Template talk:Republics and autonomous provinces of the former Yugoslavia

This page was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion in May, 2004. The result of that discussion was to keep the article. For an archive of the discussion, see Template talk:SFRY/Delete.

Previous discussions:

So again this is being imposed -- why? When will you pesky Slovenians give up? :) Seriously though, this is questionable per se, let alone considering the general uneasiness about too many footers. --Shallot 00:46, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not Slovenian but I don't have anything against the footer. Nikola 09:33, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Do we really need this table? Avala 11:57, 18 May 2004 (UTC) There is no ex-soviet states table.Avala 15:23, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly an explanation. This is a question, and seemingly a rhetorical one as you, immediately upon asking, went and deleted the box from everywhere. Come on, Avala - edit cooperatively, and not competitively. Snowspinner 15:28, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

While Avala may have been a bit bold, the consensus seems to be leaning towards what he thinks. Zocky and Nikola Smolenski have expressed a positive opinion about the box, Daniel Quinlan, Jmabel, myself and Avala a negative one, and the general trend elsewhere seems to be to omit box links to previous countries and just leave them in the articles themselves (and we have that already). --Shallot 11:45, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

As I said already somewhere else, I think this link is very useful. Alright, the states don't have anything politically in common right now, but they do have pretty much in common historically and even up to this day culturally. Besides, in a year and a half in Osijek and Sarajevo, I hardly found anyone who would call a Srbijanac or Slovenac "foreigner" in the same sense as a Bulgarian or Austrian.

That's a sentiment rapidly going out of fashion. Kids these days... :) Seriously though, in the case of Croatia, the historical and cultural argument can be extended towards nearby countries like Hungary much better than countries like Macedonia. It's similar for most others, and indeed already covered well enough in the articles without this mediawiki element. --Shallot

I am not trying to make a point on whether it's a good or bad sentiment, but "Kids these days" are none the less listening to Bajaga in Osijek and to Zabranjeno pusenje in Sombor, that's if they like that kind of muzika/glazba. Strangely, Croats listen even to Ceca, which I wouldn't even listen to as a Serb nationalist for reasons of physical health :-) Jakob Stevo

Sure, but none of that is a real indication of the closeness of countries and peoples. I know that younger people here have a rather clear image of other ex-.yu countries as distinct from their own. --Shallot

I am not talking of closeness, let's rather call it very specific relation. Closeness alone wouldn't be a reason for the list. BTW, people often mistake me for a Slovene for my accent when I speak Croatian, and I can tell from there reaction when they hear I'm Austrian that those two are _very_ different categories in their mind. Anyway, that the sentiments are going out of fashion is also just an opinion, and one that is unsubstantiated in the facts. We all know that they are weaker than they used to be, but we don't actually know how they will develop further down the road! Jakob Stevo 19:12, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that part's quite well supported in facts, I live in .hr and, presuming you won't think I'm making this up, it's very clear to everyone that the countries are separated despite the fact we still understand each other when we speak and that we were in the same country just fifteen years ago. This is also widely understood to be the final state of affairs for the forseeable future, because we've had two wars about the issue and nobody really wants a third one any time soon. This holds for my country but I've seen nothing to contradict it in other countries as well. The Yugoslav idealists have generally been rather dissuaded by the developments in the last century and instead switched to pondering a union of a different kind -- the European Union.

Anyway. The blue box for this right there on the country pages is just extraneous. We have a page on the unified language, and we have a page on the three official languages; they're linked together without a blue box. We have a page with Yugoslav wars, and separate descriptions of each of them; they're linked together without a blue box. We also have all the separate country pages, pages about regions and pages about rebellious entities, a page about SFRY and a page about the old Kingdom, all of them linked wherever the other ones are mentioned. And this linkage appears to be quite enough in practice -- whenever some luser comes and vandalizes one of them, they generally vandalize several others as well because they're right there at the tips of their fingers. :/

