Vanjagenije (talk | contribs) |
|||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 147: | Line 147: | ||
:It is not excluded? See [[Serbia#Language]].--[[User_talk:Zoupan|Z<small>oupan</small>]] 05:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC) |
:It is not excluded? See [[Serbia#Language]].--[[User_talk:Zoupan|Z<small>oupan</small>]] 05:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC) |
||
::Kosovar in Serbia are excluded as an ethnic group, which is wrong. This should be corrected. [[User:Makolli86|Makolli86]] ([[User talk:Makolli86|talk]]) 13:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC) |
::Kosovar in Republic of Serbia are excluded as an ethnic group, which is wrong. This should be corrected. [[User:Makolli86|Makolli86]] ([[User talk:Makolli86|talk]]) 13:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC) |
||
== Why do you exclude Kosovo-Albanians as ethnic groups in this article, == |
== Why do you exclude Kosovo-Albanians as ethnic groups in this article, == |
||
Excluding |
Excluding Kosovar under ethnic group is a wrong information. In south Serbia - Presevo, Bujanovac and Medvedja (earlier part of [[Greater Albania]]), which still is home for thousands and thousands Kosovo-Albanians and considered their homeland. Look at these references as for example: |
||
1)http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/south-serbia-albanians-request-community-of-municipalities; 2)http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/south-serbia-albanians-request-exhange-of-territories-to-be-on-agenda; 3)https://euobserver.com/foreign/130248.[[User:Makolli86|Makolli86]] ([[User talk:Makolli86|talk]]) 12:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC) |
1)http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/south-serbia-albanians-request-community-of-municipalities; 2)http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/south-serbia-albanians-request-exhange-of-territories-to-be-on-agenda; 3)https://euobserver.com/foreign/130248.[[User:Makolli86|Makolli86]] ([[User talk:Makolli86|talk]]) 12:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC) |
||
*{{ping|Makolli86}} "Kosovo" is not at ethnic group. Albanians as an ethnic group are mentioned in the article five times, once in the lead, and Albanian language is mentioned three times. What exactly is "excluded"? '''[[User:Vanjagenije|<font color="008B8B">Vanjagenije</font>]] [[User talk:Vanjagenije|<font color="F4A460">(talk)</font>]]''' 14:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC) |
*{{ping|Makolli86}} "Kosovo" is not at ethnic group. Albanians as an ethnic group are mentioned in the article five times, once in the lead, and Albanian language is mentioned three times. What exactly is "excluded"? '''[[User:Vanjagenije|<font color="008B8B">Vanjagenije</font>]] [[User talk:Vanjagenije|<font color="F4A460">(talk)</font>]]''' 14:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC) |
||
:Under ethnic groups it's written: "9% others (excluding Kosovo)."? |
:Under ethnic groups it's written: "9% others (excluding Kosovo)."? Kosovo is an independent country so of course it should be excluded. You mean here instead excluding Kosovars. From the 4 references above many Kosovars lives in nowadays Rebuplic of Serbia. |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
:::What exactly is disputed? Kosovo is excluded form the population data because Serbian population censuses of 2002 and 2011 were not conducted on the territory of Kosovo. There is no census data for Kosovo, and so it is excluded. What do you propose should be done? '''[[User:Vanjagenije|<font color="008B8B">Vanjagenije</font>]] [[User talk:Vanjagenije|<font color="F4A460">(talk)</font>]]''' 15:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::: I propose that Kosovo is included in those "9 % others" since this is confirmed that a huge population of Kosovar exist in southerne Serbia. Please the three articles above. With respect [[User:Makolli86|Makolli86]] ([[User talk:Makolli86|talk]]) 15:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::You do not understand what "excluding Kosovo" means. That means that the people (both Serbs and Albanians) living on the '''territory''' of Kosovo are excluded because there is no population data for Kosovo. Albanians living in the southern Central Serbia are '''not''' excluded. They are, indeed, included in the "others". '''[[User:Vanjagenije|<font color="008B8B">Vanjagenije</font>]] [[User talk:Vanjagenije|<font color="F4A460">(talk)</font>]]''' 17:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:05, 24 May 2016
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage Template:Vital article
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Images
@Portlannd: Could you, please, stop adding images to the article? IT is already overcrowded with images, and you just keep adding more and more. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ne more and more...već koliko je potrebno a u usporedbi sa drugim državama, na čijim ima još mnogo mnogo više slika gde pod "klima" "geografija" i sl. obavezno stoji pored grafikona i jedna slika. --Portlannd (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Google translation: No more and more ... but how much is needed in comparison with other states , on whose has many more pictures where under " air " , " geography " and the like . Obligatory standing next to a chart and one image .[1]
- Oh really? Let's make the comparison with other European states of the approximately same size:
- That much about the comparison. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Google translation: No more and more ... but how much is needed in comparison with other states , on whose has many more pictures where under " air " , " geography " and the like . Obligatory standing next to a chart and one image .[1]
- I agree that many of his images were more representative or of better quality than the old ones, but there were way too many. Some could be incorporated into sub-articles, which allow for more detailed coverage. See Wikipedia:Main article fixation. Images do need an occasional revision, but, I don't think they should be rotated once a month. No such user (talk) 07:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
In the Balkans the one image represents an important political message. Earlier photos were not clear or were not appropriate. Why dangerous ? The reason for this is that Serbia had different rulers who were the conflicting parties and there were moments of an entirely different state of organization.There were moments of an entirely different state of organization.That's why I put the image of the King and the image of the President of the country communist era. In part on the recent history I put a picture of assesinated Prime Minister Djindjic who was a liberal and reformer, and its opponents who are now in power, from conservative party. As I said insert images that represent only one side creates a rift between people.
--Portlannd (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- I must say - great thinking! Could you add some more pictures? Mm.srb (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Proposition
I propose to limit the number of images and graphs in the page to 70 (there are 96 currently). As I explained above, other articles about European nations of the similar size (similar size of both nation and article) have far less images than this one. Large number of images makes the article hard to read and also ugly. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. We should here actually have a greement about what image we use in article. Now there is too many images. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 13:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that there should be less images. Probably easiest to go through and discuss ones that add little to the article and remove them than try and get to a set limit. Some thoughts from someone who knows very little about the country and has only had a quick look through the article. AIRcorn (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- File:Serbia Export Treemap.png - too much detail in too small a size
- File:Serbia soccer vs france.jpg - the flag is nice, but you can hardly see the teams to make out that it is a football game
- File:Srb,Brz,Arena.jpg - Also a very crowded picture
- File:2007 1008Foto0002.JPG - Maybe an important building, but it looks like any other office building
- File:NISbuildingNS.jpg A more interesting building than the one above, but still pretty vanilla
- File:Air Serbia Airbus A319 Milinkovic.jpg - Most countries have their own airlines and there doesn't appear to be anything special about this one.
- File:Slivka.JPG Not sure this adds much to the article
- File:Student protest 96.jpg - A non-free file so should have a pretty good reason to use it.
- File:Carska palata Sirmijum1.JPG - Is this a model? You have the Old Ras ruins which are much better than this.
- File:Zoran Đinđić and Anna Lindh.jpg - Maybe stretching a little, but while Đinđić is mentioned in text and a photo seem acceptable, Lindh is not mentioned at all. Could be a reason to remove it.
- File:Suva planina UM.jpg Suva planina is not mentioned in text.
- File:Dunav kod Novog Sada.JPG - Looks like someones holiday snap. Seems out of place in a country article
- File:Babin zub2.jpg The other landscape in this section looks more impressive. Also not really seeing much mention of this Mountain in the section.
- File:Serbian mig-29 missiles.jpg **File:M84AK.jpg - neither of these files seem representative of the military as described by the text.
- File:Vršac, katedrála II.jpg - If I had to choose a church to remove it would be this one. Neither are directly mentioned, but the Church of Saint Sava seems more important (one of the largest, has its own article and is related to the predominate religion).
- File:Golubaccas.jpg - Not seeing it mentioned under tourism. A shame because it is a nice picture.
- File:Vrnjacka Banja 20.JPG**File:Pejzaz9.jpg - Out of the gallery these look the least impressive (although the small pic size doesn't help). You may want to swap one out for a landscape though so that they are a bit more diverse though.
- File:Pirotski cilim bombe u pregradama.png - Not mentioned in article
- Some could probably be cropped to make them better (e.g. **File:Serbia-0296 - Serbian National Theatre.jpg.
