Talk:Kosovo

Template:FAOL

Infoboxes

Light is finally on our path :)

Okay, why are there still 3 infoboxes on this page? The disambig note states "This article is about the geographical region of Kosovo. For individual articles about the entities disputing its sovereignty, see Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–). For other uses, see Kosovo (disambiguation)", since two of these boxes refer to entities claiming control of the region don't they belong on the dedicated articles and not here? --Khajidha (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed infoboxes. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

OOoh, sorry, my mistake, i forgot to remove them! ;( But now, with them, split is finally over. Now some real encyclopedic articles can be created, without politics and national tensions. :) YEEEE!! :) :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 18:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I fixed few more things, and i think that now article is really separated. Sure, there are still some highly POV sentences and section constructions, but now this is area where we CAN work to make it better. It anyone have some advice or question, just write here. Also, i must notice that for a quite a long time we didnt have ANY vandalism on this or any other related page (Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija). Also, i would love to dare to dream about day what all ARBMAC restrictions will be removed from this article, as unneeded. In a day when we can agree about anything, like we did here! Ooo, what a dream! Therefor, one image to wish better start to all and much better understanding then it once was! --WhiteWriter ^speaks 20:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

When was it agreed to remove the other two infoboxes? IJA (talk) 09:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't even stated anywhere that agreement was reached. I thought it was only natural to remove them, since according to the discussion it was somehow presumed that the article should solely deal with the topic of Kosovo as a region. --Biblbroks (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

But why did you reverted those infoboxes? This article is about region, we have articles about political entities. Based on what arguments did you reverted those? --WhiteWriter ^speaks 16:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

WhiteWriter, you haven't read the edit summaries of the recent edits in the article namespace made by IJA, have you? The way I see it, IJA is concerned with the lack of consensus for removing the infoboxes. I presume that IJA wasn't following all the previous discussions on this article and the discussion on the Republic of Kosovo article, because assuming all those discussion were read, then it might be quite straightforward from those discussions to presume that other two infoboxes are unnecessary if not even undesired. IMO, this unnecessariness if not even "undesiredness" is quite clearly presented by Khajidha's comment above. But formally IJA does have a point - no consensus was reached for having one infobox. On the other hand, someone might argue that no consensus was reached for not having more than three infoboxes either, and formally this someone might have a point too, since:

• it isn't obvious by IJA's editsummary what the previous consensus is
• if there are three infoboxes, why not four, five or more
• that someone might ask all the others what actually a consensus is...

What I am trying to say is, if somebody for example inserted one more infobox, the infobox from the APKIM article, that wouldn't totally counteract IJA's edit but it would somehow counterbalance it. Also it might not be quite contrary to the previous consensus, since I believe that previous consensus wasn't really a consensus, if I may express my opinion - it was somehow contested exactly by the creation of Republic of Kosovo article and, if I remember correctly, it was regarded as contrary to some consensus before this one that IJA mentions. That is for the devilish in the devilish four phrase, WhiteWriter. :-) Regards, --79.175.70.160 (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC) previous comment made by Biblbroks (talk)

As you all know infoboxes and this article are a very very sensitive issue. I am fully aware that this article is about the region of Kosovo, not a political article as such. However there is a consensus to have three infoboxes on this article and that must be respected until a new consensus comes into being. If a consensus is reached to have just one infobox then I will respect that however I am currently respecting the consensus which states we should three infoboxes. This is what has been agreed for the article. The consensus can be found in the archives. The agreement to created a separate "Republic of Kosovo" article and the agreement to make this article about the region of Kosovo does NOT override the consensus to have three infoboxes. Before making controversial edits to this article we must reach a consensus and I think that is fair play. Also I think the APKiM infobox should be merged with the UNMIK infox for two reasons, Serbia considers the APKiM to be under UN administration also we didn't have a consensus to have 4 infoboxes. Also the RoK infobox could be shorted for this article only (don't want to affect the "Republic of Kosovo" article) as there is no point in repeating population and geography statistics ect. IJA (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

But hasn't the consensus, you mention, changed in the meanwhile? As could be understood from some posts above. Anyway, how exactly do you propose to shorten the "RoK" infobox - if you still insist on having three infoboxes. I emphasize: if you insist. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I mean change it as in remove the population, the size ect, all of which is stated in the top infobox. No point repeating it twice. Make sense? Also how do you feel about merging the UNMIK and APKiM infoboxes? Serbia states that UNMIK administrates APKiM, so UNMIK is the governor of the APKiM according to Serbia. IJA (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If three infoboxes are really needed, I am not totally against it. But are you sure there was a consensus on the sorting of the infoboxes - in which order should they be given? Wouldn't their sequence pose another issue - issue of hierarchy of infoboxes? --Biblbroks (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Do we really need a separate consensus for removing the extra infoboxes? I thought that the removal of infoboxes for APKIM and ROK was the logical result of making/expanding the articles for those entities. Since those articles use the dedicated infoboxes, they don't need to be here. --Khajidha (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need any more infoboxes than the first one (with the physical map). In its governing authority section there are links to articles containing the other three infoboxes - RoK, APKiM, UNMIK. If, by some strange reason we remain with multiple infoboxes - I oppose deleting population data from the RoK infobox or merging/deleting the others, etc. - these infoboxes are also used in other articles, where there is not "physical map" infobox. Alinor (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And if we remain with multiple infoboxes, Alinor, what do you think about the sorting criteria - which one first, which one second, ...? What about - if we instead try and conflate all the infoboxes into one big infobox separated by ... something ... and make the multiple infoboxes into sections of this sole comprehensive infobox. All the different maps, all the different government info, and all the other counteracting/counterweighting info would go into their respective sections of this big infobox. I understand it might sound cumbersome (sound? :-) ) and maybe even impossible to realize, but it could serve the purpose - having three separate infoboxes/sections in one integral infobox. Although the sorting criteria of the newly created sections might still be an issue. Even then. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This is why we should go back to how we had it before IJA reverted. That infobox contained only information that was relevant to Kosovo the region and links to the various political entities. The President of the ROK is not a relevant datum for the region of Kosovo, but is for the ROK. --Khajidha (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Technically it wasn't a revert - it was more of a reinstatement. Just felt the wording ought to be as precise as possible in order not to make IJA angry/sad/isolated? ;-) --Biblbroks (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"I thought that the removal of infoboxes for APKIM and ROK was the logical result of making/expanding the articles for those entities. Since those articles use the dedicated infoboxes, they don't need to be here" No that is just your interpretation. Until we have a consensus we shouldn't change the status quo. To all, if you want to change the infobox system start a new discussion and try and build a new consensus. I will continue to go by the last consensus until a new one has been reached. IJA (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently Biblbroks, WhiteWriter and Alinor had the same interpretation. --Khajidha (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

