User talk:Joy

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article.

Modern images of medieval rulers in infobox

Happy New Year! Am trying to find some discussion or consensus about (non-)inclusion of romanticized depictions of early medieval rulers of Croatia and Serbia, but don't remember where read about it. I find strange, and misleading, having in the infobox and article poor images which are also a product of nationalistic romanticization from the 19th and first half of the 20th century (e.g. from 1940 recently added by User Cruz.croce in many article of Croatian rulers, or Višeslav of Serbia, Zaharija of Serbia, Vlastimir whose look and attire are more of high medieval nobleman instead of early medieval rulers). If it is a notable painting or sculpture of some cultural value it is something else (for e.g. those by Oton Iveković), but otherwise there's none. What do you think about it? Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski It's probably a matter of MOS:INFOBOXIMAGE. The most odd part about those recent images is that we don't even see an author listed. Probably best to ask at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes which has dozens of watchers. --Joy (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, asked there.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Messed up Wikidata

Hi! Could you please help with untangling Wikidata? It appears that there are two different WD pages for Jadranska straža and sr:Јадранска стража which cover the same topic, and I have no idea how to fix that... Best wishes for 2025! Tomobe03 (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Srb (surname)

Discussion moved to Talk:Srb (surname), because it evolved way beyound personal. --Altenmann >talk 17:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Ubuntu

I just wanted to let you know that I took a deeper look at that RM and your follow-up section that you posted about and I said I would follow-up on the talk page. First the issues is more involved than I have time for a the moment to respond to but I will cycle back on it, especially since I'm fairly familiar with both topics. But one thing I don't really understand from the outset is why the navel-gazing about if the hat note or inline link to the philosophy is significant. The volume that we're seeing there appears to be so insignificant that it doesn't seem to matter and keeping both in the Operating System article would seem to be otherwise acceptable. If the OS remains the PTOPIC then the hat note would seem appropriate as the next most popular use of the term, and the in-article reference also seems appropriate since it has to do with its origin of the name. While the HATNOTE might help suggest that people found this PTOPIC accidentally, whereas the inline would support "further exploration" of the topic, those overall numbers are such an insignificant number regarding how people are finding it. Is the point that only 500 monthly are using the hatnote, versus the say 900 finding it throught either one, and thus their are fewer people finding the OS page in error? I'm not certain that either number would weigh significant on a DPT for the RM discussion or perhaps I'm overlooking something? TiggerJay (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tiggerjay The problem with saying it's navel-gazing is that it assumes that these one thousand readers a month are the only ones confused, out of a much larger mass of people visiting the page (~44k). That's not necessarily so, because most of the traffic to our articles is navigated to us not organically, but from search engines and contextual links. That means we can't actually properly compare these.

If we were to move the article about Ubuntu the OS to a different title, the vast majority of that traffic would almost instantly move there, and only after a while would we be able to start measuring the traffic at the base name to more neutrally assess this.

And even then that might not be a completely neutral situation, because search engines also learn from our navigation. They would most likely start sending the readers for whom they can't easily discern which meaning they want to the disambiguation page. With it then being at the base name, this might in turn create a slanted impression at our end about the qualities of reader traffic for the base term. --Joy (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

First, let me start by saying, I do think that there is a discussion to be made about if the OS really is the PTOPIC for the term Ubuntu. I would agree that there are many complexities with regards to the interaction between search engines and Wikipedia, and that it is difficult to tell how the chicken-and-egg scenario play out, and we've got limited tools to assess these. I think it is noteworthy that prior to the OS being moved to simply Ubuntu, that at that time[1] it was commanding a much higher page views than the philosophy, demonstrating that the OS numbers were not impacted by the base name bias.

You're also correct that only a certain percentage of people who end up in the wrong place will also follow the hat note to where they intend to go. However we do know from WikiNav that of the 45.7k pageviews, 36% clicked over to another page (indicating they stuck around long enough to discover more on the topic). Of those, just under 1k went to philosophy, and your creation of the unique redirects helps us infer if they ended up in the wrong place or were rather just exploring more about the OS and effectively stumbled upon the relationship between the two. All good things to be certain, and to a degree, more information is helpful.