- @Aircorn: I completely agree with you. All those pictures should be removed because they add little if any to the article, but they make it more overcrowded. I removed File:Student protest 96.jpg because it is non-free and has no fair use rationale for this article. I believe the rest should also be deleted. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- I would recommend one image per section. In special cases, you might be able to support two images per section. MOS:IMAGES has helpful advice. Beyond that, I'm not really familiar enough with the article to make specific suggestions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- File:Dom Narodne skupštine, Beograd 12.jpg - The contents of the image isn't mentioned in the article or described in the caption. The caption itself appears to be a quote from the article without adding to the article. It could be removed easily. Bravefoot (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've updated the caption to represent the image contents. Stevetauber (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
As I see that nobody objected to my proposition, I reduced the number of images in the article to 70. I took the advices given above by Aircorn. There is still more than one image per section, some sections have as many as 8 images. What do other editors think about galleries in the "Environment" and "Cuisine" sections? Are they needed or is one image enough? Vanjagenije (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Nice work! Well done. bobrayner (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- It sure was a great job, but... What should we do (this is not the first time)? Suggestions? Mm.srb (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Portlannd keeps adding images
@Portlannd: Why do you keep adding images? It was agreed above that there were too many images in the article, and that their number should be limited. No one even objected to that. If you continue acting against consensus, it can be regarded as wp:disruptive editing which may lead to you being WP:blocked. Take this as a warning. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Portlannd: You added more pictures again [7]. This is getting disruptive. Please, stop adding images without reaching consensus. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- The page is looking like a picture book - a bad one that is. Mm.srb (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- What's our current situation? This version seems much better to me. One more thing, what's the deal with geography section coming before history? Mm.srb (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Mm.srb: The number pf images is stable now (more or less), but Portlannd keeps changing images several times a day without any discussion. That is a bit of a problem. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Edis request
Caption on image on left side under Politics, fix "Serbian government headquarter, Belgrade." to "Serbian government headquarters, Belgrade." Grammar issue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.151.82 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
changes need to be made...
Changes should be made in "Formation" row, says 8th century while its 6-7th century when Serbs had formed prinicipality on Balkans. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vi%C5%A1eslav_of_Serbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unknown_Archon I would gladly do changes but is not possible for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goxy63 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Goxy63: Višeslav lived in the 8th century, so I don't know what are you trying to prove by mentioning him. Unknown Archon lived in 7th century, but had no principality as I know. If you still think that is wrong, you should provide some WP:reliable sources to prove otherwise. be aware that other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, per WP:Circular. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Vanjagenije: Even if "Unknown Archon" why it should not be mentioned as there is enough proof?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unknown_Archon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dervan
- @Goxy63: First of all, Unknown Archon lived in 7th century, not
6-7th century
as you said. Second, "formation" field is about the formation of the Serbian state. If you think the state was originally formed by the Unknown Archon, you have to provide some reliable sources to prove so. And, as I said, other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources per WP:CIRCULAR. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Goxy63: First of all, Unknown Archon lived in 7th century, not
- Intricate detail, such as early monarchs, should be left out of this article. There are plenty of articles dealing with early history of the Serbs/Serbia. These are linked in the history section.--Zoupan 21:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Vanjagenije: Yes I made mistake there when mentioned .... Why to exclude Vlastimirovic dynasty which was formed in 7th century ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlastimirovi%C4%87_dynasty
It is well known and there is enough evidence that Serbs had developed society on Balkans before 8th century ? I think it does not matter that archon is unknown when Vlastimirovic dynasty is, mentioned by Byzantines and in many other researches....
- @Goxy63: First of all, please sign your posts (see: WP:SIGNATURE). What is "well known" is not important. Wikipedia may only write what is already written in reliable sources, and not what is "well known" (see: WP:V). So, for the change you propose, you have to show reliable sources that say Serbs definitely had their own state before 8th century. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Vanjagenije: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlastimirovi%C4%87_dynasty check refferences, it is mentioned that this dynasty was there before 8th century. In a way you speak QUOTE "you have to show reliable sources that say Serbs definitely had their own state before 8th century" END OF QUOTE reliable sources are on page about "Vlastimirovic Dynasty" ....in short what you say means almost every page or every page on wikipedia is questionable? Or just when I say "Serbs had ruler and principality before 8th century"? Please do tell me what is wrong with those sources on page from mentioned link?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Goxy63 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Goxy63: Please, show specific source that says Serbia was a state before 8th century. As I already said, other Wikipedia pages are not reliable sources. You have to cite specific source. If it is a book, please cite the name of the book and the exact page. If it is a web source, cite the URL. And, please, sign your posts (WP:SIGN). Vanjagenije (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Vanjagenije:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlastimirovi%C4%87_dynasty
- References
- Start from refference No.1 http://www.rastko.rs/arheologija/delo/13047 http://www.rastko.rs/rastko-bl/istorija/corovic/istorija/index.html .....and also few more
- @Goxy63:The reference No.2 that you mentioned (Ćorović) says that the first Serbian state was created in the first half of IX century (see here). In the reference No.1 (Janković) I don't see any mention of Serbian state in the 6th century. Can you cite the exact sentence? And, once again, please SIGN your posts. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- There may be some confusion here with their arrival and presence during those earlier centuries. I have certainly never encountered any state or principality of any kind dating back that far. --OJ (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Vanjagenije: why we are speaking about type of state organization, this is not an issue here, it could be even a tribe for this matter. on this page There is also more evidence in some other researches from various historians who researched Byzantine empire and they all have mentioned Serbian prince or king on Balkans during 7th century... Not sure why you insist on some signature here, nor I know what that means, nor I have time to study how to do it as anyways I can not change anything when it comes of Serbian arrival on Balkans...that is why I started this discussion here. Seems to me that you are more interested in my signature than to read from given links...if you are interested at all or you decided that you will not accept that there is enough details and proof to say that Serbs are here before 8th century. Let me ask you one thing, can you change at all "formation" field? If not I don't see why should I have this discussion with you at all ?
