Talk:Municipalities of Croatia

state in 2008
Category:Municipalities of Croatia

There is a difference between municipalities and the centers. E.g. Andrijaševci Municipality has 4.249 inhabitants while the settlement of Andrijaševci has 2.165. The municipality page should list all settlements in that municiaplity and these settlements should have their own article. For that reason the municipality (opcine/opcina) articles must get the ending " Municipality" to distinguish them from the settlements (naselja/naselje). LocodeMaster (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I started to 1) add census data (edit: i.e. settlement data at all for some) from the hr:wikipedia to the Zagreb County municipalities. I also 2) moved some of the articles. The ones that are moved can be seen Municipalities of Croatia - they have the ending " Municipality". And I 3) added Category:Municipalities of Croatia to the articles if missing. Help welcome! :-) LocodeMaster (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You can find the census data here. Admiral Norton (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Admiral, thanks. The benefit from hr:WP is that the stuff is already wikified. LocodeMaster (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Quote "I'd like to suggest you, that if you're intent on having separate articles about Croatian municipalities and settlements therein, you should know that forms "Abc (municipality)" and "Abc, Xoxo County" are preferred to the form "Abc Municipality", as per WP:DAB and established use in articles about Croatia."
 * "Abc (municipality)" cannot be established use if there are no seperate articles until now
 * "Abc, Xoxo County" is about settlements, so the revert moves Bistre Gradec
 * and Orle_Municipality -> Orle have been reverted by me. Hope this ok.
 * if WP:DAB is interpreted as not allowing Abc Municipality then Xoxo County would not be allowed neither.
 * compare how others are doing it in Category:Municipalities by country. Seems to be established use to have "Abc Municipality".
 * LocodeMaster (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ad 1. and 2. I was talking about the cases that actually need disambiguation and I do not foresee any such form, including "Abc Municipality", in wide use.
 * Ad 3. No, this is in no way OK, just as the rest of your mass move following my and Wanderer's posts on your talk page. I invite you in good faith to revert your moves until we reach a consensus regarding this issue.
 * Ad 4. Please read WP:NCDAB again before making this claim.
 * Ad 5. I don't have time to review all the subcategories, but from a few randomly selected ones, I haven't seen any evidence of your claim yet. Admiral Norton (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The model for Denmark, Sweden and Venezuela seems to make more sense, since Croatian counties are also upper case, like the old counties in Denmark and the counties in Sweden. As for what TheWanderer said "Croatian municipalities are equivalent to the towns from which they are named. There is no need to include the word "Municipality" in every article title." - this is simply not true, see the articles I mentioned in my initial statement (Andrijaševci). LocodeMaster (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Examples:
 * Category:Municipalities of Denmark Abc Municipality
 * Category:Municipalities of Sweden Abc Municipality
 * Category:Municipalities of Venezuela Abc Municipality
 * Category:Municipalities of South Africa Abc District Municipality, Abc Local Municipality
 * Category:Municipalities of Bulgaria Abc municipality
 * Category:Municipalities of the Republic of Macedonia Abc municipality


 * You must've gone through great lengths to find these six countries that use your version while the other 50 don't. How deceitful! As for your reply to Thewanderer's statement, we shouldn't disambiguate pages where there isn't any title conflict. The one and only exception to the system is the U.S. "City, State" model and I believe there is no need to introduce more such systems. Until an article is created about every backwater village bearing the same name, there is no need for disambiguation and certainly not in a non WP:DAB-compliant form. Admiral Norton (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "six countries use your version" - it is not my version
 * "50 others don't" - As of today Category:Municipalities by country has 44 subcategories, so it could never be "50 others" And since six have the Abc [Mm]unicipality system it cannot be even 44 others. The maximum number of "don't" from the above facts would be 38 namely 44-6=38. Following are more examples:
 * Category:Municipalities of Estonia Abc Parish
 * Category:Municipalities in Jordan Municipality of ...
 * Category:Municipalities of Mexico some: Abc (municipality) - AFAICS the only with that usage
 * Category:Municipalities of Libya some: Abc Municipality
 * Category:Municipalities of India some: Abc [Mm]unicipality
 * Category:Municipalities of Montenegro Abc Municipality (as redirects)
 * Category:Municipalities of Qatar 1 of 10: Abc Municipality
 * "How deceitful!" - ??? Please explain.
 * "not WP:DAB compliant" - 1) then Abc County would not be compliant and the 20+ county articles in Category:Counties of Croatia would not be neither 2) DAB says "options are ... : 1 When there is ...[a] more complete name (such as Delta rocket instead of Delta) that is equally clear and unambiguous, that should be used."
 * Abc Municipality ... a "new system" - not new, see the 6 examples
 * "As for your reply to Thewanderer's statement, we shouldn't disambiguate pages where there isn't any title conflict." - But there are "title conflicts", because the municipalities are mostly named after individual settlements and they are then different entities.
 * "Until an article is created about every backwater village bearing the same name" - I think Croatian villages are as valuable as others in the world. Having articles today at one name and then step by step over several weeks or month moving them brings more problems. And lots of false links will be created. I suggest fixing it from the beginning.
 * Cheers LocodeMaster (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It was impolite of me to use such words, but I didn't make such statement without a good reason. I don't think you can base the introduction of a wholly new and also controversial system on a few examples of you acting upon notices that stood on talk pages for several days without any input whatsoever. From what I have seen, there are five categories supporting this system out of 44, and these are the ones from your first list, barring Macedonia which is the recent work of your hands and as such I'm reluctant to count it in. Just because there are 4-5 municipalities using that form out of 50-60 doesn't make it "generally used." That also applies generally, as be it five or ten countries, they hardly make a plurality, much less a case in a pool of 44.