And??? It doesn't mean it was agreed to just have one infobox. Anyway I've merged the UNMIK and APKiM infobox as well as removing duplicate information about population and geographical size ect which is already covered in the top infobox. IJA (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Given that we four and you are the only ones engaged in this conversation, the fact that four of us have the same interpretation could be seen as a possible new consensus. Not saying it is, but it is not clear that your old consensus is still in effect. --Khajidha (talk) 11:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Since you've already tried to implement some changes according to this old consensus you mention and according to some new consensus possibly being formed, I imagine you have an idea for how to address a problem of sequence of the sections/infoboxes? Don't you think that this poses another issue of hierarchy of infoboxes/sections? I sincerely hope that you have some idea about this issue being formed. All the best, --Biblbroks (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Start a new discussion with a proposal for the infoboxes if you believe they should be changed, until then the old consensus is still in place. IJA (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Haven't you already changed them without consensus? What is now the old consensus - I mean you state that it is still in place. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The consensus was to have three infoboxes, a general one about the region of Kosovo, a RoK infobox and a APKiM/ UNMIK infobox. IJA (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Interwikis

Without explanation, User:Biblbroks removed Interwiki links to bs:Kosovo, de:Kosovo, hr:Kosovo and la:Ager Merulensis from this article. I reverted this. Biblbroks then reverted again (in violation of this article's WP:1RR restriction) giving the explanation "the way I see it, those deal with Republic of Kosovo and not Kosovo (my edits at [3] try to serve this cause)". I understand where he's coming from, but I disagree with his actions. These foreign-language Wikipedias do not (as far as I am aware) have articles that deal with Kosovo the region, as opposed to the disputed state Republic of Kosovo. However, whilst not quite the same thing, these pages are "nearly equivalent" - a requirement of interlanguage links as per H:IL. If anything this is an issue that should be raised at de:Diskussion:Kosovo, etc., not here, in order to remove any POV in those articles. Bazonka (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not here to talk about disputed inter-wiki links (if there are any). I just want to make sure that the bot was getting those links from other Wikipedias and added those. Also it'll keep doing this, if there are those links, if you don't want to link them here, then with consensus you may choose to use {{nobots}} anywhere in this article. That'll solve the problem. Personally I think the bot made the right changes. Regards, — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 14:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Although I understand that my actions in removing interwiki/interlanguage links may be regarded as not quite procedurally correct, I also think that it is reasonable to conclude that the explanation for removal wasn't necessary in the first place since I added those interlanguage links at the Republic of Kosovo article. As far as this article's WP:1RR restriction is concerned, my opinion (on the premise that I counted my reverts correctly) is that I haven't quite violated the rule - if you consider the facts that the first revert I made was to revert a bot, and the bot is not a person i.e. a real editor. Of course, this is prone to interpretation (as mine is), therefore I might be wrong. Anyway, I am trying to address the perceived implication of me irregularly making changes to the article. Also, I would like to ask you, Bazonka, with what do you think those foreign-language wikipedias' articles in question deal with. I am not certain what do you mean by "These foreign-language Wikipedias do not (as far as I am aware) have articles that deal with Kosovo the region, as opposed to the disputed state Republic of Kosovo." Regardless of the neutrality issue (which I haven't raised nor do I have firm opinion of), I think it is obvious although I think I must clear about this: I am under the impression that those articles deal with Republic of Kosovo. Now, while I agree that those pages/articles might be perceived "nearly equivalent" to Kosovo article, they also might be perceived "more nearly equivalent" to Republic of Kosovo article - and this is how I perceive them. However vague this phrase might sound, I think no better expression could be used at the moment, to convey my opinion more clearly. Tanvir, I concur - given the algorithm by which the bot operated (getting links from other wikipedias), bot made the right changes, but I am not sure it made the right changes altogether. So its algorithm should be reviewed, I think. Also do you think that choosing to use the {{nobots}} in this article without consensus would be appropriate, given the fact that I've just backbit your bot and, by that, inadvertently you too. :-/ Best regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I think de:Kosovo, and the others, should be changed so that their English Interwiki links go to the article Republic of Kosovo (as this is more appropriate), but that both English Wikipedia articles Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo Interwiki link to de:Kosovo etc. When the German and other Wikipedias have separate articles for Kosovo (the place) and Republic of Kosovo (the political entity), the Interwiki links can be amended. Bazonka (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are more inclined to the position that those pages (bs:Kosovo, de:Kosovo, hr:Kosovo, la:Ager Merulensis) deal with Republic of Kosovo (the political entity) than with the position that they deal with Kosovo (the place). Why would en:Kosovo then link to those pages if this article deals with Kosovo (the place)? When interpreting your words ("If anything this is an issue that should be raised at de:Diskussion:Kosovo, etc., not here, in order to remove any POV in those articles.") I tend to believe that you you suggest the separation of concerns as a viable approach here - so why not then raise this issue at "German and other Wikipedias" and initiate those separate articles for Kosovo (the place)? I don't think this wikipedia's article quality should suffer because of potential POV issues with pages dealing with similar topic at other wikipedias. Also if the solution to this problem, as you propose, is to wait for other wikipedias to have separate articles for Kosovo (the place), then this solution should be amended so to pose a time limit for how long to wait - I reckon. How much do you suggest? Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Linking to these foreign Wikipedia articles from here is perfectly acceptable as they are "nearly equivalent" (as specified under H:IL). The quality of this article is not suffering as a consequence - if anything we are highlighting the inadequacies of the other Wikipedia versions. These foreign Wikis may change over time (which we can do ourselves or try to influence others to do, if we want), but no time limits should be set here.

