User talk:D1111

Serbia in WWI

First, longevity in a conflict is not a criteria for being considered a major power. Australia was in the conflict from the beginning as well, yet it's not considered a major power either. The fighting in the Balkans just doesn't compare to that on the Western Front or in Russia in terms of scale or importance. Lastly, Bulgaria is included on the Central Powers side because it wouldn't make sense to have Germany, Austro-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire, and then have a "and others" when it just refers to the 4th member of the Central Powers, Bulgaria. Parsecboy (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think that for a country to be considered a "major power", it should make significant contributions to the war effot, something in this case I feel that really only France, Russia, the UK, and Italy did during WWI. One could argue in favor of the US in terms of manpower, some 4.3 million soldiers, and of course the aid in materiel. Consider that the Indian Empire provided over twice as many soldiers as Serbia did, and was fighting for just as long. They're not considered a major power either. I would like to point out, however, that the decision is not ours to make. We need to have reliable sources stating that Serbia is considered a major power during World War I. Parsecboy (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Major power and major combatant are essentially the same thing. Like I stated in my comment above, it doesn't matter what you or I think about Serbia's contribution. Provide some reliable sources stating that Serbia was a major power during the war, and it can remain in the infobox. Parsecboy (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying you need to provide me any sources. I mean for the article itself. Perhaps you should review the policy on verifiability. If you think Serbia should be included in the infobox, I would also suggest bringing it up on the talk page. I believe there was consensus at one point to not include Serbia, Canada, Romania, and other minor powers in the infobox. Again, reliable sources should be provided to support the change. Parsecboy (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the World War I talk page here. I propose we stop discussing on our talk pages, and continue there. Regards Parsecboy (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no need for a specific policy on "major combatants". The only one needed is verifiability. Provide sources backing up your claims, and Serbia can remain in the infobox. If you don't, you're just using your own opinions, which is not allowed here. As I said above, it would be best if this conversation continued on the talk page for WWI, in the discussion I started there. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to review the core Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. They all go hand in hand; to make a change (especially a controversial one, as this one is), you need to have reliable sources to verify those changes. A reliable source in this instance would be, for example a book written by a respected historian with established standing within the field in question, a peer-reviewed journal entry, and so forth. Simply stating the number of casualties and taking your own judgements from them is a clear case of original research, which, as mentioned before, is strictly prohibited. As should be obvious, there is no need for a specific policy about picking which countries are major and which are not in a given war. By following these three policies, we arrive at the correct end-point: a product that matches more or less with the consensus of historians on a broad scale. Parsecboy (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Dyokovich

Changing your position when no one else on your side has is fairly convincing evidence of independence; thank you. But these conversations are inundated by sockpuppetry; I am glad to be wrong for once.

My position on Bjorn Borg differs because the evidence of English usage differs; if three encyclopedias used Đ for Djokovic, my opinion there would differ also - but the Britannica is the only one I know of that notices him, and they use Djokovic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You can't deny that both arguments you brought up for Djokovic work for Borg as well. I now have a firm position about this problem: "Björn" and "Đoković" are certainly correct, but they should be transliterated (unfortunately impossible as you will see further down), so people who don't have a clue how "đ" or "ö" sound, can eventually get an idea how to pronounce it when they see them for the first time. For example, I didn't have an idea how "ö" is pronounced until I learned German; before that I was simply neglecting the umlaut. Furthermore, orthography consistence and logic is important; if you try to consistently use Latin alphabet for languages which use it (but have diacritics), it doesn't help you a lot (because reader most of the time just gets confused), and you get a huge inconsistency with non-Latin scripts.

Now, transliteration "dj" for "đ" is ubiquitous but really said - "j" in English is *never* pronounced in a way that is suppose to stand for in "dj". Better transliteration would have been "dy"; if you try to "merge" together these two consonants, you are really close to pronounce it correctly. However, I guess it is too late for "Dyokovich" by now, same as for "Bjoern" after years of neglecting umlaut. As Serbs use to say, "no matter how you turn around, the ass comes always behind" ;o) --D1111 (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Rebecca West tried that system; it didn't catch on. We are bound, by consensus, to use what our readers will recognize; but feel free to campaign for a more rational transliteration of the South Slav languages elsewhere. If it succeeds, we will use it - eventually.

Feel free, also, to decide to respond here or on my page; there's no reason to do both. (A majority reply on the other page, activating the message system; so if you choose to reply here, it would be nice to say so at the top of the page.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)