Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Portal:Croats

Just to note that there's Portal:Croats just created. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello!

Can I join? These are the Croatia-related articles I already wrote or contributed to:

Articles I wrote

Towns in Slavonia

Towns in Istria

Articles I contirbuted to

Towns in Slavonia

Towns in Istria

Templates I created or contributed to

{{Cities and Municipalities of Istria county}}

{{Cities and Municipalities of Požega-Slavonia county}}

--M.B. 23:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That's great. I added you to the members list. You don't need to ask anyone to join here. You could've just added yourself. :-D
Anyways, take a look at the towns and villages in the Dubrovnik-Neretva County if you like. I'm trying to organize this project to help sort places, one county at a time. --Thewanderer 23:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yay!!! :-) Thank you for adding me, I didn't know if I could just add myself, I didn't want to break any rules. I will take a look at the Dubrovnik-Neretva County, right after I finish writing about the Istria County (I want to finish what I started, and then move on). --M.B. 00:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Ha, ha, I just realized something, you started from the most Eastern County, and I started from the most Western County! We might meet at the middle!! No, I'm kidding, I'm going to help out with the D-N County as soon as I finish Istria cities and municipalities. Then, we can work on the same County at the same time (it'll be more productive). Also, I've started making Templates for all of the counties, my style is to list the cities and towns first, and then the municipalities. What do you think of that apporach? --M.B. 02:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Template

This user participates in
WikiProject Croatia.




Hey everyone, I made a template for everyone who's a part of this project! Put it on your user page, maybe more people will join when they see how cool it would look on their page!!! --M.B. 01:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Lastovo

Trenutno je glasanje za featured article na Lastovo. Dajte svoje mišljenje o tome ovdje [[1]]. Luka Jačov 10:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Croats

Hi all. I didn't decide yet whether to "officially" join WP:CRO (I am a member of WP:FY and I was invited to WP:SER... oh well, doesn't matter...)

I would like, however, to turn everybody's attention to the article Croats, which might as well be your first AiD target. IMO, the article s***s; apart from brief history, it has an incomprehensible Genetics section and "Croatian cuisine" fell straight from Mars. Culture? Tradition? Diversity? Anybody? Regards, Duja 05:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirects from title without diacritics

There is a lot of work to be done with regard to {{R from title without diacritics}}. --Joy [shallot] 18:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

New pages

Could your contributors please fact-check and possibly expand three new stubs: Civil Croatia, Croatian Littoral, and Central Croatia? Thanks. -  AjaxSmack  00:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

List of inhabited islands of Croatia

It'd be swell if redlinks in this list became blue so I can nominate it for FL. I'm creating articles, but it would be much faster if few of you gave me a hand... --Dijxtra 22:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The 1 person living on Sveti Andrija must be lonely. Mihovil 13:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

New article

See Labin Republic. I wonder which category to put it in.--TheFEARgod 13:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Branimir Glavaš

Branimir Glavaš was tagged as non-neutral back in May by an anonymous user who promised to register and make the necessary changes, but who I haven't heard from since. I want to remove the tag because no one else has raised any objections. If anyone wants to take a look at the article and make comments, please do. Cordless Larry 13:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

In light of comments here, could anyone find some sources for this article? My Croatian isn't nearly good enough to do it myself, but I imagine Globus, Nacional, etc. might prove useful sources. Cordless Larry 14:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I've replaced the tag with one flagging the lack of references. Cordless Larry 22:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Mirko Norac

Hi there. I wrote the Mirko Norac article, but have now abandoned it for reasons stated on the bottom of the talk page. The people there have asked for more sources and more involvement from other editors, so if you feel like explaining why Sinjska Alka or 100.000 people on Split riva are relevant enough to be mentioned in Mirko Norac article, just go ahead. --Dijxtra 08:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 17:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Vukovar

I have a query that someone Croatian might be able to help me with. I was looking at the Vukovar page and I notice that it's mentioned that there's a university there. This is news to me. Is it new? I found this website, but don't understand much of it. Cordless Larry 14:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it definitely is not a university. University is "sveučilište" in Croatian. The thing in Vukovar is "veleučilište". That's something like third level education but not quite the university level. I think that since we got Bologna process implemented, it issues BAs, while universities issue BAs and MAs. --Dijxtra 15:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I hear that for the first time in my life. --PaxEquilibrium 17:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
What, that veleučilište exists? --Dijxtra 19:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
That Vukovar has one. --PaxEquilibrium 19:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Opened only recently. --Dijxtra 21:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm rewriting the section. Do you think polytechnic in the UK meaning of the term is a good translation for veleučilište? From the subjects offered, it seems to be similar. Cordless Larry 20:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that polytechnic might be OK. --Dijxtra 21:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 21:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Vjenceslav Novak

The article on Vjenceslav Novak has been tagged with {{notability}} (topic of unclear importance) since June 2006. I would like to ask the members of this wikiproject, if they can, to clean up this article. That way the category can be cleared out. Thanks in advance, AecisBravado 22:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. --Thewanderer 01:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Project banner

The project now has a talk page template at Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia. John Carter 23:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Bilateral relations discussion

I would like to invite you all to participate in a discussion at this thread regarding bilateral relations between two countries. All articles related to foreign relations between countries are now under the scope of WikiProject Foreign relations, a newly created project. We hope that the discussion will result in a more clean and organized way of explaining such relationships. Thank you. Ed ¿Cómo estás? 18:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Bernie Ecclestone

Hello. The Bernie Ecclestone article contains the following sentence:

The last word is continually changed backwards and forwards between "Croatian" and "Serbo-Croatian". I don't personally have a preference either way, but I thought you people may care to come to a consesus as to which one is correct, update the article (if necessary) and perhaps add a wikicomment saying something like "This is the consensus. Please discuss before changing". Thanks. DH85868993 03:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

requested articles

I did not know where to put these on the difficult-to-use front page, so I am putting them here:

Chris 09:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Municipalities

I have been working on municipality maps. I have added maps for all the muncipialities in the Sisak and Karlovac counties. Next I will work on Istria. I think I'll need help for the municipalities in Split county. -LAz17 12 June 2007

Debate on the correct adjective for Kosovo

Hi! Based on your interest in the Balkans, you may be interested in the currently ongoing debate on whether we should be using Kosovo or Kosovar/Kosovan as the adjective for Kosovo. —Nightstallion 16:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Notification of merge proposal

I'm not sure it's within the scope of this WikiProject, but I have proposed that the articles BiH Croats 1991‎, Croatian percentage in Bosnian-Herzegovian municipalities 1971-1991‎ and Croatian percentage in Bosnian-Herzegovian municipalities 1953-1961‎ be merged into Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina. You are invited to join the discussion, at Talk:Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina#Merge proposal. AecisBrievenbus 15:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Article Assessment

The {{WikiProject Europe}} banner is now set up to provide separate assessments for Bosnia and Herzegovina. Please use the following code {{WikiProject Europe|class=|importance=|Croatia=yes|Croatia-importance=}} to assess articles, adding either Top, High, Mid, or Low after "Croatia-importance=" to provide independent importance assessments for this project. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Grobnik field -- a real battle, or a 19th century epic poem?

I'd like to know if anyone can help with Battle of Grobnik field - 2 of us have now searched (see the Talk Page) and come to the conclusion that there probably was no such battle, just a 19th century poem. I'm probably going to take it to AfD unless someone can convince me it was real. Thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2008

A real battle about which very little is known except that it was a part of the campaign of Batu Khan to Dalmatia and Kvarner.Egyptzo (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Draft Guidelines for Lists of companies by country - Feedback Requested

Within WikiProject Companies I am trying to establish guidelines for all Lists of companies by country, the implementation of which would hopefully ensure a minimum quality standard and level of consistency across all of these related but currently disparate articles. The ultimate goal is the improvement of these articles to Featured List status. As a WikiProject that currently has one of these lists within your scope, I would really appreciate your feedback! You can find the draft guidelines here. Thanks for your help as we look to build consensus and improve Wikipedia! - Richc80 (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Stipe Pletikosa

There is a discussion regarding country of birth of several Croatian footballers, please share your thoughts. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 17:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorting articles

It would be cool if we could sort articles covered by the project by importance and quality. That way we could coordinate their development much more efficiently. Any thoughts on that? Timbouctou (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but there probably aren't enough consistently active Croatian users to create such a system or to use it. But if you want to lead the way, I'll follow :).--Thewanderer (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Croatia banner reloaded

I know we already have a banner for talk pages ({{WikiProject Europe|Croatia=yes}}) with class and importance features, but I don't think it is good enough for its purpose, i.e. articles like ATJ Lučko or Jankomir can be notable for the Croatian WikiProject while bearing absolutely no importance to the WikiProject Europe. I've modified the old banner ({{WikiProject Croatia}}), so let me know what you people think about it. Admiral Norton (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove the old. Zenanarh (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
It's great! Great work :-) Timbouctou (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, guys! Admiral Norton (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

{{User Zagreb}}

I made a userbox for Wikipedians coming from or living in Zagreb. Feel free to use it. I can create similar userboxes for other Croatian cities if anyone is interested. Admiral Norton (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Zagreb task force

If you're interested, enter your support at the proposal page. --Admiral Norton (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan British (contains proposal for deletion of the Croatian British article). Badagnani (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Croatia

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Help Request - Map of the Districts of the Independent State of Croatia

I am creating a map showing the counties and districts of the Independent State of Croatia (NDH). I have already created one just showing the counties which is the one currently in use on the NDH wiki pages (NDH Map). I am using the list of districts on the page Districts_of_the_Independent_State_of_Croatia combined with administrative maps of pre-war Jugoslavia. Most of the districts are pretty clearly just the ones that existed before the war (some you can see still exist today!). But of course some are different. There are some specific issues with certain counties that I would like to try to resolve if anyone can help. In particular if the creator of the Districts Page (Thewanderer) would contact me about this I would appreciate it! Thanks XrysD (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that I got that list of districts from Srednja Bosna - ne zaboravimo hrvatske zrtve by Vjenceslav Topalovic. If that's the case, there should be a rather low-resolution image of all the districts in that work.
Online, there's a bunch of NDH maps at this website. Whether the map there matches up exactly with my list at the Districts of the Independent State of Croatia article, I'm not sure. It's my understanding that the County boundaries changed several times (most drastically after Italy left the war) so it's quite possible that there are discrepancies. At the top of my head, one of the bigger changes was that the Gora county was done away with.--Thewanderer (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. The link you posted does indeed contain many useful maps of NDH which I will be able to correlate with the work I have done already. I am currently working on a map showing the districts during the early part of the NDH's existence before the Italian capitulation. Hopefully these maps will help me resolve the questions I have about your list. The main one I think though is about Zagorje County. Your list gives 10 districts. However two of these (Čakovec and Prelog) I believe were actually absorbed into Hungary as part of the Zala County. You can see the area on this map Territorial Additions to Hungary- it is the small area in green on the extreme west of the map. If you could check this with your source I would appreciate it. Thanks XrysD (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I've now had a chance to compare the maps with my other data. There is about 90% agreement but apart from the point I mention above, the greatest discrepancies are for the western counties of Vinodol-Podgorje, Lika-Gacka, Krbava-Psat and Bribir-Sidraga. In most cases the discrepancy is which county a given district lies within. The original map I have of the county boundaries (made during the war by the UK MOD) agrees closely with the county breakdown of districts you quote. All the other maps come from that one site and so I am inclined to go with my map and your list where there are discrepancies. However, it would be useful to see any map that exists in Srednja Bosna - ne zaboravimo hrvatske zrtve. Would it be possible to upload this to Wikipedia or send me a copy for comparison? XrysD (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Wow, it looks like you've already produced a very nice map. If I have time this week I'll rumage through my library for any maps I can find, to verify with.--Thewanderer (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
In the book Hrvatsko domobranstvo u drugom svjetskom ratu, there is a map which corresponds exactly with this image. I'd lean towards that being more correct than my list. So, Bosansko Grahovo would be in Krbava and Psat, Obrovac would be in Lika and Gacka, and Topusko would be in Gora.--Thewanderer (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for looking that up! In the light of your research I think I will modify the map to agree with the one you linked to. I'll also change the lists if you haven't done that yourself. I'll also produce a version of the map for post Italian capitulation NDH at the same time based on the other maps at the Crna Legija site. XrysD (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Image needs replacement

Hello all...

An image used in the Čikat article, specifically Image:Cikat.jpg, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Zadar Arena

On Talk:Zadar Arena an anonymous user has requested that the article be moved to Kresimir Cosic hall (possibly should be Hall not hall). I am not sure if there was an official name change, could someone check? --Commander Keane (talk) 05:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on a search of Wikipedia's articles related to Croatia, I've found some articles that I believe are about places in Croatia, and could usefully have geographical coordinates added.

The articles in question are listed in Category:Croatia articles missing geocoordinate data. At the time of writing, some examples included:

  1. Hrvace
  2. Kloštar Ivanić
  3. Ljubac
  4. Majur (Croatia)
  5. Muć
  6. Podaca
  7. Sotla

...and there are many more, as well. At the time of posting this notice, there were 270 articles in this category needing geographical coordinates.

Why add coordinates?

