Talk:Zagreb/Archive 1

Untitled

admiral norton obviously studied economy together with serbian economists so he cannot accept the gdp per capita of zagreb in 2008:) he - like most of the serbs , lives in the PAST NOT PRESENT not to speak about the future:)i just dont know norton why dont you put GDP OF ZAGREB FOR THE YEAR 1880 , isnt 2004 to present for you?????

Zagreb economy (GDP)

I have found a source citing a GDP PPP in 2004 as €19,000 and I hope that will be enough for you. As I said, I'm unable to find any newer estimates or calculations of the Zagreb GDP. If you have any, just post a link here so that I can cite it. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 23:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I just want to know what is the purpose of wikipedia if people can manipulate with the data in this way? I don't think that anyone has the pleasure of reading data 4-5 years old. So all of you who are in charge please leave the data for GDP 2008. If you keep changing it to 2004 you are putting wikipedia on a bad voice. Are you sure you need more of that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.69.251 (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You're the one putting Wikipedia on a bad voice. I'm also from Zagreb (from Šalata, not Serbia as you seem to think) and I'm trying to get Zagreb to a featured article. Such an article has to rely on proven and reliable sources, not on an unnamed estimate, which is probably correct, but isn't corroborated by sources. If the statistics bureau or someone else releases more up-to-date information, I'll be more than ready to add this to the article. However, as far as I know, the newest data available is from 2004. In case you find newer data, post the web address here so that I can properly credit the data in the article. P.S. The article about Belgrade states its 2008 GDP as lower than the 2005 Croatian average. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You see I would strongly disagree with you! You do have to realize that there are 3 typs of GDP. Most of the time we take PPP GDP as most relevant because it shows what most people want to conclude from it. I do understand that you take data from www.dzs.hr as relevant, which they were at the time, but as an Admin you should be aware that you have articels about Croatia here on wikipedia where GDP is slightly more than 15 500$. The data on that you can get on CIA web page, IMF etc. People read article about Croatia with the new data, and then they read article about Zagreb where they find old data where GDP of Zagreb is less than Croatia's GDP at this point. And if Croatia's GDP per capita is more than 15 500$ then Zagreb has GDP per capita 25 000$-30 000$ if not even more. It is not a secret and I have heard about this many times. Just because dzs doesn't have latest data that doesn't mean that hey don't exsist! And people who read this article will immediatley conclude that Zagreb is not much of a city when it comes to economy, and in fact the truth is that Zagreb has GDP per capita more than the average of European Union and is most developed city in the region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.69.251 (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoever is changing the GDP just stop it already ok? It is 2008. and NOT 2004, so if you have data for salary than you must have data for GDP of Zagreb in 2008. And if the person who is doing this Serbian....give us a break already ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.48.245 (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

THE IDIOT IS TRYING TO REDUCE THE DEVELOPMENT OF ZAGREB CAUSE PROBABLY WANTS TO INCREASE DEVELOPMENT OF OTHER CITIES IN THE REGION...YOU KNOW THAT NOTHING COMPARES TO SERBIA..THEY HAVE EVERYTHING THEY ARE MOST DEVELOPED AND MOST ,MOST MOST ECERYTHING...OK...MAYBE GDP IS DOUBLE AND A HALF LOWER OF CROATIAN, MAYBE THEY HAVE CARS 35 YEARS OLD, AND TROLLEYBUSES AND TRAM FROMT 19 TH CENTURY ETC....MAYBE THEIR TOWN IS FULL OF GARBAGGE, DIRTY SMELL, MAYBE THEY DONT CLAEN TOILETS, ETC,ETC.....BUT WHO CARES...-------THEY ARE ALSO BETTER THEN ZAGREB:)))HAHAHAHA-- YOU WHO CONSTANTLY CHANGING DATA TO 2004 WE ARE MORE INTELLIGENT THEN YOU THINK...... AND IF YOU DONT KNOW ECONOMY---

ITS BETTER TO SHUT UP THEN!!!!!

