User talk:Doremo/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

En dashes

Hi, Doremo. Could you please have a look at User talk:Eleassar#Endashes and comment on the disagreement? Thank you. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Kaplja Vas

Would you be willing to write an article about Kaplja Vas, the former village in the Municipality of Komenda? I've just started writing the article about the candle-pole and it's mentioned in the 1895 source as the village where the tradition lasted for the longest. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 22:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the candle-pole article. Doremo (talk) 05:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Would it make sense to move the article to Kapla Vas? This name occurs in Geopedia.si and other sources. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 06:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. The name is attested both ways in reliable sources (the maps at Pešpoti have both spellings depending on the zoom level). Because of other villages named Kaplja vas, it seems that the standard spelling should be with a j and the the spelling without j is a pronunciation-spelling. I'll add some sources for the j spelling. Doremo (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hrib–Loški Potok

Hi, Doremo, per User talk:Doremo/Archive 1#Oplotnica it seems that it would make sense to move the article Hrib–Loški Potok to Hrib–Log Potok or Hrib–Log Creek, because the word 'potok' in the name Loški potok refers to a stream, not a settlement (see [1], pg. 30 and the explanation here, pg. 370: because the name 'Loški potok' is a name of a stream, not of a settlement, it should be written lowercase in Slovene). The predominant spelling (also in the statute of the municipality) is with the word 'potok' uppercase, i.e. 'Hrib - Loški Potok', but the statue is from 1995, whereas the Gazetteer was published in 2001. I've sent a question about this to a member of the Commission for the Standardisation of Geographical Names of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia. In the case the solution to write the Slovene name as 'Hrib - Loški potok' is confirmed to be the correct one, what's your opinion about how this name should then be written in English? The same also applies to Srednja Vas–Loški Potok, which should probably become Srednja Vas–Log Potok or Srednja Vas–Log Creek. We also have Potočanska planota, currently translated as Loški Potok Plateau; should it be Log Creek Plateau? On the other hand, the name of the municipality should probably be retained as Municipality of Loški Potok, because it is named after the village of 'Loški Potok', not a creek. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the etymology of the name, Hrib–Loški Potok is the name of the settlement, and so it should remain that way except for the usual English standardization of capitalization and dash. Srednja Vas–Loški Potok should also remain untranslated. I would also retain Loški Potok Plateau because it uses part of the settlement name (cf. Loški muzej 'Škofja Loka Museum', which also uses part of the settlement name). The municipality should certainly remain Municipality of Loški Potok. Otherwise, log literally means 'flood-meadow' (among other meanings), but I don't think pursuing the etymology too much here would be useful. Doremo (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

In Slovene it is customary to write words such as mountain (gora), creek (potok), etc. capitalised when part of the names of settlements (e.g. Kranjska Gora, Loški Potok), but in this case it has been determined that 'Loški potok' in 'Hrib - Loški potok' is not the name of a settlement (nenaselbinsko ime), therefore it is not capitalised. Why would this be different in English? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

