Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Hi, Doremo! Is the correct spelling Kal–Koritnica or Kal – Koritnica? The Slovene spelling is 'Kal-Koritnica' (per SURS). Per analogy with Stara Vas–Bizeljsko, Municipality of Rače–Fram etc., I presume it is the former. Thanks. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, the form Kal–Koritnica is correct. The spaced form (Sln. "nestični pomišljaj") would only be used for appositives in (British) English, never for a compound (e.g., John and Bob – both friends of mine – are starting a band.). Doremo (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this true also for Srednja vas - Goriče (the only relevant case with 'nestični vezaj' per SURS).[1]? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That one should be Srednja Vas–Goriče (like Dobrova–Polhov Gradec). By way of explanation, the English principle is that proper-noun compounds in which the nouns are (at least in theory) in random order should be connected with an (unspaced) en-dash, whether or not one of the constituent elements is an open compound. So we get both Boston–Chicago and Boston–New York. It works the same way with personal names; for example, the Huygens–Fresnel principle (because theoretically it could be the Fresnel–Huygens principle) but Jane Doe-Smith (not Jane Doe–Smith) because the maiden name conventionally precedes the married name. So South-West Africa (because it's invariable and not a proper-noun compound), Bismarck–Mandan (conjoined proper simple nouns), Minneapolis–Saint Paul (conjoined proper simple noun + proper open compound noun), and so on. Doremo (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, can you please see User talk:Eleassar#Mladinsko Theatre? What would you recommend as the title? Thanks a lot for your answer. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

My short answer is that I prefer "Slovene Youth Theatre."

My longer answer: my feeling is that "Mladinsko Theater" is first of all an inaccurate anglicisim for Slovensko mladinsko gledališče because it's missing the Slovensko part of the name. (It would be like using "Democratic Party" for Slovenska demokratska stranka.) Writing "Slovensko mladinsko Theater" would also be very peculiar in English. "Slovenian Youth Theater" is a fully anglicized and natural form of the name; compare "Ljubljana City Theatre" (not "Mesto Theater")

If mladinsko were meaningless or cumbersome to translate, or if it were a personal name, then that would be a good reason to leave it in Slovene; for example "Glej Theater" or "ŠKUC Theatre." However, it is meaningful and it is easy to translate, and it also has obvious parallels both in originally English names (National Youth Theatre, Scottish Youth Theatre), and in originally non-English names (Bryantsev Youth Theatre, Mostar Youth Theatre). Bolshoi Theatre is a well-established and traditional exception.

Moreover, it's not true that the name is "never translated literally, in all serious publications"; for example here (STA is a serious news source) and here (Ramet is a serious scholar) and here (Fulbright is a serious program). Altogether there are quite a lot of Google hits for Slovenian Youth Theater and other fully English variants of the name.

Hi, I forgot to tell you, the article on Culture.si was copy-edited by Jana Willcoxen who's very much a native English speaker. --Pupilija (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

So, given its transparency and naturalness, and its attestation in serious sources, I can see no reason not to use "Slovene Youth Theatre." Doremo (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not know the copyeditor in question. If she is competent and edited the entire text, then somebody else presumably modified the text later. If she is not competent, or if she only edited part of the text, then that would explain the errors. Doremo (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's the history of the article on Culture.si: [2]. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I see that it has a complicated history with contributions by a number of non-native English speakers. Doremo (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

A comment from the Culture.si editor: for the English names of the cultural organisations we opt for the version, used by the organisation itself in its communication in English (e.g. http://en.mladinsko.com/home/). You can find more about the internal rules in our Manual of Style, written by Jana Wilcoxen. Thanks for using C.si as a reference. --Alenka Pirman, Culture.si — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.2.132.102 (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Gottscheer Thanks

Thank you for compiling the information on Stari Tabor (Alttabor). My father was the last person born in the village in June of 1940 and they were relocated in 1941. May of 2011 we were there but due to a bad tour guide we missed the actual village location by 100 meters. One day I hope to return, but my father is older and I don't know if he'll have the time. Thanks again, I hope you post more information. Lyrxst (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you also for your contributions, which are very welcome. I've heard similar stories about people getting lost not far from these villages while looking for them. I've pretty much exhausted the sources I've got at hand on the village, but will certainly be glad to add more if I find it. Doremo (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Doremo. The contents of Culture.si is freely licensed and can be freely included in articles, under the provision that the source is cited using the template {{Culture.si}} (see e.g. Natural History Museum of Slovenia). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

OK; thanks. It can be restored then, but it'll need some heavy copy editing because the English is pretty bad. :-) Doremo (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It's copyedited now. It would probably be good if contributors avoided simply copy-pasting material from Culture.si because of the rough quality of the English. Doremo (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Lahinja, Semič, Doremo!

Wikipedia editor Kieranian2001 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

reviewed interesting

To reply, leave a comment on Kieranian2001's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Thanks for creating Dobrunje, Doremo!

Wikipedia editor Callanecc just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Great article well done!

