This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The corect is Belgrade Fortress and kalemegdan Park... not Kalemegdan fortress —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.45.239 (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Strongly disagree.
In Serbian language, it is called Калемегданска Тврђава and translation is Kalemegdan Fortress. You may have mistaken that park-looking part is called Park, but that park is part of the fortress.
Тврђава - fortress
Kale/Кале - field
Megdan/Мегдан - fight, battle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.131.70.67 (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Well cuz i live in Belgrade i know that we call it just Kalemegdan but yes the proper name is Kalemegdan Fortress :)Nemanja.SRB (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
False. "Megdan" is thought to be a Turkish word, which is a true, but it has no meaning of a battle or a fight. It's a transliterated version of the word MEYDANI which means square. Kale is the fortress. Kalemegdan, thus, means Fortress Square and Kalemegdan relates only to a square inside of the Belgrade fortress (around The Monument of Gratitude to France). Official name is also Belgrade fortress. Proof: http://www.beogradskatvrdjava.co.rs/— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.185.127.248 (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
In the end, it's very important to make a distinc difference between "Belgrade fortress" which also includes "Kalemegdan Park" as its' smaller part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.185.127.248 (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Automated Review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 7 kilometres, use 7 kilometres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 7 kilometres.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
it has been
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), metre (B) (American: meter), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), travelled (B) (American: traveled), programme (B) (American: program ).
The script has spotted the following contractions: Don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
There is definitive misunderstanding of what "city" means. According to official Serbian statistics data, population of Belgrade is as follows:
Territorial unit of City of Belgrade (Град Београд) 1576124
Urban settlements (Градска) 1281801
Other settlements (Остала) 294323
Belgrade-urban area (Београд-насеље) 1119642
Urban Belgrade (continuous area of urban development) has 1,119,649 inhabitants. Political boundaries of "City of Belgrade" are much broader and include other municipalities/towns/villages as well as agricultural land (total area is enormous, 3,222.68 km² (1,244.3 sq mi) vs. for instance Greater London, which is 1579 km² (609 square miles) with 8M inhabitants) and cannot be regarded as one urban entity. My suggestion would be to correct numbers for "City", "Urban", and "Metropolitan area" should be defined. BR, --Plantago (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Third, or fourth largest city in South-Eastern Europe
I removed Athens, which was listed in the lead-in as second largest city in South-Eastern Europe, for Athens isn't even the top 5 (Istanbul, Bucharest, Belgrade, Sofia, Zagreb, and then Athens, if I'm correct). --Robster1983 (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
what about the danubian cities. isn't Vienna larger or higher in population!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.217.34.139 (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The fortress of Kalemegdan and its various parts greatly predate the 18th century. Bajrakli Mosque also dates from the 16th century as well.
Belgrade (as Singidunum, a roman border city) existed in roman times
It vas a city over which Greeks(e roman empire) and Hungarians, than Serbia and Hungary , later Ottoman and Hungary made war over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.180.82.150 (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
"bglib" :
{{cite web|url=http://www.beograd.rs/cms/view.php?id=201255|title=History (Liberation of Belgrade)|publisher=Official website|accessdate=2007-07-10}}
src
"beligrad history" :
[http://www.beligrad.com/history.htm How to Conquer Belgrade - History<!--Bot-generated title-->]
Are you sure about that? I don't think that there could be that much people in the Ottoman imperial army back in the days of Kanuni Sultan Süleyman. More rational numbers must be pronounced as a normal campaign force would be just over 100,000 people during the 15th and 16th centuries. Remember, European style large infantry armies wouldn't be available in the Ottoman Empire until the 19th century. Deliogul (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Problem with origin in the introduction
The information of the founding of the city and naming by Celts does not match the citation (11, currently) which refers to the Romans giving the city, nor does it seem to cohere with the rest of the related information in that section nor with the history section. I would correct this to what 11 does say, except it would still differ, especially with the previous information and its citation 10, which is in Serbian (?). Neither citation seems to bear much authority. Buirechain (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Seemingly inappropriate sentence in Geography section
The first sentence of the second paragraph in the "Geography" section seems both out of place and grammatically incoherent. (The sentence that refers to past wars and the average age of Belgrade residents.) Benjamin22b (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Does this make sense?
Why is the city population of Belgrade listed as bigger than its metropolitan population (urban pop)?? Isn't that impossible? See population section on top of the article to see for yourself. Balkanskiredneck (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Nicknames
I don't think that any of stated nicknames is even remotely renowned to warrant inclusion. All of those (The Balkan Gate;
Key to Central Europe; Slavic New York) were one-time inventions by journalists, and all of this stuff was sourced from Google image searches. Belgrade doesn't have a nickname, period. We shouldn't invent names, or repeat others' inventions, if they aren't notable enough for inclusion. No such user (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Images
I have recently added a {{cleanup-gallery}} tag to the photo gallery and it was subsequently removed. I'd like to point out that this article already has too many images and WP:IG states: "if, due to its content, a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons." Admiral Norton(talk) 14:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Gallery removed. I agree that the photos were purely decorative, and not too representative at that. Only the victor statue image could reasonably find the place elsewhere, but I didn't find a suitable ones. Featured articles should not have a gallery. No such user (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
FA degradation
The article is/was in a fair mess, and has significantly degraded since the FA times. Particularly, references are loose. I removed some of wildest speculations (such as the one of the city being discovered by Greek Argonauts, sourced by p104.ezboard.com) -- jeez, it's an internet forum, more educated than average one, but still...