Does anyone ever read this? Can you please stop that retarded idiot that is constantly changing data to 2004. numbers? This really doesn't make sense anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.97.205 (talk) 05:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Before changing the numbers again, read the www.dzs.hr data thoroughly. Just because the data is old, we shouldn't put random numbers instead. You should also try to adhere to this. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 12:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

the data of gdp per capita of Zagreb are on the sites www.dzs.hr, for the year 2007.which say everything. 2004 year was 4 years ago, and is absolutely clear that someone is reducing gdp of zagreb because of its own interest. the datas for zagreb are also shown on the economic institute of zagreb. so it would be really nice to live in present not in 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.130.79 (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the publication was issued in 2007, but the data concerns 2004. If you would bother to read the numbers in the table, you would find out that Zagreb GDP actually was $14,480 and Croatia GDP was $8,024, just as it says in the article. If you find a source that says something about present data, put a link here or in the article. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not bother to try to explain, I was trying for a month. Now I simply revert, as you do. At least he could be polite and login under his account, (by style, i think he is Ivani100), not as Anon user. And at the end of this section I explained long ago why this numbers might be close to true for PPP GDP, if we only have the source, but this is nominal GDP. Regarding claim that I am minimizing ZG GDP on purpose - this is serious allegation, I hope Anon can prove that! This "high GDP" story is the same as Belgrade has population of at least 1,5M but possibly near 2M, and that East Sarajevo is town of 150000 people - "Balkans' business" and "grandomania" are the best words to describe that. --Plantago (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

SO WHAT DO YOU ALL THINK WHO IS CONSTANTLLY REVERTING THIS NUMBERS????

CHECK SOME EAST CLOSE CITY SITE,....THEY SUDENLLY HAVE THE HIGHEST GDP OF WHOLE REGION,HAHAHA, ...WE ALL KNOW WHO IS REVERTING IS.....WE DIDNT KNOW HOW STRONG COUNTRY WE HAVE ON OUR EAST SIDE, HAHAHAHA:))NO COMMENT!

I sure would like that these numbers are true, but until you cite a reliable source with such data, I'm afraid we'll have to cling to the old data. And BTW I live in Zagreb, so don't assume this is related to politics in any way. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 20:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This with someone changing BDP to 2004 Data and 15k for Zagreb just doesnt make sense anymore, could you please somehow lock this and leave real 2008 (25k) numbers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.29.112 (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone is constantly reverting the changes that I made. Zagreb's GDP per capita (PPP) is 80% higher than the Croatian average, so it is around 25000 dollars. Please stop reverting it to 15000. That number is not PPP! 15000 $ means NOMINAL GDP per capita in dollars, 25000 means GDP per capita by purchasing power parity in international dollars.

Please put your name; and were did you get stats from? I have never edited this page, but Zagreb's nominal income is 32.7% of Croatia's GDP, in 2006 Croatian GDP was 256.4 Billion Kuna (preliminary NBC estimates) if that be the case, Zagreb's GDP in 2006 was 83.8 billion Kuna, we use average exchange rate; than; City of Zagreb GDP in 2006 was 14.97 billion USD this is nominal GDP, if we use GDP PPP ratio for Zagreb should be in region of 22.1 billion USD, or 20100 USD. nowhere near 25000 USD you are proposing. Mic of orion 14:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Mic of orionMic of orion 14:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

IF GDP PER CAPITA OF CROATIA IS 16000$(PPP) AND ZAGREB HAS DOUBLE GDP OF ALL CROATIA-SO, HALLLLLOOOOOO!!!!!DID YOU HAVE MATHEMATICS IN YOUR COUNTRIES???? GDP PER CAPITA OF ZAGREB IS NOT 15000$ BUT 27000$. CORRECT IT!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivani100 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As formulated, this is WP:OR. The only relevant data are these in CIA factbook, IMF reports, Croatian Statistics Institute (and derived data from Zagreb Statistics Office). There are not stating PPP for Zagreb only, and you can not just multiply data by yourself. So, I'll revert any unconfirmed/unsourced statement immediately. Please provide exact number. Plantago (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Zagreb GDP (PPP) was, according to one informal source, 84.5% of EU25 average in 2001/02 so it could be above 25,000$ (if only we know EU25 GDP (PPP) in 2002!). The problem is I don't have any relevant source for that, only second-hand (tertiary) source, from one presentation, with relative positioning. So, User:Ivani100, if you have proper, primary or secondary source for Zagreb's GDP (PPP) please provide it. Until than, stop changing 14,400 into 28,800, because it is nominal GDP.Plantago (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible copying

The contents of this page sounded a bit marketing-droidish to me so I went back and looked up the originator. The text added on 16:03, 20 Nov 2002 by 213.202.122.186 is almost identical to what's on http://www.croatiatravel.com/destinations/zagreb.htm Now, their copyright notice says 2003, so either they're copying from Wikipedia or vice versa...