To reply, leave a comment on Callanecc's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hi Doremo, given your impressive article creation record and the high quality of them (especially the most recent ones) I have request the autopatrolled user right for you. You may need to keep an eye on or watchlist Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled, to answer any questions which might be ask. As well as knowing when the right is granted. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, it's much appreciated. Doremo (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It's been enabled on your account, congratulations, thank you, and use your tick well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Great, always glad to help things move along more efficiently. Doremo (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Doremo, shouldn't the word "hayrack" in Simončič hayrack be capitalised, i.e. Simončič Hayrack? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It's correct either way; it depends whether it's considered an integral part of the name or not (compare patterns like the Sears b/Building or the Jones f/Farm). Some common nouns (like bridge, tunnel, cave) are almost always considered an integral part of the English name, but others (like farm, building) have a lot of variability. There's no native English model for named hayracks, so there's no corresponding native English pattern to cite in this case. Doremo (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Simončič Hayrack would be preferable based on the uniqueness of the structure (e.g., any farm owned by someone named Grant can be the Grant farm, and any building occupied by the Sears store can be the Sears building, but only one farm can be Grant's Farm and only one tower can be the Sears Tower). By this reasoning, the Simončič Hayrack should be capitalized because it's not just any hayrack belonging to anyone named Simončič. Doremo (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll capitalise it, because I agree with your reasoning. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems to be the right pattern in this case. Doremo (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Doremo. The article Anton Stres would be in need of a copyedit. It would be welcome if you could have a look at it when you have time. Thanks and regards, --Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, done. Doremo (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Was there a problem with the convert template in the Dragonja article?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is the plural form as an attributive modifier. It's OK to say "the river is 30 km/kilometres (19 mi) long" (predicative use), but in attributive use the singular is required: "... is a 30 km/kilometre (19 mi) long river" or "... is a 30 km/kilometre (19 mi) river". The problem could be neatly avoided if the template used the abbreviation km instead of the full word kilometres. Doremo (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize what was the problem. There is a way to solve that, I'll offer a solution in the article, please revert if you think that's necessary.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; I didn't know about the "adj=on" solution. Doremo (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've seen you've written some good material on mass graves. However, the articles, like Celje, are about places in general, not about mass graves. The categories and the detailed material are therefore unwarranted. I suggest that you move them to separate articles and keep only the basic information in the articles about places. Thanks and regards, --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Do you think there is enough information on them to create independent articles? If so, they could be equipped with an infobox with maps and coordinates (and pictures as available, such as at Cink), and could be linked from the settlement articles. It would also be useful to have a category "Mass Graves in Slovenia." Doremo (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

In some cases, like Celje, there is enough material to create a new article and equip it as you've said. In other cases, like Cink, where the section is short, the content may be still kept as part of the article, until it grows enough to be split. I'd propose to you (as you're editing this) to create the category Mass graves in Slovenia, where you can categorise the articles specifically about mass graves as well as the redirects to descriptions of mass graves that do not exist yet as separate articles. For example, you may create the redirect Double Shaft by Cink Cross Mass Grave pointed to Cink#Mass grave and categorise it there. Thus, the article Cink would not appear there but the redirect would. Additionally, it would also be useful to have a navigation template ('Mass graves in Slovenia') made in this way. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I've put the simplified category "Mass graves in Slovenia" back on the Celje article, mostly so I don't loose track of it. But the question of a separate article also raises the problem of whether 10 articles would be warranted (because there are 10 separate mass graves), or whether a generic article like "Mass graves in Celje" would be appropriate—which would probably better be handled as a (longish) paragraph in the Celje article itself. The paragraph could probably be shortened somewhat by by combining the Selce and Cemetery mass graves into single groups. Doremo (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the best solution is simply to avoid too much detail when there are multiple sites (I've condensed the Celje paragraph now) instead of creating separate articles. The unusual problem with Celje is that there are so many sites that even a sentence about each one starts to create a large paragraph. Doremo (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It would definitely make more sense to create an article titled Mass graves in Celje. There's no problem if these graves are described in detail in such a separate article. On the other hand, it looks strange when an article about a town is categorised in a category containing mass graves. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

As the graves are described already in the preceding paragraph, I think it would be enough to keep just the sentence "Celje is the site of ten known mass graves from the period after the Second World War in different locations around the town." In any case, not that it would be your fault, but currently I find the post-war section unbalanced in any case: it focuses solely on the post-war killings, whereas there is no information about what happened from the 1950s until the 1990s in the fields such as administration, architecture, sports etc. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 21:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I would have no objection to an independent "Mass graves in Celje" article. It's clearly a major topic that merits more coverage. I also agree about the need for more information about other postwar history; hopefully somebody will have time to add these details. Doremo (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, the categories have been corrected and the independent article Mass graves in Celje has been created. Thank you for your guidance on this. Doremo (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice article. I'll see if perhaps there are some images in Commons. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I found the Fran Roš Primary School image in Commons. It would be good to collect some additional images in Celje when the weather is better, if there are no more available in Commons. Doremo (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Doremo, hi again. I'd appreciate if you'd follow the pattern of Municipality of Sevnica in articles on Slovene municipalities. Particularly the following:

• any such article should be put in [[Category:Municipality of X| ]]
• it should also be put in [[Category:YYYY establishments in Slovenia]]
• the population statistics is currently available for 2010 (see the link in the infobox of the mentioned article)
• please also add a link to Commons (preferably commonscat-inline)
• the link in Template:Municipalities of Slovenia must also be updated.

