Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Joint Council of Municipalities

Apparently the JCM is a separatist movement and deserves a spot in the List of active separatist movements in Europe according to MirkoS18, who seems to have developed a taste for edit-warring. [1] [2], [3]. In spite of his rather creative interpretations in the talk page [4] it seems that the people who actually run the JCM never got the memo. Timbouctou (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Not as separatist, as autonomist that is first misunderstanding. Then see criterias for inclusion at beggining of article. Then look at other examples. It seems to me that it should be noted there (they are pushing for ethnic autonomy). So this seems to me as pretentious comment. Also, any change should be explained on Talk:List of active separatist movements in Europe which is most important in this case. Such extraction of context and misrepresentation at this point is just an attempt to discreditation. I agree completely that article still needs very great deal of work and everyone help is more than welcome. In good faith--MirkoS18 (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You should read WP:OR and WP:V ((there's no reliable, published source which says JCM is calling for a "greater autonomy or self-determination for a geographic region"), WP:SPA and WP:ADVOCACY (which is what your editing history looks like), WP:BURDEN (which says it is you who needs to "explain edits" when adding content), as well as WP:BRD and WP:3RR (both of which you breached). The three reverts you did on December 29 ([5] [6], [7]) is enough grounds for an automatic block. Timbouctou (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I was warned on that.--MirkoS18 (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

MirkoS18 exploits enWikipedia for his nationalist attitudes. Someone is not yet clear?--Sokac121 (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

? Said Sokac121? It is not about nationalism, I work on the English Wikipedia on National Minoritiy since the issue is not covered like to write about universities on serbo-croatian wikipedia. In this section may enroll additional explanations if you think that I trying to create a false image List of active separatist movements in Europe#Croatia>JCM>Status.--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If there is a genuine active separatist movement or agenda with the Joint Council of Municipalities, then so be it. However, that is not the objective of the JCM; it works for the interests and rights of local Serb populations of Eastern Slavonia for cultural rights within the government. Their own website states its objective is to work within the Croatian constitution., and let's face it: they wouldn't survive in post-war Croatia if they were pushing for autonomy of any kind. --Jesuislafete (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it seems to me that this was an intentional misrepresentation. I would never mention any separatism, it would be more than meaningless. They work on developing and expanding of ethnic autonomy guaranteed by Erdut Agreement (and that do not even mean any kind of territorial authority). Another thing is that their powers are limited territorially which sometimes leads to misunderstandings (they can not act outside UN former Eastern Slavonia sector). The maximum possible ethnic autonomy, of course does not endanger croatian constitution or any other legal institution in any way (phrase "maximum possible" is based on Erdut Agreement which Serbs in Eastern Slavonia guarantee "maximum internationaly recognized minority rights"). Now, we all know that it still has not achieved 100%, and they legally advocate for such autonomy in this part of the Croatia.--MirkoS18 (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you even read the opening paragraph of the List of active separatist movements in Europe? Is the JCM seeking a "greater autonomy or self-determination for a geographic region"? Yes or no? Timbouctou (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If you are interested in this topic I believe that this would be a better place Talk:List of active separatist movements in Europe.--MirkoS18 (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "no" then. And you still continue with edit-warring [8]. Timbouctou (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Mirko read this Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought--Sokac121 (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"Expand Croatian" tags

There are quite a few film articles tagged with {{Expand Croatian}}. Would you say it is alright to simply remove these tags if the article's Croatian counterpart is also a stub, with barely anything to expand from (except maybe the infobox; see for example Christmas in Vienna (film))? These tags were obviously added (semi-)automatically, during the initial creation. GregorB (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course. At least 90% of those are quite useless. Timbouctou (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. --Jesuislafete (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll start to remove them. GregorB (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Vandalization of Dalmatia related articles

During last 2 moths, Silvio1973 was systematically attacking Dalmatia related articles. We had discussion in Talk:Zadar and Talk:Luciano Laurana, you can see results of mediation, Silvio is not satisfied with decisions and he tries to restart conflicts. Example: Laurana's nickname in Italy was Sciavon - direct argument of his Dalmatian Croatian ethnicity and now he disputes that Schiavon was Italian name for a Dalmatian Croat - Talk:Schiavone. How is it possible that active members of WikiProject Croatia are so asleep? Are Croatia related articles in en.wiki assigned to vandalization exclusively? Zenanarh (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

He is also a regular visitor at Talk:Croatia. Timbouctou (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

These are his contributions [9]. There is no doubt that we have a case of a vandal strolling from the article to article. His concentration is on Dalmatia related articles where he tries to edit Italian irredentist side of a story. However the irredentist arguments were always selective, massively destroyed by Croatian scientific literature, that's why he tries to discredit Croatian science as such, as well as to present Croatian culture and society as barbarian one. You can se it in his contributions to Talk:Croatia. Zenanarh (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like disruptive and/or tendentious editing rather than vandalism. GregorB (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

He is also quite keen on Croatia and History of Croatia articles as well. As readily visible on Talk:Croatia - for instance in this edit he dismisses a source out of hand because he does not personally approve of its content, rather than discussing if it conforms to WP:RS or not. IMO the editing style is disruptive and amounts to trolling.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, I would like to bring your attention to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silvio1973 and Zenanarh. Also, feel free to visit Talk:Luciano Laurana#Are the users convinced by this mediation? and Talk:Schiavone#Names for more examples of Silvio1973's editing. Any users that are not Zenanarh or Silvio1973 can have their say from an outsider's point of view on the situation at any of the mentioned links. Whenaxis about | talk 22:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, its nice to talk to you again Zen :), haven't had the pleasure in quite a while. I'm sure you know I am usually strongly opposed to any over-Italianization in Dalmatian and Istrian articles. When my sensors picked up you in an edit-war on Zadar with a user named "Silvio" I immediately rushed over [10]. However, in all fairness and honesty, unless I'm missing something this fellow is citing good sources for what he does and he's keeping to them closely. He's citing Austrian census records in elaborating on the historical demographics of Zadar. He's not saying those who listed Italian as their primary language were Italian (like some of our previous friends), he's just saying they stated Italian is their primary language, which is what they did...

As far as sources are concerned I myself would exclude both Italian and Croatian sources on the grounds of possible national bias. Austrian censuses as primary sources do not fall into such considerations, however. Is there a reliable source that contradicts or discredits Austrian census data? I have to say I myself really would distrust any Yugoslav or Croatian-published book that questioned the validity of primary sources in such a controversial issue. His work might be arguably "OR", but what is one supposed to cite for demographic data if not censuses? WP:OR states that "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." So far as I can see, he did not draw any conclusions or interpret the Austrian census in any way.

I will also add that, if he's a sock of one of our dozens of blocked friends, he's hiding it very well. It doesn't look like it to me. -- Director (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, unfortunatelly I must say that you haven't changed a lot. You are still superficial a lot, concerning reading sources.

Your words: unless I'm missing something this fellow is citing good sources for what he does and he's keeping to them closely. He's citing Austrian census records in elaborating on the historical demographics of Zadar. He's not saying those who listed Italian as their primary language were Italian (like some of our previous friends), he's just saying they stated Italian is their primary language, which is what they did. - Citing only Austrian census records in this case is selective presentation of data. I have presented it in mediation, take a look at Talk:Zadar and read it. Silvio's own conclusion based on this selectively presented source was that they were the Italians and that the Italians made majority in the city. I have been the one in discussion who has stated that it was number of those who were using Italian language in public life, since during 2nf half of the 19th century use of Italian language was intensified in Zadar.

Is there a reliable source that contradicts or discredits Austrian census data? - yes. And you are throwing comments without becoming familiar with the matter?

Concerning sources. It is important to know that there is no "language of the source" in scientific method of history science, as well as that science is not based on political correctnes. Separating sources by language is like murdering historical science. One who states - I myself would exclude both Italian and Croatian sources on the grounds of possible national bias - is the one who don't understand history science. The only thing to be counted here is strenght of arguments. And not language or giving atrubute of 'nation' to the source etc. Zenanarh (talk) 11:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I will also concur that I haven't seen much reason to lose the assumption of good faith with Silvio1973. I haven't delved in all of the issues, but what I've seen doesn't seem to warrant the kind of anxiety Zenanarh is appealing to in his post above. In fact, we currently have a much clearer example of a problem user on the Italian-Croatian front - User:Luciano di Martino who seems to be editing and commenting anonymously at Giorgio da Sebenico/Talk:Giorgio da Sebenico and pushing his point of view despite overwhelming policy-based opposition. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Silvio is nothing different to that guy. Both of them have the same attitude. Why does nobody read? Zenanarh (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

What belongs in the infobox

This is take two. It appears that many other municipalities do not have minority languages added to the infobox, so why should they be added? --Jesuislafete (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Jagodnjak
Municipality
Official languages	Croatian, Serbian

Well its accurate information and lets face it official languages are a very common subject in infoboxes. Frankly I would just support Mirko up there and suggest we all agree to Example2. Its fair, accurate and informative, and it does not push Cyrillic for no reason. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Well it certainly is an acceptable version. The second version, which would put Serbian Latin name seems to me as bad compromise. The name is entered in part official name and only the Cyrillic written version is official, because of that I think that Serbian Latin version in section official name will be bad compromise. So, it is better to put section official languages.--MirkoS18 (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Where else are there examples of that type of infobox information? Do other countries have minority languages set up like that? Interesting thing is, I don't even see cities in Vojvodina do anything of the sort. --Jesuislafete (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Well we can not also find practice of writing only one of two official written names in section official name. Proposing replacements and that official version with other unofficial also in infobox section official name. There are instructions on Wikipedia which I was cited but some said that we need different solution. Is sad to say, because that DIFFERENT solution is not used too much on other projects we dont need to use it, but also we dont need to use wikipedia tips? And of course, that's all fine because we have consensus on that. Never mind what about we have consensus to do things differently than non-binding guidance. And no matter that we do not agree with something, consensus dont have to be consensus I guess. With all this there are countless of ideas and sabotaging of each potential solution (presumably in hope to leave things unresolved). Now Wikipedia projects becomes "countries"-I guess the whole time I was mistaken when I thought countries are "objects" of projects. Of course that is only shorter way of speach, but I belive it shows how some people perceive Wikipedia. In all this, to discredit someone based on some national prejudices, fears or complex is normal, but in my opinion still outrageous way of "advocating" or even "fighting". I think we need an acceptable solution, I do not want to stop it just because of stalling. I still want to believe in good faith and our abilities, but if we are nevertheless unable to finish this, than we need to consult with more experienced.--MirkoS18 (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Avrămeşti (ROM) 97.69% Hungarian, Nikitsch (AUT) 87% Croats, Bački Petrovac (SRB) 66% Slovak, Hertsa Raion (UKR) 91.4% Romanians, nowhere is there an official language. Why Serbian language deserves special status?--Sokac121 (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not a special status, it is a different status. Probably because our community try to get different solution than that which already exist. I would like to agree on practice used in other projects described in the advices which I have cited (That's what I suggest from start). And now the explanation, probably because our wikipedia community want a different solution, it will be different than on other projects :). Have a nice day/night.--MirkoS18 (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus here is regarding Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes is no. Mirko, I might believe you more if you started this at a Vojvodina page, but you didn't. As far as I could tell, you never attempted to put anything but serbian Cyrillic in geographic pages which further fuels the suspicion of your motives. These infobox additions are not used anywhere else, furthermore WP:OR, WP:BURDEN, and WP:V apply here. I have nothing more to add, everything has already been said and repeated multiple times. Happy new year everybody. --Jesuislafete (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks says "Comment on content, not on the contributor" or their motives. Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Croatia will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in Croatia's history, society and culture. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

RM notification - restore haček in Saša Tuksar

anemone, windflower

(1) Please see Talk:Sasa Tuksar, Project Tennis has also been notified. (1) Am I correct that sasa with no haček is the flower above? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

This RM has now closed with WP:CONSISTENCY with other Croatia BLPs. However members of the project may wish to check category:Croatian tennis players for any others where haceks have been removed. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

List of Yugoslav World War II monuments and memorials

Hello! I wanted to inform you that new page was created few days ago.

List of Yugoslav World War II monuments and memorials

And i wanted to invite you to add monuments from your country, and create your local list. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 15:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Aand, your, very own...

List of World War II monuments and memorials in Croatia

Expand, expand... But add in both articles. Main list, and local one... --WhiteWriter^speaks 16:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Or, better yet:

• Split the Yugoslav list into sections, one for each republic.
• Make the sub-lists into redirects to corresponding sections in the main list.

Comments? GregorB (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Depends on the number of items really. A Yugoslav list might be too cumbersome. Otherwise the list of monuments thing is a nice idea and potentially good FL material. In recent years a number of articles about these monuments were published by art historians and architecture enthusiasts, with an emphasis on their avant-garde design style, often interpreted as an artistic consequence of the Tito-Stalin split (apparently the Yugoslav communist authorities wanted the monuments to be markedly different from the socialist realism style seen in Russia, and were inclined to approve many interesting projects which were seen as unusually innovative in the context of eastern bloc countries). There is certainly plenty of stuff to write about here but I'm not sure if there is an exhaustive list of them out there. Timbouctou (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You're quite right: the main list could become quite big, even if it's limited to notable monuments. In that case a better solution would be to make the main list into a list of lists, and to provide actual content in the sublists. Pretty much everything is better than maintaining two versions of the same thing. GregorB (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

All was well, and then this happens. Gotta love article scope randomness. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

2011 Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Croatia

In case you didn't know, here it is (note: 13.8 Mb PDF). (Tomobe03 has discovered it first, apparently...)

In short, it's a goldmine. Since the yearbook is:

• rather fresh
• from an eminently reliable source (Croatian Bureau of Statistics)
• in English (as well as Croatian)
• online and thus easily checkable

...I'd say it should be preferred to pretty much all other sources that support the same facts. I'm considering creating a citation template so that references to this document could be added quickly and in a consistent way. GregorB (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

A citation template would be great, since the yearbook can be used as a source in great number of instances.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm thinking:

• {{Croatia Yearbook 2011}} (not sure about the name)
• {{cite book}} used internally
• "page" (and perhaps "chapter", e.g. "1-4. Inhabited islands of Croatian part of the Adriatic Sea") are optional parameters

One more advantage of the template: it allows for old data to be phased out in a systematic manner eventually. Hopefully this will happen soon enough with {{Croatian Census 2011 First Results}}. GregorB (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think {{cite journal}} would be better suited since the yearbook carries an ISSN number rather than an ISBN.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You're correct - it seems that Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Croatia is the journal's name and that this is its 43rd year (and thus 43rd issue). The cite journal template has "chapter" parameter too, no problem about that... GregorB (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. There are two optional params, as described above. Some parameters might appear redundant (author=publisher, title=journal). No doc subpage yet. I'm just about to test it. Feel free to tweak... GregorB (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Great work. Still, if chapters are cited, there are authors specified for each one of them, so publisher and author parameters need not be equal. List of authors is specified on page 2 (i.e. page 4 of the PDF file). This will certainly make citing more consistent and simpler.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how to handle this. There are 34 level 1 chapters. Ideally, one might devise template logic that takes chapter number (1-34) as an input and outputs corresponding section name and authors. Not easy to do, though, and does not cover level 2 chapters. Supplying authors through template param(s) is not easy either. What are the options? GregorB (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have the template automatically add general info (editor(s), volume, year, issn, date, title/journal, publisher etc.) allowing author (or author1...authorX) and chapter as well as page range parameters? That would streamline most of the job, leaving enough flexibility to reference whichever chapter level is appropriate. I imagine, if one left out those chapter-specific parameters the template would still work, referencing the entire yearbook which is not quite enough for a proper reference but much better than no reference at all.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not experienced in editing templates, but would authors = {{{authors|}}} achieve this?--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Multiple entries for "author" - yes, that would be the simplest solution. I'll see how it works as the third optional template. If it's not supplied, it would be simply "Croatian Bureau of Statistics". GregorB (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I suppose the authors field may be left blank as well in that case.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. (Although... it pushes the editor's name to the fore.) GregorB (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

"Region"?