There are sometimes title conflicts, but there is a better way to take care of them. If there is a need to disambiguate, " (municipality)" is easier to understand, fits on disambiguation pages per WP:DAB and enables the WP:PIPETRICK. " Municipality" does not fulfill any of these three examples. While " County" is preferred to " (county)", it seems to be quite an isolated example, as I can't find any such version among 2nd level administrative divisions.

As for your last comment, there was mostly nothing to fix until you started including your changes and creating articles about settlements. When someone writes "and a power plant in Brdovec", it's obvious he/she thought about the town Brdovec near Zagreb. However, it would be an unnecessary waste of time to decide whether to point the user to the page Brdovec Municipality, which provides some context and is probably what the writer meant to say, or the page Brdovec (town), which may be more correct, but provides little context and almost no information due to the fact that there isn't much to write about the settlement Brdovec. Or, maybe he meant Gornji Laduč, but he wrote Brdovec, as Gornji Laduč is quite an unknown place and it probably isn't universally known even to people from the Zagreb County. This whole new level of disambiguation leaves editors to imagine short stubby articles about things that really don't have much to be written about and it leaves dab-page cleaning bots wondering what the writer wanted to say. Admiral Norton (talk) 00:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

state in 2010
We have gobs of lousy little articles with numerous issues :) All in all, it's going to take a lot of janitor effort to clean this up. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm merging the eponymous village and municipality articles because I've yet to see a single one that has enough content to even approach the standards of a decent start-class article.
 * Because all municipalities are by definition entities subordinate to counties of Croatia, the logical naming scheme is to use the county name as the disambiguating element in the title. If there's only a single place in Croatia with the same name, the country name can be used instead.
 * The category Category:Municipalities of Croatia has 353 articles. Should we start diffusing it per county? Category:Populated places in Croatia is larger, so it's being diffused, but here this may not be necessary.
 * Many municipality articles have infobox settlement with subdivision_type1 set to region. This is wrong - the system of administrative subdivisions does not include regions, they are an unofficial grouping, and a really fuzzy one at that.

Karlovac County?
I just want to say that you forget Karlovac County. Admin,delete this section! Sorry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.51.84 (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

minority alternative names in parentheses
I'm interested what you like other editors on this article think about adding alternative names of municipalities in the Serbian and Hungarian languages, which I had been added and which user Jesuislafete has twice deleted. It is primarily in the municipalities of Vukovar-Syrmia and Osijek-Baranja county, and in those municipalities these languages ​​are in equal official use in conjunction with the Croatian language. I added names since many other municipalities have also alternative minority names. User Jesuislafete tried to explain me how language must have an official status in county for adding an alternative name but that sounds like absolute nonsense. Obviously, this is not a criterion, more likely language have to be officialy used in municipality-although even this would not be entirely consistent with the Naming conventions (geographic names) where even are mention some sort of 10% of population for which I am aware that may appear aggressive if would literaly done  (although I do not know how well is anytime to work precedents in wikipedia instuctions) . I was going to first ask for advice because it seems to me that Edit summary of deleting of my edits is not given an explanation, but was trying to discredit me as author? Have a nice day.--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I stumbled upon this pdf file from sabor.hr, published by the government in Dec 2009, which offers an overview of minority languages used on municipal and settlement levels across Croatia. Croatian law allows for minority languages to be put on par in official use in municipalities with at least 1/3 or minority population, but some municipalities never passed a law regulating this while other only use the option partially. 27 municipalities and towns satisfy this criterion (whether they enacted regulations or not) while another 28 with less than 1/3 of minorities officially regulate the use of minority languages to some degree, whether on the municipal or settlement level. If you are interested in the nuances of this topic I recommend skimming through the report. If not - only some municipalities in Istria officially use bilingual Croatian/Italian names in Croatian legislation, regardless what the place signs actually say. Croatian Post goes one step further and uses Hungarian and Czech names along with Croatian ones for some places.
 * Btw what Jesuislafete said is not "absolute nonsense". The guideline you quoted (WP:PLACE) actually says that the most widely accepted name in English sources should be used. If references to the place in English sources is scarce, the section "Multiple local names" says that consensus could be reached based on various rationales, one of which is to list the name in the language used by the linguistic majority.
 * So we have three options here:
 * a) list minority names only for places which use bilingual names on the county level (i.e. these 20 municipalities in Istria);
 * b) list minority names only for places with over 50% minority population per WP:PLACE (per 2001 census data)
 * c) list minority names only for places with over 33% minority population which is the minimum according to Croatian law (per 2001 census) regardless of whether the right to bilingual (or trilingual, in the case of Kneževi Vinogradi) signs has been regulated by municipal acts or not


 * I'd personally go with the first option because we need to make the list as simple as possible and the 20 places in Istria are the only ones we must list along with Italian forms because Croatian law uses them as well while the latter two options would be a bit arbitrary and tedious to implement (and it still wouldn't solve the problem of 28 municipalities with some degree of minority language adopted with less than 1/3 of minorities present). Thoughts?  Timbouctou ( talk ) 21:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia)And yes I noticed your suggestions from the last conversation that you mindful, on municipalities talk page. It seems to me that it could be several more different proposals. I am personally of course for option C, although I am aware that it is not the best. Therefore, it should modify this option. We need to enter both (or more) names in infobox only in municipalities that are legally regulated status of minority languages. Also, I am absolutely against that provides additional names in the list of municipalities, but if we add officially used names of some municipalities then we add all officially used names (it has nothing to do with the countiey since it is municipalities page). It does not seem to me that it's too complicated since the statute of municipalities can be found online or in printed form. Of course it is different than current "case" and is not entirely related.--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)