This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Countries B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. WikiProject Countries to-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Kosovo B‑class Top‑importance Kosovo is part of WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Kosovo on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.KosovoWikipedia:WikiProject KosovoTemplate:WikiProject KosovoKosovo articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Serbia B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Albania B‑class Top‑importance Kosovo is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.AlbaniaWikipedia:WikiProject AlbaniaTemplate:WikiProject AlbaniaAlbania articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:V0.5

Template:FAOL

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34

Former article talkpages (archived) Republic of Kosovo

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Okay, why are there still 3 infoboxes on this page? The disambig note states "This article is about the geographical region of Kosovo. For individual articles about the entities disputing its sovereignty, see Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–). For other uses, see Kosovo (disambiguation)", since two of these boxes refer to entities claiming control of the region don't they belong on the dedicated articles and not here? --Khajidha (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed infoboxes. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OOoh, sorry, my mistake, i forgot to remove them! ;( But now, with them, split is finally over. Now some real encyclopedic articles can be created, without politics and national tensions. :) YEEEE!! :) :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 18:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed few more things, and i think that now article is really separated. Sure, there are still some highly POV sentences and section constructions, but now this is area where we CAN work to make it better. It anyone have some advice or question, just write here. Also, i must notice that for a quite a long time we didnt have ANY vandalism on this or any other related page (Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija). Also, i would love to dare to dream about day what all ARBMAC restrictions will be removed from this article, as unneeded. In a day when we can agree about anything, like we did here! Ooo, what a dream! Therefor, one image to wish better start to all and much better understanding then it once was! --WhiteWriter ^speaks 20:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When was it agreed to remove the other two infoboxes? IJA (talk) 09:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it wasn't even stated anywhere that agreement was reached. I thought it was only natural to remove them, since according to the discussion it was somehow presumed that the article should solely deal with the topic of Kosovo as a region. --Biblbroks (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But why did you reverted those infoboxes? This article is about region, we have articles about political entities. Based on what arguments did you reverted those? --WhiteWriter ^speaks 16:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WhiteWriter, you haven't read the edit summaries of the recent edits in the article namespace made by IJA, have you? The way I see it, IJA is concerned with the lack of consensus for removing the infoboxes. I presume that IJA wasn't following all the previous discussions on this article and the discussion on the Republic of Kosovo article, because assuming all those discussion were read, then it might be quite straightforward from those discussions to presume that other two infoboxes are unnecessary if not even undesired. IMO, this unnecessariness if not even "undesiredness" is quite clearly presented by Khajidha's comment above. But formally IJA does have a point - no consensus was reached for having one infobox. On the other hand, someone might argue that no consensus was reached for not having more than three infoboxes either, and formally this someone might have a point too, since:

• it isn't obvious by IJA's editsummary what the previous consensus is
• if there are three infoboxes, why not four, five or more
• that someone might ask all the others what actually a consensus is...

What I am trying to say is, if somebody for example inserted one more infobox, the infobox from the APKIM article, that wouldn't totally counteract IJA's edit but it would somehow counterbalance it. Also it might not be quite contrary to the previous consensus, since I believe that previous consensus wasn't really a consensus, if I may express my opinion - it was somehow contested exactly by the creation of Republic of Kosovo article and, if I remember correctly, it was regarded as contrary to some consensus before this one that IJA mentions. That is for the devilish in the devilish four phrase, WhiteWriter. :-) Regards, --79.175.70.160 (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC) previous comment made by Biblbroks (talk) [reply]

