Talk:Counties of Croatia

List format
Aww, but I spent some effort to make it the list comprehensive :) Is it really important to make it so compact? This is, after all, the page where one goes for some detailed information about the counties from the main country page, I don't think it's really expected to be so terse. --Shallot 13:02, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Now that there's Template:Zupanije, there's no need for this link to be so compact so I've reverted (though with slightly smaller cellpadding/cellspacing). --Shallot 02:03, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Maps
Just so that I don't have to search for it: User talk:Morwen/archive5 has some relevant content. --Shallot

Subdivisions of counties
I've already told User:Jugoslaven on his talk page that there is little or no reason to link non-existent pages named "Municipality of $1" or "Township of $1" when there is scarcely any reason to have such pages in favor of those named "$1". I'm therefore reverting this last edit.

BTW, why use the term "township" at all? Which Croatian term does this translate? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   17:25, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Translating Jugoslaven's comments from my talk page:


 * Township is the translation of administrative areas connected to towns. When it says "town", that doesn't give the impression of a territorial administrative unit.


 * That makes sense, although I had the impression that the term was U.S.-centric, or at least only applied in that country. Could be wrong... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;


 * Secondly, other countries also have articles about their municipalities (Italy, Switzerland, Netherlands, Pennsylvania, ...) so I don't see a reason why Croatia shouldn't.


 * I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that the *title* of the page shouldn't be "Municipality of Mjesto" and instead simply "Mjesto". --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;


 * Just to drop in to give my thoughts on this. Now, I dont know the details of Croatian geography, but I'm assuming that "Mjesto" is also a town. On Bosnian wiki we had a similar problem so now we keep the pages for cities and the municipalities carrying their name seperate. It makes more sense to me because when one thinks of a "city" they think of a concentrated urban area, but these municipalities contain dozens of square kilometers of land that dont belong to the city of the same name or, sometimes, have several other notable towns. Of course, sometimes the town is the dominant feature of the municipality, but in that case there should just be a relatively brief article on the municipality. Asim Led 01:25, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Naming
moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Subnational entities/Naming


 * So you decided to change a whole fricking bunch of pages with little or no discussion? Please cease and desist.
 * You also miscategorized the Croatian counties as "trailing no-bracket uppercase english" because they're actually trailing no-bracket *lowercase* English. I'm rolling back those county->County changes in the Croatian county names, because not only is this not discussed, but also IMHO pointless and uncalled for, and I *wrote* most of those pages. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   10:05, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * When I categorized them it was right. What do you mean by it is pointless and uncalled for? That you wrote the articles is nice, but pointless for the question what is the best name. Tobias Conradi 11:19, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It's pointless because the word "county" is only the most common word for "&#382;upanija", the counties do not have an official name "Foo County". It's uncalled for because the county pages existed for months nicely with the lowercased "county" in the title before you came along with your capitalization scheme. Please leave them be, they're fine as they are. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   18:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought they have official name like "Foo County" (in croation Foo zupanija). Therfore, translating it to english brings "Foo County", because in english it is common to capitalise. Tobias Conradi 22:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * That may be so, but using the capitalization creates the false impression that this English translation provides for an authoritative name of a županija, but it doesn't, really. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;

Tobias Conradi has done it again, and when I told him to stop, he just told me that I'm lying and that I'm ignorant. Yes, you heard that right. :) Someone please talk some sense into him. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   22:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * that's a lie again or at least big misrepresentation. You said
 * Hi. Please stop moving Croatian county pages to uppercased "County". Again. We've had this discussion once before and you've failed to provide any real reason why they should be moved.
 * you were ignorant regarding the overwhelming use and you lied when you said that I did not provide any real reason why they should be moved. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, overwhelming use of the uppercased form is not necessarily a real reason to move *everything* to use it. Especially given that you changed many pages beforehand to produce this overwhelmingness, before it was probably a normal majority. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   16:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to explain my case to a bit more length on TC's talk page, I'll copy it here:

Yes, the majority of counties in the world are uppercase. But not the Croatian ones - this simply doesn't apply. The word county is not a direct, sanctioned translation of the word županija - it's just the closest available word. We could have used the word "province", or even "region", none of them are much worse than "county". When you uppercase "County", that makes it sound as if there actually is an entity called e.g. "Zagreb County". But there isn't. There's only "Zagreba&#269;ka županija". The rest is translation.

