Talk:Geography of Croatia/Archive 1

Climate
Geography of Croatia: Some one please flesh out this section? Peter Horn User talk 14:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Clarifications
In response to "clarification needed" tags:
 * Croatia-Serbia border dispute does not really have to do with ethnicity of population in the disputed territory - those are mostly uninhabited or very sparsely inhabited at the very least. Serbia wants the border to run along the center of the Danube (land-based border is not disputed at all) while Croatia wants to use cadastral borders, defined by the demarcation commissions operating in Yugoslavia in 1947 which defined borders of Yugoslav republics in detail. The word "municipalities" is meant to denote administrative units of either state, not communities, i.e. ethnicities. One can get a pretty good picture of the issue here - the Danube (in blue) is where Serbia wants the border, the border drawn in Google (grey) is where Croatia wants it, except for two islands near Vukovar and Šarengrad further south which are also claimed by Croatia. Current "line of actual control" corresponds to Serbia's claim. The 1947 border claimed by Croatia departs from the current river bed of the Danube because it follows the river bed as it was in 1947.
 * I may wish to rephrase it as "districts" (possibly "administrative districts") instead of "municipalities" - the latter term implies (a significant number of) people.
 * Those are in effect administrative divisions set up solely for the purpose of maintenance of land ownership registry. Locally, these are called "cadastral municipalities" (both in Croatia and Serbia) and they do not correspond to any self-government or other type of administrative divisions. For instance, the northernmost bit of disputed land on the left bank of Danube is a part of Batina cadarstral "municipality" and a part of Draž municipality. In addition, none of the disputed territories represent the entire "cadastral municipality" - the bottom line is I'm not sure, but how about saying that "There are also land border disputes between Croatia and Serbia as Croatia claims cadastral borders between Croatia and Serbia along the Danube, effectively..."?
 * As a further material for thought: The territory claimed by Croatia is slightly larger than 10000 ha, and according to the Croatian claim, Serbia is entitled to control 900 ha of land on the right bank of the river (currently controlled by Croatia). The territory claimed by Croatia contains a small settlement of Kenđija with population of about 20 - who hold Croatian citizenship, mail addressed to them is routed through Batina post office in Croatia, their vehicles bear Croatian plates, but some services (e.g. veterinary service) are provided by Serbia. It also appears that those people have to cross two customs checkpoints to reach Croatia - I imagine one would be the international border crossing in Batina, but I suspect the other one may have something to do with the settlement itself (I cannot explain it in any other way). Reportedly Serbian authorities did prevent city of Apatin from building on the disputed land. A commission was set up to mark the border by the two countries, and it concluded that there are no disputes in the section of the border between Sava and Danube, but it could not reach any agreement on the Danube border. The negotiations reportedly included an offer made by Serbian authorities to exchange territory on the opposite banks of the river "metre for metre" but the offer was declined. (sources: and )--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see; a less than comfortable situation for them. (Veterinary services - they're farmers, I gather?) I may take your suggestion and remove "municipalities"... Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 01:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I linked the old country articles to clarify the period when these borders were matching the cadastral ones. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 19:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Croatia-Slovenia border dispute along Mura River is essentially the same thing as above (eg. near town of Hotiza).
 * The exact same situation exists along Croatia-Hungary border east of Međimurje and west of Baranya (region), where the border follows old river bed of Drava instead of the current course of the river. Unlike in the above examples, there are no border disputes there.
 * In the headline using the "RS" acronym - the RS stands for Republika Srpska, which is Serb political entity in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
 * Oh, them... (referring to the governmental entity) got it. Hrm. I'll try putting in a link for that, but that it's in the (translated) title may make that difficult. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 18:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as the disputed Prevlaka peninsula is concerned (in the Bay of Kotor, at the Montenegrin border), while it is true that the FR Yugoslavia was dissolved and replaced by Serbia-Montenegro, the UN mission replaced FR Yugoslav army there before FR Yugoslavia dissolved and therefore before Serbia-Montenegro army came to be (at least in name). Same people, different period - and different name.
