User talk:Doremo/Archive 5

Plateaus: prepositions
Hi, Doremo. I wonder what is correct: "in Pokljuka" / "in Pohorje" or "on Pokljuka" / "on Pohorje". Was this edit warranted? Thank you. --Eleassar my talk 09:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a tricky question because almost all plateaus named in English have a generic element (plateau, shelf, rim, etc.; see here) and modifying them to the specific is peculiar (i.e., referring to "the Allegheny Plateau" as "Allegheny"). I would prefer "on the Pokljuka Plateau" but statistical usage shows both in and on (see here). Considering that, I would prefer the caption to say "Biathlon World Cup on the Pokljuka Plateau," but I can't say that "Biathlon World Cup in Pokljuka" is wrong. Doremo (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, is it also correct to say "Biathlon World Cup on Pokljuka"? --Eleassar my talk 10:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm unable to find a good example of a one-word plateau (i.e., without a generic) in an English-speaking country to use as an example. However, I find in more for "the Causses" (France: here) and for "Altiplano" (Italy: here or articulated here). This is probably because "in Altiplano" is reanalyzed as "in the Altiplano region". So, based on these less-than-ideal examples, I would say that "in Pokljuka" is preferable (reanalyzed as "in the Pokljuka region") even though I would still personally prefer "on the Pokljuka Plateau". Doremo (talk) 10:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would just like to add that an easy way to answer questions like this are to see whether or not a place has a postal code... Velika Planina, for instance, is under Kamnik's postal code, but as far as I know Pokljuka has its own postal code, meaning that you can't go wrong with "in". --Ioscius ∞ 11:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The Pokljuka Plateau does not have a postal code. Doremo (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4263, Pokljuka... --Ioscius ∞ 13:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Try here. But thank you for the suggestion. Doremo (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Slovenes/Carinthian Slovenes/Slovene lands
Doremo, hi again. Could you please answer the following:
 * 'the Slovenes' or 'Slovenes'?
 * It depends; the former generally refers to governmental, military, etc. representatives/authorities of the group (The Russians put a dog in space, The Germans invaded Poland) and the latter to general population characteristics with more of a focus on individuals (Russians like vodka, Germans drink lots of beer). There is also a lot of variation between the two extremes (a focus on the general population as a collective will often prefer the: The Russians were Christianized in several stages, (The) Germans still feel a sense of guilt ...). Of course, post-modification will trigger a definite article too (The Slovenes affected by the plebiscite were ...).


 * 'the Carinthian Slovenes' or 'Carinthian Slovenes'?
 * Same as above.


 * 'the Slovenes in Italy' or 'Slovenes in Italy'?
 * Same as above.


 * 'Slovene Lands' or 'Slovene lands' (and with the definite article or without it)?
 * I would definitely use the Slovene lands (because it's plural) but Slovene ethnic territory (singular non-countable). There are also contexts where it could work otherwise (The decision affected not only Slovene lands, but also lands populated by ...; postmodified: (the) Slovene ethnic territory west of the Soča River ...).


 * I've replied above. Unfortunately, it's mostly not a black-and-white grammatical issue. Doremo (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * PS, your article changes at Prekmurje Slovene are grammatically and semantically OK, but it would also be OK the other way. Doremo (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Why not capitalised, 'the Slovene Lands'? --Eleassar my talk 13:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We would usually capitalize an administrative unit (West Germany, Faroe Islands, French Southern and Antarctic Lands) but not a descriptive phrase (western Germany, Baltic islands, Christian lands). Doremo (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot. Would you be willing to go through my last edits and fix this as appropriate (sorry for the work, but I think it is important to have this correct)? --Eleassar my talk 13:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Many of them really could go either way; I'll only change it if it looks jarring. Doremo (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Great. Thank you. --Eleassar my talk 17:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles with names
Hi, Doremo. Could you please give me advice on the following: should it be 'a Jeff Koons exhibition' or simply 'Jeff Koons exhibition'? I know that articles are generally not written before possessive 's, but in this case there is no 's. --Eleassar my talk 16:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It would have "a" because Jeff Koons works like a denominal adjective (izsamostalniški pridevnik) in this case rather than a noun; thus "a Jeff Koons exhibition," "a Shakespeare play," "a Picasso painting" (= "a good exhibition/play/painting"), etc. Doremo (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

(also the Prešeren Award...) Thank you. It's hard to find some useful advice online, as stated here: "[it is a] a rather untypical type of noun modifier in English, which has so far received no attention in the grammars of English". Anyway, this source confirmes your opinion. --Eleassar my talk 19:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

