Jump to content

Talk:Plitvice Lakes National Park

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Plitvice Lakes)

Plagarism

[edit]

The line about the forest healing itself is taken directly from a PBS "Nature"TV program, as is the list of animals. I am positive since I hjave it on tape and watch it regularly. :) -Timber Rattlesnake Here is the site: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/fallinglakes/index.html

land mines

[edit]

I have removed the comment about land mines in these areas. "Plitvice Lakes" mentioned in these references is the Plitvice Lakes municipality, a unit of local government in Croatia, and not the national park Plitvice Lakes of the same name. The mines mentioned as still remaining in the _municipality_ are present in its westernmost part through which the frontlines passed during the war. The Plitvice Lakes National Park area remained, save for the incident at the beginning of the war, mostly unaffected by the fighting. So much so, in fact, that it was used as a resort by the rebel Serb forces, IIRC. --Elephantus 17:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. I will move the text to the other article then. Asterion 18:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was written around Plitvice. It is very near Plitvice.--Medule 10:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. The English used implied that Plitvice Lakes National Park itself had a mine problem. If it doesn't then this shouldn't be in the article. --Elephantus 13:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just stayed there during the easter holidays and local people assured me that there are no mines in this area anymore. neither within the national park (the mines in the national park have been removed a long time ago - the park area was, i guess, the first area to be cleared after the war), neither around the park, in plitvicka jezera municipality etc. Statistics and mine pictures are used to caution people. I do understand, that it is always better to be cautious even in mine cleared areas and that they rather wait before putting blank fields on the internet. However, cleared is cleared. By the way, have a better look on the map: [3]. The plan is to completely clear Croatia from landmines until 2010 (with the help of the EU etc.). --Neoneo13 17:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That area in near vicinity of Plitvice is full of mines. Dont play around. --Medule 22:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are your intentions here? Please stop reverting for selfish purposes. I believe, as I see your discussion page that your intention is not to warn tourists - there are no mines in this area - but to deflect from the topic and create fear among people. You are warned and will be blocked if you continue acting like a child. Serbs used this area for recreational purposes themselves. Please stop this unnecessary fear campaign. There are thousands of visitors who will laugh at you. --Neoneo13 23:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The mine suspected contaminated area is 26 km2 in vicinity of Plitvice. [1]
You see that is Croatian oficcial statement. Myy intention is obvious, to warn turist about that fact.--Medule 12:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE STOP

[edit]

This is edit war is getting silly. Why not simply adding an external link to that "official site" at the bottom of the page instead modifying the article body? I will not intervene on this, as I think that this simply pointless given the ad hominem attitude of the parts in conflict.... --Asterion 14:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could add maybe as a section at end. But link is not enough.--Medule 22:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As there are no actual links confirming that there is a danger of mines within Plitvice Lakes National Park (as opposed to the westernmost part of the municipality of the same name) there is no need to mention this in the article. --Elephantus 23:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, sentence I gave in article is correct. You have link to check. I didnt say inside National Park. Sentence is clear. The mine suspected contaminated area is 26 km2 in vicinity of Plitvice. That is true and how you could deny spmething like that.? You have link.--Medule 23:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, London probably has unexploded mines from WW2 and yet the article about it doesn't mention them. A thing has to be _relevant_ to be included in an article. The fact that the westernmost part of a municipality having the same name as this national park has some landmines is hardly relevant to the readers and potential visitors. --Elephantus 23:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All cities maybe had a mine or two. But it is not similar to number of mines you could find around Plitvice.--Medule 23:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was probably You who planted them? What do You really know? Then please remove them and remove your irrelevant links. --Neoneo13 00:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The mine suspected contaminated area is 26 km2 in vicinity of Plitvice. [2] On that link everything is clear. You could not delete facts. Or compared such facts to London, which does not have mine suspected area. --Medule 08:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basic logic:

  • There are no mines in the National Park.
  • This is an article about the National Park.
  • Therefore, there are no mines in this article.

