Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Yugoslavia vs. Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympics

Hello, we would like your input on where FR Yugoslavia's results at the Olympics should be listed. Here is the relevant discussion. JoshMartini007 (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Nobility in medieval Kingdom of Hungary

Hello, I'm here to ask for help reaching consensus at Talk:Conditional noble, which concerns certain categories of nobility, including for example the Croat Nobles of Turopolje. I was asked in for a WP:Third opinion, but there is still disagreement and more eyes would be helpful. Thank you. FrankP (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I have comments. The conditional noble name is obscure as well as semi-noble. In Croatia there were predialist who came to the title Baron. It is the Makar family, which at the time of liberation wars from the Turks in the late 17th century got the title baron. Also in Croatia, by the Croatian Parliament in 1752, a smaller part of the bishop's predialist was listed. Because they enjoyed all the rights of the nobility. But that was not over until the end.

It is a problem of Hungary and Croatia, which from 1945 to 1990 were under communism. And communist rulers practically in all respects defended the nobility, and through various quasi-scientific works. So only those papers that deal with the subject of the predialist are good ones that were made before 1945 or show original documents that speak the opposite of mine states that Rady is an experta for the medieval history of Hungary. No expert is sitting in England and writing books without a single archive document. Expert becomes prolonged archival research and work on original documents. So if he's an expert on medieval history, why he deals with problems in relations between Croats and Serbs in the 1990s. It's like a veterinarian starts to heal people. England has long been pursuing its policy toward Eastern Europe. That is why, in England, such institutions as the School of Slavonic and East European Studies were created.There are also schools for other parts of the world, and in the interest of English politics.

I personally investigate historically about predialist. The term predialist binds to the Latin word predium - possession. I currently prescribe a court dispute between Valentino Kirinić, the predialist, and the Zagreb Church and the Zagreb County. In that document from 1808-1827. all the documents from 1217 to the Habsburg rulers were mentioned. So in these writings I also find in Latin: Prediales seu Nobiles Ecclesiae Vasalos. Namely, in 1094, King Ladislaus I of Hungary founded the Zagreb Diocese and gave possession of his possessions. Predialist are vassals of the church, not vassals of kings. Predialist are obliged to fight under the flag of the church, not under the royal flag. If the church opposes the king, then the predialist stand by the church. Also, predialist inherit their predominant possessions on the male line. Predialist did not pay tax to the king. Preachers could also be taken by priests, canons and bishops (after education and studies). Also every canon, and the canon could only be a nobleman, could have given his relatives a predominant possession. This is especially the case in Croatia, Varaždinske Toplice since the 12th century various gifts became property of the Church of Zagreb, before the donations were noble possessions, and the nobility remained afterwards. So even after that, they could not live up to their possessions. For example, the predialist properties are from the genus Škrlec whose ancestors were the cousins of the Zagreb canonical. Also in the XVII. The century can also be Peter Knapich, whose cousins became predialist. There are many such examples. The English had no such thing and they could not understand it.

That is why I think the title of the article should be Predialist, and in the article should be avoided the terms "conditional noble" and "semi-noble".

And how there is a relevant source - in archives. I said Rady can not be called an expert if he's sitting in England and writing there. There are numerous sources for various archives. Let him come and search. I have stated a credible source and there are many. That which does not exist in English does not really give rise to inaccuracies. Because the neuk then invoke English wikipedia. And I challenge anyone to find a source of archives in which to write conditionalis nobilitatis, conditionarius nemesek, or uvjetno plemstvo (conditional noble) - and let me in the digital photo give me a quotation of the archival source - which is the archive and the correct signature.

It is not believable that everyone is writing, but it is credible that it can be checked on the basis of archival sources. Latin was a language of middle ages and diplomacy, so the vast majority of documents were written in Latin. There is also a small number of documents written in Croatian or Hungarian. Here I re-enter the archival source:Arhives of the Archidiocese of Zagreb, Protocol: 827 Processus Kirinich contra comitatum Zagrabiensis 1807-1816, pages 209-222.

That is why I remain with the title of the article to be a Predialist, to remove the words "conditional noble" and "semi-noble" from the article. For "conditional noble" and "semi-noble" historically in the Croatian-Hungarian kingdom never existed.

I have already asked for some photos of the photographs to be published, on the basis of which Rady and Engel claim that the predialist are conditioned noblemen or semi-nobles. Today, everyone can go home without looking at any archive, writing any book with quotation, and that book does not have to answer the truth.

I am looking to publish cited documents where it would have been proven that before 1945 the predialist were called conditional nobles. Such a document does not exist. The noblemen of Turopolje are the true noblemen, which was confirmed by the rulers' documents in the 16th century. There is a record of more than 400 noblemen of the then Križevci County and Zagreb County that the noblemen of Turopolje are free nobles, not Juraj Branderburg assets.

Let no one hide behind the role of a scientist unless he proves that such a document exists. The main character of the predialist, that they are not the subjects of the king, but the church, and that they correspond to churches and churches are paying taxes. There are a number of examples in Croatia where real noblemen became predialists; like Kirinić, Horvat, Bešenić, Žugec, Sopić, Kitonić ... So it can not be said that the predominants are semi-nobles, or conditional nobles. The Croatian nobility and history has never used a term conditional nobleman. That term was left after 1945 by those who hated every kind of nobility. From the ranks of the Predialist, it is also the bishop of Zagreb, Petar II Domitrović (15 July 1613 - 1629). --Dmitar Zvonimir (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Just for the record, multiple books written by historians prove that there were several categories of semi-nobles. Martyn Rady calls them conditional nobles in his book dedicated to the subject. Borsoka (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Title: "Slavic paganism" or "Slavic religion"?

More opinions needed in this discussion.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

hrfilm.hr

http://hrfilm.hr has been dead for a while, apparently gone without a replacement. Does anyone know what happened? GregorB (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Focus on Croatia at Women in Red

In May 2018, in conjunction with m:Wikimedia CEE Spring 2018/Article Lists, Women in Red is focusing on the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We hope there will be contributions on Croatian women.

		Welcome to Women in Red's May 2018 worldwide online editathons. File:Soraya Aghaee4.jpg New: "Women of the Sea" New: "Villains" New: "Women in Sports" New: "Central and Eastern European women" Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Wiki4MediaFreedom

Hi. If you have time, please take a look on meta at this page m:Wiki4MediaFreedom contest. It's an event organized by Rossella Vignola (OBC), there is a list of articles to improve also on English wikipedia.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Prtlog vs Prklog vs Duga Luka

We would like to have some help from a Croatian speaker to help us sort out this redirect discussion (daily log page). Deryck C. 10:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Republic of Ragusa article

Open letter to Jimbo Wales on the state of Croatian Wikipedia

I've just written an open letter on the state of Croatian Wikipedia. You can find it in Jimbo's talk page. A short summary: there is major administrator abuse, far-right bias and historical revisionism going on there, owing largely to a handful of admins.

