Talk:Municipalities of Slovenia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Review[edit]

  1. The list is divided into 3 columns of which the middle one is the longest. Why?
  2. What's with the "Apače (from Gornja Radgona)"? Does the "from" needs to be gone?
  3. Counting the list of municipalities I reached 208, this pages says 210, so where's the difference?
  4. On some sites: Politics of Slovenia, Slovenj Gradec and maybe others, 193 municipalities are mentioned. This should be fixed. Maybe the history of the amount of municipalities could be mentioned somewhere for completeness (193 in 2005, 210 in 2006).

--Van der Hoorn 20:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of a sensitive subject at the moment, since the formation of 27 new municipalities has been approved by the National Assembly, but they have not yet been formally established, they don't actually exist yet. These new ones are listed in italic text with the original municipality they separated from mentioned.
I also added the two missing municipalities. edolen1 14:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standardization of the lists of municipalities[edit]

There is a discussion about an eventual standardization of all the lists of municipalities. Please join here and express your opinions.--Húsönd 19:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting the whole set of municipalities[edit]

Some time ago at Slovenian WP, we realized that the present situation with articles about towns/cities and municipalities in Slovenia is not coherent. So we started creating separate articles for settlements and separate for administrative units. In some time, the same should be performed here. The work at :sl is not finished yet and I will probably wait for a while before starting with reformulations. If there are any comments, you are welcome to post them here. --Tone 23:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

good idea. XY Municipality is not the same as XY (town). UnLoCode (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Separate articles for settlements and municipalities on sl: are finished!--AndrejJ (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UN/LOCODE[edit]

the following belongs to the settlements. These are all UN/LOCODE for SI in locode edition 2007. 

UN/LOCODE:SIAJD Ajdovscina	4553N 01354E 
UN/LOCODE:SIANH Anhovo	 
UN/LOCODE:SIBNG Begunje na Gorenjskem	4622N 01412E 
UN/LOCODE:SIBLE Bled	4622N 01406E 
UN/LOCODE:SIBVC Bovec	 
UN/LOCODE:SIBRN Brnik	4613N 01429E 
UN/LOCODE:SICJE Celje	4615N 01516E 
UN/LOCODE:SICKC Cerknica	4548N 01422E 
UN/LOCODE:SICRE Crnice	4555N 01347E 
UN/LOCODE:SIDOB Dobova	4553N 01540E 
UN/LOCODE:SIDZE Domzale	 
UN/LOCODE:SIFRA Fram	4627N 01537E 
UN/LOCODE:SIGSZ Gorenja Straza	4547N 01505E 
UN/LOCODE:SIGJS Grosuplje	4557N 01439E 
UN/LOCODE:SIGRK Gruskovje	4617N 01552E 
UN/LOCODE:SIIZO Izola	 
UN/LOCODE:SIJLN Jelsane	4530N 01416E 
UN/LOCODE:SIJCE Jesenice	4625N 01404E 
UN/LOCODE:SIKNK Kamnik	 
UN/LOCODE:SIKCV Kocevje	 
UN/LOCODE:SIKOP Koper	 
UN/LOCODE:SIKST Kostanjevica na Krki	4551N 01525E 
UN/LOCODE:SIKRJ Kranj	 
UN/LOCODE:SILVS Lenart v Slovenskih Goricah	4633N 01550E 
UN/LOCODE:SILJU Ljubljana	 
UN/LOCODE:SILJR Ljutomer	 
UN/LOCODE:SILOG Logatec	4555N 01411E 
UN/LOCODE:SIMBX Maribor	 
UN/LOCODE:SIMDE Medvode	4608N 01424E 
UN/LOCODE:SIMGS Menges	4610N 01434E 
UN/LOCODE:SIMZA Mezica	4631N 01451E 
UN/LOCODE:SIMUS Murska Sobota	4640N 01610E 
UN/LOCODE:SINKO Naklo	4617N 01419E 
UN/LOCODE:SINOG Nova Gorica	4558N 01343E 
UN/LOCODE:SINMO Novo Mesto	4548N 01511E 
UN/LOCODE:SIOBR Obrezje	4552N 01540E 
UN/LOCODE:SIORZ Ormoz	4624N 01610E 
UN/LOCODE:SIPTV Petrovce	4614N 01511E 
UN/LOCODE:SIPIR Piran	 
UN/LOCODE:SIPDP Podplat	4614N 01541E 
UN/LOCODE:SIPOW Portoroz	 
UN/LOCODE:SIPOS Postojna	4547N 01410E 
UN/LOCODE:SIRNK Ravne na Koroskem	4632N 01455E 
UN/LOCODE:SIRNC Rence	4553N 01340E 
UN/LOCODE:SIRNA Ribnica	4546N 01443E 
UN/LOCODE:SIRSA Rogaska Slatina	 
UN/LOCODE:SISZA Sezana	4544N 01353E 
UN/LOCODE:SISLG Slovenj Gradec	4631N 01505E 
UN/LOCODE:SISBA Slovenska Bistrica	 
UN/LOCODE:SISLK Slovenske Konjice	4619N 01527E 
UN/LOCODE:SISMA Smarje pri Jelsah	4613N 01530E 
UN/LOCODE:SITOL Tolmin	4610N 01343E 
UN/LOCODE:SITZI Trzic	4622N 01419E 
UN/LOCODE:SITRZ Trzin	4608N 01433E 
UN/LOCODE:SIVAS Vas	4528N 01452E 
UN/LOCODE:SIVEL Velenje	 
UN/LOCODE:SIVRH Vrhnika	4558N 01417E 
UN/LOCODE:SIVUZ Vuzenica	4635N 01510E 
UN/LOCODE:SIZAL Zalec	 
UN/LOCODE:SIZEL Zelezniki	4614N 01410E 
UN/LOCODE:SIZRE Zrece  —Preceding unsigned comment added by UnLoCode (talk • contribs) 17:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article naming[edit]