The reason why I call it navel-gazing (and many apologies if you were offended by it), was because out of 45.7k views, a paltry 500 hat-note visits is barely 1%. That isn't going to make or break a PTOPIC discussion. That isn't to mean than those 500 real people are insignificant. Yet, when we're talking about tens-of-thousands per month, where that a 16 people per day isn't really going to make-or-break any arguments.

Based on the 2 hours I've spend on this topic today, if this was an RM I'd likely !vote on either natural DAB for both, or PARENDIS for both with a DAB page for the base name. I'm just not sure how 500 people would shift my perspective either way. They're both unquestionably very notable, but neither of them demonstrate a clear and convincing PT regardless if there was 500, 1000 or even an extra 5k extra in either direction. And for that reason I'm just not sure what the point on getting into that small detail. But again, I still might be overlooking some greater purpose beyond simply addressing the RM/AT/PT issues. TiggerJay (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The problem with looking at the 2008 discussion is that the organic popularity of Ubuntu the OS vs the philosophy might have been different at the time. Indeed Google Trends show it at peak popularity, and it has waned significantly since. Now, their identification of the trend for philosophy is consistently much lower, so that's a better data point here - as far as we can trust their system to be internally consistent, that's comparison of apples to apples.

With regard to the 45k vs 1k, again, that's not the realistic comparison, when we know there also exist the 20k people who read about the philosophy[2]. Sure, they don't all come there from a search of just "ubuntu", but Google Trends is actually showing that simple search to be clearly most popular one identified with both topics.

Because the two meanings are interconnected, it's going to be very hard to figure out whether it makes sense to change navigation. The latest modest experiment with redirects is also inconclusive - it shows most people who choose philosophy to be picking the hatnote, but not by a large enough margin to be clear. Yet we also observe that minority of readers who come to the Ubuntu article and then seemingly abandon our navigation links in favor of search again. We do not have any clear criteria about how large either of these reader contingents has to be in order to trigger navigation changes to try to measure or accommodate. --Joy (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Joy, I was recently reminded of this discussion and was wondering if your data analysis has revealed anything meaningful to you yet. I did see that on one day recently the other link took the lead -- but one for a single day, and for the month is sitting around a 2:1 ratio. TiggerJay (talk) 08:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we can make any new conclusions yet. Let's give it some more time to see if what a more long-term trend might be. At the same time thanks for the reminder to move the most relevant new parts I posted in this discussion to Talk:Ubuntu. --Joy (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Nikodim Milaš

Two editors (Eimaivault and Sadko), under the pretext of neutral wording, removed at Nikodim Milaš sourced mention of his activity and claims being related to the Greater Serbian propaganda (reduced to unspecified "romantic nationalist ideology of the time", also removing mention about his claim on the Serbian monasteries foundation which is of higher importance than the rest of the claims). Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like something you need to start explaining at Talk:Nikodim Milaš, not here. --Joy (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

S. Bačić's review of Milaš's influential work Pravoslavna Dalmacija is available at internet archive, Šime Batović in its introduction on pg. 5 also noted, "Knjiga Nikodima Milaša, dakle, ne bi bila vrijedna nikakve pažnje jer je to gomila laži, neistina i krivotvorina, da ona nije do danas "evanđelje" i temelj velikosrpstva i srpske osvajačke politike, negiranja i samog postojanja Hrvata i katolika, osobito temelj velikosrpske mitologije u Dalmaciji, posebno sjevernoj". Also I. Pederin's article "Povijest i književna povijest kao autobiografija nacije" (1996).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I haven't removed any sources. Please double-check and refer to the page TP first before making complaints about the work of editors you currently disagree with. Best. — Sadko (words are wind) 13:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Nowhere I said that you've removed sources, but reliably sourced information.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

