Talk:Croatia

comment
Excuse me Burmesedays, I`m not a registered member of Wikivoyage. And I´m not quite shure if this is the right way to post my comment. You are right that most parts of Croatia are located on the Balkan-Peninsula. But I really do think that it is important to know for travelers, that this term has a negative connotation and almost anybody in Croatia will be offended. Furthermore croatian culture and traditions have gone through the same developments and epoches as for instance Austria. Of course there are different local influences. But the differences between croatian culture and for instance bulgarian culture standing for a typical Balkan country are enoumous. This starts with the traditional music, architecture and continues with old customs which are mainly affected by the catholic church. Ignoring these facts, or even worse arguing with croatian people about what they are, and what they have to be is not the best basis for a nice vacation. My suggestion would be to leave Croatia in the Balkans section, but also to mention that Croatia partly belongs to central Europe and that croatian people don`t consider themselves to be Balkan People. I know this is not Wikipedia, and I´m not trying to start an edit-war. But this is essential.

Greetings Tom
 * Croatia is Central Europe. Tourist talking about Balkans to Croatians could easily be considered offensive, at least misinformed. Wikivoyage should introduce them correctly that Croatia is CE and Mediterranean because of its culture and history and that Croatians consider themselfs that way, not Balkans. Vrkach (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Croatia is geographically both Mediterranean country and bordering between Balkans and Central Europe, but as Croatia is politically and culturally part of Central Europe, its citizens usually prefer that definition. Some users here are evidently eager to point that out as Balkan connections in past didn't bring any luck to Croatian citizens. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome, Speedy! I already edited the "Respect" section a few days ago, to mention that Croatians prefer for the country not to be referred to as "Balkan." But there is a problem: The breadcrumb trail of Croatia was changed from Balkans to Central Europe without a consensus, and the regional articles still reflect the previous consensus. These kinds of changes really shouldn't take place without a consensus, which has not been achieved so far in Talk:Central Europe. Perhaps you'd like to take part in that discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yacht charter listings
I'm inclined to delete all of them because: (a) They are fodder for touting and edit warring, as you can see in this article's history; (b) listings with no contact information are really just link bait, and the full listings should be in relevant city articles, anyway.

Does anyone object? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * P.S. These listings are in "Get around/By boat." Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to add commercial listing since this page already is doing so - if we are not allowed nobody should be - please delete all charter company listing and links —The preceding comment was added by Maritim-alpha (talk • contribs)


 * I'm inclined to agree. have you changed your mind about this since 2015? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * No, I still think we should delete all these listings on the same basis that we decided years ago that it was too difficult and time-consuming to try to decide which guided tour companies were worthy of listing and which were not, especially in articles like Florence, which used to have dozens of tour listings on it once upon a time. But for the record, Maritim-alpha, your listing violated the don't tout guidelines, which you should read, so you're not in a strong position to argue that you are an innocent bystander in this business. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The linked website was kind of off-putting as well.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Immigrant crisis
Hello everyone...

Already few times in Poland, Austria and Slovakia I heard comments about immigrants passing trough Croatia. Since Croatian government has very well organised transfer for immigrants, it is highly unlikely any tourist will spot them, unless they are searching for them.

Since there are some people who even canceled their trips to Croatia because of rumours about "immigrants sleeping on the beaches", maybe can be written few words about it, making it clear there is no truth in such rumours?

Opinion? To which section to put it? Or ignore it?Hrbackpacker (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Although we do want to present destinations in the best possible light, I don't think we want to draw particular attention to the refugees crossing Europe unless it is a safety issue ( I don't believe residents or visitors are in particular danger from refugees at all, even with some of the highly publicised events in the news).
 * Suggesting that your holiday in Croatia will not be spoiled by refugees is not really a sentiment I would like to see on Wikivoyage. Others may have a different opinion. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I agree that we want to present destinations in the best possible light. Our standards are be fair and don't tout (though touting a destination justifiably is different from promoting a business self-interestedly). I think that no more than a couple of sentences something like this would be OK:


 * "Like other countries in the region, Croatia is currently a transit point for asylum-seekers from Syria, Iraq and other countries who are on their way to northern Europe, but this is unlikely to have any effect on people travelling to Croatia for business or pleasure." Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Ikan Kekek, and it seems to be right to add such sentence. My point was to draw attention on false rumours and write a line or two about real situation. Since Croatian police and army are transfering immigrants from one border to another, unless someone intentionally go into migrant centers (which are actually closed to public), there are not even possibility to spot some in Croatia.

