This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Adriatic Sea article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Adriatic Sea has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
February 9, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
Adriatic Sea receives one third of freshwater flowing into the
Mediterranean? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Tomobe03 wrote: "There's nothing special about flysch on the Slovene coast - flysch is found virtually everywhere along the Adriatic and islands, slightly reword" [1] - I don't know where else does it occur, but if you have reliable sources, feel welcome to add a short paragraph about this, and also about alluvial plains, which do obviously not occur only in the Po Valley. Previously, there was not even a single link to flysch. Also, the reword made it appear like the Strunjan cliff is a karst phenomenon, as flysch was not mentioned, and the paragraph was discussing karst topography. From the geological point of view this is surely important. -- Eleassar my talk 12:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The time period should be explicitely stated (year/month/...) in the tables containing statistical data (overnight stays, transport volume etc.). I think data are available for the year 2010, but not yet for the year 2011. -- Eleassar my talk 00:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The Surić ref (page 7) specifically says that "The Eastern Adriatic (Croatian) coast is one of the most indented ones..." and since Croatian coast extends from the Gulf of Piran which is itself a part of the Gulf of Trieste to Prevlaka which is in turn at the entrance to the Bay of Kotor I don't think there's anything left uncovered by the reference. Why the fact tag?-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 10:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Overlapping of the two declared zones is directly supported by a cited source as: "In October 2005 Slovenia proclaimed its own protected ecological and continental shelf zone, which included international waterscorridor created by the Račan – Drnovšek agreement. In 2006 Slovenia also proclaimed a Decision on fishery zones, which established three zones (A, B, C). One of them (zone B) embraced part of the sea which Croatia considers as constituent part of its territorial sea, while another one (zone C) embraced sea Croatia claimed by its ZERP..." - ZERP being Croatia's protected zone, I don't see anything doubtful regarding the statement that the two zones partially overlap.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 14:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
There is also a cited source directly supporting that there are some "remaining" issues in this field. Specifically, the Klemenčić/Topalović article says that "Despite the fact that Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia concluded a boundary treaty in 1999 which included the delimitation of their maritime boundary, it appears that some problems related to this boundary remain." - so I'd say the fact tag was not justified.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 14:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Should the Geography of Croatia article include something about earthquakes and/or tsunamis? Allens ( talk | contribs) 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)I'm wondering if it might be a good idea to have in some maps showing the various territorial changes over time - perhaps as a gallery using {{ Gallery}}? Currently, it gets hard to keep track of the locations of all the changes... This might be something for later - e.g., as an improvement prior to going for FA status. Allens ( talk | contribs) 11:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering if the Commons image File:Adriatic_Sea_02.PNG might be of use in this section. Admittedly, it'd be better if it, say, changed colors for different depths. Allens ( talk | contribs) 13:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking that it would probably make sense to add a general discussion of the environmental conditions and problems of the Adriatic Sea to the article. In general, I see a lack of the discussion of this aspect. An often quoted albeit outdated source is Bombace, Giovanni. 1993. "Ecological and Fishing Features of the Adriatic Sea," in Kenneth Sherman, et al. (eds.), Large Marine Ecosystems: Stress, Mitigation, and Sustainability (Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993) pp. 119-136. ISBN: 087168506X. [14] -- Eleassar my talk 14:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Looks like I'm pretty close to being done with the copyedit. About all that remains is:
Looks good otherwise! Allens ( talk | contribs) 22:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Looks like I'm about done. If there are significant additions to the text in the article, let me know and I'll do any needed copyediting on them. For now, I'm declaring it done for purposes of the request list, the GOCE's current backlog drive, etc. Allens ( talk | contribs) 19:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The following text was removed from the article as unsourced. Please provide reliable sources for the text below and I'll be happy to restore it to the article.