Recently several municipality articles have been created. One observation is that the titles do not follow the Wikipedia house style, which is X Classname.

Compare with other articles about municipalities in Europe:

Country local name Wikipedia article X Municipality in ccTLD
Slovenia Občina Bled Municipality of Bled https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Bled%20Municipality%22+site:si
Bulgaria Община Аксаково Aksakovo Municipality https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Aksakovo%20Municipality%22+site:bg
Denmark Aalborg Kommune Aalborg Municipality https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Aalborg+Municipality%22+site:dk
Latvia Aglonas novads Aglona Municipality https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Aglona+Municipality%22+site:lv
Lithuania Kalvarijos savivaldybė Kalvarija Municipality https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Kalvarija+Municipality%22+site:lt
Macedonia Општина Богданци Bogdanci Municipality https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Bogdanci%20Municipality%22+site:mk
Montenegro Opština Andrijevica Andrijevica Municipality https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Andrijevica%20Municipality%22+site:me
Sweden Ale kommun Ale Municipality https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ale%20Municipality%22+site:se

Compare with other articles about territorial entities in Slovenia:

Group local name Wikipedia article
Municipalities Občina Bled Municipality of Bled
City district of Ljbljana Četrtna skupnost Bežigrad Bežigrad District
Statistical regions Pomurska statistična regija Pomurska Statistical Region

