Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Michael of Zahumlje

The article Michael of Zahumlje has attained good article status. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josef Schultz

German soldier that dropped his gun to stand besides Yugoslav partisans about to be shot. Help would be needed to find sources offline and in Serbo-Croat, especially about the monument in Lokve.^walk victor falk ^talk 07:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Language/sourcing assistance might be of use at the AfD for Sanela Sijerčić

Expert assistance may be of help in the deletion discussion for Sanela Sijerčić that is taking place here. Thanks in advance. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ban Kulin

Hi, I came across the article Ban Kulin while helping with Wikipedia:Contribution Team/Backlogs. I noticed that its references were broken by an anon editor who has made numerous edits over the past month, resulting in this diff. I've no familiarity with the topic, so I thought someone should check if this was a quality edit. dramatic (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

to do list

Why dont we create a to do list, like at WikiProject Croatia, I'm sure that more articles will be written if to do list is on the visible place... --Wustenfuchs 17:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Sound good to me. Do you want to volunteer to create one? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

On a wider point, the WikiProject itself has been a bit inactive since Kseferovic stopped editing. Perhaps this might help to reinvigorate it a bit though. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I can create a list, no problem. I hope other users will also add some to do articles.--Wustenfuchs 12:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a list of the sanjakbeys of Bosnian Sanjak in the article about the sanjak. Most of them do not have their article. I propose to include them in list of to do articles in this project.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ofcourse I do that to. I added some of my proposals. It would be a good thing if we add to do list on a visible place.--Wustenfuchs 18:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Since I'm not expert, can someone add to do list at WikiProject page?--Wustenfuchs 15:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. You can find it in the sidebar. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 16:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice, nice... I hope this will stimulate others to write.--Wustenfuchs 19:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria - Peer review

I started a peer review for this article to see is ther anything wrong with it. Please comment if you see anything wrong or anything that can be improved. I'm planing to make this article an Featured article candidate.

Review here.

--Wustenfuchs 19:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Bosnian Genocide / Genocide in Bosnia

Lengthy discussions almost entirely between three editors, do not appear to have brought the problems identified with this article much closer to resolution. A move from an article focusing on the specific expression "Bosnian genocide" to one that appears to allow more wider discussion of the assertions that between 1992 and 1995 genocide was perpetrated in areas of Bosnia other than Srebrenica under the title "Genocide in Bosnia" has been proposed. As the three editors find themselves at an impasse, contributions from other informed/interested editors would be welcome. Opbeith (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources on Morić brothers

Can someone help me and provide some links to sources about Morić brothers that participated in rebellions against Ottoman Empire during 18th century?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

stubs

The Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina geography stubs exploded recently to over a thousand entries. It probably didn't help that the numerous subcategorized Republika Srpska "region" stubs were flattened back into it because these regions don't exist as actual administrative units. Please consider a new way of subcategorizing all these stubs, all over again :/ --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Bosniaks of Bosnia and Herzegovina convicted of crimes agains humanity

Category:Bosniaks of Bosnia and Herzegovina convicted of crimes agains humanity has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

Also Category:Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina convicted of crimes against humanity as part of the same discussion. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 00:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Visoko

Please see Talk:Visoko#BiH town primary topic?. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related articles

The article List of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related articles has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

It's neither an index (suitable for main article space), nor a shared watchlist (which should be in WP:WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina namespace) - reformat, move or delete

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Bosnian war Operation Corridor

We've had a persistent problem with POV pushing and edit warring at Operation Corridor for months now, and it looks like there's a general confusion regarding the timeline of the operation. The Serbian POV edits have limited the time of the operation to around two months, but still mentioned Bosanski Brod three months later, and used Croatian POV sources to reference that (d'oh). The Croatian POV edits have pointed to the preceding invasion of Bosanski Šamac and largely ignored the stated length. I've tried to make some sense of it, and enforced WP:ARBMAC against the most egregious POV pusher, but I fear it's still incoherent and no less prone to dispute, so I would appreciate it if someone else could examine it and try to fix it properly. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Metromahala

Hi. I've redirected Metromahala to Sarajevo because the content of Metromahala was both minimal and unreferenced. But at least it would be good if someone from the project can at the very least confirm that Metromahala is indeed a nickname of Sarajevo used by a significant number of people. Thank you, Pichpich (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Trebinje Region geography stubs and Category:Vlasenica Region geography stubs

Greetings! Two or more stub types which you created have been nominated for renaming or deletion at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type most likely doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements for a stub type, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is a boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature. Dawynn (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Clearing Category:Populated places in Trnovo

I have cleared the ambiguous Category:Populated places in Trnovo. Please review the following two categories and ensure that villages / towns are placed correctly:

• Category:Populated places in Trnovo, Sarajevo
• Category:Populated places in Trnovo, Republika Srpska

Please also feel free to add explanatory text to aid future editors in placing new articles. Dawynn (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

List of Yugoslav World War II monuments and memorials

Hello! I wanted to inform you that new page was created few days ago.

List of Yugoslav World War II monuments and memorials

And i wanted to invite you to add monuments from your country, and create your local list. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 15:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Bosnia and Herzegovina will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in Bosnia and Herzegovina's history, society and culture. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Pekara, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Another editor has suggested that the article Pekara, Bosnia and Herzegovina is a hoax. I have confirmed that Pekara is listed on GeoNames http://geonames.nga.mil/ggmagaz/ at coordinates 44° 15' 40" N 018° 34' 44" E. I would appreciate it if other editors could expand the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It's actually not there, see proposed deletion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Perth requested-move notification

A requested move survey was started at Talk:Perth_(disambiguation)#Requested_move, which proposes to move:

• Perth → Perth, Western Australia
• Perth, Scotland → Perth, Perthshire
• Perth (disambiguation) → Perth

Background: There was a previous requested-move survey which ran from late May to mid June. There was a great deal of controversy surrounding the closure and subsequent events, which involved a number of reverts and re-reverts which are the subject of an ongoing arbitration case. There was a move review process, which was closed with a finding that the original requested-move closure was endorsed; however, the move review process is relatively new and untried. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina acceptance of A-Class assessment by WikiProject Military History

G'day all, This project does not have a track record of many A-Class reviews. In order to progress more articles to A-Class and FA status within this WikiProject, I propose that we agree to accept A-Class assessments from WikiProject Military History, which has an active and comprehensive process for A-Class review. Thus, if an article passes A-Class for WikiProject Military History, it would automatically be promoted to A-Class status in this WikiProject as well.Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This makes sense. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth of Bosnia

This article is currently at FAC. One of the reviewers has requested, in a short paragraph where there is currently one citation at the end covering the whole paragraph, that the nominator repeat that same citation after each sentence in the paragraph. We've had this conversation before at FAC, and most nominators don't use that citation style, but it might be okay if there's solid support at the relevant wikiprojects for this style ... is there? - Dank (push to talk) 00:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ljubica Ostojić

On how to improve the category listing quality for the entry on Ljubica Ostojić please see my comment here, thank you, Stesso (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Zvornik Brigade

So I started this article up at Zvornik Brigade. I know it is a lousy start but hey you know how it is. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

added some new members to the brigade. It would be nice if someone could check those listed on the Zvornik Brigade and get the talk pages going with all the wikiprojects in place. I'm not so good with those things. I'd also appreciate if some foreign sources could be incorporated. If you have any please do share. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PortlandOregon97217 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I need advice

I tried to fix Template:Universities in Bosnia and Herzegovina although I did not expect that there are so enormous number of accredited institutions. My question refers to an institution that is on list but is not there or I overlooked it here ( http://cip.gov.ba/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=66&Itemid=76&lang=en ). It is Sarajevo Graduate School of Business (I do not know if they have some foreign recognized accreditation?). I also thought we that may leave only public institutions? I know it may seem very POV but maybe we still can think about this option?--MirkoS18 (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

58.173.108.6 (Ali Muratovic)

FYI: WP:ANI#58.173.108.6. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

AfD on Abdulići and possibly several hundred others

Hello
I've opened an AfD here on this page, as I'm looking for opinion on whether it is worth keeping a swathe of geographical stubs with minimal (and probably erroneous) detail. As a number of them are on places in Bosnia I am requesting comment from project members here. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Bosnian expertise

I have created articles called Paulina Irby and Georgina Muir Mackenzie, They were arrested as spies and THEN became activists in Bosnia. I'm told that Irby was well known and she already had an article of bs:wikipedia. I did these for March 8th which is Womans day. Anyone fancy checking my geography etc? e.g. Where is Schmocks? Victuallers (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Bosnian when written in Cyrillic