When filling out the {{Infobox settlement}} template for Croatian settlements, what to enter as "Region"? It's usually empty. In some cases traditional regions are entered (see e.g. Gornji Emovci). The only standard solution would be to enter NUTS-2 regions, but does it make sense? GregorB (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure. One way to go would be to use macroregions of Croatia for that, and I would prefer those were there no overlapping of the macroregions - presenting a potential difficulty. (Where would Ogulin go then? Would it be listed in two macroregions? Who would decide if a small village near Virovitica belongs to Slavonia or not?) It would also be possible to use NUTS-2 region in the place as a much more simple solution, albeit less useful one simply because those divisions are quite large and not in a commonplace use.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

My concern too: "traditional" macroregions are ill-defined and/or overlapping, while NUTS-2 regions are very exact (being composed of counties, of course), but their introduction is very recent and they have next to zero currency in Croatia - I imagine 95% of the population is completely unaware of their existence, so that kind of information would seem to be of little value. Maybe the best solution is to omit region information altogether from the infobox. GregorB (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, if the field is usually empty, that's probably the best option.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Class boundary

I observed before that Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia/Assessment like many other project assessment scales has no clear boundaries defined delimiting stubs from start-class articles or start-class from C-class articles. I just noticed WP:MILHIST - probably one of the most active WPs - has done that in a very logical manner at their Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment page. Would it be feasible to adopt those criteria?

I don't think we need an elaborate list-article scheme, but the prose-criteria seem easy to follow.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, WP:MILHIST has a rather elaborate (if somewhat idiosyncratic) assessment scheme. Still, I don't think there is a need for this project to devise a scheme of its own, since global guidelines, if implemented in a reasonably reliable way, seem to be sufficient. Granted, these guidelines are mostly descriptive, rather than being exact, which is why particular boundaries you mention (C/Start and Start/Stub) are sometimes difficult to discern. However, by its very nature, article assessment is complex, and is therefore inevitably subjective.

From my fairly extensive experience (at some point I made a mistake of turning on the article assessment gadget, and got hooked), I can say that articles in this project are rather reliably assessed on the average (if I do say so myself, because many of these assessments are due to yours truly), compared with Wikipedia in total. If anything, some articles are assessed rather conservatively, which is to be preferred over inflated assessments, anyway. GregorB (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

You are completely right about appropriate ratings of WP:CRO articles - I took liberty of verifying about a dozen current ratings against MILHIST criteria and they all matched. I did not mean to say WP:CRO need devise a new ratings system since very few users (mostly you) perform bulk of those assessments, I thought to ask if MILHIST criteria would be applicable as a reference of convenience as they are right now for casual users (say me) rating a newly written or expanded/referenced article. B-class is relatively simple to rate: if the five criteria are met that's it, but I'm not always sure if an article warrants C or Start class.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding MILHIST Start and C criteria - yes, I'd say that these are in agreement with my notion of these two classes. It is perfectly OK to use them as reference.

My understanding of C Class is perhaps a bit less strict: I'd say that a) having "appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams" is not essential (depending on the subject, of course), and b) even deficiencies in two or more standard departments, if not too pronounced, and adequately moderated with other qualities, may still be enough for C Class. Here are some rules of thumb that I use:

• Stub is not merely a "short article". If it has 1500 bytes of prose (which happens to be the WP:DYK threshold, and they explicitly do not allow stubs), no major problems with structure or spelling/grammar, and at least some sources, then it is not a stub. Even shorter articles might qualify for Start class; a comprehensive infobox may count as 200-500 chars here, and images or other materials also help towards it.
• An article that is unreferenced or barely referenced can not be assessed higher than Start, regardless of other qualities.
• C Class is perhaps best defined as "almost B": might reach B Class with not too much work. (MILHIST criteria are rather clear about it: it's either lacking in B1 or B2.) GregorB (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• ...and there is also WP:CL-RULE. Not official and also a rule of thumb, but to me it makes sense. GregorB (talk) 08:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

nipp.hr

There is a fairly new website, http://www.nipp.hr (Nacionalna infrastruktura prostornih podataka), maybe you've seen it. I've found out about it only today; sometimes deletion discussions are a great thing.

A possibly interesting document: Registar geografskih imena Republike Hrvatske, with more than 10,000 geographic names. All names are accompanied by coordinates, but unfortunately these are given in the Croatian Terrestrial Reference System 1996 (HTRS96) only, and apparently these could be transformed into plain vanilla DMS coordinates only by using some super-nasty formulas.

Another interesting document is Registar geografskih imena nacionalnih manjina RH - I wish we had it 6-7 months ago, it could have made that protracted discussion much simpler. GregorB (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Great find! Those are sure to come in handy in a wide variety of articles.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Croatian Greek Catholic Church

Mislim da ovo nije uredu [11] isti suradnik je napravio mnoštvo izmjena Esoglou primjer gdje uklanja uvriježeni naziv Croatian Greek Catholic Church stavlja drugi Byzantine Church of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro,mislim da ovo zasluzuje masovni revert.--Sokac121 (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment here in English so that other users may provide feedback. If I understood correctly, one name was substituted for another, and both are redirected to an article bearing the third name. I took a quick look at Google books and general Google search results (excluding wikipedia itself and its mirrors) and it seems that the Byzantine Church etc. name is virtually unused by published sources and this may be a case where an user used the official name (as he/she claims that to be one, I for one don't have a clue) for the topic. According to WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:OFFICIALNAMES the official names are not ipso facto correct titles for articles, so assuming that the quick look of the name use frequency is correct, that should be reverted. Looking at the third article to which this all redirects (Eparchy of Križevci) - once again I'm not that knowledgeable on the subject but if the Eparchy = Byzantine Church of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro then the Eparchy article should probably be renamed to whatever is WP:COMMONNAME of the topic. If not, the redirect is incorrect to exist.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

By the way, if you take any of the above actions (or something similar) please do place a quick note explaining on the talk pages of appropriate articles to avoid further reverts.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Eparchy of Križevci (like Roman Catholic Diocese of Varaždin) is diocese and Croatian Greek Catholic Church (like Roman Catholicism in Croatia) is Greek Catholic faith in Croatia . Croatian Greek Catholic Church an article like this no more. It should all go back to previous state.--Sokac121 (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Vjesnik.hr sources

Hi all! Is there a way to identify sources relying on vjesnik.hr service? Perhaps it would be wise to archive those links considering imminent end of the service.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Special:LinkSearch, IOW http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=http%3A%2F%2F*.vjesnik.hr --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There's 430 of them! I better get started... --Tomobe03 (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

WP Croatia-wise, the end of vjesnik.hr is a disaster. (Except if their content resurfaces elsewhere, in one way of another...) As you may have read in the news, Nacional is in trouble too. Hopefully nothing happens to their website - plenty of great articles there, some of them in English, which is pretty much unique for Croatian magazines. GregorB (talk) 09:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Get a bot to crosscheck it against web.archive.org? I seem to recall seeing exactly one such tool, but can't remember exactly how it's called. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I have created archives of articles used in the following wiki-articles (and updated the refs appropriately) - I'll expand the list as I do more. If anyone feels like doing the same, please do not hesitate :) :

• Croatia
• A2 (Croatia)
• Croatian European Union membership referendum, 2012
• Battle of Vukovar
• President of Croatia
• List of Croatian submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film
• Adriatic Sea
• Port of Rijeka
• Television in Croatia
• Parliament of Croatia -- actually contained in Template:Croatian parliamentary election, 2011, fixed others as well
• Croatia–Hungary relations
• Geography of Croatia
• Elections in Croatia
• A5 (Croatia)
• A1 (Croatia)
• Port of Split
• Croatian parliamentary election, 2011
• Lisa Stublić
• Croatia at the 2011 World Championships in Athletics
• List of members of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts
• Roma of Croatia
• Hraschina meteorite
• Museum of Broken Relationships
• LGBT rights in Croatia
• Ljubo Jurčić
• Goran Prpić - only one ref link archived, others are already dead
• Milorad Pupovac - one ref link archived, another already dead
• Healthcare in Croatia
• Demographics of Croatia
• Opinion polling for the Croatian parliamentary election, 2011
• Croatian Music Institute
• Agrokor
• The Parade (film)
• Koko and the Ghosts
• Mile Dedaković
• Ivan Grubišić
• Iztok Puc
• Goran Čolak
• Živa Kraus
• Josipa Rimac
• Daniel Srb

Well, this seems to be it. I archived all Vjesnik urls used in references using WebCite - those not dead already that is. Unfortunately only those listed as lines 16-78 and 137-138 of the above query posted by Joy seem to work, others are dead. The dead ones all use a quite different format of the url, perhaps those could be found at a different url?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Just remembered that "deadurl=no" parameter should be added to the archived refs while their original url still functions -- but there's no rush for that. The above line ranges do not include talk or user pages.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Koločep

I'd like to put some effort into improving the article about the island of Koločep. Does anyone know of any sources that could be used, particularly regards the island's history. Cheers! U+003F^? 18:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

See Koločep site:hrcak.srce.hr - papers in Croatian, mostly with English summaries. Geography and tourism seem to be covered too. Google Books hits do not seem to be too promising. GregorB (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

(Note to myself: upload those nice Commons-compatible Koločep photos from Flickr! GregorB (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC))

RM

Given that Čačić is more often a Croatian surname than a Serbian one, the Project may wish to be aware of Talk:Nikola Cacic -> Nikola Čačić In ictu oculi (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Croat–Bosniak War

I have been involved in an editing dispute at the Croat–Bosniak War page. As you can see by the history page, I have attempted to expand the article and add more information into the article, but keep being reverted and accused of being a nationalistic POV-pusher. The belligerent user has only recently attempted to use the discussion page, and it has been a very slow, frustrating process. I will be first to admit that I am a fallible human, and perhaps my edits aren't great. I would deeply appreciate it if someone can look into my edits and explain to me if there is anything wrong with the information I have added, the sources I used, or if there is anything contrary to Wikipedia's article policies. Thank you. --Jesuislafete (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to read everything relevant there yet, but provided that the additions are properly sourced and the sources used are reliable, I'd recommend taking course described in WP:DDE.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I have tried reporting him twice to Wikipedia's noticeboard, but no administrator seems to care (they ignored my case completely). My edits are all sourced; I would like someone to check them in case I missed anything. Regards. --Jesuislafete (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Veliki Brijun (island)

Re: Veliki Brijun 1) as there is a hotel on the island, it is hardly tenable to qualify V. Brijun as an 'uninhabited' island. 2) the writer James Joyce could not possibly have visited the island during the period of Marshall Tito's rule (1947-1979) because Joyce died in 1941.

1) The Croatian Bureau of Statistics defines residents as either:[12]

• those who have lived in their place of usual residence for a continuous period of at least 12 months before the census moment
• those who arrived in their place of usual residence during the 12 months before the census moment with the intention of staying there for at least one year.

It is clear, therefore, that hotel guests and staff are not "residents", and that the island is therefore uninhabited for the purpose of the census.

2) The article notes that JJ visited the island, it doesn't say when. GregorB (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Funny

What is this article? Joint Council of Municipalities Food and drink, Notable natives and residents, Krofne, Geography and climate, Transport ... :)

Is this article about a country?--Sokac121 (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not write about Food and drink, Notable natives and residents, Krofne, Geography and climate, Transport... of Joint Council of Municipalities but about Food and drink, Notable natives and residents, Krofne, Geography and climate, Transport... of member municipalities. I know this is quite cumbersome and perhaps may even be provocative but I do not know how to cover this part otherwise. In the other way I would have to create a bunch of other articles, maybe Serbs in Vukovar, Serbs in Podunavlje or Croatian Podunavlje... I thought that this could be perceived as even more provocative so I threw everything in this article that already exists. All these things are certainly in part beyond the scope of Article so I tried in every part clearly indicate that this is not JCM but member municipalities or minority community in the region generally. I made that​​ to avoid accusations to promote some kind of separatism or whatever. All these changes are added yesterday and I would appreciate any advice since now I work on reorganization of article. I would really like to make a good article in this case, but since I am obviously not sufficiently impartial, I would like to get some help here. Maybe we can choose an editor with whom I will consult in advance about changes that I intend to do in this article? I really do not have some "hidden intentions" and I am ready to explain my position that may not be correct, but through discussion we can get to the best available solutions. So I'd like to know what is your suggestion: 1) Retain all in existing article, 2) Write new articles, 3) Some other idea. In good faith we can avoid exhausting debate what we had in past on this project.--MirkoS18 (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It is impossible that a political organization has a distinctive cuisine. If Serbs in Croatia or Serbs in Erdut or wherever else have a notable distinctive cuisine, go ahead and write an article about that. "Throwing" off-topic things into existing articles is nonsense. Furthermore, there's no point in writing at length about municipalities whose councils are members of this organization - such information should be provided as a summary and the whole thing moved into their specific articles. That would be like having an article on the UN detailing information on each member state. Moreover, the municipalities whose councils are members of this organization do not form a geographic region, so there's no point in trying to represent that as a geographic region.

The JCM article should convey all information about the JCM but also no information that is not directly related to the JCM. When thinking about what need be added or removed, try setting out from say a charter (if there is one) or a similar document of the organization. If it says that it promotes for example "political cooperation of member municipal councils, national culture, education and national representation" then those are the sub-topics (sections) of the article. Other information may be added, but ask yourself is that specific/important to the topic (JCM in this case, not Serbs in Croatia). If so, add, if not, think which other article might use that information.

