Kommunal.az

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Serbia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bor District. 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/20101027080112/http://www.poi.rs:80/wp/category/centralna-srbija/borski-okrug/ to http://www.poi.rs/wp/category/centralna-srbija/borski-okrug/

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) 02:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bor District. 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/20140714191241/http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/Popis2011/Knjiga20.pdf to http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/Popis2011/Knjiga20.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140811224233/http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/Popis2011/Nacionalna%20pripadnost-Ethnicity.pdf to http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/Popis2011/Nacionalna%20pripadnost-Ethnicity.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.poi.rs/wp/category/centralna-srbija/borski-okrug/

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) 13:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Negotin-nocu.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello Klačko. The impact on the addition of Romanians on the demographics tables of these four articles in negligible [1] [2] [3] [4]. I agree adding them on other Serbian districts would be WP:UNDUE. These four however are the areas traditionally inhabited by Vlachs. I intended to reflect the pro-Romanian camp (as you know, there is a split reminiscent of the ones in Moldova and Montenegro, even if the scale is different), which represents close to 10% of Vlachs/Romanians per 2022 census results.

I assume your reverts come from a desire to keep articles WP:CONSISTENT as the 1% threshold seems to be standard across Serbian district articles. But I will note we are not required by Wikipedia policy to adjust to consistent practices if there can be good reason not to, and I doubt a centralized discussion on this has taken place (I apologize if I an wrong, if you'd be kind to show me the discussion). I believe there is good reason because the numbers of the Vlach minority are already small enough in their own homeland, it does not cost us anything to quickly reflect their identitary controversy in a line on a table. I think these tables should include minorities that have lived traditionally in said areas, I see no harm but on the other hand benefit for the reader in this. A 1% threshold is arbitrary, for instance on Romanian county articles (at least the ones for Banat) [5] [6] we include several minorities with traditional presences (Germans, Bulgarians, Ukrainians), including Serbs who are barely below 1% at the first article. The information is quickly conveyed in a graphic without taking up much space in the article. Objectively, how is this negative? Super Ψ Dro 09:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello Super_Dromaeosaurus. My concern is not just consistency but undue weight. These district articles are supposed to give a brief demographic overview, and once we start listing groups below 1%, it becomes difficult to justify not doing the same for other very small minorities as well in some other districts. Those numbers of Vlachs per individual districts are already covered in the main Vlachs of Serbia, where these figures are presented in the proper context (not just once, in infobox, but twice - both in infobox and main body of article), so I don't see a need to repeat them in district articles where their share is statistically negligible. Traditional presence alone is not enough reason to include every very small group in a demographics table. Regards, Klačko (talk) 08:12, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I understand your stance, though I see nothing negative in including smaller groups. If the threshold was reduced to 0.10%, the tables might be expanded by 4 lines, still being short and readable. I would be unfavorable to have this information erased from everywhere as I think it is relevant in the context I explained on edit summaries. Would you be opposed to including it into the Vlachs article briefly? Regards, Super Ψ Dro 08:51, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

If you mean figures and shares by districts, they are already included in the Vlachs article. I am not opposed whatsoever for figures and shares to be noted there as they are right now. Klačko (talk) 08:59, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I was referring to including information on self-declared Romanians in the four districts in the Vlachs article. This could be done in a sentence. Excluding migrants from Romania, both camps of the ethnoidentitary dispute would agree them to be part of the same population group as the self-declared Vlachs. Super Ψ Dro 09:37, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

But why? That article is about people who self-identify as Vlachs, so the demographic figures should refer to Vlachs only. Likewise, the article on Romanians in Serbia should present figures for those who identify as Romanians. Including census figures on Romanians here would duplicate data already covered elsewhere. The ethnoidentitary dispute that you are mentioning is already thoroughly presented in the article, so I do not see need to merge separate census categories in the demographic statistics. Klačko (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I will concede on this issue as I haven't been able to find yet reliable sources discussing increasing self-identification as Romanians in Vlach-inhabited areas in Serbian censuses. This is something I've seen mentioned in some blogs and social media but without reliable sourcing it could come off as WP:OR. I had wanted to mention this as the amounts of self-declared Romanians in these districts were two-digits figures in the 1991 census and I see some figures from Timok in Romanian organizations based in Banat. Just saying to clarify where was I coming from, I have no desire to edit against NPOV. I think it would not have amounted to duplication though as the Romanians in Serbia article also includes a section on Timok (after all, they used to be classified as such in Serbian censuses).

Anyway, thank you for this civilized discussion. Hopefully we come to an agreement at the other discussion. Regards and happy editing. Super Ψ Dro 13:02, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply