User talk:Doremo/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Doremo. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Hello. Please make sure that your transcriptions adhere to the system used on Help:IPA for Slovene (go to the talk page if you wish to change it). Your transcription system is problematic in the sense that [v] is used for our [ʋ] (we use the same [v] symbol for the voiced allophone of /f/), whereas the symbols [ɾ, i̯, u̯] are not present in our guide at all (they are transcribed [r, j, w], respectively). From now on, please use only [ʋ, r, j, w] instead of [v, ɾ, i̯, u̯]. Peter238 (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the discrepancy. I've made the suggested change to the table with appropriate sources. Doremo (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You should've taken it to the talk page before changing the guide (which we should do after reaching a consensus). We don't need two ways of transcribing the same sound, you've ignored the [ʋ] - [v] issue that I pointed out. I'm reverting. Please go to the talk page. Peter238 (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm largely indifferent to the issue because both transcription styles are legitimate and are supported by standard sources. The change at the guide was a noncontroversial edit. Doremo (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

But I am not. The issue is not about being supported by reliable sources (although that's the start of course), but us using one style of transcribing Slovene, so that our readers are not confused when they are redirected to the relevant IPA guide. I have no problem with changing it (after a consensus has been reached); if you don't want to start a discussion on Help talk:IPA for Slovene I can do that later today or tomorrow, I just have to visit the library to get the relevant books. Peter238 (talk) 07:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome to raise the issue there. The issue of tone should also be raised because we more or less concluded earlier (i.e., here) that tone should be marked as contour, not pitch, in line with standard published sources and established teaching practice at the University of Ljubljana. Doremo (talk) 07:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I spoke with a group of about ten Slovenian language specialists today. They were unanimous that [ʋ, ɾ] are appropriate for Slovenian and that [v, r] are not appropriate. Doremo (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Care to wait for me to actually write the post, bring the sources to the table and discuss that first? Peter238 (talk) 11:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome to raise the issue at Help talk:IPA for Slovene. I'm simply sharing what I've learned/confirmed. Doremo (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your research, thanks. What I'm saying is that in the meantime, make sure that your transcription adhere to the transcription system on Help:IPA for Slovene. I'm writing the message and will post it shortly. Peter238 (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I cannot use [r] in good faith in the transcriptions because it's apparently wrong; there's no sense in perpetuating an error. As for the Help:IPA for Slovene page, it's good to have such a page, but it doesn't override other pages or good sense. Also, as user CodeCat mentioned in the discussion cited above on tone, "Wikipedia provides what it can, and there are no rules that say that all similar articles have to provide the same information." Doremo (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is just dishonest. CodeCat was talking specifically about the tones, not transcriptions disagreeing with the guide (which I don't think she'd endorse). [r] is clearly not wrong, even Slovene phonology says that. It's not about "overriding other pages or good sense", it's about transcriptions adhering exactly to the system used on Help:IPA for Slovene, the page they link to. If they don't, users are confused, and there's no point in having that guide at all. Please remember that it's on you to go to Help talk:IPA for Slovene and discuss the changes you'd wish to see (before changing any transcriptions), and I'm doing you a favour by doing that (which I don't have a problem with, I'd have to answer you anyway). Only after reaching a consensus to change Help:IPA for Slovene can we change the transcriptions to reflect these changes, otherwise, again, there's no point in the existence of Help:IPA for Slovene at all. Peter238 (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

No, the point is accuracy in representation. [v, r] are both valid as "broad" transcriptions of the phonemes in question, and [ʋ, ɾ] are both valid as "narrow" transcriptions of the same phonemes. Presented with a choice between the narrow (contrastive) values of [v, r] and [ʋ, ɾ], Slovene speakers overwhelmingly agree that the latter are more appropriate. Transcribing [r] broadly and [ʋ] narrowly in the same system doesn't seem appropriate. Doremo (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Fine, the sources are not uniform in this regard anyway, and I've just lost my message. I'll rewrite it, but now it'll concern only [i̯, u̯]. Peter238 (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I am a bit surprised to see Gudbrandsdalen moved to Gudbrand Valley. Has the move been discussed and what are the sources for the English name? --— Erik Jr. 10:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, the sources are cited in the lede together with the English name. The English name is quite common in published sources, but three seem sufficient. Doremo (talk) 12:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I really don't think three sources is enough to establish what a common name is for the valley. Making these kinds of moves without discussion seems very rash. Bold, but rash. Manxruler (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The move was based on high-quality English sources (University of Chicago Press, Manchester University Press). Although more sources could be cited, three is sufficient to avoid WP:OVERREF. Doremo (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

That might be, yet I still feel such moves should be discussed prior to action being taken. Moves like this are major, and possibly of a principal nature. Manxruler (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

There should probably be many more similar moves to well-attested English names. Doremo (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

More information Women in Music ...

