Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:39, 3 July 2006

Please post new messages to the bottom of my talk page. I will respond here unless you request otherwise. Thank you. Design stolen from Mindspillage.

Archives June 2004 – March 2006 March 2006 – May 2006

Defenses to 1NT

Hi, I have been looking at various bridge articles and I have a suggested merge (you just knew I was going to say that I'm sure). List of defenses to 1NT contains links to a few articles all of which are extremely short. I propose that we merge them into one meaningful article called "Defence to 1NT". Naturally if any of these sections (as they would now become) was to be expanded sufficiently to make a worthwhile article we could demerge at a later stage. It seems to me that this would have the benefit of enabling readers to access all methods more easily and make it simpler to compare methods. Nothing would be lost indeed much would be gained. What do you think?Abtract 23:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC).

As usual, :-), I'm opposed. While I do agree with every word you say, I see it as matter of principle (not the principle of disagreeing with everything Abtract proposes :-), but the principle that we should have one article per convention no matter how long it is, i.e. not to decide on merge/split on case-by-case basis). Most of those articles are currently stubs, and should be expanded mostly about up to one screen; they don't dwelve into latter development, counter-defense, examples etc. We do lack an overview of conventions though—but I'd prefer to tackle the matter in the following manner instead:

• Write a "classification" heading in Bridge convention, classifying conventions by their purpose.
• If the heading becomes overlong (and it probably will as soon as it's written seriously), we can detach it from Bridge convention and do one of:
  • write Overview of bridge conventions, or
  • write Slam-investigating conventions, Defensive conventions Defenses to 1NT, Conventions after notrump openings, etc. There, briefly summarize every convention and link to e.g.

Main article: Blackwood convention

etc.

I agree that the current article List of defenses to 1NT is not useful. Maybe we could have a List of bridge conventions instead. Note that there are many various "List of foo" articles on Misplaced Pages, but they serve only an auxiliary purpose (as reference lists), and often duplicate the role of categories.

If you agree, I could start a classification/overview heading/article? Duja 07:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Serbian culture

I'll leave it as it is for now, but why is it impractical? See Culture of Germany and German culture for an example of what I mean. --estavisti 13:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Macedonian language

Thanks for the edits! I can't believe I missed the ќе thing :)) - FrancisTyers 10:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the extensive discussion at this talk page, and the links to meta. Basically any system that requires you to have bibliographic information in the middle of text is unworkable. As a matter of interest, where is it official? - FrancisTyers 10:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes/archive3#Fixing_non-1st_ref_content
• m:Talk:Cite/Cite.php#When_Harvard_is_(much)_better

etc. Also, I changed the {{ref}}, as it the deprecation hasn't been made "official". - FrancisTyers 12:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Two club bid

Hi, I've completely rewritten the Two club bid article. Could you please take a look? Errabee 01:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

edit to Kraja

User has reverted you. I don't know what the hell is going on, so I'll leave it up to you =) --mboverload@ 11:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

/l/ again, this time in Macedonian :)

Hi! I thought you were right here, because it seemed that you and Lunt were describing the situation in my native Bulgarian pretty exactly. However, upon reading this grammar (1.2.2, 1.2.2.6), it seems that /ł/ and /l/ have indeed become separate phonemes in Macedonian (and not allophones as in Bulgarian). The reason is that the palatal ʎ or palatalized /l/ as in "belja" (trouble) has, in most cases, become a mere nonvelarized /bela/, contrasted with the the old /bela/ (white), where the allophonic velarization, therefore, has become phonemic (/beła/). According to our source, many Macedonians still keep the old (Bulgarian) system, in part or fully, but - obviously Lunt and Friedman did have a reason to analyse it in the other way. --85.187.44.131 22:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Although I must say that I, personally, can hardly believe that this "new" system is very common. I don't notice it when listening to Macedonian radio, in any case. But of course, taking into account one's own observations would be OR. --85.187.44.131 14:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just read Friedman, and I stand utterly and thoroughly confused. Any continuation of this discussion would severely damage my brain health (already undermined by too much wikiholism) $-). Duja 11:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine. But don't be surprised if I eventually put this rubbish on the page. :) It's not that I believe a word of it :), but it is my (only) source, and I've got nothing else to fall back on ... --85.187.44.131 18:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm close to give up to understand what Friedman wanted to say about the issue. However, there's an apparent controversy even in his text, which was carried on to the article -- in Friedman's table ł is described as a dental consonant while in the very following paragraph he talks about velar one. Duja 07:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think he means "velarized". Calling the velarized alvolar /l/ "velar /l/" seems to be a common mistake, which also Lunt makes (and which I used to make when I was young and silly :)). I guess the reason is that (according to a Bulgarian phonetics book I just read) nobody knew that a really velar /l/ could exist until it was discovered, quite recently, in exotic languages like Melpa. The real velar /l/ is transcribed as ʟ, while the velarized /l/ is ł.