In this overhaul, I
Removed the "second largest on Danube" as 1) incorrect (after Vienna and Budapest) 2) irrelevant 3) badly sourced
Removed the statements, sourced from a message board (p104.ezboard.com) about Greek Argonauts who supposedly discovered Belgrade. Sounds like an urban legend. Please give us some reliable sourcing.
Tighten up formatting of some references.
Still to do:
Summarize now overlong history section, and make a separate article History of Belgrade. I don't plan to do that soon, but it's worth
Remove mentions of every single ethnic group on the planet whose member happens to live in Belgrade. I suppose only Chinese are worth mentioning, along perhaps with African students. Everyone else should go out. Indonesians are sourced from YouTube.
The article had the FA review and it was kept. There aren't enough people watching the article so unfortunately some spam and nonsense that gets added by IP users stays in the article. There isn't that many of it as you suggest and it can be removed right here through discussion rather than through official process of FA review. For an example that stupidity on Indonesian people based on one traveler, it's nonsense and should be removed immediately.--Avala (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Train station gallery, again
Avala, you keep on reverting the galery on Beovoz. Why is this gallery so important for the article? Heck, even the Beovoz is not so important for Belgrade to deserve a separate 2-sentence section. You said "(per WP:IG - However, the use of galleries may be appropriate in Wikipedia articles where a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by)" -- now, please demonstrate what these pictures of train stations, already present in main Beovoz article, illustrate so beautifully? Those are just underground train stations, present in every city with underground metro. I'm reverting the section to the version after my previous editing. No such user (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Images add to the article becausethe use of galleries may be appropriate in Wikipedia articles where a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. You can not describe these stations by text, these images are not present elsewhere and individual images would break the article text. It is all per WP:IG, please read it. Instead of spending your energy on destroying and reverting the work of other people, maybe you should consider contributing by content.--Avala (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
"Energy destroying and reverting the work of other people"? Such as this overhaul of content and references that I spent entire morning on [1]?
Please do answer the direct question rather than quoting the guideline -- which "aspects" exactly does a collection of 4 similar-looking images of train stations illustrate? And why would we want to describe 4 underground stations in the article about city? By necessity of lack of space, a lot more of interesting buildings had to be omitted from the article. Please, don't make me dig through FARs and FARCs to search for immediate dismissal of galleries. No such user (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why do you have such a big problem with this gallery? Is it really the biggest problem, something you can't stand to see, something that even though it is perfectly by the rules is so problematic to you that you would get yourself involved in all this discussion, reverts and fighting for it's removal? Is it really that bad for you, when you wake up and the see the small gallery on Belgrade transportation at the bottom of the article that you can't let it go even if it is something that is the matter of preference and that can be in the article as it's not some nonsense or spam? Do you ever stop to wonder if this gallery is really that much of a problem for you and Wikipedia? I don't get it.--Avala (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess I could ask the same in turn, i.e. why you like it so much that you keep returning it? My point is, simply: Featured Articles should not have image galeries. I don't mind it in Beovoz or Transportation in Belgrade. No such user (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I like it because it illustrates the system nicely. The usage of pointless galleries with heaps of images is discouraged but no rule forbids their usage, otherwise the code for galleries would be removed. I really hope that you can accept these 4 images.--Avala (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Population references do not work
The population references based on note 3 [https://zis.beograd.gov.rs/upload/G_2007E.pdf] (Statistical yearbook of Belgrade, Zavod za informatiku i statistiku Grada Beograda) do not work: I tried this source again on 5 May 2009, and it is not accessible under this URL. Someone has to provide proper references for population numbers. --Zlerman (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The problem seems to lie somewhere in https protocol and/or its implementation on either server or client end. I couldn't have downloaded it with Firefox either, but it works with IE after you confirm that you want to use the site's invalid security certificate. I understand that it's inconvenient, but it's not our fault that their IT people are incompetent (why the heck are those documents under secure protocol anyway?). If anyone knows a workaround, I'm all ears. No such user (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for investigating and clarifying. I can indeed access the 2007 yearbook from IE, although the security failure screen at the beginning may put some users off. --Zlerman (talk) 07:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
These figures can be added to estimates but let's please use the official census information in the infobox rather than yearbook. It's simple - the yearbook is not a serious reference. Their total population figure is significantly lower than the number of registered voters in Belgrade (18 years and older) which brings us to conclusion that something is wrong with the yearbook. I appreciate your effort in trying to find a newer population figures but unfortunately there aren't any or at least there is no serious source. --Avala (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
But this is City's Institute for Informatics and Statistics? What more official can we find? The discrepancy between those data and the voter's record is already explained in the text. No such user (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Ancient Greeks
Can we please get that "discovered by ancient Greeks" stuff referenced by something better than a personal web page of a biochemist, http://nenadiricanin.com? There's also a fork at http://www.dc-media.ca/slobodan/belgrade.pdf, which says "Copyright S.Solajic, 2009". So much about copyvios.