Quod erat demonstrandum. --Zmaj 08:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I disambiguated a few articles and created a few red links to Plitvice Lakes (municipality). I have been helping out to expand many Istria stubs but I am willing to make an exception and put together a simple geo-stub for this. Any basic data? Population, coat of arms, etc? Anyone willing to help? Cheers, --Asterion talk to me 09:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Population 4,668 (2001), area 539.08 km², chief town Korenica (seat of municipality). Other settlements with their respective populations listed here. --Elephantus 11:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done! I created Plitvice Lakes (municipality), but what about the actual village? Is it called just Plitvice or Plitvice Lakes too? --Asterion talk to me 15:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to see the Edit War is over. :o) BTW, has anyone had a look at the article listed above yet? --Asterion talk to me 20:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's fine. By the way, "Plitvice" is the name of the village. The municipality, as you correctly created, is called "Plitvice Lakes", just as the national park. Please correct me if I'm wrong... --Neoneo13 21:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I also tried to find the coat of arms but I was only able to find the park logo instead.--Asterion talk to me 22:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The mine suspected contaminated area is 26 km2 in vicinity of Plitvice. Plitvice National Park has 292 km2. This Plitvice municipality has 539 km2. There are mines inside national park and near some lakes what could be seen from picture of mines area in Croatia.--194.106.187.154 10:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent a senseless edit war, I will ask an admin to protect this article from unregistered users. --Zmaj 10:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look everything is clear. National Park is half of Plitvice municipality.Plitvice National Park has 292 km2. This Plitvice municipality has 539 km2. Therefore it is correct to say "The mine suspected contaminated area is 26 km2 in vicinity of Plitvice." More than half of municipality is National Park. And therte are big mine suspected area. It should be at leat warning that there mines around. It is true. Some turist can be hurt and maybe already there are casualties, for what we dont know.--Medule 07:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How many times do I have to repeat this? There are no mines in the national park. There are mines in the municipality. There is an article about the municipality which talks about the mines. This should be enough to any reasonable person. But Medule goes on and says: some turist can be hurt. Firstly, no tourist can be hurt because (when will he understand?) there are NO MINES IN THE NATIONAL PARK. Then Medule adds: maybe already there are casualties. Casualties?! What casualties? Where, except in Medule's head? I am always ready to assume good faith, but this is getting ridiculous. --Zmaj 09:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
National park is more than half of Municipality and there are mines inside some parts of Park or very close to it. Mine area is 26 km2.--Medule 12:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ChrisO saved the day again and put us all to shame. Knowledge is the best policy. Thanks for the great work, Chris! --Zmaj 06:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really claim much credit - it only took about 20 minutes of looking at the UNESCO website, Google Books (a really useful source, btw) and a guidebook I've got here. To be honest, anyone could have done that - it's a good way of settling disputes. :-) -- ChrisO 19:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]


There are no mines inside the park. Gingermint (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation please?

[edit]

Preferably IPA? —Keenan Pepper 18:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put it in the article. --Zmaj 06:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article be titled Plitvice Lakes National Park?

[edit]

It seems to me that this article would be better titled as Plitvice Lakes National Park, as there is already an article on Plitvička Jezera which is about a region in Croatia, not the lakes specifically. It seems like Plitvice Lakes should redirect there or at least be a disambig page between the two? --MattWright (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The municipality (općina) is less notable than the park. I am for keeping the current title and mantaining the disambiguation link at the top of this article: i.e. For other uses, see Plitvice Lakes (disambiguation). Regards, --Asteriontalk 12:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we kept Plitvice Lakes redirecting to the park page, I think Plitvice Lakes National Park is a more appropriate title for the article, since the article is primarily about the park. --MattWright (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you may have a point (cfr. Doñana). Let's see what other editors think. Regards, --Asteriontalk 22:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Matt, I have been bold and went ahead with the page move. Thanks, --Asteriontalk 11:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

