Slovenia Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Slovenia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Slovenia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SloveniaWikipedia:WikiProject SloveniaTemplate:WikiProject SloveniaSlovenia articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. WikiProject Slovenia to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks you can do (watch): Requests: Jože Tisnikar (sl), Protestant Reformation in the Slovene Lands (sl), Metlika black (sl) Wikify: Russia–Slovenia relations Unreferenced: Inner Carniola, Litostroj, Pavel Golia, Predjama Castle Cleanup: Edvard Ravnikar, Škofja Loka, Inex-Adria Aviopromet Flight 1308 Expand: Education in Slovenia Stubs: Ajdovi žganci, Čop Street, Omar Naber, Radenska NPOV: Gregorij Rožman, Siddharta (band) Portal maintenance: Update News, Did you know, announcements, and suggest Selected article and picture Help assess the quality of 90 unassessed articles Take/Add requested photographs

I don't agree with the inclusion of the Bežigrad and Poljane High School. It seems redundant to cite all high schools of Ljubljana in the template as they are too numerous, but on the other side it is unfair to include just these two. In the same manner there is also no need to include particular faculties and academies of the University in Ljubljana. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 22:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Culture?? --AndrejJ (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

this template is a mess! andyzweb (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've tried to improve it, feel welcome to continue my work. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The term quarter community is used by reliable and respected sources and organisations.[1]].[2][3][4] etc. (see [5]) I don't see a particular reason not to use it as the most specific and most informative term for this kind of entities. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the references. However, they don’t legitimize the term “quarter community” (which I would understand in English as “četrtina skupnostni”, not the intended “četrtna skupnost”). Specifically: 1) The first reference is based on a source written by Slovenians [Baclija and Brezovšek 2006]; 2) The second reference is the one already cited above (a non-native source); 3) The third reference also appears to be nonnative and written about Slovenia; 4) The fourth and fifth references are all Slovenian websites.

The point is, I don’t think any native speaker of English would ever use the term “quarter community,” and I also don’t think that the subdivisions of Ljubljana are so unique that they can’t be described using some normal English term (like district, neighborhood, borough, ward, etc.) rather than one apparently never used in an English context or by native English speakers. In the case of Ljubljana I’d favor “district” for a larger or more formal subdivision and “neighborhood” for a smaller or informal subdivision.

I’d welcome some additional comment on this by other editors. Doremo (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The četrtna skupnost subdivisions are not only characteristic of Ljubljana, but also of other city municipalities in Slovenia - per the Local Self-Government Act. The word district is ambiguous, it could mean okrožje - see [6], and the word district community has been used in a translation of the Local Elections Act as a translation for krajevna skupnost. An alternative per it would be urban community. [7] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm also uncomfortable with "community"; it feels more sociological (and not very administrative) to me. I'd still welcome broader discussion of this. I don't think the okrožje polysemy is necessarily a problem. "District" still sound quite natural to me; 40 million hits is pretty good. Doremo (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've found a fine source naming četrtne skupnosti in Ljubljana as districts,[8] so it seems ok then to use the term. However, the source also uses the term district authority - what do you think about it? Probably, it should be used in cases where a legal/administrative term is needed. The question still remains how to differentiate četrtna skupnost from krajevna skupnost - Maribor has both. The term local community seems to be used as a translation of krajevna skupnost; of course it doesn't include the word authority, so there seems to be some artificial distinction. Another word is parish, where again a polysemy appears. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do they mean by "district authority"; is it some kind of district council or district board? "Authorities" works well when not specifying the exact body (e.g., "the wartime authorities", "the German authorities"). I'm OK with "local community" for krajevna skupnost (subdivision of an občina 'municipality'), but it would be good to have someone else second that (there's always the clear danger of a native speaker accepting a term simply through constant repetition). If the četrtna skupnost is exclusively urban, then I don't see a problem with "city district" (more common) or "town/urban district" (less common). I'm not familiar enough with the Maribor situation to be able to offer an intelligent opinion on it. Parish is best reserved for church administration (Louisiana aside). Doremo (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know why parish should be reserved for church administration, except for Louisiana. There is an article parish and it certainly seems like a much used term for administrative divisions similar to 'krajevna skupnost' in different European countries (like Ireland, Latvia, Portugal, Romania). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These appear to be at least etymologically derived from 'parish' even if their modern semantics have departed from ecclesiastical usage. If the divisions in question were termed krajevne fare/župnije or farne/župnijske skupnosti then the term parish might justifiably be used. Doremo (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What was the basis for the recent change (putting š words in front of s words) of the alphabetic order? I see that the words are ordered as if there would be no diacritics, but am not sure what source prescribes or describes this as the correct or standard order. For example, this source (section: 1.4.6. LC_COLLATE Rationale) describes the alphabetisation as prescribed by the Canadian Standards Association, which differs from the one used, and also from the Slovene alphabet. I see it could be based e.g. on European Ordering Rules pre-standard,[9] but am nonetheless asking for a confirmation or an explanation about this. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

