Talk:Novi Sad

Romanian

Novi Sad / Újvidék has never been part of any Romanian state or territory, and this city has never had a Romanian population, apart from some migrants from the country. This city does not have any Romanian historical name, as it has never had a Romanian past.

Romanian is, as far as I know, not an official language of Novi Sad city administration. That roughly means, that if you submit a document in Romanian to the city clerks, they're not obliged to answer it. I can check that in the city statute, but I'm pretty sure that's the case (and I'll gladly revert myself if it isn't); every other municipality of Vojvodina also takes only a subset of the 6 languages as official for their local purposes. Please check Official status of Romanian language in Vojvodina#Local use -- it's referenced there, and Novi Sad is not one of municipalities.

It is true that Romanian is an official language of provincial administration, but I argue it has no relevance to Novi Sad; there are virtually no Romanians there, so it's not particularly relevant how they call it. By that logic, we should include Albanian name as well, because Albanian is an official language in Serbia, or, we should add all 6 names to the lead of every Vojvodina municipality, which is at least impractical, and cluttering.

While Wikipedia is not bound by official documents, the choice of official names in Vojvodina city articles on the basis of officialdom in the municipality is taken as the practical measure: if, say, Hungarian is official on local level in municipality X, that means that there is a fair amount of Hungarians, and that Hungarian city name is relevant for the lead.

So, please note that I reverted only as the matter of principle: if non-official names are not in the lead of other articles, they shouldn't be in this one either. There was a lot of nationalist contention on Wikipedia just concerning the alternative city names in neighboring languages, so I'm reluctant to make a concession here; it opens a Pandora's box, in my opinion. No such user (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Fair and with arguments. I understand. iadrian (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I argue Wikipedia is not bound to official documents. One policy says any information should come from a printed material. Books and official documents come first in that class of sources.Bogdan188.25.104.231 (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"there are virtually no Romanians there".well apparently in Novi Sad live 1000 romanians that "virtually' don`t exist.And some of them recently had a meeting that didn`t happen. http://www.rgnpress.ro/categorii/reportaj/255-comunitatea-romanilor-din-serbia-a-serbat-unirirea-principatelor-romane-la-satul-nou.html There is an important number of romanians that live in the serbian part of Banat . Therefore the article should also mention that the romanian name for this city is Satul Nou (New Village).this would also explain the etymology.

--Mitridatu (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sarcasm is helpful. According to the 2002 census, there are 860 Romanians living in Novi Sad, 0.29% of the total population. Appropriateness of adjective wikt:virtual is left for the reader.

As for the term "Satul Nou", this is the first time I hear about it, and the search for "Satul Nou" "Novi Sad" yields <100 GHits. Since it is not mentioned even in ro:Novi Sad, I must assume that it is an error of some kind. Or maybe wishful thinking. No such user (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

...and, the news article above refers to Banatsko Novo Selo (Satul Nou), village near Pančevo. No such user (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ko stalno stavlja broj stanovnika od pre osam godina?

AKO NEZNAS,IDI NA: +informatika novi sad+,PA POGLEDAJ TRENUTNO STANJE STVARI!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.206.12 (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I just pointed out that there are precise information(http://www.nsinfo.co.rs/).It is the official city statistics.It regulates every month and a half.We apologize for the arrogance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.183.121 (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The site you provided is out-of-date and updates regularly, thus is not a proper source. Please use printed materials, prefferably found on google.books, scribd.com Bogdan188.25.104.231 (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"Out of date" and "updates regularly" are contradictory statements. Which is it?

And you are wrong about the preferred type of sources. The thing that matters most is that they are reliable; also, being up-to-date is definitely a bonus. It does not matter if they are printed or online, but having it online is definitely a convenience for fact-checking. No such user (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Population number references

There are too many sources most of which are inaccurate, false and highly misleading, why can't we use only official source i.e. Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia http://webrzs.stat.gov.rs/axd/en/ according to this source City has only 191 000 inhabitants, adding metro or wishy washy numbers make this article highly inaccurate and full of nationalist propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mic of orion (talk • contribs) 14:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Because it is almost 10 years old data, maybe? The source we permanently use for Novi Sad population is its Public Enterprise for Informatics, which manages all of city's statistics. [2], and it is updated every 6 months or so. So, please get acknowledged with sources which are "inaccurate, false and highly misleading". And sign your posts on talk pages. No such user (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Novi Sad - picture

Someone please change the main picture of Novi Sad it is really dark and not so nice, please put some better picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.30.132.188 (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Plantation or garden?

Sorry for being stubborn but can Novi Sad in Serbian mean New Garden (as Novy Sad means exactly that in Russian)? SkyBon (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it can. If you ask me, it's more a "plantation". Jdjerich (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

main picture

Please change the main picture it is ugly, put several pictures in row like every city has please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.180.18.56 (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Outesticide

Ok, Oesticide, your edit has basically two things that should be elaborated:

1. Name "Baksafalva" - original name of this settlement was simply "Baksa" (or Slavic "Bakša"). Hungarian word "falva" (the village) is added later, so if we speak about origin of the name, this later addition is irrelevant. Bakša is a typical Slavic name (just see simple google search results for name its self of for surname Bakšić that derived from it) There is simply no any evidence that this name is of Hungarian origin. PANONIAN 22:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