JelgavaLV (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed here. The pattern X Classname is apparently non-English or atypical in this case (as also would be, for example, Chicago City, Michigan Lake, Oyster Bay Town, Biscay Bay, Mexico Gulf, etc. Compare with other articles about territorial/geographical entities in Slovenia:
Group local name Wikipedia article
Municipalities Občina Beltinci Municipality of Beltinci
Cities Mestna občina Ljubljana City of Ljubljana (in lede)
Gulfs Tržaški zaliv Gulf of Trieste
Doremo (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Compare also Municipality of Anchorage and Municipality of Clarence for native English sources (in comparison to the Bulgarian, Danish, etc. models cited above). Doremo (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The pattern X Classname is apparently non-English" if that refers to countries that have English as their main language, then you said yourself "The term municipality seems not to generally be used as an administrative term in the UK or the U.S.". If that refers to English in general, this is apparently wrong if you look at the Google links for several European countries above. With respect to Anchorage and Clarence, official names are secondary for determining article titles. JelgavaLV (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't understand this comment. Doremo (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't understand yours. Cluster 1) Why is the pattern "X Municipality" apparently non-English, in your view. And what do you mean by "non-English"? Cluster 2) Why did you point to Municipality of Anchorage and to Municipality of Clarence - both articles are not named so. JelgavaLV (talk) 05:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By "apparently non-English pattern" I mean that I find the pattern "Municipality of X" in native English sources—Municipality of Anchorage (United States), Municipality of Clarence (Australia)—and that I do not find the pattern "X Municipality" in native English sources. Doremo (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. But then you said yourself - "The term municipality seems not to generally be used as an administrative term in the UK or the U.S." - so native sources might not be representative. Also there exist some "X Regional Municipality" in Canada, e.g. Northern Rockies Regional Municipality, Halifax Regional Municipality along with Regional Municipality of York. JelgavaLV (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should be determined which pattern is more typical in native English: "X Municipality" (e.g., Northern Rockies Regional Municipality) or "Municipality of X" (e.g., Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto). The former strikes me as less natural, but I do not have statistical data for that. For comparison, both "X Lake" and "Lake X" are found in native English, but "Lake X" is more frequent (thus Lake Kaņieris rather than Kaņieris Lake). It should also be noted that the pattern "Adj Noun Adj Municipality" may not be equivalent in patterning to "Municipality of Noun" (other toponyms also differ syntactically based on their complexity; cf. "the Great Salt Lake" vs. "Mud Lake", "the United States" vs. "Germany", etc.). The best comparison (for statistical analysis) would be made with native English toponyms of the "Noun Municipality" vs. "Municipality of Noun" pattern. Doremo (talk) 05:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most typical in English for territorial entities is "X Classname". The other versions come from Latin, are archaic. One can see many River X and come County X in the British Isles, but names that have been created later tend to use "X Classname". Thus, rivers and counties in the U.S. use X River and X County. Lake is a mixed case. And I contest that people did use statistical analysis of what existed to determine how to name something else. Then, there would have been no change ever in the word order. JelgavaLV (talk) 06:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that were true, we would refer to "Los Angeles City" and "London City" instead of the City of Los Angeles, the City of London, etc. It's not possible to apply a single syntactic rule to every common noun in English. Doremo (talk) 07:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I normally say New York, or New York City. I only rarely use City of New York. I say Kansas City, despite that there is the City of Kansas City. -- It's not possible to apply a single syntactic rule to every common noun in English. - no one claimed that. But the topic was your claim that "X Municipality" is apparently "non-English". JelgavaLV (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New York City (and Washington state) are different cases because of homonymy (i.e., New York state and Washington, DC). They're not applicable here. Nor is Kansas City (or Farmer City, etc.) because, like Cape Town, they are idiosyncratic names. Constructions like Cape Town cannot be used to justify expressions such as "in (the) Kamnik town", nor can constructions like Greenwich Village justify constructions like "in (the) Gunclje village." To argue your case, you need to demonstrate that X Municipality is the dominant construction in native English toponymy. Doremo (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, Sir, I don't. It is sufficient to show that the construction does not violate idiom. No need for any dominance. WP house style is to use "X Classname". Exceptions especially for geographic feature from English-native countries, exist and that is fine, you gave some examples, I gave Regional Municipality of York. But for Slovenia exceptions based on widely local native English usage do not exist. Both styles are therefore allowed, and so it is a question purely of style. JelgavaLV (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One could also contend that the construction alligator pear "does not violate idiom," but I would nonetheless recommend the dominant term avocado. Doremo (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But that is not a matter of style, these are completely different names. Not so for Municipality of X and X Municipality which can be used interchangeably. JelgavaLV (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence for X Municipality[edit]

Evidence for X Municipality in Slovenia[edit]

Google:

Municipality <municipality name>.si Count
Bled https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Bled%20Municipality%22+site:bled.si 16
Bohinj https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Bohinj+Municipality%22+site%3Abohinj.si 119
Brda https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Brda+Municipality%22+site%3Abrda.si 3
Jesenice https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Jesenice%20Municipality%22+site:jesenice.si 3220

JelgavaLV (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence for X Municipality in English speaking areas[edit]

Area Links
Northern Mariana Islands
Australia
Canada
South Africa
United States

JelgavaLV (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You therefore volunteer to fix all the category names and internal links? --Eleassar my talk 20:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. JelgavaLV (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with this style change then, unless evidence is provided that the style Municipality of X is more common than X Municipality in English. E.g. this link (referenced here) gives X Municipality as the more common form. --Eleassar my talk 21:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, I added it to the above table. JelgavaLV (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eleassar, I believe the USGS link showed that "Municipality of X" is more common. In any case, no clear evidence has been presented in this discussion that "X Municipality" is the more common form in English toponymy and no consensus was obtained. Doremo (talk) 03:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Today, the hits show the prevalence of 'Municipality of X'. Yesterday, the majority of hits were styled as 'X Municipality', but their number was much smaller. I have no explanation for this. --Eleassar my talk 08:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting for any evidence that "X Municipality" is more frequent in English toponymy than "Municipality of X". Doremo (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was addressed above and does not belong into this section, which only exists to provide evidence for "X Municipality". JelgavaLV (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frequency Evidence for Municipality of X vs. X Municipality[edit]

The discussion above showed that cases of "X Municipality" exist in native English toponymy. However, it did not show whether "X Municipality" or "Municipality of X" is the more frequent or common form (no comparisons were made). This table shows comparisons between the two patterns in native English toponymy.