As for what Friedman means with the rest - well, I already proposed an interpretation here, as well as, more briefly, in Macedonian language. So I think I understand what he means, although, as I said, I don't really believe him. :) --85.187.44.131 16:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. But - re-reading what you wrote - I didn't carry on that contradction on to the article, 'cuz my contribution don't say nothing 'bout no "velar" /l/.--85.187.44.131 16:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, velarized or velar regardless (maybe even I used those terms sloppily), /ł/ is not dental as it stands in Friedman and Macedonian language. Trying to find out some sense in this mess: we basically agreed that Serbian and Bulgarian L's in e.g. Galileji differ, but I maintain that Serbian one is not velarized; my theory is that one is apical and the other is laminal. I believe that Macedonian dialects vary between Bulgarian and Serbian pronunciations (with additional funny rules about pronunciation of letter lj (sorry, no Cyrillic keyboard on this computer)). Unfortunately, it seems that all we have about Macedonian phonology is Friedman. Duja 17:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

1. . About Macedonian: Yes, Friedman is all we have. And Lunt (1952), of course (we have him at the library of the Universuty of Sofia), but, judging from his phonetics section, he makes Friedman seem brilliant. As far as dental vs alveolar is concerned: assuming that a velarized dental (rather than alveolar) /l/ does exist, I suppose that people would tend to use the same good old /ł/ in broad transcription, even though apparently would be the most exact transcription, phonetically. Now, the same mess seems to exist with the Albanian /l/s - even though the actual Albanian language article says that both the velarized and the nonvelarized Albanian /l/s are alveolar, somebody else has obviosly analyzed it in the same way as Friedman in Macedonian - see Kwami's edit in dental consonant. It says that the Albanian "clear" (nonvelarized) /l/ is alveolar, but the Albanian "dark", velarized /ł/ is dental. Similarly, the Bulgarian "dark" (which isn't universally analysed as velarized) is articulated, not dentally, but at least somewhere lower on the alveoles than the Bulgarian "clear" .

1. 1. My "practical" measure of velarized /l/ is as follows: can I instead pronounce /w/ (yes, like English w) and get an acceptable result (i.e. the one where my converser wouldn't say "huh?")? I clearly can in words like English ball, Bulgarian видел or Serbian strelci. IOW, you barely have to have any contact of tongue and alveolar ridge to pronounce it. In front of /u/, and especially between them, Serbian /l/ may also be velarized: bulumenta. But we don't generally distinguish L's between front and back vowels: in both Galileji and Lola it is articulated only with tip of the tongue touching the alveolar ridge, and bottom of the tongue below the tip in a strong contact with front teeth, and no palatal touch at all. It is not velar, though, as the back of the tongue remains low. When I try to pronounce the Bulgarian "clear" /l/, I discover that there's practically no contact with the teeth—the tongue tip and blade are in contact with alveolar ridge and front palata.