Granted, one could argue that this isn't sufficient to make it lowercased instead of uppercased, like the other counties. But I want to see someone besides our resident let's-normalize-all-province-names Tobias support this opinion, and also someone who is a native English speaker. If assorted native speakers said that it was somehow wrong and/or abhorrent to see the word "county" in this case lowercased and that I just has to be uppercased, I would yield. But right now I see little reason to. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   23:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * someone who likes the idea: PS, regularizing the links for this page is likely to result in something marvellous happening... -- The Anome 14:27, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)' source: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Subnational entities
 * someone who sees an advantage: The only advantage is the esthetic one of consistency across Wikipedia. Bill 01:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC) source: Talk:Provinces of Italy


 * Something more straightforward would be appreciated. They're not saying that they absolutely have to have this consistency. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   16:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I did not claim lowercase to be wrong but maybe it is. Anyway what you asked for (assorted english native) could also be requested for your position that uppercase is wrong. This person should also clarify whether it is only wrong for Croatia or for more counties in other countries. Additional it would be interesting to hear about the upper/lowercase practice for other entity terms like province, district ... Maybe we conclude than that 70% of the wikipedia subnational entity titles are wrong. No problem! We can fix this. But I do not see why having a special case for Croatia. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The whole problem is that you seem to find any form to be wrong in a manner that you have a compelling need to correct it. I don't see much reason to disallow forms that aren't exactly the same as some others, because in this case there is no right form other than županija, and if we used that, it would sound rather unnatural to the English readers and we'd surely have to spend more time explaining it than is desired.
 * Why is the consistency among all local-government forms so paramount to the explanations of the people who live in them? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   16:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * the "whole problem" is that you do not see the benefits of a unified naming scheme or in your utility function this is weighted less than in mine. I never said lowercase is wrong. Maybe you can help me in convincing people on russians and ukraine oblasts to use the word province. As it is with županija the term oblast is hardly used in english. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would like to see the benefits of a unified naming scheme. What are they? We have redirects to compensate for the case difference, what are the other benefits?
 * redirects - do not work when used more than one after each other,


 * That's a triviality, and easily fixed, too. Also, a technical issue that you could bring up with the developers of the software. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;


 * break the functionality of visited links in the browser.


 * Er, that's rather minor, too. Also note that it happens very rarely with the Croatian counties because most of the links are consistently to the lowercase version. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;


 * It is easier for editors to know one rule for naming then having to know different rules and to know which country uses which rule.


 * Uh, but this blanket rule simply cannot apply to subnational entities, which are specific to each nation by definition. Sure, many are similar, but there are still many that are simply not named the same and cannot have the same title. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   21:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Some languages use latin based alphabets like croatian languages does. I do not know how long you followed the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers, I liked the statement of Mikkalai:

That's exactly why we have to have a single convention, to avoid guessing. Not to say that in one language River may be part of the name, while not in another one, for the same river. In such cases the primary goal is convenience for numerous editors; readers are more interested in correct and complete contents of the actual article, which may contain all possible names and spellings.

