Template talk:Serbian local elections

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Suggestion 2 FYI 3 Bad word 3.1 Proposition 4 Name 5 Referendums

[edit] Suggestion

Why not use Kosovan as the demonym - it is commonly used by the BBC, and appears to refer to the province rather than the native population (and thus neutral). Thoughts? Number 57 08:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey 57. Kosovan is definitely a better adjective than Kosovar but the international standard is still definitely 'Kosovo'. Take a look at this press release from UNMIK: [1], 'With the gradual handover to Kosovo institutions', rather than 'Kosovan' or 'Kosovar'. This is the formulation used in all international settings and for good reason: impartiality. We've adopted the same formulation in the Wikipedia pages on Kosovo and it seems to be stable and have general support. DSuser 08:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Plus the BBC reference is fairly sloppy journalism: that article refers to 'the Kosovan protectorate' which is definitely not the way the place is described by the UN or the rest of the international community. Would that the BBC lived up to past standards... DSuser 08:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well there are 1,109 other examples of the BBC using Kosovan and the UN actually uses Kosovan too. The use of Kosovo as an adjective doesn't feel natural. Number 57 08:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, let's use Kosovan then, fine by me. Using "Kosovo" as an adjective is blatantly wrong, simply put. Kosovan is as good as Kosovar to me. —Nightstallion 12:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the BBC is not the UN, which is the record of note for this question. It might not 'feel natural' because it is the outcome of a process of finding a neutral term which the whole international community can accept and which causes no ill-feeling in Kosovo itself. Kosovo is the term to use. Plus note that these are elections to the Kosovo Assembly not the Kosovan Assembly. Both Kosovar and Kosovan sound awful in English, but it doesn't matter because we need to stick to the stable consensus agreed on the Kosovo pages which is the UN and international standard. Thanks. DSuser 18:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Where is the supposed consensus you cite? I see not a single comment on Talk:Kosovo referring to what the preferred demonym for "Kosovo" should be -- as it currently stands, it's Number57 and me agreeing on "Kosovan" and you insisting on "Kosovo". I see no firm consensus anywhere around. —Nightstallion 19:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

These pages are of minority interest but fall within Kosovo-relevant pages. Everywhere in every article on Kosovo the group of contributors make use of Kosovo and never Kosovar or Kosovan because to do so would be potentially POV, potentially inflammatory and definitely beyond standard international and United Nations usage. Please do not continue an edit war on this. A stable consensus exists on all other Kosovo pages; these pages were title 'Kosovo...' on creation; they relate to the Kosovo Assembly not the Kosovar or Kosovan Assembly; Kosovo is NPOV, international and UN usage, and consensus. DSuser 20:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Since there is no discussion for this anywhere, how can you claim consensus on this? —Nightstallion 20:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, fair enough. One's as good as the other, anyway. shrugs I still don't get why Kosovar or Kosovan is supposed to be non-neutral, but if it makes you happy... —Nightstallion 22:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

DSuser - did you not read what I wrote? The UN also uses the term Kosovan. Your edits to this subject are becoming aggresive, especially after saying that Kosovan is a better term. Number 57 07:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Not meant to be aggressive, 57, and I you find the arguments aggressive then you have my apologies. We have been over this ground so many times; a stable consensus against Kosovar and Kosovan exists on all the Kosovo pages. The arguments are pretty clear and multiple. The UN avoids all use of Kosovan (you might find a stray spokesman who uses it in the middle of a speech, but all documentation and public announcements avoid it, even 1244). The use of 'Kosovo' instead is a simple compromise which offends no-one and works perfectly well in English. Can we agree to support that compromise, in good faith? DSuser 12:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that UNMIK has more than 500 articles where Kosovan is used shows that your statement that "all documentation and public announcements avoid it" is obviously untrue. Kosovo is not a natural adjective and does not sound right. Why on earth does it offend people to use a straightforward adjective? Number 57 12:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

