Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Slovenian vs Slovene)

Archives

 * Archive 1, 19 Feb 2003 - 24 Jun 2003; transferred from Talk:Slovenian language.
 * Archive 2, 2 Feb 2004 - 7 Jun 2005; transferred from Talk:Slovenians.
 * Archive 3, 7 Jun 2005 - 10 Jun 2005; transferred from Talk:Slovenians.
 * Archive 4, 10 Jun 2005 - 15 Jun 2005; transferred from Talk:Slovenians.
 * Archive 5, 15 Jun 2005 - 5 August 2005; transferred from Talk:Slovenians.

Status of naming convention
Has this already been voted on as a policy (as distinct from article talk space straw poll/discussion), or is it here as a policy proposal? While it looks fine to me, it might be prudent to flag it accordingly. Alai 04:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree this ought to be a Proposal until there is a clear consensus for this to be a guideline under Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions --Philip Baird Shearer 11:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This decision should be reversed
Let me introduce myself. I studied Linguistics for 20 years, including 15 years at Harvard. I had hundreds of opportunities to discuss the (English) name of the language spoken in Slovenia, at the highest level. The preferred form in English for the name of this language is Slovene. Period. There is no arguing about it. Slovenian, as the name of the language, is marginally acceptable, but it is not preferred. Of course, a majority of English speakers may well say Slovenian, but that does not make it correct. Similarly, a lot of people might say Somalian, Slovakian, Abkhazian, etc., but the correct names of those languages are Somali, Slovak, Abkhaz, etc. By the way, Abkhazian also appears here and there in the Wikipedia, but the Abkhazian language article is thankfully redirected to Abkhaz language. In the case of Slovene vs. Slovenian, the decision went the other way, i.e. the wrong way, apparently on the basis of a popularity contest. Yet more evidence that the decision-by-consensus system does not always work in the interest of knowledge. This is really sad. (Note: I did not know there had been a discussion on this topic, or else I might have spoken up sooner, although I doubt much could have been done in the face of a determined, incorrect majority.)  Pasquale 20:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Of course, a majority of English speakers may well say Slovenian, but that does not make it correct."


 * I don't buy this argument. This is just your point of view. Why should we follow prescription instead of description here? This seems to me like undue weight. --Eleassar my talk 21:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Why should we follow prescription instead of description here? Because we do all the time. Apparently, there's a lot of confusion out there about the prescription vs. description argument, and what you say is more evidence of it. Sure, linguists describe rather than prescribe, that's part of the scientific method of linguistics. But when you learn to speak a language, or read and write it, either as a child or as an adult, it's all about prescription. When you said "brung" and your parents corrected you and trained you to say "brought", that was prescription, not description. And if you now say Somalian, Slovakian, Abkhazian, etc., I, or someone else, will correct you and ask you to say Somali, Slovak, Abkhaz, etc. Slovene is no different. If your take on the prescription vs. description argument were correct, the minute a majority of English speakers said "calvary" and "aminal" for "cavalry" and "animal" (or a zillion other words like that), which they already may for all I know, we should all democratically switch to "calvary" and "aminal". I am 100% certain that you would swiftly, and very prescriptively, correct your kids' English-language mistakes, if you had, or have, kids, or your students', if you were, or are, a teacher. I was a language teacher for years and always, very prescriptively, corrected my students. This kind of prescriptive resistance is essential to language; without it, there would be no language. This is not at all my "point of view". It is a matter of fact. Pasquale 15:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The references we have found argue for different spellings. Wikipedia is not to say who of them is correct but to describe different views in accordance with their popularity among reliable sources. Do you really think "calvary" and "aminal" are so popular in reliable sources? --Eleassar my talk 19:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think part of the confusion stems from the fact that "Slovenian" (and other adjectives, such as "Abkhazian") are frequently used in English as the adjectival forms referring to the respective countries. In other words, it would be normal to say "the Slovenian currency" or "the Slovenian Navy", etc. As a consequence, "the Slovenian language" has become acceptable, and is quite probably more frequent in usage than "the Slovene language". However, in the sentence "Slovene is a Slavic language", "Slovene" is definitely more appropriate and more correct than "Slovenian". Again, I am not expressing my own opinion or "point of view", but reporting the actual usage among established specialists. It seems that the fact that the Wikipedia articles about languages are nearly always entitled "[adjectival form] language" has led to the adoption of "Slovenian language" as the article title. Because of that, "Slovenian" has displaced the more correct "Slovene" in the Wikipedia, also when the language name is not followed by the word "language". Note that a similar process had apparently taken place with "Abkhazian language", but it was later corrected, so that now "Abkhazian language" redirects to "Abkhaz language". (However, the Complete List of Wikipedias still displays "Abkhazian" and links to Abkhazian language.) This is unfortunate, because the net result has been the displacement of the more correct form "Slovene" as the language name. Pasquale (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually don't mind whether we use Slovenian or Slovene. After all, this is not very important. It's just that we have been able to reach a stable position and I don't want to see more edit warring on my watchlist. May I suggest you reading this commentary?