Women in Music
	10 to 31 January 2016 Please join us in the worldwide virtual edit-a-thon hosted by Women in Red.

Close

--Rosiestep (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Doremo. What would be the best translation of 'Krst pri Savici'? 'Baptism at the Savica'? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I suppose "Baptism at Savica Falls" would make the most sense based on the content of the work. However, that departs from the title (which doesn't contain slap). Priestly and Cooper used the title "The Baptism on the Savica", which is authoritative and sounds fine to me. Doremo (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Following this pattern, is it 'The Wreath of Sonnets' or simply 'Wreath of Sonnets'? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 21:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

There are multiple possibilities. Priestly and Cooper used the title "A Wreath of Sonnets", which is authoritative and sounds fine to me. Doremo (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

That's great. I'll rename the article accordingly. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

More information Thank you for participating in the Women in Music edit-a-thon ...

Thank you for participating in the

Women in Music edit-a-thon

January 2016
More than 250 articles were created
Hosted by Women in Red

(... check out our next event)

Close

--Ipigott (talk) 08:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Sentence about the Kresija

Another question: Is it grammatically correct to say "The Kresija Palace stands at the Adamič–Lunder Embankment"? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 22:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Preposition

As for the preposition, "on" is appropriate (see here and here. Doremo (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Kresija

Personally, I don't like the name formulation (I would prefer "the Provincial Administration Building" or "the Kresija Building"). However, if it is dubbed a "palace" then the name is unarticulated (cf. usage at Buckingham Palace, Holyrood Palace). Doremo (talk) 08:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Alternately, if the question is about "the" with "X Embankment," the links above indicate that it is articulated (i.e., the Chelsea Embankment). Doremo (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Embankment

Thanks for the advice regarding "Kresija". In regard to "embankment", I see that some sources articulate it and others (e.g. ) don't. Which way is preferable? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC) The best way to say that would therefore be "The Kresija Building stands on the Adamič–Lunder Embankment"? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It's just my preference (regarding building/palace). My preference would also be "the Adamič and Lunder Embankment" (like Washington and Lee University), but "Adamič–Lunder" is not wrong (like Washington-Lee High School)—it just looks like a maiden name followed by a married name at first glance (although the en dash clarifies it on close inspection). Anyhow, yes, "The Kresija Building stands on the Adamič–Lunder Embankment" is a good formulation. Embankment is a relatively unusual noun as a name component, and so articulation varies. I don't have a native feeling for it, and the printed sources look rather evenly divided between using "the" and using no article. Doremo (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought 'the Adamič and Lunder Embankment' sounds strange, but if you say this sounds better, I'll trust you in this regard. Thanks a lot for your answers. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It's just my personal preference at this point. One would have to do a survey to determine naturalness, although I suspect "and" is more typical; for example, Peter and Paul Fortress (not Peter–Paul Fortress), Victoria and Albert Museum (not Victoria–Albert Museum), etc. But there are also counterexamples like Mason–Dixon line. Doremo (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Judged by Chelsea Embankment and Albert Embankment, it is written without the definite article, but could you please verify this? Thanks. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The patterns in published sources (here) indicated that it is mixed, with "the" more common. Doremo (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Central Post Office

I see that 'palača Pošte' has been translated as 'Post-Office building'. Is the hyphen really necessary here? And 'building' should probably be capitalized? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC) Similar for Kresija: in sources the word 'building' is uncapitalized. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It depends if you're treating it as part of the name; for example, the Flatiron Building (the semantic equivalent of Ljubljana's Peglezen). Most WP articles seem to treat "Building" as part of the name (like X Valley, X Street, X Church, etc.) when there is no other generic in the name (e.g., X Tower, X Center, X Courthouse, etc.). But the other pattern is possible; for example, "the Taipei 101 building" or "the Prima Pearl building"; note, however, that when generics are added to these they are often capitalized anyhow (e.g., the Taipei 101 b/Building or "Pearl Tower" and "Prima Tower"). Doremo (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok. What about the hyphen? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

