Talk:Carinthia Statistical Region

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Koroška statistical region)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Slovenia (Rated Stub-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Koroška vs Carinthia[edit]

Koroška statistical region, might be a half English and half Slovene mishmash, as commented by the last editor, but it is still what is used officially in the English version of the source ... none of the other regions are translated (Jugovzhodna Slovenija, Notranjsko-Kraška ...), so I really think it should stay as Koroška ... Carinthia is used in other articles relating to Carinthia. I have added the same comment on the talk page of the user who reverted the last edit. Kaktus999 (talk) 06:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm very uncomfortable with "Koroška" as an English speaker; the relevant EU page (http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/nuts/codelist_en.cfm?list=nuts) only gives endonyms, but this doesn't force us to say "Belgique" OR "België" in English; it's still just "Belgium". (Similarly, only "Bayern" is given there, but it's just "Bavaria" to us English speakers). The only official name of the Carinthia statistical region given is "Koroška statistična regija". Using names like "Jugovzhodna Slovenija" in English is even worse -- they actually mean something very mundane (in this case, "southeast Slovenia") that is very clear and transparent to Slovenian speakers, but opaque to non-Slovenian speakers. As such, an expression like "Jugovzhodna Slovenija statistical region" fails to communicate in English what is obvious to the Slovenian speaker. (Sort of like writing "gibanica" on a menu and hoping that the English speaker will just understand it somehow.) Functionally, these kinds of names represent loss of semantic information in moving from the source language to the target language.Doremo (talk) 08:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you entirely on the semantics, but you either translate all the names of statistical regions or none. Mundane as the meanings may be, these are the names given for the statistical regions. Perhaps their meaning in English can be given in the lead.Kaktus999 (talk) 08:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your suggestion that they all be translated. Of course, the English articles should present the Slovenian names too (like "Lake Bohinj (Slovene: Bohinjsko jezero)", "Ljubljana Castle (Slovene: Ljubljanski grad)", and so on). That way users will have the original names available as well as a semantically clear name. I can start working on this later today.Doremo (talk) 08:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
This is not exactly what I suggested. What I said was that you either translate all or none. To me Inner Carniola - Carstic region or the Savinja region is just as awkward and meaningless as Notranjsko Kraška region or Savinjska region ... what I suggest is that the meaning in English be given after the official name in the lead ... perhaps comments from others can help us decide a standard. Kaktus999 (talk) 12:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see the comment on this page before I launched into it tonight. "Savinja Region" sounds nice to me -- it just means the "region around the Savinja" (like the Thames region, Mississippi region, etc.). It's quite natural sounding in English -- like "Ljubljana Castle" (and not "Ljubljanski castle") or "Lake Bled" (and not "Lake Blejsko"). ˙(I wouldn't used "c/karstic" -- Slovenians tend to use it to correspond to the adjective "kraški", but English tends to use a bare denominal modifier; e.g., "karst landscape".) Anyhow, as long as the Slovenian name is also available (like "The Bank of Slovenia (Slovene: Banka Slovenije)", Postojna Cave "(Slovene: Postojnska jama)", etc.) people should be satisfied because the pattern matches most other English-language articles on Slovenia.Doremo (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
OK. As I said before, I agree on the semantics. I never questioned Lake Bled, Ljubljana Castle or Postojna Cave ... this was a slightly different issue as the mishmashy name appears in the source and was not something I translated ... I was also not doubting the grammar when I said it was awkward (Central Sava?) ... with the Savinja region etc (as a near random example from the list of Slovenian regions), what I was getting at is that word Savinja, to someone who has never heard of the river, is pretty meaningless ... but then that is what Wikipedia is for aye? ;) Kaktus999 (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
But what does Savinja mean in any case? It would also be completely meaningless to someone speaking Slovene if he did not know in advance it was a river. --Eleassar my talk 09:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Renaming request[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)