I can always replace the article with something I wrote myself.

--Shallot 21:03, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Demographics

Someone keeps putting the figure of jews living in Zagreb as 2,000 people, which is completely false. Infact on the last census of 2001, there are only 576 jews in the whole of croatia, and in the the city of Zagreb there is only 368 jews. these figures are backed up by the official government source @ http://www.dzs.hr/default_e.htm . Also it seems that the only peoples mentioned in the demographics on the Zagreb page are ethnic groups that have significant populations, but the jews only have 369 people, and there are other ethnic groups that are not listed on the zagreb page who have a higher amount of people than jews, like the hungarians (841) or the czechs (813) for egsample. So if these groups (who have a significant amount more people in zagreb than jews do) arent to be listed on the zagreb page, then jews shouldnt either. They are no more special people than others, therefore they should not be given special treatment. If people wants to see the full demographics of zagreb, with jews, hungarians, czechs and everybody else included, then go to Demographics of Zagreb, which there is a link at the top of the population section of the zagreb page. There you will see the real figure of jews and everybody else, and not made up fantasy figures that you would like to believe. The reference will be on the page, so you can check up the statistics yourself if you have any doubts. Have a nice day!

Wizewun 10:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Anyway it seems that this comment is antisemitic in its nature therefore should be discarded..

Antisemitic or not, he is right according to the official figueres, which are since quite some time on this page, with cited source. Martijn Hoekstra 20:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Foreign names

I think the Italian name of Zagreb is not of much relevance, since Italian is not spoken there, nor has the Italian name ever been the official name of the city. I'll remove it. Fransvannes 11:35, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Just noticed List of European cities with alternative names now -- the other names are listed there. --Shallot 00:00, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Pictures

FWIW, for those who are asking themselves where the hell is a picture of the Zagreb Cathedral, or the Church of St. Mark, the real trademarks of the city, I intend to put one or more of them in the History section, I just haven't gotten around to taking them. :) --Shallot 21:59, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

actualy I was thinking "why the hell are there so many pictures". I mean pictures are good, but this page seems to be overdoing it. What do you all think about cutting back the number of pictures? Martijn Hoekstra 19:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it is a good idea and I certainly wouldn't recommend it. Maybe our article has more pictures than other articles in category Geography, but in my opinion these pictures are what makes it look better than the other articles. However, I'd like us to concentrate to adding new texts and references in order to improve our article. Jajaniseva 23:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The amount of pictures in the Museums section is so big, it actually breaks the edit buttons on my screen resolution. I make an urgent call for the reduction of the number of pictures, See also all the comments on the candidate for featured article page. I hope we can reach some census on which pictures to keep and which to do away with soon, to better this page. Martijn Hoekstra 15:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

After repeated calls to reduce the number of pictures, in this subject, another talk subject and one of the causes for failing featured article, I shall shortly be starting removing pictures. I will follow the following procedure. Any picture not connected to the text in the header will be removed. No section will have more then 2 pictures. I would like to note that this is not an official wikipedia guideline. Martijn Hoekstra 22:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It has been done. I have removed a large part of the pictures, and I have to say, it is looking much better allready. If anyone plans on putting the pictures back, please, discuss it here before doing so. I went trough the pictures in a fairly arbitrary way, if I had the choise between 4 pictures where I wanted to leave no more then one or two, I selected the ones I personaly liked best. Changing any of them to others will not be much of an issue to anyone I think. Martijn Hoekstra 13:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

central state administrative bodies

Zagreb seats central state administrative bodies (legislative, judiciary, executive, monetary, defense, health care, cultural, educational, traffic, etc.).

In most countries, the capital is all that. Why do we need to write it here specifically? Bogdan | Talk 20:02, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll go drop the obvious list in the parens. I'll just add on "almost all government ministries" (I think some ministries occasionally don't work in the capital but elsewhere, but those are far and few between). --Joy [shallot]

neighbourhoods

I think "neighbourhood" is not apropriate term for "gradska četvrt". My oppinion is that "gradska četvrt" (list of them can be found here) should be translated (preferably) "district" or "municipality", and "kvart" (like Dubec, Centar, Martinovka or Špansko) should be translated "neighbourhoods". That means, "district" Gornja Dubrava consists of "neighbourhoods" Dubec, Trnovčica, Studentski Grad, Klaka and so on. --Dijxtra 13:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

slike

cestitke onome tko je postavio nove slike. Vecina onih dotadasnjih su bile katastrofa (i u smislu odabira i u smislu profesionalnih uzusa). Gotovo je nevjerojatno da nije bilo ni slike Umjetnickog paviljona, ni crkve Sv. Marka, Mimare itd. Ovo konacno izgleda kako spada. 23.sijecnja, 2006.