Even if we take that stuff from granted, it says the following about the "discovery":
Belgrade was referred to in history much later for the first time, probably by Apolonius of Rhodes (about 295-216 B.C.) in his EPIC ABOUT THE ARGONAUTS. Apolonius describes a rock the argonauts sailed by, at a point of the Danube's bifurcation. This rock is undoubtedly the Kalemegdan crag, the surroundings of which were inhabited by members of the Thracian-Cimmerian tribes.
So, they found a rock in a Danube, which is undoubtedly the Kalemegdan crag, and we call it "discovery of Belgrade" in an encyclopedic article. Please... No such user (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
And, by the way, some original research: "the rock where the Danube bifurcates" perfectly describes Babakaj, map, located across the Golubac Fortress, some 150 km downstream of Belgrade. The old island is now mostly submerged by the hydroelectric lake. No such user (talk) 11:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not the discovery of Belgrade but its first mention as a strategic location in history. NeroN_BG
Even if we agree about the relevance, we need much more reliable source. The above sounds like a wishful thinking by an amateur historian. No such user (talk) 12:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
"...two geographical fallacies...[First] it is the notion of the Danube... dividing at a central point, the Kauliakos spur (4.323-26 perhapsemphasis mine based on the actual junction of Danube and Sava near Belgrade; see Delage 1930a, 209), with one arm emptying eastward into the Black Sea, and the other westward into the Adriatic".
Sorry, way too speculative. As Green puts it, the origin is difficult enough to interpret, let alone to reach a definite conclusion. Even if we take it for granted, is it enough to justify the inclusion in the article's lead? No such user (talk) 08:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Um, I appreciate your effort, the images are nice indeed, but I think that it's too much of "galleritis" (aka "postcarditis"), i.e. a tendency to include as many nice-looking images into an article as possible. I think that the old image (aerial view) does the better job of depicting the city in one brief look. I was about to say that it's against common practice to use such images, especially in Featured Articles, and wanted to use New York City as a counterexample, but, heh, it uses a collage of same style. So does London. I must say I like "iconic", semi-panoramic images much better, like the ones at Paris (Eiffel), Berlin (TV tower in panorama), Sydney (Opera House in panorama) better. I'm reluctant to revert, though, as I'd like a wider input on the issue. It's more or less a matter of taste, after all (and mine leans on minimalist side, admittedly). No such user (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism?
Um... someone put that Belgrade was the Capitol of Croatia, which is clearly wrong. I changed that but have no idea how long it has been up for. It makes me suspect that other things may have been modified. Perhaps someone with knowledge of Belgrade should fact check this whole article for other "mistakes." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.253.103 (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I have gone back through the last few versions of this page and tracked down and reverted similar vandalism by the same editor on other pages. They have been warned and will get blocked if this continues.--Charles (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Naming
I edited the article and write after the Serb names: "in Hungarian: Nándorfehérvár". I can't understand why have somebody deleted it. Belgrád (Nándorfehérvár) was part of Hungary for a long time enought to represent its Hungarian name too. Not just in some footnote. In the Bratislava (Pozsony) arcticle the hungarian name is also presented just like other earlier Hungarian cities, so I can't understand why somebody consider representing the Hungarian name vandalism.
Picture
Old picture
The title picture is simply awful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ardura (talk • contribs) 21:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree; replaced. I believe the aerial view one was around when the article was promoted to FA, and I returned it. It's not perfect either, but the montage is just 1) too full of detail and 2) too postcard-ish and kitschy with all those colored night lights. I will certainly not edit-war about it, but I think that simpler is better. We would rathern have something more iconic (like a Pobednik statue, though the ones we have are less than ideal, or a panorama from the Sava river), but I think that the aerial view will do for now. No such user (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Haha, you reply to a comment made 3 Feb, 2010, when the page looked like this [3], thus, you have again and again changed a perfectly suited picture (the collage) with an amateur one. And also, you have completely misunderstood the "gallery" discussion further up. Stop it.--(Zoupan talk) 09:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Nope. That permalink is from 3 Feb 2011. This is the version from 3 Feb 2010.
For your information, it wasn't me who replaced the collage with Victor some 2 months ago (though I certainly didn't object); it was User:Bg0007[4]. So, you have Ardura (you can cross-check that it was the collage that he called awful), Bg0007, and myself who oppose the collage. The Victor image is much more iconic, although this one is not of highest quality, and it has too much of foreground; we don't have a better one on Commons unfortunately. I was only the one who raised most objections to the collage, and I will continue to oppose any sort of collage, and I stated my reasons. The collage was not here when the article was promoted to featured one, and it was introduced unilaterally in the first place.
WP:IG#Collages and montages says that "Collages and montages are single images that illustrate multiple closely related concepts, where overlapping or similar careful placement of component images is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way. (See File:Phoebian Explorers 2 PIA06118.jpg for an example montage" The Belgrade collage certainly does not "illustrate multiple closely related concepts": it is a postcard. One can barely see what are its components, only that it's by night and colorful. It is kitschy. No such user (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
File:Belgrade Night Montage.jpgCollage #2 Victor with rivers, Sava Temple, New BG horizon, KM square, Kalemegdan, Terazije, Marko cathedral. Your reason is not enough, the article should have a collage, as do other cities, im afraid the picture cant be representative enough. There existed a lighter collage, but i cant seem to find it. I made "collage 2". --(Zoupan talk) 11:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Other cities' images were also changed contrary to the image guidelines, and your new one is just too big and suffers from even more feature creep. And it's not just my opinion. So far, you seem to be the only one who likes it. No such user (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Headline picture opinion
You do realize that you cant really represent any city of this size with only one picture, right? Thats why bunch of other big cities have collage headline pictures. The existing picture makes Belgrade look like some kind of province smalltown. If you want some kind of panorama so bad, see if you can use this: tt-group.net/beograd_pozadine/Pobednik-wallpaper.jpg
It represents the essence of Belgrade, a mix of old and new. Clash of cultures. But please, anything but that aerial picture.-Djoksa (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree, i strongly oppose the "small town look" for apparent reasons, i will project a new collage if the old is rejected by more people, not just "no such user".--(Zoupan talk) 09:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
We have some 30 pictures throughout the article, with a strong tendency by editors to insert even more. I strongly disagree with "look like some kind of province smalltown": in my opinion, the collage is bloated, postcardish and kitschy. There could be a better one than the aerial indeed, but the collage is not the one. I think it is bad for other cities as well. My personal belief is that "simpler is better" for any given choice. Of course, this is my (and apparently, someone else's above) personal opinion, so I would prefer a third opinion than an exchange of I like its/I don't like its between you and me.
The limit is that only freely distributable pictures are allowed to be used. So the choice lies among ones at commons:Category:Belgrade, or for someone to donate an iconic picture and release it under a free license.
P.S. I took the liberty to merge this discussion with the one started above. No such user (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Count me in among the people who don't like the collage, and prefer a single panorama or landmark image. Rationale is here: Talk:Paris#Infobox image. By the way, a collage where all images are night shots is just silly. Fut.Perf.☼ 12:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Main picture
"horrible collage"
Please change the main picture it is ugly, put several pictures in row like every city has! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.180.18.56 (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with this. I tried to change main picture, but I recieve message "We don't want that horrible collage". No offence, but current main picture is not like other collages of capital cities and it's low quality.Ok maybe I'm not right, but I want to show real beauty of our capital.Maybe this collage is not ok, but it's far from horrible.I am registred member and I am from Serbia.Ceperko (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The reasons why any collage is bad are outlined above, in #Picture section. To repeat what Fut. Perf. said at Talk:Paris:
Pet peeve: Recently, the image in the infobox of this article was changed from a single panoramic view to a "collage" [1] consisting of eight photographs, with a combined height of 450px. This has been a recent trend on many city articles, and no doubt many people feel that since so many other articles now do it this way, it must be a good thing. IMnotsoHO, it isn't. It's a fad, but it's not good. It's a waste of space. These collage pictures are so big they push the actual content of the infobox below the screen on many displays.
[...]At the same time, the individual pictures in the collage are each so small their own information value is seriously diminished, and they cannot even be enlarged individually to full size by clicking on each.
And I stand by my assessment that this particular collage is awful. Except for St. Sava church, it is an assembly of concrete and glass landscapes. Those aren't even representative of Belgrade's typical architecture. The whole collage looks bluish and cold. When resized, it stands some 600px tall, moving valuable information from the infobox away from the reader's sight.
If you dislike the current Victor image (I agree it is far from perfect), please get yourself a decent camera and make a better photo of Victor, an aerial of Ušće, landscape from the river, or something similarly iconic. These collages are just silly. As for other cities, there is an old Wikipedian adage WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. No such user (talk) 10:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Create a new collage
I suggest we create a collage to replace the rather weak picture that we currently have. Let's vote and decide appropriate pictures that could be part of it. Belgrade isn't Paris, and does not have the Eiffel tower, I suggest a collage as per Budapest or Vienna. Here are the themes: Skyview, Sava Temple, Kalemegdan, Knez Mihailova/Republic Square, National Assembly, St. Marks church. Lets agree on what and what not to include, then we will find the right pictures. --Zoupan (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
--- I agree with the initiative. I think that it is regretful that cities such as Sofia, with far less sights than Belgrade, have managed to compile such a good collage when compared to Belgrade's and present their city in the best way...[1] Likewise, I convey my support for most of the abovementioned places for the new collage, with some smaller modifications. I suggest the following photo files:
I really think Belgrade deserves a new article photo which most of us will approve...NeroN_BG
I stand by the opinion that any sort collage is just a fad, and a workaround to insert as many images into an article as possible. Most or all those images are in the article already, within the proper context, properly zoomable and attributable. The collage looks bloated and unprofessional, and the assembled images are too small to be effectively visible. I think it's regretful that the childish trend of creating and propagating those collages into city infoboxes took over so much, but I don't have the time and energy to waste on fighting it. No such user (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Come on, someone really should make a collage, pictures editing is not my cup of tea. But collage really makes city page (and city itself) more interesting and representative. Belgrade011 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC).