By adding coordinates, a Wikipedia reader can easily view the location on a street map, nautical chart, topographic map, by satellite photo, realtime weather map, and in many other ways. Coordinate data makes an article eventually appear in various services such as Google Maps' Wikipedia overlay, Google Earth, and Wikipedia's own internal map service. Coordinate data also helps readers looking for geographically-based data, such as locations near a reference point, or related information.

How can I do it?

The articles are all marked with {{coord missing}} tags, which need to be replaced with {{coord}} tags that contain the location's latitude/longitude coordinates; or you might be able to add coordinates to an existing infobox. You can find out how to do this at the Wikipedia:Geocoding how-to for WikiProject members. Please let me know if this is useful, or if you have any questions! -- The Anome (talk) 09:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatian British. Badagnani (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Lučke kapetanije & Obalna straža

Ciao to everyone! I would like to understand if Lučke kapetanije & Obalna straža in Croatia are two different things or at the present day they merged together in a single corps like the italian Corps of the Port Captaincies - Coast Guard. Hvala! --Nicola Romani (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently they are different. They are also governed by two separate laws: Zakon o lučkim kapetanijama and Zakon o Obalnoj straži Republike Hrvatske. Obalna straža was established in 2007 over protests by some people; today, your boat can be stopped and searched by both of these plus the police, which is seen as an unnecessary overlap. GregorB (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Which is more correct?

Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 06:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess the logo with the text would be better since that's the official logo Croatian Scouts use. The logo without the writing would be better described as a badge or patch of some sort. Timbouctou (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, I'd say that the usage in Savez izviđača Hrvatske is correct, i.e. the first image is used in the infobox as the "official emblem", while the second one is used as an illustration in the article body. GregorB (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Croatian intelligence community

While sorting and assessing articles covered by WP Croatia, i ran into this piece of work. The article is just terrible, very outdated and POV-ish, and there are numerous spinoff stubs which are completely useless. For example:

Some of these ceased to exist, a few of them could use some updating and expanding, while others are just not notable enough to have a separate article. What do you suggest we do with these? Timbouctou (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've had Category:Croatian intelligence agencies on my watchlist for a long time now... However, fixing these makes WikiProject Europe banner cleanup a pleasant job by comparison. It is hard to do anything meaningful without proper sources. My idea would be: 1) to merge all defunct agencies/bodies into Croatian intelligence community, 2) I don't know - take it from there... GregorB (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Job for people that have nothing to do

There are still lots of articles in Category:Untagged WikiProject Croatia articles that have old {{WikiProject Europe|Croatia=yes}} banners instead of the new {{WikiProject Croatia}} ones. I'd appreciate it if someone would try and clean at least some of them up. Admiral Norton (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I seem to fit the description... :-) I think I've done 100 or so. Help is appreciated, of course. GregorB (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I've cleared some 200 or so, the list is now down to 252 entries. Timbouctou (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Update - the list is cleared :-) Timbouctou (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, my hat is off! GregorB (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks guys! Admiral Norton (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

A new job for people that have nothing to do

I'd suggest Category:Croatia articles missing geocoordinate data. (It's a tough one compared to WikiProject Europe banners.) I've done a dozen yesterday. GregorB (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've done some of these some time ago, so I think I'll start again tomorrow. Admiral Norton (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent Articles

I've updated the Recent Articles section on the project page (after quite a while, apparently). As for the DYK articles, these are the five most recent ones, provided I got them correct from CatScan. As for the others, I'm not sure if there is a way to query the toolserver or what have you to get all articles in a category created after a certain date. Anyway, surely there are more recently created articles, so if you know about some, add them there and remove the older ones. GregorB (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm dumb, CatScan can do exactly what I've described. I'll update the Recent Articles list accordingly. GregorB (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Principality of Paganija & De Administrator Imperio

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to bring Wikipedia’s attention to some of the historical information on it’s web site. It is about the former coastal Principality of Paganija in today's modern Croatia. The article concerned is in the historical section of Wikipedia (English Version). Historical facts are being presented here which appear to be formulated using unscientific methods. One can only interpret this as to be politically motivated.


The article is uses the information written in the book "De Administrator Imperio" by Roman Emperor Constantine VII Progenitors (Byzantine Empire) as it's only reference point. The historic information in the De Administrator Imperio which it cites has long been know as questionable, contradictory and should be treated as such. While other sections of this book have been regarded as genuine by respected Historians.

By using edited sections of De Administrator Imperio the reader comes to the conclusion that Slavic people of that area are of Serbian decent which clearly is not the case. This makes De Administrator Imperio a questionable source of historic information about this region. There are others such as two chapters telling two different versions of the arrival of Croatians. The sections about the arrival of Serbs seem to be identical to one of stories telling the arrival of Croatians. The chapters read as a retelling of the migration pattern of same peoples as if the author lacked historical information and used it as a template. One of the chapters also used mythic Croatian narratives as fact. Also De Administrator Imperio is describing events that took place three centuries before it was written. With this in mind, information in De Administrator Imperio concerning the Principality of Paganija can be put in serious doubt.

It beggars the question why hasn't other information been represented, such as the historical perspectives from the other Chronicles written in that period. Historical perspectives from the Venetian Republic, The Vatican, Republic of Ragusa (Dubrovnik), Medieval Kingdom Of Croatia and of course the most important of all the people themselves who live in that region.

Due to the very nature of the Internet and its place in society this misleading information can be used in the future as a propaganda weapon. One can only recall the recent former Yugoslavian Wars and how much pain, misery and death it brought.

One should also ask why is Wikipedia using poor historic scientific methods and is it representing politically biased interests?

Mario Ančić

The article is currently undergoing peer review by the Biography WikiProject, so you might want to take a look... GregorB (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Stećci and Stechak

These articles need a merge, so if any of you are knowledgeable about the subject - or at least interested in it - you might want to take a look. GregorB (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

New FA status proposal

Since I changed the general article look, I thinked to present Zagreb article into the FA candidature and it says that only some point are needed; if we works on it collectively, thos little points will disappear fastly and we will have immediatly a featured article. NIR-Warrior (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Lots of Croatia-related articles are underestimated or unvalued on the importance scale. For example article about Petar Krešimir IV of Croatia is rated importance=mid, and Croatia had its greater extend during his reign. I will rate some articles concerning Dux and Kings of Croatia until some consensus is reached, but there are lots of other underestimated or unvalued articles, especially concerning history and arhitecture. Such as Cathedral of St. James, Šibenik. --Kebeta (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you completely that in both of these cases high importance is warranted. However, I see e.g. Porga of Croatia - currently assessed as high - as mid importance at best. My rule of thumb for biographies has been: if the subject is not familiar (or only marginally familiar) to an average person in Croatia, then it can be assessed as low or mid only. Also, for example, I see Tomislav I of Croatia below Josip Broz Tito in importance, but currently it's other way around. Of course, since there are no written rules, anything goes, more or less - it is a matter for discussion. (In fact, even with written rules it wouldn't be much different.) GregorB (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that Tomislav vs. Tito example, as I think I would give them the same importance. Yes, I remember quite well telling jokes about Tito in the kindergarten when the war started, but Tomislav is also very important for Croatia as the first king. Admiral Norton (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
One of the criteria for assessing importance is how likely it is that a typical Wikipedia user would look up the article in question. In that department, JBT probably beats king Tomislav. Nevertheless, they were both assessed as high importance, and I was fine with that.
E.g. an argument could also be made that Dubrovnik should be ranked as top (as Zagreb and Split are), given its historical and cultural importance, as well as international renown. But this is a judgment call, of course, like everything else.
Just recently I reassessed all the counties as high importance. Is that too high? You be the judge...
Is this the first discussion regarding assessment on WP Croatia? Well, it was about time... :) GregorB (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I think rating counties as high importance isn't really needed. Counties aren't all that important, either for an average English-speaking user, or to Croatians themselves. I think large cities and regional centres (such as Rijeka, Osijek, Dubrovnik, Split, Zagreb, and perhaps Zadar, Šibenik, etc) should be considered more important than counties. Anyways we need someone to write down some rules for this or at least some discussion to set priorities for this whole work group, so we can do some work systematically as opposed to individual and sporadic efforts based on personal preferences. Timbouctou (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
County articles are convenient for a high-level overview, but I agree, this still does not imply high importance (compare e.g. Istria and Istria County). This is a small project (in terms of number of participants), so perhaps we don't really need a full-blown assessment department, but some sort of coordination is definitely necessary. GregorB (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I've just reassessed all the county articles as mid. Note that Međimurje currently redirects to Međimurje County, which is perhaps unfortunate (I'd normally rate Međimurje as high), altough subjects do overlap. GregorB (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Should we rate Josip Broz Tito Top, or leave it High? Somebody likes him, and somebody hates him, but he made great influence in Croatia and World. I agree/disagree with Admiral Norton about JBT and king Tomislav, they should bouth be rated same, but rated Top. Now there are 4,5 million Croats in Croatia, and about the same in diaspora. Through history there were x million Croats that had lived. Can't you/we grade more then 50 of them as Top. Why underestimated them. Regards. --Kebeta (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, JBT beats Franjo Tuđman in the Google test, and that's something. Beats King Tomislav in both "probability that non-Historians would look this up" (as already noted) and "large impact outside of their main discipline, across several generations".[2] (Well, arguably - I see King Tomislav's importance as mostly titular, rather than being based on actual impact.) So I'd say Top. (However, I really don't see room for more than 5 or 6 biographies in the Top class.) GregorB (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
1.)"probability that non-Historians would look this up" - does this refer to country or World?. If it refers to country (Croatia) then both of them are well known. Even so, rate is made by WikiProject Croatia, not by WikiProject World. For example, WikiProject Bosnia can rate Tomislav High or Mid (ruled over part of Bosnia...), WikiProject Bulgaria can rate him Low (Battle of the Bosnian Highlands). On the link [3] you posted above, there is example Patrick Henry for High rate. I bet 99,9 people never heard of him, but he is rated High. 2.)"Must have had a large impact..." Well Tomislav was a founder of new country in hart of Europe that influenced world history (less then some other country like Italy or England, but still influenced). 3.)" Limited to the top 200 biographies" - does this refer to country or World?. If this means that every countrys WikiProject is limited with top 200 biographies, then there is room for Tomislav, Tito and lots of others. If 200 biographies refers to World, then we have a problem. 4.)Person can be rated with some rate in WikiProject Biography, and with other rate in WikiProject Croatia (or other country). Best regards to everybody, and sorry if I was to annoying. --Kebeta (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I think we should try to set priorities in terms which articles related to Croatia wee think are essential to an average English speaking Wikipedia user and also how large the person in question is important for modern Croatia. I think Josip Broz Tito definitely deserves a Top rating since he is probably the most widely known politician of all time hailing from Croatia (due to the Non-aligned movement, split with Soviet Russia and so on), and regardless what anyone may think of him - his legacy is still very much alive and a heated topic in modern Croatia. As for Tomislav, surely he is important for early history of Croatia, but outside of Croatia I doubt that anyone except history buffs could be interested in him and his reign, and as for modern relevance, he is barely ever mentioned or thought of by modern Croats. I think he should be rated High or maybe Medium. Timbouctou (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Kebeta, you're certainly not annoying - on the contrary, you raise some valid questions regarding issues I sort of glossed over in my writeup. I quoted some importance criteria used by WP Biography which could be "transplanted" to WP Croatia. However, some WP BIO criteria (e.g. limit of 200 biographies in the Top class, worldwide impact) are not applicable here. (Country-themed projects like WP Croatia typically have 50-200 Top class articles, out of which typically no more than a dozen or so are biographies.) You're right, an article's importance rating can (and should) vary among projects. I'd agree with Timbouctou - for biographies, we should consider: 1) notability/impact (both worldwide and national), 2) likelihood of being looked up (both by worldwide and Croatian users). This is fairly clear, but the weighting of these factors is tricky. Still, we don't have to get everything correct, even if the word "correct" made sense at all here. GregorB (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:00, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Creating priority guidelines for WP Croatia