Slazem se, svaka cast. Jos da se mogu pogledati u malo vecoj rezoluciji bilo bi odlicno, ali u svakom slucaju poboljsanje je ogromno. Nadam se samo da su sve stvarno public domain ;) -- Dr.Gonzo 23:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ummmmmmmmmmm... ah, bojim se da ne ;-) Nadam se da cemo uspjet napravit nesto po pitanju copyrighta jer ce sve te divne slike kad ta bit obrisane. Mislim da bi bilo najjednostavnije da se svi skupimo jedan dan i krenemo fotografirat Zagreb ;-) --Dijxtra 17:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

ZAŠTO ne stavite slike Nacionalne sveučilišne knjižnice? To je jedan od najljepših primjera moderne arhitekture u ovom dijelu Europe?

Ja sam stavio sluku "Image: Zagrebcentar.jpg" i mislim da puno bolje paše na stranicu nego stara slika  :-) User: MislavK, 16.12.2006, 17:16

- Someone removed my picture:-(. I really think picture "Image: Zagrebcentar.jpg" fits better than Image:ZagrebCenter22.jpg image... MislavK 22:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Zagreb tablica

Imam problem sa implementiranjem tablice u tekst. Tekst nikako da mi "upadne" između nje i "Contents" tablice. Molim pomoć! Ako ju itko može pravilno ubaciti u članak (a i malo urediti i dodati pokoju informaciju), bio bih mu jako zahvalan! ;-) Mate Balota 21:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There. Is this what you wanted? Is this what you had in mind? BTW, I think this article has waaaaaaaay to many pictures. --Dijxtra 23:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No! That is the same thing that happend to me! Too much empty space. That "contents" table needs to go up! Check out Vienna. P.S. Don t touch the pictures. They are fine. I placed them all on the right side. It looks better now. Mate Balota 13:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I we found a sollution! A little radical, but it works. I hope you don t mind that big ban J. square pic. It s not a big brandwith impact, the pic is only 50kB big. Mate Balota 13:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it, which empty space are you talking about? Vienna article too has empty space, on the same place as Zagreb article. I mean, this situation is perfectly OK, only empty space I see is the one between table of contents and the box, and that fine, every article has that. nothing wrong there.

BTW, while we're at the Vienna article, see how much pictures it has... not to many, eh? --Dijxtra 14:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you just tell me why did you delete that ban Jelaćič square photo? Now I have to upload a new one, beacuse I don t know the filename of the old one! Mate Balota 15:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't delete it :-) It can be found here: Image:Jelacic Square.jpg. I didn't even remove it form the article. If you look at the source of the article, you will see that I put <!-- and --> around it. Those are comments. That means that the picture is still in the article, it just won't be displayed. If you want to return the picture, just delete <!-- and -->. But I wouldn't advise that until we sort out this situation. --Dijxtra 15:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I don t understand what s wrong with that pic if it s a little biger. Check out Adriatic Sea article.BTW see Kraków article. It also has many images! ;-) Mate Balota 15:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The pic crashes the table of contents into the table. So it looks very ugly. The main aim of this article is text about Zagreb. The gallery of images about Zagreb can be found here: [1]. Therefore, there's no need for such a big picture. The guideline says: "Images should be large enough to reveal relevant detail without overwhelming the surrounding article text.". This image of the Jelačić square overwhelms the surrounding text... --Dijxtra 16:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you say about my current change? Jalacic in the table. BTW. I fixed it all! Now the text is filling the holes nicely, and the thumbs are smaller. Everybody happy now? ;-) Mate Balota 19:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me (although I still think we have too much pics). Although I don't see the difference (except the pic moved to the table). --Dijxtra 22:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"New" population figures

I think that the article from the Jutarnji list - the source of the population trends - which, admittedly, is contradictory and sensationalist should be more carefully read.

