Jump to content

Talk:Lists of political office-holders in Vojvodina

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Images

[edit]
placing images here causes certain tehnical problems in the article
what technical problems ? it looks fine to me. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 20:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, which browser you use? I use Opera, and when you place images there, I do not see half of content. The visitors of Wikipedia, which use same browser as me would have the same problem. Besides that, I just created image gallery, and I think that this solution is better, since I will put more images there. User:PANONIAN

Attila the Hun

[edit]
It's not identified where exactly the capital of his empire was, but he still was ruler of today's Vojvodina

How so? If you look at this map, you can see how Hun Empire was large:

All rulers mentioned in the article have some specific local ties with Vojvodina, Backa, Banat or Srem. If Attila had some local ties with the region, please explain what is exact nature of these ties. User:PANONIAN

Article subject

[edit]

There is no Voivodina before 1849. So there could not be rulers of Voivodina. The terrytory of Voivodina was part of Hungarian kingdom from 10th century to 1541. Than it was part of Ottoman empire to 1799. Than it was the part of Habsburg empire. Srem vas part of Croatia, Bács (Bačka) and Bánság (Banat) was part of Hungary. Voivodina was formed 1849 and existed up to 18660/61. Than there was no Voivodina up to 1945, but there are no rulers anymore. So please erase this site because it is nonsense.--Mzolta (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you do not have to elaborate simplistic (and partially inaccurate) history of colonial powers that ruled over Vojvodina. Certainly, you agree that there is Vojvodina since 1848, right? So, clearly there are rulers of Vojvodina from 1848 to this day and therefore title and subject of this article are perfectly valid. The questionable issue might be list of pre-1848 rulers, but I do not see why list cannot be expanded with this info too. These pre-1848 rulers are important for regional history. No matter that name Vojvodina was introduced in 1848, historical states, duchies and provinces that existed in its territory before 1848 are its political predecessors and therefore they are relevant for regional history. PANONIAN 05:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of whole section

[edit]

User:Epeefleche deleted lists of prefects of ancient provinces and his justification for this action was mention of "wp:listpeople" Wikipedia rules. So let examine these rules:

A person may be included in a list of people if all the following requirements are met:

  • 1. The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. An exception to this requirement may be made if the person is especially important in the list's group; for example, if the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have an article in Wikipedia about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to establish their membership in the list's group and to establish their notability.
  • 2. The person's membership in the list's group is significant in some way (in other words, a person should not be included in a list merely because they happen to be a member of the list's group). This requirement applies only to lists based upon religion, beliefs, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or other contentious topics.
  • 3. The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources.

I fail to see that data removed by User:Epeefleche does not fulfill these criteria:

  • 1. I do not see why prefects of ancient provinces are not "notable people". They are notable as much as modern presidents of Vojvodinian government.
  • 2. I do not see that second rule could be connected with this article.
  • 3. reliable sources for this list are provided: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_local_rulers_of_Vojvodina#Literature (or more exactly, data about these prefects was taken from first mentioned source - Petar Milošević, Arheologija i istorija Sirmijuma, Novi Sad, 2001).