PD Ljubljana-Matica
Hi, Doremo. Is it correct to write 'Ljubljana–Matica Alpine Club' (with an ndash) or 'Ljubljana-Matica Alpine Club' (with a hyphen)? --Eleassar my talk 12:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I assume that the compound represents a partnership (i.e., a hiking club shared by Ljubljana and Matica), and not a subordinate relationship. Pairs of equals generally have dashes; this can be tested by "reversibility" (e.g., the Stefan–Boltzmann law could just as well have been called the Boltzmann–Stefan law, or Greece–Mexico relations could just as well be called Mexico–Greece relations). Subordinate relations (say, the "Ljubljana-Šiška Hiking Club") would generally have a hyphen and not be reversible; thus Catherine Zeta-Jones would not equally logically be Catherine Jones-Zeta, and African-Americans would not equally logically be American-Africans. That's a good rule of thumb for testing these compounds. Doremo (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hm. If I correctly understand, this is not a subordinate relationship? Then an ndash should be used. --Eleassar my talk 13:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's what I assume as well; that it refers to a relation of equals between Ljubljana and (Slovenska?) Matica, thus an en-dash. Doremo (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, I don't think this has to do anything with Slovenska Matica. It is just the central club from Ljubljana (SSKJ: matica - enota, ki ima osrednji položaj v odnosu do drugih enot kakega sestava). In this case, a hyphen would be more appropriate? --Eleassar my talk 14:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's just a common noun, then I would translate it, myself. For example, if it were PD Ljubljana-Sever I'd call it the "North Ljubljana Hiking Club" (or something like that)—so maybe something like the "Ljubljana Central Hiking Club" (presumably there are branch clubs as well). However, to take the easy way out, you could just modify the name that appears on their (awkwardly written) English page and call it the "Ljubljana-Matica Alpine Club" (with a hyphen). The problem is that matica apparently means something in Slovenian and is obviously meaningless in English, so meaning is lost with that solution. Doremo (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I think that the name should be recognisable, and we can always explain the meaning in the text itself. Do you think 'hiking club' is more appropriate than 'Alpine club'? Or 'Alpine society'? I mean, the association itself uses the name Alpine Association of Slovenia; and it's not just about hiking, a very significant part of their activity is also mountaineering... --Eleassar my talk 14:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I tend to avoid "mountaineering" and "Alpinism" for these things based on their own images of what they do versus typical images of mountaineering and Alpinism; the Slovenian activity corresponds more closely to mountain hiking (or simply hiking). Obviously, they all overlap, but I prefer to call these organizations "(mountain) hiking clubs" because the other terms seem misleading. Doremo (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok. Just to note: these clubs have sections engaged in Alpinism and sections engaged in mountain hiking. What about the term hillwalking? --Eleassar my talk 14:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hillwalking is not a term I would naturally use in my own language. Some people apparently use it, but I can't comment on its naturalness or datedness. "Hiking and mountaineering club" also has some currency. Compare also "mountain club" (Appalachian Mountain Club, Mountain Club of South Africa, Adirondack Mountain Club), which could be useful if they also promote conservation, develop and maintain trails, etc. Doremo (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll think about this; the adjective 'mountain' seems appropriate. Would the term 'society' be ok (how does the legal term 'društvo' translate into English)? --Eleassar my talk 15:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Club, society, association, organization—they're all pretty much the same to me. Clubs tend to be sportier, societies tend to be more urban, but there is a lot of overlap. "League" ☺ is old-fashioned, so I wouldn't use that. Doremo (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. On the other hand, we have the List of alpine clubs and a historical precedent for 'Alpine Club' mentioned therein. --Eleassar my talk 15:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not wrong, just part of the spectrum of what they do. A quick glance (American Alpine Club or Alpine Club of Canada or Ladies' Alpine Club, to pick the English-language ones) seems to imply a focus on roped climbing. Doremo (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Could we translate it in the same manner as 'Slovensko narodno gledališče Ljubljana Drama' (translated to Drama Ljubljana Slovenian National Theatre) to 'Matica Ljubljana Alpine/Mountain Club'? --Eleassar my talk 18:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that would not be a good choice because "Drama Ljubljana Slovenian National Theatre" could be paraphrased as "the Ljubljana Slovenian National Theatre that is called Drama; i.e., the Drama Theater," and so the implication would be that "Matica Ljubljana Alpine Club" = "the Ljubljana Alpine Club that is called Matica; i.e., the Matica Alpine Club," which seems counter-intuitive to me—or it would seem to indicate that the club is named after an organization