When writing an article full of personal and geographic names it is a great pain to double-check each and every name. It is especially confusing in the case of missing articles. When we have red links for Qaxan River, Qaxan, Qaxan river, Qaxan (river) Quaxan River, Quaxan, Quaxan river, Quaxan (river), Qazan River, Qazan, Qazan river, Qazan (river), great chances are that after some time we will have duplicate articles, with pain in the neck remaining to collect all the remaining red links into one place. This kind of discussion happened for numerous other things: Aircraft carriers, lakes, etc. And nearly always the best solution is a single solution, even if sometimes it produces awkward and unusual article titles, like Vasili IV of Russia, who is overwhelmingly known as Vasili Shuisky Mikkalai 21:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * That's all great but again it's not relevant to your argument given that we already have a lack of uniformity in the province names - we have not picked "provinces", "counties", "regions", "prefectures", "republics", ... but all of them. Granted, when seeing that other counties are named "X County", one might think to choose "Istria County", but that depends on the premise that they know that the term is county and not something else &mdash; and that premise is false. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   21:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * by allowing for lower case and upper case on choice of wikipedians involved in the respective entity sets, one doubles the lack of uniformity.


 * Yes, we double it from N to N+1 where N is &gt;5. If we were talking of smaller N, I would see the point in avoiding further discrepancy, but it's already large. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   11:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * At least the style of writing can be uniform. Allowing only for lower OR upper case the chance of typing entity names right by simply guessing is heavily increased. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * uniformity: If one creates a list of articles for subnational entities then only the croatian ones are lower cased. Would look strange to me. Also while surfing I would think, badly organized, reasonless or by complex rule or single rule created mixture of upper and lower case.


 * So, personal preference. Okay, for what it's worth. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   21:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This is _one_ wikipedia. For people that like some consistency this should be provided.


 * But there is consistency in the set of the Croatian counties. There isn't consistency in the set of all counties, but given that they're actually županije and that there isn't consistency in the set of all subnational entities, there is no simple logical equation saying that this partial consistency needs to happen. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   21:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Would you like the zupanija of Dalmatia to be lower case and the non-Dalmatinian to be upper case? Or a division for counties A-M upper case the other lower case?Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * That would break uniformity within the set of the same entities. You're talking of uniformity between the set of different entities that are have a similar function. It's not the same. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   21:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not claim it to be the same. BTW the Dalmatian counties are coastal counties, so we could make them uppercase. It is the set of coastal counties that will then have uniformity. Or would you like taking random set of counties? We could tell people because you wanted some lower case we made some lower case and because I wanted some upper case we made some uppercase. This is maybe more weird than your proposal to have only the croatian counties lowercase but it is weird anyway that you want seperate naming rules for subnational entities of different countries. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You have again tried to make it look like I want to make a leap in logic, but I don't. The coastal and the continental counties all have the same properties: the name županija, the župan and the dožupans, the assembly, ... essentially, the same law that covers them. Same goes for any random set of Croatian counties. But there is no single law that covers the Croatian as well as any other subnational entity in the world, so there is no reason to try to pretend that we can unify them all under one simple scheme. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   11:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Whether there is a leap in logic depends on the point of view. The logic can be write all entity terms in uppercase, or write terms for non-croatian lower case and the rest upper case. Or write all croatian entites like Joy likes it and the other like Tobias likes it. You say they are covered by the same law. So what? I say the costal ones have a border with adria and for adria we could take upper case. We could apply this rule worldwide, - you know I like uniformity ;-).


 * Yes, but the intrinsic quality that sets apart the subnational divisions from any other random divisions of land and sea is that a law prescribes them. Not a convention between geographers or between linguists, but a law of the country they are part of. This has to be an overarching criterion because it is based on their very definition. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   10:13, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think all rules or logics have different complexity. And the upper case all is the least complex. When I uniformed the parishes in the carribbeans I found a lot that actually had the same name. By unifying I resolved a lot of red links and wrong links. Country A: "X (parish)", B: "X parish", C: "X Parish", D: "X Parish, D". In the first run I made them "X Parish", and while discovering that several of the same name existed I partially added ", Countryname". see: Saint George Parish. Same goes for Córdoba 2x provinces, Amazonas 2 states.

