Talk:Croatian Parliament

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Croatia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Allens, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 9-12 February 2012.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Are any seats reserved for minority groups? This claim is made (uncited) in

The SDP gained an additional seat and HNS lost one after deputy MPs took over for government ministers leaving the parliament. I assume that an additional independent is meant for Kregar, but do you have a source saying that he is still independent. Similarly HDZ gained an additional seat when Škare-Ožbolt was replaced by her deputy (and DC lost its only seat too).--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went reverting this and only then found this comment by Wustenfuchs in one of the pages:

Kolam is, as stated here, HNS member

That's actually "Kolman", and it looks like it's true, because the official index lists 14 HNS members. Sigh, so I have to click some more :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, only yesterday, the same page said he's SDP... never mind then. Just change seating numbers, and I'll change the infobox image as needed since I have a locally stored (on my computer) a script to make that SVG. There's no need to remove the file from the box, I'll rather update the Commons.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is on my watchlist so I'll be quick to see if any SVG updates are needed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem again, SDP has 60 MPs (see here), and there are 6 independents (see here). It could be that Kregar makes the problem 'cause he was on SDP's list, but he acts as independent in Sabor. --

Please do not remove the image - it gets updated in the commons, nothing changes here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, regarding File:7th-Sabor-Seats.svg, can you flip it horizontally, so that it better matches the practice? Also, it would make sense not to place HNS and LP seats next to each other (in the bottom row) because the colors are very similar. Maybe move the three blue HSU seats closer and inbetween. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately exact position of each spot is up to the script over which there is very little control. I can only sequence the parties from left to right in a desired order, but boundaries are out of control really - hence the "independent" spots are not contiguous. If I understood your request, on the left to right we should have SDP and HNS, and HDZ on the right? Perhaps in that case HSU and IDS should be placed to the right of the HNS, Labour Party next to HDZ to separate the blues and oranges perhaps, and everything else in between?--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I got to see what a SVG consists of... and created a contiguous fields there.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's much better now, thanks. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm currently copyediting the page, and have run across one problem with the punctuation. Most places, there is no "serial comma" (the last comma in a series, before the "and")... but it's present in a few places. Should it be there or not? (For instance, is it used in formal Croatian writing?) I haven't changed it in either case. Thanks! Allens (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Croatian does not use such a comma, but I suppose that has nothing to do with English in the article, right?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose not necessarily - it depends on its likely degree of influence on people from Croatia writing in English (there's that thing about "linked to the subject of the article". The other way to decide such questions is by looking at the first major contributor's way of doing things; looks like Joy didn't use the serial comma in the initial version of the article, so I will accordingly remove them. Allens (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Sabor/sabor normally capitalized in Croatian? It is in the Croatian translation, but not in the infobox. Allens (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's capitalized when it's used standalone, but in the phrase "Hrvatski sabor" it's not. And just to confuse you a bit more, when that phrase is used descriptively in a sentence, it's possible to use "hrvatski Sabor" correctly. :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, fascinating ;-} I have decapitalized (not sure if that's a neologism...) it in the initial translation... thanks! Allens (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to a "clarification needed" tag containing text: Are these actually reserved for members of these minorities, or are the minorities simply the only ones involved in voting for them? And, BTW, what about people with descent from more than one group? As it happens, I've known a Serbian-Bosnian couple, albeit in the United States:

Eight members of the parliament are elected by voters belonging to 22 recognized minorities in Croatia: the Serb minority elects three MPs, Hungarians and Italians elect one MP each, the Czech and Slovak minorities jointly elect one MP, and all other minorities elect the final two MPs. Voters are listed in the voter register which is in turn compiled from birth register data and other registrar office documents amending the birth register information. One item in the birth register is nationality - which need not be declared, or may be declared as unknown. During elections, a voter who has declared nationality as one of 22 recognized minorities in Croatia or as unknown/non-declared is offered a choice of voting for a minority list or a territorially appropriate (by constituency) general election list. For instance, an ethnic Italian who is a citizen of Croatia may vote either for an Italian minority representative MP or for a general list of candidates running for office in his/her specific constituency. An ethnic Croat citizen of Croatia and citizens of Croatia who are not Croats, and who have declared themselves to be of an ethnicity which is not one of the 22 recognized minorities in Croatia (e.g. Canadian), may vote for a general list of candidates only. Those citizens of Croatia who have declared their nationality as "non-declared" or "unknown" may opt, at the polling station, to vote for a general election list or any minority list.

The above is also found in Elections in Croatia and referenced there. I can add this to the article, but I'm not sure if this would add too much or not. Any suggestions?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... "minorities (including undeclared or unknown)" could be one modification. (Sounds like mixed-ethnicity children would generally be "undeclared" or "unknown", although I can imagine some constitutional legal fights over this...) The above doesn't quite answer the first question, regarding if only members of minorities can run on minority lists or whether it's simply that the minority voters are unlikely to vote for non-minority candidates. In other words, it's specifying about voters, not candidates. Allens (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right: Article 17 of Members of Parliament Election Act says: "Pravo predlaganja kandidata za zastupnike nacionalnih manjina i njihovih zamjenika imaju političke stranke, birači i udruge nacionalnih manjina." which translates into: Right to nominate candidates for representatives of national minorities and their deputies is conferred to political parties, voters and associations of the national minorities. - which is quite ambiguous in Croatian as well as in English: It's clear that national associations (NGOs) of the national minorities may nominate a candidate, but it is unclear if any group of (100) voters may nominate a candidate or do they have to be voters of particular nationality - however the latter seems logical. As far as the parties are concerned - in practice those are largely national minority parties, but other parties are known to have nominated candidates and won seats in the constituency - e.g. a HNS seat in the current Sabor was gained in Czech/Slovak minority representative election. As far as mixed ethnicity is concerned - the thing is quite common in northern part of Croatia where a significant proportion of population has some Hungarian or German ancestors, but from my personal experience those people are largely declaring themselves as Croatian. Still, nearly 100,000 people did not declare their nationality or declared their ethnicity as "regional" - e.g. such a person living in Dalmatia might declare him/herself a Dalmatian as provided by Croatian legislation, but this type of declaration allows voting for a minority election list of choice. In addition, applicable legislation does not permit declaration of mixed ethnicity, but allows changing of that information at the registrar's office as many times as desired. Such non-restrictive provisions actually do not prohibit declaring anything as nationality, so arguably it is possible to indicate that one is "Serbian-Bosnian" or any other combination of nationalities. For instance, 2001 census recorded declarations of nationality including: various American Native Peoples (which they were not), hamsters and penguins (which they were definitely not). Still all those, including "Slavonians", "Istrians" etc are registered as undeclared/unknown and are allowed to choose any minority or general election list for which they may vote.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am reminded of the Jedis in the UK. Thank you for the clarification; I hope how I've now modified it (including a footnote regarding the uncertainty about the minority candidates) to correctly but succinctly represent the situation. Allens (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the above cumbersome clarification: It is unclear whether nominating voters need be members of a particular minority, but the legislation does not require the candidate they nominate to be of a specific ethnic group. For instance, Czechs and Slovaks elect a single representative and therefore some candidates will be Czechs and some will be Slovaks. It is even possible to nominate e.g. a Croat or Italian to stand in election for Czech/Slovak MP, but I don't think anyone will be nominated that way simply because it would be sort of hard to win that way - just imagine a Frenchmen standing in German presidential elections or vice versa.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks! I've revised the note accordingly. (I asked partially because the US system does actually require that a modern-day president be a US citizen from birth - there's been some controversy over that at times from political nutcases... In contrast, most other offices have no such requirement; an Austrian-by-birth (Arnold Schwarzenegger) was governor of California for a while...) Allens (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Seats won in 1990–2007 parliamentary elections by individual parties table lists exactly that - seats won in elections and does not account for any changes of party affiliations between elections, so if that's OK, I'd simply remove the clarification needed tag. Alternatively, I could add an appropriate note in the last row of the table spelling that out.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, definitely remove the clarification needed tag - the note sounds like a good idea. Thanks! Allens (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once that note (mentioned above) gets put in and the other clarification tags are resolved, my copyediting will be done - whew! I'll ask for a more experienced member of the Guild to take a brief skim to make sure I didn't miss anything glaring. Very interesting article! I'll probably go to the Government of Croatia one next, if that's OK, since I'm now familiar with a lot of it. Allens (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, I appreciate your copyediting and clarification requests - I'll tackle those right away, I'm just waiting to avoid edit conflicts. As for the Government of Croatia - please do so! I'll be delighted to see that done too in such a thorough manner.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite welcome, and thank you for your praise. I'll go work on a few other things (including here in "real life") until then... thanks for all your work on the clarifications, BTW! Allens (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right then, I'll sort those clarifications out now. On one of them: limiting civil liberties in a state of war would require two-thirds majority vote by the parliament since those are defined by the constitution - and all matters defined directly by the constitution may be amended by two-third votes (as stated earlier in the article). Everything else is decided by simple majority vote. On a side note - state of war or state of emergency at a national level was never declared in Croatia during the breakup of Yugoslavia. Indeed state of war was neither declared in Yugoslavia itself nor in Slovenia during the