Hello all. Since It has been agreed earlier that this project could use some organising, I'd like to start this topic so that we could devise some list of articles by priority. Any input from other editors would be greatly appreciated. For starters, I suggest editors add their thoughts on how we should prioritize Croatia-related articles, according to subject groups (geography, biographies, sports, etcetera). After clarifying the criteria for attributing importance level, we could then agree on selecting certain Top or High rated articles and work on them in regular improvement drives (every month we could take a couple and then cooperate to bring them to GA or FA status). An obvious place to start would be articles on cities/towns - I suggest the capital gets a "Top" rating, large cities with population around 100,000 and up "High" (Split, Osijek, Rijeka), all other county seats a "Mid" rating, and all other towns and settlements "Low". I think this would generally work fine, but I guess we could make an exception every now and then if enough editors agree on it. As for biographies, I suggest we take into account the two criteria mentioned above (the likelihood of the entry being looked up by English speakers paired with the relevance in contemporary Croatian life). Of course, these are difficult to assess when politicians are concerned (In my opinion only Josip Broz Tito and Franjo Tudjman should be rated as "Top") Current and past prime ministers (from 1990 onwards) could be labeled as "High" (Ivo Sanader, Ivica Račan, etc) and current government ministers as well as prominent parliamentary party leaders (past and present) as "Mid" (Milan Bandić, Andrija Hebrang, Gojko Šušak, Vlado Gotovac, etcetera). I suppose this could also be assigned to relevant historic figures, too. As for sports people, I suggest we assign "High" rating to people with notable international careers (Goran Ivanišević, Janica Kostelić, Davor Šuker, Blanka Vlašić), "Mid" to people who are more noted by a single achievement (such as winning a single Olympic medal, or being a part of a team that won an Olympic medal, or people who won competitions in less popular sports, such as table tennis water polo, taekwondo, karate, etc), and "Low" to everybody else. As for companies, we could assign "High" rating to companies listed at foreign stock markets, or to companies which are considered large enough to be notable by international standards (like INA, T-HT, perhaps Pliva :-), "Mid" to companies included in the CROBEX indicator or companies which are of local or regional importance (Varteks, some shipyards, IGH, etc) and "Low" to all others. Well, these are my thoughts for now, there's a lot of stuff I didn't cover here but that's because I'm counting on other editors to chip in :-) In any case, I hope we will be able to create some guidelines so that we can build a list of articles essential for the project that we could than work on improving. Cheers! Timbouctou (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I agree... Here are some of my thoughts, in no particular order:
  • Assessment is important. The amount of work that goes into WP Croatia is limited, so it makes sense to direct it toward important articles. Improvement drives could help.
  • Compared to other projects of similar size and general quality of the articles, WP Croatia is short of GA-plus articles, while having a decent number of B-class articles. Some of these are real GA candidates: Zagreb (recent FA candidate), Lastovo (former FA), etc.
  • Referencing is a major stumbling block. My rule of thumb when assessing is that an article that has (virtually) no references can be rated as Start at best. Sadly, there are dozens of such articles that would otherwise easily meet C or even B criteria.
  • My rule of thumb for settlements would be: Zagreb and Split (possibly Dubrovnik) are Top, five or six regional centers such as Osijek, Zadar, Rijeka, etc. are High, all designated cities and towns are at least Mid, and everything else is Low (barring exceptions such as Motovun).
  • I've seen a nice guideline regarding Mid vs Low for biographies: people rated Mid are important in their discipline, while those rated Low are merely notable. This is easier said than done, of course, but it helps. Person's popularity should be taken into account too, to a degree.
  • I'd mostly agree with High and Mid ratings of sportspeople as they currently stand (partly because some of these ratings are by yours truly). There's not much room for additions to High (Vlašić or Šurbek perhaps?). E.g. in football, I don't see anyone on par with Šuker (High). Medals do count, but contemporary popularity also plays a role: if you went about asking people on the street who Ivan Gubijan is, how many would have a clue?
  • Note that currently only several writers are rated High, and not a single musician.
  • While it's natural that recent events are more likely to be looked up, one must be wary of WP:RECENTISM when assessing.
Well, that's about it for now. Whatever the guidelines may be, it's important to realize that's what they are: guidelines (i.e. help). It is not possible to create a set of hard-and-fast rules anyway. GregorB (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Organization to History of Croatia

If anybody's out there, we are trying to work out a better title than Croatia in personal union with Hungary at Talk:Croatia_in_personal_union_with_Hungary#Article_name. I've already asked at the main History article since it may require a complete restructuring of the history but I haven't heard anything. Anyone have an opinion? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


Politically Motivated Historical Facts On Wikipedia Web Site!

Re: History of Croatia/Dalmatia (Principality of Paganija & De Administrator Imperio)

I have been invite to participate in the article in the talk pages concerning Dalmatia. I’ve undertook some research to examine the history of the articles in question. I found some of the authors of these articles to have stated that they support biased and questionable political leanings (on their personal Wiki Pages with their Wikipedic symbols and statements).

For example dictator worship, support for former communist regime, and ancient anti fascist slogans (World War Two ended more than 1/2 century ago). There is also some serious cult of the personality issues. What is this all about? From a western point of view it looks like a gathering of the old Yugoslav Communist guard. Correct me please if I am wrong, however weren't they responsible for war crimes, ethnic cleansing, politically imprisonment, torture etc? Why does Wikipedia have these authors, editors writing historical facts? I choose not to debate or engage in conversation with any of these individuals.

To put the issues of Croatia/Dalmatia history succinctly there is a clear contradiction to their stated historic statements. The ethnic demographic of that region is predominately made up of people who have Croatian ancestry and some Italianic ancestry (Roman/Venetian). One merely has to research the Census documents and family names to reach this conclusion. In the face of these facts you still have researchers on your web site contradicting these simple truths (they should be addressed). There is also the issue of Red Croatia. Byzantine, Roman, German, and Venetian chronicles all suggest the existence of Red Croatia which appears to explain the ethnic demographic of the area.

For Wikipedia to retain any sort of respect as a serious and reliable research tool, I would think it would be advisable to address the idea of some sort of academic unbiased screening of it’s writers and editors questionable material.


Regards


123.2.59.195 (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Toponyms

I hope this is the right place for posting about it. I feel a bit strange about edits like this ... Now, I understand that some user can be stressed (and I had notice about disruptive italian-language editors about similar topics, deeply sorry about it), but the reaction looks a bit unusual. If a town has a biligual official name, what's the point in deleting the informations from an infobox? What do you think? --Yuma (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

In this case, it is not clear (at least to me) whether the settlement itself has a bilingual name. (It is plausible, though - the municipality indeed has a bilingual name.) Infoboxes should use the official name. However, the article intro should also list relevant names in other languages, official or not. A good example is Zadar: that its intro makes no mention of Zara is a serious error, probably caused by editors who apparently can't stand the sight of Italian (while, interestingly, having no quarrel with German). GregorB (talk) 07:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
No, there's not an error in Zadar article, read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), up to 3 names (official, 2 alternatives or historical names) are "allowed" in a lead, if more, suggestion is to remove alternative names from the lead and write separate "Name" section directly after the lead. And it's there in Zadar article. Zenanarh (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Well... The "Name" section is certainly warranted, but I don't see Zara on equal footing with say Iadera. Unless there is a particular reason for the all-or-nothing approach, I'd say putting Zara in the lead and leaving the rest for the "Name" section would be better. Granted, the current solution is not an error, but is not doing a service to the reader either. GregorB (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Both Iadera and Zara are historical names. While Zara was attached to the city for some 4 or 5 centuries as an official name (during that period Jadera and Zadar forms survived in use by the most of its citizens), Iadera is probably 3.000 yrs old and one (by form Jadera) which survived until nowadays - Zadar University still uses it in the titles of its scientific writings (traditionally titles are translated into the Latin language), so there's also reason to put Iadera in lead rather than Zara, don't you think so? On the other side there's not some significiant Italian community in Zadar, so therefore not some special reason to push Zara form forward. BTW this "Name" section succesfully stopped edit-wars there and I guess, being perfectly aligned to the Wiki policy, it's perfect way how to resolve similar problems of the same kind elsewhere in Wikipedia (earlier version was 6 or 7 names in the lead, edited/changed/removed almost every day by someone). Zenanarh (talk) 08:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Zara is still routinely used in a living language. There's also e.g. Siege of Zara. Still, the "Name" section preventing edit wars is an excellent point. But we're digressing a bit... As for Grožnjan, I'd even say that DIREKTOR's edit was a good one: that's Infobox Settlement, and the deleted bits were clearly referring to the municipality. Grisignana made its way into the lead anyway - so, in fact, I don't see a problem in this particular case. GregorB (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict2) Siege of Zara is exception, a "keeper" of that article was not ready to change it to any logical name (modern or historical->Jadera /Jadres per Old French original writings from the 4th Crusade/) just because his English book (source) used Zara (translated from an Italian book). So it's not something routinely used in a living language, it's more like giving better "relavance" to the 5th hand source than to the primary or secondary source. Zenanarh (talk) 09:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, Britannica uses "Siege of Zara" too. In Italian, Zara is in the mainstream contemporary usage, unlike any other alternative or historical name. GregorB (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Britannica uses it for the same reason as Wikipedia (based on translation from Italian books - it seems that Italian literacy have used exclusively Italian names not only for Zadar, but rather for any othe place in much much wider region, no matter for what period). Italians also use Spalato for Split, Zagabria for Zagreb, etc... as well as we use Rim for Roma. This is English wikipedia, not Italian. There's only one modern name and it's precisely known what were the hystorical names in what periods. BTW I've noticed that Britannica is very unreliable and superficial when it comes to anything connected to the Eastern Europe or non-English speaking world. Zenanarh (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
On en.wiki (also on hr: wiki) I haven't seen any page for the "municipality" of Grožnjan other than the "village" of Grožnjan. Also the incipit says:Grožnjan (Italian: Grisignana) is a village and a municipality in inner Istria, Croatia .... I do not think there are many difference with it:Duino-Aurisina (see the "official name") or it:Bolzano (see the "official name"). Moreover, I can understand move some information in adequate place, but remove totally data with inline citation (municipal statute), I find very strange. Zara - Zadar, obviously, is a different case. --Retaggio (talk) 09:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I asked reasons for a similar edit on the Bale article, and the answer (in my talk page) was: Foreign names on settlements of disputed regions should have a very good rationale behind them. I'm not an expert in this field, but do you think is correct to consider it disputed regions? (I'm talking about places in Croatia where the authorities stated peacefully and officially a bilingual name, as in Italy for Duino or Bolzano or Aosta). There is a specific rationale for croatian towns that suggest to hide such informations to the reader? I'm just asking, truly interested to understand what's the correct behaviour on this matter. --Yuma (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Special guidelines regarding Croatian place names do not exist, AFAIK. As for Bale, I'd say this was a bad edit. GregorB (talk)
Is this correct? --Yuma (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
A similar case (but there is a few to fix): The city of Rovinj does not mention the bilingual official name in the infobox, while Bolzano, Aosta, Helsinki, Bruges does. What's the problem with this kind of toponyms? I can understand editors who can't stand the sight of Italian, like many others dislike french fries or arab stuff... but NPOV is more urgent than other considerations. Someone oppose if I make some fixing, at least in the most patent cases? --Yuma (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason why places which are officially recognized as bilingual shouldn't be described the same way Bolzano and Aosta are in their infoboxes. Furthermore, I fail to see the logic behind the Rovinj infobox, which is titled "city of Rovinj" (instead just Rovinj). Is there anything else called Rovinj in Croatia? I suggest a few guidelines: 1. Determine whether the place is really bilingual - e.g. whether it has a lawfully recognized minority and bilingual public displays (I assume much of Istria would fall into this category, as well as eastern Slavonia); 2. If the place is bilingual, the infobox should lead with the official Croatian name and with the minority language name below it; 3. If the place is not bilingual, but went by different names historically, this should be noted in the lead section or somewhere in the article, but not in the infobox (like Agram for Zagreb, or Iadera for Zadar, or Londinium for London); And yeah, I know this means that we should probably include names in cyrillic for places with large Serb populations in Croatia, which means vandalism shall ensue - but this is an encyclopedia after all and we do need some clear criteria. There's my 2 cents :-) Timbouctou (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree completely with all your points, so I guess that's 4 cents then... :-) Let me just add that - in absence of other rules or guidelines - infobox-specific usage guidelines would generally apply. (Basically, this translates to "don't use infobox fields for what they're not meant for".) Usage of cyrillic script has been a pretty contentious point thus far, but for officially bilingual places it is in fact the least controversial (well, it should be the least controversial, at any rate). GregorB (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I've invited User:DIREKTOR to join the discussion, just to stir it up a bit... :-) GregorB (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite Gregor. Yuma, those edits of mine you mentioned were in fact part of a greater effort to undo all the damage done by the banned User:PIO's socks and IP. The guy annoys me exceedingly (to put it mildly) and I generally revert on sight :), I wrongfully concluded that the format in the Grožnjan article was introduced by him or someone like him. As I've mentioned earlier, I'm personally glad we can finally discuss this matter in a normal way (have a look at this, for example).
As I see it, the question here is not whether bilingual towns should mention the minority language, they naturally should, but whether or not that language warrants inclusion in the infobox, and if so in what way should it be included. My opinion is this: the format used in the Grožnjan article should be applied to all settlements that we can conclusively prove use bilingual names in official capacity (i.e. public signs, official documents, etc..). Not all Istrian towns would qualify, I believe.
I'll ask User:AlasdairGreen27 for his two cents, he was involved in similar matters in the past and we should try to achieve a complete consensus. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I like what you did for the town of Bale. The same should be done for the City of Rovinj http://www.rovinj.hr/rovinj/dokumenti/statut_hr.pdf, and also for some other cities and towns of Istria. Pay attention that not all the municipalities of Istria are bilingual: http://www.istra-istria.hr/index.php?id=604, and the English name is not an official name. --Grifter72 (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, then we appear to have reached a consensus? :) Remember, though, good sources should be in place (though I doubt that will be a problem). Not least because local IPs might want to remove the agreed-upon format. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that still confuses me a bit is {{Infobox Settlement}} - I've taken a look at it again, and it has no less than five name parameters (four, in fact - the last one specifies the language):
  • name
  • official_name
  • other_name
  • native_name
  • native_name_lang
Frankly, I'm not sure what would be the correct usage in our case. And yes, it would be a good idea to source all official names in languages other than Croatian (or scripts other than Latin). This should further discourage potential edit wars. GregorB (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The first point I'd like to make is that a year or two ago, we faced perpetual edit wars across a whole range of articles relating to Istria and Dalmatia. Thankfully we've moved a long way forward since those dark days of chaos. Next, and most importantly, we must always adhere to and fully apply the respective Wikipedia guidelines and policies which exist specifically to determine what may and may not be done and to avoid the aforementioned edit warring. I would advise all those here to read them carefully. As an overview, first of all, there is WP:NCGN; the most important points in it are that where English names for places exist (such as Trieste and Istria) they must be used. If there's no English name, use the local name. For which 'other' names to mention, guidance is at Wikipedia:Lead_section#Alternative_names, which essentially says that mentioning names in other languages in parentheses in the first sentence is encouraged - this is the situation in just about every article anyway - but having a 'names' subsection is a reasonable alternative. For infoboxes, the guidelines are at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)#Geographical_infoboxes - the title of the infobox should be the same as the title of the article, so, for example, Pula and Rovinj are correct, but Poreč is wrong. Other names can be mentioned on another line of the infobox or, to refer to a specific period in history, in a second infobox. Regarding the "official name" - here, the English translation of the official name of the the regional body or municipality from the statute should be entered.
    In addition to the infobox, where in cases such as Poreč, Istria county and Bale, the regional body or municipality has adopted for itself as a legal body a bilingual name, this should definitely be mentioned in a sentence in each of the articles, as well as other basic data about the population of the municipal area and suchlike. It is for each local authority to decide its own name, and may change its name if the council votes to do so, as has happened in the last few days in Poreč, where the municipality has decided to rename itself Poreč-Parenzo [4]. However, we must be clear that this does not mean that the town or city has two names. It means, to repeat myself, that the regional body or municipality as a legal body has adopted a bilingual name. For reference, in Istria, the following municipalities have bilingual names: Bale-Valle, Brtonigla-Verteneglio, Buje-Buie, Fažana-Fasana, Grožnjan-Grisignana, Kaštelir-Labinci, Motovun-Montona, Novigrad-Cittanova, Oprtalj-Portole, Poreč-Parenzo, Rovinj-Rovigno, Umag-Umago and Vodnjan-Dignano. The remainder do not: Barban, Buzet, Cerovlje, Gračišće, Karojba, Kanfanar, Kršan, Labin, Lanišće, Ližnjan, Lupoglav, Marčana, Medulin, Pazin, Pićan, Pula, Raša, Sveti Lovreč, Sveta Nedelja, Sveti Petar u Šumi, Svetvinčenat, Tinjan, Višnjan, Vižinada, Vrsar and Žminj. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with your proposal, AlasdairGreen27.
Of course, we have to check carefully the list of municipality with bilingual names: in fact I think you forget Tar-Vabriga-Torre-Abrega (red link?) see art. 3, and probably Funtana-Fontane [5]; moreover I have some doubt on some others (Vrsar, Vižinada... but I have to check). Finally (in order to better define the guideline), what do you think about names defined as bilingual in national (Croatian) law? For example, I see Pula-Pola and Višnjan – Visignano in this list [6] (referred to [7] - 2006).
However, I think there are still only two or three names to define... :-) --Retaggio (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