As you all know infoboxes and this article are a very very sensitive issue. I am fully aware that this article is about the region of Kosovo, not a political article as such. However there is a consensus to have three infoboxes on this article and that must be respected until a new consensus comes into being. If a consensus is reached to have just one infobox then I will respect that however I am currently respecting the consensus which states we should three infoboxes. This is what has been agreed for the article. The consensus can be found in the archives. The agreement to created a separate "Republic of Kosovo" article and the agreement to make this article about the region of Kosovo does NOT override the consensus to have three infoboxes. Before making controversial edits to this article we must reach a consensus and I think that is fair play. Also I think the APKiM infobox should be merged with the UNMIK infox for two reasons, Serbia considers the APKiM to be under UN administration also we didn't have a consensus to have 4 infoboxes. Also the RoK infobox could be shorted for this article only (don't want to affect the "Republic of Kosovo" article) as there is no point in repeating population and geography statistics ect. IJA (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But hasn't the consensus, you mention, changed in the meanwhile? As could be understood from some posts above. Anyway, how exactly do you propose to shorten the "RoK" infobox - if you still insist on having three infoboxes. I emphasize: if you insist. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean change it as in remove the population, the size ect, all of which is stated in the top infobox. No point repeating it twice. Make sense? Also how do you feel about merging the UNMIK and APKiM infoboxes? Serbia states that UNMIK administrates APKiM, so UNMIK is the governor of the APKiM according to Serbia. IJA (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If three infoboxes are really needed, I am not totally against it. But are you sure there was a consensus on the sorting of the infoboxes - in which order should they be given? Wouldn't their sequence pose another issue - issue of hierarchy of infoboxes? --Biblbroks (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need a separate consensus for removing the extra infoboxes? I thought that the removal of infoboxes for APKIM and ROK was the logical result of making/expanding the articles for those entities. Since those articles use the dedicated infoboxes, they don't need to be here. --Khajidha (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need any more infoboxes than the first one (with the physical map). In its governing authority section there are links to articles containing the other three infoboxes - RoK, APKiM, UNMIK. If, by some strange reason we remain with multiple infoboxes - I oppose deleting population data from the RoK infobox or merging/deleting the others, etc. - these infoboxes are also used in other articles, where there is not "physical map" infobox. Alinor (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if we remain with multiple infoboxes, Alinor, what do you think about the sorting criteria - which one first, which one second, ...? What about - if we instead try and conflate all the infoboxes into one big infobox separated by ... something ... and make the multiple infoboxes into sections of this sole comprehensive infobox. All the different maps, all the different government info, and all the other counteracting/counterweighting info would go into their respective sections of this big infobox. I understand it might sound cumbersome (sound? :-) ) and maybe even impossible to realize, but it could serve the purpose - having three separate infoboxes/sections in one integral infobox. Although the sorting criteria of the newly created sections might still be an issue. Even then. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is why we should go back to how we had it before IJA reverted. That infobox contained only information that was relevant to Kosovo the region and links to the various political entities. The President of the ROK is not a relevant datum for the region of Kosovo, but is for the ROK. --Khajidha (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it wasn't a revert - it was more of a reinstatement. Just felt the wording ought to be as precise as possible in order not to make IJA angry/sad/isolated? ;-) --Biblbroks (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I thought that the removal of infoboxes for APKIM and ROK was the logical result of making/expanding the articles for those entities. Since those articles use the dedicated infoboxes, they don't need to be here" No that is just your interpretation. Until we have a consensus we shouldn't change the status quo. To all, if you want to change the infobox system start a new discussion and try and build a new consensus. I will continue to go by the last consensus until a new one has been reached. IJA (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Biblbroks, WhiteWriter and Alinor had the same interpretation. --Khajidha (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And??? It doesn't mean it was agreed to just have one infobox. Anyway I've merged the UNMIK and APKiM infobox as well as removing duplicate information about population and geographical size ect which is already covered in the top infobox. IJA (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we four and you are the only ones engaged in this conversation, the fact that four of us have the same interpretation could be seen as a possible new consensus. Not saying it is, but it is not clear that your old consensus is still in effect. --Khajidha (talk) 11:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've already tried to implement some changes according to this old consensus you mention and according to some new consensus possibly being formed, I imagine you have an idea for how to address a problem of sequence of the sections/infoboxes? Don't you think that this poses another issue of hierarchy of infoboxes/sections? I sincerely hope that you have some idea about this issue being formed. All the best, --Biblbroks (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Start a new discussion with a proposal for the infoboxes if you believe they should be changed, until then the old consensus is still in place. IJA (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you already changed them without consensus? What is now the old consensus - I mean you state that it is still in place. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was to have three infoboxes, a general one about the region of Kosovo, a RoK infobox and a APKiM/ UNMIK infobox. IJA (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus for that was to have three of them but in the meantime it changed. Discussion regarding this is further down at Talk:kosovo#Infobox proposal. Regards, --biblbroks (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This template must be substituted. Without explanation, User:Biblbroks removed Interwiki links to bs:Kosovo, de:Kosovo, hr:Kosovo and la:Ager Merulensis from this article. I reverted this. Biblbroks then reverted again (in violation of this article's WP:1RR restriction) giving the explanation "the way I see it, those deal with Republic of Kosovo and not Kosovo (my edits at [3] try to serve this cause)". I understand where he's coming from, but I disagree with his actions. These foreign-language Wikipedias do not (as far as I am aware) have articles that deal with Kosovo the region, as opposed to the disputed state Republic of Kosovo. However, whilst not quite the same thing, these pages are "nearly equivalent" - a requirement of interlanguage links as per H:IL. If anything this is an issue that should be raised at de:Diskussion:Kosovo, etc., not here, in order to remove any POV in those articles. Bazonka (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm not here to talk about disputed inter-wiki links (if there are any). I just want to make sure that the bot was getting those links from other Wikipedias and added those. Also it'll keep doing this, if there are those links, if you don't want to link them here, then with consensus you may choose to use {{nobots}} anywhere in this article. That'll solve the problem. Personally I think the bot made the right changes. Regards, — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 14:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I understand that my actions in removing interwiki/interlanguage links may be regarded as not quite procedurally correct, I also think that it is reasonable to conclude that the explanation for removal wasn't necessary in the first place since I added those interlanguage links at the Republic of Kosovo article. As far as this article's WP:1RR restriction is concerned, my opinion (on the premise that I counted my reverts correctly) is that I haven't quite violated the rule - if you consider the facts that the first revert I made was to revert a bot, and the bot is not a person i.e. a real editor. Of course, this is prone to interpretation (as mine is), therefore I might be wrong. Anyway, I am trying to address the perceived implication of me irregularly making changes to the article. Also, I would like to ask you, Bazonka, with what do you think those foreign-language wikipedias' articles in question deal with. I am not certain what do you mean by "These foreign-language Wikipedias do not (as far as I am aware) have articles that deal with Kosovo the region, as opposed to the disputed state Republic of Kosovo." Regardless of the neutrality issue (which I haven't raised nor do I have firm opinion of), I think it is obvious although I think I must clear about this: I am under the impression that those articles deal with Republic of Kosovo. Now, while I agree that those pages/articles might be perceived "nearly equivalent" to Kosovo article, they also might be perceived "more nearly equivalent" to Republic of Kosovo article - and this is how I perceive them. However vague this phrase might sound, I think no better expression could be used at the moment, to convey my opinion more clearly. Tanvir, I concur - given the algorithm by which the bot operated (getting links from other wikipedias), bot made the right changes, but I am not sure it made the right changes altogether. So its algorithm should be reviewed, I think. Also do you think that choosing to use the {{nobots}} in this article without consensus would be appropriate, given the fact that I've just backbit your bot and, by that, inadvertently you too. :-/ Best regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think de:Kosovo, and the others, should be changed so that their English Interwiki links go to the article Republic of Kosovo (as this is more appropriate), but that both English Wikipedia articles Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo Interwiki link to de:Kosovo etc. When the German and other Wikipedias have separate articles for Kosovo (the place) and Republic of Kosovo (the political entity), the Interwiki links can be amended. Bazonka (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, you are more inclined to the position that those pages (bs:Kosovo, de:Kosovo, hr:Kosovo, la:Ager Merulensis) deal with Republic of Kosovo (the political entity) than with the position that they deal with Kosovo (the place). Why would en:Kosovo then link to those pages if this article deals with Kosovo (the place)? When interpreting your words ("If anything this is an issue that should be raised at de:Diskussion:Kosovo, etc., not here, in order to remove any POV in those articles.") I tend to believe that you you suggest the separation of concerns as a viable approach here - so why not then raise this issue at "German and other Wikipedias" and initiate those separate articles for Kosovo (the place)? I don't think this wikipedia's article quality should suffer because of potential POV issues with pages dealing with similar topic at other wikipedias. Also if the solution to this problem, as you propose, is to wait for other wikipedias to have separate articles for Kosovo (the place), then this solution should be amended so to pose a time limit for how long to wait - I reckon. How much do you suggest? Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to these foreign Wikipedia articles from here is perfectly acceptable as they are "nearly equivalent" (as specified under H:IL). The quality of this article is not suffering as a consequence - if anything we are highlighting the inadequacies of the other Wikipedia versions. These foreign Wikis may change over time (which we can do ourselves or try to influence others to do, if we want), but no time limits should be set here.

Also Biblbroks, I note that you added the nobots tag without consensus despite the request above from Tanvir, and the warning in the template documentation that it is not to be used as a blunt instrument. The inclusion of this template could have unforeseen consequences (e.g. cn tags will not be dated) and so its use without configuration is ill-advised. Bazonka (talk) 10:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to apply quite loaded phrases when discussing this matter with me. As in the example given above when referring to my violation of WP:1RR rule, which I addressed and you haven't responded afterwards. Now you opine that the addition of nobots tag was the usage as a blunt instrument (while I summarized my edit with "tagging with nobots template while the issue is discussed - bots could just go in the way"). Actually if you can believe me, try: I haven't thought of all the consequences of adding it to the article, and the first thing I thought of doing is to revert myself, when I realized it was done before me. And also, I can't help it but mention that not-so-clear-to-me wording "I understand where he's coming from". I honestly don't get it, and I honestly believe, it could be regarded (not just by me) as an instrument of bad faith. Neither am I coming anywhere nor was I - all the time I am sitting in my chair looking at the screen and typing at the keyboard. And I don't understand what do you mean by "I understand" - what is there to understand in the first place; are you implying that some people don't understand this and by that they are perhaps disadvantaged. I do admit that "suffering of the quality of this article" is not the best choice of words, but I still believe that you understood my point, simply because you denied me the answers to my posted questions. After all, how do you propose to highlight the inadequacies of other wikipedia articles, while remaining at this very ground - this wikipedia? All the best. --Biblbroks (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will answer your points one at a time.

- In my opinion your second revert violated 1RR. I'm not 100% sure about this though.

- The nobots template can be modified to apply to certain bots only. You didn't do this, so it applied to all bots including those that perform valuable tasks. In any case, I disagree with the use of the nobot template here. The wording "blunt instrument" is not my loaded phrase - it is taken directly from Template:Bots.

- The phrase "I understand where he's coming from" meant that I knew why you made the edits that you did - I understood your motivation. See [4]. Absolutely no bad faith, and I'm quite disappointed that you think there is.

- The reason that I did not initially respond to all of your questions is that, in my experience, you have a habit of over-analysing every single word I make, obfuscating the discussion. Therefore I tried to keep my responses brief and to-the-point. Obviously this approach did not work.

- Each version of Wikipedia is independent of the other versions - the only real connections between them are the Interwiki links. If a foreign Wikipedia article is not ideal, then people clicking on the Interwiki link from the English Wikipedia will see that it's not the same, and may conclude that it is inferior. People going directly to the foreign Wikipedia article without going via English Wikipedia will not have had the benefit of seeing this comparison. Therefore the Interwiki links in this article may indirectly help to highlight inadequacies in other Wikipedia versions.

