Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia

Croatian Music

There seem to be two parts to this - one is the Music of Croatia article, and the history part is tucked into the Art of Croatia as a section on Croatian Music. That doesn't make much sense to me, especially as the Art of Croatia article introduction clearly states that it's about visual arts! Would it upset any grand plan if I moved the history of music in Croatia into the main Music in Croatia article, where people might expect to find such information? Farscot (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

By all means. Just be sure to provide a link to the Music of Croatia article in the See also section of the Art of Croatia article. Timbouctou (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

hockey

Aye, I went a bit nuts today. Made this, Croatian Inline Hockey League. Help out the page, will ye guys? Puno pozdrava i bokica, (LAz17 (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)).

Football grounds in Split

I recently created a Plinada Stadion article, which I thought was Hajduk Split's original ground before moving to the Gradski stadion u Poljudu, but have since found another article for Stadion Stari plac, which is referred to as being Hajduk's old ground. Are Plinada and Stari plac the same venue? Also, do you think the Gradski...Poljud article should have a rename to Poljud as this seems to be the main name? I'd be grateful for any thoughts on this. Eldumpo (talk) 07:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think "Plinada" is a typo for "Plinara", or "Kod stare Plinare". The word means "gasworks", "by the old gasworks". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Joy is right, Plinara (not Plinada) was a nickname used for Stari plac, Hajduk's old ground. The two articles should therefore be merged. As for their current ground, Gradski stadion u Poljudu seems to be its full official Croatian name, meaning Poljud Municipal Stadium (Poljud is the name of the neighbourhood in Split where the stadium is located), and that's the title of its Croatian wiki article. However the stadium is usually referred to as simply "Poljud Stadium" abroad or "Stadion Poljud" in Croatia (as seen at Hajduk's website). I think we can safely move the article to Stadion Poljud, in line with Stadion Maksimir (whose official name is also somewhat longer and is named after the surrounding neighbourhod in Zagreb). Timbouctou 10:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your swift replies, and I see the page merge has been done. Regarding the Poljud article I will aim to move to Stadion Poljud. Eldumpo (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've moved Poljud, and also Kantrida properly. Timbouctou, if you need help merging into the right place, please don't do manual moves that lose page history, just ask. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I wanted to move Kantrida but it just seemed like a hassle going through the whole process. If you can do it quickly I'll just ask you in the future. Speaking of which, Stadion Kamen Ingrada could probably be better off at Stadion Kamen Ingrad. Thanks. Timbouctou 19:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Croatians peers

I wanted to drop a friendly salute to the Croatian Wikipedians on behalf of WP Albania. This is indeeded overdue, because I have peaked several times over to this WikiProject and really liked its layout, objectives, and achievements. Feel free to drop me a line for future collaborations. --Sulmues ^(talk) 11:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I was curious to see what content WP Albania and WP Croatia have in common, and, interestingly, it's as much as 38 articles at the moment, more than I expected... So, at the very least, there is a chance to collaborate along these lines. GregorB (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Pula Film Festival / Golden Arena awards

Hello!

I´m reading the history of the Big Golden Arena for Best Film from the Pula Film Festival and I see that the award Big Golden Arena for Best Film begins in the year 1957. However, in imdb I find that František Čáp won the award for the best film in the years 1954 and 1955 for the films Vesna and Trenutki odlocitve. Also in his biography in Wikipedia is to read that he won 2 Big Golden Arena for Best Film in the years 1954 and 1955. Therefore the articles Pula Film Festival and Big Golden Arena for Best Film may be wrong. Could somebody /a cinema expert please check it in order to verify if it is correct? thank you a lot!!!

(Please write the answer with copy in Ferran Discussion)

--F3rRan 15:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferran Cornellà (talk • contribs)

In 1954 there was no festival jury to determine award winners. Instead, there were two separate competition awards - one given on account of audience votes (for best film, actor and actress) and the other awarded by a jury of film critics (for best film, best director, best actress and best actor). According to the 1954 report František Čap won the critics choice award for Best Director (for his work in film Vesna), while the film won the audience award for Best Film (the Best Film according to critics was a film called Stojan Mutikaša). In the 1955 edition a festival jury was introduced, and they gave František Čap the Big Golden Arena award for Trenutki odločitve (the award was not at the time known as Best Film award and it was formally given to Čap for his directorial work). However, as there was a separate directing award in 1954 (given to Radoš Navaković), Čap's 1954 award can be considered a precursor of the Big Golden Arena for Best Film (although it wasn't awarded in the next festival edition in 1955). On the other hand, Čap's 1953 award is usually not considered a Golden Arena as it was not awarded by a festival jury, and it was given to him before the festival adopted the Golden Arena name. I've expanded the list of winners in the Big Golden Arena for Best Film to clarify this. Thank you for pointing this out. Timbouctou 04:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