RM !vote location

Hi Joy, I just noticed that you've been posting your !vote towards the end of your statement, which I think has some interesting merits, but I was wondering if you had a specific reason for breaking from convention? TiggerJay (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tiggerjay WP:CONS policy says we need to have structured discussions rather than voting. Our general convention of bolding the vote part first and then maybe giving a rationale later does seem to fit well with a lot of people's thinking, but I don't think it is really in line with the spirit of the policy. I hope that me doing it the other way around makes it harder for anyone to try to gauge consensus by skipping over rationales and jumping to conclusions. :) --Joy (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Yep, I can certainly see how that can force people to read -- I'm not sure I agree with breaking with convention (just IMHO), but I do certainly agree that too often any sort of consensus building can (errantly) end up being distilled down to vote counting (or at the least the appearance of it) which is a problem we see in places like move reviews... TiggerJay (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Hahaha 216.8.139.52 (talk) 05:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Query

Hello, Joy,

I just came across User:173.246.140.160 and noticed that you had blocked them indefinitely. We typically don't block an IP address to more than a few years, at most, so I just wanted to check in with you to make sure this is what you intended. Thank you and I hope you are having a good weekend. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@Liz there is a person that was using this IP address that has been relentless in their abusive use of Wikipedia, and temporary blocks have done absolutely nothing since 2022. The many, many iterations of this problem are linked from User talk:173.246.140.160#continuation of previous disruptive pattern. We can unblock this IP if you're comfortable watching it to make sure we don't just let them loose again. --Joy (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Hello Joy. Can you see these edits on this page [[3]] I think it's about untruths spread by Serbian tabloids whose leader is Sadko, who was already blocked for such things. It's about friar Jozo Križić, I found this about him in the wiki [[4]] "Local communist authorities proclaimed the newspaper as the "enemy propaganda" and both Fr. Ferdo Vlašić (first editor) and Fr. Jozo Križić (secretary) were imprisoned". Please take a look at these edits. 78.0.41.200 (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Angel (given name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anđeo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Help

There is a user called “AshLikeTheFire” and I would wish to make a report about her behavior on my talk page without her knowing because she knows me in real life. Please look at the bottom of my talk page — 𝟷.𝟸𝟻𝚔𝚖 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 17:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@1250metersdeep looks like other admins already dealt with that abuser on-wiki. For off-wiki harassment, please see WP:OWH. (I would have emailed you this, but you didn't set up an email in your Wikipedia settings.) --Joy (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Redirect sans diacritics

Hi! Could you look at this [5] please? The same user seems to have redirected an article to its version without diacritics twice citing different (both plainly wrong IMO) rationales. Their talk page seems to have record of similar pointless moves related to other articles. Cheers-- Tomobe03 (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Continued IP Edit Wars

Hello, I see you have dealt with this IP user before who had been blocked for edit warring and they seem to have continued doing so. Here they keep reinstating a POV edit despite being reverted before. Could you take a look? OyMosby (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@OyMosby the issue there that the previous revert [6] came without an edit summary. --Joy (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I see though they are doing the same thing you pointed out before where in their edit diff they state “npov” but then changed information either not in the source or no new source added. My concern is their behavior isn’t changing. Edits like this with no cited source to back the argument nor does the caption promote anything inflammatory, seems like further pov nonsense rather than interest in improving articles. OyMosby (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Joy

You are a shit disturber accusing me of vandalism of pages I've never even looked at or seen. 216.8.134.118 (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of a group of Wikipedians to better understand their experiences! We are also looking to interview some survey respondents in more detail, and you will be eligible to receive a thank-you gift for the completion of an interview. The outcomes of this research will shape future work designed to improve on-wiki experiences.

We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this survey, which shouldn’t take more than 2-3 minutes. You may view its privacy statement here. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Kind regards, Sam Walton (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

List of wars involving Serbia in the Middle Ages

Hello Joy, despite your warning here, it looks like there continues to be WP:OR and SYNTH going on with interpretations of battles and historical territory changes. OyMosby (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@OyMosby please use the talk page over there to discuss that, I also pinged you there. --Joy (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

"The same thing happened in the previous topics in which we engaged" - I never engaged with this new editor, don't understand which previous "topics" they're thinking about, almost all their main edits (207/240) were made in this article and is only article's talk page they participated in.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Again, please don't use my user talk page as a default means to address issues with other users. Follow the fine Wikipedia:Dispute resolution policy instead. --Joy (talk) 07:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Island and eponymous settlement