This link has the same material as the Wikipedia article, please check that copyright hasn't been breeched. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the bottom of that page, it says: Portions copyright © 2007 Wcities | Portions from Wikipedia, Wikitravel under GFDL. GregorB (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Plitvice Lakes National Park. 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: 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Plitvice Lakes National Park. 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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Plitvice Lakes National Park. 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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Plitvice Lakes National Park/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
==November 2012==

Since this is both a rather large article, as well as a rather important one for WikiProject Croatia, I'm going to leave a bit more detailed assessment comments that cover all six WP:BCLASS criteria, with an eye to WP:WIAGA. GregorB (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

===Referencing (B1)=== Referencing is adequate for B-Class standards, but insufficient for a Good article. Some sections are rather sparsely referenced. Reference formatting should also be made more consistent.

===Coverage (B2)=== At 42 kb/6730 words, this is a big article that covers a lot of ground. Unfortunately, there are problems with focus.

The History section is rather long. It should be condensed, keeping primarily those events that are relevant for the national park itself.

The "Local Customs and Traditions" is also bordering on off-topic. While local customs and traditions are somewhat important for tourism, they don't seem to warrant a separate section.

I'm not sure about the "Lake names and anecdotes" section. Just an ethnological footnote, or something actually important for the park? I'd say the former is closer to the truth.

"The dissolution and creation of rock" - a huge and rather technical section. Shouldn't this be somehow covered in a separate article? I don't think this can survive in its current form.

Overall, the article meets the B-Class coverage and accuracy criterion, but not by a wide margin, given the problems with its size and sometimes excessive scope. This is an area that would require a lot of work in order to meet the GA criteria.

===Structure (B3)=== The intro does not fully summarize the article's key points.

The "Origins of the name and reputation" section overlaps with the "History" section (e.g. shooting films in the national park). Perhaps the former should be killed, with the useful content moved elsewhere.

Likewise, the content from the "Comparable phenomena worldwide" section should be incorporated into some of the preceding sections.

Generally speaking, while the article's structure is not ideal, it meets the B-Class criteria. Since the structure should follow the content, and since there are some issues regarding coverage and focus, the article's structure should be revisited once changes are made in line with remarks made in the previous section (B2).

===Prose (B4)=== Prose is adequate for B-Class standards, but language and style could be improved. There are minor MOS issues too. A copyedit is definitely needed.

Tables in the "Flora and Fauna" sections are unnecessary and should be converted to either bulleted lists or prose.

===Supporting materials (B5)=== Several maps, a nice - if a bit awkwardly placed - cross section, an infobox, a table with lake stats - all nice and useful.

Now the images... A lot to choose from, and also many very good ones out there. This makes it easy to equip the article, but also raises the quality bar. Something like 19 or so images, not too much for an article of this size, but could be too much if the content is condensed in the future. Not sure about the gallery: it is tolerable, but maybe it would be better to simply use the good ones in the article body and kill the gallery section.

WP:CAPTION potential not really used.

===Accessibility (B6)=== "The dissolution and creation of rock", the already mentioned section, is rather technical, but it is also not essential for the article - in fact, as already noted, it might just as well be covered in a separate article. In totality, one can safely say that the article is understandable, even if improvements in other areas (such as scope and structure) could make it better in this department too.

===Final comments===

In its present form, this is an article with a lot of good-quality, useful content that provides a substantial value for the reader. Still, due to problems already described, quite a bit of work would need to be invested in this article so that it could meet the GA criteria. It definitely has potential, and incremental improvements could fairly quickly bring it much closer to that target. GregorB (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 18:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 03:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Plitvice Lakes National Park. 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: 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) 11:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation Suggestion: Travertine/Tufa

[edit]

I'm suggesting changing all instances of "travertine" to "tufa". "Tufa" is the more appropriate term for the formations at Plitvice due to their physical characteristics and their formation. Note: "Tufa" is the accepted term for ambient temperature deposits while "Travertine" is a more broad definition that is more commonly specific to deposits in geothermally active areas. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S001282529600030X

I'll make this change unless there is an objection that is backed up by a better reference than the one above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuck-sum (talk • contribs) 21:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plitvice_Lakes_National_Park&oldid=1227826349"