Should you want any specific advice, perhaps you should post on the talk page of the article itself or an editor who you may think might be of assistance. If the question is sufficiently specific, I don't think anyone will refuse to lend a hand.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I must admit that your argument is very strong, I admit I was wrong here. It can not be good for an organization to be so silly presented, in this way no one will see it seriously nor I will be taken seriously as an author. I'll try to fix the article now and in the next few days. Thank you for your help and sorry if I upset anyone with my recent work.--MirkoS18 (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking I concur with Tomobe here. Let me also add that there are additional subjects that may be legitimately discussed in this article, such as Veterans League of Joint Council of Municipalities, which I believe is not sufficiently notable for a standalone article. I'm willing to offer additional pointers, you can contact me directly and I will respond on the article's talk page. GregorB (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Likewise, you can ask me too directly, if there's anything I can help with.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Mirko, the near-identical byte count of this and this gives away a copy&paste :) Don't duplicate information like that - use a generic article like Serbian folk traditions or something of the sort, and link that instead. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

What do you think about adding Cyrillic [13] in Donji Lapac not prescribed by a minority language [14](Mirko again :) ). --Sokac121 (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a "Bash-Mirko Week" here? :-) I hope he takes it in good humor - I'm certain that we all appreciate his work, even if we do have a remark or two sometimes... GregorB (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Castles everywhere

Hi all! As I expanded Slavonia article I noticed numerous instances of incorrect naming of articles such as in case of the Pejačević Castle in Virovitica. The situation is the same elsewhere in Croatia, a lot of structures are called "castle" which is not entirely correct. The problem is the following: Croatian term "dvorac" generally corresponds to term "château" in that a château may or may not comprise fortifications. A "castle" on the other hand is a fortified structure only, i.e. dvorac/château does not equal castle. In my opinion all inappropriately titled articles should be renamed as they may be misleading. Name "manor house" is not that glamorous as a "castle" but it happens to be used for châteaux without fortifications in English. Of course, if a particular structure is particularly elaborate/large etc. it may be referred to as a "palace". I thought to post here to see what should be done instead of posting at dozens of article talk pages. Should the articles simply be moved or should something else be done?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

A good place for central discussion might be List of castles in Croatia. I did some work there (unfortunately it did not go as far I had hoped), and I was aware back then that the terminology is tricky: castle vs fortress vs manor vs possibly something else, especially since some of these buildings were used for multiple purposes. But what is essential here, the building's purpose or its functional shape? I'm not an expert in this field... GregorB (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

There are no neat boundaries, but it can be summed up like this: Fortification/fortress need not be a single structure (e.g. Brod Fortress or Walls of Dubrovnik), but fortresses include single structures too (castles) and keeps as well as hill forts - but all of them have fortifications. A palace or a manor house would still be called "dvorac" in Croatia and "château" in France but those structures have no fortifications. Distinction between palaces and manor houses or even smaller country houses is simply size and level of luxury. There are no clear lines in between, except to say that it is safe to assume that if the structure is/was used as a principal household of a manor estate, that would make it a manor house, and particularly large examples could safely be assumed to qualify as palaces. As an illustration of the main issue of castles vs. palaces/manor houses, Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace/Halsway Manor may serve as examples. In Croatia's case, Trakošćan and Veliki Tabor are definitely castles and Eltz Manor is a manor house.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

After a further thought, boundary between palace and manor is really hard to draw, so medium sized "châteaux" I would not be quite sure where to put. English wiki goes about this a bit funny. There's Château article referring to English country house as a counterpart, which has an image with a very illustrative caption: "The English country house can be vast or comparatively small and of great or little architectural merit." The latter goes on to say that the term used "Palace, Castle, Court, Hall, Mansion, Park, House, Manor, Place" reflects "origin or importance" of the structure.

In my view, this fortifies (pun intended) necessity of having (or at least heaving had) fortifications to have a castle, and suggests former countryside estates (manors) run from a manor house. The Château article suggests that those are only found outside cities (otherwise that's a palace), but if Valpovo or Ilok qualify as cities is a whole new conundrum. I guess it'll be a case by case thing--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Color scheme

Hi all, I have been bold and changed the color scheme -- after six years and no change since its inception. I found the brown a bit too dark and murky, and also without any symbolic connection to Croatia. I switched to a red-white theme with a tint of blue. If you don't like it, or if you want to experiment yourself, either tell me and I will change it back, or just go ahead and do it yourself. Cheers! --denny vrandečić (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't really care one way or the other, but I had to look real hard and carefully to actually see that there are any colours there other than white background. Maybe the scheme is a bit too pale. There are virtues of having a good reading contrast, but there are cases somewhere in between the two which might work better.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I'd like to see a bit more saturation. GregorB (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I fiddled a bit with it, too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks Joy! Nice to see you still around :) --denny vrandečić (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles to be included or not?

Hi! I stumbled on the Elizabeth of Bosnia article and thought that it may qualify for inclusion in WP:CRO, but I'm not sure. After some discussion, it became clear that some articles on kings of Hungary can be made a part of the WP:CRO, provided there are clear links with Croatia other than being nominal ruler. Further ones could be added, but that would likely require case-by-case approach.

I had a look at the List of rulers of Hungary, at least at ones up to the end of the 17th century and followed links to specific articles. Assuming the articles do mention everything worth mentioning the following seems to be the case:

Definite direct links exist

• Ladislaus I of Hungary (tagged)
• Coloman, King of Hungary (tagged)
• Béla IV of Hungary (tagged)
• Charles I of Hungary
• Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor
• Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor
• Ladislaus of Naples

Some direct links exist, but not as significant

• Stephen III of Hungary
• Béla III of Hungary
• Mary, Queen of Hungary

Some direct links, may appear unspecific

• Emeric, King of Hungary
• Andrew II of Hungary
• Andrew III of Hungary
• Charles III of Naples
• Matthias, Holy Roman Emperor
• Charles Martel of Anjou
• Elizabeth of Bosnia (tagged)

I am inclined to tag some (possibly all) of these as parts of WP:CRO, but I'd rather if more ppl could take a look at them too. I assume project importance should be "low" in all the cases. Any thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Mind you, the above list(s) are based entirely on contents of the above articles.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't say really - back in school, history was one of my least favorite subjects. :-) But let me add Holy Crown of Hungary to the above list. It already is tagged with {{WikiProject Croatia}}, although the link to Croatia seems rather weak to me. GregorB (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking along lines of 1. does the person/event/item have direct involvement (of any kind) with history of Croatia and 2. can the WP:CRO contribute to the article satisfying the first condition in terms of sources referencing works of Croatian historians etc. Holy Crown of Hungary doesn't seem to have that much relevance directly. But I'm not sure though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

All from above could be part of WP:CRO (most of them as "low-importance"). But I suggest case-by-case approach. It would be silly to add WP:CRO if there is no connection written in the article itself. Elizabeth of Bosnia clearly has a connection since it's GA article, hence connection with the Croatia is written in the article.--Kebeta (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur, whenever the noble person has a documented jurisdiction as well as relation to Croatia at the time, tag it, as low importance.

On related note, I've recently tagged most Ottoman-Venetian Wars as WP:CRO material because most of them had significant battles in Dalmatia, a lot of which wasn't documented, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be, and I also did some of that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Tagged Elizabeth of Bosnia and two obvious ones. Coloman was already included in the project.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Nacional.hr sources

Hi all! Similar to previous archiving of Vjesnik online sources, I think it is prudent to archive Nacional online sources, just in case. I started off down http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=0&target=http%3A%2F%2F%2A.nacional.hr from item number 1 and got to number 24 so far (skipping talk pages). I intend to keep this up, but any help is appreciated, as long as efforts are coordinated.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

As an update: items 1-100 in the above list are done.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Make that 1-130.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC) 170.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Covered 1-205.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Make that 1-260 now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The first 300 covered and still going strong!--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Make that 350.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Got to 430.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Made it even 500.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll join you with the archiving. --Wustenfuchs 01:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

All done! Every nacional.hr reference and external link is now archived (a handful were already dead though). In addition, all nacional.hr bare url refs are converted to cite templates and missing parameters are added where incomplete templates were in place. Thanks to Wustenfuchs for chipping in. Should the cover page of the online service become unavailable, here's its archive: http://www.webcitation.org/69Qhkn80T

As discussed with Wustenfuchs, WP:CRO FA/GA references are now planned to be archived (except books and journals such as hrčak srce - at least for now).--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a problem with few links in Battle of Vukovar (FA). Some links just wouldn't be archived. I tried to archive those few times, but no effect. I left them unarchived, for example HRT's link and some others. Anyways, I'm almost done there, except few cite web links and cite journals, which I'm going to finish in an hour. --Wustenfuchs 16:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

vjesnik.hr

As you may have noticed, vjesnik.hr is now gone. All non-archived links to vjesnik.hr are dead.

I'll try to outline the basic link cleanup strategy here:

1. Try http://archive.org (won't work with PDFs, these appear to be irretrievable)
2. If the archive.org fails and you have the basic parameters (such as article title and date), and the article is older than 6 months (if it's not, there is a chance it might appear in the archive.org later), comment out the URL (don't delete it - it may still become useful in the future). Use {{cite news}}.
3. If all of the above fails, mark it with {{dead link}}.
4. ? (Not sure what to do with terminally irretrievable bare URLs.)

This is a quick-and-dirty strategy, it probably might still be refined. GregorB (talk) 08:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. There is a remote chance that someone archived some of those article at WebCite - that may be checked at http://www.webcitation.org/query and then archiveurl/archivedate parameters added to the {{cite news}} or the archive url used to replace the bare url ref (although I'd urge use of the template wherever possible).--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, there is a lesson here: while adding references is, of course, always a good idea, it is also wise to invest 30 seconds of additional work and equip the citation with {{cite news}}, {{cite web}} or any other citation template. It's not just the formatting - if proper parameters are supplied, it gives the editors at least some chance of salvaging the link should it go dead at some point in the future. Sometimes I'm a bit too lazy to use these, but I believe vjesnik.hr and nacional.hr are sufficient warnings now. GregorB (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

All but a handful of already-dead nacional.hr refs are now archived. Is there a way to monitor if any new nacional.hr refs are made after today, so that those can be archived too?--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I was about to confess that I've just added one to the Museum of Broken Relationships but now I see you've already taken care of that one... :-) Nacional.hr seems to be reasonably safe, I think archive.org caught most (if not all) of it. GregorB (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

And BTW, no, I don't think there is an easy way, unfortunately, as long as the links still point to the actual site. GregorB (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Well it took a while, but I went through 550 refs/links and associated archiving one by one, so nothing should be left out except talk pages and special wiki pages (AfDs and similar). I'll have a look at list of links to see if there are any new ones.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Commons currency deletion

Please see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Money of Croatia. If anyone wants to transfer images for fair use on English Wikipedia, now's the time. Rd232 ^talk 18:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

FA and GA reviews

Hi all! I have recently realized that I waste time on sourced edits only to be adapted to POV and original research and I think I'll step back and use my time for something else, at least for a while. I have submitted Adriatic Sea for FA review, and that review is currently active, as well as Pandurs GA review. Several other GAN's were made recently but have not been reviewed yet (full list is available at the WP:CRO project page article alerts). If anyone cares, please do step in to address possible changes that need to be made for those articles to reach FA/GA, I don't expect to edit them. Regards.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's anyone here who doesn't hold your work in high esteem, so this is sad news. I understand how you feel and why, but I hope you'll take a week's break and reconsider. All GANs are on my watchlist, so I may chip in, and I hope others will do too. GregorB (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Antonija Mišura DYK

Whoa... 32 thousand page views, making it into the all-time top 20 DYKs... GregorB (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

nice :) --Sokac121 (talk) 11:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This DYK credit should really go to her parents. :-) GregorB (talk) 12:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

NUTS of Croatia

If someone have free time he/she can fix this article maybe NUTS of Croatia.--MirkoS18 (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

What needs to be fixed? There's been some media frenzy about proposed changes lately, but has any of it gone into law yet? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess the new law of the land is this. So, from five down to three, and now down to two. GregorB (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I updated it now, mostly. Someone should re-color the map. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK candidate

If you've been following the news, you may have noticed a candidate for an easy and interesting DYK job: Tihana Nemčić. A downside: there are quite adequate photos out there, but none are free unfortunately... GregorB (talk) 08:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Vjesnik and Nacional

There was an interesting article in Poslovni dnevnik, maybe you've seen it: "Vjesnik i Nacional su propali, možemo li spasiti njihove arhive?". (in Croatian) Doesn't help us really, but it is nice to know someone else is thinking (and writing) about the issue. GregorB (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. At least WP:CRO did its bit in that respect.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed drive to reassess all B/C-Class articles

Hi all! It has come to attention of a couple of editors, namely GregorB and me that WP:CRO is quite frankly lagging behind average wiki-article quality. The situation became quite obvious through the following table showing proportion of B- and C-Class articles compared to Start-Class ones.

Ratio	Wikipedia	WP Croatia
B/Start	9.3%	3.5%
(B+C)/Start	24%	19%
B/C	64%	24%

In a nutshell, proportion of articles exceeding Start-Class is fairly fine, but a significant deficit is apparent in the B-Class category. After a discussion the two of us have concluded that it would be beneficial to reassess all the B's using the WP:BCLASS criteria applied quite strictly, provided that any articles "demoted" to C-Class are provided with a to-do list on their respective talk pages specifying clearly what need be done to meet B-Class criteria fully. The scheme could be later extended to the C-Class articles to determine if there are any rated too conservatively, already at par with the B-Class criteria, alternatively what need be added. We came to a realization that, even though the drive might reduce number of the B's in the short term, the to-do lists would provide clear cut pointers forward allowing an efficient avenue to increase quality of the project's articles.

The following two sub-sections contain proposed B-Class criteria and proposed interpretation of the B6 criterion in particular in respect of specifics of the WP:CRO, and the to-do list details. Members of this project are invited to comment (and support) this proposal before it is agreed upon and applied. If and when such an agreement is achieved, the two sub-sections below could be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia/Assessment or another appropriate project page. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support as a co-nominator.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support as a co-nominator. I fully agree with adopting WP:Assessment and WP:BCLASS in particular, and applying it to current B and C-class articles. The only question is whether we tweak {{WikiProject Croatia}} banner to support an explicit six-point B-class checklist. If one looks at a WP:MILHIST article assessment, there is a five-point checklist. For e.g. 1992 European Community Monitor Mission helicopter downing it's {{WikiProject Military history|class=C|B1=n|B2=y|B3=y|B4=y|B5=y|Balkan=yes}}. So, for an editor who wants to improve this article to B class, the situation is clear: the only thing that needs to be fixed is criterion B1, which is referencing and citations. In this way, even without leaving any comments, it would be reasonably clear what needs to be done for B-class compliance. Also, an alternative to creating a todo list would be to create an assessment summary page (an example supplied by yours truly: Talk:13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) - see bottom of the banner). GregorB (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I see value in the B6 in terms of providing background information or context where necessary/desirable. Some of the articles - needing no information on context - will undoubtedly meet the criterion as long as they present the topic clearly and in understandable terms.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course, B6 applies too - the question is just whether we assess in the same way as we do now (only using strict(er) criteria), i.e. the article is just "B" or "C", or do we introduce a must-fill checklist as illustrated above? GregorB (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the check-list seems to be useful, and would obviate need of a to-do list in cases where say, referencing alone is a problem - so based on that I'd say yes, let's have it.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm also for it, and this drive would be a gentle way to introduce it. IIRC, when WP Slovenia introduced the checklist, the number of B-class articles went to zero overnight (that's how the project banner works: when checklist is turned on, the article shows as C regardless of what one enters as the class parameter, unless the checklist is supplied with everything set to yes). GregorB (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay people - we'll continue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia/Assessment. Feel free to join in or comment. GregorB (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

B-Class criteria

B-Class articles may be reviewed by any user with no restrictions whatsoever. However, editors are urged to perform such an assessment strictly adhering to the following B-Class article criteria:

B

The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.

The B6 criterion is normally interpreted conforming to Wikipedia:TECHNICAL guideline: Every reasonable attempt should be made to ensure that material is presented in the most widely understandable manner possible. By extension, for the purposes of the WikiProject Croatia fulfillment of this criterion also means that an average Wikipedia user with no specific knowledge about Croatia and/or the Croats will be able to understand the context of the article and extract useful information (ideally, even insight) from it. For example, a well-written article on a historical topic will have a "Background" section where necessary, rather than just springing right off into details of the event.

