Talk:Belgrade/Archive 3

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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

File:Autoput Jug.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Autoput Jug.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Autoput Jug.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Recreation section

Has anyone thought about opening a new section about recreation in Belgrade? Such a section could include information related to Kosutnjak, Ada Ciganlija, houseboats, Lido (Belgrade), zoo, fitness, walking, biking, etc... --Comparativist1 (talk) 1:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Calculation of city proper calculation 2

Now that official results of 2011 census are published, here's the math again for the city proper population:

	2011^{[n 1]}	2011 (first data)
Beograd (Voždovac)	145124	132170
Beograd (Vračar)	56333	55463
Beograd (Zvezdara)	151808	148014
Beograd (Zemun)	157363	151811
Beograd (Novi Beograd)	214506	212104
Beograd (Palilula)	159465	104869
Beograd (Rakovica)	108641	108413
Beograd (Savski venac)	39122	38660
Beograd (Stari grad)	48450	48061
Beograd (Čukarica)	151919	135937
Total	1232731	1135502

^ "2011 Census of Population, Households and Dwellings in the Republic of Serbia: Comparative Overview of the Number of Population in 1948, 1953, 1961, 1971, 1981, 1991, 2002 and 2011, Data by settlements" (PDF). Statistical Office of Republic Of Serbia, Belgrade. 2014. ISBN 978-86-6161-109-4. Retrieved 2014-06-27.

So, I'm putting 1,232,731 to the article. What happened to the municipality of Palilula? From first results to the final results, they gained 50,000 people? It's hardly a statistic error. Is some of suburban settlements now become urban? No such user (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Palilua includes Borca, which is where Belgrade has grown significantly in recent years. Therefore, the suburb has now been included in the urban part of Belgrade since this is now part of Belgrade's contiguous urban area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dare192 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Čukarica also gained some 15,000. Is maybe Sremčica now included too? No such user (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Referencing

There are now 13 already tagged requests for citations. This really needs to be fixed in order to maintain WP:FA status. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems useful to repeat the link to the cleanup report for featured articles. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

While there are a few missing citations indeed, most of those {{citation needed}} tags are of the worst drive-by-tagging kind: "OMG this paragraph is missing a superscript thingo at the end," for sentences which simply describe common knowledge or obvious facts. The tagger did not seem to even read some sentences. After I fixed a few, I'm inclined to ruthlessly remove the rest. No such user (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but the standard of WP:BLUE is not as low on an article about a random non-English city, so this fails WP:FACR 2c. I've had a look once again and I have to say that a reference would indeed be necessary on the FEST namedropping; on the paragraph listing premier attractions where some are obvious, but some are not - how is the entirety of Zemun comparable to landmarks? why single out two parks for ex-.yu? - etc; round-the-clock clubbing - this is probably regulated so cite the relevant statute; water polo at Tašmajdan - oddly enough, the linked article doesn't help verify this. In addition, a quick skim shows untagged unreferenced sentences in the media and transport sections - indeed some of those may be problematic as far as FACR 4 is concerned. Do review the whole thing. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, a skim over the reflist shows definite issues - many random websites and many primary sources - FACR 1c requires high-quality reliable sources. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ack. Referencing certainly needs an overhaul. Some of this is a consequence of quality rot on one side, and ever increasing FA standards on the other. I'll see what I can do... No such user (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Metro => County

The number of inhabitants of Belgrade presented as "Metro" is not metro, but the number of the inhabitants of the area which has similar status as other counties / districts ("okrug") in Serbia ("municipality" could be good term, as well). There are no valid estimations of Belgrade's Metro area, which would go more north, but which won't gather the whole southern parts of the county. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 21:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As I don't feel comfortable with the city templates, may someone else fix it? --millosh (talk (meta:)) 21:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

So what do you propose? To remove it? To rephrase it? No such user (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

To rephrase it into "county" or "municipality" or "district". --millosh (talk (meta:)) 18:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit slow these days. Done. No such user (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! May you do the same for the area? :) (I wanted to do that myself, but my optimism perished after realizing that I'd have to read the template documentation...) --millosh (talk (meta:)) 23:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW, "District" has been written twice and the second "Density" flows without data. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 23:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. I also updated the population densities.
There is a slight catch however. The source [1] shows the territory from 2002 census, but by 2011 census the urban territory got expanded by suburb of Borča (see #Calculation of city proper calculation 2 above). Thus, we have 2011 population divided by 2002 territory. Not a big deal, though, I'd leave it as that for now. No such user (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Climate