New articles

As you may have noticed, User:Starzynka has created a great number of articles (800 or so), and User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao has added them to WP Croatia:

• Populated places in Croatia
• Croatian films

You can see them in Category:Unassessed Croatia articles. These are all bare-bones stubs, so if you've run out of things to do on Wikipedia, this is the place to go. :-) GregorB (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

user Croacting77

Hi all. I noticed user Croacting77 has recently made a heap of changes in a variety of articles - some of these are OK, but in some cases he simply inserted "Croatia" into parts of articles or shifted Croatia's position in lists to the top regardless of the lists' internal structure. His intention seems to be good, but his editing is not entirely up to par with wiki standards - for instance, in the wine article, he inserted Croatia into a part of the article that was sourced, making it look like the source mentions Croatia (the source, btw, is ridiculously lacking, but that's stuff for an unrelated rant oh boy is there loads of stuff for a lengthy rant on that page...). I could just go and simply revert everything Croacting's done, but as I said, his edits seem to be in good faith, and some (if not most) of them are probably fine as they are. Could somebody sift through his edit history and see if any damage needs to be undone? I don't presume to know quite enough about Croatia to do it myself. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a quick look at Croacting's edits. These appear to be all good-faith edits, and mostly they were constructive (some included adding references - I wish more people did that), but some were a bit heavy-handed, in particular those at Mediterranean cuisine (reverted since). Will keep an eye. GregorB (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Assistance needed with Eastern Europe

The Eastern Europe article is fraught with geopolitical errors, mislabels and slanted facts as if much of it was written by ultraconservatives during the Cold War from an ethnocentric position. If you agree with that Central Europe is more than a backwards ex-Soviet satellite, please assist in rewording/correcting the article lead and body. Gregorik (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Ante Trumbić.jpg

The portrait of Ante Trumbić will be deleted unless source information is provided. This is probably a scan from an old source (the person died in 1938 after all), and one of the generic copyright waivers is almost certain to apply, but we need someone to find out which. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Mass import of populated places in Croatia

Starzynka (talk · contribs) appears to have imported data from a map of Croatia about a huge chunk of villages. The stubs have {{Infobox settlement}}, but generally lack even the most basic bits of information such as the villages' relative locations or population. See e.g. Babotok, and the rest in Category:Populated places in Croatia. This will require a big effort to clean up. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Here are some remarks:

• While the list is surprisingly clean spelling-wise, there are some bad entries (e.g. Linijska Nacionalna Plovidba).
• Categorization into Category:Populated places in Croatia by county would certainly be useful, but merely achieving this is a big task.
• Unit_pref parameter in the infobox is unfortunately set to "Imperial" everywhere - not a problem at the moment, but will be once units are introduced.

A huge amount of work will be needed to make this articles really useful, given the resources at hand. GregorB (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I did try to at least categorize these settlements by county earlier, by cross-referencing them with the complete list of settelements in Croatia at wiki.hr. However, I ran into several articles about places which are either missing from the Croatian list, or have been renamed in the meantime. Does anyone know of a reliable and current list of all settlements in the country? Timbouctou 08:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You can verify it against the 2001 census. Just look it up on the DZS web site like this. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

What should be used in the infobox instead of Imperial? Figured I might do something about a chunk of those articles. Thanks--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Figured it... (Metric)--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Unit_pref might be mass-repaired by a bot. GregorB (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Croatia articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Croatia articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation of populated places

My understanding is that WP:PLACE suggests the following choices for article titles:

• Pavlovci
  • Pavlovci, Croatia Y (the comma form is preferred)
  • Pavlovci (Croatia) N
  • Pavlovci, Požega-Slavonia County N (provided there is only one place named "Pavlovci" in Croatia!)
• Novigrad
  • Novigrad, Karlovac County Y (the comma form is preferred)
  • Novigrad (Karlovac County) N
• Mišnjak
  • Mišnjak (Rab) Y
  • Mišnjak, Rab N (island is a "natural feature", therefore the comma form is not applicable here)
  • Mišnjak, Primorje-Gorski Kotar County Y (also correct, but disambiguation by island is arguably more natural)
• Draga
  • Draga (Rijeka) N
  • Draga, Primorje-Gorski Kotar County Y (unless there are two places named "Draga" in the same county)

There are corner cases, such as two places with the same name in the same county (can't rembember which, but I know they exist). For these, municipality name should probably be used after the comma.

