Talk:The Bridge on the Drina

Unrelated

Is it just me or does this article go on and on and on about things that are completely unrelated to the book? Just skimming it now... --Shallot 10:58, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Višegrad

Why Višegrad (as the town is originally written in Latin script) was turned into Vishegrad in this article?

Fair use rationale for Image:Bridge on drina.jpg

Image:Bridge on drina.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

UNESCO's World Heritage List

As of 2007-06, the Bridge has been included into UNESCO's World Heritage List, I think an editor should include this on the article: http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=38720&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html greetings - excalibor 08:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Chapter Summary

Partially copied from user talk page
Please revert yourself. By making this edit you've reinstated content mirroring that which is already summarized in the synopsis. Needless cruft. 23 editor (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

That should be discussed on the talk page of the article with consensus reached. The chapter summary provides the years and shows the flow of the book which I why I put it back in. Hardly "needless cruft". -O.R.^Comms 03:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Needless cruft, indeed. It repeats virtually everything that is stated in the synopsis only in point form. I'm trying to improve the article considerably. Please point me to a GA or FA promoted in the last two years that has a similar chapter summary. 23 editor (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Calling another editors' contribution "cruft" borders on breaking WP:CIV. Its just not a good idea, it can be easily misunderstood. As far as the chapter summary, I feel its a good quick reference for the reader, designed to show which events occur in which chapter while showing the progression of the years. As far as I know, there is no Wikipedia policy prohibiting chapter summaries; should probably post on noticeboards to get consensus from other editors more knowledgeable. If the table needs to be removed until then, that would be fine. -O.R.^Comms 03:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

My apologies. I didn't know that was your contribution to the article until I checked the history. If I had, I probably would have been less terse. In any case, I would like to remove the table temporarily until consensus has been reached. I'll leave a message over Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature for opinions. Cheers, 23 editor (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, O.R., this is the response I got over at the WikiProject. 23 editor (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

What I would like to see is just a small info box with the chapter numbers and years that they cover. The "flowing nature" of the book over time was the aspect of it which really fascinating me. I agree a chapter summary repeating information already mentioned is unnecessary and counter productive. -O.R.^Comms 14:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest you create an example infobox to illustrate what it would look like and start an RfC to reach a community consensus. 23 editor (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Bridge on the Drina. 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/20100520011942/http://www.ivoandric.org.rs/html/the_bridge_on_the_drina.html to http://www.ivoandric.org.rs/html/the_bridge_on_the_drina.html

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) 22:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Publication date?

The infobox says that this was published in 1945. How can that be, when the English translation linked at the bottom of the article was published in 1919? The English translation says that the original was published in 1915. 50.253.11.17 (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)