Whether sending all this to Jimbo was the right course of action or not, I don't know and frankly by now I do not care: I know of no other meaningful alternative.

Pinging Joy and Saxum as hr wiki admins - this is just FYI. GregorB (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Small correction - my admin rights over there had been removed some time ago, as I have not contributed in quite a while. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Joy, you're formally still an administrator.[1] There was a vote over the inactivity, but the stewards apparently refused to acknowledge the outcome (an peculiar story in its own right). GregorB (talk) 08:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I had no idea. Do you have a link? ——Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC on election/referendum naming format

An RfC on moving the year from the end to the start of article titles (e.g. South African general election, 2019 to 2019 South African general election) has been reopened for further comment, including on whether a bot could be used move the articles if it closed in favour of the change: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Proposed change to election/referendum naming format. Cheers, Number 5 7 15:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC - Operation Storm

There is a RfC that is of interest to this project here. Feel free to have your say. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

"Serbo-Croatian"

A discussion related to ISO classification of "Serbo-Croatian" as a linguistic cluster, or macrolanguage, consisting of four individual languages, is taking place here. Feel free to join the discussion. Sorabino (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

references to zakon.hr

There's this site which does their own composition of Croatian laws, which tries to cut to the chase and provide a pročišćeni tekst at all times - the Parliament doesn't seem to publish those consistently. However, they also omit the preamble and the signature of each law, and post what seems to be a very dubious copyright notice, including in their terms of use at https://www.zakon.hr/cms.htm?id=900, where they claim authorship to the redaction process, which is not a particularly creative process so I find it hard to believe it can be copyrighted at all. It says it's a non-profit venture, but it's registered not to an association (udruga) but a limited liability company (d.o.o.). I'm not sure we should be linking to them, even if it is convenient. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure either if their copyright claim would stand in the court, but is there a policy-based reason not to link to them? GregorB (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

They're not reliable. I don't know how to even start assessing if they have proper editorial oversight to avoid errors (the copyright claim makes such an assumption dubious), or if they're professionals, or if they have a good reputation... It's essentially a peculiarly formatted blog. Whereas the authoritative source is also readily available, with different formatting, but without the other issues. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

There are still quite a few references to zakon.hr. If somebody wants to tackle them, a possible procedure would be to search for them on wikipedia with insource:"zakon.hr" , and then search for real laws in Narodne Novine Web pages using Google by prepending this site:narodne-novine.nn.hr , or possibly this site:nn.hr to the Google search terms and then replace the zakon.hr ref with the nn.hr ref. Notrium (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Muraköz/Medimurje

Dear members,

please look on the discussion in the Triune Kingdom of Croatia concerning the subject. Especially, the belonging(s) between 1848-1861 (recognized not just by Croatians, but under the legal framework of the Austrian Empire and/or the Kings approval. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC))

Input required at Talk:Nikola Šubić Zrinski#Real name

Interested and experienced editors of this WikiProject might want to see the dispute at Talk:Nikola Šubić Zrinski#Real name and give their input. Regards So Why 15:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Splitting of the article "White Croats"

There is currently a Request-for-Comment open about restructuring the White Croats article. Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

An editor has requested that {{subst:linked|National Liberation Movement in Croatia}} be moved to {{subst:#if:|{{subst:linked|{{{2}}}}}|another page}}{{subst:#switch: project |user | USER = . Since you had some involvement with 'National Liberation Movement in Croatia', you |#default = , which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You}} are invited to participate in [[{{subst:#if:|{{subst:#if:|#{{{section}}}|}}|{{subst:#if:|Talk:National Liberation Movement in Croatia#{{{section}}}|{{subst:TALKPAGENAME:National Liberation Movement in Croatia}}}}}}|the move discussion]]. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

"The Curious Case of Croatian Wikipedia"

So I've wrote an opinion piece for The Signpost, titled "The Curious Case of Croatian Wikipedia". It's a condensed version of my open letter to Jimbo Wales, discussed a year ago in this talk page, so if you read that, there is not much new, i.e. once again "major administrator abuse, far-right bias and historical revisionism going on there, owing largely to a handful of admins".

No folks, I don't give up. ;-) GregorB (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

So from what I could gather, there is still nothing being done about it? You would think something would have been done by now. --Jesuislafete (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I have yet to write a new Meta-Wiki RfC focused on the evidence from the article. Some of the discussion has already taken place at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Administrator_abuse_on_the_Croatian_Wikipedia.

There is still possibility - however hard it may be to comprehend - that nothing at all will be done. RfCs can be ignored, and have been ignored before, it is not really a formal process. GregorB (talk) 10:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I hope something happens. Let us know if any progresses (or regresses!)

...and the new RfC is here: Requests for comment/Site-wide administrator abuse and WP:PILLARS violations on the Croatian Wikipedia. GregorB (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

One more thing I'd like to share with you. One editor, DraconicDark, has just recently received an indefinite block for his first hrwiki edit. The edit is here, and the rationale for the block is here.

No further comment is necessary, but I simply have to say that, although I've been editing for almost 15 years now, this has to be the craziest thing I've ever seen. GregorB (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I must say, kudos to you for putting it all together. I know it must be frustrating when you're in the right but everyone around you seems to be in a state of ridiculousness. --Jesuislafete (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, it is frustrating - for the reason you state, and for the fact that fighting against this turns out to be a game without clear rules. It is also testing the (otherwise fairly high) limits of my persistence. Let's hope for the best... GregorB (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Croatian literature

Greetings! I'd appreciate a review for the Croatian literature article which I've just completed with the final section on post second world war, and added some references. It's currently at C article status, and I'm hoping it may qualify now for B. Thanks! Farscot (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC:HERE comments related to recent edits

I will appreciate your feedback on the talk page of the article Joint Council of Municipalities (Croatia) related to the most recent changes made by another user which I perceive as non-neutral POV.--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Geographical question

Hi - I don't know how active the project is, but I figured here was a good place to start. I'm working on SMS Szigetvár, an Austro-Hungarian cruiser from the 1890s, and a source mentions the ship stopping in a "Luka, Grossa" - I've determined that there was a Grossa Island, which is presumably what the source means, but I can't find what the current name of the island is (the only google hits I'm getting are old references). Can anyone point me to the right entry at Luka so I can link it? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello! After a brief research, it seems to me that "Grossa" is Isola Grossa, which is an (older?) Italian name for Dugi Otok, and Luka is a settlement on it so Luka (Sali) is the correct target (at least factually, as I have some doubts about that redlink title w.r.t. WP:PLACEDAB). GregorB (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Noble houses?

