Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Badnjak

Everyone here knows Croats celebrate Badnjak. Please help contribute to the article to make it up to date and less skewed, as certain users would want it. --Jesuislafete (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Death

Many massacre articles for ex-Yugoslavia were tagged by Wikiproject death (including Talk:Bruška massacre, Talk:Ahmići massacre and Talk:Podujevo massacre). I removed these tags but have been asked to reinstate them. I believe it is insensitive to have the following template on the talkpages of these articles Wikipedia:WikiProject Death/Templates. Many relatives of those killed can look at these pages. Please make your opinions known on this here and keep a watch on this talkpage tagging. I have suggested that it is okay for wikiproject death to keep a view on these articles but that the project banner on the talkpages is not acceptable. Polargeo (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I too believe it's insensitive! Sir Floyd (talk) 07:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please make a comment on this at User talk:Polargeo/death. Polargeo (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Rijeka and/or History of Rijeka

I'll suggest that someone from this project needs to examine these two articles and probably to amalgamate them into one. There appear to be large areas of overlap and I tend to doubt that the history article needs to be separate. Note that someone suggested they would put the history article into AfD in 2009 so this is not merely my opinion. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

History of Rijeka has 5500 words, while Rijeka itself has just under 2200 words, so that would be an awfully weird merge. GregorB (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I had a closer look; although the history article has some formatting problems, it seems to be a split and I was mistaken about the overlapping sections. My apologies; it seemed to me at first as though there were two articles on pretty much the same material. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What Is a Man Without a Moustache? at WP:DYK

Just a notification to members that the above film will be featured in the Did you know? section of the main page sometime in the next couple of days, likely tomorrow. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The day after tomorrow, most probably... But do take a look at the DYK section tomorrow morning too, because that's when Falkuša will appear... :-)

BTW: as many as seven WP Croatia articles have already been featured in the DYK this month (see the full list here), and with these two it's going to be nine - that would normally be our yearly output! GregorB (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on a few ideas for the next one. I'll try to come up with enough material to create Leon Lučev and to expand On the Path to DYK standards. Zrinka Cvitešić and any article related to her is also on my list of things to potentially bring to DYK. Stay tuned! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Very good - potentially even a multiple DYK nom... GregorB (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt I'll be able to get them done around the same time but that would be a good idea. I'll see what I can do. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You could always develop one or more of these in a sandbox, then just copy the content when they're finished. (That's how I did Franjo Mihalić, a 16x expansion.) Substantial expansions - especially multiple ones - are otherwise difficult to do within just 5 days. GregorB (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Good work, Big Bird. Contact me if you need help with anything. I'm currently working on expanding and updating lists related to the Pula Film Festival article and we are in dire need of articles about actors, filmmakers and individual films. Timbouctou (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Awesome job folks! Living proof that this WikiProject might be something as useful as I intended when I created it all those years ago.--Thewanderer (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Gymnasium Karlovac

The above article I created yesterday has been nominated at DYK and has been approved so it will likely be featured. If anyone wants to review it and see if there's something they can add, please feel free to do so. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia/Archive 2/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia/Archive 2/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 01:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Klis Fortress

Klis Fortress is currently on hold to become a good article. Additional comments and help are welcome. Kebeta (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Serbian Cyrillic for Croatians

Does anyone know of the official Wiki policy for conversions of names into other scripts? I was wondering because several Croatian persons Andrija Hebrang and Goran Karan for example, have the Serbian Cyrillic tacked onto their names because they were born in Serbia. I don't see this happening with Kosovo Albanian people, or Americans of other ancestry. Regards. --Jesuislafete (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing the justification is based on birth certificates... but that's pretty slim, because Croatian (Latin) is in prevalent usage in Croatia, both among Croats and Serbs. IMO the Cyrillic spelling should be listed in the intro of the English Wikipedia article only if there is tangible evidence that this person made significant things in any context where the said spelling was used. For example, if they also had a career in Serbia or something like that. Otherwise it's a pointless detail that looks more like a cheap flamebait. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Birth certificate is not sufficient justification since place of birth is not a defining characteristic of a person (unlike year of birth, for example). If A. Hebrang was born in China, would we have his name rendered in Chinese too? "Native" transliterations are useful for identification purposes if they were actually used, i.e. if there is a significant volume of primary sources that use this particular transliteration. Not so in case of Goran Karan. Not so in case of A. Hebrang Jr. Putting Cyrillic names where they don't belong strikes me as infantile ("Look Ma, Cyrillic on English Wikipedia!") and trollish. I'm removing it from both articles. GregorB (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay: I was going to be bold, but this is apparently disputed - and I'm not in the mood for debates at the moment, so I'm leaving it alone. GregorB (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this can be solved peacefully with no edit warring. It seems to be a general consensus here that unless there is sufficient justification, than it is just unneeded. --Jesuislafete (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

(Mind, that was a *guess* of mine...) I agree that it's not a particularly defining characteristic, but that's a matter of factoid notability; on the other hand we have the issue of article verifiability, where one could construe a fairly logical argument that original spelling is useful for a birth certificate reference. I think that existence of any other better reference should reasonably trump any such argument, but someone else might disagree.

In any case, if we know that birth places aren't obligatory in lead sections (they can be put in infoboxes and/or early life paragraphs), so there's no real reason for name spellings used only in birth places to be put there, if the birth place is not actually the place from where the article derives any notability.

I feel obligated to mention a somewhat comparable dispute regarding Goran Višnjić - there's a user insisting his article be moved to a title without diacritics because he purposely didn't insist on them during his career in the English-speaking world... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Zagreb Synagogue nominated for GA

Zagreb Synagogue, an article within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, has just been nominated for GA. Any kind of help or comments would be appreciated. You may want to take a look at the peer review and add your comments there, or simply in the article's talk page. Thanks! GregorB (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Move János Szapolyai to John Zápolya?

I've requested moving the article about the Croatian/Hungarian king from János Szapolyai to John Zápolya. Your opinion would be appreciated. Surtsicna (talk) 11:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Tvrđa

Can someone take a look at the Tvrđa article and reassess it? It's currently rated as a stub but I've just significantly expanded it. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well done. I'd say it's a B class. Did you consider nominating it for WP:DYK? GregorB (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've already nominated it - see here! Cordless Larry (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent work. Looks good! --Jesuislafete (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Klis Fortress now open

The A-Class review for Klis Fortress is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kebeta (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 32,665 as of May 16. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia/Unreferenced BLPs. As of May 17 you have approximately 51 articles to be referenced, a 13.6% reduction from last week. Great work! The list of all other WikiProject UBLPs can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Republic of Ragusa/Dubrovnik

The same IP address that has been removing Croatian names/adding Italian ones throughout Wikipedia's pages is doing it again in Republic of Ragusa. This anonymous user is now claiming that even the Croatian word cannot be used because it was "never called that". How is this even being allowed? --Jesuislafete (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Szigetvár nominated for GA

Battle of Szigetvár, an article within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, has just been nominated for GA. Any kind of help or comments would be appreciated. Kebeta (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Croatian Music

There seem to be two parts to this - one is the Music of Croatia article, and the history part is tucked into the Art of Croatia as a section on Croatian Music. That doesn't make much sense to me, especially as the Art of Croatia article introduction clearly states that it's about visual arts! Would it upset any grand plan if I moved the history of music in Croatia into the main Music in Croatia article, where people might expect to find such information? Farscot (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

By all means. Just be sure to provide a link to the Music of Croatia article in the See also section of the Art of Croatia article. Timbouctou (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

hockey

Aye, I went a bit nuts today. Made this, Croatian Inline Hockey League. Help out the page, will ye guys? Puno pozdrava i bokica, (LAz17 (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)).

Football grounds in Split

I recently created a Plinada Stadion article, which I thought was Hajduk Split's original ground before moving to the Gradski stadion u Poljudu, but have since found another article for Stadion Stari plac, which is referred to as being Hajduk's old ground. Are Plinada and Stari plac the same venue? Also, do you think the Gradski...Poljud article should have a rename to Poljud as this seems to be the main name? I'd be grateful for any thoughts on this. Eldumpo (talk) 07:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think "Plinada" is a typo for "Plinara", or "Kod stare Plinare". The word means "gasworks", "by the old gasworks". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Joy is right, Plinara (not Plinada) was a nickname used for Stari plac, Hajduk's old ground. The two articles should therefore be merged. As for their current ground, Gradski stadion u Poljudu seems to be its full official Croatian name, meaning Poljud Municipal Stadium (Poljud is the name of the neighbourhood in Split where the stadium is located), and that's the title of its Croatian wiki article. However the stadium is usually referred to as simply "Poljud Stadium" abroad or "Stadion Poljud" in Croatia (as seen at Hajduk's website). I think we can safely move the article to Stadion Poljud, in line with Stadion Maksimir (whose official name is also somewhat longer and is named after the surrounding neighbourhod in Zagreb). Timbouctou 10:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your swift replies, and I see the page merge has been done. Regarding the Poljud article I will aim to move to Stadion Poljud. Eldumpo (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've moved Poljud, and also Kantrida properly. Timbouctou, if you need help merging into the right place, please don't do manual moves that lose page history, just ask. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I wanted to move Kantrida but it just seemed like a hassle going through the whole process. If you can do it quickly I'll just ask you in the future. Speaking of which, Stadion Kamen Ingrada could probably be better off at Stadion Kamen Ingrad. Thanks. Timbouctou 19:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Croatians peers

I wanted to drop a friendly salute to the Croatian Wikipedians on behalf of WP Albania. This is indeeded overdue, because I have peaked several times over to this WikiProject and really liked its layout, objectives, and achievements. Feel free to drop me a line for future collaborations. --Sulmues ^(talk) 11:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I was curious to see what content WP Albania and WP Croatia have in common, and, interestingly, it's as much as 38 articles at the moment, more than I expected... So, at the very least, there is a chance to collaborate along these lines. GregorB (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Pula Film Festival / Golden Arena awards

Hello!

I´m reading the history of the Big Golden Arena for Best Film from the Pula Film Festival and I see that the award Big Golden Arena for Best Film begins in the year 1957. However, in imdb I find that František Čáp won the award for the best film in the years 1954 and 1955 for the films Vesna and Trenutki odlocitve. Also in his biography in Wikipedia is to read that he won 2 Big Golden Arena for Best Film in the years 1954 and 1955. Therefore the articles Pula Film Festival and Big Golden Arena for Best Film may be wrong. Could somebody /a cinema expert please check it in order to verify if it is correct? thank you a lot!!!

(Please write the answer with copy in Ferran Discussion)

--F3rRan 15:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferran Cornellà (talk • contribs)

In 1954 there was no festival jury to determine award winners. Instead, there were two separate competition awards - one given on account of audience votes (for best film, actor and actress) and the other awarded by a jury of film critics (for best film, best director, best actress and best actor). According to the 1954 report František Čap won the critics choice award for Best Director (for his work in film Vesna), while the film won the audience award for Best Film (the Best Film according to critics was a film called Stojan Mutikaša). In the 1955 edition a festival jury was introduced, and they gave František Čap the Big Golden Arena award for Trenutki odločitve (the award was not at the time known as Best Film award and it was formally given to Čap for his directorial work). However, as there was a separate directing award in 1954 (given to Radoš Navaković), Čap's 1954 award can be considered a precursor of the Big Golden Arena for Best Film (although it wasn't awarded in the next festival edition in 1955). On the other hand, Čap's 1953 award is usually not considered a Golden Arena as it was not awarded by a festival jury, and it was given to him before the festival adopted the Golden Arena name. I've expanded the list of winners in the Big Golden Arena for Best Film to clarify this. Thank you for pointing this out. Timbouctou 04:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

New articles

As you may have noticed, User:Starzynka has created a great number of articles (800 or so), and User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao has added them to WP Croatia:

• Populated places in Croatia
• Croatian films

You can see them in Category:Unassessed Croatia articles. These are all bare-bones stubs, so if you've run out of things to do on Wikipedia, this is the place to go. :-) GregorB (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

user Croacting77

Hi all. I noticed user Croacting77 has recently made a heap of changes in a variety of articles - some of these are OK, but in some cases he simply inserted "Croatia" into parts of articles or shifted Croatia's position in lists to the top regardless of the lists' internal structure. His intention seems to be good, but his editing is not entirely up to par with wiki standards - for instance, in the wine article, he inserted Croatia into a part of the article that was sourced, making it look like the source mentions Croatia (the source, btw, is ridiculously lacking, but that's stuff for an unrelated rant oh boy is there loads of stuff for a lengthy rant on that page...). I could just go and simply revert everything Croacting's done, but as I said, his edits seem to be in good faith, and some (if not most) of them are probably fine as they are. Could somebody sift through his edit history and see if any damage needs to be undone? I don't presume to know quite enough about Croatia to do it myself. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a quick look at Croacting's edits. These appear to be all good-faith edits, and mostly they were constructive (some included adding references - I wish more people did that), but some were a bit heavy-handed, in particular those at Mediterranean cuisine (reverted since). Will keep an eye. GregorB (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Assistance needed with Eastern Europe

The Eastern Europe article is fraught with geopolitical errors, mislabels and slanted facts as if much of it was written by ultraconservatives during the Cold War from an ethnocentric position. If you agree with that Central Europe is more than a backwards ex-Soviet satellite, please assist in rewording/correcting the article lead and body. Gregorik (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Ante Trumbić.jpg

The portrait of Ante Trumbić will be deleted unless source information is provided. This is probably a scan from an old source (the person died in 1938 after all), and one of the generic copyright waivers is almost certain to apply, but we need someone to find out which. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Croatia articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Croatia articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Help with pronounce

Hi. I don't know if I'm at the right place but here it goes. I would like to ask a favour: could some one, please, make an audio file with the right pronounce of the name "Miljenko Matijević" (Steelheart lead singer)? I saw that a French and an English speaker can't pronounce it properly and this file could help them to read the "enko" part and to inderstand the "ć" (tch). I'm portuguese therefor I can't do it. Thanks in advance. Septrya (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Would adding the IPA pronunciation help? GregorB (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. It would be great and would help a lot. My hairs went up when I heard Mil-Jenkou instead of Mi-lien-ko. Septrya (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. I'm not an IPA expert, so hopefully one of my fellow editors will correct me if the pronunciation is a bit off... GregorB (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Septrya (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

List of Croatian NBA players

In case you didn't notice, the List of Croatian NBA players has been turned into a redirect by User:Chrishmt0423 pointing to the more general List of foreign NBA players. I've reverted the change as I feel that a lot of valuable and well-referenced information was lost in the process (the general list doesn't offer match statistics and drops 4 Croatian players who were drafted but never appeared in an actual game), and I don't see why the two list couldn't coexist (Chrishmt0423 reasoned "separate list not needed; it actually makes updating more difficult" in his edit summary). Furthermore, the move was never discussed at the article's talk page. I've reverted the move and left a message at Chris' user page, but if anyone here shares my concern you are welcome to help in the effort to keep the list. Timbouctou 10:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

A good call. The Croatian list provides more useful details, and is therefore not redundant. Ideally, it should be merged into the global list, even if it means sacrificing e.g. players that were drafted, but never played. This implies that global list should be expanded with the appropriate columns. That would require a significant effort, though. GregorB (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

On a side note: it is in fact very easy not to notice when a WP Croatia article is turned into a redirect. The project log does not display this, unless WP Croatia banner is changed or removed. Is there a tool or a mechanism that would display WP Croatia articles that are actually redirects? GregorB (talk) 11:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The list was taken to AfD. You're invited to voice your opinion there. Timbouctou 19:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ana Peraica

O Croats and associates, when I see Ana Peraica I see peacockery and MFA-speak, and I even have a whiff of what we're no longer supposed to call "vanity". Am I just too old and cynical, or is this article all smoke and mirrors around not very much at all?

(This project page isn't on my watchlist, but the Peraica article is.) -- Hoary (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

File-class articles

You may have noticed that, as of late, we're also tagging File-class articles. The purpose is to keep track of Croatia-related media uploaded to Wikipedia, which would otherwise be difficult.

Note that this probably doesn't make sense for Commons-uploaded files: there are thousands of them and they are in fact easy to track (through categorization on the Commons site).

Most of the files will probably be fair-use images, since these cannot be uploaded to Commons. Those that can are certainly candidates for migration. GregorB (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

New Article

Hello all,

I've just created a stub for Ivan Zajc's Nikola Šubić Zrinski (opera). This is apparently the first article created about one of his operas in specific. It is a beautiful work of art, a stirring story of a legendary hero, and the source for the song "U boj, u boj." Ultimately, my motivation for creating the article is selfish: I hope that someone will draft a summary of the story. I would like to ask this community to mark the article as a part of your wikiproject, to hopefully encourage editing. If anyone would like to add something, but fear that their English is not up to par, PLEASE do so, and I'll clean it up!

Much thanks. Korossyl (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox picture in article Croats

Can we please move this entire discussion to Talk:Croats, where it belongs? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Too late now.--Wustefuchs (talk) 11:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really, no. Here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

As most of you know, the voting to select candidates who will appear in the infobox picture has been going on for almost three weeks now at Talk:Croats. I took the liberty of setting the final date for votes and comments for Sunday, 14 November, four days from now, so whoever wishes to participate in the discussion but hasn't done so already is invited to do it before the deadline. Regards. Timbouctou 21:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

List of members of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts

Here it is, a new article by yours truly. There are many missing entries, the full list would be quite long (too long, some would say), but please do add more. Also, there are many redlinks, so if you've run out of biographies to create, this is the place to look. GregorB (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

List of Croatian soldiers

I have created new article which is still in an expansion and major restructuring. Any ideas on how to improve the article is more than welcome, especially regarding the table sorting. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation of populated places

My understanding is that WP:PLACE suggests the following choices for article titles:

• Pavlovci
  • Pavlovci, Croatia Y (the comma form is preferred)
  • Pavlovci (Croatia) N
  • Pavlovci, Požega-Slavonia County N (provided there is only one place named "Pavlovci" in Croatia!)
• Novigrad
  • Novigrad, Karlovac County Y (the comma form is preferred)
  • Novigrad (Karlovac County) N
• Mišnjak
  • Mišnjak (Rab) Y
  • Mišnjak, Rab N (island is a "natural feature", therefore the comma form is not applicable here)
  • Mišnjak, Primorje-Gorski Kotar County Y (also correct, but disambiguation by island is arguably more natural)
• Draga
  • Draga (Rijeka) N
  • Draga, Primorje-Gorski Kotar County Y (unless there are two places named "Draga" in the same county)

There are corner cases, such as two places with the same name in the same county (can't rembember which, but I know they exist). For these, municipality name should probably be used after the comma.

• • Bučje (Pakrac)
  • Bučje (Pleternica)

There's this one!--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Current naming mostly conforms to examples given above, but there are deviations.

Am I getting it right? Comments? GregorB (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you got it right, except for the Mišnjak example. If the Mišnjak article is about the populated place then it should follow the same rule as for any other village, e.g. administrative division should be used (e.g. "Mišnjak, Croatia", "Mišnjak, Primorje-Gorski Kotar County" or "Mišnjak, Municipality" format). As far as I understand it, brackets are used only for natural features, meaning we would use brackets to differ a hypothetical "Mišnjak (river)" from "Mišnjak (island)" or "Mišnjak (mountain)"and so on.

Having said that, I was considering a proposal to change the naming format for Croatian settlements. There are many examples of the same name being used for several places in Croatia and several places in neighbouring countries and it seems that settlements with existing articles in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia all use the "Settlement, Municipality" format, which I find to be much more practical. There are other reasons which might be considered. The provision in WP:PLACE which says that first level admin division should be used was probably designed with U.S. states in mind, and it makes sense to distinguish place X in Mississipi from place X in Texas. However, IMO counties do not mean much for either Croatian or English readers, at least not as much as municipalities (it is probably far more useful for readers to say that place X is a settlement within town X as opposed to within county Z). Another reason would be that settlement names often change in Croatia, and the official list of settlements has been amended and revised several times since 2001 (the latest list I could find was published in 2007, I'll post the link below when I find it in my bookmarks which are currently pretty messy). This means that each time a settlements changes its name we should check the new name against all other existing settlements to determine whether it is the only one using that name in the country or the county so that we could move it between "Place, County" to "Place, Municipality" or "Place, Country" back and forth, which is simply impractical and which may involve moving about disambiguation pages as well as articles. Another reason which I encountered categorising villages connected by state highways is that many placenames used in roadmaps (even official ones) and therefore in articles about roads in Croatia are notoriously outdated. This means that even if we stick to the rules and somehow manage to name places according to latest official revisions, highway articles are likely to have broken or misdirected links. Since places along the highway are probably a priority on English wikipedia this should be avoided and the simplest way to to this would be to go with "Place, Municipality" format. Like I said, Bosnian, Montenegrin and Serbian articles already use this format and I have yet to hear someone complaining about it.

Another thing to consider is the word "county". As far as I can tell, German places use "Place, State" format, without actually adding the word "state" in the title, nor do places in the U.S. (and I am probably unlikely to run into an article called "Paris, State of Texas" in the near future). For comparison, I haven't seen any article using the "XXX, YYY Municipality" format. I assume we need the word "county" to disambiguate it from the hypothetical place with the same name in the same-named municipality (for example, "place x in karlovac county" vs "place x in karlovac municipality"), which is IMO all the more reason to stick with municipalities and make life easier for both us and our readers. Timbouctou 11:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You're formally correct on Mišnjak, but WP:PLACE suggests using local conventions, and I assumed that in Croatian usage one usually refers to an ambiguous place name by attaching an island to it, rather than a county name - that's what is meant by "arguably more natural". This is the venue to discuss which way to go, of course.

If counties do not mean much to Croatian or English readers, municipalities mean even less. There are 550 or so municipalities in Croatia, enough to stump even the most knowledgeable Croatian readers as to where the place in question is supposed to be located. Not so with county names.

My suggestion would be to always spell out the full county name, even in infoboxes: [[Karlovac County|Karlovac]] is potentially confusing. An interesting real-life example in an album infobox: listing the record company as [[Croatia Records|Croatia]], by assuming that "Records" is implied, is probably not a good idea. GregorB (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I still disagree. Mišnjak is not really a good example for this discussion as it doesn't seem to be a populated place at all - it is a rock (hrid) as it has an area smaller than 1 square km, and its article has "Rab" in brackets to differ it from several other islets (all of which are uninhabited) located near Šipan, Ugljan and Unije respectively. Besides, if the local convention is anything to go by, then the "place, municipality" format should definitely be used, as illustrated by corresponding articles on Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian wikipedias (you are unlikely to find a single article which used "place, county" format over there), while Slovenian wikipedia sometimes uses "place, country" or "place, municipality" but never "place county" for Croatian localities. I disagree on the relevance of municipality/town vs county - for example, take the Greda disambiguation page: Greda, Sisak, Greda, Maruševec and Greda, Vrbovec would probably be more meaningful to most people in Croatia and abroad than the currently used Greda, Sisak-Moslavina County, Greda, Varaždin County, Greda, Zagreb County. Another example could be be Poljica, where you've got 5 in Croatia, scattered in 3 counties, and should one or two of those cease to exist, we would have to move all five to conform to the naming convention. I just don't see why should we blindly follow WP:PLACE and insist on something which will make the future lists of populated places in Croatia even more impossible to maintain. I bet that if somebody asked you what Žrnovnica is, you would probably tell them it's a settlement near Split, and you would dispense with the Split-Dalmatia County designation altogether. I don't see anything wrong with using second-level administrative divisons - telling a Croatian person that place X is in county Z is hardly considered informative without adding more detailed municipality/town information already. And yeah, there may be 550 municipalities/towns in the country, but most Croatian people heard about and can roughly place at least 100-150 of them - telling someone that it is in one of the 21 counties is a very vague piece of information. Timbouctou 12:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Mišnjak is an example picked at random. Your Žrnovnica example is an illustrative one, but that was precisely my point with Mišnjak (let's pretend it's a settlement on the island of Rab): you'd say "Yes, that's Mišnjak on the island of Rab", you wouldn't say "Mišnjak in such-and-such municipality". Using municipality for disambiguation violates WP philosophy of using minimal disambiguating context: in this case, it is supposed to differentiate, not locate. If it differentiates, it's OK to be vague. GregorB (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I still fail to see your point. If Mišnjak was a village we would have to treat is as any other settlement, meaning we would need to use its county or municipality to differentiate it from other villages called Mišnjak if they existed. If Mišnjak was the only inhabited settlement, it would probably have "(village)" after the name in the article title, to differentiate it from other Mišnjaks which are barren rocks. If we had multiple villages and multiple rocks called Mišnjak, the villages would have to use the convention for populated places (county or municipality), and the rocks would probably use natural feature determiners such as "(island) and (rock)" or geographical ones "(Rab) or (Ugljan)". Žrnovnica is within the Split metropolitan area and if there were more than one, the Žrnovnica near Split would have to be called Žrnovnica, Split or Žrnovnica, Split-Dalmatia County, depending on where the other Žrnovnica was. I'm just saying that the former is a better option to use across all articles than the latter, regardless where the second Žrnovnica was. Timbouctou 21:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at Cerje :) Gotta love the Zagreb County/City distinction.

I should note that BiH and Serbia have a huge blob of puny articles, probably also by Starzynka, so it's mostly uncharted territory and not really a representative example. The parenthesized form is used there, and I don't like it, the comma is better.

As for what to put after the comma - I also don't think county and municipality names are very common, but at least it's a consistent scheme, it gets us uniform page titles, while the article content can include whatever other common information in the lead section. The combination of Cerje and Varaždin or Cerje and Zagreb would be ambiguous, and it's not just a few isolated examples, there's scores of common toponyms.

I also don't really like the pipe link for county references. The stubs are also named without saying they're for counties, which is also ugly. In fact, the stubs and their categories seem to be very inconsistent. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

According to the Cerje disambiguation page at wiki.hr there are only two places in Croatia named "Cerje", which would be Cerje, Vrbovec and Cerje, Zagreb (they are both in Zagreb County and therefore the "place, municipality" format should be used for those two). All the others have something added to their official name, probably to distinguish them from each other.