In light of the policies you've quoted, what exactly do you propose we do in practice concerning the infoboxes Alasdair? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents: it looks somehow redundant to add several times the name of the place... IMO we have two choices:
  • The simplest one is opting for the 'plain' name, as in the narodne-novine list (please note the identity between names of villages and names of corresponding municipalities):
|name                   = Bale
|official_name          = Bale - Valle
  • If we prefer to use the complete formal name we can do it either (the manual of style allow it: Infoboxes for geographical items should generally be headed with the article title, although the formal version of a name (e.g. Republic of Montenegro at Montenegro) can be substituted)
|name                   = Municipality of Bale
|native_name            = Općina Bale - Comune di Valle <!-- if different from the English name -->
Probably the 'plain' is good enough: it's the way the names are mentioned in the regional laws. Of course if there's a local statute to confirm the name is preferable, but maybe we can omit 'city/grad/città' or 'municipality/opcina/comune' in the infobox: if we want to make precisation about the kind of settlement we just have to fill the settlement_type .  :) What do you think? --Yuma (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vodnjan&diff=283969176&oldid=283968978. I moved the English name on the top of the infobox. I think it is better --Grifter72 (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What I'd suggest - as a standard for articles generally but especially for infoboxes - is as follows. For places that are not the centre and/or name of a municipality, there is no 'official' or 'formal' name. That's simple enough, and whatever toponyms exist should be mentioned once either in the lead sentence as we do now or, alternatively, but not both, in a separate 'names' subsection. What we're mainly talking about here, it seems to me, are the articles such as Grožnjan. When we are putting stuff into an infobox and we are deciding what the 'name' of the place is, I think that we need to take a basic look at each article and ask ourselves what it is actually about. What is the subject? This is a surprisingly fundamental question. For example, Pula is about a place called Pula. The article is not about the Municipality of Pula. On the other hand, Istria County, (as distinct from Istria) is about an administrative body established by law that provides services to local people. One you can see from an aeroplane as you fly overhead and the other you can't. As a quick aside, more than half of the information currently in the article about Istria County, including whole sections such as the one on 'geology', should be stripped out, as it is about Istria, not Istria County.
So therefore, if we look at each line of any article's infobox in turn, I think that for an article that is about a place such as Grožnjan, to take a good example, the article title and infobox title are currently correct, and the official name is correctly used in the infobox. I would definitely say 'Municipality of...' in the 'official name' line to make it clear to the reader what the official name refers to. However, the lead sentence of the article is wrong. It says "Grožnjan (Italian: Grisignana) is a village and a municipality in inner Istria, Croatia". The fact is that the place is Grožnjan; the municipality is Grožnjan-Grisignana. I think the solution is to change the lead sentence to some form of "Grožnjan (Italian: Grisignana) is a village in inner Istria, Croatia" and then (if others agree) have a second sentence to say that the related municipality is Grožnjan-Grisignana. As an addition, the municipality of Grožnjan-Grisignana should have its own separate section in the article with whatever data people can source (total square km, date of establishment, name of the current mayor etc). This also applies to all of the other articles - have a separate section about the municipality. It's important, and encyclopedic, to say for example that the population of Pula (the place) is x while the population of the municipal area is y (a rather larger number, I suspect). In addition, we all live in a local authority area, but for many of us the name of our municipality is the name of the biggest settlement in it, but is not actually where we live. I expect the people of Rabac would be quite careful to say that they live in Rabac, not Labin, even though that's the name of their municipality. So, to sum up, I would say that all this leaves us with the infoboxes at Rovinj, Istria County and Bale (town) being currently correct and this is the standard that I think should be applied. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Hem... the municipality of  Grožnjan – Grisignana is the administrative entity over the villages of Antonci – Antonzi, Bijele Zemlje – Terre Bianche, Grožnjan – Grisignana, Kostanjica – Castagna, Kuberton – Cuberton, Makovci – Macovzi, Martinčići – Martincici, Šterna – Sterna, Vrnjak – Vergnacco, Završje – Piemonte [8]. As you can see, the name of the municipality and the name of the single village are identical. --Yuma (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
By the way, it'better we stop to edit articles (unless we do it for example purpose) until a standard is found. --Yuma (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
You are right on both points, but the article is about the place, the name of which is Grožnjan. The infobox is, in my view, currently correct per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)#Geographical_infoboxes and Wikipedia:NCGN#Multiple_local_names. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Grožnjan
Municipality
Grožnjan - Grisignana
Question: but if in the infobox we put e.g. the name of the mayor, are we talking about the municipality or what?. Exactly, what's the difference with other places, like Mali Iđoš, or Duino-Aurisina, where the article talk about a village and a municipality without problems? Where is the problem with Croatian municipalities? Can't we handle it like any other municipality of any other part of the world? And, finally, what's wrong in the infobox here on the right? --Yuma (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) is about determining the names of Wikipedia articles, which is not the point. --Yuma (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I write again... but there's really something I don't get. Look at Bale, Croatia (now moved without motivation to Bale (town)). Look inside the infobox. You will find the mayor, the area of the municipality, the population and density of the municipality, the website of the municipality.... but for some reason we read, with blue background... — Village —. That's wrong. The reader must not get confusing informations. --Yuma (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
@Yuma: Municipalities (općine) and villages (settlements, naselja) are different things: one is the 2nd-level subdivision and the other one is the 3rd-level one. Talking about both in the same article would be like putting New York State and New York City in the same article (the Mali Iđoš article is thus incorrect). As for Bale, I'm not sure what it exactly is: the title says "town", but the text says "municipality" (I have removed the "village" part as it obviously doesn't talk about the settlement, which unfortunately seems to be an end unto itself). —Admiral Norton (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
@Yuma: Well, the 'problem' with Istria and Dalmatia is that a small group of Italian nationalist fanatics with too much time on their hands made it their mission to use the English Wikipedia as a platform to promulgate their silly irridentist ideas. The main culprits are now all banned, after years of edit warring, countless ANI threads and the imposition of special restrictions on this area known as the ARBMAC ruling. The result is that people like Zen, DIREKTOR and I are determined not to get into such a dire state of affairs again, as enormous progress has been made since then. The strong consensus is that the policies and guidelines that exist are there to help all of us to build a better encyclopedia, and they should be adhered to. There will also be the advantages of consistency and standardisation coming from that. Now, regarding the matters in hand, as I said above, the question is in each case what the article is about, as that is what will define what is entered into the infobox. Is it about the place or the municipality or both? Logically, it seems to me, the article should state as its elementary points that a) Grožnjan (+ toponyms) is a village in Istria; b) its official name is administratively Grožnjan–Grisignana, and c) that it is also the seat of a wider municipality called Grožnjan–Grisignana which also includes surrounding villages, with later on in the article as much sourced relevant material about the municipality that editors feel it is appropriate to include. If the article is about both the village and the municipality, there should probably be two infoboxes, one for each, I suppose. Alternatively, there's nothing wrong with also having a separate article about the municipality as a legal entity - date of establishment, population, composition, size, list of mayors with dates of elections, budget, all that stuff. I would suggest that we should decide collectively which road to go down (separate articles for the municipalities? An all or nothing approach with consistency and standardisation would be best, I think). Lastly, if you read it, WP:NCGN is not just about determining the names of Wikipedia articles. Cheers, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

AlasdairGreen27, you are right about fanatics that used wikipedia to promulgate their ideas, but it is wrong to have two pages for village and municipality. It is dispersive. And it is also wrong to have two infoboxes. We have to find a standard for all these articles, respecting minorities as happens in all the other pages of border cites or border regions as for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolzano or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aosta_Valley. --Grifter72 (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

For very good reasons, countless thousands of separate articles exist for both a place and its corresponding municipality or regional body or whatever. Both are inherently notable. I'm not advocating that we should do this, I'm saying that it can be done. If an article is about both a place and a municipality, I can't see any reason why there shouldn't be two infoboxes, and plenty of good reasons why there should. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Two infoboxes look unprofessionally and IMO we should have two articles in 99% of cases. Also, it should be noted that Italians, making up 7% of Istrian population, aren't a significant minority, barring a few municipialities such as Grožnjan or Buje and I'm thus against a blanket policy on putting Italian names in each Istrian article, just as we don't feature the Russian toponym in the New York City article. —Admiral Norton (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Admiral, we are not doing politic here. We have to be objective. We are asking to insert official names in infoboxes.--Grifter72 (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a separate dispute on adding exonyms to the article lead, such as "X (Portuguese: Y) is a village in Spain", that I'd also like to discuss here. —Admiral Norton (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The number and the choice of articles where is good to mention the bilingual name in the infobox can be discussed, I'm not worried about it and I'm not really expert to say which are bilingual and which are not. You have enough sources for making such a choice. But playng with infoboxes is a strange behaviour. As an user and reader of Wikipedia I have the right to have a correct information. If the infobox contents are related to an administrative entity I don't want to be confused with a misleading blue-background-heading. This was the wrong part in the Alasdair proposal. Now the Bale infobox is slightly better, still a bit redundant, though. Do we need the english 'municipality of Bale' line? --Yuma (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Yuma, I'm not quite clear. What was wrong in my proposal? I think I've said about 200 times now that if an article is about a place the infobox should reflect that, and if it is about a municipality or other unit of local or regional government the infobox should reflect that. And meanwhile, the more I think about it, the more strongly I believe that separate articles should exist for places and municipalities, as it would solve all this confusion. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion about it. I just want to know what is the standard for bilingual names in the infoboxes, in order to add this info in the articles referring to well-recognised bilingual places and/or entities in a correct way. Then, if you think there's a need to separate articles, you'll just have to move the infobox in the more relevant one. --Yuma (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Bilingual or not?