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Serbia on the Cyrillic MOS for when modern Bosnian/BCS is written in Cyrillic. Slightly odd situation in that current MOS appears to give guidance that Грачаница (Пријепоље) should be romanized Gračanica (Prijepolje), but no MOS guidance that Gračanica/Грачаница, Bosnia and Herzegovina, should not be written "Gracanica, Bosnia and Herzegovina" with no č, or Gračanica Šišinečka in Croatia should not be "Gracanica Sisinecka." But presumably Грачаница/Graçanicë Gračanica, Kosovo is included in the MOS. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Santic.jpg

image:Santic.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Mak Dizdar.jpg

file:Mak Dizdar.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Serbs in Turkey

I guess the contributors of this project may be interested in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey#Serbs in Turkey. Thanks Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Help needed at Articles for creation

Reviewers at Articles for creation are having difficulty reviewing one of the submitted drafts because all the references are Bosnian web pages. We need someone fluent in the language to help verify the content of WT:Articles for creation/Rade Jovanović to check that it is a Notable subject. Knowlege of "sevdalinka" folk music would also be useful. Thanks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

This has been created at Rade Jovanović (composer), distinct from Rade Jovanović (singer). In ictu oculi (talk) 08:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Kosovo place names

This probably should be notified here too. On Talk:Vučitrn I raised and 2 supported the idea of a RfC on the subject. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Kosovo-related articles aka WP:MOSKOS. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Emir Kusturica edit

diff. Anyone want to fix this and watchlist the article? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

English exonyms for place names

English_exonyms#Bosnia and Herzegovina. Can someone check this please. See also article Talk. Many thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Request

Please comment at Talk:Twice_Born#Language. Debresser (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move notification

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Moslem militia#Requested move, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move notification

Greetings! I have recently listed a requested move discussion at Talk:SS Polizei-Selbstschutz-Regiment Sandschak#Requested move, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move discussion

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:June Uprising in Eastern Herzegovina#Requested move, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles within Category:LGBT in Europe may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Bosnia and Herzegovina At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Languages in censuses and Race and ethnicity in censuses

Pleas add information about this country to this articles.--Kaiyr (talk) 09:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Translation request (Bosnian)

Please translate the following sentence into Bosnian for a WikiProject: "Please do not contribute text in Bosnian to the English Wikipedia. Your contributions are more than welcome at the Bosnian Wikipedia".– Gilliam (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hard Choices, new article about book on humanitarian intervention

I've created a new article about the book on humanitarian intervention, titled, Hard Choices: Moral Dilemmas in Humanitarian Intervention.

Help with suggesting additional secondary sources would be appreciated at the article's talk page, at Talk:Hard Choices (Moore book).

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride!

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

• What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
• When? June 2015
• How can you help?

  1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here

  2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)

  3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

Problems with Cyrillic

After seing this and some other discussions, I will just want to highlight that Cyrillic is used in Bosnia-related articles not because of Bosančica, the Cyrillic scrypt used in midle ages, but because Cyrillic is official nowadays in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the Cyrillic scrypt which is official in Bosnia is the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet. So that is why is added.

Now, I have noteced some Bosnian non-Serb editors have been removing Serbian Cyrillic from Bosnian-Serb-related articles. I see it wrong, and by this continuos nationalist anti-Serb editing, I am proposing adding Cyrillic to all Bosnia-related articles so nationalist anti-Serb editors finally understand that Cyrillic is official in BiH weather they like it, or not. FkpCascais (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Here is my opinion on this matter: Republika Srpska and Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina joined into Bosnia and Herzegovina based on the international agreement they concluded. Both state entities have their own constitutions as their chief legal acts (aligned with constitution of BiH).
  1. In Republika Srpska the official language is Serbian language (besides languages of Croatian and Bosniak people) and official script is its Cyrillic alphabet.
  2. In Federation the official languages are only Croatian and Bosniak languages and only Latin script.
• Based on WP:NCPLACE "Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name." for toponyms of Republika Srpska alternative names should be Serbian language and Serbian Cyrillic alphabet and for toponyms of Federation alternative names should be in Croatian and Bosniak language and Latin script.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Antidiskriminator, I agree with you, and I think that is mostly how things have been working out on Bosnia-related articles till recently. However some editors linked to this wiki-project have been removing Cyrillic even from Republika Srpska related articles. I hope we can all have here a centralized discussion on that matter. FkpCascais (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Serbian (including Serbian Cyrillic) is official in all of Bosnia (alongside Bosnian and Croatian according to the constitution). Muslims and Croats don't use Cyrillic, yet more than a third of the country does (Bosnian Serbs). As such, Serbian Cyrillic is the way to go in all articles, Serbian being one of the official languages. @FkpCascais: I suggest you contact the users in question and kindly ask them to either explain their actions, discuss, or revert themselves. 23 editor (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you 23 editor, my intention from the begining was to involve those users in one centralised discussion and try to archeve consensus so we can finally stop adding/removing Cyrillic all the time. Perhaps I exagerated a bit by proposing adding Cyrillic to all Bosnia-related articles, but that proposal comes as a reaction towards those users which had been removing Cyrillic. The thing behind this has to do, imo, with the iingratitude in my perspective of those anti-Serbian Cyrillic editors. Why I say ingratitude? Well, for many years I have been watching several Bosnian-related articles, and I think that Serbian editors have been quite cautious with adding Cyrillic, and had been adding it only to the Serb-related articles, not even all. And Bosniak and other editors had been quite possessive and arrogant in their attempt of denial of Serbian Cyrillic in Bosnia-related articles, even using some absurd arguments like the Cyrillic used in Bosnia not being Serbian, or going as far as talking about Middle-Ages Bosančica. Since that is their position, I thought of proposing the use of Cyrillic for all Bosnia-related articles, something which doesn´t seem unreasonable at all, since Cyrillic is included in all texts related to Bosnian governament and it is official in use. So with that proposal, maybe we can meet at the middle and find some reasonable solution. FkpCascais (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with this "meet at the middle" approach, nor with ethnicity based arguments. It is necessary to respect wikipedia polices.

I made mistake when it comes to Federation. After amendment XXIX Serbian language and Cyrillic script are added to the list of official languages of Federation and per WP:NCPLACE they should also be used in articles connected with geographic names in all BiH "before other alternate names".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not true that Bosniaks do not use Cyrillic. Cyrillic and Latin are both official scripts of Bosnian language. A person not proficient in both scripts is considered semiliterate by every Bosnian language teacher. I see no exaggeration in the proposal to add Cyrillic to all Bosnia and Herzegovina-related articles; in fact, I have been doing that for the past few years. Specifying that it is "Serbian Cyrillic" would inevitably lead to problems, which can be avoided in several ways: not specifying at all (merely stating it's Cyrillic); calling it "Vuk's Cyrillic" (vukovica); or just labelling the word(s) as Bosnian and Serbian (or simply Serbo-Croatian) translation. Surtsicna (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I have seen just today more edit-warring like in Bijeljina for exemple. I invited that user to express his oponion. Please everyone see his recent edits. FkpCascais (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• This issue is not only about Cyrillic. In Bosnia and Herzegovina both Cyrillic and Latin alphabet are official and should be consistently presented per WP:MOS.
• Names on both Cyrillic and Latin alphabet are "Local official names" per WP:NCPLACE and both should be presented to the readers.
• Wikilinks to Latin and Cyrillic generic articles would violate WP:MOS because WP:LINKCLARITY says The article linked to should correspond to the term showing as the link as closely as possible given the context.
  1. In case of Latin alphabet it is Gaj's Latin alphabet.
  2. In case of Cyrillic alphabet it is Serbian Cyrillic alphabet. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Which is why I have suggested two more alternatives. I can suggest more if necessary. Surtsicna (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive proposal with two alternatives. The point is that common name of this alphabet is not Vuk's Cyrillic nor Vukovica but (still) Serbian Cyrillic. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Which is why my constructive proposal #3 may be the best option - we can simply say that the alternative name is the Bosnian and/or Serbian (or Serbo-Croatian) translation. We don't specify that "Москва" is Russian Cyrillic for Moscow; it's simply Russian. We also don't specify that "Qazaqşa", "Қазақша", and "قازاق ٴتىلى‎ " are Kazakh Latin, Cyrillic and Arabic respectively for Kazakh; it's all in Kazakh. We should include Cyrillic everywhere, and we can and should make it simple and with no fuss. Surtsicna (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Local official names are not translations. Moscow example and Russian language (one language with one alphabet) are not quite applicable here where we have three different languages with two different alphabets (for now). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes of this discussion, local official names do not differ from translations. Surtsicna (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Like I said below, the "Serbian" character of the Cyrillic is only being stressed for everything but linguistic reasons. This is pure territorial expansionism. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be absurd to alter "Serbian Cyrillic" into "Vuk's Cyrillic". Serbian Cyrillic is the script for the Serbian language, which is official and spoken by the supermajority in the entity of Republika Srpska.--Zoupan 15:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Sorry if I did not understand you well Surtsicna. I really appreciate your effort and constructive proposals. It is maybe better to use examples. Let us use an example, say.... Doboj South. Local official names are Doboj Jug and "Добој Југ". According to your proposal the lede should say:

• Doboj South ("Doboj Jug" ('XY languages' translation); "Добој Југ" ('ZY languages' translation)) is a small rural municipality ....