Thanks and regards. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. I noticed that you added the category "1994 establishments" for Municipality of Šoštanj; is the 1995 here an error? Is there a central source for these dates? I found this source (which also gives 1994 for Šoštanj) with establishment dates. Doremo (talk) 10:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's an error. The municipalities were established in 1994 with Zakon o ustanovitvi občin in določitvi njihovih območij. A comprehensive source of these data is provided by SURS at [3]. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Doremo (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you please comment here? Thanks a lot. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've also done some work at Tobia Lionelli that you have edited, but am not sure whether the Latin name should be written as Joannes or Ioannes. See the comment at its talk page. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I just noticed that and replied there. Personally, I'm indifferent about whether I or J is used. Doremo (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, is it more typical to use 'farm' than 'homestead' as a translation for the Slovene word 'domačija'? E.g. Ciril Kosmač Farm etc. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Homestead has some other associations (Homesteading, Homestead (small African settlement), Homestead Act) that tend to cloud the meaning in my opinion, and even in its intended meaning (Homestead (buildings)) it has multiple meanings. I don't think that it offers any advantage over the simpler term Farm. Also, without exception, when I've showed a traditional domačija to English speakers, they've all said "That's a nice farm" or "I like that farm" or something like that. There are also good native English examples that correspond to what domačija is expressing: Prescott Farm, Millmont Farm, Houseknecht Farm, Plinlimmon Farm, Casey Farm, etc. Doremo (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

In the (rare) cases when a domačija was not agricultural and did not include farmland, but only referred to a house, then I'd use the formulation X House or some other specific designation; for example, Bensen House, Mayhew Cabin, etc. Doremo (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I've translated Menačenkova domačija (in Domžale) as Menačenk House in Commons, but if you think that Menačenk Farm would be better, it may be moved to this name. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The pictures appear to focus on domestic life (i.e., furnishings inside a house), so Menačenk House seems appropriate to me. If it also included barns, stables, etc. then Menačenk Farm would be appropriate. Doremo (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. In this view, I've also renamed 'Junež House' to commons:Category:Junež Farm. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this is a good choice. Doremo (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, your comment at Talk:Slovenske Gorice and Talk:Slovenian Styria would be welcome. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing these conversations to my attention. Doremo (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

An additional comment would be needed at Talk:Slovene Hills. Thanks. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, could you please comment at Talk:Triglav? The sources evidently differ in the year. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 21:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; I've commented and modified the article text. Unfortunately, the issue seems to be unclear. Doremo (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, would it make sense to rename the articles about the statistical regions of Slovenia to the completely English forms (e.g. Zasavska Statistical Region > Central Sava Statistical Region)? I remember there was a discussion about this, but can't find it.. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with that. There was a brief discussion here. Using English forms would correspond to what has already been done in terms of translated English forms for the Czech Republic (e.g., South Moravian Region not Jihomoravský Region), Russia (e.g., Southern Federal District not Yuzhny Federal District), and Hungary (e.g., Northern Hungary not Észak-Magyarország Region), as well as in terms of reduction to base forms for Poland (e.g., Aleksandrów County not Aleksandrowski County), Slovakia (e.g., Trnava Region not Trnavský Region), Finland (e.g., Oulu sub-region not Oulun sub-region), and so on (to point out examples of inflecting languages). Doremo (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

And then there are Big Jažinačko Lake, Namtso, Zabaykalsky Krai, Oktyabrsky District, Primorsky Krai, Neustadt, Westerwaldkreis. JelgavaLV (talk) 06:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