If "Loški Potok" is not part of the name, then the article title should simply be "Hrib" (or "Hrib, Loški Potok" for disambiguation) and the article should only refer to "Hrib." But SURS [2] (and also every map I look at) has Hrib-Loški Potok as the name, not Hrib. Doremo (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The Slovenian hyphenated element -Loški potok is simply a differential geographical epithet, exactly the same as a prepositional geographical epithet like Šempeter v Savinjski Dolini (Sln. ...dolini) or Lenart v Slovenskih Goricah (Sln. ...goricah). Together with the base names of the settlements ( Hrib, Šempeter, Lenart), these geographical epithets create the full name of the settlement. Doremo (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Are you sure 'Potočanska planota' uses part of the settlement name and is not named after the creek? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Another thought: the same is true of Zagorje ob Savi, Kanal ob Soči, etc., except that the geographical epithets ob Savi and ob Soči don't involve capitalization issues so nobody thinks about them. Doremo (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Potočanska planota, it's an etymological question. I'll take a look at an old map and see what I can determine. Generally speaking, I'd expect the plateau to be named after a settlement (cf. Bloška planota < (Velike) Bloke, Logaška planota < Logatec, Otavska planota < Otave, Trnovska planota < Trnovo, Vojskarska planota < Vojsko), but an exception is always possible. Doremo (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems that if there was no place with this name, we should follow the example of Kamnik Bistrica and translate it as Log Potok Plateau (or Log Creek Plateau, but this is less likely as 'Bistrica' has also not been translated to 'Creek'). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't do so without studying the matter first and finding some evidence for the hypothesis. It's relatively common for names to derive from only parts of settlement names. In addition to Loški muzej, Loško gospostvo and loška obvoznica also refer to Škofja Loka. The Gradaščica is from Polhov Gradec. The derivation Potočanska planota < Loški Potok fits this pattern, and the collocation Bloško-Potočanska planota seems to pretty safely refer to a plateau with (Velike) Bloke on one end and (Loški) Potok on the other end. Doremo (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be necessary to determine when the (relatively rare) term Potočanska planota came into use (i.e., whether it predates the settlement name Hrib–Loški Potok (created in 1953). Then there's also the matter of transparency: it's easy to connect Loški Potok Plateau with (Hrib–)Loški Potok. It's hard to connect Log Creek Plateau with a recognizable place, and if the name of the creek were translated (otherwise it looks like it means Hlodovni potok) it would be "Flood Meadow Creek", leading to the even worse "Flood Meadow Creek Plateau". However, the element loški isn't in the name Potočanska planota, so the extreme logical conclusion would be "Creek Plateau," which is even more distant from referential reality. To complicate things further, the usual adjective for the common noun should be potočni (not potočanski, which is derived from a demonym), implying that "creek" is also not the right translation, but instead "creek dweller." But I think "Creek Dweller Plateau" can safely be dismissed. What I'm saying is that it may be most useful to leave the name connected with "Loški Potok" for referential ease. Doremo (talk) 11:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Whereas other spellings have also occured in scholarly literature, the term 'Potočanska planota', coined by Anton Melik at some time between 1954 and 1960 (probably in 1959), has been mostly used. In my opinion, leaving the word 'Log' out and translating as 'Potok Plateau' therefore most faithfully follows the established naming in the Slovene language and is transparent enough for any reader. I don't see any grammatical problem with it, particularly if the name truly derives from a demonym (the official name for the resident of the area of Loški Potok is 'Loškopotočan', unofficially 'Potočan'). It would also make more sense than Loški Potok Plateau because I can't find a reference for 'Loško-potočanska/potoška planota', but ocassionaly the term 'Velikopotoška planota' has been used.[3][4] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. If Melik created Potočanska planota in 1954–60, then it's a newer term than Hrib–Loški Potok. I think we agree that Melik was thinking of a plateau extending from Bloke to Loški Potok (although it's not clear whether he conceived of the latter as referring to Loški Potok as a region or to Loški Potok as part of the longer settlement name). (In any case, by that time Slovenian Loški potok (and German Laserbach) already referred to the entire area or valley rather than just the creek itself, so I wouldn't use creek in the name of the plateau.) I think "Potok Plateau" would be OK because it's a faithful representation of Potočanska. If a separate article is written about it, it should make some reference to Loški Potok, of course. Doremo (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is the opinion of Drago Perko, the director of Anton Melik Geographical Institute, about the correct writing of the proper names of this and other similarly named settlements in Slovene: "Spoštovani, tip dvojnih imen naselij se zapisuje z nestičnim vezajem (ker oba dela imena sklanjamo, na primer v Šmarju - Sapu), pravilen zapis imena za naslednje ime, za katerega sprašujete, pa je Hrib - Loški potok, saj je prvi del imena ime naselja, drugi del imena pa ime pokrajine. Če bi bil Loški Potok naselje, bi se potok zapisal z veliko začetnico. Bolj pravilen zapis tega imena bi bil Hrib v Loškem potoku (kot na primer Moravci v Slovenskih goricah). Tudi pri imenih občin pišemo nestični vezaj. Tako je trenutno pravilo glede pisanja nestičnega vezaja, vendar med snovalci pravopisa niso prav vsi istega mnenja." (if you need a translation, please let me know). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I also agree with Slovenian Hrib - Loški potok and English Hrib–Loški Potok. I also agree with Drago Perko that Hrib v Loškem potoku would have been a more appropriate name in Slovenian (in which case the corresponding English would of course be Hrib v Loškem Potoku). For the use of a similar (and also unusual) "dash of location" in English, compare University of Wisconsin–Madison. Doremo (talk) 12:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Types of hayrack