 * Would putting "Serbian-Montenegrin" before "FR Yugoslav army" work, referencing the composition of the army in question? I'm wanting to make the connection to "non-Croatian army" clear. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 18:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, done. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 01:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as the hamlets are concerned - just rechecked this newspaper article and those are three hamlets after all: Škudelini, Bužin, and Mlini-Škrile (double name for the last one). Each one of them consists of four or five houses, so I'd say those hardly qualify as villages. The cited article carries interviews with several local ihabitants, but I fail to pick up any strong feelings this way or another - they appear mostly fed up with media being curious. What appears to be a single notable exception to the rule is a single inhabitant of Mlini-Škrile who made his name painting graffiti on his own house claiming that the house is in Slovenia and struggling to remove flowerpots preventing access to a road spanning Croatian and Slovenian border crossings - which were preventing him from bypassing Croatian border checkpoint when traveling to Slovenia from his own home.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've put in a link to Hamlet (place) for anyone who doesn't get "hamlet". Does it actually express anywhere in the article that most of the locals don't seem to care much? Otherwise, we can't put that in - OR. Flowerpots? I'm guessing you're meaning something concrete/ceramic filled with earth? Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 18:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The interviews made with half a dozen residents turned out with one chasing the reporter away saying she's fed up with media, most others complaining about low income or poor TV reception and one saying that she'll still have to work regardless who gets the 200 metres wide and 6 km long strip of land - so that's pretty much a blank on feelings of the local residents. An interesting part of the interviews was a note that the area was a part of the Free Territory of Trieste in 1945-1954 (Zone B - administered by Yugoslavia) and legal currency was Yugoslav lira - I think that's an article worth writing!--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The flowerpots were indeed bulky concrete contraptions filled with earth. - I suppose a good comedy could be written solely on that sliver of land, mind you the dispute represented an obstacle in Croatian EU membership negotiations, because political points were readily available to relatively minor politicians who could not be ignored by the government needing support in the parliament. Mr. Joras, the person involved with the "flowerpot incident" actually petitioned court in Piran to allow him to dismantle a part of Croatian border crossing - and the court agreed after shelving the request for seven years or so. The flowerpot removal was attempted by a small excavator and prevented by four policemen (not riot police or something like that) guarding the flowers. Joras sued Croatian president Stjepan Mesić for emotional suffering after being called a "buffoon controlled by others" demanding 20,000 euro in damages and wrote to Olli Rehn (European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy at the time) asking him to help bring Mesić to the court (court awarded him 2000, but apparently failed to deliver the decision to Mesić). Just to illustrate what kind of "proposals" were made at the time a proposal was made by a Slovene politician (in a letter to José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission) to admit Istria and Dalmatia to the EU instead of the entire Croatia - because that would "solve the Slovenian border dispute and other countries interested in real-estate market could get their Florida" - I saw no response to the former, but the latter did receive a rather tongue-in-cheek response from the Slovenian government informing Mr. Jelinčič that EU membership is open to countries only and that Istria and Dalmatia are not countries, rather they are parts of Croatia. Still, after the 2009 Kosor-Pahor agreement that the border dispute shall be resolved through arbitration and Slovenian referendum approving the agreement media attention quickly waned and so did the "theatrics".--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fascinating... I'll comment further a bit later - getting late here for me... Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 01:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking that politicians are the same everywhere - I can easily see some of the US ones doing the same thing in the same situation. Unsurprising; human nature... Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 19:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "The largest part of Croatia-Slovenia border" means the entire border minus the border in the area of former Free Territory of Trieste (see above). That part was finally determined on 15 December 1955. (source: )--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 01:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"Bosnia and Herzegovina" or "Bosnia-Herzegovina"? Currently doing the latter
Hi. I've been putting Bosnia and Herzegovina as Bosnia–Herzegovina, since: Can you see any problems with this? My only real worry is making sure it's consistent throughout the article. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 19:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's often awkward to write "Bosnia and Herzegovina and [something else]" - too many ands in a row.
 * The Bosnia and Herzegovina article mentions that as an alternative name.
 * Indeed that's awkward - I wasn't aware there was the option using the dash, but that seems to be much more convenient in writing.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Physical geography

 * Both Medvednica and Ivanšćica are north of Zagreb. Parts of Zagreb are actually located on the southern slopes of Medvednica, and the northern slope of the is generally considered to be in Hrvatsko Zagorje - with the mountain representing the southern boundary of the region. Boundaries of the region are not that specific (except the Slovenian border to the west of it), but it is considered to extend north to Drava River valley, which would make Ivanšćica fall within the region.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 13:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The igneous landform (if that is the correct term) on Papuk is Rupnica - basalt, andesite and tuff rocks, including square and hexagonal prisms (pillars) similar to Giant's Causeway, except significantly smaller. Maybe "feature" instead of "landform" is more appropriate here?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe "terrain"? Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 13:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine by me.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 19:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The volcanic arc is related to uplift of Dinarides because it is a consequence of subduction in a rift running through Sava River valley. The valley is actually filled with alluvial deposits masking the rift - depth of the sediment in the valley reaches up to 5000 m. Similar sediment filled depression (7000 m) is located north of Papuk, in Drava River valley.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you meaning that the subduction pushed on the plate so it bunched up into the Dinarides? I'm regretting never having taken a geology course... Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 13:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually uplift (orogeny) of the Dinarides and subduction were results of the Adriatic (also known as Apulian Plate) and Eurasian plates coming into contact and "not stopping there". Volcanism in this case is linked to partial melting of asthenosphere caused by the subduction process.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I've compactly explained it (albeit without mentioning which plates were involved). Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 19:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Croatian borders being parts of Kupa/Sutla/Mura/Drava/Sava/Danube/Una rivers or mountain ranges, very few rivers (apart from Danube and Sava) flow out of Croatia. I believe only such example (of any significance at least) is Bosut (river).--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In other words, the "own" waters essentially means all water not flowing from outside Croatia? Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 13:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, got it. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 19:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Gorski kotar" is correct capitalization of the region in Croatian, but I suspect that has little to do with English orthography. I am aware that Gorski kotar article capitalization follows Croatian standard, but I personally think that's wrong considering English capitalization rules and Croatian government's translation of name of the county containing the region as Primorje-Gorski Kotar.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Moreover, it's capitalized as "Gorski Kotar" earlier in the article - making consistent. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 13:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand what do the two "clarification needed" tags in the Adriatic Basin subsection mean. Could you please clarify that?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Adriatic Basin subsection? That doesn't currently have any clarification needed tags. Are you thinking of the three remaining tags not discussed above? For them:
 * Oops, you're right, I meant the Dinaric Alps subsection.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem... Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 19:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Footnote 37, Dinaric Alps looked like an online journal initially (but was being cited using "cite web"), but I see from Google Translate that it isn't an online journal, so never mind.
 * The capitalization, etc is inconsistent in the table of Croatia's highest mountains: "Sveti Jure" vs "Vaganski vrh" vs "Bjelolasica – Kula". (Bjelolasica links to an article on an olympics site, BTW.)
 * Oh right: Bjelolasica-Kula is a double name, i.e. both elements are proper names and therefore capitalized. Bjelolasica sports centre is located on the eponymous region of Velika Kapela mountain one of whose peaks is Bjelolasica-Kula. Sveti Jure is proper name meaning Saint George. Vaganski vrh would translate as Vaganski Peak (the first part is a proper name and not really translatable) - where there's the same situation as in case of Gorski kotar. I suspect this name may best be changed to "Vaganski Peak", as used in this UNEP document, and this Croatian financial/news service portal.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 19:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The one regarding whether the Koppen classification of "Dfb" is correct, according to the levels of rainfall in summer vs winter - never mind, I figured it out using the table of cities' weather, assuming their rainfall pattern is not completely different from the rest of Croatia's. (I assume comparison of numbers and simple arithmetic fall within permissible OR...) The Humid continental climate article has a decent explanation of what the second and third letters mean.
 * Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 13:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Permanent crops in Croatia normally include Grapevines, olives as well as orchards (fruits and nuts).--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Built-up areas (cities, roads etc.) are included in the 3.1% of artificial surfaces.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess that the "remaining 12% being everything else that one could put a mine" (besides forests and agricultural land) is a fair assumption. Former front lines also spanned parts of Velebit and Northern Dalmatia (near Zadar, Šibenik and Knin) where shrubland is significantly represented, so I imagine those may account for at least some of the 12%. There were also sections of the front lines approaching/crossing Kupa, Sava and Drava rivers - there are marshes at some places along those rivers, so those may have also contributed to the missing percentage. As far as I know, all settlements are cleared of mines by now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Human geography

 * I think that the difference meant was being forced to leave at gunpoint or compelled to leave after seeing a neighbour forced to leave... A subtle difference only - I suppose it would be as acceptable to simplify the phrase to simply "forced". Furthermore, looking at p. 357 of "The Germans and the East" source, I feel that "after the WWII" should read "during (the last periond) and after the WWII" as the first evacuations started in 1944, followed by proclamation of no legal protection of Germans, creating in effect an open season environment where anyone could act against them with impunity, labour camps, internment in Soviet Union and relocation to East Germany, as well as killings. All this lasted until 1948 or 1949 in case of the East Germany move.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "forced out or fled" should work. BTW, how much of that was locally-inspired and how much was by the Communists (an admittedly intersecting set of groups)? I can understand somewhat of why, given all the Germans did various places... Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 12:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources squarely blame the Communist authorities (except for evacuations in 1944) - besides only some sort of authority could arrange labour camps, internment in Soviet Union and declare that population to be no longer under protection of law. I imagine some locals would no doubt use the situation for looting or worse, but it is made clear who okayed/invited any such activity in advance. No doubt that history of the 7th SS Volunteer Mountain Division Prinz Eugen had to do with all that though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, they wouldn't have exactly helped the reputation of Germans in the area (I tend towards understatement...).


 * I added a source claiming that the birth and death rates recorded in 1970s are sufficiently low to represent, in effect, the final stage of the demographic transition. Looking at the graph in the demographic transition article and a corresponding graph in the Statistical yearbook at page 110 (already used as a source in the same paragraph), I would conclude that the final stage would be in late 1980s or possibly early 1990s, but I guess it's a matter of interpretation what "low birth rate" and "low death rate" actually mean and what rates would those actually be.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In other words, the 1970s would represent Stage Four, while 1991 and after would be Stage Five? Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 12:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I honestly cannot say that's explicitly written someplace, but it appears to be so. On the other hand, I suspect that may constitute WP:SYNTH, so I'm not that comfortable about saying this or that stage was completed in a specific decade based on the sources used in the article to this point. However, another source dealing specifically with beginning of demographic transition (DT) in Croatia gives a considerably more detailed picture on the issue: The DT started at various times in various parts of present-day Croatia - the DT started first in Dubrovnik at the end of the 18th century and the first half of the 19th century (Dubrovnik being the best developed region of the present-day Croatian territories at the time). The DT started in Dalmatia and Istria next around 1870, and in the inland areas in 1880 and later. An interesting note by the source is that the process preceded modernization of society (esp. in terms of industrial employment and availability of medical services) - unlike in the western Europe - in effect rendering economic emigration a necessity as extra population could not be supported and causing increased life expectancy before infant mortality dropped (likewise in contrast to W Europe). The source claims that in spite of the wide range of the starting time of the DT, the process ended between 1945 and 1980 throughout Croatia (as well as saying that happened in the sixties), but it does not elaborate on the issue. Yet another source dealing with post-transitional society specifically says that 1970 natality rate in Croatia cannot be characterized as post-transitional