This is unsourced. A cursory Google found very little information - although there could be alternate spellings involved. Looking for just the name, minus "house of", showed me several 19th-century books which have been scanned into Google but not OCR'd, so I can't paste anything into Google Translate - I'd have to be able to read Croatian. Which I can't.

Can anyone find confirmation that the article is legit (or, alternately, proof that it's not) ? Thanks. DS (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The Kostanjić are listed in the Fojnica Armorial with their CoA. [2] This source says that the noble family of Kostanjić are an "under-researched and fragmentary known family so far" ("nedovoljno istraženom i dosad fragmentarno poznavanom porodicom"): [3]. Tzowu (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:Demographics of the Western Balkans has been nominated for discussion

Category:Demographics of the Western Balkans has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Emilija Kokić

Hello Croatia! There is an ambiguous link on the article for Emilija Kokić that has us stumped. In the table is supposed to list the chart rankings of some of her recordings, there is a heading DLM. Normally I would expect this to represent a country or autonomous entity of some sort (look at the other headings in the same table) but I and at least a few other people don't know what "DLM" might represent. Can you? Regards, PK T(alk) 18:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello PKT! I know the feeling, I did some work on link disambiguation back in the day and sometimes it's as if one is cracking a code.

My guess would be that DLM stands for Dalmatia. I'm not aware of a Dalmatian top list, though. It may refer specifically to Radio Dalmacija, which publishes the "Croatian Top 33 list". At any rate, since sub-national top lists aren't really the norm in discography sections, and since it is entirely unsourced, there is unfortunately little gain in disambiguating the header, and the list itself may not be salvageable. GregorB (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Croatian Counties' Titles

Is there any particular reason why there is no standardized way for naming regions which are part of Croatian counties' names? In some of them English version is used, in some of them the local one. In case of Vukovar-Srijem and Osijek-Baranja County the name was changed so that Syrmia is turned into Srijem (and differentiated from Serbian synonimus Srem- see conversation) and Baranja is used instead of Baranya yet other counties do not use local names. If the same logic is applied shouldn't there also be Split-Dalmatia> Split-Dalmacija, Požega-Slavonia> Požega-Slavonija and Istria> Istra County? Opposite logic also seems reasonable except if there is good enough reason to keep everything as it is?--MirkoS18 (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a good point. To make matters worse, some English-language sources, namely Croatian Bureau of Statistics, use yet another variant, e.g. County of Vukovar-Sirmium.[4] GregorB (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

My first guess was that the Bureau's variant is translation of a less common inverted Croatian version (e.g. Županija Primorsko-goranska instead of Primorsko-goranska županija) but it seems that they use more common name and translate it in this way. As for particular word of Syrmium or Sirmium both are borrowed directly from Latin. Slightly different spellings of less common Latin (or Romance) names (more or less close to the Latin original) seems not to be very uncommon (see: Occitanie, Abruzzo, Marche, Livorno, Marseille, Dauphiné...). The fact that there is alternative spelling does not necessarily disqualify either one of them, especially since the term Srijem with letter J (pronounced differently in English and Slavic languages) may be unintelligible. Otherwise we may just use Croatian version in all cases which is also not uncommon practice on English Wikipedia.--MirkoS18 (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

At any rate it doesn't really make sense to name geographical areas one way in county names and some other way in standalone articles, which is currently the case. GregorB (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I just created proposals on the talk-pages of both counties (Vukovar-Srijem and Osijek-Baranja) as it may be smart to leave it there for a couple of days for editors to comment just in case anyone is interested.--MirkoS18 (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Make WikiProject Ottoman Empire a task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries?

Dear users of this WikiProject:

At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Former_countries#Make_WikiProject_Ottoman_Empire_a_task_force_of_Wikipedia:WikiProject_Former_countries? I have left a proposal to convert Wikipedia:WikiProject Ottoman Empire into a task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries. I asked this project (as all or parts of this country was/were formerly in the Ottoman Empire) and several other projects to get further feedback. Please let me know if you have questions, comments, or objections.

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Slavko Kopač

Draft:Slavko Kopač is ambitious, unusually long, and a mess. As "Draft:Slavko Kopac", it sat unreviewed for well over two months, until yesterday, when I declined it. However, I declined it regretfully: It's clear that Kopač was a notable artist, and the creator of the draft had clearly put a lot of effort into it. I have, I hope, improved it somewhat; but it has a long way to go. I can't do more work on it, because I know little about the subject area, can't read Croatian, am busy with other matters, and am lazy. Perhaps somebody here would like to have a go. Before embarking on this, please look at (though of course feel free to disagree with) the paragraph of comments that I left at the top of the draft. -- Hoary (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Hoary, thank you for dropping a note here. I agree fully with your assessment. I've added the draft to my watchlist. I might have a go at it, although I suppose my only edge over you is the ability to read Croatian. :-) It's a big one too, so if anyone wants to join, please do. GregorB (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

GregorB, thank you. That cheered me so much, I worked on the introduction. -- Hoary (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Štrigova massacre

This draft was declined for a reason that doesn't really make sense. I think it probably could be an article, but I hate accepting thinly sourced articles about massacres in the area of ethno-national disputes without being able to read good sources myself. Thoughts? Should this be accepted? Is this legitimate? All potential sources seem to be in languages I don't speak. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Need a native speaker for verifiability

We have a little discussion at Talk:Our Lady of Medjugorje... or rather a dispute. One user needs a confrimation that I'm not misusing Croatian sources. So, is there anyone available to check them? Thanks. --Governor Sheng (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Our Lady of Medjugorje

Please help by joining the discussion at Talk:Our Lady of Medjugorje. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Statistical Yearbook on mountains

Moved to Talk:List of mountains in Croatia#Statistical Yearbook on mountains. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