Ten-Day war. Only Bosnia and Herzegovina

declared state of war.

As far as Ban is concerned, I'd say that Viceroy is a better translation - Bans were appointed by Kings of Croatia, later by Kings of Hungary and later by Austrian emperors. Even in 1939, when Banovina of Croatia was established, Ban Ivan Šubašić (the last Ban of Croatia) was appointed by the King of Yugoslavia. I know that governors can be appointed, but may also be elected.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting on no state of war/emergency during the breakup (I have to wonder why not even a declaration of a state of emergency, although it's pleasant to hear no official limiting of civil liberties took place). In terms of Ban/ban, I was going off the Ban (title) article, in which medieval bans are described as Viceroys while the later ones are described as governors. Is that incorrect? Viceroy implies having the same powers as a monarch. (BTW, you're capitalizing Ban here, while it isn't capitalized in the Ban (title) article. Which is correct?) I'll be doing the last of the copyediting on this today, then mark it Done on the requests page and go on to doing the Government of Croatia article. Allens (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually bans (Croatian uses lowercase for titles of monarchs, except reigning ones) were appointed by the king/emperor to discharge official duties in his/her name. In that sense ban's authority was that of the monarch he represented.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The clarification tag pertains to electoral system applied in the 1990 elections. That consisted of single-seat constituencies and all 80 seats in the Social-Political Council of Croatia, all 116 seats in the Municipalities Council of Croatia and all 160 seats in the Associated Labour Council of Croatia (since Parliament had three chambers at the time). A candidate receiving 50%+ votes in the 1st round won outright, if none did so, all candidates receiving 7%+ votes went to the runoff, and candidate winning plurality won the seat. This is explained in wikilinked

The single-seat constituencies pertained to 50% of parliamentary seats - the other half was elected through election list nominated in a single constituency encompassing the entire country.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think what's in the article now is a fine level of detail - good job! I cleaned it up a bit, mainly working on shortening it, and I think it'll work fine. Allens (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

Talk:Parliament of Croatia/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer:

