Talk:Belgrade/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Various 2 Pictures 3 an addition to the history 4 Location map 5 Etymology 6 Cyrillic alphabet 7 Capital of Serbia since when? 8 Capital of Serbia indeed 9 Nighlife section 10 Wikiproject Belgrade 11 Quotes 12 ;) 13 True;) 14 Pictures & Layout 15 October 5 16 OK 17 Universities 18 Belgrade Metropolitan Area 19 Central Europe 20 ? 21 PICTURES OF BELGRADE 22 RV, explained 23 Tourism & Media 24 Gallery 25 New coat of arms 26 WWII 27 Revert to apparently quite old version of article 28 "under communism" 29 Order of sections 30 BG Arena 31 Vincha? 32 Basketbrawl city 33 Featured Article Review 34 My opinion about Belgrade 35 Museum 36 Belgrade - my contribution 37 Coats of Arms

Various

Why is 2003 added to the time that Belgrade is the capital of Yugoslavia? Will it no longer be the capital after 2003? -- Zoe

It will still be the capital, but Yugoslavia will no longer exist - it's being (been?) renamed Serbia & Montenegro. I had thought the name change occurred in 2002, though this isn't reflected in the Yugoslavia article - can anyone confirm? Enchanter

It will be renamed during the year,final constitutional confirmations are awaited from serbian and montenegrin parliaments...

After rigged elections in 2000 Belgrade was the site of major demonstrations which caused the ousting of president Slobodan Milošević.

Is whoever wrote this asserting that the elections were rigged, or is there a general consensus? If the latter, among whom? I assume more than one person says it, but more than one person says the same thing about the elections here that year, and it would still be POV to declare it baldly somewhere. --Charles A. L. 16:58, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

Socialists admited rigging!Milosevic didn`t.Avala

I replaced the photo and para removed by user:213.137.124.218 at 16:03, 31 Oct 2004 - it appears to have been removed in error. --Ali@gwc.org.uk 19:34, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pictures

The format of this article is starting to get a little out of hand. I'm going to attempt to rearrange the multitude of photos that have been posted by contributions: Kris12, so that they fit into the structure a little better. Perhaps someone who actually knows what they're doing could help out a little :) Dupz 01:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to help... Wikipedia isn't picture gallery, picture gallery of Belgrade is here. --Dijxtra 11:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

an addition to the history

1944 The Americans and other allies bomb Belgrade On October 20, Belgrade was liberated by the People's Liberation Army of Yugoslavia with help of Russian Red Army The new communist government arrests and liquidates political opponents, and mobilizes Belgrade youth, sending them to the Sremski Front source: http://www.beograd.org.yu/cms/view.php?id=201239

Location map

What's happening with it? --estavisti 09:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why in such an extensive article there is no mention of the war Serbia waged against the former republics of Yugoslavia. This is a HUGE part of history. People died defending themselves from Serb aggressors. Yet you mention NATO bombing of Belgrade...

...and Serbs died defending themselves. W

Etymology

Can someone confirm the remark about "beli" also meaning "east" in Slavic? In Serbo-Croatian I know the modern word for east is istok, and my Slavic lingustics professor has previously remarked that the meaning of Beograd was indeed "White town". In Russian the cognate only means white as well, not east, so I suspect the remark about it possibly meaning "East Town" may be erroneous. Nonbonumest

Igorsr - You are right about word "beli" - it only means white. Word for east is "istok". January 28, 2006

I agree with prevous user. The word for east is istok. I am Serb  korisnik:vojvoda

Cyrillic alphabet

How is Belgrade written in the Cyrillic alphabet? Edward 23:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Београд - Dupz 11:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Capital of Serbia since when?

What does this mean?: [Belgrade] has been the capital of Serbia since 1404...

Serbia didn't exist as a formal political entity from roughly 1459-1526, 1527-1804, and 1922-1941 and therefore cannot have had a capital (See: History of Serbia). In addition, Serbia had other capitals after 1404 (See: Capitals of Serbia).