but it reached the threshold theoretically defined as start of the post-transitional stage of the DT. The source goes on to say that some areas of Croatia achieved that natality rate in the sixties (leading me to assume that the previous source might have been using that piece of information to warrant the reference to sixties as the end of the DT), statistical demographic indicators used to determine end of the DT, occurred in the 1970s. Still, the source raises a question that those (particularly the low natality rate) was also affected by other factors casting some doubt on exact timing of start of a post-transitional period and end of the DT but does not go any further in the analysis. A source (presetation prepared and made available by the Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb specifically says that Croatia is in the post-transitional stage since 1980. -- This all leads me to conclusion that the end of the demographic transition may best be dated at "seventies".--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Found one! http://www.tqa.tas.gov.au/4DCGI/_WWW_doc/006107/RND01/GG833_report_02.pdf states that Croatia is in stage 4 or 5 currently. (My difficulty with saying the "end of the DT", if by the DT is meant going from stage 1 to stage 4, is the definite existence of stage 5 and possible existence of stage 6. I'm also uncertain as to what the "post-transitional stage" is without explicitly stating a stage number.) Full citation: Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 16:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking of putting just the above (that Croatia is in the fourth or fifth stage) in this article, and putting more info into the Demographics of Croatia article, about the history of the transition (that it started in the late 18th or early 19th century, depending on the location, for instance). Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 16:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree completely - the "post-transitional stage" and "end of transition" i.e. an undefined number of stages is vague, this is an excellent find!--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've put it in both places. The reference added from your source above in the Demographics of Croatia article needs filling in by someone who reads Croatian, BTW. I've added some more clarification requests, including a couple inside the Largest cities of Croatia template. There are also a couple of references needing "fleshing out" - one looks to have been to an earlier reference that's no longer there (if you don't know it offhand, I can start doing a page history search using, IIRC, the "Article Blamer" from the Toolserver), the other is from the Zagreb County article. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 20:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Counties and cities

 * The 1990 constitution provided for the Chamber of Counties, but the counties were not constituted for a couple of years and the Chamber of Counties was first elected in 1993.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah. Should a parenthetical note or footnote, and reference to the section of the Parliament of Croatia article, be put in? Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 22:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer a short parenthetical note there.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I couldn't manage short (not something I'm particularly good at...), but I've put in a one-sentence parenthetical note. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 01:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Changes regarding counties introduced in 1992 and those abolished in 1920. In 1920 there were only eight counties covering only a portion of the present-day Croatia as no counties were established in Dalmatia and Istria prior to 1992. In those areas, five counties were established in 1992. 14 were therefore established in the area where eight were prior to 1920: In effect former Virovitica County was split to the present Virovitica-Podravina and Osijek-Baranja counties (except for southern Baranya (region) which was added to the latter after being a part of Hungary prior to the end of World War I; Former Syrmia County was restored largely within its earlier borders as Vukovar-Syrmia county - except of course the eastern Syrmia region which became a part of Serbia in 1945/1947; Former Požega County became Požega-Slavonia and Brod-Posavina counties while some of the 1920 county territory was "transferred" to Sisak-Moslavina and Bjelovar-Bilogora counties. The latter also includes a part of territory of former Bjelovar-Križevci County - with the remainder set up as Koprivnica-Križevci County. Varaždin County (former) largely corresponds to the present-day Varaždin County, but some territory of the former ended up in Krapina-Zagorje County, together with a bit of Zagreb County (former). The Zagreb County was reestablished in 1992, but it was reduced significantly as large portions were taken from it to form Sisak-Moslavina and Karlovac counties - the latter taking up some territory of former Modruš-Rijeka County. Most of the Modruš-Rijeka ended up in 1992 as Rijeka-Gorski Kotar county, but territories part of Italy before 1943/1945 were added to