Category talk:Serb communities in Croatia

I think if we have this category it will be good to use it only for articles such as Serbs of Croatia, Serbs in Dubrovnik, Serbs of Vukovar and Serbs of Zagreb and that we should not use it for settlements (I know that these settlements have Serbian majority but still I do not consider that this category is the most appropriate). Actually, I think that the only entity where we can have some form of weak connection between government on the wider level than those of municipalities and Serbian minority is in case of cooperation of Joint Council of Municipalities. I say weak since at least officialy organization is established also on the basis of Croatian Law on Local Self-Government, but in reality even there we have clear focus on cultural autonomy issues. This category seems like it want to present some group that does not exists as a separate "entity". We can say that there are Serbs of Croatia which are interconnected (but than we should have articles-Serbs in Lika, Serbs in Dalmatia, Serbs in Eastern Slavonia, Serbs in Western Slavonia...). I do not see how Donji Lapac and Jagodnjak fit into the same category, but Jagodnjak i Kneževi Vinogradi do not. That is what I now think, but I do not want to make any changes before others share their views. I aslo want to point out that there is separate Category:Serbian-speaking territorial units in Croatia that list all this units. At the end, maybe we should rename this category or limit it on articles I mentioned?--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Mirko, I must say that I find this category problematic. It is far from clear what are the objective criteria that separate "Serb communities" from "non-Serb communities". Even if we relied e.g. on census data, where to draw the line? Is it 10%, 20%, 50%? This is quite unlike territorial units where Serbian has the co-official status (everything is clear there!), and has the potential to become an even bigger magnet for disputes. GregorB (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

GregorB I agree completely. I am not creator of this category. The only way it might be appropriate is if it is used for articles such as Serbs of Croatia, Serbs in Dubrovnik, Serbs of Vukovar and Serbs of Zagreb as I said in comment from 27 December 2014. Zoupan might comment on logic he was using for this category.--MirkoS18 (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that the objective is unclear. I have only added those with Serb majority, as any "line" remains undiscussed. Serb communities should not be misinterpreted as "Serb minority organizations" or "Serb community by region/city/settlement". I think that the real "problematic" category is Serbian-speaking territorial units, which only includes those where Serbian has co-official status (the section at Serbian language in Croatia is perfectly fine at explaining this?), this category however, lists settlements where Serbs are a majority according to the latest census. Serbs of Zagreb, etc, as they are more intricate on the community, should have the category asterix [[Category:Serb communities in Croatia|*Zagreb]]. I would rather see Serbian-speaking territorial units removed as a category than this one. So, instead, why should the Serbian-speaking territorial units-category stay?--Zoupan 19:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Need for category Category:Serbian-speaking territorial units in Croatia was created when someone created category Category:Serbian-speaking countries and territories by precedent of similar categories in other languages (Italian, Swedish...). I also created similar categories for Hungarian, Italian and Czech-speaking territorial units in Croatia. The thing was that each village was added separately into category Serbian-speaking countries and territories and I definitely think there is need to create sub-category for villages in Croatia. As for category Serb communities in Croatia I don't really see the need for it since it does not use completely non arbitrary criteria (why to ad Vinkovački Banovci and not Zagreb where we have thousands of Serbs/ or is Plaški really good fit for this category)?--MirkoS18 (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I suppose "Serb majority" is as well-defined as it gets, but how could one reliably source this category added to Croatian settlements when there is no publicly available per-settlement census data?

As for the Serbian-speaking territorial units, that's not a bad point: the problem with this category is that its name is somewhat deceptive, even if its definition seems to be sound. This brings me to an idea I had today: how about creating something like List of Serbian-speaking territorial units in Croatia (or something of the sort, this is not the best name for it) and perhaps killing the category? GregorB (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

GregorB. And than this list would be part of Category:Serbian-speaking countries and territories? Than we don't actually need this category. I think it is good idea. But would than this article be listed on all settlements segment See also? In general it is good idea.--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

MirkoS18, Zoupan: yes. "See also" is a good idea too: every settlement that is in the list could legitimately point to that list in the "See also" section.

Lists are often better than categories. It would be have been quite legitimate to create a list titled e.g. List of Serb communities in Croatia and in the introduction define "Serb communities" as towns or municipalities with more than 20% or more than 2000 Serbs according to the 2011 census (I just made up those criteria, these figures are quite arbitrary). The list could include actual census numbers, which turns out to be way more informative for the reader - one more reason why lists are sometimes better than categories. GregorB (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

GregorB, Zoupan. I support this idea if article with this title would be notable topic. Also, under which categories under WP Croatia scope this article would qualify? I think this list should be also in categories Category:Ethnic groups in Croatia, Category:Languages of Croatia, Category:Demographics of Croatia and similar categories and if there are some templates that it might fit in.--MirkoS18 (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I am against these categories and list. In Croatia living 180,000 Serbs, but only 52,879 speakers of Serbian language. This category should only be in the center of the municipality, not in all the villages.--FDrago77 (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Subotica 54,000 Hungarians no minority category, Ada with 200 inhabitants, has three minority categories! We need more categories is three little! --FDrago77 (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You can ask editors on WP Serbia or other relevant place regarding Subotica case. I don't see why there would not be some minority category, and if you give some reasonable proposal about that I might get involved and support you. My recent proposal was of a general nature. Also, as you can see, article about whole region of Vojvodina is under categories Slovak, Romanian, Hungarian and Croatian-speaking countries and territories--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Super examples are given by Mirko Slovak two articles, Romanian 6 articles, Hungarian (cca. 30 articles of what 18 Croatia) and Croatian-speaking countries and territories 6 articles Category:Serbian-speaking territorial units in Croatia 115 articles Every village in Croatia should have this category. Let's add 1,800 villages in Romania where they live Hungarians--FDrago77 (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