There are many things on Wikipedia, and the above list is a mix of settlements, natural features, and administrative divisions. We were discussing second-level administrative country subdivisions. Other good things to discuss here are transparency, communicativity, naturalness, and related linguistic issues. Doremo (talk) 07:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. At Talk:Koroška Statistical Region, I've posted a request for the move of Koroška Statistical Region to Carinthia Statistical Region. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Doremo (talk) 09:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've written a short article about Weaver's Cave, but am not sure how to translate Zatočna jama to English. Could you help me here? Thanks. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the semantic motivation, of course. I think Inlet Cave is a good choice, which also has a convenient basis in cave terminology (cf. here). Joža Glonar (Slovar slovenskega jezika, 1936, p. 467) has zatok derived from a (chronologically) secondary meaning of the verb zatekati: "zatok: zateklina" ('swelling, edema; bruise'). However, the (chronologically) primary meaning of zatekati 'to leak, flow somewhere (unwanted)' (cf. voda zateka v hišo, streha zateka; ibid.) would be logical here because Rak Creek flows into the cave, and so the name Zatočna jama appears to mean 'cave that water flows away into, leaks through'. This is paralleled by a sinkhole near Grosuplje named Zatočna and a shaft named Zatočina near Kopein, Austria (Bezlaj, 1961, Slovenska vodna imena, vol. 2, p. 331), both of which must have the same hydrographic motivation, as well as the choronym Zatok near Kovor (ibid.), probably with the same semantic motivation. (For the non-hydrographic meaning of zatok 'combe, cirque', German: Einlauf, see also here.) A logical but less likely possibility would be Shelter Cave (cf. "zatòk ... 2. knjiž., redko zatočišče, pribežališče: koča visoko v hribih je bila njen zatok"; SSKJ), but the good evidence for flowing water as the semantic motivation appears to rule this out. Doremo (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I've corrected it to Inlet Cave. Thank you. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Doremo (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Please, see Talk:Cock Bridge (Ljubljana)#Name. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you; I've replied there. Doremo (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, do you think it would be better to move this article to 'Visitation of Our Lady Church' or sth similar? Thanks. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Based on Google-hit frequency (and filtering out "Jerusalem"), I get the following (uncorrected) numbers: Church of the Visitation (1,700,000) > Church of the Visitation of the Virgin Mary (108,000) > Visitation of Mary Church (98,200) > Church of the Visitation of Mary (88,000) > Visitation Church (60,800) > Our Lady Of The Visitation Church (45,200) > Church of the Visitation of Our Lady (42,100) > Visitation of the Virgin Mary Church (39,900) > St. Mary of The Visitation Church (31,800) > Saint Mary of the Visitation Church (18,600) > Visitation of Our Lady Church (10,500). Church of the Visitation is certainly the most common and Visitation of Our Lady Church is the least common of the options. For an option with the pattern X Church, the most frequent is Visitation of Mary Church. However, this is very poorly attested in hits at .ca, .edu, .uk, and .us sites (1, 0, 9, 6). Visitation Church is much better attested at .ca, .edu, .uk, and .us sites (6,470, 1,240, 3,500, 1,000). (Note that Visitation Catholic Church is more frequent, but the epithet Catholic seems unnecessary to me in the Slovene context.) Long and short names are also often used in the same text. So I recommend either Church of the Visitation or Visitation Church. Doremo (talk) 02:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this detailed information. I'll go for 'Visitation Church', which is in line with other 'X Church' namings. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 06:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to include in the article the link to the not-yet-existent article about the rail line from Sevnica to Trebnje. In Slovene, it is named Železniška proga Sevnica - Trebnje. How would it be called in English? Thanks. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 22:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the Slovene X Y–Z pattern this past semester and concluded that English Y–Z X is very rare in running text; that X from Y to Z is much more common. Thus: Železniška proga Dobova - Ljubljana = the railroad from Dobova to Ljubljana, autoceste Rijeka – Zagreb = the freeway from Rijeka to Zagreb, etc. However, the pattern Y–Z X is not impossible; cf. Chicago–Evansville line and London–Birmingham Motorway. For Slovenia, I suggest imitating the usage here: List of railway lines in Great Britain. A few names on the list appear to be Y–Z X, but when you click on them they all seem to actually be Y to Z X (e.g., Nottingham-Grantham Line goes to Nottingham to Grantham Line and contains the running text phrase "line from Melton Mowbray to Newark on Trent"), which appears to confirm my intuition. So I'd recommend Sevnica to Trebnje Line for the article name and piping the link from the text "rail line from Sevnica to Trebnje". I'll make the change now. Doremo (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Another unrelated question: why have you removed SASA as the acronym of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts in its article?[4] This acronym has been actually used in the literature, like for example in the colophon of The Land Between by O. Luthar et al.[5] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