An article may be assessed as a B-Class article only if it meets all six criteria listed above. If the article fails one or more of the above criteria and surpasses Start-Class quality requirements, it should be assessed as a C-Class article. The Start-Class and the C-Class requirements are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia/Assessment.

To-do list

If the assessed article fails B-Class criteria, a To-do list should be created (or updated if it already exists) on the article's talk page showing the list of improvements suggested for the article. It is created and formatted using the {{Todo}} template. The list is maintained by editors, writers, reviewers or readers like you as a way to focus your collaborative efforts. As such, they represent a tentative consensus that helps improve the efficiency of the editing process. A To-do list for this page may look like this:

The template (tag) to include the above is {{todo}}. The dynamic list in the box is drawn from a subpage of the talk page represented simply by "to do."

Map of geotagged articles

Hi all! There's this map of geotagged articles on wiki. It was a discovery to me, so I figured others might be interested as well... maybe it has a place on the project page... or not. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting... See Croatia and Slovenia for comparison. GregorB (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The word count is trivial there, it seems to count all the article meta data, which makes Slovenian village articles 'shine more bright' because User:Kaktus999 is a more prolific copy&paster than the rest of us, what with all the infoboxes and navboxes. For example, Račje Selo has only 61 words of prose, but the map sees 386 words. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

JFTR an analogous silly effect exists on Croatian village articles mass-created by User:Starzynka, it's just less pronounced. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Word count notwithstanding, it is interesting to see where there may be room for additions (literally) of either articles or missing coordinates. To be sure, that does not mean any hamlet need be added, rather there may be notability guideline compliant landmarks (natural or man made) that still need be covered. For instance, there's an article on Nelson's Column, but there are very few articles on similar landmarks in Croatia. Again, there's no point in writing on just about any monument in Croatia - however Josip Jelačić monument in Zagreb's central square is just mentioned in Josip Jelačić article (rightly so), even though it is quite notable if for no other reason then because of its history - removal, restoration, conflicting ideas on how exactly to restore it etc.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This brings up a dilemma we had some time ago - that is, do we: 1) write an article about a municipality and just mention all settlements, or rather 2) write a separate article on each and every settlement. WP Slovenia opted for 2), while WP Croatia mostly goes for 1) (nothing wrong with that approach IMO). The map illustrates this difference quite well. GregorB (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing wrong in either of the two approaches IMO, but I think it comes down to prioritizing. Every addition is generally welcome - be it in terms of quantity of articles or in their overall comprehensiveness and quality, but I'd prefer if an extra effort is made not to have bare-bones stubs whenever possible.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree - virtually nothing is gained by proliferating bare-bones settlement stubs. Only when there is at least some content, the settlement can be split out of the municipality article. Nevertheless, I wish we had something like List of cities, towns, and villages in Slovenia/A etc., although I'm not exactly volunteering... GregorB (talk) 11:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, although little substance would be needed indeed to warrant such an article beyond that it exists per Wikipedia:CL-RULE. I imagine that if there is virtually any information beyond census data geographic information pinpointing its location such an article would be wholly justified. I'm not trying to define a set of information not deemed specially informative, but all these (short of the coordinates) are normally found in other articles which are more likely to be retrieved. I think that such articles end up as bare-bones because editors normally think of splendid buildings, political and administrative centres of power, industrial and economic capacity and perceived present-day (national or global) importance of a settlement - none of which are normally found in fairly small settlements. at least some of those could be fleshed out with decent information about history (seemingly obscure locations are often recorded to have existed since this year or that), some have changed names in the past, some have been home or birthplace of notable persons (such as is the case of Bruvno and Vukasović), some have been centres of power or of substantial significance in the past (such as is the case of Kaptol, Požega-Slavonia County which housed public/official records for much of present-day Slavonia between the 13th and the 16th century, i.e. until Ottoman conquest) and some are notable for their specific natural setting (such as is the case of Mrkopalj - the settlement at the highest elevation in Croatia, a fact wholly neglected in the article). Again, there's nothing wrong with existence of those stubs, but there's flesh to be added to the bare bones in large number of cases.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Quite true. Content-wise, demographic data alone (at least beyond present-day population figure) is sufficient for a separate article. Incidentally, it's Begovo Razdolje, not Mrkopalj - if Wikipedia is to be trusted... :-) GregorB (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I was thinking of a visit to Begovo Razdolje and why I took a look at Mrkopalj is beyond me.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

And to be frank, it just so happens that I wrote the article in question, I'm not that knowledgeable. :-) GregorB (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Gondola or Gundulić?

Requesting eyes on the House of Gundulić article talkpage, included in this WikiProject, where there is currently a discussion [15] on whether "Gondola" is the more appropriate name for the Dubrovnik noble family. -- Director (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Invite template

Hi all! I took liberty of creating a WP:CRO invite template and posted it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia/Invite for use by members of the project. Happy editing.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Fahrenheit 451 take three

Apparently Business.hr announced it plans to cease its operation.[16] Looks like another bout of archiving is due (there's 40 of those).--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Srpski autori o hrvatskoj povijesti

Želio bih upozoriti na činjenicu da velik dio članaka na engleskom jeziku, a vezanih uz povijest Hrvatske - posebno Domovinski rat, Oluju, okupirana područja itd. - moderiraju i pišu Srbi ili Jugoslaveni. Posljedično, članci su najčešće tendenciozni, pa čak i kad su faktički većinom točni, brojni dijelovi teksta izravno ili neizravno prenose interpretacije sa srpske strane, citate i objašnjenja sa srpske strane itd., a zanemarujući kontekst i argumentaciju koja im ne ide u prilog (posljednji je primjer na članku "Operation Storm", u kojem neuspješno pokušavam ispraviti krive Drine).

Pitanje pod a) je kako je to moguće, i pod b) što možemo učiniti po tom pitanju?

"Serbs or Yugoslavs" equals "tendentious", that's a nice way to start. GregorB (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

"Serba or Yugoslavs" stoji u njihovim potpisima. Dakle, nisam izmislio nego tako piše. Drugo, dati Srbinu da piše o ratu u Hrvatskoj 1991. jednako je kao dati Njemcu da piše o WW2 oko 1955. Vaš je komentar upravo uzrok problema koji sam istaknuo - na račun licemjerne političke korektnosti, mi se ne bavimo istinom. Pri tome smo pretpostavili da će bilo tko napisati što objektivniju istinu, što je nonsens. Također primijetite da nisam tražio niti da Hrvati pišu te stranice, nego smatram (a što je moguće potkrijepiti u 100% primjera na wikipediji ili bilo gdje drugdje) da NE MOŽE Srbin biti objektivan kad piše o hrv. domovinskom ratu. Ako Vam to nije jasno, onda imate gadan problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.129.114.200 (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't subscribe to racist views of an entire nation being devoid of objectivity. The essence of civility here on Wikipedia is to concentrate your comments on the content, not on the editors. Please see WP:WIAPA (bullet #2 in particular). GregorB (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Bit problema je u tome što "sadržaj" nije objektivan. A nije objektivan jer ga ne pišu objektivne osobe. A jezične smicalice kojima se iskazivanje objektivnog problema proglašava rasizmom je ispod svake razine i dovoljno govore o Vama.

Rekao sam dovoljno u argumentaciji, volio bih čuti i neko drugo mišljenje.

Nažalost, nemam dovoljno vremena da se ozbiljnije posvetim istraživanju svih pogrešaka, ali samo neke od njih, ponavljam, možete pogledati u članku koji sam naveo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.129.114.200 (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Neću se spuštati na razinu uvreda, ali ću i odgovoriti na osobni napad korisniku GregorB: dali ste u pola sata 3 komentara na moje tekstove.

Ni u jednom od 3 komentara niste se bavili sadržajem niti argumentima.

U 2 komentara ste napadali ad hominem (u jednom bezobrazno vrijeđali), a u jednom ste izostavili argumentaciju i kontekst i polovično interepretirali dio koji Vam se sviđao.

Toliko o objektivnosti, nepristranosti i tako dalje i tako dalje. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.129.114.200 (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

My comment on Talk:Operation Storm was addressing your arguments. You took a single word from it ("prividan"), ignoring everything else, and concluded you've been right all along. That tells me this discussion is not too promising, but I'll respond there nevertheless. GregorB (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Bah, humbug. -- Director (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

A sad još i lažete. Vi ste, iz mog teksta na cijeloj kartici, istrgnuli jedan element, a i njega ste istrgnuli iz cjeline. Nakon toga ste polovično interpretirali prijevod i iz njega izvukli netočan i tendenciozan zaključak koji u obzir nije uzeo cjelinu niti moje argumente.

A laž je da ja tvrdim da je "prividan" jedini ispravan prijevod. Ja naprosto tvrdim da je Vaša interpretacija da je "feign" jedini ispravan prijevod netočna i tendenciozna. I dajem argumentaciju zašto je to tako, koju vi u potpunosti zanemarujete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.129.114.200 (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll post a full response on all points tomorrow hopefully. GregorB (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moonlee Records

I wanted to notify this project that this Slovenian-Croatian record label has been nominated for deletion. I have commented there and noted that Google News and Google News archives provided results and I would appreciate if a user went through the links and verify if they are sufficient and reliable. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 21:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Please use WP:DS for this. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

How many more articles?

You may have noticed we have 10,000 articles now. On this occasion, I've tried to estimate how many more articles are there to be written within the scope of this project. For that purpose, I've used the Croatian Wikipedia. So:

• Croatian Wikipedia has 114,000 articles.
• My estimate (using random page sampling - Monte Carlo method, if you will) is that 22% of these would fall within the project's scope.
• That translates to approximately 25,000 articles within the scope (even if some encountered e.g. would not meet the notability threshold).

So, it is safe to say that it is possible to write at least 15,000 more articles, which could, at present article creation rate, take 12 or more years. Therefore, we are very far from being finished, even if there is now a substantial volume of content to improve upon. GregorB (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I expect that Zagreb alone contains hundreds, if not more than a thousand, of notable landmarks which have not been covered by now - so you're likely to be quite close to the exact figure.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes - to me, the figure seemed a bit improbable at first, but e.g. only biographies are in the thousands. GregorB (talk) 07:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I imagine there must be a substantial number of existing articles which are not tagged as a part of WP:CRO. Just the other day I noticed such problem existed in cases of Bosut and Čabranka rivers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

True. I've found a way to detect some of them using CatScan V2.0β - see User_talk:Antidiskriminator#Untagged_articles. Tagged some of them already. GregorB (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's link the relevant search explicitly:

http://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php?depth=3&categories=Croatia+stubs&templates_no=WikiProject+Croatia&templates_use_talk_no=1 --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Gvozd

For the discussion about the article title, see Talk:Gvozd#Article title. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Zagrebački leksikon

Looking at all those books during the recent Interliber book fair, I couldn't resist thinking how this one or that one would made a great source. (A clear sign I spend a bit too much time here...) And, at just 99 HRK, I simply had to buy Zagrebački leksikon.[17][18]

A great source for everything related to Zagreb, with the following limitations: 1) it is a lexicon, so articles tend to be concise, and 2) no biographies (although relevant people are mentioned throughout). If you need a source or a piece of information for an article, you know where to find me... GregorB (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Good find. Looks like an excellent tertiary source, I'm sure we will find some use for it :-) Timbouctou (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

History of Vojvodina

An editor (who is not a member of this project) has recently added multiple project banners to Talk:History of Vojvodina, including this one. Please feel free to remove it of it is not within this project's scope. See this section of the talk page for further background. Voceditenore (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Some more can be seen here. In my opinion e.g. History of Vojvodina is not in scope of WP Croatia, defined as "Croatia and the Croats", because the relation to it is indirect ("1) this is history of Vojvodina, 2) Croats live in Vojvodina"), and I'd say it has to be direct, even if it's weak. Even e.g. History of Bosnia and Herzegovina is not in scope, although History of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1941–1945) or Operation Trio might be. Croatian Democratic Union of Bosnia and Herzegovina might be in scope too (political party, i.e. organization, which is explicitly linked to Croats), but I'd say e.g. Cathedral of Mary, Mother of the Church (a Catholic church in Mostar) isn't (no explicit link). GregorB (talk) 10:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I've recently removed the WP Croatia banner from Status of Međugorje, in line with my reasoning above. Comments? GregorB (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

That was just plain old WikiProject spamming, and should be reverted because it's a topic of a WP:ANI report about a WP:POINT violation.

In general there is a lot of largely legitimate ambiguity, for example today I came across Stephen Mlakic, but didn't tag it for .hr because the article demonstrated only a thin link. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

GregorB, sorry, I added the Croatia tag to Status of Međugorje by mistake when adding a {WikiProject Roman Catholicism} tag and notice of the RM discussion at Talk:Medjugorje. It had no relation to the History of Vojvodina issue Voceditenore and JoyShallot mention. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No big deal. One article more, one article less, doesn't really matter... GregorB (talk) 08:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Sretan Božić!

On these days it is probably good to work on repairation of interpersonal relationships so here I come with initiative. I wish to all of you who will celebrate it now, Merry Christmas and at least one or two days of rest from Wikipedia (don't be in fear, I do not plan any sabotage in this period). Enjoy with people you love, forget about problems in life and on Wikipedia and do not go overboard with reruns of Home Alone. I send you congratulations little bit earlier because I expect that you will now be absentee. Sve najbolje, i sretan vam Božić.--MirkoS18 (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for soothing everyone's fears, Mirko. :) There they were, all quivering and all.. -- Director (talk) 06:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you trust my promises darling. My friends from Freemasonry, Rosicrucians and Illuminati confirmed this decision on the sidelines of this meeting Official website. We want you to enjoy because our process of destruction would be much more boring without you. No kidding, I just wanted to told all of you Merry Christmas!--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

2011 census

The final results are out...[19]

The first thing I noticed is that the DZS apparently changed the URLs of the entire set of first results tables. Consequently, all URLs that pointed to these tables - including those supplied through {{Croatian Census 2011 First Results}} - are now dead. (Except for the PDF document which is still there.) I'd say this was a rather dimwitted move, but no real damage done - these data are now obsolete anyway.

The idea is to create a new template, say {{Croatian Census 2011}} and retire the old one by replacing all instances. No equivalent to the above mentioned PDF document yet, as far as I can say. GregorB (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

{{Croatian Census 2011}} just created. The idea was to provide two modes of operation:

1. User-supplied URL and title - rather straightforward, same as the old one.
2. User-supplied name of the Excel table, and the template provides the title automatically - handy because e.g. the complete results by age and sex and by settlements can be sourced to a single Excel table called "Nas_01", therefore it's just {{Croatian Census 2011|Nas_01}} (plus optionally accessdate param).

For an example of the latter usage, see Daruvar (diff). Just an idea thus far... Comments? GregorB (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks great. Good work!--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I really, really dislike linking Microsoft Excel files. It's simply unnecessary given the existence of HTML tables. If someone wants to use a specific proprietary software product, nobody's stopping them, but we shouldn't be encouraging it by advertizing it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought about Excel tables - I dislike using Office formats as sources too, mainly because as I see them as potential virus spread vectors. To the "proprietary software product" argument I can think of two counter-arguments: 1) there are free software alternatives, such as Open Office, so in that sense we cannot speak of proprietary products, only of proprietary formats (and the same might be said of PDF, for example), and 2) even if there were no alternatives, citing a source that, in order to be seen, requires a purchase is essentially no different than citing a book or a subscription-only website (but is still best avoided if there are free-for-all alternatives, of course).