Overall:  On hold ✓ Pass

--

Thank you for reviewing this article. In respect of the lead issue concerned, I have expanded the final paragraph of the lead with a mention of the 1942 meeting of unelected Sabor as the matter is discussed at a greater length in the body text. Similarly, ZAVNOH assembly is considered a part of Sabor history and therefore it is also mentioned there, but in no more than a single sentence because the lead is still just a summary. I realize that the latter could use an additional reference in the body text - and that is added too now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then, that's it. It's promoted. --

fuchs 18:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It should have been in there already. I'm thinking the editor who was reverting you thinks that the link is invoking early elections, but it does no such thing. The next election article always exists, because the schedule is known. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The schedule is not known. The President of the Republic sets the date of the next elections according to Constitution of the Republic. Today we know that there will be no early elections. The next election link should be later, maybe in the last year of the current mandate. So on the 4th December 2014. Tuvixer (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's known insofar as we're certain that there will definitely be a next Croatian parliamentary election, so there's no apparent benefit in avoiding to mention it when the article is there. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link being there does not imply at all that early election will be held. Depending on Croatia's electoral law, the article can be linked with "2016 or earlier" or "Next election" or similar. SPQRobin (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both, "2016 or earlier" and "Next election", are ok. Maybe "Next election" is better. Tuvixer (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, I added it with "Next election". SPQRobin (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now by my opinion, the listed parties should be changed. The names are to long. So should it be changed by Croatian Party of Pensioners to HSU and Croatian Democratic Union to HDZ, or Croatian Party of Pensioners to Party of Pensioners and Croatian Democratic Union to Democratic Union? --Tuvixer (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User CentreLeftRight changed the block "Political groups" and showed there the results of election. But I am sure that it is needed to show current composition of groups. At first, the changes happen after election, MPs can switch groups. At second, let us show each party separately, but not in electoral coalition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olek Bokhan (talk • contribs) 22:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Croatian Parliament. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/29793/visak-generala-hv-u-prepreka-za-nato
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415021807/http://www.usud.hr/default.aspx?Show=c_o_sudu&G1=&G2=&G3=&m1=15&m2=0&Lang=en to http://www.usud.hr/default.aspx?Show=c_o_sudu&G1=&G2=&G3=&m1=15&m2=0&Lang=en
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sabor.hr/Default.aspx?sec=404

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we wait for 7 day that the issue is resolved and we see who supports the government when the Parliament votes on new minister? Changing everything now is just speculation, so please refrain from unproductive edits. Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Croatian Parliament. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111123152513/http://www.vlada.hr/hr/naslovnica/o_vladi_rh/prethodne_vlade_rh to http://www.vlada.hr/hr/naslovnica/o_vladi_rh/prethodne_vlade_rh

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.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LeoC12,

people in Croatia can either be independent or a member of a political party. A political party can propose people for an electoral list in an election (in this text, an "election" is referred to the 2020 parliamentary election in Croatia, unless otherwise stated). People on the electoral list proposed by a political party don't have to be a member of that political party (e.g. Marija Selak Raspudić in the 1st electoral district) or can be in a different political party than the one that is the proposer of the electoral list (e.g. Josip Salapić in the 7th electoral district). Apart from the fact that a political party can propose people for an electoral list, so can multiple political parties propose the same candidates, under one electoral list (i.e. coalition). Apart from political parties, voters can also propose an electoral list if they collect at least 500 signatures from the voters from the electoral district they want their electoral list to be held in, provided that the electoral district is not the 12th electoral district, because special rules apply to that electoral district (in any case, that electoral list is called an independent list). Similarly to the statements before, people in an independent list can either be independent or a member of a political party.

I believe that any connection about electoral lists should be ignored in the Croatian Parliament article, because information about electoral lists are already in the 2020 Croatian parliamentary election article. So, once the election is over, those candidates get in Croatian Parliament with a specific political party (not the electoral list proposer, but the political party they are the member of, as explained before). Of course, if they aren't a member of any political party, they are classified as "independent", regardless if they were on an electoral list proposed by a political party/parties or voters. In Croatian Parliament, 3 or more members of Parliament (MPs) can form a parliamentary club, whether they are independent or a member of a political party. Parliamentary clubs can, similarly to the electoral lists, have MPs which are not part of the political party of the majority of the club (e.g. Goran Dodig is in a parliamentary club whose majority of members are in a political party he is not a member of). Although MPs in a parliamentary club can have similar ideologies with the rest of the MPs in that club, that doesn't have to be the case (e.g. in the 9th assembly of Croatian Parliament, Furio Radin was in a parliamentary club whose majority of members were members of an oppositional political party, while he supported the Government).