(I wrote the en: page based on DZS data, not based on whatever is on hr:.) Just because they're disambiguated in real life that doesn't make encyclopedic disambiguation any less necessary. Had the disambiguating word been an intrinsic part of the name, it would most likely have been included *before* the word Cerje. Other articles can reasonably be expected to refer to the village of Cerje, near Zagreb, Croatia, and no less than five places easily match that description. Also, those two you mentioned - they are not both in Zagreb County. That's why I mentioned this. One is part of Grad Zagreb, and the other is part of Zagrebačka županija. These are two separate administrative units. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The first part of your answer explains why you created the disambiguation page, which I don't think was an issue. Of course the disambig is needed here. The second part points to my mistake, and I admit I was quick to judge that Cerje in Vrbovec Municipality and City of Zagreb belonged to the same county. In that case, following the current naming conventions, the Cerjes should be listed as follows:

• • • • Cerje, City of Zagreb
      • Cerje, Zagreb County
      • Cerje, Macedonia (or Cerje, Republic of Macedonia, I don't know what is the current politically correct convention)
      • Cerje, Zlatibor District
      • Cerje, Raška District

If there was a single hypothetical Cerje in Bosnia and Herzegovina, than the list would also feature a

• • • • Cerje, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina or
      • Cerje, Republika Srpska

My point is this would be a mess and I don't see how more useful this list would be as opposed to what we already have in the Cerje disambig page. If we had multiple Cerjes in Bosnia, then these would have municipalities (or cantons?) added to their titles, but Croatian ones would not, and neither would the Macedonian one. So the end result is that, by following WP:PLACE, we would end up having many disambiguation pages and village articles on Wikipedia, some of which identified by their country and others by their municipality, canton, district or county, on a case-by-case basis. Now add possible administrative changes, mergers and renamings to the mix, which are all likely to happen every now and then in all of these countries and which would require multiple article moves on our part. What we'll get is an unmanageable chaos and I fail to see how this would be of any benefit to readers. OR we can simply use municipalities after the comma and be done with it. Timbouctou 20:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Usage of comma as opposed to brackets for populated places is not really an issue, MOS is clear on that, and myself had to move a number of Bosnian articles to their proper titles when I had to create disambiguation articles. The only issue here is what should follow after the comma - the first level of administrative subdivision (county) or the second one (municipality), and it's precisely for consistency reasons that I propose we adopt the rule to use municipalities rather than counties.

I don't really think the argument of consistency mixes well with the argument for avoiding counties. The list of counties has changed much less often than the list of municipalities - in fact I don't believe the former changed since their inception in 1997, right? - so the latter are a potential source of volatility that can be avoided by staying with the former where possible. And the benefit of the municipalities is still dubious - because of the native disambiguation of 7 out of 9 Cerjes in Croatia, it is impossible to make the set of titles of those nine Cerje articles actually internally consistent - you can't rename the article Cerje Nebojse to Cerje, Maruševec because factual accuracy always trumps consistency. And there's also little point in comparing second-level subdivisions in various countries, especially where BiH is on the list, because they can be very idiosyncratic, to say the least. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree on other points - county names shouldn't be piped and stub names should probably be updated to reflect that they are for counties. Btw, here's the latest official list of counties and settlements dated July 2006 which will come in handy for future articles and possibly help disambiguate some placenames. Also, while we're on the subject, I was wondering why Vukovar-Syrmia County is named differently compared to other counties which all retain their Croatian names. What was the reasoning behind that? Timbouctou 14:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Vukovar-Syrmia County - maybe that's for consistency with Syrmia (which is not a very strong argument, though, for more reasons than one). The official version uses Srijem, but - somewhat suprisingly - uses the form "County of Foo" and not "Foo County". GregorB (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Er, where is the difference, really? The English toponym is used where possible, so -Slavonia and not -Slavonija, -Dalmatia and not -Dalmacija, -Syrmia and not -Srijem. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

So basically you're saying we should move Osijek-Baranja County to Osijek-Baranya County for consistency with Baranya (region)? As for Syrmia, it seems that it is rather unclear what should be regarded as the "English toponym". DZS uses Vukovar-Sirmium and the Croatia government's English-language pages go with County of Vukovar-Srijem (as is the case with Baranja). Timbouctou 20:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The obvious pre-condition is the established existence of an English toponym. This seems to be the case with Syrmia - if not, please bring it up on the relevant talk page. Conversely, there seems to be little indication of Baranya being actually used in English rather than just being literally imported from Hungarian. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Kornati

Some issues about the article's name were raised in this CfD discussion. Some suggestions as to how to handle it have been mentioned at Talk:Kornati Islands and everyone is invited to drop by and voice their opinions. Cheers. Timbouctou 11:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Mass import of populated places in Croatia

Starzynka (talk · contribs) appears to have imported data from a map of Croatia about a huge chunk of villages. The stubs have {{Infobox settlement}}, but generally lack even the most basic bits of information such as the villages' relative locations or population. See e.g. Babotok, and the rest in Category:Populated places in Croatia. This will require a big effort to clean up. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Here are some remarks:

• While the list is surprisingly clean spelling-wise, there are some bad entries (e.g. Linijska Nacionalna Plovidba).
• Categorization into Category:Populated places in Croatia by county would certainly be useful, but merely achieving this is a big task.
• Unit_pref parameter in the infobox is unfortunately set to "Imperial" everywhere - not a problem at the moment, but will be once units are introduced.

A huge amount of work will be needed to make this articles really useful, given the resources at hand. GregorB (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I did try to at least categorize these settlements by county earlier, by cross-referencing them with the complete list of settelements in Croatia at wiki.hr. However, I ran into several articles about places which are either missing from the Croatian list, or have been renamed in the meantime. Does anyone know of a reliable and current list of all settlements in the country? Timbouctou 08:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You can verify it against the 2001 census. Just look it up on the DZS web site like this. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

What should be used in the infobox instead of Imperial? Figured I might do something about a chunk of those articles. Thanks--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Figured it... (Metric)--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Unit_pref might be mass-repaired by a bot. GregorB (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

General warning - Starzynka was pretty sloppy with this. Often times, suburbs were mistaken for villages, or wrong toponyms were used. It's always a good idea with these articles to first verify that a place actually exists in the census before ACK'ing it as an actual populated place. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to say that with the cleanup of Vugrovec just now, at least the categorization is finally fixed. Thanks to all who contributed! --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Article alerts

The project's main page now displays the article alerts. These seem to be pretty useful, with many kinds of events covered. I had to rearrange the layout of the main page a bit, but everything's there... GregorB (talk) 10:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a very useful improvement. Good work Gregor. Timbouctou 15:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Nikola VII Zrinski or Miklós Zrínyi

There is ongoing merge discussion here, about Nikola VII Zrinski or Miklós Zrínyi. Any constructive suggestions are welcome. Kebeta (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

GA nominations

In case you didn't know, this project has as many as six pending Good article nominations at the moment:

• A3 (Croatia)
• A4 (Croatia)
• A6 (Croatia)
• Croatian War of Independence
• Michael of Zahumlje
• Tvrđa

Of course, any kind of help is welcome... GregorB (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This is some kind of a record:-) Kebeta (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

An explosion... of a kind that's nice to see! :) GregorB (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

And now that all of them are GA, let's do some more :) Tomobe03 (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, all of them are GA now, plus A7 (Croatia). Luis Ibáñez is pending. Let's hope we don't run out of B-class articles in the process... :-) GregorB (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Language detection

A new user has created Klindamicin; we already have an English-language article on the subject at Clindamycin. I am not 100% sure of the language it is written in (I thought Croatian; Google Translate is identifying it as Serbian) so I can't tell whether it should be moved to hr.wikipedia, sr.wikipedia, or sh.wikipedia. Can any fluent speakers of the language(s) concerned make a positive identification? Gonzonoir (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That's in Serbian.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

stub sorting places in Croatia

Category:Croatia geography stubs is still large, but can be easily reduced in size if people replace {{Croatia-geo-stub}} with e.g. {{ZagrebCity-geo-stub}} and similar, per-county. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Since we fixed the basic categories on all of them now, the stubs can easily follow suit. You just have to use the county name without any punctuation. Some generic regional geo stubs are also available, useful for e.g. lakes or other features that span multiple counties. Here's the complete list for reference:

• {{Slavonia-geo-stub}}
• {{ViroviticaPodravina-geo-stub}}
• {{PožegaSlavonia-geo-stub}}
• {{BrodPosavina-geo-stub}}
• {{OsijekBaranja-geo-stub}}
• {{VukovarSyrmia-geo-stub}}
• {{Dalmatia-geo-stub}}
• {{DubrovnikNeretva-geo-stub}}
• {{SplitDalmatia-geo-stub}}
• {{ŠibenikKnin-geo-stub}}
• {{Zadar-geo-stub}}
• {{CentralCroatia-geo-stub}}
• {{ZagrebCity-geo-stub}}
• {{ZagrebCounty-geo-stub}}
• {{KrapinaZagorje-geo-stub}}
• {{SisakMoslavina-geo-stub}}
• {{Karlovac-geo-stub}}
• {{Varaždin-geo-stub}}
• {{KoprivnicaKriževci-geo-stub}}
• {{BjelovarBilogora-geo-stub}}
• {{Međimurje-geo-stub}}
• {{PrimorjeGorskiKotar-geo-stub}}
• {{Istria-geo-stub}}
• {{LikaSenj-geo-stub}}

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If you see {{Zagreb-geo-stub}} used anywhere, tag it with as either City or County. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

And it's finally done - the only articles left in our top-level geography stub category are a few places that span several counties or it's not immediately clear where they are. Yay! --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Well done! That was not an easy task... GregorB (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josef Schultz

German soldier that dropped his gun to stand besides Yugoslav partisans about to be shot. Help would be needed to find sources offline and in Serbo-Croat, especially about the monument in Lokve. ^walk victor falk ^talk 07:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Diocletian

I just added WikiProject Croatia|class=FA|importance=Low to the Diocletian talk page. He was born in Salona (now Solin, Croatia), and died in Aspalathos (now Split, Croatia). Is this OK...or what? Kebeta (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought about it for a while and could not decide. Borderline relevance. Other similar cases IMO are Battle of Lissa (1811) and John Malkovich. (Non-)inclusion is not an important issue, because strictly speaking it does not hurt the project - it's rather a matter of principle, and therefore something that should be discussed. I could go further with the arguments, but I'd like to hear other opinions first. GregorB (talk) 09:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

IMO in the case of Diocletian and the Battle of Lissa (1811) (and the Action of 29 November 1811) including them is OK. The 19th-century battles on the territory of present-day Croatia should be considered relevant whether or not Croats actually participated in them as they are definitely interesting - albeit minor - episodes in Croatia's military history (besides, not many people know that Vis was briefly British, and that there are ruins of two British forts visible there today). As for Diocletian, I normally would not consider just about any person born in this region in Antiquity as relevant to the project, but Diocletian should be an exception because of the Diocletian's Palace, which was a kernel of the present-day city of Split, one of the most important urban centers in the country. He certainly left a mark on the subsequent history of Croatia, and his legacy is of interest among Croatians today. I'm not sure about John Malkovich though. Unless some relevance for contemporary Croatia could be proven (for example if he established some charity foundation in Croatia or is otherwise involved in Croatian public life), the fact that some foreign national is of Croatian ancestry is really of borderline relevance to the project. Similar cases include Darío Cvitanich, Teresa Scanlan or Krist Novoselic (none of which are covered by WP Croatia). Timbouctou 10:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with Timbouctou.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason I find the first two articles to be of borderline relevance is the fact that a Croatian editor, possibly using Croatian-language sources and local common knowledge, has little if anything to contribute to them that is Croatia-related (barring, in Diocletian's case, the content related to his palace). For an average Croatian reader, things do look a bit different, though, even if the exact criterion is far from clear.

For example, SMS Szent István has been on my todo list for a while because I've been planning to expand it a bit with info regarding the recent exploration of the wreck, based on Croatian-language sources. That's more than I can do for Battle of Lissa (1811), so that would perhaps be an argument to include Szent Istvan too.

As for John Malkovich, the above also applies. What's more, strictly speaking, he is not a Croat, nor does he hold Croatian citizenship. His Croatian ancestry is IMO not enough for inclusion in this case. GregorB (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Granted there'll be cases of borderline relevance, but IMO an article subject that is directly related to Croatia or Croats, or that has made an impact on Croatian history, culture, etc. (Diocletian is a fine example, no matter how indirect and initially unintentional the impact). The "direct relation", should include, IMO, events (and similar) that occurred in Croatia (wherever its borders were at the time) regardless of participants to the event (Battle of Waterloo is a part of WP Belgium, even though no Belgian army took part). Additional, one might include other subjects closely related to Croats but failing the previous criteria for inclusion (eg. HVO). True, some events will be more or less borderline, but in those case, it's just a matter of good judgement.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That is why I have put 'importance=Low', not because he is not important, but because he is 'Low important to WikiProject Croatia'. While Diocletian's Palace has 'importance=High' being on of the 'World Heritage Sites in Croatia', and a part of Split. Kebeta (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

So do we have a consensus that Malkovich is not even "Low" for this purpose? GregorB (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The question is "Does Malkovich have any impact on Croatian culture/history/society/etc whatsoever?" - IMO, other than conjectural, none to speak of.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, Milla Jovovich is a part of WikiProject Serbia, and she was born in Ukrainian SSR and now works and live in USA as an American actress. Malkovich at least visited Croatia couple of times, and gave some comments about his Croatian ancestry. Nevertheless, I agree that Malkovich is borderline relevance to WikiProject Croatia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kebeta (talk • contribs) 17 February 2011 (UTC)

To answer that question: no, John Malkovich does not have any impact on Croatian culture, history, and society. About the only thing Croatian about him is his ancestry and visits. However, he is an American and a part of that culture. In my opinion, Milla Jovovich should not be a part of WikiProject Serbia, since the same question applied to her can be answered "no" as well.--Jesuislafete (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

@GregorB - I see your point about WP:CRO covering articles that Croatian editors might contribute to. I was looking at it from the literal "articles related to Croatia and the Croats" perspective. Nevertheless, SMS Szent István surely qualifies as it was a notable battleship built in Rijeka which spent 95% of its career docked in Pula and was eventually torpedoed off the coast of Premuda. One might imagine the wreck becoming a popular diving location for tourists, which would make it pretty much "related to Croatia" (for a similar example, I've been planning to write an article about the "Croatian" Apoxyomenos for a while now - the locals are doing their best to promote the sculpture as a tourist trap, even though it has virtually no connection to Croatian culture apart from the fact that it was discovered in Croatian waters). Since we're on the subject, olm has been the only WP:CRO featured article for a long time, and I fail to see how it is relevant to either Croatia or Croats - the creature is neither seen a national symbol nor is it endemic like Degenia, and its unlikely that Croatian editors with access to Croatian sources are likely to add anything that Slovenian sources did not cover already. Btw, Luis Ibáñez (currently a GAN) isn't really relevant either. As for Malkovich - the only thing I can think of that had any bearing for Croatia is when he recited verses of "Lijepa naša" in that 1990 music video. As for Milla Jovovich, I have no clue why the folks at WP:Serbia think it merits inclusion. Timbouctou 19:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as articles that Croatian editors might contribute to and their inclusion in WP Croatia is concerned, think about this one: Mohorovičić discontinuity is closely related to a Croat (Mohorovičić, of course), naturally Moho is found under all countries (so it is not a geographically remote feature) but I'm not really sure should it be included in WP Croatia.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hah, I knew this would be an interesting discussion... :) We essentially agree on Szent Istvan, particularly given the fact that the ship still exists as a wreck in Croatian waters. Olm is interesting given the fact that it was added to WP Croatia by yours truly. :) It is not strictly endemic, but it is a rare animal with limited habitat, somewhat if not entirely peculiar to Croatia (of course, it would be stupid to slap the WP Croatia banner on Wolf just because wolves live in Croatia), a bit of a tourist attraction (I remember seeing one in the Baredine cave in Istria), and subject to local study and nature conservation laws - not at all unlike Mediterranean Monk Seal (not tagged thus far), and something one could definitely meaningfully contribute to as a Croatian editor. (Describing where exactly in Croatia olms live and when and where in Croatia monk seals were sighted is perfectly useful.) You're quite correct on Ibanez, but IIRC he has applied for Croatian citizenship, and once he gets it, he's automatically qualified.

Regarding Mohorovičić, there's also Mohorovičić (crater) which is probably not in scope, there are asteroids such as 187700 Zagreb that probably are, there's 1550 Tito that probably isn't, etc. (Is it discoverer that counts, the name, or perhaps neither?) Mohorovičić discontinuity seems to me as a bona fide WP Croatia article if e.g. discovery circumstances are to be described within. GregorB (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

In regards to various scientific discoveries by a scientist, I don't think that something like the Mohorovičić (crater) should be a WP Croatia article due to the fact that it it is a "universal" object belonging more to the scientific community than a nation, or even the founder. I mean, just imagine if Galilean moons had a WP Italy. --Jesuislafete (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced about olm, but I have no problem with letting it be as it is (the creature apparently also lives in parts of Italy and BiH and it is not covered by those two projects either), and on a personal level, when I hear "čovječja ribica" I usually think of Postojna, not Istria - although it may be just my prejudice. Mediterranean Monk Seal on the other hand definitely merits inclusion IMO as it is a much talked-about species in Croatia and there have been many conservation efforts focused on preserving it, just like the Griffon Vulture (neither of them are currently included). On the other hand, if Bald Eagle can be taken as a prototypical example (which is not covered by WP:USA), it seems to me that animal species are generally never covered by country-specific WikiProjects at all. As for asteroids - the same applies, and the majority of articles in the Category:Asteroids named for places are only covered by WP:AST (for example see 945 Barcelona, 10770 Belo Horizonte or 1517 Beograd). I could say the same for Mohorovičić discontinuity - it is only related to Mohorovičić because it is a natural occurrence first described by him. There are hundreds of such cases and I doubt that there are many of them covered by country-specific WikiProjects based on where the scientist who discovered it came from (for example see Planck constant). I also disagree about Ibanez - there are thousands of football players who hold two or three citizenships, and that's precisely the reason why nationality in football is determined as related to football associations and not sovereign countries or passports or places of birth (that, and the issue of Great Britain having four separate football associations, which is why there is no such thing as "British football players"). Until he actually appears for the Croatia national team he is considered Argentinian for all purposes (as was the case with the much-debated issue of Dario Cvitanich not so long ago). He may move to Spain a week from now and become a citizen of Spain, but that would not make him Spanish in the same sense that Robert Prosinečki isn't really German. Generally speaking, merely holding Croatian citizenship should NOT be taken as an automatic qualifier for anything, just like not holding it shouldn't be a disqualifying factor. Of course, I don't mean to be a Nazi about this as there's no harm in having all these articles included, but IMO if the question is how relevant they are to the project, the answer is simply "not much". Timbouctou 06:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Ibanez, his status upon receiving citizenship would be technically no different than status of any other footballer that: 1) plays for one of the Croatian clubs, 2) doesn't play for the national team, 3) is a Croatian citizen, and 4) is not an ethnic Croat. WP Croatia is about "Croatia and the Croats", whereby I believe "the Croats" is construed to mean: 1) ethnic Croats, regardless of their citizenship, and 2) Croatian nationals, regardless of their ethnic background. That's why I said Ibanez would be automatically eligible, although it is true even that is not "fully automatic" (Semion Mogilevich, a one-time holder of the Croatian passport, definitely does not qualify). GregorB (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe Gregor and I had a similar discussion about people earlier... it should be pasted here :) I'm also on the side that leans toward non-inclusion. In general, a good rule of thumb could be that if it's obvious how a WikiProject listing can really help make genuine contributions to the article, then it should be listed, but if not, and if the article already has decent WP coverage, leave it be. Most importantly, it's not a turf war. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

So it's agreed that as long as it's done to improve the article and has reasonable connections to WPCroatia, it should be fine. If anyone has any doubts about whether it belongs or not, I think everyone here would be happy to help. --Jesuislafete (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better. GregorB (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

thoughts on assessment criteria

(I found them. This is the redacted version.)

I recently reassessed some articles' importance, e.g. Sava, House of Savoy, Josip Broz Tito, Nikola Tesla, ...

My guideline there was that the importance rating is per-project, and each project has its own scope.

If there was a project for Croatian people's biographies, then some of those biographies would definitely have top importance. But on the scope of Croatia as a whole, it's hard to justify top importance for individual people, no matter how popular or unpopular they are, because it's hard for them to have had an overwhelming impact on the entire topic - the whole country, its geography, history, culture, ...

It's exceedingly difficult for me to say that Tesla had a *top* impact on Croatia, because his work was generic and it affected every other country as well, and that would be a slippery slope. We can't have him as a high-priority article for every wikiproject for every country that uses alternating current.

Tito OTOH had a lot of direct impact on Croatia as a whole, but it was also genericized on the level of the whole of Yugoslavia, and it also may have faded more quickly than what Tesla did (the communist party no longer exists at all, yet I'm typing this using AC :). His importance on the .yu wikiproject is top, but that's because its scope is appropriately narrow.

I've only left Tuđman's importance alone because he was instrumental in the founding of the actual country, which looks like a decent milestone in the course of the entire history. On second thought I could demote him too because it's still less than 15 years of overwhelming impact, and later a lot of his actual policy was reversed by successors.

So in general I'm wary of individual people's importance for the per-country wikiprojects. But if there's a guideline somewhere that says otherwise I'll gladly defer, so long as the criteria are clear.

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The reasoning seems sound to me. There's a possible rule-of-thumb solution at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Germany/Assessment, so how about something akin to that page and guidelines contained there being transferred (modified where appropriate) to this project?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

And now I can only quote myself from Joy's talk page: :-)

Their criteria are very well explained... I thought about starting a discussion at the project's talk page, but I don't feel it's a major issue. I may be the only nitpicker here :-), and that's not enough to waste the time of other participants. Also - and partly for the same reason - I'm currently not in favor of creating formal criteria for WP Croatia, let alone starting an Assessment subpage, despite my general interest in the subject (I've probably assessed 3000 or so articles across various projects). But we'll see - if other editors are interested, why not?

Basically, we are a small project, and unwritten rules, complemented by an occasional talk page discussion (like this one), seem to have worked rather well. GregorB (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Photo request

Hi! I am submitting a photo request for the Croatia Airlines head office at Bani 75b, Buzin 10 010 ZAGREB CROATIA Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• It's been fulfilled: File:CTN HQ.jpg WhisperToMe (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding 'Category:Battles involving Croatia'

When is appropriate to use 'Category:Battles involving Croatia'. Is it appropriate to use it in the articles which happened on the territory of another state, but involved significant number of Croats. For example,...Siege of Szigetvár or Siege of Güns? The question is same for the battles that happened in today's Croatia, but didn't involved any (or insignificant number of) Croats, like Battle of Lissa (1811). Regards, Kebeta (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm no expert but I would generally assume that "battles involving country x" refers to belligerents, e.g. battles involving military units whose allegiance was the political entity known as x. So in the case of Croatia this could only apply to battles involving the modern Croatian Army from 1990 onwards (and perhaps, although that's highly debatable, the ones involving NDH during WWII). In other words, merely proving that Croats were present should not be a criterion to describe some conflict as a "battle involving Croatia". Consider a hypothetical battle in modern Afghanistan involving Croatian soldiers - is that a battle "involving Croatia"? Probably not, as they are not there on behalf of Croatia but on behalf of the UN. Using the same analogy, the Siege of Szigetvár and Siege of Güns should logically be categorized as Category:Battles involving the Habsburg Monarchy (as nobody was actually at war with Croatia or Hungary only, nor could anyone have been, as they were politically part of a greater empire). This would be similar to the Category:Battles involving Scotland which only lists battles in which Scottish units fought independently (in th periods when Scotland and England were separate countries), leaving every other conflict in which the Scots participated as part of the United Kingdom to Category:Battles involving the United Kingdom. Where the battle happened is irrelevant as these categories refer to battle participants, not battle locations. Cheers. Timbouctou 11:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I can understand your point, as I was thinking the same way in the beginning. But the current situation on wiki about this issue is totally different. For example,...Croatian–Bulgarian battle of 927 include 'Category:Battles involving Croatia'...or Battle of Kosovo include 'Category:Battles involving Serbia'. These are just two familiar cases, but almost all articles are like this. Kebeta (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I made a same question WikiProject Military history. They should know? Kebeta (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It should be subcategorized at the very least, because conflation is usually not founded in reality. Don't rely too much on precedent because after all this is a wiki that anyone can edit :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Timbouctou. Without prejudice as to whether the battles involving the NDH should be included or not (I tend to think they should), there are finer points in it too, see e.g. this - basically the same as the Afghanistan case. GregorB (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

As I understood Timbouctou & GregorB, 'Category:Battles involving Croatia' should be removed from following battles:

• Adriatic Campaign of World War I
• Battle of Caporetto
• Battle of Galicia
• Battle of Mohács
• Battle of Schwechat
• Battle of Petrovaradin
• Battle of Zenta
• Battle of Bliska
• Battle of Grobnik field
• Battle of Kupa
• Battle of Lissa (1866)
• Battle of Mór
• Battles of the Isonzo
• Croatian–Bulgarian battle of 927
• Battle of Đakovo
• Battle of Gvozd Mountain
• Siege of Gvozdansko
• Battle of Krbava field
• Battle of Mohács (1687)
• Battle of Pákozd
• Battle of Saint Gotthard (1664)
• Battle of Saint Gotthard (1705)
• Battle of Samobor
• Siege of Trsat
• Battle of Sisak
• Battle of Slankamen
• Siege of Szigetvár
• Vienna Uprising
• Siege of Zara

Correct, or....? Kebeta (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

IMHO you could make Category:Battles involving the medieval Croatian kingdom, Category:Battles involving the Kingdom of Croatia (1102-1526), Category:Battles involving the Kingdom of Croatia (1527-1867), Category:Battles involving the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, Category:Battles involving the Independent State of Croatia, ... and then move a lot of that stuff there. But some of them are just plain odd, when the article content doesn't have any mention of Croatia or Croats. In those cases, it would be best if you could track the link down, and then remove or recategorize. (Oh, look, the NDH category already exists.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• IMO the rule of thumb should be that categories for participants (as described in WP:MILMOS#BATLLES) should reflect the top-level entries for belligerents in battle infoboxes, which are in turn always political entities with full sovereignity. Hence I propose the following categories:
  • Category:Battles involving Principality of Croatia for battles in which the Principality of Littoral Croatia was involved. This would include Battle of Kupa and the Siege of Trsat.
  • Category:Battles involving Kingdom of Croatia for referring to the kingdom which existed 925–1102 as a fully sovereign state but not to the later 1527–1918 Habsburg versions which were just parts of a greater empire. Whether the 1102–1527 Croatian kingdom (which was in union with Hungary) should be regarded as an independent belligerent is debatable but I wouldn't object including it here. Battle of Mohács, Croatian–Bulgarian battle of 927 and Battle of Gvozd Mountain would belong here.
  • Category:Battles involving the Independent State of Croatia which is self-explanatory
  • Category:Battles involving Croatia for everything from 1990 onwards
• On the other hand, I went through all the articles Kebeta listed and once I removed all battles which were actually fought by some of the incarnations of Austria-Hungary, I'm still unsure what to do with the following:

• Siege of Zara (1202) - Kingdom of Croatia category? (the infobox says "Dalmatia" but links to the medieval KoC)
• Battle of Grobnik field (1242) - Kingdom of Croatia?
• Battle of Bliska (1322) - Battle between opposing Croat factions?
• Battle of Samobor (1441) - Similar to Bliska?
• Battle of Krbava field (1493) - Kingdom of Croatia?