2. Why you deleting info that some of these villages were initially inhabited by Slavs? It is well known that Hungarians settled in this region centuries after Slavs. See these maps: [3], [4]. Seems that you do not know when (old) Hungarians came to Pannonia, who lived here before them and from whom (modern) Hungarians are descending. If Slavs did not lived here then modern Hungarians would look like Asians, not like Europeans. There is simply no scientist of today who can say that modern Hungarians are not descending from Slavs. I really do not understand how somebody can hate so much his own origin. PANONIAN 22:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• • My sources write otherwise, but this modification is acceptable. Outesticide (talk) 07:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Serb vs Serbian

Ok, Buttons, lets discuss this: term "Serbian Athens" is not a correct translation of original Serb name "Srpska Atina". "Srpska" is correctly translated as "Serb" and Serbian language never used name "Srbijanska Atina", which would be equivalent to English "Serbian Athens". Main problem here is different meaning of these names. While "Serb Athens" means "the Athens of the Serbs", term "Serbian Athens" would rather mean "the Athens of Serbia". Since this name was introduced in the 19th century when this city was part of the Austrian Empire and not part of Serbia, correct historical meaning of this name is "Athens of the Serbs", not "Athens of Serbia". Same issue are first settlers. In 1694 there was no country with name Serbia and therefore term "Serbians" (with meaning "people of Serbia") cannot be used if we describe this time period. These settlers were Serbs, not "Serbians". Historically, name "Serbia" derived from name "Serbs", not otherwise. People in the Balkans always rather identified themselves as members of certain ethnic groups instead as citizens of the states. Therefore, while term "Serbians" could be used for citizens of Serbia (at least in these time periods when country with that name existed), it cannot be used for ethnic Serbs who were not citizens of Serbia in some parts of the history. PANONIAN 10:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You're translating Serbian into English a bit too literally. In English, the adjective wikt:Serbian can mean either "of Serbia" and "of Serbs" (the adjective "Serb" can only mean the latter). It is true that on Wikipedia we generally use "Serb" rather than "Serbian" when the distinction matters (such as when discussing Yugoslav Wars). However, I don't think that a distinction in "Serbian Athens" is particularly necessary here, and "Serb Athens" just does not sound right and idiomatic. Google produces 357 results for "Serb Athens""Serb+Athens"&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8, and 12,000 results for "Serbian Athens" "Serbian+Athens"&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8, wiki mis-parses these links, so type for yourself so we should really go for the latter. No such user (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "Serbian" can mean either "of Serbia" either "of Serbs", but nevertheless "Serb" would be still more correct translation. Anyway, I would not strongly object that term "Serbian" is used instead "Serb", but usage of "Serbians" instead "Serbs" is completely wrong and inaccurate. PANONIAN 13:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about you guys up north Panonian, but we centrals frankly frown upon the use of Srbijanci, but that's neither here or there right now. I have to agree with No Such User, Serb Athens just sounds awkward and considering Novi Sad is a city in Serbia I think it’s perfectly suitable to use Serbian Athens in this day and age. Anyway, I'm not too picky about it. Regards, Buttons (talk) 07:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

One thing you forgot here: we do not speak here about current events, but about historical ones, so the facts that term "Srbijanci" is used today or that Novi Sad is today in Serbia are irrelevant for historical context of these events. If we speak about 17th century, we cannot use word "Srbijanci" simply because that word was not used in that time. As for "Srpska Atina", that name too is rather historical and refer to cultural and political influence of this city in the early 19th century and it is clear that in this time it was "the Athens of the Serbs" instead "the Athens of Serbia" because of the simple fact that it was not part of Serbia in that time. It is clear that present-day Novi Sad is not such cultural and political center either of the Serbs or of Serbia because present-day Belgrade is an undisputed cultural and political center of both, Serbs and Serbia. So, the "Srpska Atina" is clearly an historical nickname of Novi Sad and should be used in respect to historical context. In Serbian language, only term "srpska" is used for this and that term can have only one meaning in Serbian: "the Athens of the Serbs". If it does not have meaning "the Athens of Serbia" in Serbian language then I do not see why it should have such meaning in English. Novi Sad was cultural and political center of all Serbs in the 19th century and it is exact meaning of this name - it was never a cultural and political center of Serbia and when Novi Sad joined Serbia in 1918, it was Belgrade that already acquired the role of cultural and political center of Serbs and Serbia. PANONIAN 09:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

We hear you, and your analysis is basically correct. Where we disagree is that it has any consequences on translation. There's almost 100 years since the city is part of Serbia, so today the precision does not particularly matter. While the nickname is a bit old-fashioned, it is still occasionally used as a term of endearment and pride. I'm just proposing that we go with the idiomatic translation, because, even if it is slightly ambiguous, precision is not relevant. (If we were talking about e.g. War in Bosnia, "Serb forces" vs. "Serbian forces" would pose a problem; here, it simply does not matter.) No such user (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree that the correct translation does not matter. I agree that term is used today as well, but it is again used with meaning "the Athens of the Serbs". Serbs do not live only in Serbia and meaning of the nickname, historical and modern, is that Novi Sad is "the Athens of all Serbs" no matter in which country these Serbs live. I do not see why we should limit this meaning to current borders of Serbia only when meaning always referred to all Serbs in all countries. PANONIAN 19:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

But "Serbian Athens" is not incorrect translation. It can mean either "Athens of Serbs" or "Athens of Serbia". No such user (talk) 07:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Population figures

Re this: I think we agree that JP Informatika is an accurate source. However, the catch is that is seems to be updated daily, directly from their database. I could accept that I made one typo when retyping those data, but three? (I'll revert that, just for sake of consistency with the reference's accessdate and figures in the article). We do need reasonably up-to-date information (i.e. newer than 2002 census), but not on daily level.