There's no need for the hyphen because the capitalization holds it all together, like "New York traffic" or "Los Angeles Lakers." But I'd prefer to call the building "the Central Post Office" (see Central Post Office for examples; the word Building could be tacked onto the name, but it is rather redundant). Doremo (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking along this line too. 'Central Post Office' or 'Main Post Office' would probably be the best choice. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Per the same rationale, the following names would be preferred:

Court Palace (Ljubljana) > Court Building
Government and Presidential Palace > Government and Presidential Building
Kolizej Palace > simply Kolizej (or Kolizej Building)
Kresija Palace > Kresija (or Kresija Building)
University of Ljubljana Palace > University of Ljubljana Building
'Tavčar Palace' should remain 'Tavčar Palace'; the same for 'Slavija Palace', 'Besenghi delli Ughi Palace', 'Praetorian Palace'
Cukrarna?
Triglav Insurance Company Palace > Triglav Insurance Company Building
Post Office Palace (Maribor) > Central (or Main) Post Office (Maribor)

Can you please comment on this? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I personally disprefer "palace" for most of these because for me the connotation is something grander. Going through the list, I would suggest the Courthouse, the Government Building and President's Office, the Coliseum (or the Kolizej Building if one must), the Provincial Administration Building (or the Kresija Building if one must), the University Administration Building, the Tavčar Building, the Slavija Building, the Besenghi degli Ughi Mansion (or the Besenghi degli Ughi Palace if one must), the Praetorian Palace, the Sugar Mill, the Triglav Insurance Building, and the Central Post Office (Maribor). Some of these solutions can also be found in Marko Habič, Prestolnica Ljubljana nekoč in danes (1997), although the work also contains awkward solutions. Doremo (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S.: Additionally, would it make sense to move 'Cankar Hall' to 'Cankar Centre'? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Both Cankar Hall and the Cankar Center are well formed (cf. Royal Albert Hall and Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts among many other examples). If one wants to avoid the potential awkwardness of talking about "the halls in Cankar Hall" then "Cankar Center" is an easy solution. Doremo (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. In regard to 'Hall', 'narodni dom' could well be translated as 'National Centre' (e.g. in Trieste)? Regarding the word 'Hall', I'm not sure where exactly to use the definite article: is it 'the Ljubljana Town Hall' or 'Ljubljana Town Hall'? What about 'Zlatno Polje Ice Hall'? Also, in the sense of the building, 'Filharmonija' would easily be translated as 'Philharmonic Centre'? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't like "National Center" (it sounds like "državni dom" to me); I prefer "Slovene Cultural Center." When "city/town hall" is part of a name (i.e., capitalized) it generally seems to have no article (e.g., Boston City Hall). However, if it were not part of the name (i.e., if "Boston" were an adjective) then one would see "the Boston city hall" like "the old city hall" etc. Because "Boston City Hall" and "Boston city hall" sound exactly the same, the distinction tends to get lost and the article used by some where others would not. (So the problem is that it sounds good both with and without "the" but should technically be two different constructions.) "Zlatno Polje Ice Hall" sounds fine to me. "Philharmonic Hall" seems most common (e.g., Philharmonic Hall, Liverpool, Philharmonic Hall, although there's also the Philharmonic Center for the Arts in Naples, Florida. Doremo (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering whether 'Zlatno Polje Ice Hall' should be preceded with 'the' (like e.g. the Royal Festival Hall) or not. Regarding Ljubljana Town Hall, if I correctly understand your point, it's (at least from the technical point of view) better to write without 'the', because the original native name is simply 'Mestna hiša' or 'Rotovž'. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not based on the Slovenian name; what I'm trying to say is that "Ø Ljubljana Town Hall" would be the name of the hall, and "the Ljubljana town hall" would mean "the town hall located in Ljubljana" (regardless of whatever name it has). Similarly, "Ø Assumption Church is the Dobrova church," or "Ø Austin Straubel International Airport is the Green Bay airport"; thus "Ø Ljubljana Town Hall is the Ljubljana town hall". Doremo (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding "Zlatno Polje Ice Hall," I'd say that both sound fine because "ice hall" could also be a generic. I suppose I'd use no article now that I'm thinking about it. Technically, it should probably have no article—but "the" does predominate with "the Royal Festival Hall," as you point out, although many also use it with no article. In this particular case, it probably has more to do with language "habit" than with any particular strict rule. The variation is not something that English speakers will feel is right one way and wrong the other. Doremo (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation.