old photos of belgrade
Hey I think we should add a couple photos of belgrade from pre-WWII era. The city has changed a lot since those times especially since much of the city was destroyed during WWII. Anyways here are a couple links with some awesome photos that we could use.
anyways if anyone figures out a way to add these to wikipedia I think one or two should be added to the article. My vote goes to the pre WWII Kalemegdan fortress just because I had no idea it looks like that before the war. Also a picture of Brankov Most would be interesting since that also was destroyed.
There are a lot of sandwich texts between images in the article, which WP:MOSIMAGE says to avoid.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Work needed
Hello everyone! This article currently appears near the top of the cleanup listing for featured articles, with several cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Someone please put the Belgrade metro population - 2,500,000, please it is the correct information! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.90.52 (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
If there is a reliable source for that it can be included. Saying it is correct is not enough.--Charles (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
It is I live in this city so I know better than you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.90.52 (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Hahahaha, although this is amusing, you must see WP:REFERENCES, and you will understand that Charles is right, even if he didn't lived in Belgrade. (i suppose that he didn't?? :) --WhiteWriter speaks 16:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
He's been told that a zillion times, on a number of his IP sock talkpages, but it fell on deaf ears each time. Having checked (and fixed/reverted) many of his contribs, I must say that the guy has an apparent WP:COMPETENCE problem. As it often happens, persistence is his only accompanying virtue. No such user (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Climate
No, Belgrade does not have oceanic climate. The reference, [5], including the supplement, describes it as humid subtropical, bordering humid continental, which also matches common description of "moderate continental". According to the paper, oceanic climate scope ends somewhere in Germany, with only patches in eastern central Europe. I am not a climate expert, but I would trust the source. Besides, I don't think that Beglrade has enough rainfall to qualify, and its summers are too hot. No such user (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
You may want to more closely check the chart on Page 1636 of the source you're citing, (which by the way is one source I generally use) and then check the weather data for Belgrade, then look again at that chart on page 1636. G. Capo (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I see. However, let us analyse the data, for everyone's convenience:
Koppen
Paper criterion1
Paper criterion2
Belgrade data
CfA (Subtropical)
Thot>10 & 0<Tcold<18
Thot>=22
Thot = 21.7 (avg. temp in hottest month)
CfB (Oceanic)
Thot>10 & 0<Tcold<18
Thot<22 & Tmon10>=4
Tmon10 = 7 (#of months warmer than 10)
DfA (Continental)
Thot>10 & Tcold<=0
Thot>=22
Tcold = 0.4 (avg. temp in coldest month)
If Belgrade's July were 0.3°C warmer (and in this century, it is [6]; see also Talk:Humid_subtropical_climate#Serbia, no it wasn't me), it would fall into strict CfA. If the January were 0.4°C colder, it would fall into strict DfA. There is indeed a mixture of atlantic, mediterranean and continental influences, and it cannot be clearly classified as either. Since neither the paper reaches the "oceanic" conclusion (and does not paint the cyan patch anywhere near), I'm unwilling to state so in the article. If you'd like to propose an alternate wording, which would not clearly commit the Belgrade into either zone, I'm interested. No such user (talk) 08:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
How about the following…"Belgrade's climate lies at a confluence of the oceanic, humid continental and humid subtropical climates?” As for a climate to be Mediterranean, among other things, the driest month must (A) see less than a third of the precipitation of the climate's wettest month and (B) average below 40 mm of precipitation. This is not the case for Belgrade. G. Capo (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, I tweaked it a bit; your version had the word "climate" twice, and I'm not sure if "confluence" is an appropriate term here (I'm not an native English speaker though). No such user (talk) 07:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from 109.92.204.91, 15 April 2011
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In part of first mention of the City April 16th, 878. would complement the fact with explanation
how he got the name Beligrad, firstly:
...Beligrad, referring to the white rocks from which the city was built as seen from Panonia plain and river valley, ...