It is my opinion that both this article and Republic of Kosovo should contain Interwikis to the foreign-language Kosovo articles, but that these foreign articles (where their content is actually about RoK) should link back to the English RoK article. What do other people think? Bazonka (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree with you that versions of wikipedia are independent of each other - exactly because of those connections (interwikis) they tend to change, I would say much as part of a global process of creating a global Encyclopaedia/Wikipedia - sum of all knowledge (to paraphrase Jimmy Wales). Many articles are created as translations of other language versions (and I'd say a big chunk of these are translations of English wikipedia articles). So it is intertwined to the point that it is difficult to deal with this independency/independence thing simply like that. So to stick with the issue at hand, I think it is better to insist on the actual situation, and by that deny the foreign wikipedia articles, that don't deal with the same topic, deny them the interwiki links in this article. With this you would have no people wondering why there are two interwiki links, and perhaps some people who would wonder why there is no article in language of their choice. Those people would be targeted as potential new article creators/translators/orBoth. And this way we could outrun the complaints about us not abiding the unwritten rule of having just one interwiki link. At least I haven't seen these multiple interwikis before. I am not against it, it's just that someone might be. Anyway by study the amount of input from other editors regarding this section and issue while the number of people watching this page is 745, I would say there are just two of us alone. Are we overly meticulous or overly forward-looking? Not that it is much important, but since we are still discussing bad faith, I wanted to inform the "accidental" readers that due to the disappointment expressed above, I decided to downgrade my Babel level for English. --Biblbroks (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki front

I have edited the English Interwiki links in Croatian (hr) and Latin (la) Wikipedias to reference both Republic of Kosovo and here. German (de) Wikipedia was already like that. I couldn't amend Bosnian (bs) Wikipedia as it is a protected article. Bazonka (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted the interwiki links case to stay here and not bring it up to other language wikipedias - so as to let them (other wikipedias) deal with the issue on their own. Also I am blocked at de (there, it is finally out in the open), and I cannot remember my passwords at bs and hr, and was kind of lazy to deal with it all together. By the way, I'd like to note that I think my action/inaction with this issue is more close to "Think globally, act locally" phrase/principle. Nevertheless, if I may use this page to report the current sitation, I'd say that after some developments, the situation goes for the better. Currently bs:Kosovo links only to de, en, hr, kbd, la, and ru articles, which in return deal with Republic of Kosovo - and that is surely (pardon for using your words, Bazonka) less inferior than before. Perhaps thus it is even most appropriate, so no worries for bs from my perspective. Situation at de and la ought to change - at least with the interwikis - as is in now at bs: exclusively linking to Republic of Kosovo. This is my personal opinion, of course. But the problem is kind of more acute with hr: two attempts at changing the iwis were reverted (the most recent of them I believe were yours, Bazonka). So, to prevent any conflicts (as in edit warring or similar) I thought of an idea which might be appropriate in this situation. Appropriate as in procedurally appropriate, I think. Does anyone know whether Wikipedia:Embassy is functional. I have no experience with this interwiki diplomacy, so I do not know how does it work, and I am not sure I would like to know. Care someone to give a hand? Bazonka, I thought this would better fit into a new subsection - I apologize for the lack of care when naming it. Regards - especially to you, Bazonka, because of your honest although harsh words. :-) --Biblbroks (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobots

Bazonka, as you haven't specifically requested the consensus to be necessary for adding the nobots template, and since I interpret the words "if you don't want to link them here, then with consensus you may choose to use {{nobots}}" as "it is not declared what you may not do", I might say that consensus isn't needed for this after all (just kidding). Also, I searched through the {{bots}} documentation, and couldn't find a stable solution on how to allow bots that don't deal with iwiki bots. The list of bots that are compliant with these options (Category:Exclusion compliant bots) is quite short, so it might not work after all. Simplest would be to allow only the bots that are really needed - you mention cn bots - but this is all an experiment, I'd say. On the other hand if we put the nobots template so bluntly that no options are given, it could serve as a warning to bot operators to make their bots support the exclusion (and then of course do all the tedious repetitive work "manually") At least here, at this quite hot spot, we might expect of everyone not just to be careful but also attentive. An idea - to promote my no-consensus-needed-criteria POV (kidding again). I can't help it - again - I simply must share this sensation of mine - I feel like I own this page, someone, please, stop me! Heh: "Every joke has a pinch of joke." (Serbo-Croatian: "U svakoj šali ima malo šale.") --Biblbroks (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, after the last "tedious repetitive work" I've done - really? Nobody noticed that Bosnia and Herzegovina is not a neighbor of Kosovo for more than 24 hours? Where have all the people gone? Or are they just staring at "the stage"? --Biblbroks (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no need to use the nobots template, in my opinion. What do other people think? Bazonka (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - for now it seems the situation is calm. Perhaps bot operators updated their bot's algorithms - is it possible that bots are down this long? That is, for this high profile article. Or it ain't that high anymore. Anyway, we do have a consensus on this, Bazonka. --Biblbroks (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well we don't really have agreement, because if and when the bots put the links to de.wikipedia etc. back, you'll probably want to remove them, whereas I wouldn't. I am keen to hear the opinions of other people. Bazonka (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i dont know. This is quite a question. German article, for example, is with the same name as this one, but subject is clearly only RoK. Also, German wiki does not have article about Kosovo region. As this is article only about Kosovo region, German equivalent in de wiki is non existent, and therefor, i think that those 4 interwikis should be deleted from this article, and leaved only in Republic of Kosovo. And that info should be transferred to bot user, if we agree. There are no need to keep those in here, as those 4 should be also moved to RoK article, per our split agreement. That is what i think... :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 15:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But what do you think about the point under H:IL which states that we should link to articles that are "nearly equivalent" in foreign Wikipedias. So the German Kosovo article doesn't have the same focus that this one does, but wouldn't it quality as "nearly equivalent" - at least until a better German article exists? Bazonka (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, i think that nearly equivalent article to that one in DE.Wiki is only Republic of Kosovo, and not this one. Neutral article about Kosovo region does not exist in German wiki... --WhiteWriter ^speaks 16:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about going the other way - linking from English Wikipedia to German? Bazonka (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the problem is with wording. What I mean is that "nearly equivalent" is I think as vague as it gets when phrases are considered. For goodness sake - how is a human supposed to measure the level of equivalency? What is its scale, and even more, how to calibrate it? As for the matter, I think WhiteWriter was saying that opposes the iwikis of en:Kosovo in de:Kosovo article, as well as de:Kosovo in en:Kosovo article. From this I conclude that if we follow such opinions (mine and WhiteWriter's), it's only viable for de:Kosovo to link to en:Republic of Kosovo, and en:Republic of Kosovo to link to de:Kosovo. As for your proposal/question, Bazonka: wouldn't it qualify as "nearly equivalent" - at least until a better German articles exists - sorry, Bazonka, but you have made the most vague proposal I have ever met. :-) And you haven't received an answer for that either. :-) Also, I apologize for assuming bad faith previously - downgrading Babel level was just a detour. And the detour wasn't intentional. All the best to all, --Biblbroks (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vague?? Until very recently, this article dealt with both Kosovo and Republic of Kosovo. Clearly these are not exactly the same, and so they were split into separate articles. But the very fact that these two things shared an article for so long shows that there is a near equivalency. To me, it makes perfect sense for this Kosovo article to link to the German Kosovo article, despite its slightly different focus - it's as close to the same thing as we can get without the existence of a specific German Republic of Kosovo article. Which of these German articles is closest to the current English Kosovo article: de:Kosovo, de:Serbien, de:Großalbanien, de:Hörnchen? Obviously the first, and if you can find a better one, then use it. The alternative, having no link to German Wikipedia (which is more comprehensive than any other Wikipedia version except English), is just absurd. Bazonka (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technical note: {{nobots}} is NOT the technically correct way of stopping unwanted interwiki bots. The technically correct way is to place the unwanted iw link code in html comments (<!-- [[xy:bad article]]-->); the bots will then leave it alone. But I agree with Bazonka on the merits of the issue. We have two article on en-wiki, both of which have their equivalent coverage in the same de-wiki article; therefore both en-wiki articles should link to the same de-wiki one. Simple. Such arrangements happen in multiple cases and there is absolutely no problem about them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fut.Perf. for useful information about nobots! Well, i dont find this subject so important, we are discussing only minor edits, so i will agree on both sides. Anyway, in the future, when Kosovo status is clear, all of this will be diminished, and specially interwiki links... :) On the other hand, it IS better to have link, even if it is a bit wrong, then not to have it at all... At the end, wiki should be informative and linked above all. I changed my mind. Yes for devilish four! :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 09:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bazonka, yes they shared an article for some time, but now the topic of en:Kosovo is more clear than it was before. This is what has changed, and now this difference affects the perception of the degree of focus difference between de:Kosovo and en:Kosovo. Also, if you asked: which of the articles on English wikipedia is closest to the article Kosovo on Deutch wikipedia, I'd say it is the Republic of Kosovo article. Well, the rationale, that because the German wikipedia is most comprehensive than any other wikipedia besides English wikipedia, and that because of this simple observation we should include its interlanguage links disregarding the difference of focus on en and de, well I'd say that such view - to use only this rationale - is a bit simplistic. But, ok, if we must include a link to one de.wikipedia article, I would agree that de:Kosovo might be the most appropriate choice. Thank you for your opinion, and even more for the information, Fut. Perf. I must ask you though, how are you so certain that both of en-wiki articles have the equivalent coverage in the de-wiki one? I mean WhiteWriter, stated above that Neutral article about Kosovo region does not exist in German wiki. Yes, he changed his mind afterwards about the interwiki links, but the statement nevertheless is there. Also, Bazonka gave an opinion that ... de:Kosovo, and the others, should be changed so that their English Interwiki links go to the article Republic of Kosovo (as this is more appropriate)... and he quite speedily changed the interwiki links on hr: and la: and tried to change the bs:, while he checked that de: was already changed. So I think there is an issue here... which I can't point directly to, though, I admit. WhiteWriter: "...wiki should be informative and linked above all!" - you devil you! :) Best regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:)) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 17:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So Biblbroks, after agreeing that that de:Kosovo is the most appropiate Interwiki link to German Wikipedia, despite it not being quite the same subject matter, you have now removed the Interwiki link to bs:Kosovo, although this is exactly the same situation. Please be consistent. Bazonka (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for eventual misunderstanding - if I stated that I agree, please point me to where this is. As far as I've found my wording regarding this issue was: "...ok, if we must include a link to one de.wikipedia article, I would agree that de:Kosovo might be the most appropriate choice." But if I stated elsewhere that I agree, I will agree with your revert, Bazonka. I don't want to be sarcastic, but I would really like to know how so that you are certain that bs and de are exactly the same situation. I haven't seen that your Babel mentions bs, while mine does mention sh - an "umbrella term" for sr, hr, bs, me, etc - umbrella term at least from my POV. Also, I admit that I recently updated my Babel with de-2, nevertheless I hold this to be true, and if someone has any objections against me removing de Interwiki based on this premise (Babel de-2), I will reinstate Interwikis to de. Or to la for that matter (which I hold to be la-1 or la-2). Also, if somebody still thinks of me being inconsistent, please state your opinion. Or you can instead {{trout}} me - you can find a small image of trout in the top right corner of my userpage. All the best, --Biblbroks (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, in order to settle this and not be so uncompromosing I suggest this, Bazonka: if you still have even a slightest impression that I agreed, I will leave it be as it is. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 07:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it, at last. I'm getting very impatient with the brickwall mentality displayed by some contributors here, especially Biblbroks' incredible bout of wikilawyering above, and I can promise you I will request a new round of topic bans if this ridiculous fighting over interwikis continues. The matter is completely trivial: if a topic has one single article on Wikipedia "x:X", but the same topic is divided up into two related articles "y:Y1" and "y:Y2" on another Wikipedia, then both articles on Y will iw-link to x:X, while in reverse, it is up to editors at wiki X to decide which of the two candidates on Y they consider the closer equivalent. This is common practice, it's uncontroversial everywhere across the project, and there are absolutely no problems about it. The question we have to ask ourselves here is not: 'does wiki X have an article that has exactly the same topic definition as we have chosen it four our "y:Y1" here?', but: 'which article on X covers (or would cover) the factual material that we are covering in our article?' In any case where another Wikipedia has a single article for the Republic that also covers the prior history of the region and the dispute, it is automatically the equivalent of both of the articles into which we have divided these topics. Period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fut.Perf. , while I understand your impatience, I simply don't find any justifiable cause for it. The discussion held was very polite, I think there hasn't been any breach to WP:Wikiquette not to mention WP:NPA, apart from your last comment maybe. Also if you're already calling names, please take a look at where have I wikilawyered, and point to this place. IIRC, when I referred to policies and guidelines, it was merely as a response to comments in which they were called upon or referred to - except for one case where I failed to assume good faith mainly because of lack of English language (which is no wikilawyering, I believe), and this post. So please, retract your sword of topic-ban requests, it really is inappropriate and unnecessary to show it off. Best regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hr iw