And where is this consensus? I cannot find any discussion of the issue on any pages related to Kosovo. The only thing I can find is your unilateral edit to Kosovar changing its definition. Number 57 12:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you'll also list the various places where I defend the retention of Albanian terminology for places and keeping Albanian as first in the translation of English words as alphabetic, and the deletion of obvious (Serbian as well as Albanian-biased) vandalism? I'll thank you not to pick and choose. DSuser 13:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Out of how many in total press releases over the last eight years? Apart from press releases, can you point to an UNMIK regulation or law, or significant international document which uses it? Are we to use the standards of the media and press departments, or of international institutions and laws? Present international practice is to use the noun form as adjective instead of the usual adjective form for two reasons: 1) neutrality and 2) disambiguation. For instance, to be precise, you would refer to Serbia Prime Minister Whoever to make clear that the person is the PM of Serbia not merely a PM who is an ethnic Serb; otherwise you might (notionally) have a PM of Bosnia or Montengro (or wherever) who is a Serbian PM, but not the PM of the Republic of Serbia. Using this form (as in case 1) also avoids appearing to use ethnic terms all over the place or getting involved in the politics of terminology where each side takes offence at the use of one or other variant (this being the Balkans, after all). So we use the short form, in this case 'Kosovo' to avoid all that and maintain neutrality. It's the standard of the UN, we've adopted in the Kosovo pages on Wikipedia (can you find Kosovan in those articles? Kosovar?) and it's worth maintaining: we gain nothing by using Kosovan when Kosovo is available and acceptable to all. Plus, these are elections to the Kosovo Assembly not the Kosovan Assembly. DSuser 12:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I can, this white paper on trafficking uses the term Kosovan, as does this implementation plan. I can't be bothered to go and look through the pages, but I am beginning to suspect that the fact that Kosovar has been totally removed may be down to your own work rather than other users. We use Serbian to mean Serbia (e.g. Serbian elections, so I don't see why it should be different for Kosovo. Number 57 13:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Having just visited your Talk page, 57, I can see where your interest comes from. We're probably as pedantic as each other. This (the usage of Kosovo rather than Kosovan) is a deliberate use of the flexibility of English to bring tangible diplomatic and political benefit. Struck me as wrong at first, but on subjects Balkan, it makes sense. DSuser 13:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that you were not assuming bad faith, please do go ahead and look through my entire list of contributions and those of other contributors to the Kosovo pages. Talk to other neutral contributors such as Envoy202 and the other's you'll find on the talk pages. Kosovo is different because of the tortuous politics of status (see Kosovo status process): ethnic Albanians in Kosovo use the terms Kosovar and Kosovan to assert the right to statehood, causing offence amongst the ethnic Serbs and other minorities. To avoid that whole debate we stick to Kosovo. I don't doubt that there are exceptions to the rule in the UN of using Kosovo, but the rule it is, especially on something as sensitive as elections and political bodies. We should really use 'Republic of Serbia elections' to disambiguate (elections for Serbs? of Serbs? in Serbia?) or be clear about the body for which elections are being held. And that it without the additional sensitivity, in Kosovo, of status and ethnicity. Plus, these are elections to the Kosovo Assembly, after all. DSuser 13:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Using Republic of Serbia as an adjective is farcical, not to mention a total violation of WP:COMMONNAME. Using Republic of China for Taiwanese is bad enough, but at least there country is not officially called Taiwan. As I pointed out at the beginning, the BBC, who are one of the most PC and NPOV organisations around, use Kosovan and that is good enough for me. Number 57 13:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

PS It doesn't matter what the assembly is called; we don't have Knesset election, 2006 or Løgting election, 2004. Number 57 13:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, having to use Republic of Serbia as an adjective is farcical, the unfortunate result of farcical linguistic politics (and mixed ethnic settlement patterns) in the Balkans. But we do what we must to main neutral and the great strength of the English language - flexibility - allows us to remain so. DSuser 13:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It is an important point that sources exist which use Kosovan. It is a valid English adjectival form. Those sources are the minority and they are overwhelmingly more informal that the regulations and international documents from which we should take our standard. None of the important sources use Kosovan, and especially not Kosovar (for all the reasons outlined above). The three most important are United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244, UNMIK Regulation No.1 'ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE INTERIM ADMINISTRATION IN KOSOVO' [2] and the Constitutional Framework [3]. None of these use Kosovan. As it is not possible to prove a negative, it can't be proved that Kosovan has been avoided: but there is proof of absence. Time after time, Kosovan could have been used in these and all the other miscellaneous agreements and regulations [4], but it is not. The various grammatical forms of English are used to avoid adjectives wherever they can, and to use Kosovo rather than Kosovan where they must.