---

Capital of Serbia indeed

It's true that Serbia didn't exist as a state for longer than 3 centuries but Belgrade remained its last real capital (Smederevo was leveled to the ground). It became a mecca for the Serbs during 16th and 17th centuries, when it was one of the biggest European cities, counting over 100,000 people. Culturally it never ceased to be the capital of Serbia, not even during Turkish rule, even though legally Turkey was a centralised state. Serbs have never stopped looking at Belgrade as its capital city, rather than Constantinople of course. Belgrade was the capital of Serbia under Austrian occupations (3 times), and finally when Serbia declared independence in 1806, with Belgrade its capital. It would be the same as if you said that Athens (next to Constantinople) hasn't been considered a capital city by the Greeks, it's simply not true. Therefore, I support this timeline, and so does the city government (in 2004 Belgrade celebrated 600th anniversary of its capital city status). Serbia may have ceased to exist for 300 years, but teh Serbs themselves surely haven't.

Nighlife section

Would anyone object to minimizing the night life section, as this is supposed to be an encyclopedic article, not a tourist guide describing every place to hang out in Belgrade? --dcabrilo 00:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Belgrade

I created it: Wikipedia:WikiProject Belgrade --HolyRomanEmperor 18:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

The quotes section is rather POV. All of the quotes kind of glorify the city and they are certainly not well balanced. So, just like with photos, we can put on a good or a bad quote, thus introducing a POV. I suggest we sack the entire section (there is wikiquotes for that anyway). --dcabrilo 06:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

 ;)

Thank you for this fantastic article, it is very informative and precise. You have described Belgrade in such a way that I can’t wait to come and visit it. BTW I really like the section about nightlife, and I think the text shows us that it is an important part of modern Belgrade, and please don’t «minimize» it! Is it true that Belgrade won the title ‘City of the Future’? We don’t get much information here in France about it; so if someone could write about it, that would be nice.

True;)

Belgrade has won the competition in the category of South European City of Future, after previoisly holding the title of "South-East-Central European City of Future". Belgrade got selected because of its cheep but qualified labour force, low prices and big investments, as well as the standard of living which is one of the highest in this part of Europe (there's a big gap between Serbian North, where Belgrade lies, and its poor South:(). New pics have also been added to this article, the city needs some good marketing after a very tough decade.;) Belgrade became popular among Ex Yugoslav nations as "Sin City"- where you can party your a** off without spending as much as in other Central European capitals; clubbing became one of the new brands of the city. Belgrade is also expecting a big boom in investments in the years to come, as it approaches the EU. City of Future Article User:NeroN_BG

Also www.fdimagazine.com. Can someone put this link into article b/c my Firefox with Google Toolbar breaks due to extreme article size. Shinhan 17:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Pictures & Layout

There is a problem with pictures in the article and the way they affect the layout in wide windows on reasonably high-res screens. For example, "Geography" section starts with a huge gap to accomodate the two pictures from previous section(s). Perhaps we should do some of the following:

• Eliminate some pictures which don't add value as they are now
• Move the pictures from the floating right strip to their own galleries, perhaps even their own articles
• Reduce the size of thumbnails - they are rather large by Wikipedia standards
• Move all right-hand images into first-section and let them span as far as they need (essentially reserving right side for those images only), something like in History of computer hardware in the SFRY

We should also improve pictures. If anyone can take fresh/better pictures that would be nice:

• Kralja Milana Street picture is rather pale
• "The Victor" picture is really not the picture of the Victor, but of New Belgrade. Victor is to the left, headless (head is out of the picture)
• Despot Stefan Tower picture is also rather pale, I could try editing it but it would be better if retaken
• Map of municipalities only includes numbers that have to be looked up from the list, leaving a huge white gap. I'll see what I can do, but if anyone has a better, ready-made solution, please yell...