--Shallot

I am concious that the countries are separated and that this is the final state of affairs. I don't think whoever created the box thought of implying that this separation might be temporary. Definitely that is not my point. The countries are separate and I believe that's good that way (although I did meet quite a few jugonostalgicare). But that shouldn't mean we have to denie obvious connections, nor that we should break up contact which naturally comes up having e.g. a more or less common language (Remotely similar situation with the German speaking countries). And 75 years is not that short after all, just a bit shorter than Burgenland (Gradisce) has been part of Austria. Besides it's not only about whether or not it belongs together, maybe more on would a reader interested in one also like to know about the other. And as to your other remark: Noone is going to put stuff about food on the strictly geographical article Pannonian plain nor on the historical Pannonia debating the Roman province, so that is not and will never be and should not be the way to find that stuff. Anyway, I am not as hot on the topic as it might seem, and it's fine with me to move it to the History sections, as that seems to be the consensus coming up.

I personally won't need the link, nor will you, because we know what the other republics and territories are, but someone who is not so good in European geography may be glad to use them.

Except that it doesn't work that way. People will read the article, wonder what this "former Yugoslavia" is, and click that link right there, and see a nice list of components, a map, and a description of the old state. They simply will not scroll to the bottom of the article and read the seventh of fifteen blue boxes, that's simply not going to happen. --Shallot 13:19, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of agree, the jungle at Slovenia is ugly, but the first one to kick out there is La Francophonie, which doesn't have anything to do with Slovenia accept that is has observer status there (which again probably most Slovenians don't know). Jakob Stevo

Well, for a few (back then some would say happy:) years Slovenia was actually occupied by Napoleon as part of the Illyrian provinces. Maybe this is the explanation, but I agree that nowadays Slovenia has little to do with French language.

As for the former-SFRY box: I personally think that it's useful to foreigners, but it could perhaps be shortened so that it would become "Countries from ex-SFRY" instead of "former socialist republics of ex-Yu". But I don't have a strong point of view on this issue. --Romanm 20:23, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, everybody should be able to use this encyclopedia and to find what he/she is looking for. Matter of fact, although sad, probably most English speakers look up Macedonia or Bosnia wanting to find out about the fall of Yugoslavia, so for them it's very useful to have links to the other former Republics neatly at hand. Jakob Stevo 13:04, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

That's just an opinion, and one that is unsubstantiated in the facts: they can already find out everything about the fall of Yugoslavia and the other republics, they just have to click the already provided links. --Shallot 13:19, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Not gonna have an argument with you on that, but what are, in YOUR opinion, the main topics the average English speaker would be looking for concerning any of the Republics except maybe Slovenia? As I said, it's sad, but probably true. Jakob Stevo

Well, not necessarily, even if you want to consider the dumbest possible viewers. You probably meant something about the EU for Slovenia (either that or a distinction between Slovenia and Slovakia ;). In case of Croatia, they'd probably want to know either "is there still a war there" or something about vacations, and none of that involves other SFRY republics, it's all on other pages. In case of Bosnia, they'd probably want to know if there are still peacekeepers there, and that's not at SFRY pages either. For Serbia and Montenegro, they'd want to know about Kosovo, and that's not at SFRY either (well, at least they wouldn't have to scroll to the bottom to find out about that). For Macedonia, the ethnic Albanians, which is again not about the SFRY republics. --Shallot

Apparently I am not considering the dumbest possible viewer :) My viewer might be looking for vacations in Croatia, and check out what are the opportunities in Montenegro, or inform himself about the conflict in Macedonia and want to compare the situation to Kosovo, Serbia or Montenegro. Or check out Pannonian cuisine in Slavonia and Vojvodina. Or whatever Jakob Stevo 19:19, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Each of these can be serviced without the blue box. For Adriatic vacations, by clicking the obvious link to the sea. For conflicts regarding ethnic Albanians, by clicking the obvious link to the ethnic group. For Pannonian stuff, by clicking the obvious link to the same plain. And each of them is a slippery slope, given that people might also want to know about other, non-SFRY countries along the coast to spend holidays in, other countries where ethnic Albanians have issues, other countries with Pannonian cuisine, each of which exist and are, by and large, at least as relevant as the mentioned ones. --Shallot 20:34, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I think that box of current sountrie states or zupanije are much more important than some historical boxes which should be moved in history of.... article. I made serbia and montenegro box over sfry box and snowsppiner is saying that s&m is bad but sfry great and important blah blahAvala 14:14, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I think the SFRY box is important for two reasons. First, a lot of media still refers to countries like Slovenia as "Former Yugoslav republics" when they talk about them, and they are still frequently compared to one another. Is this comparison rational/useful? Well, that's debatable, but the comparison is frequently made among them, and so a box among them is useful.

