Talk:Croatian interlace

Croatia Mid‑importance

	Croatia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian wattle → Croatian interlace –

I don't know is this term accepted in some part of the art historian community, and I presume it is not because it seems the authors until now here had no knowledge of art history in general. This "wattle" is called INTERLACE in English, so I think the article should be called Croatian interlace. Yes, Croatian one seems to have some special characteristics, but interlace is a pattern typical for pre-romanesque art in general (maybe the most famous being Celtic knot), so I think there's no need to use the banal expression "wattle" meaning woven fence ("plot" in Croatian), while "pleter" in Croatian means exactly "interlace"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.102.26 (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable... AnonMoos (talk) 13:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google books searches appear to support this.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The bot thinks I proposed this because I added the template, but it's really the idea of the aforementioned anonymous user, not me. I quickly browsed the sources and couldn't find any immediate reason to object to it. If it had stayed unformatted (without the RM template), it would likely have just lingered here without effect, so I sped it along. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal sounds good to me. Timbouctou (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Croatian interlace. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]