It's in line with more recent SAZU practice (e.g., here) to use the authentic acronym SAZU (although older usage is also found). In general, such acronyms are not translated (e.g., KGB, UDBA), although there are exceptions. There is also a lot of variation at SAZU on this issue because not all the institutes are well coordinated with regard to their presentation in English. Doremo (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I've added a SASA note to the article because it is certainly found. However, it probably should not be given in the lede as an abbreviation because it's likely to mislead readers. A good parallel is probably CSS for KGB (e.g., here), which would also be misleading in a lede. Doremo (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Slovenska Vas, Šentrupert. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Would it make sense to move Water tower, Celje to Celje Water Tower? Thanks. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a natural name; compare Chicago Water Tower, Ypsilanti Water Tower, Louisville Water Tower. This solution has also been used for some other non-English water towers: Mechelen-Zuid Water Tower, Svaneke Water Tower, Ahlen Water Tower, etc. Note also Water Tower, Chester, which is not a water tower, but a tower named Water. Doremo (talk) 10:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've renamed Water tower, Celje to Celje Water Tower and Water tower, Maribor to Maribor Water Tower. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Doremo. Your input at sl:Pogovor:Toponim would be appreciated. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I've responded there. Discussion of English conventions on English WP is best handled at the relevant English WP page(s). Doremo (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for the response. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 18:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Doremo. I've noticed that you prefer to use Gorizia as a statistical region and not Goriška Statistical Region (or shorter Goriška). Gorizia is an italian form of this name and was used for this parts of Slovenia between both world wars (1920-1943) when Primorska was part of Italy. Today Gorizia statistical region is refering only to that region in Italy, so we should use Slovenian form for the region in Slovenia according to Goriška Statistical Region. Thanks and I'm looking for your opinion... Bmiqz (talk) 09:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Goriška is a Slovenian derived adjective form from Gorizia, like Tolminska from Tolmin (cf. also na Idrijskem 'in the Idrija region', na Celjskem 'in the Celje region', na Bovškem 'in the Bovec region', etc.), so also Goriška = 'the Gorizia region'. See also established English usage in published sources here. Doremo (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Goriška is a Slovenian derived adjective form from Gorica and not Gorizia, that is the difference. Gorizia region is a province in Italy and should not be mistaken with region in Slovenia, which has its administrative center in Nova Gorica (and not in nearby Gorizia). Unfortunately there is still some inconsistency in the literature about it due to historical reasons, but it is getting better and "Goriška" is today a widely accepted term. I've noticed that Wikipedia is also trying to be clear about that, e.g. Goriška, Slovenian_Littoral. Insistence at name "Gorizia" region would be (at least for inhabitants of Goriška region) understood as going back in time of Italian occupation of this region, their fascist regime and losing Gorica, which was ethnically mixed city surrounded with regions where Slovenians lived as majority... Bmiqz (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

And Gorizia is the name of the town in English. If it were called Bovška statistična regija it would be the Bovec Statistical Region, if it were called Kobariška statistična regija it would be the Kobarid Statistical Region, and if it were called Tolminska statistična regija it would be the Tolmin Statistical Region. If it were called Novogoriška statistična regija it would be the Nova Gorica Statistical Region. But it's called Goriška statistična regija because it's named after Gorizia. It has nothing to do with fascism or Italian annexation. Doremo (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Your only argument against using Goriška region is the fact that it is an adjective and not noun. It is less common to have an adjective in a name, but English language also allows exceptions. I didn't invented that name and to my opinion a bigger concern is actually using of letter š, which is not in English alphabet. However your solution is using "Gorizia" region ignoring the fact that there is already a province with that name in Italy. Using "Gorizia" for Goriška statistical region is confusing and could be also understood as an attempt of extending the Italian province Gorizia on Slovenian region Goriška. Bmiqz (talk) 10:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. Ljubljanska regija would obviously be the "Ljubljana region," Mariborska regija the "Maribor region," etc. Celovška regija would be the "Klagenfurt region" and Tržaška regija would be the "Trieste region." It seems equally obvious that Goriška regija is the "Gorizia region." I didn't make the name up and I don't see anybody "attempting" anything. Doremo (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is obvious: If you use Gorizia region for Goriška region, the meaning is completely lost, because these are two different regions (one is province in eastern Italy and the other region in western Slovenia). According to you Gorizia region must be used for Goriška region, but what is then the point to have following English wikipedia sites: Goriška Statistical Region,Goriška, Slovenian_Littoral,etc., which all use the term Goriška region? Bmiqz (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Many places have identical names. I don't see a problem with this. The adjective goriški is also polysemous in Slovenian (e.g., Goriški župan Ettore Romoli), which is apparently not a problem in Slovenian either. Doremo (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Does the exonym Rabensberg really refer to the village of Vranja Peč? I've tried to verify the cited reference, but it is unavailable at the moment. According to this page, which I in general find reliable, Rabensberg refers to Koprivnik Castle (also named Vranja Peč), which stood not in the village of Vranja Peč, but in the village of Sveta Trojica. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

They're two different locations with shared names:

1) The 1906 Leksikon states "Vranja Peč, Rabensberg" for the village near Kamnik and it is grouped together with neighboring Paloviče (i.e., Palovče) and Trobelno (i.e., Trebelno), confirming the location. I've delinked the source from the http address. It was available until recently at the University of Ljubljana's Department of History website, but then the site was reorganized and the documents hosted there unfortunately can no longer be found. However, I did save a PDF copy for myself.

