Talk:Zagreb

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)

Isn't Agram just a historic name/out of use? Er-vet-en (say) 15:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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.

Etymology should take no more than sentence or two. Here it's a whole section.--Juraj Budak (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Zagreb collage.png

<sarcasm>
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)

Related: c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zagreb collage.png. --Gunnex (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a whole portion of Zagreb as the second largest city in Yugoslavia. Based on the article it looks like apparently nothing happened in Zagreb between 1945 and 1991? I know the breakup of Yugoslavia must have been traumatic, but there's no mention of the post-war development of Zagreb as key cultural center of Yugoslavia, the animation school, theaters, science development etc, that should find it's place in a comprehensive article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.122.13.78 (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Under Events, "most recently" does not provide a time frame. Also, as the list of artists may or may not be kept up to date, it could become out of date. It would be better to provide a time range between which the listed appearances happened. For example, "in 2016" (if that is indeed the time frame).

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Mirogoj Zagreb Cementery2009.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The whole history of Zagreb since 1945 is described as:

During the period of former Yugoslavia, Zagreb remained an important economic centre of the country, and was the second largest city. After Croatia declared independence from Yugoslavia, Zagreb was proclaimed its capital.[43]

Not only is this very poor description of the 80 years of history in which Zagreb turned from a provincial town into a major metropolis, it's also wrong. Zagreb was also the capital of Croatia while it was a part of Yugoslavia, nobody needed to proclaim it as such in 1991. Zocky | picture popups 14:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I ask the admin to include actress Mira Furlan who was born in Zagreb on the list of notable Zagreb artists. Thank you. 93.143.192.101 (talk) 00:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The climate section should be editeb because climate change affected Zagreb a lot. The summer is a lot hotter now and winter is mild. 78.1.218.149 (talk) 11:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't understand why the 1971-2000 climate data is used for Zagreb when it's outdated. The articles for other European capitals, the ones that I've seen, all have the 1991-2020 data. 185.38.178.109 (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

A user has been edit warring for days. I asked for sources, none were given. This article needs to be protected, we can't go like this forever. Ponor (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ponor: You can file an edit warring report at the edit warring noticeboard. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

1. The first part of the history section before "Early Zagreb" should talk about the city's early history and not be a mix of early documents and modern history.

2. "The name is first recorded in a charter by Felician, Archbishop of Esztergom, dated 1134, mentioned as Zagrabiensem episcopatum."

"The first recorded appearance of the name "Zagreb" dates from 1094, at which time the city existed as two different city centers"

"The history of Zagreb dates as far back as 1094 when the Hungarian King Ladislaus, returning from his campaign against the Kingdom of Croatia, founded a diocese."

The 3 sentences above contradict themselves with 2 different dates.

3. "The first known conflicts took place in the middle of the 13th century and continued with interruptions until 1667. Because of the conflict, it was recorded that the Bishop of Kaptol excommunicated the residents of Gradec twice.

In the conflicts between Gradec and Kaptol, there were several massacres of the citizens, destruction of houses and looting of citizens. In 1850, Gradec and Kaptol, with surrounding settlements, were united into a single settlement, today's city of Zagreb."

The above is history of the 1600s and 1800s so it clearly belongs to the "16th to 18th centuries" paragraph. It should be moved there.

4. "However, in case of a strong earthquake, it's expected that 3,000 people would die and up to 15,000 would be wounded."

I find the above a pointless/unrealistic observation/prediction unless framed within a specific condition/situation.

5. In the "City governance" section there is a table. At the bottom it says "Source:[87][88]". There should be some test saying what the source is and not just numbers.

6. "There are 51 representatives in the City Assembly".

This is already stated once before in the same section: redundant.

7. Link 116 that points to some restaurants does not have any text, unlike link 117 which does.

8. The "Souvenirs and gastronomy" mention the Licitars. It might as well explain what they are.

9. "It comprises a big tennis court and eight smaller ones, two of which are covered by the so-called "balloon", and another two equipped with lights."

It's unclear what the "balloon" is. It should be explained because, in the context, it makes little sense.

10. "The other block offers multipurpose sports facilities: apart from tennis courts, there are handball, basketball and indoor football grounds, as well as track and field facilities, a bocce ball alley and table tennis opportunities."

What's the meaning and purpose of "opportunities" at the end of the sentence?

11. The paragraph that starts with "In year 2021 Zagreb" and ends with "2022 World Rally Championship." is unnecessary and superfluous. It's too much information and it adds no particular value to the article.

12. "It is often used highway around Zagreb."

This sentence is unclear and ambiguous because it does use a proper syntax. It does not make much sense and it should be revised.

ICE77 (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Zastarjele i ne dočaravaju grad u svijetlu u kojem bi mogle i trebale. Predlažem umetanje Medvedgrada / Oltara Domovine, jezero Jarun/Bundek, Trg žrtava fašizma, fontane, Arenu... Kupøla0 (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

This entry is in English and not in Croatian so you should write in English if you want somebody to comment. ICE77 (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I think we should slightly rewrite the governent part of the infobox. We should remove the list of political parties in the Zagreb Assembly, because it's very specific and much better visualized on the Zagreb Assembly page. It should look something look like:

Government

• Type Mayor-council

• Body Zagreb Assembly

• Mayor Tomislav Tomašević (We Can!) User4926 (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

The redirect জাগরেব has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 7 § জাগরেব until a consensus is reached. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

The redirect זגרב has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 9 § זגרב until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Sagelebu has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 9 § Sagelebu until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

