Talk:Hrvatska

primary topic?

I noticed today this was set to a primary redirect, but I had disambiguated it in 2023. The clickstreams say:

snapshot of clickstreams for the last twelve months

From meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream archive:

clickstream-enwiki-2024-09.tsv:

• Hrvatska Croatia link 118
• Hrvatska Hrvatski link 14
• total: 132 to 2 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2024-10.tsv:

• Hrvatska Croatia link 82
• Hrvatska Hrvatski link 18
• total: 100 to 2 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2024-11.tsv:

• Hrvatska Croatia link 71
• Hrvatska Hrvatski link 12
• total: 83 to 2 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2024-12.tsv:

• Hrvatska Croatia link 75
• Hrvatska Hrvatski link 12
• total: 87 to 2 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2025-01.tsv:

• Hrvatska Croatia link 82
• Hrvatska Hrvatski link 27
• total: 109 to 2 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2025-02.tsv:

• Hrvatska Croatia link 84
• Hrvatska Hrvatski link 18
• total: 102 to 2 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2025-03.tsv:

• Hrvatska Croatia link 74
• Hrvatska Hrvatski link 15
• total: 89 to 2 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2025-04.tsv:

• Hrvatska Croatia link 91
• Hrvatska Hrvatski link 22
• total: 113 to 2 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2025-05.tsv:

• Hrvatska Croatia link 79
• Hrvatska Hrvatski link 16
• total: 95 to 2 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2025-06.tsv:

• Hrvatska Croatia link 101
• Hrvatska Hrvatski link 18
• total: 119 to 2 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2025-07.tsv:

• Hrvatska Croatia link 114
• Hrvatska Hrvatski link 22
• total: 136 to 2 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2025-08.tsv:

• Hrvatska Croatia link 100
• Hrvatska Hrvatski link 15
• total: 115 to 2 identified destinations

Clearly the most interesting meaning is the one referring to the country, but we consistently see some interest in the other meanings.

Here is the monthly page views graph: https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07&end=2025-08&pages=Hrvatska|Hrvatski

After this was created, the interest in the explanation clearly grew.

At the same time, cluttering the top of the country article, which is seen by... ... several orders of magnitude more readers - seems like a bad use of top of the screen real estate.

Most people who read the Croatia article don't need this niche bit of ambiguity shown immediately, and because the words are so obviously different, I would guess that a fair few of them are confused by seeing it.

So I'm reverting today's change. --Joy (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@Joy: You reverted a redirect to a primary topic, despite the clickstream data proving that Croatia is the primary topic? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I also want to note a basic efficiency argument here: showing this trivial two-item list is easy to understand for most readers, and likely easier than parsing the lead section of the Croatia article (which is also fairly easy, but more complex than this).

So the ratio of clickstreams doesn't necessarily indicate a need for a primary redirect, rather I'd say it indicates that no readers actually have a problem clicking through. --Joy (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@Shhhnotsoloud sorry, it looks like I was typing the answer to your question just as you were submitting it :) please see above. --Joy (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@Joy: I understand, but that's not how we deal with primary topics. We redirect to a primary topic and use a hatnote to point to other uses. Most people who type "Hrvatska" want Croatia: simple. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

We deal with primary topics according to the WP:D, which states the goal of ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be To achieve this goal in this case, I've explained why we shouldn't employ the mechanism of a primary redirect and a hatnote. The guideline doesn't oblige us to use this mechanism, either. I appreciate the idea of trying to use mechanisms consistently, but not at the expense of common sense. --Joy (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Comments on Hrvatski

1. It seems unfortunate that one of the very few items which is not a PTM is left at the very bottom of the page, Hrvatski (DJ).
2. I see that Hrvåtski redirects to the DJ: is that right, or is the diacritic present in other usages of the word in which case it should redirect to the page without the diacritic?

PamD 11:41, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

The average English reader is more likely to encounter those partial title matches in the wild, because far more people travel to the country (~20 million tourists a year) and observe those things on signs, than there are people who might see this in reference to a DJ who last published something under this alias 20 years ago.