You are absolutely right that using RoC is a pain, but at least Taiwan exists as a state, which Kosovo does not. But the very fact that a debate (and a compromise) exists on that point is enough to tell us that there is valid point here. Using Kosovan is not seen as NPOV in relation to Kosovo. Perhaps other compromises have been found elsewhere, but what applies in the Middle East may not be position in the Balkans. International usage (not BBC house style) is the standard we should use. Neutrality is more important here than perfect grammar. Can we agree on the neutral form? DSuser 13:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The neutral form does appear to be Kosovan. I have heard Kosovar used to describe the ethnic Albanian inhabitants and I can see how that might be POV, but have not heard Kosovan used in that sense. Your argument about Taiwan is back to front; Taiwan does not exist - only the Republic of China does (Taiwan is not an official name), but Kosovo does exist regardless of who controls it, and therefore Kosovan is a correct term. Number 57 13:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a valid debate on how best to describe elections in relation to the Republic of China, as using one form or another might not be seen as neutral. You might have seen Kosovan in many places, but the BBC is not our standard, the UN is, and Kosovan is avoided in all important documents and in the vast majority of informal documents. 'Kosovo elections' is the correct NPOV usage here; there being no consensus to use Kosovan (citing all other Kosovo pages), that is the form we should stick with. DSuser 13:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

As a point of fact, Taiwan does exists as a state. Under the criteria of the Montevideo Convention Taiwan qulaifies as a state in international law, Taiwan being the informal name of the Republic of China. It is merely somewhat unrecognised. DSuser 13:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've just proved several times that the UN do use Kosovan in key documents so I think that line of argument needs dropping. Kosovan is clearly not a POV term to most people, and is the WP:COMMONNAME adjective for the area. Number 57 14:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not the case, all you've been capable of showing is that Kosovan is used in a small selection of informal documents, largely press releases, out of a massive volume of documents. The international standard (cf. proof of absence of Kosovan in all important international documents, regulations, resolutions and treaties, as well as in the all the main Kosovo pages on Wikipedia) is for Kosovo instead of Kosovan. Their being insufficient argument and a single contributor on a minor page arguing otherwise, the stable compromise of Kosovo as NPOV remains. DSuser 14:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The standard on the Kosovo pages is "Kosovo" because YOU unilaterally changed it to that. There is no consensus at all for using "Kosovo" instead of "Kosovan" in this case, period. As such, we should return to the previous situation until consensus is established; as Kosovan is preferable to Kosovar, however, we'll return to that for now. —Nightstallion 14:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you on? I'm seriously wondering whether you actually read what I write. The documents I linked to above that have the word Kosovan in include a White Paper and an implementation plan, hardly informal documents. Thus there is no proof of absence of Kosovan in all important international documents. Please stop restating this blatant untruth as your main argument and try something which hasn't been disproved. Number 57 14:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The documents cited are minor and a tiny majority of the whole. These are the most important: UNSCR1244; UNMIK Reg No1 [5]; the Constitutional Framework [6], plus UNMIK regulations in general [7]. These are the standards we can use. The use of Kosovo as an adjective is neutral and stable here on Wikipedia (citing the Kosovo pages). Use of Kosovo remains until there's a consensus otherwise. DSuser 14:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