Re the church photos: OK, we reached sort of compromise to have both churches. I still disagree that having the Catholic one more prominent is any sort of POV -- simply, it is much better known landmark of the city, and it should appear earlier in the article. There are two additional problems:

• File:Saborna_crkva.JPG is of horrible quality. It's blurry, grainy, lacks contrast. Maybe I have a better one in my own archives, but I'd have to dig it through. Panonian, do you have a better one?
• Do we have to have both images in the same section? The layout is now broken, because the #Historical population section is short, and two images just push the rest down. I can't find a suitable section which could keep them both in an acceptable layout.

No such user (talk) 07:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I do not agree that Informatika is more reliable source than 2002 census results presented by Statistical Office of Serbia. These two institutions are using different methodology and if you check World Gazetteer web site (which is best site about city populations in the World), population of Novi Sad proper was 200,035 in 2010: http://world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x=&men=gcis&lng=en&des=wg&srt=npan&col=abcdefghinoq&msz=1500&geo=-244 I doubt that 2011 census will show population of 262,000 as Informatika suggest. Anyway, this is not very important issue, so you may use whatever source you want of those, just try to quote exact numbers from these sources. As for the churches, which is bigger problem and an POV issue, I have at least 3 criteria by which image of Orthodox Cathedral should be posted before Catholic one: 1. majority of people in the city are Orthodox and therefore it is question of NPOV presentation that church of that religion should be presented first, otherwise some people might be insulted. In the same way, in Bečej where largest part of population are Catholics, image of Catholic church should be presented before image of Orthodox one. 2. second criteria would be importance of the church: Orthodox Cathedral is main Orthodox church in Bačka and seat of the Orthodox Eparchy of Bačka (therefore this church has wide regional importance), while importance of Catholic church is only local (Real Cathedral of the Catholic bishopric in Bačka is in fact in Subotica). 3. Orthodox church (built in 1734) is much older than Catholic one (built in 1893). Due to these 3 important criteria, image of Orthodox church should be posted before Catholic one. Even if your own criteria that "Catholic church is more prominent" is correct then we would still have 3:1 result in favor of Orthodox church. Anyway, is there any reliable source that say that "Catholic church is more prominent" or it is just your opinion? The fact that this church have larger tower does not mean that it is "generally more prominent" (there are also questions of architectural and cultural value, church interior, etc). Finally, if you think that quality of the image that show Orthodox church is bad that cannot be a reason that such image is not used - it is better that we have bad image instead that we do not have any image at all. Anyway, there is no any better image of this church: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Saint_George%27s_Cathedral_%28Novi_Sad%29 If I find time, I might took another picture of that church (this time with digital camera), but until then I see no reason that this image is not used. As for position of images, which browser you using? It looks quite fine in Opera. I will try to solve that problem with changed size and place of images. PANONIAN 18:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Better now? PANONIAN 19:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I can agree that census methodology is probably more reliable, but Informatika has fairly comprehensive database so they're very up-to date. Besides, they do that for the money, so I'm inclined to trust them. I wouldn't even mind using 2002 data if the population were more stable, but it has grown some 20% since, thus we do need a newer source. Anyway, we're going to have official census results by the next winter, so the issue would be moot.

I disagree about World Gazetteer. They are just data aggregator, they don't do research of their own. As far as I know, they base their figures on census results, and then they extrapolate that (or maybe even not).

I still don't find your reasons for church selection compelling, but I won't pursue the matter. Still, we do need a better image.

The layout is not about the browser, but about screen resolution and font size. My browser window is some 1000 px wide (not maximized on 1600*1050 screen), with a fairly small font. That makes the text area smaller in comparison with images, which then "protrude" in the next paragraph if packed too tightly. No such user (talk) 06:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, you are free to move images of churches to any part of the article and to change their size and position in every way you want. I only suggest that they should be together and that image of Orthodox church should be first (because of reasons that I mentioned). As for image quality, I said that I will took another picture of that church when I find time, so have a little patience, OK? PANONIAN 08:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Edits of IP 188.36.203.61

I reverted edits of IP 188.36.203.61 because of the following reasons:

• 1. Hungarian name Újvidék is certainly not an "native name" of this city as IP suggested. Original name of this city was German name Ratzen Stadt (Serb City) and variants of name Novi Sad were introduced later (in same time in various languages). I do not see how Hungarian name could be more "native" than any other of the names.
• 2. Hungarian name is already mentioned with other relevant names in "Name" section and there is no reason for it to be repeated in the first sentence of this article. There are more important things that should be said about this city in the introduction part instead an rarely used alternative name.
• 3. It is not correct that Hungarian troops attacked Jelasic ban's army in 1849. They simply attacked the whole city and destroyed most of civilian buildings in it.
• 4. There is no reason that sentence that speaks about magyarization and changed demographic situation is removed.
• 5. There is also no reason that sentence that says that it is not certain whether Hungarians or Serbs were largest ethnic group in the city in 1910 is removed. Census from 1910 recorded only spoken language and not ethnicity and if we exclude Jews from speakers of Hungarian from that census, we will clearly see that remaining number of speakers of Hungarian would be smaller than number of speakers of Serbian.
• 6. It is not correct that ethnic Germans and Hungarians were not present in Great Assembly from 1918. And I see no source that can confirm statement that they were "oppressed and expelled from Serbia".
• 7. IP 188.36.203.61 removed sourced statement that most of the citizens killed in 1944-1945 in Novi Sad by the communists were Serbs. The IP replaced that with some claims about number of people killed by the communists in whole of Vojvodina. This is not article about whole of Vojvodina, but about city of Novi Sad and we should focus on events in this city. There is separate article that speaks about communist purges in whole of Serbia. PANONIAN 18:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I have the same opinion in the mentioned points.--Nado158 (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Name