 * "The long and short of it is that neither Slovene nor Slovenian has any greater claim to correctness. Ultimately, some argue that Slovenian refers to the state, while Slovene refers to ethnicity. This could be a workable solution, except that it is usually still too confusing to have two different designations in the same text. At Amidas, we tend to use Slovene since it has a more elegant ring to it. On the other hand, Slovenian is widely used and accepted (particularly in the USA), and we use it where it is requested or already in use." --Eleassar my talk 11:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, thank you very much indeed for the link and the quotation. It seems to me that they very much support my points. "Slovenian refers to the state, while Slovene refers to ethnicity"? Well, that is essentially what I was saying, isn't it? "Slovenian is widely used ... particularly in the USA"? The reason for that is clearly the fact that most Americans have a hard time distinguishing between countries and ethnicities, and have a hard time believing that a country might include hundreds of different ethnic groups and languages, as, for example, many African countries do. Many Americans might be tempted to assume that the Nigerians speak "Nigerian" and the Congolese speak "Congolese", while, of course, there are no such languages, indeed hundreds of different languages are spoken in those countries. That is why Americans are tempted to say "Slovenian", "Slovakian", "Abkhazian", etc. But I don't see why the Wikipedia should encourage these misperceptions. A debate was had and a stable position was reached (even if not the most correct), and you no longer have to deal with edit warring on your watchlist, you say. Dear sir, the point of the Wikipedia is to capture knowledge and correct information, not to ensure your own personal peace of mind. Pasquale (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear sir, You have misread the quotation. It says "some argue that Slovenian refers to the state, while Slovene refers to ethnicity". There is no need to treat this otherwise than as a particular point of view of some people. It should not be treated as necessarily correct and obligatory. It also says: "it is usually still too confusing to have two different designations in the same text", and "Slovenian is widely used and accepted (particularly in the USA), and we use it where it is requested or already in use". In Wikipedia all variants of English are accepted as valid. See Manual of Style.


 * You have also misinterpreted my position as I have been repeating all the time that we should not prescribe but describe because the opinions of experts differ. The quote I provided confirms this.