Should the climate box for Belgrade use the standard colour scheme below or use green precipitation colours? Ssbbplayer (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Just leave it standard, please. I don't see a reason to deviate. If you don't like the color scheme, you should ask that it's updated globally, on the template level. I think that possibility to change colors of the weather box is a feature creep (P.S. I'll take a liberty to shorten the number of parameters, it's hard to navigate the edit box). No such user (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That might be true if I change the temperature colour to pastel (most users are oppose to it anyways) but less so for green precip colours (as a feature creep). I generally see green precip colours as a way to reduce blending of blue colours. But if one or more user would oppose to using green, I would not change it then. You should post that opinion on the talk page for the weatherbox because there is not enough opinions from other users on it. Ssbbplayer (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I technically agree that there is too much blue, and that another color would be better for precipitation. But having a local override in articles, instead of global consensus at the weatherbox to change it, is the wrong way to tackle the problem. So, I kind of support the green, but only on global level. No such user (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It will take a while to do that (lots of differing opinions) but I am sure it would resolve the numerous edit wars over this and would be a better way to justify the usage of green. The only issue is the lack of opinions from different users so far in the discussion. As of now, only 4 or 5 users have voiced their opinions, which is not good enough to reach a consensus. Ssbbplayer (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I will not change the colours then until consensus is reached. Ssbbplayer (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw the discussion at Template talk:Weather box and I'll reply there. No such user (talk) 06:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You can actually vote on the colours that you prefer for the weatherbox. Another user suggested it, thinking that it is better than verbal arguments on that talk page. Ssbbplayer (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Standard precip colours Belgrade#Climate

Climate data for Belgrade (1981-2010) using green precip colours
Month	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Year
Record low °C (°F)	−18.2 (−0.8)	−15.4 (4.3)	−12.4 (9.7)	−3.4 (25.9)	2.5 (36.5)	6.5 (43.7)	9.4 (48.9)	6.7 (44.1)	4.7 (40.5)	−4.5 (23.9)	−7.8 (18.0)	−13.4 (7.9)	−18.2 (−0.8)
Average precipitation mm (inches)	46.9 (1.85)	40.0 (1.57)	49.3 (1.94)	56.1 (2.21)	58.0 (2.28)	101.2 (3.98)	63.0 (2.48)	58.3 (2.30)	55.3 (2.18)	50.2 (1.98)	55.1 (2.17)	57.4 (2.26)	690.9 (27.20)
^{[citation needed]}

Gross domestic product (PPP)

@User:Knightserbia: I know the difference between nominal GDP and PPP adjustment, but the problem is that the figures have never been properly sourced, so it is unclear where they came from. I followed the reference from the Economy of Belgrade article and copied it over here. However, even after this edit of yours, it is unclear where the figure of $19,000 @ppp comes from. The IMF source is a 129-page long document, and you did not specify page number; searching for "GDP" or "PPP" reveals nothing obvious. Your second source redirects to World Bank database front page, where it is quite difficult to execute a meaningful query. Finally, I used CIA World Factbook, but when I put the figures in, I get ($80.02 billion / $37.4 billion) = 2.14 (Serbia PPP/Nominal ratio) * $9,500 (Belgrade nominal per capita GDP) = 20325$, which is again different from your 19,000. I understand that different sources may have different methodologies, but please provide something unambiguously verifiable. No such user (talk) 08:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Given this has not been clarified, I've removed the sentence. DrKiernan (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Population of city proper, urban area and metro (explanation of edit December 5, 2013)

City proper of Belgrade is statistical Belgrade settlement (naselje Beograd). Its population, according to the final results of 2011 census, is 1,166,763 people.

I've put new category, urban area, which encompasses what is the real urban part of Belgrade itself. That includes settlement Belgrade and adjacent urban settlements of Borča, Ovča and Surčin. Those three settlements are defined as urban (gradsko naselje) by the Statistics Institute of Serbia. They form an urban continuum with settlment of Belgrade itself. Please note that Kaluđerica, although adjacent to the Belgrade settlement is not classified as urban settlement and therefore cannot be included in urban area of Belgrade. Population of urban area Belgrade is therefore 1,233,796 according to the 2011 Census.

Metro area of Belgrade should follow the limits of the administrative City of Belgrade since it more or less encompass metro area of Belgrade. Anything more would make it subjected to the arbitrary estimations and calculations, since there is no consensus how far the metro area stretches, we should stick to the asministrative City of Belgrade i.e. District. Its population is 1,659,440.