2) The 1906 Leksikon also mentions "Konfin" (cited at the www.slosi.info site) in Sveta Trojica, but it does not mention the names Rabensberg and Vranja Peč for that location. However, Savnik (Krajevni leksikon Slovenije) does mention a castle named Koprivnik/Rabensberg in the hamlet of Konfin in Sveta Trojica, confirming the information at www.slosi.info. Doremo (talk) 05:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added the castle information from Savnik's Krajevni leksikon Slovenije to the Sveta Trojica article. Doremo (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I've converted the redirect (Rabensberg) into a disambiguation page. Feel welcome to add further items to it if you know of them. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

This article also contains interesting information: "Ranšperk/Lanšperk (grad) Rabensberg [...] Na vzhodnem Gorenjskem se nahaja grad s podobnim imenom (Rabensberk), ki ga je morda zgradil Bertold III. Ranšper[s]ki." --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The castle information that I added at Sveta Trojica should probably be moved and integrated into the Koprivnik Castle article. I'll try to get around to that later today. Doremo (talk) 07:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that a short section in Sveta Trojica, Domžale is ok, with a link to the article about the castle. This article also contains interesting information: "Ranšperk/Lanšperk (grad) Rabensberg [...] Na vzhodnem Gorenjskem se nahaja grad s podobnim imenom (Rabensberk), ki ga je morda zgradil Bertold III. Ranšper[s]ki." The ruins of Ranšperk Castle are located in Rupe (Municipality of Celje).[6] See also [7]. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The Rupe Rabensberg is listedd in the Styria volume of the 1906 Leksikon (page 41, note 14.8), which gives the parallel Slovene name Ravni Breg. It also lists another Rabensberg in Wuschan (in Zwaring-Pöls), outside Slovenian ethnic territory in Styria. Doremo (talk) 07:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

There are two recent proposals that you may be interested in:

• Talk:Slovenian Littoral - the proposal to move the article to 'Littoral (Slovenia)'
• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)#diacritics flamefest - the usage of diacritics in proper names

--Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I've commented on the first. I'll avoid the second one for now to steer clear of the TENNISNAME disruption, which appears to be a minority opinion anyhow. Doremo (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, how would one call zemljanke in Hotedrščica ([8]) in English? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It's called a root cellar. Here is a nice example in Vermont, another in Ontario, and a funny modern one. They're all analogous to the Hotedršica pictures. Doremo (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. The last one is really lovely. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

:-) Doremo (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've been thinking about moving all the articles describing rail lines in Slovenia (listed here, except 'Parenzana') to 'X Rail Line' What do you think about this? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I would imitate a pattern already in use, like Ontario railways (X Railway/Railroad) or Pennsylvania railroads (X Railroad/Railway) or Railway lines in North West England (X Line). There may also be other patterns. If X Rail Line seems like the dominant pattern after looking at various other native English categories, then that would be a good choice. Doremo (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I've followed the example that you have proposed at #Bistrica: to use 'Line'. However, I've also had a look at Category:Railway lines in Austria, Category:Railway lines in Germany, Category:Railway lines in Italy and the predominant pattern is 'X railway'. Wouldn't it therefore make sense to follow this pattern, i.e. X–Y Railway (or should it be 'X to Y Railway')? As to the capitalisation, there is no strict usage, however capitalised seems better to me, because these are names of particular rail lines. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I would follow the patterns used in native English (Australia, Canada, UK, U.S.). The Austrian, German, and Italian patterns may have been created by nonnative English speakers. Contributors to such articles may create syntactic patterns that violate English, such as University Džemal Bijedić of Mostar or University Iuav of Venice or University Notre Dame of Haiti (just to pick some obvious examples). Doremo (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

In this case, there is no standard naming:

• Category:Railway lines in South Australia - both 'railway' and 'railway line' are used, with spaced and unspaced en dashes
• Category:Railway lines in the United States - uses the specific word 'Subdivision'
• Category:Standard gauge railways in England - both 'Line' and 'Railway'.

I'd therefore say that 'X–Y Railway' is a completely sensible way to name railways in Slovenia. I'd be willing to use the pattern 'X to Y' instead of 'X–Y', however the word 'Railway' is more clear than 'Line'. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

As long as the pattern is supported by typical English usage, it doesn't matter to me which one is followed. The pattern X–Y Railway is supported by the South Australia patterns, less so by the United States and England patterns. That could mean that X–Y Railway is a special Australianism rather than typical English, but I don't know. I think it's more important to focus on "typical" rather than "standard" naming—as you point out, there is no standard pattern. Doremo (talk) 09:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems more to me that 'X to Y' is a Britishism. Also Category:Railway lines in India and Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains#Good articles (although the lines are not in an English-speaking country, the articles have been peer-reviewed) predominantly use the 'X–Y' pattern. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

That's possible. I have relatively little experience with trains, so I can't offer a personal opinion. In any case, the Australian examples indicate that X–Y Railway is a native English pattern. I can't reliably judge whether it's typical or not. Doremo (talk) 09:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion here may be a useful place to pursue the question. Some of the examples are not from English-speaking countries (or have been changed), but an editor there is likely to have an informed opinion on typical naming patterns. Doremo (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