 * I'll ask for the third opinion. --Eleassar my talk 11:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion - it is not the job of wikipedia to choose a single point of view on a subject when there are many, but to report on the many points of view. If one point of view is held by linguists, academics and 'experts' then, providing verifiable sources can be found, then that opinion should be attributed to them, but that opinion must not be used soley and in preference to a differing majority opinion, which can just as equally be established. --Davémon (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Another 3O: I'm not sure Davemon's response was sufficient, so I'll chime in. I think Slovenian is okay, though I understand where Pasquale is coming from. However, I don't feel qualified enough to definitively make a comment on this, so I would say the best thing to do would be to list the page for an RfC, probably on WP:RFC/LANG. Wiki works by building consensus, and RfC will work the best for that. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t &#183; c ] 19:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * [NOTE: The comment below was in response to User:Eleassar's contribution of 11:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC), specifically his paragraph beginning with "Dear sir, You have misread the quotation." In fact, it was originally placed immediately below that paragraph.]
 * I find it interesting that you did not highlight particularly in the USA. If, as you say, "in Wikipedia all variants of English are accepted as valid" (something on which I am in total agreement), can you explain why USA usage (popular usage, in fact, not academic usage) has been given preference here? And, no, I had not misread the quotation. I was quoting, from the quotation, the points that I found most relevant to the discussion. I believe a careful reading of those sources bears out my contentions. If you re-read my statements, you will see that I never denied the probable prevalence of Slovenian over Slovene, at the popular level in the USA. But the popular level does not mean the "experts". Is anyone who wishes to chime in on the Wikipedia automatically an "expert"? My contention was and is that the Wikipedia should follow the better usage, not the one that gets the most votes. Furthermore, I don't see how I have misinterpreted your position. You have repeated ad nauseam that the Wikipedia "should not prescribe but describe" (your point of view, by the way, on which I disagree, and I have explained why). The problem comes when you begin to sift through "the opinions of experts". How do you decide who is an expert and who isn't? If, as I repeat, anyone who voices an opinion is automatically an "expert" (and it tends to be the same people over and over, who seem to have opinions on everything), then clearly we have a problem. And I do mean an objective problem, not a point of view. Pasquale (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it would help move the debate forward if additional sources which support your position on the use of the word "Slovene" were used. At the moment the debate seems to center on the interpretation of a handful of sources, some of which do not appear to be very reliable. Secondarily it seems that naming convention policy is being questioned, and instead you are suggesting Policy should enshrine "best usage" rather than "ease of understanding for the majority" - it is a valid point, and one that would be best debated at Village_pump_%28policy%29 where a wider consensus could be gathered. --Davémon (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your constructive input, Davémon. Let's see, additional sources. How about starting with a good dictionary. Look up the The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, 2000, and what do you find? You find an entry Slovene, under which you read "VARIANT FORMS: also Slo·ve·ni·an". However, there is no separate entry for Slovenian. In the same dictionary, the beautiful graphic representing "The Indo-European Family of Languages" lists "Slovene" under the Slavic languages, not "Slovenian". Not enough? Let's take the Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 10th Edition. Exactly the same situation. Main Entry: Slo·vene, under which the variant form Slo·ve·ni·an is also listed. But again, there is no separate entry for Slovenian.  And so on and so forth. If I am not mistaken, we are discussing a word of the English language here. Isn't looking it up in a dictionary the very first thing we want to do? Or do we start by taking a poll?  Pasquale (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding those (good, verifiable) sources for your position - indeed I agree a dictionaries are an excellent place to start. Newspaper and other journalistic style guides and manuals might also be usefull. eg ([| observer style guide]) . To really build up the case for either position I would attempt to show that overwhelmingly Slovene is defined in (good, verifiable) sources. From that standpoint it should then be a case of putting forward that the "ease of understanding by the majority" is better aided by following the form given in (good, verifiable) reference works rather than deviating from them. --Davémon (talk) 14:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Davémon. I appreciate what you're saying, but I am afraid I don't have the time or patience to assemble an exhaustive case study about this matter. I am not personally invested in this matter at all, quite frankly. My intent has been all along simply to observe that this particular debate on a Wikipedia naming convention has reached an incorrect decision (i.e. "Slovenian" over "Slovene"). Since we are discussing an English lexical item, it stands to reason that you would start by looking up the word in an English dictionary, a point on which you agree. I have done that and have found confirmation of my contention that "Slovene" is the preferred form over "Slovenian". So, I rest my case, as far as I am concerned. I mean, isn't that enough? Are you suggesting that evidence should be gathered that "Slovene" is "overwhelmingly" the preferred form? Why should such a high standard of evidence (i.e. "overwhelmingly") be demanded of "Slovene" when obviously the same high standard was not demanded of "Slovenian"? I am not sure how the decision in favor of "Slovenian" over "Slovene" was arrived at, but if it was reached by people simply expressing their five-cents worths, rather than citing reliable sources, then that is no way for the Wikipedia to proceed and expect to be considered a reliable source itself. Pasquale (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged the guideline as disputed. Previous discussion is available in the archives which you may access via the links at the top of this page. Where are your reliable sources to confirm that Slovenian should be used for the country while Slovene should be used for the nation?! --Eleassar my talk 21:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I discussed the issue on Slovene vs. Slovenian with a couple of native-speaking English translators/proof readers from the afore-mentioned translation agency (Amidas). The explanation I got is that the adjective Slovenian should be used when referring to things, except for language and culture. The language should be called Slovene, never Slovenian. Slovenian indeed seems to be preferrable when referring to matters connected with Slovenia as nation state (politics, administration, economy etc., as in Slovenian Institute for Standardisation, Slovenian Business and Research Association.