Also Biblbroks, I note that you added the nobots tag without consensus despite the request above from Tanvir, and the warning in the template documentation that it is not to be used as a blunt instrument. The inclusion of this template could have unforeseen consequences (e.g. cn tags will not be dated) and so its use without configuration is ill-advised. Bazonka (talk) 10:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to apply quite loaded phrases when discussing this matter with me. As in the example given above when referring to my violation of WP:1RR rule, which I addressed and you haven't responded afterwards. Now you opine that the addition of nobots tag was the usage as a blunt instrument (while I summarized my edit with "tagging with nobots template while the issue is discussed - bots could just go in the way"). Actually if you can believe me, try: I haven't thought of all the consequences of adding it to the article, and the first thing I thought of doing is to revert myself, when I realized it was done before me. And also, I can't help it but mention that not-so-clear-to-me wording "I understand where he's coming from". I honestly don't get it, and I honestly believe, it could be regarded (not just by me) as an instrument of bad faith. Neither am I coming anywhere nor was I - all the time I am sitting in my chair looking at the screen and typing at the keyboard. And I don't understand what do you mean by "I understand" - what is there to understand in the first place; are you implying that some people don't understand this and by that they are perhaps disadvantaged. I do admit that "suffering of the quality of this article" is not the best choice of words, but I still believe that you understood my point, simply because you denied me the answers to my posted questions. After all, how do you propose to highlight the inadequacies of other wikipedia articles, while remaining at this very ground - this wikipedia? All the best. --Biblbroks (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I will answer your points one at a time.

- In my opinion your second revert violated 1RR. I'm not 100% sure about this though.

- The nobots template can be modified to apply to certain bots only. You didn't do this, so it applied to all bots including those that perform valuable tasks. In any case, I disagree with the use of the nobot template here. The wording "blunt instrument" is not my loaded phrase - it is taken directly from Template:Bots.

- The phrase "I understand where he's coming from" meant that I knew why you made the edits that you did - I understood your motivation. See [4]. Absolutely no bad faith, and I'm quite disappointed that you think there is.

- The reason that I did not initially respond to all of your questions is that, in my experience, you have a habit of over-analysing every single word I make, obfuscating the discussion. Therefore I tried to keep my responses brief and to-the-point. Obviously this approach did not work.

- Each version of Wikipedia is independent of the other versions - the only real connections between them are the Interwiki links. If a foreign Wikipedia article is not ideal, then people clicking on the Interwiki link from the English Wikipedia will see that it's not the same, and may conclude that it is inferior. People going directly to the foreign Wikipedia article without going via English Wikipedia will not have had the benefit of seeing this comparison. Therefore the Interwiki links in this article may indirectly help to highlight inadequacies in other Wikipedia versions.

It is my opinion that both this article and Republic of Kosovo should contain Interwikis to the foreign-language Kosovo articles, but that these foreign articles (where their content is actually about RoK) should link back to the English RoK article. What do other people think? Bazonka (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I cannot agree with you that versions of wikipedia are independent of each other - exactly because of those connections (interwikis) they tend to change, I would say much as part of a global process of creating a global Encyclopaedia/Wikipedia - sum of all knowledge (to paraphrase Jimmy Wales). Many articles are created as translations of other language versions (and I'd say a big chunk of these are translations of English wikipedia articles). So it is intertwined to the point that it is difficult to deal with this independency/independence thing simply like that. So to stick with the issue at hand, I think it is better to insist on the actual situation, and by that deny the foreign wikipedia articles, that don't deal with the same topic, deny them the interwiki links in this article. With this you would have no people wondering why there are two interwiki links, and perhaps some people who would wonder why there is no article in language of their choice. Those people would be targeted as potential new article creators/translators/orBoth. And this way we could outrun the complaints about us not abiding the unwritten rule of having just one interwiki link. At least I haven't seen these multiple interwikis before. I am not against it, it's just that someone might be. Anyway by study the amount of input from other editors regarding this section and issue while the number of people watching this page is 745, I would say there are just two of us alone. Are we overly meticulous or overly forward-looking? Not that it is much important, but since we are still discussing bad faith, I wanted to inform the "accidental" readers that due to the disappointment expressed above, I decided to downgrade my Babel level for English. --Biblbroks (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Interwiki front