Area Links Note
Australia
Canada
South Africa (WP:GOOGLE restricted to .za)

Non-English-speaking population
Non-English-speaking population

United States
  • Note: I have not given numbers in the table because many hits in the second category are false positives (e.g., for strings like "Penn Hills, Municipality of") and so precise numbers would be misleading. The symbols > and < simply refer to the numbers returned for the phrase on the first page of Google hits.

I feel that it would be appropriate to achieve broader consensus on this matter with input from additional editors before major style changes are made. Comments and additional comparative frequencies are welcome. Doremo (talk) 04:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is all interesting but it is irrelevant for the Slovenian entities, since it comes down to a question of style. The Wikipedia house style is to use "X Classname" for country subdivisions - if language allows. And language allows, as you have proven above, contrary to prior claims. Apart from that, the inner logic of the reasoning is flawed:
  • 1) Frequency for Canada is irrelevant for Australia and the United States. Frequency for Australia is irrelevant for Canada and the United States. Frequency for the United States is irrelevant for Canada and Australia.
  • 2) The ~30 Counties of the Republic of Ireland are not re-named from "County X" to "X County" in Wikipedia just because there are ~ 3,033 U.S. counties with a higher frequency on "X County".
  • 3) Even inside countries there is variation: Frequency for Ontario (-> Regional Municipality of Ottawa–Carleton) is irrelevant for Nova Scotia (-> Halifax Regional Municipality)
  • 4) That means, frequency from country A is irrelevant for the naming in country B.
  • 5) The defaults in Wikipedia are "X Classname", "X (classname)" and "X".
  • 6) You changed articles [2] that originally used "X municipality" to say "Municipality of X".
  • 7) You told other editors that "X Municipality" is grammatically incorrect [3].
  • 8) These actions made Slovenian geography articles look different from similar articles related to other countries.
  • 9) Especially different from articles on municipalities in Northern and Eastern Europe and from the Americas, and also from the vast majority of country subdivision articles.
  • 10) Maybe you can explain what your goal is/was?
To repeat - both name patterns are valid. There is freedom in choice of what to use. There is even room for "Municipality X" as shown by stat.si.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style: MOS presents Wikipedia's house style, to help editors produce articles with consistent, clear, and precise language, layout, and formatting. The goal is to make the encyclopedia easier and more intuitive to use. Consistency in language, style, and formatting promotes clarity and cohesion. - Hundreds of Wikipedia authors have decided to give preference to X Classname over Classname of X - if both patterns are possible. JelgavaLV (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My goal is natural and typical English usage. And yours? Doremo (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is "natural and typical English usage" for a language that has several dialects? And why do you provide a U.S. frequency analysis for European topics? Will you go and rename the counties if Ireland, because U.S. counties use another naming format? Typical U.S.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JelgavaLV (talk • contribs)
I don't understand the reference to Ireland. English is spoken natively in Ireland and Irish toponymy is natively English. Doremo (talk) 07:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree that native U.S. English is not relevant for naming of articles about geographic features in Ireland? JelgavaLV (talk) 07:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My goal, as far as the article naming is concerned, is stated in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style: "produce articles with consistent, clear, and precise language, layout, and formatting." And my "goal is to make the encyclopedia easier and more intuitive to use." And I believe in "Consistency in language, style, and formatting promotes clarity and cohesion." JelgavaLV (talk) 06:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the dominant pattern "Municipality of X" in native English toponymy, it is also worth noting the pattern used for municipalities of Slovenia in publications, regardless of authorship:

Municipality of X X Municipality Note
Municipality of Ljubljana (1,060) Ljubljana Municipality (63)
Municipality of Maribor (172) Maribor Municipality (20)
Municipality of Koper (171) Koper Municipality (54)
Municipality of Celje (59) Celje Municipality (8)
Municipality of Novo Mesto (19) Novo Mesto Municipality (8)
Municipality of Velenje (5) Velenje Municipality (5) Excluded false positive: Munici- pality Velenje, Municipality Črna na Koroškem
Municipality of Nova Gorica (20) Nova Gorica Municipality (8)
Municipality of Ptuj (17) Ptuj Municipality (4)
Municipality of Murska Sobota (6) Murska Sobota Municipality (3)
Municipality of Slovenj Gradec (6) Slovenj Gradec Municipality (4)

Note: Data from Google Books for city municipalities (selected for prominence), descending population order. Doremo (talk) 04:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence for X Classname in Wikipedia[edit]