Similar pattern is used for Novi Sad article, which has a similar situation to that of Belgrade. There is an settlement of Novi Sad itself, several adjacent urban settlements that form urban continuum (Petrovaradin, Sremska Kamenica, Futog) and wider administrative City of Novi Sad.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Klačko (talk • contribs) 10:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Belgrad or BOL-GRAD

Avar language, Bo = army, armed nation. And Grad, Gordo etc .. means protected by walls. Can we say, Belgrad is not true name, but the true name is Avarian BOL-GRAD ? The Army Town of Avars ? İ think there is no Serbian roots in that Belgrad name, "white city" is a rootless claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.249.67.48 (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Main picture (missing collage/montage)

Why is Belgrade almost constantly missing a normal montage as its main picture just like any other larger city in the world? It would be nice at least to get back to the older ones if there is no interest in making a new one... One picture, even if it's good (at it almost never is) doesn't do this city any justice! Petar002 (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 11 February 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Speedily closed as improvidently opened. If you want to move this city's page, you'd best read WP:USEENGLISH and come up with a very good reason to ignore it. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 02:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Belgrade → Beograd – More recognizable title. "Belgrade" is not using in sources. Only Beograd. 138.16.118.235 (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Snow Close Belgrade is the English name for the city. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 01:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Why the hell should we use Beograd when all English sources use the English word for the city, Belgrade. Snow Close per AxG. No real request here (either a joke or someone totaly unaware of WP policies and guidelines. Also, seems to be a request coming from a non-English speaker, no wander). FkpCascais (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sources

A quick note to the move proposer who was looking for sources... [2] Red Slash 02:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Picture Montage

Could we maybe add some pictures to the montage that are in daylight? All the current ones are at night, and I feel like Belgrade has plenty of spots that look beautiful in Belgrade! Just look up pictures of "Belgrade day" or just "Belgrade" and there are plenty of beautiful pictures! Anyways, I'm not sure how to edit the montage, and I don't want to mess anything up. Bers123 (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, this one is awful. Can someone create it? With normal pictures of Belgrade, Kalemegdan, Old Palace, Beogradjanka, Temple of Saint Sava, Avala Tower, Skadarlija, Ada Bridge, Republic square, Knez Mihailova... --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I will create one tomorrow. Will try how it goes... --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Anastan :D Bers123 (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I have taken the time to create one that I think is good. I don't have an account however, so I can't upload it, but I will leave a link to the image on imgur so that one of you guys can upload it to wikimedia and put it into the article. Now to preface any criticism, allow me to explain my thought process for picking out the pictures or leaving others out:

-For the collage, I decided not to put in individual buildings that do not have the purpose to be representative of the city, so the collage does not contain any modern office buildings or skyscrapers because they don't represent the city. NYC, London, Warsaw or Frankfurt, in these cities the highrises are representative of the character of the city, they represent the status of the city as a financial and business capital - in Belgrade they aren't, so I didn't put them in.

- I also didn't put in individual buildings of any commercial or single purpose nature, like hotels (not even Hotel Moskva, I know, it's old and beautiful, but frankly there isn't a really good photo of it in wikimedia which also covers Terazije at the same time (there is one, but bad quality), and the space for the collage is very limited, so to not end up with 10 tiny pictures I decided to skip it), because again, they don't illustrate the city. I skipped on a lot of beautiful buildings (National Museum, National Theater, Stari i Novi Dvor (bad and close/tight images that don't show the whole complex)...), because they are to narrow and don't illustrate the city as a whole, but only themselves. They are good to put into the article on the side somewhere for illustration, but not really for the main picture, as these individual buildings don't illustrate the city and it's character. For the same reason I didn't put in the national bank building or any modern building, also I don't have an inferiority complex that I feel I have to redeem the city and make it look modern or whatever in the header image for "foreigners" who might have a "bad" image of the city because they don't know what it looks like. This isn't a tourism ad and not a place to heal complexes or make yourself feel better or make the city into something it may not be. It's a standard European city, so of course it will have modern office buildings the same way it will have hospitals, sports arenas and anything else, however they are irrelevant for the purpose of illustrating a picture of the city. So imo the wikipedia picture montage isn't a place to demonstrate all that you have, as in "look, we have this arena, and this huge church, and we have this skyscraper, and that glass building, and this antenna tower, and that modern glass skyscraper, and we totally aren't a grey communist block hole, we really are modern and very western, look at this stuff we have that you know because you have it too! See, we have nothing to be ashamed of, we are very much like you!". I don't think that is the best way to use the wikipedia header image of the city, it should be representative of the city, and nothing else.