it; Former Lika-Krbava County largely corresponds to the present-day Lika-Senj County. The last one - Međimurje County - was a part of Hungarian Zala County (former) before 1918. In addition - the city of Zagreb was carved out from within Zagreb County and made a separate administrative division - not called a county but acting as a county and as a city at the same time. As a result, Zagreb County does not contain the city of Zagreb - those are two separate administrative entities. To add to confusion, seat of the Zagreb County is headquartered in - the city of Zagreb, i.e. outside the county's territory. Since 1992, several counties changed borders - Požega-Slavonia/Osijek-Baranja border changed as well as borders of Lika-Senj, Zadar and Šibenik-Knin counties - moving cities from one county to another.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I've noted as an example the existing change (lots of new counties), making it clear it wasn't the only change, which is what I was asking about (sorry if I was unclear!) - while I find the above interesting (thanks!), I would not think all of it should be in the text. I have, however, put in something about Zagreb County being separate - the previous mention of the special status of Zagreb causing one to wonder about Zagreb County. (I actually looked first in the Zagreb article for info on its status, and suspect others may do so also, when that Zagreb's government doesn't have power over the county is actually (only) in the Zagreb County article.) I did note a question as to why the county boundaries have been changed; votes of the cities, or what? BTW, the city of Washington, D.C. is in somewhat the reverse situation - it is not in any state of the US (it's in the District of Columbia), and even the city government is essentially subordinate to the US Congress. DC citizens' representation in Congress is nonexistent, making this setup even more unfair IMO. It's only been recently that they got the ability to vote for President, actually. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 22:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, I typed the above having in mind a lengthy explanation (and discovering a mistake in the article in the process). I'll fix that (14 instead of 15 counties in the area, Međimurje County area was not included in the 8 former counties' territory. I'll also add a short bit to draw distinction between Zagreb County and City of Zagreb.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as process of changing borders is concerned, their borders are defined by the central government, but at least some (eg. Požega/Osijek) were changed following requests from cities/municipalities involved. Others were changed to reflect regional ties (eg. city of Knin was transferred from Zadar to Šibenik co.).--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I've noted this in the text. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 01:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I would not add any note to the Zagreb County (nor the "outside the city" note) because the term is wikilinked and presumably explained there. I realize that the Zagreb County/City of Zagreb division may be a source of confusion but the city has greater population than the county so I believe no interested reader will be led to mistakenly believe that the county population includes the city population.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was more worried about the area, actually, but I suppose that people will conclude (correctly, I trust?) that if the population doesn't include Zagreb, the area won't either. I've removed the note. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 22:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect a casual reader might be confused at first, but since the term is linked, no permanent effects are likely.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The clarification tag following the NUTS-2 info reads "Is there some other source of divisions?" - could you please clarify whether there should be another reference for the division or if the question is if there is any historical/natural/whatever base for those divisions? - In case it's latter - no, there isn't. The divisions were made following EU legislation requiring statistical NUTS-2 divisions of 800,000 to 3 million population by the Croatian Bureau of Statistics in 2007.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about the "also", actually, which appears to imply another source for further levels. I'll eliminate it. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 22:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The cited source defines Zagreb metropolitan area as the City of Zagreb (administrative division) as a whole plus 15 surrounding municipalities/cities Bistra, Brdovec, Dugo Selo, Jakovlje, Klinča Sela, Lekenik, Luka, Marija Gorica, Pušća, Rugvica, Samobor, Stupnik, Sveta Nedelja, Velika Gorica and Zaprešić with a total of 341 settlements (in the 15 municipalities). All of those are within Zagreb County, except Lekenik, which is in Sisak-Moslavina County. Since Lekenik (municipality) has population of 6,000, the Zagreb County 317,000, the city of Zagreb 793,000 (city administered area) and the source says the metro area has population of 978,000 (albeit in 2001, while other figures pertain to 2001) that would make about 60% of the Zagreb county (at least by population) a part of Zagreb metropolitan area. Would it be of use to dig up area sizes of those municipalities and compare the sum to the Zagreb County area size?