I still don't see why the (already existent and pretty much more prominent) links to former Yugoslavia don't suffice for this. It's just two clicks instead of one, plus viewers get the benefit of actually seeing more about the SFRY. --Shallot

Second, as has been mentioned here, the countries have a lot of shared history, especially in the 20th century. Yes, this opens the door for a "Former Roman Provinces" box, but I think a much stronger case can be made for this box - the shared history is still a plenty-recent memory for most people.

If this was for a section about recent news, that would have to be taken into account, but it's not, this is about general country pages that are supposed to stick to the point and we're supposed to avoid crowding the pages with more information than necessary.

Also, shared history as Yugoslavia generally means around 75 years during the 20th century (with some exceptions), which is not that much. Yeah, I know that this is still reasonably fresh, but it's nevertheless history and not really /that/ pertinent to the general country pages. --Shallot

As for the S&M box, it contains three links, but is the size of boxes with five times as many links. It's just too little content for a box. Snowspinner 14:26, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

for s&m----------there is nothing more to add!!!!!!

for sfry--------as you said they share the history so we agreed that this box goes to history section of articles.

Avala 14:58, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I am not averse to it going to the history section, although I admit, I do wish that the country articles were not broken into multiple articles like they are. But that's a matter to take to the WikiProject on countries. Snowspinner 15:04, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are counting opinions: I prefer the S&M box, and I can live with both. The sfry box alone looks odd to me. I also don't mind if the box has only a few entries. Just my 2 cents -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:14, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Another opinion. I think the S&M box might be OK if it's made smaller - to fit the number of entries in it. As it is, it looks silly. The SFRY box is important to have, but should possibly be moved to the history section.--ALargeElk 15:21, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I like SFRY on the history page. But I think that the S&M box is not the best use of space - Serbia and Montenegro should be mentioned in the first sentence or two of Serbia and Montenegro, the autonomous provinces should like up to Serbia, etc. The box isn't going to offer any information that isn't already covered in the text of the article, in other words - it's entirely redundant. Also, as I've said, my feeling is that until one gets to 7 entries in a box, it's not worth having a box for. As for resizing the S&M box, I think it would look equally silly, if not moreso, to have a box with different dimensions than the other boxes. Snowspinner 15:23, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

SFRY is also mentioned in article but we have have the box. Box for SCG includes all there is. It is just for someone who doesn`t want to read whole article just to "take a look". Avala 15:29, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an appropriate use of boxes. Boxes should be for links and connections relevent to the topic, but not really suitable for the article. Look at the philosopher box on, say, Immanuel Kant for an idea of how a box should work. As for SFRY, although it is mentioned, the list of other SFRY nations is not, meaning that the box does add information - something the S&M box does not do. It merely repeats it. Snowspinner 15:33, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I can add not just states of S&M but also it`s counties but i know that you will say that it is too large-108 counties only in Serbia!!!!! You remind of Jovan Jovanovic Zmaj song for children "Materina Maza " Avala 15:43, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

My objection to the counties of Serbia would be that I doubt most of them have Wikipedia articles. I don't know the song to which you refer, though. Snowspinner 15:44, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

ma dete u selu,
Ime mu je Laza,
Al? ga zovu drukčije ?
M a t e r i n a   m a z a.

Kad sva deca ustanu,
On i onda spava,
Kad mu ka?u: Ustani!
Njega boli glava.