1. 1. 1. Sounds convincing. By the way, Bulgarian dark /l/ does tend to become in the speech of young people, not only before consonants and word-finally (although it's most frequent there, I'd say because articulation gets especially lax there). So, personally, I'd usually say Vwadimir instead of Vladimir, Wowa instead of Lola, etc.. Curiosuly, this gives me a foreign accent in Russian, because Russians don't vocalize the /l/s, although their nonpalatalized /l/ is velarized, too (clearly indicated in the Russian language wiki article). Never mind, this was a digression. --85.187.44.131 14:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

1. 1. As for Albanian: FWIW, when Serbs imitate Albanians, they always replace all /l/'s with љ's (/ʎ/). This is often done in transcription, e.g. frequent surname Shala is transcribed as Шаља. While the phonology does not support that amount of palatalization, it seems that's the same sound as Bulgarian "clear" L— what I hear in Bulgarian pronunciation of Galileji would be more accurate transliterated to Serbian as Гаљиљеји than Галилеји. That would also explain the reverse position, i.e. that you hear Serbian /l/ as darker (IMO incorrectly described as velarized) than you'd expect. Duja
      1. Very interesting! As you mentioned, the Albanian /l/ isn't supposed to be palatalized at all, and if you compare the Albanian and the Serbo-Croatian language articles, the sounds are supposed to be identical - alveolar laterals. So what can the difference be? Either the laminal vs apical difference that you suggested, or - I'm not quite excluding it yet - the velarized vs nonvelarized contrast that I suggested. Now, there's a parallel case, namely French and Russian. The French /l/ isn't palatalized either; however, when Russians want to imitate or transcribe French alveolar /l/, they often write ль, ля, лю (ля-ля-ля for French la-la-la, де Голь for French De Gaulle). The reason is that they can only choose between their velarized (dark) /ł/ and their palatalized /l, since a clear nonpalatalized /l/ doesn't exist in Russian. Obviously, a clear /l/ sounds palatalized to velarizers :). Do French, German, Spanish /l/ sound more like Albanian or more like Serbian to you? --85.187.44.131 14:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

1. About Serbian: it seems that you're right, at least according to some scholarly sources. At least one Bulgarian grammar of Serbo-Croatian says that the /l/ is clear, unlike the Bulgarian one! Similarly, some other scholar has analysed the Czech /l/ as clear. For me, that's quite puzzling. But, while I insist that Serbian (and Czech) "le" and "li" sound "darker" than expected to me, I admit that Serbian "la", "lo" and "lu" sometimes sound "clearer" than expected. It's a mystery. Anyway, couldn't we compare your /l/ with the English ones? Is it more like English clear (as in leap, left) or more like English dark (as in ball and American lion), and which one, if any, poses difficulties for Serbo-Croatian learners?
   1. I'd say that it's the "dark" L that poses difficulties -- it's not a difficult sound to produce but I'd say that majority of Serbo-Croatian learners of English would replace it with a front L.~~
      1. OK. I would be interested to hear how that sounds, but in fact, if your interpretation about laminal/apical is correct and I am confusing apicalness with velarizedness, then I guess I would find it difficult to notice their deviation from standard English even if I heard them. What about Russian? Or perhaps it isn't spoken by so many Serbs anyway (since you weren't in the Warsaw pact), so you haven't been able to make observations? --85.187.44.131 14:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Concerning your theory - am I right to assume that, if Serbo-Croatian /l/ is alveolar and apical, it's identical to English /l/, while Bulgarian alvolar and laminal /l/ is like French /l/?

--85.187.44.131 23:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

1. 1. Yes, I think so. I don't hear any difference between English leak and Serbian lik (image) . I speak some French but not quite well, although I could imagine that French liaison or léon sounds alike Bulgarian "clear" l.Duja 09:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Copied from my user page:

Rehi; well, we discussed about the issue on 3 different places... but nevertheless...

...my final conclusion (after some research which included looking at myself in the mirror :-) ): Serbian (pre-consonant) l is dental while Bulgarian is alveolar. By "dental" I mean that the tip of the tongue sticks out of the front teeth, with firm contact to upper teeth and loose contact with lower teeth. Bulgarian is purely alveolar, i.e. the contact is right above the upper teeth.

Now, Misplaced Pages does not have article dental lateral approximant, but only alveolar lateral approximant. Quote, "The symbol in the International Phonetic Alphabet that represents dental, alveolar, and postalveolar lateral approximants is l, and the equivalent X-SAMPA symbol is l." Obviously, the difference is not phonemic in any language...