With regard to the diacritic, no. That looks like a letter used in Scandinavian languages. --Joy (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

RfC on redirecting this page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The page Hrvatska should be redirected to Croatia because most people who type "Hrvatska" are looking for "Croatia". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. See the thread above and clickstream data. "Croatia" is the primary topic for "Hrvatska" and this page should redirect there, with, if necessary, a hatnote at the target to other uses. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support. The data shows that Croatia is clearly and consistently the primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support, with the hatnote as in this version this version. PamD 11:36, 14 September 2025 (UTC) (link corrected, PamD 08:02, 18 September 2025 (UTC))

June '25

1. Identifiable clicks to the country article 101 (38.0%)
2. Identifiable clicks to the adjective article 18 (6.77%)
3. Filtered (anonymized) clicks 68 (25.6%)
4. Views that can't be presumed to correspond to any clicks 79 (29.7%)

July '25

1. Identifiable clicks to the country article 114 (38.0%)
2. Identifiable clicks to the adjective article 22 (7.33%)
3. Filtered (anonymized) clicks 70 (23.3%)
4. Views that can't be presumed to correspond to any clicks 94 (31.3%)

August '25

1. Identifiable clicks to the country article 100 (43.1%)
2. Identifiable clicks to the adjective article 15 (6.47%)
3. Filtered (anonymized) clicks 63 (27.2%)
4. Views that can't be presumed to correspond to any clicks 54 (23.3%)

September '25

1. Identifiable clicks to the country article 89 (29.8%)
2. Identifiable clicks to the adjective article 27 (9.03%)
3. Filtered (anonymized) clicks 122 (40.8%)
4. Views that can't be presumed to correspond to any clicks 61 (20.4%)

1. Identifiable clicks to the country article 84 (28.1%)
2. Identifiable clicks to the adjective article 38 (12.7%)
3. Filtered (anonymized) clicks 97 (32.4%)
4. Views that can't be presumed to correspond to any clicks 80 (26.8%)

• I explained the case for not doing so above in #primary topic?. I hope others can try to think outside the apparent box created for us by the standardization of the WP:D guideline. Forcing all the people who read the Croatia article to look at a fairly fringe hatnote might be standard but it's not actually meaningful. Doing that to ~250,000 readers in order to micro-optimize navigation for ~250 readers - is pointless. Confusing just 1% of the former big group is already 2,500 people, which is an order of magnitude more of those ostensibly helped by the redirect. (Oppose) --Joy (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  BTW, the last time I saw something similar to this was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pope Bob. Over there, at least the average English reader could recognize the composition (Bob coming from Robert), and we still kept it. --Joy (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  I also now illustrated the clickstreams compared to total traffic in August in the pie chart to the right. There's so little traffic here that anonymization actually impacts our view of the statistics. This is another hint to us that we shouldn't read too much into this. --Joy (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Why is this proposed in RfC form rather than WP:RM? 162 etc. (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
  • @162 etc.: Because no page move is proposed: it's a blank and redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

    BTW, speaking of form, the initial RFC statement says most people who type "Hrvatska" are looking for "Croatia", but we can't actually verify that intent in current evidence, we can only surmise that this is so.

    We only really know that this small contingent of readers looks like they mostly click the first link, because we observe some consistency in this data point.

    It's also possibly not as relevant as it sounds, because most of our navigation is pre-filtered by search engines.

    We also don't have a way of knowing what these readers think when they observe this list - were they looking for the country in the first place, or were they looking for an explanation of this strange foreign word, and then logically proceeded onwards as a secondary matter.

    The statement should be a tad more neutral per WP:RFCNEUTRAL. --Joy (talk) 08:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I also added September and October statistics that became available in the meantime (at the clickstream archive and Pageviews). I also calculated the values for June and July for more context. All four graphs seem even less favorable for the proposal compared to August (when they weren't favorable, either). --Joy (talk) 09:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.