--Aleksandar Šušnjar 16:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Here... Should others like the retouched versions better, we can use them instead of the originals:

Original	Retouched	Notes
		Levels & gamma correction
		Levels, gamma correction, time-stamp removed, top-left corner glare
		Done from scratch based on information found at Elektronski plan Beograda. This map does not, however, account for suburban municipalities but is more geographically accurate (I overlaid it on top of satellite images to create it).
		Levels, gamma correction, removed window reflection of lens visible in the center of the picture
		Levels, gamma correction, removal of time stamp
		Done from scratch, in standard Wikipedia style.

--Aleksandar Šušnjar 17:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, the retouched versions look much better. And the map: you could put the detailed map of the city proper somewhere at the top of the article, and the old map in the municipalities section. Хајдук Еру (Talk || Contributions) 02:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Nice work, Aleksandar. (^'-')^ Covington 17:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

October 5

I can't find free pictures for this event, and think it would be nice to have some in the article. Also, number of demonstrators should be in the text (half million, million... I cant remember). For now, I put external link with nice photos. Lakinekaki 17:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

OK

Well done on the article, it's really perfect. Let's nominate it for a Featured Article. --serbiana - talk 02:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Silly, isn't... We want Belgrade to be futured article, near great article like Berlin. Belgrade must wait long time to reach quality for futured article. --Pockey 12:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Coming from someone who lives in Belgrade... I'm surprised... --serbiana - talk 18:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I am always frank. My place of living is not important. Belgrade article must be much better. --Pockey 18:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Universities

I was under the impression that there is no "University of Arts", only "Academy of Fine Arts". If it is so it should link to Academy of Fine Arts, Belgrade. Also, I added external links to all universities that don't (yet?) have their own page at WP. According to Government information website Military Academy URL is www.vojna.akademija.mod.gov.yu which does not exist. So no link for them. Shinhan 12:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• There is also an University of arts - http://www.arts.bg.ac.yu/

--Luzzifer 21:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Belgrade Metropolitan Area

Most cites over 1 milion population in Wikipedia have seperate page about their Metropolitan Area.Should we create such page about Belgrade Metropolitan Area?If you agree,I think that such page should contain official suburban municipalities like Lazarevac and unofficial suburban municipalities like Pancevo. User:BoDu 14 August 2006

Central Europe

"Old Belgrade is situated in South-Eastern Europe, with one part on the Balkan Peninsula". Please stop vandalising the article. Balkan peninsula and Southeastern Europe are synonyms so this sentance does not bear any rational meaning. Vojvodina indeed belongs to Central Europe and so does Zemun and even New Belgrade, the latter however only geographically. To check out the borders of the Balkans see Central Europe, Balkan peninsula etc. Balkan peninsula reaches Sava and Danube which is where it merges into Central Europe. User:NeroN_BG.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Luzzifer"

• Thanks for the advice. And? Sorry, man but you are absolutly wrong. "See the article Central europe, Balkan peninsula". Balkan is not the same es South-Eastern europe at all- the borders of Balkan peninsula are Sava and Danube, the borther of south-eastern europe is the northern border of Serbia (Vojvodina), as well as of Croatia. Sorry, that educational system let you down, that's why we have Wiki. :)

pozz, --Luzzifer 10:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NeroN_BG"

Type in Southeastern Europe and it will redirect you automatically to Balkans. That's proof number one, 'man'...?? [1] This is the website of the Stability Pact of Southeastern Europe/ the Balkans region, also known as the Balkans Stability Pact. [2] Website to the Center for Democracy and Reconciliation in Southeast Europe/ Balkans [3]- covering Balkan countries

One thing is political map and the other thing is geographical terms. I'm sorry if this is too hard for you to comprehend, I understand that you have a limited "storage" capacity, however that's not my problem to deal with. Geographical, cultural and historical terms prove my point. Political terms however surpass the Balkan borders well into Central Europe (Carphatian basin, Pannonian plain- and so in political terms the areas such as Vojvodina, Transylvania, Pannonian Croatia and sometimes even Slovenia are considered South-East or Balkan-european, which does not correspond to their historical, cultural and other ties)

So I don't know where you came up with all those missconceptions about this area, but it's pretty evident that you are lacking a significant, if not basic, amount of info to start with.