A question: Where is any evidence that "Hundreds of Wikipedia authors have decided to give preference to X Classname over Classname of X"? I mean, this could be work of a few dedicated users, and it certainly seems that there is some latitude in the naming, as the counties of Ireland have been styled differently than the counties of the U.S. --Eleassar my talk 08:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is in the edit histories. I grabbed seven with respect to Slovene municipalities, see the section below. One can do so for any other set that uses X Classname. For the Slovene municipalities and "Municipality of X" it seems it is as you say: "could be work of a few dedicated users", namely basically Doremo. Of course the Irish county articles are named differently, native local usage is applied. But this WP house style overriding argument does not exist for Slovenia, where the native language is mostly Slovene as of 2013. If that changes to English one day, the Ireland exception is more relevant as a reason for deviation from MOS. JelgavaLV (talk) 05:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Belarus/raions:
  2. Belarus/voblasts/regions:
  3. Bulgaria/municipalities:
  4. Czech Republic/regions: 2004 IP creates Liberec Region [10], two edits later Caroig turns it into region article, using "Liberec Region" in intro [11]
  5. Czech Republic/districts:
  6. Estonia/counties:
  7. Estonia/parishes: 2007 Nug moves Are Commune to Are Parish [17]
  8. Latvia/municipalities: 2009 Riharcc creates Aglona municipality [18]
  9. Latvia/parishes: 2009 Philaweb creates Aglona parish, 2010 changed by same user to Aglona Parish [19]
  10. Latvia/districts:
  11. Lithuania/counties:
  12. Poland/voivodships: 2006 Lysy creates Polesie Voivodeship [24]
  13. Poland/counties: 2006 Balcer creates Leszno County [25]
  14. Russia/districts:
  15. Russia/oblasts:
  16. Russia/federal districs:
  17. Slovakia/regions:
  18. Slovakia/districts: 2006‎ Physchim62 creates Senec District [35]
  19. Sweden/counties:
  20. Sweden/municipalities: 2002 Jeronimo creates article about Ale Municipality, no move log, so that might have been the original name [40]

JelgavaLV (talk) 07:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History of Slovene municipality naming[edit]

Several editors used "X municipality" or "X Municipality". Later, a single user came in, making a drive to eliminate that kind of format, obviously bringing some users into believing that those forms are incorrect. Below are some links to document that. Since I, JelgavaLV, have been accused of beeing disruptive, this is also part of my defense. I regret that it came to this situation. If I would have known before... well, I didn't.

Time 2005 ~ 2012, seven users:

  • 15 April 2005‎ The Anome: a complete set of "X municipality, Slovenia", capitalized 2007 to "X Municipality, Slovenia": [41]
  • 1 October 2005‎ Karada: Brezovica Municipality -> redirect Brezovica Municipality, Slovenia [42]
  • 26 May 2006‎ Jklin: redirecting "Bohinj Municipality" to Bohinj (no such action for Municipality of Bohinj) [43]
    • note, only 14 December 2012 - more than six years later -‎article Municipality of Bohinj is created
  • 17 December 2008 Kaktus999: Medvode Municipality [44]
  • 19 February 2009 Kaktus999: in comment "added Log-Dragomer municipality" [45]
  • 17 April 2009‎ Yerpo: creates commons categories for dozens, maybe all then existing, municipalities, e.g.: [46]
  • 15 October 2009 LAz17: in talk "the Jesenice municipality" [47]
  • 15 September 2010 Kaktus999: "Lenart municipality" and "Lenart Municipality" [48]
  • 19 June 2012 Taavetti: creates commons category [49]

Time 2011, and especially mid 2012 to early 2013, two users convert formats, apply "Municipality of "

  • 26 February 2011 Doremo: Medvode Municipality site -> Medvode municipal site [50]
  • 23 June 2012 Eleassar: the first "Municipality of " appears in the template [51]
  • 24 June 2012 Doremo: A choice should be made between Horjul (municipality) and Municipality of Horjul - Denying Horjul Municipality/Horjul municipality [52]
  • August 2012, several articles are created by Eleassar as "Municipality of ", e.g. [53]
  • 29 January 2013 Doremo changed text from 2010 to "Municipality of Lenart" [54]

Time Feb 2013, same two users argue that the old forms are wrong, changing to only one user saying "doesn't feel intuitively natural":

  • 20 February 2013 claim: Ajdovščina municipality ... is grammatically incorrect [55]
  • ..admitting that might have been not the case "Perhaps it is not grammatically incorrect", and referring to Doremo "since he is knowledgeable in this regard" [56]
  • 20 February 2013 Doremo "The formulation the X Municipality doesn't feel intuitively natural to me." and admitting frequency is not that relevant: "I'm also comfortable with "the X Diocese" even though "the Diocese of X" is preferable as more frequent. " [57]
  • 20 February 2013 Eleassar "In any case, the formulation X municipality the correct English capitalisation." [58] - denying that one of the varieties found above is correct

Time March 2013, WP MOS invoked, English native sources provided, changes based on ILIKE undone, consistency established:

  • JelgavaLV mentions WP house style and consistency issues [59]
  • Doremo replies "This has been discussed" - pointing to a discussion where only three users talked about the format issue at hand and Doremo, maybe Eleassar, being the only to support "Municipality of X" and claiming "The pattern X Classname is apparently non-English or atypical in this case" [60]
  • JelgavaLV asks for clarification, Doremo replies "I find the pattern "Municipality of X" in native English sources (Municipality of Anchorage, Municipality of Clarence) and that I do not find the pattern "X Municipality" in native English sources." [61]
  • Doremo chooses a new method - statistical analysis - to determine the name [62]
  • JelgaveLV contests that statistical analysis is to be used for article naming [63]
  • JelgaveLV provides a list for "X Municipality" in native English sources, something Doremo could not find, listing started at: [64]
  • Eleassar asks JelgavaLV "You therefore volunteer to fix all the category names and internal links?" - JelgavaLV replies "Of course". [65]
  • Eleassar "I'm fine with this style change then, unless evidence is provided that the style Municipality of X is more common than X Municipality in English." [66]
  • Such evidence is not provided, and given that 1) several other editors used the X Municipality/X municipality format for Slovene municipality articles before, 2) other such sets in Wikipedia prefer that format for the article name, 3) Wikipedia:Manual of Style says "MOS presents Wikipedia's house style, to help editors produce articles with consistent, clear, and precise language, layout, and formatting. The goal is to make the encyclopedia easier and more intuitive to use. Consistency in language, style, and formatting promotes clarity and cohesion." and 4) Doremo is the single and only party left, proven wrong in the central claim that the format is not native English - JelgavaLV undoes all the format changes that have been implemented by Doremo.
  • Doremo then approaches Eleassar with a statement against the reputation of JelgavaLV "user JelgavaLV has made extensive changes to the Slovene municipality articles without broader consensus (there have been only three editors in the discussion)" [remember, in the discussion that Doremo pointed to only two or three users talked about this specific formatting issue - and there was only Doremo and maybe Eleassar to support the Doremo format, but Eleassar delegating to Doremo's knowledge] [67]
  • Eleassar calls the changes by JelgavaLV disruptive and writes "I suggest that you restore the original state" [68]

But when seeing all the above, one could argue, the original state is what JelgaveLV changed it to, and that it were Doremo's style changes that were disruptive and that they were based on personal feelings, violating WP:ILIKEIT Citing Doremo: "The formulation the X Municipality doesn't feel intuitively natural to me.", while JelgavaLV's changes were based on MOS and prior usage. JelgavaLV (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My changes have been based on naturalness and frequency in native English toponymy. So far no evidence has been offered that "X Municipality" is more frequent or typical in native English toponymy, whereas quite good evidence indicates that "Municipality of X" is both more frequent and more typical. I have also discussed the matter with other editors in an effort to build consensus. Making nearly 1,000 edits overnight on a single issue, as JelgavaLV did, in the middle of an active and unresolved discussion ("Does not engage in consensus building"), is disruptive, in my opinion. Failing to reply to talk page messages ("ignores community input: resists ... requests for comment") is also disruptive. Doremo (talk) 05:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are making false claims all over this page.
1) "My changes have been based on naturalness and frequency in native English toponymy" - How can this be true, if your changes were applied in 2011 and 2012 but in 2013 you say, you have not found any "X Municipality" in native English toponomy, while it has been shown to you that such usage exists? Your changes therefore either cannot have been based on the frequency, or you lied in 2013 when you said you have not found "X Municipality".
2) "I have also discussed the matter with other editors in an effort to build consensus." - You changed things before, and only afterwards, in Feb 2013 you discussed. But no one agreed that the old form was false and needed to be replaced. Only one other editor made a claim in that direction, but revoked it only a short time later. But even after that you pressed forward with your scheme.
3) "in the middle of an active and unresolved discussion" - consensus for the change was reached, only you kept the position that it should not be made. But arguing with one that always invents new reasons and never admits to have made a false claim and never apologizes for that - can go on forever. Until the end of time you can say that "doesn't feel intuitively natural to me".
4) "Does not engage in consensus building" - all my edits here and the evidences that I did provide prove this to be a libel.
5) "Failing to reply to talk page messages"
6) "ignores community input" ... all my edits here and replies given to your claim ~ "X Municipality is not native English", prove that to be a libel too. I did actively engage with your input.
JelgavaLV (talk) 07:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care so much what will be used in the end, however in my opinion a wider consensus should have been reached - more than 3 people (two knowledgeable, and me not so much) involved - before the last style change, even if I have had no objection to it. I've perceived the overnight change from 'Municipality of X' to 'X Municipality' as drastic and "in the middle of an active and unresolved discussion" too, particularly after the opposite change has been going on for years. As far as I have collaborated with Doremo, he has given grammatical advice based on arguments (which is evident from his talk page), and I have had to trust him as a native English speaker with at least a certain level of knowledge about linguistics. I acknowledge though that he may have been mistaken here. I'd suggest that an RFC is opened to gain the opinion of more editors. --Eleassar my talk 14:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I always offer opinions based on the best of my knowledge (which, of course, is the best we can do). I try to qualify statements with "apparently" or "seems to be" when appropriate. Evidence so far indicates that "X Municipality"—if not ungrammatical in modern English—nonetheless seems to be a marginal or atypical pattern in English toponymy, which is in line with my original intuition. Doremo (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Eleassar - I don't know whether Doremo and me are more knowledgeable than you. Doremo maybe is a native English speaker, but that didn't help to find sources that you and me found. I am just comparing what is done in some places in Wikipedia and what has been done here. Reading and comparing is all I did. Also checking against native English sources. You said "the opposite change has been going on for years" - the first "Municipality of " that I found - via the template - is from June 2012 [69], i.e. not even one year ago. And it is more than three years after Yerpo established "X municipality" in commons [70] and even more years after text usage of X Municipality in articles.
@Doremo - the usage of the word "municipality" as a class name in toponyms is marginal for native English countries. In Allegheny County, PA the municipalities are named X Township, X Borough, [71], i.e. Google tests may find "municipality of X" there, but in fact it will be "municipality of X Township" or so. And the article in Wikipedia is at Aleppo Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. For the entities from Eastern or Northern Europe, having class names like kommun or opstina and being locally called "opstina X"/"X kommun" the situation is different. There is the base name X and then a class name is applied to the full set. That makes the situation similar to 10%-native English country South Africa and the local municipalities in that country. A local website can be found at : http://www.stellenbosch.gov.za/jsp/home.jsp having X Municipality in large letters at the top, or at http://www.overstrand.gov.za/ having "Overstrand Municipality" in the text of the home page. So, I think for South Africans it would not be perceived as marginal to say "X Municipality". JelgavaLV (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence so far indicates that "X Municipality"—if not ungrammatical in modern English—nonetheless seems to be a marginal or atypical pattern in English toponymy, which is in line with my original intuition. Doremo (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice loop :-) I think you know where you can find the reply. JelgavaLV (talk) 06:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus building and halt of changes[edit]

