User talk:Klačko

Hi, some months ago, you moved Dušan's Code to Dušan Code with the explanation that it was a "more appropriate title in English". However, the possessive suffix -ov in Dušanov zakonik is akin to the possessive case of a noun signified by the apostrophe in the earlier title. Additionally, "Dušan Code" appears to be so rarely used in English that in a Google Ngram search only Dušan's Code comes up. I do hope for a cogent explanation for the change, otherwise I will be WP:BOLD and revert it to the earlier title. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, can you go take a look at my questions on the bottom of the Talk:Belgrade article? I do not understand where the "urban" figures for population and area is coming from. The only sources on the internet for statistics on Belgrade speak to a "city" area, which would be the metropolitan area in most other places, and a "urban/settlement" area, which is a spatial urban agglomeration measurement irrespective of administrative subdivisions. I'm not seeing anything linked that references anything in between, yet it's in the infobox and demographic section. It's my opinion that in the infobox, the the "capital city" should be removed, as that's not a formal desgination, and we just have a "city" (the combined municipal subdivisions) and an "urban" measurement listed. Criticalthinker (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Just noticed the change you made, too, to the urban area population. The two sources in the infobox provide:

Насеље (settlement): 1,197,714

Градска (urban): 1,383,875

Град/област (city/oblast): 1,681,405

Perhaps the "urban" number given in these sources isn't of the central contiguous urban area, but where is your population and area figures coming from for these measurements? Criticalthinker (talk) 08:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I pretty much answered on that on the Talk page of Belgrade article, as you suggested me to. Source is 2022 Census Book on Age and Sex of the Statistical Institute of Serbia, since there they published data by settlements which is the basic statistical aggregate. Here's link: https://publikacije.stat.gov.rs/G2023/Pdf/G20234003.pdf. Klačko (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

When i made that edit I provided this source above, so I am now a bit confused on what source you are reffering to? Source for the data on urban area in the article is as we speak the one from link above. It is the official census publication of Statistical Institute of Serbia. Klačko (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, something is being missed in translation, here. The citation for the "area" figures in the Belgrade article infobox is dead. It would also be very odd for the settlement of Belgrade and the urban area of Belgrade to differ by only approximately 9 square miles. But even if that's true, there is not citation for these figures in the infbox, which is the problem. The other problem is that it seems like you are doing original research as the sources cited for population do not have the figure "1,298,661" anywhere in them. If there is a source that defines what the "Градска (urban)" area of Belgrade is, we need that source cited. Criticalthinker (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Difference in surface area figures for urban area and settlement are not 9 sq miles as you claim but 45 sq miles, I dont know where you found that difference. I invite you to check the infobox again. Regards, Klačko (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I made a mistake with those numbers. But, furthermore, I think you're being hostile, when all I'm trying to do is get these figures correct in the infobox. Again, on the English-language page of Belgrade, the link provided for the area measurement figures is dead. Of course, it's easy to find the area measurement of the full municipalities included in City of Belgrade, but there the figures of 389.12 km2 and 506.14 km2 are not supported by anything in the English language article.

https://zis.beograd.gov.rs/images/ZIS/Files/Godisnjak/G_2022S.pdf

In fact, there is a not left with the citation that reads: [permanent dead link]. And back on the population figures, there is nothing that explicitly references the 1,298,661 figure given for the "urban area." It's been explained that you have to sum the total of certain settlement's urban areas outside that of Belgrade settlement, but perhaps the addition of a map or a footnote explaining which urban settlement areas as contiguous with Belgrade settlement would be in order, here. Because if you're just to go by the source, there is no measurement, either in area or population, for Belgrade's "urban area."