(from History section)
The Middle Ages can be clearly distinguished on the basis of the history around the Adriatic Sea: The Middle Ages began shortly after the end of the Roman Empire, when the Archangel Michael cult began in Monte Sant'Angelo at around 490 [1] [2] which found its climax between 1169 and 1177 when Bon/Bonumir/Benesmiro de Siponto the justiciarius of Monte Sant'Angelo was sent as the Pope's notifier to Šibenik [3] [4] during the dispute between Pope Alexander III and Emperor Frederic Barbarossa [5]. He is also associated with a legend about a great treasure of the Knights Templars [6] [7] [8] who were dominating great parts of the Middle Ages after they got with their letters of credit, introduced around 1150 [9], their first property in Croatia and Hungary (near Miholjanec) in 1160 [10]. Letters of credit became incomparable important at sea. [11] Šibenik was also called Krešimir's city [12], who had reffered to the Adriatic Sea as Mare Nostrum Dalmaticum ("Our Dalmatian Sea") [13], but its port was destroyed in the War of Chioggia in 1378 [14] after which the financial compensation was negotiated until 1412 at the end of the Middle Ages when it became the seat of the main customs office, which is exactly on the orthodromic distance line between the church in Miholjanec and the Amalfi Cathedral [15], it also became the seat of the salt consumers office with a monopoly on the salt trade in Chioggia and on the whole Adriatic Sea [16]. The Amalfian Laws were for centuries the international mercantile code at sea. [17]
The Renaissance around the Adriatic Sea begun with the movement to reintegrate Greek literary, historical, oratorical and theological texts back into the Western European culture which is usually associated with Manuel Chrysoloras whose students were among the first Renaissance Humanists.
(end)
Please just add sourcing here if available. Thanks.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 13:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Also:
This sentence should be dated better if we want to mention Moro in it, because there's a gap between the description of the Byzantium's destruction in 1453 and Moro's installment in 1462. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 14:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
The text beginning with "The Middle Ages can be clearly distinguished..." and ending in "... and Emperor Frederic Barbarossa." IMHO would be far better off in Middle Ages than in this article - there's no need to define the term per Wikipedia:Summary style.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 21:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Miholjanec has absolutely nothing to do with Adriatic Sea - the info is interesting though - perhaps a better suited article would benefit from that information. How about History of Croatia, Middle Ages or something else in addition?-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 21:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Info on Amalfian Laws and general intro of Renaissance seem too vague and generalized to warrant inclusion in this particular article. Is there any particularity regarding the Amalfian Laws that was specific to the Adriatic? Defining Renaissance should be done in Renaissance article per summary style.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 21:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay - I'll make copyedits as I go (please revert if I accidentally change the meaning) and jot questions below: Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Overall, nice easy-to-read article - prose is busy in places but this reflects the busyness of the nations and entities existing around the Adriatic. Will spot check soon. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)Guys, File:Adriatic Sea Geographic Map.jpg is clearly worse than File:Adriatic Sea map.png, and there's nothing actually wrong with the latter. Yes, it's not explained in detail - because it contains no copyrightable information that has to be explained - the basic topographical and political boundaries of territories are not copyrightable, nor are common toponyms like sea, gulf and city names. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 09:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
1. Well written?:
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
3. Broad in coverage?:
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
5. Reasonably stable?
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
Overall:
References
Croatian is a "standardized variety of the Serbo-Croatian language". Try pushing your fake political language over there, see how long it takes before you get buried in sources. The same of course is also valid for Serbian, Montenegrin, and Bosnian. These are varieties of Serbo-Croatian. And while it may be ok to list them as such on articles like, say, Croatia, on articles like this, where more than one apply, - I'll eat my keyboard before I see the language we speak being ridiculed for the sake of national pride, or to be more accurate - hatred of other nations. Jimbo himself said he was opposed to all this and actually talked about forcefully merging the separate language Wikis. Though the complete dysfunction of the Croatian Wikipedia may have had something to do with that as well. So please take this sort of stuff over to that pathetic fantasy world. -- Director ( talk) 23:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I assume this speech was prompted by my message on Direktor's talk page:
I expect you to revert your edit removing Croatian language name from the Adriatic Sea along with an apology for unwarranted ad hominem attack you made in edit summary of this edit. Croatian language is not "nationalist nonsense" as you say - implying I'm a nationalist speaking nonsense - but an official language of both Croatia and European Union. This slur is nothing but abuse.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 00:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I will redact the ad hominem, but I will not revert myself to re-introduce nonsense. What I will revert is you restoring those ridiculous four entries for the same language, based on an invalid, defeated reasoning shown time and time again to be supported by a tiny minority of linguists (Croatian linguists, almost to a man). And if you believe Croatian is not just " a variant of Serbo-Croatian", you are welcome to first push that POV on the appropriate articles, not there on the Adriatic Sea article where you can try to pretend there is no consensus on the issue. And yes - you're the one POV-pushing here.
Unfortunately, the redacted ad hominem appears to be further elaborated here implying that I somehow hate other nations, albeit disguised as a seemingly undirected speech. I might be wrong on this but then Direktor's speech seems to indicate that they are convinced everyone not holding the same opinion as theirs hates other nations. Their "sorry" seems a bit hollow.