We have Vis (island) and Vis (town). Do you think I should create Šolta (something) and Mljet (something) for the eponymous settlements, or keep the settlements and islands (Šolta, Mljet) together, in one article each? Ponor (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ponor Well, the obvious answer there is no, because there are no such eponymous villages on those islands...? --Joy (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

My mistake: not settlements but municipalities, like hr:Šolta (općina) and hr:Mljet (općina). That's like Dicmo, which does not have an eponymous central settlement, or Kaštela. Ponor (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. We haven't generally split out the municipality administrative division articles from the Croatian place articles. I know people have done such religious splitting in case of e.g. Slovenia, but I also don't see how it helps the average English reader. --Joy (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

We'd be splitting island-name/municipality-name, each comes with its own infobox. If it was the settlement/municipality split, I'd totally be against it (srwiki has that for SR muni's too), but this is a little different. IDK, asking because I'm not sure what's best myself. I won't touch it for now. Ponor (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

It's not that rare to have articles with multiple infoboxes, try it, and ponder splitting off if it becomes actually unwieldy. --Joy (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Need disambig. or move

Joy, you're much better at this, and you have some better tools – can you please help:

Some new articles (left column here) had corresponding redirects or disambig. pages, so their title had to be set manually. Whatever title is in the right column may need to be fixed, somehow, I'll let you decide. Thanks. Ponor (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ponor OK, I started fixing it. What do you mean by the tag 'overwritten'? --Joy (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

In most if not all cases that means there was a redirect, like Donji Muć→Muć and Gornji Muć→Muć, and that redirect was overwritten. BTW, please note that Bobovišća and Bobovišća na Moru are two separate settlements/villages. Ponor (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Hrm, I'll split the two Bobovišća's again, but then you need to make these kinds of notes in your table because this is just too cryptic otherwise. --Joy (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ponor if you want to resurrect some part of your article on Lindar, Croatia, it's in the same history. --Joy (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Hm hm. That one must had been not connected with Wikidata. I only have the census settlement names and WP settlement names connected through some tables on hrwiki. (You know... databases with no unique key are a little bit of a mess). Thanks! Ponor (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Place Guillaume II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Franciscan monastery.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Păpăuți

I encourage you to browse Category:Villages of Rezina District and all similar categories, then let us know why this particular village should be X, Moldova while all the others are X, Y District.

And regarding the disambiguation page: we don’t have articles on Romanian villages (not self-governing, no sources), but if we ever did, it would be called Păpăuți, Covasna, on similar principles. — Biruitorul ^Talk 18:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

First, there is nothing unusual about disambiguating by sub-national district. See for example Category:Villages in Nowy Sącz County, Category:Municipalities in Saxony-Anhalt, Category:Communes of Yonne, Category:Municipalities of the Province of Avellino, Category:Populated places in Frýdek-Místek District. Nobody disregarded anything.

Second, if you wish to pursue this further, you could start an individual RM, arguing why this particular page needs special treatment; or a mass RM, arguing why every place in Moldova should follow your preferred standard. — Biruitorul ^Talk 19:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that we’ve always (i.e. for at least 17 years) done it that way? I don’t know, maybe because some readers do know more about these countries, and the district/county/province name immediately provides a lot more information than just the country.

Anyway, Scărișoara, Alba and Scărișoara, Olt would become, what? Scărișoara (Alba), Romania and Scărișoara (Olt), Romania? You’d still have the county name there, while making the title more unwieldy. Meanwhile, non-disambiguated places just stay at Ighiu or Cilieni (also meaningless to most readers). Seems pointless.

Again, feel free to try an RM, although we just litigated this issue. — Biruitorul ^Talk 19:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

The average reader from the country in question is going to be more familiar with his own country’s geography, and chances are higher the reader will come from said country than from some random country. For example, the reader of Champeaux, Manche could well be French, though of course he could be from anywhere, but if he is French, then Manche will mean something to him, because every French schoolchild learns his country’s departments. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

The vast majority of cases are going to be stuff like Izvoare, Fălești and Izvoare, Florești (Moldova) or Dobrotești, Dolj and Dobrotești, Teleorman or Găneasa, Ilfov and Găneasa, Olt (Romania), where the county/district will remain because it’s the only way to disambiguate them. If you feel it’s that imperative to try and impose another standard for the few cases that differ — again, please request a move. Personally, I think it’s pointless to fiddle with an arrangement that’s consistent, clear, stable and widely used across countries. — Biruitorul ^Talk 20:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I never assume that readers of English Wikipedia know Romanian or even the geography of Romania, but any uncertainties they may have on this score are usually resolved by clicking a link. As to not linking villages, that’s just common sense. Per WP:GEOLAND, there is no requirement for Romanian villages to have articles, as they have no legal recognition, being informal subdivisions of communes. It also makes no sense to create an extra 50 thousand stubs when all relevant information about villages is covered under the commune articles. For Moldova it’s a little different, some villages have legal status and those have articles, but the others are folded into the commune articles.

I object to your accusations of arbitrariness: I’ve been aware of these issues since around 2008 and have spent much time creating and arranging articles for readers’ benefit. You may not agree with my approach, but an ounce of good faith is not too much to ask for, I think. — Biruitorul ^Talk 10:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing more concise or natural about X, Romania than X, Covasna. As to recognizability: the non-Romanian reader can simply click Covasna County in the lead to see what that is, while the Romanian (and maybe Hungarian) reader is given useful information right away.

Given ro.wiki’s aversion to using sources, I wouldn’t put that much stock in what they say, but even if the information is accurate, it can easily be folded into in the parent commune article. That way, all relevant information is preserved while being presented in one place about a legally recognized commune, without sending the reader from permanent stub to permanent stub. Even in the rare cases where we have more information than simply “this village exists”, the model works, e.g. Coronini, where readers interested in its other village, Sfânta Elena, will find all they need arranged in the proper place.

Do you have any concrete proposals to make? Is this discussion headed anywhere in particular? — Biruitorul ^Talk 11:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Concise means “brief but comprehensive”. The county names are one word, so is “Romania”. Therefore, the degree of conciseness is the same, or even greater with counties, as more specific information is given, and where the reader doesn’t know it, it’s a click away. “Natural” means “having a normal or usual character”. If we can handle Bílov (Nový Jičín District), Bítov (Nový Jičín District), Kateřinice (Nový Jičín District), Lichnov (Nový Jičín District), Petřvald (Nový Jičín District), Slatina (Nový Jičín District) and Trnávka (Nový Jičín District) then X, Rezina isn’t too unnatural.

Every article should at least have the potential to reach Featured status, and one that will forever say “X is a village in Y municipality, Z county, A country with a population of B (20__) first mentioned in the year 1___” doesn’t have that potential, and really is better off being covered in the article on the legal entity that administers it. — Biruitorul ^Talk 13:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

It’s hard to argue that using one word instead of another constitutes excess information. And it’s not just the Czech Republic — it is, if I may, standard for most European countries (and probably outside Europe too) to disambiguate smaller entities by sub-national units. You can try to change that, but you’ll have a lot of changes to make.

Stubs are fine, many articles start out that way, but I think an article should have the potential to reach, if not featured status, then at least a few paragraphs based on significant coverage in independent sources. Which simply isn’t the case for a lot of small, unofficial populated places. — Biruitorul ^Talk 17:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

RfC on the Vasojevići tribe and ANI

Hey,

We've talked in the past on Branislav Djurdjev's talk page, and as you seem to be one of the few administrators with knowledge of the Balkans, you've probably noticed this RfC. I'm not asking you to give your opinion on the new wording proposed by Aeengath, the problem stems rather from the disproportionate reaction of an administrator who is calling for their ban from all Balkans-related topics. I understand that you've already experienced similar cases, so I'd like your opinion on this, if you don't mind. Krisitor (talk) 08:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Legrad, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mali Otok and Veliki Otok.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Doneyloop edit

Hi joy, I just noticed you edited the article Doneyloop by adding coordaniets, but when I wrote the article I mistakenly put in the wrong coordaniets. I put in the Liscooley location. I do apologize for this error and I will fix it as soon as possible.