I have edited the English Interwiki links in Croatian (hr) and Latin (la) Wikipedias to reference both Republic of Kosovo and here. German (de) Wikipedia was already like that. I couldn't amend Bosnian (bs) Wikipedia as it is a protected article. Bazonka (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I wanted the interwiki links case to stay here and not bring it up to other language wikipedias - so as to let them (other wikipedias) deal with the issue on their own. Also I am blocked at de (there, it is finally out in the open), and I cannot remember my passwords at bs and hr, and was kind of lazy to deal with it all together. By the way, I'd like to note that I think my action/inaction with this issue is more close to "Think globally, act locally" phrase/principle. Nevertheless, if I may use this page to report the current sitation, I'd say that after some developments, the situation goes for the better. Currently bs:Kosovo links only to de, en, hr, kbd, la, and ru articles, which in return deal with Republic of Kosovo - and that is surely (pardon for using your words, Bazonka) less inferior than before. Perhaps thus it is even most appropriate, so no worries for bs from my perspective. Situation at de and la ought to change - at least with the interwikis - as is in now at bs: exclusively linking to Republic of Kosovo. This is my personal opinion, of course. But the problem is kind of more acute with hr: two attempts at changing the iwis were reverted (the most recent of them I believe were yours, Bazonka). So, to prevent any conflicts (as in edit warring or similar) I thought of an idea which might be appropriate in this situation. Appropriate as in procedurally appropriate, I think. Does anyone know whether Wikipedia:Embassy is functional. I have no experience with this interwiki diplomacy, so I do not know how does it work, and I am not sure I would like to know. Care someone to give a hand? Bazonka, I thought this would better fit into a new subsection - I apologize for the lack of care when naming it. Regards - especially to you, Bazonka, because of your honest although harsh words. :-) --Biblbroks (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobots

Bazonka, as you haven't specifically requested the consensus to be necessary for adding the nobots template, and since I interpret the words "if you don't want to link them here, then with consensus you may choose to use {{nobots}}" as "it is not declared what you may not do", I might say that consensus isn't needed for this after all (just kidding). Also, I searched through the {{bots}} documentation, and couldn't find a stable solution on how to allow bots that don't deal with iwiki bots. The list of bots that are compliant with these options (Category:Exclusion compliant bots) is quite short, so it might not work after all. Simplest would be to allow only the bots that are really needed - you mention cn bots - but this is all an experiment, I'd say. On the other hand if we put the nobots template so bluntly that no options are given, it could serve as a warning to bot operators to make their bots support the exclusion (and then of course do all the tedious repetitive work "manually") At least here, at this quite hot spot, we might expect of everyone not just to be careful but also attentive. An idea - to promote my no-consensus-needed-criteria POV (kidding again). I can't help it - again - I simply must share this sensation of mine - I feel like I own this page, someone, please, stop me! Heh: "Every joke has a pinch of joke." (Serbo-Croatian: "U svakoj šali ima malo šale.") --Biblbroks (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I mean, after the last "tedious repetitive work" I've done - really? Nobody noticed that Bosnia and Herzegovina is not a neighbor of Kosovo for more than 24 hours? Where have all the people gone? Or are they just staring at "the stage"? --Biblbroks (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need to use the nobots template, in my opinion. What do other people think? Bazonka (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree - for now it seems the situation is calm. Perhaps bot operators updated their bot's algorithms - is it possible that bots are down this long? That is, for this high profile article. Or it ain't that high anymore. Anyway, we do have a consensus on this, Bazonka. --Biblbroks (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Well we don't really have agreement, because if and when the bots put the links to de.wikipedia etc. back, you'll probably want to remove them, whereas I wouldn't. I am keen to hear the opinions of other people. Bazonka (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, i dont know. This is quite a question. German article, for example, is with the same name as this one, but subject is clearly only RoK. Also, German wiki does not have article about Kosovo region. As this is article only about Kosovo region, German equivalent in de wiki is non existent, and therefor, i think that those 4 interwikis should be deleted from this article, and leaved only in Republic of Kosovo. And that info should be transferred to bot user, if we agree. There are no need to keep those in here, as those 4 should be also moved to RoK article, per our split agreement. That is what i think... :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 15:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. But what do you think about the point under H:IL which states that we should link to articles that are "nearly equivalent" in foreign Wikipedias. So the German Kosovo article doesn't have the same focus that this one does, but wouldn't it quality as "nearly equivalent" - at least until a better German article exists? Bazonka (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well, i think that nearly equivalent article to that one in DE.Wiki is only Republic of Kosovo, and not this one. Neutral article about Kosovo region does not exist in German wiki... --WhiteWriter ^speaks 16:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What about going the other way - linking from English Wikipedia to German? Bazonka (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, the problem is with wording. What I mean is that "nearly equivalent" is I think as vague as it gets when phrases are considered. For goodness sake - how is a human supposed to measure the level of equivalency? What is its scale, and even more, how to calibrate it? As for the matter, I think WhiteWriter was saying that opposes the iwikis of en:Kosovo in de:Kosovo article, as well as de:Kosovo in en:Kosovo article. From this I conclude that if we follow such opinions (mine and WhiteWriter's), it's only viable for de:Kosovo to link to en:Republic of Kosovo, and en:Republic of Kosovo to link to de:Kosovo. As for your proposal/question, Bazonka: wouldn't it qualify as "nearly equivalent" - at least until a better German articles exists - sorry, Bazonka, but you have made the most vague proposal I have ever met. :-) And you haven't received an answer for that either. :-) Also, I apologize for assuming bad faith previously - downgrading Babel level was just a detour. And the detour wasn't intentional. All the best to all, --Biblbroks (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Vague?? Until very recently, this article dealt with both Kosovo and Republic of Kosovo. Clearly these are not exactly the same, and so they were split into separate articles. But the very fact that these two things shared an article for so long shows that there is a near equivalency. To me, it makes perfect sense for this Kosovo article to link to the German Kosovo article, despite its slightly different focus - it's as close to the same thing as we can get without the existence of a specific German Republic of Kosovo article. Which of these German articles is closest to the current English Kosovo article: de:Kosovo, de:Serbien, de:Großalbanien, de:Hörnchen? Obviously the first, and if you can find a better one, then use it. The alternative, having no link to German Wikipedia (which is more comprehensive than any other Wikipedia version except English), is just absurd. Bazonka (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Technical note: {{nobots}} is NOT the technically correct way of stopping unwanted interwiki bots. The technically correct way is to place the unwanted iw link code in html comments (<!-- [[xy:bad article]]-->); the bots will then leave it alone. But I agree with Bazonka on the merits of the issue. We have two article on en-wiki, both of which have their equivalent coverage in the same de-wiki article; therefore both en-wiki articles should link to the same de-wiki one. Simple. Such arrangements happen in multiple cases and there is absolutely no problem about them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Fut.Perf. for useful information about nobots! Well, i dont find this subject so important, we are discussing only minor edits, so i will agree on both sides. Anyway, in the future, when Kosovo status is clear, all of this will be diminished, and specially interwiki links... :) On the other hand, it IS better to have link, even if it is a bit wrong, then not to have it at all... At the end, wiki should be informative and linked above all. I changed my mind. Yes for devilish four! :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 09:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Bazonka, yes they shared an article for some time, but now the topic of en:Kosovo is more clear than it was before. This is what has changed, and now this difference affects the perception of the degree of focus difference between de:Kosovo and en:Kosovo. Also, if you asked: which of the articles on English wikipedia is closest to the article Kosovo on Deutch wikipedia, I'd say it is the Republic of Kosovo article. Well, the rationale, that because the German wikipedia is most comprehensive than any other wikipedia besides English wikipedia, and that because of this simple observation we should include its interlanguage links disregarding the difference of focus on en and de, well I'd say that such view - to use only this rationale - is a bit simplistic. But, ok, if we must include a link to one de.wikipedia article, I would agree that de:Kosovo might be the most appropriate choice. Thank you for your opinion, and even more for the information, Fut. Perf. I must ask you though, how are you so certain that both of en-wiki articles have the equivalent coverage in the de-wiki one? I mean WhiteWriter, stated above that Neutral article about Kosovo region does not exist in German wiki. Yes, he changed his mind afterwards about the interwiki links, but the statement nevertheless is there. Also, Bazonka gave an opinion that ... de:Kosovo, and the others, should be changed so that their English Interwiki links go to the article Republic of Kosovo (as this is more appropriate)... and he quite speedily changed the interwiki links on hr: and la: and tried to change the bs:, while he checked that de: was already changed. So I think there is an issue here... which I can't point directly to, though, I admit. WhiteWriter: "...wiki should be informative and linked above all!" - you devil you! :) Best regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

:)) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 17:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

So Biblbroks, after agreeing that that de:Kosovo is the most appropiate Interwiki link to German Wikipedia, despite it not being quite the same subject matter, you have now removed the Interwiki link to bs:Kosovo, although this is exactly the same situation. Please be consistent. Bazonka (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry for eventual misunderstanding - if I stated that I agree, please point me to where this is. As far as I've found my wording regarding this issue was: "...ok, if we must include a link to one de.wikipedia article, I would agree that de:Kosovo might be the most appropriate choice." But if I stated elsewhere that I agree, I will agree with your revert, Bazonka. I don't want to be sarcastic, but I would really like to know how so that you are certain that bs and de are exactly the same situation. I haven't seen that your Babel mentions bs, while mine does mention sh - an "umbrella term" for sr, hr, bs, me, etc - umbrella term at least from my POV. Also, I admit that I recently updated my Babel with de-2, nevertheless I hold this to be true, and if someone has any objections against me removing de Interwiki based on this premise (Babel de-2), I will reinstate Interwikis to de. Or to la for that matter (which I hold to be la-1 or la-2). Also, if somebody still thinks of me being inconsistent, please state your opinion. Or you can instead {{trout}} me - you can find a small image of trout in the top right corner of my userpage. All the best, --Biblbroks (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, in order to settle this and not be so uncompromosing I suggest this, Bazonka: if you still have even a slightest impression that I agreed, I will leave it be as it is. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 07:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop it, at last. I'm getting very impatient with the brickwall mentality displayed by some contributors here, especially Biblbroks' incredible bout of wikilawyering above, and I can promise you I will request a new round of topic bans if this ridiculous fighting over interwikis continues. The matter is completely trivial: if a topic has one single article on Wikipedia "x:X", but the same topic is divided up into two related articles "y:Y1" and "y:Y2" on another Wikipedia, then both articles on Y will iw-link to x:X, while in reverse, it is up to editors at wiki X to decide which of the two candidates on Y they consider the closer equivalent. This is common practice, it's uncontroversial everywhere across the project, and there are absolutely no problems about it. The question we have to ask ourselves here is not: 'does wiki X have an article that has exactly the same topic definition as we have chosen it four our "y:Y1" here?', but: 'which article on X covers (or would cover) the factual material that we are covering in our article?' In any case where another Wikipedia has a single article for the Republic that also covers the prior history of the region and the dispute, it is automatically the equivalent of both of the articles into which we have divided these topics. Period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. , while I understand your impatience, I simply don't find any justifiable cause for it. The discussion held was very polite, I think there hasn't been any breach to WP:Wikiquette not to mention WP:NPA, apart from your last comment maybe. Also if you're already calling names, please take a look at where have I wikilawyered, and point to this place. IIRC, when I referred to policies and guidelines, it was merely as a response to comments in which they were called upon or referred to - except for one case where I failed to assume good faith mainly because of lack of English language (which is no wikilawyering, I believe), and this post. So please, retract your sword of topic-ban requests, it really is inappropriate and unnecessary to show it off. Best regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