...except maybe in Macedonian? (I still can't get through the mess of Friedman's explanation). Duja 14:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Your interpretation does sound convincing. Velarized laterals apparently tend to be dental, as in Albanian (and Macedonian?), or at least to be lower in the alveolar-dental continuum, as in Bulgarian. Ergo, a Bulgarian like me might be inclined to identify the two and believe to be hearing a velarized L each time he hears a dental one (e.g. in Serbian). Still, the Serbo-Croatian/Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian wiki pages say that the /l/s are alveolar. So it would be great if we had some sources about it. Living in Serbia, maybe you have access to proper literature about the language, where passive and active articulatory organs are specified?

As for Friedman, he seems to be saying the two Macedonian laterals are supposed to be contrasted both as velarized vs nonvelarized and as dental vs alveolar. He doesn't say which the primary difference is, but the fact that he is using a /ł/ sign suggests that he thinks velarization is primary. --85.187.44.131 16:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

--85.187.44.131 16:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Zli Srbi

Ovo mi malo postaje sve sumnjivije - mislim, genocid u Srebrenici se spominje u wikipedijskom clanku Man. Znam da je tipican primjer - ali mislim da je POV. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Zastava 2

Evo sada je aktuelno pitanje zastave i cini mi se da boje na Wikipedii odgovaraju samo onima sa sajta Parlamenta a da su u realnosti i na sajtu Vlade drugacije.

Primeri:

• http://www.tanjug.co.yu/images/fotoGalerija/slika48967_mala.jpg
• http://www.b92.net/galerija/pics/2006/06/11271411674485644485666042278879.jpg
• http://www.tanjug.co.yu/images/fotoGalerija/slika48901_dana.jpg

Boje su definitivno poput onih na zastavi SCG.

Avala 10:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Montenegrin language

Sorry about that! I have no idea how I missed it :/ - FrancisTyers · 12:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem—judging on time stamps, we likely both changed the page in a very short interval, (but avoided the edit conflict). Duja 12:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Samo da te informiram, Dujo, tip radi isto ovdje: House of Petrović. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Bosnian Article

totally agree with your version!

)--Jadran 05:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Damir resigns

Screw the tags :), I will no longer be on wikipedia. Good to hear? Looks like the serbians won in the end, congratulations. :) Damir Mišić

It would certainly be hypocritical if I'd say that I'm not happy about that... I don't feel like "winning" anything though. Good luck and take care. Duja 12:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ne želim ikomu soliti pamet, no: 1) ovo bi trebala biti online enciklopedija, a ne sredstvo propagande za bilo što 2) naravno, nemoguće je (i nepoželjno) izbjeći subjektivnost-no, dosadan bi bio svijet u kojem bi se svi slagali 3) uza sve rečeno, postoje granice koje nameću razum, logika, dostupne informacije. Priđe li se svemu jedino kao promičbenomu mediju-onda je uistinu bolje otići nego gubiti živce u jalovom natezanju. Korisnik Mišić bi bio korisniji "vlastitoj nacionalnoj stvari" kada bi pokušao zastupati svoja stajališta s dozom tolerancije, s dobrom količinom zdravoga razuma i, najviše, slobode duha. Čujmo i njegovu stranu-ali ne kao monotonu litaniju koja ignorira druge i gluha je na argumente racionalnoga uma. Nije ovo mjesto u kojem itko treba "dobiti" ili "izgubiti". Dobiti može jedino istina, rasvijetljena iz više kutova. Naravno, službeni je stav wikipedije da ih ne zanima "istina". No, to je, znamo, samo površna fraza. Mir Harven 20:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak page move

Hi Duja. Could you please go here and write what you think about moving the page "Bosniaks" to "Bosniak people". Most other articles about ethnic groups follow that convention so I feel like it'd be a good move to make. Live Forever 18:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Molise Croats/Slavs