My reasoning, which lead me to excluding hr:Kosovo interlanguage link from this article, is this: article at hr.wikipedia.org somehow treats Kosovo more as "država" - a state (my humble attempt of translating). This impression one gets when reading the first sentence of the lede. The article at hr also has an infobox which has the flag, CoA, anthem, official language, government, GDP, PPP, currency and TLD entries and this all shows Kosovo (to my belief) more as a state. This article on the other hand somehow firstly defines Kosovo (if one reads the first sentence of the lede) as a disputed territory and deals more with the topic of Kosovo as a region - as far as I am able to grasp. So topics of these two articles cannot be quite "exactly equivalent" (the term mentioned at H:IL). As for the "...or nearly equivalent" argument, well, I would like to know what other people think about this: is this the case to be solved through WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and H:IL for the term Kosovo in Croatian language and English language (or some other language too), or does the perceived bias of the article at hr overweight any other language arguments? The bias which other users also noticed I believe. Tough question, nay? Deals somehow with all the WP:5P. With all, but with the first pillar to the least. IMO. :-) Tough, yay... but hey, here it is. Also, I admit that maybe I haven't thought this issue through thoroughly enough and maybe there aren't just two options for the question. If anybody has an idea how to ask about this issue differently, I am eager to know it. Or any other thoughts regarding this subject. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... Is there a more appropriate article in Croatian Wikipedia? No. In which case we must link to this one, despite it not being exactly equivalent. Bazonka (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why must we? The article is "...zaštićen: Učestalo vandaliziranje ([edit=autoconfirmed] (istječe 20:53, 5. listopada 2011. (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (istječe 20:53, 5. listopada 2011. (UTC))))" - protected ... expires 5. october 2011. I've taken the liberty to shortly translate the (IMO) underpinning information. IPs cannot edit it. There might be no rush, but there might be some... nay? Are they just interwiki links? Or something else... also? Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 08:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would there be any objections if I would revert Fut.Perf.'s reinsertion of hr iw to this article? What I mean is I would exclude this iw sooner than 14:41, 26 April 2011 - the time and date which I understand the full details of 1RR parole suggest me to wait. If nobody comments, I think I will risk my article ban for this. Best regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course there would be objections. But do please risk an article ban; I sincerely wish one be imposed on you sooner rather than later. Fut.Perf. ☼ 02:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite that besides me I think others would also be curious how would one phrase an article-ban-request to impose it on me in this case, I will rather express my opinion on one detail which I had the opportunity to notice. Wikipedia talk pages are graveyards for sentiments, but only for the negative ones. Positive sentiments live out because reason exists to tell the difference between those two. The very first instance you expressed your feelings/sentiments you lost this battle of argumentation. But hey, you learned something instead, haven't you? My question still stands but I will phrase it differently: if anybody would have any objections to me excluding hr:Kosovo interlanguage link from this article, what are they? Best regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would object to the removal because the Croatian article is "nearly equivalent" as per H:IL, therefore it meets the requirements for inclusion. Bazonka (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but is it "nearly equivalent" enough to include it despite its perceived bias? That is if you would agree with me that since attribute "nearly equivalent" exists and we use it for some purpose, then we can also perceive different levels of this attribute (attribute as in wikt:attribute - A characteristic or quality of a thing.). What I try to say is - if that article was not enough "nearly equivalent", I think its interlanguage link wouldn't meet the requirements for inclusion in this article per WP:NPOV. I mean my options to go to hr and discuss this issue there are currently limited, so I am trying to resolve this here. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are thinking too deeply. The Croatian article may not be ideally matched but it's near enough. Go to hr Wikipedia and address the problem there if you can, but don't raise the inadequacies of other Wikipedias here in the English version. Interwiki links should be as complete as possible - a slightly inappropriate link is better than no link at all. Leave it, and let's draw a line under this discussion. Bazonka (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think of deeply as in 2nd or 3rd sense and not 1st sense of wiktionary's entry of the term deeply then I'd address "your" use of the too attribute with a question: is it near enough despite the fact that amendments to that article which were (I believe) mentioned at one of previous subsections of this discussion's section were reverted? Don't you think that addressing the problems here might resolve the inadequacy of this other wikipedia's article there better than the other way round which you were proposing. Why because I think it's not the other wikipedia that it is inadequate but only its article perhaps, and since the options for doing it your way are limited due to the current (partially already described) factual situation: global (hr article is semiprotected and the discussion regarding this issue at the talk page is somehow stalemated with nobody responding to WhiteWriter's almost one month old comment) and local (I cannot remember my password - I can't believe how paranoidly was I selecting it different than here :-/ ) maybe as well. I don't think that "slightliness" of inappropriateness of the link in question is appropriate enough for me to leave this, because if a line would be drawn under this discussion I would place it a little further than suggested by stating that there might be many wikipedias but one Wikipedia. At/on/in/by/of www.wikipedia.org. All the best, --Biblbroks (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not possible to address inadequacies in Croatian, or other foreign, Wikipedia articles here in English Wikipedia - you'll need to do that actually in those Wikis. What you are trying to do is simply remove Interwiki links. This will not address the problem; it's just sweeping it under the carpet. It isn't helping. Please stop. Bazonka (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have already addressed the inadequacy. So it is possible. Also a user with the same username as the one you used in your previous post stated what, I believe even you would interpret as an action upon these "addressings" of mine - the diff to this statement is here. Why, because I honestly believe that user was you. The problem, which you describe as sweeping under the carpet, was already addressed and that, may I say, very mildly - in hr:User:WhiteWriter's comment on wikipedia in Croatian language. And this fact I have also already mentioned. And the best what I've got from Bazonka was "Sigh..." - I still don't know was it sarcastic or what. What you need is to actually face with the existence of this problem and at least propose a solution or else give up. Why because I have mentioned even Wikipedia:Embassy as a viable way. And nobody answered to that. While what you are trying to do is simply shun me away. Your comments is what is not helping. Problem is addressed. If you think otherwise, I don't think you think enough - sorry. So if you figure out an idea about where also to address this problem, don't stalk please, give at least this idea. I don't understand why are you holding on to this iw so much. Is it more than just a plain interlanguage link to you? I believe it isn't. If it concerns you that much, would it help if I say that I wasn't planning in excluding it totally but just commenting it out. This way even the bots issue would be satisfied and the iw wouldn't be actually removed just dysfunctional. But hey, what pleases others more... I am very keen to abide to consensus if there would be any regarding this issue. Don't you get it - that's why I am not backing off so long because I want to build a consensus on this. I like this consensus thingy. :-) All the best, --Biblbroks (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the problem has been addressed then why the continuing fuss? You will never gain consensus for degrading this article by removing (or commenting out) Interwiki links. If issues still exist, then by all means take it to the Embassy. Bazonka (talk) 05:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Listen! Read! Whatever you want... but please do think. It is you and your negative sentiments what is causing your exasperation. Not me causing the fuss - but you and your negative sentiments. Address to the embassy yourself, if you think that problem hasn't been addressed. Don't address with this exasperation of yours to me. By all means instead of exasperating, take it easier a bit. Just a bit. If your up-to-this-point thinking process regarding this issue were "nearly equivalent" to Homo sapiens' thinking process enough, you would answer to at least one of my questions above. Not duck as if I am hitting you. This page wasn't intended as an arena of rhetoric punches and kicks (IMO yours would deserve to be labeled as scratches and bites) - but a page for discussing improvements of the article. Let me ask you one more question. And I am kindestly suggesting you one thing to bear in mind - if you don't answer it (again) but instead put such white-livered wordcrafts to this page, I will do what I must do... and then, if you want, you do what you must do. So here it goes - a simple yes or no question:

• Is exclusion of hr:Kosovo interlanguage link from this article really a degrade of the article? I think everybody would appreciate an explanation to a yes question, but... whatever your heart tells you to do.

And why so simply at last - because I think (in my not so humble opinion) that I'm not trying to gain a consensus but trying to build one. Please try differentiating those two because we can all gain from that. All the best, --Biblbroks (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement "article at hr.wikipedia.org <blank>" is particularized in a time context: right now. Unfortunately, I believe, is that the article is actually particularized in another time context: now and in the future. IOW, the article may change. Link to the best article in that language, until such a time that another article is a better fit. Int21h (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So excluding the link here might help unparticularize that article, right? The change you mention may happen is exclusion of hr:Kosovo interlanguage link, right? Right - as in OK, not antonym of left. ;-) Best regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Int21h is correct - we link to the best article in each particular Wikipedia version. If and when a more appropriate atricle becomes available, we change the link. Simple as that. And to answer your question Biblbroks: Yes, of course the removal of Interwiki links from this article degrades its quality, unless those links are wholly inappropriate (and in this case, although not perfect, they're not wholly inappropriate). I cannot fathom why you insist on their removal - these foreign articles are nearly equivalent, and that's good enough as per H:IW (I feel like I'm repeating myself here). Also, if I understand correctly, you were insinuating that my intellect is less than that of a Homo Sapiens. WP:NPA please. Bazonka (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again. "Wholly inappropriate" - what does that mean? You suggest there is "partly inappropriate", "wholly inappropriate" and ...what is the third? "Zero inappropriate"? It is either appropriate or inappropriate. Also, no, I wasn't insinuating anything about your intelect (which I think quite high of) but referring to a fact about your cowardly thinking process so far. Who will lose (as opposed to gain) if we exclude the iw? Informativity of the article, or your vanity? Of course Int21 is correct, but what is the best article in that language? Bazonka, you still state that it is the hr:Kosovo article which is the best despite the fact (which I mention for the third time) that changes to that article were reverted? Why don't you instead try and answer that question instead of this demagogy? I really am trying to build a consensus here, and if it requires an article ban for this, then let it be. All the best, --Biblbroks (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are different degrees of appropriateness: a foreign article on Kosovo the place (like this English one) would be a totally appropriate match ("exactly equivalent" in the parlance of H:IL); an article on the Republic of Kosovo isn't quite the same as this but it's still generally about the same subject matter - less appropriate but "nearly equivalent"; and an article on sausages or Peru is totally diffferent and therefore wholly inappropriate for an Interwiki link. Linking to non-existent articles (which is what you did) is also not a suitable course of action when nearly equivalent links already exist.

If you have tried and failed to address the inadequacies in hr Wikipedia, then I suggest you try again in hr Wikipedia. These inadequacies are not a matter for English Wikipedia - here we simply do the best we can, linking to nearly equivalent articles if those are the best that exist.