Direktor talks of a consensus but they appear to be using an Argumentum ad Jimbonem saying in vague terms [Jimbo] was opposed to all this to fork ideas presented in a wikipedia article thus violating WP:CIRCULAR. I'm also puzzled by "scholarly consensus" forced down community's throat as well. WP:COMMONNAME says "Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred." explicitly invalidating any argument about an actual or perceived "scholarly consensus". Right now, there are 18,600 Google books search results containing phrase "Serbo Croatian language" and 13,000 results containing phrase "Serbo Croat language", contrasted by 19,700 results containing phrase "Serbian language" and 21,300 results containing phrase "Croatian language" while simultaneously excluding phrase "Serbo Croatian language", making a roughly 4 to 3 preference against "Serbo Croat(ian) language" being a WP:COMMONNAME in English language books. (All four searches exclude results linked to Wikipedia and Books LLC to avoid mirroring wiki per WP:CIRCULAR.) This does not amount to warranting removal of Serbo-Croatian article - it should be kept and edited as is Czechoslovak language - but the argument does indicate that the consensus Direktor speaks about is a bit of a fact picking in violation of WP:CHERRY.
This fact picking approach is beautifully reflected in the fake political language phrase used here: The choice of words appears to give more than a slight hint of bias, especially after giving a speech on a "scholarly consensus". Indeed, the bias is necessary here to go fact picking. All language splits and mergers are ultimately traced to political decisions as evident in former Czechoslovakia, former Danish realms and, yes former Yugoslavia. To claim language matters can be decided by this linguist or that only is naive as attested by Académie française efforts in terms of Anglicisms and EU approach to Czech vs Slovakian and Croatian vs Serbian.
For an editor who consciously elects to fact pick and misquote while shouting out their bias to summarily label others as haters of other nations is beyond any measure of civility. Such remarks should have no place at wiki because such editors are clearly abusing their privilege to edit as well as their fellow editors.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 15:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Adriatic Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 21 external links on Adriatic Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Adriatic Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
after a good look at the specific location of the adriatic sea, and the islands in it, I am pretty sure that it doesnt have 1.3k+ islands? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.100.146 ( talk) 21:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The map on the main part kf the article its pre 2008. Please update it RoyalHeritageAlb ( talk) 14:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Adriatic Sea article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Adriatic Sea has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
February 9, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
Adriatic Sea receives one third of freshwater flowing into the
Mediterranean? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Tomobe03 wrote: "There's nothing special about flysch on the Slovene coast - flysch is found virtually everywhere along the Adriatic and islands, slightly reword" [1] - I don't know where else does it occur, but if you have reliable sources, feel welcome to add a short paragraph about this, and also about alluvial plains, which do obviously not occur only in the Po Valley. Previously, there was not even a single link to flysch. Also, the reword made it appear like the Strunjan cliff is a karst phenomenon, as flysch was not mentioned, and the paragraph was discussing karst topography. From the geological point of view this is surely important. -- Eleassar my talk 12:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The time period should be explicitely stated (year/month/...) in the tables containing statistical data (overnight stays, transport volume etc.). I think data are available for the year 2010, but not yet for the year 2011. -- Eleassar my talk 00:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The Surić ref (page 7) specifically says that "The Eastern Adriatic (Croatian) coast is one of the most indented ones..." and since Croatian coast extends from the Gulf of Piran which is itself a part of the Gulf of Trieste to Prevlaka which is in turn at the entrance to the Bay of Kotor I don't think there's anything left uncovered by the reference. Why the fact tag?-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 10:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Overlapping of the two declared zones is directly supported by a cited source as: "In October 2005 Slovenia proclaimed its own protected ecological and continental shelf zone, which included international waterscorridor created by the Račan – Drnovšek agreement. In 2006 Slovenia also proclaimed a Decision on fishery zones, which established three zones (A, B, C). One of them (zone B) embraced part of the sea which Croatia considers as constituent part of its territorial sea, while another one (zone C) embraced sea Croatia claimed by its ZERP..." - ZERP being Croatia's protected zone, I don't see anything doubtful regarding the statement that the two zones partially overlap.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 14:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