First women MP(s) in Croatia

Hello. I'm compiling a list of the first women MPs in each country, but have been unable to find the answer for Croatia. I'm guessing they would have been elected in the 1945 Yugoslavian parliamentary election or possibly one of the early elections to the legislature of SR Croatia. If anyone can point me to a definitive source, it would be much appreciated. Cheers, Number 5 7 18:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Number 57: I have this information from undergraduate thesis: "Prvi puta je žena ušla u parlament 1946. godine kad je izabrano 170 zastupnika i 6 zastupnica...The woman first entered parliament in 1946 when 170 male members and 6 female members were elected". (page 18 [5]) Also I know for two female members from this source: (doctoral thesis, page 169, "Odbor za molbe i žalbe. Ustrojen je na sjednici Predsjedništva 8. rujna 1945. te su imenovana četiri njegova člana: Nikola Brozina, Maca Gržetić, Kata Pejnović i Stanko Škare.. Appeals Board. It was formed at the session of the Presidency on September 8, 1945, and four of its members were appointed: Nikola Brozina, Maca Gržetić, Kata Pejnović and Stanko Škare". [6]) Kata Pejnović [[7]] and Marija Gržetić [[8]] Mikola22 (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mikola22: Thanks! It looks like these women were elected in the first election to the parliament of SR Croatia? Of the 12 women elected to the federal Yugoslavian parliament in 1945, do you know if any were from Croatia? As the election was the year before, this would make them the first female Croatian legislators (at some level). Cheers, Number 5 7 18:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Number 57: According to these sources, in Croatia (1946) was 6 women part of Croatian parlament. These two women which I mentioned above were in that parliament (parliament of SR Croatia) and they are surely first female Croatian legislators. Second source mentioned some other women names but I don't know if they are parliamentarians. As for 12 women elected to the federal Yugoslavian parliament in 1945 I would not know. But I can see what the sources speak, if I find something. Mikola22 (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Number 57: I found a quality source for Kata Pejnović (page 72, Members of the presidency of Parliament) and Maca Gržetić (page 73, Members of the the constituent(in connection with the constitution) of Parliament) [9] I find and all women names and litle diferent information: "Kakva je bila zastupljenost žena u Saboru? Na izborima za Ustavotvorni sabor bilo je kandidirano 18 žena. Od toga, izabrano je njih 7. To su bile Anka Berus, Mileva Cetušić, Cvita Gilić, Maca Gržetić, Milka Kufrin, Ana Mrkoci (Brlečić) i Kata Pejnović. Na dopunskim izborima 1947., izabrana je Dina Zlatić, ujedno jedina kandidatkinja na tim izborima. Prema tome, u prvom sazivu Sabora od 191 zastupnika bilo je svega 8 žena...What was the representation of women in Parliament? 18 women ran in the elections for the Constituent Assembly(parlament). Out of that, 7 of them were chosen. They were Anka Berus, Mileva Cetušić, Cvita Gilić, Maca Gržetić, Milka Kufrin, Ana Mrkoci (Brlečić) and Kata Pejnović. In the additional elections of 1947, Dina Zlatić was elected, the only candidate in those elections. Therefore, in the first convocation of the Parliament, out of 191 members, there were only 8 women". (doctoral thesis, page 253, [10]) Also I have this source [11] page 269, for Yugoslavia. Tomorrow I will look information for the Yugoslav parliament(women from Croatia). Mikola22 (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Number 57: I didn't find information's about women from Croatia which would be part of Yugoslavian parliament. Mikola22 (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mikola22: No problem, thanks very much for looking! Cheers, Number 5 7 14:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Number 57: If you ever need anything feel free to contact me. Cheers. Mikola22 (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Use of the label "fascist"

Hello, with regard to this persistent IP edit is there any consensus or position on whether "Croatian Armed Forces (Independent State of Croatia)" should usually be preceded by the label "fascist", or whether one should refer to "fascists" instead of "people"? It seems tendentious and appears to be pushing the article away from WP:NPOV through editorializing. Thanks. Doremo (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Doremo. There seems to be a distinct recent pattern of editing of Croatia-related articles, and these IP edits are not far from it. In isolation, some of these edits may appear legitimate but - repeated dozens of times, pursuing a single agenda, and coupled with an apparent disinterest in the article topic itself - these may constitute tendentious editing. GregorB (talk) 08:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Civil Society and Human Rights in Croatia

Hi All! Few of us with different backgrounds are gathering around the topic of Civil Society and Human Rights in Croatia. If there is anyone interested to focus on this or support please reach out directly. First event is planned in collaboration with Human Rights Film Festival in Zagreb. - Zblace (talk) 08:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Sigh

user:Coxal Xhamichi has been participating in hoaxes about Croatian entertainers, and I'll need some help from native .hr-speakers to examine all their edits to genuine articles to make sure that all the lies have been removed. Many times, CX cited sources which do not say anything remotely like what CX claimed; other times, though, it's harder for me to tell. Thanks. DS (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks DragonflySixtyseven! Before taking a closer look at his editing history, I wasn't quite aware of the severity of the problem. For example, look at this edit - while it may appear legitimate, none of the statements are actually supported by any of the supplied inline refs, and at least some of them - if not all, in this particular example - are bogus. We're talking about 3,000+ edits (many of them minor and obviously legitimate, though) that need to be examined. GregorB (talk) 12:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Edits to examine
Batch	Status
Batch 1	Pending
Batch 2	Pending
Batch 3	Pending
Batch 4	Pending
Batch 5	Pending
Batch 6	Pending
Batch 7	Pending

Okay folks, I've divided his edits into 7 batches shown in the table above. If you'd like to help:

Pick one batch and update the status to {{Checking}} ~~~~.
Check the edits. Look for the pattern described in the previous paragraph, i.e. the insertion of statements not supported by inline refs. Edits like these should generally be undone - be cautious, and use your own judgement.
When you're done with the batch, update its status to {{Done}} ~~~~.

If in doubt about anything, here is a good place to ask. I'll chip in myself, time permitting. GregorB (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I just corrected one of his two bio pages made on https://simple.wikipedia.org/ ...other is non-problematic copy from EN. Zblace (talk) 09:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Global ban notification

Not strictly related to this project, but might be of interest: there is now a Meta RfC proposing a global ban for Kubura. You can discuss it here: Requests for comment/Global ban for Kubura. GregorB (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The RfC resulted in a global ban for Kubura, enacted yesterday. GregorB (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Great job; thank you for your tireless work! --Jesuislafete (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, well done GregorB. This sort of thing can be a difficult and thankless task, but it's a very important one. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Just got to getting up to speed with talk pages after a "short" wikibreak. Kudos for persevering. Well done.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Pannonia, Duchy and Lower

Could someone who knows Croatian history please try to clear up the situation at Talk:Duchy of Pannonian Croatia - Like, was this a real thing or a legend, is it the same as Lower Pannonia? Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible copyvio - help needed

Hi all! I've been tinkering with the caption of File:Đurašković brkić jovanović olblna perović albahari cović knežević 6. kongres KPJ ZG.png and I just noticed the PD tag in the commons which makes no sense to me. I'm not sure from reading the tag if the photo became PD in 2002 or if it is stil non-free (until November 2022 - the photo was taken in early November 1952 in Zagreb and published in a book in Sarajevo at the latest in 1976). Could someone please point me to the correct answer or at least the place to ask this question. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tomobe03: you have WP:MCQ and I think you can get the best answer there. Mikola22 (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I misread "a photograph or a work of applied art" as "a photograph of a work of applied art"... Now it makes sense. Sorry for the trouble.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Can SIMPLE Wikipedia do better