As for what gets damaged if Interwiki links are removed, it is the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole - links should be as comprehensive as possible. Bazonka (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, hello back from after almost two days. I must note a couple of things. First, you do appear to agree that there are inadequacies at hr wikipedia. And second, you do appear to agree that there are only appropriate and inappropriate qualifications - not gradation of inappropriateness. In the parlance of less and more appropriate - would this page's main article's corresponding article at the Wikipedia in Croatian language (hr) be appropriate enough to have a link in this page's main article given the fact (which I mention for the fourth time) that changes to that article were reverted? If it weren't which of the two (hr and this one - the Wikipedia in English language) articles would correspond to your example of sausages and which to the example of Peru? But I am again confused: you use this "wholly inappropriate" qualification _again_, and this use I believe confuses others also because: if there were "wholly inappropriate'" things, wouldn't there also be "'partly inappropriate'" and... you choose the term yourself - perhaps "'zero inappropriate'" things? I agree with your presumption that linking to non-existent article is perhaps not most suitable course of action, but in my opinion it is currently an optimal alternative to it. You have suggested _again_ to try at hr wikipedia - yes - and I understood you the first time, but currently this option is limited for me in my opinion - due to the above-mentioned reasons I believe I don't have to mention them again. Do you have an alternative to this proposal of yours then? Also when you mention inadequacies - you do perceive them as inadequacies, do you? So what is their degree then: appropriate enough for hr to be link to en, or not enough? Because I honestly believe that I am doing the best I can, but I am not sure if you think that you do. So if there are inadequacies, I most honestly think that they should also be a matter for the Wikipedia in English language - because there is no central place where to raise an issue such as this which we are dealing with currently. I mean I can't find any - can you? Yes we are dealing with the Wikipedia as a whole and not just this wikipedia, and therefore besides links being as informative as possible we must also consider the bias - the bias as in five pillars of the Wikipedia with a capital letter W. Or you think I am wrong? Also, one last simple question, Bazonka: don't you find it peculiar that hr:Kosovo contains a flag (or to be more precise - its representation) of Republic of Kosovo, while this article, at this wikipedia doesn't? And just one more tiniest and simplest question: was that Sigh... in Sigh... Is there a more appropriate article in Croatian Wikipedia? No. " - was it sarcastic - or something else? All the best, --Biblbroks (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you managed to get from me saying "Of course there are different degrees of appropriateness" to your conclusion that I agreed that there is not a "gradation of inappropriateness". Of course there are different types of (in)appropriateness! The article hr:Kosovo is POV (and so not totally appropriate) but it is still generally about the same subject area as en:Kosovo (and so not totally inappropriate). Not perfect, but it's certainly good enough for an Interwiki link - "nearly equivalent".

And I don't understand how inadequacies in Croatian Wikipedia are a matter for English Wikipedia. Whether changes there have been reverted is not a matter for us. We are English Wikipedians, not Croatian Wikipedians. There's nothing we can do about it here. Removing the Interwiki link does not in any way help to address the problem - it just hides it. We should not hide problems - we should keep them visible and hope that someone is able to fix them.

Do I find it peculiar that the Croatian article contains a flag? No. It's a differently focused article to the English one, and seems to be biased, but it's not peculiar. I ask you this - why have you not raised concerns with the Serbian Kosovo article, which is also biased, but with the opposing view (a view that perhaps matches your own view)?

Was my sigh sarcastic? No, just frustrated with your intransigence.

You and I are not going to agree on this, so I am going to raise the issue at WP:THIRD. Bazonka (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to come to a conclusion in which it appears that you have agreed with me that there is no gradation of inappropriate attribute through some effort, but i managed it still and i will try to explain how. Let me put it this way: if hr:Kosovo article's subject were Kosovo the region, then it would be somehow more neutral than it appears is right now. But since it appears that aforementioned article's subject area is Republic of Kosovo, then it is kind of less neutral and therefore more biased in my opinion. So, with this i agree with you that the aforementioned article could be regarded as POV. And you even come to state that it is POV. Anyway if it is POV, as you state it is, then it cannot be totally appropriate to have its interlanguage link in this article. Even more - it might not be appropriate at all and therefore inappropriate. And by this i don't mean partly inappropriate but instead it being inappropriate - fullstop. I don't agree with you that article at Croatian Wikipedia, as you call it, is good enough to have an interlanguage link in this article for several reasons. Firstly because inadequacies in any language wikipedia should be a matter of every language wikipedia and so for this wikipedia also. Secondly because reverts as particular type of changes to articles should also be a matter for us and that because they can be regarded as indicators of readiness to change the article. And that especially when an article is disabled to be changed. In this case it is "zaštićen" Serbo-Croatian: zaštićen en:wikt:zaštićen. My humble attempt to translate this term would be "defended" or "protected". And it is "zaštićen" so that anonymous IP editors and editresses cannot edit it. For that reason i myself cannot edit it "IP-anonymously", as also many others can't. Also i cannot edit under my user name hr:Suradnik:Biblbroks because i cannot remember my password. As this last fact was an disadvantage for me before, i came to think that it is now an advantage. ;-) Also, if we ourselves must declare as something, i'd say that we must all firstly and above all declare ourselves as members of the Homo sapiens species. And by that i mean people or humans. Call it what you want. And i believe many others would agree with me on that matter. Also, if we must declare ourselves as Wikipedians, as i feel i have to and i do, we should firstly and above all declare ourselves as Wikipedians - Wikipedians without any attribute or classificition. I believe there are others that would agree with me on this. But since there are many of us who declare themselves as Wikipedians, and everyday i believe there might be even more, problems can arise when putting adjectives and attributes in front of the Wikipedians term. Or should i say left of this term. Sometimes left and sometimes right for languages in different reading/writing direction. Sometimes even not in the sam line - i mean when it appears in a sentence where an margin comes to end and the previous word would be in different line than the next one. Not to mention if we are writing vertically, or in any other direction. Anyway, what i am trying to point out is that i believe that there are differences in what word you use to closely define a Wikipedian and also where it is used. For example: there is a difference between Croatian Wikipedian and Wikipedian of Wikipedia in Croatian language. And there is also a difference between English Wikipedian and Wikipedian of Wikipedia in English language. And finally there might be difference between Serbian Wikipedian and Wikipedian of Wikipedia in Serbian language if anyone used these syntagms. For that matter, i believe that i am a Wikipedian of Wikipedia - period. That is a Wikipedian of Wikipedia in any language. Not just Wikipedian of Wikipedia in this or that language. And certainly not "this language's" or "that nationality's" Wikipedian. And even not "these ethnicities'" or "those ethnicities'" Wikipedian. And finally most certainly not just a simple Croatian Wikipedian or English Wikipedian or even Serbian Wikipedian for that matter. Put it simply i consider myself a Wikipedian of Wikipedia. Also when you say that there is nothing we can do about it here, i simply cannot agree with you. And i believe other cannot either. Why, because i believe there is quite a lot we can about anything around here. Or anywhere. Call me overly optimistic but i won't change my mind for that. And i believe others wouldn't either for that matter. Because, i believe that we can do a lot here. Not just about this single issue but many other things as well. So, to put it simple i don't think that it is good for you, or for anyone, if you think we cannot do a lot around here. Think positively and optimistically and i believe you will come to agree with me about that matter. When you state that removing the Interwiki link does not in any way help to address the problem, i must state that i don't agree with you. Firstly because i already succeeded in helping address the problem exactly by removing the link. So if you think that removing an interlanguage link cannot solve the problem, you might be right but again the optimistic as i am, i cannot totally agree with you on that. Because by addressing the problem as i did, i believe i helped in solving it. By that i don't think that i know what will help solving it in the future. And also i don't know what does now or will help in solving it. But maybe somebody does. And so when this someone comes and sees or hears this discussion, he or she might share his or her ideas on that. Therefore i am welcoming this somebody, or anybody, who wants to come and get involved with this matter to share their opinions about this. Any opinion is welcome. Also, i must share my thoughts on this: because of the very fact that we are discussing the problem, i believe it helps solving it and it certainly doesn't hide it. I am not sure what shows it, but disscussing the problem most certainly doesn't hide it. Even more - it helps addressing the problem - if not even helps resolving it. Finally, if something helps addressing the problem i believe that this, what i have done, helps. This what i have done, and what i have been doing recently. And i believe others would agree with me. For that matter i will type one more thing: some other editor/editress with the username Vjikiun has done a similar thing as i did before and excluded the no and nn interlanguage links recently. The link to this change is here [5], where interlanguage links are here and here. So this somehow shows that i am actually helping in solving this issue because for one thing: no and nn articles also had flags when i checked them as hr, bs, de and la had. And for the other thing i am pointing to this fact right now.