As concerns ethnic designations, the distinction is quite straightforward. Slovene is the ethnic appellation while Slovenian could be used a collective term for citizens of Slovenia who are not necessarily ethnic Slovenes. For example, the Hungarians in the Prekmurje regions could be called Hungarian/Magyar Slovenians. A member of the Slovene minority in Carinthia or Italy would be called a Slovene but not Slovenian as he is not (presumably) a citizen of Slovenia. Regards --Jalen (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I happened upon this discussion by chance, but find it quite interesting. I absolutely agree that Slovenian and Slovene are by no means interchangeable, and the correct distinction would in fact be to attribute the usage of "Slovenian" to designations related to politics, administration, economy, etc., while "Slovene" to ethnicity, culture, linguistics, etc. What intrigued me most, though, was the reasoning for the Wikipedia naming convention policy to side with "ease of understanding by the majority". I have to admit that's quite unsettling, especially since this is supposed to be a source of knowledge and enlightenment for the masses, which should make first and foremost every effort not to dumb-down the English language - that's what Simple English Wikipedia is for, and even in that case, the correct approach would be to state, at the beginning (or end) of every article using "Slovenian" instead of "Slovene", that said usage is incorrect, with a link to a separate page explaining in Simple English what the difference between "Slovenian" and "Slovene" is. Likewise for all other cases of disputed terminology usage - i.e: Wikipedia should strive for correctness, while _Simple_ Wikipedia could be permitted to side with "ease of understanding" *_provided an explanation of the correct usage be given/available at a linked article_*!

But that's just my two stotins ;p —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnynut (talk • contribs) 18:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why a discussion on this is even needed, slovenia-n obviously originates in the name Slovenia, which would mean that it only connects with things that are "of slovenia", like slovenian politics, currency, citizenship. It seems that before the country was formed in 1991 the word slovene was used. The word slovenian couldn't have even existed back then, since Slovenia didn't exist. Later it was incorrectly changed to slovenian, deriving from the country. It's like America and American, derived from the country of America, since Americans aren't an ethnic group, it's more a marker of citizenship. If they were an ethnic group that the name of the country would be derrived from, they would be the Amers or "the Ameri". So you can see how common american logic would reasonably assume Slovenes to be Slovenians. But slovene is obviously the older, more correct version, while slovenian is a recent ~20 years old formation. Everybody in Slovenia is also thought in school at English that slovene is a marker of nationality, while slovenian is a marker of citizenship. So slovenian should be taken to mean "of Slovenia"(the political formation) and slovene should be used everywhere else.

So any chance of finally changing this? 86.61.30.53 (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