My point was that Doboj Jug and Добој Југ are not translations. Presenting them as translations would mislead readers.

Maybe the solution is really simple. Let us look at example used at MOS:FORLANG.

Chernivtsi Oblast ([Чернівецька область, Chernivets’ka oblast’] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help)) is an oblast (province) in western Ukraine, bordering on Romania and Moldova.

The script is not precised. Only the language which uses it. In that case the above mentioned example with Doboj South would look like:

• Doboj South (Bosniak and Serbian: "Doboj Jug", "Добој Југ"; Croatian: Doboj Jug) is a small rural municipality ....

To conclude, your proposal #3 actually follows MOS:FORLANG (except for translation part):

• no specific name of the script (just like your proposal)
• use name of language with all its scripts instead (just like you proposed)

Thoughts?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I thank Surtsicna for his proposals, and I agree with Antidiskriminator regarding the exemple of Doboj South. However, the major problem here are the cases where no translation is needed, like Bijeljina for exemple, and where only the Cyrillic should be added. And I beleave that WP even favours the use of the template, and we have one, so it would look like:

Bijeljina (Serbian Cyrillic: Бијељина) is a...

The Cyrillic used in Bosnia, weather being used in Serbian or Bosnian language is the Serbian Cyrillic one. So I disagree with its replacement with just "Cyrillic" and I specially disagree with the reasons for removal of the word "Serbian" which had been used by some editors, such as the word "Serbian" assotiating them to ethnic cleansing and using that pretext to accuse others of expansionism etc. FkpCascais (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Let me first just clarify that I was not removing Cyrillic as such (which is what a proper non-biased review of my edit history will also show) but rather objecting to the inappropriate "Serbianization" of the towns and cities of Bosnia and Herzegovina by unnecessarily emphasizing the "Serbian" character of the Cyrillic used. Since editor "FkpCascais" is the first one to bring up ethnicities by writing "Bosnian non-Serb editors" let me underline that he/she, editor "Antidiskriminator" and editor "23 editor" are all Serbs, of which the latter two engage in standard Serb nationalist discourse by writing "Muslims" (defunct, deprecated and mildly offensive in 2013) and "Bosniak language" (at the very least disrespectful considering the language is officially known as Bosnian). I guess it is extremely difficult to acknowledged Bosniaks and the Bosnian language if you operate on (false) nationalist assumptions. Having said that, Cyrillic is officially used by the Bosnian language also whose regulation states "Latin and Cyrillic shall be used". Hence, it is not referred to as "Serbian" Cyrillic but simply Cyrillic. Moreover, pertaining to a comment made by "Antidiskriminator", the "Republika Srpska" is not a "Serb state" despite its name. Its constituent nations are Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats, in the exact same way the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is not a "Bosniak and Croat state". The only difference is the demography with the RS having a Serb majority electing Serb politicians, and the Federation having a Bosniak and Croat majority electing their respective politicians. However, I am not surprised to see some Serb editors attempting to falsely present the RS as "Serb state" and above all as proper full-fledged "state". Write the Cyrillic variant all you like but do not refer to it as "Serbian", not least because it is not uniquely used by Serbian. The situation is comparable to when Serbo-Croatian was endorsed in former Yugoslavia, no one called the Cyrillic "Serbian" then, but simply Cyrillic since it was used by Serbo-Croatian as such. It is really a cheap attempt to impose a Serbian character on towns and location in Bosnia and Herzegovina by gratuitously and redundantly emphasizing ethno-national linguistics. I am just happy to see that Croat editors aren't running around as much emphasizing the "Croatian" origin of the Latin alphabet used in Serbo-Croatian since that alphabet was devised by Ljudevit Gaj, a Croat. So in conclusion, "Cyrillic" by all means, "Serbian Cyrillic" no because it is partial and sends the wrong message. Also, thanks for notifying me about this discussion...4 days after it began. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

How about making a link this way: [ [Serbian Cyrillic alphabet|Cyrillic ] ]? Its just that seems irrational not to link to the correct article just because you find the word "Serbian" threatening. Also, the situation regarding Gaj's Latin alphabet is not that simple as you mentioned it. FkpCascais (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

There is only a little difference in case of Bijeljina. Let me remind you what WP:NCPLACE says: "Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name." Since Croatian language name is the same as English language name, only Serbian and Bosniak language will appear as alternative names in the lede:

• Bijeljina (Bosniak and Serbian Бијељина) is a...

I repeat, per #3 proposal of Surtsicna (based on WP:NCPLACE, WP:LINKCLARITY and MOS:FORLANG) language names instead of script names should be used.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Praxis Icosahedron's comment illustrates exactly the kind of dispute that we must try to avoid at all costs. Antidiskriminator has successfully implemented the proposal #3 in a situation when the name used in English is identical to the native name and in a situation when it is not. It should also be noted that the template mentioned by FkpCascais does not appear to be intended for a usage such as "Serbian Cyrillic: Бијељина"; if you hover the mouse over the link, you will see that it says "Serbian Cyrillic language", which is severely misleading. All in all, I believe this discussion is actually turning out to be successful. Surtsicna (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I think the template saying "Serbian Cyrillic language" insted of "Serbian Cyrillic scrypt" is just a mistake. It can be fixed at Template:Lang-sr-Cyrl in order to avoid redirect. FkpCascais (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: I am definitely prepared to accept: [ [Serbian Cyrillic|Cyrillic] ], or conversely, as per @Antidiskriminator's suggestion: (Bosnian and Serbian: Бијељина) since Cyrillic is officially used by both languages. However, I would strongly prefer FkpCascais's suggestion since, contrary to Antidiskriminator's remark language names instead of script names should be used, this is not a question of language but specifically script since Bijeljina and Бијељина are exactly identical in every other way. Also, the language is officially known as Bosnian in the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina (notwithstanding entities), and officially sanctioned as Bosnian by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). "Bosniak" is a variant more or less only used among Serb, and some Croat, nationalists, so that is out of question. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 20:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Every language should be referred to with its English language common name. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator is correct - common name matters, though ISO does as well. Since Bosnian is by far the most common name for the language (3000 hits in favour of "Bosnian language" vs 100 hits in favour of "Bosniak language"), it is needless to say that Wikipedia should refer to it as such. Surtsicna (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: Exactly my point all along. I will be waiting for FkpCascais's reply so that we can bring this matter to a closure and implement the consensus against recently occurring IP-edits, though I have personally already begun enforcing [[Serbian Cyrillic|Cyrillic] ] in those articles where I am engaged since earlier. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 00:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

If everyone agrees, I am fine and pleased that a consensus is reached and the edit-warring can stop. FkpCascais (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

No. Per #3 proposal of Surtsicna (based on WP:NCPLACE, WP:LINKCLARITY and MOS:FORLANG) language names instead of script names should be used. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the name of the script precised in articles' infoboxes (which is not the subject of this discussion) the same principle (wp:commonname) applies for both script name and language name.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Like I have said, in my opinion, this is not primarily a question of language. Rather, the ultimate purpose must be to convey the use of an official script since both the Latin and Cyrillic name variants are identical in Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian. Moreover, by adding Bosnian and Serbian separately one would falsely imply those two as the only official and used languages to any uninformed reader, setting aside the equally strong and official status of Croatian. Your suggestion is not entirely unthinkable to me but it complicates matters and I would strongly discourage against it. Eager to hear what Sustrinica has to say. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 19:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

What AK suggests is also unworkable because it additionally implies that Cyrillic is the only script officially used in Bosnian and Serbian which is false. Avoiding language affiliations is the most optimal. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 20:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