- @Goxy63: Signatures are important so that we know who we are talking with. The answer to your second question is: yes, I can change the "formation" parameter. The article is semi-protected which means that only editors whose account is autoconfirmed may edit it. I am an administrator, so of course I can edit it. I am not sure, but it seams to me that your account is also autoconfirmed, which means that you are also able to change it yourself. But, you should not change it unless you reach WP:CONSENSUS with other interested editors. The answer to your first question is: we are talking about the state because this is article about the state (Serbia). The "formation" field is for the date the state was formed. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Vanjagenije: if I could I would already do that as I am sure that there is enough prof that Serbians had "state" before 8th century, there is more than enough proof even here on Wikipedia. There is way more in published scientific books which I cant use here properly as those evidence is not just about Serbia or Serbs but it is mentioned mainly in research about Byzantine empire....even in some old Arabic written documents. Just those links I gave you are enough to prove what I say. It does not matter if archon is unknown "state" was there, people were living there and they were called Serbs by Byzantines....After these few proof I gave you on what grounds you claim that Serbs were not there before 8th century, who was there if not them during 7th century, links? I was really not having intention to make so big (if its big anyways) discussion out of this but here we are.
- ps
- Wikipedia is new to me, pretty much new, its pretty much confusing and there is no proper sources I would agree with you on that as most of pages have rough explanation about some history facts.
Also there is political background in many of articles and mainly they are (if in English) protecting so called "western" versions of history which are not always true... I would take care about my signature but simply now I don't have so much time to study that...
- @Goxy63: As I already said, you failed to show us a reliable source that clearly says Serbian state existed before 8th century. That is how Wikipedia works, everything has to be based on reliable published sources. Until you provide such source, there is nothing to discuss. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2016
Please change instrumental sound of Serbian national anthem, because the version at the actual wiki page is too fast and generally speaking it is hardly recognizable. I am sanding you the official instrumental version of Serbian National Anthem that can be found on official web site of Serbian National Assembly. Please follow the link. You can contact me to further discuss this issue.
http://www.parlament.gov.rs/upload/images/content/amblems/Boze_pravde_instrumental.mp3
Rale126--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rale126 (talk • contribs) 8:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Not done. The version you provided is copyrighted, and so not compatible with Wikipeia's WP:copyright policy. We need a version that is either in WP:public domain or which is published under free licence. The current version is in public domain because it was performed by the US soldiers on duty, and so it is in the public domain according to US laws. The version you provided is under copyrights of the orchestra that played it. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Kosovo
Why is Kosovo excluded as a language in Serbia??? There are several % Kosovo-Albanian speaking in Republic of serbia:S Makolli86 (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- It is not excluded? See Serbia#Language.--Zoupan 05:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Kosovar in Republic of Serbia are excluded as an ethnic group, which is wrong. This should be corrected. Makolli86 (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Why do you exclude Kosovo-Albanians as ethnic groups in this article,
Excluding Kosovar under ethnic group is a wrong information. In south Serbia - Presevo, Bujanovac and Medvedja (earlier part of Greater Albania), which still is home for thousands and thousands Kosovo-Albanians and considered their homeland. Look at these references as for example:
1)http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/south-serbia-albanians-request-community-of-municipalities; 2)http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/south-serbia-albanians-request-exhange-of-territories-to-be-on-agenda; 3)https://euobserver.com/foreign/130248.Makolli86 (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Makolli86: "Kosovo" is not at ethnic group. Albanians as an ethnic group are mentioned in the article five times, once in the lead, and Albanian language is mentioned three times. What exactly is "excluded"? Vanjagenije (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Under ethnic groups it's written: "9% others (excluding Kosovo)."? Kosovo is an independent country so of course it should be excluded. You mean here instead excluding Kosovars. From the 4 references above many Kosovars lives in nowadays Rebuplic of Serbia.
The important question here is how many Kosovars are living in the Republic of Serbia, and instead of just writing 9 % others, specify this 9 % others? Makolli86 (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)