This site also mentions 'kozolec s hišo' and 'kozolec z repom'. Perhaps it would be sensible to add them to the list in Hayrack. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you; I've added both to the list. Doremo (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. When you have time, could you please have a look at commons:Category:Hayracks in Slovenia and commons:Category:Hayracks in Slovenia by type? I've tried to classify the images according to these types, but some cases are ambiguous for me and I would appreciate if you reviewed this. Also, images of roofed double hayracks with shed and roofed double hayrack with extension have not been categorised yet. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

OK. The number of possible subvariations is probably quite large; for example, this would be a "double straight-line hayrack with catslide roof" but I don't know that it would be frequent enough to categorize as a type by itself. Some are also indeterminate because the images only show part of the structures. Doremo (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've left the indeterminate ones, like File:Ammann Yanmar at Žiganja vas, Tržič.jpg, in the category 'Hayracks in Slovenia' as the most general category. Thank you for the review. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Most na Soči

Hi, in regard to the name section that you've added to Most na Soči, it would be worth mentioning that the oldest known name is In Ponte Sancti Mauri, after St. Maurus' Church in the village. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 21:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've updated the paragraph. Doremo (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Jahorina

Mine risks section and Slovenian paraglider.

Accident involving Slovenian paragliders that landed in restricted area of Jahorina, ending up in minefield and getting themselves injured is not a material for an article about Jahorina mountain. It's a more of news portal data and news information (plus it's 3-years old).

If you incorporate injured Slovenian into article about Jahorina, you should mention tragic death of Danish mountaineer or tragic death of Serbian skier. They did not end up in mine field but again they were injured and they died on Jahorina while skiing or climbing. As a matter a fact dozen of tourists died on Jahorina in last ten years by skiing off piste, skiing in closed parts of mountain, or climbing in forbidden zones of mountain. But None died by stepping on landmine. Most of them as Slovenian paragliders did not respect rules of resort or they breached forbidden zones.

People got injured by landmines on several mountains and ski resorts in the region, some tourists recently got injured on Alps by WWII landmine. But we do not stuff wiki articles with that kind of informations, because articles are not a news feeds. And Jahorina does not have burning landmine issue.

Mine risks section of the jahorina article describes dangers and the situation concerning minefields on Jahorina. Slovenian paragliders accident should be in ref section, but not in main section of article. Writing about their accident makes article biased by highlighting Slovenian paragliders accident as something important out of dozens ski/mountaineering accidents that happen annually. At the same time highlighting minefields on jahorina resort as a realistic danger (they are dangerpus but just as mountain cliff), those fields are marked and located in forbidden zones outside resort. No one died by stepping on landmine on Jahorina. Slovenians were the only people that got injured and they breached forbidden zone from the air.

Dexmari (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent news articles and travel guides (as cited in the article) mention the landmines when discussing skiing. They are reliable published sources, and they cite landmines as a salient part of the history and current features of Mount Jahorina. Doremo (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Doremo. You have new messages at Yerpo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kranjska Gora

Hi, in regard to Kranjska Gora, was it called 'Borovska Vas' or 'Borovška Vas' in the past or both? Shouldn't the word 'vas' be capitalised in the article? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe it was spelled with s in the sources cited (as also here [5][6][7]) but some online sources appear to have š. I'll double-check the cited sources. Regarding capitalization, the usual convention is to use native orthography and italics when citing a foreign word/phrase as foreign (e.g., "...known as Borovska vas in Slovene..."), in contrast to unmarked reference in prose (e.g., "... located between Borovska Vas and ..."). Doremo (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The three cited sources disagree with one another. I've updated the section to show the spelling variation. Doremo (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Retje, Trbovlje

Hi, I've created an article about Retje nad Trbovljami, which is a new settlement in the Municipality of Trbovlje, and removed Retje, Trbovlje from the list of former settlements in the municipality. I presume it is the same village. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 22:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I'll expand the article. Doremo (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Well done. I've removed the stub tag. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Doremo (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Rožnik Hill

Hi, I've seen the name Rosenbach used for Rožnik Hill on several old postcards; it would be worth mentioning this name in the article's name section. Regards, --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; I've added the information with two published sources. Doremo (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Seničica

Please, see Talk:Seničica. Thanks. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Brest: castle/mansion

Hi, wouldn't the word mansion be more appropriate in this case? Please comment at Talk:Brest, Ig. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with changing it, given the appearance. The source I used called it grad Brest (and so I literally translated it), but I see that there are also sources that call it a graščina (here) or dvorec (e.g., here). I'll change it to "manor" (which sounds more rural, versus the more urban "mansion"). Doremo (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Google Street view

