Talk:List of inhabited islands of Croatia

Population decline

I can't make out the meaning of this sentence: "This is due to no economic activities which causes a number of small islands to experience population decline." Does it mean the 66 islands used to be populated but now because of lack of jobs only 47 are populated. Or are some of the islands only populated part of the year? (during tourist season perhaps, when there are jobs?) Rmhermen 19:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, the answer is a bit wierd. First of all, all of the islands are experiencing population decline. Both those still populated and those which used to be populated (obviously). But, the 66 -> 47 shift has nothing to do with population decline but with the fact that 66 is a number of islands with settlements and 47 have permanent residents and Central Bureau of Statistics of Republic of Croatia recently changed the way they define populated islands (from those having settlements to those having residents). It's just that the bureaucracy is slow noticing that 9 islands have settlements but nobody lives in them anymore :-)

BTW, I reverted your rock -> islet change since "rock" is the term Bureau of Statistics uses. --Dijxtra 20:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

How 'bout renaming this article into List of islands of Croatia? Heck, although it lists only the inhabitated ones, it is longer than the one supposed to be "full list". I'd guess that the full list could potentially be much longer, but it's doubtful whether every crag deserves an entry; but now, the List of islands of Croatia doesn't serve any purpose and could well be overwritten with this one. Duja 08:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Nononono :-) See, then this list would be incomplete. Currently it is a very nice completed list and a FL candidate. Merging it into List of islands of Croatia would detoriate it far below FL status. That's why I created this list instead of editing List of islands of Croatia. Anyway, I intend to fix List of islands of Croatia too, by defining some sane inclusion criteria and then finding sources to fill it up. Don't worry, I'll make List of islands of Croatia FL too in some time. --Dijxtra 08:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Is Palagruža inhabitated (apart from the lighthouse)? Duja 08:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Even the lighthouse isn't permanently inhabited. There are some fishing posts which are inhabited for few days a year, but no permanent residents. A donkey lived there until a year ago but he fell of a cliff into the sea (I'm dead serious, I spent this summer on Vis with some locals who go fishing and paragliding on Palagruža so they showed me pictures of the donkey and told me the tale how he fell of the cliff). But, even if it was still alive, I don't think you count a donkey as a resident ;-) --Dijxtra 08:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Link

Sveti Andrija (#47 in the list) leads to a disambiguation page. Please, fix.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, apparently. GregorB (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sortable table

Area column won't sort properly, I can't determine why. Other columns work fine. GregorB (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ditto population density. GregorB (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Done using {{nts}}. GregorB (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

A note for whoever wants to take a look

National island development programme is an excellent source that hasn't been used in this article. It could still be improved a bit (and expanded, but really just a bit, since it is a list after all), regardless of its FL status. GregorB (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Population trends

I had an idea to add a column which would indicate the population trend with or , but 1991 (or, failing that, 1981) data would be needed for this. Can anyone help? GregorB (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

2011 census data is due to be released soon - problem solved. GregorB (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The 2011 census data has been released so the table could be updated. In addition, better data on area was released in 2004 by the Hydrographic institute (used in the List of islands of Croatia) so population densities might need to be recalculated. Also, that same source sorted all islands by size and counted 79 islands, 525 islets and 642 rocks (or reefs). Perhaps the lede should be updated to reflect this. Also, note that the institute counts Veli Lošinj and Mali Lošinj as two separate islands whereas the Bureau of Statistics considers it as a single island called Lošinj (there seems to be a small man-made canal 70 metres long and 8 metres wide] which cuts the island in half so this is open to interpretation although most sources still consider it a single island). Timbouctou (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, updates along these lines could be made. Also, the article says that the islands have been populated "since the times of Ancient Greece", which is a bit misleading: evidence of human presence goes back to neolithic at least, and the islands have been continuously populated (well, some of them) since Ancient Greece. The neolithic part is easy to back up, while "continuously populated" is more difficult - saw it somewhere, but I can't find it right now. GregorB (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently updating the article with the 2011 census data. For the time being, I've decided against indicating population trends as suggested above, since the 2011 census used a different (more strict) definition of an inhabitant, so the numbers are not directly comparable. That doesn't mean the comparison is meaningless, though, so I've kept the 2001 figures in the table, commented out. GregorB (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

TFL comments

Comments:

• The map without the mainland looks a bit strange to me since it suggests that the Adriatic Sea covers the mainland (looks like an island nation). I believe the fact that the islands are close to the mainland is of importance here. Would prefer a normal map in which the islands are highlighted by different color or brightness compared to the mainland. Also, in the current map, the area highlighted by a red rectangle does not correspond to that depicted in the main map.
• Image captions: "A beach on the island of Brač" (don't see much of a beach here); "A forest on the island of Mljet" (maybe also point out the lake/bay? which is prominent in the image); "A vineyard on island of Vis" (needs a "the")
• "...which makes the Croatian archipelago the largest in the Adriatic Sea..."; possibly "makes"->"make"
• Not too fond of the parentheses in the first sentence. If possible, I'd get rid of it.
• Not as essential, but if possible I'd also reword the other sentences in the lead to get rid of parentheses.
• Imperial units should be added.
• I assume "not available" in the table means not available in sources used.
• It could be mentioned somewhere (either in prose or in a footnote) that the table is ordered by population, i.e. that the first column shows the order according to total population.
• url in references should be replaced with names of publishers (e.g. "geografija.hr", "hvar.hr", "peljar.cvs.hr")
• Is peljar.cvs.hr a WP:RS?
• Is geografija.hr a RS?
• Is www.lopud.nl a RS?
• Many references need publisher information.
• Is "Vjesnik. VJESNIK d.d.." correct in ref 4?
• If there are any recognized island groups or administrative divisions, I think these should be added as extra column(s) to the table.
• Is there more recent population data than from 2001?
• Why not add {{Islands of Croatia}} to the article?

bamse (talk) 07:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The map was since replaced, but with a one that omits Brijuni. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have updated the map so that it includes Brijuni. Neelix (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I have reworded the image captions so that they are more accurate, fixed the wording in the first sentence of the lede, removed the unnecessary parentheses from the lede, added imperial units, added a footnote explaining the first column, removed the extraneous "VJESNIK d.d.", added a "County" column, and added {{Islands of Croatia}} to the article. I believe that the sources used in the article are reliable and I have altered the citation format somewhat, although I am unsure if I have altered it in the way suggested above. Neelix (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ošljak

A recent anonymous edit prompted me to examine Ošljak's status as inhabited. The 2009 Statistical Yearbook says Ošljak has 18 residents and explicitly states:

2) In the Statistical Yearbooks in the period from 2003 to 2008, the population number of the islands of Kolocep and Ciovo was wrongly stated and the island of Osljak was omitted, which resulted in the wrong information on the number of population on the Croatian islands. [...] Source: Faculty of Science, Geographical Department

At the same time, the 2011 Census lists a settlement with 27 residents called Ošljak in the municipality of Preko. 44.076757°N 15.206879°E / 44.076757; 15.206879 certainly looks inhabited.

Any objections to fixing it here, too? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I found the same in the 2001 Census. It's a no-brainer then, a clear omission. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of inhabited islands of Croatia. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vjesnik.hr/pdf/2006%5C09%5C01%5C02A2.PDF
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tz-brodarica.hr/eng/default.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721095601/http://www.diver.hr/index2.php?option=com_diver&mode=lokacije&id=6 to http://www.diver.hr/index2.php?option=com_diver&mode=lokacije&id=6

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) 21:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)