As has been shown above for years the form "X Municipality" has been used. Doremo changed it, I challenged the Doremo-naming scheme [72] and informed the project. Eleassar agreed to the naming proposed by me. [73]. I started to carry out the changes. Doremo approaches Eleassar on his talk page instead of talking openly. Eleassar is impressed by Doremo's words and now thinks more feedback is needed. Doremo again goes to user talk instead of transparently putting his words for anyone to see easily at the place where the issue is discussed.

I stopped editing with respect to the formats, i.e. the Doremo formats are now still all over the articles and the format he tried to eliminate is not back at all places where he deleted it. [74]

I suggest both parties halt any changes to not waste editing time, should the result be that one of the formats shall be deleted. JelgavaLV (talk) 07:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply to the question on your talk page so that we can move forward on building consensus. Doremo (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I regard any changes as edit warring that is why I stopped changing in the middle of doing so. This applies to you and me. There was consensus for the old format, then you came with a new one. You have been partly reverted. Reversion has stop. It is time for discussion now. Hvala. JelgavaLV (talk) 08:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Dozens of WikiProjects use the format "X Classname", where Classname can be District/County/Province/Parish. In Europe the term "municipality" is used to translate words like "kommun" or opstina. Several WikiProjects use the format "X Municipality" for the corresponding entities, earliest uses dating back to at least the year 2002 [75]. For the municipalities of Slovenia the earliest use of "X Municipality" has been found in the user space in 2005 [76] and article space as redirects also in 2005 [77] and in article pages in 2008 [78].

In 2011 one user started to remove such use [79]. In mid 2012 that user together with someone whom he convinced that "X Municipality" is not English created new articles using his preferred format. Users that did use the other format have been approached with "This is grammatically incorrect", "atypical", "apparently not English". This has been contested and after the second user stepped back and said he is fine with the style change (change article names to the format that is in use since 10 years and has been found in English language sources), the change has been carried out as far as the article names are concerned.

