Talk:Slovenia/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

The same exact picture of the Eurasian Lynx is in two other articles about European counturies.204.250.84.10 (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The article says the following:

Those are the traditional regions with their largest cities. So I wonder why Ljubljana (the largest city) isnt listed as 'the largest city' of one of the regions? It has to be in one region then since it does exists. The paragraph makes it sound like Ljubljana doesnt exist at all. Traditionally, in which historical region does Ljubljana belongs to anyway? Correct the problem please. Since Ljubljana doesnt have its own region then it must belong to and is the largest city of one of the 7 mentioned above.Ratipok (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ljubljana doesn't really belong to any of the traditional regions. It has its own status and identity. When Carniola was subdivided into Upper, Lower and Inner Carniola in the 18th century, Ljubljana was made the capital of Upper Carniola. But as far as I know, it has never (at least not since the 19th century) considered as part of the region. I have never come across a reference from the 19th century that would refer to Ljubljana as an Upper Carniolan town. (That doesn't mean that such reference doesn't exist, of course, but I guess it this was not the prevalent perception.) As for later periods, Ljubljana definitely doesn't figure as part of Upper Carniola. Nowadays, I don't believe there's anybody who thinks of Ljubljana as an Upper Carniolan city. As long as the Duchy of Carniola existed, it was considered simply as a Carniolan town, without any further qualifications (probably also due to its central location exactly at the meeting point of all three sub-units of Carniola). After the distinct Carniolan identity dissolved in the interwar period, Ljubljana has not really had a regional identity; rather, it is considered as a separate entity. Best, Viator slovenicus (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The section on history begins with: "Slovenia is a relatively modern geographical and political entity: the notion first emerged in the 19th Century with the idea of United Slovenia, an autonomous region that would unite all Slovene-inhabited territories in the Austrian Empire." This is a banal oversimplification. It is certain that in the first translation of the Bible to Slovene in 1550 or so Trubar talks to "Slovenes" in the introduction with a clear geografic and ethnic connotation. It's a bit like saying Italy is a notion from the 19th century because of the lack of a serious idea to unify the italian statelets prior to that century. Rokpok (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

While the notion of a distinct Slovene nation is much older, the idea of Slovenia as a political-geographical entity dates from the 1840s. The very name first appears in 1844, if I'm not mistaken (Prešeren, the national poet, never uses it). The first articulated conceptualizations only date from 1848. On the other hand, Italy is a notion dating back to the early middle ages, at least. Viator slovenicus (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

As the article is about Slovenia, not

In regard to the comment above, I've been wondering what is actually the link of Slovenia from Carantania till nowadays. Is Carantania really a historical predecessor of Slovenia, or otherwise stated: is Slovenia the successor state of Carantania? If not, the infobox should be trimmed and the history section made clearer in this regard. --

I don't agree with your argument in the above section: the emergence of Slovenia as a polity is directly linked to the history of Slovenes: one cannot possibly separate the two; doing so would actually be an anachronism. As for your opinion regarding the continuity between Carantania and Slovenia as listed in the infobox, I completely agree. There is also no legal continuity between Carniola and Slovenia. In my view, one can mention (at best) two previous establishments that have a direct link with modern Slovenia: the formation of the SHS state on October 29th, 1918 (since it was then that the Slovenes first exercised their right to self-determination, broke with the legal-historical continuity of Habsburg crown lands, and established for the first time in history, Slovenia as a political-juridical entity; the second date to mention in the infobox would be October 3rd, 1943, when the Assembly of Representatives of the Slovenian Nation (Zbor odposlancev slovenskega naroda) in Kočevje declared Slovenia as a sovereign entity within federal Yugoslavia; and finally, June 25th). All other dates have, in my opinion, no relevance whatsoever. Viator slovenicus (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that what I have proposed is not to separate the history of Slovenia and the history of Slovenes, but to focus the history section on the history of Slovenia itself, from the first mention of the concept till now. --

my talk

16:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Slovenia is a country, i.e. a defined territorial unit: this territory has had a history that precedes the name. I don't see the reason why we should neglect the history of this territory, just because people used to call it differently. The notion of Belgum is not much older than that of Slovenia (maybe half a century at best), yet the history section starts with the Romans and devotes a lot of space to Middle Ages and early modern period. A similar cases are Estonia and Slovakia (although these two notions are even younger than the one of Slovenia); the same goes for most African and South American countries. I do agree, however that the history section may be shortened and the material moved over to the main article, History of Slovenia (while other sections, especially Education and Culture, should be expanded). Best, Viator slovenicus (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Please be sure that all additions to the Slovenia are

So much for this round... --Tone 21:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd add that the lead needs a good paragraph on geography and economy and that the international membership is probably redundant in the lead. The section on culture needs a resume of development of Slovene culture, focusing more on a general outline than on specific people. --

my talk

21:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Some material should be moved from the History section to the Culture section, for example "In the last two decades before World War One, Slovene arts and literature experienced one of its most flourishing periods, with numerous talented modernist authors, painters and architects.[28] The most important authors of this period were Ivan Cankar and Oton Župančič, while Ivan Grohar and Rihard Jakopič were among the most talented Slovene visual artists of the time."