In regard to 'Government's Building and President's Office', 'Interior of the Government's Building and President's Office' is therefore completely ok?

Without the first possessive: "the interior of the Government Building and President's Office"

'University of Ljubljana Building' would be ok?

I don't like it because it sounds like any building that belongs to the University of Ljubljana (a garage, a faculty building, an administration building, etc.). This kind of formula usually gets tacked onto the name of a building (e.g., the University of Queensland Therapies Building, the University of Liverpool Foundation Building, the University of Otago Registry Building, etc.), so an appropriate "long name" would be "the University of Ljubljana Administration Building"

What about 'the University of Ljubljana Headquarters'? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It makes it sound like a corporation. The term "administration building" is quite common; see various examples here. Doremo (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding 'Cukrarna', I've also seen the translation 'Sugar Refinery', does it make any difference?

It's more or less the same (see here)

What would be a translation of 'Konzorcij', 'Lontovž', and 'Mladika'? Mladika Building Complex?

My suggestions: the Consortium Building (or the Konzorcij building), the (Provincial) Assembly Building (or the Landhaus, or the Lontovž Building, or the Provincial Diet Hall, etc.), the Mladika Complex

Can you please also have a look at this edit. Is everything ok? Is 'Loggia Palace' ok or should it be something else?

It all looks good to me. The Loggia Palace is pretty grand, so I'm personally comfortable with palace for that. Doremo (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)::Thank you very much. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 23:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Annunciation Church

Is it '(the painting is on display) in Annunciation Church' or 'in the Annunciation Church'? Thank you for both answers. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 22:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

"in Annunciation Church" (without "the"). Doremo (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Bavarski dvor

Hi, what would be an appropriate translation of 'Bavarski dvor'? Bavaria Court? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Bavaria Court; it's named after the former Baierischer Hof (Sln. Bavarski dvor) hotel, built in 1851. It operated until 1910, and the building was town down in 1962. Doremo (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

See also here (page 352) for more information. Doremo (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

SNG Opera in balet Ljubljana

Hi again, Doremo. What's the correct translation of 'Slovensko narodno gledališče Opera in balet Ljubljana'? 'Slovene National Theatre Ljubljana Opera and Ballet' or 'Ljubljana Opera and Ballet Slovene National Theatre'? What would be the shortened version? Thanks a lot. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd write "the Ljubljana Slovene National Theater Opera and Ballet" and "the Ljubljana SNG Opera and Ballet"—or, alternately, "the Slovene National Theater Opera and Ballet of Ljubljana" and "the SNG Opera and Ballet of Ljubljana". Doremo (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The second version is easier to comprehend (imo), but the pattern until now has been to put the name of the location at the beginning (cf. Ljubljana National Drama Theatre, Novo Mesto Lower Carniola Museum etc.), so I'll go with it. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Ljubljana Castle Funicular

Is 'rail tracks of the Ljubljana Castle Funicular' a good formulation? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I think "the tracks of the Ljubljana Castle Funicular" or "the Ljubljana Castle Funicular tracks" would be sufficient. Doremo (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I was also thinking whether 'Ljubljana Castle Funicular' is ok or something else would be better. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The word funicular is rare in native names (see: Category:Funicular railways in the United Kingdom, Category:Funicular railways in the United States, Category:Defunct funicular railways in the United States). The word is also generally unfamiliar to English-speaking visitors to Ljubljana and it surprises them. Doremo (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. What would you suggest as a substitute? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The specific infrastructure seems rare in English (partially because there are no castles in the US, and perhaps because the British castles are not high enough up to necessitate these). Based on the names at the category pages, "the Ljubljana Castle Incline" or "the Ljubljana Castle Railway" (or the longer "the Ljubljana Castle Incline Railway") appear most natural. Doremo (talk) 10:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Fužine

'Fužine Mansion' is probably better than 'Fužine Castle'? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Grad Fužine / Fužinski grad is a very castle-like structure. "Fužine Castle" is an appropriate designation. Doremo (talk) 07:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I've come to the same conclusion (per ). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Vodnjak pri Zlati ribici