About the Name Novi Sad. The name NOVI SAD is the official name. The other names of the city are enumerated in the RUBRIC - NAME.--Nado158 (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, other names are never in the first place in infobox, as you may see in other examples. And, the most important thing is that language is already mentioned in article, in Names section. Also, Magyarcsaba, you must use talk. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I will kindly ask user:Magyarcsaba to discuss the issue and not to engage himself in revert warring with other users. "Name" section of the article mention all names of the city and I see no reason why user:Magyarcsaba included Hungarian name into infobox of this article. Although, local city administration indeed using several more languages besides Serbian, these languages are not fully official, but rather semi-official, i.e. these languages are used only in certain local communities where sizable number of certain minority is living or in certain institutions. Also, the fact that several languages are in semi official use does not mean that names used for this city in these languages are official names of the city (otherwise, user:Magyarcsaba should provide a source that says that these names are official names of the city). PANONIAN 05:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

capital vs administrative center

Well, people, I see there is some ongoing revert warring about this, so would anybody of involved users try to talk here about it to solve the issue? Personally, I think that this dispute is extremely stupid (and it is even more stupid in Serbian political circles than in Wikipedia) and there is no reason for users to be involved in revert warring over it. As I explained on Talk:Vojvodina, term "capital" is not inaccurate, since it can be center of any territory (not only of a country). Of course, term "administrative center" is accurate and OK as well. Perhaps I can propose this compromise to involved users: "administrative center (capital)", where both terms are used? PANONIAN 08:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Statute of Vojvodina do not say that Novi Sad is capital of Vojvodina. It say that seat of organs of Autonomous Province of Vojvodina is in Novi Sad: www.puma.vojvodina.gov.rs/dokumenti/zakoni/Statut_APV.pdf CrnoBelo (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image

File:Novi Sad collage2.jpg

De gustibus non est disputandum, but this collage is one of ugliest I've seen recently. It is composed of images which are already in the article. The images are too small to be nicely visible. It is too wide and visually distracting. The images do not fit.

Please be so kind and leave alone the front image which has been here for years, which nicely sums up the major features of the city -- Danube coast, the cathedral tower, and is aesthetically pleasing.

I really cannot understand this childish trend to insert as many images as possible, making each individual one too small to be useful, just to be colorful.

If I must cite guidelines, WP:MONTAGE says that "Collages and montages are single images that illustrate multiple closely related concepts, where overlapping or similar careful placement of component images is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way. (See File:Phoebian Explorers 2 PIA06118.jpg for an example montage.) If a gallery would serve as well [...], the gallery should be preferred, as galleries are easier to maintain and adjust better to user preferences." Which closely related concepts are on this montage? It's a postcard, and a bad one.No such user (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Population count, again

Where's the reference for the current figure of 231,798? The last published Census data

"2011 Census of Population, Households and Dwellings in The Republic of Serbia: Ethnicity - Data by municipalities and cities" (PDF). Statistical Office of Republic Of Serbia, Belgrade. 2012. ISBN 978-86-6161-023-3. Retrieved 2012-11-30.

give urban population of municipality of Novi Sad at 250,439, and municipality of Petrovaradin at 27,083 (Petrovaradin+Sremska Kamenica). The former contains town of Futog and Veternik, whose status is presumably still "village" (i.e. counted in "ostaa"). However, there is no breakdown by settlement in the census yet.

One possibility is that someone took 250,439 and subtracted some 20,000 from Futog, but the math is questionable, because the figures weren't taken at the same time. Besides, we've always counted Petrovaradin and Kamenica in the urban total, because they present a continuous urban space.

Informatika [5] gives 267,337 just for the core Novi Sad, but that AFAIK includes all persons who reported occupation, which also includes students, temporary workers etc. It's not fair to put those data in, for comparison with other cities. No such user (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Vojvodina pushpin map

@User:Iadrian_yu: Sorry, but I'm going to insist on this. There are several reasons why this map is unnecessary:

1. There is perfectly fine map of Serbia, and Vojvodina within it, where I can see location of Novi Sad. Why do I need the same map repeated, just zoomed in slightly more?
2. I don't want to scroll down two screens to see infobox contents. Even the existing map of Serbia is too large, one like in e.g. Ruma is just fine.
3. No other Serbian city has an additional map. For all interested in more geographic details, there is Meta:WikiMiniAtlas in the top right corner
4. Your revert summary "It is the Capital of Vojvodina, and all provinces on wikipeda has province map too" is not relevant, because Novi Sad is not a province.

In sum, that map was just unnecessary and distracting. No political issues at all. No such user (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I am going to insist on this too because as far as I have seen, if a province(territorial subdivision in a state) exists, it has a pushping map too according to wikipedia standards. I will answer your questions as you asked.