#3 proposal of Surtsicna to use language names instead of script names is actually what WP:NCPLACE, WP:LINKCLARITY and MOS:FORLANG already say. Your position is not grounded in wikipedia policies and guidelines. You might disagree here but please do not enforce your position pretending that it is based on this discussion here because that is not true.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not pretending about anything, and I have no need to base anything anywhere since I am equally much a part of the discussion as you are. This is not your personal forum where you are entitled to discredited participants any way you like if I may remind you. Also, your replies utterly ignore to address the issues raised by me. Bosnia and Herzegovina has three official languages, and reading any given town/location article related to that country must make so clear or avoid discussing it altogether. Solely stating Serbian Cyrillic is out of question since it falsely implies Serbian as the only official language, while only stating Bosnian and Serbian is also wrong since it neglects Croatian. If you so eagerly wish to underline ethno-national variants do so while also attending to the other equally official languages. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 23:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I think I gave a fairly clear explanation that I support #3 proposal of Surtsicna to use language names instead of script names because it is actually what WP:NCPLACE, WP:LINKCLARITY and MOS:FORLANG already say. I don't really have much to add to that now. You are of course free to disagree, but I don't think you should expect everybody to be now somehow obliged to keep discussing this with you for as long as you are dissatisfied with it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you find it reasonable to write as following: Bijeljina (Bosnian and Serbian: Bijeljina/Бијељина, Croatian: Bijeljina)? I could go for that despite its redundancy (Bijeljina is being repeated three times). Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 23:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem with proposal #3 as I understood it is the following valid comment made by FkpCascais However, the major problem here are the cases where no translation is needed, like Bijeljina for exemple, and where only the Cyrillic should be added. But if we can agree on the redundancy due to the delicate language situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, fine. Also, let me kindly remind you that you have no consensus for proposal #3 yet, it is just a proposal, and with some obvious pitfalls. Like me, FkpCascais is also fine with [ [Serbian Cyrillic| Cyrillic] ]. The question now is whether to agree on redundancy or not. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 00:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator, the specificity of our case here is what Praxis Icosahedron mentioned, the fact that we are talking here about languages that use active digraphia. So that is why the Template:Lang-sr-cyr was created, so it can be used just to add the Cyrillic version for the cases where the article title corresponds to Gaj´s Latin scrypt. If we write just Bijeljina (Serbian: Бијељина) ... to the non familiarised readers we are impliying that the latin title is some other language that not Serbian, and that Serbian is only the Cyrillic version. That is why the #3 proposal is not ideal. FkpCascais (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Bijeljina example was meant to explain how to follow complete instructions of WP:NCPLACE. If you believe that following WP:NCPLACE could mislead readers then languages and Bijeljina can be repeated:

• Bijeljina (Bosniak and Serbian: Бијељина; Bosniak, Croatian and Serbian: Bijeljina) is a...

I don't support this because I don't think misleading danger existed. If you violate WP:NCPLACE, WP:LINKCLARITY and MOS:FORLANG and introduce scripts instead of languages, then you will have a problem with misleading because Bijeljina is on Cyrillic also written as Биелина in Russian and Биелина in Bulgarian.

Presenting or not local official names when they are same as English language names has nothing to do with following the core meaning of WP:NCPLACE, WP:LINKCLARITY and MOS:FORLANG by using language names instead of script names per #3 proposal of Surtsicna. Members of this wikiproject are not entitled to discard wikipedia policies. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

[ [Serbian Cyrillic| Cyrillic] ] is is a good solution, and there is no need to repeat the same Latin spelling, so "Bijeljina (Cyrillic: Бијељина) is a city..." Imagine opening the page on Châteauroux and finding it starting with Châteauroux (French: Châteauroux). Wouldn't that look nonsensical? Vladimir (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken I believe the majority of opinion holders support [ [Serbian Cyrillic| Cyrillic] ] which is also my own preference. In fact, this has all along been the state of affairs before Ip-edits started disrupting the articles and giving rise to the discussion at hand. Also, antidiskriminator, I think the policies invoked by you pertain to actual translations and the use of different names; however, Бијељина and Bijeljina is not a translation, nor different, but a transliteration. Whatever the case, because of the numerous ramifications discussed, [ [Serbian Cyrillic| Cyrillic] ] seems to be the most optimal. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 18:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Irrelevant. Bijeljina was only used to explain how to follow complete instructions of WP:NCPLACE when official and English language are equal. The first example I used is Doboj South which is not only transliteration.
• Per WP:STYLE Wikipedia articles should be consistent both in content and style. I believe in this case consistency favors language.
• I would not say that there is clear 3:2 situation here. If I am not wrong, and I sincerely apologize if I am, although FkpCascais is fine with script he still prefers use Template:Lang-sr-cyr which is both language and script. So it is probably 2,5:2,5 situation.
• Per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY: Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. There are more than 7 thousand articles already sorted within the scope of this project. There are probably additional many thousand more which are not yet sorted. Enforcing script instead of language in thousands of articles requires a strong consensus. Eventual one editor advantage in discussion among five editors is not such consensus. Particularly if only the position of two editors is grounded in numerous existing wikipedia policies and guidelines (such as WP:STYLE, WP:NCPLACE, WP:LINKCLARITY and MOS:FORLANG). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do prefer the template. I was willing to accept the [ [Serbian Cyrillic scrypt|Cyrillic] ] as compromise. FkpCascais (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

And compromise should be the guiding motif in any sound discussion but that doesn't seem to concern Antidiskriminator who is freely adapting policies to serve his ends. So alright, let's go with language names according to him while also appending explanatory notes as per following: Bijeljina: (Bosnian and Serbian: Бијељина).

Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 02:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

An alternative, though, could be to confine the linguistics to a specific "Name" section which would accommodate all aspects, such as official languages, scripts, most commonly spoken language and so forth as per Vukovar? On reflection that might be the most reasonable thing to do. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 05:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

If readers are interested what are official languages of Bosnia and Herzegovina they will read article about it. I don't see a reason to add this kind of note. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

How about Bijeljina: (Cyrillic: Бијељина)? 23 editor (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator: You have made perfectly clear your rigid, unwavering, entrenched, totalitarian and uncompromising stance. As such, I think you can save yourself the trouble of giving any further input to the discussion. Apparently, you do not grasp the difference between a translation and transliteration; while "proposal #3" is certainly valid for the "Doboj South-example" which constitutes a proper translation, the vast majority of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related geographic articles would rather be transliterations. As for the latter, @23 editor's suggestion above is inarguably the best (underlining the transliteration while also specifying by which languages the script is used). Seeing how the discussion is already prolonged, I have really nothing more to add to this effect. So, in conclusion, language names ("proposal #3") should be applied for proper translations, while script for transliterations in the style of 23 editor. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 09:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

It is actually your "conclusion" contrary to policy based arguments of other multiple editors which is not very productive here. The discussion would go much more smoothly without statements that needlessly personalize the issue. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

As you're aware of yourself, and as pointed out on numerous occasions, Bosnian and Serbian employ dual Latin and Cyrillic scripts (i.e. "diagraphia"). Had this not been the case, language names could have been applied even where merely a transliteration. However, since both Slobodan Milošević and Слободан Милошевић are valid in Serbian/Bosnian, suggesting that "Serbian: Слободан Милошевић" is misleading for obvious reasons. The language situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina is even more exceptional with three official languages, two of which employ dual scripts. It is and cannot be as straightforward as you're pushing for. I also fail to see anywhere the so-called "policy based arguments of other multiple editors". I think you've been explained to adequately. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 11:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe that almost every single comment I wrote in this discussion contains policy based arguments. Nevertheless I maybe was not so clear so I will repeat those arguments in case of the proposal of 23 editor which and explain why it violates several wikipedia rules:

1. WP:LINKCLARITY - What Cyrillic? There are plenty of Cyrillic alphabets and per this rule: "The article linked to should correspond to the term showing as the link as closely as possible given the context"
2. WP:STYLE - This would not be consistent in style with other articles on wikipedia which use language, or language + script, not only general script link
3. WP:NCPLACE - Says "Relevant foreign language names...".. not scripts
4. MOS:FORLANG - uses language not script
5. WP:OFFTOPIC - Information about the official language in BiH would be only loosely relevant information which should be placed in different article.

Alternative #3 of Surtsicna is what all above wikipedia rules actually say.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

1) [[Serbian Cyrillic | Cyrillic ] ] has pretty good clarity. 2) ehm, see Slobodan Milošević, Raška and scores of other articles where the script name is used for transliteration because of the diagraphia. 3) yes, foreign language names, however, Бијељина and Bijeljina are not foreign, in fact they are identical. 4) same here, foreign language names, Chernivtsi Oblast and Chernivets’ka oblast are, on the other hand, foreign and not identical. 5) not only three official languages, but also identical ones sharing identical scripts. Highly relevant... As demonstrated, you distort and misinterpret the "policies" you so gladly invoke. So I beg you no more policies. Language names are misleading due to the diagraphia in transliterations. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 12:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• What 23 editor proposed is not [[Serbian Cyrillic | Cyrillic ] ], its [ [Cyrillic script|Cyrillic] ].
• WP:OTHERSTUFF (Milošević, Hitler, Sadam Husein, Staljin...) can not be applied here.
• No doubt that vast majority of articles on wikipedia use language not script.
• I explained more than once that "Bijeljina example was meant to explain how to follow complete instructions of WP:NCPLACE" when official name and English name are same. Let me remind you that it is me who was against repeating local official language Bijeljina because it is same as English language Bijeljina. You, on the other hand, supported its repetition.

