|Zagreb is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.|
|Zagreb has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Geography. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
|To-do list for Zagreb:|
Recreation and sports
I'm going to start cutting down on the Transport section, which is currently the longest one in the article, surpassing even History by a large degree. If someone wants to help move the contents to Transport in Zagreb, feel free to help. —Admiral Norton (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Does anybody happen to know the demographic history of zagreb according to the 1961 1971 1981 and 1991 census? Almost all other cities of the former yugoslavia have sections on that except for croatian cities. However I am unable to find this information anywhere. can someone please help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yugo91aesop (talk • contribs) 09:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Please, put the picture of Hrvatski državni arhiv (Croatian State Archives), because it is probably most beautiful secession building in Croatia. And, if someone can find nice picture of Zagreb landmarks showing National library and HDA with landmarks that are shown. Also, there should be more bigger and better pictures of Ban Jelačić's square and King Tomislav square since those are most important squares in Zagreb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
File:Zagreb1.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:Zagreb1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 4 November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
I think that the sentence mentioning "za breg" should be removed, as it's not a likely origin of the name, since "breg" originally had the meaning of "(river) bank". In my personal opinion the most likely origin is "za grabom", i.e. "behind the moat", which denotes a fortified town. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BerislavLopac (talk • contribs) 07:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Agramer, please read Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss. It is expected from you to start discussing after your addition was reverted.
On what basis do you insist on adding completely irrelevant list of names to the lead section? WP:NCGN#General guidelines says that
Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted.
German article for this city is located at de:Zagreb, not at de:Agram. Italians have never lived in Zagreb. Hungarians haven't lived in significant figures in last 100 years or so. Those are not official names of the city. They are not mentioned in contemporary English sources. You might mention them in the article text somewhere, but not in the lead section. WP:LEAD should summarize most important aspects of the article contents, not to overwhelm the English-speaking reader with a list of irrelevant foreign names. As for other cities that might do the similar, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If you need models, Belgrade and Sarajevo are featured articles, and they do not list historic names in the lead. No such user (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I for one agree that cramming the intro with foreign names is largely pointless when they're tangentially relevant. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Is this article encyclopedic?
I see a lot of statistics that hardly have any sense to be seen here: demographics, climate, bridges(!), settlement. Then a lot of information that goes into a tourist guide.
The current collage only contains 11 photos (if my math serves me well). Of those, I can almost see what is in three (although can hardly deduce where it is), so those should be further divided into smaller pieces. It can be further improved by dividing the image into still smaller sections, by adding more photos from the article body. I found an illustration how it would look like in the end (hell, you could just crop the title of that lower image and spare yourself an effort, it is equally useful).
</sarcasm> No such user (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)