I open another post, because the way to fill an infobox is important and a standard must be found, but I still can't understand a (in my opinion) more important point. I'll try to make a list of (supposed) bilingual toponyms, found on istra-istria.hr and narodne-novine.nn.hr/. Up to you to say if the bilingual toponym must or not be mentioned, how to know when it's better to mention it and when we should omit. My request to the wikiproject, if possible, is to be clear, giving us some guidelines to follow, in order to avoid 'nationalist battles' about it. Bilingual toponyms other than Istrian are missing in the list, just because I don't know where to find it, but feel free to complete the list.--Yuma (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Bilingual places in Istria County, according to Narodni Novine:
  • Town/city (Grad):
    • Buje-Buie
      • Settlements (Naselje):
      • Baredine – Baredine
      • Bibali – Bibali
      • Brdo – Collalto
      • Briè – Briz
      • Buje – Buie
      • Buroli – Buroli
      • Bužin – Busin
      • Gamboci – Gambozzi
      • Kaldanija – Caldania
      • Kanegra – Canegra
      • Kaštel – Castel Venere
      • Krasica – Crasizza
      • Kršete – Carsette
      • Kuæibreg – Cucibreg
      • Lozari – Lozari
      • Marušiæi – Marussici
      • Merišæe – Merischie
      • Momjan – Momiano
      • Oskoruš – Oscorus
      • Plovanija – Plovania
      • Sveta Marija na Krasu – Madonna del Carso
      • Škrile – Scrile
      • Škudelini – Scudelin
      • Triban – Tribano
      • Veli Mlin – Molino Grande
    • Novigrad-Cittanova
      • Settlements (Naselje):
      • Bužinija – Businia
      • Dajla – Daila
      • Novigrad – Cittanova
    • Poreč-Parenzo
      • Settlements (Naselje):
      • Poreč – Parenzo
    • Pula-Pola
      • Settlements (Naselje):
      • Pula – Pola
    • Rovinj-Rovigno
      • Settlements (Naselje):
      • Rovinj – Rovigno
    • Umag-Umago
      • Settlements (Naselje):
      • Babići – Babici
      • Bašanija – Bassania
      • Crveni Vrh – Monte Rosso
      • Čepljani – Ceppiani
      • Đuba – Giubba
      • Finida – Finida
      • Juricani – Giurizzani
      • Katoro – Catoro
      • Kmeti – Metti
      • Križine – Crisine
      • Lovrečica – San Lorenzo
      • Materada – Matterada
      • Monterol – Monterol
      • Murine – Morno
      • Petrovija – Petrovia
      • Savudrija – Salvore
      • Seget – Seghetto
      • Sveta Marija na Krasu – dio Madonna del Carso – in parte
      • Umag – Umago
      • Valica – Valizza
      • Vardica – Vardiza
      • Vilanija – Villania
      • Zambratija – Zambrattia
    • Vodnjan-Dignano.
      • Settlements (Naselje):
      • Gajana – Gaiano
      • Galižana – Gallesano
      • Peroj – Peroi
      • Vodnjan – Dignano
  • Municipality (Općina) :
    • Bale-Valle
      • Bale – Valle
    • Brtonigla-Verteneglio
      • Settlements (Naselje):
      • Brtonigla – Verteneglio
      • Fiorini – Fiorini
      • Karigador – Carigador
      • Nova Vas – Villanova
      • Radini – Radini
    • Fažana-Fasana
      • Fažana – Fasana
    • Funtana – Fontane
      • Settlements (Naselje):
      • Funtana – Fontane
    • Grožnjan-Grisignana
      • Settlements (Naselje):
      • Antonci – Antonzi
      • Bijele Zemlje – Terre Bianche
      • Grožnjan – Grisignana
      • Kostanjica – Castagna
      • Kuberton – Cuberton
      • Makovci – Macovzi
      • Martinčići – Martincici
      • Šterna – Sterna
      • Vrnjak – Vergnacco
      • Završje – Piemonte
    • Kaštelir-Labinci- Castellier-Santa Domenica
      • Kaštelir – Castelliere
      • Labinci – S. Domenica
    • Ližnjan-Lisignano
      • Settlements (Naselje):
      • Jadreški – Giadreschi
      • Ližnjan – Lisignano
      • Muntić – Monticchio
      • Šišan – Sissano
      • Valtura – Altura
    • Motovun-Montona
      • Settlements (Naselje):
      • Brkač – Bercaz (S. Pancrazio)
      • Kaldir – Caldier
      • Motovun – Montona
      • Sveti Bartol – S. Bortolo
    • Oprtalj-Portole
      • Settlements (Naselje):
      • Bencani – Benzani
      • Čepić – Ceppich
      • Golubići – Golobici
      • Gradinje – Gradigne
      • Ipši – Ipsi
      • Krajići – Craici
      • Livade – Levade
      • Oprtalj – Portole
      • Pirelići – Perelici
      • Sveta Lucija – S. Lucia
      • Sveti Ivan – S. Giovanni
      • Šorgi – Sorghi
      • Vižintini – Visintini
      • Vižintini Vrhi – Monti di Visintini
      • Zrenj – Stridone (Sdregna)
      • Žnjidarići – Znidarici
    • Tar-Vabriga-Torre-Abrega
      • Tar – Torre
      • Vabriga-Abrega
    • Višnjan-Visignano
      • Višnjan – Visignano
    • Vižinada-Visinada
      • Settlements (Naselje):
      • Vižinada – Visinada
      • Vrsar – Orsera

I updated the list, with the settlements names, from the official gazette here. --Yuma (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed solution

We should heed the official Narodne novine list if there are inconsistencies. For the names, I'd propose this: 

| name = Bale
| official_name = Općina Bale - Comune di Valle

and in text (this could be discussed) 

'''Bale''' ({{langx|it|Valle}}) is a [[Municipalities of Croatia|municipality]] in [[Istria County]], [[Croatia]].

—Admiral Norton (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


Grožnjan
Settlement
CountryCroatia
CountyIstria
MunicipalityMunicipality of Grožnjan
Native name(s):
Općina Grožnjan - Comune di Grisignana[1]
SeatGrožnjan
I see two issues with this: 1) the "Official name" should also be found in English, per infobox template instructions; 2) The two headings of the infobox would not address the same thing. As we've concluded earlier, the Općina Bale and the town of Bale are not the same thing. i.e. the official name of the town(/village/whatever) of Bale is not "Općina Bale".
However, the Template:Infobox Settlement does provide a solution. It includes a space for the local subdivision [9]. We should simply fill in that part in as much detail as possible and we cannot go wrong. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
First off, there are no "villages". There are "settlements" (naselja, official Bureau of Statistics lingo). Second, the infobox sounds a bit strange. We should either use:
 Country:      Croatia
 County:       Istria
 Municipality: Grožnjan
or the much less common version
 Country:      Republic of Croatia
 County:       County of Istria
 Municipality: Municipality of Grožnjan
               Native name: Općina etc etc
You can look at e.g. Hruševec Kupljenski to see what I mean. —Admiral Norton (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


These are minor details ("Settlement"/"Village", there's no dispute there). Perhaps the slightly different version of the "Municipality:" entry I presented above should be considered in order to ensure we account for the different name the municipality may have in minority languages (i.e. Grisignana in Italian). All in all, my point is that there is no need for the name of the municipality to be included at any other place than the one created for it: the municipality and whatever name it may have is accounted for in the template's make-up. That's where the name of the municipality is supposed to be mentioned (in whatever language it may be). Exactly how we are going to include the Croatian - Italian names is not an unconquerable problem, I'm sure. For example: 

 Country:      Croatia
 County:       Istria
 Municipality: Municipality of Grožnjan
Općina Grožnjan - Comune di Grisignana

Although I'm sure Brunodam, PIO and the gang will surely find that the Italian name of the municipality ought to be highlighted beyond all measure, this is the standard (NPOV) place to account for the name of the municipality in settlement infoboxes, as it is imposed by the structure of the template itself. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

So it's still about the 'battle' between you and Brunodam, PIO and the gang? I don't like this game. Brunodam was banned from it.wiki after legal threat an personal attacks against me, if you want to know how far I am from such people. But if the game is how small the font can be, I think there is no place for a reasonable discussion. In some places, (including Croatia) names of cities, municipalities and settlements (yes, also settlements) are bilingual. This is a normal, civil, recognised reality. Even nice: when peoples stand together, recognising minorities, giving some space to different languages and cultures, it's something that make possible some hope. My question to the users of this wikiproject is really simple: please find a standard for it (a guideline can be marvellous, but some clear instructions would be enough), suitable for a normal geographical article, so we can fix it. I don't ask nothing more or less, but please, be serious. --Yuma (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice try. My current proposal has absolutely nothing to do with the short dispute I had months ago on this subject, I was commenting on the amount of disruption we may receive from esuli IPs. Nowhere did I suggest you are "similar" in some way to those people, quite the contrary, I stated (on more than one occasion) that I find it a positive thing to be able to discuss this matter with a person who's not like them.
My current proposal, on the other hand, has everything to do with finding the most "NPOV" (standard) place in the infobox where we are supposed to include the name of the municipality these settlements are located in. Why do we need special "instructions" and guidelines" from WikiProject:Croatia when these already exist in the infobox description? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 04:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I understood what you said. There are differences between town and municipality. For example the article about Milan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan is only about the municipality and there is another article about the metropolitan area of Milan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan_metropolitan_area. But I think we can't do the same for little cities like Rovinj or Buje. I understood your doubt about my edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vodnjan. Probably it is better to have only "Vodnjan" as top of the infobox. If we insert only "Vodnjan - Dignano" in the official name we can semplify the box without insering also "Municipality of Vodnjan" because the English name is still in the box as "Vodnjan". What do you think? I hope this is not to much machiavellic.--Grifter72 (talk) 09:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

My few cents to clear some things. Settlements, towns, cities in Croatia are "cities" (gradovi) or "settlements" (naselja), per official status. A "city" is every city/town with more than 30.000 inhabitants, with a few exceptions - if a city (with less than 30.000) is officially a "city" because of some traditional, cultural or other reason. The rest are "settlements".
A territory of Republic of Croatia is divided to 20 counties (županije). A seat of any county is usually some "city" within its territory. County authorities deal with jobs on county level, not on "city" or "settlement" level.
Further political division within a county is distributed to the "cities" (explained above) and "municipalities". If X is a "city" then there's no "municipality of X". Municipality is organized as a territory of some "settlement". It can be only 1 "settlement" with some lands around it or it can include a few more smaller "settlements" around the main one (a seat of municipality). In reality, in Croatia, these municipality status is given to small towns and villages.
IMHO there's no use of writing 2 separate articles for smaller towns that are municipality seats in the same time. It's enough to say that X is a seat of "Municipality of X" in the article about X. If there are Y and Z within this municipality, then it's enough to say that they belong to it in the articles about Y and Z. Zenanarh (talk) 11:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Enough is enough

Hold on Yuma, wait a second. Enough. You are very good at saying "please, be serious", but I spent way more of my time than I should have yesterday patiently explaining the standards, policies and guidelines that should be applied. I did this entirely in the spirit of finding an NPOV solution to all these issues. As far as I am concerned, all of the information you need is already on this page. Take half an hour to read it. What else do you need? What's more, I see absolutely no reason why long-established well-respected editors of this project such as DIREKTOR should have to listen to your lectures when you are clearly more than willing to allow absurdities such as this [10], which is nothing more than a blog and forum for fanatics to make personal attacks on editors of enwiki. If I started such a page here at enwiki it would quite rightly be closed down without hesitation. Obviously our standards here are much higher than yours. Put your own house in order before you dare to come here and tell us what to do. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I am here as an user of en.wiki, tryng to fix some information missing. I cannot control all the it.wiki users and I'm not responsible for their opinions. If you like to flame, this is not my problem. I'm asking what to do, the response is, again, about users. I am talking about geographical articles. --Yuma (talk) 11:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: Anyway, please be patient. My questions was to all users of this wikiproject. If you can't stand my 'daring' you don't have the obligation to read this pages and discuss. Nor you need to point at me with some kind of vague accusations... How you dare? is not the good answer, if someone ask you some help. If you don't want to spend time on it, you can just tell me Sorry, no time for this. We all are volounteers. --Yuma (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
That obviously does not justify continuing the debate while ignoring other Users' points. Ignoring arguments leads to them being repeated. Repetition is tedious and annoying. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The bit I like best is when he starts telling other people what to do, such as here [11]. They don't teach 'em manners like they used to, eh? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion reset

This discussion has become less than pleasant, so I think it needs a reset. Please, everyone: assume good faith. I really don't believe anyone here is disruptive on purpose. Also, please take a look at the entire toponyms discussion thus far, as neutral observers. Can you distill the essence of what is being (dis)agreed upon here on each of the major points? I didn't think so. I've read it three times in its entirety, and my only conclusion is that I need a fourth pass.

Instead of doing the fourth pass, let's summarize the major points. Please fill in the below table for yourself:

  • say what you think should (or should not) be done
  • say it concisely
  • leave the arguments for the Comments section below (or leave them out entirely - there's still plenty of time for discussion)

This is not a vote. The sole purpose of this table is to make clear where we agree and where we disagree, in order to direct our discussion toward solving the remaining issues. Finer implementation details are not listed here on purpose; these should be discussed once major points are set.

