Talk:Ljubljana

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

The main photo[edit]

I preferred the previous one... This one isn't that nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.176.204.60 (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Tribes[edit]

The tribes mentioned in this article are not consistent with articles elsewhere in Wikipedia. I don't know which articles are incorrect, but the Yapodi seemed to be further to the SE, the Taurisci further north, and the Letobici are not mentioned at all. 67.168.59.171 (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laburus[edit]

I'm asking because I don't know: is there proof that Laburus was an old Slavonic deity? May have been pre-Slavic. Alexander 007 09:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymus Ravenniensis records the names of the Ljubija and Ljubljanica rivers as Lebra and Elebra (IMO, the latter are less likely to be Latinizations of Slavic forms, but rather records of pre-Slavic forms). Ljubljana may also derive from a pre-Slavic (non-Slavic) form beginning with *Leb-, later associated by folk etymology with Slavonic ljubiti. Alexander 007 10:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main square[edit]

Isn't the main square of Ljubljana Mestni trg (City Square) not Prešeren Square?!

Well, the city hall is on Mestni trg, but Prešeren Square is where the majority of activities happen; concerts, performances etc.
BTW, please sign yourself using four tildes (~~~~). --Eleassar my talk 15:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology[edit]

This section doesn't mention that ljubljena means beloved in Slovene - I had understood that that was a possible origin of the cities name. Can anyone confirm or deny that?

Also, this article really needs references. I've added a tag to it, but I hope it can be got rid of very soon. Worldtraveller 16:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And why mention that? Does the meaning of the gerund washing have any connection to the city of Washington? Does the word bär have any possible connection to Berlin? Do you see where I'm getting at here?
Anyhow, this fact was mentioned in an earlier version of the article, and I deleted it and explained the deletion. The explanation is on the top of this page, dated 30th April 2006. I didn't have a user name then so it's an anon edit, but I still stand by it. The Ljubljana-ljubljena connection is a meaningless factoid at best. TomorrowTime 10:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of the name Ljubljana (slovene as Lublana; "ljubljana" is a serbian name) derives from German Laibach. So the correct etymology derives from German term which means Bach (a stream of river) and old high german lybb (source: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lib#Old_High_German) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.182.115.50 (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Etymology of Ljubljana derives from Semitic Jewish root LBN which means "white". Like "Lebanon". I've heard that Carantanian king Samo was actually Jewish king Samuel. Carantanians were ruled by Jews and Avars(Hebrews) from beginning.

Any chance "Ljubljana" is derived from "Colonia Iulia Aemona" in the same way Köln came from Colonia Agrippina and Koblenz came from Ad Confluentes...? Hopefully an expert who is totally objective may know the answer to this. Some Roman place names were latinizations of the place name of the people whom they conquered (for example, Vindobona (Vienna) from the Celtic), but in this case, the Slavs were not in this part of Europe until 600 years after the Roman city was founded. Thus the Germanization (German speakers (Franks) came even later than the Slavs) could have been an adaptation of the Slovene version of a Latin name. SPQR 1107 (talk) 07:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, no chance of that. But if you find a reliable source for it, you're welcome cite it as yet another spurious etymology. Those are also of scholarly interest (cf. Demmin). Doremo (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there "no chance" of this? The Slovene version of the article alludes to the possibility of a Latin root. SPQR 1107 (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because languages just don't work like that historically (picking random letters from long phrases to create names), that's all. Köln < Colon- and Koblenz < Confluent- are short and tidy. Doremo (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mala Muslimanka[edit]

Ljubljana really is home to Mala Muslimanka!

And who is Mala Muslimanka? Any source? --Eleassar my talk 13:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Window Tax[edit]

I heard from a tourist guide that most of the buildings overlooking the river have only 3 windows on each floor, since there was a "window tax" which went much higher if you had a fourth window. Should this be added in the "trivia" ? --89.164.21.28 02:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, although before it can be posted a source for this claim must be found. edolen1 16:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh yes, that medieval tax was actually a tax on light, meaning that the more light that got into your house, the more you would pay. Even a hole in the wall was a possible expense. I was told about this by someone who gives architecture lessons, but I can't give you a source. I also asked if having bars on your windows would make it cost less, and it wouldn't, damn niggards :) Nerby (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pronounciation[edit]

I can only hear the end of the word -- does anyone else have any problems with this file?--Jaibe 09:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problems here. I'm using Winamp, maybe it's a problem with the player you're using? edolen1 14:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Picture[edit]

If anyone has a colour picture of the same place in Ljubljana, can they put it instead of the black and white one that's on now?--CondignFreedom 12:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... someone do that very soon. "Artistic" b/w photos don't belong on Wikipedia.--Rocky88 07:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it and put up one of my pictures from Ljubljana. Zweifel 05:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Phrasal Verbs[edit]

I am taking this terrible conversation and putting it in its own section, rather than at the top. Zweifel 04:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sinuhe, are you saying that "originates from" is improper grammar and incorrect use?