I doubt this discussion will have productive result in strong consensus so I will not continue to participate in it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Can we at least for time being agree on [ [Serbian Cyrillic alphabet|Cyrillic] ] and move on? FkpCascais (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with [[Serbian Cyrillic|Cyrillic]]. It's incredibly redundant naming or noting all the standards plus I can't imagine how this would appear with Montenegrin articles where not just three, but four standards are "official". --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I implemented the suggested change in the (otherwise bland) template {{Cyrl}}, so it can now be used like this:

{{Cyrl|Босна|sr}} -=> Cyrillic: Босна

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Joy. Good to have this blatantly unnecessary discussion over with. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 21:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Translation help, please

I could do with some translation help on my talk page, please. Right now, towards the bottom, there are numerous threads involving someone who I think is from Bosnia and who seems to have been creating articles using Google Translate. They've been getting into bother but I've helped them resurrect Vecici (they created, it was deleted and I've recreated) and I really need to make sure that they are understanding what I'm saying about Wikipedia in general. Any assistance would be appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Really, please! The contributor means well but they are continuing to create extremely poor articles (with good faith) such as Jezerka. - Sitush (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Jezerka seems like a half-decent stub as stubs go. You should tag these as {{rough translation}} from Bosnian so that the copyeditors know what to expect, but generally this isn't half as bad as I was expecting from this description. IOW we've seen much worse *shrug* --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Michael Parenti's views on the former Yugoslavia

In Talk:Michael Parenti#Could Someone Please Clean Up This Article, an editor has expressed concerns that the section entitled Michael Parenti#Views on the former Yugoslavia does not present material in a neutral manner. It does appear that material is either uncited, or cited to self-published or questionable sources. I am posting here in the hopes that those more knowledgeable on the subject may lend a hand. Thanks! - Location (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Seeking assistance

Does [this source http://www.bosniafacts.info/downloads/elibrary/finish/16-knjige/242-nada-klaic-srednjovjekovna-bosna PDF] contains the following sentence on pages 48-49: "According to the esteemed Hungarian historian and researcher of Hungarian royalty, Bálint Hóman, Hungarian rulers since Béla II had right over Bosnian principality, which king Géza II gave to Boris Kolomanović (Boris Kalamanos) to whom Hóman, when discussing Árpád dynasty's "Bosnian right", also refers to as "Ban Boris" and "Boris of Bosnia" "? Does the author (Nada Klaić) state, on the same pages, that Hóman identified one "Boris of Bosnia" with "Boris Kolomanović/Boris Kalamanos"? The information is needed to put an end to a content dispute here where other comments are also welcome. Thank you for your assistance. Borsoka (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Official languages

If anyone has any views on how the official (or otherwise) languages should be described in the Bosnia and Herzegovina article, please contribute to this discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda in Bosnia and Herzegovina

An article on Al-Qaeda in Bosnia and Herzegovina has recently been created. I don't know much about the subject, but it doesn't strike me as an NPOV treatment. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should this article include a list of the names of the Yugoslav National Army soldiers killed?

A RfC has been opened at Talk:1992 Yugoslav People's Army column incident in Tuzla regarding whether the article should include a list of the names of the Yugoslav National Army soldiers killed. Feel free to chime in. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Serbian Cyrillic script in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Discussion at Talk:Serbian_Cyrillic_alphabet#Serbian_Cyrillic_script_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina, with the question "Should the name of Serbian Cyrillic script in Bosnia and Herzegovina-related articles (predominantly Republika Srpska-related articles) be simply "Cyrillic"?"--Zoupan 02:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bijeljina massacre#Request for comment

Could interested editors consider commenting on the above RfC regarding the use of witness testimony? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Small Articles

Small articles about villages in the country desperately need help. A lot of them are only one sentence, and don't explain anything other than that they are there! Someone please help! RES2773 (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)RES2773

Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina people of World War II

Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina people of World War II, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Bijeljina massacre RfC

Your input is requested at Talk:Bijeljina massacre#RfC: Should this article make reference to the Bosnian Serb politician Biljana Plavšić stepping over the body of a dead Bosniak to kiss the Serb paramilitary leader Željko Ražnatović (aka Arkan) Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina

I am happy to notece that the article Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was fairly expanded in recent times. Last time I dealt with it was just a short stub. Back then I had discussions with some editors regarding the way that article was being used and linked in other articles. They were using it and adding it into the articles as the main article for the country known as BiH between 1992 and 1997 and as replacement for the article Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Back then I was strong opponent of that because article Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was just a short stub at the time and because the article Bosnia and Herzegovina in the way it stands claims to cover the entire period from 1992 on thus the two are sort of overlaping with Republic of BiH being a subarticle of BiH as focuses on just one specific period.

Nowadays, with Republic of BiH being more expanded, I am not opposing anymore for it to be used as main article for the country refered as BiH between 1992 and 1997, however, the issue raises some questions that need to be worked out and clarified.

The first one would be to adjust article Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to solve the overlaping and to make it more clear that there is another article, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina dealing about the period between 1992 till 1997.

The second issue is a practical one regarding the use of which of the two articles as country of birth in biographies or any other case when there is a need to link to the country known as Bosnia and Herzegovina for the time period between 1992 and 1997. Till recently it was common practice to link to what seemed to be the main article refering to BiH, which was Bosnia and Herzegovina. Since that article deals with the complexity of the war and the several entities formed in it, it seemed as sort of some logical compromise. However, some editors have been challenging that and supporting an alternative wich was to use Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina instead for the time period it covers. Now that the article is more expanded, and since it seems that the option has it's own strong arguments in favor, I will not oppose it if we establish consensus for it and find solution for the problem that rises with it. The problem is that most editors favoring the use of Republic of BiH are simply replacing BiH with Republic of BiH but ignoring one fundamental difference between the two, which is that, even if not totally undisputable, article BiH doesn't create much dispute for being used as country for the areas which were not under Bosnian control between 1992 and 1997, namelly, for areas belonging to Republika Srpska. However, saying someone born in, exemple, Banja Luka, in 1993, and saying he was born in Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina seems a total nonsense. Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina can, and I can even say should, be used as country of birth for those places which were within its territory. The problem is even bigger because most of people born in Republika Srpska remained out of Republic of BiH all the way till this one ceased to exist and became BiH, so people born in Banja Luka had no contact whatsoever with Republic of BiH. I already heard an argument that we should use it anyway cause Republic of BiH was recognised, however it is wide-accepted practice to use political entities that held control over territories despite their recognition (WWII puppet entities, etc.). Another argument was a sort of comparison with Kosovo and FR Yugoslavia for the 1990s, however, despite most in Kosovo wanting independence back then and fighting for it, still FR Yugoslavia held control over the territory, so a person born in Pristina in 1996 was born in FR Yugoslavia by all means. The two can't be compared cause FR Yugoslavia held control over Kosovo, while Republic of BiH didn't held control over Republika Srpska. So if we are going to use Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina as country of birth for people born between 1992 and 1997, as they are doing, we should use it for the part of the territory it had control over, and use the other break-away entity for the parts they had control over. What is going to be the consensus? FkpCascais (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Languages

Please help - are pages correct?

Istočnohercegovačko-border

Old Štokavian ? Xx236 (talk) 11:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Upcoming "420 collaboration"

You are invited to participate in the upcoming "420 collaboration", which is being held from Saturday, April 15 to Sunday, April 30, and especially on April 20, 2017! The purpose of the collaboration, which is being organized by WikiProject Cannabis, is to create and improve cannabis-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in a variety of fields, including: culture, health, hemp, history, medicine, politics, and religion. WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina participants may be particularly interested in the following: Cannabis in Bosnia and Herzegovina. For more information about this campaign, and to learn how you can help improve Wikipedia, please visit the "420 collaboration" page.

---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Cannabis in Bosnia and Herzegovina needs expansion

I just started a new page Talk:Cannabis in Bosnia and Herzegovina; I could use some help expanding it, particularly from anyone who can read Bosnian and thus has access to more sources, especially since it appears the national government is considering legalizing medical cannabis soon. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina/Archive 6 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina/Archive 6/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Ferhat Pasha (disambiguation)#Requested move 25 May 2017

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ferhat Pasha (disambiguation)#Requested move 25 May 2017. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect article about Mostar (Bosnia and Herzegovina, HR Version)

I have read different articles about the city Mostar on Wikipedia and I discovered that the article in the Croatian language (HR) has a lot of mistakes and incorrect information. Those all should be modified of course but the article is locked and it's impossible to change anything. For example, it's written that the Old Bridge was destroyed by the ARBiH, which is completely incorrect. The best evidence for it is shown and said in the Haague court on 29.11.2017, but there are a lot of other evidences. If needed, we can start collecting them. For example, the year when the University was build is incorrect too. Or the photos which should represent the city - are not representing the city. In the top photos there are mountains, banks... There are a lot of more important things about this City like the Old Bridge (the most important!), Kujundziluk, the river Neretva...