I've filled it in for myself, it's your turn now. GregorB (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


A brief overview of editors' respective positions on major points in this discussion. This is not a vote!
Editor How to deal with settlements/municipalities?
  • split into separate articles
  • same article, single infobox
  • same article, two infoboxes
  • something else?
    		•  Include names with official status (regardless of language or script) in the infobox? Include non-official (e.g. historical) names in the infobox? Include non-official names in the article body?
    User:GregorB Not sure. I don't think separate articles are useful. I wouldn't mind two infoboxes. Yes (only if sourced) No Yes, in the intro (or in the separate section for exceptions such as Zadar)
    User:DIREKTOR I'd agree with one of two options: 1) split into separate articles, 2) same article, two infoboxes. The settlement infobox should also in my opinion contain the name of the municipality in its proper slot. The municipalities and larger administrative subdivisions in full sourced official name (with English first), but the settlement infobox itself in English. No In the intro, yes.
    User:Retaggio Same article, single infobox. I think two articles can be useful only for very big cities or very large municipalities (in the Pampa, Amazonas...). Yes (if sourced) No Yes, in the intro (also in a separate section if needed)
    User:Grifter72 Same article, single infobox. Yes (if sourced). Short names (Rovinj - Rovigno) in official name field. No Yes, in the intro, or in the bottom if more than 4.
    User:AlasdairGreen27 split into separate articles or - if there is no consensus for that - two infoboxes. The settlement infobox should also contain the name of the municipality in its proper slot. The municipalities and other units of local govt in full sourced official name with English first, then Croatian and if bilingual also Italian. No In the intro, yes, or a names subsection, but once only for each name.
    User:Zenanarh 1) same article, single infobox - the name of the municipality in its proper slot; 2) same article, two infoboxes - one for the settlement, another for the political structure (municipality) - why not? Separate article for the municipality is useless since all info can be easily placed in a small infobox (chief, other settlements included, population per last census and... what else?). Yes (if sourced) No Of course, according to WP:NCGN
    User:Timbouctou Same article, single infobox. Absolutely (if sourced), with the English name of administrative subdivision first, then Croatian, then any other. No Of course, preferably in the intro.
    User:Yuma A single article or two? Probably one. For sure we have first to write and improve articles about any Grad and Opcina. Not all the Naselje will soon have an article. ( see also Talk:Municipalities of Croatia)
    One single infobox per article. Infobox must be consistent.    		 Yes, sourced ? Yes, if relevant

    Comments

    Your comments (regarding both the above positions and the poll format itself):

    • Your comment here
    Pula - Pola
    City
    Grad Pula - Città di Pola
    Pula
    City
    Pola
    Pula
    Pola
    City

    Now I know its not very helpful to deal in absolutes, but I feel that I ought to clearly point out what versions I would find "absolutely" unacceptable. I'm sure others on the "Croatian side" will agree:

    Pula
    City
    City of Pula
    Grad Pula - Città di Pola

    For me, the "acceptable" versions begin with this last (fourth) template. Also, I'd like to once again emphasize two points:

    • The English name should be included in the 'official_name' field along side the Croatian and Italian names. A viewer just might not know what a "Grad" or "Città" is...
    • The municipalities and settlements are NOT the same thing, we simply cannot merge the two into one infobox: that's wrong and confusing (mis)information.

    --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

    Settlement is something physical, made of houses, streets, squares, etc..., municipality is administrative and political structure. Zenanarh (talk) 06:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
    Exactly. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
    Well, technically, a settlement is any group of houses and streets, from villages and towns to large cities, and while it is certainly true that officially designated towns and municipalities are administrative divisions, I don't really see any point in separating articles for let's say Pula (settlement) and City of Pula (administrative division) since they are usually considered one and the same for any practical purpose. On the other hand, municipalities are somewhat different since many Croatian municipalities consist of a handful of separate settlements, usually villages or perhaps smaller towns. And frankly I don't see why we should have an article on every single village at wikipedia, since 90% of them would be doomed to remain at stub level indefinitely. There is probably nothing we could say for a certain village which couldn't be covered in its municipality article. Regarding the infobox solution, the fourth version on the right looks fine to me. Timbouctou (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
    Timbouctou, you must have confused something, please observe my comment at the end of "Proposed Solution" section. Zenanarh (talk) 09:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) I agree with... the first infobox proposed by Direktor ;-) (with second name only if sourced and official, of course), but I can propose also another infobox with only the majority name in the first line (but, of course, I can also agree with others, if there is consensus); Important, I'd write "City" (or "Municipality"), in english, only in the second line (I think is enough...).
    Pula
    City
    Grad Pula - Città di Pola
    Just a little prayer, Direktor... don't write of "Croatian" or "italian side": I'm italian, of course, but here I'm a wikipedian (or I try...). Thanks :-). --Retaggio (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
    Did I not use inverted commas? I realize there is no such thing, I was just trying to express my meaning as briefly as possible. My point was that it is inconceivable to me, and I dare say many others, that a rather tiny minority (less than 9% of Istrian population) should be the cause for a bilingual infobox heading on a city simply known as "Pula" in 99% of the world. If we follow the logic which brings about the first infobox, the next step is to propose a move to Pula - Pola. Since, "obviously", that's the name of the city. In my opinion, that's just plain wrong.
    Since we have two seperate major points open for discussion ("Municipality/Settlement/City" and "infobox"), I suggest we create two subsections to discuss them separately? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
    edit conflict) ...uhm, no... move the article to "Pula-Pola" is wrong, because it's in conflict with Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_the_most_easily_recognized_name... --Retaggio (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC) PS - OK, don't worry about the "opposite sides" :-)
    And that's exactly why the English name for the city ("Pula") should be prevalent on the infobox. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
    I agree, these are the two issues that need to be discussed, everything else should be more or less settled. By the way, thanks to everyone for their effort in this discussion. GregorB (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

    The pause was healty :) And I'm pleased to see that the discussion has cooled down. I have to say something really general, before going to analyse the details: there is a few -probably boring- considerations I made...

    1. The first consideration is about Wikipedia. There is a need to complete with some informations a small number of articles. That's a general need, Wikipedia must be accurate, and a lack of information, in the present case, can be seen as a negligence. If we know something, it's better to share it.
    2. The second pont is about Croatians. We are talking about Croatian places, and we must be careful, if there is something that could offend Croatian people. This must not go in contrast with the general commitment (to share knowledge), but we can find a way to give an information in a way not perceivable like an affront or an 'imposition' of something. Bilinguism in Istria is probably the case, and probably not the whole Croatian society perceive it like a 'normal' thing, probably because the 2nd world war times are not completely forgotten. This can lead in avoiding a 'Sudtirol' approach (where bilinguism is stated as a recognised and more pleasant reality). Articles titles must be always the most common name, and the second-language names must be written always after the Croatian name, always well sourced, and in a second-line position. This consideration does not apply to 'nationalist' views, or any other biased position. We can respect partisan opinions, but we don't need to have a special consideration of it.
    3. The third point is about minorities. The only thing we can make is, where necessary, to give some informations about it. But in case of nationalist or 'irredentist' (or 'pan-serbian') point of view, we must not consider it as something relevant in this case: toponyms are Croatians toponyms. The bilinguism does'nt have purpose to blandish nationalisms: bilinguism is not 'nationalist stuff' at all, but something made from Croatian authorities in the purpose of recognizing some right to Croatians citizens. Italian-language minorities in Istria (like other minorities elsewhere) are a Croatian matter, not an Italian one. We must remember: we are not talking about 'foreign' issues, and Italian (or Serbian) nationalist views are not interesting in this matter. We are talking about recognised language minorities, but still in the Croatian administration and citizenship. If this is definitely clear, probably it's easier to handle it.

    --Yuma (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

    As for bilingualism in Croatia: here, some people like it, and I'd say most don't care one way or the other. Of course, some people dislike it: rolling eyes, "what do these folks want anyway", "this is Croatia", and the like. The important thing to understand here is that debates about Pula vs Pola in real life and Pula vs Pola on Wikipedia are really two entirely different debates (well, almost entirely). In our case, I'm for the reductionist approach: simply, if it's official, if it's sourced, then that's the way it is, whether someone likes it or not. GregorB (talk) 08:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

    Municipality/Settlement/City

    I't not perfectly clear to me, the only thing I can say (just because someone above explained it) is that there is an administrative subdivision: grad/opcina/naselje. But I have some problem in comprehending if a small village that is the seat of an opcina must be described in a single article or splitted in two... It seems that the problem does'nt affect cities: unless there's a lot to say about his metropolitan area, I guess that the Zagreb article will talk about the place where Zagreb was built and about the administrative entity known as City of Zagreb. About smaller municipalities it's probably different, because an opcina is sometime a group of villages, but also in this case, I can't say if I would like to have two articles for a single, small, place. The suggestion I can make is to ask ourself what kind of article we expext to find when we click on the (just for an example) Baška or Bibinje link, and the kind of informations we expect to find. --Yuma (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

    Ah, you've just outlined the problem I've been considering for a while: while we could split a naselje and an opchina (or use two infoboxes), it makes no sense to split the Pula article into "Pula" and "City of Pula". Which is why I'm worried it will be difficult to agree on a format... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
    It's not so problematic as it seems. Administrative "City of X" and physical X are usually the same territory. So only "općina" (municipality) is in question. However all relevant encyclopedic info (area, population, included villages) can be easily included in a small infobox or small article subsection, not seperate article. Example: "Municipality of A" include A, B & C. In A article we can mention that A is a seat of the municipality (plus related infobox or subsection). In B and C articles it's enough to include the name of municipality in existing infobox. Zenanarh (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
    I agree. If "B" and "C" need a separate article, we can create in the future (I think also without infobox, but It's only my opinion), example Hruševec Kupljenski, Antonci or Peroj. --Retaggio (talk) 10:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

    Generally city pages are referred to the municipality, but sometime in infobox there are also informations about urban area:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zagreb

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcelona

    So, for example, "Pula" page should be referred to the "City of Pula", with also informations about settlement/settlements in infobox and article.--Grifter72 (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

    It's adequate to do the above as Wikipedia is a general reader. Technically, as someone who has worked in local government in more than one country for the last 832 years, I can point out that worldwide there are very few municipalities that are the same as any place. There are numerous ways of defining places and units of local government. Where we enter dangerous territory - and what I thought was the main element of this discussion - was to find a way to define the names of places. All of the above proposals muddy the waters and will leave undefined actual names and the names of local authorities. All of the places have one name, some of the local authorities are bilingually named. Or am I missing something? If I am, I apologise. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
    I don't understand your concerns... Surely, we can do an article for each grad and Opcina. For the cities it seemed there are no problems... For municipalities (IMHO) information about municipality and the village with same name can be in the same page (of course, indicating differences in the text). I don't think we need another infobox, but if you want... For other localities of the municipality, we can create a new article (see Peroj, as example). Finally, I don't understand your doubt about the names: we do not decide the official names, but the law. :-) --Retaggio (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    Well Alas is right, the names of the cities (towns, villages) in Croatia are not bilingual. Pula is Pula. It's not Pula/Pola. However, according to Croatian Constitution, the national minorities have rights to use their language, names etc... Realisation of it is transfered from republic level to the local authorities - they can decide how would some national minority realize its rights. In Istria in those towns where there's certain significiant degree of Italian minority, it was decided that toponyms and institution titles in documents are written in both Croatian and Italian. So it's not offical bilingualty on republic level (Pula is Pula in offical maps, documents etc), it's only a minority's right to use their language on a local level (Pula is Pula, but if you're an Italian you can say Pola because it is your right). That's what Alasdair pointed to. Zenanarh (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    Not completely. I'm speaking only about some municipalities or town in the Istria county (see the list provided by user:Yuma above). Some exaples: (art.3), (art.3 - in italian), [12], [13], [14], (art.3), ecc... IMHO, these are official names indicated in the municipal statute, not merely translations for italian minority... --Retaggio (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

    Zenanarh, is the same all over the world. What we are asking is to insert also Italian name where the municipality has also an Italian official name by statute. We are not saying that "Rovigno is an Italian city". I prefere this version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vodnjan, but also Direktor's version is good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rovigno. Unfortunately I did not understand who agree and who not. --Grifter72 (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

    I must admit I'm a little confused now. I think everyone agrees that when referring to the municipality (or other unit of local government, such as Istria County) if the official name is bilingual, we should say that. So what until a couple of weeks ago was the Municipality of Poreč is now Poreč-Parenzo. But the place people live in and go on holiday to is called Poreč. That's why I think we need either two articles or two infoboxes in the same article, as the two things are different (they have different populations, different boundaries and different names). AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

    Is it not enough this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rovigno? You can see on the top of the infobox only "Rovinj" refered to the city, and after there is the name of the municipality. The template was designed to solve these kind of problems.--Grifter72 (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

    I think that's fine. Personally I'd prefer two infoboxes, but I think I'm in a minority on that. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

    Good, I'm starting to modify Bale and Vodnjan pages using template as Rovinj.