There is also a cited source directly supporting that there are some "remaining" issues in this field. Specifically, the Klemenčić/Topalović article says that "Despite the fact that Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia concluded a boundary treaty in 1999 which included the delimitation of their maritime boundary, it appears that some problems related to this boundary remain." - so I'd say the fact tag was not justified.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 14:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Should the Geography of Croatia article include something about earthquakes and/or tsunamis? Allens ( talk | contribs) 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)I'm wondering if it might be a good idea to have in some maps showing the various territorial changes over time - perhaps as a gallery using {{ Gallery}}? Currently, it gets hard to keep track of the locations of all the changes... This might be something for later - e.g., as an improvement prior to going for FA status. Allens ( talk | contribs) 11:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering if the Commons image File:Adriatic_Sea_02.PNG might be of use in this section. Admittedly, it'd be better if it, say, changed colors for different depths. Allens ( talk | contribs) 13:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking that it would probably make sense to add a general discussion of the environmental conditions and problems of the Adriatic Sea to the article. In general, I see a lack of the discussion of this aspect. An often quoted albeit outdated source is Bombace, Giovanni. 1993. "Ecological and Fishing Features of the Adriatic Sea," in Kenneth Sherman, et al. (eds.), Large Marine Ecosystems: Stress, Mitigation, and Sustainability (Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993) pp. 119-136. ISBN: 087168506X. [14] -- Eleassar my talk 14:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Looks like I'm pretty close to being done with the copyedit. About all that remains is:
Looks good otherwise! Allens ( talk | contribs) 22:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Looks like I'm about done. If there are significant additions to the text in the article, let me know and I'll do any needed copyediting on them. For now, I'm declaring it done for purposes of the request list, the GOCE's current backlog drive, etc. Allens ( talk | contribs) 19:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The following text was removed from the article as unsourced. Please provide reliable sources for the text below and I'll be happy to restore it to the article.
(from History section)
The Middle Ages can be clearly distinguished on the basis of the history around the Adriatic Sea: The Middle Ages began shortly after the end of the Roman Empire, when the Archangel Michael cult began in Monte Sant'Angelo at around 490 [1] [2] which found its climax between 1169 and 1177 when Bon/Bonumir/Benesmiro de Siponto the justiciarius of Monte Sant'Angelo was sent as the Pope's notifier to Šibenik [3] [4] during the dispute between Pope Alexander III and Emperor Frederic Barbarossa [5]. He is also associated with a legend about a great treasure of the Knights Templars [6] [7] [8] who were dominating great parts of the Middle Ages after they got with their letters of credit, introduced around 1150 [9], their first property in Croatia and Hungary (near Miholjanec) in 1160 [10]. Letters of credit became incomparable important at sea. [11] Šibenik was also called Krešimir's city [12], who had reffered to the Adriatic Sea as Mare Nostrum Dalmaticum ("Our Dalmatian Sea") [13], but its port was destroyed in the War of Chioggia in 1378 [14] after which the financial compensation was negotiated until 1412 at the end of the Middle Ages when it became the seat of the main customs office, which is exactly on the orthodromic distance line between the church in Miholjanec and the Amalfi Cathedral [15], it also became the seat of the salt consumers office with a monopoly on the salt trade in Chioggia and on the whole Adriatic Sea [16]. The Amalfian Laws were for centuries the international mercantile code at sea. [17]
The Renaissance around the Adriatic Sea begun with the movement to reintegrate Greek literary, historical, oratorical and theological texts back into the Western European culture which is usually associated with Manuel Chrysoloras whose students were among the first Renaissance Humanists.
(end)
Please just add sourcing here if available. Thanks.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 13:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Also:
This sentence should be dated better if we want to mention Moro in it, because there's a gap between the description of the Byzantium's destruction in 1453 and Moro's installment in 1462. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 14:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
The text beginning with "The Middle Ages can be clearly distinguished..." and ending in "... and Emperor Frederic Barbarossa." IMHO would be far better off in Middle Ages than in this article - there's no need to define the term per Wikipedia:Summary style.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 21:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Miholjanec has absolutely nothing to do with Adriatic Sea - the info is interesting though - perhaps a better suited article would benefit from that information. How about History of Croatia, Middle Ages or something else in addition?-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 21:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Info on Amalfian Laws and general intro of Renaissance seem too vague and generalized to warrant inclusion in this particular article. Is there any particularity regarding the Amalfian Laws that was specific to the Adriatic? Defining Renaissance should be done in Renaissance article per summary style.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 21:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay - I'll make copyedits as I go (please revert if I accidentally change the meaning) and jot questions below: Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Overall, nice easy-to-read article - prose is busy in places but this reflects the busyness of the nations and entities existing around the Adriatic. Will spot check soon. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)Guys, File:Adriatic Sea Geographic Map.jpg is clearly worse than File:Adriatic Sea map.png, and there's nothing actually wrong with the latter. Yes, it's not explained in detail - because it contains no copyrightable information that has to be explained - the basic topographical and political boundaries of territories are not copyrightable, nor are common toponyms like sea, gulf and city names. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 09:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