Hrbackpacker (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Opatija in Istria???
I see that Opatija is here considered as part of Istria. Maybe geographically it is part of Istria (actually it is on border of peninsula), but since it is part of Primorsko-goranski municipality with Rijeka, and even on map of Croatia you have here location of Opatija should be part of it, I think it should be changed.

Otherwise we need to put whole Slovenian coastline, Muggia in Italy and so on as part of Istria.

Especially since it is always part of Rijeka and Kvarner tourist brochures, not Istrian ones. It will confuse people.

--Hrbackpacker (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia says it is in Primorje-Gorski_Kotar_County, that seems to match our Kvarner article. Does moving there work for you? Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely, I think it is correct. (And Wikipedia is right).

--Hrbackpacker (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Currency notation
Our guides use a variety of currency notations, which can confusing for readers. Which is the most common way that prices are shown in Croatia? 100kn, 100 kn, 100 Kn, 100 kuna, HRK100 or something else? Ground Zero (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well let's hope it's €1 soon... ;-) Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I was in Croatia at the same time Montenegro declared independence, which looking at WP happened way back in 2006, so my experience is hardly recent. However, I remember primarily 100 kn, with 100 kuna also being used. A Google Images search for "croatian menu" confirms my memory for the 100 kn format.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Thunder. My experience in Croatia is even less recent as I was spending Yugoslav dinars. Since this discussion has been open for almost three months, I think we can close it with your recommendation of using the 100 kn format. Thank you. Ground Zero (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

9 "Cities"
Per 7+2, there should be no more than 9 cities in the "Cities" sections of articles for countries and non-bottom-level destinations. Here's the current list:


 * Zagreb - the capital and largest city
 * Dubrovnik - historic coastal city and UNESCO World Heritage site
 * Split - ancient port city with Roman ruins
 * Pula - biggest town in Istria with the Roman amphitheater (commonly called Arena)
 * Osijek - capital of Slavonia and an important city
 * Karlovac - a city in close proximity to Zagreb, unique by its 6-point star city-center and location at the junctions of four different rivers
 * Sisak - largest river port, city on three rivers and a city that has stopped the spread of the Turks in Europe in 1593, formerly Siscia
 * Slavonski Brod - a once important star-fort on the Ottoman defensive line
 * Rijeka - Croatia's largest and main port
 * Varaždin - Croatia's former Baroque capital
 * Zadar - biggest city of north-central Dalmatia with rich history

These are 11 cities. Which ones are least visited or otherwise least important? I'll point out that Karlovac was just added, so the natural thing to do would be to revert that edit, but since that would have still left 10 cities, I thought a discussion was better. (Also, after we delete 2 cities, the rest should be alphabetized after Zagreb.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oops, I acted before seeing this. Still, Karlovac is gone for now but can be re-added if someone were to make a case for it over one of the others. Personally, I think Slavonski Brod is the obvious tenth wheel to go. Not only have I as a former tourist in Croatia never heard of it (unlike all the others, including Karlovac), its article is a particularly poor outline. But further to that, the obvious "untouchables" are Zagreb, Dubrovnik, Split, Pula, Osijek, Zadar and Rijeka. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Any other opinions? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It doesn't look like it. Do we even have to keep nine in the list? The four that aren't part of the 'must keep' group of seven (so Karlovac, Varaždin, Slavonski Brod and Sisak) are all outline articles that maybe shouldn't be linked directly from the national level. It may seem drastic to cut them all out, but other than that it seems like we're just going to do a random "eeny meeny miney moe... bad luck Slavonski Brod, you're off the team." --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * No, there's no requirement to list 9 cities, only between 5 and 9, from what I remember from other discussions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 7 2 is the official policy. In bottom level regions (immediately above cities, parks etc.) you can add as many as needed (to prevent articles from becoming orphaned). ϒpsilon (talk) 08:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * So for the country level, we could just have seven. If nobody has a better idea or a different opinion soon, I think that would be the best move for Croatia. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The normal minimum number is 5, not 7. From 7+2: lists should contain 5 to 9 items. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Split Collage.jpg
 * This is one we can easily lose. It's only the marker image for Split in the Cities list, and as a montage wouldn't be allowed in the body of our articles.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's used via Wikidata so it doesn't affect us. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 08:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)