To reiterate it: The use of Kosovo instead of Kosovar or Kosovan is widespread on Wikipedia mostly because you recently changed all uses of "Kosovar" to "Kosovo"... —Nightstallion 14:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, a range of minor pages which most neutral contributors had not seen; they now reflect the stable and NPOV use of Kosovo. Use of Kosovar and Kosovan are not widespread: see Kosovo. DSuser 14:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify my stance: I've got nothing against using "Kosovo Albanians" and "Kosovo Serbians", fair enough. But in cases where there's need for the adjective of Kosovo, basic grammar dictates it should be "Kosovan" per the three dictionaries I consulted. Your counterpoint to this is that "Kosovan" is not neutral, which you have not been able to prove in any way. —Nightstallion 14:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The Oxford English Dictionary, the ultimate source for the English language, does not list Kosovo as an adjective. Number 57 14:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Luckily, we don't have to limit ourselves to the OED. We have no national council for setting how English can be used. The great strength of English is flexibility, not pedantry. And international usage in this case is clear. DSuser 14:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, totally not the point. The OED is not run by a committee to decide how English should develop, instead it reflects the changing use of the language and is updated constantly. The fact that Kosovo is not in there as an adjective shows that it is not commonly used as such. Number 57 14:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

WE WILL BACK ON KOSOVO RED BERETS 16:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, Nightstallion, I do get your point, you have a totally valid point of view and it's worth having this argument. But the use of Kosovo in those two phrases really is as an adjective. It should (if we were being totally grammatical) be Kosovan Serbs and Kosovan Albanians (or indeed Kosovars for the latter, whatever). That is an example of using Kosovo instead of Kosovan, and it's for neutrality's sake. So what do we do? Try to decide in every single case what level of offence <might> be caused and whether or not it's better in a given case to be <totally> grammatical? I completely accept that in a perfect (or even not-so-bad) world we could call those pages 'Kosovan elections...'; I just think we'd be better with a standard use of Kosovo which we've stuck to so far. DSuser 14:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Mh, no, the case is slightly different for Kosovo Serbs and Kosovo Albanians, as you can also use the noun as a qualifier in this case, which is the WP:COMMON way of naming those two groups, that's why I'm okay with it. If you could simply show me a source which states that "Kosovan" or "Kosovar" is not neutral for some reason, then I'd be fine with "Kosovo" as well, but as that has not yet happened, I see no reason so far not to use the most simple solution -- the adjective "Kosovan". —Nightstallion 14:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to the standard use which we've stuck with so far (which was Kosovar until your intervention), then so be it :) Number 57 14:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

How about pages and pages of Talk:Kosovo archives, the contributions of dozens of editors of the Kosovo pages maintaining the neutral form. Neither of you have much experience of Kosovo or contribution to those articles, and you should take time to understand those (this aimed almost entirely at 57) before you jump in. There is no book we can turn to which can tell us what words are considered inflammatory (though 57 would like one, no doubt). You want to get a whole bunch of Kosovo Serbs to come and tell us that they consider it non-neutral? Kosovo is the stable compromise used on the Kosovo pages here on Wikipedia. DSuser 15:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I know quite a bit on Kosovan history and politics, I just don't contribute much to it on Wikipedia precisely because of the usually static atmosphere between pro-Albanians and pro-Serbs. ;) While it may be interesting to note that many Kosovo Serbian contributors on Wikipedia find the term inflammatory, that's not enough as a source to show that it actually *is* non-neutral; self-selection and bias problems turn up a lot if we just consider the opinions of Wikipedia editors. —Nightstallion 15:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Note to readers: the debate has been moved to the proper place, Talk:Kosovo where there is a vote underway in August on this point (Talk:Kosovo#Kosovo:_terminology). End of the discussion, here, I feel. DSuser 15:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, fair enough. —Nightstallion 15:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have already been WP:CANVASsing Serbian wikipedians to get them to add their opinions, so why offer to do it now? If we relied on the input of only one side we might end up with articles such as Zionist Entity instead of Israel. You have to remember that neither Nightstallion or I are Serb nor Albanian, and therefore are not compromised by an inbuilt POV towards the subject; the international community uses the word Kosovan and it is not biased. Number 57 15:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've got nothing against inviting Serb Wikipedians to state their opinion, but we should also invite Albanian Wikipedians to state their opinion in this case. —Nightstallion 15:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"Kosovan" is Serbian and "Kosovar" is Albanian. That's all to it. --PaxEquilibrium 18:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