Kad ustane, ne ume
Da se sam obuče,
Ne sme da se umije,
I?te vode vruće.

Kad ga ?ulji cipela,
On cipelu tuče,
Tad ga ruka zaboli,
Pa onda jauče.

Kad mu dadu jabuku,
On bi hteo ?ljiva,
Kad mu pru?e pogaču,
Onda bi koljiva.

Kad se malo ogrebe,
Plače i zapeva:
"Jao, jao, pomagaj,
Izić će mi creva!"

Kad je suvo, zamesi
Blata pa se kalja,
Kad ga mati pokara,
Legne pa se valja.

Kad mu uspu tarane,
On bi jeo riba,
Kad se ribe najede,
Tad ga boli tiba.

Pa zato ga ne zovu
Po imenu: Laza,
Većem jadno, ?alosno:
M a t e r i n a   m a z a!

Song by Jovan Jovanovic Zmaj. Avala 15:51, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

And in English? Snowspinner 15:54, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

huh hard to translate and it would sound stupid and nonsense.

BTW where are you from Snowsppiner? Avala 16:08, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Snowspinner 16:13, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

there is no article about calumet in illinois but it is still in the box :) Avala 16:27, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a good thing. Snowspinner 16:57, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

well make a Calumet article. Avala 17:01, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

good that you made it but you have to link it in the box Avala 17:01, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the problem was that the article existed, but was linked to wrong - I didn't do anything besides fix the box link. (It was to Calumet, Illinois when it should have been to Calumet City, Illinois). So it really had nothing to do with the article not existing. Snowspinner 17:16, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think the footer's useful as a quick route through to the other ex-Yugo states. -- ChrisO 17:44, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

yes but in history Avala 17:51, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Table centering

Cantus wrote: rv -- align=center doesn't center the box, only the text WITHIN the box. <center> is NEEDED to center the box

shallot wrote: no, <table align="center"> centers the whole table element (RTFM -- HTML4 specification section 11.2.1). both it and <center> are deprecated, but this one's shorter in source.

Cantus wrote: table align=center does NOTHING in Wikipedia, because Wikipedia has probably not implemented it. Don't preach ME about standards

Kindly stop talking nonsense. If you so much as look at the page as it is rendered you'll see that it's centered. I reproduced this both in Mozilla and in Internet Explorer, just to make sure. So, why does that happen? Probably because the generated page source clearly does have align=center within the table element, and it does its job according to the fine manual. It's not often that someone provokes me with such trivial issues... --Shallot 22:40, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using Opera and it's definitely not rendering as centred - the text within the box is centred but not the box itself. In Opera, the box is about 50% of the width of the content area, with the list of republics breaking across two lines immediately after Serbia. It renders quite differently in Internet Explorer, with the box extended across the entire content area and the text not breaking across lines. I think you have a browser compatibility issue here (as I understand it, Opera is much more standards-strict than IE). -- ChrisO 22:55, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using Safari which *is* standards compliant, unlike IE, and using table align=center without the <center> tag does not center the box. In IE it is centered, but as I said IE isn't standards compliant, so whatever. And by the way, in Shallot's version, the table will never be centered, because it covers 100% of the width available for it, and it will always stretch to the edges. I fixed this in my latest edit, removing the 100% width. I also tested this width removal over Shallot's version, resulting in this temp page, to which box my standards compliant browser still does not show as centered. --Cantus 23:29, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history, it seems to have been working OK in your edit of 22:07 today but got broken in your edit of 22:08. -- ChrisO 23:32, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The text within the box is centered because of the align attributes in the cell tags (again per specification). It's true that the table had width set to 100% in "my" version (that was there before me), I didn't notice that, but that's not actually the problem. Looking at the /temp version, the main reason why it was not centered is not lack of standards compliance, but that the CSS margin settings seemed to override the non-CSS table alignment :) I can't test this in IE right now, but it looks right in Mozilla and elinks. --Shallot 08:17, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Former Yugoslavia (SFRY)

Republics name is S.R.Vardarian Macedonia and no S.R.Macedonia. --Asteraki 14:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]