hr iw

My reasoning, which lead me to excluding hr:Kosovo interlanguage link from this article, is this: article at hr.wikipedia.org somehow treats Kosovo more as "država" - a state (my humble attempt of translating). This impression one gets when reading the first sentence of the lede. The article at hr also has an infobox which has the flag, CoA, anthem, official language, government, GDP, PPP, currency and TLD entries and this all shows Kosovo (to my belief) more as a state. This article on the other hand somehow firstly defines Kosovo (if one reads the first sentence of the lede) as a disputed territory and deals more with the topic of Kosovo as a region - as far as I am able to grasp. So topics of these two articles cannot be quite "exactly equivalent" (the term mentioned at H:IL). As for the "...or nearly equivalent" argument, well, I would like to know what other people think about this: is this the case to be solved through WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and H:IL for the term Kosovo in Croatian language and English language (or some other language too), or does the perceived bias of the article at hr overweight any other language arguments? The bias which other users also noticed I believe. Tough question, nay? Deals somehow with all the WP:5P. With all, but with the first pillar to the least. IMO. :-) Tough, yay... but hey, here it is. Also, I admit that maybe I haven't thought this issue through thoroughly enough and maybe there aren't just two options for the question. If anybody has an idea how to ask about this issue differently, I am eager to know it. Or any other thoughts regarding this subject. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sigh... Is there a more appropriate article in Croatian Wikipedia? No. In which case we must link to this one, despite it not being exactly equivalent. Bazonka (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Why must we? The article is "...zaštićen: Učestalo vandaliziranje ([edit=autoconfirmed] (istječe 20:53, 5. listopada 2011. (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (istječe 20:53, 5. listopada 2011. (UTC))))" - protected ... expires 5. october 2011. I've taken the liberty to shortly translate the (IMO) underpinning information. IPs cannot edit it. There might be no rush, but there might be some... nay? Are they just interwiki links? Or something else... also? Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 08:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Would there be any objections if I would revert Fut.Perf.'s reinsertion of hr iw to this article? What I mean is I would exclude this iw sooner than 14:41, 26 April 2011 - the time and date which I understand the full details of 1RR parole suggest me to wait. If nobody comments, I think I will risk my article ban for this. Best regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Fast article changes, without consensus

I believe that making such a grand change in an article in such a short time, without consensus, is without doubt an act against WP policies. It is also an act in conflict with ARBMAC. This debate should be continued and the page brought back to the article that shows Kosovo as a Republic, what de facto it is (until any change comes from the negotiations) but also with information of the disputes. Otherwise, the way the page currently is, we will be in risk of keeping a page that will set a precedent in WP: What if after the negotiations the Serbian part recognizes Kosovo as independent, why should the page still be refer to the "territory"? —Anna Comnena (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The previous version didn't show Kosovo as a republic. It presented a confusing mishmash of Republic and Province. That said, if Serbia does recognize Kosovo then the ROK article would be merged back to here. --Khajidha (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, clear as a day. Wikipedia should follow real life situation. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 16:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I was not saying the previous page was only about Kosovo as a Republic (although I can see why would one think I did). But the previous version was more accurate in describing the situation in Kosovo. We have a factual independence that is de jure disputed by some countries (wile some other countries stay neutral). The current page is just a complicated version of the previous one, without anything gaining in return. Don't you think? —82.114.94.16 (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

But isn't that factual independence you mention also de facto disputed by the current version of the article: three infoboxes instead of one, current ongoing discussion regarding the current version, all the previous discussions regarding the previous version, not to mention the "factual" existence of two currencies in Kosovo? I am not sure that factually independent "entity" would allow two currencies in the infobox of an article about that entity if the case was otherwise. Don't you think? Also, I am not sure about the fact that an independence of an entity is determined by the fact that it uses one currency. Nevertheless, I just thought I could share my POV on the matters of independency and independence. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Kosovo should be described as a "disputed region"