1) There is a perfectly fine map of Spain on Barcelona article, but there is a map of Catalonia too.

There is only a map of Wales on Cardiff, no UK.

On the Mariehamn city, there is a map of Åland Islands too.

On the Birobidzhan article, the "Autonomous oblasts " of Russia, there is a map of the Jewish Autonomous Oblast that is the Capital of and the Russia (I have added the Russian example of autonomous oblast, not republic).

On the Cotabato City article, the autonomous province of Maguindanao is shown too with the Philippines map.

On the Comrat article, the Autonomous territorial unit of Moldova, the map of Gagauzia province is present too.

2) It is not mandatory to scroll down to see more data, you scroll only if you are interested of more data. I really don`t see this as an argument "avoiding to scroll". You come here to read, if you are reading an article, scrolling should not represent a problem.

3) No other Serbian city has an additional map because it is in Serbia, not an autonomous province. The Vojvodina pushpin map did`t existed until recently and as such I don`t see any reason why not to use it, especially if there is no political issues. Also Vojvodina pushpin map is used on other wikipedia projects too.

4) I apologize, I did`t expressed myself correctly, I meant that many places that are located in some sort of autonomous organization (province, oblast, territory, etc..) usually have that place represented on the province map too for a better view of that location.

I find hard to believe that one pushpin map is such a distraction and a bother. If you read the article you must scroll down anyway, with or withouth this pushpin map. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

1)WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and your examples are mostly crap. That one on Barcelona is awful and unnecessary too. As for Mariehamn, it could be justified by the fact that Åland is much smaller than Finland, but have you paid attention to the layout of that article? Partly due to length of the infobox it is just unreadably ugly.

2) From Help:Infobox: Concise. Infobox templates are "at-a-glance", and used for quickly checking facts. Long bodies of text, or very detailed statistics, belong in the article body. Also: It is a good idea to seek the opinions of other editors before embarking on a design of a new infobox [...] Unnecessary duplication leads to clutter and article divergence. Many readers do not want to read the article, just see the most relevant data in the infobox (I often do that myself for population statistics). So yes, I (and other readers) do not want to scroll down to find information which is supposed to be on the top.

3) No other city in Vojvodina has (well, used to have) that pushpin map. The infobox is inconsistent with about any other city's in Serbia. Just because a template exists is not a sufficient reason to use it. It does not provide any useful information. I don't give a damn about political issues in this case: I don't want two near-identical maps lying one below another.

4) It is a distraction and a bother. Just because something does not do harm is not a sufficient reason to keep it. It just occupies space.

Somehow, I have a hunch who is the author of {{Location map Vojvodina}} and who inserted it into some [6] Vojvodina municipalities, replacing {{Infobox Serbia municipality}} with {{Infobox settlement}}. You, Adrian. Have you consulted any other editor or Wikiproject Serbia? WP:BOLD is fine, but maybe they would have told you it was a bad idea. Like I'm telling you now: having two maps, one of Serbia and the other of Vojvodina, of comparable size next to one another is patently bad idea, particularly if used for sake of political correctness. No such user (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

1)You see this as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I see this as editing according to other examples on wikipedia which is in some manner a WP:CONSENSUS since others are doing it(Serbian: "ne izmisljam toplu vodu"). Also I did`t noticed a relation in the examples of the WP rule you called upon prior to this problem. You justified Finland as a "big" country, but I don`t believe that is the case since Moldova is a "small" country.

2) Agree, but as you can notice, it is a pushpin map, NOT text. As for a duplicate, how can Vojvodina be a duplicate of Serbia? It is just a part of Serbia, not a duplicate. I did`t noticed anybody else except you complaining about "scrolling down".

3) As I said before, no other place in Serbia has this pushpin map because it is not located in the autonomous province of Vojvodina. I see this as an upgrade since on the Vojvodina map you can see the location in more detail, without wondering on other pages for more details. I don`t believe it does not provide any useful information. If we are looking at useful, pushpin Vojvodina shows in much better detail where is that location, while on Serbia pushpin location is more obscure. But I don`t believe that removing the Serbia map is a solution as "usability" is in question.

4) It is a distraction here but not on other articles I mentioned? As I said, it is a map and it is not mandatory to look at it or scroll down.

4.1) I have inserted this map on many places for the reasons I have presented in my comments. As for the {{Infobox Serbia municipality}} I don`t see why should Serbian related articles have a special, inferior template that is almost an identical duplicate of the {{Infobox settlement}}, except of the some stripped data. 99% of the articles on wikipedia use the {{Infobox settlement}} and Serbia related articles needs {{Infobox Serbia municipality}} why exactly? What is it`s advantage over the {{Infobox settlement}}?

4.2) I don`t believe that I should consult WP:Serbia on everything while editing Serbia related pages because I am not making anything that is against the principles of wikipedia. WP:Serbia is not the "owner" of Serbia-related pages. It is only a project(as any other) to help coordinate editors while improving articles, nothing else.Adrian (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The Serbian pushpin map is perfectly fine, Adrian. The Vojvodina pushpin map is slightly zoomed and municipalities are shown, sure, but honestly it just takes up room in the infobox - it is not useful. Earlier, I uploaded File:Novi Sad in Serbia and Europe.png. What is wrong with that one? --Zoupan 21:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Your map shows the whole municipality of Novi Sad. Adrian (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

1) You cherry-picked several examples where two maps do exist, and I said they're equally bad. Other countries also have provinces, though. Basel has only Swiss map; Munich, German; Tallahassee, Florida has two-in-one (county and Florida), but that one does not occupy vertical space; most other countries do not have two maps. I didn't say that Finland was OK, just that it was "understandable", and not because Finland is a big country, but because Åland and Finland maps are quite disproportionate. On the contrary, Vojvodina is about 1/4 size of Serbia, and two maps show about the same level of detail.