(If we agreed for the Kingdom category to include everything up to 1527, this would leave only Bliska and Samobor as problematic. Timbouctou 20:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This is copy/paste from WikiProject Military history...Category:Battles involving Croatia has a note at the top saying it's for Croatia, defined as "7th century–present" - so it seems to cover the old Kingdom, plus modern Croatia... IMHO we can let it be until new category for each of them is created (basically I agree with Joy). Or...We can

• create Category:Battles involving the Medieval Croatia which can cover all the battles from 7th century until 1527 (cca. 100 years after medieval period, to accomodate Croatia entering under Habsburg umbrella).
• create Category:Battles involving the Habsburg Croatia, which can cover all the battles from 1527 until 1918 (or Croatia under Habsburg Monarchy-Austrian Empire-Austria-Hungary).

Since there is already a separate category for NDH, the things would look much better. This is less categoryes than Timbouctou had proposed. What do everybody think? Kebeta (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Both kingdoms under the Kingdom of Hungary were notable enough to continue warranting Croatia's status of a country, so I see no particularly pressing reason to avoid categorizing into respective categories. Obviously e.g. a Habsburg Monarchy category would be most pertinent if that's the primary belligerent, but one doesn't necessarily preclude the other. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I still fail to see the point of the separate category for the Habsburg period. If we consider the Kingdom of Croatia in the Hasburg period as a constituent country of a greater entity (like we do in the case of SR Croatia) then this is equivalent to creating Category:Battles involving the Socialist Republic of Croatia and then throwing in any battle the Yugoslav partisans or the JNA were involved in. Which may then lead to some really hilarious results. @Joy: how does the Habsburg Monarchy category does not preclude Habsburg Croatia? How would you separate any battle in which the monarchy was involved in during it existence from any other battle that Kingdom of Croatia was involved in on behalf of the monarchy? How many soldiers on a battlefield hailing from Croatia is enough to put it in the latter category? One? A hundred? A thousand? Thirty percent? Fifty percent? What if only the commanders were Croats? What if only the commanders weren't? What if there were five Croat sailors on a single ship in a battle involving 16 Austro-Hungarian battleships? Would that qualify as a battle involving Habsburg Croatia? Is this really a can of worms we want to open? Timbouctou 22:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This is interesting According to that, in the Siege of Szigetvár for example, Category:Battles involving the Ottoman Empire should be removed because there is a sub-category Category:Battles of the Ottoman–Hungarian Wars (which contradict remerk by Timbouctou ...should reflect the top-level entries for belligerents in battle infoboxes, which are in turn always political entities with full sovereignity..... since Habsburgs were entity with full sovereignity, not Hungary. Basically, it is the opposite situation, the smaller the entity is, it has a bigger chanse for a Category...:-) Of course, if that entity has its own Category and participated in that battle. By that logic, Siege of Gvozdansko would have only Category:Battles of the Ottoman–Croatian Wars (regarding countries), as that Category is a sub-category of Category:Battles of the Ottoman–Hungarian Wars, which is sub-category of...and so on... Anyway, Category:Battles involving Croatia is to big and inappropriate in most cases, and it needs sub-categories. Nevertheless, I am still for

• Category:Battles involving the Medieval Croatia - from 7th century until 1527
• Category:Battles involving the Habsburg Croatia - from 1527 until 1918

just because it's simplest solution, but I am willing to accept any other solution that will be agreed here. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually the example you quoted is perfect as it is clearly mislabeled. Here's why:

• The article titled Ottoman–Hungarian Wars (and the related Category:Battles of the Ottoman–Hungarian Wars) refer to the 1366–1526 period. "Hungary" here refers to the Kingdom of Hungary which is considered to have been incorporated into the Habsburg empire in 1526 when Ferdinand I assumed Hungarian throne and hence set the ending year for the whole period. This is very similar to what also happened with Kingdom of Croatia in 1527.
• The article titled Ottoman–Habsburg wars refers to the 1526–1791 time span, and battles in this period (including the 1566 Siege of Szigetvár) should belong to the currently non-existing but obviously needed Category:Battles of the Ottoman–Habsburg wars. Notice the change in the article title from the previous period as the sovereign entity changed, as well as the poorly done subcategorization in Category:Battles involving Hungary which lacks any historical subdivisions and hence has the same problem as Category:Battles involving Croatia. This should be rectified but it's something that WP:MILHIST and/or WP:HUN should be consulted about first. Timbouctou 01:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You missed my simple premise above - the precondition to listing in a Croatian category is that the article establishes the rationale. There was never any doubt (in my mind at least :) that battles where Croatian-related participants were inconsequential should not be categorized as somehow Croatian. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, the first one of you fellows (Timbouctou or Joy) who create categories, is a winner...:-) Seriously, just create categories, and we can undo some of them letter if redundant or ....Kebeta (talk) 13:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I added Category:Battles involving the Medieval Croatian state, which can have more sub-categories if necessary. Like:

Category:Battles involving the Pannonian Croatia - for period of (7th century-925)

Category:Battles involving the Littoral Croatia - for period of (7th century-925)

Category:Battles involving the Kingdom of Croatia - for period of (925-1102)

Category:Battles involving the Kingdom of Croatia (Hungary) - for period of (1102-1527)

IMHO, since there are only several battles, I don't think is necessary to have sub-categories, but that is advisable...Kebeta (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• I took the liberty of creating Category:Battles of the Croatian War of Independence, put all the 1991-95 related battles in it and removed those articles from Category:Battles involving Croatia (there's no need for duplicate entries as the battles involving Croatia is already a parent category). The same could be done with "battles involving Serbia" but I guess thet should be discussed more (because it depends whether one considers Serbia a belligerent in the entire war - if so, then we can automatically tag all the battles as belonging to the "battles involving Serbia" categoy).

• Well done!

• I'm ok with Category:Battles involving the Medieval Croatian state although I'd rather rename it Category:Battles involving medieval Croatia. The wording of the current category suggests that it refers to a specific state, analogous to Category:Battles involving the Independent State of Croatia, which is not entirely true (this would also include moving Medieval Croatian state to Medieval Croatia). I suppose referring to this period this way would be the most practical solution. I'm fine with putting in all the battles that Croatia was involved in between 7th century up to 1526 in this category and I don't think it needs to be refined further. We're talking about perhaps a dozen articles at best here. the parent category should also be removed from all of them.

• As you have seen above, my initial plan was Category:Battles involving medieval Croatia, but because of a disambiguation page Medieval Croatian state, I have changed mine mind.

• I've moved the article to Medieval Croatia, which fits nicely anyway with Category:Medieval Croatia, listed the "Battles involving the Medieval Croatian state" category for speedy rename at WP:CFDS and done a bit of cleanup. Timbouctou 17:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• I also removed the "battles involving Croatia" tag from a handful of articles which never mention Croats of Croatia explicitly in the article body as this constitutes WP:OR. If a battle involved Croatian units then this should be specifically stated in the article before tagging it. Otherwise we have no reason to believe that Croat(ian)s were present at all, let alone had any significant influence on the battle. Btw, I didn't touch Battle of Lissa (1866) as the article states that "5,000 Istrians and Dalmatians" manned Austrian ships - even though I doubt that this constitutes a "battle involving Croatia". Timbouctou 14:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with removing the "battles involving Croatia" tag from the articles which never mention Croats explicitly in the article body. As for the Battle of Lissa (1866), I also think about it as a borderline issue, we will just have to see that aricle as GA one day, do decide does it needs "battles involving Croatia" tag. Kebeta (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• BTW, this leave us with only one problem to solve. Are we going to have Category:Battles involving the Habsburg Croatia - for a period from 1527 until 1918, or as Joy recommend (Category:Battles involving the Kingdom of Croatia (1527-1867), Category:Battles involving the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia....), or something else...Note that Croatian Military Frontier was for some time fully under direct imperial rule. which may (not necessary) exclude Croatia...Kebeta (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• No idea. I'd generally avoid putting years in category names whenever possible, and since we already have the "medieval Croatia" category, if we have to have a category for the 1527-1918 period I suggest keeping it as simple as possible and going with Category:Battles involving Kingdom of Croatia. Timbouctou 17:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Your proposal can be seen as misleading, since Kingdom of Croatia in most of cases referes to period from 1102 to 1527. Maybe something similar to Joy's proposal, like (Category:Battles involving the Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) & Category:Battles involving the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia). This would avoid years in category names? Although I also support one category for period from 1527 tp 1918. Anybody else has a suggestion...Kebeta (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Well, it's done for now...Kebeta (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Vjesnik.hr

Vjesnik.hr web site has been redesigned a couple of days ago. As a consequence, virtually all Wikipedia links to vjesnik.hr - almost 400 of them, both HTML and PDF - are now dead. While simply changing vjesnik.hr to vjesnik.com in the URL seems to do the trick, it remains to be seen what is the best long-term solution for this problem. GregorB (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Vjesnik.com links do not work any longer. Vjesnik used to have a HTML/PDF archive, but it has all been taken offline. What's worse, the new pages do not mention any kind of archive any more. We have a big problem. GregorB (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You should send them an e-mail asking for the archive to be restored. If they don't want to host it, they can offload it to e.g. http://public.carnet.hr/ (if they're taking them offline, they don't care about their ads any more either). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I might do that... For the time being, http://dns1.vjesnik.hr seems to work instead, but this does not look like a permanent solution. GregorB (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Croatian art of the 20th century

I've just done a major rewrite / expansion of the Croatian art of the 20th century article, and would appreciate a review. I know it still has some issues on the translations from (a) Croatian and (b) art historianese! Thanks! Farscot (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on the article... These are the "synthetic" articles that are difficult to write, even for people who know their stuff, and I wish we had more of these. I'll drop a couple of notes today or tomorrow and I invite others to do the same. GregorB (talk) 08:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Serbs of Croatia info box

There's an ongoing discussion about which famous Serbs of Croatia to include in the article info box. If you have thoughts on the subject please come by and drop a line here. Thanks. Timbouctou (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

"Serbian Latin" on Knin

As you can see in the history of Knin as well as my own discussion page, user FkpCascais says that the Serbian Latin version needs to be included next to the Cyrillic because apparently Serbia uses both alphabets. Reading from the Serbian language's own page, the Cyrillic is on par with Gaj's Latin alphabet, so there is virtually no difference. Note that they have only done this on Knin's page, so I don't know if they plan on changing the rest later, or what. Is this the right thing to do? Any thoughts? --Jesuislafete (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

"They", who are you refering to? Just to clarify: "We" are not at war. "You", "he", "she" may be, but "we" (your "they") are certainly not. "We" (now meaning all of us) have evolved since then...I hope.

Will you calm down? I used the English form 'they' because I do not know whether you are male or female. As for the rest of your rambling, I have no idea what you are talking about. I never mentioned war. --Jesuislafete (talk) 06:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Now, after this strange "lost in translation" explanation, the main problem is that for the case of using Serbian language version in the leads other languages versions, for Serbian we have two versions: (Serbian: Cpпcки, Srpski) or (Serbian Cyrillic: Cpпcки), both valid. Some editors have wrongly been sometimes using (Serbian: Cpпcки) but for some time now that has been corrected everywhere. Now, somehow, I fail to fully understand what Jesuislafete pretended there by edit warring me, but I somehow suspect he wants to deny Serbian language to use Latin scrypt. Strange, at least. FkpCascais (talk) 09:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Disregarding for a minute the endless haggling part of this issue, these three forms you mention aren't listed here with templates. Which templates should be used to produce these in a canonical form? AFAIK we have a lot of {{lang-sr}} usage, and that is very often used like this: "Serbian: српски" (BTW language names are possessive in Croatian so I'm pretty sure the same holds for Serbian, and if so, they need to be written in lowercase unless in titles or at the start of sentences. It's not English :). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The template corresponds to the versions using Serbian, it´s the same. And I used capitals just because we usually use them for names of cities, people, etc. but not actually aplying it to the exemple...

The problem here is that for cases where the article title is identical to the other language, the language templates just shouldn´t be used. What I noteced is that some editors from this and other regional projects have been unnecesarily adding Croatian, Bosnian, etc. languages when identical to the article title. Usually that happend when the Serbian Cyrillic was already placed. The Serbian Cyrillic has it´s reason to be placed because it is a different alphabet. If editors add other languages such as Croatian in Knin exemple, Serbian Cyrillic should then also be transformed into {{lang-sr}} and both alphabets in use by Serbian language should be used there. I opose this, because I basically think that since Knin corresponds to the Croatian and Serbian latin versions already in place in articles title, those should be excluded leaving simply the ones written in different way or alphabet. If you all notece, I actually didn´t wanted to be arrogant and remove Croatian version from it, finding another alternative solution for it, but I basically defend the removal of all. If not, we could end up having a silly situation of having, for exemple, Sarajevo (Bosnian: Sarajevo, Croatian: Sarajevo, Serbian: Capajeвo,Sarajevo) and that is just absurd. That is why Sarajevo has only the Serbian Cyrillic version, and none else. FkpCascais (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

per-county location maps

I just noticed the wonderful hr:Kategorija:Lokacijske karte Hrvatske. An example how this can be 'translated' and used on en: is at {{Location map Croatia Osijek-Baranja County}} and Dalj. Please proliferate :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

These are very nice maps... One question: for consistency, should we have location maps of Croatia above local maps, or vice versa? GregorB (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I had previously noticed someone used the smaller map first on Split, Croatia, so I just went with that. Don't know, really. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There's Zadar too. I'm not sure either. Doesn't matter, the maps are really nice. GregorB (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Stations of the Cross / History of the Church in Croatia (Tisno)

Hello, I have uploaded several images of the Stations of the Cross from Tisno, Croatia, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Stations_of_the_Cross_in_Tisno. As far as I understand these mix the classical stations with data from the history of the church in Croatia (I cannot understand Croatian). I have to look up the name of the church, where the stations go to and add a proper description. I hope these images can be used; I will try to give a hint to it at the Croatian wikipedia. Best wishes Cholo 3 (talk) 08:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing the images. You're correct, the plaques list events from the history of the church. GregorB (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Croatian presidential election, 2009–2010

As I see, the article Croatian presidential election, 2009–2010 could easily become GA. Is there anybody who could do this job? Maybe user Joy, since he has done some major work there. --Kebeta (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's an excellent article and is in very good condition for GAR. It has one flaw, though: it reads like a blow-by-blow description of the campaign, rather than a high-level overview (where appropriate, of course), which results in excessive size. Shouldn't be that hard to fix, though. (I'm not exactly volunteering, but I'd like to help.) GregorB (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The article might need some editing for style, some prose could be cut down and a cleanup of links might be in order (I assume some of them are probably dead by now as are some of the official candidates' websites). It needs some fleshing out but the material is already there. If there's enough interest to push it through GAR drop me a line, I'm interested to help out. Timbouctou (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I didn't have any edits here so far, so it would be odd that I run the show. But the article looks good, and if one of the major editors is interested in improving it to GA, I'd like to help.--Kebeta (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

We nominated it once before the event was over and were quickly rejected because of that, so let's not rush into making a similar mistake again. The passing of time has made it possible to calmly reassess what was transient election fodder and what events were indeed notable enough for inclusion. The article needs to be proofread a few times with that in mind before it's ready. I'm not saying much content should go, in fact maybe it's completely fine, but it needs to be examined in this light first. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hungarians of Croatia

I have started the Hungarians of Croatia page, which has been far overdue. Feel free to expand the article. I will do what I can, but it may take a while. --Jesuislafete (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Cyrillic

Hello. I wanted to ask the opinion about the issue of how the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet scrypt should be presented at lead language versions of the title in Croatian related articles. As an editor used to work among several biographies and articles related to Serbia, I had noteced that the version Serbian Cyrillic has been in use for long time now, but I also noteced that in recent past in Croatian related articles the version Serbian Cyrillic has been modified into Cyrillic or Cyrillic scrypt. Since simple language template [] Error: {{Langx}}: no text (help) would include both scrypts in use in Serbian, cyrillic and latin, with the latin version mostly equal to the Croatian one and to the article title, the Serbian Cyrillic solution was found as a intermediate solution when presenting only the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet versions, where the national adjective would still be visible, just as in other languages cases, and the alphabet specificity would be indicated. Would anyone object if I move those cases into the established use? Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi FkpCascais! I am not sure what are you talking about here. Can you clarify this further?--Kebeta (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe FkpCascais is proposing that in Croatia-related articles where the lead states the article's title in the Cyrillic version that the designation of that version should describe it as "Serbian Cyrillic" instead of just "Cyrillic". For example:

• v 1.1: "Ognjeslav Utješenović (Cyrillic: Огњеслав Утјешеновић)..." would thus become:
• v 1.0: "Ognjeslav Utješenović (Serbian Cyrillic: Огњеслав Утјешеновић)..."

As for my opinion on it - I don't think it's necessary. The Latin script version is already in Serbian as the language uses both scripts. Also, in biographies of people who otherwise merit their names to be shown in Cyrillic spelling we are usually talking about people who are ethnic Serbs or related to Serbia in some other way (and this is usually mentioned in the lead as well) so stressing that the other script version is also Serbian seems redundant. Thirdly, the exact formatting is not consistent really and the spellings are currently presented in a variety of ways depending on what is most appropriate for the subject (compare leads in Nikola Tesla, Ivo Andrić, Josif Runjanin, Agim Çeku and Milla Jovovich). I think this is the most convenient solution. Timbouctou (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. Fkp, when Cyrillic is quoted it is usually not specified at all which specific form is in use. The Russians and Bulgarians certainly do not. I'm actually the one who, in an effeort to be more specific, added "Serbian Cyrillic alphabet" in most of the "[[Serbian Cyrillic alphabet|Cyrillic]]" wikilinks. I mean, its good that the wikilink redirects to a more accurate form of Cyrilic, but I don't think we should change the format. Certainly when quoting Latin it is rarely specified which form is in use (such as "Gaj's Latin alphabet:" for the Serbian and Croatian Latin). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

In any case, templates should be used to avoid clutter - {{lang-sr-cyrl}} for example, which renders like this:

• Serbian Cyrillic: Огњеслав

or just tag it as sr-cyrl without including the intro text, like this:

• Огњеслав

The advantage of the latter form is not obvious, but it exists - it allows parsers that don't care about supplemental information to skip over it, for example Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This is all more complicated than that. Timbouctou's examples vary though there are general standards. First, any Serbian translations pertain to topics concerning the Serbian state or the nation only, to that end the presentation requires consistency throughout the site; this way it does not matter whether the subject peratins to Croatia or any other land. As you all know, Cyrillic outranks Latinic in the Serbian constitution. It is also the case that the Latinic script is widely used and in everyday situations, it is possibly the other way around. Thankfully, WP practice is to give all forms where necessary for all languages; just about every language has a scientific Romanisation so this will either be added after the primary script, or will be left out when the article already bares the name of the Romanised form. Because most languages are associated with one script, it is usually sufficient to point to the language (eg. Bulgarian) rather than state /Bulg. Cyrillic/. In Serbian, we add /Cyrillic/ after /Serbian/ to acknowledge the widespread use of the other script which is also the name of the article (otherwise we'd just use /Serbian/, followed by both forms). Be that as it may, the demonym adjective is more important than the noun here (the script name); /Cyrillic/ by itself is grossly ambiguous. Piping it from /Serbian Cyrillic/ is irrelevant. The point is that Cyrillic ranks second after Roman for number of languages that it is or has been used to write in one form or another. This doesn't make it the second most widely used as I believe Arabic and Chinese have a great number of users. Their respective scripts however are dominated by the eponymous language in contrast to Cyrillic which applies to 100 languages but many are spoken by low figures. These you will find are mostly connected to Russia in one sense. As such, there is not one form of Cyrillic, each language has its own form and to look at those remote from the former Yugoslavia (eg. south Asia), you can hardly recognise it as being Cyrillic. Leaving out /Serbian/ is far too demanding for users outside of the former Yugoslavia who can neither be expected to know that the headword is based on Serbia's Latinic script, nor that the Cyrillic pertains to Serbian and is a transliteration (Cyrillicisation) of the headword itself. The reasons for leaving out /Serbian/ at times is because the status causes too much local controversy: with BiH, many Bosniak editors dislike /Serbian Cyrillic/ presentations on their articles because they consider Bosnian to have an official Cyrillic form whilst others are equally opposed to /Bosnian Cyrillic/. A similar problem has occurred with Montenegro. By leaving it out of Croatian, it may hint that Cyrillic has some relevance to Croatian culture too which raises another question: why aren't all Croatian topics given in Cyrillic? To end, I wish for Timbouctou to know that for Kosovar Albanians born in SFRY, we use /Serbo-Croat/ and the Latinic script only which was down to a concensus reached with an Albanian user who objected to Cyrillic because of its absence during the time, especially after 1974. Evlekis (Евлекис) 14:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

But using that logic (claiming that the article title should be displayed in all available scripts, maintaining that the demonym is of crucial importance and pointing out that this Cyrillic script is different than some other, which can can probably be applied to Latin scripts with diacritics as well) then the lead for Novak Djokovic should be followed by "(Serbian Latin: Novak Đoković; Serbian Cyrillic: Новак Ђоковић)"? In any case, as your example for Kosovar Albanians demonstrates - it can and is decided on a case-by-case basis. I don't see why it should not remain that way, instead of trying to push for some blanket rule. Timbouctou (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

For Djokovic exemple, instead of using those two alphabets, we use simply [Новак Ђоковић, Novak Đoković] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help), so we don´t use both as you made in your exemple Timbou. We only use a different template, like Serbian Cyrillic) when we don´t need the latin version because is already found in the title. I only aderessed this issue here, on Croatian project, because beside Bosnian related articles, Croatian related articles are the only ones removing the adjective "Serbian". I just wanted to see some way to return to established use. I didn´t knew about the templates Joy showed, and I definitelly find them usefull. FkpCascais (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK there's a similar problem with Montenegrin and Kosovar Albanian articles as well. In fact the only articles in which the adjective "Serbian" does not get occasionally removed are strictly Serbian-related ones. Timbouctou (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Montenegrin has been proclaimed the official language of Montenegro, so all Serbian versions had become Montenegrin, so I suspect we don´t even have exemples from Montenegro to compare to this discussion. The Montenegrin Cyrillic versions are piped simply as Cyrillic only because Montenegrin language has not become fully recognised yet. This subject has liltlle to do with Serbian. Kosovar exemples are not so many, and they should use the different [] Error: {{Langx}}: no text (help) template, because the Serbian and Albanian latin version are also different from eachother. I don´t see any use of the exemples you gave for this discussion. We are o9nly talking about exemples where the latin versions are equal, so it is necessary to use only the Serbian Cyrillic version. I don´t see why anyone is making problems in using Serbian Cyrillic instead of [] Error: {{Langx}}: no text (help) thus making it shoerter because we exclude the unnecessary doubleing of the latin version, that should be included in the second. I really don´t understand it. FkpCascais (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

And I don't understand where is the problem with the existing usage. I gave you at least five different examples of different leads and they seem pretty stable and happy. This does not feel like we are solving a problem, it feels like we are creating one. Also, is what you are saying about Montenegrin is true then there's a truckload of articles that need to be fixed. Timbouctou (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Montenegrin case is a separate discussion. The articles are stable only because I opened here this thread before changing those cases to the widely-in-use version, just to hear your opinions. For time being, I don´t see any reason not to change it beside the alleged "happiness". FkpCascais (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• I will like to put in use for the cases when only Cyrillic is necessary the following template: (Serbian Cyrillic: Огњеслав). When the latin version is also different, we use the normal language template. Any objections? FkpCascais (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You wanted to hear opinions, here's one - I do not support anything which will likely attract vandalism because it will be us (not you) cleaning it up and reverting it every single day. You know very well how many times we had to revert Fatos Bećiraj, and I'm certainly not going to support a proposition which a) solves absolutely nothing because there is no problem to solve and b) can be expected to increase vandalism in a number of articles. If you see an article and want it to say "Serbian Cyrillic" in lead then change it. If nobody minds I'm OK with that. If somebody does mind, I'm OK with that too. Also, I disagree that the "widely-in-use" version is really that widely used. So there's an opinion. P.S. "When the latin version is also different" means "(almost) never" :) Timbouctou (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Timbouctou, this will only increase vandalism, especially in articles about undefined persons (persons claimed by Croats, Serbs, Italians, Bosnians..)--Kebeta (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It is widely in use, and it isn´t only in this cases. I am starting to take care of "this" cases so a consistency is archived. With regard of articles of undefined persons, if Serbian is included, it should have the form of [] Error: {{Langx}}: no text (help) when the latin version is different, and [] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: no text (help) when we need only the Cyrillic version. I don´t understand what is archived by removing the adjective "Serbian" in these cases. Either Serbian name version is excluded because it is unecessary, either is correctly used. Using it, but pretending it is not "Serbian" by removing the mention of it, is somehow a strange excuse. FkpCascais (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Points of clarification