Hello.
Here's a few things I changed about that section in the past few days:
1. Relocated a completely out of context picture "Krvavi most" to the section "Relationship between Kaptol and Gradec throughout history", where it's much more appropriate;
2. Removed five completely out of context pictures; these include: "Stone gate", "View from Upper Town", "George W. Bush giving a speech" (it's way too random and explains nothing in my opinion), "Kaptol square" and "Zagreb Funicular" (which can only really be added to the transportation section). Other Wikipedia articles of cities like London, Paris, New York and Belgrade don't have random pictures in their government sections;
3. Added the pictures of the City hall and Zagreb City Assembly, which are actually appropriate and useful for the section
4. Removed two instances of "Zagreb Assembly has 51 representatives" because a) it was already mentioned once and b) Zagreb Assembly has 47 representatives, not 51;
5. Summed up the section including the whole process for a city referendum, which was way too long and specific, like reading a legal paper;
6. Updated or added information about the city administration, for example that the city owns Zagreb Holding and Zagreb Electric Tram, or that the number of city offices is 16, not 18;
7. Removed the table explaining the composition of the Zagreb Assembly because a) it is not standard practice (no other Wikipedia article displays composition of assemblies like that) and b) if readers are really interested, they can go to the "Zagreb Assembly" article which displays the information in a better, visualized way;
8. Added three new references;
9. Made various other grammar fixes that make the text easier to read and removed full stops from image captions.
My goal was to provide a more concise, to the point "Politics and government" section to readers, which includes correct information and images that add useful context, instead of having random city landmarks. After the most recent reverts, this section contains factually incorrect information. I hope I cleared some things out. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. If no user replies to this topic, I will then, after a few days, revert back my edits for the sake of addressing the incorrect information.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
@PublicityVote User4926 (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

User:PublicityVote Please reply. User4926 (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)User:User4926

Greetings, Krvavi most picture, together with Kamenita vrata and Upper town view should stay where they are as they were like this since 2022. No reason to move important historical monuments of Zagreb just because “they are out of context” which they are not. Picutres does not have to affiliate with the paragraph they are fitted in. Please keep in mind work of other editors as well. Relationship between Kaptol and Gradec is already fitted with a photo, and “History of Zagreb” does not need any more. Kaptol Square and Zagreb funicular are perfectly fitted as they both fit the empty space and they are in vertical position. Your other complaint - “wikipedia article such as NYC…” holds no value as not every Wikipedia page is the same and everyone has other ways of representing their cities.

City hall and Zagreb City Assembly are not important as they don’t even have their corresponding wikipedia page. Putting 2 not important pictures (in my opinion) to remove 3 others of high value to Zagreb’s history makes no sense.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. can stay and I agree to the things you updated.

I repeat, Zagreb wiki page had no issue hosting photos currently posted since 2022, no reason to remove it as they are of important historical value of Zagreb.

Thank you PublicityVote (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm glad we could find some common ground. To address the images: I can not add the city hall and Zagreb Assembly pictures if all the space is taken up by these images. I honestly don't know any other Wikipedia article that does this (I spent 10 minutes looking for one that does). I confidently say that it is very irregular to have such images in the "government and politics" section, and for good reason - because they provide no context on the politics or the administration. When the text is about how the Assembly works, I think it is much more suiting to have a picture of the building of the Assembly than "Krvavi most". And I understand that these images have been there since 2022, but that:
A) doesn't mean that they should be there, maybe just nobody bothered to remove them? and
B) things have to eventually change for the better.

This article sees many changes on a weekly basis, and I don't see how this reorganization is any different. I ask you to rethink about these images. Thanks
User4926 (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

user:PublicityVote Is this discussion over? User4926 (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm not on Wikipedia daily or regularly to check upon your requests, I have life outside this page.

To continue, regarding your edits — it seems we have different perspectives on the content of that particular paragraph. Given your focus on political and governmental topics, there isn’t much more I can do on that front. I will move the photos of Krvavi Most, Kamenita vrata and Upper Town down-the-paragraph under "International relations" because now it's packed up with images, and it shouldn't be.

And the thing you said; "things have to eventually change for the better" , if it ain't broke - don't fix it. It has been like this since 2022, removing Kaptol and Zagreb funicular just so you can put city hall and other government institution seems a bit unbalanced and selfish. Let's move on. PublicityVote (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey, it's not selfish to edit! Also, I don't expect you to reply immediately, but I just feel like three days to respond is a little too long, so I always ping you to see if this conversation is still ongoing. I asked for advice, and what I got from a person that looked at this article is that those three pictures don't make sense for the politics section. From what I got, your argument is that it has been that way since 2022, but that really doesn't mean anything because they should never have been added there in the first place and they need to be removed. My argument: the images are out of context for the section and serve no purpose, unlike the city hall and assembly pictures which are closely connected with the theme. Krvavi most, Kamenita vrata and View from upper town hold no political context and, in my opinion, only confuse the reader. It's like putting a picture of the Banski dvori in the gastronomy section... The pictures themselves are good, but they should be placed somewhere else, completely out of the politics section. Relocating them to international relations doesn't do anything, because they are still out of context. Could you maybe relocate them to the culture section? Thanks User4926 (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@PublicityVote Please reply. User4926 (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Please leave it where they are. I don't know what's your problem with them being where they are. Culture section is already filled up with images. Those 3 images are hurting nobody except you and someone else has put them a long time ago before me. Those 3 images are more important to Zagreb then some administrative city hall buildings that don't even have a Wiki page. Just like you put those city hall pictures there (and you except people to respect your decision), respect other users and their decisions, and leave Kamenita vrata, Upper town and Krvavi most images where they are.

Nothing is "out of context" as you say - inform yourself and check upon other Wiki pages of other cities, nothing has to be in correspondence to their section and paragraph.

Take a deep breath, move on and stop removing pictures and please stop this discussion. PublicityVote (talk) 12:20, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. While I still believe they should be relocated, after some thought it doesn't look as bad as it used to. I think this discussion is over. User4926 (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2025 (UTC)