Anyway - now is the time to set the citation standards, and that's why I'm a bit cautious: we're looking at potentially thousands of transclusions that are bound to last for 10 more years, so all the more reason to get it right now. GregorB (talk) 14:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You can't avoid the fact that just having the text "Microsoft Excel" repeated a thousand times is advertizing for a specific proprietary product. But, once again, there's no need to have this argument. We have their HTML tables, which are perfectly good for the purpose of verifiability. (Right?) It's also archivable, both automatically at web.archive.org and elsewhere manually. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay - let's move it to Template talk:Croatian Census 2011, I'll post there shortly. In the meantime, I've tagged the template as experimental - please do not proliferate it yet beyond current transclusions. GregorB (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The template is ready (sort of) - see the examples at {{Croatian Census 2011}}. Note that - said examples notwithstanding - it will still be possible to supply the url and title parameters directly. There are some outstanding questions in the template's talk page, and I'd like to hear your comments before we cut the ribbon. :-) GregorB (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Serbia

Do you support this [20] addition WP:Serbia to articles on monasteries in Croatia, it does not exist here Talk:Holy Trinity Monastery (Jordanville) ( Russian Orthodox monasteries in the United States‎), Talk:Kuştul Monastery (Greek Orthodox monasteries in Turkey)--Sokac121 (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter whether we support it or not. One could probably give arguments both for and against inclusion, but in the end it's every project's prerogative to define its own scope. Has been discussed recently, seemingly without conclusion. GregorB (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Then WP:Serbia can be extended to Vukovar, Ervenik, Željko Jovanović, Miloš Milošević, Slavonia, Velebit... This is something to be discussed at WP:Croatia. I have not seen the debate on WP:Serbia. I gave examples Greek Orthodox in Turkey and Russian Orthodox in USA monasteries, no tags WP:Russia and WP:Grecce --Sokac121 (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I've provided a link to the discussion, here it is: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Serbia#WP Serbia tag. You say that this is "something to be discussed at WP:Croatia". Okay, let's say we discuss it, reach a conclusion and... what happens then? GregorB (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't support addition of WP Serbia tags. On that template (tag) there is written: This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. That monasteries we're talking about can be related to Croatian Serbs (can= In Croatia there are also Orthodox believers of other nationalities), but they don't cover Serbia. They cover Croatia (they are located in Croatia, not in Serbia) and Eastern Orthodoxy. --IvanOS 17:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles have tags WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy religion to which they belong and WikiProject Croatia country in which there is. It is enough and such is the practice in other articles on Orthodox monasteries --Sokac121 (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

There will not be WP Serbia on articles Vukovar or Ervenik because it would be contrary to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#WikiProjects do not own articles (section 3). Therefore it is groundless fear. WP Serbia will be only on talk pages of articles that are directly linked to Serbs (Serbian Orthodox Secondary School, Association for Serbian language and literature in the Republic of Croatia, Zagreb Orthodox Cathedral...). All editors who are interested in this topic are welcome to share their opinion on above mentioned Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Serbia#WP Serbia tag where editors discussed scope of WP Serbia. I would also call all interested editors to see archived Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 40#Tagging and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Archive 20#Tagging where we get advisory opinions on this. Also, if you are not in touch with this part of the Wikipedia instructions, I recommend you to take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Article editors do not own WikiProjects (section 3) to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings. Best Regards.--MirkoS18 (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I took your advice and followed the links you presented. They actually directly contradict your position. I.e.:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#WikiProjects do not own articles actually says: "Placement of any relevant banner should generally be accepted, as each project may have unique resources and be willing to improve and monitor the article. One group may not prohibit another group from showing an interest in an article." The section 3 is not applicable here. Monasteries or cities are not tagged with WPS because they were occupied by Serbia for a couple of years but because they are directly linked to Serbs.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Article editors do not own WikiProjects says: "if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article"
• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_40#Tagging is concluded with "A WikiProject is a group of volunteers. That group is free to work on any articles it wants. It is free to tag any articles that the group chooses to support. If WikiProject Serbia wants to tag Moon and Cancer, then that's just fine with us. The WP:PROJGUIDE explicitly says that "WikiProjects are allowed to have strange, arbitrary, or unpredictable scopes". When we say that they may tag any article that the group wants to support, we really do mean any article, not just articles that seem sensible or sensitive."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Antidiskriminator I guess you celebrated New Year a little bit longer, I agree with you on issue mentioned here :D . I just said that fear that there will be WP Serbia on Talk pages of villages or towns in Croatia (many of which were destroyed in the last war) is unfounded because it is contrary to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#WikiProjects do not own articles (section 3). If someone try to push something like that I would be against it and I will than advocate external arbitration and interpretation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#WikiProjects do not own articles (section 3). But when it comes to currently taged articles I think that there is no any space for dispute and that they all definitely fall under scope of WP Serbia. Especially since word Serbians was replaced by word for the Serbs in lead at Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia. But to repeat, I think we're at the wrong place and if anyone has anything to add he/she should do it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Serbia#WP Serbia tag.--MirkoS18 (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

There's no actual problem here, except possibly a misplaced WP tag serving no purpose but doing no harm. To take a less inflaming example, just today GregorB noticed that Four Crowned Martyrs article is tagged as a part of WP Croatia - and after a short exchange we agreed that WP Cro has nothing to do with that, removing the tag. The fact that the article is still tagged as a part of WP Serbia (even more surprisingly, at least to me, as those are martyrs honored by Catholic church) does not make Serbia or WP Serbia own the article or the martyrs, nor would anyone reasonable think the martyrs were Serbs. If WP Serbia members consider that a given article somehow falls within the project, that's completely fine and has zero impact on everything else. No need to be tense or nervous about this. OTOH, I'd urge WP Serbia members to exercise a measure of restraint in iffy situations. Even though wiki policies do allow tagging anything and everything as a part of WP, imagine how welcome would be a tag of WP Hungary at Talk:Subotica.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Mirko Vukovar, Ervenik are given only as an example where WP:Serbia can spread ,Hrvatska riječ, Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Syrmia is not WP:Croatia, also other Orthodox monasteries are marked only with a state in which they are located. And tagging WP:Serbia the monasteries in Croatia is precedent.--Sokac121 (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd say Hrvatska riječ is in scope (directly related to Croats), while Roman Catholic Diocese of Syrmia isn't. GregorB (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I concur with GregorB here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Diocese of Syrmia should be also in scope of Wikiproject Croatia. It is directly related to Croats: majority of Roman Catholic believers in diocese are Croats, bishop Đuro Gašparović is a Croat, in recent past it formed former Diocese of Đakovo-Srijem, website is on Croatian language... --IvanOS 15:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Not only Orthodox monasteries are tag WP:Serbia but have a village church Talk:St. Petka's Church, Banovci.--Sokac121 (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If the majority of Roman Catholic believers in said diocese are Croats, then it is indirectly related to Croats; at any rate, there is nothing intrinsically Croatian about it. GregorB (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That the reverse case, (dioceses in Croatia, and has links with Serbia) Diocese be marked WP:Serbia:) These are double standards--Sokac121 (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I just want to say that all articles about Croatia related things SHOULD be taged with WPCROATIA, as it suppose to be. That is the point of WikiProjects. Please, dont make political questions out of totally minor things. --WhiteWriter^speaks 15:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I just want to say that I don't think we generally make political question here. We just have POV pushing offensive made by two editors that advocate marginal position (I believe that they even do not fully understand purpose of WP, or at least do not trust us that we truly believe WP Serbia have that purpose). I think that we here have relatively clear mutual understanding. There are maybe some hypothetical highly sensitive situations that we might have different attitudes but these situations did not appear at all in reality. I am very confident that if we are considerate and if we do not want to disturb atmosphere among Wikipedia editors community we will never get on such situations. I really do not see that we at WP Croatia make any political question, we recognize right of every member of WP Croatia to express his opinion, but that does not mean this opinion is "official position" of this project (Especially if they asking for a violation of some very basic rules).--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Serbian-Croatian people

A large number of biographical articles were added to Category:Serbian-Croatian people by User:Vajstina. I invite members of this project to see what this is about and let their opinions (if any) be heard. Also, happy editing in 2013 :-) Timbouctou (talk) 12:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I would not like to speak from position of my own prejudices but my first impression is that it is a little dubious category if category is not very precisely defined in time range and covered with sources. I'm not sure what would be difference between categories Category:Yugoslav people and Category:Serbian-Croatian people unless in used term. Category could only be meaningful if describes a very narrow Austro-Hungarian historical period when that term was used for South Slavs speaking Serbo-Croatian in empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serbo-Croats&diff=484737422&oldid=192539135). But that would not have anything to do with period of Yugoslavia or any other period. One rare exception beyond this period was Serbian kindergarten, primary school, high school and pupil's home Nikola Tesla Budapest that approximately till 1990 used name Serbian and Croatian... but I do not know any other example outside of Austro-Hungarian historical period. I do not know much about this topic but I think if it is not a very specific historical topic we do not need this category. If we keep this category then we need to modify introductory description. Maybe we also should ask for advice editors from project Yugoslavia?--MirkoS18 (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm perplexed by the category content. I went through a dozen articles and there's no pattern - there are Croats living/born in Serbia, Serbs born/living in Croatia, or either of the two born someplace else, Serbs born in Serbia and living in Monaco :)... Personally, I think someone was experimenting with setting up categories. Looks that way.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW this has been nominated for deletion in the meantime. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Extermination

User: JorisvS erased the history of the Croatian language [21] (Baška tablet is now history Serbo-Croatian language?!?), then became čakavski dialect of Serbo-Croatian language [22] (page two years is not edited) no one asked, no one is not advised, not explain your changes on the talk page. I am particularly bothered, that the article on [[23]] ignored centuries of culture and language of Burgenland Croats. If anyone interested in this please respond to. (accordingly Zagreb County (Croatian: Zagrebačka županija) could be Zagreb County (Serbo-Croatian: Zagrebačka županija) )--Sokac121 (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright rules on photos in Yugoslavia

Hi, I don't know if you're aware that in Yugoslavia the copyright duration on photographs was 25 years (no matter whether signed or anonymous). (Article 84) See a similar case for Slovenia at commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Slovenia: all photographs published in Slovenia before 1 January 1970 are free. I suggest that you also update the Croatian guidelines there. I'm leaving this message here rather than in the Croatian Wikipedia, because it is difficult for me to write in Croatian. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

This is interesting, as the 25-year copyright on photographs in §84 is actually compatible with the Berne Convention, ratified by the SFRY in 1975. (However, 50-year copyright would have been compatible too.) So, this might be very useful. Some questions remain, though: 1) what about earlier or later laws, particularly those of the successor states?, and 2) what about the freedom of panorama? I'll see what I can find. This is a fairly complicated matter, so I for one would appreciate every bit of further information about it. GregorB (talk) 13:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama was given in Article 48 of the act. However, if some successor state does not allow free commercial usage now, in my opinion this also applies for the photos that were created before the new act was passed if published now (analogously to this case). Otherwise, I don't know for the successor states, except for Slovenia. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Article 48, right! It is a question of later transitional provisions then: was freedom of panorama abolished (in Slovenia, at least - Croatia did retain FoP) with retroactive effect or not, and was copyright extended to 50/70 years with retroactive effect or not? For example, when Croatia recently extended copyright duration from 50 to 70 years, this did not apply to works that had already lapsed into public domain, 50 or more years having passed already since the publication or the author's death. This was a slightly different case, as it was a transitional provision relative to an already existing Croatian law. On the other hand, it seems that provisions of Yugoslav laws are considered null and void in Croatia, which would mean that, if e.g. Tošo Dabac created a photograph in 1937 and died in 1970, it is still copyrighted in Croatia until 2040, even if this copyright "expired" in 1962 under Yugoslav law. If this interpretation is correct (and I'm not sure one way or the other), that would mean that Yugoslav 25-year copyright actually changes nothing regarding the present-day copyright status of photographs created in that era. GregorB (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, by all means we should find out whether the interpretation regarding the photographs is correct or not. For Slovenia, e.g., a notable lawyer recently has claimed that it does apply, but the lawyer's opinion has not been published in a peer-reviewed source (it has been e-mailed to an editor, who has published it online) and is not a court case.[24] However, the Slovene copyright act contains the following provision: "Ta zakon velja za vsa avtorska dela in izvedbe izvajalcev, ki so ob njegovi uveljavitvi uživala varstvo na podlagi zakona o avtorski pravici (Uradni list SFRJ, št.19/78, 24/86, 21/90)." [This act applies for all copyrighted works and performances that were protected according to the Yugoslav copyright act (Uradni list SFRJ, št.19/78, 24/86, 21/90) when it was enacted.] This clearly means that if the photos were not protected anymore, the new act does not apply for them and the lawyer is evidently correct. Perhaps the Croatian act also contains such a provision. If not, this in my opinion indirectly confirms the claim that the provisions of the Yugoslav laws are null in Croatia. However, this also means that the new Croatian law has protected works that were already in the public domain. Is there any source for this claim? Otherwise, the situation in the two countries seems to be comparable, except that in Slovenia the transition from 50 to 70 years happened in 1995. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that Article 202 of the 2003 Croatian copyright act could be important in this regard:[25] "Ovaj se Zakon primjenjuje na sva autorska djela, sve izvedbe umjetnika izvođača i sva emitiranja organizacija za radiodifuziju u pogledu kojih prava nisu prestala do dana stupanja na snagu ovoga Zakona." [This act applies for all author's works, all performances and broadcasts if the rights have not expired until the day this act becomes valid.] The same was written in the 1999 act. (Article 29)

See also here: "na sva djela autora preminulih do 31. 12. 1948. su istekla autorska prava (primjenjuje se stari zakon, "život plus 50 godina") a na one koji su preminuli od 1. 1. 1949. autorsko pravo istječe 70 godina nakon smrti." [the copyright on all works of the people who passed until 31 January 1948 have expired (the old act applies, "life plus 50 years"), whereas for those who have passed since 1 January 1949, the copyright expires 70 years after their death.]

