Wikipedia:Serbian Wikipedians' notice board
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
|---|
Serbian Wikipedians' notice board regarding articles related to Serbia and Serbs.
Contents |
[edit] New or improved articles
- Stubs
[edit] Articles that should be written
- Serbian Empire. It is now redirect to History of Medieval Serbia, but we should have separate article about Serbian Empire. PANONIAN (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- It has already been written, by you. --CG 02:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Kingdom of Serbia. It is now redirect to History of Serbia, but we should have separate article about Kingdom of Serbia. PANONIAN (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sport in Serbia. Instead of a just a category, it should be article. This is the only article that has not yet been created that is included in the Serbian culture template. –Lowg 03:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Already started by me. --CG 02:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Areas requiring attention
[edit] Articles listed at Articles for deletion
- Deponia (AfD discussion)
- The Serbian Liberation Movement and Serbian Liberation Army (AfD discussion)
[edit] Incorrect Image
It looks the version of small coat of arms: 
is definitely incorrect colors. Compare with full coat of arms 
I have left a message on the person who has changed it Talk page on the commons, but if someone knows how to properly edit SVGs, can you please help. This image is used on many pages and I feel should be corrected as soon as possible. It looks the original version had correct colors according to Coat of Arms of Serbia the correct colors should be:
| Color | Pantone | CMYK |
|---|---|---|
| Red | 193C | 0-90-70-10 |
| Blue | 287C | 100-55-0-0 |
| Yellow | 116C | 0-10-95-0 |
| White | 0-0-0-0 |
Right now in the small coat of arms current version, it is Red: 9-89-73-2, Blue: 94-56-2-0, Yellow: 3-9-91-0 Which is why it small coat of arms does not match large coat of arms images. --Lowg 19:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like the author corrected it, but some reason still a little off? Either way it's definitely better than the previous version.Lowg 21:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comments, discussion
Since Serbia-Montenegro does not exist anymore, we have many articles where we have to change "Serbia and Montenegro" to "Serbia" or to "Montenegro". I hope that more people will participate in this job. PANONIAN (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I would like to help, anywhere in particular to start? --Lowg 02:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, here is list of the pages which have link to "Serbia and Montenegro" article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Serbia_and_Montenegro You can visit some of these pages and change "Serbia and Montenegro" to "Serbia" or "Montenegro". Just be careful, if some article is historical and speak about "Serbia and Montenegro" that should not be changed. PANONIAN (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- RFC
We are trying to come up with a name of article for the Meridian SuperLeague / First League of Serbia, I would appriciate if there was any input anyone has please see Meridan SuperLeague talk page.Lowg 00:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] big 1848 project
Hello Serbs! I just wanted to let you know that I have proposed a WikiProject on the Revolutions of 1848 here. Join, if you're interested--next year marks 160 years since the revolutions and it would be nice to have a really good, comprehensive series of articles (unlike the current situation)! K. Lásztocska 14:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Applying the naming convention
Hello. I am sorry to spam this forum, I am trying to reach the most prolific editors of the articles related to Central Europe. As you have probably already realized, there is a naming convention regulating the use of geographic names in English Wikipedia. If you have not yet had chance to read it, you can find it at WP:NCGN. We all have already done a very good job in applying some parts of the convention, such as inclusion of all the relevant names either in the lead or in a separate “Names” section of the main article. However, the use of geographic names in the historical context is still very inconsistent and sometimes flagrantly violating the convention. That is why I would like to encourage everyone to familiarize with and to apply WP:NCGN. Here is the relevant part of the convention:
“The same name as in title should be used consistently throughout the article. Exceptions are allowed only if there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context.”
Let us take an example: There is an article about a town called Kremnica. Unless we are able to prove that a different name is widely accepted in the English-speaking world (this is the case of Constantinople and Istanbul, for instance), all articles in Wikipedia should use the word “Kremnica” while referring to that town.
WP:NCGN also lists evidence required to identify a “widely accepted English name”: especially consensus among main English-language encyclopedias published after 1993, Google Scholar and Google Books hits when searched over English language articles and books where the corresponding location is mentioned in relation to the period in question, and consensus among other standard histories and scientific studies (such as Cambridge Histories) written in English.
As to the rules of discussion, WP:NCGN states:
“If there is a dispute regarding the naming convention in the contents of the article, to prevent revert wars the name from the title of the relevant article should be used in all occurrences until a consensus is reached on the relevant talk page(s). If the dispute is affecting more than one article, it should be discussed on the talk page of the main article about the place in question”
I would like to start applying the aforementioned parts of the convention in the articles on my watchlist. I advertise the convention here to insure that my edits will not trigger revert wars caused by misunderstanding or ignorance of the convention. One of the aims of WP:NCGN is to reduce nationalist edit warring and I am confident we can achieve this goal if we all follow the actual convention.
Tankred 01:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