Was I clear this time? Criticalthinker (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that you moved the page Historical Archive of Srem to Historical Archives "Syrmia" of Sremska Mitrovica. I wasn’t entirely sure which naming convention to follow myself, but from what I’ve seen, English-language sources more commonly use the untranslated name Historical Archive of Srem—notably the [EHRI - Историјски архив 'Срем', Сремска Митровица EHRI] page, as well as other examples (e.g., Case 1, Case 2). It’s not unusual for local names to be retained in English when referring to institutions or regions in Syrmia, for example, Eparchy of Srem, Srem District, and Vukovar-Srijem County. While I actually think it might be more consistent to standardize everything to "Syrmia," I was explicitly told not to do so in the case of Vukovar-Srijem County. So I’m unsure whether we should apply the full translation consistently in all cases and if not, why should it be done in this case if sources are missing or divided? MirkoS18 (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I think we should stick to full English translation wherever possible, "Srem" per se doesnt mean anything in English. Klačko (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Klačko! I appreciate your perspective, and I actually really like the idea of translating the name of the region in various cases. However, other users have explicitly opposed that approach in the past, most notably in the case of Vukovar-Srijem County. I wasn’t particularly happy with that outcome, but as long as it stands, I think it’s relevant here as well, especially since “Srijem” is certainly not more common than “Srem” in English-language usage. In this particular case, I wasn’t really thinking in terms of personal preference, neither yours nor mine, but more about whether we tend to translate names like this as a rule (I think it is reasonable proposal), or if we usually go with what’s more commonly used in available sources, even when those are limited. For example, the “Srem” redirect works perfectly fine and seems to align with several reference examples. That said, I’m of course open to further discussion, especially if a clear standard on this emerges going forward!--MirkoS18 (talk) 11:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I saw that you basically created all articles about archives in Serbia, great work really. I would like to get your feedback of my renaming of articles of Diplomatic Archives and Military Archives - do you agree with the logic of those moves or not? Klačko (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you again, Klačko! Regarding the Diplomatic and Military Archives, your reasoning seems sound, and I don’t have a strong opinion there, those renamings seem fine to me. The case of the Sremska Mitrovica archive, however, feels more delicate. For me, the concern isn’t just consistency in translation, but whether our naming practice is being applied fairly across cases. “Syrmia” may be a reasonable translation in principle (it would be my preferred option), but it isn’t standardized, and, in fact, the community has explicitly rejected its use in cases like Vukovar-Srijem County. That opens the door to arguments that using “Srijem” while excluding “Srem” reflects an uneven or potentially unfair application of naming conventions. This becomes even more complex given the division of the region between Serbia and Croatia. “Srem” remains the dominant local usage, including, to some extent, in colloquial Croatian in the area, even if it’s not part of standard Croatian. Personally, I find it difficult to justify insisting on “Srijem” in such contexts while simultaneously avoiding “Srem” and I don’t think I’m particularly sensitive on these issues. As for the renaming of the Jagodina archive to “Mid-Morava Valley”, that one might also raise a few questions, especially given the existence of Pomoravlje District article, but I see it as far less problematic overall and would leave that entirely up to your judgment.--MirkoS18 (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I understand your concerns and there are definitely pros and cons for both variants. If you think Srem in that particular case (Historical Archives "Syrmia" of Sremska Mitrovica) shouldn't be translated to Syrmia, since its use is not standardized and as a consequence Srem variant might end up "discriminated" across the board at the benefit of Srijem, that sounds a credible argument, feel free to change it back. Klačko (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello Klačko, thanks for uploading the newly-adopted flag of the Vlachs, it's interesting to know about it. Do you think you could also upload their coat of arms? Regards, Super Ψ Dro 22:30, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey Super Ψ Dro! I just uploaded the coat of arms, you can find it here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_arms_of_Vlachs_of_Serbia_as_defined_with_acts_of_the_Council_of_Vlachs_Ethnic_Minority_of_Serbia_(nacionalnisavetvlaha.rs).jpg

Regards, Klačko (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello! You recently reshuffled the sections of the Morava Airport article, and, to be honest with you, I don't really like this new layout. It's very similar to the old one that I changed, which I didn't like because the History section was super long, but now you added the Criticism and controversies section there too so it's, in my opinion, just pointlessly long. Also, because the history of the air base is mostly just when each military unit was stationed there, adding an entire section listing which units are stationed there seems redundant to me. To be completely honest, I'd just revert your edits, but I've nominated the article for Good Article status, and an edit war would disqualify it.

Would you be ok with me restoring it to how it was? If no, is there some compromise we can come to? I'm open to some dispute resolution if we can't. As a bare minimum I'd like criticism and controversies to have it's own section because I genuinely don't see how that's History.

Thanks in advance! JustARandomSquid (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi there!

I think it is more structured and logical the way it was before your edits. Big part of airport history and todays status is its role as an air base, and I think it should be clearly distinguished from the civilian/commercial airport part.

I am ok with your proposition to have, as a sound compromise, Criticisms and Controversies as a separate section in the article.

Regards, Klačko (talk) 09:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

We'll definitely at least do that then.

One thing I don't understand, though, is that you say about the airbase "I think it should be clearly distinguished from the civilian/commercial airport part", but my revision separated the military and civilian history pretty clearly? (and avoided repeating the same facts about which units were stationed where, cough cough) Also, another problem is that the current Airbase section (and the one before my edits) is entirely unsourced, the reference doesn't talk about that in the slightest, and I haven't been able to find any sources. Oh, and airbase is definitely one word, not two ("air base")

Cheers! JustARandomSquid (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey, after thinking a bit, I've reverted your edits. I know it's very rude of me, but I need some time to think about this, and my version didn't have the sourcing issues (and also several grammar mistakes), and wasn't, like, wrong or anything, so for now it would mean a lot to me if this could be the default. I'll do my best to take your suggestions into account.

Sorry about this again.

Regards, JustARandomSquid (talk) 09:48, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, didnt see this one coming..

You are pushing your point of view, without making prior consensus. I agreed to a compromise you proposed and now you are disregarding it completely. Pretty wierd I must say…

So definitely we should go backto the revision before, raise the issue on the Talk Page of the article and try to reach consensus there before making any edits.

BTW, both "air base" and "airbase" are correct: Air base is often used in formal or technical contexts, like military documentation or official names (e.g. Edwards Air Base).