As for your answer to question whether you find it peculiar that the Croatian article as you call it contains a flag or not? Ok, so you don't find it peculiar that article at Wikipedia in Croatian language contains a flag. And you don't have to. But i do. I find it peculiar that hr:Kosovo article contains a flag and this one doesn't. Why do find it peculiar - because this is somehow an indicator that these two articles, this article of Wikipedia in English language and that article at Croatian wikipedia, that is Wikipedia in Croatian language, are somehow substantially different. First of all, not just that they are simply differently focused as you put it, but perhaps even that they differ in one important thing... the topic. The topic which is an important segment of the article. The topic of this discussion's page's article would be region of Kosovo. I mean as for this Wikipedia in English language is concerned. And the topic of that article at Wikipedia in Croatian language would be Republic of Kosovo. The topic of article at Croatian wikipedia - as i already qualified it. By that i don't mean any disrespect to that wikipedia, but i am just trying to show that there might be even a difference when capitalising the term wikipedia or not. As i somehow opinionated it before, i believe that there are many wikipedias but only one Wikipedia. Wikipedia the project - as it is given in article at Wikipedia - and Wikipedia the conglomerate - as it is given at the third sense of the entry for the English language at wiktionary, the free dictionary at en.wiktionary.org. Also we shouldn't forget the usual first sense given at en.wiktionary.org's - the sense of "simple" open-content online encyclopedia, collaboratively developed over the World Wide Web - which is a (trademark)?! Anyway this is somehow to show that this issue is perhaps greater than we think. Because it deals with the languages, the words, the senses of those words and uses of those words. As well as actions taken regarding all of the above. Moreover, when you ask me why haven't i raised a concern with the Serbian Kosovo article as you call it, i am curious to consider why do you think i haven't. Actually i have and i think i can reassure you in my words by providing a link to these raisings of mine - the link is [6]. Anyway, i must give an opinion that i don't know what bias do you think there is in article titled Косово и Метохија at Wikipedia in Serbian language. You stated that it is biased, and to that i must think of a fact that i don't know of any case prior to this one previously that it was labelled as such. I mean labelled as such here at this talk page. Not that i know of any case that it was labeled as such somewhere else. But hey, if you know even of such a case, i would like you to inform me and all of us about this case. Also when you mention that syntagm "a view that perhaps matches your own", i would really like to know to which view of mine are you referring to. I had many of views and i am not certain that you can think of what you were you thinking of. I mean when stating that what you've stated if you stated anything.

About your Sigh... i feel i must share this: if you weren't typing that Sigh and the periods of yours while actually sighing then i don't understand what was their purpose then. If any. Sarcastically typing or not while you were "just frustrated" - or just your Sigh, and not the periods, were frustrated - with my intrasigence as you call it, you i believe will frown here and to prevent you doing it in the future i feel obliged to suggest you one thing. Why not relax a bit. I mean as opposed to frustrate yourself, if you were the one who frustrated you - or your Sigh - try defrustrate instead. ;-) This isn't the most important thing on Earth i believe. And i believe you believe it also. I mean when mentioning the intransigence, you must've been thinking of something else, or someone else. I don't know why you are referring to any intransigence at all. I'm not sure others would like to know why. Because it is simply your perception of things. Isn't it? I mean the perception which is already changed, right? Because i think i am able to change my point of view as you are too. And by that we can then both agree with this whatever it was. If there was anything to agree with in the first place. We both perceived this as an issue and potentially as a problem, but not anymore. Or am i wrong? I mean i honestly was trying to address any problem and with that hopefully resolve it. If there was any problem. While i wanted to state that i didn't know what you were trying to do, i believe now nobody thinks was there anything at all.

If you still think that you and i cannot agree with this, whatever that might be, i am most certainly open to a third opinion. A third opinion even on a question whether you and i are able to agree on that this. I am welcoming any editor/editress, contributor/contributress, Wikipedian/Wikipedianess to come here an discuss this matter. Anyway i would like to note anyone reading this post that there was submitted a request at WP:AE for topic ban concerning me and this article. The link to this request could be found here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Biblbroks. So even more people might come to express their opinions if necessary. I welcome them all. I wish all the best to you and all of them, --biblbroks (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm working on a third opinion, will have it up as soon as possible but something has come up so it might be tommorow, sorry guys Bob House 884 (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that making such a grand change in an article in such a short time, without consensus, is without doubt an act against WP policies. It is also an act in conflict with ARBMAC. This debate should be continued and the page brought back to the article that shows Kosovo as a Republic, what de facto it is (until any change comes from the negotiations) but also with information of the disputes. Otherwise, the way the page currently is, we will be in risk of keeping a page that will set a precedent in WP: What if after the negotiations the Serbian part recognizes Kosovo as independent, why should the page still be refer to the "territory"? —Anna Comnena (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The previous version didn't show Kosovo as a republic. It presented a confusing mishmash of Republic and Province. That said, if Serbia does recognize Kosovo then the ROK article would be merged back to here. --Khajidha (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clear as a day. Wikipedia should follow real life situation. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 16:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not saying the previous page was only about Kosovo as a Republic (although I can see why would one think I did). But the previous version was more accurate in describing the situation in Kosovo. We have a factual independence that is de jure disputed by some countries (wile some other countries stay neutral). The current page is just a complicated version of the previous one, without anything gaining in return. Don't you think? —82.114.94.16 (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't that factual independence you mention also de facto disputed by the current version of the article: three infoboxes instead of one, current ongoing discussion regarding the current version, all the previous discussions regarding the previous version, not to mention the "factual" existence of two currencies in Kosovo? I am not sure that factually independent "entity" would allow two currencies in the infobox of an article about that entity if the case was otherwise. Don't you think? Also, I am not sure about the fact that an independence of an entity is determined by the fact that it uses one currency. Nevertheless, I just thought I could share my POV on the matters of independency and independence. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia Policy"? "Wikipedia Policy" would be set by Wikimedia, the company that runs it. You may be referring to what is termed the Wikipedia consensus. The consenus on Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy of policies, it is more akin to a meritocracy. This has been discussed on so many levels, sociological and philosophical contexts coming to mind as the most prominent. In my humble opinion, each change or changeset (a set of changes by a user, and its socketpuppets, in a particularized period of time) stands very (but not entirely) independently, and should be judged on their merits. The size of the changeset may effect its merits, but I do not think they necessarily effect its merits. So does a "grand change" necessarily negatively effect a merit based analysis of these changesets? If no, well then this conversation is over. If yes, then more edits must be made, and therefore negatively effect the article, and hence must not be made, and thus all edits stop. This type of reasoning is hard to explain, but in my mind it proves ad absurdity that the answer is no, that a "grand change" does not necessarily negatively effect a merit based analysis.

