Talk:Rijeka

Rijeka/Fiume in popular culture

There should be a section on Rijeka/Fiume in popular culture. The city is used as a major location in Studio Ghibli's animated film Porco Rosso/Kurenai no Buta, directed by Hayao Miyazaki. 67.244.76.130 (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Consistency

I don't understand why TRIESTE is within the Slovenia WikiProject, while Fiume isn't in the Italy WikiProject — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.19.175.166 (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Population

the population is not 175486 diff, right is 128624 census --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎ 21:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

THEY PUT THAT INVENTOR OF TORPEDO WAS GIOVANNI LUPPIS BUT INVENTOR WAS ROBERT WHITEHEAD. HE WAS THE TORPEDO FACTORY OWNER AND THE MOST IMPORTANT PERSON IN HISTORY OF RIJEKA AND FOR RIJEKA TODAY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.137.116.215 (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

SOMEBODY PUT POPULATION 345000 INSTEAD OF 245000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.46.183 (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rijeka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081031131611/http://www.archivi.beniculturali.it/DGA-free/Sussidi/Sussidi_12.pdf to http://www.archivi.beniculturali.it/DGA-free/Sussidi/Sussidi_12.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130626075304/http://www.ljubljana.si/si/ljubljana/pobratena-mesta-zdruzenja/ to http://www.ljubljana.si/si/ljubljana/pobratena-mesta-zdruzenja/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150419041652/http://www.rijeka.hr/SisterAndFriendlyCities to http://www.rijeka.hr/SisterAndFriendlyCities

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070106134304/http://www.portauthority.hr/rijeka/lucka_uprava_rijeka.shtml to http://www.portauthority.hr/rijeka/lucka_uprava_rijeka.shtml

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rijeka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120313035443/http://www.ina.hr/default.aspx?id=269 to http://www.ina.hr/default.aspx?id=269
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100201205203/http://www.jutarnji.hr/tajna-rupe--kako-je-nestalo-11-000-vojnika/147211 to http://www.jutarnji.hr/tajna-rupe--kako-je-nestalo-11-000-vojnika/147211/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721154032/http://www.edit.hr/lavoce/2010/100430/cultura.htm to http://www.edit.hr/lavoce/2010/100430/cultura.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://mylastdestination.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/rijeka-croatia-city-map.jpg

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Rijeka - "River" in English?

I don't understand, how that happened, but seriously - Rijeka/Fiume maybe means "river" in English, but that is just the word meaning itself, it's definitely not the official English name of the city. I am deleting it, somebody should come with reliable source for such a claim - reliable source is NOT dictionary in this case for the above reasons. GuestOneR (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

L-O-N-G article

This is the longest article I've seen for a city of some 128,000 people. SOme of the extensive recent history seems heavily biased. ExpatSalopian (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think is biased. I actually think should be longer to explain the history of this city. Tigre-samolaco (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Italians are not “autochthonous” to Rijeka

@LukeWiller You can't just add unsourced content that is not supported by any reliable sources then proceed to say my “claims have no reliable sources” when I remove said content. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You are welcome to add this content when give a WP:RS that supports your claim. The scholarly consensus is that Italians, just like in the case of other non-Venetian cities in the Kvarner such as Crikvenica, Kastav, Bakar and Habsburg Istria (Pazin), are not autochthonous. Rijeka gained an Italian majority through migration in the late 19th century. That does not mean the Italians were autochthonous. Best regards. Andro611 (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Andro611 You have given the answer yourself: it is you who, by modifying the article which has statements that have been consolidated for years, should provide reliable sources. One last thing: which scholars specifically support your thesis? Your statement is too general. Best regards. LukeWiller (talk) 07:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC).

@LukeWiller No the onus is on you who restored the unsourced material. You have to provide a source for the claim that they are autochthonous. Instead of asking me to prove a negative, which is exceedingly difficult, give me a WP:RS claiming that they are autochthonous, then we can work from there. This is the basic principle of verifiability. Best regards. Andro611 (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Andro611 The issue was resolved, I even thanked you when you found the compromise directly. For me the debate is over. LukeWiller (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC).

I'm glad we resolved the issue. It's good to communicate. Andro611 (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)