If I may join your discussion: I would also prefer the 'X–Y railway' pattern for railway lines in Slovenia, especially for the reason of having the same pattern for Slovenia and it's neighboring countries. As far as I can see this pattern is used in EN-Wikipedia for most railway lines in Italy, Austria, Hungary and Croatia (and most of central European countries as well). So as soon as more border-crossing railway lines, that are both in Slovenia and one of the neighbouring countries, will have an own article in the EN-WP the same discussion may "erupt". The LJ-ZG line may be only the beginning. As of now there would be only two articles to be moved, Parenzana would be okay, Bohinj railway also. A second reason could be that even the Slovenian phrase Železniška proga Sevnica - Trebnje (at least from my personal knowledge of your language) literally translates into railway line Sevnica - Trebnje, not into railway line (from) Sevnica to Trebnje. Thirdly, from some discussions concerning EN-WP articles about various aspects of railways in Germany it is my opinion that even native speakers of English e.g. from the US, the UK and Australia do not always agree about what's correct and a "a typical pattern", but nevertheless the X–Y railway pattern at Category:Railway lines in Germany seems to be accepted by a wide majority of them. And (as already mentioned above) as the same pattern is wideley used for railways lines in Slovenia's neighbouring countries, I believe that native speakers of English would "accept" it even for Slovenia. I am not going to judge right and wrong, but given those three reasons I would strongly suppport the idea of renaming Sevnica to Trebnje Line into Sevnica–Trebnje railway and Divača to Koper Line into Divača–Koper railway. A much more difficult discussion would be whether to use the "-" (as now for Croatian railway lines) or the "–" as used e. g. in Italy, Austria, Hungary, Serbia and Germany. Personally I also prefer the latter one, just for the reason of having the same pattern with Slovenia's neighbouring countries. Greetings! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleeblatt187 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I'd only add that in my opinion 'Railway' should be capitalised, because it is part of the proper name. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 21:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Kleeblatt187. If native English speakers familiar with the topic agree with X–Y Railway then I would have no objection. However, usage by or consistency with neighboring non-English countries isn't very compelling. Slovenia's neighbors often get their English syntax backwards (e.g., Clinical Hospital Dubrava, University of Applied Sciences Kufstein, etc.) and so caution should be used when looking to such articles as models. Doremo (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Per the above, I've proposed at Talk:Ljubljana-Zagreb railway that the article Ljubljana-Zagreb railway is moved to Ljubljana–Zagreb Railway. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 06:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that such a name format should have an en dash between the city names and a capital R. Doremo (talk) 06:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Also agree :-) --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Another word that I don't know the translation for is 'stavnica'.[9][10] Should it be just left as it is or is there a corresponding English term for them? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 21:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe candle lantern is the appropriate term (although it also has other meanings). The Pleteršnik dictionary has German "die Standlaterne in der Kirche" (literally, 'standing lantern'), and in English I find the following (with multiple candles, poles, and/or carols): "lit the main staircase with a large eight-candle lantern"; "staircase ... is lit by a ten-candle lantern"; "an old fashioned candle lantern on a pole"; "six-candle lantern was developed"; "carrying a large lit candle lantern ... singing carols" This last carol-singing reference is British; here is another in Sweden that does not name the candle lantern, but indicates that the custom described by Valvasor was international: "lit candles on a pole ... singing carols" Doremo (talk) 04:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the information. I'm thinking about writing an article about the custom and it's great that you have pointed out it was international. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad to help. Doremo (talk) 07:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Additional (print only) sources for you: "Stavnica" in Slovenski etnološki leksikon (2004, p. 580) and sources cited therein: B. Orel, Slovenski ljudski običaji, Narodopisje Slovencev 2, Lj. 1952; N. Kuret, Praznično leto Slovencev 2, Lj., 1989. Doremo (talk) 07:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Does the title 'pole candle lantern' seem ok to you? I'm also thinking about 'multiple candle lantern'.[11] -Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The second option (multiple candle lantern) gives better results on Google Books, but is still rare. I would simply use candle lantern for now. I wouldn't be surprised to find a more technical term for this device. I've tried looking for other terms, but with no success. I did find this for an Italian context: "pole on which spikes are fixed for the ring of candles" and this for Java: "a pole with candles ... on the top", but like other English descriptions ("three candles on a pole all wreathed with roses ", "six candles on a pole") they simply describe the device rather than naming it. Candle-pole is a possibility; not common or technical, but less polysemous (e.g., "three-branched candle-pole"). Doremo (talk) 08:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go for candle-pole then. As you say, candle lantern is a good choice, but has a variety of meanings. Should it be hyphenated? Per [12], it is mostly not. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I would use a hyphen (also to help distinguish it from other concepts like this), but it's OK without one too. English has a lot of spelling variation in compounds (open, hyphenated, and closed). If I find a better term I'll suggest it. Doremo (talk) 11:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The name should probably be capitalised, i.e. 'Najevnik Linden Tree'? Also, where did you get the information that it is mentioned in relation to King Matjaž? I've tried to find a source confirming this in Google Books, but to no avail. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with full capitalization (cf. style at List of trees). It's not originally my text; I moved it from Črna na Koroškem on 11 Jan 2013 (and should have mentioned that in the edit summary at Ludranski Vrh). Anything not supported by the sources should be deleted or tagged. Doremo (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I'm going to correct the capitalisation and add the tree to the mentioned list. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The text was originally added by an IP-address contributor on 23 May 2012. Doremo (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to ask you to make a bit of copy editing to the article that was created today (in relation to the series of edits I have made recently - see here), as you can see here, because my English is far from being as good as yours and you have already improved the material I have added to some other articles recently. Thank you. --DancingPhilosopher (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe you would also want to archive some of your Talk page material since it is getting very long, maybe the way Eleassar archived his older Talks.