Current naming mostly conforms to examples given above, but there are deviations.

Am I getting it right? Comments? GregorB (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you got it right, except for the Mišnjak example. If the Mišnjak article is about the populated place then it should follow the same rule as for any other village, e.g. administrative division should be used (e.g. "Mišnjak, Croatia", "Mišnjak, Primorje-Gorski Kotar County" or "Mišnjak, Municipality" format). As far as I understand it, brackets are used only for natural features, meaning we would use brackets to differ a hypothetical "Mišnjak (river)" from "Mišnjak (island)" or "Mišnjak (mountain)"and so on.

Having said that, I was considering a proposal to change the naming format for Croatian settlements. There are many examples of the same name being used for several places in Croatia and several places in neighbouring countries and it seems that settlements with existing articles in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia all use the "Settlement, Municipality" format, which I find to be much more practical. There are other reasons which might be considered. The provision in WP:PLACE which says that first level admin division should be used was probably designed with U.S. states in mind, and it makes sense to distinguish place X in Mississipi from place X in Texas. However, IMO counties do not mean much for either Croatian or English readers, at least not as much as municipalities (it is probably far more useful for readers to say that place X is a settlement within town X as opposed to within county Z). Another reason would be that settlement names often change in Croatia, and the official list of settlements has been amended and revised several times since 2001 (the latest list I could find was published in 2007, I'll post the link below when I find it in my bookmarks which are currently pretty messy). This means that each time a settlements changes its name we should check the new name against all other existing settlements to determine whether it is the only one using that name in the country or the county so that we could move it between "Place, County" to "Place, Municipality" or "Place, Country" back and forth, which is simply impractical and which may involve moving about disambiguation pages as well as articles. Another reason which I encountered categorising villages connected by state highways is that many placenames used in roadmaps (even official ones) and therefore in articles about roads in Croatia are notoriously outdated. This means that even if we stick to the rules and somehow manage to name places according to latest official revisions, highway articles are likely to have broken or misdirected links. Since places along the highway are probably a priority on English wikipedia this should be avoided and the simplest way to to this would be to go with "Place, Municipality" format. Like I said, Bosnian, Montenegrin and Serbian articles already use this format and I have yet to hear someone complaining about it.

Another thing to consider is the word "county". As far as I can tell, German places use "Place, State" format, without actually adding the word "state" in the title, nor do places in the U.S. (and I am probably unlikely to run into an article called "Paris, State of Texas" in the near future). For comparison, I haven't seen any article using the "XXX, YYY Municipality" format. I assume we need the word "county" to disambiguate it from the hypothetical place with the same name in the same-named municipality (for example, "place x in karlovac county" vs "place x in karlovac municipality"), which is IMO all the more reason to stick with municipalities and make life easier for both us and our readers. Timbouctou 11:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You're formally correct on Mišnjak, but WP:PLACE suggests using local conventions, and I assumed that in Croatian usage one usually refers to an ambiguous place name by attaching an island to it, rather than a county name - that's what is meant by "arguably more natural". This is the venue to discuss which way to go, of course.

If counties do not mean much to Croatian or English readers, municipalities mean even less. There are 550 or so municipalities in Croatia, enough to stump even the most knowledgeable Croatian readers as to where the place in question is supposed to be located. Not so with county names.