Goldfish Fountain? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Probably not; there are three issues to consider: 1) it may actually be the Virgin Fountain (Devica) based on the best-attested name (cf. here, 2) a zlata ribica (as the mythological wish-granting creature) is probably a golden fish, not a goldfish (cf. The Tale of the Fisherman and the Fish), 3) if it is named after the restaurant, this opens the additional question whether the business name is translated (the Golden Fish Fountain or the Zlata Ribica Fountain). Opinions and practice vary a lot, especially for restaurants and hotels; translating Mercator as "Merchant" would be very unusual because Slovenians aren't even aware what the name means, and referring to the "Elephant Hotel" (Hotel Slon) would be surprising; on the other hand, translating Gostilna Pod Lipo as the Linden Inn would probably make good marketing sense. Anyhow, my advice is to avoid all this and call it the Virgin Fountain (Devica) if the sources support Devica as the Slovenian name. Doremo (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Doremo

No sense for listening and understanding other users leads to fight. Deleting whole articles in which big effort was put by author is shameless act. To mark an article as gibberish, represents big insult for author, especially if sources were collected few months to create an article. Continuous deleting of content, no matter how hard author tries to correct his mistakes and not listening when author tries to explain why is something important in article, is selfish act that discourage new authors for creating in Wikipedia. Main goal of Wikipedia is to get more authors that wish to work here. Treats when someone wants to correct your mistakes are simply unacceptable.

If any applications for Administrator are made by this user, I strongly advice to think carefully before selecting him or her. This goes because of the reasons stated earlier. Thank you. --Grabyton (talk) 10:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Doremo, I would like to inform You, that names of Slovene statistical regions are not allowed to translate in any other language. I am administrator for statistical regions in Statistical Office of Republic Slovenia (SORS) and I did change the names of regions correctly. I saw You changed it again and please note, if they are called as You translate it, they are not regions of Slovenia anymore. And the second, few regions did change their names on 1st January 2015 and they don´t have the same names anymore. We have accepted NUTS decree where is written all about translating and using names of regions worldwide and it was accepted in EU parliament in 2003. I sugest You should read it and please, change names correctly in Slovene as they should be or remove the page. Thank You.

Please review WP:CRED and WP:EN regarding your concerns. The articles clearly list the Slovenian names in the ledes. Doremo (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in this. As you say stream is not incorrect. The word creek is however problematic because its meaning varies between regions. In the US it can mean a small river; in the UK it's a tidal phenomenon. So both for clarity and because British English is the official EU English version, it makes sense to use stream and not creek in a European context. To avoid raising hackles, I'll change the summary notes in future though. Hope that helps. Cheers. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no rule that British English be used for all EU countries; Slovenian geography certainly does not fall under MOS:STRONGNAT. Doremo (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, could you please comment this edit. If not Kobilje Creek, should it then be Kobilje Stream or Kobilje Brook, given that the definition is "... is a brook in northeastern Slovenia and western Hungary."? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 18:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The generic stream is rare (but not impossible) in proper names of watercourses, and should be avoided in my opinion. Having no generic at all (e.g., The Kobilje is ...) is acceptable. If a generic is used, there are many choices (the Kobilje River, Kobilje Creek, Kobilje Brook, and also less common options: ... Beck, ... Burn, etc.). If it is felt that a generic should be used in the name, then I would recommend moving it back to Kobilje Creek as the earliest solution not using potok or stream as the generic element. Doremo (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

If I correctly understand, moving Kobilje Creek to Kobilje is acceptable, but moving Lake Bled to Bled is not? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't been thinking about the name structure (which I should have), just the abstract form (e.g., like the Sava, the Sava River, etc.). The Kobilje sounds OK in isolation and without thinking, but it is a structurally poor equivalent, as you pointed out, because it is based on an adjective, like black. I recommend moving it back to Kobilje Creek. Doremo (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The general rule adopted by the Rivers project is that rivers and streams are named "Foo" (there are exceptions). If there is a need for dab then they're called "Foo (river)" or "Foo (stream)" - stream being more universally used for a small river than brook or creek. Creek is awkward since it has different regional meanings. If there are two rivers of the same name, the usual convention is to dab by parent river e.g. "Foo (parent)". What has happened in some cases, especially with eastern European rivers is that editors have used "...River" or "...Stream" to disambiguate. That is often clear from the text, where these words are dropped, and also from other river names in the same country category. If we feel we have to add something to the name (although English sources often seem to be happy with "the Kobilje"), is there a clear logic why we're using an American term "creek" instead of the more universal word "stream"? I'm just trying to bring some naming consistency to rivers in line with the project, but don't want to cut across clear national naming policy if it's different. Bermicourt (talk) 08:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