Koroška Statistical RegionCarinthia Statistical Region – The traditional region has been renamed to Carinthia (Slovenia) (because it is widely known under this name in the English sources) and it only makes sense to completely translate names of geographical features. This way, the name is clear and understandable. By the way, there is no official English name. Eleassar my talk 09:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Question - given that "Koroška Statistical Region" occurs in the government's previous English statistical publications,such as Andrej Gulič Regional spatial plan of the Koroška statistical region 2006, can you please provide some evidence that the government has changed the name of the statistical region in English? Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Also a technical issue can you please remove pipelink from nomination: [Carinthia (Slovenia)|Carinthia]. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Done. Otherwise, I don't think we should put too much emphasis on the governmental English translations. The government has not standardised the English names of statistical regions in its publications, and the governmental institutions use all sorts of names. E.g. the Slovenian Environment Agency (ARSO) uses completely English names ([1], [2]), whereas here or here mixed names have been used. --Eleassar my talk 11:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree with Eleassar here; unfortunately, there is too much inconsistency (and also far too many grammatical and spelling errors) in English material produced by the Slovene government to look to it as an authoritative guide for English usage. Doremo (talk) 11:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The official name is not that relevant. There is some freedom on what to use in the English Wikipedia, compare Burma and the Republic of the Union of Myanmar. The strongest restrictions to the freedom are the Wikipedia policies and conventions. I don't see a policy or convention that mandates a rename. Several instances of untranslated geographic feature names exist. JelgavaLV (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I would like to see a policy for "it only makes sense to completely translate names of geographical features" - a claim that looks like WP:ILIKEIT - and then I would like to see how that is implemented on River Tyne or other items at List of tautological place names. Additionally Wikipedia has several non-tautological examples of not translating "completely": Big Jažinačko Lake, Namtso, Zabaykalsky Krai, Oktyabrsky District, Primorsky Krai, Neustadt, Westerwaldkreis. JelgavaLV (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I am not generally opposed to translate it, but I would like to see a policy. JelgavaLV (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Changing to Support as the letter š is not contained in the English alphabet. I have never seen a /common name/ to contain such a letter. Which English language newspaper has it? JelgavaLV (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Using English forms would correspond to what has already been done in terms of translated English forms for the Czech Republic (e.g., South Moravian Region not Jihomoravský Region), Russia (e.g., Southern Federal District not Yuzhny Federal District), and Hungary (e.g., Northern Hungary not Észak-Magyarország Region), as well as in terms of reduction to base forms for Poland (e.g., Aleksandrów County not Aleksandrowski County), Slovakia (e.g., Trnava Region not Trnavský Region), Finland (e.g., Oulu sub-region not Oulun sub-region), and so on (to cite examples of inflecting languages). Doremo (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment - And for hundreds of others it hasn't been done. Where is the policy or convention? JelgavaLV (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm neutral on the move, but if moved it does need to have the "(Slovenia)", as the better-known Carinthia is in Austria. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I would have no objection to Carinthia Statistical Region (Slovenia) if it is felt that disambiguation is needed. Comparable parallels include the articles "History of the Jews in Galicia (Eastern Europe)" and "List of people from Galicia (Eastern Europe) (modern period)". Doremo (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I find such a disambiguation completely redundant. AFAIK, there is only one statistical region with this name. --Eleassar my talk 20:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Per WP:PRECISION "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that.". JelgavaLV (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
That would be fine if it was clear what a "statistical region" was from the context of the article title. However, this is not the case. Anyone reading it would think of a generic "statistical region" and would be more likely to place that in Austria. It is certainly not clear from the article title or from common knowledge that a "statistical region" in this instance specifically refers to a sub-division of Slovenia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Any examples where this would cause confusion? --Eleassar my talk 17:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Common sense! -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I think general practice would favor non-disambiguation here. For example, Cambridge is ambiguous, but there are articles on the Cambridge Poetry Festival and Cambridge Airport (both UK); Cambridge Aerodrome (Tasmania); the Cambridge Center, Cambridge Public Library, and Cambridge Hospital (all Massachusetts); and the Cambridge Reporter and Cambridge Centre (both Ontario), all without disambiguation. Doremo (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.