- I also didn't include any so-called "landmarks" because imho the picture isn't supposed to be a tourism advert, so I didn't put in Avala tower (too far out of town and not illustrative of the city) or any church or temple, because again, they aren't important objects to illustrate the city with and imho religion isn't an important part in the header, this isn't Jerusalem or Rome where religious objects have been a defining part of the city for millenia, so there's no reason to put religious objects into the picture montage. Yes, St. Sava is visible, but unless you go there, you don't feel that building, it isn't in the center or in the history of the city, like some European cities have a defining large church in the central square of the city or other towns are centered on religion and worship.

Now to the question what did I include, and why:

- An areal overview of the city that illustrates its position (on both sides of a river, with a lot of water and green right in the city), but is still close enough that one can see the city and streets, but doesn't capture the whole city like a sattelite image because that's unnecessary, this isn't for navigation, or to show the size of the city, it's to illustrate what it is centered around and the geographic layout. For that reason it's also irrelevant that the picture is "outdated" because it doesn't include the new bridge, it's not for navigation, it doesn't need to show the bridge to demonstrate that we have this huge bridge and how modern we are or whatever, it should illustrate the city's position, geography and nature, and it does that perfectly. It even shows a recreational area right in the city, which is a bonus to how goodo this picture is. To not include this picture would make the header image pointless, because individual buildings are irrelevant to Belgrade as a city, and no picture of any building shows that the city sits on a large river (two actually). This is a defining part of the character of the city, as it shows where it exists, as well as how and why it exists.

- Two pictures to illustrate the historically defining Belgrade fortress, I chose pictures of two different gates which include extra objects (Pobednik and Sahat Kula) for a wider illustration (there are other gates, but they only show themselves and there's nothing extra in there. I would have liked to include the old white gate with the massive towers to the sides to include an even older part of the fortress to illustrate that it is very old, but three pictures would be too much and there's no really good picture of it in wikimedia, so I settled on these two). The fortress is a defining part of the character and history of the city, and shows that the city is very old and where it originated from, both in position and in purpose.

- Two pictures to illustrate the old town and Knez Mihailova street. They illustrate the first modern development of Belgrade into a proper city during the 19th century, as it sprawled out from the fortress into newly built avenues and streets, with actual multi-story buildings. I am aware that one of the pictures is an object of commercial nature and would fall under the guidelines I mentioned before, but I had to make an exception because the photo with that building is much more illustrative of Belgrade's center and it's historic buildings, than it is an illustration of whatever commercial object is now housed within it, very much unlike Hotel Moskva, which is still a hotel, and wikipedia header images shouldn't give publicity for businesses if it doesn't absolutely have to be in there. Knez Mihailova illustrates the old town and historic center of Belgrade (even if it's geographical center might have shifted as it sprawled out and over the river). This is a defining part of the character of the city, and shows it's transformation into an actual city and it's historic city center.

- One picture of the parliament building, which illustrated Belgrades status as the capital city.

That's it, four themes to illustrate the city of Belgrade in it's header image:

An overview of the city's geographical river location/nature.

The old fortress as it's history of thousands of years.

The old city center as an illustration of it's character, origin and cultural/architectural style.

The city as the capital as it's position of importance.

I don't think any more is needed to illustrate the city and it's history and character in one image. Anything else can go into seperate pictures along the article where it is mentioned.

Here's the montage, I sure hope links work here after I spent so much time making the image and describing it. All the images are from wikimedia, so there should be no problem in using this. Hope one of you guys with an account can take a minute to put it into the article.

http://i.imgur.com/29BAwQ3.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.37.209 (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Why only Singidunum?

According to the official website of Belgrade (link), besides SINGIDUN the historical names include ALBA GRAECA, GRIECHISCH WEISSENBURG, NANDOR ALBA, NANDOR FEJERVAR, CASTELBIANCO, ALBA BULGARICA. Why are these trivia and seldomly used, but just one of them is included in the article? I don't think that the official website would write for anything close to trivia regarding the history of the city, so these may have covered relevant historical periods. --Serdik (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

See History of Belgrade.--Zoupan 19:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Because those names have been occasionally used by conquerors and neighbors in relatively short periods of the city's history, and to this date they are so little known (if they ever had been in active use) that their including in so prominent place in the article gives them undue weight, and they are treated in History of Belgrade as Zoupan said. In addition, your copying of that table in the main article also violated WP:CWW, our copyright rule, and WP:WHENTABLE, our style rule. No such user (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Featured article?

