Talk:Istočno Sarajevo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Does East Sarajevo include the southern part of Trnovo? --estavisti 03:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, since Trnovo is a single municipality with two parts then it certainly include (it cannot include only one part of the municipality and not another and the town of Trnovo itself is in the southern part of the municipality). PANONIAN (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- But according to the articles on Wikipedia, the south is part of the Foča Region, and the north is part of the Sarajevo-Romanija Region. The thing is, information for the RS is hard to get...--estavisti 05:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- If Trnovo is one single municipality, than the whole municipality must belong to larger political unit. It is simply against the logic that one part of municipality is part of one larger unti and another part of another (in that case it would be two municipalities, not one). Regarding these regions of RS, the web site of the RS government say nothing about these regions, so I am not sure that such regions exist at all. PANONIAN (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Yes, but Trnovo is a special case, because it's made up of two territorially seperate parts. What would seem idiotic to me is if the south of Trnovo were part of Istočno Sarajevo, which it isn't even connected to.--estavisti 04:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- "Municipalities with two parts" are not special cases at all. I can tell two more similar examples like Herceg Novi, where one part of municipality is on one side of the Bay of Kotor and another part on another and if one want to go from one part of municipality to another he should travel through the territory of municipalities of Tivat and Kotor. Another example is Bačka Palanka, where two villages that belong to the municipality are located on another side of the Danube and if inhabitants of these villages want to go to other part of municipality, they have to travel through the territory of 4 other municipalities (in the case of Trnovo, it is 5). Anyway, every municipality is a single political unit, no matter if its territory is made only of one part or of several parts, but only the whole municipality could be part of larger political unit. In another words, both parts of Trnovo have to be part of Istočno Sarajevo. PANONIAN (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Who says? We really need a source for that. Argh, why can't the Republika Srpska discover the fucking internet?!--estavisti 01:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- "Municipalities with two parts" are not special cases at all. I can tell two more similar examples like Herceg Novi, where one part of municipality is on one side of the Bay of Kotor and another part on another and if one want to go from one part of municipality to another he should travel through the territory of municipalities of Tivat and Kotor. Another example is Bačka Palanka, where two villages that belong to the municipality are located on another side of the Danube and if inhabitants of these villages want to go to other part of municipality, they have to travel through the territory of 4 other municipalities (in the case of Trnovo, it is 5). Anyway, every municipality is a single political unit, no matter if its territory is made only of one part or of several parts, but only the whole municipality could be part of larger political unit. In another words, both parts of Trnovo have to be part of Istočno Sarajevo. PANONIAN (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Well, just belive me on this. :)) Forget those RS regions (which in fact do not officially exist) and concentrate only to city of Istočno Sarajevo. Since we have data that municipality of Trnovo is part of this city, then we can only assume that whole municipality belong to Istočno Sarajevo. Only if we found source that say opposite we can claim opposite, but until then we have to assume the most logical thing that whole municipality belong to the city. PANONIAN (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Well, we don't have a source for that either :-) --estavisti 03:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Your logic :-) --estavisti 18:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- "My" logic is based on my knowledge how administrative systems function. But now, there is really the problem that map in this article shown one thing and map in Trnovo Municipality Istočno Sarajevo show something else. The article about municipality say that Trnovo "is a municipality in the city of Istočno Sarajevo". It does not say that only part of municipality is in Istočno Sarajevo. PANONIAN (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] Population
According to resources on Wikipedia (EN and SR), situation with population of East Sarajevo is as follows:
- East Novo Sarajevo: 9129 (estimation 2004, source Statistical institute of Republic Srpska)
- East Ilidza: 16754 (estimation 2004, source Statistical institute of Republic Srpska)
- East Stari Grad: 3185 (estimation 2004, source Statistical institute of Republic Srpska)
- Total "city": 29068
- Pale: 25000 (estimated, it had 16310 in 1991)
- Trnovo: 1642 (estimated, it had 6991 in 1991, but RS and FBIH parts together)
- Sokolac: 15500 (estimated, 14883 in 1991)
- Total "suburb area": 42142
- TOTAL "metropolitan area": 71210
- Total "suburb area": 42142
That leaves us far beyond 100-110000 "estimation". Also, it is interesting that there is no East Sarajevo as city in official statistical documents, but only places mentioned above (compare with statistical data for Banja Luka, Prijedor or any other real city).
So please, let's put some real data.