As Eleassar already explained, the Slovenian name of the watercourse is not "Kobilje" but "Kobiljski potok" (i.e., a specific adjective plus a generic noun); this is the same reason why Yellow River is not listed under "Yellow" or Red River under "Red". It is also explained above that the word "stream" is a valid parenthetical disambiguator but that it is unusual as a generic component of a proper name, and this name needs a generic component because the first element is an adjective. I appreciate that the word creek has a restricted meaning in British English (e.g., in Merriam-Webster: "creek: 1 chiefly Britain : a small inlet or bay ... 2 a natural stream of water normally smaller than and often tributary to a river ..."). However, restricted semantics in particular national varieties of English is not a concern here. The current name, Kobilje Creek, already contains a valid generic element that is used in thousands of similar names and articles on Wikipedia. Doremo (talk) 09:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand the Slovenian construct, but I'm wondering why you're determined to use the word "creek". Is that what English sources usually call small Slovenian rivers? If so, we should mention this in the rivers convention maybe. Bermicourt (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, now I see from your earlier move, you don't think "Foo Stream" is used much. Well check out List of rivers in England. Creek is used too but less often and in a narrower way. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Kobilje Creek is not a river of England and so there is no need to rely on the patterns at List of rivers in England. For what it's worth, here is one example of a Slovenian source using the word creek in English. Doremo (talk) 09:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

So a minute ago you relied on Asian examples, but now you're dismissing examples in UK. And you've just found one translated Slovenian sources that uses "creek" for other watercourse, but you surely know there are sources that use other names? Here's a hydrography book that calls it the Kobilje stream and here's one that uses Kobilje brook. Both only have the proper name in capitals, which reinforces that "Kobilje" is acceptable. But if you have a strong logic for "Kobilje Creek" I'm really open to hearing it. We can then go and rename other Slovenian streams likewise. Bermicourt (talk) 10:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not relying on any particular geographic locality. You asked about English-language sources and I provided an example. It was not written by native speakers of English, and so irregularities in capitalization are not surprising (it probably also contains some grammatical errors). Kobilje Creek is currently at a valid and natural English name (in terms of the generic element), and there seems to be no reason to change it to some other name. I understand that you seem to want to make it "sound British," but there are no grounds for that in this case. Doremo (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

You've misunderstood then. As I said above my sole aim is to bring some naming consistency to rivers as per the project, nothing to do with making it sound British - stream is a worldwide term after all. But you're clearly insistent on the current name so, as I'm not really that interested in this article, I'll pass over it and continue to follow the project guidelines. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

It's already consistent with plenty of other WP watercourse articles named X Creek; WP will never have perfectly uniform solutions for such names because English itself shows a lot of variation, even within a single variety of English. Thanks for your contributions on other articles, and keep up the good work. Doremo (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Doremo. Is it correct to write at the Izola General Hospital or at Izola General Hospital? What about Franja Partisan Hospital (should the definite article precede the name)? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

This is similar to some other cases we've seen in the past. If the generic part is lower-case (i.e., truly generic), then it has the, and if it's upper case (i.e., a generic component that is part of a proper name) then it's without the. They both sound correct because we can't tell if the speaker is using capital letters or not (and so it's easy for a writer to casually write either one). A couple of examples: "at the Vič primary school" = "at the primary school in Vič regardless of its name" versus "at Vič Primary School" = "at the primary school that is named Vič Primary School"; and "at the Grosuplje primary school" = "at the primary school in Grosuplje regardless of its name" versus "at Louis Adamič Primary School" (which is the actual name of the school: Osnovna šola Louisa Adamiča). So, in the case at hand, either "at the Izola general hospital" or "at Izola General Hospital," "at Franja Partisan Hospital," etc., following the usual pattern in English. Doremo (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought it was different due to this edit of yours. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it was my mistake. I've regularized the articles on the page. Doremo (talk) 11:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