called "Matica Ljubljana." It also avoids addressing the problem that matica has a common-noun meaning. There's not an obvious answer to me for solving this; the name strikes me as a little peculiar in Sovenian too. I would still recommend the "Ljubljana-Matica .... Club" (avoiding the meaning issue but at least faithfully mirroring the Slovenian name) or the "Ljubljana Central ... Club" (attempting to address the meaning issue). Doremo (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that there are other 'Matica' Clubs (e.g. Celje-Matica, Maribor-Matica) and that there are other mountain (hiking) clubs in Ljubljana, should it be 'Ljubljana Central... Club' or 'Central Ljubljana... Club'? --Eleassar my talk 19:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Central" really only makes sense if "Ljubljana-Matica" is divided into several branch clubs (e.g., Planinsko društvo Ljubljana-Bežigrad, Planinsko društvo Ljubljana-Šiška, etc.). If there is no subdivision, I'd just call it the "Ljubljana ... Club" and be done with it. That would be clear, simple, and unambiguous. The "Central Ljubljana .... Club" is probably syntactically more natural that the "Ljubljana Central ... Club", but the former creates the semantic problem that it sounds like Planinsko društvo Ljubljana-Center, so I would want to avoid it for that reason. Doremo (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There are e.g. PD PTT, PD Železničar Ljubljana, Akademsko planinsko društvo Ljubljana and others in Ljubljana, so this word 'Matica' has to be retained to distinguish it from the rest. I think that 'Matica' is clarified by the following text: "Ob ustanovitvi Slovenskega planinskega društva (SPD) 27. februarja 1893 je bilo ustanovljeno tudi Osrednje društvo SPD. To društvo je "prednik" današnjega planinskega društva Ljubljana-Matica. Osrednje društvo je bilo po eni strani centrala za podružnice ustanovljene po vsej slovenski pokrajini, po drugi strani pa je skrbelo za planinsko problematiko na širšem ljubljanskem območju." (Upon the establishment of the Slovene Alpine Society (SPD) on 27 February 1893, also the Central SPD Society was established. This club was the predecessor of today's Ljubljana-Matica Alpine Club. On one hand, it was the head office for branches established throughout the Slovene lands, and on the other hand it took care of the mountaineering-related issues in a wider Ljubljana area.) Therefore, it did provide a platform for the establishment of several branch clubs. How should this be reflected in the name then? --Eleassar my talk 19:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I'd see two options; one would be "Ljubljana Central ... Club" and the other (probably better) would be to call it the "Ljubljana ... Association" and explain (when detail is necessary) that it is an umbrella organization for the various other area clubs. "Ljubljana ... Association" would be a natural solution and the lexical justification would be that društvo = 'club' and društvo ... matica = 'association'. Doremo (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Association' would not be ok, because it does not perform this function anymore. Today, all clubs from the area of Ljubljana operate independently of each other under the auspices of the Alpine Association of Slovenia and collaborate with each other at the Inter-Club Board of Ljubljana. So, the 'Ljubljana Central ... Club' is the only viable option of the two. --Eleassar my talk 20:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's a "relic name" (i.e., if it no longer performs the function of a matica), then matica becomes functionally meaningless in Slovenian as well and "Ljubljana Matica ... Club" would be a reasonable solution in English. Doremo (talk) 03:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a relic name. 'Ljubljana Matica'? No hyphen? --Eleassar my talk 09:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd leave out the hyphen because otherwise it gives the impression that "-Matica" is a modifier of Ljubljana, whereas in fact "-Matica" is apparently modifying the whole construction PD Ljubljana. Doremo (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your time and opinion. --Eleassar my talk 20:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * One additional question: I've seen 'matica' translated as 'parent body' or 'parent society'. Could we say 'Ljubljana Parent Alpine/... Club'? ---Eleassar my talk 21:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It would look strange in the name (it looks like "... za starše"), although in a description, like "umbrella," it would be fine ("it was the umbrella organization for ...," "it served as the parent club for ..."). Doremo (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly my thought. Thanks again. --Eleassar my talk 09:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This part is also interesting: "Prelomnica na tem področju je leto 1946, ko je bila v mali dvorani kina Matica v Ljubljani 24. februarja prva redna skupščina Planinskega društva Slovenije." (The turning point in this field was 1946, when in the small hall of the Matica Cinema in Ljubljana the first regular assembly of the Alpine Club of Slovenia was held.) It is therefore possible that the club is named after the cinema! In any case, I consider that the origin of the name is unclear and that it is a relict, therefore it is best to name the article 'Ljubljana Matica ... Club'. --Eleassar my talk 10:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with that decision. Doremo (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