My argument is that Ljubljana developed out of, or from, Ljubljene. Not in Ljubjene.

No, 'originate from' is not incorrect per se, but originate in is, I should think, preferable. If something comes from something else, it originates in it. This is exactly the definition given by WordNet 2.0. Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English gives originate in as preferable to originate from (but lists both); Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary gives originate in only. The Concise Oxford Dictionary states that originate is usually followed by either of these or with; Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) gives only an example in which originate with is used. The Compact Oxford Dictionary gives no collocation for originate; it, however, gives the following definition for come from: originate in.
All in all, while originate from is acceptable, I see no reason why you changed the perfectly proper originate in. And yes, reading my edit summary, I can see how it can give the impression that I thought originate from is incorrect – sorry about that. I'd personally always use originate in, though.
With respect to items other than places, "originate in" sounds extremely to awkward to me. In fact, I've never heard "originate in" used before in the way you did. Howewever, if that style really works in the UK, I will let it be.
I'm afraid I can't make out what you mean by 'My argument is that Ljubljana developed out of, or from, Ljubljene. Not in Ljubjene.' The word Ljubljana evolved from ljubljena; this means that it originated in the word. You oughtn't to try to apply logic to language; this is a matter of collocation and idiom. Also, it can be detrimental to translate phrases from your mother tongue verbatim.
I'm a native English speaker in Canada. Here, 'originate in' and 'originate from' are often used to disambiguate the type of objective cases in 'comes from'. E.g.:
1) originated in = 'comes from' somewhere, as in
  "football comes from (was invented in) England"
2) originated from = 'comes from' something, as in
  "ljubljana comes from the word ljubljene"
Originate out of is to the best of my knowledge unheard of; I have not yet come across it except in prose written by non-native speakers. I should advise against using it here; even originate from is round about a thousand million times better! —Sinuhe 17:06, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Originated out of follows from 2) above.
Whilst I concede that originate in was meant in the Cambridge dictionary I quoted above in the sense of location (I was somewhat reluctant to include it in the first place for that reason), all other dictionaries seem to utilise originate in indiscriminately of the sense. I wasn't aware that there was a semantic difference in Canadian usage (and thus likely in American also). I'll be sure to ask my schoolmates from the USA and Ireland (no Canadians any more that I know round here) if they find this use of originate in unorthodox. Curious though it may seem, I would intuitively say that originate from implies location rather than the other way round. —Sinuhe 19:24, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


oh stop quibling. the whole "the name Ljubljana originates from the word ljubljena" shtick is an outrageous example of popular ethimology. while it makes a nice story to tell the ladies, it's utter nonsense from a linguistic point of view. the story's a marketing stunt, as much as the deal with slovenia being the country with love in it's name is. i don't mind these little anecdotes, but they have no place in an encyclopedia, unless they are mentioned under the trivia section, with an appropriate explanation. i'm deleting the whole "ljubljena" section.213.172.254.113 22:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a comment regarding the earliest mention of Ljubljana: the first records mentioning Ljubljana by its modern name date to 1144 (by its German name Laibach) and 1146 (by name Luwigana). One or two years ago, there was a short notice in the magazine published by the municipality of Ljubljana, stating that an earlier mention of Ljubljana has recently been found, in a document (German, if I remember correctly) that does not have an explicit date but can be dated from circumstantial evidence into the 1120's or thereabouts. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of this could look into this further and perhaps update the article. Additionally, if I understand correctly, these 12th-century mentions are not really of Ljubljana as the town (which did not really exist yet at the time) but only of the castle and/or its owners. 194.249.231.140 10:51, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ljubljana Founded By Jason and the Argonauts ???[edit]

Is it true that Slovenians believe that Ljubljana was founded by the mythological Greek prince Jason and the Argonauts.

