Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
There is no requirement to remove lists of settlements presented on account of the fact that there is "no source". This page is about an entity and the population listings support the entity but no reader needs a complete list of citations for each town size. It merely clutters the article with information not directly concerning the subject. You simply wikilink the items and the reader can follow the lead for himself, and anyone who discovers a wrong entry per sources on the article, well he can change those parts when required. ] ('''Евлекис''') (]) 11:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
There is no requirement to remove lists of settlements presented on account of the fact that there is "no source". This page is about an entity and the population listings support the entity but no reader needs a complete list of citations for each town size. It merely clutters the article with information not directly concerning the subject. You simply wikilink the items and the reader can follow the lead for himself, and anyone who discovers a wrong entry per sources on the article, well he can change those parts when required. ] ('''Евлекис''') (]) 11:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
:If you want to reinsert just a list of settlements without populations, that's fine by me; or fix the errors. I don't really care which. However, deliberately reinserting stuff with factual errors, like , is a Bad Thing. Interestingly, FKPCascais uses the edit summary "''Fix them then... or go to talk... don´t edit war''", which is difficult to reconcile with FkpCascais' ''actions'': Repeated reinsertion of factual errors, whilst refusing to ether fix it or participate on the talkpage. Just another day in the Balkans... ] (]) 15:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
:If you want to reinsert just a list of settlements without populations, that's fine by me; or fix the errors. I don't really care which. However, deliberately reinserting stuff with factual errors, like , is a Bad Thing. Interestingly, FKPCascais uses the edit summary "''Fix them then... or go to talk... don´t edit war''", which is difficult to reconcile with FkpCascais' ''actions'': Repeated reinsertion of factual errors, whilst refusing to ether fix it or participate on the talkpage. Just another day in the Balkans... ] (]) 15:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
::I think we should just stick to what the sources say. ] ('''Евлекис''') (]) 22:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Revision as of 22:23, 2 April 2013
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Republika Srpska article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar and style: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call:
Republika Srpska is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Bosnia and HerzegovinaWikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaTemplate:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaBosnia and Herzegovina
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Misplaced Pages. 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
Republika Srpska is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Misplaced Pages coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesFormer countries
An article intended to represent reality or touristic promotion?
The RS is poor, among the lowest GDPs in Europe, a fact. Why then does one receive the impression that the infrastructure is highly developed and living standards high by looking at the photos included into the article? It is obvious then that they constitute an attempt to portray the RS as more charming and enticing than what it is, i.e. touristic promotion of a developmental country with developmental living standards. It is misleading and the cities of RS should be presented in photos that are representative of the living conditions, which are unfortunately among the worst in Europe and Bosnia. Hence, I hereby declare my intention to change a large part of the current photos for more representative ones. I would appreciate help. / Dragan — Preceding unsigned comment added by DraganNiksic (talk • contribs) 10:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Photo section
Who take care of this thread? Why photo of Milorad Dodik is removed? Why there are not photos of Monastery of Dobrun, ethno village Stanisic and some other goods of the Republic of Srpska? Extend this thread but good way!109.121.39.201 (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Lists, demographics, and verifiability
Sadly, lots of our articles on the human geography of the Balkans have a problem; people change numbers around. Even apparently-sourced numbers sometimes disagree with what the source says. We have that problem here. This is supposed to be an encyclopædia; we shouldn't be serving content to readers if it can't be trusted, so I tried to remove it. It is unfortunate that this edit got reverted even though some of the numbers don't match what the source says. If anybody else is able to build accurate sourced content without adult supervision, then I would welcome it, but just lazily hitting the revert button to add stuff which isn't true is a Bad Thing. bobrayner (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Sources overkill
There is no requirement to remove lists of settlements presented on account of the fact that there is "no source". This page is about an entity and the population listings support the entity but no reader needs a complete list of citations for each town size. It merely clutters the article with information not directly concerning the subject. You simply wikilink the items and the reader can follow the lead for himself, and anyone who discovers a wrong entry per sources on the article, well he can change those parts when required. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 11:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
If you want to reinsert just a list of settlements without populations, that's fine by me; or fix the errors. I don't really care which. However, deliberately reinserting stuff with factual errors, like this, is a Bad Thing. Interestingly, FKPCascais uses the edit summary "Fix them then... or go to talk... don´t edit war", which is difficult to reconcile with FkpCascais' actions: Repeated reinsertion of factual errors, whilst refusing to ether fix it or participate on the talkpage. Just another day in the Balkans... bobrayner (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Referencing and citation: not checked