Maybe interesting topic to reflect Decentering American Bias via SIMPLE Wikipedia? https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Simple_Wikipedia_notability_as_more_trans-national/regional Zblace (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

CEE Spring 2021 translations with problematic Croatian list

I am not sure if everyone is aware of Wikimedia CEE Spring translation competition, but I have been looking at it since last year. It seems to me that Croatian list is super biased to traditionalism, football and over-representation of catholicism and men. It is a pity that even articles from last year that recived no or very few new translations stay on the list for recommended articles to translate in 2021, sometimes even without being good enough articles. I tried to add more women and remove some of the obviously missfiting articles. Please join into this effort or at least leave your comment on how you see the list here. --Zblace (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Gaži DAB ideas

Hi all! I planned on creating a bio stub on Franjo Gaži only to discover that there are two of them. Both are politicians, both were HSS members, and seem personally unrelated ([12] and [13]). I'm willing to create two stubs and a dab page and I read the WP:DAB (well, reasonably thoroughly - skipping parts which seem unrelated to people DAB issues), but I'm still unsure what would be the article titles for the pair. The father/son qualifier applied to Hebrang articles does not seem to apply, RAF officer/producer example given in WP:NOPRIMARY is not helpful because both are HSS politicians... Any ideas? --Tomobe03 (talk) 12:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, could Franjo Gaži (elder) and Franjo Gaži (younger) work?--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC) ... or maybe (per WP:ONEOTHER since the elder one appears to be the primary topic) to have Franjo Gaži and a hatnote there to Franjo Gaži (diplomat) (or another disambiguating term) and no DAB page?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:NCPDAB, perhaps Franjo Gaži (politician, born 1900) and Franjo Gaži (politician, born 1912)? Tezwoo (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I feel though that the one born in 1900 is considerably more significant, i.e. the primary topic of the two. --Tomobe03 (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

News from Croatian Wikipedia

Following a local vote, as of today SpeedyGonsales, Zeljko and Roberta F. are no longer administrators. This will also conclude the Meta RfC. My overview of the current hrwiki situation is here.

The long, sordid saga of Croatian Wikipedia is therefore now over. GregorB (talk) 09:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Hope hrwiki quality improves over time.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. While the current developments really inspire hope, it'll take years and years to undo the damage, and it's not just grossly biased stuff. The entire project got neglected over the years, and rehauling the standards is sometimes more difficult than rehauling the content. GregorB (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with all that weird crap for so many years. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

...Roberta F. is still admin of Wictionary and Wikisource in Croatian language...so I would think they will remain somewhat and somehow active, but it is improvement even just to deflate their authority. As 1/3 people still voted for them, I would say this is still not over all together, but it is hopefully becoming less of a problem. I am sure there will be trolling for a while. -- Zblace (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

For those of you interested in more details, here is a new and very well-informed article: "Početak kraja Endehapedije" (disclaimer: I was not involved with the article or its author in any way). GregorB (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

New theatre article for assessment

Hi all, I've created a new Theatre in Croatia article and would welcome an assessment. Also any help in tying up loose ends/pointing out errors, etc. The Culture of Croatia template (sidebar) has been updated, but are there any others I need to fix? Many thanks! Farscot (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Sigh part II

A propos this topic, let me restore the cleanup table:

Edits to examine
Batch	Status
Batch 1	Pending
Batch 2	Pending
Batch 3	Pending
Batch 4	Checking... --Jesuislafete (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Batch 5	Pending
Batch 6	Pending
Batch 7	Checking... GregorB (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I really got badly sidetracked (nothing new there), but now I'm going to at least start reviewing these. You're welcome to join, of course. GregorB (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

GregorB DragonflySixtyseven Guerillero I see a checkuser block on this "Coxal Xhamichi" account, but other than {{checkuserblock-account}} there is no explanation of whether it's a sockpuppet or a sockpuppeteer, any idea what's up there? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

No idea on sockpuppeting.

I'm doing my first batch and the M.O. indeed seems to be inserting various statements with inline refs, only they don't support the statement at all. Mostly the statements were actually correct, but some appear to be completely bogus. GregorB (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

PD-Croatia template at the Commons

Hi all! I have posted a notice at the commons:Template talk:PD-Croatia, but the same also applies to {{PD-Croatia}} here - although the PD-Croatia at the en-wiki is even more obsolete as it lacks the provision on the 25-year period applicable to lawfully published photos. Anyway, I thought the bulk of the interested editors would be at the WP:CRO anyway, so...

The template displays several dates purported in the notice to be the dates when specific works become PD. Now, the actual dates are not specified in the applicable legislation - instead periods required to expire after publication of a particular type of work are set. Such periods always start (as noted in the Copyright Act) on 1 January of the year following the date of expiry of the actual 70- or 25-year period following publication of the particular work. Because of this the PD notices are inaccurate. I have proposed an automated solution at the commons template talk page, so I'd appreciate any feedback there.

Furthermore, the reference to the legislation made in both templates (here and at the commons) is obsolete and should be updated (new act has come in effect and was amended half-dozen times since. I have also proposed a particular wording for this at the commons template talk too, so I'm looking for feedback on that too. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Following further research for the purposes of an ongoing ACR, I can say I was wrong, but... The PD-Croatia tag is still partially outdated, but that concern is (for now) academic. Nontheless, I thought to spare others who might need to address image licensing issues the need to investigate. So, here's the (almost) full story:

Specifically, in addition to the three possible criteria under which material could have become PD in Croatia, the PD-Croatia template lacks two other criteria based on recent legislation. (The earlier criteria still apply regardless of the amended legislation.) First, the dates under criteria a) and b) are 1 Jan 1949, but as of 1 January 2021, works of authors who died in 1950 and anonymous works published in 1950 are also PD in Croatia because the 70-year copyright period has expired. Of course, the next 1 January, this will mean 1951 and so forth.

Second, phonographs have 50-year copyright period under current legislation which means such works of authors who died in 1970 are PD in Croatia since the beginning of this year. As above, this is also a moving target.

However, being PD in Croatia does not make a work automatically suitable for the Commons since the United States have extended the copyright period to 95 years on specific dates for specific countries. For Croatia (and all other Yugoslavia successors) that's 1 January 1996. This means that any work which was copyrighted in the source country (e.g. in Croatia) on 1 January 1996 received the US copyright period of 95 years. If the copyright expires in Croatia later (e.g. after the 70-year period is up), the US copyright still applies. However, if the work was not copyrighted in Croatia on 1 January 1996, the US extension of the copyright does not apply and the work is suitable for the Commons.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Which language?