And, one more thing... that same Wikipedia that ur trying to involve into discussion is going to confirm my claims, so feel to check not only Wikipedia but every other encyclopedia that you can think of:) Thank you for your comments, enjoy your enquiries User:NeroN_BG

I'm really sorry, but you are wrong. Historically, borders of Central europe were borders of Austrian empire. However noone consider today not, Serbia, but even Croatia to be an Central European country. Any case, you wrote, that Zemun (ok) and NEW BELGRADE belong have Central European culture. I cannot ignore political meanings becuase the TERM South-Eastern Europe is only 10 years old, and was made of political reasons. Croatia claimed that it cannot be a Balkan state since the half of it is not on the Balkans. Romania complaind that it's concidered to be a Balkan state and only 5% of it's teritorry is on Balkans. That's why new ter was found out whicj includes NORTHERN CROATIA, VOJVODINA and ROMANIA as well.

) --Luzzifer 17:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've visited all that sites. Just an advice. Sometimes it's goog to read articles as well, not only to memorize maps.--Luzzifer 17:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

?

- First things first. Your sentence "Noone consideres Serbia nor Croatia to be Central European" is no argument whatsoever and doesn't offer a rational explanation nor covers your arguments. Nonetheless it depicts a lack of the latter. Northern Serbia and Croatia are indeed Central European, first of all geographically, according to the Danube-Sava-Kupa line which separates the Balkans from the Central Europe, not to mention culturally and historically. Transylvania of Romania is a Central European part of Romania, since it is located west of the Carphatian mountains, which form Central Europe's eastern border, also without mentioning cultural and historical arguments that there are plenty of, as in Serbo- Croatian case. Eastern Part of Romania, Wallacia and Moldova are considered Eastern European, while Dobruja region is a Balkan, or southeast european region of the country. Political map, on the other hand (type it on Google if you don't understand what it means) counts these areas as a part of Southeastern Europe or the Balkans, which indeed makes sence because today these areas are unified and represent a one whole; so in that case they are beeing perceived differently, wrong if you look it from the geo-cultural-historical aspect. You can go pretty much both ways however ONLY in political terms. BUT since political terms represent only a slice of a country's identity which is basically determined on its geographical position, history, culture, religion, neighbours, climate etc there are no reasons to fight those arguments. If you chose to perceive a country through political perspective only your results tend to be inconclusive and wrong, because ignorancy and uninforminess of the one sided view makes you see a totally misshaped image. I have to say I feel sorry for you if you think that's the way to be.

p.s. Could you please translate this for me: "That's why new term was found out which includes NORTHERN CROATIA, VOJVODINA and ROMANIA as well"....???? User:NeroN_BG

PICTURES OF BELGRADE

There are so many nice pictures of Belgrade, these on this site are among the most awful I've ever seen. Do we really have to accept ugly picture of Kalemegdan tower etc. I even think that someone has been puting so ugly pictures on purpose.

Take a look at Zagreb page. Pictures are grate there. --Luzzifer 20:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

They are absolutelt terrible. I hate this site. --82.117.194.34 23:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ovo cu reci na srpskom, jer me je sramota da kazem na engloskom. PREMA DATIM SLIKAMA NA KOJIM NEKO OCIGLODNO INSISTIRA JER IH JE SAM SLIKAO, BEOGRAD IZGLEDA KAO SELO. Stidim se ovog sajta. --82.117.194.34 16:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC) I ja se slazem sa tobom ovde Hrvati vode glavnu rec u kreiranju ovog articla i to je problem.Samo upornim brisanjem njihihovih podmetanja mozemo izaci na kraj,naravno treba posecivati i nase komsije. User:Bg007