Any reference for that? The only thing that vaguely mentions "white rocks" is in Serbia tourist info, but in a different context. And I wouldn't call the rocks beneath the fortress exactly "white" [7]... No such user (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I have disabled the edit request, once sources have been added and this info is corroborated then this can be added. Thanks, Woody (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Today it is common to translate Beograd as White City since in modern Slavic languages belo means "white". But originally belo meant "big". Over the times belo is changed to velo, veliko in Serbian and bolyshoy in Russian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.185.100.101 (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Meanwhile, not really related to this, but as part of the program to clear up Orphaned Articles on Wikipedia, can I ask if it is possible (somehow) to include a wikilink to this article, Info-TV (perhaps with some editing to that article, too, to bring it up to a useful article). Thanks in advance for anything that you can do, or propose. TheAMmollusc (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The official estimates says that Belgrade's population is 1,711,863 residents in 2009, please dont change that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mare96 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
As written in the article, while you count Lazarevac in "urban Belgrade", and make up the figure of 2.5 million? Stop bothering us, please, and go away if you don't have smarter things to do. No such user (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok at least keep the 1,710,000 population please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mare96 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
But NSU, 1,200,000 really sounds ridiculously too low... FkpCascais (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, I see, 2002 sensus of inner-city area (1,273,651 official website), and 1,576,124 in larger-city area. Don´t we have anything more recent, since there seems to be a conclusion that the stats are below reality? FkpCascais (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Reference [4] contains 2009 data. Page 66 is the relevant one, because the table on the next page, as a careful reading will show, contains somewhat "inflated" data (i.e. it includes the Belgrade citizens living abroad). No such user (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Population
Belgrade has an Urban population of 1.281.801, go and see on the city website www.beograd.rs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.155.55.150 (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
We don't care. When you change the figure, go change the reference on which it's based. We're not going to clean up after every random IP. No such user (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Total population of Belgrade
I have noticed that in Serbian media Belgrade is mentined as a "2 million city" and here there is an IP user that states it has 1.2 millions (www.beograd.rs). I am confused. What is the real population in the city and metropolitan ? The source from the article [8] (page 66) states a population of 1576124. Adrian (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The permanent population of Belgrade's urban core, is indeed 1.2 million people. The City of Belgrade (i.e. Belgrade District), which contains towns like Obrenovac, Mladenovac, Batajnica or Surčin, as well as surrounding villages, has 1.6 million people. If one stretches to the maximum, counting in the surroundings up to Inđija, as well as students, temporary workers and foreigners, maybe 2 million could be reached. Media (as well as our numerous IP passer-bys, notably User:Mare96 and its sockpuppets) apparently like to round those figures up, out of laziness, ignorance, or pomposity. No such user (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I understand. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Population, yet again
I really don't see what is wrong with using formulation "The city proper has a population of 1.21 million people, while the official metropolitan area has about 1.67 million people." Particularly since the "new" figure of 1.667.291 is 1) still rough and unofficial 2) is equal to 1.67 million for the main text.
The new reference to Press [9] replaced the old "zis" reference, (Statistical yearbook of Belgrade 2009), [10], which is also used to support statements "The official estimate for the end of 2007 (according to the City's Institute for Informatics and Statistics) was 1,630,000, while the number of registered citizens altogether tops at 1,710,000." and "and many Jews' subsequent emigration, their numbers have fallen to a mere 415". None of this is written in the new reference. Also, you then removed the 1.21 figure for the city proper from the infobox, leaving it nowhere. Please take care when updating the text. No such user (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Jesus H. Christ. It seems that everything of interest in this article is population count. So, for the random passer-bys who don't bother to read the source, here are relevant excerpts:
Total enumerated persons
The data on the total number of enumerated
persons cover all persons for whom the Census Form
(form P-1) was completed.
Considering that temporarily present persons were
counted twice, once at the place of residence of their
household and the second time at the place of their
education or work, these persons are shown twice in the
first results.
Total number of population
The total number of population has been established
in line with the definition of the permanent place of
residence and covers:
• persons who lived continuously, at least 12
months before the critical moment of the Census,
at the place of the Census with members of their
household or alone (so called one-person
household),[...]
Refugees and internally displaced persons are
included in the total number of population according to
the definition of the permanent place of residence.
lately, i noticed daily updates when it comes to population number. why does it matter so much to some people? some write 1,6m, others 1,7m, i wrote what i thought was the best (1,6m + note that many are not reigstered)
anyway, is there a way to stop it, to protect the page? Belgrade011 (talk) 9:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
If you wonder why does it matter so much to some people, why do you come changing it every other day?
The short answer is: just follow the sources, preferably official ones. I kindly quoted them here, above, to save you from extra clicking. Do not insert unregistered residents, because their count is anybody's guess, and pretty much every city has a sizable population.
To others: how did you come to the urban population of 1,135,502? It was higher on the 2002 census, and it doesn't seem to be published in the first results of 2011 census. No such user (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
File:New Belgrade skyline.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
An image used in this article, File:New Belgrade skyline.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
I wonder, does anybody knows population of Belgrade urban area, as it extends the city limits with population of 1,154,589 people? e.g. Surcin is not within city limits but it is part of continuous urban area. Belgrade011 (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, my point precisely. I am currently trying to figure this out. Also, since these are contiguous zones of the Belgrade urban agglomeration, I believe the labels should read "Urban core" (with the unrealistic number of 1.154 Million) and "City" or "Area" with 1.639 Million (The correct, officially recognised population count).talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC).
Where is it?