This article needs to be changed because it's not representing the city in the right way and it has a lot of incorrect informations.

This is the article: Click to open the article

Bosnianreader (talk) 10:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Yugoslavia vs. Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympics

Hello, we would like your input on where FR Yugoslavia's results at the Olympics should be listed. Here is the relevant discussion. JoshMartini007 (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians to be moved to Anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment. This page is of interest to several relating WikiProjects and interested users may want to participate in the discussion here. Sorabino (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Focus on Bosnia and Herzegovina at Women in Red

In May 2018, in conjunction with m:Wikimedia CEE Spring 2018/Article Lists, Women in Red is focusing on the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We hope there will be contributions on women from Bosnia and Herzegovina.

		Welcome to Women in Red's May 2018 worldwide online editathons. File:Soraya Aghaee4.jpg New: "Women of the Sea" New: "Villains" New: "Women in Sports" New: "Central and Eastern European women" Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Wiki4MediaFreedom

Hi. If you have time, please take a look on meta at this page m:Wiki4MediaFreedom contest. It's an event organized by Rossella Vignola (OBC), there is a list of articles to improve also on English wikipedia.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC on election/referendum naming format

An RfC on moving the year from the end to the start of article titles (e.g. South African general election, 2019 to 2019 South African general election) has been reopened for further comment, including on whether a bot could be used move the articles if it closed in favour of the change: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Proposed change to election/referendum naming format. Cheers, Number 57 15:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC - Operation Storm

There is a RfC that is of interest to this project here. Feel free to have your say. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

"Serbo-Croatian"

A discussion related to ISO classification of "Serbo-Croatian" as a linguistic cluster, or macrolanguage, consisted of four individual languages, is taking place here. Feel free to join the discussion. Sorabino (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Republika Srpska for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Republika Srpska is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Republika Srpska until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Turkish Croatia merger proposal

It is proposed that Turkish Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) be merged with Bosanska Krajina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I wish to invite editors to give their input on proposal in merger discussion at Talk page Bosanska Krajina. It would be helpful if editors are willing to express their neutral POV, especially since discussion is already afflicted with involved editor(s) WP:CANVASING, resulting in inputs from WP:Single-purpose accounts.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Public broadcasting system in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Category:Public broadcasting system in Bosnia and Herzegovina has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —⁠andrybak (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:Demographics of the Western Balkans has been nominated for discussion

Category:Demographics of the Western Balkans has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Is this Project active?

Please where is the MOS for Bosnia naming conventions? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

First women MP(s) in Bosnia

Hello. I'm compiling a list of the first women MPs in each country, but have been unable to find the answer for Bosnia. I'm guessing they would have been elected in the 1945 Yugoslavian parliamentary election or possibly one of the early elections to the legislature of SR Bosnia and Herzegovina. If anyone can point me to a definitive source, it would be much appreciated. Cheers, Number 57 18:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Our Lady of Medjugorje

Please help by joining the discussion at Talk:Our Lady of Medjugorje. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Srebrenica massacre

There are multiple 'citation needed' tags in the article. Someone with knowledge about the history of Srebrenica can resolve some of them. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The page has not been on the main page since 2015, due the unsourced contents. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Michael of Zahumlje GAR

Michael of Zahumlje has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Related RSN discussion

There is an RSN discussion concerning the symbols of canton 8 at WP:RSN § West Herzegovina Canton Symbols. Members of this WikiProject are invited to participate. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Central Bosnia, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

West Herzegovina Canton has an RFC

West Herzegovina Canton has an RFC for possible consensus regarding whether or not to include the symbols in the infobox and thus the officiality of the symbols. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Yugoslav-Bosnian Central Committee members

Hi!

I've been working on the central committees of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, everything from Politburo of the 5th Congress of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia to the Central Committee of the 13th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia. I wonder if any of you here can help me find missing info on the Bosnian members of the CC. I can neither speak, read or write Bosnian.

Currently, I'm missing information on these members:

• Niko Mihaljević (born 1921, died? & joined the party in 1941) - member of the LCY Presidency
• Meho Midžić (born?, died? & joined the Party in ?) - member of the LCY Presidency
• Nikola Andrić (born 1920, died? & joined the Party in 1941)
• Muhamed Berberović (born in 1936, died? & joined the Party in 1954)
• Dušanka Kovačević (born in 1917, died? & joined the Party in 1940
• Mustafa Šabić (born 1925, died? & joined the Party in 1943)
• Ljudevit Tomić (born in 1928, died? & joined the Party in 1947)
• Ljubo Babić (born in 1941, died? & joined the Party in ?)
• Hamid Begovac (born in 1942, died? & joined the Party in ?)
• Miodrag Bogićević (born in 1932, died? & joined the Party in ?)
• Esad Horozić (born in 1929, died? & joined the Party in ?)
• Marko Jozić (born in ?, died? & joined the Party in ?)
• Hatidža Karabeg (born in 1922, died? & joined the Party in ?)
• Kemal Karačić (born in 1934, died? & joined the Party in ?)
• Stanko Tomić (born in 1926, died? & joined the Party in ?)
• Šemsudin Zejnilagić (born in 1932, died? & joined the Party in ?)
• Mirko Ostojić (born in 1923, died? & joined the Party in ?)
• Ferhard Kotorić (born in ?, died? & joined the Party in ?)
• Emira Islamović (born in ?, died? & joined the Party in ?)
• Fatima Hadžialić (born in 1925, died? & joined the Party in ?)
• Vaso Gačić (born in 1938, died? & joined the Party in ?)
• Šaban Kevrić (born in ?, died? & joined the Party in ?)
• Fatima Midžić (born in 1929, died? & joined the Party in ?)
• Smiljka Milojević (born in ?, died? & joined the Party in ?)
• Mićo Rakić (born in ?, died? & joined the Party in ?)
• Seniha Bulja (born in ?, died? & joined the Party in ?)
• Darinka Đurašković (born in ?, died? & joined the Party in ?)
• Anđelija Filipović (born in ?, died? & joined the Party in ?)
• Vojislav Knežević (born in 1924, died? & joined the Party in ?)
• Dara Krnetić (born in ?, died? & joined the Party in ?)
• Muhiba Kulović (born in ?, died? & joined the Party in ?)
• Said Mujkanović (born in ?, died? & joined the Party in ?)

I'm just asking if you can help, but you don't have to :) TheUzbek (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a lot. Unfortunately, it's not my "thing", but I can suggest that you copy/paste this same post on all Former Yugoslavia Wiki projects (Croatia, Serbia), just to try broadening your search field on possible helpers. Maybe someone could make a suggestion about literature, maybe there is some sort of lexicon or encyclopaedia containing these bio's. Anyway, good luck. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Olm

I have nominated Olm for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Women in Green's 5th Edit-a-thon

Hello WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2023!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Request for input on post-Yugoslav-breakup election article naming

We had a discussion relisted at Talk:May 1992 Yugoslavian parliamentary election#Requested move 3 November 2023 that could benefit from the input of people who have knowledge of this topic area, please check it out. --Joy (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal lists of dukes of Bosnia

I propose to merge the following lists, or that a better distinction be made between the scopes of (some of) these lists:

1. List of dukes of Bosnia ("dukes" from Stephen, Duke of Bosnia c.1084 to Michael of Bosnia 1271/2; "knez" from Pavle Radinović c. 1385 to Radič Sanković 1404). "Duke of Bosnia" currently redirects to Grand Duke of Bosnia, but "Dukes of Bosnia" currently redirects to List of dukes of Bosnia.
2. Banate of Bosnia#List of rulers (from Ladislaus II of Hungary 1137, followed by Ban Borić 1154, to Tvrtko I of Bosnia 1377)
3. List of monarchs of Bosnia (1 "duke": Stephen, Duke of Bosnia c.1082 to 1101; "bans" from Ban Borić 1154 to Tvrtko I of Bosnia 1377; 9 "kings and queen" from Tvrtko I of Bosnia 1377 to Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia 1463; 3 "pretenders and titular kings" from 1471 to 1476). "List of rulers of Bosnia", "List of bans of Bosnia", "Bans of Bosnia", "List of kings of Bosnia" and "Kings of Bosnia" currently redirect to this List of monarchs of Bosnia.
4. List of grand dukes of Bosnia ("grand dukes" from Hrana Vuković c. 1380 to possibly Petar II Pavlović 1463)
5. Grand Duke of Bosnia#Title-holders (from Hrana Vuković c. 1380 to Vladislav Hercegović 1482). "Duke of Bosnia" currently redirects to Grand Duke of Bosnia, but "Dukes of Bosnia" currently redirects to List of dukes of Bosnia.
6. Kingdom of Bosnia#List of rulers ("rulers"/"kings" from Tvrtko I of Bosnia 1377 to Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia 1463).