Prema Zavodu za statistiku, u Zagrebu trenutačno živi samo 782.908 ljudi, pa je to brojka kojom barata i Gradski zavod za planiranje razvoja. Međutim, Davor Tor iz PU zagrebačke tvrdi da su njihovi podaci točni i da nisu nastali pogreškom, nego zbog izborne godine. - To nije glavni razlog ovakvog rasta, nego su to izbori. Uvijek u izbornoj godini imamo povećan broj prijava prebivališta. Očekujemo da će 2006. biti znatno manje novoprijavljenih - rekao je Tor.

Therefore, the figure of 950+K of people in Zagreb + an influx of some 80 K per year, includes students, working migrants and others who for some reason want to vote in Zagreb in elections. Whether they actually can be categorized as living in Zagreb according to UN census standards which are used world-wide (including Crotia) is open to question. In any case, the explanation by an anonymous user left in the article is incorrect/unsubstantiated and therefore removed. EurowikiJ 11:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Photo

I added info about the first photo. Now it says "photo: Ban Jelacic Square" below the photo, so that people know what it is. --M.B. 00:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

EuroTower

I removed the image, beacise there was no space for it. We allready have too much pictures. --Mate Balota 16:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

twinning with Belgrade?

Please, reference your claim with a valid link. + The flag which was inserted is not the official flag of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. + specify where the letter of intent came from (in Croatia there was no media coverage of the supposed twinning of Zagreb and Belgrade). EurowikiJ 19:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

THIS SOUNDS GREAT! Same language, two jargons, historical connection, love-hate relations etc. Zagreb and Belgrade can be compared in a greater deal to New York and London. Cheers. 24.86.110.10 05:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting trivia

Maybe not worth putting in the article, but who knows. This is a surprise: on a search on Google Trends for Star Trek, guess which city was in a clear first place:

http://google.com/trends?q=star+trek&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all Mithridates 18:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Lol, croats love Mr. Picard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.210.171.89 (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Transportation

Why was the transportation article part about planed underground and maglev systems removed?

Oh c'mon, you can't be serious. Plans are plans and realisations are realisations. Motritelj.

Why revert the "Images of Zagreb" section?

Do we really need a picture every sentence? I put the excess ones down below in the "image gallery" and left the impressive images in the article. People can easily look at all the pictures and they are not in your face. Some of the pictures are very good but others of a foggy highway intersection, a duplicate picture of the same building or just too many tourists in the photo just make the article look bad. I made the edits to clean it up and then someone reverts the whole thing without an explanation.(A lot of croatian articles seems to have the excess picture problem but this is the worst example) --MarsRover 21:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the pictures (where) excessive,they made the article much more esthetically pleasing and the article is too short anyway so the pictures made it seem more let's say more professional in my opinion,but this discussion is mute now anyway because the new pictures have been uploaded,they are great but they could use some resizing in my opinion.--BorgDrone 00:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's some statistics on picture counts (I can't find one city with more images):

• Zagreb: 32 now 42 and growing
• New York City: 17
• London: 20
• Paris: 29
• Rome: 13

I think its pretty obvious there's an excessive amount of pictures. As for they being a good idea anyway since it "esthetically pleasing" or "professional", I disagree. --MarsRover 06:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

These pictures are on average much smaller than the ones on other city articles,and once again the text in the article needs to be expanded,when this is done,some pictures could be omitted.--BorgDrone 10:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that bigger problem here is that most of this pictures are stolen. I can bet that 90% of these are from http://www.hrphotocontest.com/... --Dijxtra 10:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I dobut that the pictures are copyrighted anyway.--BorgDrone 21:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes, they are. All pictures on hrphotocontest are copyrighted. But, that's not the point, the point is that some people uploaded the pictures and lied that they took the pictures themselves. --Dijxtra 23:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Some are from the SkyscraperCity.com They ARE taken by the people there! Btw. i resized (to smaller) all the pics yesterday, and someone reverted that! It's pissing me off! The article looks idiotic with these huge images! Would someone take care of that! Mate Balota 18:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is completely trashed! I can't belive my eyes! It has a real "balkan" look! Nice job, idiots! Mate Balota 13:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If only it did have a "Balkan" look. Then it might become a featured article, you never know :-) --estavisti 15:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a retorical question for those people who think the article has a "balkan" look: Can you describe this look? What does this term "balkan" refer to? I resized these damn pics you are all grumbling about. In my opinion article looks great and I hope noone will change the present look by deleting the present pictures. Of course you are all welcome to add some new text or quality pictures. Thank you! Jajaniseva 18:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it has a Balkan look because most of the pictures in this article are stolen. And, Balkan people have this habit of stealing from each other and then claiming it's theirs. --Dijxtra 10:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, WTF. "Well, it has a Central European look because most of the pictures in this article are stolen. And, Central European people have this habit of stealing from each other and then claiming it's theirs." Acceptable? No. // estavisti 12:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I vas talking about the number and SIZE of the images! Why, in the hell, they have to be so God damn huge? And why we have two almost identical images (Zageb night skyline and EuroTower)? And the uglyness of this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ZagrebCenter22.jpg I won't even coment! Mate Balota 16:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Users on dialup are not going to want to wait for all of those images to load. The majority of them should be eliminated, especially the ones that aren't even very flattering to the city. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Itsfullofstars (talk • contribs) 23:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