Resolved
How about a map? I can't tell (from a quick glance at the article) where Belgrade is. Am I supposed to know where Serbia is? Sorry, but if my knowledge of geography were that good, I wouldn't be looking up Belgrade in an encyclopedia. Is it east of Paris, or what? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
It would certainly be very usefull. FkpCascais (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
"Names through history"-section
Resolved
The [needed] data of the table should be diffused into the article, while the table itself should be moved into History of Belgrade. I have added a template. --Zoupan (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Can you be more specific? I don't like the table either, it looks as a collection of barely relevant facts, but I'm unsure how to reorganize it. The catch is that we don't have a real History of Belgrade article, as it redirects into table-like Timeline of Belgrade history. No such user (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:Adamost.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
It should be noted that the "city limits" as defined here on wikipedia do not include many areas (such as Surcin and Zemun) that are in fact part of the Belgrade contiguous urban area. This is why the Statistical office of Serbia uses the more accurate population of Belgrade which includes the entire municipality, or at least all attached urban parts of Belgrade. I think a note needs to be added next to this in order to avoid confusion and to give the correct population of the actual Belgrade urban area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dare192 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Which "city limits as defined here on Wikipedia" do you refer to? There is no universal "definition of city limits" in the world and Wikipedia. The figures in this article are (supposed to be) taken from Republic Statistical Office publication ({{Serbian census 2011}}), where the "metro area" refers to the City/District of Belgrade, and "urban area" to the city limits as they defined it. No such user (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I am aware that there is no universal definition on "City limits" and that is why Wikipedia should simply use the "Municipal" population of Belgrade as the sole and total figure, since all surrounding areas are joined to Belgrade in one contiguous urban stretch, whereas the "city" population specified in Wikipedia does NOT include Zemun and Kaludjerica, etc, which are all part of the contiguous Belgrade urban agglomeration. But, because there is much debate on this, I have added a note to the demographics page that notes this.
Secondly, all other rural settlements are fully integrated to Belgrade ecnomically, thus their populations should be treated as such. In their Census 2011 release, the Statistical Office of Serbia did not define a "city limit" population of Belgrade of 1,154,589, but rather a total Belgrade population of 1,639,121, which corerctly includes the entire contiguous urban area and smaller settlements which are linked politically and economically to Belgrade (If I am mistaken, please specify the exact suburbs which they have used in this calculation as well as reference page numbers).
I have done and am still doing some work for the Belgrade Municipal Council from New Zealand, and every agency in Serbia that uses our Geospatial output treats Belgrade City as the entire Municipality, not the inner city area. Dare192 (talk)
Lazarevac, Mladenovac, Sopot, Vinča, Surčin etc. are hardly "part of the contiguous Belgrade urban agglomeration", although Zemun certainly is. Don't know if Kaluđerica is included in the figure.
I don't get your point about "integrated to Belgrade economically". Of course the entire metropolitan area of big city is integrated "politically and economically", so we shouldn't even waste words on that. That is not a criterion for population within city limits.
We ought to be using census criteria about what constitutes the urban core of Belgrade, instead of making our own. What I can tell you for sure that in the final results of the 2002 census, the "City Proper" had population of 1119642, and all urban settlements taken together had 1281801 (that presumably includes Lazarevac, Mladenovac etc.) I'm not sure how our current article comes to the figure of 1,154,589, because it is not explicitly stated in the First results publication [11], but it sure looks plausible, based on 2002 census results. No such user (talk) 08:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
These suburbs are not part of the contiguous area, but are certainly part of the Belgrade City administration and therefore the 1.6 Million figure should be altered from being called "Metro" to being called "City" or "Area" - this is my point. Furthermore, it is not a "waste" or words to note that surrounding settlements are integrated to Belgrade economically, because this adds to the case that we should call the total population figure "City" and not "Metro". I am aware that this is not an official criterion, I was merely making a point that this should be written as "City" or "Area" population, not "Metro", which is exactly what our Sttistics office in Belgrade does in its Nov 2011 release. Also, the 1.154 Million figure should then change to "Urban core", which you seem to agree with above.