Hi, Doremo, I've tried to add a Google Street View link to external links in the article Tihaboj, but had some problems getting the url. Can you please check the link and please tell me whether it shows correctly for you (i.e. you get a virtual panorama view)? Thanks a lot. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I've changed the link to show to a more generic Google page, where you should see a drop-down menu with links to photographs and the street view. Does it work correctly for you? By the way, is it correct to say 'Tihaboj on Geopedia.si' or 'Tihaboj at Geopedia.si'? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the link works correctly for me. Either "on" or "at" Geopedia.si is acceptable. For me, "at Geopedia.si" indicates the website and "on Geopedia.si" indicates the identically named service/resource at the website. (Cf. "on Google" vs. "at google.com".) Doremo (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Copy-edit request

Hi, could you, please, copy-edit my edits in the article about the poet Balantič here (thanks for copy-editing here, too). Thank you. --DancingPhilosopher (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your contributions. Doremo (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Novo Mesto

FYI, someone changed it to lowercase "m" (which you may want to consider reverting, I'll leave up to you) and then emailed OTRS asking me to rename the article. Obviously I declined and pointed him to your explanation on the talk page from a couple of years back, which was very well written, so thanks for that. I invited him to counter your reasoning on the talk page if he could find reasons why it should be changed, so just a heads-up that there might be someone posting there in the next few days. More likely is that they won't post anything, but just an FYI should they do so. Regards, Daniel (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you; I've reverted the change per the talk page and widespread usage. It was probably a well-intended change (but misguided in that it seeks to apply Slovenian orthographic rules universally). Doremo (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Stalk-reverting

Do you always revert/correct/boss-around everything that you dislike or disagree with from other contributors? Let me know before I go edit another article, because dealing with "editors" like you is too time/energy consuming for me, and obviously a great enjoyment to yourself. 2607:FF50:0:C:0:0:B1FC:50BA (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Civility. Constructive contributions made in a cooperative manner are always welcome. Doremo (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Enjoy the internet and the future when you can upload your brain into a computer. 2607:FF50:0:C:0:0:B1FC:50BA (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Jesenice and Velenje articles

I have replied to your issues on respective talk pages. Let's resolve this quickly. 198.143.0.153 (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot take the replies seriously because they are expressed as repeated personal attacks. I suggest waiting for input from other editors. Doremo (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I will remove the tags then. Your issues can be resolved without them. 198.143.0.153 (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The tags should be removed by a third party, not by someone involved in the issues in question. Doremo (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Tags are not needed for resolving issues in process. You are intentionally trashing articles by re-adding them. 198.143.0.153 (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Planina pri Rakeku

Hi, as you've recently been to Planina, do you know perhaps which church is depicted in this photo (also here)? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be Saint Roch's Church (compare this) with a new roof on the bell tower and other modifications. The wooden bell-tower window with the curved top is the same, the pilasters match, and the steps at the bottom can be seen in both of the old images. The building behind the church is also the same. Doremo (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It really seems to match this one. Thank you. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

This building in the left foreground also matches the building in this image, as does the building on the right (with the old door frame now walled up). Doremo (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

There is also the image on pg. 14 of this source. It's hard to see it in detail, but the general outline seems to match the one from the postcard. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

This photo is taken from a similar angle as the one on page 14 above (with the old bridge out of the photo to the right), and Saint Roch's Church with the new bell-tower roof is in the same position. Doremo (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Also unclear is the year of construction of this church. Whereas the cited source states 1761 (per Krajevni leksikon Dravske banovine; this is also the year given by RKD), Enciklopedija Slovenije[8] and planina.si[9] state 1763. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Krajevni leksikon Slovenije doesn't give a year of construction for the church, but it does state that Metzinger's painting of Mary in the church dates from 1763. I don't have any other sources at hand that might clear up the question. Doremo (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Slovenian Geology

Hey Doremo! Thank you so much for helping me. I was also thinking of adding the Slovenian names of the units. What is the translation of "Fault" and "Basin"? --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm adding them now. Basin = kotlina, fault = prelom. Doremo (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. So it must be "Labotski prelom" for the Lavanttal Fault. Tobias1984 (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Doremo (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks but question