How is it even a question? Slovene has always meant "of the Slovenes" and Slovenian "of Slovenia". Like the person above has already wrote, the word Slovenian didn't even exist before 1991. Dictionary.com says Slovene is preffered, so do both Merriam-Webster and The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Nerby (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It isn't enough simply to state that "Slovenian" didn't exist before 1991. If you read the archived discussions at the top of this page (it'll only take you a couple of days...) you'll even find people claiming that the first reference to "Slovenian" in an English dictionary predates "Slovene" by a good forty years. That is, of course, disputed. On the other hand I'm sure most people would agree that the number of people worrying about this before 1991 was probably negligible. What surprises me is that among all the (sometimes quite heated) arguments for and against (including the one that says that "Slovenian" *sounds nicer* than "Slovene"), no-one makes the fairly obvious chicken-and-egg point that Slovenija literally means "the land of the Slovenci" just as Nemčija is "the land of the Nemci", in other words the country is named after the people (in Slovene at least) and not the other way round. By analogy, in English that would give us Slovenes > Slovenia rather than Slovenia > Slovenians. Rabascius (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would only like to answer the question of changing the historical guideline. Anyone is free to change anything as long as there is consensus to do so (which no doubt is present here). As for the analogy, what source says the word Slovenians is derived from Slovenia? --Eleassar my talk 09:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not about sources, it's about logic: if a country is named after its inhabitants, the inhabitants can't be named after the country. If we accept that "Slovenia" is analogous to "Slovenija", we need to look for a word in English that is analagous to "Slovenci", and it seems to me that that word is "Slovenes".


 * The guy that said "When residents of Virginia will no longer be called Virginians but Virgins, then, and only then, I would be willing to call our people Slovenes rather than Slovenians" was (deliberately?) missing the point that Virginia is not named after its inhabitants but after the "Virgin Queen" (Elizabeth I). Rabascius (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe all the hairsplitting about this topic. It's Slovene, not Slovenian. Some people claim that the Wiki's job is just to report what words people are using, without claiming one or the other is correct, but this is absurd. The Wiki is used as a reference. Any reference source has an ethical obligation to use the correct terminology. To do anything else would be to compound the linguistic error.

Similar arguments are used for non-words such as "pled" - an incorrect conjugation of "plead" widely used in North America. There is only one correct past tense of "plead" and that is "pleaded", but the willfully ignorant argue that since "pled" is in a number of dictionaries, it is correct. Dictionaries that don't bother indicating misconjugated verbs are only encouraging ignorance. Isn't that the very thing a dictionary is meant to eradicate?

Reference materials need to use correct terms, and clearly identify terms that are not. Take the battle of wills elsewhere; your obligation to present correct information to the public is more important. 91.132.202.96 (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Modify the Reference Section
The citation of the article by Dr. Edward Gobetz, under "Published works", should be removed because: (1) The article is a personal expression of opinion, not a serious treatment of the subject. It is not authoritative by any reasonable standard, and should not be cited as a Wikipedia reference. (2) The article was pasted into a Wikipedia talk page about the controversy, and can be found on the above-mentioned Archive 2. Surely the Wikipedia talk page is the proper place for this article, rather than as a citation. 24.178.228.14 (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Changes
Nobody has or can come up with the 100% correct answer to this question. Both words are used in English and none of them is more correct. We already have a way to deal with these cases - use whatever the original author of the article used, and above all do not go around the articles correcting from one variant to another. This is the convention that applies to American vs British English, BC vs. BCE, etc. There is no reason to do anything else here. Zocky | picture popups 17:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The consensus evident from the discussion above and confirmed at Talk:Slovenes and at Talk:Slovene language is that Slovene should be used for the language and ethnicity and Slovenian for people and things pertaining to Slovenia. --Eleassar my talk 17:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Eleassar, consensus on any of these pages can't change the consensus of dictionaries. It's not in our power to change the meaning of English words, and it is indeed silly of us to try. Zocky | picture popups 18:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Changing the meaning of English words? Consensus of dictionaries? Please read the section 'This decision should be reversed' above (especially comments by Pasquale and Jalen who are both linguists). --Eleassar my talk 18:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I looked at the dictionary definitions. They use Slovene as the main entry, and say "also Slovenian". No distinction is made for people or language vs. country. As for the argument about peoples who are called after countries and countries which are called after people: it may sound logical, but it's irrelevant, since usage does not always follow logic. Plus, there are plenty of counter-examples, e.g. Lithuanians, Estonians, Russians, etc. Zocky | picture popups 18:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You have missed the following comment by Jalen:

"I discussed the issue on Slovene vs. Slovenian with a couple of native-speaking English translators/proof readers from the afore-mentioned translation agency (Amidas). The explanation I got is that the adjective Slovenian should be used when referring to things, except for language and culture. The language should be called Slovene, never Slovenian. Slovenian indeed seems to be preferrable when referring to matters connected with Slovenia as nation state (politics, administration, economy etc., as in Slovenian Institute for Standardisation, Slovenian Business and Research Association.