Hi - any natives here?! -> "Nauk krstjanski i druge stvari za znati potrebite"

Which Language Code is this? BS ? SR ? Or crotia? Google Translate tells me it is croatian... CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems Croatian - although an archaic version.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing an image

Hi all! I have already asked this at hr.wiki teahouse, but thought to ask here also: I'm trying to find the source of first publication of the this image [14]. I suspect it might have been first published in a book issued by Vjesnik in 1970 on the 10th session of the SKH central committee. Unfortunately, the book is not available online. It is though available in a couple of libraries in Zagreb per this [15]. If any Zagreb-based wikipedian finds themselves in one of those, I'd be very grateful for a quick look if the image is actually published there if it is attributed or published anonymously. The catalog says the book is illustrated, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Incidentally, all photos published there without photographer attribution are PD in Croatia and the US and thus fit for Commons. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Croatia articles needing expert attention has been nominated for discussion

Category:Croatia articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

New list-articles

Hello there, I was recently invited to join the project, and I'm very happy with the invitation! I take this opportunity to ask your advice on this matter: I recently created a list article similar to this about Karlovac County, and I was going to create maybe another few ones like those for a couple more (small) regions. Then I realized that I don't have the time to do that for every region, so I don't know if it's worth it. So I wanted to ask you this, is it worth publishing it? There are probably a thousand articles more urgent to create, but the thing is that I was almost done with the list. Thanks.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit.I published the lists, here is Bjelovar and here is Karlovac. Hopefully someday someone will publish the lists for the other counties.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Haldir Marchwarden. The list looks fine; I don't know if you've gotten into categories yet, but if not you might also be interested in Categories, like Category:Croatian people and its subcategories. Welcome to Wikipedia! HLHJ (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Numbered-node cycle network

The international numbered-node cycle network reportedly extends to Croatia. Unfortunately the article on the network contains no more info than that, and there are no images of Croatia in Commons:Category:Cycle node networks. Can anyone help, with article content, photos, or sources? Thanks! HLHJ (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Lighter relief map for Module:Location map/data/Croatia

Wouldn't it make more sense to use File:Croatia relief map.png as the relief map as opposed to File:Relief map of Croatia.png? Changing the map to the lighter version would make it the same as the majority of other relief maps used for other locations. Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 06:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the choice of maps to use should be dictated by choices made elsewhere. However, I find the proposed replacement easier to read in terms of hypsographic information. It is possible that such background would be cluttering, but for such cases there is the blank map. All in all, I like the proposed map better regardless of use elsewhere.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok I'll go ahead and make the change as it seems pretty uncontroversial. If someone has an issue with it, feel free to discuss it. Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 04:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Never mind that, I can't make the change cause it's protected. Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 05:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Aris Odi you can make an edit request for that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I shall do that asap. Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 07:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

10 years later

Ten years has passed since Signpost's WikiProject Croatia report. I'm happy to see the project active with many valuable contributors (and hope others return from WikiBreaks when they're well-rested). Besides, the project has grown substantially in terms of quantity and quality of articles with about twice as many pages and about 200 additional featured or good articles. Happy editing everyone!--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Cheers to all! --Jesuislafete (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Request for Zagreb-based Wikipedians

Hi! If any Zagreb-based editor happens to be visiting the library at Starčevićev trg or the one at the Trg Petra Krešimira IV, I have a favour to ask - specifically if they could leaf through a 110-page book available at the two places for any photos published in the book. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you point us to the specific book at kgz.hr? That way the trip can be shorter if one can call the librarians to make sure it's not in storage. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure. It is Deseta sjednica Centralnog komiteta Saveza komunista Hrvatske : (prema autoriziranim tekstovima magnetofonskog zapisnika) / uredili Milovan Baletić, Zdravko Židovec [16]. Any photos published there are PD according to applicable Croatian and US laws and I suspect there might be some to be found (possibly the one used at the top of this JL article [17]). I have access to an earlier similar publication on ZAVNOH and it has about a dozen photos, so I expect that might be the case here too.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Croatian Spring at FAC

Hello all! There is a FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Croatian Spring/archive1 I have recently nominated. Since the article is within the scope of this WikiProject, I thought to post here to attract more interest from editors who might post comments at the review page. Cheers --Tomobe03 (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Michael of Zahumlje GAR

Michael of Zahumlje has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Name problem with a Croatian populated place

please see Talk:Župa dubrovačka--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Peer review requested

I would highly appreciate all comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)/archive3. Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

2021 Census first results

Will there be any coordinated update on the first results of the 2021 census or we should just do it partially per interest (which may leave some gaps)? I already noticed some updates (for example Osijek where the reference was not updated). I don't know if we should wait for the final results, but what is now partially published does seem to me to constitute the final results for the given data category (total population).--MirkoS18 (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

We should first create {{Croatian Census 2021}} just like we have {{Croatian Census 2011}}. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Rochester Institute of Technology Croatia#Requested move 8 February 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rochester Institute of Technology Croatia#Requested move 8 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 17:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Balkan Latinity WikiProject

Hello, I've been thinking for a while of an idea for a new and certainly needed WikiProject. The Aromanians/Vlachs, Megleno-Romanians/Meglenites and Istro-Romanians/Ćiribirci are poorly known peoples in the Balkans, the only ones that are Romance-speaking apart of the Romanians. Tagging pages related to these with WikiProject templates can turn problematic, see this talk page for example [18], saturated with 7 different templates. I was thus thinking that giving them their own WikiProject could increase organization on Wikipedia about info on these peoples and increase their representation in the project, perhaps even attracting members of these groups into working at Wikipedia. The project could be split into three task forces for each of the three.

If you're interested, please ping me here or message me on my talk page. Expressing your interest in the existence of such a project is enough, you will not be compromised or pressured into working in a topic area you might lose interest to soon. After (if) I recruit enough support, I will start a formal proposal and ping you there. Regards, Super Ψ Dro 20:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Help on Eastern European languages

Hello!

Our of boredom, I am trying to identify the languages of inscriptions on a fountain located in central Budapest. I could easily identify some languages such as Hebrew, Armenian, Russian, English, French, Spanish etc. but I have trouble with some, mostly Slavic, languages which I do not speak myself. I guess that they must include Czech (or Slovak), Slovene, Croatian/Serbian/Bosniak, Macedonian, Bulgarian and/or maybe others.