Hey Thanks for the fast cleanup regarding settlement names in article Austrian-Slovene clashes in Carinthia, I completely messed up which language comes first in such circumstances. However I am wondering, why is Radlje ob Dravi's post-1952 name used, wouldn't it be more correct to use "Marenberg" instead? Mrwho00tm (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Marenberg would be fine for avoiding anachronism. I made the corrections relatively quickly; there are probably other details I missed. Thank you for writing the article. Doremo (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hyphen vs en-dash

Please review MOS:HYPHEN to understand why I reverted your changes to Conte di Cavour-class battleship.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific to clarify what part of MOS:HYPHEN you mean; Conte di Cavour–class battleship is a compound (phrasal) attributive in which the first element is itself a compound, structurally equivalent to Pulitzer Prize–winning novel and other examples discussed at Dash#Attributive compounds. ("In English, the en dash is usually used instead of a hyphen in compound (phrasal) attributives in which one or both elements is itself a compound, especially when the compound element is an open compound, meaning it is not itself hyphenated.") As such, Conte di Cavour–class battleship, not Conte di Cavour-class battleship, is correct. Doremo (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I've never seen an en-dash used for compound ship names in any of my books, so I think that ships might be an exception to the normal rule. However, I'm gonna alert a copyeditor friend with access to this discussion and see if he can find out what the major style guides have to say.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

You can also consult § 6.85 of the Chicago Manual of Style (15th edition; the section number may be different in other editions) on this issue. Doremo (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

From what my friend tells me, the AP styleguide doesn't even bother to distinguish between dashes and hyphens and Chicago is less than clear on the issue. And given that your source is not part of WP:MOS, merely an article describing dashes, I think that you lack any standing to change an FA-class article that conforms to WP:MOS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Chicago Manual of Style is quite clear on this issue, and it is also generally followed by better publishers, as far as I know. My "standing" is irrelevant. Doremo (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Then you fail to understand how WP:MOS works on Wikipedia. FA-class articles are required to conform to it down the last jot and tittle. The distinction between hyphens and en-dashes as in the case of Conti de Cavour-class battleship is not addressed there and so your changes do not follow the MOS. Please review MOS:HYPHEN as that's the section of the MOS that covers hyphen usage and you'll see that the article follows those rules. It's not like the article on dashes that you are using as your source which is merely descriptive. The MOS is prescriptive.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really interested enough in the particular topic to pursue it further. You're welcome to correct it later if you wish, or to amend MOS:HYPHEN to match your point of view. Doremo (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I am following MOS:Hyphen, your changes did not.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Herrenpilz

Conversation moved to Talk:Boletus edulis Doremo (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For helping me and providing me a great source for my research, you deserve this barnstar. Many thank, regards, FkpCascais (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Jelenov Most

Hi, Doremo, could you please comment at User talk:Eleassar regarding the most appropriate name of 'Jelenov most'? Thanks. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Czech Republic/Czechia

Hi Doremo. I've reverted your change to the original because I raised this at the project talk page and the view seemed to be no mass reversions either way. If this really is an issue for you, let's discuss it there and reach a consensus. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Czechia is bizarre in English by any measure (here is one), as already discussed extensively at Talk:Czech Republic. You should obtain clear consensus from other editors involved in the topic area before insisting on the term. If Czechia becomes the dominant English term in the future some day, then you are welcome to use it. Doremo (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I see you're continuing to replace "Czechia" with "Czech Republic" citing WP:COMMONNAME as the reason. However, that is incorrect because COMMONNAME is a policy about article titles. There is no policy for mass deleting alternative names; it's simply WP:POV. BTW I don't insist on "Czechia" everywhere; I am content that the vast majority of sources use "Czech Republic", but some still use "Czechia". So it is not right to eliminate it entirely because then Wikipedia is not reflecting the usage of both terms in the sources. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I changed it because Czechia is very peculiar, whereas Czech Republic is very normal. Doremo (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

My appreciation! Kako sem prišel do Tebe? Kot prevajalec sem prispeval spoštljivo število člankov v sl wikipediji, nakar sem se domislil, da tujina bolj rabi zanesljive informacije o Sloveniji, kot pa dežela Kranjska od zunaj. In sem začel zbirati podatke o angl. straneh s slovensko vsebino (gl. moj peskovnik2) . Ker je ročaj doremo pri tem vedno pogosteje prišel pred oči, si želim in pam, da se bova pri mojem delu SL> EN kdaj praktično in plodno srečala. Sem Slovenec, Kanadčan, gl moj prevajalski profil http://www.proz.com/profile/91005 SmozBleda (talk) 11:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hvala. :-) Doremo (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