Thank you for the suggestion; I've made the requested copyedits. Doremo (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Doremo: You have undid my revision. The term windish in Bethlehem came about from the Hungarian Vendivek or vend nyelv. You cite no source for your PA dutch theory; PA dutch were very remote from south bethlehem industrial area where term windish used; slovene emmigrants from prekmurje generally had spoken knowledge of Hungarian language. Finally, there is quite a bit of affection associated with use of term windish in bethelehem, which admittedly is a term that is disfavored heavily outside of bethlehem today. Bethlehem will have a prekmurje-descended mayor; he self identifies as windish like so many others. The term is not yet in widespread disfavor in bethlehem, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.118.2.110 (talk) 10:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The cited source for the change is: Paternost, J. 1981. "Sociolinguistic Aspects of Slovenes in Pennsylvania." The Slavic Languages in Emigre Communities (= International Review of Slavic Linguistics 6, 1–3, special issue, ed. Roland Sussex), 97–120. Edmonton: Linguistic Research, p. 106. I have deleted the unsourced reverted statement. You are welcome to add additional information from reliable sources. Doremo (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I cannot obtain a copy online of this article; but so very few Prekmurje immigrants to Bethlehem spoke German, and so many spoke Hungarian, that it seems to me doubtlessly more accurate that the Windish term comes from the Hungarian term (admittedly, more less analogous to the German). As for your claim that "Windish" is in disfavor broadly in Bethlehem, you have no citation for that proposition, because it is not really correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.122.253 (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is a primary source: http://articles.mcall.com/2007-07-26/opinion/3741658_1_reformed-slovenian-established — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.122.253 (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I have not claimed anything regarding Pennsylvania Dutch or whether the term is favored or not. You should address questions about Pennsylvania Dutch [13] and preferences [14] to different contributors. In any case, it is more likely that the English term Windish comes from the phonologically near-identical German Windisch (as in the cited source) than from Hungarian vend. Doremo (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, how would you translate the place name 'Ronkarjeve drage' (the site where the Vače situla was found) to English? Should 'Vače situla' be capitalised to 'Vače Situla'? Thank you for the reply. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 06:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It's the Ronkar Ravine. It's named after the Ronkar Farm in Klenik (the surname there is Šinkovec). I would fully capitalize Vače Situla (but "the situla was ..."); good parallel examples for archaeological artifacts are the Phaistos Disc (but "the disc was ...") and the Pilate Stone (but "the stone was ..."). However, English usage does vary (at least on Wikipedia); cf. the Kish tablet, the Nimrud lens, etc. Doremo (talk) 06:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Should Vače belt-plate therefore also be capitalised? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would also recommend Vače Belt-Plate (cf., e.g., Avanton Gold Cone, Roman Capua Leg, Berlin Gold Hat for similar three-word items). But, again, there is variation in English patterns (e.g., Hove amber cup, Pella curse tablet). Doremo (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Eleassar, could you move Negau helmet to Negau Helmet over the redirect for consistency? Thanks. Doremo (talk) 08:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure about the Negau helmet, because it is a generic name for [any] one of 26 bronze helmets. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree; I think "a Negau helmet" is more appropriate. The other option would be plural ("the Negau Helmets") but it's OK as a singular generic too. I've added "a" in the caption. Doremo (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I just realized that I overlooked the plural number of Ronkarjeve drage, so I've updated the article referring to it. Doremo (talk) 09:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

no hard feeling at koča pri triglavskih jezerih — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul25 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've (unfortunately or even not) just spotted that the translation of Zdravljica in Zdravljica is copyrighted. Do you know perhaps of any free translation? If you have the time, you may even replace it with your own, which is a particular honour in my opinion: the first free translation of Zdravljica. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks -- I've always disliked the "official" translation. It tries very hard to have the same rhyme pattern and rhythm as the Slovenian original, but the result is that the syntax is so twisted that it often becomes incomprehensible. It would be useful to replace it with a simple literal translation. I'll work on it if I can find time. Doremo (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your good work. I appreciate it. As you can guess by the title, I'm asking you to do some more :-), if time permits and you are willing to. In a scholarly article by Čermelj, L. (1955). Kako je prišlo do prijateljskega pakta med Italijo in kraljevino SHS, Zgodovinski časopis, 1-4, on page 195, I have found out about facts that I was not aware of before and decided to incorporate them here (about Srečko Kosovel), here (about the Prime Minister mentioned in the source), and here (about the country itself). Thank you very much. If you think this is not more than enough, there is the article here (about the Slovene minority in Italy (1920–1947)) rephrased by ... who would have thought who .-) --Me Again (talk)

Thank you for your contributions. I've made some copyedits to the material. Doremo (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)