RV, explained

Religious architecture and architectural projects under construction have both been moved to subpages. Standard and Evropa - haven't even heard of the former, to call the latter popular would be stretching the outer reaches of credibility. As for the medieval names, why remove them? --estavisti 21:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Tourism & Media

1. Borba is still coming out, their site is at http://www.borba.co.yu/.
2. NIN and Vreme are by far the two most popular and respected newsweeklies in Serbia and Belgrade. This should not be deleted.
3. One of the reasons the article failed its Featured Article nomination is that is was packed full of lists. So I don't see how pasting in a list from the List of notable buildings in Belgrade subpage improves the article.
4. "In recent years growing numbers of young people, especially from Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, have visited Belgrade to enjoy the city's nightlife." It's unclear why this sourced statement is being deleted.

Hope we can get a clarification on this soon, instead of more silent reverts. By the way, I don't appreciate it when I'm spuriously accused of vandalism, especially given how much work and time I've put into this article. --estavisti 00:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC) 1) Statement is not true,[How it coming out,on internet,don't be funny] 2) They are not most popular,without donations from abroad,they should be closed 3) That is particular true,Slovenians are visiting in large number,from Rebublika Srpska also,but from Croatia,I didn't hear for that .I saw many young people from Western countries,but not from Croatia. User:Bg007

Gallery

@Estavisti. When removing such large part of the article at lest give some argument, or edit wikimedia commons page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.183.250 (talk)

New coat of arms

So, I was talking with Violeta Antonijević from the Assembly of the City of Belgrade and she convinced me that, couple of months ago, the coat of arms has changed, and the new coat incorporates name of Belgrade and URL of its official site. This is probably the first coat of arms in the world which incorporates an URL... Nikola 12:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What a bunch of retards in the city government if that really is true. :( --estavisti 13:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm changing it back, no reputable source. Заиста морам да вратим, ово је ужасно. // estavisti 13:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The source is Књига графичких стандарда Града Београда. Iz skupstine su me zamolili da stavimo ovaj grb u clanak i u clanak o grbu. Nikola 13:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

WTF OMG! Evo krstim se i levom i desnom... Duja► 15:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to use the large CoA for the article, not sure why you rv'd estavisti. I think it's much more interesting to see that then the small CoA with URL (especially since this article will be getting many more hits on since it's on the main page today). The small CoA even uses the same design as the flag right next to it anyway // Laughing Man 01:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, don't you think the white bicephalic eagle better represents Serbia as well and you can see relationship with Coat of arms of Serbia? // Laughing Man 01:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to say that the large coat of arms also has the text, but I didn't managed to upload it. Nikola 06:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

WWII

I won't revert because the article is going to be on the main page, but in any other case I would. Zocky's claims are ridiculous on several grounds:

• The claim that Croats and Albanians had nothing to do with occupation of Belgrade is irrelevant because the sentence is about the occupation of entire Yugoslavia (Yugoslavia was invaded by German, Italian, Hungarian and Bulgarian forces...).
• Even if it would not be the case, the Croats had very much to do with occupation of Belgrade specifically, as the very outskirts of Belgrade were ceded to Croatia.
• The claim that "Serbian collaborators under Nedić" have anything to do with occupation of Belgrade is patent nonsense because Nedic's government was formed on August 29, while German troops entered Belgrade on April 12, some 3 1/2 months before.

Nikola 19:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Revert to apparently quite old version of article

User:Yum spaghetti has twice restored an old version of the article. I have temporarily blocked Yum. These are Yum's only edits, yet Yum was able to leave an unblock request before I could leave amessage on the user talk page. Not sure what's going on, but be vigilant. Rich Farmbrough, 11:07 24 November 2006 (GMT).

"under communism"

I've changed this twice to "during socialism" and was reverted twice, so I guess it's time to take it to talk.

The formulation "under communism" is both wrong and POV. Wrong, because there was no communism, nobody claims or ever claimed there was communism, and the country was called "socialist", not "communist" in its name and constitution. It's POV because "under" implies that it was imposed from the outside or by a minority, both of which are untrue - Serbia and especially Belgrade supported the Communist party after (and in case of Belgrade, also before) WWII, and the socialism was home-grown.