--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the population is most of interest, although it would be nice to have the area figures also for comparison. 60%? That's big enough to be notable - done. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 01:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Population of the City of Zagreb recorded by 2001 census was 779,145. Unfortunately 2001 and 2011 censuses are not readily comparable because of changed methodology applied in the two. In 2001 persons were recorded according to their legal residence and in 2011 according to place of residence used for the greatest part of the year (2010 in that specific case). The 2011 census recorded data on 828,621 people in Zagreb, but only 792,875 of them lived there for more than six months in 2010 and only those were recorded as population of Zagreb - and the others wherever they said they spent that part of 2010 (regardless whether that's in Croatia or abroad and regardless of their legal residence).--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see the problem - they really should have asked both questions (legal residence and those there for 6 months) for one census so as to transition between the two methods. Ah, well... I'm guessing they were worried that too many questions would make people irritated and less likely to answer (or to answer honestly). Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 01:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The switch was explained as applying Eurostat criteria to this census (and future ones) - unfortunately there's nothing that can be done here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Sesvete

 * Sesvete are not wihtin the Zagreb County but the territory of the City of Zagreb - its population is not included in Zagreb "urban population" figure, but it is included in the "municipal population" size.
 * Is the table counting it separately because of size, or because it has some form of separate government unlike other areas of Zagreb? Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 22:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The table contains 20 largest settlements in Croatia regardless of their status - in fact all except Sesvete are also cities in terms of administrative divisions - maybe a footnote could be helpful here?--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a footnote for Sesvete of "Sesvete is a district of Zagreb, not a city in and of itself. Its population is not counted in the Zagreb urban population."? I'm not completely sure how to do a footnote within a table. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 01:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Metropolitan area and municipal area are not the same thing here - for instance Zagreb metro area extends beyond borders of the Zagreb County, but other cities have much smaller metro areas (if any) than the municipal area associated with it. The "urban population" refers to population of the city itself and nothing else, as defined as a settlement by the Croatian Bureau of Statistics. The "municipal population" refers to population of the city borough or municipality territory - which may (and normally does) include other settlements as well. For instance the City of Zagreb proper population is 686,568, but the territory designated as the City of Zagreb also contains Sesvete and 200 or so more settlements (most of them very small) and hence 792,875 population size. Note that there is no "municipal population" figure for Sesvete because there is no administrative territory defined as "the city/municipality of Sesvete".--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see. Perhaps "Governed population"? The difficulty is that "Municipal" in the US is generally taken to mean "of a town or city", at least in areas in which there's something else (an unincorporated area) to be besides a city. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 22:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, when I and another editor were putting the template together, we discussed that and put in "municipal" as the best solution we could think of at the time, not being happy about it. I think it should be changed but to what - I don't know. "Governed population" seems odd to me, but it's less confusing than municipal. Would "city area population" work?--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How about "City-governed population"? That makes it apparent why there's no figure for Sesvete - it's not a city. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 01:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be a fair description, yes. Either that or "city-area population" whichever formulation makes more sense to a native speaker of English.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 03:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC) comment:
 * Sesvete - putting it together with the rest of Zagreb, if that's what's desired, or adding a footnote, if that's the decision.