There is also major variation between speakers, English varieties, and patterns across time on this; see this example (where some items, however, are adjectival; e.g. at the Massachusetts General Hospital Emergency Department), and so the thoughts above are better considered as a principle of convenience than something more strict. Doremo (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, probably. As you have noted, in the Ngram Viewer, it is difficult to exclude the adjectival items. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Per the same pattern, it is grammatically correct to write "He graduated from the Faculty of Law at University of Ljubljana"? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

No, that one needs "... at the University of Ljubljana". It ultimately also depends on the common noun element, and each one has its own lexical pattern. Thus "the Sava River" but "Ø Postojna Cave", and "the University of Illinois" but "Ø Indiana University". It's a rather complex (and unpredictable) relationship between lexemes and syntax, unfortunately. Doremo (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Doremo. Do you think it would be better to translate 'Velika planina' as 'Big Meadow' (or 'Big Meadow Plateau', 'Big Meadow Mountain')? Thanks, --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I prefer Big Pasture (or Big Pasture Plateau if a generic is added). I would reserve "meadow" for travnik. Doremo (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John O. Henes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Doremo, as regards this your edit, you are right that for the current Czech state, the full political name "Czech Republic" is (still?) very more common name than the geographical name "Czechia". However, the first Czech Republic was established in 1969 within federalization of Czechoslovakia (with the adjective "Socialist" originally) and it become a separate state in 1993. That's why the term "Czech Republic" is inappropriate (or even absurd or comical) for historic contexts before 1969, or even before 1918. For the timeless universal designation of the area, "Czech lands" or "Czechia" can be used. The term "Czech lands" evokes rather monarchic times of the Holy Roman Empire or Crown Lands of the Austrian Empire (and can include also both Lusatias, whole Silesia, event. Carinthia etc.). The term "Czechia" is a bit rarer but more accurate for this use for the Czechia past the 1814/1815 Congress of Vienna, i.e. for the three (2 + 1/10) current Czech countries IMHO. It's sometimes perceived as a recent neologism, but the oldiest known use of the word Czechia is from the 1634 Latin book Respublica Bojema by the Czech lutheran exulant Pavel Stránský ze Záp, even though just in the meaning of "Bohemia" – don't let you be confused by the word "Respublica", it meaned "a state" generally in the modern sense, including monarchies, not a democracy as the modern word "republic" ("Republic" is translated ad "res publica libera" to Latin.) "Bohemia" has its roots and halcyon days in monarchic era, that's whay is inaproppriate to define it by the term "Czech Republic", even though the Czech Republic respects the historic lands as its (unofficial and informal only) historic parts. --ŠJů (talk) 08:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the comment. The relevant parts of the article are written in the present tense. Doremo (talk) 08:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you really understand nothing from the item? Sorry, Bohemia is at first a historic land. The focus of the item is in the period since 9th century to 1948. --ŠJů (talk) 09:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

As I said, the relevant parts of the article are written in the present tense and refer to the present. Doremo (talk) 09:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

As I said, the article is about Bohemia and defines the item of Bohemia. And focus of the item of Bohemia is in the period since 9th century to 1948. We can mention its relation to the current state of the Czech Republic, but the Czech Republic had never any system of self-governing lands and never defined their borders, status etc. That's why they are mentioned as "historic lands" commonly. --ŠJů (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

That is unrelated to the edit or to the common names used for the Czech Republic or the Czech lands. Doremo (talk) 10:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we can use the name of the Czech Republic for the Czech Republic. However for the period of Czechia before the Czech Republic, "Czech Republic" is absolutely inappropriate name. We can choose between "Czech lands" or "Czechia". If you declare yourself as unable to understand the distinction and the context, you should be more restrained in your edits. --ŠJů (talk) 10:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

That is unrelated to my edit. Doremo (talk) 10:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Czechia is the geographical name. It is apolitical name, having timeless character, and its function can be universal without any limitation, it can bridge and it welds together its various forms in the course of time. From this point of view it is quite irrelevant whether or not the geographical name was used in the past because it is clearly geographically defined at present time. It is absolutely usual everywhere (Germany also was not called Germany all its history - if I remember well only since 1851 - any many other examples). Above all (NB for some encyclopaedia !!) it is necessary to make some simplification in language to have a chance to work clearly and systamatically with the subject. That is why your discussion is nonsensical. In addition: the name "Czech lands" has never been the name of the country, it is only "terminus technicus". Heptapolein (talk) 06:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are right Heptapolein. Czechia is absolutely logical and correct. Another example is Poland, which dissappeared from the maps several times and we still call this region Poland without issues Helveticus96 (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Take it to the article talk page, not here. Doremo (talk) 07:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Doremo. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