TOMATOH - TOMEYTOE

Hi Doremo. Regarding
The Jordan River (American English) or River Jordan (British English)
Just check the same graph you've used, but for US English and compare. I guess we can agree on: RJ - classical BE; JR - AE. The American Eng. version overtook the old BE one in 1980 even in the UK (sure, globalisation).
Even better, go to BibleGateway.com and search different translations: all classical ones, King James as well as American Standard, go with River Jordan. Easy-to-Read Version - you've guessed.
Brits traditionally put "River" first, see River Thames, never Th R. It's linguistics, stats only prove that language is a living thing and the US are winning also culturally. More or less :) I hope we can agree. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Arminden

I just observe the stats, I don't create them. Rivers inside the UK have different syntactic patterns than rivers outside the UK, so the comparison between the Thames and Jordan isn't particularly relevant. Doremo (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com check-in

Hello Doremo,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

• Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips .
• Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Valvasor

Hi, Doremo. Is the claim that "the spelling Weikhard is more common in printed sources today."[10] written in the cited source or did you estimate this by some other means? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I can't remember how I accessed the source for that change three years ago; I can't seem to find it electronically now, so I can't confirm that it appears there. It's simply been too long to remember (and I don't have a physical copy of the work). I may have also copied the reference from some other source that cited it. I also can't explain why I cited it as Dictionary of German Biography instead of Deutsche biographische Enzyklopädie. I'll remove the reference because I can't confirm it. Google Books gives me 2,280 hits for "Johann Weichard von Valvasor" and 22,400 for "Johann Weikhard von Valvasor", for one measure of the stats. Doremo (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Velikonja

Hi. I title that last section in Joseph Velikonja Personal life in hopes that the year of his marriage, name of his wife, number of children and grandchildren might get included. Calling it Death seems grim, and unlike the other biographical articles I have read (admittedly a tiny share of all that are on Wikipedia). What I know is from a private posting from his daughter, so I cannot cite that. He spoke eight languages, which seems noteworthy, as well. Again, from his daughter's post, but I assume that might be written somewhere else about him. Great that you found a photo! He was an amazing man. to be sure. --Prairieplant (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I'll move some more material to avoid the grim title. Doremo (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Translations of the Slovene Wikipedia

Hi, Doremo. I'd like to warn you about the biographical articles from the Slovene Wikipedia in regard to the copyrights, because many of them are directly copied from Enciklopedija Slovenije, Slovenski biografski leksikon etc. Feel free to reuse the content to write articles, but please avoid directly translating them. It's a real shame that the plagiarism, contributed particularly by the user Grejo but also some other collaborators, is now spreading to other Wikipedias, because no-one has yet taken time to remove the directly copied text from the Slovene Wikipedia. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 06:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I've also noticed that much of the Slovene WP material is heavily plagiarized. I'll try to "shake up" the translations to make them less reliant on the text they were copied from. Doremo (talk) 07:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

That's appreciated. Thank you. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Udine

Why exactly should there be any section about the Slovene name of Udine? Was it ever Slovenian or had anything to so with Slovenia?(i think not); Does it hold any importance, why? The German name is in fact much more substantial than the Slovenian; 1st Friulian / 2nd German / 3rd Italian / and 4th... maybe Slovenian; Please explain the importance of the Slovenian name Agilulf2007 (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Udine is a historical Slovenian cultural center with a Slovenian minority. Doremo (talk) 03:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian or not.

Ah, ok I see you understand what I meant. --Andro498 (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Please do not remove images on a massive basis, as you did to Kenosha, Wisconsin; it is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Please do not remove images on such a massive scale without consensus; the accompanying captions, as well as article text, justify the placement of the photo gallery. If you disagree with how it is labelled or where the images are on the page, you and I can work out how to place them. Thank you. Lord Laitinen (talk) 11:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• UPDATE: I have done away with the "gallery section" and have moved all of the photographs into their respective appropriate sections of the page, including a "religion" section that I created myself. I hope you approve of the new Kenosha; if not, please contact me before making any changes. Thanks! Lord Laitinen (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not vandalism. Please review WP:NOTGALLERY. Doremo (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• WP:NOTGALLERY states that no article can be made up of a gallery of digital files. This means that you or I could not create an article featuring images with no text. It does not (seem to) mean that no photo galleries can be made in articles, as I have seen dozens all around Wikipedia. However, it matters not, because I have re-arranged the photos around the page. Lord Laitinen (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The section consisted of an very large number of photographs with no accompanying text. Many of the photos are also of very poor quality; they look like they were taken through a car windshield that needs washing. Wikimedia Commons is a more appropriate place for photographs with no accompanying text. Doremo (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• I completely agree with you. I can also promise that none of my photographs were of bad quality. In fact, the bad quality of most of the photos on the page is what made me want to add more. The section in question no longer exists, and if you ever have a problem with the Kenosha article again, please let me know and I'm sure it can be worked out. Go with God, my child. Lord Laitinen (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Architecture