Now, all this can be debated and sourced to people with different opinions, but there are appropriate articles for that, and this is not it. We have the unquestionable fact that the country called itself socialist (and had a form of socialism implemented), and we have the neutral preposition "during". What's the excuse not to use them? Zocky | picture popups 13:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think "during the socialist period" is better. - Francis Tyers · 13:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The party was "communist", the people from it were "communists", the leadership was under some "communist" principles, but the country was not "communist". Either "during socialism" or "during the Communist rule", but not "during communism". bogdan 13:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to go with Zocky on this one. The country was socialist or something similar, but in no way communist. In fact, I cannot think of any argument making it communist. FYI: If you studied law or political science in SFRY, your textbooks would correctly read that communism is a classless society, and that SFRY is not in fact a classless society, but a transitional society in, what political scientists call, a socialist state. As far as "under" goes, that's just POV no matter what facts we determine here, because it sounds pejorative. --dcabrilo 13:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Pile on support — why create controversies out of nothing, when there are better places to describe them. Duja► 13:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It was under a Communist regime. I know it was technically in transition to Communism, but so was the USSR and that's usually considered communist. The reason it sounds pejorative is that communism has finally been utterly discredited. As for "under" not being NPOV, I suppose you consider the period of Communist rule, during which dissidents were imprisoned and no multi-party elections were held, to be a golden period of democracy? Something is only POV when it is factually incorrect, and Communism was imposed, whatever you'd like to think. People were sent to work camps and thousands were killed... --Еstavisti 14:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Rather than labeling the system (which was Communism, and I can't believe that anyone would disagree), I placed the name of the ruling party. Nikola 14:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this compromise.--Еstavisti 14:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The SFRJ was not the USSR. - Francis Tyers · 14:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You've reverted a purely factual sentence to a descriptive POV pushing version... // Еstavisti 14:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No, but it was a part of the communist block. A preliminary Google search (39,600 vs 66,800) shows that Yugoslavia is more viewed as a communist country. Nikola 14:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Google tests are a poor indicator. - Francis Tyers · 14:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Nikola, Communist bloc, or Eastern bloc refers to the Warsaw pact states, of which Yugoslavia was certainly not a part. Yugoslavia was non-aligned (NAM) in fact. --dcabrilo 14:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but do you have any better? Nikola 14:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization, based upon common ownership of the means of production

• seeks to establish a classless society - check
• seeks to establish a stateless society - check
• based upon common ownership of the means of production - check

Nikola 14:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to see what is the problem with using "during the socialist period". - Francis Tyersd · 14:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Less precise than the alternative? Nikola 14:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the alternative is less precise. The party's name changed along the way, while "socialism" is a clearly defined and widely used designation for 1945-1990 period in Yugoslavia's and Serbia's history. Zocky | picture popups 14:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The problem is that the use of such "precise alternative" is disputed, while "socialist" doesn't bear so negative connotations. Duja► 15:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

As communism is a subset of socialism, it is more precise, the only question is whether it is correct. Nikola 02:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Order of sections

So, I think that References section should go to the bottom of the article because:

• Proposed order of sections in WP:GTL is apparently a relic of a time before the introduction of Cite extension, when articles had a few references, and section order didn't matter much. Now, articles have dozens of references, and if References section is above other sections, it visually blocks them.
• WP:GTL says that It is okay to change the sequence of these appendices anyway.
• There is discussion about which order should be preferred in WP:GTL right now.
• Sections were in that order when the article was featured[1]. Nikola 14:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Still, the current practice is to keep them before external links and before further reading. When that changes, we can change in this article. As I said in an edit summary, this is not a discussion for this article. Zocky | picture popups 16:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The current practice is that it is okay to change the sequence of these appendices. You are advising to follow the letter of the guideline without regard to actual outcome of it or how will it affect our readers. Nikola 17:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

BG Arena

I changed the picture of the arena because the previous one wasn't saying much

Now, since it seems to me that the new one is obviously better and I'm not sure why it wasn't already in use, does it have to do something with the copyright? If there is a reason why it wasn't used in the first place, revert it anyway, just say about it here -- 89.216.244.194 15:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the copyright is the problem. The image page doesn't say who is the author, and the image looks quite professional, and there are similar problems with some of the other images sent by the same user. Nikola 16:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Vincha?