Taking a look at the article, it is not that impressive, references are full of newspaper articles and articles from the city's official page, has some awkward images and sandwiched text. The infobox image is awful (it is replaced every third month, always ends up bad). The bibliography section includes 1 (!) work on general history of Belgrade, A Short History of Belgrade, and two other ones of unclear focus. None is cited in the article. There are plenty of quality RS on all aspects of Belgrade, though nowhere to be found in the article. While the last review was made in 2006–07, I would never regard it featured. Am I wrong? FA criteria here.--Zoupan 20:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're right. You seem to be reading my mind – I was thinking just that while composing the reply above, and you caught me in an edit conflict. This article got featured very long time ago, by far less strict standards, and has barely survived one FAR, but IMO it would be doomed in another. I have been trying to maintain it in so-so consistent state for the last five years, but I've lost energy and interest. Everybody seems to be focused just on the bloody infobox image and inflating population count. If you feel like opening a new FAR, be my guest... No such user (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

tanışmak

merhaba güzeler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.106.234.213 (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Belgrade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110522124646/http://www.emportal.rs/vesti/srbija/62935.html to http://www.emportal.rs/vesti/srbija/62935.html

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 29 external links on Belgrade. 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: 18 January 2022).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 36 external links on Belgrade. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.beograd.rs/cms/view.php?id=320
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/europe/belgrade-has-risen-from-the-ashes-to-become-the-balkans-party-city-1651037.html?
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109633/Constantine-I
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.beligrad.com/history.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.belgradenet.com/belgrade_history.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9050991/Battle-of-the-Maritsa-River
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9046112/Battle-of-Kosovo
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.historynet.com/magazines/military_history/3030796.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.serbia-info.com/g3/images/1930-50-e.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vreme.com/arhiva_html/450/2.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2007&mm=10&dd=05&nav_category=90&nav_id=44315
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.vreme.com/arhiva_html/471/10.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dawn.com/2005/12/07/int17.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/internetnation/sumatrism
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.xs4all.nl/~eteia/kitabhana/Selimovic_Mehmed_Mesa/Biografija.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.popboks.com/albumi/beogradskisindikat.shtml
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121205150856/http://www.iran.rs:80/ to http://www.iran.rs/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.muzejrv.org/istorija/istorija.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tesla-museum.org/meni_en/nt.php?link=muzej/m&opc=sub2
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ear.europa.eu/serbia/main/documents/2006Media.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://seecult.org/english/module-News-display-sid-211.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tob.co.rs/eng/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=167&Itemid=281
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ekapija.com/website/sr/page/17516
Corrected formatting/usage for http://travel.guardian.co.uk/article/2003/aug/10/observerescapesection1
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2129528,00.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.seenews.com/profiles/companies/cs_bip_beogradska_industrija_piva/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.smh.com.au/travel/the-worlds-top-10-party-towns-20091118-im4q.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fisu.net/site/page_1068.php
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/1/manasek-paradox.asp
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bankwatch.org/project.shtml?w=147584&s=1961998
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ebrd.com/projects/eias/34913s.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.coventry.gov.uk/directory/25/twin_towns_and_cities
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.banjaluka.rs.ba/front/category/64/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fdimagazine.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/1543
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.seeurope.net/files2/pdf/rgn0906/13_Belgrade_CityOfTheFutureInSEE.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 05:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

"Belgrade was the capital of Yugoslavia from its creation in 1918, to its final dissolution in 2006."

As far as I'm aware, Yugoslavia was dissolved in 1991/1992. Even if FRY is considered Yugoslavia (which the UN disagrees with), the country was renamed Serbia and Montenegro in 2003. ~barakokula31 (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Articles on former states in Wikipedia often come with succession boxes indicating territorial changes, and the rise and fall of regimes. The succession we have in this case is:

Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1918-1945). Formed as a merger of three previous states in December, 1918. Dissolved with the official abolition of the monarchy in November, 1945. The monarch was actually in exile since 1941, and the Kingdom was under foreign occupation for much of World War II.
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1945-1992). A communist state, though mostly a rival to the Soviet Union, rather than an ally. Officially declared in November, 1945, though areas of the country were under communist control since 1943. Officially dissolved into five different states in April, 1992.
Serbia and Montenegro (1992-2006). A federation of two former Yugoslav states. Initially sought international recognition as the "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia", when officially formed in April, 1992. After failing to gain international recognition and several years of crisis, the name was officially changed to "State Union of Serbia and Montenegro" in February, 2003. It was officially dissolved into two different states in June 2006, following a referendum. Dimadick (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Belgrade. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/europe/belgrade-has-risen-from-the-ashes-to-become-the-balkans-party-city-1651037.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109633/Constantine-I
Corrected formatting/usage for http://artfl.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.25%3A1%3A283.harpers
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130319070121/http://www.rastko.org.rs/rastko-bl/istorija/corovic/istorija/index_l.html to http://www.rastko.org.rs/rastko-bl/istorija/corovic/istorija/index_l.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.suc.org/culture/library/Oci/tajne-poruke-svetoga-save-16-03-03.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217212301/http://scindeks.nb.rs/article.aspx?artid=0350-03730101087P&redirect=ft to http://scindeks.nb.rs/article.aspx?artid=0350-03730101087P&redirect=ft
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/balkan/intro.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.questia.com/library/book/approaches-to-auschwitz-the-holocaust-and-its-legacy-by-john-k-roth-richard-l-rubenstein.jsp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222204657/http://www.blic.rs/Vesti/Ekonomija/435629/Ovako-ce-izgledati-Beograd-na-vodi to http://www.blic.rs/Vesti/Ekonomija/435629/Ovako-ce-izgledati-Beograd-na-vodi
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140715000726/http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/Popis2011/Knjiga4_Veroispovest.pdf to http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/Popis2011/Knjiga4_Veroispovest.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116220235/http://www.rastko.org.rs/knjizevnost/nauka_knjiz/pekic-biograf.html to http://www.rastko.org.rs/knjizevnost/nauka_knjiz/pekic-biograf.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bmeia.gv.at/kultur/belgrad/das-kulturforum.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Serbian%2Bballad%2Bwins%2BEurovision%2BSong%2BContest%2B-%2BBelgrade%2Bhosts%2Bin%2B2008%2B/1135227223254
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tesla-museum.org/meni_en/nt.php?link=muzej%2Fm&opc=sub2
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ulus.org.rs/ENGLISH/Exhibitions/TriennialA/TriennialA.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0%2C2144%2C2129528%2C00.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/1/manasek-paradox.asp
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bankwatch.org/project.shtml?w=147584&s=1961998
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130626075304/http://www.ljubljana.si/si/ljubljana/pobratena-mesta-zdruzenja/ to http://www.ljubljana.si/si/ljubljana/pobratena-mesta-zdruzenja/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130806032050/http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/local-news/what-point-coventrys-twin-towns-3038605 to http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/local-news/what-point-coventrys-twin-towns-3038605

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 23:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Belgrade. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.roughguides.co.uk/website/travel/Destination/content/default.aspx?titleid=104&xid=idh573385336_0211
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.rastko.org.rs/isk/index_e.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.blic.co.rs/beograd.php?id=53230
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G2015/pdf/G20156007.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070528222131/http://www.balkanmedia.com/m2/doc/3184-1.shtml to http://www.balkanmedia.com/m2/doc/3184-1.shtml
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://old.balkaninsight.com/en/main/life_and_style/28895/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.vazduhoplovnivodic.rs/eng/eng_letelista.htm
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.airport-belgrade.rs/code/navigate.php?Id=63

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 10:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Belgrade. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 02:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Belgrade. 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/20070610092417/http://www.tesla-museum.org/meni_en/nt.php?link=muzej%2Fm&opc=sub2 to http://www.tesla-museum.org/meni_en/nt.php?link=muzej%2Fm&opc=sub2

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 15:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Belgrade. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 07:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Belgrade. 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/20110520041218/http://www.rts.rs/page/rts/sr/javniservis/RTS+50/story/251/I+danas/27294/Medijski+javni+servis+gra%C4%91ana.html to http://www.rts.rs/page/rts/sr/javniservis/RTS+50/story/251/I+danas/27294/Medijski+javni+servis+gra%C4%91ana.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: 18 January 2022).

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) 22:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

[1] "2011 Census of Population, Households and Dwellings in the Republic of Serbia: Comparative Overview of the Number of Population in 1948, 1953, 1961, 1971, 1981, 1991, 2002 and 2011, Data by settlements" (PDF). Statistical Office of Republic Of Serbia, Belgrade. 2014. ISBN 978-86-6161-109-4. Retrieved 2014-06-27.

[n 1]