1. Well written?:
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
3. Broad in coverage?:
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
5. Reasonably stable?
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
Overall:
References
Croatian is a "standardized variety of the Serbo-Croatian language". Try pushing your fake political language over there, see how long it takes before you get buried in sources. The same of course is also valid for Serbian, Montenegrin, and Bosnian. These are varieties of Serbo-Croatian. And while it may be ok to list them as such on articles like, say, Croatia, on articles like this, where more than one apply, - I'll eat my keyboard before I see the language we speak being ridiculed for the sake of national pride, or to be more accurate - hatred of other nations. Jimbo himself said he was opposed to all this and actually talked about forcefully merging the separate language Wikis. Though the complete dysfunction of the Croatian Wikipedia may have had something to do with that as well. So please take this sort of stuff over to that pathetic fantasy world. -- Director ( talk) 23:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I assume this speech was prompted by my message on Direktor's talk page:
I expect you to revert your edit removing Croatian language name from the Adriatic Sea along with an apology for unwarranted ad hominem attack you made in edit summary of this edit. Croatian language is not "nationalist nonsense" as you say - implying I'm a nationalist speaking nonsense - but an official language of both Croatia and European Union. This slur is nothing but abuse.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 00:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I will redact the ad hominem, but I will not revert myself to re-introduce nonsense. What I will revert is you restoring those ridiculous four entries for the same language, based on an invalid, defeated reasoning shown time and time again to be supported by a tiny minority of linguists (Croatian linguists, almost to a man). And if you believe Croatian is not just " a variant of Serbo-Croatian", you are welcome to first push that POV on the appropriate articles, not there on the Adriatic Sea article where you can try to pretend there is no consensus on the issue. And yes - you're the one POV-pushing here.
Unfortunately, the redacted ad hominem appears to be further elaborated here implying that I somehow hate other nations, albeit disguised as a seemingly undirected speech. I might be wrong on this but then Direktor's speech seems to indicate that they are convinced everyone not holding the same opinion as theirs hates other nations. Their "sorry" seems a bit hollow.
Direktor talks of a consensus but they appear to be using an Argumentum ad Jimbonem saying in vague terms [Jimbo] was opposed to all this to fork ideas presented in a wikipedia article thus violating WP:CIRCULAR. I'm also puzzled by "scholarly consensus" forced down community's throat as well. WP:COMMONNAME says "Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred." explicitly invalidating any argument about an actual or perceived "scholarly consensus". Right now, there are 18,600 Google books search results containing phrase "Serbo Croatian language" and 13,000 results containing phrase "Serbo Croat language", contrasted by 19,700 results containing phrase "Serbian language" and 21,300 results containing phrase "Croatian language" while simultaneously excluding phrase "Serbo Croatian language", making a roughly 4 to 3 preference against "Serbo Croat(ian) language" being a WP:COMMONNAME in English language books. (All four searches exclude results linked to Wikipedia and Books LLC to avoid mirroring wiki per WP:CIRCULAR.) This does not amount to warranting removal of Serbo-Croatian article - it should be kept and edited as is Czechoslovak language - but the argument does indicate that the consensus Direktor speaks about is a bit of a fact picking in violation of WP:CHERRY.
This fact picking approach is beautifully reflected in the fake political language phrase used here: The choice of words appears to give more than a slight hint of bias, especially after giving a speech on a "scholarly consensus". Indeed, the bias is necessary here to go fact picking. All language splits and mergers are ultimately traced to political decisions as evident in former Czechoslovakia, former Danish realms and, yes former Yugoslavia. To claim language matters can be decided by this linguist or that only is naive as attested by Académie française efforts in terms of Anglicisms and EU approach to Czech vs Slovakian and Croatian vs Serbian.
For an editor who consciously elects to fact pick and misquote while shouting out their bias to summarily label others as haters of other nations is beyond any measure of civility. Such remarks should have no place at wiki because such editors are clearly abusing their privilege to edit as well as their fellow editors.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 15:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Adriatic Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 21 external links on Adriatic Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Adriatic Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
after a good look at the specific location of the adriatic sea, and the islands in it, I am pretty sure that it doesnt have 1.3k+ islands? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.100.146 ( talk) 21:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The map on the main part kf the article its pre 2008. Please update it RoyalHeritageAlb ( talk) 14:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)