Talk:Administrative divisions of Serbia/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Administrative divisions of Serbia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Proposed merge
This article, Regions of Serbia and Districts of Serbia share 90% of information. I fail to see why it needs to be repeated, and, apart from the list of "regions", districts and municipalities and maps (most shared), what else could possibly be written about the subdivision in general? I hate forks for no apparent reason. Duja 11:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
don't merge. For each country there is a (small or not) overview article. Then there are seperate articles for each type, e.g. districts, counties, municipalities. Maybe the overview article should be made smaller. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that Districts of Serbia should have a separate page, but I really fail to grasp the difference between this page, Subdivisions of Serbia, and Regions of Serbia. They seem to pretty much duplicate information, with different images. At least the districts article is talking about something entirely, and I don't believe I can say the same about these. Picaroon9288|ta co 22:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Wrong merge
I reverted article to previous version because list of municipalities was removed from here and merged into article Districts of Serbia. If somebody search for the list of municipalities, Districts of Serbia article is not most logical place where he will look for it, but this one. PANONIAN (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Merge yet again...
Tobias, would you please explain why we need four articles (Subdivisions of Serbia, Districts of Serbia, Municipalities of Serbia and Regions of Serbia) when all the information which is now triplicated and quadruplicated was contained here? Do we need such elaborate taxonomy just for taxonomy's sake, and consistency for consistency's sake?
May I remind you that WP:POVFORK states that:
Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary.
Which of those articles is too long, and why redirects couldn't do their job as normal? At the moment, almost all the information is in Municipalities of Serbia and all of it was in here, (before you removed the short info about districts just for the sake of having a separate article about them). Duja 08:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
These all are different types. If one wants to read about the municipalities, he should only get these. Consistency is important in a WP, it makes surfing for the reader easier. It is done that way for all other countries, Serbia has absolutly the right that its articles are treated as good as those for other countries. Don't merge, but expand. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 10:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- A solution might be that implied by the page move I made on September 21; Subdivisions of Serbia as a master article linking to Administrative divisions of Serbia and other X divisions of Serbia or including those X-type divisions (electoral, planning, etc) as sections within:
|
|
Update
The territorial organization of the Republic of Serbia is regulated by a new Law on Territorial Organization dated December 29, 2007 [1]
Main changes include :
The Republic of Serbia is divided into 29 districts (17 in Central Serbia, 7 in Vojvodina and 5 in Kosovo), while the city of Belgrade presents a district of its own.
Serbia is divided into 150 municipalities and 24 cities, --Krisgrotius (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Administrative divisions of Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.parlament.gov.rs/content/cir/akta/akta_detalji.asp?Id=1178&t=P# - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321001009/http://www.emg.rs/vesti/srbija/112462.html to http://www.emg.rs/vesti/srbija/112462.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Administrative divisions of Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110513114716/http://www.parlament.gov.rs/content/cir/akta/akta_detalji.asp?Id=466&t=Z%23 to http://www.parlament.gov.rs/content/cir/akta/akta_detalji.asp?Id=466&t=Z%23
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)