Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yugoslavia/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Contents

Slobodan Jovanovic left.jpg

image:Slobodan Jovanovic left.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Milos Trifunovic right.jpg

image:Milos Trifunovic right.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Partisan gallows in Novi Sad.jpg

image:Partisan gallows in Novi Sad.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Destroyed interior of Senta synagogue.jpg

image:Destroyed interior of Senta synagogue.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Chetniks trampling the Nazi German flag.jpeg

image:Chetniks trampling the Nazi German flag.jpeg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Tito-NikolaLjubicic.jpg

image:Tito-NikolaLjubicic.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Croatian revert war about to start

There are the beginnings of a revert war rumbling with regard to the Croatian language. Somebody removed Croatia from Category:Serbo-Croatian-speaking countries and territories, with the comment that there is no such thing as a Serbo-Croatian language. I put it back in the category, with a comment; someone has removed it again--with the comment that the language is "not in use" there, with a link to a section of the article that says the idea of a Serbo-Croatian language is controversial in Croatia.
There is an article on the Serbo-Croatian language; that article presents the language as having four standardized forms: Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and possibly Montenegrin. There is also, of course, the category I just mentioned.
I have no particular strong feelings one way or the other about whether these four languages are four different languages in a family, or four different official varieties of one language. I also recognize that in this case, national, political, and religious considerations would certainly color the question.
But as it stands now, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro are in the category. I do think that EITHER we ought to include all those countries, or we should remove them all. In that case the category should not exist.Uporządnicki (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

