Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

1100th anniversary of the Croatian Kingdom

On the initiative of the Matica hrvatska and Brethren of the Croatian Dragon Sabor proclaimed 2025 as "The year of the 1100th anniversary of the Croatian Kingdom" (Godina obilježavanja 1100. obljetnice Hrvatskoga Kraljevstva). (source)

There will be many events and commemorations considering this anniversary in Croatian and abroad. (for. ex. [1])

Croatian-edition of the project started special task force considering this jubilee. (article list)

I would like to encourage all participants to write and expand on existing related articles. Mudroslov (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jubilee is also gaining a lot of media attention and coverage (for ex., CW).--89.164.52.48 (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it maybe possible to open a new task force within WP Croatia on this topic? --Koreanovsky (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it is within this WikiProject (any WikiProject, for that matter), that would make it a task force like WP:ZAGREB (which does not seem to be very active, IMO). Information on setting up a task force is found at WP:TASKFORCE. That being said, clearly it is possible to set up one, but it would only make sense if there is a reasonable number of editors involved.

There is another, less formal, avenue available and I believe it might be more appropriate since it would require less overhead (creation and administration of the task force pages) while allowing more work on contents. This would be a "focused initiative", as it is termed at WP:BORA (that example is not a part of WPCroatia, but a thriving example of such a workgroup). If one were to ask my preference, I'd go for the less formal one. Tomobe03 (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The European Destubathon

Project members are invited to participate in The European Destubathon in April. Almost $3000 in Amazon voucher prizes, including a prize for articles from your project, which can be used to buy books for content, though it can also be treated as an editathon if you're not interested in competing! Minimum content to be added to each article just to ensure that they're over a stub, though longer expansions also welcome. Entries at the end of the contest will be tipped into the 50,000 Destubbing Challenge and European Challenge. Previous contests were really enjoyable and I'm hoping this one will be too! Sign up if interested. Thanks! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:53, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Italian names of Croatian cities

I am reposting my comment (with some edits) from Template Talk: Infobox settlements.

On articles about Croatian, coastal cities that were occupied by fascist Italy after WWI and during WWII the infobox shows the Italian name for the city under the Croatian name for the city, see examples: Šibenik, Zadar, Split,_Croatia, Trogir, Pula, Opatija, Rovinj, and so on. Every Croatian city that used to be under Fascist Italy occupation has the Italian name right under the Croatian name.

Arguments against the use of Italian names as "other name":

The addition of the Italian name is usually justified by a single, Italian-language source (most often a history book).
According to the census in 2021 there are some ~13.000 Italians living in Croatia; they do not make up a significant minority and Italian is not an official language in Croatia.
Croatian wikipedia does not have Italian names in the infobox.
This is English wikipedia, the vast majority of readers won't know the city by the Italian name, but they will know it by the name that is used in English-language websites, travel guides, etc. and those sources always use the Croatian name.
The infobox can actually do damage because it can make readers think that the Italian name is an acceptable other/alternative name for the city currently in use, when it absolutely is not.
The historical name of the cities is always mentioned in the History section. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE the infobox should be a summary of the key facts. A historical name that isn't used in Croatia or the English-speaking world is hardly a key fact.

I was able to successfully argue for the removal of the name from Rijeka, but to do this for every single settlement/city where this is an issue would be too time consuming. I am hoping for a solution that would have all the Italian names removed at once, and then those who wish to add the name can argue for its addition on the article's talk page.

In addition to discussing the other name in the infobox, we can also discuss whether having the Italian name featured prominently in the lede is justified.

Pinging @LukeWiller and @Ponor as interested editors in the subject area. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have made edits to: Trogir, Opatija, Pula (also removed a redirect from Pola and its listing on the Pola disambiguation page as a historical province of Italy), Dubrovnik, Split, Rovinj, Zadar, Šibenik, Primošten (!!). Looks like every single settlement on the Croatian coast is going to have an Italian name, either simply there, or as an also known as, or as a historically known as. Then the "historically known" name is always going to be in bold, so it is as prominent in the lede as the current name.