Here is what the Slovenian tourism board website states [[1]]:

If one is to believe the legend, then the founder of Ljubljana was the Greek prince Jason, together with his companions, the Argonauts. According to the legend, Jason and the Argonauts, while fleeing from King Aites, from whom they had stolen the golden fleece, sailed from the Black Sea up the Danube, from the Danube into the Sava, and from the Sava into the Ljubljanica. Around about here Jason encountered a terrible monster, which he fought and slew. This monster was the Ljubljana dragon, which now has its permanent abode on top of the castle tower on the Ljubljana coat of arms.

If this is indeed the contemporary theory in Slovenia and is the inspiration of the Ljubljana coat of arms then it should be mentioned in the article. Struscle 09:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is not a contemporary theory as far as i know. my guess is, it's an exaggeration basing on an episode from a popular quasi-historical epic novel by Janez Jalen, entitled Bobri, or The beaver-folk. this novel draws pictures in the life of the early hunter/gatherer inhabitants of the Ljubljana area. at one point in the novel, Jason and the Argonauts visit their settlement. as Jalen states at the beggining of the novel, he only examined archeological findings and imagined what life would have been like for the owners of the tools he saw in museums. as for Jason, according to the original myth, he is said to have taken the Argo from the Danube over the shortest distance of land possible to the Adriatic sea, which could also be the slovenia of today. Jalen just built on that. as far as i know, that's the extent of it. 213.172.254.113 22:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


And what about Vrhnika? It is an old legend, this of Ljubljana. 86.61.38.30 01:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ljubljana was founded by Jews (Hebrews; Avaric(included Turks) tribes who enslaved Slaves/Slavs). That's why their 1. king was called Samuel or "Samo". Even the term Ljubljana derives from Hebrew semitic term "LBN" which means "white" (like Lebanon). Even the term "Karantania" derived from Avaric (Turkish) term "Kara" which means "black". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.182.65.197 (talk) 09:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Famous native - Janez Janša?[edit]

He's not a native. 86.61.38.30 01:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's because he was born in Ljubljana. --Jonson22 20:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that just because he was born in Ljubljana's hospital means he's a native of Ljubljana, his hometown is Grosuplje. That would make most inhabitants of Nova Gorica actually natives of Šempeter, as that's where Nova Gorica's hospital is. edolen1 21:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll erase it, he doesn't speak with Ljubljana's accent at all. It's from Dolenjska. 89.142.63.212 19:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the famous native there we have Darko Karapetrovič. Who is Darko Karapetrovič? Anybody knows? I'm from Ljubljana and I never heard about him.--Jonson22 11:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beats me, never heard of him. edolen1 18:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will delete Darko Karapetrovič. --Jonson22 16:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History section?[edit]

Didn't there exist a separate history section for Ljubljana, with a timeline? I don't see a link to that anywhere, or am I missing something? Wikingus 14:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute: Year of establishment[edit]

Why does the infobox cite the year 15 CE as the year of establishment? AFAIK there is no continuity between Ljubljana and Emona. Any reference? --Eleassar my talk 12:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As no reference for the continuity between Ljubljana and Emona was provided (and in any case, I've never heard about it although been living in Ljubljana for almost whole my life), I've removed it. --Eleassar my talk 09:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sister cities list is inconsistent[edit]

This needs some attention. According to the www.sister-cities.org web site, the only city paired with Ljubljana is Cleveland, Ohio. In particular, they list Pueblo, Colorado as sister to Maribor, so this probably needs removed altogether. I am not sure where else an authoritative list of sister cities might exist, but it's worth bringing up that the current list in this article is uncited information. Any insight is appreciated! --Jmeden2000 (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My hometown lists them on its corporate website. (link) I'd try looking for that information on Ljubljana's website. There are partnership things that cities do that don't involved sister-cities.org and I believe that site required registration, so confirmation can be tricky. Ljubljana's website would probably be the best bet for something accurate. vıdıoman 15:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

City flag and coat of arms?[edit]

Apparently there's a dragon on them, but I have no idea since there's no image of either accompanying the article. Could this oversight be rectified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.228.74 (talk) 05:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I just put them in. - Biruitorul Talk 19:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

centre?[edit]

Two quotations from the article:

  1. "...the first secondary school, public library and printing house opened in Ljubljana.[9] Ljubljana thus became the undisputed centre of Slovenian culture, a position maintained thereafter."
  2. "...the nearby Austrian city of Klagenfurt (Celovec in Slovene) that was, through the centuries, Slovenia's {sic!} great spiritual centre."[4]
    ??? - An outside "centre"? --Marschner (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ehummm?[edit]

If Jason put down the dragon, and the dragon is the symbol of Ljubljana, then the symbol instead indicates that the dragon somehow survived and broke free to eat Jason and the remaining argonauts. Which indicates that it was the benevolent Dragon, not the frank hero/villain that had offended Aphrodite and Hera by dumping Medea, that founded Ljubljana. Maybe that's the best of it, since otherwise Hera and Aphrodite would have probably made very nasty things towards the city... ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 12:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links[edit]

A number of references are dead links (going to http://www.ljubljana.si/en/). --Eleassar my talk 13:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Center/municipality[edit]

I find the recent edits overly technical. A lot of the article deals with the municipality as a whole, not just the city centre. To take one example, I doubt the centre alone has close to 300,000 inhabitants. We shouldn't blur the distinction between the municipality and the center district, but neither should the article try to be only about the center. - 69.163.222.199 (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers are taken from the Statistical Office of Slovenia homepage.[2][3] As there are distinct data available for the municipality and the city (regarding demographics, history etc.), there is no need to blur the line. --Eleassar my talk 17:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be pragmatical: there's no other significant settlement in the Urban Municipality of Ljubljana besides Ljubljana: and even those which are (which are they, btw? are there any at all?) are de facto either neighborhoods or satellite settlements of Ljubljana. This article is about Ljubljana, both as a city and as an urban municipality. Making too strong distinctions between the two wouldn't make much sense in my view, as there's no such clear-cut distinction in reality. One thing are cases like Koper, Novo Mesto, Nova Gorica, etc., which include a large portion of rural/non-urban settlements besides the city: in Ljubljana, the borders of the urban municipality are almost identical with the city limits. Viator slovenicus (talk) 09:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have to be very clear whether information refers to the city or the municipality in the text (to avoid misunderstandings) and where data are separately available for the city (for example the above-mentioned number of inhabitants), we have to provide these data. --Eleassar my talk 12:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the article is both on the city and on the municipality (although the institution of the Urban Municipality has a separate page). Bottom line, I think that the status of a settlement in the municipality (whether is still categorized as a separate settlement or part of Ljubljana) is a much more abstract and purely legal category than the fact that all of them are integrated in one single urban space, known as the Urban (or City) Municipality of Ljubljana. (Btw, do you know which other settlements other than Ljubljana belong to the municipality? Honestly, I have no idea). Viator slovenicus (talk) 13:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having a quick look at {{Ljubljana}} (where all the settlements outside Ljubljana are presumably listed), I don't think they're all integrated in one single urban space. Several of them are in the hills (like Besnica, Janče, Toško Čelo, Veliki Lipoglav). That's why I still believe the city and the municipality should be treated separately. --Eleassar my talk 16:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked out the number of inhabitants of the settlements you mentioned: Janče, 28, Toško Čelo, 22, Veliki Lipoglav, 49. As far as I have seen (thanks for pointing out the template, I haven't thought of that: silly of me), it goes on like this: very few of these "settlements" have more than 150 inhabitants, and those few with more than 500 people (like Črna Vas) are de facto a suburb of the city. My point is: on the level of statistics, these are negligible distinctions. Viator slovenicus (talk) 20:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's more to be taken into consideration than just the number of inhabitants. If these are considered separate settlements, we can't simply 'attach' them to the city of Ljubljana, no matter what the number of inhabitants, like you can't consider Vatican City just a part of Rome for example - it's interesting that Vatican City is even not mentioned in the article Rome. Perhaps the analogy is lacking, but anyways. These settlement have their own history, geography and cultural characteristics and have never been merged into the city of Ljubljana. According to the Municipality of Ljubljana statute, Ljubljana is just listed as one of the settlements in the municipality. The 14th article is also of relevance: it stresses the decentralization of the municipality.[4] The statement that these settlements are de facto a suburb of the city seems unfounded to me. Of course they gravitate towards Ljubljana, as it is the central settlement of the municipality, of the region and of Slovenia itself. However, the Municipal Spatial Plan of the City Municipality of Ljubljana defines several more or less autonomous units of the municipality and several relatively independent centres of development.[5] I think the city and the municipality should be treated separately exactly because even though the City Municipality of Ljubljana is developing into a single conurbation, the municipal statute and the municipal plan stress its decentralization and the formation of several local centres in the municipality. According to the plan, Ljubljana as a city also retains and strengthens its identity beside other centres in the conurbation. --Eleassar my talk 11:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are convincing: I agree, as a general line. However, since not all data are available for the city separately from the municipality (like language, ethnicity, etc.), and since (I insist) the difference between the two are negligible, I see no problem if the data for the whole municipality are used in the article (with due specification, of course). Viator slovenicus (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok if the data for the city are truly not available. If specific problems occur, they'll be resolved on the talk page. --Eleassar my talk 12:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

