Talk:Municipalities and cities of Serbia

Untitled

Just wondering – wouldn’t gradonačelnici be ‘mayors’ instead of ‘majors’? Psi-Lord 08:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

update

The territorial organization of the Republic of Serbia is regulated by a new Law on Territorial Organization dated December 29, 2007 [1]
Main changes include :

Serbia is divided into 150 municipalities and 24 cities,
According to the law Kosovo only has 29 municipalities. Serbia does not recognise Mališevo. --Krisgrotius (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

please see Category_talk:Municipalities_by_country#Naming LocodeMaster (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User merging article for municipality with article for municipal seat

User:No such user is re-merging articles of municipalities and municipal seats. E.g. these two:

	Municipality	Seat
Article	Nova Crnja Municipality	Nova Crnja (village) located inside the municipality.
Population	10,272	1,491
Map	image map (area)	pushpin map (point)
Wikidata	d:Q914410	d:Q266760
Borders	e.g. Žitište Municipality	???
Type	municipality of Serbia	village of Serbia
Populated places	6	n/a
Demographics	Serb: 70,31%, Hungarian: 18,64%	Serb: 6,01%, Hungarian: 84,57%
Located in	Central Banat District	Nova Crnja Municipality
sr WP	sr:Општина Нова Црња	sr:Нова Црња
hu WP	hu:Magyarcsernye község	hu:Magyarcsernye

Several article sets distinguish between the municipality and the seat, so that there is one article for each of them. This is also seen in Wikidata.

Country	Main article	Category	WD	en WP	en WP ex.	Population	WD	other WP
Bulgaria	Municipalities of Bulgaria	M of ...	d:Q1906268	1. municipality, 2. seat	Bansko Municipality, Bansko	13,225 - 8,911	d:Q2085163 - d:Q391159
Kosovo	Municipalities of Kosovo	M of ...	d:Q2989682	mixed article	Đakovica	94.158 - 40.827	d:Q3656386 - d:Q474651	sr:Општина Ђаковица, sr:Ђаковица
Macedonia	Municipalities of the Republic of Macedonia	M of ...	d:Q646793	1. municipality, 2. seat	Berovo Municipality, Berovo	13,941 - 7,002	d:Q793727 - d:Q827047
Montenegro	Municipalities of Montenegro	M of ...	d:Q838549	1. municipality, 2. seat	Andrijevica Municipality, Andrijevica	5,071 - 1,073	d:Q2384773 - d:Q242059
Serbia	Municipalities of Serbia	M of ...	d:Q783930	mixed article	Nova Crnja	10,272 - 1,491	d:Q914410 - d:Q266760	sr:Општина Нова Црња - sr:Нова Црња
Slovenia	Municipalities of Slovenia	M of ...	d:Q328584	1. municipality, 2. seat	Municipality of Ajdovščina, Ajdovščina	18,850 - 6,676	d:Q331701 - d:Q15854

The user's comments and my reply here:

[2]
- the articles mostly map 1:1 --- well, actually, mostly they don't. I have never seen an example when they did.
- most of them are too short and underdeveloped ---- well, that is why I work on them
- and creating content forks just gives more burden on maintenance and categorization - well, exactly the opposite, clear mapping, clear categorization
- to the shrinking pool of Serbian editors on En.wiki ---- well, maybe it is because en WP looks so disorganized that many people don't bother to edit
- Thus, I'm reverting your changes to villages of Beočin and Žitište. They were just fine in terms of organization ---- No, they were not. Beočin is a place within Beočin Municipality and Banoštor is located in Beočin Municipality not in the seat named Beočin.
- as witnessed by the previous 10 years of so of their existence. ---- This could have been changed 10 years ago. See Serbian Wikipedia, where they separate the items.
[3]
- I'm not going to be gentle with you --- Your choice.
- If you really want to be of help, you could, for example, update the village and town population figures --- Exactly that is my plan. But best via Wikidata. And for using the data from there more easily I did create municipality articles separated from the seats. Then the Infobox:Settlement can be used to display Wikidata values directly. And bots could do other updates.

So what to do now? Androoox (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My points, as briefly as I can manage:

There is not an universal convention how to treat administrative units and populated places. Different wikipedias solve them differently; what sr.wiki does is not binding to en.wiki whatsoever.
In particular case of Serbia (which is also true for most of Europe), the lowest-level units (municipalities) are centered around a town (or a larger village), which is the seat and its gravity center. Other places in the municipality are relatively insignificant villages.
In case of Serbia (and many other countries), the town and the municipality have the same name, the town is its seat, all institutions are placed there, they have a single official website, tourist organization, mayor, council, you name it. It's not as if the town is ruled from an imaginary administrative unit placed elsewhere.
Maintenance issue: there are 170 or so municipalities in Serbia. Croatia, for example, has 429. Most of these articles are stubs or C-class, one or two screens long, neglected and seldom updated. Most of {{Serbian census 2011}} information updates and 2013 local elections hasn't made it into the articles. We have a shortage of Serbian editors working on those articles. See e.g. article on Kruševac, a major city. Now, splitting municipality data from those articles means two more infoboxes to maintain and additional eyes necessary to watch.
Foremost: the reader experience. What is gained by splitting the articles? Municipality articles will only contain population information and a list of villages. Andrijevica Municipality of Montenegro, which you quoted as a good example, will hardly ever grow, because there's nothing interesting to add. That is easily accommodated by a section in the town article. And click on absolutely useless Kotor Municipality and Herceg Novi Municipality to learn about maintenance problem.
By splitting, you force the reader to click twice every time to find an information about the town surroundings, or about the municipality seat. Or, when researching, to wonder whether they should choose Kotor or Kotor Municipality to learn about the town vicinity.

Serbian position on Kosovo municipalities

In light of recent Brussels Agreement: what is the current position of Serbian government about legality of "UNMIK" (new) municipalities? This article still says that "However, the Government of Serbia does not recognize the territorial re-organization of Kosovo", but as they signed the accords and supported the 2013 local elections, that position is apparently de facto abandoned. Do they still maintain the silly "municipal administrations in exile", placed in towns surrounding Kosovo, used chiefly as money drain and source of nepotism?

If that position changed (de facto or de jure), we could easily remove that silly mantra from most of relevant articles, and leave only a short notice about history of their position in this article. No such user (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that. I think there are actually two problems - one is the specific factual issue (which would benefit from better sourcing) and the other is the bizarre rash of disclaimers, inserting "not recognised" anywhere it could possible be inserted, across hundreds of articles. bobrayner (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found one source (there are probably better ones), from exactly a year ago: [4] (Goggle Translate does a quite decent job of that, by the way), quote:

The Government of Serbia has abolished the administration of seven municipalities with Kosovo where Serbs do not live: Podujevo, Djakovica, Suva Reka, Decani, Prizren, Ferizaj and Klina. Instead the president and deputy mayor will appoint coordinators.

Explaining the decision, which was met with a variety of comments and a lot of upset the remaining Serbs in Kosovo, Minister for Kosovo and Metohija Goran Bogdanovic said that "it is unacceptable that the grotesque decision in 2008, under which the elections were held in Kosovo, we pay some presidents, Vice President, President of the Assembly, and the people do nothing. "

No such user (talk) 08:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anastan, why did you add this? You have been active on wikipedia long enough to know that:

You are misusing a primary source;
You are cherrypicking one phrase buried deep in a court document;
You have no consensus to add it.

The constant POV-pushing is tiresome. bobrayner (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looked like to me that phrase is very important. Anyway, its fixed now. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 20:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "fixed"; you have edit-warred to add the same crap to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244. These articles would benefit from more adult supervision. bobrayner (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can ask few other editors for an opinion! That is wikipedia. I will ask questions on wikiprojects. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 20:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with your wording (the lead sentence flows better, and "disband" is certainly more encyclopedic than "demolish") sans that unilateral mantra and that cherry-picked primary source. The fact that Kosovo declared independence in 2008 falls strongly into WP:BLUE category, so it doesn't even need sourcing. The legal status of that declaration decidedly does not belong to an article about Serbian municipalities or UNSCR 1244, but maybe to Political status of Kosovo or somewhere else, subject to editorial consensus. No such user (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

map

There are cannot be reason not to have map of Serbia as it is by constitution. We have official serbian maps, and we use those one, for this artice. On other places it can be different maps with eplanation, but here we must use map as serbia use it. And its not "outdated" but only your other thinking about it, so do not write it as its is normal, as it is not. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 21:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is necessary to add the Kosovo note to the caption this map.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo note? I didnt know that, sorry. Thanks, i will add that note then when ever nedded next time. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that some people very strongly wish to maintain this fantasy, but that map shows regions as part of Serbia which are not actually part of Serbia. Please stop misleading readers. If you want a second map further down, which represents some hypothetical Serbian geography (ie, your interpretation of the constitution), rather than actual Serbian geography, then I could accept that as a compromise; but we must stop misleading readers. The map is not the only problem; I would point out that the lede says:

Of the 150 municipalities, 41 are located in Southern and Eastern Serbia, 42 in Šumadija and Western Serbia, 39 in Vojvodina and 28 (de facto 37) in Kosovo.

This is blatantly false. Kosovo declared independence years ago. bobrayner (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I already added the note Anastan. @Bobryner, feel free to read Template:Kosovo-note which says: "Kosovo note was created with reference to the main wikipedia guidelines, like Wikipedia:NPOV, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what can be wrong here, Serbia officially have Kosovo as part of its territory. Its not "hypothetical" or "interpretation of the constitution", you go and read it your self now.

Considering also that the Province of Kosovo and Metohija is an integral part of the territory of Serbia - Constitution of the Republic of Serbia

So, we must use this map, as this is official, and its not fantasy. We all knaw that republika of Kosovo exist, but serbia official status is the same, so must use it until it is like that. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 15:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is distressing that you try an argument based on the Serbian constitution - rather than reality - without even a basic understanding of Serbian constitutional history. This explains the repeated insertion of factual errors; I don't think it's deliberate, although Antidiskriminator ought to know better. Please do not reinsert fantasies; this is an encyclopædia, and content should be factual. bobrayner (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Whether constitution mentions it or not, the point is that Serbia continues to claim it as part of its own sovereign territory. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antidiskriminator, why do you continue to edit-war to insert factual errors on multiple articles? Your preferred map is not true. Do you understand what a factual error is? This constant tendentious behaviour is deeply frustrating. bobrayner (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobryner, I already replied to you and pointed to Template:Kosovo-note which says: "Kosovo note was created with reference to the main wikipedia guidelines, like Wikipedia:NPOV, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions". You are of course free to disagree, but I don't think you should expect me to be somehow obliged to keep discussing it with you for as long as you are dissatisfied with it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Kosovo-note template is not a magic wand that permits you to present serbian nationalist fantasy as though it were reality. Antidiskriminator, why do you continue to edit-war to insert factual errors on multiple articles? Your preferred map is not true. Do you understand what a factual error is? This constant tendentious behaviour is deeply frustrating. bobrayner (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Municipalities and cities of Serbia. 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:

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 21:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Municipalities and cities of Serbia. 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:

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 10:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Coat of arms of Loznica (1977-2018).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Mali grb-Vranja.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

COA Grocka.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]