A number of issues here. Montenegrin Cyrillic does exist as an article. The reason for the changes on Montenegrin articles is possibly to do with the national constitution and position on language name. As such, this does not affect Serbian language presentation. We all know about clean-up operations we engage in when persons vandalise; that's too bad, we either do it or we don't. In this case, removal of /Serbian/ may not necessarily be vandalism; the user doing so may be acting in good faith. If so, he now has every opportunity to deliver his comments. It may be that someone can introduce points so far unaddressed by any of us. I feel it is a shallow argument to "not provoke vandals" because like that, we play straight into their hands and appease disruptive users who can only log in from IPs to make their once-only point. When this persists, the page will soon be locked to newcomers. Concerning tennis players, this is the Inconsistency Capital of Wikipedia. A separate battle has in the past flared when some users opposed diacritics based on "most common presentation". I was part of the lobby (for which both of you and all other HR/BiH/MK etc. users would have joined me) that campaigned to keep the usage based on sources either using them outright or not at all. I don't know what came of this dispute but I doubt there was a consensus. It looked for a while that the lazy side got the upper hand when suddenly non-diacritic presentations (such as Novak Djokovic) were more numerous, but this never encompassed the entire field. I believe it was I then who amended the form Timboucou proposed ([Serb Latin]: xxx, [Serb Cyr]: zzz) because we just couldn't have ruminations. To keep peace, let's just take these non-diacritic forms as the alleged "English" form which means we will start from new and present Serbian as though it were a translation. It is shorter and less painful if nothing else. The best solution may be to switch one or two, see how they get on, see who is switching them back. If it is an established user, give him the benefit of the doubt, discuss as we are doing now, reach a consensus; if it is an IP, cancel his contribution and if he edit-wars, it will no doubt appear to admins that a shady character is POV pushing and after a few times, he will be blocked. But unfortunately vandal-fighting is a part of the uniform, we all have to do it otherwise the site will be Wiki-stupidcomments. I've got lots of pages on my watchlist and many edits of mine are merely tiresome reverts. I became a member so I have to live with this inconvenience! Best not think about it! :) Evlekis (Евлекис) 21:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I am OK with the idea. If some nationalistic vandals can´t stand the word "Serbian" and like to remove it, we simply don´t need to be their hostages. The cases are not as numerous as that, and reverting is a simple action. Any other objections beside vandalism? FkpCascais (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

In case of doubts I am proposing to use the templaye Joy indicated (Serbian Cyrillic: Огњеслав) when only Cyrillic is required. FkpCascais (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, we cannot live up on Cloud Nine. Every country has the presence of more than ethnic group and sometimes, minorities are from a rival nation. The biggest hostility I have seen here is not Croat vs Serb vs Muslim but in Greece with Macedonians. There is no harmony or hope of good relations if you insist against Slavo-Macedonian or Local Slavic etc. With Serbo-Albanian relations and Croato-Serbian affairs, this distinction does not exist, there is no naming dispute or argument over an individual's background so any form of demonym removal is wholly disruptive and you won't get it from Joy, Timbouctou or other good users. Use the template Joy suggested, atleast it does display the adjective demonym and I believe all will be fine. Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I beleave that no one can claim that I ever inserted that template somewhere where it didn´t belonged, neither that I ever edit warred or provoked any sort of unpleasent situations regarding this. Exactly trying to keep this fact of mine is why I came precisely here and asked for a way to solve this. I didn´t planned to do any major changes, and I just noteced this when seing the Category:Serbs of Croatia biographies. I´ll wait a couple of days to see if no one else oposes and if no other reasons are expressed, and since then I´ll insert the template and correct all cases while "travelling" through the wanders of the wiki articles. Best regards to all. FkpCascais (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Croats

There's an ongoing discussion on what belongs into the "History" section of the article on Croats and the scope of the article in general. Input would be greatly appreciated. Timbouctou (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

List of inhabited islands of Croatia

There is a new weekly section on the main page called "Today's featured list" and I have nominated List of inhabited islands of Croatia to have a spot here. There has been some opposition to the nomination and it looks like the list could become a removal candidate very soon unless the quality of the list is improved. If you are interested in maintaining the list's featured status and seeing a summary of it up on the main page, your help in improving the article would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping a note and applying some fixes. I've done some "post-FL" work on this list, so I'm familiar with it - I don't think it's in a bad condition, the complaints actually look fairly minor to me. Which is all the more reason to fix them, I guess. I'll take a look, and Timbouctou might be interested too. GregorB (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC notification

A new discussion on wording changes to the current guideline to clarify the use of diacritics for subjects whose native names contain them has been initiated. It can be found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 census

The first results are out (Jutarnji list, DZS) - just as we were running out of things to do here on Wikipedia... :-) GregorB (talk) 10:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's get on it :-) Timbouctou (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely... :-) Maybe it would be useful to discuss some concerns beforehand: 1) these are "first results", i.e. they are bound to be amended at some point in 2011 or 2012, and 2) the methodology has changed, meaning that population figures are not directly comparable to 2001, so e.g. the use of and might be tricky. GregorB (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it they are "first results" only because the more detailed breakdown of results will be published later on (with things like population by ethnicity, religion, etc). The actual figures will remain the same. The two columns in the 2011 census results (for example here) are named "ukupno popisane osobe" and "ukupan broj stanovnika". I presume the former refers to the total number of people interviewed for the census in a particular area (including the ones who are actually from other places) and the latter refers to the total number of residents (including those who were interviewed in other places at the moment of the census). So the second column should be comparable to population figures from 2001 or 1991. So for example Rijeka has a population of 128,735 in 2011, or 11.9% down from 144,043 in 2001. Timbouctou (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid that in 2012 we're going to read something like this:

Obrada i analiza kvalitete podataka Popisa stanovništva proces je koji traje nekoliko godina. Stoga smo u proteklom razdoblju izvršili detaljnu kontrolu i analizu kvalitete popisnih podataka i programa obrade, na temelju kojih smo izvršili potrebne korekcije zbog kojih je došlo do promjena podataka u nekim objavljenim tablicama.

This is what DZS had to say about the 2001 census. (See "Korekcija objavljenih podataka" on their website.)

As for the methodology, yes, this is my guess too. So the approach might be: 1) always use official (i.e. lower) figures for 2011, but 2) for the purpose of comparing 2001 and 2011, use "ukupno popisane osobe", perhaps with a note explaining the difference. There are few trend indicators or graphs in Croatian settlement articles anyway. GregorB (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

So let's use Zagreb for an example. In Demographics, it currently says: The official 2001 census counted 779,145 residents, although by 2006 that number had grown to 804,900, according to the city government estimates. Zagreb metropolitan area (or Zagreb County) population is slightly above 1.2 million inhabitants. Should we remove the 2006 estimate and write something like "results from the 2011 census show XYZ"? --Jesuislafete (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that estimates for years between 2001 and 2011 are generally obsolete now, and there's no reason to use them once new data is available. The infobox in Zagreb article has already been updated with the new figure and . The latter is uncontroversial because the new, more conservative figure, is still higher than the old, so no further elaboration on this (e.g. in a footnote) is required. GregorB (talk) 07:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I've created {{Croatian Census 2011 First Results}} to test an idea for a citation template:

• Citing is much easier
• Produces nice, consistent output (with an optional page number)
• All articles that use it can be subsequently identified, so once DZS revises the data, Wikipedia can be systematically revised too

A disadvantage:

• URL is a 2-megabyte PDF

Comments? GregorB (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Few points:

• DZS director said that 2011 data is not directly comparable to 2001 because of differing methodologies used and says that if the same methodology was applied in 2001 the population figures would be the same in 2001 and 2011. Regardless, I'd be happy to disregard his claim, just like virtually all media reports chose to disregard it - and like the government will disregard it when they re-calculate GDP per capita and other economic indicators based on 2011 results. We still need some figure to enter in articles which use Template:Historical populations and which automatically calculates percentage change.
• There's no need for icon anywhere really, especially if it is not accompanied with some note mentioning what is the current number up from, like in the Zagreb article. Likewise, there's no need for estimates which have been in circulation between 2001 and 2011 and they can all be safely deleted.
• I like the Template:Croatian Census 2011 First Results, but I don't know what the 1441 number stands for in the full reference. The fact it links to a 2 MB PDF shouldn't be a problem, but for convenience it could be changed to point to HTML results which offer the same thing in a browsable format.
• The 2011 census breaks down population figures slightly differently and uses a separate column for "naknadno popisani". For cities and municipalities consisting of more than one settlement (or practically 90% of them) it remains unclear which settlement these people belong to. So for example in Zagreb there were 4,105 residents which were naknadno popisani and we have no way of knowing where they belong to. I've updated the figures and rankings in the List of cities in Croatia over the previous couple of days and I generally ignored this category except in cases when a given city/town contains a single settlement.
• The statistical office divided the country in three statistical regions, which is probably the same or similar division which will be used by the EU in their funding system. They grouped all counties in Northwest Croatia (pop. 1.7 M), Central and East Croaia (pop. 1.3 M) and Adriatic Croatia (1.4 M). Maybe something about this should be added in Counties of Croatia and similar articles? Perhaps somebody more skilled could create a map showing these three? Timbouctou (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• I remembered / because that had been an idea of mine for the List of inhabited islands of Croatia. It would be informative given the context (islands' depopulation). In other articles less so, and indeed such trend indicators are usually absent.
• The document is in fact a journal issue, and 1441 is the issue number. I'd normally prefer HTML, but unfortunately citing DZS web pages involves dealing with gazillion different URLs, which makes citing the sources properly a bit of a nuisance, since one can't use a citation template, as in this case.
• Regarding naknadno popisani: I've noticed this problem when I updated e.g. Draž. In this article, very careful readers might notice that population of all settlements does not add up to population of the municipality (the difference being people enumerated with delay). I don't think this normally warrants a note, because this situation is temporary and the difference is very small. I agree, when there is a single settlement in the municipality, this problem can be avoided altogether.
• This region solution indeed appears to be final. There's also List of regions of Croatia, which deals with historical regions, but might mention statistical regions too. Still, a real-life impact of belonging to a particular statistical region is still absent, and that is probably not going to change before EU funding arrives. GregorB (talk) 10:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Also: I'd suggest starting with the intersection of Category:Populated places in Croatia and Category:All articles lacking sources, which can be seen here. Making unsourced articles sourced is an additional benefit. GregorB (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It was easy to fix the template to allow using specific HTML links. :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

WP Croatia in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Croatia for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay people, I've just answered the questions. I'd like to invite everyone reading this to add more. This is a nice chance to say a few words about what we do and how we do it, and perhaps provide some food for thought for whoever is reading. GregorB (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll add my answers in a day or two (if I'm not too late) as I'm away from the computer most of the time these days. It's nice that we got selected for the next issue of Signpost, let's make the most of it :-) Timbouctou (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

SMS Szent István and SMS Viribus Unitis

Hi all! I was wondering should SMS Szent István and SMS Viribus Unitis be included in scope of WP Croatia, since the former is a part of heritage protected by Croatian Ministry of Culture and the latter was briefly a part of State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs navy?

SMS Szent István was of course a ship of Austria-Hungary navy, but it is now a piece of protected heritage in Croatia - a parallel may be drawn with say, Diocletian's Palace which was built well before Croats or Croatia existed, yet it is now a protected heritage site in Croatia and consequently a in scope of WP Croatia. SMS Viribus Unitis was a part of State of SHS navy and a part of Croatian maritime history, thus IMHO having at least two valid reasons to include it in the WP Croatia scope. Finally, I believe WP Croatia could enhance the two articles using Croatian sources thus justifying inclusion of the two in scope of the project. Any thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes :) Similarly, I've recently tagged a lot of Fiuman articles (18-20th c.) because largely no other modern wikiproject had tagged them and it's relevant for .hr. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not....but I would go with "Low-importance"...--Kebeta (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the former, I'd still say yes, even if its relation to Croatia is a bit tenuous. If you remember our discussion at the WP Croatia talk page earlier this year: I was planning to expand the article using Croatian sources - information about the expeditions to the wreck, but also accounts of the local people who witnessed the sinking. (Unfortunately, these were Vjesnik articles, so after they killed their online archive, that was it. Never actually got around to inquire by email about what happened there; to simply pull it offline without offering a subscription service seems idiotic...)

Regarding the latter, I'd also be inclined to say yes: the ship was sunk in Pula, and there's Janko Vuković, of course.

A question for the project, perhaps? GregorB (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it is. I posted the issue there, and as there already are two comments made on the subject, I'll quote this there too.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What about SMS Zrínyi? --Kebeta (talk) 09:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the SMS Zrínyi. The article does say that: "She had apparently been turned over" to the fledgling south Slav state, "as it was a Croat naval officer, Korvettenkapitän Marijan Polić, who presented the ship as a prize of war to representatives of the United States Navy on the afternoon of 22 November 1919 at Spalato (Split) in Dalmatia." IMO, if there were a source that it was in fact turned to the State SHS, there would hardly be any difference to the SMS Viribus Unitis in terms of inclusion in the WP. Beyond that, I'd say no.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

What about Namesake-House of Zrinski? --Kebeta (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the House of Zrinski, I don't doubt that it belongs to the WP. Back to the Zrinyi: I found a source saying that SMS Radetzky, which accompanied SMS Zrínyi to Split fleeing Pula did in fact fly Croatian flag. The article says nothing about Zrínyi (even though I find it logical that it flew the same colours as SMS Radetzky), but I'll keep on looking.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

And as an update to the last post: There is another source for an order to switch flags of the naval ships in Pula. Once again there's no specific mention of SMS Zrínyi, but it is clear from other sources that at least SMS Viribus Unitis and SMS Radetzky followed the order, leaving little room for any doubt that the same happened to SMS Zrínyi.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Another update regarding status of the Zrinyi immediately prior to turnover to the US Navy: Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships maintained by the US Navy has this entry on USS Zrinyi, where it is specifically stated that the Zrinyi appeared to be handed over to Yugoslavs - presumably State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs as the only possible recipient of the ship at the time. The transfer was apparently not recognized by the Allies, however but neither was the transfer to the US Navy, yet the USS Zriny is recognized as a fact.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Paladin Gundulić

I need help. There is summer house of Paladin Gundulić near Dubrovnik. It is described here. There were many Gundulićs and Paladins in Republic of Ragusa. Does anybody know if that house was owned by this Paladin Gundulić?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I cannot find a source confirming this but based on circumstances I'd say that it is almost certainly the same Paladin Gundulić. The summer house seems to have been built in the late 15th or early 16th century (the pdf you linked says one of the staircases has the year 1527) and Paladin seems to have been alive and well into at least the 1470s. It's unlikely that there were two equally notable Paladins around the same time in Ragusa. Btw this source calls him "Paladin Marin de Gondola". Timbouctou (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. First about his middle name. I found some sources which mention some Paladin Gundulić whose middle name was Jakov. Therefore I was not sure what is middle name of my Paladin and if there were two of Paladin Gundulićs. Besides lack of sources for summerhouse, that was the main reason why I was reluctant to claim his ownership of the house. I am surprised with lack of sources emphasizing his ownership of the summerhouse, taking in consideration how interesting person and important diplomat he was. At least to me. Again, thanks for your reply. If nobody else comes up with another story I will add information about this summerhouse to the article about Paladin Gundulić. I hope that somebody who is more acquainted with this topic can help resolving middle name issue also. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Assessment request

I'd like to ask for an assessment of two of my articles: Franjo Mihalić and Sandra Perković. B-class, hopefully? Thanks in advance... GregorB (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I checked Franjo Mihalić against B class criteria outlined at WikiProject Biography and found that the article in its current state satisfies all six criteria. It does have minor issues that need fixing IMO (concerning overlinking and reference placement) but otherwise it looks like it might have a decent shot at GAR. Timbouctou (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, a lot of B-class articles could relatively easily become GAs - after a copyedit since the difference between B and GA criteria is that the latter requires the article to be comprehensive (i.e. no relevant aspect of the issue should be left out) while former reasonably covers the topic and well written instead of reasonably well written. Perhaps inclusion of Wikipedia:Assessment quality scale at Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia/Assessment page might be useful and it may provide incentive to develop Cs to Bs and Bs to GAs.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. What Tomobe just said meshes with my current way of thinking: as the number of articles within the scope grows, it may become more natural to push the existing articles up the scale rather than to write them from scratch. (Although, to be fair, there's still plenty of articles to be written.) This Stub->Start->C->B->GA "conveyor belt" is perhaps the way to go.

In terms of article quality, my impression is that WP Croatia's greatest weakness is the number of B-class articles - still under 100. GregorB (talk) 12:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Comparing WP Croatia and overall wiki, quality distribution per individual classes is about the same, but we should not be content with average, right? I think the conveyor belt concept is good and effective. Since there are 2 "top" importance and 17 "high" importance stubs, I think those would benefit the most from that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Visoko

Please see Talk:Visoko#BiH town primary topic?. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

FA for A1

Hi all! I have submitted the A1 (Croatia) as a FAC and thought to drop a note here inviting comments/reviews. Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Just for start...Good Luck!--Kebeta (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

New version of Battle of Vukovar

I've rewritten, greatly expanded and improved the Battle of Vukovar article with the intention of getting it to featured status by the 20th anniversary of the end of the battle, on November 18th. Any comments would be much appreciated. Prioryman (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice work :)--Jesuislafete (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP yay

So, after we've finally cleared the initial backlog, we still have a lot of polishing to do because a BLP can be fixed to be not-unreferenced yet remain a significant problem if half the text remains unsourced and prone to subtle abuse. Here's a redacted list of oldest BLP-refimprove-tagged articles from that list and also from the project, sorted by age of tagging:

• Branko Ivanković (January 2007) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
• Matija Babić (April 2007) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Robert Baća (June 2007) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Juraj Božičević (July 2007) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Belinda Bedeković (November 2007) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Mate Šestan (December 2007) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Danijela Martinović (March 2008) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Tatjana Aparac-Jelušić (April 2008) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Stipe Pletikosa (June 2008) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Robert Prosinečki (September 2008) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Stjepan Šejić (September 2008) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Davor Šuker (October 2008) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Severina Vučković (October 2008) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Coco Mosquito (November 2008) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Željko Pavlović (November 2008) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Zdravko Tomac (November 2008) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Ljupka Gojić (December 2008) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Human rights article content about the war of independence

Following a series of developments this year, please see Talk:Human rights in Croatia#war-time events here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Role of minority languages

I want to get a consensus on what people think a minority language's role on Croatian town/village pages should be. If you look at my discussion page, you can see that MirkoS18 (talk) and I have a disagreement on whether the Cyrillic should have an equal footing with the Croatian Latin name on pages of towns with a Serbian majority. I remember something like this was discussed before about the Italian language being used, so i think it's important that we have a rule about other minority languages as well. --Jesuislafete (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

IIRC any municipality can be multilingual and add other names to road signs, in which case all of the names are official and should be noted. Note also that we also have several ethnically gerrymandered municipalities in eastern Slavonia, probably for exactly for these kinds of reasons - so that Cyrillic can be added to some signs, and not on others. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

So should we add Cyrillic and other minority languages to the infoboxes of all minority-majority places? Do we add the different language name throughout the page (I would think not, but then again I did revert a page where user added Cyrillic on a list of municipalities places). --Jesuislafete (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not know whether it is necessary to put the minority names of the municipalities on this page, but if it is already put for some municipalities in several counties then we just need to use same criteria in all cases. Previous question is very interesting also "should we add Cyrillic and other minority languages to the infoboxes of all minority-majority places", since I am not sure what there should be done. Specifically, in municipalities in eastern Slavonia where Serbian are official there are also several major Croatian villages. At the same time several major Serbian villages are located outside of those municipalities. The truth is that this is not a big problem, but I'd like to know your opinion on that.--MirkoS18 (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Minority languages are to be used in the infobox and in the lead (bracketed, following Croatian-language name) in municipalities and settlements where that minority language is officially recognized. For example see pages on Istrian municipalities like Brtonigla, Rovinj, Vodnjan, etc. AFAIK we always used Croatian name only on top of infoboxes and I'd appreciate if MirkoS18 stopped adding Cyrillic versions like he did in this edit. Ethnic composition of settlements and municipalities is irrelevant. Timbouctou (talk) 07:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, it seems to me that now things are completely clear. When it comes to infoboxes of municipalities and settlements then I use only the names of all official languages and ethnic structure is irrelevant. It seems like an acceptable rule. The ethnic structure can be taken only when I write in brackets at the beginning of article where I have to respect Wikipedia standards. However, in the example that you mentioned I will return my change because it seems to me that you inadvertently failed to see that minority language is officially recognized in mentioned municipality.--MirkoS18 (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Like I said above and Joy said below, per established use we tend use only the Croatian name on top of the infobox while all the different official names are supposed to go into the official_name parameter of the infobox (like in the Trpinja infobox where it says "Općina Trpinja - ??????? ??????"). The top of the infobox_settlement is supposed to be used for whatever the thing is called in standards English-language maps, and I doubt there are any using the Cyrillic spelling. Timbouctou (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The top of the infobox_settlement is supposed to be used for standard Englishlanguage where the name in English exist. But in all these cases there is no that thing. I do not know how this would be standard English names:Bošnjaci, Andrijaševci, Nuštar or Grožnjan? Let me just show you a few more examples outside Croatia where are any using the Cyrillic spelling: Bosnia-Berkovići, Donji Žabar, Russia-Seversk, Bulgaria-Razlog, Osina or even any using of Chinese Harbin in part for standard English. Although even in cases where there is an English name you have examples such Castile and León, Province of A Coruna, Ourense.--MirkoS18 (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This version of Seversk it seems perfect for the final resolution of this, so I'll use it.--MirkoS18 (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Bošnjaci, Andrijaševci, Nuštar and Grožnjan are placenames which are used in that exact same form in any Croatian map AND any English map you can find. Look for them at maps.google.com if you like. Russian and Bulgarian and Chinese are different languages with different scripts which are always shown in their own local maps and their settlement info boxes thus always have a translated form for this reason. Serbian Cyrillic is not even a translated form - it is just an alternative transliteration into one of the two scripts used in Serbian - the script which is never used on any map produced in either the language of the native country or of this Wikipedia. Hence the latinized form is the only one conforming to WP:PLACE. Timbouctou (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

These names appear on the maps because there is no English version and that's exactly what I told. This does not mean that this names are in English, they are in Croatian and as such are prescribed on the map because they are the only placenames. Some places at the same time have official names in other languages (and the names of these places do not exist in English and are written in Croatian). Accordingly, at the same place I add name in Cyrillic, and if I can somehow make it as such does not appear on the maps I am ready to do so. Even as you say, Serbian language is one of the few languages ??that uses 2 writing systems. It should be also clearly indicate that the Cyrillic alphabet is in many cases preferred. Thus, under the constitution of Serbia, all laws and state lists are written exclusively in Cyrillic, Croatian constitution guarantees the possibility of using the Cyrillic alphabet, bilingual signs in these municipalities and villages, as requested by representatives of minority, in their Serbian version is written exclusively in Cyrillic script, in serbian minority schools all documents in the Serbian language are written also exclusively in Cyrillic script, same is true with all personal documents issued by the Croatian Government which are on Serbian language, The forms in all public institutions, which under the law in these municipalities should be available in minority languages??, are also exclusively in Cyrillic, Cyrillic in Serbia is taught in schools before the Latin script. Maybe it is just insisting on differences, but even this tendency does not make this practice illegal, and certainly not non-existent. However, all this does not give any other status to Cyrillic if we compare with Latin script. Officially, in the Serbian language both have the same status. However again, at the local level of these municipalities Cyrillic is in a better position. So I think that with Cyrillic inscription, at best, we can add Latin inscription next to (Only when we are talking about name in Serbian course).--MirkoS18 (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

And yes, I would like to thank you Timbouctou because you have made Template:Joint Council of Municipalities. I still do not know to make Templates so, thanks.--MirkoS18 (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

And here's my last idea (at least for now :) ). Since out of your comment seems that point is in the maps, on every article will add | pushpin_label = where I will write the name just in Latin, which will allow to return my edits. In this way, the problem with maps disappears, and are written all official names.--MirkoS18 (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It should exist in the lead section and in the official_name parameter of {{Infobox settlement}}, but not throughout. For the general list of municipalities, it needs to be consistent - if the official name of the municipality is in multiple languages, it should be listed, with individual names separated with ndashes or slashes or something. Right now I see we have the list littered - for example the Italian names are added in a haphazard manner, in parenthesis, even on places that don't use Italian. That all needs to be fixed. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable, and it seems like it's already an unofficial rule here. So the consensus seems to be lead section and infobox where minority languages are used.