Yes I have seen the figures of the 2002 census, which I was involved with; however, it seems to me that the figure of 1.154.589 was arbitrarily calculated by the article without any reference backing from the Statistical office, which, I will state again, calculated Belgrade as one figure of 1,639,121. I am not attacking anyone here, I am just encouraging an intellectual discussion regarding the results of Census 2011 and I am actually glad that someone has taken the time to join in because we can hopefully come to some resolution on this issue. I have also noticed that you have been editing some other Serbian articles. Are you from Serbia? Dare192 (talk)
The 2002 figure of 1119642 I quoted comes from the Statistical Yearbook of Belgrade, p. 78. Remind you, full 2011 census results were not published yet, so we don't have the same amount of data as for 2002. In English, "City" typically means "urban core", and not "City as administrative unit" (just as in Serbian, "gradsko stanovništvo" would be taken to mean "urban population", not "population of the City of Belgrade"), so we should not use "city". For the wider area gravitating towards the urban center, common English term is Metropolitan area. As Belgrade011 pointed out below, criteria for what is an urban area and what not are rather loose, so we should just stick for the census criterion whatever it is. In layman's terms, that criterion would probably read: between traffic signs labeled "Beograd". No such user (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I suppose (but I'm lazy to count) that the 1.154.589 was obtained as a sum of urban population of Belgrade's urban municipalities; see similar calculation I made on Talk:Niš#Population.2C_2011, as it's frequently vandalized, naturally increasing the data. (And yes, I'm from Serbia) No such user (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Nema problema momci. In that case we will wait for official results towards the end of the year for the urban core population but in the meantime the metropolitan / Belgrade Area population of 1,639,121 will do for people taking the entire area into account. Also, its good to see that the "Belgrade Area" reference is made in the demographics section now. (talk)
I also agree, there should be an urban area population number. Kaludjerica that is part of Grocka municipality is the part of urban area (Vinca isn't - there is a small piece of nothing between Lestane and Vinca (they are merged) after Kaludjerica). Also Ledine and Surcin are parts of the south-western Belgrade urban area, just like Zemun Polje, that will merge with Batajnica in the future (or maybe it's already together, I haven't been there so I don't know). All in all, the urban area (in both population and land area numbers) is bigger than 1,1 million people and 360km2. But the problem is, who can tell that number? Statistics didn't but if someone of the mortals from Wikipedia do it, I guess someone would delete it pretty much soon. p.s. Check out the google map, it is seen what's urban, what's not. Belgrade011 (I'll let Wikipedia to sign my comment) :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belgrade011 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The data for the City proper (the locality of Belgrade), in relevant periods, relate to territory of: – 1921–1940, the localities Belgrade and Zemun – 1948–1971, the City proper with the prior separate localities Bežanija, Kneževac and Kijevo – since 1972, the City proper with the prior localities Jajinci, Village Rakovica, Kumodraž, Mali Mokri Lug, Mirijevo, Batajnica, Krnjača, Višnjica, Žarkovo, Železnik and Resnik.
So, with some careful adding up, we could reach the figure for the city proper without risking original research. No such user (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure about the accuracy (copy+paste, adding done by excel), though everyone's welcome to double-check. Note that the 2002 figure of 1119642 is exactly the one stated in the Belgrade Yearbook I quoted above. It shows that, despite popular belief, the population of Belgrade's city proper was relatively stagnant in the last decade, and grew only for 1.4%. If there are no objections, I'm going to put the 1135502 figure to the article. No such user (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
That works with me, that explains the "city proper" calculation to a much greater extent. Once again, great to see someone has added the "Belgrde area" reference in all demographics sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dare192 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Filipdr finally provided the source for the 1154589 figure: it comes from http://webrzs.stat.gov.rs/WebSite/repository/documents/00/00/49/86/Prvi_rezultati_Konferencija.pps, slide 11. Both the power point and the pdf were issued on the same date, 15. november 2011. The catch is, figures for Belgrade and Niš from the pdf and the power point do not add up. For Belgrade, the difference is 1154589-1135502=19087. They managed to lose 19000 people somewhere... Welcome to Serbia. No such user (talk) 09:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
As a measure of good will, I returned the 1154589 figure to the article, although I don't trust it. The ppt was just prepared for the press conference, it is plausible that a mistake slipped in. It is not exactly the official material. No such user (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, I don't think it's a mistake, especially when Belgrade comes into question. Filipdr (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
One of the greatest in...
Belgrade011 raised an issue on my talk page that I oppose any formulation of Belgrade being one of the greatest in XXX. Actually, I'm not a priori against it, but I'd really like it to provide some meaningful information, not just to be used to fill some space. Recently, a formulation "one of the greatest in Southeastern Europe" was put. The problem with it that it is very vague, to being useless. Why single out Southeastern Europe? What does it mean "one of the greatest"? Top 3? Top 10? Top 100? There used to be a formulation of being 3rd, 4th or 5th, but the definition of Southeastern Europe/Balkans is problematic -- does Istanbul belong to it? Bucharest?
Belgrade011, the figure of 1154589 does not come from the last census, as far as I know. Kindly say where you got it, because I haven't seen it in any source presented so far. I have calculated the figure of 1135502 just above, on the basis of raw census data, and nobody found a flaw in it.
I may look to be "owning" this article, but I really don't like when people just do not seem to pay slightest attention to the talk page, just go ahead and edit. No such user (talk)
- why single out Southeastern Europe? Well because when I wrote city's size regarding whole Europe (just like every other European city, if you check their pages), it was removed, even though it was sourced information.
Or okay, if we write in the Balkans region - then 3rd (after Istanbul and Athens) or in S.E. Europe - 4th (after Istanbul, Athens an Bucharest). All of those are interesting facts that interest most of the people, especially the ones who are getting to know the city.
Also, Istanbul belongs to S.E. Europe and Balkans, don't forget just like Belgrade is divided in 2 regions and is counted in Balkans, Istanbul is too. Belgrade011— Preceding unsigned comment added by Belgrade011 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Resolved
