Talk:Zagreb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Zagreb has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Article Milestones Date Process Result January 15, 2007 Good article nominee Listed January 20, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current Status: Good article

	This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Cities on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments for details.

Contents 1 Possible copying 2 Demographics 3 Foreign names 4 Pictures 5 central state administrative bodies 6 neighbourhoods 7 slike 8 Zagreb tablica 9 "New" population figures 10 Photo 11 EuroTower 12 twinning with Belgrade? 13 Interesting trivia 14 Transportation 15 Why revert the "Images of Zagreb" section? 16 Za sve SRBE koji posjećuju i "uređuju" ovaj i ostale članke vezane uz Hrvatsku 17 Added an image Gallery 18 Zoo is missing 19 Satellite image 20 advert 21 edit war 22 This page is now protected 22.1 Discussion 23 Photo gallery 24 Pictures, again 25 info

[edit] Possible copying

The contents of this page sounded a bit marketing-droidish to me so I went back and looked up the originator. The text added on 16:03, 20 Nov 2002 by 213.202.122.186 is almost identical to what's on http://www.croatiatravel.com/destinations/zagreb.htm Now, their copyright notice says 2003, so either they're copying from Wikipedia or vice versa...

I can always replace the article with something I wrote myself.

--Shallot 21:03, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics

Someone keeps putting the figure of jews living in Zagreb as 2,000 people, which is completely false. Infact on the last census of 2001, there are only 576 jews in the whole of croatia, and in the the city of Zagreb there is only 368 jews. these figures are backed up by the official government source @ http://www.dzs.hr/default_e.htm . Also it seems that the only peoples mentioned in the demographics on the Zagreb page are ethnic groups that have significant populations, but the jews only have 369 people, and there are other ethnic groups that are not listed on the zagreb page who have a higher amount of people than jews, like the hungarians (841) or the czechs (813) for egsample. So if these groups (who have a significant amount more people in zagreb than jews do) arent to be listed on the zagreb page, then jews shouldnt either. They are no more special people than others, therefore they should not be given special treatment. If people wants to see the full demographics of zagreb, with jews, hungarians, czechs and everybody else included, then go to Demographics of Zagreb, which there is a link at the top of the population section of the zagreb page. There you will see the real figure of jews and everybody else, and not made up fantasy figures that you would like to believe. The reference will be on the page, so you can check up the statistics yourself if you have any doubts. Have a nice day!

Wizewun 10:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Anyway it seems that this comment is antisemitic in its nature therefore should be discarded..

Antisemitic or not, he is right according to the official figueres, which are since quite some time on this page, with cited source. Martijn Hoekstra 20:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign names

I think the Italian name of Zagreb is not of much relevance, since Italian is not spoken there, nor has the Italian name ever been the official name of the city. I'll remove it. Fransvannes 11:35, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Just noticed List of European cities with alternative names now -- the other names are listed there. --Shallot 00:00, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

FWIW, for those who are asking themselves where the hell is a picture of the Zagreb Cathedral, or the Church of St. Mark, the real trademarks of the city, I intend to put one or more of them in the History section, I just haven't gotten around to taking them. :) --Shallot 21:59, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

actualy I was thinking "why the hell are there so many pictures". I mean pictures are good, but this page seems to be overdoing it. What do you all think about cutting back the number of pictures? Martijn Hoekstra 19:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it is a good idea and I certainly wouldn't recommend it. Maybe our article has more pictures than other articles in category Geography, but in my opinion these pictures are what makes it look better than the other articles. However, I'd like us to concentrate to adding new texts and references in order to improve our article. Jajaniseva 23:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The amount of pictures in the Museums section is so big, it actually breaks the edit buttons on my screen resolution. I make an urgent call for the reduction of the number of pictures, See also all the comments on the candidate for featured article page. I hope we can reach some census on which pictures to keep and which to do away with soon, to better this page. Martijn Hoekstra 15:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