My suggestion would be to always spell out the full county name, even in infoboxes: [[Karlovac County|Karlovac]] is potentially confusing. An interesting real-life example in an album infobox: listing the record company as [[Croatia Records|Croatia]], by assuming that "Records" is implied, is probably not a good idea. GregorB (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I still disagree. Mišnjak is not really a good example for this discussion as it doesn't seem to be a populated place at all - it is a rock (hrid) as it has an area smaller than 1 square km, and its article has "Rab" in brackets to differ it from several other islets (all of which are uninhabited) located near Šipan, Ugljan and Unije respectively. Besides, if the local convention is anything to go by, then the "place, municipality" format should definitely be used, as illustrated by corresponding articles on Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian wikipedias (you are unlikely to find a single article which used "place, county" format over there), while Slovenian wikipedia sometimes uses "place, country" or "place, municipality" but never "place county" for Croatian localities. I disagree on the relevance of municipality/town vs county - for example, take the Greda disambiguation page: Greda, Sisak, Greda, Maruševec and Greda, Vrbovec would probably be more meaningful to most people in Croatia and abroad than the currently used Greda, Sisak-Moslavina County, Greda, Varaždin County, Greda, Zagreb County. Another example could be be Poljica, where you've got 5 in Croatia, scattered in 3 counties, and should one or two of those cease to exist, we would have to move all five to conform to the naming convention. I just don't see why should we blindly follow WP:PLACE and insist on something which will make the future lists of populated places in Croatia even more impossible to maintain. I bet that if somebody asked you what Žrnovnica is, you would probably tell them it's a settlement near Split, and you would dispense with the Split-Dalmatia County designation altogether. I don't see anything wrong with using second-level administrative divisons - telling a Croatian person that place X is in county Z is hardly considered informative without adding more detailed municipality/town information already. And yeah, there may be 550 municipalities/towns in the country, but most Croatian people heard about and can roughly place at least 100-150 of them - telling someone that it is in one of the 21 counties is a very vague piece of information. Timbouctou 12:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Mišnjak is an example picked at random. Your Žrnovnica example is an illustrative one, but that was precisely my point with Mišnjak (let's pretend it's a settlement on the island of Rab): you'd say "Yes, that's Mišnjak on the island of Rab", you wouldn't say "Mišnjak in such-and-such municipality". Using municipality for disambiguation violates WP philosophy of using minimal disambiguating context: in this case, it is supposed to differentiate, not locate. If it differentiates, it's OK to be vague. GregorB (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I still fail to see your point. If Mišnjak was a village we would have to treat is as any other settlement, meaning we would need to use its county or municipality to differentiate it from other villages called Mišnjak if they existed. If Mišnjak was the only inhabited settlement, it would probably have "(village)" after the name in the article title, to differentiate it from other Mišnjaks which are barren rocks. If we had multiple villages and multiple rocks called Mišnjak, the villages would have to use the convention for populated places (county or municipality), and the rocks would probably use natural feature determiners such as "(island) and (rock)" or geographical ones "(Rab) or (Ugljan)". Žrnovnica is within the Split metropolitan area and if there were more than one, the Žrnovnica near Split would have to be called Žrnovnica, Split or Žrnovnica, Split-Dalmatia County, depending on where the other Žrnovnica was. I'm just saying that the former is a better option to use across all articles than the latter, regardless where the second Žrnovnica was. Timbouctou 21:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at Cerje :) Gotta love the Zagreb County/City distinction.

I should note that BiH and Serbia have a huge blob of puny articles, probably also by Starzynka, so it's mostly uncharted territory and not really a representative example. The parenthesized form is used there, and I don't like it, the comma is better.

As for what to put after the comma - I also don't think county and municipality names are very common, but at least it's a consistent scheme, it gets us uniform page titles, while the article content can include whatever other common information in the lead section. The combination of Cerje and Varaždin or Cerje and Zagreb would be ambiguous, and it's not just a few isolated examples, there's scores of common toponyms.

I also don't really like the pipe link for county references. The stubs are also named without saying they're for counties, which is also ugly. In fact, the stubs and their categories seem to be very inconsistent. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

According to the Cerje disambiguation page at wiki.hr there are only two places in Croatia named "Cerje", which would be Cerje, Vrbovec and Cerje, Zagreb (they are both in Zagreb County and therefore the "place, municipality" format should be used for those two). All the others have something added to their official name, probably to distinguish them from each other.

(I wrote the en: page based on DZS data, not based on whatever is on hr:.) Just because they're disambiguated in real life that doesn't make encyclopedic disambiguation any less necessary. Had the disambiguating word been an intrinsic part of the name, it would most likely have been included *before* the word Cerje. Other articles can reasonably be expected to refer to the village of Cerje, near Zagreb, Croatia, and no less than five places easily match that description. Also, those two you mentioned - they are not both in Zagreb County. That's why I mentioned this. One is part of Grad Zagreb, and the other is part of Zagrebačka županija. These are two separate administrative units. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The first part of your answer explains why you created the disambiguation page, which I don't think was an issue. Of course the disambig is needed here. The second part points to my mistake, and I admit I was quick to judge that Cerje in Vrbovec Municipality and City of Zagreb belonged to the same county. In that case, following the current naming conventions, the Cerjes should be listed as follows:

• • • • Cerje, City of Zagreb
      • Cerje, Zagreb County
      • Cerje, Macedonia (or Cerje, Republic of Macedonia, I don't know what is the current politically correct convention)
      • Cerje, Zlatibor District
      • Cerje, Raška District

If there was a single hypothetical Cerje in Bosnia and Herzegovina, than the list would also feature a

• • • • Cerje, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina or
      • Cerje, Republika Srpska

My point is this would be a mess and I don't see how more useful this list would be as opposed to what we already have in the Cerje disambig page. If we had multiple Cerjes in Bosnia, then these would have municipalities (or cantons?) added to their titles, but Croatian ones would not, and neither would the Macedonian one. So the end result is that, by following WP:PLACE, we would end up having many disambiguation pages and village articles on Wikipedia, some of which identified by their country and others by their municipality, canton, district or county, on a case-by-case basis. Now add possible administrative changes, mergers and renamings to the mix, which are all likely to happen every now and then in all of these countries and which would require multiple article moves on our part. What we'll get is an unmanageable chaos and I fail to see how this would be of any benefit to readers. OR we can simply use municipalities after the comma and be done with it. Timbouctou 20:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Usage of comma as opposed to brackets for populated places is not really an issue, MOS is clear on that, and myself had to move a number of Bosnian articles to their proper titles when I had to create disambiguation articles. The only issue here is what should follow after the comma - the first level of administrative subdivision (county) or the second one (municipality), and it's precisely for consistency reasons that I propose we adopt the rule to use municipalities rather than counties.

I don't really think the argument of consistency mixes well with the argument for avoiding counties. The list of counties has changed much less often than the list of municipalities - in fact I don't believe the former changed since their inception in 1997, right? - so the latter are a potential source of volatility that can be avoided by staying with the former where possible. And the benefit of the municipalities is still dubious - because of the native disambiguation of 7 out of 9 Cerjes in Croatia, it is impossible to make the set of titles of those nine Cerje articles actually internally consistent - you can't rename the article Cerje Nebojse to Cerje, Maruševec because factual accuracy always trumps consistency. And there's also little point in comparing second-level subdivisions in various countries, especially where BiH is on the list, because they can be very idiosyncratic, to say the least. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree on other points - county names shouldn't be piped and stub names should probably be updated to reflect that they are for counties. Btw, here's the latest official list of counties and settlements dated July 2006 which will come in handy for future articles and possibly help disambiguate some placenames. Also, while we're on the subject, I was wondering why Vukovar-Syrmia County is named differently compared to other counties which all retain their Croatian names. What was the reasoning behind that? Timbouctou 14:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Vukovar-Syrmia County - maybe that's for consistency with Syrmia (which is not a very strong argument, though, for more reasons than one). The official version uses Srijem, but - somewhat suprisingly - uses the form "County of Foo" and not "Foo County". GregorB (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Er, where is the difference, really? The English toponym is used where possible, so -Slavonia and not -Slavonija, -Dalmatia and not -Dalmacija, -Syrmia and not -Srijem. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

So basically you're saying we should move Osijek-Baranja County to Osijek-Baranya County for consistency with Baranya (region)? As for Syrmia, it seems that it is rather unclear what should be regarded as the "English toponym". DZS uses Vukovar-Sirmium and the Croatia government's English-language pages go with County of Vukovar-Srijem (as is the case with Baranja). Timbouctou 20:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The obvious pre-condition is the established existence of an English toponym. This seems to be the case with Syrmia - if not, please bring it up on the relevant talk page. Conversely, there seems to be little indication of Baranya being actually used in English rather than just being literally imported from Hungarian. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Help with pronounce

Hi. I don't know if I'm at the right place but here it goes. I would like to ask a favour: could some one, please, make an audio file with the right pronounce of the name "Miljenko Matijević" (Steelheart lead singer)? I saw that a French and an English speaker can't pronounce it properly and this file could help them to read the "enko" part and to inderstand the "ć" (tch). I'm portuguese therefor I can't do it. Thanks in advance. Septrya (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Would adding the IPA pronunciation help? GregorB (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. It would be great and would help a lot. My hairs went up when I heard Mil-Jenkou instead of Mi-lien-ko. Septrya (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)