So, what exactly is problem here? PANONIAN 19:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • First off--As I have explained to Pano elsewhere (he opened up discussion in more than one location, it appears), his continued additions of red-linked names, without RS references at the end of the line mentioning the name that demonstrate the person's having been a ruler of Vojvodina, to this list is against various wp policies. Though I've pointed them out to Pano, he has continued to revert, and at this point is engaging in tendentious edit warring.
Pano asked me why he should not add red-linked un-referenced names to wikipedia lists, as he did it again, w/an edit summary that said "what kind of argument is that? can you refer to Wikipedia policy which say that".
I left Pano two responses -- one in an edit summary here (pointing him to wp:LISTPEOPLE), and a second response in the standard level-one notice for editors who are unfamiliar with wp's core policies of verifiability and citing sources here, referring to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources.
Even after I did so, Pano insisted on re-adding the red-linked, unreferenced names yet again.
The names are still red-linked, and still un-referenced. For any such names to remain, a reference must be placed at the end of the line regarding the name that reflects the verifiability/notability that is required. It is not sufficient to have mentions of sources listed elsewhere in the list. It is not clear which names any such references would refer to. And, as none of us controls who is later added to the list, an editor cannot simply refer back to the names listed in "x" ... because another editor could come along the next minute, and add Panonian (for example) to the list, and the first editor's statement would no longer be true.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Satisfied? PANONIAN 21:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A good start. The article still has other red-linked, non-referenced names. Those should be either sourced, blue-linked, or deleted, per the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a quick look at the Prefects section, picking the first and last names. There are sources for Valerius Licinius, such as [1]. However, all I could find for Apraemis were Wikipedia mirrors. The source used, Arheologija i istorija Sirmijuma, is not available online, so it is difficult to check it. I think it's a case of working collaboratively to ensure that names in the list are adequately sourced. It is ironic that it takes a dispute before people add sources, but it is very common. Disputes ensure that Wikipedia articles are tested and improved. This list is very poorly sourced and contains many redlinks. It might be useful if you two continued disputing until the rest of the list is improved. Of course, you can dispute in a collegiate manner - it doesn't need to be aggressive and bad tempered! I wish you both good luck, and I look forward to seeing an improved list in a few months. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The redlinks should not have been added -- even though there is no timeline -- in the first place, for any period of time. If Pan wishes to move them out of the article, and work on them, and add them back when they meet the guidelines' standards, that would be fine. But they should not remain in the article as red-linked unreferenced names.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can add source for each red link, but I would need some time for that (few days at least). I wrote this article long time ago and I do not remember exactly which name I took from which book. Anyway, I will see to provide some web sources instead (if verifiability of published sources is seen as problem). Unfortunately, some of my sources are indeed not available online, but I believe that I earned some credibility in Wikipedia due to the fact that I wrote 821 articles and that, therefore, info that I translated from published Serbian sources that are not available online should not be deleted from this article only because of the fact that an online verification of that info cannot be found. Online coverage of the regional history of Vojvodina is pure anyway, and it is very hard to find online sources for some parts of this history. Anyway, I will see to provide an online reference wherever is that possible. Also, I planed to create separate article about each person from the list, but I did not had enough free time for that. So, I do not agree that red links should be deleted. I will provide references for them, and if I find time, I will create articles about these persons and links will not be red any more (or some other users might create some of these articles, anyway). Also, can we be little flexible about this: this source lists most of modern rulers, so can we add this link as reference for whole sections of the article, instead for each person in that list? PANONIAN 15:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I, personally, am not challenging your credibility as to any such references linked to refs that are off-line. My issue is with the barest of problems (though some editors require more than I do) -- those entries that lack both any ref at all reflecting notability/truth, and also lack a wp article. Thanks much. As far as using Ben Cahoon's site as a source, I'm not sure that that qualifies as an RS, but would be happy to here why you believe it should. Also, you could always bring it to the reliable sources noticeboard for a view -- I would be happy with whatever the thinking is there. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was actually user:SilkTork who raised question of verifiability of sources and I simply answered to both of you in same post. I am not yet finished with adding references and I will add them to all red links. Also, which of the sites that I used is Ben Cahoon's site? (can you specify www address of that site?) Originally, when I wrote this article, I used only www.worldstatesmen.org and http://www.skupstinavojvodine.gov.rs/ (or was it www.skupstinavojvodine.gov.yu in that time?), while all other sources that I used were published ones. So, I used newly added web links simply to fulfill verifiability requirement of user:SilkTork, but I can also specify published source where that info is used. I did recently expanded article with some new names (for example those of Iazyge rulers), but I took that data from article in Serbian Wikipedia that I wrote: http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%88%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B8 (and I used published sources for that article too). PANONIAN 08:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
worldstatesmen.org is Cahoon's site--the one you had asked me about.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will provide additional references for names that are currently referenced only by worldstatesmen.org. PANONIAN 04:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: is it OK that in the part of the article that speaks about some modern rulers we use references for whole sections instead for each person? For example, lists of "Bans of Danube Banovina" or "Presidents of the Government of Vojvodina" are complete lists and there is nothing that could be added to these lists from other sources. So, is current way of sourcing of that part of the article OK or should I add reference for each ban or government president? PANONIAN 09:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would not work, unfortunately. Because you cannot "lock down" the section. Nothing prevents someone, the moment after you walk away, from adding "Joey Panonian" to the list. Your "statement" that the whole list is sourced to "ref x" would therefore immediately be rendered false. Instead, simply add the (the same, if it is indeed the same) ref to each line item, at the end.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. PANONIAN 04:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of local rulers of Vojvodina. 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:

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) 02:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of local rulers of Vojvodina. 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:

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) 00:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lists_of_political_office-holders_in_Vojvodina&oldid=1203707274"