Also, too many images are from Ljubljana. --

my talk

21:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That thing with the images will be taken care of through the improvement. Overall, as Ljubljana is the political and ecominical center, it is reasonable that there are more images from there than from certain other regions. Still, for beginning, you can remove the Opera, Nebotičnik and demonstrations photos. The others fit well. --Tone 00:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The geography section should be expanded or rewritten. The Cerknica Lake and the Bohinj Lake are not mentioned, neither are the Sava, the Drava or the Krka.

The section on sports should say something about the sport activities of non-sportsmen, ordinary people. --

my talk

12:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I would be very proud if the article Slovenia appeared as a featured article on the Main Page on 25 June, when Slovenia celebrates 20 years of age. --

my talk

00:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. We have around 4 months left, but there's lots of work. And there will be more people needed for such task. Maybe contacting some wikiprojects for assistence? --Tone 17:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments from an outsider, if that's okay. Saw the section marked "to do", thought I'd add.

• Urbanization section is oversubsectioning. The prose there is information for Administrative divisions.  Done The overlapping content moved to the appropriate section. The list of cities is modelled after Germany example. --Tone 16:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• For History, just move it all to the main article and cut down to 5 or 6 paragraphs. That would additionally allow the unsrouced information to simply be transferred elsewhere ;)
• Remove transport subsections.
• Add foreign relations and art/music information.

Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I'll try to implement suggestions. --Tone 00:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The Ministry of Culture lets us copy an entire article on Slovenia. It's licensed under cc-by-sa 3.0 and well written.[3] I only hope it's original and does not include any plagiarism (sources are listed so they can be verified). Currently it doesn't seem to. --

• In fact they want the entire collection used to enhance wikipedia. That's over 2700 articles and a lot of images. All the articles I've seen are well written and sourced. The images are unfortunately non-derivative for now. --U5K0 (talk) 06:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I am seriously considering using the history section in that website as a starting version for history section here. I've copied the current version to History of Slovenia article as it is longer and more informative. The Culture.si article is around 1/3 of the current version while sufficiently detailed. I will try to model a section or two after it, let's have a look. --Tone 20:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but don't forget that if you copy the text, the source has to be properly attributed. --

my talk

21:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I know. At this point, I am somehow through the history section, making a synthesis of the old content with the version from Culture.si. Approprietly attributed, though better sources can be found as well (it will be better to directly cite history books). --Tone 21:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Please, share your opinion at

I've removed the sentence "The first Slovenian cookbook was published in Slovenian language by Valentin Vodnik in 1799." I think it is irrelevant, because it didn't effect the development of Slovene cuisine in any major way. Feel free to readd it if it is an integral and influential part of the historical development of Slovene cuisine, but then also write a short paragraph about this (how the Slovenian cuisine developed). This should be written in any case. --

I've invested quite some time in finding some sources about the Slovenian national sports, but not with much success. I post here two links that may be used to rewrite and reference the section on sport, by me or by other editors.[4][5] For example: "Po koncu tako imenovane "nogometne pravljice" (2000-2002) pa se je slovenska javnost spet obrnila k smučanju. Sami sebe Slovenci tako vidijo veliko bolj kot smučarski in ne kot nogometni narod." --

I am planning to seriously modify this section in the following days. Have a look at Germany, how the sport section is handled there. Almost no names. After all, we have a special article dedicated to sport in Slovenia. --Tone 10:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are some names in the Germany article, as well. But it's true that the focus shouldn't be on individual achievements, but rather on sports as part of the culture of the country: which ones are more popular, in which disciplines Slovenians have been most successful, etc. Names should be there only as examples or illustration. The same goes, even more, for the main Culture section: less names, more general descriptions.Viator slovenicus (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well here's something on skiing - biggest skiing euphoria was in the 1980s, with Bojan Križaj's home victory at Vitranc Cup of the 1982 Alpine Skiing World Cup in Kranjska Gora in front of record 32.000 people. (

) 07:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Velika-dvorana.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Velika-dvorana.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot -- talk ) 08:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Roma people "autochthonous ".

How are Roma people "autochthonous" to the region? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.26.110 (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I've no idea where those numbers came from, but they seem very weird to me. Here's a good source, which lists 50 largest cities/towns: http://www.stat.si/KrajevnaImena/pregledi_naselja_najvecja_prebivalci.asp I don't know how to change it (and add source), so it'd be great if someone could correct the article with correct numbers. 89.142.252.14 (talk) 11:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)