I've notified all the members of WikiProjects related to the Balkans of the ongoing debate; as there should be about 50 to 70, this should give a rather conclusive result to the debate, whatever result it is. —Nightstallion 15:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well done, I'd started with Kosovo contributors but you're well ahead. How did you notify them all so fast? DSuser 15:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I simply went to the pages of WikiProject Macedonia, WikiProject Croatia and so on and so forth, opened all their user pages as tabs, and then simply copy-pasted a short message to all their talk pages. It probably would have been even faster to use some kind of script (there's a lot of scripts around which are meant to assist with tasks on Wikipedia), but I prefer to do things by hand normally. —Nightstallion 16:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad word

I seem to not like the "regional". Is there any better word? I'd most likely use "local", but it's already the title of the whole thing. --PaxEquilibrium 12:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well it depends on how large the area covered by the elections are; if they are for towns and small areas then "local" is appropriate. If it is at the Kosovo/Vojvodina level, then regional is better. Number 57 12:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well the Vojvodina/Kosovo are, like noted correctly, provincial. These others are for Serbia's 199 municipalities and 4 cities. Local seems like a perfect term, but it's the title of the whole template...

By the way, I added "Vojvodina" for the provincial ones.

Bah, if the parliamentary elections for PISG and local elections in Kosovo organized by the UNMIK were organized at the same time I wouldn't have these problems and just have one row for everything'... How solve this mess? --PaxEquilibrium 20:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposition

How about creating separate articles for municipal and separate for city elections - now that we have separated the provincial. Wouldn't that solve the problem? --PaxEquilibrium 19:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Municipal and city are the same thing. Number 57 07:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Not in the Republic of Serbia. Serbia has four Cities (with a capital C), administrative divisions with a high status of self-government who have direct elections for Civic Parliaments and direct for Mayors: they're called: City of Belgrade, City of Novi Sad, City of Niš and City of Kragujevac. --PaxEquilibrium 14:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Consider of it like Free City that existed throughout Imperial Europe. --PaxEquilibrium 14:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

OK then, so lets have a separate section for city elections (though not differentiated between cities) and municipal elections. Number 57 14:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Check out Subdivisions of Serbia for more info.

Why not differentiate it? There are only four Cities (and 169 ! municipalities). --PaxEquilibrium 14:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I mean don't have a separate row for each city - just have one row for city elections and one for municipal elections. Number 57 14:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

But should each individual civic election have its own article?

And now I've opened a can of worms. I don't think it's nice to include data twice for both municipal and city elections, because it locally concerns entire Serbia. The only difference with Vojvodina is that it's quite a large and distinct historical/political entity (and it's only one). In the end, all elections (municipal, City and provincial) are held exactly at the same time and are organized together. --PaxEquilibrium —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaxEquilibrium (talk • contribs) 14:33, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Then I think we should have a single article for all local elections, if they're always held at the same time in all of Serbia proper + Vojvodina, and only leave the articles about regional elections in K and V and the local elections in K separately. —Nightstallion 14:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is this:

v • d • e  Serbian provincial elections Vojvodina: 1992 | 1996 | 2000 | 2004 | 2007 Kosovo: 2001 | 2004 | 2007  Serbian regional elections 1992 | 1996 | 2000 | 2004 | 2007 Kosovo: 2000 | 2003 | 2007  Serbian city elections XXXX | XXXX | XXXX | XXXX | XXXX  Serbian municipal elections XXXX | XXXX | XXXX | XXXX | XXXX

I envisage the articles for municipal/city elections covering all municipal/city elections in that year, rather than having one per city. Number 57 14:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Aha. But mean this:

v • d • e  Serbian provincial elections Vojvodina: 1992 | 1996 | 2000 | 2004 | 2007 Kosovo: 2001 | 2004 | 2007  Serbian city elections 1992 | 1996 | 2000 | 2004 | 2007  Serbian municipal elections 1992 | 1996 | 2000 | 2004 | 2007 Kosovo: 2000 | 2003 | 2007

..right? --PaxEquilibrium 20:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And I'd prefer this:

v • d • e  Serbian provincial elections Vojvodina: 1992 | 1996 | 2000 | 2004 | 2007 Kosovo: 2001 | 2004 | 2007  Serbian local elections Central Serbia and Vojvodina: 1992 | 1996 | 2000 | 2004 | 2007 Kosovo: 2000 | 2003 | 2007