Isn't it a bit of long shot to claim continuity back from Vincha? I mean, obvious city nucleus is on Kalemegdan and Dortiol area. Historically it was only recently that city territory expanded on Vincha, after Grocka municipality was incorporated. There are neolithic sites closer to the city, Banjica being one confirmed and I've heard that there might be some findings even in Kalemegdan area (need someone to comment on that one).

Vincha IS one of the most important and famous archeological sites around, but hey, let's not sacrifice the truth for some undeserved and unneeded addition to Belgrade's already significant history.

Yes, however, while the most well known, and eponymous, findings of Vinca culture do come from Vinca, there are other settlements of the Vinca culture in Belgrade, for example a well known one is on Banjica which is the wider center of Belgrade today. It is safe to assume that there was one on Kalemegdan which was completely removed by the later ones, as it was as strategically important position then as it is now. I'll rephrase Zocky's rephrasing.

Ironically, some excavations discovered even earlier Neanderthal population but it isn't in the article I couldn't find a reliable reference about it. Nikola 16:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I can see a point there, but there's more to it. The article on Belgrade is not that of continuity- we all know that Belgrade has been raised to the ground 38 times during verified history alone. That also implies that Belgrade has spent a large amount of time rebuilding and reeventing itself, evolving if you will. This article is about emphasising Belgrade's glorious days- that were in essence shortlasting comparing to its much longer destructive periods. There were several periods of Belgrade's true glory, when the city topped the continent, culturally, demographically and so on.

• First as the capital city of the biggest neolithic culture in Europe- Vinca culture. Vinca's traces could be found as far as Asia Minor on one side and Slovakia on the other side. This is extremely relevant to the city's prospect cause it shaped cultures to come, mixing with them and maybe even helped in shaping Balkans that we know

• Second period would be that of the Roman Empire, when Belgrade was host to the Flaviae IV legion, serving as one of the largest castrums on the Roman Danune frontier. At the peak of its Roman-period-glory Belgrade counted some 10,000 souls- out of whom 5,000 were soldiers. In the 3rd century Belgrade became a semi-independent municipium of Roman citizens which stimulated its growth however only for a short time due to barbaric invasions from the north and political instability within the Empire

• Second glorious period of Belgrade's history would be the one between the rule of Despot Stefan Lazarevic (1404-Serbian capital) and the Austro-Turkish war (1689-91). Belgrade topped Eastern Europe as its largest city, counting well over 100,000 souls, before it became to crumble under the wave of refugees and clashes between the Empires

• Third glorious period would be the one of Kingdom of Serbia (1882-1918). Belgrade passed through a reinassance, cultural and industrial transformation, emancipating from both East and West, reaching its medieval 100,000 mark in the eve of WWI

• Forth period would, arguably, be the contamporary Belgrade. Host to many European and World Championships (volleyball, basketball, Universiade), City of the Future of Southern Europe 2006, book faires, music and cultural festivals and so on. This is a matter of taste anyways.