Regards, Justin. Justin799 (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zdeněk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zdeslav.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Ustaše

To answer your question: I created a separate category:Ustaše members. I thought the category:Ustaše was just for the party members, then I decided it is better to create a new category. Governor Sheng (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@Governor Sheng it's fine to subcategorize members, but removing the other articles clearly directly related to the topic doesn't seem to make sense. --Joy (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with that. I made a mistake. Governor Sheng (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@Governor Sheng if you want to make further subcategories, that might make sense. For example, Category:History of the Ustaše or similar? --Joy (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. The current category is to broad. All similar categories have tens of subcategories, like Category:Nazis for example. Governor Sheng (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, at the same time, we don't have a parent category in this case like Category:Nazism. IOW the Ustaše category implicitly covers what we in Croatian would call ustaštvo as a broad concept, even if it is called in a way that primarily means an organization. --Joy (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Dalmatia long running edit push

Hi Joy, it appears the same editor has returned once again removing “ one of the four historical regions of Croatia, alongside Central Croatia, Slavonia, and Istria,” from the lead. It would appear they are also editing from multiple IP addresses looking at the recent edit history. It comes across as if to imply Dalmatia had nothing to do with any Croatian state until the recent Republic of Croatia which is highly misleading. Would this call for possible admin intervention? I am doubtful the article talk page will get anywhere at this point given this seems like more than just some different formatting opinion.

OyMosby (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@OyMosby can you give me links to diffs that specify the problem? Just saying "the same editor" is perhaps obvious to you, but not to me, because there's so many long-running issues out there, I don't know which one you're thinking of now :) --Joy (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

You’re right, sorry. [1], [2] [3] (In this third edit, an empahis on Dalmatian language just as MariCro2019 made just before here. Here is an edit of yours reverting what you referred to as “ weird irredentist argument” . Sorry for not being more specific before. Cheers OyMosby (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I see. The part that confuses me is the latest edit [7] that removes one mention of Montenegro. I think this is nuanced enough to not be treated as abuse. You should just bring it up on Talk. The lead section doesn't bury the information that it's in Croatia, but there's reasonable arguments to be made on how to format the sentence exactly. --Joy (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know. The fact that their account chimed in a minute after the supposed independent IP that made an edit they themselves made before seems too coincidental. The Montenegro part could be a red herring they did to throw others off. Also they reverted and IP different from the two IPs I gave edit examples of. All other edit content seems to match across the board.

Is “ one of the four historical regions of Croatia, alongside Central Croatia, Slavonia, and Istria” not the more relevant version? They also seemed to try to bury the historical relevance of Croatia, only mentioning Roman, Venetian, and Astro-Hungarian relevance at the beginning.

I am cynical of the talk page helping much given in the past they stated “ opening with "Dalmatia is a historical region of Croatia" is simply not reasonable, not to mention that it is also tremendously restrictive, especially for a region which (let's be real) was part of Croatia for a relatively short time in its long history. “. OyMosby (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Note also that extending Dalmatia into Montenegro today could be treated as a Croatian irredentist position, too. It can be a bit of a Russian doll of potential issues. --Joy (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you about Montenegro. If we are to talk about where Dalmatia the region is in terms of modern day countries, it would be Croatia AND Montenegro. Once again they make inflammatory edits. I’m going to add Montenegro back. Though I wouldn’t be surprised they reverted me. OyMosby (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Strange, they didn’t remove Montenegro from the first part of the intro where it states Dalmatia is in present day Montenegro. Which again tells me it was a red herring edit. OyMosby (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Stjepan Berislavić

Hello, an administrator is needed on the Stjepan Berislavić page and other related ones. The user NewsweN is avoiding rational conversation and is inserting their own content. Thank you in advance for your help. Shadow4ya (razgovor) 08:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Banned user has another account under the name Tinterest. Shadow4ya (razgovor) 07:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Shadow4ya they're not banned, just blocked. If you suspect a violation of the sockpuppetry policy, please report it at WP:SPI. --Joy (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Atomsko Sklonište move

Hello! When I moved Atomsko sklonište to Atomsko Sklonište I did make an attempt to move it using the "Move" tab. However, Atomsko Sklonište was already redirecting to Atomsko sklonište, so I used copy & paste move. Later, when I did the same thing with another page for the same reasons, someone undid my changes and pointed me to Requested moves page, and I've been using it since. Thank you! Ostalocutanje (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)