I've changed my mind about the disussion there, but I don't want to engage in it right now, because people are really too emotional there, and I suppose you must have a reason to defend the current title. But do you have any actual sources proving that the overwhelming majority of Ikavian speakers in Molise identify as Croats? The info that I've seen so far suggests that they are still rather confused themselves. The article itself says that "Molise Croats identify themselves as Italians", that at least some of them prefer to call their language "na-našo" and themselves Zlavi. This article by prominent specialist Walter Breu says, roughly, that one village is more pro-Croatian and the other one rather reserved (Insgesamt hat Montemitro das konservativste Sprachverhalten; hier findet sich auch eine relativ grosse Akzeptanz der von kroatischer Seite propagierten Zugehoerigkeit der Moliseslawen zum Kroatentum, waehrend man in Acquaviva solchem Gedankengut ziemlich reserviert gegenebersteht). So, maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that by choosing "Molise Croatian" instead of "Molise SLavic", we're excluding those (maybe a minority) who don't identify as Croats. If we choose "Molise Slavic", then we aren't excluding those who identify as Croats, because Croats are clearly Slavs. So - what do you think? --85.187.44.131 16:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not passionate about the subject; there are quite reasonable arguments on both sides. However, I (think I) watched the article far longer than you and witnessed a sad edit/move war about a subject which really does not deserve so much hussle. If I appear pissed off, that's because of large abuse of process on both sides before; re-raising the issue just provokes further mud-slinging. Molise Croatian or Slavic, whatever, there are better things to do. Duja 06:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. In fact, I agree; as for the population's identity, on second thoughts, I'm not sure which source to believe, so I don't feel like messing with the issue. --85.187.44.131 11:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't mix the dialect features with the declaring of the nationality. Put it this way: how many Gypsies, e.g. in Serbia, declare themselves as Gypsies? They mostly declare themselves as Serbs, Muslims, Bosniaks, Romanians, Egyptians, Macedonians, Bulgarians, Hungarians.
Or even among many Jews all over the world (although judaism tells them not to deny that they are Jews). I believe that Duja'll confirm you this.
It is often the case that some very small minorities declare themselves nationally as majority people - the reasons are various: safety (in certain times certain minorities aren't very popular, to be mild), better job opportunities, assimilation (although that doesn't always mean that they've forgot what they are - they tell one story to outer world, the other story is what they keep among themselves).
How many "Croats" and "Serbs" emerged after Hungarian rule in Vojvodina was replaced by Kingdom of SHS?
Now, let's get to Molise Croat case. "Misini"s (neofascist party, MSI) were on the rise in 1990's, they even got in the government. All those "esul"-stories, dramatizations, anti-Slav attitude, irredentist claims and other stuff came up on the surface. The fall of eastern block encouraged the irredentists. Do you really think that it was a smart idea to declare yourself as Croat at that time? It's just a bloody statistic, play dumb and live your life (napravi se lud i živiš život u miru, zar ćeš izgubit glavu zbog statistike i nečijeg znan. rada?). Kubura 19:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean and I think the same situation is present in the Slavic speaking areas of Greece, where people have tended to call themselves Greeks or simply locals to avoid trouble or social stigmatising (being a minority is usually neither prestigous nor profitable, even if there are no fascist parties). The problem is that the boundary between declaring or renouncing a national/ethnic/religious identity and actually acquiring (ceasing to have) that identity is very indistinct. Eventually, the one becomes the other. If you speak a Slavic language, but you want to call yourself Greek/Italian or something third, then you are a (Slavic-speaking) Greek/Italian or something third, and nobody has the right to force you to identify as something else. In the same way, Scanians were Danes, but are now Swedes (due to forceful assimilation), and the Bretons generally identify as French, though their language and origin is quite different. Identities, quite real ones, often arise and change in this way or in other "strange" ways (Americans /for political & economical reasons/ Australians /mostly geographical, I guess/ Swiss, etc.) We can't call those people this or that and presume that we know more about their supposed "true" identity than they do (or wish to say). --85.187.44.131 20:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Mape

Zamolio bih te da ubuduće ne menjaš moje mape. Ja bih tu mapu promenio sam i bilo koju drugu koju sam uradio. Ne vidim razlog za ovakvu nestrpljivost pa da se mapa prepravi u roku od 24 časa. PANONIAN (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Eh, pa ovako kako si ti obojio sam mogao i ja za 10 minuta. Međutim, ako uporediš tvoju verziju mape sa prethodnom primetićeš razliku kod prelaza iz jednog obojenog polja u drugo. Treba malo više rada i vremena da se taj efekat postigne. PANONIAN (talk) 10:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ma dobro sad, mada sam se baš trudio da sredim anti-aliasing na toj mapi (jer je na originalnoj verziji bio jako loš). PANONIAN (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Andrija Mohorovičić

Hey, are you familiar with IPA? If yes, could you make code for Andrija Mohorovičić? --Dijxtra 08:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert

Pa čekaj, da popričamo malo o ovom tvom revertu: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Serbia&diff=59793373&oldid=59792360 1. Prvo, što se tiče šablona "History of Serbia", ako ga staviš tamo gore, onda šablon "country table" i šablon "History of Serbia" smetaju jedan drugom i to jako ružno izgleda. 2. Ime Yugoslavija postoji od 1929 i jednostavno nije tačno da napišemo da je formirana 1918. PANONIAN (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: your message on Talk:International Phonetic Alphabet

I moved your request for a linguistic expert to Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Language. Hope this helps.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Mačva

Istorijski gledano sva ta mesta su deo Mačve. Istorijska Mačvanska banovina je obuhvatala sva ta mesta kao i veći deo današnjeg kolubarskog okruga. Prema tome, nema razloga da ne smatramo da ova mesta pripadaju Mačvi. PANONIAN (talk) 10:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

E, ali primetićeš malu razliku između Mačve i Baranje. Baranja je nekada bila u Vojvodini ali sada nije, dok su ova mesta pripadala istorijskoj Mačvanskoj banovini, a i danas su deo Mačvanskog okruga. Mislim da sve što se nalazi u Mačvanskom okrugu možemo smatrati delom Mačve. Treba pogledati doduše kako su to definisali na http://www.macva.com/ ali sajt trenutno nije dostupan, pa treba pogledati malo kasnije. PANONIAN (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Inače našao sam na netu 2 mape Mačve: http://galeb.etf.bg.ac.yu/~pajcilo/pomocni/macva2.jpg http://www.bogatic.co.yu/slike/mapa1.jpg U pravu si dakle što se tih granica tiče. Pazi ovako: stvarno ne znam šta je bolje da uradimo. Možemo sva ta mesta ostaviti u kategoriji Mačva, jer kao što sam rekao bila su nekada deo Mačve a i sada su deo Mačvanskog okruga, a možemo se ograničiti i na usku geografsku definiciju Mačve. Jedino mislim da ne bi trebalo promeniti ime kategorije u "Mačva District", jer mi je osnovna ideja bila da napravim kategoriju regiona a ne okruga (što ne znači da ne mogu da postoje obe). Ako baš hoćeš, izbaci iz kategorije Mačva ona mesta za koja smatraš da ne spadaju tu (mada mislim da baš i ne moraš to da uradiš, ali odluči sam, svejedno mi je). PANONIAN (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Evo, napravio sam novu kategoriju "Mačva District" i sva ta mesta sam prebacio tamo, dok je "Mačva District" sada podkategorija kategorije "Mačva". Može se reći da sada ta mesta i jesu i nisu u kategoriji "Mačva". :) PANONIAN (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ej,

Baci pogled na ovo i komentiraj, molim te. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Kategorije

Što se tiče ovog tvog edita: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kupinovo&diff=60329831&oldid=57376364 sam si rekao da treba da postoje neki kriterijumi, zar ne? Dakle, ili ćemo sva mesta Vojvodine izbaciti iz kategorije Srbija ili ne bi trebalo da izbacimo ni jedno. A najgore je da neka budu u kategoriji Srbija, a neka ne. Meni je lično svejedno šta ćemo uraditi, ali ako već menjaš to onda promeni svugde, a ne samo na dva članka. :) PANONIAN (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