The point is- Belgrade's history is indeed highly admirable and glorious- that's why we have to emphasise its brightest moments, one of which was the Vinca nucleus. Many other factors were surely included but Belgrade did not stick out during other period as much as it did during the ones mentioned above. User:NeroN_BG

All of that doesn't make Vinča the same thing as Belgrade. We all know Neanderthals lived near Krapina, yet nobody is claiming that they founded Krapina. Zocky | picture popups 01:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but wouldn't you say that Krapina area is inhabited since Neanderthal times? Nikola 23:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Basketbrawl city

Let's move it. Or isn't that one of the "brightest moments" talked about above? Gene Nygaard 14:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article Review

I just wanted to point out that User:TodorBozhinov has listed this article under Featured Article Review (FAR) as he has some questions regarding the quality of the article. Please review and provide your comments on the FAR page. // laughing man 16:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather say, fix the article so that it satisfies the objections on the FAR page... Duja► 09:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I fixed some and, in regard to the architecture section, found this article by Zoran Manević which could be summarised in it (despite accusations about overreliance on web sources). Nikola 09:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

My opinion about Belgrade

Personally, I like to live in a hilly territory surrounded by a mountain(s). Belgrade seems to be pretty flat and I don't see any mountains around it. That's why I don't like the territory that Belgrade lies on. What Belgrade has is beautiful things such as culture, museums, and stuff like that. I would certainly like to visit those. Again, some people don't like hills or mountains, so I guess it's just a matter of choice. Zagreb for example is pretty flat too, but it has a mountain (forgot which one, I know I saw one mountain), so it does make a difference. Sarajevo is ideal for me, but I wouldn't live in any city in the Balkans, because it reminds me of bad stuff that happened. Overally, Belgrade is a nice city, but I wish you would incorporate more photos in the article. For example, what does overal skyline of Belgrade looks like? This would certainly be a nice photo to include. Also, it would be beneficial for Belgrade and Sarajevo to become twin cities (for the sake of keeping peace for future generations). Bosniak 00:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC) I support your opinion.We must look forward,because we will live one next to other.User:Bg007.

If you take a look at any physical map, you'll notice that Belgrade is built on exactly 32 hills. Indeed, there's a huge part that is flat, between Sava, Danube and Zemun hills/Bezanijska kosa, as well as the part over the Danube towards Pancevo, but most of the city is on the rolling terrain. And some 30 minutes drive from the center (not taking into account traffic jams) are Avala and Kosmaj, that continue to the mountains further to the west/southwest.

Museum

Bg007, I removed the list of authors exhibited in the Museum because 1) it is unsourced 2) even if sourced, pretty much every major museum has something like that, so it's not particularly relevant 3) this is an overview of Belgrade, and not everything should be covered. The place for such details is National Museum of Serbia.

Note that this is a featured article, currently undergoing the review, and I'm trying to keep it as tight to the standards as possible (i.e. everything sourced); I would have much more relaxed attitude otherwise. Your other addition of Belgrade's budget is also unsourced. Duja► 08:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Pall ,everything is false,at first,1)I will source every painter if you want,I wrote page about National Museum of Serbia,2)You probably don't know the value of such painters,very small number of museums in Europe have such collection like National Museum of Serbia 3)That is one of the most important topics 4)I know that Croats are very jelaous ,because of their complexesUser:Bg007.

Belgrade - my contribution

Added info that during World War I most of offensive occured near Belgrade and short intro into "why" with reference to Gavrilo Princip, see article Belgrade. Hope it doesn't get deleted as it is part of Belgrade's history! Bosniak 05:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Coats of Arms

I removed the CoA images, for several reasons:

• Their purpose in the article is purely decorative. They don't even serve that purpose well, with the size of 15-20 pixels: all we see is a smear which resembles a coat of arms; further, they increase the table height.
• While Belgrade municipality coats of arms images are tagged as PD in the respective pages, their PD status is dubious: the Serbian copyright law exempts "Official materials of state bodies and bodies performing public functions", and how this applies to CoAs is questionnable at best; I mark my uploads of similar ones as fair use. As far as I know, a big portion of Serbian municipality CoAs is designed by Serbian Heraldry Society "White Eagle", which makes kind of contracts with the municipalities.
• While country flags might have certain informative value (which is also doubtful, but I let them be), sister CoA images are also purely decorative; no reader can be reasonably expected to be familiar with them. I didn't check their copyright status, but it's unlikely that all are under a GFDL-compatible license.

Duja► 07:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)