    When Grad -> City

    When Općina -> Municipality

    --Grifter72 (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

    Infobox

    Here, if one of the proposed 'structures' has consensus, it's fine. I prefer the last Retaggio proposal, just because it's less redundant than the Direktor version. Anyway, regardless of the 'shape' of the infobox, I hope we agree that it must be consistent: a box containing info about a municipality cannot state 'settlement' in the heading. Just to be clear: this infobox heading settlement type is not consistent with the data it holds below. --Yuma (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

    If you can find me a human settlement known as "Pula-Pola", I'll gladly accept your point of view. Unfortunately, no such city exists. There is only "Pula", with "Pola" as an alternative name. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
    I was unclear: I wrote 'heading', meaning the second line, with the 'settlement type'. (The heading is obviously Bale) --Yuma (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
    Ah, I see.. sorry for the misunderstanding :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

    For me, it's either Direktor's version or Retaggio's version. The "name" parameter is meant for the English name, which is always the same as Croatian name (at least I can't think of any exceptions to this). Official names are trickier, because it appears that infobox does not provide for both English and native official names. One more (minor, i.e. pedantic) thing: infobox documentation suggests that the lang template should be used, so it would be {{lang|hr|''Grad Pula''}} - {{lang|it|''Città di Pola''}} then. GregorB (talk) 07:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

    I prefer Retaggio's version, because less ripetitive. But also Direktor's version is acceptable.--Grifter72 (talk) 08:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


    Croatia Barnstar

    Could someone make one? (LAz17 (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)).


    Code Result
    {{Croatian Barnstar of Merit}}
    The Croatian Barnstar of Merit
    {{{1}}}
    this WikiAward was given to {{subst:PAGENAME}} by ~~~ on ~~~~~


    Ok, now just insert the star when someone finds the time to make one. See examples here. Hope I helped :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

    Proposal for a 200-WikiProject contest

    A proposal has been posted for a contest between all 200 country WikiProjects. We're looking for judges, coordinators, ideas, and feedback.

    The Transhumanist 00:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    Lapitch the Little Shoemaker...

    ...is currently a good article nominee, so if you're interested in improving it, by all means take a look. GregorB (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Illyrians

    A debate is going in Talk:Illyrians#Sources, regarding how much weight should be given to connection between Illyrians and Albanians. Albanian editors are adamant that Albanians are direct, unbroken descendents of the Illyrians and that this should be mentioned in the lead. They mostly use modern Balkan history books to prove their point, rather than books that focus on the Illyrians themselves. Since the subject of the article is the Illyrians, however, I and a number of other editors maintain that the subject of the Albanians Illyrian origins is a) disputed, and b) peripheral to the subject of the Illyrians and is better discussed in the Origin of the Albanians article. A brief survey on expert sources on the Illyrians (Evans, Wilkes) confirms this. However, the debate has stalled because not enough neutral users are involved, and the Albanian editors are numerically superior and now resort to ridiculous wikilawyering arguments ("Bring sources that prove that Albanians are peripheral to the subject of the Illyrians") to stall the debate. I am thus posting in the relevant Wikiproject pages to try and get a meaningful debate started that is representative of the Wikipedia community as a whole, in the hope of achieving a stable consensus. --Athenean (talk) 07:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

    Croatian Wine

    I've created a new article on Croatian wine, and would welcome peer review comments. And a question on image licensing: I'd love to add some photos from the www.vinopedia.hr website, e.g. for Plavac Mali. I understand the site to say their content is available for distribution under the commons license as long as authorship is attributed, but the photograph pages don't have the standard statement I'd expect. The commons helper didn't take vinopedia as a project. Any advice much appreciated. Thanks! Farscot (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

    Congratulations on the article! I'm not really a wine expert, but - time permitting - I'll try to write a short review. It may appear in a week or two, I can't say. (But please, do beat me to the punch...)
    As for vinopedia.hr, it appears that they license their content under CC by-nc-nd, meaning no commercial use, no derivative works. Being more strict than either GFDL or CC by-sa, it is not compatible with Wikipedia, meaning that their content unfortunately can't be used here, unless it is released under a compatible, less strict license. GregorB (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

    Bosnian War

    There's an attempt to push the idea of a "Serbian/Croatian alliance" in Bosnia taking place at the new infobox template for the Bosnian War: Template:Infobox Bosnian War --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

    Deletion discussion

    Kupski most is nominated for deletion; if anyone who speaks the relevant languages is aware of any relevant information or sources, you are invited to participate in the discussion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

    Top importance for Dubrovnik and Josip Broz Tito

    I've reassessed these two from High to Top importance on account of their popularity, i.e. the number of hits these two articles receive compared to other WP Croatia articles. Here is an interesting comparison:

    Article Hits in May 2009
    Croatia 171,100
    Zagreb 33,605
    Franjo Tuđman 5,252
    Davor Šuker 12,518
    Tomislav I of Croatia 617
    Dubrovnik 38,857
    Josip Broz Tito 53,632
    Nikola Tesla 202,764

    While it is clear that the article's popularity can't be the only (or even the most important) criterion for assessing its importance, I think these results speak for themselves. (I'm certainly not arguing Šuker should be made Top, he is listed here only to provide a perspective.) GregorB (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

    While we're at it: it would be interesting (to me, at least) to see a top list of popular articles for this project (see e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Popular pages. User:Mr.Z-bot does that. GregorB (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    I agree with GregorB that Dubrovnik and Josip Broz Tito should be assessed top importance. --Kebeta (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    I did some searching manually, I looked the traffic data for all settlements with population 25,000 and above, as well as a few sportspeople, football clubs, a couple of writers and politicians and articles covering some regions and Croatia-related topics, and added articles' quality ratings. Of course, this is not intended to be a definite list, but it may serve as a reference to see what kind of numbers we can expect to see for articles dealing with such topics. This is what I came up with:
    Article Hits in May 2009 Assessment
    Nikola Tesla 202,764 B
    Croatia 171,100 B
    Josip Broz Tito 53,632 B
    Dubrovnik 38,857 B
    Zagreb 33,605 B
    Darijo Srna 21,868 C
    Dalmatia 19,361 B
    Eduardo da Silva 19,348 B
    Pula 16,578 C
    Zadar 15,600 B
    Toni Kukoč 15,561 B
    Croatian language 15,268 C
    Split 14,349 C
    Croats 13,506 B
    Slaven Bilić 12,836 Start
    Davor Šuker 12,518 Start
    NK Dinamo Zagreb 12,194 Start
    Luka Modrić 10,965 C
    Istria 10,942 C
    Rijeka 9,241 B
    Osijek 5,775 B
    Franjo Tuđman 5,252 Start
    Vukovar 4,360 C
    HNK Hajduk Split 3,670 Start
    Slavonia 3,381 Start
    Šibenik 3,307 C
    Tourism in Croatia 3,147 Stub
    Krk 2,984 Start
    Ivo Sanader 2,285 C
    Karlovac 2,403 C
    Varaždin 2,111 Start
    Sisak 1,743 C
    Ruđer Bošković 1,742 B
    Vinkovci 1,569 Start
    Slavonski Brod 1,466 C
    Miroslav Krleža 1,269 Start
    Koprivnica 1,141 Start
    Bjelovar 963 Start
    Velika Gorica 843 Start
    Marin Držić 727 Start
    Tomislav I of Croatia 617 C
    Art of Croatia 564 Start
    Constitution of Croatia 500 B

    Timbouctou (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    Very interesting. Darijo Srna is a surprise (albeit due to a huge match-related spike in the graph), surely there are more. I've filed a request for a popular pages statistics for WP Croatia (see above), so hopefully we'll see one in a week's time. GregorB (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    Here it is: Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia/Popular pages. GregorB (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

    Branimir Glavaš article lead section

    Please see here for a discussion on improving the lead section of the Branimir Glavaš article. Contributions are welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

    Pageview stats

    After a recent request, I added WikiProject Croatia to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia/Popular pages.

    The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 20:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

    There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

    • The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
    • The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
    • I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
      • This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
      • This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
      • There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
    • The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
    • The data is now retained indefinitely.
    • The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
    • Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" - [15]

    -- Mr.Z-man 23:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

    List of arcticles from "hrvatski obiteljski leksikon" (LZMK)

    Hello all!

    I compiled a list of articles from the "Hrvatski Obiteljski Leksikon (LZMK). It was automatically generated by a script so it will require a lot of cleaning, pruning and creating redirects but I guess that there are a few thousands of potential articles in there. If someone is interested in working on it, maybe it is the best to copy it somewhere under this project. Vedranf (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

    Expanded Hvar town article

    I've expanded the article on Hvar (town), and would welcome any comments and help with the finer points of wikipedia structuring, etc. Changed it's project assessment from Start to C - hope that's appropriate. Farscot (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

    In general, I'd say well done. I think you need to make the sources for the material added clearer though, by using footnote references rather than just listing two books in the references section. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    Great work! C class is just fine. In fact, it would easily make B class - alas, if it weren't for the references... But overall, this is in my opinion already one of WP Croatia's best island-related articles, not lagging far behind Lastovo (former FA). I'd like to see one of these two reaching GA level - who knows, maybe it's going to be Hvar (town)... GregorB (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    I agree. Were the referencing better, it would be well above C class. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    So, I've now added more precise references, which hopefully are enough? Also, in the meantime, someone has added a link to a yachting website which looks more commercial than informative - is that OK? Farscot (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    I believe these references are now sufficient to assess it as a B class - I hope others agree. Yachting link is indeed dubious: it is a commercial site, yet there is a section about the history of Hvar. Still, is it a reliable source? Is it perhaps redundant? I'm not sure... GregorB (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    I still think it could do with more inline citations but I'm not up to speed on the requirements for article class ratings. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    AFAIK there are no strict B class requirements regarding references: they must exist, of course, but they don't even have to be inline. But I agree, this department could still be improved. GregorB (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

    City Town Grad

    Gents, a simple question: when do we use "city" and when do we use "town" when translating the word "grad" in the context of Croatian settlements?? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 04:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

    As a rule of thumb, I'd say that a settlement should definitely have some administrative status in order for it to be called a city, otherwise it should be called a town in English, so the choice depends largely on the importance of the settlement (historically or legally) rather than just its size. Timbouctou (talk) 10:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
    How about this: if it appears in the List of cities in Croatia, then it's a city; otherwise it isn't. These are all "cities" designated as such by law. (And whether it makes sense to call e.g. Vrlika (pop. 2705) a city or not is anyone's guess.) GregorB (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
    Also on that list is Stari Grad, with a population of 1906! Farscot (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

    In Croatia, the administrative status is "grad", both for Split and for Vrlika... We won't find an answer there. The trouble is, for example, that Imotski with a population of 4,000 has the status of "Grad" and would definitely be translated as "town", not "City of Imotski" :), while Hvar on the other hand also has a population of 4,000, but can easily be called a "city" considering its urban tradition... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

    Wikipedia:WikiProject TRANSWIKI

    You are all invited to join WikiProject TRANSWIKI and join the Croatian language transwiki project. The aim is to draw up a full directory of missing articles from Croatian wikipedia and build a team of translators to work at bridging the gaps in knowledge and to improve existing articles by translation. We need your help, so if there are any Croatian speakers here please join up as your language skills are crucial. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

    Timeline of Croatian history

    I have created an article Timeline of Croatian history, following the pattern of other country timelines. The article is currently under construction, and it might stay this way for a longer period. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing and expanding it as well. Please, if/when editing this article, make sure your edits are well referenced (if possible), so we can avoid chaos and edit wars which are usually common to balkan history articles. If there are interested editors about this subject, and are willing to help, I have created a sections in the article. So, an interested editor can edit a specific time of Croatian history. For example, period 1941 AD – 1945 AD or 1945 AD – 1991 AD. I would also like some suggestions from more experienced editors. Maybe pictures and diagrams on the left side which will correspond to written text on the right. Thanks. --Kebeta (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

    Record charts

    There's been a new article created, Croatian Airplay Chart. There are also numerous articles claiming that various American and Latin American songs have topped the Croatian Singles Chart. Unfortunately, so far as I can find, the Croatian branch of the IFPI only charts albums, not singles. The HR20 list lists singles, but so far as I can see, it only lists Croatian singles: I don't see a single American entry on it. Can someone point me at a singles chart for Croatia that:

    1. Is published by someone identifiable (and hopefully official)
    2. If it's an airplay chart, includes airplay from multiple networks or stations
    3. If it's a sales chart, includes sales from multiple stores?

    If the HR20 list is the only one there is, that's fine, but that also means that I have to chase down and delete the links from American songs as being false.

    —Kww(talk) 22:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

    You're correct about the HR20 list: it's an airplay chart, domestic singles only. (Croatian Airplay Chart seems to refer to HR20, but it's hard to be sure: the article does not provide the chart's name in Croatian nor does it provide a URL.) I'm not aware of an "official" foreign singles chart in Croatia; there's something called "Airplay Radio Chart", but I'm not sure what it is. GregorB (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
    All the links the editor provided were to foreign singles. Do you have links to the "Airplay Radio Chart"?—Kww(talk) 23:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
    I've also found http://ehot50.blog.hr/ but it appears to be a totally amateur chart (most blog-based charts are). It's positions don't line up with things that have been posted, either.—Kww(talk) 03:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    http://www.soundguardian.com/airplay-radio-chart/. Described as an aggregation of foreign singles charts on Croatian radio stations. It's unclear who or what is behind it. Could not find an archive. GregorB (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    Can't find many people that mention it, either ... looks like a collection of blogs. http://www.barikada.com/ may be a reputable site, but my lack of Croatian hampers me in figuring that out. Can you name a few reliable newspapers and similar things that I can search to see if they ever reference soundguardian's chart?—Kww(talk) 18:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    Could not find anything of substance. The burden of proof is on the editor who wrote the article, so deletion is certainly warranted. GregorB (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

    Croatian Airplay Chart

    WP:Articles for deletion/Croatian Airplay Chart has been created.—Kww(talk) 16:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

    Croatian County infobox

    It is proposed to replace {{Croatian County}}, which is used only 19 times, with {{Infobox settlement}}, which has additional features. Please discuss here. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

    This was done. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

    Croatian history sucks

    I think its high-time someone opened a discussion on this. Croatian history articles pre-1918 are ridiculous. Its a complete and total mess - there is no continuity of states. I just barely managed to delete a double article, ffs. The issue is the Kingdom of Croatia. What was it? What was its relationship with the Kingdom of Slavonia??

    The current situation

    ...is a mess. We've got the following articles:

    (-DIREKTOR)

    This is what happens when people get hell-bent on country articles rather than maintaining the history articles as they are. Initially there was Medieval Croatian state, Croatia in the union with Hungary and Croatia in the Habsburg Empire. These titles made sense because they were not pretending to be talking about distinct states or distinct forms of government, but instead describing the flow of history. Then some smartass(es) came in and started randomly rearranging things, resulting in this problem. I recommend we simply revert these changes. We really don't need this regression. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
    Oh and I should mention that this behaviour was also propagated into Template:History of Croatia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
    I'm aware of the previous situation. However, the reason why these new articles were created was because states like the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary have articles on all their subdivisions - so what you get is subdivision articles that are in the format of former country articles, and "period articles" that cover periods of history. Together they create this mess. We need to incorporate all the information in either one format or the other. We can't have both. That's the dilemma, and its been solved for us: Habsburg subdivisions will need their articles regardless of what we decide, as we can't very well delete all subdivision articles because Croatian history is organized into "period articles".
    Therefore, we need to organize Croatian history into articles with the "former country" format, incorporating information from the old "period articles" into the new ones. I'm on this now and I'd have no problem doing the work, I'd just like us all to arrive a consensus on the organization of the former country succession. In short, if periods and countries together create a mess, and one of them must go - its the period articles that we need to get rid off (by merging their information of course).
    We'll properly reorganize the template when the articles are decided upon. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
    Well, I disagree with your premise - there is no apparent reason why we can't have both. We certainly did before. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    We certainly did, before and now. And this current mess is caused by this lack of organization - two history article formats on one timeline. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    What I'm saying is that we weren't supposed to put country articles on the same timeline as history articles. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    (They're both history articles.) And what I'm saying is we'll always need the "country articles", so we might as well incorporate text from the "period articles" into them. There's just no other way to properly reorganize Croatian history on enWiki. For example, "Croatia in the Habsburg Empire" and "Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg)" together create the mess we see now. We can't get rid of "Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg)" so what's the only option we have? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

    Issue #1

    Issue #1: how do we organize Croatian historical states? We've got four basic periods:

    • 925-1102 Kingdom of Croatia (medieval kingdom, Byzantine vassal/independent)
    • 1102-1527 Kingdom of Croatia (included in the Crown of St. Stephen)
    • 1527-1868 Kingdom of Croatia (still included in the Crown of St. Stephen, but since the Crown is in Habsburg hands the country is in the Habsburg Monarchy)
    • 1868-1918 Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia (still included in the Crown of St. Stephen, in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy)

    How do we organize the former country articles, and how do we name them? The way I see it, the main problem is what to do with the 1102-1527 period. Croatia was in a personal union with Hungary, as we probably all know, but the problem is, the country was still in a personal union with Hungary in 1917. The period known as "Croatia in personal union with Hungary" does not end in 1527, by no means. There are four options:

    Issue #2

    Issue #2: What is the deal with the Kingdom of Slavonia? :) When was it formed? Who controlled it during which periods, etc.?? I'd like to hear anything you guys know about this political entity so we can really explain wtf it was. More specifically, should it be covered as part of the Kingdom of Croatia? If so, during which periods (it was fully independent for a period)?

    Issue #3

    Issue #3: insignia. If we're going to be serious about the history of this country, we'll need serious, non-made-up insignia. For example: the Kingdom of Croatia (medieval) (925-1102) article uses a coat of arms who's only recorded usage is in the 16th century. If there was no insignia - sorry then we can't use any insignia (as embarrassing as that may be).

    Furthermore, the insignia of 19th century Croatia varied significantly, and we're supposed to use the last insignia. There were many locally-designed (Croatian) flags, but none should really be used aside from the official imperial Landesfarben. Other issues arise as well: if we were to merge the 925-1868 period as one Kingdom of Croatia article, we would be obliged to use no coat of arms and only the red-and-white Landesfarben flag of the Kingdom of Croatia in the 1860s, regardless of all previous insignia (such as Jelačić's tricolor, etc.). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

    Reorganizing history articles

    I know exactly what's gonna happen: nobody is going to discuss this in advance, and I'll have to just go ahead with the reorganization however I see fit. When I do, then there'll be discussions on ten seperate articles, disputes, edit-wars, etc. I don't want anything like that, I'm approaching you guys here so we can discuss this matter in advance so there'll be no edit-warring and I'll be able to just do the work per the agreement we reach. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

    Merge

    I'm thinking about merging Croatia in personal union with Hungary with Kingdom of Croatia (medieval), and Croatia in the Habsburg Empire with Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg). I'm also thinking about creating new articles on Croatian early medieval duchies. I'd like feedback on this before I go through with it... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

    This way Croatian history would go like this

    • Early medieval entities
    • Kingdom of Croatia (medieval)
    • Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg)
      • Kingdom of Slavonia
      • Kingdom of Dalmatia
    • Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia
    • State of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs
    • Yugoslavia
    • Bannate of Croatia
    • SR Croatia
    • Republic of Croatia
    History is not my forte, but I'm going to say a few words anyway. To me, roughly, it makes sense. Monarchy indeed had four basic periods that you listed under "Issue #1". (Historians would probably agree; people like Ivo Goldstein work on the Croatian Ministry of Science project under the name of Hrvatska povijest 1102-1526.[16]). However, getting the article names right will certainly be much trickier.
    Of course, there is an additional parallel branch of Croatian history: it's Republic of Ragusa. GregorB (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
    I can't think of a better way to handle the 1102-1527 period than to merge with Kingdom of Croatia (medieval). So we'd have three country articles for those four basic period, but I'd split the Kingdom of Croatia (medieval) article into two main sections handling the independent period and the personal union period.
    The "parallel" articles are Illyrian provinces, Republic of Ragusa, Kingdom of Dalmatia, and Kingdom of Slavonia. I'm not quite sure how to incorporate them in the template... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

    Problems

    This is not a proposal, just showing some problems.

    • Medieval Croatian state (until 925)
      • Pannonian Croatia
      • Littoral Croatia
      • Red Croatia (Pagania, Hum, Travunia)
    • Kingdom of Croatia (medieval)
    • Kingdom of Croatia (1102-1527-1918)
      • Croatia in personal union with Hungary
      • Dalmatia under the Venetian supremacy (1420–1797)
      • Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg)
      • Kingdom of Slavonia
      • Kingdom of Dalmatia
      • Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia
      • Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia
    • Yugoslavia
      • State of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs
      • Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes
      • Kingdom of Yugoslavia
      • Democratic Federal Yugoslavia
        • Banovina of Croatia
        • Independent State of Croatia
      • Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia
    • Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
      • SR Croatia
      • Republic of Croatia (1990-1991)
    • Republic of Croatia

    There is also: Republic of Ragusa, Republic of Poljica, Illyrian Provinces, and so on...--Kebeta (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


    I don't see any problems there, what do you mean? If we remove all the Yugoslavias and non-existing articles you get this:
    • Medieval Croatian state (until 925)
    • Pannonian Croatia
    • Littoral Croatia
    • Red Croatia (Pagania, Hum, Travunia)
    • Kingdom of Croatia (medieval) - ok
    • Croatia in personal union with Hungary
    • Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) - ok
    • Kingdom of Slavonia - ok
    • Kingdom of Dalmatia - ok
    • Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia - ok
    • State of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs - ok
    • Banovina of Croatia - ok
    • Independent State of Croatia - ok
    • SR Croatia - ok
    • Republic of Croatia - ok
    So ok, you're right, we also need to incorporate "Red Croatia (Pagania, Hum, Travunia)"... not that big of a problem... They'll just be merged into the Medieval Croatian state article... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


    Well, I generally agree with User:Joy that we can have both (articles that are describing the flow of history and former country articles). We should have for example: articles that are describing the flow of history

    In all those articles we can cover (incorporate main issue of) all former country articles (which will naturally exist under its name-as a separate article).--Kebeta (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

    An article of former country articles for period 1102-1527, can be Kingdom of Croatia (Hungary), or just Kingdom of Hungary.--Kebeta (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


    Kebeta, you're missing the point again. What you're suggesting is what's what we have now, give-or-take. What you're suggesting is what we're trying to fix. 1) Its highly disorganized to have two types of history articles talking about the same time periods, and I believe its also against Wiki policy (WP:CFORK). 2) We can't get rid of the "country articles", so we have to get rid of the "period articles".
    The period articles were created as copies from the Croatian Wikipedia. They work there, as that Wikipedia can afford to delete the "country articles", but obviously not here. The "flow of history" is perfectly covered by a succession of "country articles". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


    Concerning the solution to the Hungarian period, a "Kingdom of Croatia (Hungary)" article is not very recommendable, since the Kingdom of Croatia existed only in the form of a title of the Hungarian king. As I described earlier, a seperate "Kingdom of Croatia (Hungary)" did not exist in any political form (this is why all non-Croatian historians treat the state as "Kingdom of Hungary" not "Croatia-Hungary"). Now, these are facts. Aside from this, Hungarians would object. We can probably get away with depicting it as more of a seperate state ;) if we merge it into "Kingdom of Croatia (medieval)" article. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

    Croatian history

    After my edits, pre-Yugoslav Croatian history is covered in four main articles:

    • Kingdom of Croatia (medieval)
    • Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg)
    • Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia
    • Kingdom of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs

    Aside from these, there's a number of smaller secondary articles. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

    Barnstar of merit

    Do you guys still need a barnstar of merit? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

    Well, I needed it just 10 days ago... :-) Why do you ask? GregorB (talk) 07:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

    Walls of Dubrovnik

    Walls of Dubrovnik is is currently a good article nominee, under GA assessment. Additional comments are welcome. --Kebeta (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

    Passed. --Kebeta (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

    demographic history

    Does anyone have the results of the 1961, 71, 81, and 91 censuses? I have been looking for them all over the internet and cant find them anywhere. I think we should incorporate this data into the city articles because its been done for most the cities for the other countries in the former yugoslavia but just not for Croatia. Yugo91aesop (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

    I have an old atlas with detailed 1981 data. I'm also not aware of any online sources. GregorB (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    If possible you should incorporate that into the city articles of Croatia. It's probably a lot of work but it would greatly improve their image, atleast for the main cities such as Zagreb, Split, Rijeka, Osijek, Zadar, Pula, Karlovac etc. Yugo91aesop (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    I might do it... But 1981 is still a single data point, unfortunately I can't emulate e.g. Ljubljana with the data I have. GregorB (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    Here's what my atlas says - for every municipality in the SFRY:
    • area
    • pop. 1971
    • pop. 1981
    • illiteracy rate
    • % of pop. in agriculture
    • % active pop.
    • % pop. working abroad ("na privremenom radu u inozemstvu")
    • "narodni dohodak" (the equivalent of GDP, I guess), also per capita and index where SFRY = 100
    • ethnic makeup (only ethnic groups with proportion >= 10%)
    There are also 1981 population figures for every settlement with more than 5000 inhabitants, and post-WWII (48/53/61/71/81) population figures for all Yugoslav republics.
    Here's an interesting fact: if 1981 GDP per capita for SFRY was 100 then:
    • Bosnia and Herzegovina was 69
    • Montenegro was 78
    • Croatia was 128
    • Macedonia was 65
    • Slovenia was 180
    • Serbia was 93 (S. proper 96, Kosovo 33, Vojvodina 129)
    So, there's some interesting stuff. Whoever is interested about a particular fact, let me know and I'll look it up. GregorB (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
    Some of the data extracted from this source can now be seen at User_talk:Yugo91aesop#Re:_1981_Croatia_statistics. GregorB (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
    Per-county GDP data for Croatia can be seen here. GregorB (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

    Uskoci

    Hi all. There has been continuous trouble on the uskoci page, due to a Serb user who is running around trying to edit wiki pages as much as he can, for really no apparent reason but to add the word "serb" to the beginning of every paragraph (you can see this from his contributions on the history page), which makes it really suspicious what he is trying to do here. Please look at the discussion page to see what has been going on. We have been trying to explain to him why the page is the way it is, and we tried adding his reference to the first body paragraph below, but for some reason, that is not enough for him. Please advise and help if you can. --Jesuislafete (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

    Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
    1. ^ The Statute of Grožnjan - Grisignana art. 3
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Croatia/Archive_1&oldid=1256502090"