I'd conclude that for photographs from Croatia, they're free in the source country if published before 1 January 1974. One must then also apply the URAA provisions, according to which they're free for Commons or the English Wikipedia if published before 1 January 1971. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Bosnian when written in Cyrillic

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Serbia on the Cyrillic MOS for when modern Bosnian/BCS is written in Cyrillic. Slightly odd situation in that current MOS appears to give guidance that Грачаница (Пријепоље) should be romanized Gračanica (Prijepolje), but no MOS guidance that Gračanica/Грачаница, Bosnia and Herzegovina, should not be written "Gracanica, Bosnia and Herzegovina" with no č, or Gračanica Šišinečka in Croatia should not be "Gracanica Sisinecka." But presumably Грачаница/Graçanicë Gračanica, Kosovo is included in the MOS. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Minority languages

I'd like to ask why in infoboxes of municipalities in Croatia we use double standards for different co-official minority languages? I know that this issue is currently politically overblown but now I noticed that this practice we still use. I mean specifically on difference between municipalities that have co-official Italian language (Vižinada, Vrsar, Fažana...) and municipalities that use Serbian (Dvor, Negoslavci) or Hungarian language (Kneževi Vinogradi). At first I thought it have something to do with position of Italian language in Istria County but when I checked, it is evident that this standard is used only in municipalities that introduced Italian based on constitutional rights and obligations and it is not case in an all municipalities in Istria (Tinjan, Barban, Cerovlje...). I think we definitely need to have uniform approach to all legally recognized minority languages in Croatia. Everything else would look much like undesirable oppressive phenomena.--MirkoS18 (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

If it's sourced in this or some other official document, I don't see why not. GregorB (talk) 11:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Again Mirko on cyrillic. Italians and Hungarians have their own names for places in Croatia and Serbs do not. About this we have already discussed--Sokac121 (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be applied I just did not want again to engage in some senseless edit war. As far as your comment Sokac121 I never said that name is different but alphabet is (Ultimately, I do not even believe that there are two languages-but our country apparently believes-yet there is even small insignificant difference in name in word općina-општина (opština)). Especially when we take decision of Council of Serbian national minority in Croatia that decided that rights on written bilingualism will be applied only in Cyrillic alphabet. I would also say that this standard has not been used in case of Hungarian language to so I thought that it have something to do with special status of Italian-but this is not the case. I also completely agree with application of mentioned document to verify municipalities that use minority languages.--MirkoS18 (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place where Council of Serbian national minority in Croatia set rules.--Sokac121 (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Again you. After 2011/2012 conflict it was agreed that minority names will be outside infoboxes. So, do not change this agreement. --IvanOS 15:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's me again. If we have reached such an agreement than why do we use double standards in the case of Italian languuage? I certainly would not recommend removal of Italian names just to avoid the introduction of Cyrillic, but if this group as a whole insist on this solution of removing labels on minority languages from infoboxes, I can not do anything but at least insist on uniform approach. I hope this is not the case and that Italian will maintain current status, and that no one will have anything against adopting the only correct approach and that is to treat all forms of the same things (various recognized minority languages) in the same way. However our final approach in this case will loks like, it should be universally applied.--MirkoS18 (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If you saw minority name in infobox, why you didn't remove it? You can remove them. --IvanOS 20:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Well probably because I thought that this was the most rigid of all possible options. I certainly will not be the one who will do it. However, if a consensual position of editors of this project is that there is no place for official language in infobox if that language is a language of ethnic minority group, then I have to warn you if we apply double standards and for months we apply this consens only in case of some minority languages.

Of course, I also want to have written proof that this attitude still prevails on this project. However, I do not believe that this is still prevailing attitude, I think it's a problem only for you IvanOS and Sokac121.

The fact is that you two were warned for several times because of your erroneous and rigid interpretations of mentioned consensus-precisely from members of WP Croatia. The only useful comment was that from user GregorB who alerted me that I need to keep strictly to municipalities/settlements that have been mentioned in official documents. Of course, I can not fully agree even with that because I would personally adopt much more liberal approach-but I am aware that his position is strong enough that I must agree.

You now moan about an old consensus that never was fully implemented, that was oppressive and openly discriminatory because it was used only in case of some languages. Maybe now I'll be too much direct, but minority languages ​​are not a threat to our country, threat are people who oppose to them because they create a fully grounded conditions for people who have bad intentions to take advantage of such discrimination. We might have some consensus-it maybe even was a good solution in a given time-but it is clear today this is not the case. An old never implemented consensus which was created to stop misunderstanding and strife, is not banned and forever ended topic. We, all editors of this project, have right (and I would say even duty) to ask ourselves whether this is what we stand today.

Sorry, this comment stretched much more than it was necessary. I'm just under stress and emotions when I see some people attitudes and ignorance and then I talk too much. I'd appreciate everyone's comment just to know about our group of people and how much sense have my constructive approach (I think, am I more accepted because of that, or I am still just one unpleasant temptation and Serb with suspicious intentions). Just put your comments because I will cheerfully accept silence as consent. It would not be fair then to counteract because I try to consult with you here. Best Regards.--MirkoS18 (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see consensus for anything like this or similar mass removals of referenced information. I'm going to be extra lenient today and engage in discussion here without exacting immediate sanctions because I've seen the insults and threats Oldhouse2012 most recently threw at all of us and I know that this might have pushed a few buttons. IvanOS, don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point, esp. when this contradicts what exists in the real world, thereby going against the very nature of the encyclopedia. Don't treat an infobox as some sort of a totem where the majority name is sacred, it's irrational. If the Italian names are in official use in those Istrian places, then the encyclopedia should document that. In places where minority names don't have official status, we can argue about it as a style issue, but these are not such places. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I urge everybody not to make edits that run contrary to what, as Joy said, exists in the real world - and since this is an encyclopedia, the only thing we can say about the real world is what reliable sources say about it. In this case, there are sources which are not only reliable, but also official, and therefore should not be ignored without a very good reason. GregorB (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is simply unreal. How can be discussed about the actual status of Italian as official language in such places of Istria? This can be easily sourced. The actual number of people speaking Italian in the region is a more debatable matter, because it is certainly larger of the people declaring themselves of Italian ethnicity, but this is another topic of discussion. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not discussed; a violation of process has now resulted in a block.

Regarding the latter matter, we have partial statistics: census data on mother tongue. A census doesn't record second or foreign languages, that's a much more fluid category, anyway, so it would be the topic of ordinary polls. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I wrote: "The number of people speaking Italian is larger than the number reported in the census". Indeed, the census report the mother tongue. But the number of people speaking Italian is larger. If we want to dicuss of this I can report sources in support. --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to warn you on following activities for which editor claims that work based on decision of WP Croatia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/IvanOS). Can you please explicitly dissociate this project of this specific activities in order to stop manipulation done by this editor?--MirkoS18 (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I quite clearly said that minority names in infoboxes are unnecessary because they are posted in text. Besides, MirkoS18, you breach an agreement from 2011-12, when we after conflict (which was caused by you) agreed that minority names of Croatian settlements will be only in text, not in infobox. So, stop with eduction of conflicts because this is the second time we dispute about same thing. --IvanOS 17:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Mirko does not respect the agreement of infoboxes. He falsifies sources [26] (not prescribed minority language). Violates rules of Wikipedia [27], [28] (plus [29]) Wikipedia:Canvassing This is a call to lynch IvanOS. His behavior deserves sanctions. --Sokac121 (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not know if you want to say that what I wrote is not true or editors to whom I write are not neutral or I can somehow influence on their decision? Both statements are not based, firstly I believe that everything I said about IvanOS is totally true, and secondly, I write to editors who are very experienced (just for your information, one of them already refused to take action in past when I ask him). Don't you think that would write to some of editors from lets say WP Serbia if I had such an intention as you say?--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Now I really do not understand who is telling the truth and who is lying. Should we keep our activities in line with statements that It is not discussed; a violation of process has now resulted in a block. or we really need to listen how IvanOS say that we actually have an immutable consensus that we will never put minority names in infoboxes of settlements in Croatia, but wonders, we still will not apply in the case of each minority language. And of course, we do not care for reality, we have IvanOS consensus. I truly can not believe that this is so difficult topic for us-it's embarrassing. As for your accusation Sokac121 I think it is clear that it is an unintentional omission. Luckily, I have someone who will while deleting my referenced edits, explore if I make any unintentional omission. I can not believe I have to deal with this for so long time-I want to work on some other topics, it would be easier-but I can not until two editors make systematic sabotages against my work.--MirkoS18 (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

In order to have a better view I put link on this related conversation I had with user DIREKTOR- User talk:MirkoS18#Cyrillic and User talk:DIREKTOR#RE:Cyrillic.--MirkoS18 (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I myself do support Mirko's format if he can show that the statutes of those municipalities officially use the "[Latin]-[Cyrillic]" format (as in Istria). -- Director (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

[30] Cyrillic is on the articles, Mirko is trying by force her to put in the infobox. We have already given to Mirko to put articles in cyrillic. This is far too much what he wants. [31] Here he himself removes cyrillic, from text :D--Sokac121 (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The article lede and the infobox are different things. The lede includes relevant translations, whereas the infobox has entries that are used to convey the local (native) name. If the official native name is, in fact, in a "[Latin]-[Cyrillic]" format, then Mirko's changes can be viewed as NPOV and beneficial. However, he would first have to show that is indeed the case. On my talkpage he mentioned that municipality statutes and other official documents thereof use the "[Latin]-[Cyrillic]" format for the official name, if they do, it makes sense to list the official name in that format here as well. If not, it doesn't. That's my position. -- Director (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I think I've found an even better source which describes situation in each municipality. (http://www.pravosudje.hr/europska-povelja-o-regionalnim-ili-manjinskim-jezi) (oage 54.,55,...). In addition, consider that this document is for period 2006-2008 so that situation is even improved since than.--MirkoS18 (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

See also (http://www.gimpoz.hr/repos/files/1270474587087_zakon_o_uporabi_jezika_i_pisma_nacionalnih_.pdf) (8.,9.,10.,11.). Law is from 2000 and it is not in conflict with the European Charter on Regional and Minority Languages.--MirkoS18 (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not an "even better source". Kindly provide official documents specifically featuring the "[Latin]-[Cyrillic]" format for each of the municipalities. The rest is OR. We are talking here about primary sources, they cannot be interpreted in any way, nor can we draw any conclusions from them. They can only be quoted directly. -- Director (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Two examples from source I provided. I think that this is a reliable source. But if you think it is better source some kind of tender, decision or some other working document of municipality that use form Općina ABCD-Општина АБЦД, I'm crazy enough, I will find something like that.--MirkoS18 (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Municipality	Quote from document	Page
Bilje	..."Statutom općine propisano je da se na dijelu općine, i to za naselja Kopačevo, Vradarac i Lug, uz hrvatski jezik i latinično pismo, u ravnopravnu službenu uporabu uvode i mađarski jezik i pismo"..."U mjesnim odborima Kopačevo, Vradarac i Lug osigurava se dvojezičnost teksta pečata i žigova, natpisnih ploča mjesnih odbora i natpisnih ploča pravnih osoba koje obavljaju djelatnost na njihovom području ili u pojedinim dijelovima njihovog područja, istom veličinom slova, ispisivanjem zaglavlja akata istom veličinom slova te pri objavljivanju službenih obavjesti"..."U naseljima Kopačevo, Vradarac i Lug ispisuju se dvojezično, istom veličinom slova, prometni znakovi i druge pisane oznake u prometu, nazivi ulica i trgova, nazivi mjesta i geografskih lokaliteta kao i nazivi pravnih i fizičkih osoba koje obavljaju javnu djelatnost"...	page 57
Markušica	..."a Statutom Općine uređena je ravnopravna službena uporaba srpskog jezika i ćiriličnog pisma. Na cijelom području Općine ispisuju se dvojezično istom veličinom slova prometni znakovi i druge oznake u prometu, nazivi ulica i trgova te nazivi mjesta i lokaliteta čije je određivanje u nadležnosti Općine"..."U radu općine primjenjuju se dvojezični pečati, žigovi, zaglavlja akata, nazivi natpisnih ploča, tiskaju se dvojezični obrasci koji se koriste u službene svrhe"...	page 60

It is indeed a "reliable" primary source, unfortunately it does not support what you want.
To have (for example) "Općina Borovo-Општина Борово" in the infobox, you need evidence that this is actually the official format. You need an official document that says "Općina Borovo-Општина Борово". Nothing more, nothing less. Not a law that you interpret as allowing you to copy the format I introduced over at Istria.

And you don't need "any" document at all, either. You need an official document. Keep in mind, also, that the statute of the municipality is probably the best primary source for the official name of the municipality. If the statute just says "Općina Borovo", that's what the infobox should read. You said the statutes use the "[Latin]-[Cyrillic]" format.. I take it that's not quite true? -- Director (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll find it. But what I did is not quote from law, it is from 4. periodično izvješće o primjeni Europske povelje o regionalnim ili manjinskim jezicima and I think it fits much better to definition of Tertiary sources since primary sources were used and interpreted to make that report. At the bottom are four previous reports. (http://www.pravosudje.hr/europska-povelja-o-regionalnim-ili-manjinskim-jezi)--MirkoS18 (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

"U radu općine primjenjuju se dvojezični pečati, žigovi, zaglavlja akata, nazivi natpisnih ploča, tiskaju se dvojezični obrasci koji se koriste u službene svrhe"

This is more then enough. Mirko doesn´t need to go to the Općina and search for anything as such as Direktor says... what a drama... FkpCascais (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it isn't enough. "Općina Borovo" is in Serbian as well as Croatian, so both languages are indeed represented. Kindly distinguish between a language and a script.

Furthermore, I'll be damned before I agree to POV interpretations of primary sources. Provide references to the effect that the names in question ("Općina Borovo-Општина Борово") are official modes of spelling used in statutes and documents, and not just POV inventions by Mirko - based originally on my own idea for Istrian towns with bilingual names.

Btw FkpCasacis, aren't you topic-banned or something? Either way your "intervention" here here may well disrupt a reasonably amiable discussion. Kindly keep to the sources and do not start one of the standard evasive "discussions" you were sanctioned for. -- Director (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not angaging in any personal dialogue with you Direktor, anything you need or want to know about me, please, be kind and search for a way to find it yourself. Btw, weren´t you topic banned and blocked numerous times?

Returning to the actual discussion here, I actually cited the source provided by Mirko which says both languages are used officially in those municipalities, and in my view seems more then enough with what it says there. Also, seems to me that you are the one engaging in OR by saying that if the name is equal in both languages that then there is no need to use the Serbian version, or, that he needs to provide tertiary sources to proove it practical usage. Also, please refrain yourself from making such claims towards a fellow Wikipedian as saying "POV inventions by Mirko" which is not at all a correct conduct in such a discussion. FkpCascais (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

FkpCascais, you were sanctioned for disruption, caused essentially by your not keeping to the sources and inventing endless cockamamie arguments. I know - I was there. So you'll pardon me if I don't care at all what you think is OR - you'll say anything. Mirror arguments like that are your mo ("I know you are but what am I?"). The simple fact is the name of a town is unsourced - unless its sourced. Find a source using "Općina Borovo-Општина Борово", and I'm fine with it. I myself am not interested in what you think the name "should" be based on your interpretation of the law. -- Director (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, the secondary source that MirkoS18 quoted is fairly clear and it answers your question literally. I fail to see how you could read it differently. We know from practice that there exist street and place names in Croatia that are clearly signposted in Latin and Cyrillic. Seeing another source that shows a piece of stationary that shows the title in both alphabets isn't going to be any more or less convincing than simply looking at e.g. http://www.opcina-borovo.hr/ (specifically http://www.opcina-borovo.hr/slike/glavni/header.jpg). The difference in punctuation and word order is meaningless - both alphabets are officially used. In municipalities where the use of the Cyrillic alphabet is both the formal and the practical reality, there's no apparent reason to keep it out if any randomly defined article part such as an infobox parameter. If someone wishes to discuss infobox style, they're free to do that. If someone wishes to discuss the finer points of who defines what's official, they're free to do that as well. But that's not happening - I'm just seeing people make seemingly arbitrary claims (and edit-war). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, that's pretty blatant interpretation of primary sources - WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. We're not here to "decide" how the official name of the municipality should be written, and I remind you the infobox entry there is supposed to convey the official_name= of the municipality. And what does "piece of stationary" mean? That argument could just as well dismiss any source, or the UN Charter..

All I'm asking is that primary sources be quoted, not interpreted. "Both alphabets are official"? Yeah, but does that necessarily mean that the name of the town is officially written in two alphabets, or the specific "[Latin]-[Cyrillic]" format for that matter?