Evidently, there is WP:OVERLAP between lists #1 and #3; lists #2 and #3; lists #3 and #6; and lists #4 and #5. Lists #1 and #5 refer to each other for more information, despite having an apparently very different scope, and the redirects are inconsistent. Two "bans of Bosnia" redirects which we might expect to go to list #2 instead go to list #3. A merger between lists #1, #2 and #3, and a merger between lists #4 and #5 may be the most evident, but other options exist. Edit: I just found list #6, which shows close affinity with list #3, but not at all with lists #1 and #2, making it all more complicated.

I've tagged these 5 6 pages under the name of "Lists of dukes of Bosnia", but that's just a placeholder name, because I do not know how many destination pages we need or what to call them; I just know that most of these people are called "(grand) dukes of Bosnia" in some way, shape or form. That's also why I decided to put this proposal to the WikiProject talk page rather than any of the list talk pages in particular, because I do not know which ones will still exist once this process is completed. It may well be that we could use a "list of lists" overview, with links to each of the separate lists that remain once this process is completed. Edit: With the addition of list #6, I'm certain that we need some kind of list of lists, like Lists of political office-holders in France, Lists of political office-holders in Italy, Lists of political office-holders in Vojvodina, Lists of political office-holders in Transylvania, etc., see Category:Political office-holders in Europe for more examples. While some of these six lists may be merged into each other, they are probably too different from each other to merge them into only one single list. While we're at it, List of Bosnian royal consorts is useful to add in such a list of lists' "See also" section.

Meanwhile, could someone explain to me what the differences (if any) are between Category:Grand Knyazs of Bosnia, Category:Grand Dukes of Bosnia, Category:Dukes of Bosnia, Category:Bans of Bosnia, Category:Kings of Bosnia, Category:Bosnian monarchs, Category:Tepčija in medieval Bosnia, Category:Bosnian magnates, and Category:Bosnian royalty?

And is there a difference between Category:Bosnian duchesses, Category:Bosnian queens, and List of Bosnian royal consorts? Is a "baness" and a "duchess" the same, or something else? E.g. Elizabeth of Kuyavia is called a "Baness of Bosnia", but is categorised as Category:Bosnian duchesses. List of Bosnian consorts currently redirects to List of Bosnian royal consorts, but arguably the duchesses/banesses consort of Bosnia weren't "royal". Is Helen of Bosnia the only queen regnant in Bosnian history, and were all other Category:Bosnian queens only queens consort? Edit: There is WP:OVERLAP between List of Bosnian royal consorts and Kingdom of Bosnia#Queens.

Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Merge the list of grand dukes into the article on the title. Keep the (bare) lists at the banate and kingdom articles. Merge the (rather unhelpful) list of dukes into the List of rulers of medieval Bosnia (its current name). Ideally, I would discard the table for a simple list. The situation does get complicated in the late 13th century. @Surtsicna: comments? Srnec (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for your input! So @Srnec proposes to

  • A. Merge #4 List of grand dukes of Bosnia and #5 Grand Duke of Bosnia#Title-holders;
  • B. Keep separate #2 Banate of Bosnia#List of rulers and #6 Kingdom of Bosnia#List of rulers;
  • C. Merge #1 List of dukes of Bosnia and #3 List of monarchs of Bosnia/List of rulers of medieval Bosnia.

  Is that correct?

  I agree with A. I could agree with B, though I would prefer a merger between #1 and #2 (possibly #3). I don't see much of an advantage in C, but mostly because the scope of #3 is so poorly defined. I would prefer renaming/rescoping #3 to a list of lists à la Lists of political office-holders in Foo, which refers to all other lists named here. #6 can remain separate as proposed in B. Curious what Surtsicna thinks as well. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  PS: Do we need to discuss dukes/governors of "Herzegovina"/"Hercegovina" here as well? Or is that a separate topic? I suppose many readers may interpret "medieval Bosnia" as a pars pro toto of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Middle Ages, and not without reason, because medieval Bosnia redirects to it. So if the title of list #6 or any other list is to contain the words "medieval Bosnia", should we include Duchy of Saint Sava#Rulers? And should we include Sanjak of Herzegovina#Governors? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  PPS: This is slightly off-topic, but is Herc/zegovina essentially a portmanteau of German Herzog ("duke") and South Slavic banovina ("land of a ban")? That would make a lot of sense. Herc/zegovina then literally means Dukeland. I never knew, even though I know the word Herzog and that the primary Subdivisions of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia between 1929 and 1939 were called banovinas. Interesting. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  "Duchy of Saint Sava" is non-existent, only region called Hum was a factual, and a fiefdom of one family under a Bosnian domain until the fall of Bosnia to Ottoman conquest. Although we have that one article titled Duchy of Saint Sava, it is extremely contentious, full of inaccuracies, poorly refed POVs and imaginary claims, so it had to be properly tagged as an article whose factual accuracy is disputed as a temporary solution for an ongoing dispute. Unfortunately, that article is still maintained within a mainspace because of one (or two) editors's rejection of any argumentation to the contrary. As an entity which remained for nearly 2 decades after the fall of Bosnia, Hum, or Herzegovina, was ruled by only two generations of herzogs (father and son), but even their rule is discussed in historiography in a context of Bosnia and not in any separate context of its own (See Sima Ćirković, Herceg Stefan Vukčić-Kosača and his time, and History of Medieval Bosnia). Sanjak is separate historical context, it is a new paradigm and a new political order, under a new state.

  And I misread this PPS. earlier, and commented in afirmative tone, however, Hercegovina is not a blend between "herceg" and "banovina" - Hercegovina is literally "land or domain of herceg", while banovina is state ruled by ban; Hercegovina was never banovina - actually, Hercegovina as a polity became official name only after the Ottoman occupation; it was Ottoman name for the land of Hum. It is worth noting that the last two local dukes/herzogs (mentioned as "father and son" above), as long as they could maintain their domain over that land, referred to it as Hum, not Duchy of St Sava, not Herzegovina, only Ottomans called it Herzegovina over that concrete period, and nobody referred to it as Duchy of St.Sava. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Santasa99 Interesting, thanks a lot! So it is the -ovina part which gives it the meaning "land"? As also found in Bukovina? Wiktionary has this etymology: Direct borrowing from Serbo-Croatian Hercegovina, from German Herzog (“duke”) + Serbo-Croatian -ov (possessive suffix) + Serbo-Croatian -ina (feminine suffix). So it's actually two suffixes that don't have meaning on their own, but add meaning to Herzog, namely "land" (signified by -ina, compare Vojvod-ina, or the Latin suffix -ia, e.g. in German-ia, indicating a country or region; but is not a noun like stran(k)a or krajina literally meaning "land/country"?) "of the" (-ov) "duke" (Herzog)? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  I see that Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava is a bit of a battleground. I would like to avoid that. Let's keep it separate then, as you recommended. Thanks for summarising the situation. I had never heard of it before. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, no problemo :) As for the Herceg -ovina, well yes and no, or precisely it would be like this: -ovina is a possessive adjective for noun herceg, but yes it refers to land in this particular form as a proper noun (in other words, it could have different form and meaning, so -ovina is not necessarily and always a land) - another form: Herceg -ovo ( dijete, selo, mjesto, etc) would be Herceg's (child, village, place, etc). For instance, Herceg Novi got its name from the same historical herceg (herzog) by attaching his title herceg, by which this lord was known and how everyone simply referred to him (not by his name but by his title), to town's earlier name - earlier, the town was established by the Bosnain king and was named Novi (literally New), but at some point in history a king gave the town to his local subordinate and later it came to be known as Herceg's Novi, which stuck, hence the name Herceg Novi in local tongue. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I will comment at this point, I didn't see discussion below the nomination and Srnec's reply, so I could return later with through argument if deemed necessary. Generally, I would not touch anything in context of the nomination, although some repairs could be necessary. In general, I agree with User:Srnec - including on pinging @Surtsicna: - except, being a creator of the List of Grand Dukes, it shouldn't come as a surprise that I am rooting for that list with a solid argument that Grand Duke is very, very distinct military-political feature of contemporary (medieval) Bosnia (it was an office for the first hundred yrs., more-less, but then it became hereditary and for life, likened to noble title); only, I also have to admit it is really a short one, being limited by a simple fact that only small number of Grand Dukes held the position. List about noble titles, like knyaz, Grand knyaz, dukes and hercegs is suposed to be different, and someone created the List of dukes with just few listed bios, which I tried to fill in but never finished the job - this is issue is really complicated because "duke" had different meaning in different eras; for instance during the early MiddleAges župans, knyazs and dukes were rulers of well-defined polity or state, and during the high and late MA this were just noble titles, which really abound in Bosnia in the late MA - it must be said that all Grand Dukes were also dukes by noble title, one was knyaz, two were hercegs (and even some Muslims commanders during the first decades of Ottoman rule were also titled dukes) - duke title endured under the Ottomans up until 19th century, mostly held by Christian timariots and Vlachs.