I also removed Pula from the "Pola" disambiguation page. I removed Šibenik from the Sebenico disambiguation page, and a redirect from "Sebenico". Which made me realise, there's probably a redirect and a disambiguation page for nearly every coastal settlement...

yup:

Split, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spalato&redirect=no

Opatija, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abbazia&redirect=no

Wtf is going on here? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the Hungarian name of Pula (Póla) from the lead is understandable, although it would be more correct to retain it under a "Name/Etymology" section, and the redirect should be retained (in all cases). Please restore the Pola redirect and its place on the disambiguation page. The rest of your deletions will be reverted by other editors over time. Yes, Primošten has a Slavic etymology, but although few would protest its removal from the lead, Capocesto is very different from Primošten and should be retained in "Other" names in the infobox until you create a separate "Name" section for the information together with a source to confirm. See Istanbul#Name for an example of a Name section that includes currently unofficial names; the main reason "Constantinople" is not in the lead in that case is because there is a separate article for Constantinople.

If you want to get into policy, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#General guidelines states, "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted. Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name." This means Pola and Rovigno are covered as "local official names" (see Službena dvojezičnost u Istarskoj županiji: stanje i perspektive), while the rest are covered as "used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place". Even if they weren't, in current times the Italian name makes up well over 10% of sources in the English language (see Google Ngrams for Trau,Trogir, for Opatija,Abbazia, for Dubrovnik,Ragusa and Šibenik,Sebenico. The only exception is for Spalato,Split, where "Split" dominates by a much more significant margin. Zara,Zadar is obfuscated by Zara (retailer), but "Zara" made up more than 10% of all English mentions before the retailer was founded. Ragusa is also a city in Sicily, but even when restricting to Dubrovnik it seems to make up more than 10% of all English mentions. While

Yes, "all alternative names can be listed and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; it is recommended to have such a section if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves," but "a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be both in such separate section and in the lead, in the form "(Foreign language: Local name; known also by several [[#Names|alternative names]])"." In most of the examples you struck, that is exactly what had been done. Even Kyiv retains "Kiev" in the lead, after so much controversy there is a WP:KIEV policy! Ivan (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Please restore the Pola redirect and its place on the disambiguation page."

I have done that, because it looks like Pola is an official name. That is my mistake.

"The rest of your deletions will be reverted by other editors over time."

Why?

"Capocesto is very different from Primošten and should be retained in "Other" names in the infobox"

Why?

"while the rest are covered as "used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place"."

And when did Italians inhabit Trogir in large numbers?

They were once the majority. See for example O broju Talijana/talijanaša u Dalmaciji XIX. stoljeća. Ivan (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18th century? That's your justification for having it as an other name in the infobox?

I also like the first sentence of that text: "Dugo zatomljivana težnja talijanskog iredentizma spram posjedovanja odnosno svojatanja Dalmacije, napose Zadra, nedavno je, iako stidljivo, ponovo izašla na javu."

Ironic, don't you think? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19th. XIX means 19th. For example, 62% were registered as Italian speakers in the 1880 census per Censimenti: della popolazione dell'Istria, con Fiume e Trieste, e di alcune citta della Dalmazia tra il 1850 e il 1936. The majority of Italian names you erased existed long before il irredentismo, and even if they were invented during that period, those names would still deserve a redirect and a mention in the Names/Etymology section. Ivan (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Italian names are not currently used. They can be mentioned in the History/etymology section, but the names aren't a key fact that needs to be in the infobox or the lede. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 20:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are currently used in English literature, and quite frequently. Mostly by Italian authors, but even by non-Italians. Not all are in official use, but if you want to use that as an excuse to exclude it from the lead, you need to create a Name/Etymology section immediately after the lead. Ivan (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"They are currently used in English literature, and quite frequently."

But in what context? Are they English translations of Italian literature? Are they history books, are they fantasy books? How many of those instances refer to the city today in contemporary works by Croatian or English authors written for an English audience? All of the citations I removed were either Italian language works or pre-WWII works.

"you need to create a Name/Etymology section immediately after the lead."