U redu, ali imam predlog u vezi toga, mislim da bi mesta koja su sedišta opština trebalo ostaviti u kategoriji Srbija, a izbaciti samo manja mesta. Slažeš li se sa tim? PANONIAN (talk) 11:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Pa ne znam otkud ti ideja da članak o nekom selu ne može biti istovremeno u kategorijama "Serbia", "Vojvodina" i "Syrmia". Ako se selo nalazi na svim tim teritorijama, zašto ne bi moglo biti i u svim kategorijama? Članci se izbacuju iz glavne kategorije jedino ako je ona pretrpana, pa da bi je malo olakšali. Inače slažem se da je kategorija "Cities, towns and villages in Serbia" pretrpana, ali kao što rekoh mislim da bismo iz nje trebali izbaciti samo ona vojvođanska mesta koja nisu opštinska središta (time bi u kategoriji Srbija ostalo 46 članaka o vojvođanskim mestima, što nije preteran broj). Poenta je da bi bilo glupo da iz kategorije Srbija izbacimo velike gradove kao što su Novi Sad, Subotica, Zrenjanin, itd. Što se tiče toga kako su to drugi uradili, ne postoji neki određen model. Pogledaj na primer Mađare: http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Cities%2C_towns_and_villages_in_Hungary Oni su sva mesta ubacili u glavnu kategoriju, ali pored glavne su ih ubacili još u kategoriju županije gde se to mesto nalazi. Na primer mesto Békés se nalazi u glavnoj kategoriji "Cities, towns and villages in Hungary" ali i u njenoj podkategoriji "Cities, towns and villages in Békés county". Problem je što ti suviše bukvalno shvataš ovaj sistem podkategorija. Podkategorije vezane za geografska područja nisu isto što i podkategorije vezane za određene oblasti, kao što su sport, kultura, ekonomija, itd. Inače, nema svrhe gledati kako je urađeno za "kulturne" zemlje, jer u njihovim člancima čovek ne može da nađe jednostavan podatak o tome koliko u Baskiji ima Baskijaca, da ne pominjemo šta drugo. PANONIAN (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Pa slažem se sa tobom recimo za kategoriju "Rivers of Serbia", ali što se tiče kategorija vezanih za lokaciju, jedno selo u opštini Novi Sad po meni treba da bude u svim ovim kategorijama: "Mesta u Srbiji", "Mesta u Vojvodini", "Bačka" (ili "Srem") i "Novi Sad". PANONIAN (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

To i ja tvrdim - no xelim da ostane samo na Stjepanu I i Stepanu II srpska i hrvatska, jer je tada Bosna bila srpski, odnosno hrvatski vazal. Emir Arven se tome protivi - i ne prihvata nista drugo no Historiju Bosnjaka (istinu i nista drugo, kako on kaze). --HolyRomanEmperor 13:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

A i "Srpska Istorija" bi mogla da stoji i na kraljevima Kotromanicima (uz odgovarajucu "Hrvatsku istoriju"), odnoseci se na odgovarajuce vremenske periode i njihove titule i oblasti nad kojima su vladali. Dakle nista etnicki... --HolyRomanEmperor 14:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Tacke i zarezi

Ja ne mijenjam tacke u zareze zbog tacaka i zareza, vec zbog netacnih procenata u clancima o crnogorskim gradovima. Zarez mi je refleks, ne radim to namjerno. Ko god stavlja podatke o nacionalnoj pripadnosti u opstinama - nema tacne rezultate popisa. Provjeri na www.monstat.cg.yu Nije bitno... 14:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Vjerujes li da ja to nisam ni primijetio...gledam samo da sredim ove strane o CG-opstinama, da izgledaju kolko-tolko uniformno, pa mi se provuce da stavim zarez dje je bila tacka...

Re:

I know, I have to change it. Only thing is that I can't include Signatures. Damn Misplaced Pages, why cna't we use pics in our sigs anyway? Crna Gora 06:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Adminship

Duja - you know me - if you think to vote Oppose or Neutral - by all means, in God's name do! :) --HolyRomanEmperor 11:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I would if I knew which :-). Lemme rethink about it... Duja 11:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. I am HRE's cousin. I have a sad news to announce (as per his brother's wish) - my dear brother-by-aunt is no more in the world of the living... It pains me enough to write this - so I'm just going to point you to HRE's talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:HolyRomanEmperor#As_per_Your_.28Our.29_brother.27s_request. --Sad News 20:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)