I do not expect to have a "Zagreb County" outside of Croatia and "Zagreb county" inside. But maybe there is "Zagreb County, Austrian Empire". Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I admit that I was surprised to see the Ukrainians insist on oblast &co., but I was reluctant to contradict them because they should know better than me. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   17:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * And I was surprised that a ukrainian journalist called me asshole. Why should they know better? Could also be the other way around: They know worse, because their knowledge about the term oblast is biased. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not care that much about google results but maybe you search for zagreb county what gives lower and uppercase hits. Prefecture was only found when articles had to do with Japan. You also might look at http://www.croatia.hr/activities/content.aspx?idActivities=3, they use county and they use it uppercase. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

And again I see that after I completed reverting them all, and then Tobias reverted all again. &lt;sigh&gt; --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   21:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You are once again missinforming the reader. I told you I stop moving at letter "O". This was meant to prevent moving forth and back. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Er, and then after you said that I continued to move A-O back, and then you again moved all, from Bjelovar-Bilogora onwards. Where is this misinformation? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   11:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I called it missinformation because you talked about "all" leaving out the piece of information that I stopped at a certain point, namely after you contacted me on my talk page. I did not stop immediatly because I was in middle of moving and for not to lose overview of what was moved and which redirects were changed I completed all those that were open in my browser. "All" for me sounded like "all counties", not "all moved counties" Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Page Title
While "Counties of Croatia" is a reasonable title for a Category, as an article title it was radically at odds with WP naming conventions. In terms of WP style, the former article combined two topics that, despite their close relationship, are capable of clear separation. That separation aids users in finding the info they want: --Jerzy•t 16:43 & 16:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)(UTC)
 * County (Croatia) gives the information that is true of each county in Croatia, and conforms with the near-prime directive that titles should be singular nouns.
 * List of counties of Croatia conforms to the naming convention for the primary group of topics whose scope is inherantly plural in nature, the enumerations of the members of a group.


 * I vehemently disagree. There is no point in separating the concept from the list, because the two are inseparable! I also don't see any substantiation whatsoever for your claim that the current title is against the naming conventions. Have you ever even *seen* the List of subnational entities?! This is absurd and I'm reverting it. --Joy &#91;shallot] 16:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

list subdivision
This unexplained anonymous edit tripped off a series of bad reorganizations in the list. After I fixed it up, the entire Adriatic region is joined into one. This may be a stopgap measure, or it may remain. The traditional distinction taught in Croatian elementary school geography classes was in the edit before that other one. Anyone have thoughts? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Vukovar-Syrmia County vs Vukovar-Srijem County
Hi! I've noticed quite a lot of talk about Syrmia naming issue, and I feel selecting Syrmia for the geographic region is correct as English term being used on English wiki. However, after reading the arguments I could not discern why was Vukovar-Syrmia County selected for the Croatian county instead of official English translation of Vukovar-Srijem County: see page 54. I am aware that the official "translations" are inconsistent as there are Požega-Slavonia and Split-Dalmatia vs Osijek-Baranja (not Baranya), but that's another issue. I don't intend to change anything in that respect but I coudn't make out any sense from that, so am I missing something?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

A couple of comments
Here are some comments in no particular order: Overall, looking very good... A clear FL candidate. GregorB (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "County borders changed in some instances since, with the latest revision taking place in 2006." - I'd move that sentence to the end of the second paragraph, as it is not a really essential piece of info.
 * GDP per capita doesn't sort right. Ditto area.
 * Add NUTS-2 (region) to the table?
 * Maybe a note on Pazin not being the biggest city in the Istria County.
 * The Croatian version of the article might offer some ideas:
 * An arguably more suitable image map that identifies the counties, rather than their seats.
 * "Pravni akti" is a useful section, and while I don't think it is necessary to go into detail here, I'd still say "Financiranje" is particularly interesting. A (brief?) section on legal framework might enhance the article.
 * Refs look fine. (Just minor things like en dashes are left.)
 * Spelling/grammar/style look fine; a copyedit will presumably take care of finer points.


 * Thanks for the remarks! I moved the sentence mentioned above, as this seems to be a better solution. Also, the sort keys are now in. The map used now is problematic as it does not get much smaller than this (to avoid cluttering the text) and remaining legible in the process - I'm going to make a new one with a colour key which will allow no text on the map whatsoever - in effect making the map usable in any size at all, and in other languages as well - similar to the one in Slavonia article. Funding deserves a mention, but I would not go into greater detail regarding legal framework because some information is already there (regarding constitution, assembly, prefect and election) and I feel that should do it. If need be those may be expanded, but I really see no need. I'm not sure about the Pazin bit - the same situation exists in Vukovar-Syrmia County, where Vinkovci are the largest city but Vukovar is the county seat. Of course, Pula/Pazin difference greatly exceeds Vinkovci/Vukovar one, but still... As far as NUTS-2 regions are concerned - I like the idea, but I'll see first if that messes up sorting or not, I don't think that bit is essential, but it would be nice to have. Finally, I'm not quite certain on the ref dashes and other similar issues, so could you have a look too?--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I got the en dashes, at least in page ranges. Will look out for more. GregorB (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm still struggling to get the map right, but it shouldn't take too long.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the map in the Croatian article becomes garbled (county names appear out of place) when the browser window is not big enough. Tricky. GregorB (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit clarifications
Regarding "special status granted to noble estates" the source used says (p.2) that there were possessions of significant noblemen in Croatia which enjoyed a legal status separate from county authority. This statement is not elaborated any further by the source, however further on in the same text, it is stated that the basic functions of early counties were judiciary, taxation and command of military fortification(s). This situation applies, according to the source, until the 12th century (inclusive). In the 13th and the 14th centuries the counties seem to have encompassed possessions held by nobility, but apparently their authority was reduced to judiciary only. Between the 16th and the 18th century, authority of the counties was similarly restricted to judiciary and judicial administration, with a degree of self government expanding since 1745 when counties were restored in Slavonia after Ottoman rule and subsequent military administration ended there. The source also implies, but does not say explicitly, that the low level of county authority in the period stems from not necessarily equal interests of kings and local nobility (esp.13th/14th c.) with additional reduction of number of counties to all time low of three (Zagreb, Križevci and Varaždin counties) as territories were lost to the Ottomans and Venetians.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! What's the source used? The existing one doesn't include page 2 (or are you meaning the second page it includes, as in 56?). I'll try to incorporate more of the above - exactly what powers the counties have is actually something that needs expanding, both for present-day Croatia and in the history. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 14:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I meant the 2nd page of the PDF document linked. Thanks for the pointer regarding powers of the counties - I'll add that info, but I think I won't have enough time on my hands to do that properly before Sunday.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * General information on county powers is now in. The bit about performance of tasks at county level, in practice, means the following: For example, the counties enact county spatial and urban development plans, which represent an elaboration of national spatial and urban development plans. The county plans are in turn developed in greater detail by individual cities - for their specific areas, of course. Some of the activities (agriculture, fisheries, hunting, forestry) are never dealt with by the cities/municipalities rather by the central government and the counties alone, while other (eduation) by the counties and cities/municipalities. Normally cities take care of primary education (as primary schools are normally found in every city/municipalities), while the counties normally cover secondary education since secondary schools are not found in each of 127 cities, let alone 400+ municipalities. Still, there are examples where this arrangement is different because legislation allows it. In terms of road transport, counties manage county roads, as classified by national legislation. I'm not sure how much of this lengthy explanation (if any) or even more elaborate one, should be in the article though.