Alright. Here's a relevant example, Istanbul. "Constantinople" is neither in the lede nor infobox. But it does have an etymology section that goes through all the historical names for the city. I think that is a more elegant solution than just shoving a bunch of names in the lede. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 21:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these cities could use an Etymology section. Most are very old and should be in Slavenstvo i romanstvo na jadranskim otocima and the other major sources. Ivan (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"in current times the Italian name makes up well over 10% of sources in the English language"

First of all, you set the dates all the way back to 1800. Second, without context how the words are used, the Ngram result is useless.

I made that clear. It should give you a good picture of the result of a more detailed investigation will be. You are welcome to contest, but it is likely to be a futile effort. Ivan (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the onus be on me for exclusion? What justification do you have for having an Italian name as the other name for these cities? The WP:RS provided for the ones I edited were poor. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit summary for Pula, you stated "a book about Italian WWII refugees is not a good source to justify saying it is "aka Pola"". There are better sources, but this book will do fine. If you want to replace it with a better one, go ahead. Ivan (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source you linked above about bilingualism is better, because in it it names Pula and other cities that have an official Croatian and Italian name. Of course I'm OK with the Italian name being in the infobox in the case of those cities. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 20:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the previous source with Službena dvojezičnost u Istarskoj županiji: stanje i perspektive. Ivan (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think this was a productive discussion. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 21:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be both in such separate section and in the lead, in the form"

Other than Pula-Pola and Rovinj-Rovigno, none of the cities that I edited have a "local official name different from a widely accepted English name".

You are correct for cases with 3+ names ("it is recommended to have such a section if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves"), but the burden is on you to move the information from the lead to the "Name" section, instead of deleting it from the lead. Ivan (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"all alternative names can be listed and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead"

I did not remove any "Names" or "Etymology" sections, that is all listed there. But it isn't significant enough to have those names in the lead. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Similar discussions in related topic areas were recently had at Talk:Tito and Talk:Nikola Tesla. @TurboSuperA+, are you the same person as @Platipusica? --Joy (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Similar discussions"

Similar how?

"are you the same person as @Platipusica?"

No. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the discussion at Talk:Tito and if you want to know my opinion on it, I think Tito's article page should have his name in cyrillic in the infobox as he was president of Yugoslavia and cyrillic was official script in Yugoslavia.

No, the two discussions are not "similar" at all, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't cast WP:ASPERSIONS as your first ever reply to me.

And since your first reply to the topic is accusations of sockpuppetry, I'm going to assume that means you have no good counter-arguments to the OP. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No aspersions were cast - I'm just asking, because the arguments are very similar - let's get rid of vaguely controversial information in a contentious topic area. The argument in OP is way too broad to be useful - the use of e.g. Fiume is well-attested in the sources, and your claims about it being irrelevant are patently false. On the other hand, the use of other Italian toponymy could well be too minor to note. My response is generally the same as in the previous discussions - if there's reason to believe an English reader could well encounter such names in sources about the same topic, there is no reason to censor them, we can only have a discussion about what's the reasonable place. Your edits at Sebenico I had to revert, and they do little to reassure us you're not here to just blindly censor stuff contrary to policy. --Joy (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guess where my IP 172.20.10.5 is.

It is not that hard. Platipusica (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In all this, do not forget that MOS:LEADCLUTTER needs to be avoided, like in Moscow or Gdansk, so different (non-English) names and spellings should be put in a note. I question the need for historical names in the lead, as in most cases the next (first) section will be about the historical names. The first sentence should be simple, and about what's now. Ponor (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 07:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian settlement articles mass creation III

@Ponor @Joy I just saw Croatian settlement articles mass creation I and II and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PonoRoboT 2. Has any further work been done? I have created a number myself, and it is very tedious. Let me know if you need help convincing anyone of their notability. For example, even settlements with 0 inhabitants can be expanded beyond the coverage of articles like Lubenice, Lesci. Ivan (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking, @Ivan. That was supposed to be my summer vacation project last year, but got overly bureaucratized and my summer was over. Apparently, manual creation of hundreds of Croatian settlement stubs by hand is acceptable, but letting a bot do it not-so-much. Let me know if you have particular settlements you'd like to see created (template), and I'll see what I can do to make that happen. Ponor (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Most of the settlements in Skrad and Delnice municipalities don't have articles yet, which complicates my process of adding news articles to History sections for small settlements. Ivan (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, @Ivan. My code can easily generate these articles, but I'll go slow – maybe some 10 articles a day as a regular user. I've created Bukov Vrh, Divjake, Croatia, and Hlevci so far. Ponor (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thank you! Ivan (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's cross-reference the followup to this at User talk:Joy#Need disambig. or move, Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia/To Do List/Missing settlements/Check disambig. --Joy (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On this note, let's see if anyone here has an opinion on the last few tough nuts to crack - preferably based on reliable sources - with regard to:

if Pušća near Zagorska Sela is of comparable notability as Pušća near Zaprešić?
if the settlement of Trakošćan should be disambiguated with the Trakošćan castle, and the lake, through a list, or in a hatnote?
if Vrginmost the settlement should have a separate article from its municipality, Gvozd?

--Joy (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Pušća near Zaprešić is probably the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As a municipality, it is discussed not only for its own population (Gornja+Donja) but for outlying settlements.

• No opinion on Virginmost and Gvozd. For navigational reasons, I prefer WikiProject Slovenia's system of separating municipality articles from settlement articles.

Ivan (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably agreed for Pušća, though it's close if I take the bird's eye view. The current southern Pušća villages are about 1k people, and at its peak the northern one had 0.3k. They're in the same part of the country, and the average English reader probably can't really distinguish one from the other.

I wouldn't want to maintain another 500+ separate articles on the English Wikipedia for both the municipalities and each capital settlement, it sounds to me like pure administrivia that doesn't actually help any English readers. It's a reasonable way to categorize the hierarchy, but beyond the occasional signposting on the roads or on some buildings, they're just thin air, so a spurious extra click. --Joy (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hierarchies change so often, too. Once the Governance/Politics section of a municipal seat grows large enough, the article for the municipality can be split off. Until then, I have no need for articles on municipalities. Ivan (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trakošćan, it seems from the current usage, should be a disambiguation page for the three (if in doubt - disambiguate). Vrginmost should be separate from Gvozd. We have similar cases: Kraj is the central settlement in Dicmo, one of the 7 Kaštelas of Kaštela, etc. The only question is which prose goes where. Ponor (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian municipality and town data

Whoever is updating our Croatian municipality and town articles, feel free to copy&paste the automatically generated data from (or up to) the 2021 Census:

If copied, two ad-hoc templates will be substituted, so let's make sure we first agree on their contents: {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia/To Do List/Missing settlements/Muni}} and {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia/To Do List/Missing settlements/Town}} Ponor (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems very nice, thanks! I wonder about the rest of the story, for example:

If we include both '11 and '21 data, we should add a section for demographics or population.

colwidth=20em should be tuned against the existing colwidth and/or the width of the actual data

If there's newlines in existing calls to {{Croatian population data graph}}, they shouldn't be removed

Did you match the disambiguation tags from existing articles, or from some other data source? --Joy (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been adding a Demographics/Population section recently whenever I was adding the bar chart. Colwidth=20 seemed ok, but nothing there should be copied blindly (as some other things usually need readjustment). Not sure what you mean about the newlines: I think I added the graph to all the cities/towns, very few municipalities have it.