Sure there are a lot countries recognized its independence but most of the countries in the world do not recognize it. these countries includes EU countries such as Spain and other big countries like Russia, China and India and so as the United Nation. therefore this region should be tagged with disputed rather than a nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.116.107.198 (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the article? I don't see what you are complaining about. It is listed as a disputed territory here. The Republic of Kosovo article lists that political entity as a partially recognized state. --Khajidha (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"recognised the declaration of independence" wording in Kosovo#Declaration of independence section

Do states recognise declaration of independence or independence itself? Or something else like statehood perhaps? I mean there is International recognition of Kosovo, so here they recognize simply Kosovo, but it is not clear what about Kosovo. Of course article's title should be concise and satisfy WP:commonname and all sorts of other criteria. But is there an article or any other page about this recognising thing? --Biblbroks (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what difference there would be between recognizing the DOI, independence or statehood. The three expressions are equivalent. Some states may have phrased it one way, others another but the outcome is the same. --Khajidha (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be made clear that they are recognising the Republic of Kosovo as an independent state. Other countries, e.g. Russia, recognise Kosovo as a part of Serbia. Bazonka (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

True, but all three forms Biblbroks brings up are specific to recognition of the ROK. I'm trying to determine what distinction he is making between them. If you "recognize the declaration" that means that you have recognized the independence of the state Republic of Kosovo. If you recognize "independence itself", that occurred through the DOI and resulted in the ROK. If you recognize the "statehood", that occurred through independence that was asserted in the declaration. --Khajidha (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure exactly. I am trying to point out whether such journalistic/literary style should be used here. Journalistic/literary as opposed to diplomatic style. I mean, in diplomacy, when you use wording like "recognize the declaration", it could have serious implications. Haven't we all experienced some heavy duty discussions on this very page? Not to mention how this very topic has had enormous echo in the world. At least in the past. On the other hand we have our readers to think of. For them such a "casual" literary style might be better - for the sake of readability itself. Also, they might not notice such nuances. But what percentage of readers wouldn't notice this? We are walking on quite a thin edge here, and since it's unquestionable that Wikipedia has day by day greater impact, it could be important to decide whether to be more explicit in order to achieve accuracy, or more implicit in order to achieve readability. I mean this isn't just any article on Wikipedia, right? Although I have no suggestion for how to solve this, I felt obliged to share this. :-/ --Biblbroks (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I still don't think there's anything to distinguish here. Unless you can find diplomatic sources that make a distinction between the three options you gave. Not just different diplomats using the different forms, but one person comparing and contrasting the different forms. --Khajidha (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Why only diplomatic? And why the necessity for comparison and contrasting of different forms? Anyway, it might not be that important. Thanks, for your thoughts and patience. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I specified diplomats because you were saying that our usage here was journalistic/literary and not diplomatic, which I took to mean that you felt that diplomatic sources would use the words differently. I focused on comparison and contrast because without it you can't prove that the different terms are actually being used in different ways. Going by the rules of English grammar and basic logic the three are simply stylistic variants with no difference in meaning. You implied that there were nuances of difference between them, you can't prove that without comparing and contrasting them. --Khajidha (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I can't prove it. Although, Bazonka kind of grasped what I was referring to right away. That doesn't necessarily mean I managed to make a point, but still... As I said it, it probably isn't important. --Biblbroks (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox proposal

Given that this article has changed to a general Kosovo region article and Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija devoted articles exist where the specific infoboxes for those polities are used, I propose that this article be changed to only feature a single infobox that would cover only information pertaining to the region as a whole and not to the political bodies in question. Said infobox should feature a note in the governmental section that sovereignty is disputed between the two previously mentioned entities with links to articles for same. --Khajidha (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Conditional Support I will support this if we use a similar infobox to that on the articles 'Ireland' and 'Taiwan' as they're infoboxes about regions not countries. I will now create a draft infobox in a sandbox and I'll bring it back to you all soonish. IJA (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Support Well, can we ask for any conditions regarding other unrelated articles? I think that same quiestion should be asked on related talk pages. Also, do we need any other one than the region infobox that we already have? I think that this box is ok.... :) But, i will gladly see any proposition for improving. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 17:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, if the UNMIK is also linked. I don't think that any changes to the current Kosovo region infobox are needed. Alinor (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Kosovo region infobox - unchanged from the status quo (only formatting appears differently because of wikicode?)

Kosovo Kosovo physical map Capital and largest city Pristina (Prishtina or Priština) Ethnic groups (2009) 88% Albanians   7% Serbs   5% others Government disputed • UNSG Special Representative Lamberto Zannier (UN) • Serb assembly president Radovan Ničić • Acting Republic of Kosovo president Jakup Krasniqi Governing authority  disputed • UN administration 10 June 1999 • Serb community February 2003 • Republic of Kosovo 17 February 2008 Area • Total 10,908 km2 (4,212 sq mi) • Water (%) n/a Population • 2007 estimate 1,804,838 • 1991 census 1,956,1961 • Density 220/km2 (569.8/sq mi) GDP (nominal) 2009 estimate • Total $5.352 billion • Per capita $2,965 Currency Euro (€); Serbian Dinar (EUR; RSD) Time zone UTC+1 (CET) • Summer (DST) UTC+2 (CEST) Driving side right Calling code +3812 The census is a reconstruction; most of the ethnic Albanian majority boycotted. Officially +381; some mobile phone providers use +377 (Monaco) or +386 (Slovenia) instead.