This is clearly nationalist turf, but the decision on what to do depends on a sober analysis whether insisting on a particular linguistic categorization of countries is the most useful course of action. For example, South Africa is categorized as Category:Afrikaans-speaking countries and territories, but linguistic categorization could easily put it into Category:Dutch-speaking countries and territories. Pakistan is in Category:Hindustani-speaking countries and territories but Category:Urdu-speaking countries and territories is also used. Hence, creating a subcategory Category:Croatian-speaking countries and territories seems like a trivial way to avoid the entire flamewar. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
A sober, objective analysis inevitably brings one to the necessity of renaming the "language" articles (Croatian, Serbian etc) into "standard" articles, and striking all reference to them as "languages". As they are not such. And that just for a start. Of course, in this issue, the community is directed also by non-scientific concerns, and the issue is therefore entirely dependent on the weight given to said concerns; which is entirely a matter of personal views. I myself give them some, but very little, weight. I believe Croatia must necessarily be included in said category directly and uncompromisingly. -- Director (talk) 07:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Standard languages are languages. In other news, yellow onions are onions. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
My understanding is that they are standards of one language, not "standard languages". In other news, Ford makes several different models of cars, all of which are Fords. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The key point is that each of the Ford car models is still a car. Imagine doing the equivalent of what Direktor proposed - strike all references to a Fiesta as a car and strictly refer to it as a model of a car, because to do so otherwise just isn't scientific enough! :) (Also, I take issue with the view that genetic linguistics is strictly more valuable than sociolinguistics in a general-purpose encyclopedia. That's a slippery slope that would lead to having the article about water renamed H2O, because "science".) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we should stick to what reliable non-ex-Yugoslav linguistic sources say about them instead of adopting one description or another. Surely there is scope to accommodate a range of linguistic models in the article about Serbo-Croatian and other relevant articles should take their lead from it. As an Australian who has lived and worked with English, Welsh, Scots, Irish, Kiwis and Americans, I am keenly aware of the significant differences between the varieties of the English language. I deal with it in smaller respects every day on WP with center vs. centre, recognize vs. recognise, and many Australian idioms other native English speakers don't even understand etc. I think we need to set the local linguistic sources and the nationalistic stuff to one side when dealing with this issue (good luck with that...), and focus on what the outsiders say about the language and its variations. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The European Union just made Croatian language one of its official languages. It is therefore quite clear that there is some serious reference to Croatian as a separate language - including a debate by the European Parliament whether to make Croatian or BCS (i.e. SC) its official language - clearly indicating that they were choosing from two distinct languages. Linguists will argue over that, but it is very clear that the real world considers Croatian a separate language. I presume a continuously shrinking minority will continue to view Croatian and Serbian as a single language, but population of Serbia (yearbook p.32), Croatia ((7,800 speakers of SC vs 4.1M speakers of Croatian and 59K speakers of Serbian) perceive the languages as distinct. Even though the languages are generally mutually intelligible (decades of coexistence in the same country, where considerable efforts were made to "unify" the languages were made, made some impact), it is perfectly clear to educated speakers of either of the two that it is not possible to write a professional paper in the opposite (unless one is trained to speak the particular language) without coming off as illiterate. I understand the urgency to reinforce the case of the Serbo-Croatian by few linguists who stake their entire careers on its viability now that Croatian and Serbian have somehow been given "seal of approval" by the EU, but the simple matter of fact is that both Croatian and Serbo-Croatian are various forms of languages (see: Ausbausprache, Abstandsprache and Dachsprache). The major difference, and presumably the most hurtful to the above referenced group of linguists is that the Serbo-Croatian is doomed to fail just like Czechoslovak language. The process takes time, but moves inevitably. (see also: [1]).--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Unlike Tomobe03, I won't even enter into the discussion that hints at value judgement, my main point is that a typical foreigner's description of Croatia would be that those people over there speak Croatian, whatever that is; likewise for Serbia. It's a legitimate term as such, a plausible search term, and also a defining characteristic (see the analogous thread at Talk:Croatia). All the (neutral) literature out there that describes Serbo-Croatian as a concept also describes the standard languages, usually in the same breath. There's simply nothing wrong with using that terminology in the encyclopedia. Even if we assume bad faith (which we shouldn't), WP:POVTITLE still applies! --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Croatian is not a "standard language", but a standard ("standardized register") of a language. SC is the "language". That's where the sources stand. The sources (by kwami et al) do not relativize this issue in the least. Generally speaking, they refer to Croatian as an "ethno-political variant of the Serbo-Croatian language". Such word games are pointless. If we're pandering to Croatian public opinion (which is in some measure present with us here), we must at least admit that. The excuses are myriad, just go to Talk:Serbo-Croatian to read them all several times, but they're all equally hollow. To pretend policy and/or sources somehow support the current state of affairs is plain ridiculous. -- Director (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Register is something else entirely and has nothing to do with this topic. Croatian is considered a "standardised variety" of Serbo-Croatian language (by which it is meant that it is a) one of the forms of Serbo-Croatian, a "pluricentric" language, and b) that its form is standardised, i.e. described and proscribed by its own language governing authority). But that is simply its linguistic description and has little to do with their sociolinguistic status. And the fact is that, for better or worse, no speaker of what linguists call Serbo-Croatian (except maybe Direktor) consider their language to be "Serbo-Croatian". This includes constitutions and scholars of four countries where varieties of the language is spoken (which is btw the reason why Serbia recognizes "Croatian" as a minority language and vice versa), and also, by extension, international organisations such as European Union. Linguistics simply does not decide whether something is a language, a variety, or a dialect. Sociolinguistics does. So trying to refute (or support, for that matter) the idea that Croatian language exists by recycling arguments about its linguistic description leads nowhere. In a nutshell, Croatian language exists simply because the Croatian Constitution, HAZU and the European Union say it does, and that is what Wikipedia should report. And Serbo-Croatian is no more spoken in Croatia or Serbia than Czechoslovak language is spoken in the Czech Republic or Slovakia. Timbouctou (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to respond to this. You are of course aware of the existence of our article "standard language"? Or that Britannica also knows the concept of a "standard language", and indeed seems to specifically discuss it in the case of S-C? Is that all just "ridiculous" original research that somehow snuck in while nobody was looking? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Languages become languages after what had been considered a dialect (usually the one seen as most prestigious) is taken as a model around which overall standardisation occurs, which means it is described and given preference in public discourse over all others (like English which had become standardised around the language spoken by scholars at Oxford and Cambridge). Varieties is what you get when you have more than one standardised dialect coexisting in parallel, and therefore this results in a "pluricentric" language (like English, which later came to have more than one standard variety with the emergence of American English and perhaps Australian English - note that other varieties are also based on other dialects which had to be selected for that purpose). This is sociolinguistics 101, and if you are interested you can read more about it in George Yule's The Study of Language and Trudgill's Sociolinguistics. Both should be available at Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences library as virtually all students of English at Zagreb University are required to read. The issue with Serbo-Croatian is that its linguistic description does not match its sociopolitical status, and that is where sociolinguistics come in. Since there is no clear cut distinction between a dialect and language in linguistics (we can only say whether something is standardised or not), and the standardisation always occurs around a dialect which was usually chosen for mainly political reasons (as was the case in English as well), the distinction between the two is always based on social and political arguments (see "A language is a dialect with an army and navy"). It is a very vague linguistic territory and there is no more linguistic reason not to consider Serbo-Croatian a group of several languages, as opposed to a single language with four different varieties, just like there is no linguistic argument against the idea that American English or Swiss German are separate languages, as opposed to the common view that they are varieties of English and German. The determining factor here is purely sociopolitical - while linguists study closeness of languages and will therefore always see Croatian and Serbian as closely related (i.e. varieties of the same thing), that does not necessarily have to be the case in all other walks of life. And as you know, for all other non-linguistic purposes, Serbo-Croatian simply does not exist. 99.99% of its speakers see it as a set of mutually intelligible but separate languages, constitutions of several countries along with their national academies say so themselves, and international organisations regard them as separate. This exactly the opposite from other pluricentric languages like German or English, which are regarded as one in spite of differences of their varieties. So the issue here has little to do with linguistic or its linguistic description and everything to do with its social status, i.e. how they are perceived. Or, like our article on Snježana Kordić says: " Pluricentricity of language does not imply linguistic unification. Each nation can codify its variant on its own. Kordić criticizes a romantic view of language and nation, which is very widespread in Croatia. The romantic idea that the nation and the language must match has its roots in 19th century Germany, but by the middle of the 20th century, the scientific community abandoned that idea. Furthermore, Kordić argues against political interference in linguistics. As regards the name of the language, Kordić discusses only the name to be used in linguistics, leaving non-linguists to name the language any way they prefer.". Timbouctou (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, the classic Tim essay.. there's an unpleasant memory :). Yup this page is looking pretty much like Talk:Serbo-Croatian. It would be pointless to go into this any further here and now, but suffices to say: forget Croatian sources. I am not at this time equipped with books to address this sufficiently (linguistics are very far from my areas of interest), but kwami et al. have gone through the material in great detail, and I have read excerpts from their refs. Non-local linguistic sources certainly appear to be very unambiguous about this: its a "standard of the Sero-Croatian language" like the article says anyway. -- Director (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Since Croatia is not a linguistics article I fail to see why solely linguistic criteria would be used to categorize the article. And literally every single source, local or not, clearly describes Croatia as a country where "Croatian language" is spoken, from the CIA to the European Union. Timbouctou (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Kosovo and Vojvodina province articles merge