River Krka/Krka River
Hi, Doremo. I'm not sure why you have changed River Krka to Krka River... I think the prevalent pattern in the UK English is 'River X'. In any case, thanks for the copyedit. --Eleassar my talk 08:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, British English would use "river Krka" or "Krka River" but not "River Krka" (in practice, their capitalization varies and they argue about it; e.g., here). For an example of the pattern shared by American and British English: Sava River, Danube River. Note the flop-flopping syntactic pattern in the latter article. Doremo (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks; so 'river Krka'; because 'River' is not a part of the original name and most probably also not established as a part of its English name. --Eleassar my talk 14:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The logic behind the one British form (river Krka, river Danube, etc.) is that it is not being used as part of the name, and the logic behind the shared British/American form (Krka River, Danube River, etc.) is that it is being used as part of the name. Doremo (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

you didn't answer my question
How did you find the word Czechia, it was not linked on the page Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Do you run some sort of program to search all of wikipedia looking for the dreaded word "Czechia" so it can be changed? Czechia2016 (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is fully searchable. If you would like to discuss your point of view, please take it to the Talk:Czech Republic page. Doremo (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

So how are you able to search plain text? Czechia2016 (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to search Wikipedia, use the box in the upper right corner marked "Search Wikipedia". Doremo (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks I guess you were not to happy about this one Talk:SuperStar Search Czechia :) Czechia2016 (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you would like to discuss your point of view, please take it to the Talk:Czech Republic page. Doremo (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You can also search plain text in Google using . --Eleassar my talk 10:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Trdobojci
Hi, Doremo. Would you be willing to write a short section on the etymology of Trdobojci? Given that Zavec lives there, does the name have anything to do with 'hard fighters'? --Eleassar my talk 10:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, I've taken care of it. Doremo (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks. --Eleassar my talk 18:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Removal of references (Enciklopedija Slovenije)
Hi Doremo, may I ask why have you removed a reference to Enciklopedija Slovenije (Encyclopedia of Slovenia, in Slovene language) from articles Dravograd, Boka (waterfall) and Savica (waterfall)? I think this is a credible reference, especially on these Slovenia - ralated articles that are not yet well sourced. --Ajgorhoe (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for trying to improve the articles. The references were meaningless because they failed to cite any particular article. ES is over 6,600 pages in 16 volumes; the reference was basically saying "Trust me, it's in there somewhere." See, for example, Slovene Hills dialect for more precise citation of ES. Doremo (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer and help. After your first deletion, I've cited the particular volumes (using alphabetic range rather than volume number, which is more helpful for finding any particular volume in this case, and including the OCLC, which uniquely identifies the volume). Due to encyclopedic format with alphabetic arrangement of entries, more information is probably not absolutely necessary to find the appropriate article on the subject identified by the title of the Wikipedia article where citation is made. To summarize, my opinion is that information provided was sufficient to find the relevant information for verification. I could eventually add explicit section titles and/or page numbers, but currently I don't have physical access to the books and should wait (and remember to do it) until I have it again (maybe you could help out?). In all three articles, Enciklopedija Slovenije is probably not the best source and should at least be supplemented by other more detailed, specialized or accessible sources. Lack of workforce is obviously the limiting factor here and hopefully this will improve in long term. In the meantime, my opinion is that small and imperfect improvements should be given chance to evolve into more substantial ones. --Ajgorhoe (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed your ES reference at Črneče because it does not even seem to exist in ES (based on the ES index). As for the other articles, it's best to cite ES to support a particular fact in an article (e.g., waterfall height, flow volume, etc.). It's not good practice to cite ES indiscriminately for an article simply based on the fact that ES has an article on the general topic. Moreover, many facts for a topic in ES are not located in the alphabetically listed article for that topic (e.g., Boka Falls/Creek is discussed in three different volumes). ES is a good source and are you are very welcome to cite facts from it, but to be useful such citations should minimally include a volume and page number. If you are actually looking at the source, that will be easy to include. If you are not looking at the source, you should not cite it. Doremo (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That reference in Črneče was a mistake and I'm glad it was removed. I might have noticed the error when going through and re-checking details, but you were quicker, which just demonstrates the power of massively collaborative projects like Wikipedia. In general I agree with you about citing according to particular facts, but in specific cases there were several reasons for not doing so (it would lead to fragmentation / repetition of the same source in several places and crossing with other citations, which might be more confusing than useful; in some cases I felt other sources would be more appropriate for citing close to particular facts; disagreement between sources; lack of time, etc.). Therefore I saw citing ES in introduction as general reference and leaving further refinement for the future as a good compromise. Finally, anyone can improve the articles by adding other references or additional ES references at more specific locations within the same articles. I'd like to express opinion that all three articles are not satisfactorily sourced (and may not be for some time), and referencing ES at least provides some additional support to articles' content. ES is not an ideal source for English Wikipedia due to it's accessibility and language, and of course, one should never trust a single source. Regarding your example, I didn't know that Boka was discussed in three volumes. In citation, of course, I meant the article titled "Boka" (which is itself quite modest), and readers following the reference would probably assume the same in absence of further information. I've checked the source but unfortunately I'm not able to add page numbers at this moment, as I don't have instant access to the books. I'd be glad if you can help with this, otherwise I can only add the information when I have the access again. --Ajgorhoe (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please add the source ES after you have looked at it (and have seen the page number). There's no point in adding sources you haven't looked at (and guessing or assuming what they might contain). 02:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, this was never a subject of debate.
 * P.S. Thanks for corrections and improvements of the Črneče and Dravograd articles. Regarding the Črneče article, my opinion is that Geography is not the most appropriate section title because the section is not about geography of the village itself, but about a specific entity located beside the village. I don't even think there should be a section on geography in this article, this should be covered in the "Geography" section of an article of some wider including area, perhaps in Municipality of Dravograd. --Ajgorhoe (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've changed "Geography" to "Lake Dravograd" at the Črneče article. Doremo (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's better I think. I was checking a bit about the name. It seems to me that in older sources people mostly used the name "Črneški zaliv" (bay of Črneče). Words "lake" ("jezero" in Slovenian) and "Dravograd" seem to appear in the name only in the post-internet era. However, I didn't find sufficient evidence to argue that this name should be used. No maps up to the scale 1:50000 that I've seen don't contain a name of the reservoir. --Ajgorhoe (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:Newspapers.com
Hello Doremo, signups for Newspapers.com have moved to the new library card platform that can be found here --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm working on it (the library card platform returned an internal server error, which I'm reporting at Phabricator for fixing). Doremo (talk) 05:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Doremo Sorry about that! Last I spoke to, I thought this issue had been resolved. I'm pining him here since this appears to be happening again.... --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for following up on the issue. Doremo (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

italics??
Hey buddy, what's your problem with the lang-de template? Please immediately stop this nonsense! -- ZH8000 (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi buddy, the lang-de template no longer produces italics, as a result of which the formatting it yields is inconsistent with other formatting in the articles it is used in (and contrary to what was intended when the content was contributed). Please see here. Doremo (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, once again and finally, stop this nonsense; and don't insist on it! I do not know what kind of browser you are using, but the lang template behaves fully consistently, independently of what language applied. So there is no reason to modify only the German part.
 * ANYHOW, if you have a problem with a template then you generally should raise the "problem" there instead of changing manually - pardon-me!?! – hundreds of articles! You should know better as somebody with more than 50K edits!??
 * SO stop this nurdy behavior, this is nothing than vandalising. It seems to be only your problem, nobody else observed it so far.
 * And obviously go back to ALL of your previous edits and undo them all. Thanks -- ZH8000 (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm using a browser called Google Chrome. You seem to have failed to look at the link I provided. You're welcome to address the issue at the template talk page. Doremo (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017
Hello, I'm ZH8000. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Rhône have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. mass undo of template:lang-de application ZH8000 (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Holy Roman Empire. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. mass undo of template:lang-de application ZH8000 (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Eisenkappel-Vellach, you may be blocked from editing. mass undo of template:lang-de application ZH8000 (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Dekmanca. mass undo of template:lang-de application ZH8000 (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Kunšperk, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. mass undo of template:lang-de application ZH8000 (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi ZH8000, please take a look here and try to figure out what you're doing wrong instead of overreacting. Doremo (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Exactly, that's the place where you should interact/protest instead of changing backwards hundreds of template applications. Sorry, but this is so nurdy. -- ZH8000 (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I've asked another user to confirm your claim that lang-de still displays italics. There's no requirement to use templates to display foreign text, and in most of the cases that I reformatted I myself added the template before the italics parameter was removed from it. The display for readers of WP remains identical with or without the template. Doremo (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Southeast European Cooperation Initiative
Hi Doremo, it seems that a certain user is reverting and vandalizing the edits of a user/users on the page Southeast European Cooperation Initiative. One user made the edit regarding and specifying that the initiative includes one Central European nation (Hungary) and I helped by sourcing and citing Hungary's geographic position, he just keeps reverting the article and undoing the contributions of good faith. Can you please give him a warning, perhaps protect the page, or do anything to prevent him from futher vandalizing it? Thanks. -2600:1001:B122:CAC5:85C3:310A:3AA7:AB84 (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello; thanks for your concern. Improving the page requires input from multiple editors; geographical notions of central and eastern are relatively vague and difficult to declare absolutely right or wrong. Also, because Turkey is mostly an Asian country, the lede should probably mention Asia if it is going to specify geographical areas. Please take care to avoid Canvassing. Doremo (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

North Slavs
Hi Doremo, the page for North Slavs is being vandalized once more as one of the users is removing the citation needed tags and your contributions on it. Can you please take proper course and action? -Perunslava (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC) Perunslava (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello; thanks for your concern. There's not much I can do individually. Improving the page requires input from multiple editors. You're welcome to participate. Doremo (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Understood and thank you. On another note can you resolve another issue? On the Balkans page a certain user (User:TU-nor) is attempting to claim the Balkans includes Central Europe which is false as the area is noted for its Orthodox and Ottoman influences where's Central Europe is known for Germanic, Latinate, Hungarian and Western Slavic influence. The user is reverting the page back to what he seems fit and his claim does not have any sources to support it. -Perunslava (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your concern about the article. The current version appears to be in line with mainstream scholarship. Doremo (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Doremo, I just checked that page and you were right that the pages citations are not in line with the text. What gives? You were right with your edits. -2600:1001:B122:CAC5:85C3:310A:3AA7:AB84 (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your continued interest in the article. The North Slavs page appears to currently have appropriate tags for citation problems. Doremo (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Prebeneg
Prebenico no longer exists. Lep pozdrav. --Albaper (talk) 08:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Barbara Pit massacre
Don't teach Slovenes how to write! Pokol v Barbara rovu is syntactly wrong !! Correct:Pokol v rovu Barbara (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please take it to the article's talk page, where the issue has already been raised. Doremo (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