 * The assets management income includes income generated by operation of county owned institutions or companies. There is no defined set of rules, but the counties are allowed to set up any agency/company to allow execution of its legal authority. For instance, a county may set up a county hospital or a utility company (e.g. managing roads), galleries, theatres etc. which may operate with a profit which is then considered a county income (although losses are far more frequent in practice).--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Croatia has a universal health care system funded by the central and county government budgets. Its coverage is universal in sense that it is made available to the entire population through compulsory health insurance deducted from salaries or provided free to unemployed or retired, as well as to dependent persons (e.g. children). On the other hand it covers a limited set of treatments, procedures, medications etc., which is made available through additional health insurance schemes which are not mandatory.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Recaptured territory
As far as territory recaptured from the Ottomans is concerned - indeed the Ottoman Empire was pushed back from whatever territory medieval Croatian kingdom held before their conquest, but they were pushed back in two major stages - during the Great Turkish War, when Slavonia was recaptured and nearly two centuries later when Ottomans retreated from present-day Bosnia and Herzegovina and Lika. The latter was annexed to Croatia, but the former was not. Instead it was first occupied by Austria-Hungary while formally remaining a part of Ottoman Empire and then annexed to Austria-Hungary outright despite ideas to contrary. Term Turkish Croatia was used (not anymore) to describe a part of Bosnia and Herzegovina that was of particular interest in terms of annexation in the era. In summation, it would be fair to say that "some" territory was recaptured.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Croatian Counties/List of Counties of Croatia
The title of the article should really be one or the other, by the Manual of Style. "Croatian Counties" and "Counties of Croatia" would also be redirects to the article, of course. Also, should List of Croatian counties by GDP be brought in somehow, or at least referenced? Also, does something need doing about Counties of the Independent State of Croatia? Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 16:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would prefer List of Counties of Croatia to avoid any misunderstandings in respect of Croatian majority Cantons of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina which are also sometimes called counties in English. As far as Independent State of Croatia (NDH) counties are concerned, I don't think that those should be here except in the "See Also" section since the Republic of Croatia officially claims that it is not legally related to NDH, i.e. that it is a completely different state (albeit named Croatia). On the other hand, the Constitution and other legal documents draw references to the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia as a predecessor state hence this selection o "former counties" from that period.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The pre-1922 counties map appears (as a bitmap though) in the former counties sections, next to the table.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I spotted that right after I put in the request for clarification - oops! Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 17:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Why would it need to be named a list, when it really defines the term "counties of Croatia"? I see nothing wrong with the title. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about either solution. The article is not a set index article, so it may follow that it should be title "List of..." but I simply do not know for sure. Looking elsewhere (which may or may not be useful) I noticed there are Counties of England and List of counties of England (redirecting to List of counties of the United Kingdom section "England"). The former contains no list, rather a good deal of prose on the topic and the latter contains a bare-bone list. Would that type of solution be preferential - i.e. should this article be broken in two: an article on the counties and a minimum-lede list?--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about that earlier, and I'm coming to the conclusion that it would be the best move. Note the procedure at WP:Splitting. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 08:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've put up a draft version of the List article at User:Allens/sandbox/List of Counties of Croatia. This article would simply have the tables removed and a see also link at the top to List of Counties of Croatia. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 10:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was thinking of something similar. I would like to keep the present article as it is now (with present lists included), admittedly I'd like to propose changing its class from "List" to whichever class is appropriate for this article Top/High/etc. (if there is a consensus to do so), while starting a completely new List of Counties of Croatia, much like the List of counties of England specifying all previous incarnations of counties throughout history, linking them to various periods, as in the England related list.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I still fail to see the point. What benefit would any such separation provide to readers? As for the historical overview of counties, there really hasn't been that many changes to the županije (unlike općine), and the NDH ones are in a separate article anyway (and should stay there). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I would definitely like to keep this article intact, with all its present contents. I simply do not know if its title must be "List of..." or not, but I really do not mind one way or the other, as long as it is not an obstacle to a future FL review. The separate article, which I'd like to make, would be an outline (in list format) of evolution of counties in Croatia - I cannot tell from the top of my head if there's enough content to warrant creation of the article or not, but I'll give it a go in my sandbox and see what I come up with.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Come to think of it some more - let's keep everything as is for now, and FL review is sure to point out what need be done, if anything at all. If and when the second article fleshes out, this one can be modified if necessary. How about that?--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem... Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 22:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Declaring my copyedit done for now - will keep an eye on and be back when the FL discussion starts up
I've been asked to declare my "official"/GOCE copyediting done, at least for now. I will continue to keep an eye on the article and will be back to copyedit (and, for that matter, give any assistance helpful in splitting the article if that's needed) when the FL discussion starts up. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 16:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