But what should be done with the municipality list page? I looked at several other examples: Communes of Switzerland, List of cities and towns in Hungary, List of cities and towns in Austria, and Municipiu of Romania seems to stick with one language. Even Municipalities of Bosnia and Herzegovina does so as well. I think that since this is a list, it should perhaps be as simple as possible.--Jesuislafete (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think minority languages should be listed along with Croatian names but only for those municipalities where the minority language has official status. Croatian Post maintains a list of postal codes in a zipped excel file here - and if you take a look you'll see it uses minority language placenames in brackets for settlements where it is official (there's a number of municipalities in Istria which use Italian on par with Croatian and I see 3-4 in Osijek-Baranja using Hungarian). But none of them uses a separate Serbian form, probably because toponyms are all the same anyway - Serbian uses Latin script as well so all the names already work in Serbian. Timbouctou (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Serbian use aslo Latin script as well, and that just means that we can put both versions (although Cyrillic has a favored position even under croatian Constitution). Of course the post dont use both versions the names of places but it has no meaning for this topic.

It is possible that you're right. Although I am liking the current standards at this article I would not be opposed if some different solution be found. I would just one more time reiterated how important it is to be consistent to avoid any tendentious interpretations.--MirkoS18 (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Vukovar featured article nomination

Please note that I've nominated Battle of Vukovar for featured article status to mark the 20th anniversary of the battle this year. Editors are very welcome to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Vukovar/archive2?. Prioryman (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Social Democratic Party of Croatia

There's a dispute going on at Talk:Social Democratic Party of Croatia which might be of interest to members of this project. Timbouctou (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

LADO

If someone has time and desire to help me in this article National Folk Dance Ensemble of Croatia LADO, help would be very appreciated.--MirkoS18 (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Iztok Puc

His article has been expanded 3.5x since yesterday, and there is an interesting fact about him ("He is the only handball player that has represented three different countries at the Summer Olympics - Yugoslavia, Croatia and Slovenia.") - needs additional 1000 bytes of prose to make the WP:DYK threshold. GregorB (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Bosnian war Operation Corridor

We've had a persistent problem with POV pushing and edit warring at Operation Corridor for months now, and it looks like there's a general confusion regarding the timeline of the operation. The Serbian POV edits have limited the time of the operation to around two months, but still mentioned Bosanski Brod three months later, and used Croatian POV sources to reference that (d'oh). The Croatian POV edits have pointed to the preceding invasion of Bosanski Šamac and largely ignored the stated length. I've tried to make some sense of it, and enforced WP:ARBMAC against the most egregious POV pusher, but I fear it's still incoherent and no less prone to dispute, so I would appreciate it if someone else could examine it and try to fix it properly. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the history and it appears to have been relatively quiet until the anonymous user IP 212... descended down with a vengeance in the spring. The page could use quite a bit of work, and I'll add my bit into the Discussion page. --Jesuislafete (talk) 08:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Zoran Milanović

An issue concerning Milanović's beliefs has been raised at Talk:Zoran Milanović which might be of interest to members of this project. Timbouctou (talk) 10:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for move

There is a request for move at Talk:Andrej Gacina, article being a part of your WikiProject. - Darwinek (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Information

I would just like to inform you that on the site of municipalities and towns in Croatia, where the Serbian national minority accounts for more than 10% of the population, I add Cyrillic versions of place names. I didnt add names in infoboxes since Serbian language in this municipalities has no official status. This is in line with usual practice and discussion on this subject which we have already run. Anyway, I want to let you know this since around this issue appeared some ambiguities in the past. List of cities and municipalities can be found in article Serbs of Croatia#Population II. The names in Cyrillic, I will also add in these counties. Otherwise, I used census from 2001. Have a nice day.--MirkoS18 (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you now trying to provoke edit wars or? :) If the official county names are never written in Cyrillic, or in practice, this really has no purpose. IIRC the only county that has a second name is the Istrian county. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The percentage of population is not a realistic criterion because it's both arbitrary and irrelevant - if the Serb population there don't publish any worthwhile amount of reliable sources that use Cyrillic, then it fails the most basic WP:V test. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Joy. I researched the matter extensively last time this was brought up and found that there is no uniform way of handling minority language in official documents or road signs in Croatia. Some municipalities use them, some don't. The law proscribes conditions where official use of minority languages would be possible (something like 25% of minority population is one of these I think) but actual practices vary widely from municipality to municipality. Using Cyrillic in Wikipedia articles on places where Cyrillic is not actually used in real life would be WP:OR and I can't see it as being helpful to readers.Timbouctou (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Joy. For instance, what sourcing or practical use is cyrillic script name of the Karlovac County now adorning the article? Are there any sources for this or is this just a WP:OR or WP:SYNTH? If there's a county/city/municipal document saying this form of name is official, then that would be a fine source. The infoboxes are summaries of the article (sort of) and their use does not imply they represent an official take on the topic and consequently that just about anything can go in the article. In fact, both have to be reliably sourced per WP:SOURCE and if one chooses to add those to the articles, one also has to provide the source per WP:BURDEN.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

But I do not use them as an official title, official title will be in infobox (as in Istria county article). It is not my aim to cause any edit war, and because of that I have informed you so you are able to express your opinions about it. Again, I did not wrote the names as official names-they simply are not that. 2 Comments on law Timbouctou mentioned: 1)Municipalities that do not meet these rights are criticized by government, NGOs and minority organizations and the government invites them to implement the reform (and also talk about changing the law) 2)It is not a 25% than 33.3% (1/3 of population). Have a nice day--MirkoS18 (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Both official and unofficial use have to be properly sourced per WP:SOURCE. Otherwise that's WP:OR and inadmissible.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, then I just have to find sources (although they are in such cases almost never substantiated). Do I need to find sources for articles that have a page on the Serbian Wikipedia? --MirkoS18 (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Wiki cannot be used as a source per WP:CIRCULAR - but if there is a corresponding article in Serbian wiki, there'll be an inter-language wikilink. Please note that, say Karlovac County has over two dozen interlanguage-linked articles on other wikis, but that does not warrant listing all those titles as names in this particular article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I understand that. I just do not know do I need any source where there is an article in this language. Of course we will not use all the other names, it would be pointless. I've just combined two divided things. The first is that there is reasons for inserting the specific language, and the second is that there is an article on this language. They of course are not related, but it seems to me that I will hardly find sources on the net (except perhaps for the Vukovar county) (so I do not know how much sense is there to look for them when there are articles in serbian language-I mean I will not use Wikipedia as a source, I just do not know do I need source at all).--MirkoS18 (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Let me clarify - using Cyrillic names for places which do not use them in real life would be WP:OR, plan and simple. The fact that some municipality meets the proscribed conditions to use them is not enough. As for sourcing, I remember stumbling upon some recent document issued by some Croatian government agency which listed the real life usage of minority languages in all municipalities which could use them based on 2001 census. That's probably the best source you'll ever get. The problem you'll run into is that there are varying degrees as to the extent these minority languages are treated (some municipalities only use them in road signs, some use them only in official documents, some use them only in street signs, some use them everywhere, some do not use them at all). And the 25 percent I mentioned was just a speculation, I couldn't remember the exact number. But if it is 33.3% than your case is even weaker because it means you are putting Cyrillic names in articles of places with a minority population which is three times smaller than what would be required if the place actually wanted to make it official by Croatian law. In other words, you decided to use Cyrillic even for local units which we know for sure do not use them in real life - and couldn't even if they wanted to. Timbouctou (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• I found the report I mentioned above, here's the pdf file from sabor.hr, published by the government in Dec 2009, offering an overview of minority languages used on municipal and settlement levels across Croatia. Also, here's a link to the previous discussion from September 2011 at Talk:Municipalities of Croatia. Like I said back then - there are various ways to interpret the findings and reconcile them with WP policies - but none of them include inserting minority language names with a 10% population threshold. Timbouctou (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think that in a previous conversation occurred a few minor misunderstandings that I will try to clarify. 1)Firstly, by adding the names I dont say that these names have any official status (I repeat it once more just in case...-). This of course means that they are not in official use, and even local serbian population poorly used it. But that still does not mean that the language is not used. It is used in all local Orthodox Churches, in all Prosvjeta clubs, in minority media in Croatia and media from Serbia or Bosnia and as additional clases in public education (that even give some poor official use). Also, there are countless examples in which this form of writing an additional name is used where is much smaller percentage of some population (Erdut-this is a good example because it shows you the difference between infobox and the rest of the text). 2) Secondly, I entirely agree with this what you said. As you can see, I did not change infoboxes of units that meet legal requirements but do not use language in official use. 3) Thirdly, my comments about percentage was not criticism (of course you will not remember numbers), this is only a benevolent information. Your sources are of course very useful in general, but it can not unfortunately be of much help in this "case". They would have been useful in the preceding discussion because we are there really talk about official status of minority languages.--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• And yes I noticed your suggestions from the last conversation that you mindful, on municipalities talk page. It seems to me that it could be several more different proposals. I am personally of course for option C, although I am aware that it is not the best. Therefore, it should modify this option. We need to enter both (or more) names in infobox only in municipalities that are legally regulated status of minority languages. Also, I am absolutely against that provides additional names in the list of municipalities, but if we add officially used names of some municipalities then we add all officially used names (it has nothing to do with the countiey since it is municipalities page). It does not seem to me that it's too complicated since the statute of municipalities can be found online or in printed form. Of course it is different than current "case" and is not entirely related.--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't get this--putting minority languages on pages where 10% of population is an ethnic group? Where did the 10% number come from? I agree with Joy and the other users; this seems to be moreWP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Plus, wouldn't it be more accurate to use the demographics of "language spoken" rather than "ethnicity"?--Jesuislafete (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• No it is not WP:OR since I do not want to introduce any rule which would indicate 10% of population of some ethnic group (then I will change some articles). I use this criteria only because I had already made such a list in one article so it was therefore just easier for me. I also in the article does not mention this as a reason for placing name, this information (among others) only provide right to do so. In my editing I used Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names and Wikipedia:Seven rules of place naming :D :D :D . I think it is a common practice, nothing new, nothing extraordinary and unjustified. Of course, then you may wonder why I have informed you, well, I'd just like to avoid misunderstandings, mistrust, or any inconvenience. I think that setting up any new extra rules will not help to achieve some sort of conclusion. I do not know, do you think that despite the fact that certain groups live somewhere, despite the fact that there are sources (which are not common in identical cases), despite the fact that it is quite clear that this does not speak that language is in official use, these names should be deleted? And justify that by say that they are useless to readers (ignoring the usual practice by that), that they have no official status in local institutions (what alternative names of course no claims), claiming that I ignore what people "spoken language" is (while you by that ignore open question of languages- Serbian, Croatian, Serbo-croatian and confusion in people(I do not want them to change of course)-I hope that this will not create a new discussion :D). I do not know, I do not see what is your justified objection. Have a nice day or night.--MirkoS18 (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not common practice. If the readers are exceedingly unlikely to see e.g. the name of Orahovica in relevant reliable sources printed in Cyrillic, particularly if the Serbs who live there don't publish any worthwhile amount of Cyrillic material about the place, then there's absolutely no point in spamming the lead section of that article with that. I saw you referenced something from Republika Srpska and something about an NGO name at the Karlovac County - that's completely incoherent. By that standard, we would have "Belgrado" or "Bělehrad" in the lead section of the article about Belgrade - we don't. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I think MirkoS18 referred to above mentioned wikipedia policies and guidelines which describe wikipedia's principles and best-known practices.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not quite understand this comparison with Belgrade but I have no intention to spend a lot of time on that. Of course I do not advocating to add any names without any reasons. But I did not add names without reason. I hope that in the case which you mentioned additional names will be writen if there is a base to do so. The sources that I cited are only the first sources that I found, of course that there are still a lot other sources, but is it really necessary to put ten (more/less) sources for Cyrillic name, while the rest of the article does not specify any single source (as in the case of Sisak-Moslavina County)?--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with MirkoS18 over this issue. If I read well, Serbian is officially considered a minority language in Croatia, and thus the inclusion of a Serbian language cyrillic version of a name in places where there is a presence of significant Serbian minority makes sense. Similarly, in Vojvodina in places where there is significant Hungarian minority we mention the Hungarian name in the lede, as Hungarian is also a minority language in Vojvodina, just as Serbian in Croatia. The only question in my view is the cutting point, and 10% seems reasonable. FkpCascais (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it would be the best to use all applicable languages - Czech, Hungarian, Italian, Ruthenian, Serbian or Slovakian - for those municipalities/cities/counties where these are in official use along with Croatian. That can be referenced, and would then not be WP:OR. 10% may seem reasonable but that's OR.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course there'll be a Serbian cyrillic name for anything, but I really doubt that those will be found in English language sources, so IMHO it comes down to official status or it's WP:OR.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"If I read well, Serbian is officially considered a minority language in Croatia, and thus the inclusion of a Serbian language cyrillic version of a name in places where there is a presence of significant Serbian minority makes sense." - Serbian has official status on the municipal level, not the national one. For comparison, Italian has official status in the entire Istria County but you don't see "Zagabria" mentioned in the article on Zagreb. The same law which grants minority languages' official status is also clear on what constitutes a "significant presence" - and that is 33.3% of total population. My suggestion is to go with that, regardless whether the settlement/municipality/city/county actually uses the minority language or not. If there's a unit of local government or a settlement that meets the legal conditions to use Cyrillic/Czech/Hungarian or whatever than we should mention it - but if such a possibility is not present (for places with under 33.3% minority population) than we shouldn't because it means we are inventing an arbitrary threshold, which would be a violation of WP:OR and possibly WP:V. Simple as that. Timbouctou (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Serbian is officially considered as a minority language in Croatia at national level since the state, not municipalities, signed European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. It is used in education, minority organizations or churches. Will some language (with prior mentioned use), will be used in public administration depends on the percentage of a minority in a local unit. But in this case it is not just a minority language, that language than enjoys the same use as the official language in this municipality (although some municipalities restrict its use). Once again I want to say, when I add the names I used an arbitrary number of 10% just because I knew these municipalities certainly qualify for add minority name version so it should not be considered OR (based on an article about Hungarian minority which lists the settlements with more than 10% of Hungarians I did the same with article about Serbian minority and then I just used that list-I did not ask any rule by that, other users are doing different changes).--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It's necessary to get this right both because exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and also because it's a inflammatory issue in a Balkans topic that is regulated by very strict specific rules. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Purpose of Wikipedia clearly prohibits advocacy. An encyclopedia describes, it does not prescribe - if the use of a minority language (and script) in practice is minor at best, it's simply not lead section material and adding it into lead sections en masse is advocacy. Please cease this inappropriate behavior. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if there are 10% or 1% of Hungarians or Serbs in a given municipality - in both cases they are minorities. But if one uses an arbitrary threshold (no matter which) it is WP:OR by definition. If one inserts information which one knows or considers accurate with no reliable sourcing, thats OR too. The Istrian County council enacted a decision that Italian is in official use in the county, for instance, and that decision should be sourced and the county name given in Croatian and Italian as official languages. Similar applies to any other city or municipality in Croatia or anywhere else. Minority is sourced by a census, and official use of a language by specific legislation. The minority languages are not official at national level in Croatia - that is specifically defined by Article 12 of the Constitution of Croatia regardless of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Saying otherwise is also OR.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

International treaties are at the same level as Constitution (both are above the law, although Croatia can independently change Constitution and treaties can not) "Članak 140.-Međunarodni ugovori koji su sklopljeni i potvrđeni u skladu s Ustavom i objavljeni, a koji su na snazi, čine dio unutarnjega pravnog poretka Republike Hrvatske, a po pravnoj su snazi iznad zakona. Njihove se odredbe mogu mijenjati ili ukidati samo uz uvjete i na način koji su u njima utvrđeni, ili suglasno općim pravilima međunarodnog prava.". Otherwise, thank you Joy for Straw man, 10% that you mentioned is not OR than that Straw man. 10% just means that there are 10% of Serbs, nothing more, since there live a certain ethnic minority (the source only claim that), minority languages ​​can be added (especially if one takes into account that this language enjoys special care of state (: ).--MirkoS18 (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Joy, what? WP:REDFLAG? Sorry, but using minority language names has been widely in use troughout WP (specially in Central&Eastern Europe) so what inappropriate behavior are you talking here? FkpCascais (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Kindly read what I wrote again - I did not generalize like that and you're arguing a straw man. Applying minority language names where there is no actual demonstrated justification other than one's personal opinion is inappropriate advocacy. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• @MirkoS18: "Serbian is officially considered as a minority language in Croatia at national level since the state, not municipalities, signed European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages." - No language other than Croatian is official at national level, the Constitution is quite clear on that.

• Constitution-140.-Međunarodni ugovori koji su sklopljeni i potvrđeni u skladu s Ustavom i objavljeni, a koji su na snazi, čine dio unutarnjega pravnog poretka Republike Hrvatske, a po pravnoj su snazi iznad zakona. Njihove se odredbe mogu mijenjati ili ukidati samo uz uvjete i na način koji su u njima utvrđeni, ili suglasno općim pravilima međunarodnog prava.--MirkoS18 (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• "When I add the names I used an arbitrary number of 10% just because I knew these municipalities certainly qualify for add minority name version so it should not be considered OR (based on an article about Hungarian minority which lists the settlements with more than 10% of Hungarians I did the same with article about Serbian minority and then I just used that list-I did not ask any rule by that, other users are doing different changes)." - I myself had used that threshold when I expanded the Hungarians of Croatia article back in May. I did not do it to set a precedent but simply because the list would have been too short if I had used 25 or 33 percent as a cutoff point :-) But regardless, notice that only the articles on Kneževi Vinogradi (41%), Bilje (35%) and Draž (26%) use the Hungarian name in their respective lead sections, whereas Ernestinovo (22%), Tordinci (18%) and Petlovac (14%) do not (and as far as I know they never did). Timbouctou (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• And in Erdut 5% is, so I do not change anything.--MirkoS18 (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of anything, Serbian is officially a minority language, and that certainly applies to places where that minority is present. Now, we don´t need to see about the situation of how other minorities deal with the issue in Croatia (as we see there are discrepancies anyway), but how they are generally used troughout WP. FkpCascais (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Few examples (from Croatia): Klis, Karlobag, Otočac, Senj, Lokve, Croatia, Matulji, Omišalj, Vrbnik, Baška Voda. Regulated status at the municipality level: Bale (town), Trpinja, Erdut, Kneževi Vinogradi. Of course there are different examples to.--MirkoS18 (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

@MirkoS18: What I'm saying is you can't claim you saw this principle applied elsewhere (like you did above) because it had not been applied anywhere. This is just a matter of you arbitrarily inventing a rule, without seeking consensus here first, which affects a large number of articles and which you now expect everyone else to agree with. I'm sorry but you will have to defer to consensus, one which is preferably based on what goes on in the real world, not what sounds reasonable to you.

@Fkpcascais: It is officially a minority language in some places but not everywhere, just like Hungarian and Croatian are official in Vojvodina but not in Belgrade. As for how this is dealt with throughout WP - there are criteria: 1. Name most commonly used in English, 2. Name in the language used by linguistic majority, 3. Other officially used names. 4. Historic place name (if relevant, such as Danzig for Gdansk). The linguistic majority criteria is satisfied in the 16 articles with the majority Serb population listed here. And by Croatian law only the following four (with 38% to 49% Serb population) could choose to use Serbian along Croatian officially, regardless whether they actually do or not. For all the other 34 municipalities that MirkoS18 had diligently enumerated this is pure speculation and invention which boils down to advocacy. Not to mention a vandalism magnet. In addition, we actually have a document issued by the Croatian parliament which specifies how this is being dealt with for each and every eligible municipality in the country - and yet MirkoS18 simply chooses to ignore it, pretending we have no way of knowing whether Cyrillic is actually used in certain places or not, only to advance his argument for what he thinks should be right, and not what is actually out there. And it is as if we all don't know how sensitive this issue is. I'm sorry, but I'm running out of good faith to assume here. Timbouctou (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I didnt pulled out number from nowhere nor the number is important at all. It is as if someone says for someone who edit only pages of cities with more than 100 000 that he/she make OR or new rule-this makes no sense (If that editor write only Geography sections of those cities). This does not prevent anyone else in editing. Your previous comment that this is sensitive issue and even possible vandalism magnet are finally some worthy arguments. It could really be a problem so this segment should be considered. But most attacks do not came from so big number of computers (and such will always find a reason for vandalism).--MirkoS18 (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

So....I think we're deviating from the point here. Hungarian, Czech, Serbian, Italian−these are all minority languages; question is when to use them. 10% population? 33.3% population? (This of course excludes Italian in Istria and various historical German and Hungarian names.) --Jesuislafete (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Minority languages ​​in Croatia are: Italian, Serbian, Hungarian, Czech, Slovak, Rusyn and Ukrainian because Croatia had confirmed them as such by European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. It is interesting that Charter says that its goal is to protect and promote historical regional and minority languages in Europe (only applies to languages traditionally used by the nationals of the State Parties-thus excluding languages used by recent immigrants from other states). So I was not clear on what basis do you claim that some of this languages do not have historical use. All these languages ​​not only have historical use (as German and Italian in places outside of Istria), but they are also used in the present. Will be used 1%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 33%, 50%, 158% in determining when the language will be entered I do not think that we should only use one of the four grounds on which it is possible to do in Croatia (1.population, 2.International Agreements(Vested rights-can not be revoked by European Charter), 3.statute of the municipalities and 4.County statute). For example, by population (33%) Hungarian national minority has right to use language only in two municipalities While based on population plus vested rights they have the right to use language in 38 municipalities (In practice this is not applicable or just partially applicable). I will now quote a few statements of Zdenka Čuhnil (MPs of Czech and Slovak national minority in Croatia) in her latest interview for serbian minority magazine Identitet entitled "Gradovi i općine zloupotrebljavaju stečeno pravo" (Cities and Municipalities abuse vested rights). 1)"...Što se tiče same službene upotrebe manjinskih jezika u jedinicama lokalne samouprave ona je generalno gledajući najmanje zadovoljavajuća..." 2)"...Ako pogledamo talijansku manjinu možemo vidjeti da imamo daleko više govornika talijanskog jezika, onih koji talijanski deklariraju kao materinji jezik, nego što imamo onih koji se izjašnjavaju kao Talijani. Drugu situaciju imamo kod mađarske nacionalne manjine gdje je npr. puno više onih koji se izjašnjavaju kao Mađari nego onih koji deklariraju mađarski jezik kao materinji...", 3) "...Analizirajući stanje nacionalnih manjina u RH s obzirom na upotrebu manjinskog jezika, odnosno koliko jedinica lokalne samouprave bi trebale temeljem ova četiri kriterija imati upotrebu službenog jezika, dolazi se do podatka da od 120 jedinica lokalne samouprave danas jedva njih 60 ostvaruje to pravo..."--MirkoS18 (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• You should do more reading on Croatian laws because you are constantly mixing up things. The fact that Croatia signed a charter does not mean that seven other languages are now on par with Croatian. Read the Constitution if in doubt. As for Čuhnil's comments - I suggest you read the quotes from the yellow box in the very same article. She says specifically "Srbi imaju pravo na službenu upotrebu jezika u 21 jedinici lokalne samouprave, ali samo u 11 je to pravo ugrađeno u statute gradova ili općina, a tek se u sedam i primjenjuje i to samo djelomično". Which is pretty different than the 60+ municipalities and cities MirkoS18 listed here. So two thirds of places MirkoS18 thinks deserve Cyrillic placenames in their leads do not use Cyrillic in practice, cannot use Cyrillic in practice and will not use Cyrillic in practice in the foreseeable future according to Croatian law. And you failed to provide a convincing case that some other criteria should apply. The fact that five or fifty or five thousand people in Croatia call Zagreb "Загреб" does not mean it belongs in the lead. Timbouctou (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Where do I say that seven other languages are now on par with Croatian and why would I need to say that? They can be fully equal only at the local level in 11 (or more) municipalities which you mentioned. I say that they are historical laguages and languages used in practice, for which government has decided to keep them on the special care. It is a lie that those names do not use at all (education, associations, people speech, religious institutions, media...), they just are not used in the administration what can not be (at least not be the only) criterion based on which we will write Wikipedia articles (see my examples even from Croatia). In that municipalities live significant number of minority that traditionaly live there. There are laws and regulations at national level, there are binding international agreements and documents, a municipal statutes may only be used as an additional argument in favor of usage (especially when there are no clear criteria for their writing). At the same time you accuse me that I do OR (although I in no way insist on the number-I only say that it is a significant number, especially even for a smaller number was used that practice), and you say that it is necessary to set up some sort of objective minimum limit, indicating different numbers with different argument and ignoring my argument that a particular practice has already established itself on Wikipedia? Now, perhaps you could read the same sentence (Čuhnil) and see an keyword "...Srbi imaju pravo na službenu upotrebu jezika u 21 jedinici lokalne samouprave, ali samo u 11 je to pravo ugrađeno u statute gradova ili općina, a tek se u sedam i primjenjuje i to samo djelomično..." (By the way, it shows that the statutes are not a good criterion for the ejection of language, they can only be an additional argument for adding them).--MirkoS18 (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hungarians (Zmajevac = Vörösmart), Italians (Bale = Valle), Czechs (Ivanovo Selo = Janova ves), Germans (Kula = Josefsfeld) have their own names for some settlements in Croatia. Serbs did not (Vukovar = Vukovar, Dalj = Dalj). Changes MirkoS18 should be removed.--Sokac121 (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll limit myself to saying that this discussion is a disproportionate waste of resources (=time of everyone involved) relative to usefulness of Cyrillic place names in these articles. It is close to zero, since they don't amount to anything more than a simple transliteration, unlike, say, the Italian names we discussed here some time ago. It might even be less than zero, since this is potentially an edit war/flame war magnet. GregorB (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I don´t understand why are some mixing things up here. Timbouctou, no one is proposing to use Serbian names for all towns in Croatia (why the mention of Zagreb or other silly exemples I saw in this discussion), but only for (basically a few) setlements where Serbs still make an accountable community. I agree with Jesuislafete, lets find a reasonable number (percentage of population) and lets move on. FkpCascais (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I suggest to take "accountable community" to mean 33.3%, just like the current local legislation does. And btw MirkoS18 should have asked here first before making changes which affect a huge number of articles. The only reason we are here debating this is that people noticed and started asking questions. Timbouctou (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