After repeated calls to reduce the number of pictures, in this subject, another talk subject and one of the causes for failing featured article, I shall shortly be starting removing pictures. I will follow the following procedure. Any picture not connected to the text in the header will be removed. No section will have more then 2 pictures. I would like to note that this is not an official wikipedia guideline. Martijn Hoekstra 22:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It has been done. I have removed a large part of the pictures, and I have to say, it is looking much better allready. If anyone plans on putting the pictures back, please, discuss it here before doing so. I went trough the pictures in a fairly arbitrary way, if I had the choise between 4 pictures where I wanted to leave no more then one or two, I selected the ones I personaly liked best. Changing any of them to others will not be much of an issue to anyone I think. Martijn Hoekstra 13:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] central state administrative bodies

Zagreb seats central state administrative bodies (legislative, judiciary, executive, monetary, defense, health care, cultural, educational, traffic, etc.).

In most countries, the capital is all that. Why do we need to write it here specifically? Bogdan | Talk 20:02, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll go drop the obvious list in the parens. I'll just add on "almost all government ministries" (I think some ministries occasionally don't work in the capital but elsewhere, but those are far and few between). --Joy [shallot]

[edit] neighbourhoods

I think "neighbourhood" is not apropriate term for "gradska četvrt". My oppinion is that "gradska četvrt" (list of them can be found here) should be translated (preferably) "district" or "municipality", and "kvart" (like Dubec, Centar, Martinovka or Špansko) should be translated "neighbourhoods". That means, "district" Gornja Dubrava consists of "neighbourhoods" Dubec, Trnovčica, Studentski Grad, Klaka and so on. --Dijxtra 13:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] slike

cestitke onome tko je postavio nove slike. Vecina onih dotadasnjih su bile katastrofa (i u smislu odabira i u smislu profesionalnih uzusa). Gotovo je nevjerojatno da nije bilo ni slike Umjetnickog paviljona, ni crkve Sv. Marka, Mimare itd. Ovo konacno izgleda kako spada. 23.sijecnja, 2006.

Slazem se, svaka cast. Jos da se mogu pogledati u malo vecoj rezoluciji bilo bi odlicno, ali u svakom slucaju poboljsanje je ogromno. Nadam se samo da su sve stvarno public domain ;) -- Dr.Gonzo 23:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ummmmmmmmmmm... ah, bojim se da ne ;-) Nadam se da cemo uspjet napravit nesto po pitanju copyrighta jer ce sve te divne slike kad ta bit obrisane. Mislim da bi bilo najjednostavnije da se svi skupimo jedan dan i krenemo fotografirat Zagreb ;-) --Dijxtra 17:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

ZAŠTO ne stavite slike Nacionalne sveučilišne knjižnice? To je jedan od najljepših primjera moderne arhitekture u ovom dijelu Europe?

Ja sam stavio sluku "Image: Zagrebcentar.jpg" i mislim da puno bolje paše na stranicu nego stara slika  :-) User: MislavK, 16.12.2006, 17:16

- Someone removed my picture:-(. I really think picture "Image: Zagrebcentar.jpg" fits better than Image:ZagrebCenter22.jpg image... MislavK 22:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zagreb tablica

Imam problem sa implementiranjem tablice u tekst. Tekst nikako da mi "upadne" između nje i "Contents" tablice. Molim pomoć! Ako ju itko može pravilno ubaciti u članak (a i malo urediti i dodati pokoju informaciju), bio bih mu jako zahvalan! ;-) Mate Balota 21:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There. Is this what you wanted? Is this what you had in mind? BTW, I think this article has waaaaaaaay to many pictures. --Dijxtra 23:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No! That is the same thing that happend to me! Too much empty space. That "contents" table needs to go up! Check out Vienna. P.S. Don t touch the pictures. They are fine. I placed them all on the right side. It looks better now. Mate Balota 13:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I we found a sollution! A little radical, but it works. I hope you don t mind that big ban J. square pic. It s not a big brandwith impact, the pic is only 50kB big. Mate Balota 13:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it, which empty space are you talking about? Vienna article too has empty space, on the same place as Zagreb article. I mean, this situation is perfectly OK, only empty space I see is the one between table of contents and the box, and that fine, every article has that. nothing wrong there.

BTW, while we're at the Vienna article, see how much pictures it has... not to many, eh? --Dijxtra 14:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you just tell me why did you delete that ban Jelaćič square photo? Now I have to upload a new one, beacuse I don t know the filename of the old one! Mate Balota 15:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't delete it :-) It can be found here: Image:Jelacic Square.jpg. I didn't even remove it form the article. If you look at the source of the article, you will see that I put <!-- and --> around it. Those are comments. That means that the picture is still in the article, it just won't be displayed. If you want to return the picture, just delete <!-- and -->. But I wouldn't advise that until we sort out this situation. --Dijxtra 15:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I don t understand what s wrong with that pic if it s a little biger. Check out Adriatic Sea article.BTW see Kraków article. It also has many images! ;-) Mate Balota 15:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The pic crashes the table of contents into the table. So it looks very ugly. The main aim of this article is text about Zagreb. The gallery of images about Zagreb can be found here: [1]. Therefore, there's no need for such a big picture. The guideline says: "Images should be large enough to reveal relevant detail without overwhelming the surrounding article text.". This image of the Jelačić square overwhelms the surrounding text... --Dijxtra 16:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you say about my current change? Jalacic in the table. BTW. I fixed it all! Now the text is filling the holes nicely, and the thumbs are smaller. Everybody happy now? ;-) Mate Balota 19:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me (although I still think we have too much pics). Although I don't see the difference (except the pic moved to the table). --Dijxtra 22:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "New" population figures

I think that the article from the Jutarnji list - the source of the population trends - which, admittedly, is contradictory and sensationalist should be more carefully read.

Prema Zavodu za statistiku, u Zagrebu trenutačno živi samo 782.908 ljudi, pa je to brojka kojom barata i Gradski zavod za planiranje razvoja. Međutim, Davor Tor iz PU zagrebačke tvrdi da su njihovi podaci točni i da nisu nastali pogreškom, nego zbog izborne godine. - To nije glavni razlog ovakvog rasta, nego su to izbori. Uvijek u izbornoj godini imamo povećan broj prijava prebivališta. Očekujemo da će 2006. biti znatno manje novoprijavljenih - rekao je Tor.

Therefore, the figure of 950+K of people in Zagreb + an influx of some 80 K per year, includes students, working migrants and others who for some reason want to vote in Zagreb in elections. Whether they actually can be categorized as living in Zagreb according to UN census standards which are used world-wide (including Crotia) is open to question. In any case, the explanation by an anonymous user left in the article is incorrect/unsubstantiated and therefore removed. EurowikiJ 11:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

I added info about the first photo. Now it says "photo: Ban Jelacic Square" below the photo, so that people know what it is. --M.B. 00:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EuroTower

I removed the image, beacise there was no space for it. We allready have too much pictures. --Mate Balota 16:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] twinning with Belgrade?

Please, reference your claim with a valid link. + The flag which was inserted is not the official flag of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. + specify where the letter of intent came from (in Croatia there was no media coverage of the supposed twinning of Zagreb and Belgrade). EurowikiJ 19:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting trivia

Maybe not worth putting in the article, but who knows. This is a surprise: on a search on Google Trends for Star Trek, guess which city was in a clear first place:

http://google.com/trends?q=star+trek&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all Mithridates 18:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transportation

Why was the transportation article part about planed underground and maglev systems removed?

Oh c'mon, you can't be serious. Plans are plans and realisations are realisations. Motritelj.

[edit] Why revert the "Images of Zagreb" section?

Do we really need a picture every sentence? I put the excess ones down below in the "image gallery" and left the impressive images in the article. People can easily look at all the pictures and they are not in your face. Some of the pictures are very good but others of a foggy highway intersection, a duplicate picture of the same building or just too many tourists in the photo just make the article look bad. I made the edits to clean it up and then someone reverts the whole thing without an explanation.(A lot of croatian articles seems to have the excess picture problem but this is the worst example) --MarsRover 21:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the pictures (where) excessive,they made the article much more esthetically pleasing and the article is too short anyway so the pictures made it seem more let's say more professional in my opinion,but this discussion is mute now anyway because the new pictures have been uploaded,they are great but they could use some resizing in my opinion.--BorgDrone 00:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's some statistics on picture counts (I can't find one city with more images):