Za sve SRBE koji posjećuju i "uređuju" ovaj i ostale članke vezane uz Hrvatsku

Najblaže rečeno: MAKNITE SE - MI NE DIRAMO VAS PA NEMOJTE NI VI NAS!!! "Uređujte" svoje članke a naše ostavite na miru! Jajaniseva 13:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes well, I have to think about that. Not sure if I agree Martijn Hoekstra 21:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's really sick, Martijn, you really show us what kind of people write these articles in Wikipedia. Thumbs down for you!

Anybody can edit any article here. That includes Serbs. 89.172.15.15 13:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Added an image Gallery

OK, i moved extra pictures to a gallery at the bottom. I moved only those pictures that don't fit in the article. Example: there is a section about Sister Cities and an image of Jurišićeva Street in Zagreb. That image was useless there. If you think i moved some images that were suppost to be there, just move them back. This gallery gives a cleaner look at the article.

- Ja sam iz Zagreba pa mi nemojte reć da sam neki glupi Amer koji dira ono što ne razumije. Bez uvrede Amerima. Dalt 10:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Zoo is missing

just to let you know, zagreb has a zoo hr:Zoološki vrt grada Zagreba --Trickstar 10:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Satellite image

Should be in order...

and ZOO is proclaimed to be the best in the Balkans

advert

I think there is some ground for the advert tag that was put up and removed. Anyone else agrees on that? Martijn Hoekstra 21:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --Epigenes 22:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree! MislavK 20:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

edit war

Please stop lame edit war over the picture. Reslove your dispute here. Martijn Hoekstra 22:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This page is now protected

This page is now protected to prevent edit warring over the image. Before this page is unprotected, a consensus on which image should be used should be reached. Please discuss this, and remember that polling isn't a good way of establishing consensus. Once you believe you have reached a consensus, you can contact me on my talk page and I will review the status of the page protection. Thank you. --Deskana (request backup) 16:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

The skyline of zagreb by night is not very impressive if you compare it to real big citys. The first image should be a picture that points out the fact that Zagreb is an old city with central european culture. And the Jelacic_Square picture represents this. It shows the central square under a blue sky full with citizens. A picture of good quality. It will definitely attract more tourists to zagreb than this picture. --Test551 18:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the first image should be Ban jelačić square picture, but not that one because it's an old picture, many things changed since that picture was taken, and there are 4 buildings under reconstruction on the square so it doesn't really show it the way it is now. 89.172.146.60 21:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

How about this one: Night skyline Jajaniseva

I also support a picture of Ban jelačić square, as I believe it is the most typical location in Zagreb, but above all it should be present. I don't really like the skylines, as I don't think they represent Zagreb well at all. Do we have any alternatives of the Ban Jelacic square? Martijn Hoekstra 22:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That is from the german wikipedia: Croatia-zagreb-g5.jpg --Test551 15:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that one still current? Are all the buildings still there? Martijn Hoekstra 20:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No, unfortunatly it's an old picture.MislavK 21:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