Translations of 'The place is ours':

Trg je naš / Площадьт е наш (pretty sure that's Bulgarian) / Naš trg / Nas trg / [unreadable] naše je námestie

Translations of 'Non potable water':

Водата не е за пиене / Voda ni pitna / Непитна вода / Nepitná voda / Nepitka voda / Voda nije za piće

Translations of 'Open lawn':

Ходенето по тревата е разрешено / Dozvoljeno je gaziti (ǧaziti?) po travi / Dozvoljeno gaženje trave

I also do not manage to identify the language in 3 other inscriptions for which glossaries easily available online did not help. Could it be Romani?

Náj lasó ráji / Ámáro szi o placo / Pécsár saj ustarén

Is anyone here able to tell which is which? Note that many inscriptions (such as in French and Greek) have spelling mistakes and inconsistent respect of diacritics.

Pictures of the fountain:

Place Clichy (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Diocletian Featured article review

I have nominated Diocletian for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

GAR of Croatia

Croatia has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Artem.G (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

1901 Dalmatian parliamentary election

Hello friends, I'm having trouble finding sources to improve 1901 Dalmatian parliamentary election. Any ideas where I can get information about it? Thanks JMWt (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Kajkavian

Hello, can you join the conversation on the Kajkavian topic [[19]] ,and here are the latest changes to the site[[20]] Thanks. 93.138.3.122 (talk) 08:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

2021 census infobox update

There has been 10-15% Croatian population decline since 2011. Updating more than 3000 existing Croatian settlement articles is virtually impossible without the help of a bot. I have census data to article title mapping, manually curated for my work on more than 7000 transclusions of hr:Template:Kretanje broja stanovnika. I am currently dumping the same 2021 data on Wikidata (→). Enwiki articles on Croatian towns, municipalities and settlements use different sets of {{infobox settlement}} parameters for population data. In my preliminary discussion with @Joy we agreed that |population_total= and |population_urban= should be used for "municipality/town" and "settlement", respectively. The former parameter will display either as "Municipality" (općina) or "Town" (Grad). Before I continue working on bot automation and controls, and before I request bot approval, I would like to (and I need to) hear from other members of this community. I've made public test edits on three random pages (and many more privately): Jalžabet, Bakar and Baška. All three illustrate some difficulties the bot will need to cope with: uneven formatting, reference reuse outside of the template, missing parameters, etc. The bot has ~170,000 edits on hrwiki. Thoughts? Ponor (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

That looks pretty good. Would it make sense to keep the internal DZS numbers as unused parameters, though, in case they ever publish better formatted data another run could use these to convert easily? --Joy (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Joy: I had a little exchange with a Senior Advisor from the Bureau last October. Back then I was not happy with having to link directly to their zip file (at now abandoned! popis2021.hr) and was hoping for at least an html landing page. That's when I learned they actually do have permalink xslx files available. They take a lot of pride in having their data published at their new site at Statistika u nizu. As you can see, it's all xslx (Mr Ballmer visited?), and from what I gather, they will not be publishing the data in any other form. In case they do, I'd rather have another bot run to link to the new source(s), if necessary. Ponor (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

While I'm at it: would it make sense to "regenerate" the whole {{Infobox settlement}} template to some canonical form with a subset of parameters (excluding those that are not used in any articles, and are unlikely to ever be used - list to be provided)? I'm seeing many styles: basic params, params ordered and grouped in different ways, etc. There are also params that have been removed from the template (image_dot_map params removed in 2014, city_logo, ...). For me that'd be just another 2-3 lines of code. All values would be copied, of course. Joy? Ponor (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Walls of Dubrovnik

Walls of Dubrovnik has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Josip Belusic picture

@Joy, @Ponor, @ArianJD, @AustroHungarian1867, @Bronx Langford, @Dalibor1975, @Dape13, @Franjo Tahy, @ImChessFan21, @Jalapeño, @Maestro Ivanković, @Mychele Trempetich, @Nirmaz, @Zmaj~enwiki, @Mihitza78/rightpanel and all other Croatian editors: could you provide a picture of the statue of Josip Belusic, so we can substitute the poor-quality picture currently used in his article's infobox? It was unveiled over a year ago in Zagreb as part of the "Sit & Meet" trail [21], Tommy Lee J. (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Address should be: Jupi bar, Ul. Ivana Tkalčića 18, Zagreb [22] Tommy Lee J. (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Olm

I have nominated Olm for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Article: János Statileo aka Ivan Statilić

I did a major upgrade to the bio of Ivan Statilić. Can you add this to the WikiProject Croatia? I am a noob here - and not good yet with Wiki Tech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/János_Statileo ZidarZ (talk) 10:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Attacks by user buidhe

I made some small improvements on the "1918 protest in Zagreb" page. Quickly, a user "buidhe" undid my improvements with no legitimate justification. We entered into a "debate" and I quickly became the victim of bullying. At first "he" made personal attacks and then he insinuating threats.

His last comment to me was " The purpose of wikipedia is not to promote Croatia and crusade against "anti-Croatian" narratives. We're only interested in covering what reliable sources have to say on a subject. If that is your attitude I don't think you are going to stick around very long. (t · c) buidhe 14:18, 3 September 2023.

The comment "crusade against "anti-Croatian" narratives" is problematic. Is it not right to fix incorrect information and anti-Croat bias? He writes about "reliable sources" but the only reliable sources are ones that he personally thinks are "reliable" - this is rather subjective.

Has anyone else had problems with this person that appears to possibly suffer from the disease of Croatomisia (hate of Croats)? ZidarZ (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Let me add one more problematic detail. In a discussion about what books are "reliable" "buidhe" said the following "...books with hyperbolic titles are less likely to be WP:RS and suitable to cite for wikipedia purposes.

hyperbole: extravagant exaggeration, exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

Who decides what a "hyperbolic title" is?

Are books from almost 100 years ago to be judged by today's standards?

We are told not to judge a book by its cover, what right should "buidhe" have in judging a book by its title, rather than by its content. ZidarZ (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. The place to discuss such a dispute is on the relevant article's talk page. If you are unable to reach consensus, then consider one of the available dispute resolution mechanisms. Please do not post like this on multiple pages, because it comes across as canvassing. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the response.

This is more than a "content dispute".

The real issue whether this person has, to say politely, and "anti-Croat bias". For that reason I asked:

"Has anyone else had problems with this person that appears to possibly suffer from the disease of Croatomisia (hate of Croats)?"

If others have had negative interactions with "him", then we can determine from the pattern of activity whether the person is "problematic". ZidarZ (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Complaints about user conduct should be made at WP:AN/I (but beware WP:BOOMERANG). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Before I do that, I am asking if others have had negative experience with him. As for "WP:BOOMERANG" - yes, I am well aware that the online world has many troll and Wikipedia is no different. Please tell me that Wikipedia is not full of trolls protecting trolls and abusing people that complain about "people in power" ("editors"). ZidarZ (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Judgments about cases brought to administrators' noticeboards are not made by trolls, no, even if there are trolls on Wikipedia (who usually get blocked pretty quickly). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible that an "editor" is a "troll"? ZidarZ (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

"Editor" is a label that is applied to everyone who creates an account and edits Wikipedia, so yes, some editors are trolls (but like I've said, they usually get blocked quickly). Cordless Larry (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Then i should ask, "Is it possible that an admin is a troll?"