And, for the record, I'm not out to push any POV here: at the time when I pointed out OR, I was led to believe the matter will be resolved swiftly by Mirko quoting the statutes of the municipalities. Since this has turned into a proper "thing", I believed (and still hold) that the solution is to follow policy and sources more strictly. I'm merely holding this issue to the same standard as the long-standing "Istra compromise" whereby Mirko's format was first introduced. -- Director (talk) 10:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

P.s. Finally checked myself. Unlike with the Istrian municipalities which do actually use the "[name1]-[name2]" hyphenated format [32], the Statute of Borovo simply refers to the municipality as "Općina Borovo". This is most likely due to the simple fact - that "Borovo" is the Serbian name as well(!), and that languages ≠ alphabets. To be honest, at this point it would take a pretty spectacular bunch of sources to change my position. -- Director (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? You're going to claim that Na području Općine Borovo pored hrvatskog jezika i latiničnog pisma, u ravnopravnoj službenoj upotrebi je i srpski jezik i ćirilično pismo. somehow excludes the Cyrillic alphabet? Because the heading of the statute only uses the Latin alphabet which is required for the state-level administration to be able to read it? How do you suppose they should have communicated their official decision on using Cyrillic in addition to Latin, but in Latin itself?! This is a really ridiculous argument and you look like you're trolling. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand the claim that the text Naziv Općine je: Općina Borovo. seemingly limits the titling to Latin, but the other section of the same statute is very clear in its intent to give equal status to Cyrillic - the interpretation of the source that blithely disregards this intent is a misinterpretation. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The only small part of this argument where there's something resembling a point is the claim that the source doesn't want the phrase Opština Borovo because they could have spelled that out early like the Italian-language-using municipality. But that could simply be a clerical error because it contradicts the later part of the statute. For the purposes of the encyclopedic article, it's also possible to contradict this point with a simple picture of the sign on their municipality building - if the sign says општина, it's good enough. Only if it says опћина, then that needs to be fixed. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

What is this "seriously", "stationary" nonsense? Can you discuss in a normal manner? Yes, I am "serious" that the name needs to be sourced as official before the article makes that claim. Are you "serious" in that you want people to say "Cyrillic is in equal status with Latin in that municipality - that must mean that the official name of the municipality is two hyphenated transliterations of the same name." Obviously everyone who doesn't agree with that nonsense OR must be joking...

The above does not follow. In fact, its demonstrably not true [33]. The sourced official name of the municipality is simply "Općina Borovo". That's all, no hyphens. This is NOT about the status of Serbian and Cyrillic in the municipality, that's a straw man - this is about the official name. Cyrillic is listed in the lede and is a relevant transliteration - but it is not included in the official name of the municipality (as defined by law!). Get it? -- Director (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That subtlety is pointless and it would be disregarded as trivial if we were talking about anything other than this kind of a flag waving issue. Ridiculous. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It is precisely because this is a flag waving issue that careful (nitpicky, if you will) adherence to policy is necessary.

Joy, the format used by Mirko is my own idea. I suggested it years ago as a compromise for bilingual Istrian municipalities (also following the principle of carefully following the "rules"). It might've been copied elsewhere (Mirko mentioned Bosnia?) but the original reason why the two hyphenated names were used in the "official_name" entry was simply because the hyphenated name was, in fact - official. Grožnjan is actually known officially as "Općina Grožnjan-Comune di Grisignana". Apart from that, I frankly find the whole hyphenated thing pretty silly, and I see no reason why Borovo should use that.

What can be discussed, though, is the entry of the Cyrillic name under "native_name=".. but then of course it looks like that's the only "native name", so that's problematic. Its problematic essentially because the names are the same. -- Director (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Your source is in Croatian language. The official version of statute in Serbian language would say Општина Борово.--MirkoS18 (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

And here's the Statute of Grožnjan [34], also in Croatian, but with the name of the municipality listed as Grožnjan-Grisignana. If it were official, the hyphenated form would be used in the statute. -- Director (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Then I could argue that the only official name is Општина Борово. If we have two official versions of statute which one we need to use-shall we say that one is a bit more official? It is possible that it is as you says in Istria case, but your source in second official language will officialy say that municipality name is Општина Борово.--MirkoS18 (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Plus, do you think we need to delete English version from infobox that is used both in Istria and other cases since statutes don't have english version?--MirkoS18 (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Serbian can be written in Latin as well as in Cyrillic, and as far as grammar goes - on Wikipedia the consensus is that there is no noteworthy distinction ("Serbian is a standardized register of the Serbo-Croatian language"). You can say that the document is in "Croatian", but frankly the whole distinction is very blurry. Its all the same language, and in a script used by both variants to boot. People do not "translate" Croatian into Serbian or vice versa. To write something in a different alphabet is not "translation".

All that aside, you simply have no sources for "Борово" as the official name. Official names of municipalities are defined by law. All you have are sources that show Cyrillic is recognized on an equal footing in the municipality - and that's a completely different question than the actual name of the municipality.

@second post. Um... you are aware this is the English Wikipedia? -- Director (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not know which time I repeat that only official version of written Serbian language in all this municipalities is version in Cyrillic. So, if you want to use Serbian in this municipalities in official communication you have to use Cyrillic version since Latin version have no official status.--MirkoS18 (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Look, this is all besides the point, and the whole thing is starting to get pretty annoying. Properly source your official name(s) or stop bothering people with this. Do not erroneously quote primary sources that don't directly support you. -- Director (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There's a point where the English-language encyclopedia has to stop catering to fringe jingoist talking points and instead describe the reality. If the reality is that when the random English speaker walks up to the municipality building in Borovo, they see a Cyrillic inscription, then that's the reality that the encyclopedia should describe in order to help that reader. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Naturally. Its just that the "official_name=" parameter of the infobox isn't for things that are not the official name. There's the lead, and perhaps other infobox parameters. I firmly believe, though, that following policy is the best way to avoid POV, not subjective impressions. -- Director (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Well if "POV" "problem" is only in section official name than maybe we can use section native_name= or just name= as in the following example:--MirkoS18 (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Borovo Борово
Općina Borovo

Borovo Borovo-Борово
Općina Borovo

.

Or edit like this that was deleted by IvanOS (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Borovo,_Croatia&diff=543440559&oldid=543389697)--MirkoS18 (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

[35] I do not like this. I agree with what IvanOS was made. Mirko your infobox are unnecessary, Borovo is Borovo:)--Sokac121 (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

But Borovo is not Борово, while it should be. I agree with MirkoS18 sources and edits. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

B-Class assessment drive and the new assessment checklist

Our B-Class assessment drive is now finished, you can see its results in the assessment talk page.

The idea behind it was the formal introduction of the WP:BCLASS checklist that every B-Class article has to meet. To assess an article as B-Class, one needs to supply six yes/no flags through the {{WikiProject Croatia}} banner. If the checklist is absent, or has one or more items set to value other then "yes", the article can be assessed no higher than C.

The checklist's benefit is in the following:

• It ensures that all B-Class quality criteria are checked
• If one or more criteria are not met, this is displayed in the WikiProject Croatia banner, so it is clear what kind of improvement needs to be made

Nothing changes in the assessment of article classes other than B.

Right now, you can do the following:

• Take a look at the results of the assessment drive, of course.
• Take one of the articles that were assessed as C in the assessment drive and improve them in the areas in which they failed to meet WP:BCLASS. The banner in the article's talk page will show where the problem is (in the vast majority of cases, it's referencing). Also, some of the articles have the assessment comments, also accessible from the talk page.
• Take one of the articles that were assessed as B in the assessment drive and improve them to GA class. Some of these are quite close to GA, if not already there.
• Fill in the WP:BCLASS checklist for C-Class articles that don't have it. Template {{B}} might come handy. You don't have to enter values you're not sure about - just leave them blank.
• If in doubt about the criteria, submit the article for assessment either here or in the assessment talk page.

Hopefully, this change in the approach to B-Class assessment will help editors target their work to critical areas, and also ensure that B-Class articles are never too far away from GA quality. GregorB (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Why not set up a page similar to WP:MHA "Requests for assessment" section for the WP:CRO?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I don't see why not. GregorB (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

How to get coordinates for pretty much any geographical feature in Croatia

Normally, one would use e.g. Google Earth, but the method is tedious, and these manually obtained coordinates are not always straightforward (e.g. rivers are tricky), so they are really unofficial.

The best way (that I know of):

• Go to Registar geografskih imena Republike Hrvatske, i.e. the online search
• Enter the name in question (let's say we're looking for Kamešnica River)
• In this case the website will display three hits for "Kamešnica": mountain, settlement, river
• Click on the Karta link in the appropriate row
• The map will be displayed in a new browser tab or window
• Latitude and longitude can be seen in the URL

Here is the diff. Region is not mandatory, but it should not be too difficult to add the ISO 3166-2:HR county code. Format does not really need to be "dms", but this takes care of somewhat excessive precision (1 cm?!) of the original coordinates. GregorB (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

A note of caution, though: cgn.dgu.hr distinguishes between the coordinates of a municipality and the coordinates of a settlement with the same name (as it should, really). Since we typically don't have separate articles for these, it is not clear which set of coordinates should apply. GregorB (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

jpg deletions

• image:Theodora Pejacsevich.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• File:Drago Kocakov autoportrait.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• File:Tino Pattiera - Tino Pattiera.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Rescued now. I added a source and fair use rationale and changed the license to {{Non-free historic image}}. Voceditenore (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• File:Alessandro Dudan.gif has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• file:Gajo Bulat.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• image:Miho klaić.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• File:Raimondo Cunich.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Note sections for Croatian BLPs

By WP:MOSBIO do we really need often spelled as footnotes for Croatians? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

As I said earlier, the new listref is at that article is much less annoying than before, but it still projects a sense of {{Kosovo-note}}, yet the diacritics aren't actually a particularly contentious issue in the real world - sources either include them or strip them en masse without any sort of pontificating about it. Nothing in MOSBIO supports it AFAICT. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the mere stripping of diacritics does not really warrant such notes. The only exception is perhaps đ → dj which might not be obvious to all. GregorB (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Well it is maybe when people see WP:MOSBIO a French name is less of a shock than an East Europe one? I don't know. I see Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (regional) has Zoupan's WP:MOSSR draft for Serbia - perhaps this should be expanded into an all former-Yugoslavia MOS not just Serbia. Different issue for WP:SERBIANNAMES where I recently added a Nobel Prize winner.

Gregor I agree đ → dj could be an exception. Just as ß - ss is an exception for German. Consonant change is different from adding/removing diacritic. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

So, anyway, are you going to bring this up at WT:MOSBIO or? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Joy, I just got hammered with a cricket bat for mentioning MOSBIO at Talk:Ana Ivanovic, I think it would be more productive for the editors who actually create East Europe bios to work together in the way User:Zoupan has done that WP:MOSSR can be either expanded into an all-former-Yugoslavia or mirrored with Croatia MOS Bosnia MOS Slovenia MOS, without 1 person running off to confront WT:MOSBIO. However if someone wants to go to WT:MOSBIO I will follow them. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Film article

The Croatian film article Delusion (1998 film) has been posted for deletion as seen here. There appear to be some results in Croatian books as seen here. I ask editors who speak Croatian to research the topic and see if it is notable for Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

EU

Articles to update that mention Croatia July accession in the future tense: Croatia, History of Croatia, European Union, History of the European Union, Treaty of Accession 2011, Enlargement of the European Union, Future enlargement of the European Union, Member state of the European Union, Countries bordering the European Union, Currencies of the European Union, Template:Member states of the European Union, Central European Free Trade Agreement, Balkans, History of the Balkans, Template:Foreign relations of Croatia and all the articles that the template links to, European Commission, European Parliament, European Council, Council of the European Union, European Central Bank, Croatian European Union membership referendum, 2012, Croatia and the euro, List of observers to the European Parliament for Croatia, 2012–2013, Croatian language, Schengen Area, European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy, European Economic Area, Croatian passport, History of Croatia since 1995, History of the European Union (since 2004), European Parliament election, 2013 (Croatia), Croatian identity card, European Patent Convention, European Parliament election, 2014, Croatia–Slovenia border disputes, European integration, 2013, European Fiscal Compact, Eastern Europe, European Union Association Agreement, Visa policy in the European Union, Single Euro Payments Area, Passport stamp, Template:Foreign relations of the European Union, as well as all other EU-related articles that mention "27 members", and there are probably still more articles including various maps of Europe. Mallweft (talk) 03:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• In articles: Accession of Serbia to the European Union, Accession of Iceland to the European Union, Accession of Turkey to the European Union... should be changed average area (km2) and population of EU member state.--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Velered kralja Tomislava.jpg

image:Velered kralja Tomislava.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Article assessment

So how do you request an assessment for an article that has been rated as a stub but has been greatly expanded? I've been on Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia/Assessment and I couldn't find anything there. There are two articles I have greatly expanded recently which are rated as stubs: Coat of arms of Dalmatia and Coat of arms of Dubrovnik. Shokatz (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can change the rating of articles all the way from Stub to B-class. Only the top two ratings (GA and FA) require an official review by other editors. IMO I'd say Coat of arms of Dalmatia is currently start-class and Coat of arms of Dubrovnik is maybe C-class at best. Timbouctou (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

If I may ask why such low ratings? Is that dependent on the articles importance to the Wiki project or is it related solely on the size of the article? I don't want to be misunderstood here...what I am saying is that you cannot really add much to both those articles really, especially the Dalmatia CoA. I even stretched it out a bit. It contains all relevant information, description, use in history and relevant examples and sources. TBH both articles now contain more detailed information than in any other place I found online. ;) Shokatz (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

General description of what is roughly expected for each quality rating is desscribed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia/Assessment. Size itself is not relevant, what matters most is whether the article topic is described exhaustively and whether referencing is good (in terms of quality and quantity of inline citations). For example, Coat of arms of Dalmatia says nothing about its present-day usage (is it used at all? if it is, where and by whom? are there any pictures which could illustrate this? if not, why not?) or its origin (why golden lions in the first place?). You could also add something about the variant used in the modern Croatian coat of arms crest, which was designed by Miroslav Šutej and which was criticised by many heraldry experts because it does not follow heraldic conventions. Referencing could also be better, the sources listed only give the topic a passing mention and there are bound to be books available in Croatian libraries who talk about it directly. Also, they lack bibliographical information (ISBN's etc). Although Coat of arms of Dubrovnik is in somewhat better shape, it still feels like more content could be added and referencing could be better. Just my 2 cents. Timbouctou (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The CoA of Dalmatia clearly states in it's opening paragraph that it is being used as part of the crest of the arms of the Croatia and the official description by law of Croatian CoA says this represents the Dalmatian region of Croatia. I have linked that with the Coat of arms of Croatia (which I also expanded recently) where it is elaborated on the issue with references and all. As for it's origin there are several theories but two most known (to my knowledge) are that: 1. It is derived from the arms of House of Luxembourg since the arms appeared in times of Sigismund of Luxemburg when he became the king of the Croatian-Dalmatian kingdom (the arms shows lions turned to right at this time); and 2. that it is derived from the Venetian arms with the Lion of Saint Mark. However both these claims are very hard to prove or even just to find references so I decided not to include it as I know it will most likely get tagged sooner or later. I will however see if I can find some links (and ISBN's) and hopefully even citations for some of the sources. Shokatz (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but what I meant was - is it used anywhere else apart from appearing in the national coat of arms? Does it appear on county flags, city flags, political party flags, football team crests, souvenirs, and the like? And was it used at all between 1918 and 1990? If a tourist went around Dalmatia, where would he likely see that symbol? And if he is unlikely to see it anywhere, why is that? Timbouctou (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, self-assessment up to and including B-Class is fine. For B-Class, one has to mind the WP:BCLASS criteria.