How about this one: Croatian national theatre by night, it's one of the most important bouldings in Zagreb and I think it should be the front picture. Agree? MislavK 21:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No objection here, alltough I think a proper picture of the square would be better, if we could find one. But it is very acceptable. Anyone object to that picture, or would like to suggest a better one? Martijn Hoekstra 23:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's another suggestion: Zagreb city center skyline. So which one do you like better? Or if anyone has another suggestion? MislavK 11:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As a general for all pages on cities, a nightscape photo should not be shown as the lead picture unless the city is known for it's night landscape - Zagreb isn't. May I suggest putting any nightscape picture in the gallery, and as the lead picture of one of Zagrebs landmarks instead - preferabbly one of St Stephens Cathdral, St Marks church (b/c of it's distinctive roof), Jelacic Square, Kamenita Vatra (b/c of the mystical aspect over the madonna image surviving a fire), or the Sabor. 125.201.224.10 10:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've got the right picture now: National theatre + sorroundings. Anyone object to that picture? MislavK 12:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, fine by me. I still have my objections, it is rather wide, but it is a nice picture to convey the atmosphere of Zagreb Martijn Hoekstra 21:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I just checked, there's no way that the last picture i posted is gonna fit :-(. I'll stay at the picture number 2 (Zagreb city center skyline). Or do you like the first one better? (Croatian national theatre by night) I lke them both, but i'll let you decide which one will be the front picture. MislavK 21:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Are there any objections to the current picture? Martijn Hoekstra 20:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The current picture is ok. --Test551 21:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Photo gallery

Is there one, and if there is, where is it?

Pictures, again

This new pictures are too conservative. They show only buildings from 19th century, even no Upper Town, the real historic centre of Zagreb. All modern and contemporary buildings deleted, except cibona tower (which is in Zagreb for a while, so it had enough time for the conservatives to get used to) and one ugly hotel(which shouldn't be here in the first place, since it has no relevance to the city history or future). Will someone revert to some old pictures (but not all, please) that show more of today's Zagreb, because this pics certainly do not?! And maybe finally a new picture of the botanical garden, the current one looks like a swamp. This page was obviously edited by some burgeoise Austro-Hungarian nostalgists. I also removed the alleged city nickname "Mali Beč - Little Vienna", since it is not used by anyone except the few of above mentioned. ~~Vjeko~~

I am the one that removed a whole lot of pictures, according to criterium of 'Most fitting in the section'. If there were multiple to choose from, I just chose the one I found the prettiest. Since then some changes have been made too, so the pictures that are there now, are the ones the people who edited this page found the most fitting. However, if you have alternatives that you think are better, be bold and change them however you see fit. If you find your changes reverted, don't go changing them back to your preference, but rather discuss why you find them more fitting here.

Also, please assume good faith from your fellow editors, do not jump to conclusions of them 'obviously' being burgeoise Austro-Hungarian nostalgists. Happy editing! Martijn Hoekstra 23:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK Zagreb is not called "Little Vienna". It doesn't bear any similarities or connections to Vienna anymore. Admiral Norton 13:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

info

Zagrebtower construction is finished long ago, so I transfered it to ˝see also˝ category. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.131.42.58 (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:NK Zagreb Logo.jpg

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

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HrvatskiDragovoljac.gif

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

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Important" high-rise buildings

I live in Zagreb since I was born and I haven't heard yet of any buildings (except Neboder) on the first high-rise list (not the See also list). There are many new high-rises in construction in Zagreb and the ones listed here don't differ from tens of other high-rises in construction or in planning. AFAIK the current mayor has plans of overturning a quiet suburb (Buzin) into a business district. I'm sure this is supposed to be of higher importance than a tower unknown even to people living in Zagreb. Mamutica is one of the most famous buildings in Novi Zagreb. It is a 20-storey building and, as such, it should be listed as a high-rise, too.

I suggest putting a picture of Zagrepčanka or Neboder instead of Hoto Tower. Hoto Tower is a recent addition to Zagreb. It is not famous and well-known. It has no historical meaning and it most probably never will. On the contrary, Neboder and Zagrepčanka were the first skyscrapers in Zagreb and today they are landmarks.

The section should be more focused on existing buildings and less on planned buildings. Admiral Norton 13:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice Article

Yeah , I'm happy about Zagreb article , it could be better of course , but it has all vital information one must know about it. There is only 2 Croatian articles that I feel are very good written : Zagreb and Croatian Language. Others can be way better improved.... P.S - why isn't this a featured article? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.228.142 (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

• Every statement that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs an inline citation.
• References should state the author, publisher, publishing date and access date, if known.
• References should be consistantly formatted.
• The lists in the High-rise buildings, Transport, Souvenirs and Bridges sections should be made into prose.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GA/R). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Regards, Epbr123 08:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• As many problems still remain after four weeks, I'm afraid I've had to delist the article. Epbr123 16:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

High Rise

Afaik, the construction of Almeria Tower and reconstruction of Neboder have been completed. Filthyscent 15:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the skyscraper section doing in Economy? BTW, Neboder has been completed several months ago. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Someone should do special article named ' Economy of Zagreb ' , like a lot of cities have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.207.96 (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Economy - non-sourced edits