I know that in many forums, sometimes "moderators" with a bit of power are the worst trolls. ZidarZ (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Siege of Valpovo

I did a major update to the article of the Siege of Valpovo in 1543.

Siege of Valpovo ZidarZ (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Somlyo (1543)

I created a new article about the Battle of Somlyo in 1543. Though the battle happened in Hungary, it was one of Nikola IV Zrinski's first battles as Ban of Croatia. If you have any ideas for improvements, let me know.

Draft:Battle of Somlyó (1543) ZidarZ (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Miho

Moved to talk: Miho § Split (2023)

Battle of Konjščina

I have written an article about the Battle of Konjščina in 1544.

Let me know what you think. Feel free to improve.

Draft:1544: Battle of Konjščina ZidarZ (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Women in Green's 5th Edit-a-thon

Hello WikiProject Croatia:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2023!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Assessing credibility of a book

Ante Mrkonjic, a Croat in Australia, wrote these books on Croatian history:

A History of the Early Croats

A History of The Croats - The Years 1102 to 1606

He is not a professional historian, but a passionate amateur historian who wrote two books because the "historians" at the U of Zagreb have not done anything. The books are self-published because the cost and loss of control (for years) is not worth it to small authors.

I have used the books in my research and I can honestly say that these two books are the best Croatian history books - encyclopedic books - in the English language. In total, the books are about 1,600 pages in total.

It would be great if someone could read the books and deem them to be credible sources. They should be credible since they are a compilation of the works of Croatian historians and translation to English. Trule a monumental work.

Thank you ZidarZ (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

New article about Marko Horvat Stančić

Cool dude that defended Szigetvar in 1556 and friend of Nikola Zrinski.

Feel free to improve. Who approves these drafts?

Draft:Marko Horvat Stančić

Ovo.Je.Istina (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Croatian settlement articles mass creation

As I promised back in May, I went through some 3500 Croatian settlement, town/city and municipality articles updating their 2021 population, area and website data, and for some also adding the missing infoboxes. I hope nobody got too upset about that. There are about 3000 "naselje" articles still missing, and I know @Gruesome Gary and @W.G.J. have added a few hundred just recently. This, though, can be highly automated. It should be pretty easy for me to create articles like the new Dubrava (S-D C) article. Before I make a WP:MASSCREATE proposal, I will need #1 your opinions on all this, and #2 your help. As for #2: please check Dubrava, Split-Dalmatia County and tell me:

what else could be added, that you think a bot could do (empty parameters included, for someone to fill in in the future)
what should not be there
what to do with {{Commons category}} (I don't expect many settlements to have it; I might be able to get it from Wikidata)
should anything be worded differently, e.g. how do we differentiate villages from settlements, cities from towns.

I will post a list of all new article names, linked, which should give us all red links. If any turn blue, like in Podgora (say we're creating Podgora, Dubrovnik-Neretva County), the bot will need help, and so will I. But first things first: what do you think of this whole idea, put forward by @Joy on my talk page. Thanks, Ponor (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Oof why force zoom=5 :) conventionally, these are shown at country level and closer. --Joy (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Joy :) it's negotiable. The way I have it replaces the 20th century pushpin map with something that you can zoom in to freely.

Plus, I can't tell you the number of times I was asked if Cro-asia is in Asia. Anything below the country level might not mean much to our international readers.

Feel free to edit my 'template', though. There are some policy discussions about mass creation of geo stubs, one of ours was mentioned. So let's see what happens there first. Ponor (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, when we have tens of thousands of articles that have just pushpin_map = $Country, I almost never see people adding e.g. pushpin_map = $Country#$Continent or similar, and adding image_map = {{infobox mapframe}} is still a manual operation for most infoboxes (as opposed to being integrated like location map is), I'm not sure if it's a big problem. Maybe it's just a problem of volume, obfuscated syntax, and visibility, though. A compromise could be some way to show different contexts easily. A person who browsed to e.g. a small village near Split probably wants to see the location of it compared to the city because that's the context, as opposed to seeing where it is compared to San Marino :) Maybe we should use this opportunity to bring this up at generic Infobox settlement talk pages, because adding kilobytes upon kilobytes of new code that later needs to be refactored might not be a good idea. --Joy (talk) 07:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair point, about the context. What I don't like about the old pushpin maps is that you lose the pushpin once you click on them, but you're right... at some point the change will have to be decided for all articles. Bringing this up at infobox talk page is a bite too big for me atm. So if this mass creation ever happens, we should have both Croatia pushpin map and infobox mapframe, is that what you're saying? I'm okay with that. You know of any other data a bot could add, while I'm at it? Plus, again, let's keep an eye on this. Ponor (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Thanks for the note about the proposed change to WP:GEOLAND, but it doesn't matter in this case because we're talking about documenting existing undocumented villages here, if somehow consensus changes to cause these to be list format, we still need that (a lot of the Croatian municipality articles are missing lists of settlements, I keep adding them year after year). --Joy (talk) 11:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Joy et al.: I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia/To Do List/Missing settlements. Out of 3200 missing articles, 790 will need their title set (more or less) manually. See if you can help with that, per instructions in the file, or how you think is best. I won't be around for any serious work for the next two weeks, but I may be able to respond to your comments (either here or there). Ponor (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

B-checklist in project template

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists. This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted-in to support B-checklists (B1-B6) in your project banner. DFlhb (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire Featured article review

I have nominated Byzantine Empire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Request for input on post-Yugoslav-breakup election article naming

We had a discussion relisted at Talk:May 1992 Yugoslavian parliamentary election#Requested move 3 November 2023 that could benefit from the input of people who have knowledge of this topic area, please check it out. --Joy (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Croatia § Location within Europe

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Croatia § Location within Europe. –Vipz (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Good article, but

Not a single source given. Is this all true? The history of Svinjarevci seems fascinating. 82.5.146.168 (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Peter Krešimir IV of Croatia#Requested move 15 December 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Peter Krešimir IV of Croatia#Requested move 15 December 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

St Donatus

What did he do to become a saint? 50.207.82.18 (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Fortress of Klis

Fortress of Klis has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dodola and Perperuna#Requested move 22 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dodola and Perperuna#Requested move 22 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 21:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Siege of Szigetvár

Siege of Szigetvár has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)