Is there any specific problem with that infobox that needs to be changed? It is already about the region and not the country.Alinor (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is my proposal for an infobox. It is 100% unpolitical and gives basic information. IJA (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Kosovo region infobox

I don't think Government needs to be mentioned whatsoever as that will just cause problems. IJA (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC) My version is similar to Alinor's however I've removed all the established dates, sovereignty and leaders ect as I think this infobox should be 100% free from politics. IJA (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox by IJA is perfectly fine by me. Agree also, as Future Perfect told us "Infoboxes must burn in Hell" (Note that it is Kosovo infobox burning! :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 18:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer a government section with the term "Disputed" and links to the actual governments be included (no names, no dates, no specifics - just a bare link), but can definitely live with IJA's version.

I just think the government section will cause problems ect and the relevant government information can be found of the RoK and APKiM articles. But when talking about the geographical region of Kosovo, Government is not important. We don't even have a section on Government. This article is about history, culture, geography, society ect of Kosovo... aka an article free of politics. The politics of Kosovo is for separate articles thus why Government shouldn't be included in the infobox. Anyway that is what I believe and I also think it is the best way to maintain a NPOV on such a sensitive topic. IJA (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, except for the reasons IJA had mentioned, there is also an issue of hierarchy if UNMIK is included in the infobox - because then RoK and APKIM should be included - and then a question would arise which of them to mention first. --Biblbroks (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Also according to Serbia and other non-recognising countries UNMIK is the administrator of the APKiM, therefore it is kind of POV to include UNMIK and not include representatives of RoK, that is why the infobox should be 100% free of government of Kosovo. Put it this way, if we have an article 100% free of politics/ government it will stop stupid edit wars and we can have a peaceful neutral article about the geographical region of Kosovo. Also we will be able to improve the quality of the article and work towards it being a featured article, surely everyone would like that? Also the very first sentence makes it very very clear that Kosovo is a disputed territory. IJA (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

IJA, this POV issue you mention is what I thought of when writing: "...if UNMIK is included in the infobox - because then RoK and APKIM should be included...", but I didn't want to go so far to labeling it so. You haven't labeled it POV either for that matter. :-) Anyway, I just wanted to express my agreement with you. As for the hopes for a featured article, I thought I had to say: "Let's keep those hopes low for now!" Not, that I wouldn't like this wish/dream come true. Best regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Do I have permission to add my version of the infobox then? IJA (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I would have no problem with you replacing the current mile high stack of infoboxen with your version. --Khajidha (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Biblbroks, about hierarchy/how to mention first - that's why the current infobox government section is ordered chronologically. The governing authorities mentioned are UNMIK, Serb-assembly (it's not clear whether this is Republic of Serbia government unit, or a "local initiative" unofficially supported by Belgrade - so the "Serbia recognizes UNMIK as APKiM ruler" vs. "Serb Kosovo assembly" controversy is theoretical - we don't have a source answering the previous question), RoK. I don't see a controversy here - we have UNMIK, a Serbian and a Kosovar entities - what prevents us from keeping the current infobox arrangement.

And what is this "it is kind of POV to include UNMIK and not include representatives of RoK"? The current infobox already has both, who is proposing "not include representatives of RoK"?

Also, if I understand IJA correctly - he proposes to remove all other infoboxes and keep only this one. So, why not do this (that we all seem to agree with) - and later discuss whether to remove its "disputed government" section (mentioning UNMIK/1999, Serb-assembly/2003, RoK/2008) or not? Alinor (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

So, IMHO the Government entries in the infobox should be restored. Alinor (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It is only now that I fully grasped why I am against restoration of Government entries - not just because it removes potential POV issues that IJA mentions might arise if those entries are included, and thus prevents edit warring. It is because this is now a Kosovo region article and therefore it is logical that infobox would be for the region - and region doesn't necessarily have a government/governing authority/name_it_what_you_want, does it? How about if we reword it somehow - and then include it. Article Antarctica kind of comes to light: there it stands "...Territorial claims...", so perhaps something like "governing authority claims"? I don't know, it is probably just a plain shot in the dark, but I think I am trying to address your concerns. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Republic, PISG, and UNMIK

On 25 July 1999 the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Kosovo Bernard Kouchner issued UNMIK Regulation 1999/1, vesting "all legislative and executive authority with respect to Kosovo, including the administration of the judiciary" in the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) to be exercised by the Special Representative, which came into force 10 June 1999. UNMIK authorized the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government (PISG) per UNMIK Regulation 2001/9 of 15 May 2001 which explicitly provides that "laws, once promulgated, are binding legislative acts of a general nature", "the President shall sign each law adopted by the Assembly and forward it to the SRSG for promulgation" and "laws shall become effective on the day of their promulgation by the SRSG, unless otherwise specified." Section 1.5 creates the Assembly and all the other institutions of the PISG, which did not exist prior to that, correct?

Was it this PISG Assembly that adopted this Constitution of Kosovo of 9 April 2008? If regulation 2001/9 was still in effect, wouldn't the SRSG have promulgated this act? Does anyone have verification the 2008 Constitution was promulgated by the SRSG? Int21h (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

From the Republic of Kosovo article: "In February 2008 individual members of the Assembly of Kosovo (acting in personal capacity and not binding the Assembly itself) declared Kosovo's independence as the Republic of Kosovo." Also, no one (SRSG or anyone else) would need to promulgate it. The passage of a Declaration of Independence immediately nullifies all of those requirements of outside people or bodies controlling the government of the people declaring independence. --Khajidha (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)