That said, if an MP is in a parliamentary club, that doesn't mean he has the same ideologies as the rest of the parliamentary club. As such, I believe that people who are independent, but part of a parliamentary club, should be clearly marked as "independent", because if they "agreed" with something as the majority of the members of the parliamentary club they are in, they would become a member of the political party of the majority of members of the parliamentary club, and not continue to be an independent politician.

Locky74 (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tuvixer,

you recently reverted my revisions that have to do with the infobox part on "Political groups" and the seat distribution photo and that the colors don't "correspond with the color of the respective parties". The colors I used to depict each political party with is the "main" color used on political party's logo or the website. If there was more than one dominant color present, I used a "color blender" tool to mix those two colors. Of course, to ensure that all colors are unambiguously represented in the seat distribution photo, the rules explained before weren't used for some parties, if the color that was yielded was too similar to a bigger political party (the one that has more members of Parliament than that party). The table below shows each political party's abbreviations, as shown on Political party registrar (Registar političkih stranaka) and parliament's website (Glasilo Sabora), as well as the hex code for the used color.

If two political parties form a parliamentary club, in order to ensure equality, the colors represented by the political parties are mixed together, by the same tool mentioned before. If three or more political parties form a parliamentary club, the colors represented by the political parties are mixed together in the alphabetical order of the political parties in that club (the first 2 parties' colors get mixed, then the 3rd party's color gets mixed with it, etc.) The table below shows each parliamentary club's name, the political parties that form the parliamentary club (abbreviations as shown on parliament website are used here) and the hex code for the used color.

I hope this explains which colors I used to make the seat distribution image and that I explained how the colors were assigned in a logical way.

Locky74 (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current version is much more simpler and that is how it has been done in the past. Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer, but the current seat distribution photo and the "Political groups" section don't match at all in some parts (e.g. "HNS–Independents" says it has 3 members of Parliament, while the photo shows only 1, etc.) Also, I think the "Political groups" section, as well as the seat distribution photo should contain political parties, rather than parliamentary clubs or electoral lists because that's more specific (see talk).

Locky74 (talk) 10:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi StaroHrvat,

I noticed you recently edited part of the infobox about a political party "Centre", which concerning official reports, doesn't exist. There isn't such party in Political party registrar (Registar političkih stranaka), nor mentioned on the Parliament website (Glasilo Sabora). Also, the two MPs you claim to be part of such party (Marijana Puljak and Dalija Orešković) don't mention this party at all in their Form on officials' property status (Obrazac izvješća o imovinskom stanju dužnosnika; Imovinska kartica). According to the law on political parties, all political parties should publish their statute in the official gazette (Narodne novine) or one of the daily newspapers. Since it didn't publish its statute in the official gazette, I would like you to send me the name and the edition of the daily newspaper that "Centre" published its statute in, since this is one of the conditions for a political party to exist. There is however a parliamentary club called Klub zastupnika Centra i Građansko-liberalnog saveza which consists of three members, two of which are mentioned before, but just because the club's name contains "Centre" doesn't mean there exists such party.

Considering all above, I would like you to explain why I should keep your recent edits concerning this topic.

Locky74 (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Locky74,

I saw this conversation and it seems like StaroHrvat it's not going to answer so I will try. Party Centre(Centar) has been founded in November 2020 by merging Pametno and Party with a First and Last Name to form a single party (Stranka s imenom i prezimenom). Centre is also registered in Political party registrar under registration number 290 and identification number 42956743890. Also there is a list of co-presidents which include above mentioned Marijana Puljak and Dalija Orešković. These explains why edits should be considered. In case you have more questions please feel free to contact me.