English doesn't differentiate between s/š etc. and English lists treat these as the same character because readers don't differentiate them. Many users of English WP don't speak Slovene, so using Slovene alphabetization rules doesn't seem logical. Doremo (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By way of comparison, in Lithuanian the order is "... h i y j k ..." but it wouldn't make sense to list Lithuanian people or places with -y- before -j- in a non-Lithuanian-language list. Doremo (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another example: Czech has "... g h ch i í j ..." but English speakers (and probably all non-Czechs) will look for Cheb in the "C" section, not between "H" and "I". Doremo (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Slovene example (published by an English-language publisher): see page 444 (Šušteršič) here Doremo (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also the listing here, in which c = č (page 9), a = å (page 15), l = ł (page 23), a = ä (page 30), ş = s (page 76), z = ž (page 91), etc. An English list that tried to follow non-English alphabetization would be chaotic, sometimes putting "ch" after "h", sometimes with "c", etc., and no English speaker would expect to have to look in several different places for words that start with the "same" letter. Doremo (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The source cited above in the original question (1.4.6. LC_COLLATE Rationale) also proscribes standard English alphabetization (i.e., ignoring diacritics and capitals). Doremo (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

English WP's DEFAULTSORT also behaves the standard English way ("Accented letters and ligatures should be replaced by their unaccented or separated counterparts"); for example "DEFAULTSORT:Saric, Aleksandar" (not "DEFAULTSORT:Šarić, Aleksandar") Doremo (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem regarding DEFAULTSORT is that the software doesn't support sorting by diacritics in all cases yet - so this is a temporary solution. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But how would one sort a list containing English, Slovene, Czech, Danish, etc. names by following all individual language rules simultaneously? (It would look like this: a, æ ... c ch č d e f g ch i y j ... x y z ž æ) I think the only possible answer would be to use English ordering (i.e., ignoring diacritics and capitals) for lists intended for English readers. Doremo (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are entries that differ in only one letter, both articles having this letter written with a diacritic. In this case, it would make sense to sort by diacritics as well. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In that case, a very functional sorting pattern for English readers would be "... ba be ... ca ča ce če ... ra re ... sa ša se še ..." (i.e., basic English 26-letter alphabetization with diacritics following otherwise (rare) identical words; for example: "... Savinšek, Šavli, Savnik, Šavnik, Ščap, Sedej ..."). Doremo (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I meant for example Milič and Milić - what comes first, and similar cases. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hopefully, I'll never encounter many like that. :-) I'd probably make the choice arbitrarily based on my own linguistic experience (č ć) or, failing that, by looking at something like the Latin insert subset at the bottom of the edit page (c ć ċ ĉ č ç) or the order in MS Word (c ç ć ĉ ċ č) and just follow that. Whatever choice one makes, it will surely violate the alphabetization pattern of some other language somewhere (for example, Belarusian Łacinka has c ć č but the Sorbian alphabet has c č ć, like Croatian). Unless the list were enormous, with many repeating names, an English reader probably wouldn't notice an inconsistency. Doremo (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should links to non-existent articles such as Ljubljana Sugar Factory, Kolizej etc. be added? --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 11:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd support the inclusion of the links to the most essential articles that will probably be created some day, although you are encouraged to write these articles first (even if they are stubs); see WP:NAV#Properties. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]