Talk:Municipalities of Slovenia

message: 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)
thread_title: Standardization of the lists of municipalities

message: 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)
replies: text: good idea. XY Municipality is not the same as XY (town). UnLoCode (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Separate articles for settlements and municipalities on sl: are finished!--AndrejJ (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting the whole set of municipalities 

message: 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)
thread_title:  UN/LOCODE 

message: ====Evidence for X Municipality in Slovenia====
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)
replies: text: You therefore volunteer to fix all the category names and internal links? --Eleassar my talk 20:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. JelgavaLV (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for the link, I added it to the above table. JelgavaLV (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Evidence for X Municipality

message: 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)
thread_title: Evidence for X Municipality in Slovenia

message: Area                    	Links
Northern Mariana Islands	
*http://www.fema.gov/cis/MP.html Tinian Municipality / SAIPAN MUNICIPALITY / ROTA MUNICIPALITY / Northern Islands Municipality
*https://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Northern+Islands+Municipality%22+%22Rota+Municipality%22+site%3Amp
Australia               	
* https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Municipality%22+site%3Agov.au+-%22municipality+of%22+-%22regional+municipality%22
* https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Municipality%22+site%3Atrove.nla.gov.au+-%22municipality+of%22+-%22regional+municipality%22
** e.g. Clarence Municipality http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/8794621
Canada                  	
* http://www.bimbc.ca/ Bowen Island Municipality
* Several regional municipalities
** Northern Rockies Regional Municipality
** Halifax Regional Municipality
South Africa            	
* https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Municipality%22+site%3Aza+-%22municipality+of%22+-%22regional+municipality%22
United States           	
*http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=132:2:3899364882418281::NO:RP::
JelgavaLV (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You therefore volunteer to fix all the category names and internal links? --Eleassar my talk 20:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. JelgavaLV (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for the link, I added it to the above table. JelgavaLV (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Evidence for X Municipality in English speaking areas

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Evidence for X Classname in Wikipedia

message: As has been shown above for years the form "X Municipality" has been used. Doremo changed it, I challenged the Doremo-naming scheme  and informed the project. Eleassar agreed to the naming proposed by me. . 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. 
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Consensus building and halt of changes

message: 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 . For the municipalities of Slovenia the earliest use of "X Municipality" has been found in the user space in 2005  and article space as redirects also in 2005  and in article pages in 2008 .
In 2011 one user started to remove such use . 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Proposal

message: Imo, the section 'City municipalities' should be renamed to 'Town municipalities', because the word 'mesto' is translated as 'town' in official translations. 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: City municipality/Town municipality

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sl-145 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Table municipalities before 1994 and after 1995