• Zagreb: 32 now 42 and growing
• New York City: 17
• London: 20
• Paris: 29
• Rome: 13

I think its pretty obvious there's an excessive amount of pictures. As for they being a good idea anyway since it "esthetically pleasing" or "professional", I disagree. --MarsRover 06:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

These pictures are on average much smaller than the ones on other city articles,and once again the text in the article needs to be expanded,when this is done,some pictures could be omitted.--BorgDrone 10:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that bigger problem here is that most of this pictures are stolen. I can bet that 90% of these are from http://www.hrphotocontest.com/... --Dijxtra 10:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I dobut that the pictures are copyrighted anyway.--BorgDrone 21:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes, they are. All pictures on hrphotocontest are copyrighted. But, that's not the point, the point is that some people uploaded the pictures and lied that they took the pictures themselves. --Dijxtra 23:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Some are from the SkyscraperCity.com They ARE taken by the people there! Btw. i resized (to smaller) all the pics yesterday, and someone reverted that! It's pissing me off! The article looks idiotic with these huge images! Would someone take care of that! Mate Balota 18:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is completely trashed! I can't belive my eyes! It has a real "balkan" look! Nice job, idiots! Mate Balota 13:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If only it did have a "Balkan" look. Then it might become a featured article, you never know :-) --estavisti 15:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a retorical question for those people who think the article has a "balkan" look: Can you describe this look? What does this term "balkan" refer to? I resized these damn pics you are all grumbling about. In my opinion article looks great and I hope noone will change the present look by deleting the present pictures. Of course you are all welcome to add some new text or quality pictures. Thank you! Jajaniseva 18:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it has a Balkan look because most of the pictures in this article are stolen. And, Balkan people have this habit of stealing from each other and then claiming it's theirs. --Dijxtra 10:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, WTF. "Well, it has a Central European look because most of the pictures in this article are stolen. And, Central European people have this habit of stealing from each other and then claiming it's theirs." Acceptable? No. // estavisti 12:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I vas talking about the number and SIZE of the images! Why, in the hell, they have to be so God damn huge? And why we have two almost identical images (Zageb night skyline and EuroTower)? And the uglyness of this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ZagrebCenter22.jpg I won't even coment! Mate Balota 16:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Users on dialup are not going to want to wait for all of those images to load. The majority of them should be eliminated, especially the ones that aren't even very flattering to the city. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Itsfullofstars (talk • contribs) 23:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Za sve SRBE koji posjećuju i "uređuju" ovaj i ostale članke vezane uz Hrvatsku

Najblaže rečeno: MAKNITE SE - MI NE DIRAMO VAS PA NEMOJTE NI VI NAS!!! "Uređujte" svoje članke a naše ostavite na miru! Jajaniseva 13:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes well, I have to think about that. Not sure if I agree Martijn Hoekstra 21:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added an image Gallery

OK, i moved extra pictures to a gallery at the bottom. I moved only those pictures that don't fit in the article. Example: there is a section about Sister Cities and an image of Jurišićeva Street in Zagreb. That image was useless there. If you think i moved some images that were suppost to be there, just move them back. This gallery gives a cleaner look at the article.

- Ja sam iz Zagreba pa mi nemojte reć da sam neki glupi Amer koji dira ono što ne razumije. Bez uvrede Amerima. Dalt 10:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zoo is missing

just to let you know, zagreb has a zoo hr:Zoološki vrt grada Zagreba --Trickstar 10:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Satellite image

Should be in order...

and ZOO is proclaimed to be the best in the Balkans

[edit] advert

I think there is some ground for the advert tag that was put up and removed. Anyone else agrees on that? Martijn Hoekstra 21:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --Epigenes 22:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree! MislavK 20:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] edit war

Please stop lame edit war over the picture. Reslove your dispute here. Martijn Hoekstra 22:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This page is now protected

This page is now protected to prevent edit warring over the image. Before this page is unprotected, a consensus on which image should be used should be reached. Please discuss this, and remember that polling isn't a good way of establishing consensus. Once you believe you have reached a consensus, you can contact me on my talk page and I will review the status of the page protection. Thank you. --Deskana (request backup) 16:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

