Jump to content

Talk:Grožnjan

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Grožnjan (grb).gif

[edit]

Image:Grožnjan (grb).gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grisignana

[edit]

Being the only Italian majority town in Croatia, surely we can use the Italian name Grisignana instead? In Finland town articles we always go along with the swedish name if swedes make up the majority and vice verse with Finns. For those who are worried about a massive move to Italian articles, it's ok, this is the only place in the former yugoslavia with an Italian majority, so only 1 move is needed. It doesn't make sense calling it by it's croatian name when only a third of the town calls it that. --Bezuidenhout (talk) 09:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian/Croatian User consensus on settlement names in Croatia applies to Grožnjan equally. See other bilingual Croatian settlements for the agreed-upon format. A move(!) is completely out of the question, not to mention against Wiki policy.
  • "In Finland town articles we always go along with the swedish name if swedes make up the majority and vice verse with Finns."
    • This comparison is irrelevant, even if it were valid and it is not. One of the official languages of Finland is Swedish.
  • "It doesn't make sense calling it by it's croatian name when only a third of the town calls it that."
    • A third? 51.2% of the population is Italian - barely a majority. The language bit is unsourced. It makes perfect sense to call it "Grožnjan". Not only is it the English name, its the Croatian name - for a town in Croatia.
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the article quotes that 66% of the population speak Italian, therefore the Croatian percentage might even be lower because of a small Slovenian minority. Please read the article first. And by the way, Italian is an official language in Istria.--Bezuidenhout (talk) 07:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can see the difference can't you? A whole country that's completely bilingual and only a few municipalities being bilingual? Either way, that's Finland, this is Croatia. We already have a prevailing consensus on this question, and making an exception here would mean we could make one in all the other municipalities which overwhelmingly speak Croatian. The Italian/Croatian agreement stopped years of edit-warring, it applies to all or to none. I already told you that the "language bit is not sourced", I know the rest of the info is the 2001 census, the 66% probably isn't (no decimal). I've removed the figure, please don't revert without a source. "By the way", Slovenes call it "Grožnjan" as well. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's 66,11%, by the way... It's incosistent not to move it to Grisignana: this way also Franzensfeste should be Fortezza. I am sure that this issue hasn't been discussed seriously. --82.60.119.198 (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very similar situation to Franzenfeste, because the German name is used because Germans are a majority. Bezuidenhout (talk) 09:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how we name articles on Wikipedia. Don't worry, its consistent. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer, however, can you tell me how you choose toponyms? Either way, in my opinion, it is not neutral and politically uncorrect: if articles get named depending on the language spoken by the majority of the local people (unless the english version exists, of course), it's unfair that in Alto Adige the language chosen is predominantly German, whilst elsewhere Italian is not considered; remember that Italian is an official language in Istria county, just like German in Alto Adige. Either change them all to the whole country's language or give priority to the local: making confusion can create lacks of neutrality rather easily and is it what all Wikipedias ought to avoid? --82.60.119.198 (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to explain. There are a large number of reasons for this title. Without going into the details, this title and article layout are in accordance with the hard-established and long-standing Wikipedia consensus on Istria articles (all Istria articles are handled in this exact same way), this title is also the most common name in English-language sources, etc... Believe me, the issue was thoroughly discussed (though not here). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a mistake to think that article titles for settlements are chosen according to what nationality the majority of the citizens belong to. Florence, Turin, Venice, Rome are all good examples. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grožnjan. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

title

[edit]

I reverted a bold move recently, as the discussion in #Grisignana above from 10 years ago was not conclusive. The part that I found particularly jarring here were the signposts in Istria, visible in Google Street View e.g. here or here at the intersection of the D21 road and the local road that leads to this place (2 km away) and indeed here at the entrance to the town itself - the signs are clearly not very new and there is no obvious preference for the Italian name. So there doesn't seem to be a major reason to avoid consistency with the naming of the article on all other bilingual towns in the Istrian county. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grožnjan&oldid=1198000019"