Ban and king, of course, are ruling offices - it is notable that in Bosnia and Serbia, both of whom inherited their peerage system from Byzantines but maintained it in more primitive form, with many local and Hungarian influences, kings were just kings without distinct noble title like in western Europe or UK (in Bosnia this also refers to ban office title)

Nederlandse Leeuw, yes, you are correct in your observation on Herzegovina, and former Yugoslavia has another "Dukes-land" which is Vojvodina.

On overlapping - it is unavoidable to have overlapping in this context, it is normal in the western context as well as in local; only in context of Bosnia it is smaller, much more limited in scope and number of bios, so it appears as if everyone pop-up everywhere. So-called tepčija is an office; magnat does not necessarily have to be nobleman, it can be clergyman; some "banesses" coming from the West to marry in Bosnia kept their inherited noble titles, hence baroness/duchess XY as baness/queen of Bosnia.

I didn't create all the categories, but I tried to make some sense of them during my tenure on the project - I don't think that segment is anywhere near to be perfect, but I believe that, at this point and this amount of bio and other articles, we have some ordered and sensible categories on these topics - I suggest that they be left as they are for the time being.

If we are to merge List of Grand Dukes into its article, then redirect should be left behind; I am not against merging List of Dukes into List of Rulers per Srnec suggestion neither, but since that one is potentially expandable, again redirect should be left behind.

I will stop for now, this post is already huge - Nederlandse Leeuw please, feel free to ping me if you need additional info or explanation. --౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Santasa99 Your comment is very insightful, thanks very much! I think that the best solution would be to make clear what the differences between these offices were. The lists should be office-based, not title-based, because there is so much confusion about which titles there were, and how to "translate" them to English, if at all.

As just one example, in the past 1.5 years I've read and written a lot about knyaz, especially in the East Slavic historical context. The common English translation of that is "prince", except for Grand Duchy of Moscow, whose (velikiy) knyaz may also be translated as "(grand) duke" rather than "(grand) prince". Meanwhile, scholars such as Donald Ostrowski are arguing we should actually translate knyaz as "king", because it is etymologically probably related to Old Norse konungr and the reconstructed common root is *konungaz. So, when I found Category:Grand Knyazs of Bosnia, my first assumption was that it was probably the same as Grand Duke of Bosnia. But no. The 6 people in that category are completely different from the 8 people mentioned in Grand Duke of Bosnia#Title-holders, and the 11 people mentioned in List of grand dukes of Bosnia (the 8 people and 11 people do overlap).

So I think you are right that this issue is really complicated because "duke" had different meaning in different eras. Therefore, I am inclined to follow the primary sources rather than the English translations, because we can easily mix things up if we do not realise the differences between the original Slavic or German words used. I would suggest that every entry in each list (at least in cases where the translation of titles is contested) notes which titles have been used in primary sources in the original languages to make it clear to both us Wikipedians and to our readers which offices we are talking about. Does that sound like a good idea? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks NL. Yes, entire matter is dependent on many factors, from social-political development and context to era, from cultural context and tradition to outside influences. The worst thing is lack of peerage system and really primitive title system and structure; it was underdeveloped aristocratic hierarchy and murky expression of nobility in general within medieval.Balkan context - both Central Europe and Russian aristocratic hierarchies and peerage are very much different from Balkans, and much more developed. Usually, western aristocracy is divided between royalty and nobility; then, nobility is ordered by a rank system with a duke being highest and baron lowest. Eastern and /or Orthodox aristocratic hierarchy is much murkier, and it was, usually, inherited from Byzantines; in between we have examples like Bosnia, Montenegro, Albania and Serbia.

In medieval Bosnia, which is a topic I am most interested in, we have a knyaz as the lowest title among noblemen and duke as the highest, where the Grand knyaz is extremely rare and is more an expression of achieving a prestige if one's family could not reach the level of influence and economic power to call its most senior representative or chieftain a duke - but there is no rule set in some law, it was only a tradition which dictated or just guided these things and in most cases, but not necessarily, it had to be confirmed by Bosnian assembly of most influential and senior lords (called Stanak), even more rarely by a king. Similarly, herceg (herzog) appears only twice in Bosnia and once much earlier in Duklja (Montenegro), and was motivated by the same desire as explained for the Grand Knyaz. - the third overall, or the second example in medieval Bosnia was the last and it was a person related to this Hercegovina thing.

I wrote an article about him, and you can read at least some parts if you like at Stjepan Vukčić Kosača; you will notice that in his case nobody knows how he acquired the title herzog, or who gave it to him - guy, this Stjepan, was a Duke of Hum, and in one point he simply started calling himself "herceg" to make a distinction between himself and his local nobility which abounded in local duks all over the place this Stjepan ruled.

I hope that Surtsicna will eventually join in with his view on the matter, I just hope he will see that discussion is not a dispute, which under Balkan scope can be tiresome and repelling; Surtsicna could probably offer some ideas about it.

Yeah, adding notes could be helpful, it certainly won't hurt. I also believe that creating new and improving existing article concerning Serbo-Croatian language names for all the features of medieval societies in Balkans is the best way to explain all these distinctions and local peculiarities. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Santasa99 Very insightful, thanks so much! For now, I've got nothing more to add, and am curious what others think. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Update Category:Bosnian queens was Renamed to Category:Queens consort of Bosnia. This has set a precedent for other "consorts" renamings. What everyone agrees on is that Helen of Bosnia was the only queen regnant of Bosnia in history, so all others should be called and categorised "queens consort" for clarity. We've decided to Keep for now Category:Bosnian duchesses because we couldn't yet agree on whether "duchesses" and "banesses" could be thrown together or not. Especially Maria of Bosnia calling herself Maria Herzogin von Bosnien from 1365 until 1399 remains an interesting exception, because she was married to a count and thus "countess consort of Helfenstein", but there's no reason to believe she was "duchess consort of Bosnia", which seems to have been independent of her marital status, and instead a result of being the daughter of Stephen II, Ban of Bosnia (died 1353). Her mother Elizabeth of Kuyavia was evidently a baness consort of Bosnia by virtue of her marriage to Stephen II, Ban of Bosnia (died 1353), but the article Tvrtko I of Bosnia claims his nephew Tvrtko (who came of age in 1357) succeeded him as Ban of Bosnia rather than his daughter Maria as Herzogin von Bosnien. Tvrtko's brother Vuk, Ban of Bosnia apparently also briefly reigned as ban in 1366–1367, just after Maria started calling herself Herzogin von Bosnien in 1365. So there's some sort of dynastic dispute going on in the mid-1360s that leads to Tvrtko's reign as ban of Bosnia to be challenged by his cousin Maria and his brother Vuk. Nevertheless, Tvrtko would go on to become the first King of Bosnia in 1377 (with the apparent support of brother Vuk, with whom he had reconciled by 1374), while Maria continued calling herself Herzogin von Bosnien until 1395. @Santasa99 Do you know more about this?

@Surtsicna did WP:BOLDly rename List of consorts of Bosnia to List of banesses and queens of Bosnia, which seems fine for now. But that will have an effect on our decision-making here, as well. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Talk:List of banesses and queens of Bosnia#Requested move 13 July 2023 @Surtsicna @Santasa99 @Srnec FYI. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

On the subject of foreign nobility connected to the Bosnian court, which bore noble titles according to the European peer system, I think that Surtsicna is far better equipped than I am to explain something more about it. I can assert that Bosnian titles did not include high female noble titles, and that in Bosnia at that time there were no duchesses among the native nobility - at best there were princesses, who were called princesses in the native lingo, rarely if ever "kneginja", or "she-knyaz" so to speak. I think that Bosnian duchesses should have their list or category for all those women who came to Bosnian court with tittles. Feel free to ping me if and whenever you deem necessary. Cheers. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - This has been up at closure requests for the best part of a year now. Does it need closure still? It appears that some kind of solution was being worked through. FOARP (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  @FOARP: To clarify, the closure requests listing was added on the 1st February by Queen of Hearts. Also pinging Klbrain, who removed the merge templates from the articles earlier this month. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 19:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  This should be closed. Proposal was made by editor who had limited understanding of the specifics, so much of it had little if any sense. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Queen of Hearts: gave a very accurate characterization when she said "messy", and I concur it wa(i)s messy. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)