 * Since this appears to be rising so many questions I'm leaning towards explaining the situation in a footnote - I'd still like to keep it in the list because the source used to base the list specifies Sesvete as a settlement, so removing it altogether would be somewhat arbitrary. I'll see how to insert a footnote tomorrow at the latest.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 00:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The Sesvete problem is already documented at Talk:Croatia/Archive_6 so per Allens' clarification request I think it's fair to remove it now that three people have noticed it as problematic. They don't have a standalone city status and therefore they should not be listed as a city, and that would be consistent. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's one way of handling it (its population would be added into the rest of Zagreb's), and has the advantage of being simpler than the alternative footnote. OTOH, that one of Zagreb's districts alone is big enough to be on the list is of interest. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 14:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is, but Sesvete doesn't really stand out that much - combined Trešnjevka and Dubrava, Zagreb are larger, but their being part of Zagreb was resolved many decades ago. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've removed it from the template Largest cities of Croatia, reverting the template terminology to the straightforward "city" phrasing, and noted its case at List of cities in Croatia instead. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I should also mention the underlying reason why Sesvete has such a large population - they apparently merged some of the populations of surrounding villages into it. For example, the census knows nothing about Sesvetski Kraljevec, Kraljevečki Novaki or Kobiljak, they're reduced to the level of mjesni odbor within the settlement of Sesvete, yet it's all at or beyond the Zagreb bypass... The whole thing seems largely arbitrary, so if someone arbitrarily decided not to give the "city" (grad) status to Sesvete, then we shouldn't list it together with all other cities that do have this arbitrary status. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't at least part of the population of Sesvete be added into Zagreb's urban population (I know it's already in the "municipal population" column)? Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 12:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess it would be possible to say the settlement of Sesvete is as urban as the settlement of Zagreb, so the urban population within the City of Zagreb could be listed as 686,568+54,494, but once we cross that line, isn't it a slippery slope? The next largest is Lučko at 3,024, which is larger than two dozen other official .hr cities. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should do that - that specific number would not be supported directly by any sources and that would then be WP:SYNTH. The main text mentions Sesvete as a specific case of a settlement which is not granted legal city status rather being a district of Zagreb - and that it has 50,000+ population. I think that should do.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Couple other things...
Two things: Thanks! Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 01:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First, I forgot to mention it, but I adjusted the coordinates given in the template to ones that made it easier to get all of Croatia into view on the map linked to the coordinates. What I did was to average the extremes together, then average that with Zagreb's location to make sure the coordinates were actually inside Croatia.
 * Second, do you think it would be of interest to give percentages as well as absolute values for the table of counties and their populations & areas?
 * Coordinates now seem fine to me.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Almost done with copyediting
I think I'm almost done with copyediting. The only remaining things: Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 03:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 
 * Whether or not to have percentages as well as absolute values for the table of counties and their populations & areas
 * I'm not sure that would be of any benefit to readers. Size of any county can be easily compared - but I may be wrong. Do you feel it would add anything of substance to the article?--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm now thinking that the major thing I notice - the proportion in Zagreb - could better be done with a mention at the same time as the urbanization percentage - noting that x percent (it's going to be 1/3-1/2) of the urban population is in Zagreb. (Any data on to what degree the increasing urbanization is from people moving to Zagreb vs people moving to other places?) That won't require putting in anything into the table. The other aspect of it, population densities, is done via changing the legend for the figure - Zagreb's population density isn't simply over 200, it's over 1200; I've changed this (120-200 was already a weird range in comparison with the rest...). (Admittedly, I live someplace with a population density over 4000 per square kilometer - Philadelphia - but it does rather contrast with the rest of Croatia.) Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 00:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh - there is a third thing. There are about 3 places either needing full citations or needing a citation, period. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 00:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Right - one of those, marked as "citation needed" is addressed by now. In the first instance I assume that the "full" tag refers to the fact that Biondich was not in the "Works cited" section - or is it something else? The other instance of "full" tag is also resolved now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Biondich not being in the "Works cited" section is indeed what I was meaning. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 11:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Done! I now know more about geography/geology/etc - that was enjoyable; thanks! Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 12:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)