The titles should be from the day I created the two files, as I used {{subst:sitelink|en|qid}} (if that's what you're asking, @Joy) Ponor (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy, you probably asked about the disambiguation tags for the individual settlements. If an enwiki article exists and is connected with Wikidata, I used that title. If there's no article for X, the algorithm was to use the first available in the sequence "X, Croatia" > "X, County", "X, Muni/Town". And also if there are multiple settlements X around Croatia, I'd try to disambiguate at the highest level possible. That does not necessarily mean everything's right. Sometimes we'd rather use "X, Island" than "X, County", and so on. Ponor (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponor yeah, I'm saying we already disambiguated most of them in the existing municipality lists, so if you applied a fresh algorithm that didn't take this into account, these will definitely differ. --Joy (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they may differ, here and there (for nonexisting articles). Haven't seen that many, though. But I've seen quite a number of old settlement lists in our municipality articles where there was no disambiguation where there's supposed to be one. Not sure if those who added the lists always really cared about a few hundred eponymous settlements across the country (plus eponymous topics around the world), i. e. if they disambiguated only according to already existing settlement articles. Ponor (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's been some talk of using the term township for grad municipalities. I think this may fit smaller places like maybe Trogir or smaller, but the larger ones should use city. --Joy (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to do that, but then... Where do you draw a line not to "insult" anyone. IDK if Kutina is more of a city than Krapina or Vukovar or Vrlika or Hvar. Our Cities of Croatia says "no distinction", though we kind of know there is some. Ponor (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a perennial problem. The list article has both in the title, and we've gone through multiple iterations of how {{Croatian cities}} is formatted to sort of convey this distinction. --Joy (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, there is no universal lower size limit required of a settlement to become a city and any agreement struck here will inevitably be arbitrary. Croatian legislation appears to use the term "city" to mean "grad" in the administrative sense as if size does not matter. See [2] for example. I think that investing any effort in divining where the limit lies will produce no gain. Tomobe03 (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Township is useful as a term to differentiate between the town itself and the area of the town with its administrative dependencies. Some towns have municipalities (Croatian: općina), while others have townships (Croatian: grad). Ivan (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the question is in the nuance. For example, the Sinj lead section says town, while the infobox uses the labels "Town" and "Urban", and Sinj#Demographics uses the term municipality. This is obviously a more general issue than this census update, but I thought it might be a good time to try to get a more consistent style in there while we're at it. --Joy (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be fine to call any settlement having the 'grad' status a city, and all other urban (i.e. not rural) settlements towns. Tomobe03 (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen 200k-person Indian places called just 'towns' in the English Wikipedia, for years, I don't think that is sensible. --Joy (talk) 08:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those names cannot be copied from other countries, though it's better to translate than to call them grad/općina/naselje. In Croatia, a settlement will usually have a core, and slowly spread around it. In some other countries, like the US, they draw town borders on a map, there's no central square, central church, it's just continuously populated areas with artificial borders. When it comes to Sinj: I've checked a few dictionaries, where they say that cities and towns are all, functionally, municipalities (as in: republics and kingdoms are all states). In Croatia, the difference is that they make some legal distinctions between grad and općina, which probably get lost in translation, unless we link to the ~exact definitions in Municipalities/Cities of Croatia. I'd stick with the City/Municipality scheme, where some less urban cities can be called towns (Vrlika, for example), whereas all third level divisions are simply settlements (naselja); i don't think there's need to call them villages, nowhere in the laws they make that distinction. Ponor (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no particular need to call a village a village, other than it just being natural. Calling a village a settlement would be needlessly bureaucratizing the prose. --Joy (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the 800,000 people Hempstead is a *town*. So is 500,000 people Brookhaven. Ponor (talk) 09:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no particular lower limit on size of a city or upper on size of a town. In my view any attempt to decide if e.g. Trogir is one or the other would be completely arbitrary. In light of the Hempstead example above, every Croatian city could be a town. On the other hand Wells, Somerset is a 10k population city. We have an English-language source as Narodne novine labelling all having status of a 'grad' as a city, ignoring the size of the settlement, just as the dictionary definition does. I don't see the need to define an arbitrary limit where a town ends and city begins. Published sources appear to call everything that is a 'grad' a city at least in an administrative sense and I see no reason to act contrary to that. I also see no problem in labelling a settlement interchangeably a town and city since I expect nobody to be confused by that. Tomobe03 (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wells has to link the term 'cathedral city' to City status in the United Kingdom which is a huge article explaining that, because it's weird. We shouldn't go out of our way to make articles about non-weird topics weird. --Joy (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point. The terms town and city appear to be used interchangeably without a specific boundary defined and that's fine for Croatian settlements as well IMO. It also appears from reliable sources that 'grad' in administrative sense is a 'city' in that sense. Such use for administrative cities of Trogir's size and smaller is equally weird as use of the same term for cathedral cities - but the point is the sources support such use. I could reference Narodne novine saying explicitly a particular settlement is a city for administrative/self-government purposes. Inventing a town/city size limit would be arbitrary, unsupported by reliable sources and, I believe it would not benefit readers in any real way. It would certainly be possible to try to impose a WP:CRO rule saying "anything smaller than 15k population should be referred to as 'town' in non-administrative terms", but enforcing such policy, swapping synonyms would be stylistic only. Tomobe03 (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, that's why I said we should try for a more consistent style. :) A style rule can be simply that we use the more obvious term town for smaller places. If someone insists on using the term "city" in the lead section, they have to add a footnote that explains it and references it to a source for the explanation. --Joy (talk) 10:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you think such a style rule should be formulated, you're welcome to give it a go... I probably would not look for/ask for such a cite per WP:BLUE if any 'grad' or any urban settlement at all (above or below any arbitrarily set threshold) were referred to as a city in a GAN I were reviewing. I think few editors would. Tomobe03 (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English Wikipedia, and it's got a global audience, this could only be WP:BLUE on the Croatian one. --Joy (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, recently the local elections were in the news again, and it reminded of of this:

Propisani su i maksimalni iznosi troškova po listi, kreću se od 40 tisuća kuna za vijeća u općinama i gradovima koji imaju do 3000 stanovnika te do 800 tisuća kuna na izborima za Gradsku skupštinu Grada Zagreba.

[3]

So the Croatian government (i.e. the primary source) clearly has rules that distinguish smaller municipal areas from larger ones based on population numbers. Hence, us distinguishing them using similar criteria isn't arbitrary. Pretty sure if we searched for secondary sources on the matter, we'd find some. --Joy (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. They draw a line at 3k population size regarding salaries. That does not start to justify a line on what feels a town and not a city (and vice versa). The distinction is entirely subjective (one may feel Trogir is a town, another does not and nobody has anything to substantiate the distinction). The point is English language does not draw a distinction between the two, and the terms are applied by convention or interchangeably where there is none. Inventing a rule where none exist - neither legally nor linguistically - appears arbitrary by definition. Tomobe03 (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to pre-empt looking for and responding to additional categorisation of grad for Croatia's administrative purposes and translations of the same to town vs city - I have absolutely nothing against one referring to any grad as a town (except in administrative sense) if one feels that would make better prose. I have nothing against one referring to any grad as a city either, including a royal free city if necessary. I have nothing against editors swapping one term with the other if they feel that is an obstacle to understanding of a given article and that the change would improve the offending article. I am against devising a guideline/policy/whatnot relying on an arbitrary size threshold for no reason except personal preference (not to mention against consensus). Tomobe03 (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But there is organic consensus in the country that there is such a thing as veliki gradovi and mali gradovi. Just because we can literally translate these terms as 'big cities' and 'small cities' that doesn't mean we have to pretend this is the sole meaning of it. Calling the smallest of the mali gradovi a city would indeed be arbitrary. --Joy (talk) 07:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's not (only) the number of people, maybe it's whether there's a university in a town, a big hospital, public transportation, how 'urban' the town looks. Some places have a huge population, but they just don't feel like cities, it's almost ridiculous to call them cities. So, the City of Trogir sounds about right, to me, the City of Dugo Selo does not. On the opposite side, when someone says "village", to me that's "has chicken and cows". But anyway, let's play by ear. If people disagree, they'll change it (give them time). Ponor (talk) 08:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ponor here. To repeat, I don't mind using the town/city as deemed appropriate to get better prose, or even interchangeably if that seems right. My argument is that there simply should not be a rule saying when one should feel a grad is a town and when it is not. Similarly one could try to define the point when a settlement is not rural enough to be a village anymore. Tomobe03 (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponor btw I happened to notice [4] where the link to naselja was removed. Please restore that (wherever it happened). Also, the number formatting is broken, the comma for thousands is missing. --Joy (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Slavonia front

Hello, can you keep an eye on this page [[5]] that is constantly being changed. The war ended with the Erdut Agreement, but some later blocked IPs are changing that into some kind of their own fabricated Yugoslav victory [[6]]. Thank you. 89.172.250.9 (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Lazac#Requested move 28 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lazac#Requested move 28 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --Joy (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Worrying trend on articles about Croatian coastal cities that were under occupation by Fascist Italy

Hello, I am not sure if this is the right place to ask this or have this discussion, but maybe you can point me in the right direction if not.