@Ivan100 and Anon: please stop reverting to excessively high GDP numbers, which are given w/o any reference or source. Please discuss that first here. Plantago (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Demographics

Population of 801554? The only number I am able to find is 2006 estimation to 784900 [2]. Plantago (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Classical gymnasium

Do we need that subsection in Education? The school is just one of 100 high schools in Zagreb, nothing special enough to warrant a subsection or even a mention in such a short section. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 16:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

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

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==2007== Rated B Excellent photographs with a great deal of content supported by well formatted references. The museums section is too long. Consider condensing and creating a separate article for details. Implement WP:LEAD guideline. Replace infobox photograph with a GFDL skyline picture of the whole city. Remove external links that do not meet WP:EL. Transport section contains a lot of brief points. Try to consolidate it into well written paragraphs. Bring article in line with WP:NOT. Alan.ca 20:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC) ==October 2012== Reassessment as a part of 2012 WP:CRO drive, performed on 30 October 2012: B1 - criterion not met: The article has significant shortcomings in terms of referencing. There are substantial parts of prose without any references. It is absolutely necessary that each paragraph contains at least one reference to a WP:RS, hence the criterion is not met. Even though {{cite web}} and similar appropriate referencing templates are not required I'd recommend applying the templates if GA or better quality is aimed at. At present the article employs a mix of the citation templates and bare-url references - which is not an obstacle for B-class in itself. B2 - criterion not met: Several major aspects of the topic are not covered comprehensively (or at all). Those are: geography, culture (partially covered focusing on institutions only) and media. Existing material needs expansion in some aspects, while some aspects appear to be given undue weight. I will not go in detail on comprehensiveness of the existing material further here because of the two (and a half) major sections specified here are missing. For instance, Zagreb is the most significant economic centre of Croatia and encompasses substantial facilities, yet "Economy" is just glanced over providing few statistical points and hardly anything beyond that. On the other hand, "Recreation and sports" simply lists several sports clubs in the city and goes on into details on Maksimir Tennis Center and Dančićeva Street pool which make that part of the article come off like an advert. If and when the missing bits are filled in, I'd be happy to go into more details in that respect. Moreover, there seems to be a strong imbalance between depth of detail provided in various sections. While B-class criteria do not specifically address that issue, those are problematic with too little information. B3 - criterion met. However, some sections use far too elaborate sub-structure producing unnecessarily complex TOC. For a fine example take a look at Istanbul, a very recently (October 2012) promoted featured article. The same example may be used to illustrate what detail depth would be the best to comply with the B2 above. B4 - criterion met. Not good enough for GA or better, but acceptable for B-class articles. B5 - criterion met. A couple of remarks: There's no limit on number of images, but the article currently contains too many of those in proportion to the prose. The article is meant to be an encyclopedia entry, not a brochure, therefore a selection of the finest images available and those having the greatest EV should be made. In that way, the article would appear more streamlined and really important images would be given greater prominence. Also, alignment of the images should be varied (left/right). B6 - criterion met. Summary: A great deal of work went into this article. It is clearly short of B-class criteria in terms of referencing, as well as comprehensiveness, but it possesses great potential to develop. Reassessed to C-class for now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 16:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Recreation and sports

I've added a photo of the Jarun Lake. I see no need for three photos of Arena Zagreb. One is probably enough, so take your pick and remove the rest. GregorB (talk) 09:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Transport section

I'm going to start cutting down on the Transport section, which is currently the longest one in the article, surpassing even History by a large degree. If someone wants to help move the contents to Transport in Zagreb, feel free to help. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 12:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

demographic history

Does anybody happen to know the demographic history of zagreb according to the 1961 1971 1981 and 1991 census? Almost all other cities of the former yugoslavia have sections on that except for croatian cities. However I am unable to find this information anywhere. can someone please help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yugo91aesop (talk • contribs) 09:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Map please

There is no map showing the city! 201.252.28.7 (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Landmarks missing

Please, put the picture of Hrvatski državni arhiv (Croatian State Archives), because it is probably most beautiful secession building in Croatia. And, if someone can find nice picture of Zagreb landmarks showing National library and HDA with landmarks that are shown. Also, there should be more bigger and better pictures of Ban Jelačić's square and King Tomislav square since those are most important squares in Zagreb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.125.72 (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Zagreb1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Zagreb1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 4 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)