Please see Kosovo in SFR Yugoslavia and help decide on the most appropriate name for the topic, or indeed any other course of action. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Ditto for SAP Vojvodina. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Files nominated for deletion on 10 August 2013

-- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Utva Lasta diagram.jpg

image:Utva Lasta diagram.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Federal subjects of Yugoslavia

Members of this project are kindly invited to join in on the discussion at Template talk:Federal subjects of Yugoslavia. Thank you. Timbouctou (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Eurocrem packages.jpg

image:Eurocrem packages.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

RFC on Stana Katic

Everyone please be aware that I have posted a Request for Comments at Talk:Stana Katic, requesting outside opinions as to whether or not this biographical article (about a Canadian actress of Serbo-Croatian ancestry) should include Serbian / Croatian forms of Katic's name. This issue has been discussed / argued / edit-warred for a very, very long time. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (1st Albanian)

This article's currently undergoing FA review and it would be greatly appreciated if some users could offer their in-put on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (1st Albanian)/archive1. Thanks, 23 editor (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yugoslavia in World War II needs editing

This article, rated high-importance by wikiproject Yugoslavia, is extremely stubby. All help appreciated. Cheers, walk victor falk talk 14:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yugoslav Navy#Marines

What is the current fate of the 12 Naval Infantry Brigade of the Yugoslav navy? In the article there is no direct indication that it disbanded. 90.189.106.180 (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC).

Requested move notification

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Moslem militia#Requested move, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move notification

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:SS Polizei-Selbstschutz-Regiment Sandschak#Requested move, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move notification

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:June Uprising in Eastern Herzegovina#Requested move, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move notification

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Yugoslav Wars#Requested move, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, walk victor falk talk 10:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Regions of Croatia discussion

Requesting additional input in the discussion on Talk:List of regions of Croatia, regarding the organization of Croatian regions on Wiki. I currently feel its a serious mess, lots and lots of overlap, a general division that is not well sourced, and I have a sort of plan that I'd like to go through with. Seeking consensus in advance, and any feedback would be welcome. -- Director (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should Nikola Tesla's birthplace be changed?

An RfC Should Tesla's birthplace be changed? has been created. Comments are welcome.- MrX 15:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Yugoslavia At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

RfD discussion about Yugoslavian language

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 7‎#Yugoslavian language. I believe it could benefit from comments by people knowledgable of topic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

obveznika?

What a obveznika when it's at home? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably the conscripts (people obliged for military service in case of need) in genitive.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
An obveznik is a person liable to perform some duty, depending on the context it could be military service (vojni obveznik), payment of taxes (porezni obveznik) etc. The -a suffix denotes non-nominative case, but without a context, it's impossible to say which (might be genitive, might be accusative, or even locative if preceded by a preposition), moreover this way it is impossible to say if it's singular or plural (both are possible). If necessary, provide me the full sentence, and I'll sort it out for you. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
G'day Tom. Good point. In this context: Mihailović, kao službeni predstavnik vlade, dao je ovoj naredbi važnost mobilizacijskog oglasa u ratnim uvjetima, upozoravajući na to da nitko od vojnih obveznika nije razriješen zakletve »na vernost kralju i otadžbini« i da će svatko tko mu se ne odazove biti smatran vojnim bjeguncem, kojem će se suditi po ratnim zakonima vojske Kraljevine Jugoslavije, I assume refers to "military service". What about this? Limsko-sandžački četnički odredi raspolagali su sa 15.349 obveznika i oko 200 oficira, a od naoružanja imali su 13.116 pušaka, 51 puškomitraljez, 15 mitraljeza i pet minobacača. Bez obzira na to što se nemali broj »obveznika« vodio formalno po popisu, Durišićeva četnička formacija predstavljala je najbrojniju a istodobno i najelitniju jedinicu Draže Mihailovića u to vrijeme. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