My reasoning is thus: Since city and municipal elections are always held together, it wouldn't make sense to separate them into two articles, right? —Nightstallion 23:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

But they are also held together (always) with provincial elections too and all three are counted as "local" (both mayor for Cities and parliamentary). --PaxEquilibrium 16:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Still, it seems logical to me to have provincial elections (only in Vojvodina) and local elections (in Central Serbia and Vojvodina) together respectively... —Nightstallion 18:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, but then we need to solve this issue (which made me split it in the first place): the whole template is already called "local elections", so it's poor to call the actual articles within "local elections", considering that the Vojvodina (and Kosovo) are already there, and that they are local too...uhhh --PaxEquilibrium 18:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Mh, fair enough. Let's make it "municipal and city elections" then. —Nightstallion 18:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Which also brings me to the old controversy regarding information and the reason why I am going to stay away from this Template from now on... --PaxEquilibrium 22:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine as it is now. Having separate information about the provincial elections is definitely warranted... I look forwarding to reading your articles about the elections! :) —Nightstallion 22:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

But Nightstallion, this way it seems as if "Vojvodina and Central Serbia" are one entity and "Kosovo" the other. And what's more, Central Serbia (or "Serbia proper") is not an entity - but Vojvodina and Kosovo are simply autonomous parts of Serbia, just like the 4 Cities (Belgrade, Kragujevac, Niš and Novi Sad). The only reason why Kosovo is put out is because in 1999 Serbia has transferred local self-government to the UNMIK (which holds local elections on its own). --PaxEquilibrium 16:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Mh. I still think it's clearer this way... We don't hurt anyone by stating "Vojvodina and Central Serbia", do we? It's just to differentiate the articles from each other... —Nightstallion 19:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No, we aren't. But from the perspective of a man who just had tonsillectomy in there, we're misguiding. The first ones are normal "all-out", while the latter is simply because local administration is handled not by the Government of the Republic of Serbia, but by the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo. --PaxEquilibrium 13:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I still believe it's better this way: The first articles are for those held in Central Serbia and in Vojvodina, the second is for those held in Kosovo... Where's the misguidance? —Nightstallion 15:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

In the fact that the first isn't an entity and the fact that it's not conducted in Kosovo (as per Oliver Ivanovic in 2000 and 2004) just because there aren't a lot of voters (only some 200,000). Also, there are insinuations that the Kosovan Serbs might organize local elections just in North Kosovo. --PaxEquilibrium 19:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not an entity, granted, but it's just there to clarify where the elections where held at the same time -- and that *IS* in Central Serbia and Vojvodina... What do you mean about Kosovo? I don't understand you, I'm afraid. —Nightstallion 22:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Referendums

How does everyone think about adding referenda to the template? --PaxEquilibrium 19:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, why not? What local referenda have been held up to now? —Nightstallion 22:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well it depends, do unofficial ones count or just official? --PaxEquilibrium 21:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Only official ones -- though I'd like to know about both of them, personally. —Nightstallion 03:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Just local referendums to depose municipal Presidents, mostly in places with ethnic minorities or controversial heads. There was one recently to replace the controversial long-term Radical overlord of Svilajnac.

As for unofficial ones, there's:

• Sanjak autonomy referendum, 1991
• Kosovar independence referendum, 1992
• Presevo joining Kosovo referendum, 1992

...but I guess you already know about them, no? ;) --PaxEquilibrium 12:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, we could add the recall referenda to the template; I had not heard about the Sanjak or Presevo referenda, actually... —Nightstallion 15:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

But if Kosovo becomes an independent country, can I add then the Kosovar independence referendum? --PaxEquilibrium 00:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Mh. As it was not official, I'd say no. —Nightstallion 01:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And what if the Assembly of Kosovo calls upon the 1992 referendum in its declaration of independence (and Kosovo becomes an internationally-recognized state)? --PaxEquilibrium 01:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Mh... We'll reconsider it in that case, okay? ;) —Nightstallion 13:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)