You are invited! Join us remotely! World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Architecture

Dates: 15 to 25 October 2015 Location: Worldwide/virtual/online event Host/Facilitator: Women in Red (WiR): Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you! Sponsor: Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in association with Beverly Willis Architecture Foundation, Women in Design, and Wikiproject Women Wikipedia Design Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR in parallel with a series of "physical" Guggenheim edit-a-thons. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in architecture and design to participate. The campaign aims to further the goals of Ada Lovelace Day for STEM, and Art+Feminism for art, in a field that by its nature combines both. As the virtual edit-a-thon stretches over a week and a half, inexperienced participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in this field. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. RSVP and learn more: →here←--Ipigott (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Ljudski vrt

Hi, Doremo, would you mind posting your opinion at Talk:Ljudski vrt? Thank you. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Norwegian County Road 341

The article Norwegian County Road 341 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no apparent reason to think notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 08:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Stara grofija

Hi again. What would you recommend as the translation of Stara grofija in Celje? Would 'Old Counts' Mansion' be ok, or should it be 'Old Count's Mansion'? Also, what would be the best translation of 'Delavska kasarna' in Jesenice? Worker's Barracks, Worker Barracks or 'Workers' Barracks'? Thank you. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding the first, the Old Comital Palace (with an adjective) has a good sound to it (cf. here for the common use of the term as a generic and here, p. 315 or here, p. 7 for examples as a proper noun). Failing that, the Old Count's Palace is more frequent than terms with manor or mansion (based on Google books hits). Other reasonable options would be the old Comital Residence and the Old Count's Residence, and in running text one could refer to "the residence and offices of the Counts of Celje." Doremo (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Is it 'Old Count's Residence' or 'Old Counts' Residence, or even 'Old Count Residence'? In sources (Google Books), I mainly found the Old Counts' version. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I think "Old Count" should be ruled out. It's better to search for the pattern without the modifier old to maximize the data; doing so, I seem to find more with Count's. Given that there's one count at a time, this would also correspond to the pattern the President's Office, the Bishop's Palace, etc. Doremo (talk) 10:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the second, the Workers' Barracks is natural (e.g., here), as is also the Workers' Tenement or the Workers' Tenement House (e.g., here), which also avoids the military connotation of the word barracks. Doremo (talk) 10:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. There is no general pattern, therefore, and the formation of the possessive depends on the prevailing usage in sources. Is this correct? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Many sources are careless in their punctuation, and so, although overwhelming frequency is a good guide, pure frequency (if both patterns are common) is not. For example, Google books appears to have more hits for "Milan Kucan" than "Milan Kučan", but we know that the latter is more precise. Doremo (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

So does a general rule exist here? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Logically, it should be the same as the President's Office, for which the dominant pattern (or rule, if you like) is clear: singular possessive. The volume of data for presidents is much richer than for counts in written sources, so it is the model that should be imitated. To take an extreme example, if I were referring to a building owned by a patesi, I wouldn't bother comparing patesi's palace versus patesis' palace because the data are far too poor; it's better to base it on a more common collocation. Doremo (talk) 10:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This would contrast with plural possessive patterns when a facility is used by multiple such people at the same time (e.g., women's restroom, soldiers' barracks, teachers' lounge, etc.). Doremo (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Slovenia and the German language.

Sir or mam, I would like to inform you that German is an official language in Slovenia. 1. For most of its history it was ruled by the Habsburgs. 2. My Gottscheerish grandmother who is from slovenia speaks fluent German. 3. The slovene government ruled that it was official. JLanzer (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

1) and 2) are irrelevant, and 3) needs a source. Doremo (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

An award for you!