You are disruptive:

... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.13.98 (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page here Talk:Name of the Czech Republic and get some consensus first. Doremo (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Doremo, could you please verify and confirm that the correct spelling is Retejnski hrib. Or should it be 'Retenjski hrib'? I'm asking because for 'Retnje' in the Municipality of Tržič, the correct spelling of the adjective is retenjski. Thanks a lot. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, it was a typo (the cited source has "... ki izvira pod Retenjskim hribom."). I've fixed it. Doremo (talk) 07:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent articles, including Blood Road, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm simply slowly translating from Norwegian and it still has some way to go. Doremo (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks once again for the suggestion. In the meantime, the article has attracted a compulsive IP editor and its language quality is gradually deteriorating, and so I will not submit it for T:TDYK. Doremo (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess you didn't bother to read my edit summaries, which read "Rmv tag(s) before copyedit". I took time off to sleep. Miniapolis 14:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

You're very welcome to copyedit the text and then remove the tags. Doremo (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

You can trust me; I'm lead coordinator of the Guild of Copy Editors, and this is one of the oldest articles in our backlog. Miniapolis 23:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead and copyedit it, like I said. Doremo (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I've read the section on the name in Begunje na Gorenjskem. Two questions: when did 'Begunje' become 'Begunje na Gorenjskem' (this information should probably be added to the article)? The cited local pronunciation seems strange – it's much more common to hear 'Bégne' than 'Bajgne'. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I removed the dialect pronunciation (it was probably a copy-paste error from the Begunje pri Cerknici article). In Krajevni leksikon Dravske Banovine (1937) the name is "Begunje" but in Krajevni leksikon Slovenije (1968) it is "Begunje na Gorenjskem," so that narrows it down. I don't have any more precise sources available right now. Doremo (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Česko hledá SuperStar. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Do please remember that WP:BRD is not called WP:BRBRBRBRBRBR......D for a reason. So Why 13:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I am trying to find out, whether there is another Franco Anelli. The article says, ... excavations were carried out by Franco Anelli from 1933 to 1939. However, Franco Anelli was born on 26 June 1972. Do you know more? Sources are quite sparse. I have so far mined in a translated text from a (dubious) slovenian source, Here. All the best Wikirictor 06:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

BTW The text is copied from here. All the best Wikirictor 06:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The researcher was Franco Anelli (1899–1977). Doremo (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Doremo. Could you please have a look at Pivka Basin and proofread it? If your time and interests permit. It is a quick translation of the Slovenian article. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution; I've gone through it and made some changes. Doremo (talk) 03:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Great! Thanks a lot. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Restslowenien or Rest-Slowenien (English: the rump Slovenian state, less often the rest of Slovenia) was the Nazi designation used for the remaining Slovenian parts of... PanSlovenian Investors' & Shareholders' Association (VZMD) are Nazi too? https://vzmd.newswire.com/news/we-have-risen-the-rest-of-slovenia-will-follow-12687891

I do not understand this comment. Doremo (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I was patrolling new pages and your article Vik (Sortland) went by. Great job. Best Regards,

Bfpage _{let's talk...} 04:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the compliment. Doremo (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You do a fine job in covering certain topics, but some of the sourcing in your articles is downright ridiculous. See Eystein Fjærli for instance, where the sources are of very low quality. A self-published opinion/discussion piece in "Nå-debatt"? What is "Universitets- og skoleannaler. Ny række"? Also, SNO has zero credibility. This issue also goes for some other articles. Geschichte (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome to improve the articles. Many have no sources at all in Norwegian Wikipedia. Doremo (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Doremo. I do not agree with your decision about deliting the mentioned book, It is for now the only found written source in English language about cities, towns and regions of Slovenia. For me It doesn't matter if it doesn't have some connections with references yet, but it is a very good source of information, and it is not the Tourist guide. Thank you. --Shabicht my talk 10:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Simply dumping the book information into a section at the end of dozens of articles that it has no clear connection to does not add to the quality or content of those articles. If the book contains useful information, please add that information to the article and then cite the book. It is certainly not the only English source available on these topics. Doremo (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Respected Doremo. Rusyn language and Carpathian Rusyn is same thing--KHMELNYTSKYIA (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)