33% is absolutely biased criteria and an application of double standards. Insisting on only one interpretation, while at the same time there are many different criteria for this question is advertising (As I said, there are even four criteria by law, for which I even do not think it's best to use, and Timbouctou insisting only on one of these four different criterias). The imposition of questionable and incomplete external criteria, without having to look at the common methods at Wikipedia maybe is not so good if it will make very different standards on different Wikipedia articles. It should be taken that this is still only one of four possible criteria. It again will not respect the situation in the real world (Some municipalities with more than 33% of the population do not use language, some with much smaller percentages used-see Tompojevci#Languages). Than, debate started after I put first comment (by which I informed involved and make effort to avoid misunderstandings-precisely because they are even a few dozen of articles), not after others by some miracle saw my malicious changes. This is a very malicious interpretation and attempt of discreditation. I agree that it may be desirable to achieve some kind of agreement, if for other is absolutely unacceptable to accept the current practice. But then that will be a practice that will be used in all cases, for all minority and historic languages when it comes to municipalities in Croatia. Of course, the criterion can not be the only population. This is one of the statutory criteria, but if we use law, we will respect it in its entirety (not just one segment).--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for going by the current law but I'm not really convinced you know what you are talking about. After all, according to you Serbian is a official language in Croatia on the state level. You are simply ill-informed. We've got documents listing places where Cyrillic is in use and where Cyrillic might be in use. We've got Zdenka Čuhnil's interview as well. And still you find the time to invent criteria which are - in your own words - "questionable and incomplete external criteria". The idea that the same name spelled in Cyrillic is "historic" is ridiculous. By that logic Slovenian toponyms should have its Serbo-Croat and Cyrillic variant in parenthesis, settlements in Serbia should also feature Albanian and Turkish names, etcetera. I'd love to see that happening. Timbouctou (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Please, once again read my comments and do not be malicious. I said what I am talking: 1) Serbian is considered a minority language in Croatia by European Charter(Slovenia is not). The Charter states that protects the historic present minority languages, and countries themselves choose which languages ​​are that when they sing Charter. 2) An article that I gave only show that (only one of four) legal criteria on which you insist is not universal and is not sufficient. 3)I do not ask and do not change any previous criteria, you want them to set and change.--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

If 33.3% sounds reasonable to all, I am OK then. However, we had the cyrillic name version for a long time on a number of articles, and they were stable (we even discussed the issue a couple of times), and it was only recently that it started being removed from all articles by a couple of users. FkpCascais (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I did not notice removals, I only noticed mass additions by MirkoS18 on articles which are in my watchlist [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], to name a few. All of these were added recently by MirkoS18, and all of them are in current versions of articles (that is, nobody has reverted them yet). You can find more by looking at his editing history. So we'll have to agree to disagree. Timbouctou (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, you noteced one user adding, I noteced another removing (IvanOS), so anyway, this means it is time to discuss this, and as far as I can see, that is what is happening :) FkpCascais (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

33% is absolutely biased criteria and an application of double standards. Insisting on only one interpretation, while at the same time there are many different criteria for this question is advertising (As I said, there are even four criteria by law, for which I even do not think it's best to use, and Timbouctou insisting only on one of these four different criterias). The imposition of questionable and incomplete external criteria, without having to look at the common methods at Wikipedia maybe is not so good if it will make very different standards on different Wikipedia articles. It should be taken that this is still only one of four possible criteria. It again will not respect the situation in the real world (Some municipalities with more than 33% of the population do not use language, some with much smaller percentages used-see Tompojevci#Languages). Than, debate started after I put first comment (by which I informed involved and make effort to avoid misunderstandings-precisely because they are even a few dozen of articles), not after others by some miracle saw my malicious changes. This is a very malicious interpretation and attempt of discreditation. I agree that it may be desirable to achieve some kind of agreement, if for other is absolutely unacceptable to accept the current practice. But then that will be a practice that will be used in all cases, for all minority and historic languages when it comes to municipalities in Croatia. Of course, the criterion can not be the only population. This is one of the statutory criteria, but if we use law, we will respect it in its entirety (not just one segment).--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Zdenka Čuhnil says there are 21 municipalities and cities eligible for Cyrillic in official usage by any of the criteria available, either by the population criteria or something called "vested rights". If you want to expand this number you will have to provide something more convincing than merely claiming that the same name transcribed in Cyrillic qualifies as the toponym's "historical name". And 33.3% is the only number which exists printed in any piece of legislation pertaining to this topic. Timbouctou (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• But I do not want to change any rule, I work on the base of existing examples. You want to set the rules.--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

First you talked about population numbers (btw we don't have the 2011 census data yet), than you invoked a non-existing consensus citing Hungarians of Croatia as an example, then you misinterpeted the legislation claiming a charter signed by the government overrides the constitution and now you are misintepreting Wikipedia's rule about historic names - even though just before that you claimed that these are in fact not historic names because Serb people still use them in Croatian Serbian-language media. And in the meantime you are protesting against the only population cutoff point which actually exists in real life because you see it as "biased". How about you have a short discussion with yourself about what you exactly want and then let us know what you came up with. Timbouctou (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Should I really answer this one? Why are you trying to bring that on personal conflict? Read again my previous comments and you might understand what I was saying. If you think that I take in on this kind of provocation, I dont have intention.--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

But I will answer :D- "First you talked about population numbers"- that served only to me. "than you invoked a non-existing consensus citing Hungarians of Croatia as an example"- Of course, as one of much of examples that I cited. "then you misinterpeted the legislation claiming a charter signed by the government overrides the constitution"-citing the Constitution (140.), saying that the state is signatory not municipalities, and never mentioned Serbian as official language. "misintepreting Wikipedia's rule about historic names - even though just before that you claimed that these are in fact not historic names because Serb people still use them in Croatian Serbian-language media" I'm surprised that Wikipedia does not use the Croatian law, which states that all minority recognized languages ​​are historical languages.--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

So the next step in the evolution of your thinking is that "all minority languages are historic languages"? Lol. Does that include Hebrew for Jews? Tell me so I can start filling in articles with toponyms in Yiddish and Hebrew. How about the Romani people? Timbouctou (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe that your comment at evolution of my thinking will be very useful and will raise the level of debate. And anti-Semitism will also be very useful of course.--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discrimination#Advice? and please no longer communice with me on a personal level.--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see any anti-Semitism in the above statement. --Jesuislafete (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This was reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued_flaming_.28in_spite_of_warning.29. I also think it's not meant as an ethnic insult, because the context of the lead section, rather than whole articles (as implied by the sentence taken out of context). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This is going in circles. Paragraphs upon paragraphs of repetition interpretations of the Croatian constitution. I will state this: translations to foreign languages based on ethnic composition, in this case, mainly Serbian Cyrillic has gone too far. There is no difference between Croatian and Serbian names of towns in Croatia except in alphabet' For many years now on Wikipedia, only towns with Serbian majority have had Cyrillic versions added. Suddenly, it's every town on my watchlist. I will revert back all recent edits until a final consensus is reached. If anyone is going to edit war with me, let me leave this statement here. Think about what you are doing and how far you are willing to war on this issue (in a country which a bloody war was fought less than 20 years ago so tensions are still high.) In Croatia the only official language is the Croatian language with Latin alphabet. Everything else is a minority language. --Jesuislafete (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

For me GregorB said it best: "I'll limit myself to saying that this discussion is a disproportionate waste of resources (=time of everyone involved) relative to usefulness of Cyrillic place names in these articles. It is close to zero, since they don't amount to anything more than a simple transliteration, unlike, say, the Italian names we discussed here some time ago. It might even be less than zero, since this is potentially an edit war/flame war magnet."--Jesuislafete (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Everything has already been repeated, the only disagreement is whether it is appropriate. I very strongly believe it is not. 2001 census has the number of people declaring Serbian language at 1%. It's use and presence is minuscule. Mirko, I do believe you are trying to do what you think is right, and I commend that. I just

think this latest drive is pushing it too far. --Jesuislafete (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you please explain the criteria for your last changes in the following pages: Daruvar, Vrhovine, Vojnić, Darda, Croatia, Popovac and Vrbovsko. Except of course that it is a controversial issue.--MirkoS18 (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait a sec. Regardless of the recent discussion, what I see is sides taking extremes, and I don´t want that. Just to clear things up, I don´t defend the inclusion of cyrillic in every case, but I also see some flaws in some excuses provided here claiming better not to use it at all. For instance, edit-warring is never an excuse, or the events from the early 1990s are either. Equally, one could claim that not oposing them for logic cases is sign of tolerance. Thus I propose we use them for places where it can make sense. For instance, it makes sense using it for Knin. Now, what about the rest? Should we use the 33.3%? More? Less? Perhaps some other ideas? Or, should we ask for advice in some other thread like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts and see what people there could say? FkpCascais (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Another proposal. Because it seems to me that we all agree that on this issue we need to achieve some kind of agreement. Here is a proposal in nine points that I think for everyone can be an acceptable:

1) Write names in minority languages in the introductory section (If there is no section Name) and into infobox for all settlements (refers to a higher levels also) in which some minority has more than 50% of population. This does not apply to settlements that at the municipal level are eligible.

2) Write names in minority languages in the introductory section (If there is no section Name) and into infobox for all municipalities (refers to a higher levels also) in which some minority has more than 33% of population. Applies to all settlements within the municipality.

3) Write names in minority languages in the introductory section (If there is no section Name) and into infobox for all municipalities, counties and settlements that have a statute or law that regulated their use.

4) Write names in minority languages just in Name section for all municipalities and settlements (refers to a higher levels also) which have more than 10% of some minority.

5) All of above percentages refer to the number of native speakers of a language and to percentage of some minority. Article should meet one of these two conditions (can both).

6) As minority languages ​​in Croatia we consider only the following languages: Italian, Serbian, Hungarian, Czech, Slovak, Rusyn and Ukrainian. Based on European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.

7) These rules only apply to the use of minority languages and do not affect use of other languages (such as extinct languages).

8) The additional use of minority languages, that exceeds the above proposals, should be discussed and agreed on the basis of consensus. If consensus can not be established, and there are grounds to do so, It may be agreed to make arbitration by impartial and experienced users. They can not be from project Croatia, or else involved project (projects from region or projects of the countries in which minority is majority nation).

9) None of the above points can not stand in front of any clearly prescribed rule of Wikipedia.

If this for someone is not acceptable I suggest that we include people from other projects.--MirkoS18 (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I examined this, and it looks like it still allows you to place e.g a Личко-сењска жупанија somewhere in Lika-Senj County, but that sidelines the core WP:V policy - if there is no demonstrated actual or official use of such a spelling in the said county in practice, this is a pointless exercise in adding bytes to articles. If the typical English reader reads elsewhere about the said county and never sees the Cyrillic spelling, there is no point in the Wikipedia article spamming them about it. The same would hold for e.g. a Czech spelling of the name of the Bjelovar-Bilogora County. It would not hold for the Italian spelling of Istria County, because that one is actually observable in practice. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but just as I said only in Name section and they even currently do not exist in these articles. If even such a proposal is unacceptable, than I strongly support idea to include members from other Wikipedia projects.--MirkoS18 (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

How do you think that there is no real use, I gave several examples of real use. I am reminded now that even the official use of language exist-1) Public schools that operate in the Serbian language (Vukovar-syrmia county, Osijek-baranja county, Zagreb), 2) Complementary and correspondence education (rest of Croatia, Zagreb), 3) People have right to bilingual identity cards (on them write name of the county police department) [47], 4) Used in courts-[48] Article 105, 5) Used them in various documents (school report card, elementary and high school Student mark booklet, Seals...). So than even the claim that they are not officially used is questionable. However, argue that language does not use in public and private life simply is not true.--MirkoS18 (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No, no you didn't give any examples of real use. You now linked to a Novosti article that says Cyrillic usage is so small that it's actually sad enough for them to report about. They also compare it to Italian and note it's completely different. The law says court usage is possible, but there's nothing beyond that - at least I'm not seeing it - do you happen to know what is the other unnamed but referenced law that is supposed to regulate this?

In any case - please try to put yourself in the position of an English reader - why would they need to be inundated with this information? Do you seriously not recognize that this would indicate that English Wikipedia has an agenda to promote something that barely exists in practice? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

JFTR I supported these two reverts because of the same pattern I stated earlier - when someone from outside Croatia talks about a Croatian county in their appropriate native language, that's not in any way a relevant source for the inclusion of the same native term in the lead section about the said county. In particular, it conflicts with the simple fact that the counties don't use the same minority language in any official capacity (at least there's no source for any such claim). Yes, that might be sad and a testament to a kind of subtle lack of recognition of the minority by the government, or whatever, but once again - Wikipedia does not prescribe, it describes. If something is not really there (verifiable), there's nothing to describe. All of the sourcing I've seen applied so far followed this same pattern. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be also done ​​by my proposal. I will just repeat answer that I write the above now. Yes, but just as I said only in Name section and they even currently do not exist in these articles. If even such a proposal is unacceptable, than I strongly support idea to include members from other Wikipedia projects who can help solve this problem.--MirkoS18 (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

An example of what I'm talking about Vukovar#Name--MirkoS18 (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Joy, there is no need to see if there is cyrillic use in local governament, but in any written source (from Croatia or abroad), as Wikipedia is not limited to local governaments usage only. FkpCascais (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be in violation of WP:ROC? If there were a different name for a given toponym in Serbian, IMO that would be OK then to provide it as it carries some sort of information on the topic. On the other hand, it we're dealing with a transliteration to cyrillic script, is that adding anything to the article? It would then be, by extension, equally useful (or useless) to provide transliteration to other cyrillic scripts, for instance for Đakovo there would then be (Russian: Джяково, Serbian: Ђаково, Ukrainian: Джаково) adding nothing but trivia. On the other hand if a given name (in Serbian or whichever other language other than Croatian) can be referenced as relevant, that's addition of substance. The official status of a language (locally) is the easiest to reference, but others, especially if not consisting of mere transliteration, and definitely well referenced are quite welcome.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

We are talking about recognized minority languages ​​in Croatia, and these are just (once more)-Italian, Serbian, Hungarian, Czech, Slovak, Rusyn and Ukrainian. Based on European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Mention Russian is not one of them. There is not any kind of transliteration if we insist on Croatian law. According to Croatian law Serbian is equal minority language as well as all other recognized minority languages​​. Of course they Pronunciation versions are the same, but if you insist on that, you do not have to write Croatian or Serbian, but the Serbo-Croatian (What was deleted by users who participate in discussion). Of course, you will say that the Croatian is official language in Croatia, but then I can only again say that Serbian is officialy considered as minority language in Croatia.--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, is wrong to insist on the law on minority languages and accept mine proposed use for them, and at the same time say that on one of these seven languages that does not apply because it is similar language.--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

And they are recognized minority languages... no one disputes that. The recognized minority languages are official regionally only - it is fine to mention a city's name in Serbian as long that use is referenced - as an official language or otherwise significant, such as a different form of name (akin to Wien/Vienna). the WP:ROC says that adding a name in Cyrillic script (Serbian or Russian) just because it is written in the script is trivial information and not adding anything of substance and the Đakovo example served to point that out. Serbian (or Italian) is not an official language in Croatia at the national level - it is impossible to say, take part in a procurement procedure run by the national government unless the documents submitted are in Croatian. This is fully supported by the Constitution and nothing in the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages supports your interpretation, making this claim a genuine WP:OR.

None of those should be used either if not referenced as official or otherwise significant. How about that? If Serbian is official in Vukovar, reference it and quote the name in Serbian - it will be the same as Croatian name, but thats perfectly alright because it is referenced.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not use minority script but a minority language. If it is not sufficiently clear, with a Cyrillic version, We can add and Serbian latin version also.--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Where in hell are the words "trivial" or "script" mentioned? WP:ROC contains no such words. And wazzup with this WP:ROC anyway... it is an essay, if I understand correctly. And what this essay contains is this:

Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies.

— Wikipedia editors, WP:ROC

In its opening lines. How about that?

So should we abide by some arbitrary representations of some minority viewpoints?

I cannot believe the link was mistakenly added, since the addition was repeated. If the link is correct, than I really don't understand this argument. Anyone who understands this argument, if this is an argument after all, please be welcome to elaborate.

Also, a ref (source) for the claim that Serbo-Croatian is extensively used in Croatia was asked for, I believe. Here it is: It is taken from the Serbo-Croatian article of this wikipedia. Once again, I cannot believe that from such a vast number of very experienced Wikipedia editors, all except one native speakers of Serbo-Croatian (if Ethnologue report is to be taken seriously), none of them knew about this. Odd indeed, if I may say. Best regards to all participants, --biblbroks (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Since we failing to get any kind of agreement, I think it would be time to seek help from other users from other wikipedia projects. I think it would be helpful to write here name of each page and each user whom we asked for help.--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC) Since we failing to get any kind of agreement, I think it would be time to seek help from other users from other wikipedia projects. I think it would be helpful to write here name of each page and each user whom we asked for help.--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Europe
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Europe
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Italy
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hungary
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Czech Republic
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukraine
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Serbia
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International law

The insistence that every minority language (Serbian really) has a need to be used because it's officially recognized as a minority, is flawed, especially if there is no reference showing any official use of the Cyrillic spelling, plus the census shows that after Croatian, the next language uused is Serbian at 1%. Perhaps the most important, this is the English Wikipedia- they typical English reader is most likely to never see the Cyrillic spelling in any Google webpages, newspapers, or articles. --Jesuislafete (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No one is proposing to invade all Croatian geographical articles with Serbian names, but just the few where Serbs still have a large minority. Your own Croatian governament officialised Serbian as minority language exactly because of those places... FkpCascais (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break in discussion

I haven't been able to get throught the whole discussion but just as context, a great many articles abput slovene cities and towns have german and italian (in some cases latin) names in the lead (not the infobox) even though there is virtually no german or italian (or imperial roman) presence there. These names are there simply as a reference or a useful piece of information. This is an encyclopedia after all, right? Personally I don't get what the big deal is. Example: Ljubljana (Slovene: [lʲubˈlʲana] ; German: Laibach, Italian: Lubiana, Latin: Labacum or Aemona) is the capital of Slovenia and its largest city. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 00:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry to say, but I basically see no reason why some users are unfortunatelly making all this drama rather then intolerance. I can´t imagine what is making some users to so hardly fight and argue to remove Serbian reference in a (only basically few) places where they still make an sizeble community or keep cultural ties. And I am saying this because if you notece, a number of users are even proposing to exclude totally Serbian, while I was even in good faith trying to accept the quite high 33.3% as compromise. FkpCascais (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

And I cannot imagine what makes some users fight so hard to insert Serbian into a vast amount of Croatia articles. I don't know what you mean by "only basically a few". Serbian Cyrillic was already used in articles with 50+% of Serb population, and that came about as a compromise a few years ago after an edit war. This new insistence is bizarre, considering only 1% of population declared it their mother tongue in 2001 census. --Jesuislafete (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, in none of the legislation to which you invite (at the same time ignoring some of them) does not hold any percentage of speakers but about the percentage of minority communities. Also I do not see any compromise in 50%. Between which proposals there was compromise made?--MirkoS18 (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It was years ago. It would take time for me to look it up. You are the one ignoring the obvious. You have argued paragraphs about legislation, it does not change a thing: Cyrillic has no place on every Croatian geographic page just because it is a minority language. That would mean every country that has a minority language would have this on Wikipedia. Yet, this is not the case. --Jesuislafete (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User U5KO, is because historical names of towns should be used. In the case of Croatia (and similarly with other countries like Slovenia), it has under Hungarian control/influence for almost a thousand years, Austrian for hundreds, and those names were used as official up until the 20th century. --Jesuislafete (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

For example, go to GOOGLE NEWS and type in Agram: you will see articles from 1880, 1902-1903, 1912-1913, 1918, 1919. Now type in Zagreb with a custom range of 1880-1914 (before WWI). Only 4 results turn up. That is why historical names are used.

(This is only for User U5K0: part of the "big deal" comes from history, read the Croatian War of Independence. Longtime Croatian users have often had conflicts with Serb users trying to Serbianise Croatian articles.) --

Jesuislafete (talk) 05:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Likewise, there was something called State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Banovina of Croatia, Democratic Federal Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Republic of Serbian Krajina, all of which had in official use something described in the article Serbian Cyrillic alphabet. Otherwise, today it is used in what is now called Serbian language which is recognized minority language in Croatia, a Cyrillic (without specifying which) is also mentioned in the Croatian Constitution point 12, stating that this script, in some units, can be introduced into official use (no mention of minority or permitted use but official use). --MirkoS18 (talk) 09:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it can be introduced into official use. That still doesn't mean you have to have Cyrillic in the lede of the English articles of Croatia geographical pages. Or Hungarian, or Italian, or German, etc. --Jesuislafete (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise, if we talk about the historical official use of (not in 20 century), it is interesting to note two things-The Habsburg rulers (Maria Theresa and Franz Joseph I of Austria I think) are barred use of Serbian Cyrillic alphabet in Serbian schools, and I do not see how they can ban something that was not used. However, subsequently they withdrew its decisions.--MirkoS18 (talk) 10:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Then Croatian members of the Austrian authorities they knew and occasionally write in Cyrillic. Here are two names Josip Jelačić and Ivan Mažuranić [49].

That argument is completely baseless. It's like saying since the Nazi's barred the use of Hebrew in Jewish schools, that means Hebrew was around in Berlin, so Hebrew deserves to be in the lede.--Jesuislafete (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is the statement of former Croatian president Stjepan Mesić from 2009 while he still was president. He told that he thinks that return of Cyrillic in Croatia he considered as a logical step. He also told that "man who can follow the literature written in Cyrillic is in the true sense literate".[50]--MirkoS18 (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

No one cares what former Croatian president Stjepan Mesić said. It has no relevance to Wikipedia. --Jesuislafete (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

(In responce to the above: I'm not a particularly big fan of the fact that the Italian name for Ljubljana is a relevant and useful addition to the article about the city given how it came to be relevant and useful. This, however, is beside the point that it now is relevant and useful. I don't know about the rest of you but I'm not on Wikipedia to fight a conflict which ended a long time ago (or ones which may still be raging for that matter), I'm here to help provide a useful resource.) IMO if these historical biasses can not be put aside I think a third party should make a final decision on the matter. There can't be a nationalistic conflict on Wikipedia, IMHO that's simply unacceptable. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 09:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Was there ever a dispute about the Italian at Ljubljana? Did everyone ever dispute it, saying a few years under Italian occupation hardly warrants an insert? I don't think Italian should automatically be inserted because of a WWII issue. --Jesuislafete (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The fact is that these alternate names are encyclopedic content and may well be the very piece of information the reader is looking for. The issue being discussed here has nothing to do with WWII but is based on what I understand to have been a decades long substantial Serb presence in the area concerned. This is sufficient to warrant the addition of an extra word to the lead. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 20:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I returned Cyrillic names in articles where were deleted. These are settlements listed in article Serbs of Croatia#Population II. These are 4 of 21 Croatian counties, 54 of 429 croatian municipalities and 17 of 127 croatian cities. So it looks like that if we apply criterias that I used at start of discussions. It is the largest possible number and therefore does not seem to me as justified criticism that it is mass adding. I repeat also that my proposal for compromise is still offered. To say something is controversial and then just delete that on that basis is untruth. Make this change [51], it is even maliciously.--MirkoS18 (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Responding to this last comment of Joy (which can be possibly lost in the discussion as it is discontinued), no, we don´t need any particluar law or governament emendement on this issue. That is just an excuse. Do we have a law mentioning latin in the places where it is named? No we don´t. An ammountable existing minority or historical link is enough for including it. In case you have a Croatian name for some place in Serbia with ammountable Croatian minority living there you would be welcome to add the Croatian name of the place. The only problem is that it is allmost allways corresponding to the article title (or call it local Serbian name) thus its addition of Croatian version is unfunded. However, Serbian uses primarely a different scrypt, and thus the inclusion of Serbian Cyrillic version. You may see it as unfair if you see it in a competitive Serbs vs Croats perspective, but that is the case. FkpCascais (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not change pages while discussion is still ongoing. As you see, there is strong disagreement here. The fact that you state that you are purposely using only your criteria speaks for itself. And yes, your edits are controversial. You are adding what majority Croatian users see as unnecessary and inflammatory. Once again, in danger of sounding like a broken record--1% of Croatian population lists Serbian as their mother tongue. --Jesuislafete (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry to say this, but lets not forget that this is not Croatian wikipedia, and Croatian users are only a minor part of the participants on en.wikipedia just as Serbs are. Articles dealing with Croatian subjects are not made to Croatian readers neither they should be limited to what Croatian readers find correct or not "inflamatory". Same applies to any nationality. Also, same as you say that seing Serbian Cyrillic is "inflamatory" to "majority of Croatian users", so we could say that removing it can be seen as "inflamatory" to "majority of Croatian Serb users", which btw, many were forcebly removed from their homes in Croatia, just as Croatian civilians also suffered from the Serbian side during the war... Anyway, it was 20 years ago... Jesuislafete, please don´t make this a nationalistical issue. You simply can´t use as argument the fact that many Croatian users simply don´t like this... Wrong argument. I simply don´t care what some nationalists like or not. And with regard to the 1%, it really doesn´t matter in my view and is no argument to totally exclude it... FkpCascais (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You are making all of this a big deal, when in fact is not. The languages listed there are basically mostly understood somehow as "foreign language names of the places". It is only about the inclusion at the lede section within bracketts. FkpCascais (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

