Talk:Styria (Slovenia)

Proposal for name change: Slovenian Styria instead of Lower Styria

In Slovenia, the historical denomination Lower Sytria has fallen into disuse already after 1918. Nowadays, it is an absolute anachronysm. Nobody in Slovenia would say 'Lower Styria' to refer to the Slovenian portion of the region. I therefore propose that it be redirected to Slovenian Styria, in order to distinguish it from the Austrian State of Styria. Viator slovenicus (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Just for argument's sake: Isn't totally irrelevant in the English WP wether or not they use a term in Slovenia? In Austria, and it was Austrian very, very long, "Unter..."(= Lower) is still used - which, of course, is just as irrelevant. But: "Styria" isn' t used in either country, anyway; it's either "Štajerska" or "(Unter-)Steiermark". Thus, if a change of name appears necessary, I'd suggest the local name of a place or area, not a translation. On the other hand, to quote WP:Naming conventions: "If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain" - which in the case of Yangon and other recent changes is blatantly ignored. --Marschner (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a good reason to change. As you have pointed out, the denomination 'Lower Styria' is only mirroring an exclusively Austrian usage. Following the example of the article Slovenian Carinthia, I believe we should move the article to Slovenian Styria. Viator slovenicus (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Viator slovenicus. However, I wonder whether the title should be 'Slovene Styria' or 'Slovenian Styria'. Per recent talk, the distinction between Slovenian and Slovene on the basis of nationality (pertaining to the country) vs. ethnicity (pertaining to the language) is artificial, and the stylistically preferred form is Slovene. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Marschner is correct that Slovene practice is irrelevant for English WP. "Lower Styria" is probably the most precise term as a traditional geographical designation (and there are also ethnic Slovenes in Austrian Styria, and so that is not "non-Slovene Styria," strictly speaking). If it is felt that there is a need for a move, I suggest the equally accurate "Styria (Slovenia)"; compare Carinthia (Slovenia), Macedonia (Greece), Galicia (Spain), Galicia (Eastern Europe). This also avoids the Slovene/Slovenian problem. Doremo (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Should Slovenian Littoral therefore be moved to 'Littoral (Slovenia)' or should Carinthia (Slovenia) be moved to 'Slovene Carinthia'? Is it possible to establish that "Lower Styria" is the most often used term in English sources? I find the style 'X (Slovenia)' cumbersome when used in the titles of categories; e.g. 'Churches in the Slovene Styria' sounds much more elegant than 'Churches in Styria (Slovenia)'. On the other hand, 'Lower Styria' would be ok for me, as it may be compared to 'Upper Carniola' and 'Lower Carniola'. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a frequent pattern of "adjective Littoral" in article titles: Austrian Littoral, Croatian Littoral, Montenegrin Littoral, Pontic littoral, Argentine littoral. Also, littoral is a generic term that may be incorporated into a proper noun, whereas Styria and Carinthia are already proper nouns. So I think that "Styria (Slovenia)" would not necessitate "Littoral (Slovenia)", although I would have no objection to that either.

I also agree that "Churches in Slovene Styria" is more elegant than "Churches in Styria (Slovenia)." However, I don't find the latter problematic; compare the categories "Category:Visitor attractions in Galicia (Spain)," "Category:People from Carinthia (state)," "Category:Archaeology of Macedonia (Greece)," "Category:Culture of Georgia (country)," "Category:Health in Georgia (U.S. state)," etc. Categories with these structures appear to be very common. I also have no objection to retaining "Lower Styria." Doremo (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Judged by a (quick) look at Google books, the term 'Lower Styria' seems to be the predominant one. Another possibility would be 'South Styria'. Unfortunately, I don't know the connotations of these terms. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

"South Styria" appears ambiguous to me; many (but not all) of the sources using the term are referring to the southern part of the Austrian state of Styria. Doremo (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Lower Styria seems more to be used as a historical term and South Styria predominantly refers to the southern part of the Austrian state. It would probably be best to play the safe card and use 'Styria (Slovenia)'. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that the map caption in the article be simplified to: "1 Littoral; 2 Carniola: a Upper, b Inner, c Lower; 3 Carinthia; 4 Styria; 5 Prekmurje." This would be easier to read and the more detailed specifications are clear in the articles. It also better reflects the emic perspective (i.e., Slovenes call the region Štajerska rather than Slovenska Štajerska) and is in line with maps of, say, Spain not writing "Galicia (Spain)" or of the Caucasus not writing "Georgia (country)." Doremo (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

From this point of view, it would also make sense to move 'Slovenian Littoral' to 'Littoral (Slovenia)', because the Slovene name is 'Primorska', not 'Slovensko Primorje'. What's used in the English sources? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Many English sources on the topic using the term simply refer to "the Littoral" without making a disambiguation (e.g., here and here) because it's already contextualized. Otherwise, Slovenian Littoral (92 hits) and Slovene Littoral (93 hits) are both common in running text. However, running text is pragmatically different from an article title, which could certainly be "Littoral (Slovenia)." Doremo (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll think about it and probably propose the move at 'Talk:Slovenian Littoral'. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for name change: Pannonia instead of Prekmurje

As noticed you are using latin names for (traditional) regions of Slovenia based on names of Roman provinces, their subregions or derived medieval names of particular lands and territories. Consequently it is advisable to use the expression Slovenian (or West) Pannonia for Prekmurje. The name Prekmurje is hard to pronounce in English due to different ways of how particular letters are read and pronounced. The name (Slovenian or West) Pannonia itself is historically legitimate and adequate. The word Prekmurje names the region with special aspect of 'a territory over the river', which is hard to translate. It's a sort of a toponym based on the river as natural barrier between the NE region and mainland and it does not really denominate the land itself. Funnily the mainland may be referred as Prekmurje, too. It just depends on which bank do you stand. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pannonia --1defacto (talk) 00:49, 02 November 2016 (UTC)

The commonly used English name is Prekmurje. This issue should not be discussed here; it belongs on the Prekmurje page. Doremo (talk) 03:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Number of ethnic Germans

Why is the proportion of "ethnic Germans" (actually many were from generations of Slovenians but just spoke German as well as Slovene) mentioned in 1910 up to 1940 but not after the war. I know it's not a pleasant subject which anyone in the west or in Slovenia/Yugoslavia likes to talk about, but I think if anyone has any data, the number will probably turn out close to 0%, because they all either fled or were executed. Here's a mass grave "found" in 2010. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/slovenia/7989567/Mass-grave-of-700-people-found-in-Slovenia.html Anybody who knows anything about Slovenia, knows most Slovenes of a certain age know about these killings. Even in the article officials admit they knew about the grave, just thought it was "only" 100 or 200, so presumably not worth worrying about too much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.108.110 (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)