New AFD
Articles for deletion/Tjoflot (surname). Geschichte (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
You are welcome to have a different interpretation of what MOS:DATERET means, and how to weigh up "an article has evolved using predominantly one date format" against "strong national ties to the topic". However, how you can rely on article evolution for one-sentence articles is absolutely beyond me and I would argue that you've got it wrong. When you blindly revert edits that also introduce article improvements like here and here, your actions come under disruptive editing. Consider yourself formally warned, and I encourage you to self-revert. Feel free to restore the mdy format on the Leonid Gulov article as that has some substance (so evolution over time may apply) but ensure that my article improvements are retained.  Schwede 66  19:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You may "formally warn" yourself. 1) The Rok Kolander and Leonid Gulov articles used only MDY format for nearly 10 years before your change, and 2) The articles have no national ties any English-language date format. Your edits are a deliberate violation of the MOS:DATERET principles that you cite above. Doremo (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You have failed to address the outstanding issue as your revert has removed useful article improvements. I have asked you to self-revert.  Schwede 66  03:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've restored the intermediate links without your disruptive change to the date format. Doremo (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Hey, you may not like my edit, but it wasn't vandalism by any means! One thing I like about Wikipedia is that it debunks apocryphal stories. You will find in many sites on the Internet that story, which happens to be false. It is valuable if Wikipedia clears that sort of misconceptions.
 * Sorry if I misunderstood your intention. The misspelling, grammar error, lack of sources, and lack of an edit summary made the edit look like typical vandalism. Doremo (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Henry Dick Woodfall) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Henry Dick Woodfall, Doremo!

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

"Please add more categories"

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

Learn more about page curation.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message; I have added more categories. Doremo (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Contributions
Hi,

I am not sure if this is the right section to ask you the following question. Please let me know if some other place would be more appropriate. :)