FDrago77. You might notice that for example Slovakia is in category Hungarian-speaking countries and territories while Hungarian language there is just minority language in part of the country. But lets try to be constructive, maybe there is just misunderstanding. What do you think how we should deal with this topic in some ideal case? I mean, we have some places in Croatia that use other languages. We have similar examples how people deal with it on Wikipedia. We have quite wide support for inclusion of minority names. Still, edit warring is not beneficial for anyone here. If you think that there is other way to make this relevant info clearly visible to reader (info that there are two/three official languages, and form of village name in that language) maybe you can share your idea. I mean, idea that we should not write it in article because we will have it twice is a bit ridiculous and disingenuous. I mean we have Croatia mentioned twice, we have settlement name twice... But maybe there is some idea that can fit for everyone included?--MirkoS18 (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

FDrago77, categories should not be there if there's something wrong with them, not just because they are not placed elsewhere. Counting is not an argument. GregorB (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Making lists and categories which mention the Serbian territory in Croatia is bad and a maliciously. For me this is clear exaltation the Republic of Serbian Krajina and labeling its territory. Village of ten inhabitants for which do not know whether its inhabitants Serbian native language should not be in such a category or list (see also). Why is Croatia a precedent? --FDrago77 (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

How about this?

MirkoS18, Zoupan, and everyone else who is interested, I propose the following solution for the language issue:

1. Create the article Minority languages of Croatia. This is a nice way to list minority languages, give census figures, explain their history and legal status, and list the towns/settlements where they're co-official. This would include Serbian, Italian and other languages, possibly in separate sections. For an example, see Minority languages of Sweden. Note this would be a part of the series {{Minority languages of Europe}}, and it would have been nice to have the Croatian entry done. Not that easy to write, but not hard to get started, and I feel it would really be valuable.
2. Preferably: delete Category:Serbian-speaking territorial units in Croatia as redundant with the list. As I said before, the category's title is unfortunately worded, and is even somewhat deceptive (as it is not about the number of speakers, but rather about the status of the language).
3. Optionally: link to Minority languages of Croatia from the "See also" sections of settlement articles with co-official minority languages. Marginally useful, but quite legitimate.

What do you say? GregorB (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I support this idea. This article would partially overlap with articles Constitutional Act on the Rights of National Minorities in the Republic of Croatia, Law on Use of Languages and Scripts of National Minorities, The Law on Education in language and script of national minorities and articles like Italian language in Croatia, Anti-Cyrillic protests in Croatia, Serbian language in Croatia.--MirkoS18 (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You're quite correct: there will be some overlap with these topics. In a thorough article, all these need to be mentioned - but without going too much into detail, i.e. WP:SS applies. GregorB (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Delete Category:Serbian-speaking territorial units in Croatia, add municipalities with references to Serbian language in Croatia.--Zoupan 11:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

GregorB, Zoupan, I completed list of municipalities and settlements in article Minority languages of Croatia#Municipalities with minority languages in official use. How can I delete now Category:Serbian-speaking territorial units in Croatia?--MirkoS18 (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, I don't know what to do with categories Category:Czech-speaking territorial units in Croatia, Category:Hungarian-speaking territorial units in Croatia and Category:Italian-speaking territorial units in Croatia? In case of Italian-speaking territorial units there is article Italian language in Croatia that might be used as substitute, but I think that at least until we made articles Hungarian language in Croatia and Czech language in Croatia, categories with this two languages should not be deleted (but than we should also make category for Pannonian Rusyn language and Slovak Language municipalities)? We should also keep in mind that all of those categories were made as substitute categories for categories Italian, Hungarian, Czech and Category:Serbian-speaking countries and territories. We need some kind of substitute for those categories or can add Category:Croatia itself, per example of Slovakia in category Category:Hungarian-speaking countries and territories? If we add Croatia in those categories than it should be added in categories Italian, Serbian, Hungarian, Slovak, Czech while category for Pannonian Rusyn should be made with Croatia and Vojvodina. Now that I killed you with all of this give me some advice what to do :D .--MirkoS18 (talk) 08:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

First of all, Mirko - my compliments on the Minority languages of Croatia, you've created a very solid and detailed article really quickly, and as I said, it is not an easy article to write!

Deleting a category is not a problem: one has to nominate it for deletion. I'm volunteering to do it once final decision is made.

Regarding the additional categories you mention (Czech, Hungarian, Italian), the very existence of Minority languages of Croatia, with its list of settlements where a minority language is in official use seems to cover everything these categories say. E.g. Category:Czech-speaking territorial units in Croatia contains 4 municipalities/settlements, all 4 of which are listed in your new article - hence no information is lost.

As for e.g. Category:Italian-speaking countries and territories - yes, I'd say that putting Croatia in it - as coarse as it is - will be fine. Regions such as Istria could be put there too.

The only thing that worries me a bit at the moment is the possibility of us not being able to delete said categories after all, because other people would oppose the nom. The arguments against these categories, as applied to Croatia, are actually universally valid, so theoretically all of these categories might be deleted using the same logic, and I doubt people will accept that. But if they don't, that's perfectly legitimate: I'll simply state the arguments and let the others decide. GregorB (talk) 09:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)