As concerns ethnic designations, the distinction is quite straightforward. Slovene is the ethnic appellation while Slovenian could be used a collective term for citizens of Slovenia who are not necessarily ethnic Slovenes. For example, the Hungarians in the Prekmurje regions could be called Hungarian/Magyar Slovenians. A member of the Slovene minority in Carinthia or Italy would be called a Slovene but not Slovenian as he is not (presumably) a citizen of Slovenia."

--Eleassar my talk 18:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The convention at one translation agency in Ljubljana doesn't mean a thing. I worked at that agency too, and I translated things according to their conventions. To pull a random example, they also translate "on the Internet" as "v internetu", which doesn't mean that that's the correct or even the only correct way to translate it.
 * As concerns the ethnic designation, the distinction may be straightforward, but it doesn't exist in English. At least the dictionaries haven't recorded it so far.
 * Slovenian elementary schools teach children that the adjective is Slovene. This is then commonly used by Slovenian speakers of English, as well as foreigners who live in Slovenia. It's just like all the English speaker who live in Slovenia call the nutroll "potica". It doesn't really tell you much about the usage in English. Zocky | picture popups 18:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S.: BTW, I think it was me who originally mentioned the ethnicity vs. country distinction in this discussion (4-5 years ago, IIRC). I do think that the distinction could be useful, and I don't mind people using it when they write articles. What I do mind is picking it as the only correct way, when dictionaries say otherwise, and enforcing it on other people and articles they wrote. Zocky | picture popups 18:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I may agree with you to not change every random occurrence of Slovenian to Slovene or vice versa, but when it comes to the naming of articles or presenting peoples or languages (like in the article Languages of the European Union) we should use the form that is given preference in the dictionaries and not the one that has been chosen randomly or even been pushed forward by some people who do not agree with the dictionaries. Otherwise that would constitute undue weight imo. --Eleassar my talk 14:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Slovenian/Slovene
Copied from my talk page. --Eleassar my talk 17:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, there is no denotational difference between Slovene and Slovenian (for things, nationality, ethnicity, language, nouns, adjectives, etc.) so I've updated the Dragotin Cvetko and Fran Ramovš pages to Slovene for consistency (but left the differential piping to "Slovenia" and "Slovenes"). I have no preference for either variant of the word. Thanks for your other changes. Doremo (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's ok, although several linguists prefer to use 'Slovene' for the ethnicity/language and 'Slovenian' for the country. Otherwise, it's just better to link to 'Slovenia' instead of 'Slovenes' in the lead of biographical articles, because it's the nationality that should be included in the opening paragraph per Wikipedia's style guidelines (MOS:OPENPARA). --Eleassar my talk 11:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * A lot of people have interesting notions about word forms like this. I've never been able to find any clear pattern, although some have claimed there's a noun/adjective difference, or a UK/US difference, or an archaic/modern difference. I really can't see empirical evidence for any of the theories. (It reminds me of a guy that used to teach political science at the University of Chicago who insisted that a Serbian was someone from Serbia, whether ethnically Serbian or not, whereas a Serb was someone that was ethnically Serbian, regardless of where he was from. It was certainly internally consistent, but without much basis in actual usage and nobody could remember which way he wanted it.) Doremo (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok. I just wanted to stress that this is not my invention, it has been around for some time and has been proposed and supported by some respectable linguists as well as by Wikipedians at Talk:Slovenes. Otherwise we had a very long conversation regarding this in 2005 at Naming conventions (Slovenian vs Slovene) (tagged as historical). If nothing else, the markup  is much simpler and evident than , therefore more in line with WP:LINKS that demands clear linking. --Eleassar my talk 12:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It will probably never be settled to everyone's satisfaction. Some people have very strong/emotional opinions on the issue (for one of the many questionable distinctions above), whereas others don't have any preference but would like consistency, at least within individual articles. My objection to both Slovene and Slovenian in the same article is that it looks like the writer can't make up his/her mind. If the markup Slovenian is strongly preferred then perhaps the adjective Slovenian should be used everywhere in such an article. Doremo (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This would mean unnecessarily using piped links at other places, when talking about Slovene language and Slovenes. The preferred choice is probably 'Slovenian' for the country and 'Slovene' for the ethnicity/language, because a) it is used by respectable authors; b) goes most in line with Wikipedia's guidelines, and c) has already been supported by Wikipedians, as shown above. Anyway, you may take the discussion to WikiProject Slovenia or some other appropriate place if you think necessary. --Eleassar my talk 13:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem with Slovenian 'from Slovenia' vs. Slovene 'ethnicity/language' is that is creates an artificial distinction apparently based only on personal opinions. Many respectable authors do not make such a distinction. (It's like trying to create a rule for Eng. plow vs. plough, or for Sln. zdaj vs. sedaj.) I won't pursue the issue further because I'm satisfied with either form, but using both forms in one article just looks sloppy, not precise. Doremo (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have an easy answer. If forced to choose, Slovenian seems more appropriate for Wikipedia's articles to me, especially because it is more frequently used. I'd like to see some consensus before changing templates like Lang-sl. Till then, the spelling will remain inconsistent based on the ethnicity/country distinction, and I'll keep with it, for the sake of consistency. --Eleassar my talk 13:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, there are worse things in the world than a little inconsistency. As a distant relative of mine (Ralph Waldo Emerson) once observed, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." :-) Doremo (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it was demanded by you that the consistency regarding 'Slovenian' and 'Slovene' is established in individual articles, and it does not look any less sloppy if the alternate spelling remains due to the template. On the other hand, if 'Slovene' is given preference, the link to 'Slovenia' becomes less intuitive. Something will have to be given up, and I think that it would be best to sacrifice the consistency in individual articles for better clarity. --Eleassar my talk 15:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that the template prevents total consistency. However, I'm not willing to argue the Slovene/Slovenian battle with other editors, especially because both forms are acceptable to me. I don't think Slovene is a less intuitive link to Slovenia (it's just as clear as German < Germany or Swiss < Switzerland). I've also got no further objection (beyond creating inconsistency) to an editor writing Slovenian here and there, unless it's based on the idea that it means something different than Slovene. Doremo (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem to me that 'Slovene' is as associative as 'Slovenian' in regard to 'Slovenia', although a native English speaker most surely can judge this better. I do think, however, that the distinction between 'Slovenian' as used for the nationality and 'Slovene' as used for the ethnicity/language is a useful one, as pointed out in the previous paragraph too, and its usage has been endorsed by the community, even though it's an artificial one, not supported by dictionaries. --Eleassar my talk 17:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We should be cautious about endorsing artificial linguistic distinctions in WP (whether useful or not) if they aren't actually consistently used in real language. Doremo (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Google n-grams
See Google n-grams that Slovene is more common in the present day. Or check the frequency of these forms at http://skell.sketchengine.co.uk/run.cgi/skell

Epheson (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Opinion from someone who is a Slovenian
I don't really care which is used as long as it is as consistent as possible... and since Slovenian is used more by people I'd use that.

Slovenia vs Slovenija - the international word usually used is Slovenia (although my passport/id card/drivers license all use Slovenija) but in the country Slovenija is the correct name. In practice it doesn't matter, you can use either as the country name when sending mail from other countries and it will arrive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benzo expert (talk • contribs) 19:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

IPA-sl
We are encouraged to keep internal consistency within articles: ''Naming conventions are not applicable to articles that use "Slovene" or "Slovenian" in the body text only. For these articles, either term is allowable, as long as its usage is consistent.'' However, the template IPA-sl makes this impossible, as it forces Slovene into articles which otherwise use, for the most part, Slovenian. (eg, in the article Tadej Pogačar, Slovenian is used throughout, except for the note on pronunciation of his name in the lead)  Can this be remedied? Kevin McE (talk) 09:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)