I would like to contribute articles about Slovenian art(ists) and businesses to WikiProject Slovenia. I would like to start with an article about Jože Tisnikar. Should I just prepare the content and let you know when it's ready, or is there any other, more preferable way?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstd83 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no special interest in Slovenian artists and businesses; you're welcome to contribute content to WP like any other editor. Thank you for supporting the project. Doremo (talk) 02:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment by talk page stalker Given that you are a new user, please use Article wizard for starting new articles.  Schwede 66  07:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Tavolara Island
Dear "Doremo", I do recognize that the English language can be confusing to a non-native speaker. It also confuses many native speakers! But no literate speaker of the language would use a plural noun for a measure less than a unity. Thus, we say "one-half mile", "half a mile", "six-tenths of a mile", or, in this instance, "0.6 mile". "Zero miles" is a colloquial (and not advisable) construction used as synonymous to the better and more articulate "no miles". Firstorm (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, all native speakers use plural forms after decimals: 0.6 miles, 0.1 miles, etc. You may be confusing this with of forms; e.g.; six-tenths of a mile. Consult the Chicago Manual of Style, § 10.68: "... point five yards; one point five yards" as well as MOS:NUMERAL: "increased 0.7 percentage points," and also paragraph 3 here. If you'd like to propose a change to Wikipedia's MOS, that can be done at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Doremo (talk) 03:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the example you cite is accurate: "one point five yards" is equivalent to "1.5 'yards'": that is, more than one yard. Again, more than a unit -- more than one of almost anything which can be viewed in natural aggregates -- is plural. One unit or less of anything is singular. Here, we speak of "0.6 mile", which is equivalent to "zero point six mile" or "six-tenths [note, more than one 'tenth'] mile", and thus less than one. In sum: singular for one or less than one, plural for more than one. Firstorm (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to propose a change to Wikipedia's MOS, that can be done at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Doremo (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't know where Firstorm is from, but in this native English speaker's dialect saying something like "the school is 0.6 miles from here" is correct. --Khajidha (talk) 04:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Adziogol Lighthouse
I was wondering what sources you had in mind for the caps, then I saw you added a couple of 2018 books that draw on Wikipedia. That's what we call WP:CITOGENESIS. Dicklyon (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make sense because the cap usage differs from what WP was using. You'll need more evidence to support this claim. Both are scholarly sources from reliable presses (Routledge, CEU). The Strang et al. source uses an image from Wikimedia Commons, but that is all I can see. Doremo (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources may be reliable for some things, but the way you cited them was not in support of any facts, and appeared to be in support of the name only, after you disagreed with me about sources showing lowercase is more appropriate. If you have evidence that this is treated as a proper name in sources, that evidence better predate wikipedia broadcasting it as such.  These two sources in particular quote directly from wikipedia, so can't be relied on for such. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Notable people sections
Please see Write the article first and Stand-alone_lists; none of the names that you reinstated appear to meet WP:BIO notability criteria. While it's not required that an article exist, it should be obvious that the subject meets the notability criteria (e.g., a red-link to an Olympic athlete). If any of the subjects have articles on other language wikis, you can link to those, which is good enough for most people to establish notability. See the entry for Cuypers for examples of that. 20:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed the redlinks at Laporje, Slovenska Bistrica to satisfy the WP:WTAF objection raised. This edit summary also indicates that you did not read the cited sources. Consensus should be built with other editors before deletion of reliably sourced material. You are welcome to create the articles on these individuals as well as to discuss the content of the cited sources. Doremo (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources you cite are hardly clear indications of notability. Being mentioned in a book does not address the "depth" part of notability. The burden of proof is on you to indicate how any of those people meet WP:BIO notability. Technical writers, clergy, and "education promoters" aren't typically notable unless a fair amount has been written about them, per WP:GNG. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Some WP contributors prefer to develop information, and others to destroy it—and to make claims about sources they've never looked at. Pity. Doremo (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Date format in articles
The Ljubljana Passenger Transport article is about a Slovenian company and most of the readers are probably European. Why forcing the American MDY format over DMY, which is acceptable in English and the only correct form in Slovene? I see I shouldn't have changed it on my own with no notice, but couldn't we convert the article to use DMY? —Upwinxp (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If the article were written in Slovenian, DMY would be the only correct format. However, the article is written in English, and so MOS:DATERET clearly applies. Slovenia has no native variety of English. Please review MOS:DATERET and MOS:TIES for "strong national ties." Doremo (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I did read the manual and realised that one should not make silent changes on their own; however, I did not find any guidelines that specify the variety of English that is to be used in articles with no strong ties to a particular English-speaking country. Changing the date format in the article (based on a consensus, if need be) would make it consistent with related articles (e.g. Ljubljana or GSP Belgrade), as I find English Wikipedia to use DMY in most European-related articles (which is in my opinion reasonable and closely related to MOS:TIES). —Upwinxp (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If that were the case, all articles about China would use YMD format. And all Slovenian WP articles about the US would use MDY format. It's OK if you like DMY, but MOS:DATERET overrules any personal preference. Please re-read MOS:TIES and note the term "English-speaking nation." Doremo (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Date format by country is also relevant.  Schwede 66  02:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, for MOS:TIES that is clearly true. Doremo (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue anymore, just a few things:
 * “all Slovenian WP articles about the US would use MDY format” - No go. Slovenian language has only one permitted format whereas English has multiple;
 * “all articles about China would use YMD format” - They can't because, as far as I know, none of the English varieties uses a format, "2018 December 7";
 * “Slovenia has no native variety of English” - True, however UK English is the official variety to be taught in all Slovenian schools. (It plays no role in our discussed problem, just a fact)
 * I just tried to think in a practical manner, comparing the portion of native DMY users and native MDY users who might be interested in the aforementioned article. But if that's against Wikipedia's rules, I'm not going to rebel against them.
 * Thanks a lot for your "ce" of the article, in any case. —Upwinxp (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to propose changes to the WP:MOS at the talk pages for the specific issues. Thank you also for your contributions to Wikipedia. Doremo (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Glödis
Hi Doremo, sorry that was my mistake; for some reason I misread the edits and intended to do what you had, in fact, already done. Bermicourt (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message; no problem. Doremo (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Min søsters børn