City elevation[edit]

I've removed the information that the city is 298 m above the sea level and replaced it with two values in the article: the elevation of its centroid (295 m) and the elevation of the city centre (298 m).[6][7] Can someone please assist me in the formatting of the infobox so that both values appear? Thanks. --Eleassar my talk 11:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old images of Ljubljana[edit]

The Geopedia project has put old images of Ljubljana on a map. See [8]. Click on the image to get better resolution. These could be taken to the Commons if enough information to avoid copyright problems could be found about them. The text is a reliable source for new information that could be included in Wikipedia articles. --Eleassar my talk 13:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Neboticnik-Ljubljana.JPG Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Neboticnik-Ljubljana.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sights[edit]

Probably it would make sense to reduce the description of the landmarks in Ljubljana and organize the article in a similar way as Paris or Barcelona, where only a sentence or only a mention of a notable building is all that is said about it. Otherwise, the 'Main sights' section will get too long. --Eleassar my talk 17:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only centre of international importance[edit]

What exactly happened to this article, it's awful.

Only centre of international importance? What about Koper with its seaport? What about Maribor, a European capital of culture? And what exactly is the definition of a "large town", that Ljubljana is the only one of Slovenia, I can't find any international sources about "large towns", except that one source from a Slovene magazine. The translation should probably be something different or better yet, this should be totally omitted. 

Roall1 (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can you spare such over-generalisations for yourself? Point out specific problems. As to the definition, here is the quote (per Zavodnik Lamovšek, Alma. Drobne, Samo. Žaucer, Tadej (2008). "Small and Medium-Size Towns as the Basis of Polycentric Urban Development". Geodetski vestnik (Association of Surveyors of Slovenia) 52 (2): p. 303.): "The results of the analysis of SMESTOs have shown that in Slovenia there are 10 medium-size towns that are centres of national importance in regional areas, and the city of Ljubljana, which is the only large town in the Slovenian urban network and the only centre of international importance. Maribor and Koper are also towns of international importance." This is from an article published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. I don't see any reason to omit the translation just because it doesn't suit you. Provide appropriate reliable sources claiming "something different or better yet". --Eleassar my talk 20:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A wooden medieval bridge on the same place where the Triple Bridge was built[edit]

Hi, I can see there was, before Triple Bridge, in the Middle Ages a wooden bridge which was linking - as the source claims - the medieval lands which were considered as belonging to Central Europe in the medieval time (I don't know what was considered to be Central Europe then, as this is not agreed upon nowadays either) and - on the other side - the medieval lands which were considered as belonging to Balkans then (as where Balkans begins or ends is not agreed upon nowadays, I don't know where it was in Middle Ages). I propose we do not go so far back in time when describing bridges in the Slovenia article. Maybe in the Triple Bridge article, but again things are not so precisely agreed upon now and I doubt they were any more agreed upon back then. DancingPhilosopher my talk 09:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demographic history[edit]