League of Reformist Forces

I've just created this article on a political party which contested the 1990 elections in Macedonia. However, I suspect it may be the Macedonian branch of the Union of Reform Forces. Could someone confirm or otherwise? If it is, I'll merge the content in. Cheers, Number 57 21:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've found out for myself. Number 57 20:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Which variety of Serbocroatian?

Which variety of Serbo-Croatian is this document?

Bosnian? Serbian? Croatian? WhisperToMe (talk) 10:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

There are some spelling errors, it is obvious that it was mostly literally translated from English. Because it's not ekavian, and because of the words pasoš, kablovska, it could be Bosnian, or just written by someone with little regard for spelling :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! User:Lüboslóv Yęzýkin stated that it was Croatian on another page WhisperToMe (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Michael Parenti's views on the former Yugoslavia

In Talk:Michael Parenti#Could Someone Please Clean Up This Article, an editor has expressed concerns that the section entitled Michael Parenti#Views on the former Yugoslavia does not present material in a neutral manner. It does appear that material is either uncited, or cited to self-published or questionable sources. I am posting here in the hopes that those more knowledgeable on the subject may lend a hand. Thanks! - Location (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Yugoslavia articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 03:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Category for Massacres of Yugoslavians (outside Yugoslavia)

In 1943, 45 prisoners were massacred (I presume on the same day) in Karasjok (village) in Norway. (This massacre is dwarfed by the Beisfjord massacre in Norway, during World War Two.) Is there any category for Yugoslavians massacred outside of Yugoslavia? Both massacres might be notable in that context. --Neckbet (talk) 10:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Missing central committee articles

The League of Communists of Yugoslavia (LCY) is missing central committee articles akeen to the ones the Communist Party of China (18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China for instance) and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (20th Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union for instance) have. LCY is currently missing 13 of 13;

Does anyone have a URL link (or a book) which lists all the members? --TIAYN (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Miroslav Filipović#Request for comment

Interested editors might like to consider commenting on whether the lead of this article should mention that Filipović was a military chaplain and Catholic friar who was expelled from the Franciscan order before the end of the war but was not excommunicated by the Catholic Church. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Yugoslav people of World War II

G'day all, I have nominated several subcategories of this category for upmerging at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 August 3. Please comment there. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Yugoslav reunification

There is a proposed merger at Talk:Yugoslav reunification if you want to participate. Regards IJA (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Nikola Tesla

Light bulb iconBAn RFC: Should all discussions and proposals about Nikola Tesla's nationality, ethnicity and country of birth (broadly construed) be limited to the sub-page: Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity? has been posted here. Interested editors are invited to comment.- MrX 20:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).--Lucas559 (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Bijeljina massacre RfC

Your input is requested at Talk:Bijeljina massacre#RfC: Should this article make reference to the Bosnian Serb politician Biljana Plavšić stepping over the body of a dead Bosniak to kiss the Serb paramilitary leader Željko Ražnatović (aka Arkan) Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

A-Class review for 7th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 7th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC - Aloysius Stepinac

Your input is requested at Talk:Aloysius_Stepinac#RfC:_What_honorific-prefixes_should_be_included_in_the_infobox.3F. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

A-Class review for 1st Cavalry Division (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 1st Cavalry Division (Kingdom of Yugoslavia); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Gudovac massacre

Gudovac massacre is up for FAC. If anyone has any comments or recommendations for improving the article, feel free to visit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gudovac massacre/archive1. 23 editor (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Josip Broz Tito

Why isn't the article called 'Tito', as per WP:COMMONNAME? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Yugoslavia in the Eurovision:Language of performances

Hi! I would like to invite those of you who might be interested to share your thoughts on question I raised on Talk:Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest.--MirkoS18 (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:Hero Cities of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has been nominated for discussion

Category:Hero Cities of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for comments

There is a request for comments that is likely of interest to this project at Talk:Rajka_Baković#Request for comments. --- Otr500 (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the Albanian Commemorative Medal has been nominated for discussion

Category:Recipients of the Albanian Commemorative Medal, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg

Greetings WikiProject Yugoslavia/Archive 4 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, SteviethemanDelivered: 18:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)