Talk:Administrative divisions of Serbia and Montenegro

untitled
Page moved for the sake of consistency. --Jiang 22:28, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't the page be renamed to Administrative divisions of Serbia and Montenegro ? Kpjas 06:47, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Maybe. What are names for such articles about other countries which have diverse subdivisions? Russia uses Subdivisions of Russia, I don't know others. Nikola 07:03, 31 May 2004 (UTC)


 * please see this. There seems to be quite a few. Kpjas 08:43, 31 May 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, this page needs a move. But I see that there are 13 pages called "Subdivisions of" (1) while there are 14 called "Administrative subdivisions of" (2). In the spirit of Slavic brotherhood, I'd move this to "Subdivisions of" if you have no objections :) Nikola 21:42, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

ISO 3166-2 codes have changed
As described in ISO 3166-2 Newsletter No I-5 the codes have now changed: see ISO 3166-2:CS for the current situation as far as I can make it out. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 16:33, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Is Kosovo a subdivision of Serbia, or of Serbia and Montenegro (as it seems in resolution 1244) ?


 * Of Serbia. R1244 states that it is a part of SCG, but SCG's constitutional charter states that it is a part of Serbia, specifically. Nikola 05:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

To Rarelibra: what you read is a common propaganda point used against Milosevic, which still remains. The provinces were never stripped of their autonomy, it was just reduced. Either way, we should use official names of the provinces, which AFAIK include "autonomous". Nikola 05:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo Municipality
This Municipality was maket at Milosevic time (1995 - 1999), but they was not acceptit from Pristinas Parliament. Belgrads parialament dont have legitimation over this citys. The Parliament who diseit it (see: Autonoy) was and is now Parliament in Prishtina. Oly during the Milosevic time, he have destroit Prishtinas Parliament (Out of Federal Law and UN Law) and maket this Districts and Municipality. The Rep. of Serbia in temprali boun with Montenegro (5 years) is using today but they dont administrate kosovo. Municipality must be administraitit. However, Kosovo Municipality dont belong to the Serbian Administartiv zone. Is not impoten her if Kosovo is a part or not. Her is the importen ADMINISTRATION.--Hipi Zhdripi 02:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Municipality
Are the administrativ part of samthing they are not in the Constitution. If you say political you are sayig that they political rigt of the element is garantit with Constitution--Hipi Zhdripi 07:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Political divisions
Political divisions of Serbia and Montenegro? The Kosovo is not a part of political divisions of Serbia and Montenegro. Beacouse of that it must be out of this articel or this articel it must be putit under the historial artcel. -- Hipi Zhdripi
 * Acording to the constitutional chapter of Serbia-Montenegro, Kosovo is its part. Until the final status of Kosovo is solved, we should respect that chapter. PANONIAN   (talk)  23:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Maps
The maps appear to be there to reinforce Serb dominance over Kosovo and Vojvodina rather than to inform. They are not useful for the article and I suggest removal. Polargeo (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I already answered to you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republic_of_Serbia_(federal) There is no reason to discuss same thing in several places. As for "Serb dominance over Vojvodina", I am Serb from Vojvodina and most citizens of Vojvodina are Serbs too and we consider that Serbia is our country, so are you trying to insult me on ethnic basis with that comment? PANONIAN  16:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Three maps are very messy for what could be easily shown on a single map. Polargeo (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said they are not same - maps 1 and 2 are showing two different levels of administrative divisions, while map number 3 is completelly different and show political proposal for reorganization of state administration. Whether map number 1 is already covered with map number 2 might be a question of different personal opinions, but the article is poor anyway, so it is no bad thing at all to be expanded with maps. PANONIAN  21:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The best way of expanding a small article is with text info not extra maps. The third map can be described in text with references, an extra map is not the best way to do it. Polargeo (talk) 09:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Expanding a small article with text might be the best way, but certainly not the only way - you are welcome to expand this article with text if you want. As for the third map, I agree that it should be described in the text as well, but at the present momment I have no enough free time to do both: draw maps and write of expand articles. When I finish most of the planned work with maps, I will return to the articles writing. PANONIAN  12:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)