Talk:Šibenik

Needs more pre-croatian history

The reason is you can see the slav editors ignore history before their arrival (croats) in 11th century in this article. It clearly has to state the croats are invading settlers.Meroitte (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Šibenik tribe

I think you should get more on the sibenik tribe because i need to do a reaserch paper and it's due today. --164.92.250.9 14:51, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nazi Germany

The article should make clear if Sibenik was made part of those states (Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany,...) or was just occupied by them. --Error 23:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. --Joy [shallot]

Name in other languages

This is in response to this edit and the edit summary of "so? does that mean we still need to retain Austrian imperialism even today?". If the German name does not apply here because the city is no longer under Austrian rule, then why leave the Italian name there - Šibenik is clearly not Italian or under Italian rule. I think either both the German and Italian names should stay, or both should be removed, unless there are very good reasons for having one and not the other. —KingIvan 10:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for taking too long to respond, I did not check the talk page here for several weeks. The reason why so many Croatian towns have German (and Hungarian and Italian) names is because for many years they were under the Austro-Hungarian empire (and Venice). However, that was ages ago, and unless the occupation had very significant impact on the city (like Venetian on Sibenik), then I see no reason to include it in, it just clutters up the front page and frankly, isn't relevant anymore. I think the best way of dealing with this is having the most important name(s) being put right next to Sibenik in the opening sentence, while all others being put in the history section. ie: Sibenik (German: Sibenning) was mentioned for the first time.......etc. If we were to add every name of every empire that occupied Croatia, we would have German, Hungarian, Italian, Turkish, French, etc all lined up!--Jesuislafete 06:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It is obviously true that Šibenik/Sebenico with rest of Dalmatia was under Venice, but that's not the only reason why iy has an Italian name too. The point is, it was a city where the majority of population was Slav, again like the rest of Dalmatia, but it had a mixed culture, with slavic (croatian, but not only) and italian (venitian, but not only) elements. I'm not saying that makes of Šibenik an italian city, and I don't either think Dalmatia - neither under venitian rule, which made nothing to make Croats less croat or less slavic - was italian in present sense of the word. I'm just saying Dalmatia has a fantastic, plural history, and removing it would make Croatia a poorer nation. Just an other thing: Šibenik did not "resist" Venice. It was simply implied in long hungarian-venitian fights for sovereignty on Dalmatia, until that was sold to Venice in 1409. Then the cities of Dalmatia (and coastal Montenegro) proposed their submission pacts and Venice, with some changes, accepted them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.67.182.178 (talk) 12:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Croatian name in earlier documents

To stop any further possible disputes, here's a source from Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Slava xenscha i protivni odgovor Giachova Armolvsichia Scibencanina Cvitv sestomv. - V Padui : po Giuliu Chriuelaru, 1643.. Printed in Padua/Padova in 1643. Front page [1]. Catalogue search result [2]. Šibenčanin = citizen of Šibenik (in Croatian). "Scibencanin" is older ortography form. Kubura 06:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

Does šibenik mean "gallows"? It would be interesting to find out how the city got its name. Hoot (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It means reed in croatian. Šibenik is only cityon adriatic coast founded by Croats, and area was full of reed, so they called their city reed city or Šibenik. 93.140.239.190 (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Š

Where it is unavailable or not desired, the name may be represented as Sibenik... Not really - such notion was reasonable in the past, but now, with spreading of Unicode standard, it should always be represented as Šibenik. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.111.58 (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130904120919/http://www.voiron.fr/Sibenik_r480.html to http://www.voiron.fr/Sibenik_r480.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Foreign, non-English historical names

I don't see anything too notable about the historical non-English names for the town. They only interrupt the flow of the first sentence and should be left for the History section. History is full of examples where invading forces gave their name to the settlements, and there are more notable things to say with the first few words than what all those names were. Just recently, @OyMosby had a similar complaint. Ponor (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I cannot · count · the number · of times · user · LukeWiller · has put back · the problematic · unnecessary · sentence · back · in this article (...) without ever starting a discussion. So much edit warring warrants admin intervention. Ponor (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• I agree, and I've locked the page for a month. I see lots of references in the edit summaries to discussing this disputed text, yet there's no discussion, neither here nor on your user talk pages. Funny, that. @LukeWiller: You're edit warring. You've been around long enough to know better, and if you'd had the slightest warning I'd have blocked you for it. @Ponor: So are you, and in the future, AN3 is thataway. If the dispute is resolved before the month is up, ping me or ask any available admin to lift the protection. Katie^talk 01:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I still hold the same concern on the issue . I did initiate talks on the user talk page and was looking to see if there were other users with experience in such area to add input since both sides were in disagreement. I was aware that the stable article version did not have the historical names in the intro but was jot aware how many times it was being added. Definitely edit warring is to be avoided. OyMosby (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)