Talk:Jagodnjak

Serbian name

OK, I see that revert warring about usage of Serbian name in this article is not over, but I do not think that current solution is best one. While Serbian name is listed in "Name" section, together with German and Hungarian name, it is a bit strange that Serbian name is written after German and Hungarian one, since we all known very well that Serbs are majority in this municipality, while number of Hungarians and Germans is significantly smaller. I think that names should be listed in the oder which reflects the size of each ethnic group: 64,72% Serbs, 2,88% Hungarians, and 0,55% Germans. The order by which names of ethnic groups that counting 2,88% and 0,55% of population are presented as more important than name of ethnic group that counting 64,72% of population is indeed POV and insulting for majority of inhabitants of this municipality. In Vojvodina-related articles, I tried to make these name lists to be in accordance with size of each ethnic group in each settlement. I do not see why that solution cannot be implemented here? There is no rule which says that we should use "alphabetic order approach" especially in this case, where such approach looks POV. "Size of ethnic groups" is much better and much more NPOV criteria to be implemented. PANONIAN 10:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• I notice that the Serbian name of the city was just removed from the infobox. I am going to restore it. We just had a dispute about this sort of thing at the Srbobran article; I think that if there are two official languages in a city, both of the names should be in the lede or the infobox or both. If you look at articles on cities in other bilingual areas of Europe - for instance Gdansk, Geneva, or Marseille - the names in the various languages and their pronunciations are usually listed in the lede and the infobox. Brianyoumans (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jagodnjak. 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/20120425070352/http://www.zadra.hr/ugovori/odluka_o_razvrstavanju_jedinica_lokalne_i_podrucne_%28regionalne%29_samouprave_prema_stupnju_razvijenosti.pdf to http://www.zadra.hr/ugovori/odluka_o_razvrstavanju_jedinica_lokalne_i_podrucne_%28regionalne%29_samouprave_prema_stupnju_razvijenosti.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120330100908/http://www.pravo.unizg.hr/_download/repository/Zakon_o_PPDS.pdf to http://www.pravo.unizg.hr/_download/repository/Zakon_o_PPDS.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029211333/http://www.nipp.hr/UserDocsImages/Registar%20geografska%20imena%20nacionalnih%20manjina%20RH.pdf to http://www.nipp.hr/UserDocsImages/Registar%20geografska%20imena%20nacionalnih%20manjina%20RH.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)