Dear Doremo! Can you make an article about Danish movie Min søsters børn 2001? Thank you! —-217.66.152.210 (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. Doremo (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Beiar Valley
Hello. Would you care to explain why Beiar Valley was a better choice for you than Beiarn Valley when you moved the article Beiardalen in 2017!? Bw --Orland (talk) 10:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As stated in the edit summary, it is an attested English name. It is clear that you prefer the non-English name. Doremo (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see the use in english that you refer to. But why Beiar Valley instead of Beiarn Valley?
 * There is no placename Beiar in the area at all. Both Beiarelva and Beiardalen have their name from the place Beiarn. The same way that Ranelva is derieved from the name Ran-a, that Langvassåga is derieved from the name Lang-vatn-et etc. Didn't you know? Bw --Orland (talk) 10:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I assumed that the -n is an article suffix that was added to the base form Beiar, which the cited source presumably also assumed. Doremo (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You didn't even double check your sources to see if there were any attested use of the name Beiarn valley?? --Orland (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If that name form is linguistically justified (with -n not of article origin) and better attested, then it is preferable (with corrected capitalization to V-) If not, it could also be justified by (re)analyzing the valley as named after the settlement. Doremo (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So your answer to my question would be "No, I didn't check."!? Isn't that quite revealing? Bw Orland (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My edit was based on the information I found. If there is better information available, a subsequent edit should be based on that. Your tone in this conversation is insulting, and I will not continue the discussion. Doremo (talk) 11:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry. I did not intend to be insulting. I wanted to be investigative about you knowledge and your methods. I got what I needed; thank you very much. Have a nice day. With greetings, Orland (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Operation Poro
I am trying to find anything on Operation Poro, which I have yet to as well. Feel free to put up a AFD and mention it on Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Wgolf (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Soca
Why did you remove all the historical content I added to the page? You couldn't possibly think it all irrelivant or inaccurate. Being relevant can be quite subjective but the information I added was all accurate. I would like to expand the page, and add some historical content. The region doesn't have quite the same history as the rest of Slovenia. Perhaps you are willing to meet somewhere in the middle so we can bring the article out of "stub" status. Let me know. Sir Matatyahu (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in the edit summary, the material was filled with misspellings (incorperated, Illyarian), including the name of the town itself (Soca), grammatical errors (which was then uniting with, to remain with in), and inappropriate promotional material (a beautiful tourist destination). Most or all of the information was irrelevant for the settlement of Soča because it applies to the general region, not to the settlement. You may wish to consider contributing to Wikivoyage instead. Doremo (talk) 05:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. Please pardon my spelling, and thank you for meeting me half way. I appricate your time and effort. Sir Matatyahu (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Ashes vs. remains
In this edit, you changed from ashes to remains. I don't believe that is accurate. I think remains refers to recognizable body parts. After cremation, the only thing left are ashes. No recognizable body parts are left. Therefore, I don't think it is correct to write that Janez Drnovšek's remains were buried. Only ashes could have been buried after cremation. Banana Republic (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Please see Cremation: "Contrary to popular belief, the cremated remains are not ashes in the usual sense. After the incineration is completed, the dry bone fragments are swept out of the retort and pulverised by a machine called a Cremulator—essentially a high-capacity, high-speed blender—to process them into 'ashes' or 'cremated remains'."; "The remains are then placed in a container called an ash capsule ..."; note that the article uses the term remains 71 times. Doremo (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article Cremation, I see that it uses the expression "cremated remains", as opposed to just the word "remains" by itself. It therefore seems that if you really want to use the word "remains" in the article about Janez Drnovšek, it should say "His cremated remains were buried ...." (without the emphasis, of course). Banana Republic (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please look more carefully: "When cremation is finished, the remains are passed through a magnetic field"; "to further grind the remains down into a finer texture"; "The remains are then placed in a container called an ash capsule"; "The mean weight of an adult's remains is 2.4 kg"; "An unavoidable consequence of cremation is that a tiny residue of bodily remains is left in the chamber"; "the weight of the remains can be more closely predicted from the person's height and sex"; "After the remains are processed, smaller bits of metal"; etc. It is already clear that cremation took place. Doremo (talk) 04:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I still think ashes is preferable to cremated remains which is preferable to remains. But this issue is just not important enough to continue this discussion. At least we made an improvement to the article which originally said that "He was buried", which is a very misleading phrasing. Banana Republic (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The phrase cremated and buried is common in published sources. You're welcome to raise the issue at Talk:Cremation. Doremo (talk) 05:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:BRD
Hi Doremo, please read WP:BRD and follow its advice and take your MOS point to the relevant talkpage(s), rather than reverting the reverts back again. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The relevant talkpage will be at MOS; please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Doremo (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if MOS is changed, consensus will be required at each article before they are changed. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposition on Georgraphical change on google search
Hi, as you might be aware Slovenia in google search is under "Country in the Balkans" , however historically and culturally many people would disagree.

If we look at Scandinavian countries and Baltic ones, all of them say 'Country in Europe' when searched on google. I propose to change it to 'Country in Europe' as it is more accurante, and other balkan countries are not... It was so around 1 year ago, and culturally speaking the majority of slovenians would also view this as more correct.

Let me know what you think.

email: factsnews24@gmail.com
 * Please discuss this at Talk:Slovenia. Doremo (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Czechia
Would you please explain to me please your argumentation with RSS feed, which is dead? All new documents of Eurostat use Czechia exclusively, for sure you find the Czech Republic in a archive https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/search?p_auth=wwJBxe4W&p_p_id=estatsearchportlet_WAR_estatsearchportlet&p_p_lifecycle=1&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_estatsearchportlet_WAR_estatsearchportlet_theme=empty&_estatsearchportlet_WAR_estatsearchportlet_action=search&_estatsearchportlet_WAR_estatsearchportlet_collection=empty&text=Czechia

Helveticus96 (talk) 11:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see the October 29, 2019 Eurostat document here, which uses "Czech Republic" and not "Czechia" in a list of short names. It was produced only nine days ago. Doremo (talk) 11:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)