It is currently not clearly spelled out where assessment requests are supposed to be made, but this place is as good as any. GregorB (talk) 08:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I would rather have someone else do the assessment than myself since I was the one who expanded those articles. It would be like rating myself almost and that seems wrong. Shokatz (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You can and should still do it, certainly changing it yourself from stub to start is entirely uncontroversial. Only self-assessed GA/A/FA ratings will be reverted because the consensus is that they require reviews, everything else is standard editorial discretion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur with the assessment that the Dubrovnik CoA likely is a C-class and the Dalmatia CoA is a Start-class article. I base this on the lack of references in both of the articles and subpar comprehensiveness of the Dalmatia CoA article. There may be more problems to those articles, but I have just skimmed through them for now. If another B-class criterion is failed in the Dubrovnik CoA article, Start-class might also apply there, but it does appear to be in a better shape.

The most significant problem with both articles are unsourced claims. For example in Dubrovnik case: "Alternative version (inaccurate), originating as an incorrect interpretation." caption is not supported - how does one know it is a) alternative version, b) inaccurate and c) whose incorrect interpretation was it. Another Dubrovnik article example is "The restored armorial is today kept in Rector's Palace." claim missing citation. Since the Dubrovnik CoA appears to cover the topic of the city's arms, it would be useful to add info when was it officially adopted as the city arms (in its modern form). In case of Dalmatia CoA article: "Use Regional coat of arms - Dalmatia" infobox line is not supported by prose (which is necessary) nor citations. Besides "regional coat of arms" seems vague (and inaccurate). The CoA was arms of the Kingdom of Dalmatia which existed in a specific period - but the present formulation in the infobox infers some modern official (or semi-official) capacity of the arms. If the arms are used by someone else as a symbol of regional identity I suggest you to say who exactly. For instance in the case of Slavonia CoA, HDSSB uses the arms (modified) as a symbol of regional identity, Kutjevo winemakers do so too etc. I'm not aware of any such instance for Dalmatian CoA, but I suspect there may be some which can be listed specifically (or several more prominent examples listed if there are many of those). This actually applies to Dubrovnik CoA too, esp. in official use (of elements) in the Dubrovnik-Neretva Co arms. Another problem is unsupported claim "The Coat of arms of Dalmatia is the heraldic symbol used for the historical region of Dalmatia on the eastern coast of Adriatic Sea." in the lead. It lacks references and is not found anywhere in the prose (necessary per WP:LEAD). In both of the articles, the most glaring omission appears to be a "Description" section. I am aware descriptions are now included in the "History" section, but I suggest you to move that material to the separate section, as many readers will seek out that information directly. Finally, as pointed out above, the references need be formated properly to display required parameters. If you are unsure which ones should those be, consult an article which is already an FA or GA. If you need more assistance, please do not hesitate to ask.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Well for the accuracy of the CoA colors we have the work of Vito Galzinski, a historian who studied the subject extensively. Plus we have quite a few sources, including one written that the arms used for the Dubrovnik Republic was red and white, not red and blue. The article mentions that the different interpretation started to appear around 18th century which I referenced....or so I believed, I've also put several photos of these historical depictions. However I believed it was clear from the article that most of these "red and blue" arms actually showed stylized arms where the white lines were actually richly decorated with blue templates, so in other words they were not blue, but still white-silver lines (albeit being decorated with blue template lines within); maybe I should emphasize that mroe? The false conclusion the white bars were blue (without extensive research) was made in mid-20th century (1950s), which is when the Saraca armorial was also being restored in Split. It is true I don't know by whom, it's very hard to find information about this and the sources are very scarce. Anyway I may have expanded those articles but I don't own them. Please be free to edit the article and make the necessary changes as you see fit. Shokatz (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Hi all,

Could someone tell me how to pronounce the Croatian surname "Vukusic"? In terms that an English speaker would understand please. --86.155.238.223 (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

If I'm not too much off with IPA, it is pronounced [ˈʋukuʃitɕ]. Note original spelling with diacritics is Vukušić. See also Help:IPA for Serbo-Croatian. GregorB (talk) 09:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - so it's voo-koo-shitch? The first part still sounds really weird. --86.177.123.255 (talk) 09:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Something like that, yes. Weird in what way? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Joy, I came here for something else, but on the subject of weird names, I have to ask, why didn't Project Croatia members support the RM to stop this nonsense?. This is the only BLP on en.wp which has an editor running around ASCII-izing her name on every single occurence on 100s of articles, and could have so easily been stopped. Why let it go on? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That particular edit is clearly nonsensical and disrupting the Wikipedia to prove a point. But I have to say that we're going to have to have a more general diacritics RfC to halt the entire tennis biography nonsense, it's not a matter just for Serbia or Croatia or any particular country or region. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think we had something like that some time ago when a hockey-focused editor started moving bios of foreign NHL players to non-diacritic titles wholesale. Don't know how that ended up. Timbouctou (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:Timbouctou, yes you are correct. First there was HOCKEYNAMES and second there was TENNISNAMES.

WP:HOCKEY set a guideline to use original Serbian/Czech etc. names and - after a break - the main Hockey editor involved is back and not causing problems. The remaining hockey bios were cleaned up with 150 moves at Talk:Dominik Halmosi.

WP:TENNISNAMES first removed the tennisnames rule, and 50 RMs moved all the French/Croatian/Spanish players (that's 50 out of 2000) to normal en.wp titling. There was also WP:TENNISNAMES2 to deal with the leads on 50 biographies by the same tennis editor.

At the moment only 1 article title (and 100 other articles mentioning her) is affected by this editor. The reason this article is affected is that it was the "first shot" in the TENNISNAMES campaign, and done quickly by a poorly advertised RM before anyone noticed. As it was the "first shot", it is also perhaps the "last stand" - hence the pointy edits as in the Serbian culture article.

User:Joy, sorry but I disagree, there is no need for a full RfC WP:TENNISNAMES3 for 1 article. If you had supported the Ana Ivanovic RM we wouldn't be having this discussion now. There were only 5 votes each way. Yet there are 1000s of editors who daily add articles using full French/Spanish/Croatian/Polish/Turkish names. So why didn't you support it? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone can be everywhere at the same time, it's as simple as that. I'll continue this at the UE guideline talk page. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes but isn't that what the watchlist button is for? it is only 1 article as "ground zero" for all the disruption, simple enough to click watchlist. Those who believe in English names for foreigners have evidently watchlisted it. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Be serious now, I have 12K entries on my watchlist. Even if I didn't, it's unreasonable to expect a bunch of volunteers to incessantly track any seemingly arbitrary location. (Also, I don't think you're describing that right: a name stripped of diacritics is not an English name for a foreigner. It's still a foreign name. :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 04:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I prune my watchlist regularly. Given that this is the 1-and-only BLP that has ever been diacritic-stripped, and was done so on a quick unseen RM before, the enthusiastic non-admin shouldn't have responded to Fyunck's request for a quick close. But that's how it works. The alternative is fixing WP:Naming conventions (former Yugoslavia) (shouldn't that redirect somewhere?), WP:SERBIANNAMES and upgrading by RfC to actual guidelines. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

ethnic groups navigation box ordering

I don't want to perpetuate an edit war, so I'm inviting a third opinion regarding Template talk:Ethnic groups in Croatia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

census 2011 bug

Am I missing something or did the village of Ovčara go missing:

• "Population by Age and Sex, by Settlements, 2011 Census: Municipality of Čepin". Census of Population, Households and Dwellings 2011. Zagreb: Croatian Bureau of Statistics. December 2012. Retrieved 2013-09-08.

In 2001 it had >1000 residents, which weren't apparently added to Čepin's 9.5k in 2011 - either that or a thousand people emigrated from the two places in this decade, which seems unlikely. It was also there in 2003. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed the administrative merge: [36]:

Naselje Ovčara je bilo su sastavu naselja Čepin do 1991. g., a prema Zakonu o područjima županija, gradova i općina (NN, 10/97.) je bilo samostalno naselje. Prema novom Zakonu o područjima županija, gradova i općina (NN 86/06.) više nije samostalno naselje.

Doesn't explain the population poof, though. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Who knows, maybe Čepin and Ovčara together really did lose about 1,000 people (or 10% of population) from 2001 to 2011. One should consult data for surrounding settlements to see if this is a trend. Beketinci went from 700 to 613, Čepin went from 9,502 to 9,500, Čepinski Martinci from 700 to 663, and Livana from 750 to 650. So I'd say a 10% drop is consistent with this area. Čepin alone probably lost about 900 people, which was offset by administrative addition of Ovčara (which probably went from 1000 to 900), making Čepin's 2011 population almost unchanged (even though almost all settlements in the area were depopulated in the same period). Timbouctou (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Petar VI of Croatia.jpg

image:Petar VI of Croatia.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Federal subjects of Yugoslavia

Members of this project are kindly invited to join in on the discussion at Template talk:Federal subjects of Yugoslavia. Thank you. Timbouctou (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Information gathering process regarding the alleged irregularities on Croatian Wikipedia

I believe by now you're more or less all aware of the latest controversy about Croatian Wikipedia. The controversy is not only about the content - whether there is a far right bias in the articles or not - but is also about whether there is a systemic problem with the CW caused by improper conduct of some administrators.

There is a discussion about the whole issue at meta.wikipedia.org, but it is somewhat chaotic and unlikely to produce a meaningful outcome.

In order to establish concrete facts, an information gathering process has been started here. Everyone who would like to either:

• Submit evidence about alleged irregularities on CW, or
• Comment on such submissions

is invited to drop by. GregorB (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Italian fascism in Croatia related articles

I am not sure is this right place for objection or complaint, Why do you let Italian fascists to edit articles in wikipedia? Is this Italian fascist pamphlet or English Wikipedia? Look at nonsense in article "Zadar". I have removed it twice, but some activist is restoring it. Do you have any kind of moderation here or anyone can write anything without consequences? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.201.156.234 (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The contested claim is unsourced, therefore it may be freely contested using {{cn}} template. If no reliable sources are offered to back that claim up, it may very well be removed. Nonetheless, such behaviour as exhibited by the IP editor and the logged-in editor is not acceptable and is a clear violation of WP:3RR - the IP reverting three times within 24 hours and the logged in user no fewer than four times. Ask for reliable sources and if none is offered, remove the contested passage - no discussion is needed because no discussion trumps WP:V.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Zadar is the place to air your grievance. Failing to post there, and posting here instead, looks like you're improperly canvassing Croatian editors. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi people! I am new here, someone asked me for help, Zadar. Then I looked at some articles related to Croatia's history and culture, there are strange things! I can not figure out why there is no article "Old Croatian Culture"?? Search engine offers a list and the best choice is "Croatian pre-Romanesque art and architecture". This area is just one aspect of the Old Croatian Culture and can have a separate article but can not exist without the cultural circle to which it belongs, so it can not be represented either defined in this way. At the same time there is an article "Bijelo Brdo culture"! So although they are simultaneous Slavic cultures on the Croatian soil (8th/9th - 11th/12th), Old Croatian in Dalmatia and Bijelo Brdo in Savia, of which Old Croatian even much better known, richer findings, it is not mentioned and defined in this "encyclopedia"!? From the archaeological point of view it is impossible position as they are both called by archaeological definitions and in scientific use, in Croatia, France or Argentina... Stairsup1stleft (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

About Zadar, I mean, Tomobe03 you must be joking! Ok I understand that you want to implement a methodology, but where do you think the line between joke and claims is? If someone mentions that sea is usually red and the sky is orange you are looking for a reliable source? This Silvio links Italianized (only by language) part of Zadar population at the end of the 19th century with a mixture of retired Roman legionaries (from all around the Mediterranean) and Liburnian aristocracy in Zadar from 1st to 4th century?! Crazy... Intervening Dalmatian language from the early Middle Ages as evidence for autochthonous Italians in Zadar! Why Italian? why not Martians? This is ridiculous, the source is not required for this, it is trolling. My friend is right. No discussion about this. I see you can revert up to 3 times in 24 h, Nice I'll have my first immediately. Thank you for the incredible passivity. Stairsup1stleft (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources are required for everything per WP:V. If claims are that mundane as you say, sources should be abundant and picking one should be no problem.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

What source can provide such a vivid imagination of human beings? we're not talking about some kind of scientifically based argument that exists somewhere in the science, but someone's childish fabrications that do not belong on these or any pages. Stairsup1stleft (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

En dashes in the names of counties

Hi. I suggest that the hyphens in the titles Bjelovar-Bilogora County and Primorje-Gorski Kotar County are replaced with en dashes. The Chicago Manual of Style advises the hyphen here, but other manuals of style predominantly advise the en dash. The usage of en dash is also helpful in distinguishing names compound of two equal entities from those that are not, and therefore also adds clarity. A conversation about this is available at my talk page (User talk:Eleassar#endashes). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

As discussed already, I'd oppose this change because it's contrary to the guidelines at WP:ENDASH. As defined there, the county names aren't compounds to which dashes are applicable, so they should continue to use hyphens. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Joy here, moreover the Counties of Croatia successfully went through a FLC process and no reviewer had any problems with hyphens currently used. Since the style manuals quoted are ambiguous on the subject, this is far from being a warranted change.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I must say that I never really understood why it's dash and not endash. I had an exchange with an editor some years ago (can't find it now), but I couldn't really understand his argument for the dash. Namely, since e.g. Bjelovar and Bilogora are two entities, not one, I'd fully expect the endash (like in e.g. Bose–Einstein condensate vs e.g. Mittag-Leffler's theorem). Somewhat oddly, while the endash example I just gave is rather uncontroversial, it does not seem to be explicitly covered by WP:ENDASH. GregorB (talk) 11:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it is covered after all, since it's Bose and Einstein. A good remark by Doremo in Eleassar's talk: Primorje-Gorski Kotar County is a legitimate candidate for an endash, because it's indeed "Primorje and Gorski Kotar County". Boneheaded county names aside - Split-Dalmatia County, as if Split is not in Dalmatia. GregorB (talk) 11:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It's still a proper name, the two elements are not interchangeable. The only possible modification is "County of Split-Dalmatia", not "Dalmatia-Split county". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It is a proper name, but does that preclude endashes? GregorB (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Signpost report

Hi all! Someone modified the Signpost banner at the WT:CRO and made me notice the banner which I seem to have overlooked completely for more than two years. Anyway, I read the interview there (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-08-01/WikiProject report) and even though some things don't seem to have changed much since, I still feel good about the progress the project has achieved. Now, the least progress seems to have taken place in terms of number of active editors—how can we improve in that field? Ideas anyone?--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

English exonyms for place names

English_exonyms#Croatia. Can someone check this please. See also article Talk. Many thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yugoslavia in World War II needs editing

This article, rated high-importance by wikiproject Yugoslavia, is extremely stubby. All help appreciated. Cheers, ^walk victor falk ^talk 14:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue is currently tackled by Wikipedia:WikiProject Yugoslavia/Operation Bora, so you might want to head there and chip in.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)