2) Vojvodina is not duplicate of Serbia, but two maps have similar level of detail and basically repeat the same information. Except for municipality borders, which are present in e.g. File:Municipalities of Serbia Novi Sad.png, from the set used in other municipality articles.

3) No other place had this pushpin map because you didn't put it there. You did not even change that consistently, since e.g. Ruma and Sremska Mitrovica do not have the pushpin map.

4) It is a distraction everywhere. I just haven't noticed it before. The fact that nobody noticed does not equal consensus. Sorry, but "it is a map and it is not mandatory to look at it or scroll down" is a stupid argument: if I put an image of a penis on top of the infobox, you wouldn't have to "look at it or scroll down" either.

4.1) Had you taken a look at the documentation of {{Infobox Serbia municipality}}, you would have noticed that it is a wrapper around {{Infobox settlement}} so it is not "inferior". It only shortens coding and introduces a common set of links and parameters for Serbia, so they are 1) consistent 2) much easier to enter parameters 3) easier to maintain and globally change. Even if, in theory, we agree that an additional map is desired, the correct way to do it was to add an optional parameter to {{Infobox Serbia municipality}}, not replace it altogether.

4.2) This is wiki, and you do not have to consult anybody, myself included. However, when you go ahead and change an infobox in ~30 articles without notice and advance discussion, it ceases being WP:BOLD and becomes wikt:reckless. And then, you should stand up for criticism. No such user (talk) 07:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

1) Please try to assume good faith. I picked examples that are in the similar or the same political organization (autonomous province). Basel is in a canton, Munich I accept as a valid argument here because it is a state of Germany (even higher administrative unit). Florida has 2 maps, only "2-1". From your accusation that I am cherry-picking examples, you have shown only one valid counter-example. Please read my comments, about the Finland I have already answered in my previous comment.

2) Vojvodina map is simply zoomed in, and as such you can notice more details. If we have to choose between this 2 maps, by that we should remove the Serbia map, but that would cause a lot of problems. I have tried to insert this map and to be politically correct.

3) I didn`t managed to insert on every article yet. That is why Sremska Mitrovica is not consistent with others. About Ruma, I have answered in my previous comment.

4) I did`t noticed it was a distraction on the examples I presented. As for stupid arguments, I wodn`t go there because the problem to "scroll down" isn`t very smart one either. What is some important data is a little further in the article so you have to scroll to it? You would`t see it never :-)?

4.1) I saw that, and it is stripped of some functionalities, or "shortens coding" as you said and that makes it inferior to the {{Infobox settlement}}. I still didn`t heard what is it`s main advantage over the standard infobox?

4.2) This is wiki, and when a problem occurs I have to consult with editors (which I am doing now) but not with any WP:Country project. As I said, WP:Serbia don`t "own" all Serbia-related articles. That doesn`t mean that WP:Serbia is not welcome to help but it is not mandatory to consult with it on everything. It would be reckless if I was doing something against wiki principles, as far as I know, there isn`t a rule against this.

Zoupan has expressed his opinion about this matter too, but Wikipedia is not a democracy WP:DEM and without solid arguments(WP rules to back our claims) which at this point either side have it I don`t see a solution in further discussion. Since we can`t manage to compromise, I suggest asking for a third opinion if everyone agrees to settle this problem? Adrian (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

1) I was and still am assuming good faith. That does not mean I may not criticize your reasons and your acts. You fail to realize that your action, however good-faith it was, resulted in a less accessible articles, with redundant information. More is not always better.

2) Which "more" details I see, and why are they important? The point of a map is to see where Novi Sad is in relationship with a bigger entity, Serbia or Vojvodina. Both of it was visible quite fine on the Serbia map, where the borders of Vojvodina were also visible, so an additional map adds exactly nothing.

3) Good, because you shouldn't.

4) So you should notice that it is a distraction now.

4.1) Infoboxes are supposed to introduce consistency across the articles of similar type, e.g. municipalities of one country. It is desireable that all Serbian municipalities present the same information, for sake of mentioned consistency. By replacing the Serbian, more specialized infobox with a more general one, you introduced INconsistency, and opened the door for a wider one. Apart from shorter coding, it provides easier maintenance. For example, if we want to add a statistical region, we could change that only on the template, and update articles later. But anyway: if you have an issue with that template, you could raise it on it talk page, TfD it, whatever, NOT silently replace 10% uses with something else.

4.2) Fine. So, we have a wiki principle called Wikipedia:Bold, Revert, Discuss, so consider yourself (change of that infobox) reverted now.

