Wikipedia

Talk:Dubica, Bosnia and Herzegovina/Archive 1

< Talk:Dubica, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The image File:Banja Znak.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --17:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dubica, Bosnia-Herzegovina. 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) 19:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dubica, Bosnia-Herzegovina. 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) 10:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dubica, Bosnia-Herzegovina. 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, 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) 09:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Listen

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

PANONIAN and I discussed this in a civil and fair manner. We went through all the options and decided on what should stay in the article and how the article name should be written as. There is no reason for once again causing disputes. We made it fair for all three ethnicities of BiH and followed BiH's government. Both are used. Vseferović 17:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Seferoviću, I don't care what you agreed with someone else, what you consider to be "fair" and for whom. All I want is a factually accurate article. Why don't you write a short section explaining the name issue? For example:

The official name is X, but it used to Y and was changed because of Z. Generally, Group A accept and use the newer official name, while Group B consider it illegitimate and reject it. The joint institutions tend to use both names in parallel.

Something like that. What do you think?--Hadžija 18:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that both are recognized by the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina. "Bosanska Dubica/Kozarska Dubica". Pov comes in when one recognizes only "Kozarska Dubica". This would be unfair to the Bosniaks and Croat minorities. What is wrong with following the BiH government? Vseferović 20:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't matter what the joint institutions use or not. BiH is a decentralised state, and the official names of towns are regulated by the Закон о територијалној организацији и локалној самоуправи Републике Српске.[1] It doesn't matter what I or you think about it, that's the way it is. Whether the name is discriminatory is a matter of opinion. Even if it is discriminatory (and I don't think it is), that is the official name. Wikipedia merely reflects the reality, and if the name offends you so much, you should try to change the official name with a citizens' initiative or petition. I recognise the name issue is complex, so I invite you again to write a section explaining the intricacies of the problem - but please write about things as they are, not the way you'd like them to be.--Hadžija 20:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Name

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The town is called Kozarska Dubica, but is used to be called Bosanska Dubica. What the Federation or central government does doesn't matter one jot, because they don't have any authority over Republika Srpska in this area and as you can see, RS has made the name Kozarska Dubica official.[2]--Hadžija 16:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no central government, there is 2 entites governemnt and the parliament is consisted of people from both RS, Federation and Distrikt Brcko.

And the Federation calls the city Bosanska Dubica while the official name of the city is Bosanska Dubica/Kozarska Dubica.

My suggestion is that you go to the city and vote in the next election and you will se the name of the city. Alkalada 08:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, how many times I have to repeat that if you have "/" sign in documents that you do not have one but TWO names. If documents have "Bosanska Dubica/Kozarska Dubica", those are two names, not one, and we speak about two names used equally, not about one (frankenstain-made) name composed of two names. PANONIAN 06:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

But PANONIAN, all that matters is what the law says, and anything else is common usage. Of course we should make a note about that dual usage in documents, but while documents are official, I'm sure you'll agree laws are a lot more official.--Hadžija 18:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

(For Estavisti) Explain to me how English is your naitive language, since you live in Serbia. Knowing English and learning it before Serbian (native) are two different things.

I want to ask why is name of this city Bosanska Dubica, when is official name Kozarska Dubica 

please visit   www.kozarskadubica.org

Just about 1000 people wrote petition abuot change of name to Bosanska Dubica What about other 30000 peole who want name Kozarska. In the name of those 30000 people who live in Kozarska Dubica, you have to change name on en.wikipedia !!!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dubica,_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina/Archive_1&oldid=1136680647"