Talk:Vojvodina/Archive 3

Multiple problems
3 areas with official name in several language (within intro section). History section mishmashed, most data needs to be moved to History of Vojvodina. bare link refs. Sections are situated on wrong places. 7 (!) maps after eachother. Overall MOS.--Zoupan (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Constitutional Court ruling
The Constitutional Court of Serbia ruled that 22 regulations of the Law on Establishing Jurisdiction of Vojvodina, including those which state that Novi Sad is the capital of the province and that Vojvodina can have its office in Brussels, are unconstitutional. (link is in Serbian), Buttons (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But that does not mean that Novi Sad is just "de facto" capital. It is official capital according to Vojvodina Statute. The fact that there is some current disagreement between Statute and rule of Constitutional Court does not mean that Statute is not valid any more. Provincial government will certainly protest against this rule of the court and it is very questionable what would be the final outcome of this dispute. So, I suggest that word "de facto" is avoided and that we add some note instead, which would say that Novi Sad is the capital according to Statute and that court ruled otherwise (Statute is still valid official document, no matter of court rule). PANONIAN  15:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Second problem is fact that English word "capital" can designate every administrative center of any province, no matter if official documents are using term "capital", "administrative center" (or what ever). Therefore, Novi Sad would be always accurately added into "Capital" section of this infobox in English Wikipedia despite the ridiculous quasi-political dispute about this question in some political circles in Serbia. PANONIAN  15:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just an update on the situation. The court's ruling has come into effect, making the mentioned provisions invalid. Also, I'm not 100% sure, but I believe this ruling does apply to the Statute of Vojvodina. Buttons (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My point is: Novi Sad fulfills all criteria to be described as capital of Vojvodina in English language (seat of government of Vojvodina is in Novi Sad, so it is capital). The ridiculous political dispute about exact terminology by which status of Novi Sad is described serves mostly for some linguist-political games within Serbian language, but it does not affect meaning of term "capital" in English language. "Capital" could be defined in English as "the area of a country, province, region, or state, regarded as enjoying primary status, usually but not always the seat of the government" (so, it is fully incorrect that only countries have capitals, and, therefore, it is very strange to me that some politicians in Serbia introduced this idea). However, politicians are not linguists, and from the linguistic point of view, it is not incorrect to say that Novi Sad is the capital of Vojvodina. I do not object that article text can use some definitions such "administrative center", "seat of the government" (or what ever), but info in standard section of the infobox that describes capital should not be blanked in order that certain political point is proved. PANONIAN  22:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I know there really is no difference between "capital" or "administrative centre", in the end its just two different terms with the same meaning. But the court ruled the way it did, and we are not here to question the courts motives. However, I do have a solution for the infobox issue since its purely a maintenance problem, we just use the Template:Infobox settlement (which should have been used anyway for a province), like those in the Districts of Serbia articles since they also use "administrative centre" and not "capital". Buttons (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree to have other infobox. If word capital is not supported by constitution then we should not use it. CrnoBelo (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that "Template:Infobox settlement" has all elements as the current one, but I would not be against it if it does have all these elements. Perhaps you can post example of this new infobox on talk page so that we see is it suitable before we replace current infobox? PANONIAN  08:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's an example of what it might look like. The only important missing element is the official languages section, wasn't able to get in it unfortunately. When I have time, I will request that it be included in the template. Buttons (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice, i agree also. Please, Buttons, ask for new inclusion in this template. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 21:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring
Here I will explain my edits - Peacemaker67 is try to promote in Wikipedia name Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. I looked recent edits in some articles and I see that this name was personally included into these pages by this user. This name almost do not exist in English sources outside of Wikipedia -. Name that I use instead, Military Administration in Serbia, is used much more -. Also, Peacemaker67 abused one of the references that he promote. This is reference that he use as support for name that he push - Pavlowitch, Stevan K. (2002). Serbia: the History behind the Name. we see that this reference do not use name Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia but instead it use Territorry of the German military commander, Serbia -. Peacemaker67 abuse this source trying to make false impression that name that he promote is referenced. He also placed these 2 references into article bibliography but they are not bibliography for this page. This page is about Vojvodina and bibliography on this page should have books about Vojvodina. Two books that Peacemaker67 placed there are not even distantly connected to Vojvodina and because of that these books are not bibliography for this page. Nemambrata (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Demographics section - numbers
To explain my contributions to this article. This source 1 represents the demographic structure of Serbia (Vojvodina included). By that data (page 21 in the pdf document) in Vojvodina we have a total number of population 1931809 from which 1289635 are Serbs. Since this data isn`t represented in percentage, we can calculate it (100 * 1289635 / 1931809 = 66.75%) - not 67% as stated in the article. Therefore I have updated the correct number. Adrian (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair to me. Nothing wrong with your maths. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 20:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it actually is 66.76%. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But how? Do the calculations yourself. I checked it twice, the calculator gives 66.75%. Adrian (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the actual result is 66.75789 and so on. It's getting pretty petty if we are quibbling over rounding up a decimal point (when it clearly should be rounded up IAW normal practice). I'm not sure what the issue here is? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right. I dismissed the other numbers, I just automatically took the 2 decimals and never looked at the rest. Of course, it is 66.76. Adrian (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

SC
Both the Serbian and Croatian standards of the Serbo-Croatian language enjoy equal official status in Vojvodina. Rather than stupidly listing two standards of the same language it makes more sense to simply list the language. Of course the inseparable Serbian Dynamic Duo are trying to scrap Croatian standard altogether from the article. How... šešeljesque. For your next move I suggest proposing a merge of Serbo-Croatian into the Serbian article *facepalm*. Let the silly repetitive argument commence! -- Director  ( talk )  21:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You should try to reach consensus for your position centrally or refrain from pushing your position on individual articles, especially after you failed to get support for your position at similar discussion at Kosovo RfC.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be great if you stopped repeating yourself an actually read my post. Kosovo is an entirely different case. I say again: both Croatian and Serbian standards are official here, thus the Serbo-Croatian language itself is listed, as opposed to its two standards separately. Its your position that departs from standard practice here, so if yo disagree - you should seek central consensus for deviating here. -- Director  ( talk )  12:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I have retained the list of "six official languages", even though they are in fact five - whatever the government of Vojvodina might say. Wikipedia is written in accordance with scientific, scholarly sources, not government decrees. However, official languages have nothing to do with the translations given in the lead sentence. It cannot be justified to list only one standard of Serbo-Croatian up there, when two are relevant for the province. -- Director  ( talk )  22:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Name of article
Is "Vojvodina" really the most common spelling in English? I think that "Voivodina" was more common during the 80's and 90's in U.S. newspapers, at least. Many English speakers faced with the spelling "Vojvodina" would probably try to pronounce it in ways that the inhabitants of the regions would not find too recognizable... AnonMoos (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Growing up in the '80s I always saw the j spelling in atlases. As for pronunciation, why should the pronunciation in one language be the same as in another? --Khajidha (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Additionally, google maps (.com) has it spelt this way. There are also other english articles with similar spellings such as Serbs in Vojvodina and FK Vojvodina. Stevetauber (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Map is very UGLY!
Someone change the map to be Zoomed in, this is a region not a country so zoom in so I can see the surrounding areas Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)