Opatijac97 (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

you are right, shortly after this discussion started, the party "appeared" in Political party registrar (sometime around the end of January). Actually, the "new" Centre party is Pametno, i.e. it has the same OIB and registration No. as Pametno. This proves that such party exists, but which MPs are in that party is still debatable. You mentioned that Dalija Orešković is listed as co-president and as such should be a member of that party. This is a valid argument, but take a look at the party Zagreb je naš!, whose coordinator (according to Registrar) is Tomislav Tomašević, a member of Možemo! - politička platforma party. As you can see, just because someone is listed as the "co-president" or "coordinator" of a party in Registrar, doesn't mean he/she is actually a member of that party. To make the relevant changes (update Pametno party to Centre in the main article infobox), I wanted to wait a bit longer so that the two MPs in question either update their Form on officials' property status or notify Croatian Parliament about their political party affiliation, but since you "opened" the topic again, the info regarding Marijana Puljak will soon be updated. As for Dalija Orešković, she is still a member of Party with a First and Last Name, given the previous arguments. Thank you for understanding.

Locky74 (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JackWilfred,

you recently edited the "Structure" section of the infobox, as well as the seat distribution photo. Since the photo accurately shows distribution of MPs, I believe the photo should be the bird's eye view of the Croatian Parliament (instead of using the "circular" parliament seats diagram). Also, I believe that the "Political groups" section, which lists all parliamentary parties, is currently too detailed. Instead of in the infobox, parliamentary parties and parliamentary clubs (as it is shown now in the infobox) should be in a special section of the article (maybe "Composition of the 10th session") and that the infobox just lists parliamentary parties, without going into how they are distributed inside parliamentary clubs (just that they are part of one). I hope we will gain consensus as to how the page should look like.

Locky74 (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I made the change yesterday for two reasons. Firstly, that the colours on the initial diagram used a lot of customary, grey-ish colours for Parliamentary groups that was difficult to tell apart, and so I used the colour of the largest party for each group with the exception of HSS-HSU which would have been almost identical to IDS. Secondly, that the general precedent set by countries such as Poland, Israel and Spain is that groups are not sufficient, and that detail on individual parties within the groups should be included.

I agree with you that the 'birds-eye' seating plan diagram is better, and if a version of that with the new group colours was made I would support that being used instead of the boilerplate diagram I have made. JackWilfred (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JackWilfred,

thank you for the answer and explanation. So you think it would be better if parliamentary groups use the "main" colour of the biggest party in that group, I suppose that makes sense. I understand there would be some confusion if a party's main colour is yellow and that party forms a parliamentary club with another party whose main colour is blue and that the colour used to represent those parties would be green (nothing like the colours of the two parties), but the reason it was like that is because that ensures equality between the parties (nobody is "left behind"), but again your idea of using the colour of the largest party also seems logical, so I will update the bird's eye view image of the Croatian Parliament to match your colour preferences (and as it looks like, the logical colour preferences).

As for the list of parliamentary parties, I still think the infobox should list the basic information about the structure of the Parliament. For details (list of all MPs, beginning and end of their term, which political party they belong to, etc...) there could be a special page, because if somebody really was interested in details how the parties are distributed in the Parliament, they would search for that information on a specialized article and not in the infobox.

Locky74 (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If you look at the page of the Polish Sejm or Spanish Congress of Deputies for example, all of the parties are listed. While I agree that some pages like the Polish Sejm are a bit much to take in, the organisation of the list makes groups easy to ascertain and doesn't hide the additional information for those who want it. Additionally, all parties get a somewhat equal representation on the list, which should be what we're aiming for.

I'm glad that we agree on the seating plan diagram and group colours though. JackWilfred (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]