5) I'm fine with hearing more opinions. However, when it comes to matters of taste, visual outlook and layout, there certainly aren't absolutes. I'm just unable to grasp that you consistently refuse to see complete visual redundancy of that map. No such user (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

If you are fine with the third opinion I will ask for one on this issue. Please don`t use the refuse to see rule because you are not excluded of that too. I could say the same for you, that you refuse to see the point. Maybe I am wrong, maybe you are...I don`t know. If someone demonstrate by argument or even better by a rule that I am wrong I will admit that and accept whatever the 3rd opinion states about this. I think the best course of action is to ask for a third opinion and see what will and uninvolved editor have to say.Adrian (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I have added a 3rd opinion request here [7]. Adrian (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, my name is Howicus, and I'm coming here from WP:3. The map setup I would prefer would be two maps: one showing the location of Novi Sad in Vojvodina, and another small map showing the location of Vojvodina in Serbia. I thought of two ideas:

So maybe this one

Or the second map in the current version along with this or one of its two variants here [1]

But I'm a bit worried that my second idea might lead to disputes over the inclusion/exclusion of Kosovo. What do you guys think? Howicus (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your input. We currently don`t have a map that shows "2 in 1" of Serbia and Vojvodina. The map you presented are maps of Serbia within Europe and Serbia, and the second where is presented Vojvodina within Serbia. I don`t think that Kosovo would present a problem here because this map configuration would be used in Vojvodina only on Serbia-related articles. Since Kosovo is a problematic political case I woudn`t go there. You said that you would like 2 maps, showing the location of Novi Sad in Vojvodina and showing the location of Vojvodina within Serbia. I thought I have achieved this effect with the current map setup on the article(please check the article infobox) because on the first map we see the Serbia map with Vojvodina bordered and further down the location of Novi Sad within Vojvodina. What you said I agree with but the examples you provided are a bit vague to me because on none of them we don`t have the map of Vojvodina.Adrian (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, my thinking was that since one of User:No such user's complaints was that the maps took up too much space, that the second map could be made much smaller than the current map of Serbia because it is less detailed. Howicus (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

20k of text does not explain why should we remove the map. Adrian (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Then, let me repeat myself, since you didn't hear it: The point of a map is to see where Novi Sad is in relationship with a bigger entity, Serbia or Vojvodina. Both of it was visible quite fine on the Serbia map, where the borders of Vojvodina were also visible, so an additional map adds exactly nothing. Just because a template exists is not a sufficient reason to use it. It does not provide any useful information. I don't give a damn about political issues in this case: I don't want two near-identical maps lying one below another. It is a distraction and a bother. Just because something does not do harm is not a sufficient reason to keep it. It just occupies space. No such user (talk) 06:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Name, again

@Nado158: Minority names are supposed to be in the infobox, below the official names, for the same reason they're in other infoboxes across Vojvodina, Serbia, and pretty much everywhere else in the world. According to the city statute, http://www.skupstinans.rs/images/stories/doc/StatutGrada.pdf, §6: "У Граду су у службеној употреби и мађарски, словачки и русински језик и њихова писма, у складу са законом и посебном одлуком Скупштине Града Новог Сада." Indeed, they're all written on the road signs at the city entrance, such as this one: http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/62136875.jpg . I fail to see why you, or anyone else, has a problem with that, and you have already narrowly escaped sanctions for your battleground behavior. If you have a problem with infobox contents in other articles, kindly go to those articles and present your arguments. I can agree that listing them in the lead sentence can lead to WP:LEADCLUTTER, but in the infobox they hardly present a reading obstacle. No such user (talk) 10:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello! That's not right. This is only so, if in each place a significant proportion of the population lives there (25%) or are the majority. I was 1000 times in nordern Serbia and I have seen 100 villages and towns where only the Serbian city name exists, also in the road signs at the city entrance, so dont tell me this. On numerous road signs, in many countries of Western Europe, Germany, France, Holland, there are more minorities and whose number is much, much larger and there are the city names in German language only. Berlin, Cologne, Dusseldorf ect. I have no problem with any language, but I hope to enjoy in the frame of WP the equal rights for all, as well as justice and above all no double moral. In Vukovar I do not see that you are striving so to put Serbian-Cyrillic version in the infobox, and there ar Serbians over 25%. In Croatia, there are also other locations where Serbs and other minorities live, but their share of the total population is not so much, so I added not there the Serbian name. So it should be also in Serbia. In Novi Sad are not even 4% of Hungary, and for the city names in other languages where are the minorities of a city are not significante, we have the section name, so what ist the problem?. If the Hungarians in Novi Sad 25%, I will add the Hungarian citiy name, but they arent. In other locations thats totaly OK, becaus they are the Hungarians the majority, but in Novi Sad no. After your version every location must have 5-6 name in the infobox and the road sig ns, but forget it, I and you not thats not true, so dont tell me this, i visited the whole Balkan 100 times. In the whole World, Novi Sad is official, or do you see for Wien the Serbian city name Bec? So, accept the piecfull situation and consensus like before, wher we was agreed to put the city name of a minority language, if they have 25 % share of the total population. Please dont start this battle again, I am not the problem. Forget not one, WP does not accept double standard.Nado158 (talk) 12:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I've just quoted you the city statute, and you're saying "that's not right" (WP:ICANTHEARYOU), and telling me your personal experiences (WP:V, second sentence), when I show you the photo. The "consensus that was here before" was introduced by one of your IP friends [8] on April 19, and I failed to spot and revert it at the time. Not every location "must have 5-6 names in the infobox", only those cities where a minority language is official by the city statute, and except Novi Sad, none has more than two, as far as I know. As for the Vukovar, I told you that I don't care that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I have this article on my watchlist and I'm sick of having to re-argue same points against nationalists. No such user (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You can not blame me for that, that this is my IP-Friend, so I tell you be careful and more respectful, as I try to respect you, even sometimes I do not understand your edits, but totaly not. Second my personal expieriences are fact and you know this, also you told me first that the road signs at the city entrance are in more languages, and this is not true. In Novi Sad the Hunagrians have with 4% not an significante size. Also, why you dont mentioned the other "IP-nationalistic-friends" who try to hungarizied so much cities in Slovacia, Romania, Croatia??? Did I tell to you, this are your friends? So in Subotica its OK, but i dont see any reason that Novi Sad should be an expect with 4 % Hungariens. With this you will start an revolt in the articles about Croatian cities with Serbian population till 5%. Same rigth for all. Why you want to destroy the peacfull consense and situation again with this? Why? I'm sick of nationalists and traitors. This is WP, not Nadopedia or No such Userpedia, and when in Vukovar not can stay the Serbian name, although the Serbs are there over 25%, so, after WP-rules and consense they can not stay in Novi Sad also. And also without this, they can stay there in the infobox from Novi Sad, because the Hungarians are there only 4%. Novi Sad can not be an expect. I told you we have a section Name for this, but you dont want to accept, so who make the problems here??? Thats not OK from your side, realy not.--Nado158 (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You can see here...[9]...its used Serbian-Cyrillic, not any other langauge, expect english because of the tourists. Or here...[10], and this from 2013, not your old version...[11], and here for another cities in Novi Sad and in near directon to NS...[12], [13], [14], everything in Novi Sad is to 99,9% in Serbian, mostly Serbian-Cyrillic...[15], [16], [17], [18]...ect.--Nado158 (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course that the road directions are only in Latin and Cyrillic, as everywhere in Serbia. Now you're arguing strawman. City entrance tables are, however, written in languages official in the municipality.