The skyline of zagreb by night is not very impressive if you compare it to real big citys. The first image should be a picture that points out the fact that Zagreb is an old city with central european culture. And the Jelacic_Square picture represents this. It shows the central square under a blue sky full with citizens. A picture of good quality. It will definitely attract more tourists to zagreb than this picture. --Test551 18:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the first image should be Ban jelačić square picture, but not that one because it's an old picture, many things changed since that picture was taken, and there are 4 buildings under reconstruction on the square so it doesn't really show it the way it is now. 89.172.146.60 21:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

How about this one: Night skyline Jajaniseva

I also support a picture of Ban jelačić square, as I believe it is the most typical location in Zagreb, but above all it should be present. I don't really like the skylines, as I don't think they represent Zagreb well at all. Do we have any alternatives of the Ban Jelacic square? Martijn Hoekstra 22:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That is from the german wikipedia: Croatia-zagreb-g5.jpg --Test551 15:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that one still current? Are all the buildings still there? Martijn Hoekstra 20:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No, unfortunatly it's an old picture.MislavK 21:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

How about this one: Croatian national theatre by night, it's one of the most important bouldings in Zagreb and I think it should be the front picture. Agree? MislavK 21:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No objection here, alltough I think a proper picture of the square would be better, if we could find one. But it is very acceptable. Anyone object to that picture, or would like to suggest a better one? Martijn Hoekstra 23:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's another suggestion: Zagreb city center skyline. So which one do you like better? Or if anyone has another suggestion? MislavK 11:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As a general for all pages on cities, a nightscape photo should not be shown as the lead picture unless the city is known for it's night landscape - Zagreb isn't. May I suggest putting any nightscape picture in the gallery, and as the lead picture of one of Zagrebs landmarks instead - preferabbly one of St Stephens Cathdral, St Marks church (b/c of it's distinctive roof), Jelacic Square, Kamenita Vatra (b/c of the mystical aspect over the madonna image surviving a fire), or the Sabor. 125.201.224.10 10:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've got the right picture now: National theatre + sorroundings. Anyone object to that picture? MislavK 12:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, fine by me. I still have my objections, it is rather wide, but it is a nice picture to convey the atmosphere of Zagreb Martijn Hoekstra 21:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I just checked, there's no way that the last picture i posted is gonna fit :-(. I'll stay at the picture number 2 (Zagreb city center skyline). Or do you like the first one better? (Croatian national theatre by night) I lke them both, but i'll let you decide which one will be the front picture. MislavK 21:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Are there any objections to the current picture? Martijn Hoekstra 20:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The current picture is ok. --Test551 21:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo gallery

Is there one, and if there is, where is it?

[edit] Pictures, again

This new pictures are too conservative. They show only buildings from 19th century, even no Upper Town, the real historic centre of Zagreb. All modern and contemporary buildings deleted, except cibona tower (which is in Zagreb for a while, so it had enough time for the conservatives to get used to) and one ugly hotel(which shouldn't be here in the first place, since it has no relevance to the city history or future). Will someone revert to some old pictures (but not all, please) that show more of today's Zagreb, because this pics certainly do not?! And maybe finally a new picture of the botanical garden, the current one looks like a swamp. This page was obviously edited by some burgeoise Austro-Hungarian nostalgists. I also removed the alleged city nickname "Mali Beč - Little Vienna", since it is not used by anyone except the few of above mentioned. ~~Vjeko~~

I am the one that removed a whole lot of pictures, according to criterium of 'Most fitting in the section'. If there were multiple to choose from, I just chose the one I found the prettiest. Since then some changes have been made too, so the pictures that are there now, are the ones the people who edited this page found the most fitting. However, if you have alternatives that you think are better, be bold and change them however you see fit. If you find your changes reverted, don't go changing them back to your preference, but rather discuss why you find them more fitting here.

Also, please assume good faith from your fellow editors, do not jump to conclusions of them 'obviously' being burgeoise Austro-Hungarian nostalgists. Happy editing! Martijn Hoekstra 23:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] info

Zagrebtower construction is finished long ago, so I transfered it to ˝see also˝ category. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.131.42.58 (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC).