benefit from the input of people who have knowledge of this topic area, please check it out. --Joy (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor has recently been changing the (usual) single photo in the image skyline parameter to photomontages in Infobox settlement templates (e.g., at Kočevje, Lendava, Ajdovščina); these have often resulted in significant white space in the photomontage and duplication of photos that are used in more relevant sections (e.g., History, Geography, etc.). My own opinion is that these recently created photomontages look clumsy and cluttered, but I'm no arbiter of good taste. Does anyone else feel that these articles would be better served by a single representative photo in the image skyline parameter? Thanks. Doremo (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are moderately ok, with room for improvement. A skyline for settlements of this size can often be rather bland, just a bunch of houses from above/afar. A collage gives you a quicker glimpse at some landmarks. Like Ljubljana, or, if you want to go bigger, London or Paris. Now, for those particular cases, Kočevje and Ajdovščina are obviously using the same images later on in text which is a bad idea, and Lendava is using the castle picture twice, from two perspectives. So I'd say, a collage is fine if done properly. If. --Tone 14:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Cultural Centre of European Space Technologies#Requested move 4 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]