On articles about Croatian, coastal cities that were occupied by fascist Italy after WWI and during WWII the infobox shows the Italian name for the city under the Croatian name for the city, see examples: Šibenik, Zadar, Split,_Croatia, Trogir, Pula, Opatija, Rovinj, and so on. Every Croatian city that used to be under Fascist Italy occupation has the Italian name right under the Croatian name.

The addition of the Italian name is justified by a single source (always a history book in Italian). According to the census in 2021 there are some ~13.000 Italians living in Croatia; they do not make up a significant minority and Italian is not an official language in Croatia. Also important to note that the Croatian wikipedia does not have Italian names in the infobox. Furthermore, since this is English wikipedia, the vast majority of readers won't know the city by the Italian name, but the infobox can actually do damage because it can make readers think that the Italian name is an acceptable other/alternative name for the city, when it absolutely is not.

I was able to successfully argue for the removal of the name from Rijeka, but to do this for every single settlement/city where this is an issue would be too time consuming. I am hoping for a solution that would have all the Italian names removed at once, and then those who wish to add the name can argue for its addition on the article's talk page.

Pinging editors who might be interested in this discussion since they discussed it on the talk pages of cities: @Ponor @LukeWiller TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're attributing this all to the Fascist occupation, but Istria and Dalmatia were part of the Republic of Venice till almost the end of the 18th century. Are you sure that's not the reason for including the Italian names? I don't have a strong opinion on whether they should be included, but it would be good not to misattribute the reasons for them being there.

That said, this talk page is for discussion of the template, not its specific uses, so I think this is the wrong place. You might try notifying some Wikiprojects, say the ones for Croatia, Italy, and Geography. --Trovatore (talk) 05:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"You're attributing this all to the Fascist occupation"

I assumed good faith on the part of the editor who changed them.

"Istria and Dalmatia were part of the Republic of Venice till almost the end of the 18th century. Are you sure that's not the reason for including the Italian names?"

Including a name that was used between the 15th and 18th century as a currently used "other name" is actually a bad faith edit, so if you think that's the reason I can just change them all without the need for this discussion. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 06:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The optional parameter does seem to be "for places with other commonly used names like Bombay or Saigon". On English Wikipedia the other "commonly used names" are supposed to be the names (used) in English, not Mandarin, Italian, or Russian. Ponor (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This really isn't the right place to discuss it.

That said — I had heard of Fiume. I had never heard of Rijeka. Now, the reasons I had heard of Fiume may have had to do with the Fascist era (or more likely, D'Annunzio's proto-fascist adventure beforehand), but that's irrelevant. I suspect "Fiume" is marginally more recognizable in English than "Rijeka". --Trovatore (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fiume is also the Italian word for "river", while rijeka is the Croatian word for it. When I type in Fiume into Google, I get results for D'Annunzio's "Free State of Fiume". If you type in Rijeka, you get the correct city.

The section on History discusses the historical names of the city, there's no reason to have the name feature prominently as an "other name" in the infobox.

In English-language articles, the city is referred to as "Rijeka", never Fiume. This holds for every Croatian city this topic is about (every city with Italian name as the "other name".

"the citizens of Croatian city Rijeka"^[1]

"What exactly will emerge on the Rijeka slipways"^[2]

Weather Underground weather report has the city as "Rijeka" and the weather station is called "Rijeka station".^[3]

On Google Maps and openstreetmap it is "Rijeka", and so on.

There are no contemporary English or Croatian WP:RS that call the city anything but Rijeka. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

I moved the above discussion here from Template talk:Infobox settlement. --Joy (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://variety.com/2025/film/reviews/fiume-o-morte-review-1236301450/

[2] ttps://total-croatia-news.com/news/business/australian-businessman-rijeka-3-maj-shipyard/

[3] ttps://www.wunderground.com/forecast/hr/rijeka

[1]

[2]

[3]