Now the user that initiated the eliminations of "X Municipality" within WikiProject Slovenia on his own suddenly requests consensus before anything is changed. Although there was none when he changed in the first place. What shall be done now? The user that changed to the original format has stop any edits with respect to the format. JelgavaLV (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal has already been made that the recent mass edits be reverted, and that a request for comment be made for more editors' opinions in order to achieve consensus among the broader community as a basis for the name format. Doremo (talk) 08:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

A user has expressed a preference for a proposal regarding recent editing behavior to be discussed at this page rather than at the user's talk page. I have therefore copied the original proposal and reposted it here:

Based on advice from another editor that has been involved in the discussion on Slovene municipality names, I'd like to suggest that you revert your recent edits related to this topic because they were made without broader consensus; the large number of edits without broader community input and without resolution of the ongoing discussion may have been disruptive. (If you agree, I can also help you revert the changes.) After the changes are reverted, it would be appropriate for you or me to post a request for comment for more editors' opinions. Once consensus has been achieved among the broader community, that should be the basis for the name format. [Original signature: Doremo (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)] Doremo (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
JelgavaLV, you commented that "if I had known my changes are not welcome at that point in time, I would not have performed them". I think this would be a good basis for reverting the disputed mass changes, as proposed, and then posting a request for comment in order to achieve consensus and resolve this issue. Doremo (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no objection to this proposal since it was made five days ago, so I will start reverting the disputed changes (as suggested by another editor), and I will then post a request for comment. It will take some time because of the massive number of changes. Doremo (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The disputed changes have been reverted. At this point, given that 1) "Municipality of X" is the more frequent form in native English toponymy, 2) "Municipality of X" is the more frequent form used in Slovenian sources in English, 3) The sole editor advocating the other pattern has been inactive, and 4) A lack of community interest in this discussion, it does not seem constructive to post a request for comment on the matter. I have no objection to anyone else posting a request for comment. Doremo (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

City municipality/Town municipality[edit]

Imo, the section 'City municipalities' should be renamed to 'Town municipalities', because the word 'mesto' is translated as 'town' in official translations.[80] See also the usage here and a previous discussion in regard to the usage of the terms 'town' and 'city'. Opinions? --Eleassar my talk 07:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The way that a Slovenian authority suggests translating a term has little or no relevance for its appropriateness in English. I have no particular objection to "town municipality" (although "city municipality" is at least as natural). However, "urban municipality" seems more natural than both of them. Without a better reason for change, the term might as well remain "city municipality" for now. Doremo (talk) 10:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Urban municipality would be ok too. In particular, in the discussion linked above we have agreed to use the word 'town' for 'mesto', as User:Kaktus999 claimed that the word 'city' is inappropriate for settlements such as Trebnje and other similar. Then, another problem is how to differentiate the larger central settlements that do not have the official status of the town (e.g. Kanal, Trzin) from villages - the word 'village' reminds one of farms with animals, and these are all quite urbanized now. Wouldn't it be the best to use the words 'city' for the settlement that have been officially recognised as 'mesto' (I think there are about 60 of them), 'town' for the rest of larger central settlements, and 'village' for the rest? Or what would you suggest? --Eleassar my talk 11:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it is felt that there is a need for a change, urban municipality would neatly avoid the entire town/city mess, which is largely based on local custom and local legislation rather than any universal denotative standard. A British English speaker once told me "there are no cities in Slovenia," which was fair enough from his point of view, although not a universal view. Doremo (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much (probably most) of the English world has little interest in whether Slovenian legislation has formally declared a particular settlement a mesto, and rigidly applying an English-language city/town distinction (which is associated with royal declarations, population criteria, cathedral locations, and other obscure criteria that vary from place to place) is probably misleading. It's an emic and etic issue; from the emic (Slovene) perspective, mesto status is significant. From the etic (English and other) perspective, it's of secondary interest at best. Doremo (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even more important than the particular terminology, what exactly differentiates the city municipalities from the regular ones as it concerns the governance of these units? Or, is it simply an additional title, but with no special rights? Also, "local communities" and "districts" are mentioned in passing, but little attention or description is given to what they are. Are these simply statistical measurements of settlements within the municipalities? If so, what is the difference between the two? Are districts in city municipalities and local communities in regular municipalities? Thanks in advance for answering these questions. --Criticalthinker (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sl-145[edit]

Hey, I noticed in the article that the numbers skip over 145 in the list, and the numbers go up to 213 instead of 212.

See the explanation at ISO 3166-2:SI. Doremo (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Table municipalities before 1994 and after 1995[edit]

Is there a table showing which of the 147 municipalities after 1995 should be grouped to recreate the 62 municipalities until 1994?-- Bancki (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do the upravne enote (plural)[1] correspond with the 62 municipalities until 1994 (with the 5 Ljubljana municipalities merged in one upravna enota)?--

References

  1. ^ [1] p. 10-13
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Municipalities_of_Slovenia&oldid=1202068901"