The Law only mandates that a minority language must be official when its speakers exceed 15% in the municipality. Individual municipalities can proclaim them with less, and many did so, including Novi Sad. Reference: http://www.skupstinans.rs/latinica/vesti/1851-sednica-saveta-za-medjunacionalne-odnose

I invite you to he current Disskusion on Vukovar, why do not you fight there for the inset of the Cyrillic named in the infoboox, abe rich you are doing warrior on gerechtigkeist? In Novi Sad are well below 15% in Hungary, just 4%.

Your IP friends always join you in edit warring on removal of minority-language names, such as in Temerin [19], Srbobran [20], [21], Novi Kneževac [22], Novi Sad, you name it...

Not sure why I'm even debating this with you... No such user (talk) 06:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I invite you to the current Disskusion on Vukovar, why do not you fight there for the inset of the Cyrillic named in the infoboox, but here you are doing warrior on minority justice???hmm??? In Novi Sad are well below 15% of Hungarians, just 4%. Your IP friedns tryed to hungarized cities in Serbia, Slovacia and Romania and in Croatia you do not act for the same rigths for Serbs and other minorities, dont sell us your alleged good adding faith here. I try to finde a solution and the justices for all, but you want our POV.--Nado158 (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in having the Hungarian name in the lede of the article, especially since it is an official language in the city by local regulations. It sounds like it may be to some degree a center for Hungarian culture in the region, even if few speakers actually live in the city itself. On the other hand, sticking to the 15% standard set by national law isn't a bad idea either. I guess I am moderately on the side of including it, but I can't get excited either way. Brianyoumans (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the law mandates official use of the minority language with 15%, but municipalities may introduce them with less, and Novi Sad and few others did so. Additionally, there's a grandfather clause which states that one cannot reduce minority language rights once introduced. I'm not advocating that Wikipedia must follow "official" status of anything at all costs, but the criterion here is simple and intuitive, and [unsuccessfully] supposed to prevent nationalist edit-warring: if it's an official name according to the Law, put it in the infobox. I'm using the "road sign" criterion more as a metaphor than as a hard rule: first, alternate names are placed at road signs exactly according to the municipal statute, and second, if it's good for a road sign on town entrance, it's good for our infobox as well. No such user (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Like in Vukovar???? Like in Vukovarrr???? Or like in Vukovarrr? Stop your double standard and NPOV pushing. Go to Vukovar and show there your justice emotions. Novi Sad will not be an except or NPOV Side. This is not Croatian Wikipedia or Hunagrian Wikipedia. Again, 4 % Hungarians live in Novi Sad, not 20 or 25 %. I dont see in Budapest Serbian Name or in Vienna. This is ridiculous. Show me your good intentions and credibility and participate in the discussion you in Vukovar. Please wait the total ende of the disskuson. Yuu well nothing lose if you wait a little bit.--Nado158 (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Disrupting one part of Wikipedia because you've lost a battle in another is called WP:POINT. As you can see, it can lead to a block or a ban, which I expect coming into your direction soon .
I've never edited article about Vukovar, and I don't want to enter battles I don't care about just to accommodate you. Right now, Cyrillic is [23] present in the lead sentence of Vukovar, and I see some reasonable debate on the talk page, mostly disrupted by your circular reasoning and wikilawyering by IvanOS similar to yours, just on the opposite side. You've been explained countless times that those names are official according to the city statute, no matter if there's 4% or 0% Hungarians. Just like e.g. in Ferizaj (Uroševac) there are about 0% Serbs, yet Serbian name is displayed in the lead and the infobox. No such user (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You can compare the situation in Kosovo and NS or Vukovar.--Nado158 (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)