Talk:Gvozd

Redundant disambiguation

I think that this Vrginmost is only Vrginmost in the world. So, Vrginmost, Sisak-Moslavina County, why is that?--Boris Godunov (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, no reason not to name it simply Vrginmost. There is a catch regarding settlement vs. municipality name (see below), but that does not matter. GregorB (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Municipality vs. settlement

This source claims that the settlement until recently called Gvozd is now called Vrginmost, but it does not support claims that the municipality changed its name. This source also seems to support the same distinction (The latter source also contains info regarding history of name changing in the town). Is there any source supporting the claim that the municipality of Gvozd changed its name (as opposed to change of name of the settlement of Gvozd)?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the above this source and this one appear to support no change of name of the municipality of Gvozd.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Moved from WT:CRO

Article Gvozd moved to Vrginmost, Sisak-Moslavina county municipality has not changed name. Name can be changed only Croatian Parliament. What do you think about this change?--Sokac121 (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it appears from this source that the settlement is now called Vrginmost, and the municipality is still called Gvozd. This source also seems to support claim that the settlement alone changed its name. The latter source also contains info regarding history of name changing in the town.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Sokac is right. Parliament of Croatia must give permission for change of name. While that happen (if that happen), name should remain Gvozd. --Ivan OS 18:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is there a source for the requirement?--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)~~ Sorry, thought that was about the settlement.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article refers to a municipality.--Sokac121 (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not entirely true. The very first sentence of the article makes it very clear that the article deals with the town and the municipality. The issue is how to address the situation now the best.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, here we have a situation that (provided the above sourcing is up to speed) the municipality and its seat have different names - and that situation already exists in Croatia. A similar situation exists in case of Kaštela, where one article covers the administrative unit (city of Kaštela) and there are separate articles on individual notability-guideline compliant settlements. Creating separate articles on municipalities and settlements which are seats of the same, and bear the same name would not be of any use, but I guess if those are named differently, it would be okay to split those per Kaštela case.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, only a few comments. Municipality is still officially called Gvozd, and village is called Vrginmost. Village Vrginmost is certainly notable topic, and if institution of municipality is notable we can also write an article about it but I'm not entirely sure it is. Regards to everyone. --MirkoS18 (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends on whether the article is actually about the town or the municipality. Maybe the Croatian Wikipedia is doing it right in this instance: the article is about the municipality, and is titled Gvozd, but the town's name is duly noted. I greenlighted the move upon being asked about it by Mirko, so I guess it's my fault for overlooking this settlement/municipality naming peculiarity. GregorB (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really your default, because I did not say that part when I asked (I did not even know about it then, I just stumbled on information about name change so I asked). I think that this is primarily an article about settlement because it is so in other cases (if you look you will see that articles cover settlement and then list other settlements in municipality). I think that article Vrginmost title should be on Wikipedia, and as for the article Gvozd I do not want to mess too much in it. I just think that such an article, if you write it, no need to write about Vrginmost(and should clearly state that it is not a settlement article).--MirkoS18 (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template (Subdivisions of Sisak-Moslavina County) and categories (Municipalities of Croatia) clearly show this is an article about municipality.--Sokac121 (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out earlier on, the very first sentence of the article clearly says that the article is meant to deal with both the town and the municipality. Further on in the article, there is a single piece of information that unambiguously refers to the town and many others that deal with the municipality only. Even though the entire text is obviously meant to cover both of the topics, at present it appears to deal almost exclusively with the municipality.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a village in the municipality. In the article there is a map of the municipality Gvozd. Article should switch to real name because now this is wrong name municipalities--Sokac121 (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a rename back to Gvozd for reasons outlined above. In the meantime, the Croatian version got a nice NPOV lede exposition on the name change.[1] Sarcasm aside, this is an example of what not to do. GregorB (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, revert to Gvozd in this case here, and I'd also support creating a new article on the settlement - it has at least good explaining to do on the naming issue, and I trust it is notability-guideline compliant, especially now that it is named differently from the municipality itself (per Kaštela case).--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see any reason to split municipality from the town, this is a one-sentence controversy that has near-zero encyclopedic value. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I'd base a decision to split on content rather than title - and content-wise, there is indeed no reason to split. Do we have an agreement to rename it back, then? Anyone opposed? GregorB (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, don't care, both names seem to be reasonably common at this point. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article full of errors

On the territory of Vrginmost municipality, wrong
Vrginmost (Gvozd), population 1,122 wrong
Subdivisions of Sisak-Moslavina County wrong
Municipalities of Croatia wrong
Vrginmost / Općina Gvozd funny
Vrginmost / Gvozd — Municipality —wrong....

Joy unfortunately this article is now full of errors, --Sokac121 (talk) 12:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you should see the state I had first found it in, and once again, use the Move button if you want.

The slash is the delimiter between the settlement and the municipality. I guess some of those things could be clearer, but the result is the same - it's not wrong to say that there's a municipality in Croatia that's called "Vrginmost" or "Gvozd" - those are the two common names for the place. Being anal about it gets us nowhere. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussed move to Gvozd will fix two of the above errors (subdivisions, municipalities category). I believe the rest could be fixed within 5 minutes. GregorB (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not yet seen such an example anywhere, but is there possibility to call article Vrginmost-Gvozd or Gvozd-Vrginmost or Vrginmost/Gvozd...or is it totally nonsense. If possible, than we just need to make two redirects from Vrginmost and from Gvozd.--MirkoS18 (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would be a good solution, since the article is not about a single entity with two equal names. Anyway, in all probability the municipality will get renamed too, thus the "problem" will be gone. GregorB (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it back to Gvozd, after I realized others can't use the Move function because of several interim edits at that redirect. I didn't tag the new redirect and therefore the move war can commence again :p --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Language by ethnicity

@Joy, a two-part question:

a) in 2001, 58% of Gvozd were ethnic Serbs but more than 95% of the population claimed Croatian as their mother tongue? This link is in Croatian and I can't make it out. Could someone who can do so please verify if this census info is, in fact, confirmed and accurate. b) why do the 19 settlements' combined populations not add up to 3,779?

Thanks, Quis separabit? 17:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rms125a@hotmail.com, standing in for Joy... :-) About your questions: a) seems accurate to me, at least when compared to 2011, when 67% of the population were Serbs[2], but 83% declared Croatian as their mother tongue.[3] Gvozd is not really an exception: on the national level, there is 4.36% of Serbs,[4] but only 1.23% of the entire population declared Serbian as their mother tongue.[5]

As for b), the combined populations should add up to 2,970 (2011 figure), while 3,779 is the 2001 figure. GregorB (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as long as you deem it accurate. Thanks, @GregorB. Quis separabit? 18:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Petrova Gora monument.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]