Talk:Slovenia

Latin Europe

Hello Slovenia! There is a vote going on at Latin Europe that might interest you. Please everyone, do come and give your opinion and votes. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

External links

Are all the external links really necessary? I'll take a look later to see which ones we can get rid of. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A banner on the talk page of France says: "Only external links pertaining to France as a whole, or official government of France links are solicited on this page. Please add other links in their respective articles." This seems reasonable to me for Slovenia too. External links should be kept to a minimum according to WP:EL. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have taken several links out. Feel free to say if you think a particular link should be readded. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines for editing the Slovenia article

I have added some guidelines for editing the Slovenia article (copied from Talk:France) to the top. Any comment is welcome. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Two map optional display

Infobox Country

Scotland  (English / Scots) Alba  (Gaelic)
Flag Royal Coat of Arms
Motto: [Nemo me impune lacessit] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)  (Latin) "No one provokes me with impunity" "Cha togar m' fhearg gun dìoladh"   (Scottish Gaelic) '"Wha daur meddle wi me?"'  (Scots)1
Anthem: (Multiple unofficial anthems)
Location of Slovenia (orange) in the United Kingdom (camel)
Location of Slovenia (orange) in the European Union (camel)
Capital	Edinburgh
Largest city	Glasgow
Official languages	English
Recognised regional languages	Gaelic, Scots1
Demonym(s)	Scot, Scots and Scottish²
Government	Constitutional monarchy
ISO 3166 code	GB-SCT

Hello Slovenia!!! I have something that may interest contributers for this page. In a nut shell, it allows the option to display two maps in your info box, one could be a close up of Slovenia, and another would be Slovenia in a wider European or Balks context. This is an example that was being discussed on Scotland's talk page (though I think they have rejected a two map option). Prior to now no one knew that you could have two maps displayed in the info box. For 'smallish' counties the benifits are easy to graps, an up-close view of the country, and a wider contextual visualisation of the country. Dydd da!!

PS: This is an example from the Scotland page, please do not be offended that I display the Scotland info box here. It is only ment as an example.

External links again

So User:MaNeMeBasat "cleaned up the mess" in this section by re-adding subheaders and an external link to GeaBios.

1. GeaBios, if relevant, belongs in the see also section. It should not be externally linked.
2. Subheaders aren't necessary when there are only six or so links. It's easy to consider them discretely already.
3. Official links should still go first.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree about subheaders. About relevancy, we discussed about that, see: Archive 1. About Official links, from my point of view, the Government link is more important then the geographical overview, and the landmarks disappeared (that's why I used the word mess), maybe I'm wrong. But I don't know what's going on with the Scottish box nearby (subtitled Slovenia). --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 08:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've hidden the template in question. I'm now going to remove the subheaders and move GeaBios back into the "see also" list. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think GeaBios is relevant enough for this article to be listed in the 'See also' section. The article describing it does not deepen the reader's understanding of this article's subject (Slovenia) as imo the items listed in the 'see also' section should. I'll remove it till a consensus about its inclusion is formed.

On the other side, I think one of the interactive online collections of maps of Slovenia should be listed in the 'External links' section as it provides the ability to explore Slovenia. That's why I left GeaBios there when cleaning this section up some months ago. If it's not specific enough, I propose some other map collection is used (e.g. Geopedia.si) --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Eleasar that geabios goes to external links (not see also). I suppose that GeaBios (in english language) is more usefull than Geopedia in slovenian language for this article. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Last sentence in intro

The 'only former communist country' sentence will need to be modified 1 January 2009 when Slovakia joins the Eurozone. Just an early heads-up. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 13:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate intro

From the intro: "Slovenia is the only country once to have formed a part of a socialist state to be at the same time a member of the European Union, the Eurozone, the Schengen area, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the Council of Europe and NATO."

This is no longer true, is it? Romania and Bulgaria were also socialist states, for example - not to mention the DDR. Of course this does say "part of a socialist state," which the first two don't meet as they were in entirety, and the last doesn't as it was only part of a current state. This, to me, calls into question whether the distinction is significant enough to warrant a paragraph in the intro. Further, it's been pointed out that this is about to change regardless with the accession of Slovakia.

So the question is whether this paragraph is worth keeping. To me it seems trivial, not worthy of the very intro of the article. Even if it is technically true for now, it is only because of very narrow definitions. I propose striking it.--96.242.156.9 (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

So far, the only ex-socialist country that is a member of the Eurozone (in other words: uses the euro) is Slovenia. Slovakia will be the second one when they join next year, but until then the paragraph you mentioned is correct. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph mentions more than just the Eurozone, though. I quote again: "the European Union, the Eurozone, the Schengen area, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the Council of Europe and NATO."

Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Romania, Hungary, and Slovakia already meet some of these criteria alone - all are members of OSCE, for example. So, it is only technically accurate because the definition is so narrow, and because it sidesteps the issue of East Germany. That's why I question whether this paragraph is notable enough for the intro.--96.242.156.9 (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the information that Slovenia was formerly a socialist republic, but is now part of these western organizations and has adopted euro is notable enough to be included in the lead section. These are its defining characteristics much more than the many facts listed in the second paragraph. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it's significant enough to warrant inclusion, in light of Slovenia being the 'front runner' of all the European post-socialist states and usually being the first or among the first to be accepted to various organizations or to reach certain development goals. However, as pretty much all of the other states have more or less caught up with it in many aspects, this paragraph should be removed after 1. January 2009. 80.95.238.95 (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)