FkpCascais, why didn't you remind everyone the sky is blue while you were at it, because no one here ever suggested that Wikipedia was only for Croatian users. The only reason I mentioned majority of Croatian users found his edits unnecessary and inflammatory is because 1) They are because he is inserting Serbian Cyrillic into Croatian pages in with Serbs are only 10% of the population 2) Removing Cyrillic is not inflammatory because it was never there in the first place until now. Serbian is only the mother tongue of 1% of the population 3) You cannot accuse users of being nationalistic for removing Cyrillic from Croatia pages. If an edit is unnecessary, excessive, or irrelevant, than a Wikipedia user has an obligation to remove it. It is not nationalistic to respond to Serbianisation of Croatian articles: if a user decided that the Croatia page needed to have Serbian Cyrillic in the lede because it is a minority language, it is not nationalistic or inflammatory to remove it. If anyone is making this a nationalistic issue, it is you and MirkoS18. That is an easy word to throw around at someone you don't agree with on the other side. --Jesuislafete (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You are making all of this a big deal, when in fact is not. Funny, I thought this of you. Why am I accused of making a big deal, but you are not?--Jesuislafete (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The languages listed there are basically mostly understood somehow as... Read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) to see what languages are there fore. In Croatian pages, historical (only German/Hungarian/Italian for the historically significant towns) and ethnic majority are both used.--Jesuislafete (talk) 02:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact is that Mirko added Cyrillic to more articles then the ones that had it before, but also other users removed it from the places where it was included... We had a number of articles where it was included for long time (we even discussed this in the past, remember?) but the problem is that possitions radicalised now, its all or nothing, and I never supported that. I am not saying we should add Cyrillic to every place with one Serb there, but neither I agree that it becomes removed from everywhere. FkpCascais (talk) 02:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's solve that last bit, where did the long time used Cyrillic get removed from? Was it perhaps by accident? I don't recall that, but can you list them? In case they were removed by accident, then they should be reinstated. --Jesuislafete (talk) 02:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, just curious, what do you think is an acceptable rule? I don't remember you saying a specific number before, but if you don't think 50% is appropriate, then what is? --Jesuislafete (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

We had this user that removed it from everywhere, and that was what first caught my attention. Anyway, I honestly think 10% is OK for the lede. What I mean by saying that it is not a big deal is that it is not as if the town was "serbian" or something, just because they mention the Serbian version of the name. It is quite usual to have towns including minority languges and even Latin. Historical languages are often included even if there is no speaker of that langauge present in that town anymore... FkpCascais (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

(IvanOS's edits look like they were quickly undone and he didn't bother anymore. Those types of edits where a new(er) user comes by and adds/deletes material can be rather common. It's happened before, and will happen again.) Now for the second point. 1) You could argue the same thing with adding Cyrillic to the Croatia page. Adding it doesn't make the country "serbian" as you say, but how is it significant? 2) 10% seems a very low number for a minority language used by 1% of the population to have. 3)Once again, archaic or historical languages like Latin or Hungarian are used because they are used by at least 10% of sources in the English language. Centuries or millenniums of influence are the basis for them. --Jesuislafete (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, but Serbian presence in nowadays Croatia backs centuries ago. Not including the recent period of Krajina (1991-1995 where Serbian was official language), or Yugoslav period with Serbo-Croatian, including the even more "Serbianising" royal period, we have the fact that the ammount of Serbs and Croats in the Croatian Military Frontier was almost equal, that Serbian had a recognised statute within Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and Kingdom of Dalmatia and even earlier in the Kingdom of Slavonia. If you notece Serbian language has a long presence, mostly in the same regions where the same minority still has some reduced presence nowadays. FkpCascais (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Just to add my 2 cents. As far as I am concerned, it is very logical that municipalities with a Serbian minority should have the Cyrillic version of their name in brackets in the lede, and such a format is very commonplace indeed on Wikipedia. Where I draw the line is using Cyrillic in the infoboxes without Cyrillic being used in the official name of the municipality or in its statute. Regarding that, it may be helpful to refer to the previous Croatian-Italian consensus on the infoboxes of the bilingual Istrian municipalities (e.g.), where the municipalities do use Italian in the infobox - but only if it is accompanied with a reference to the municipality statute which uses the bilingual name. Regards --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so since Jewish presence has been centuries in Germany and Poland, does that mean Berlin, Krakow and other German and Polish geographic pages need to have Yiddish in the lede? Your argument still falls flat. And a failed 4 year "state" that expelled all its non-Serb people is not an example of how Cyrillic deserves a spot int he lede. No, Serbian language did not have a presence in any of those states, because looking it was virtually the same as the Croatian language. The only difference is the use of the Cyrillic script, and there is no evidence that shows it had any impact on the region. So do you think every city in Slovenia with a Serb population needs to have Cyrillic because of the Royal Yugoslavia period? I feel I am repeating myself. And no, I still do not see any reason to have Serbian Cyrillic (a minority language) on vast amounts of English language Croatian geographic pages. --Jesuislafete (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

In Slovenia it would be just Hungarian, Italian and Romani language by my favorite European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (: .--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

(I see the changes made in Istria infobox, that is good to know, but here the issue is about the lede only, I think.) What significance does Cyrillic writing have on English Wikipedia? It cannot be read by English speakers, and is not found in 10% of sources in the English language as stated in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). By the way, where does the "cutoff" apply for minority pages? 40%? 36%? Or 10% as two users here seem to think? --Jesuislafete (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is interesting discussion and here is my opinion about this issue: I think that it would be fair that Serbian name is used in lead sentence and in the infobox in the articles about settlements and municipalities in Croatia with Serb majority. For example, similar solution is implemented in articles about places and municipalities in Serbia with Hungarian majority (see for example Senta). Regarding the places and municipalities in Croatia with Croat majority, I think that similar usage of Serbian name there (either in lead sentence or in the infobox) is not appropriate and that such articles should rather have "Name" section, where all other names of that settlement/municipality could be mentioned (article Vukovar would be a good example of this). PANONIAN 19:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Official ruling needed

I find it hard to see the significance of adding Serbian Cyrillic to pages such as Nijemci with a 10% Serb population that User:MirkoS18 keeps doing. (If anything, that page should have a German translation since it was populated by Danube Schwabians and literally translates to "Germans".) It is not relevant to have a Cyrillic version of the original name in English Wikipedia. I don't understand the apparent randomness of these insertions. Is there an administrator that has experience with foreign language naming? Perhaps it's time for an official rule on this subject. --Jesuislafete (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you and I also think that recent behavior of User:MirkoS18 is rather example of WP:POINT than of constructive contribution. PANONIAN 20:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed It seems obvious that there is no consensus on the horizon here. Outside input is required. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 21:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to see if there is a user that has experience with foreign language names. --Jesuislafete (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

I would like to propose this: perhaps we can create an article named Serbian exonyms (Croatia) and list all Serbian Cyrillic names for places in Croatia there instead in each settlement/municipality article. In that way, if someone want to know Serbian Cyrillic name of each place, he would be able to find it in that article, where usage of these names would not be so controversial issue. PANONIAN 20:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is these are most certainly not exonyms. There are (in the vast majority of cases) no differences whatsoever between the Serbian and Croatian language toponyms. The issue is only about the usage of the Cyrillic alphabet. Using a different alphabet does not by any means create an exonym. One might as well write a toponym in Chinese characters and call it a "Chinese exonym". I do not think it is in accordance with WP:N to create an article solely for the purpose of writing various names in a different alphabet.

I for one do not see the problem with simply mentioning the Cyrillic transliteration in the lede of those settlements that have a 10% or above Serbian minority. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I see a problem in that it does not seem relevant when, as you said before, it is just a translation from the Latin. It is rarely used, and it's importance to English readers is low. Plus why 10%? Where did that number even come from? What is wrong with the original 50%?--Jesuislafete (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not "just a translation" but actually an inclusion of a different language name in its own alphabet. The fact that Serbian is written in both scrypts (Cyrillic and Latin) and that Cyrillic has a priority means only that for cases where Croatian and Serbian Latin names match (the vast majority in this particular case of places in Croatia) we use the (Serbian Cyrillic: Ђ) template, and where they don´t we use the (Serbian: Ђ/Dj) template including both. FkpCascais (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

@Fkp. Actually they are not "translations" at all, they're transliterations. And no, one cannot create an exonym simply by writing a toponym in a different alphabet.

Jesuislafete to me it looks like we have opposing positions founded on the same argument: "its just a transliteration". I have no problem with including it because its just a transliteration, you think there's no need for it because its just a transliteration. Which shows very nicely how its an entirely subjective question. It is, however, reasonable to assume that Serbian people in those settlements do use the Cyrillic alphabet, and since the inclusion criteria for the lede brackets are in general very relaxed (even including extinct languages noone uses at all) to me it seems logical to include the transliteration.

I guess so, but mostly what I was trying to say was that since there is no difference in "translation" (e.g. Biograd na moru is not translated to Beograd in Serbian) there was Cyrillic was obsolete (in part due to lack of usage in public, government, courts, etc.) I agree with that last part: you can come up with two different conclusions from the same thing.--Jesuislafete (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I would also suggest that we do not use the words "Serbian Cyrillic", as the former is unnecessary and may be considered provocative, but instead simply use the Wikilink "Cyrillic" (that links to the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet article). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

"The inclusion criteria for the lede brackets are in general very relaxed". But they can't be relaxed beyond WP:V. In particular, the use of syllogism-like reasoning (i.e. 1) Serbs live in these places, and 2) Serbs use Cyrillic, therefore 3) those place names should/may appear in Cyrillic too) can not be a valid substitute for WP:BURDEN. GregorB (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I was about to respond to the above, but your example syllogism sums it up nicely :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Gregor, you can´t say that the argument "Serbs live in these places" is syllogism because of the simple fact that Croatian governament recognises Serbian language as an official minority language preciselly because of those places. I supose that is undisputable, as this didn´t happend certainly because of some other reason, like historical, or whatever else, but because of the actual existence of the minority. Also, Serbian language uses primarely the Cyrillic alphabet, so it is not a matter of "serbs use it/it may appear"... Direktor, I disagree with the replacement of [] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: no text (help) template by simple "Cyrillic", speacially because of the reason you provide. The sensitivity and nationalist sentiment should indeed be ignored in this discussion, otherwise this would become an out-of-context endless story (Serbian minority in Croatia is not obligated to renounce their rights because of any "sensitivities", just as no other nationality is either). FkpCascais (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree its a syllogism, but I would not say we need a source for it (WP:V). Really its such small edit and since there is a logic behind it, I don't see anything contentious. Anyway those are my 2 cents. (P.s. sorry for the Joy/Jesuislafete mixup up there, both your names start with a J so my brain just sort of went "close enough" :D) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

MirkoS18 has actually provided this document where it is clearly said that in the municipalities of Jagodnjak, Šodolovci, Biskupija, Borovo, Negoslavci, Markušica and Trpinja Serbian language and scrypt are in official use and have equal status as Croatian language. I am not sure if there are more municipalities, or weather there were any updates since the document was published. Anyway, this will mean that in these municipalities the Serbian Cyrillic version should be included in the infobox as well. FkpCascais (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

But that's the whole point of minority languages as stated by article 5 on language use? I don't understand this zealousness of only Serbian language applying--what about the role of Hungarian or German (or others)? Does Serbian have president over any other minority language if you are arguing on basis of minority language rights? --Jesuislafete (talk) 05:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I am scanning the document, and I assume you are looking at the "Uporabe manjinskog jezika u jedinicama lokalne i podrucne (regionalne) samouprave" section that begins at page 22 and goes through each county's municipalities/towns/villages that use the minority languages? One example is the Sisak county's Serb language: "U Opcinama Dvor i Gvozd statutima je uvedena ravnopravnauporaba srpskog jezika i cirilicnog pisma." Another is Bjelovar-Bilogora county which has Czech: "Opcina Koncanica obvezna je primjenjivati Zakon o uporabi jezika i pisma i to u odnosu na cešku nacionalnu manjinu, buduci da na podrucju Opcine ima 46,67% pripadnika ceške nacionalne manjine."

Are you suggesting using the document's lists of towns using minority languages in local government for the rule? Meaning put all minority languages mentioned in the doc. on the geographic pages? I can't look over the whole thing now, but if the document is legitimate, then perhaps something could be done. --Jesuislafete (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

We talked more specifically about Serbian because that was the initial subject we were discussing here, but basically, yes, in my view all minority languages should be included in their respective articles, of course. In these cases there should be the introduction of the name in the infobox, however the lede section usually has even wider acceptance. I just checked some exemples from Serbia, and Kovačica, a place where Serbian and Slovak are official and both are included in the lede (notece that the latin version is repeated despite the fact that Slovak and Serbian Latin versions are the same), and how many other languages are included in the lede. Same thing with Senta where Serbian and Hungarian are official and both included in the infobox, and in the lede, beside German and Romanian, even Turkish is included despite the non-existance of any Turkish minority in the area... These are just exemples where we can see inclusion criteriums in both: infobox and lede. The infobox case seems to have a strict official language criterium, but the lede section is much more liberal. FkpCascais (talk) 08:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no objections to Cyrillic settlement names if - and only if - there is a reliable source that confirms that said settlement belongs to a municipality where Serbian language and script have an officially recognized status. The same applies to other languages and settlement names other than historical ones (of course, these need to be sourced too). I really hope that we'll reach a consensus along these lines, unfortunately this discussion has not been too efficient... GregorB (talk) 10:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that language must have an official status on local level to be put in ifobox, but does not need to have official status that would go to the introduction part, and especially not in the Name part. This document can be used just for infoboxes and is not very useful for a use in introduction and Name section.--MirkoS18 (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I sincerely do not see what possible criteria we can use to include Cyrillic names in every article about every place in Croatia. Notability of these names for places with Serb majority is not disputed due to the fact that it is the language of majority of local inhabitants there, but what is a valid reason for inclusion of these names into articles about settlements in Croatia in which majority of population are Croats? Serbian language always translates foreign names and there are Serbian Cyrillic names not only for every place in Croatia, but for every place in the World. That certainly does not mean that we should include Serbian Cyrillic names in all Wikipedia articles about all places in the World. For example, there are as much as 400,000 Serbs in Chicago and usage of Serbian Cyrillic name in Wikipedia article about that city would be much more justified than usage in some articles about places in Croatia. If our goal here is to collect knowledge and to present it to readers then, by all means, the best place where readers could find Serbian exonyms would be some article whose main subject are Serbian exonyms (For example, I am often using article Turkish exonyms when I search for Turkish names of some cities). As I already said in some previous similar discussions, goal of Wikipedia is not implementation of minority rights and especially not agenda towards implementation of these rights. Or to put it like this: if Serbian names are not officially used in these settlements or if Serbs are not majority in these settlements, I do not see valid reason for inclusion of Serbian names into every article about places in Croatia. I fully understand reaction of some Croatian users towards this issue since usage of Serbian names for places in Croatia with Croat majority might recall memories of recent war and some projects for creation of Greater Serbia on Croatian soil. It is clear why this issue is controversial and, as I said, if we all only have goal to collect and present knowledge, then we can always do that in less controversial way. PANONIAN 19:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Panonian, no one here wants to impose Cyrillic in every Croatian article. Serbian Cyrillic should be included in the places where it shares official status (both, infobox and lede), and the rest is what we are discussing here, which is basically the lede inclusion. I don´t see any connection in this discussion to any past dramas, otherwise this discussion will be endless and Serbs could also claim that don´t want the inclusion of Hungarian for places in Vojvodina because of WWII and Austro-Hungarian period, etc. It is irrelevant I am sorry to say, and I really hope you don´t get me wrong, but seems to me that you totally missunderstood what is in question here and your comment is completely out-of-context :) FkpCascais (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, is there evidence that Serbian have official status in Stari Jankovci or Darda? (for example) PANONIAN 19:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

As for Vojvodina-related articles, I tried to keep usage of minority names there in NPOV scope, i.e. to use all minority names together (in which way we do not send message that one of the minorities is more important than another one). If you post Serbian name into an Croatia-related article without historical German, Hungarian, Latin or Turkish name that would not be NPOV approach. PANONIAN 19:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between languages with official status and the other ones. Languages with official status go to infobox and in the lede. That is why Slovak is included in Kovačica in the infobox along with Serbian but Hungarian it isn´t, or vice-versa in Senta case. The other languages go only into the lede section. Serbian has official status in Croatia only in a few places, and only in those should be included in the infobox (and lede, of course). I am getting the impression that we have a consensus about this inclusion for cases where we have sources backing the official usage of minoritarian languages (WP:V). Where we all disagree is about the rest of the places and allways only in the lede section, as in infobox it goes only when it has official status. Some propose including Serbian Cyrillic in the lede section for places with more that 10% of Serbs, some propose with more than 33.3%, some propose majority, some propose never... FkpCascais (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Please anyone correct me if I made any wrong judgment. FkpCascais (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"There is a difference between languages with official status and the other ones." Might be true regarding layout - but is definitely not true regarding sourcing: everything has to be appropriately sourced. GregorB (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right, we are now trying to agree which number we should use for other municipalities, settlements and counties. I stand for 10%, some for 33%, some for 50% and some would even like to throw out that language from all these places. That is now a thing of talk, we all agree about the previous. I think that 10% is staffing level, since some other minorities in Croatia use lover level, but about that I obviously do not have consensus of other users.--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes Gregor, we already have this source dealing precisely about the status of each language in each municipality. The list of places where Serbian is in official use is: Jagodnjak, Šodolovci, Biskupija, Borovo, Negoslavci, Markušica and Trpinja (am I missing some?). That is for infobox use, now what about the lede. What do you propose? FkpCascais (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You mised Krnjak, Dvor, Gvozd, Vrhovine and Vojnić.--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Is it mentioned in this same document? FkpCascais (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course they are.--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That document is fine as a source. Frankly, I don't have an opinion on infobox vs lede. Might be both, as far as I'm concerned - that's how articles on settlements in Istria look like. I'm against criteria based on arbitrary thresholds. GregorB (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, sure. This means we agree that for places where the official use is sourced we add the minority language in both, infobox and lede. Great! That is one issue, the another one is that other countries seem to have a wider acceptance for lede inclusion only. To simplify things, we are proposing to include in the lede section (only) the Serbian Cyrillic version in places where Serbs have strong minority presence or cultural ties. Mirko initially proposed to add it (lede only) for places with more than 10% Serbian population. Timbuctou proposed for 33.3%. Some proposed majority of population. Some proposed never... For instance, in my view including it in Knin case would make sense (again, lede only), despite the fact that it has not official use there. Anyway, wherever we decide, it should be sourced (percentages of population, if it becomes accepted). FkpCascais (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• I also thought that it is wrong to ask any thresholds. I thought it was enough that that some threshold in my head is just higher than a few other examples on wikipedia. But some authors have insisted that we agree on some threshold. Proposals that were most mentioned were 10%, 33% and 50% (and of course to not put anything anywhere :D ). Some even mentioned that even 10% is too high percentage. However, despite the fact that none of us is a fan of arbitrary rules, discussion on this has evolved and we need to achieve some compromise solution. Most likely, that neither I nor you will not be completely satisfied but some decision should be made (at least I think so). Perhaps it is time to move to more creative things. All the best.--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• Yes it is also good to determine in which cases Serbian can be considered as historically important. Perhaps to state the specific places or something, but I'll leave others to agree how regulate that (as simple as possible, of course (: ).--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Use the document to determine which minority languages are official in which town/village. And be sure to include all the minority languages mentioned; when I have time later I'll add more or make sure they are sourced. I think that will be good. Please drop this 10% issue. A compromise has finally been settled, plus that is a random number with no basis for it found in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which applies the "10% google docs" search for relevance. --Jesuislafete (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

A compromise is not found if we work only on the basis of this document. For infobox and lead does not meet the same criteria. For infobox we need official use, but not for lead. And especially not in the section Name. So we need to agree criteria for Lead and Name.--Joy [shallot] ]] (talk) 12:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I do not agree with opinion that Serbian name should be included into infobox or first sentence of any article about places in Croatia with Croat majority. The only NPOV solution to this would be usage of "ethnic majority criteria" and inclusion of Serbian names into first sentences and infoboxes of those articles that speaking about settlements/municipalities with Serb majority. However, when we speak about settlements with Croat majority then the only NPOV way of usage of Serbian name would be "Name" section where such name would be listed together with other alternative names (German, Hungarian, Turkish, etc) and with eventual elaboration of meaning and origin of Croatian name. Of course, ethnic majority should be determined by the latest census, not by older outdated censuses. I will repeat that goal of Wikipedia is to collect and present knowledge in accurate and NPOV way and not to implement certain policies or political aims and aspirations. As for the examples of how these things are implemented in Serbia-related articles, I can say only that most of these articles are implementing the NPOV usage of these names. Presented examples (Kovačica and Senta) are exactly examples of places where ethnic minorities are in majority and therefore their names are used in the infoboxes and first sentences of these articles. However, if we see some examples of places with Serb majority (like Bačka Palanka and Žabalj), we clearly see where minority names are located. PANONIAN 10:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the Cyrillic inscriptions are unnecessary for infoboxes. In infoboxes should contain only official language in the country, which in this case is Croatian. --Ivan OS 16:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

As much as you two disagree, you cant change the fact that in certain places Serbian has official status, and therefore, all the right to be included. FkpCascais (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

FkpCascais, this is the fifth time it has been pointed out to you that the Serbian language ≠ Cyrillic alphabet. In fact, it is general knowledge that the Abeceda is actually predominant in everyday common usage when compared to the Azbuka among Serbs (even in spite of Cyrillic being more commonly used in official state documents). The Serbian language version of the names already IS included in the infoboxes, but the inclusion of the Cyrillic alphabet transliteration is unnecessary, provocative, non-consensus, and will be reverted. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

As matter of fact, Serbian language is primarely written in Cyrillic, and the mention of the scrypt is included in the document (please read it). As much requests of help and solidarity that you receve on your talk page, you simply can´t ignore the official decitions. However you are free to oppose the inclusion of Serbian Cyrillic for places where it doesn´t have official status. FkpCascais (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I can oppose whatever I find unreasonable, FkpCascais.

Let me spell it out here. Common infobox practices on WIkipedia are determined exclusively through user consensus. There is precedent with respect to consensuses with the Istrian Italian communities, where we use the hyphenated Croatian-Italian format in the infobox. Why do we use the hyphenated Croatian-Italian format? Because that is the official name of the settlements. The official name of Pula in state documents is (unfortunately) "Pula-Pola" [52]. Unless you can show that these settlements are also referred to in the same way e.g. "Jagodnjak-Јагодњак", you can essentially forget about the Istrian format. But even if that were the case, and state documents used "Jagodnjak-Јагодњак", you would still need to achieve consensus on such a basis here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The consensus for the places where it has official status has already been archived. FkpCascais (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

There is consensus for the inclusion of Cyrillic into settlement infoboxes? Diff please? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, and if you read this discussion back, you will notece that GregorB and Jesuislafete agreed to the inclusion, both infobox and lede, for the places in which Serbian language and scrypt have official status, determined by this document. I beleave Joy [shallot] wanted to see a clear inclusion criterium, similarly to GregorB, and once the document was presented, he didn´t opposed. Timbouctou supported the use in places where Serbs make up more then 33.3%. And MirkoS18 and myself obviously support the inclusion of places where it helds official status. You DIREKTOR initially also supported the inclusion in these cases, not sure why you changed your mind today... (Perhaps some pressure on your talk page?). Btw, the places where it has official status are: Jagodnjak, Šodolovci, Biskupija, Borovo, Negoslavci, Markušica, Trpinja, Krnjak, Dvor, Gvozd, Vrhovine and Vojnić. FkpCascais (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Istria is a special case as we know, as administratively and in government, things are bilingual. I believe infoboxes are only supposed to use official names. Other names (historical, archaic, minority) should be added in a "name". Otherwise, just view it as Serbian or Serbocroatian Latin --Jesuislafete (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh really? Quite ironical to hear you saying this, as just in last April you were heatedly arguing how Serbian does not use Latin scrypt... See the edit summary you wrote on this edit of yours. Aren´t you being a bit inconsistent with your arguments and changing them as you need on each ocasion? FkpCascais (talk) 03:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• sigh* My friend, do you not understand a bit of sarcasm when you see it? --Jesuislafete (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

An attempt to summarize current debate

In previous discussions we resolve following matters that were open and we thus come close to the final closure of debate. These are matters about which there is consensus:

1. Minority languages ​​in Croatia are all languages mentioned in European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, based on the decision of the Croatian Government when signing that document (subsequently included languages if there are any).

2. Minority languages ​​are used in Wikipedia. There are more ways to use minority languages. The following suggestions apply when it comes to settlements in Croatia.

3. In villages, municipalities and other units in which one of the minority languages ​​is in official use this language should be states in lead (If there is no specific section about name) and infoboxes.

4. In Serbian language it is sufficient to write version of name in Cyrillic. Cyrillic has priority in the Serbian language and is sufficient for meeting rules about minority languages. Latin version is identical to Croatian language. However, because of this compromise, Cyrillic in this case is not considered as transliteration.

5. In discussions about percentages we talk about percentages of a minority and not percentages of speakers which is consistent with laws of Croatia.

6. For all minority languages we ​​apply the same criterias.

However, it is necessary to solve two more things before the end of debate are and I propose the following:

7. The use of minority languages ​​in settlements where they are not official we should determine what percentage we will use. Since the proposals were 10-50%, decisions will be found in this range. Until then, it will be applied 50% (just in intro or Name section). The final decision should be made within a reasonable time.

8. It should be determined historic use of minority languages. There is no need to use completely the same criteria for each language. However, they should be as similar as possible.

