Talk:Croats/Archive 8

seven year old tag unaddressed
Both the language used in legal texts and that used in Glagolitic literature gradually came under the influence of the vernacular, which considerably affected its phonological, morphological and lexical systems. From the 14th and the 15th centuries, both secular and religious songs at church festivals were composed in the vernacular.<-- statement tagged in 2015 - will the editor who added this please supply a reference? Moved to the TP in the meantime. 50.111.55.190 (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

This article, Croats
has a Hatnote at the top ‘not to be confused with Croatians’, but Croatians redirects to this article, so it’s a useless hatnote. Is this a mistake? Interestingly, ‘Croatians (demonym)’ redirects to Demographics of Croatia so maybe the hatnote was meant to redirect there. BhamBoi (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Cleaned up now, thanks. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead image in infobox
I added this lead image to the infobox, but it was removed by without comment. How do others feel about including this or another lead image in the infobox? Note that there is precedent for doing so: in Hungarians, for example. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The image looks ok. I guess it's how even how most of Croat imagine the traditional Croats to look like. Governor Sheng (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Same image appears twice
There's a duplicated image: once in infobox and again in a lower section. Good faith attempts to discuss and elicit reason for continued removal of infobox images failed: Later attempt by Oy Mosby to include an image acceptable to Lalisa Manobal inadvertently duplicated the painting already existing lower down the page at
 * addition of image of people in Croation dress by
 * and removal same day by (No ES)
 * reinstatement by Ficaia (ES: "add image to infobox per talk") after seeking talk page discussion, with seeming agreement from / lack of objection from others
 * a week or two later, Lalisa Manobal again deletes the image (ES: blank)
 * restoration of the image by (ES: "Why?")
 * and Lalisa Manobal's re-deletion (ES: blank)
 * duplicate image added and Lalisa Manobal's deletion (ES: "Not necessary") and then, restore

Please remove the duplicate. It'd be nice if Lalisa Manobal would not ignore reasons given (in edit summaries or at Talk). They don't have to agree, but it would be helpful if they laid out their reasoning, especially when reverting others, per WP:REVEXP (an essay, but the WP:RV policy also says: "When reverting, be sure to indicate your reasons.") Policy aside, it's kinder and more productive to state a reason.
 * Regular editors here, please discuss and decide if an image should be in the infobox
 * If yes, which one?

Feel free to remove these talk page images when dealt with on the article; I already edited out the no-longer-needed infobox parameters. Thanks, AukusRuckus (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)