I've been going through old, archival statistical data on the number of inhabitants, and I've realized that the data mentioned in the article refer to the city as defined in the time of the census, not the historical population within the current city limits (I'm talking of the city limits of the settlement of Ljubljana, not the current Urban Municipality). By contrast, articles on cities in most other countries (Austria, Italy, etc) take into account the demographic evolution of the city within the current city limits (which actually makes more sense). I suggest we change these data according to the demographic evolution within the current city limits (unfortunately, this number have yet to be calculated according to archival data: I'm ready to do that in the next weeks, of course on the basis of official statistical data). Viator slovenicus (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is really necessary. We're reporting the demographics of the city, not of the area that it encompasses now. The city did not have the same size in the past as it has now, and the population has grown along the growth of the city area. Therefore, I think that it would be better to leave the population as it is and add the area of the city through history to the table, if it is possible to find this information. --Eleassar my talk 10:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is partially true, but we must not forget one fact: the demographic expansion of the city took place in two directions: from the center towards the peripheries, but also (and even faster, actually) from the peripheries towards the center. Now, I think that in presenting the real growth of the city's population, we should not stick to old definitions of what constituted the city at that time (especially since these definitions were frequently not based on a sociological/urbanistic reality, but were defined according to legal borders, which were sometimes changing, but were frequently lagging behind the pace of urban growth - that's especially true for the 1921 & 1931 censuses); rather, we should aim presenting the demographic evolution of the urban area as a whole. This is especially an issue in the 1900, 1910, 1921 and 1931 data: before that, the outskirts were still to a large extent rural (and thus rightfully omitted from the statistics), while after that, the suburbs are counted in the census (although the satellite settlements were only counted starting from 1961, I think). I'd like to point out that the current presentation of the data (sticking to a strictly legalistic understanding of what constituted the city of Ljubljana) creates, at times, a wrong impression: it seems there was a big population leap between 1931 and 1948, but in reality it's just that in 1931, the immediate suburbs that were part of the urban tissue (Vič, Moste, part of Šiška etc.) were not counted, and in 1948 they were: but in reality, the changes were not that big (the urban structure of the suburbs did not change much, just their legal status did). On the other hand, the big leap in population between 1921 - 1931 is not seen at all, because it took mostly place in the suburbs and not in the city center. You are right regarding the current city limits: they include many settlements that were still predominantly rural in previous periods. But I still suggest that at least the suburbs are included in the figures. I have made the calculations, based not only on statistical data but also on historical surveys on urban history regarding which areas were in fact proper suburbs in which period (and not just rural outskirts): I have these data with exact calculations for the period between 1890 & 1953 (I have no exact data for the 1961 census, though). Viator slovenicus (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that the Slovenian wp article on Ljubljana shows not the data according to the historical city limits, but (so it seems) adds the data for the suburbs, as well. Viator slovenicus (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. If the predominantly rural settlements are not counted in, only the urban area, then it would be ok for me to correct the information as you suggest, as long as the statistics is based on reliable and cited sources. Limited to cases where the legal borders of Ljubljana significantly differ from the real ones. Of course, it should also be noted that the data refer to the wider urban area and not only the city within its legally defined limits. Beforehand, I'd like to see a source that states that the complete urban area should be regarded as the city of Ljubljana and that there were historical discrepancies between the legal border and the true city area. --Eleassar my talk 21:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the pre-1921 period, the sources are the Spezialortsrepertorium der Österreichischen Länder, which contain the data of the population censuses (the ones for the Slovene-populated Lands are available here: http://www.sistory.si/publikacije/?menu=271); for the interwar period, the data of the censuses are available here: http://www.sistory.si/publikacije/?menu=326. For the post-1945 era, everything's online, as well (http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1948/Pdf/G19484001.pdf; the 1953 & 1961, as well, on the same site; but the 1961 data are arranged in an extremely confusing way, I haven't been able to assemble them yet). As for the definition of the urban space: after 1931, there was not much discrepancy any more, as the suburbs were added to the city in 1935 (see: http://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-ZF3JKR84/?query=%27keywords%3dvelika+ljubljana%27&pageSize=25), and thereafter, new suburbs were added as the city grew. As for the sources, I'm mostly using Ferdo Gestrin, ed., Zgodovina Ljubljane : prispevki za monografijo (1983); it's a selection of papers, rather chaotic, but one can find useful data. From this book I got these information:

- by 1910, Spodnja Šiška, Moste and, to a lesser extent, Vič were in expansion and transforming into proper suburbs (only Vič remained semi-rural, the other two, especially Moste, were urbanized & also more industrialized than the city proper). I couln't get more exact data on when this process started, but one can infer this from the statistical data: in 1900, Šiška (Lower) & Moste have a combined population of more than 10,000 (Lower Šiška alone had almost twice the population of, say, Kranj or Novo mesto); as for 1890, these number are much lower. (Meaning that between 1890 & 1900, there was a big expansion of the city, which took place mostly in the suburbs and to a lesser extent in the city center). Lower Šiška was aggregated to the city already before WWI, while Vič & Moste remained independent until 1935. The book "Ljubljanske metamorfoze" has several maps with the exact reconstruction of the state of urbanization in different periods: the maps for 1910 show that, indeed, Moste, Šiška and Vič had become part of the same urban tissue, while the maps for 1921 & 1931 show that by the early post-WWI period, the expansion reached Zgornja Šiška. Therefore, based on these data, I suggest: for 1900, we count in at least Spodnja Šiška and Moste Not sure about Vič). For 1910, the same (but Vič is definitely in, based on the map in Ljubljanske metamorfoze). For 1921, I'd add Moste, Vič & Zgornja Šiška (Spodnja Šiška is already counted as part of Ljubljana in the official data), and for 1931, I'd add all of the area aggregated into "Greater Ljubljana" four years later. After that, I'd just follow the official data. I'm not sure how what was the situation prior to the earthquake, though (1890 census). In Gestrin's book there's a mention of Moste and Vodmat (part of the same municipality) as "industrial suburbs", and it talks about an expanding and urbanizting Spodnja Šiška (whatever that means). [User:Viator slovenicus|Viator slovenicus]] (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, take a look at this interesting picture: certainly not completely accurate, but it basically confirms what I said - before WWI, Spodnja Šiška & Moste-Vodmat are indistinguishable from the city (especially for the latter, one has to know where the border went to be able to tell where Ljubljana proper ended and those peripheral municipalities began). As for Vič, the image tells us that the center of the village (around St. Anthony's church) remained quite far from the urban area; on the other hand, the upper part (around the Tobacco Factory) is completely merged with the city. This also explains the big increase in population of Vič between 1900 and 1910: basically, the city started expanding over the border dividing the Vič municipality from Ljubljana proper.

Ljubljana 1916 Viator slovenicus (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite fascinating. Feel free to do the necessary amendments, as long as you don't do original research and cite reliable sources. --Eleassar my talk 11:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading stuff about the history of Ljubljana: the problem is that so far, I haven't come across a clear sentence saying sth. like "in the year x, the suburbs x, y & were de facto part of the urban area": one has to put more sources together. I hope this doesn't count as original research (I think it's not: I'm just assembling together what I've read so far). And again: it seems that somebody has already done so in the Slovenian page (the numbers there include some suburbs, as well). I don't have the time right now, actually: but I'll most probably finalize the calculations based on the statistical sources during the weekend, and change the figures (of course, adding that the figures include the city + the immediate suburbs). Viator slovenicus (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it does count as an original synthesis (per WP:SYNTH). However, we can also ask other users at WP:SLO or WP:3O, if they think this is ok. If the consensus emerges that the material is ok despite no such source has been found, it will be ok for me too. --Eleassar my talk 19:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, yes, you're right, actually. It would be easier to add a second column and show the evolution of both the city in the limits as defined then AND the city within its current limits (the same as in the Zagreb article). It would be less historically accurate (in the sense that wouldn't show the actual evolution of urban Ljubljana), but it doesn't involve original synthesis. Viator slovenicus (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support this proposal. (Frankly, I have been also thinking about this.) --Eleassar my talk 20:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTC panorama[edit]

Hi.

I just uploaded a panoramic image of BTC City here and wanted to know if it should be added to this article under Economy or perhaps somewhere else. Also, how big should it be? --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 12:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should correct the perspective. Otherwise, 'Economy' seems fine. --Eleassar my talk 13:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how to do that.--U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 13:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Try Hugin or some other similar program. --Eleassar my talk 13:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)to[reply]
I submited it to graphics lab and they fixed it as much as was possible. It isn't perfect but it does look much better to my eyes. U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 19:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely an improvement. --Eleassar my talk 20:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation recording[edit]

The sound sample sounds like from a speech synthetizer, it should be replaced by a real recording.--90.179.235.249 (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By foot/Kavalir[edit]

Could somebody add something about availability of official free public service of towing and about pedestrian zone? We might have dispute of whether we can trust offical Ljubljana's transportation site.... --ModriDirkac (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Ljubljana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Ljubljana[edit]

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content! Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remind[edit]

Just a remind. Some important naming conventions which the article's lead violates (WP:LEAD#General guidelines and WP:LEAD#Separate section usage): Once a Names or Etymology section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead. (Foreign language: Local name; known also by several alternative names)".' If the case is exceptional, common sense may be applied to ignore all rules. Please discuss to decide whether this is an exceptional case or not.2A02:2430:3:2500:0:0:B807:3DA0 (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 21 external links on Ljubljana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ljubljana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 27 external links on Ljubljana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Ljubljana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ljubljana&oldid=1210470720"