I hope that this compromise (last two points), even if it might only postpone some of things, is now acceptable to all of us.--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. If anyone opposes to any of the points presented by MirkoS18 he should adequatelly express his disagreement and state the exact points and reasons (personal opinions will not be considered). FkpCascais (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Look, as far as I am concerned it is reasonable to use Cyrillic in the lede, practically wherever you like, add it in Загреб for all I care. However, inclusion of the Cyrillic transliteration in infoboxes is too much, especially since the Serbian language version is already included in there and it is unnecessary to just add another alphabet for the sake of national pride. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Disagree with MirkoS18. For a settlement name (other than a historic name) to appear alongside Croatian, one might reasonably expect it to be in a language that has an official status in said settlement/municipality, as supported by reliable sources. Arbitrary cutoffs - 50% or any other percentage - can't be used as a substitute for WP:RS. Per WP:BURDEN, editors are free to challenge and remove all unsourced pieces of information. GregorB (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Strongly against. Krnjak = Крњак = Krnjak completely unnecessary.--Sokac121 (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait, Gregor, the places where Serbian (and its scrypt) have official status are: Jagodnjak, Šodolovci, Biskupija, Borovo, Negoslavci, Markušica, Trpinja, Krnjak, Dvor, Gvozd, Vrhovine and Vojnić. This fact is backed by this official document which I beleave we already analised and accepted. We also agreed that for these cases where exists official status, there should be inclusion in infobox and lede (you said it yourself). Gregor, could you please just confirm me if we are OK about this that I just said? As for the rest I understand you are against, no problem. My only question is, would you oppose the inclusion in lede (only) for places where Serbs make a majority (sourced of course)? FkpCascais (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

@Sokac121, I am really sorry, but "completely unnecessary" is not a valid argument. FkpCascais (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with adding the Cyrillic place names for the places you listed, per that PDF source. This is fairly straightforward. I must say I'm still against adding the Cyrillic place names for other settlements, regardless of their ethnic composition. GregorB (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the clarification GregorB. FkpCascais (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

But just what do you propose for places such as Srijemske Laze, Klisa, Osijek-Baranja County, Vinkovački Banovci, Banovci, Vukovar-Syrmia County... In them minority is in absolute majority, and language is in use. Do you think that there should not be included minority languages in lead? For me it does not seem like a sensible move.--MirkoS18 (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt language is in use, but is it in official use, and do we have a source that says so? GregorB (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Here's the December 2009 government-issued pdf report listing the status of minority languages in all municipalities. The version MirkoS18 and FkpCascais are using is the same sort of report on the same subject compiled by the same institution, but dated August 2006. All the laws and regulations are explained in there as well. Chapter 1 lists all municipalities and towns which have met the legal requirements for minority language to have official status via 2001 census (33.3%) and gives an overview of what has been done in that regard in each individual municipality. Chapter 2 lists all other municipalities which have legally proscribed the right to minority language either on the municipality level or in selected settlements within it.

• Srijemske Laze is a settlement (not a unit of local government) within Stari Jankovci municipality (a unit of local government), which in turn is not listed in the pdf at all (I checked). According to 2001 census Stari Jankovci municipality has 23% of Serb population. It is also not a member of Joint Council of Municipalities. This makes it pretty unlikely that Cyrilic script is in any kind of official use there.
• Klisa is a settlement (not a unit of local government) within the City of Osijek (a unit of local government), which in turn is not listed in the pdf at all (I checked). According to 2001 census Osijek has 7.6% of Serb population. It is also not a member of Joint Council of Municipalities. This makes it pretty unlikely that Cyrilic script is in any kind of official use there.
• Vinkovački Banovci and Banovci are settlements (not units of local government) within the Nijemci municipality (a unit of local government), which is actually listed in the pdf, chapter 2 (p. 20). It says that Serbs in the settlements of Banovci and Vinkovački Banovci are entitled to "use their language in the area of the settlement that they live in", according to the Nijemci municipality statute. This means it is possible, and probably likely, that Cyrilic script is in some kind of official use there. Timbouctou (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Two things: 1) Don't forget to alphabatise the languages when listing them. I'm finding myself going back and fixing orders 2) there is still an arguement over infobox names and what belongs there. I looked at some cities in Vojvodina and found that Zrenjanin, Novi Sad, Pančevo, Kikinda, Bačka Palanka, Sremski Karlovci, and others do not have other minority languages in the infobox when it is known that Vojvodina actually has multiple official languages. --Jesuislafete (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

See Istria also. And I think it was clear that mentioned places are just vilages in other municipalities, that is reason why I ask.--MirkoS18 (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Since in different we can not agree, I accept the suggestion that we keep these reports. The minority language I will write in infobox and lead what I will cite with sources. However, I would ask you for help with the implementation of such an agreement since user IvanOS constantly destroy my work what has caused the whole debate. I think that this is even more than compromise, so we can proceed to its implementation. For any worse proposal than this I will seek outside help, since it would not be acceptable. I think it's now your turn to show good will and help me in implemention of agreed. Have a nice day/night.--MirkoS18 (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Mirko I've had enough of the edit-warring, I'll bring this up on WP:ANI should you not stop now. Infobox changes are instituted through consensus. Before you achieve consensus do not enter your proposed changes. Do not edit-war again or you will be reported. You have violated WP:3RR on numerous articles all over Wiki and it is possible you will be sanctioned should your behavior be brought-up on admin noticeboards.

As regards the Istrian case. We use the hyphenated Croatian-Italian format because that is the official name of the settlements. The official name of Pula in use in (most) state documents is actually "Pula-Pola". Unless you can show that these settlements are also referred to in the same way e.g. "Jagodnjak-Јагодњак", you can essentially forget about the Istrian format as a relevant precedent. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Opposed to Cyrillic in infoboxes. The addition of the Cyrillic transliteration alongside the Croatian and Serbian(!) name forms in the infoboxes is, in my view, completely unnecessary, provocative, and has no basis in either official or common use. Since this is an arbitrary issue entirely concerning Wikipedia practice (i.e. not a factual dispute), I propose we conduct a survey of participants' views on the subject, and hopefully move slowly on to the conclusion. (Mirko, while you should steer well clear of WP:CANVASSING, if you feel that it is necessary to notify more users you can always place an invitation on relevant noticeboards.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict; seems direktor has wrote something while I was writting my comment. Whatever it is, my comment stays as it was)

• @Timbouctou, many thanks for providing a more recent document, and welcome back.
• @Jesuislafete, the case of languages in Vojvodina is that different languages have official status in different municipalities, and as far as I noteced, most articles use the correspondent minority language for its local municipality in the infobox, while in lede many languages are included beside their official status.
• @MirkoS18, in case someone appears changing the edits that were agreed here, you will have the chance to revert him and point him out the consensus archived here, and invite him to renounce edit-warring and to express his eventual disagreement here where it can be discussed. If he reverts again, insted of re-reverting please bring the case here and we will find the solution as community.

• I will just like to add the following: by "alphabetise" I supose Jesuislafete was refering to WP:PLACE, a policy he mentioned in a conversation with PANONIAN. Thank you Jesuislafete for reminding us all about that policy as it is important in this context and which resumingly says that the order for the languages to be ordered is the alphabetical one. However, I beleave this applies for the lede part only. For the infobox, I will actually like to say that for the case we are discussing here, even if hypotetically Croatian was not alphabetically prior to Serbian, I would find correct to have Croatian on top and others alphabetically ordered afterwords, as Croatian is the national official language. So in infobox, Croatian would go top in my view anyway.

• Said this, I will like to ask you gentleman if we could just consider including the Serbian Cyrillic name (only in the lede) in Knin, as it has some high degree of importance for the community? I am not sure what DIREKTOR wrote, I only noteced "Oppose! Oppose!", however if anyone else wants to propose anything he may be welcomed, but from my side this would be all and I will gladly see this finished and move on hoping that the efforts of all of us here will serve for preventing any edit-wars in the future. Lijepo hvala i sretan Božić svima! (Translation: Many thanks and marry Christmas to all!) FkpCascais (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I read now the show of threats, bold unrelated policies and disturbing hypothetical proposals. Direktor, your participation here is quite disturbing. You started this discussion by opposing the removal of Serbian, then you switched 180º after you were asked to do it at your talk page by the obvious disruptive editor (admited by all here) that brought absolutely no valid source or argument to the discussion, but was hopping that you will help him by out of discussion or consensus building, as it is clear in his comment there. So now that a consensus is archived you decide that we shall have nothing better to do on this Christmas weekend but to discuss here with you over and over again the same things already discussed and agreed by all. Listen, as you can confirm in the document, what Croatian governament atributes as minority official language to Serbs is their language and their scrypt, clearly refering to acknolledge Cyrillic in this case. Also, if you actually read the source, it says that administrative stamps are written including Croatian and Serbian Cyrillic. So marry Christmas to you too. FkpCascais (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's all very nice FkpCascais, just please keep out non-consensus additions of Cyrillic in settlement infoboxes. If users generally agree to Mirko's hyphenated "Latin-Cyrillic" format, I'll yield and will not oppose it further, but as long as it is opposed and without consensus, then I'm sorry, but trying to push it in by edit-warring for days on end on six or seven articles will be reported. You can call it "threats" if you like, but I am not an admin and I can't sanction anyone. The fact that you characterize a report as "threatening" only means you realize that the activities in question are serious and actionable. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

But we agree on that, you and IvanOS only do not agree. This format was already in use. Your last inclusion is malicious since final agreement is nearly reached. Both sides have made major concessions, if you now try to destroy that I will give up curent proposal and will return to the initial proposal and I will look for allies for that proposal. See answer on my talk to.--MirkoS18 (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I cannot see where there is any sort of general agreement to use Cyrillic in the infobox. Even a superficial glance shows three or four opposing users. I do not see what real concessions you've made: you're still pushing Cyrillic in both the article lede and the infobox. The infobox format is only "in use" because you have breached WP:3RR in a half-dozen articles to put it in use. With regard to proposals, I will support virtually any proposal that does not push the Cyrillic transliterations of the Serbian and Croatian name form into infoboxes. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Why comment and not just yes or no? Because lot of policies on en wiki already does not make sense at all. To stay on subject, on hr wiki we do not use (to my best knowledge) alternate spellings/writings of toponyms in infoboxes, but we include them in first sentence of the article, if that settlement (city/town/village/whatever) have minority large enough to have street signs bilingual/trilingual/whatever as defined by Constitution. You have to have in mind purpose of infoboxes - summarization of most important facts article speaks of, and not all numerical or other facts. Users often forget that and infoboxes are sometimes longer than page, which is absurd. If somebody have in mind that larger places already have articles on many different Wikipedia projects, and that members of some minority would check/read articles on Wikipedia of language(s) they prefer/their mother languages, then function of alternate spelling/writing in infobox becomes meaningless as interwiki links suffice, and even alternate names in first sentence could be seen as meaningless. On en wiki I would go for one or at most two names in infobox (only Croatian name if used also in English, English and Croatian if names differ), and in first sentence could be mentioned all. To have all names in infobox? Not needed, but if anybody wants it, you can have it. Hopefully you'll show same effort on all language Wikipedias, both latinic, cyrilic, asiatic and all other scripts, so everybody all around the world could see that some place is bilingual/trilingual/something, and that that fact is not clear enough (for somebody) if stated in first sentence of article and in demography section but it should be also pointed out in infobox. Absurd, but en wiki has its fair share of absurdity already so that wouldn't neither surprise me nor shock me. At the end, merry Christmas to all users who observe it! SpeedyGonsales 19:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

County of Lika-Senj, Municipalties Vrhovine (The Croatian Bureau of Statistics (CBS) 2001 census.), 905 inhabitant, Population by mother tongue Croatian 799 (88,29%), Croatian- Serbian 44 (4,86%), Unknown 22 (2,43%), Serbian- Croatian 21 (2,32%), Albanian 8 (0,88%), Serbian 8 (0,88%), Bosniac 1 (0,11%), Macedonian 1 (0,11%). Because 0.88% insert Cyrillic? Does the Albanian name for Vrhovine? :)--Sokac121 (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:NCGN English names should be used. And English names are Croatian names in this case. You people have long unuseful debate about nothing. This is English wikipedia and not Croatian constitute about rights of minorities in Croatia. Zenanarh (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

One correction: the English name is actually equivalent with both the Serbian and Croatian names. The thing that is being proposed is the addition of the Cyrillic transliteration, with the Serbian name already in there all along. I.e. it is even less justified than would be the case if the Serbian and Croatian names were hypothetically different. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello people, I was not here so much in last few day so I couldnt answer till now. First correction to Direktor last comment-In municipalities we talk about Cyrillic version of Serbian language is official, Serbian Latin has no official status. The name is placed in official name part of infobox and they even in the Latin are not the same općina/opština. If you have names in both languages ​​but in Latin than we should write Croatian/Serbian:Erdut, Hungarian:sth.Although only Cyrillic version is official. Now answer for Zenanarh, use of other scripts and languages ​​are widely widespread on Wikipedia. Minority names in infobox are not a new proposal, we use them for several months. Also,we do not use percentage of speakers of language, but the percentage of a group. According to this logic, most of minority languages ​​will be removed (you can find the article above what I mean). Who Can adjustin in fobox part official languages?--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way Direktor, even this explanation you try now give is a little strange. Serbian language is already included partially with Latin script but we should not put a name in the script which in this case has official status (at the same time as the Serbian Latin script does not)? So, there goes Serbian language by that, it just should not be clearly mentioned? I realy hope you did not think so, but it can be inferred from your comments?--MirkoS18 (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should only use English in the infoboxes; this is after all, English language Wikipedia and "Ličko-senjska županija" can be added to the lede for information, while 'Lika-Senj County' stays in the infobox.--Jesuislafete (talk) 08:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello people, I think I have completely new idea for solving infobox changes issue (some say it is good to change perspective :D). We can put column official language(s) in infobox? So we than dont have issue with transcription, and we put certainly useful information for readers. What do you think about it, perhaps it is solution of our problem?--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• I also ask for advice here Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Advice, so if they show interes maybe we will get sth useful.--MirkoS18 (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• And please also see this Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#General guidelines number 2, points 2,3 (1 and 2),4.--MirkoS18 (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem, we decided that Cyrillic is no place in the articles of Croatian villages.--Sokac121 (talk) 12:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

? We decided that there is no place for one official name at all? Well we did not decided that.--MirkoS18 (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

We get two independent opinions here Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Advice. They give opinion just on leade. For infobox see here Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#General guidelines number 2, points 4.--MirkoS18 (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) states: These are advice, intended to guide, not force, consensus; but they are the consensus of actual experience in move discussions.

That's written above numbers and points, just below General guidelines header. So if I see it right, if there is no particular agreed policy on something, (general) guidelines apply. As we here have a debate, only opinions written on this page are what counts, guidelines stated elsewhere are void when community reach a consensus. SpeedyGonsales 14:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Your comment would be totally correct in case we have a consensus, but we do not have it. We have quite different opinions about which we can not agree. In this case (no consensus), we can not (at least should not) decide to ignore such recommendations at all and that by force try to introduce totally different practice of total exclusion.--MirkoS18 (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Sorry I did not understand. Yes, we should apply criteria because we have no consensus agreement.--MirkoS18 (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Although I do not care much about this, it seems to me that:

• User:Jesuislafete, User:PANONIAN, User:DIREKTOR, User:GregorB, User:Joy, User:IvanOS, User:Timbouctou, User:Sokac121 and User:SpeedyGonsales have nothing against mentioning names of places in other languages or scripts in lead if that have ground in actual Croatian law about minorities and is sourced by valid documents of Croatian government (links to some are provided above).
• User:MirkoS18 and User:FkpCascais want names of places in other languages or scripts also in infobox, because they want it.

I am fully aware that what I wrote above is simplification, but anybody who have remarks against my simplification is free to correct me. I do not care enough to state that is consensus, but I'm calling everybody to prove that consensus is actually not reached here. SpeedyGonsales 15:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• User:Jesuislafete, User:Joy, User:Timbouctou want to use only Croatian law, or parts of law.
• User:DIREKTOR, User talk:U5K0 want to use Cyrillic wherever Serbs are more than 10% but not in infobox
• User:Sokac121, User:IvanOS do not want Cyrillic absolutely nowhere
• User:PANONIAN think we need special page with serbian names
• User:MirkoS18 and User:FkpCascais want names of places in other official languages or scripts also in infobox part official name, but I also proposed differen solution for infobox-change official name with official language(s).
• User:biblbroks think we dont need Croatian or Serbian but Serbo-croatian
• To me, it not seems as clear consensus.--MirkoS18 (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

@Mirko, you need a consensus for your new, proposed edit. Others do not need a consensus to oppose it. And you do not have a consensus. As for your post above, you really should start distinguishing between languages and scripts. The Cyrillic alphabet is not somehow a "part" of the Serbian language. The Serbian language would be the Serbian language even were it written in Arabic script, Chinese characters, or Cuneiform. That is to say, the Serbian language is present in the infoboxes. No question.

Republic of Serbia laws proscribe the use of the Latin alphabet (of Ljudevit Gaj) and Serbian Cyrillic as official in that state for representing the Serbian language. Republic of Serbia laws do not concern us in the least, however, but even if they did - Serbian is currently represented in one of the two of its alphabets. You, however, insist that Serbian be written in BOTH of its alphabets, which is just pushing it. In short, you perceive the Serbian and Croatian name written in Latin to be somehow "Croatian", while the Serbian and Croatian name written in Cyrillic you perceive as somehow "Serbian". This is what this infobox conflict is all about. Kindly understand that the Serbian language is present in the infoboxes, and stop trying to have your way in every single detail.

You've been warned I believe. Should you try once again to start edit-warring over this and to have your way by force, the original version will simply be restored with you likely blocked from editing. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Kindly understand that only cyrilic version have official status by statutes of those municipalities, not lati wersion of serbian language. Otherwise, it should be stated clearly that Serbian is official in those municipalities and places so if you have any suggestions? You may also comment on my proposal to write a section official language(s) in infobox.--MirkoS18 (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

also pleas explain how Serbian Latin is present in section official name where write Općina STH (Croatian) while in Serbian Latin it should write Opština STH?--MirkoS18 (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

There are no "versions". Its the same language, to write it in two different scripts does not make two different "versions" of a language. There is no "Latin Serbian" and "Cyrillic Serbian". Have we finally separated scripts and a languages?

Now then. You have not presented any sources that suggest Serbian officially uses only one alphabet "in those municipalities". Serbian is official there, yes, and is present in the infoboxes written in Latin, one of its customary scripts. If you wish to make a special note in the infobox of the fact that Serbian is official in those municipalities, that can easily be done, have a look.

As for "Opština" vs "Općina", that looks to me like a problem of your own making. That is to say, you've added that unnecessary translation into the infoboxes in the first place. The infobox of the articles already makes note of the fact that Jagodnjak, e.g., is a "municipality" (in the blue field). And the entry where we have the "Općina Jagodnjak" entry is the "official_name =" field, which was not intended to have a translation. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Example1
Municipality
Example1 Municipality Općina Example1 (hr, sr)
Official languages	Croatian, Serbian

Example2
Municipality
Official languages	Croatian, Serbian

I have, therefore, two proposals to finally end this mess:

• Example1 has the unnecessary "official name=" field, with its misplaced translations still present. On the side there are two language notes, as is usual practice in other similar infoboxes. Below we have an extra field specially created for official languages.
• Example2 is my favorite. Without the unnecessary "official name=" field with its misplaced translations. The "official name=" parameter is for the "official name in English" (as opposed to the common name in English). The common and official English (and Serbian/Croatian) names are the same with these settlements: the field is therefore unnecessary. The official language is especially noted in the custom category.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this sums up my views on the "official languages": "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship". --Jesuislafete (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

As much as some would like to avoid Cirillic, it is actually the main Serbian language scrypt and the official stamps of local mnicipalities use it when writting the Serbian version of the text. FkpCascais (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This is what is in wide use over WP and what was agreed earlier

Example1
Municipality
Example1 Municipality Općina Example1 (hr, Општина / Opština sr)
Official languages	Croatian, Serbian

If you notece, Serbian name version is to be written in minor letters, as minority language, in oposition to Croatian, the national official one. This goes along with Kovačica, for exemple. Also notece that DIREKTOR clearly failed to understand that Croatian latin Općina and Serbian latin Opština, are different, thus in this case we need the two versions of Serbian, Cyrillic and latin. FkpCascais (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

As much as some would like to push Cyrillic at all costs where it is completely unnecessary, I'm afraid the "official name" parameter is for English-language names and is obviously quite redundant. It is for the "official name in English", and is used only when the English-language official name is different from the English-langauge common name. That whole entry needs to go anyway, and its an easy way to solve the "Opština"/"Općina" problem that Mirko created in the first place by misusing the parameter.

Now, while I fully expect someone will invent another place wherein to stick Cyrillic, that sort of maneuvering is simply not something I myself can ever agree to. This affair has turned from a reasonable request to nationalist POV-pushing. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"Completelly unnecessary" is not a valid excuse in my view to disregard the correct wide-established use of official minoritarian languages. Also, Serbian name is different from the English name version, as it is primarely written in a different alphabet. Serbian language uses primarelly Cyrillic alphabet, and local authorities in Croatia also use it, as indicated in the official source.

You are right direktor, ignoring officially recognised minoritarian right and considering them "completelly unnecessary" is the most extreme and undesirable kind of nationalistic-POV pushing. FkpCascais (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Nadam se da vam neće smetati što ću se sad prebaciti na hrvatski (puno mi je lakše, a ako neko zaista ima puno vremena može da prevede). Mene sad zanima jedna stvar, imamo li mi koncenzus o ovakvom prijedlogu- u lead tih općuina i naselja gdje su jezici i pisma (Direktore oni su baš tako spomenuti u statutima, pa zar misliš da ovaj problem nije postojao u realnom životu) službeni da napišemo te verzije naziva (ponavljam, samo je ćirilični pisani oblik služben po statutima), a da u infobox ne stavljamo ni jedan osim engleskih naziva već da navedemo sekciju službeni jezici (mislim da je to ovaj vrlo kvalitetan 2. primjer Direktora). Ukoliko je to tako ja sam vrlo rad prihvatiti takav prijedlog jer mi se čini da se osigurava ravnopravan pristup. E sad još jedna stvar za lead, ja ipak mislim da bi u naseljima gdje imamo bar više od 50% pripadnika neke etničke zajednice trebali navesti naziv i na tom jeziku. Nije da je to sad neka moja luda ideja, dobio sam popriličnu potporu za to, a u jednom je trenutku čak i Direktor rekao da ne zna je li početnih 10% možda čak i previše. Naravno, tu se infobox ne bi dirao ni na koji način. Molim vas da mi kažete jesam li u pravu?--MirkoS18 (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Trebam još nešto reći, volio bih da se u slučaju prihvaćanja ovakvoga prijedloga (ovoga 2. koji zaista je dobar, iako je možda jezik prenisko naveden, ali to su već sitnice) to negativno ne odrazi na dosadašnju praksu sa Istrom, smatram da to trebamo jasno navesti kako se ovakav dogovor nebi zloupotrijebio u tom slučaju?--MirkoS18 (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually MirkoS18, while it may not bother us, you still have to use English when working on English Wikipedia so others can understand you. There is still strong disapproval of the Cyrillic--or any other--version in the infoboxes.

I was wondering when the phrase "nationalistic-POV pushing" would become the answer to the deductive reasoning (well if a equals c, then b must equal c...). FkPCascais, remember that the burden of proof is still on you. "Just because something is true, doesn't mean it belongs in Wikipedia". Croatia has several officially recognised minority languages: saying that they should not be used in the infoboxes does not mean one is nationalistic POV pushing. --Jesuislafete (talk) 10:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If the shoe fits.. anyway it looks like Mirko agrees with Example2 above, we use only the English names and make a custom entry for the official languages. FkpCascais of course won't agree but does anyone else have a problem with that? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Jesuislafete, would you please be kind and notece that it was DIREKTOR who brought in the accusation of "nationalistic POV pushing" into the discussion. Also, officially recognised minority rights have obvious place in WP articles. Mirko, Jesuislafete is right, please avoid using any other language than English on en.wiki. FkpCascais (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it's just that this phrase comes up A LOT (goes both ways). Lately more users have made an effort to stop using it since it's viewed as rather insulting. --Jesuislafete (talk) 03:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Then be sure to bring it up with the Wikipedia Minority Rights Infringement Court. Perhaps they will be more interested to hear your personal views. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

[53] See the picture nationalistic POV pushing.--Sokac121 (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

How is that related with this discussion? Can we please focus on the content discussed here? FkpCascais (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year-Srećna Nova Godina-Срећна Нова Година-Feliz Año Nuevo-Joyeux Nouvel An-С Новым годом...:D--MirkoS18 (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Its "Sretna Nova Godina" in Croatian ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not looked on that. Sretna Nova Godina!--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Rehash

The discussion seems over, and meanwhile, MirkoS18 has been warned by another administrator, and I have also warned User talk:IvanOS.

But, that had little effect. This morning Jesuislafete did a edit that shortened it (removing references) and moved it back to lead section, that in turn led to IvanOS' edit that moved the short version out of the lead, and then in turn MirkoS18 reverted to the longer non-lead-section version again.

You all need to stop running in circles because my patience is running out. Tread lightly. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake... using Cyrillic in the lede is perfectly fine. It is also perfectly acceptable to add information on the official languages of a municipality if they're neutrally written, accurate, and well sourced. Nobody can force Mirko not to add accurate information into the article. -- Director (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The thing I'm against in principle is removal of reasonably referenced text. If the English reader can benefit from the information that there's minority language in official use, particularly if it clarifies an early intro mention, it should stay. If there's another way to present this information that keeps the level of informativeness, for example if we just create a link to that law, I'm fine with that too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

This is particularly in response to Jesuislafete's Returning to standard agreed upon in WP:Croatia. I don't believe we ever agreed upon any standard that allows removal of valid references. You may be confused by the fact I complained against some bad references earlier, but that doesn't invalidate WP:V, it reinforces the spirit of the rule. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how reinserting the Cyrillic in the lead (by the way, which we agreed upon right here) which user Ivan has constantly taken out is of any problem. The only reason why user Mirko felt that he had to add a long explanation because of the edit war with user Ivan. He appears to have stopped, so I added it back into the lead which is standard according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) and what was agreed upon here. --Jesuislafete (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

And, if user Mirko really believes in having "referenced text" to back up the name that is fine. I felt it seemed excessive because it was in direct response to user Ivan's warring and seemed rushed and misspelled. --Jesuislafete (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. In any case, if anyone references and/or links Languages of Croatia, it should not be necessary to revert this because it doesn't actually hurt. I also saw some complaints about bad spelling - that can be a reason to revert on a featured article, but hardly on a stub :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5