	Slovene Award for Excellence
	JLanzer (talk) 13:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Ndash in the names of Slovenian statistical region

With 'Coastal–Karst Statistical Region' and others, based on the pattern of Austria-Hungary and 'Austro-Hungarian [Empire]', I'd say that the ndash is not really needed. See the discussion here. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

There's variation between A-H and A–H, probably mostly depending on the publisher (e.g., hyphen here and here but dash here and here). The hyphen appears dominant for Austria-H (which one would expect because it's an unmarked punctuation). (It should also be noted that the first element of Austro-H is not a stand-alone word, so it may not work the same as Austria-H.) Because both "Coastal" and "Karst" are single-word elements, it is unlikely that using a hyphen or dash will make any difference to the reader. In theory, the hyphen could indicate modification (i.e., Coastal-Karst SR = SR for the coastal part of the Karst) and the dash could indicate combination (i.e., Coastal–Karst SR = SR for the coast and for the Karst), but few (if any) readers/users will notice or care. Doremo (talk) 09:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Škofijski dvorec

Hi, Doremo, what would be the best translation of 'Škofijski dvorec'? Bishop's Mansion or Diocese Mansion? With article (The Bishop's Mansion)? Thanks a lot. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Of the very many options, "the Bishop's Palace" is dominant (see here – click "Search lots ..." to refresh if the link returns an error). This also agrees with many articles on English WP (see Bishop's Palace). Although the Ljubljana building is not "palatial" per se, this doesn't seem to be a limitation (e.g., the Old Bishop's Palace in Oslo is not particularly palatial either). Doremo (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The Registry of Cultural Heritage names it 'palača Škofija' and also describes it as a palace.[11] Therefore, the word 'palace' seems very acceptable. If 'grofija' can be translated as 'comital palace', then 'škofija' may be translated as 'episcopal palace', doesn't it? There are several articles titled 'Episcopal Palace' in Wikipedia,[12] so this seems a natural translation. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Caution should be used when basing usage on Wikipedia patterns with such small data (four pages called Episcopal Palace), especially because they're not in English-speaking countries (i.e., Portugal, Spain, and Romania) and are not the original names. For example, at various "episcopal palace" categories in English-speaking areas the term does not appear in the article titles (i.e., building names): here, here, here, and here. Although there is nothing grammatically wrong with episcopal palace, that, combined with this, strongly suggests that it is not the most natural name in English. Doremo (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand your argument. There are plenty of hits for 'the episcopal palace' at Google Books, for example, including occurrences in titles and names.[13] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The Google books search does not allow differentiation between upper and lower case, making it hard to quantify generic vs. proper names. 1) In terms of pure numbers, GB returns more hits for "the bishop's palace" (various case) than for "the episcopal palace" (various case). 2) Re the WP category pages, there appears to be a preference for "Bishop's Palace" over "Episcopal Palace" in native English names (i.e., in English-speaking countries) of such structures. These are important because such a structure in, say, Spain may be translated into any English form (natural or unnatural) by an editor, whereas such structures in, say, the UK presumably indicate the English name actually used in the UK. Doremo (talk) 09:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Speaker

Mr. Doremo, the word Speaker (when refering to the head of a parliament) does not exist in the Slovenian language, the official title of the head of the National Assembly of Slovenia in Slovenian is Predsednik Državnega zbora Republike Slovenije, which literally translated is President of the National Assembly, not Speaker. The word Speaker (when refering to the head of a parliament) is literally translated into Slovenian as President. The term Speaker (when refering to the head of a parliament) is only used informally by English-speaking countries and other countries with that term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belson 303 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss this at List of Speakers of the National Assembly of Slovenia as already requested. The comment above has not added anything new to your previous comment and is also inaccurate. Doremo (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Carniola

That IP has been busy adding material sourced to in this case [sbb-music.jimdo.com/background] and in other articles different pages from the same rockband site. I think I've cleaned it up. Doug Weller (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Goriška Statistical Region

Hi Doremo, can you provide a source for the use in English language of "Gorizia" as the name of the statistical region, ? If not, the text should be consistent with the title of the page. --Davide Denti (OBC) (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello; the page should probably be moved to "Gorizia" statistical region. The adjective goriška comes from the toponym Gorica, known as Gorizia in English (the adjective for Nova Gorica is novogoriški). I'll add two sources to the article. Doremo (talk) 10:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)