areas
The Census 2011 results have a new 'collective review' at http://www.dzs.hr/Eng/censuses/census2011/results/htm/E02_02/E02_02.html that has new surface area numbers tagged with:
 * Data of the Surveying and Mapping Authority of the Republic of Croatia (calculated from the graphical database of the official records of territorial units)

We should probably switch to that then. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. On a further note, everyone, please keep in mind that the Census Bureau's English translations are horribly wrong more often than not. The above link contains a set of such - for instance they just invented "County of Slavonski Brod-Posavina". (compare defined English language equivalents of the Croatian terms here).--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sourced materials
Hi! Recent edits removing sourced material on personal sayso are unacceptable and constitute disruptive editing. Please see WP:BRD.

If one thinks a particular bit of sourced material is interpreted otherwise by other sources, please find a reliable source for that and present it at article's talk page. I am fully aware of prevailing and minority theories of ethnic origins of Croats, but please note that the sourced bit you have removed has nothing to do with origin of Croats, and deals with etymology instead (origin of a word). Just to make clear, presence of a word whose etymology is traced to Avar language does not say anything about ethnic origin one way or another. Forex English word "quiver" is etymologically traced to Hungarian, but it does not trace origin of Englishmen to Hungary or Hungarians.

In other words, if there is a reliable source (per WP:RS) saying explicitly that the particular word is traced to some other language, please add that information here. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No need for accusations, there's a misunderstanding and what you're saying is opening a whole new discussion on which neither modern scholars are completely sure. I advise you to read Origin hypotheses of the Croats, and especially Župa. The old scholars Avar language consideration, claimed by historian Klaić, is outdated and dismissed now, and there is no NPOV secure language derivation. As such, calling my NPOV edit (which does not emphasize any theory, especially not Avar which neither is mentioned in the Hrvatski Etimološki Rječnik by Alemko Gluhak (1993) disruptive and "sayso" you are calling modern scholars view "sayso".--Crovata (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Counties of Croatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130828162010/http://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/1992_12_90_2333.html to http://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/1992_12_90_2333.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Counties of Croatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120615111709/http://www.porezna-uprava.hr/en/porezi/v_poreza.asp?id=b01d1 to http://www.porezna-uprava.hr/en/porezi/v_poreza.asp?id=b01d1
 * Added tag to http://www.hrvzz.hr/en/about-us/80-hrvatska-zajednica-upanija.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Counties of Croatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100903021202/http://www.dalmacija.hr/O%C5%BDupaniji/Op%C4%87ipodaci/Povijest/IzpovijestiSD%C5%BEupanijeIV/tabid/64/Default.aspx to http://www.dalmacija.hr/O%C5%BDupaniji/Op%C4%87ipodaci/Povijest/IzpovijestiSD%C5%BEupanijeIV/tabid/64/Default.aspx

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Map legend with colours side-by-side
Hello, Makes for easier reading / finding, esp. those colours that are hardly distinguishable from each other except when they are side-by-side. Ex.: until I did this rearranging, I hadn't even found out where Primorje-Gorski Kotar was / seen the difference of colour with Istria. The difference between Požega-Slavonia and Brod-Posavina does not appear either until the colours are side-by-side in the legend. Nor did it occur to me that hoovering over the map would show the counties' names. Pueblo89 (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

P.S.: the Primorje-Gorski Kotar / Istria hiccups makes me realise that that rearranging may also be of some help to people who are partially colour-blind. Pueblo89 (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)