Regards, Klačko (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey! I didn't mean for my revert to be taken that way. I just meant that if, hypothetically, someone was to pick up the article for a Good Article review, I'd rather they see my version of the article, because even if your section layout is better (which I really need time to think about, and I promise I will), it contains grammar mistakes (which are fixable, admittedly) and an entire unsourced section (a lot harder to fix). From my perspective, your edits could use a bit of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". I'm really sorry about the inconvenience, it's just that I've spent quite some time fixing up the article, so I feel quite attached to it, and, to put it very bluntly, it would mean a lot to me if things were my way. Thank you for your understanding. Regards, JustARandomSquid (talk) 10:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

PS. the Ministarstvo odbrane uses airbase, hence why I chose that. That's a more minor issue though. JustARandomSquid (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

PPS: I was afraid you'd feel this way, so I'd already asked WikiProject Airports to weigh in, but nobody gave any useful advice, so I went to you directly. If you want to get a 3rd opinion, maybe try and start some discussion there. JustARandomSquid (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

So why dont go with the compromise you put up and I agreed to (Criticisms and controversies as a separate section)? Klačko (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

(I assume you mean the compromise where only criticism and controversies are in a separate section.) What I meant by saying that having a separate section is the bare minimum is that that's something I think is a must. As for the other things, I do think they're better my way (obviously, why else would I do them like that then), but I respect that you're more experienced than me, and I honestly didn't think you'd reply that quickly and that I would have some time to think about your way and maybe get a third opinion. I didn't immediately revert because starting an edit war would be very much against my interests, and I was fine with things staying your way while I worked it out.

However, that palo u vodu when i realised that the latest revision had issues, and that the choice now became between a revision with potentially suboptimal sectioning (to be determined), but otherwise nothing outright wrong with it, or a revision with potentially better sections but one of them is entirely unsourced (a particularly big problem, even more so because it's a GA nominee and means a lot to me), plus some grammar issues. So could my revision be the default while I think about using your sectioning and we come to an agreement, pretty please with a cherry on top? JustARandomSquid (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I think that Air base section should stay as it is now, although I agree it was a poorly sourced before so I provided a better source from the official Serbian Armed Forces page. Regards, Klačko (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

To be precise, I am reffering to "Lađevci Air base" section at the bottom of the article. Klačko (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Is it just me or does the source not actually say where the units are based? It says the 98th brigade is based at Morava, Niš and Ponikve, but doesn't say which is where. JustARandomSquid (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

OK. I've read through this and you both seem to want the same thing. I've suggested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Advice on airport article sectioning to look at CFB Goose Bay, CFB Bagotville, CFB Gander, and Category:Airports of the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan for ideas on layouts for military / civilian airports. My best suggestion is to take this to Talk:Morava Airport and leave a note at WikiProject Airports. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:44, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, regarding the Regions with significant populations parameter in the infobox: please restore B&H/Srpska as well as Montenegro, at the very least. I believe the reasons are fairly self-explanatory, and I fail to see any good reason not to. — Sadko (words are wind) 01:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello Sadko. My intention was to separate Serbia as the nation-state of Serbs (thus also as the country/region with largest numbers of Serbs by far), countries where Serbs are native/autochtonuos (constituent people or recognized minorities), and countries where Serbs are diaspora communities. I briefly checked a dozen of similiar articles and found that there's no similar division but standard is rather similiar to what you proposed. So I will put B&H with Serbia in the Regions with significant populations, while I think Montenegro just fails to meet main criteria (pure numbers - less than in Germany or Austria, for example; although share in total population is similar to BiH). Consequentally, there's no need for division native/diaspora anymore since BiH goes with Serbia, so the list for other countries should be without any divisions like is standard in other articles. Are you fine with this or have some other proposals? Regards Klačko (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. I still think we should include Montenegro as well. Although the total number is relatively low, it is close to one-third of the population, and the country was, according to its official documents, founded as a Serb state, in the 19th century. This should be respected and reflected in the infobox, as it is not a trivial matter. For everything else, I fully agree. — Sadko (words are wind) 16:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Sadko, I really can't see rationale for including Montenegro. It says "Regions with significant populations" so there is only one criteria to be taken into account, statistical one, otherwise it wouldn't really make sense to include Montenegro and not Austria, Germany and so forth which have bigger populations. I agree with you about historical considerations, I tried to make distinction through that division native/diaspora, but in infobox which is in this case rather statistical thing there's really no point to do that. If there's an adequate infobox parameter, like "native/historical countries" or something like that, then there's no brainer, but here we have parameter that is purely statistical "... significant populations". Regards, Klačko (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, from a statistical standpoint, one-third of the population is very significant. The fact that the country itself has a relatively small population is less relevant. Let's include B&H and potentially MNE, because adding Serbia alone in terms of population in the infobox was a very bold move that was never discussed. I don't intend to pursue this much further, but I am considering restoring it to the status quo, that is, the previous version of the infobox. Best. — Sadko (words are wind) 10:13, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Saint Sava Serbian Orthodox Cathedral (Paris) when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:59, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Saint Spyridon Serbian Orthodox Church (Trieste) when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 14:20, 18 March 2026 (UTC)