As for particular edits, yes, some edits negatively effect the article. When I see that, I either change it if it is obviously wrong or needs expansion, flag it if its fishy or needs looking into, flag it for my own research, or go about my way. This is pretty common behavior, and I WP:ASSUME it is, which is why this works so smoothly. Certain articles need this, certain ones don't; this article does, IMO, and given these "grand changes", I believe others agree with me. 07:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that others agree with you also, since I agree with you. I'd just like to add that IMO every article's change and changeset needs this merit based analysis, it's just that on this article it is perhaps most obvious. As far the "too thorough versus not too thorough" thinking is concerned. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 09:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this article has changed to a general Kosovo region article and Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija devoted articles exist where the specific infoboxes for those polities are used, I propose that this article be changed to only feature a single infobox that would cover only information pertaining to the region as a whole and not to the political bodies in question. Said infobox should feature a note in the governmental section that sovereignty is disputed between the two previously mentioned entities with links to articles for same. --Khajidha (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support I will support this if we use a similar infobox to that on the articles 'Ireland' and 'Taiwan' as they're infoboxes about regions not countries. I will now create a draft infobox in a sandbox and I'll bring it back to you all soonish. IJA (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well, can we ask for any conditions regarding other unrelated articles? I think that same quiestion should be asked on related talk pages. Also, do we need any other one than the region infobox that we already have? I think that this box is ok.... :) But, i will gladly see any proposition for improving. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 17:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, if the UNMIK is also linked. I don't think that any changes to the current Kosovo region infobox are needed. Alinor (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo region infobox - unchanged from the status quo (only formatting appears differently because of wikicode?)

Kosovo Kosovo physical map Capital and largest city Pristina (Prishtina or Priština) Ethnic groups (2009) 88% Albanians   7% Serbs   5% others[1] Government disputed • UNSG Special Representative Lamberto Zannier (UN) • Serb assembly president Radovan Ničić • Acting Republic of Kosovo president Jakup Krasniqi Governing authority  disputed • UN administration 10 June 1999 • Serb community February 2003 • Republic of Kosovo 17 February 2008 Area • Total 10,908 km2 (4,212 sq mi) • Water (%) n/a Population • 2007 estimate 1,804,838[2] • 1991 census 1,956,1961 • Density 220/km2 (569.8/sq mi) GDP (nominal) 2009 estimate • Total $5.352 billion[3] • Per capita $2,965 Currency Euro (€); Serbian Dinar (EUR; RSD) Time zone UTC+1 (CET) • Summer (DST) UTC+2 (CEST) Driving side right Calling code +3812 The census is a reconstruction; most of the ethnic Albanian majority boycotted. Officially +381; some mobile phone providers use +377 (Monaco) or +386 (Slovenia) instead.

Is there any specific problem with that infobox that needs to be changed? It is already about the region and not the country.Alinor (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my proposal for an infobox. It is 100% unpolitical and gives basic information. IJA (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Government needs to be mentioned whatsoever as that will just cause problems. IJA (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC) My version is similar to Alinor's however I've removed all the established dates, sovereignty and leaders ect as I think this infobox should be 100% free from politics. IJA (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox by IJA is perfectly fine by me. Agree also, as Future Perfect told us "Infoboxes must burn in Hell" (Note that it is Kosovo infobox burning! :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 18:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer a government section with the term "Disputed" and links to the actual governments be included (no names, no dates, no specifics - just a bare link), but can definitely live with IJA's version.

I just think the government section will cause problems ect and the relevant government information can be found of the RoK and APKiM articles. But when talking about the geographical region of Kosovo, Government is not important. We don't even have a section on Government. This article is about history, culture, geography, society ect of Kosovo... aka an article free of politics. The politics of Kosovo is for separate articles thus why Government shouldn't be included in the infobox. Anyway that is what I believe and I also think it is the best way to maintain a NPOV on such a sensitive topic. IJA (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alinor, except for the reasons IJA had mentioned, there is also an issue of hierarchy if UNMIK is included in the infobox - because then RoK and APKIM should be included - and then a question would arise which of them to mention first. --Biblbroks (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also according to Serbia and other non-recognising countries UNMIK is the administrator of the APKiM, therefore it is kind of POV to include UNMIK and not include representatives of RoK, that is why the infobox should be 100% free of government of Kosovo. Put it this way, if we have an article 100% free of politics/ government it will stop stupid edit wars and we can have a peaceful neutral article about the geographical region of Kosovo. Also we will be able to improve the quality of the article and work towards it being a featured article, surely everyone would like that? Also the very first sentence makes it very very clear that Kosovo is a disputed territory. IJA (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IJA, this POV issue you mention is what I thought of when writing: "...if UNMIK is included in the infobox - because then RoK and APKIM should be included...", but I didn't want to go so far to labeling it so. You haven't labeled it POV either for that matter. :-) Anyway, I just wanted to express my agreement with you. As for the hopes for a featured article, I thought I had to say: "Let's keep those hopes low for now!" Not, that I wouldn't like this wish/dream come true. Best regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have permission to add my version of the infobox then? IJA (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no problem with you replacing the current mile high stack of infoboxen with your version. --Khajidha (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biblbroks, about hierarchy/how to mention first - that's why the current infobox government section is ordered chronologically. The governing authorities mentioned are UNMIK, Serb-assembly (it's not clear whether this is Republic of Serbia government unit, or a "local initiative" unofficially supported by Belgrade - so the "Serbia recognizes UNMIK as APKiM ruler" vs. "Serb Kosovo assembly" controversy is theoretical - we don't have a source answering the previous question), RoK. I don't see a controversy here - we have UNMIK, a Serbian and a Kosovar entities - what prevents us from keeping the current infobox arrangement.

And what is this "it is kind of POV to include UNMIK and not include representatives of RoK"? The current infobox already has both, who is proposing "not include representatives of RoK"?

Also, if I understand IJA correctly - he proposes to remove all other infoboxes and keep only this one. So, why not do this (that we all seem to agree with) - and later discuss whether to remove its "disputed government" section (mentioning UNMIK/1999, Serb-assembly/2003, RoK/2008) or not? Alinor (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, IMHO the Government entries in the infobox should be restored. Alinor (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is only now that I fully grasped why I am against restoration of Government entries - not just because it removes potential POV issues that IJA mentions might arise if those entries are included, and thus prevents edit warring. It is because this is now a Kosovo region article and therefore it is logical that infobox would be for the region - and region doesn't necessarily have a government/governing authority/name_it_what_you_want, does it? How about if we reword it somehow - and then include it. Article Antarctica kind of comes to light: there it stands "...Territorial claims...", so perhaps something like "governing authority claims"? I don't know, it is probably just a plain shot in the dark, but I think I am trying to address your concerns. Regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the three governances should be mentioned in the infobox and I don't object tweaking the wording of the category. If others agree with "governing authority claims" I'm OK with that. Alinor (talk) 09:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's basically what I was asking for when I made the proposal. Oddly, I've since come to think that leaving it out is better. But I'm not opposed to putting it in in this manner (making it clear that we are not favoring one claim over another). --Khajidha (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Khajidha, i am also not opposed to putting the entries about governance as this would be more informative and this way also we would be ensuring that we aren't favoring any claim over the other. But, i am not sure whether we should include it at all because the order of these entries might pose an issue as i stated earlier. Alinor, you are suggesting we put them in chronological order but someone might object to this because it might point that we are favoring one governance claim over other. Also we might put in reverse chronological order, but again this might not be suitable because someone might object why aren't we putting in a order of importance. And then a problem might arise whether we should put in order of greater importance or lesser importance. And which claim might be more important over other. And even whether importance of governance claims exists at all. Right? Regards, --biblbroks (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might be best just to leave them out of the infobox after all. I would suggest that a link to UNMIK be inserted in the lead as follows "Serbia does not recognise the unilateral secession of Kosovo^[4] and considers it a United Nations-governed entity within its sovereign territory, the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (Serbian: Аутономна Покрајина Косово и Метохија, Autonomna Pokrajina Kosovo i Metohija), according to the 2006 Constitution of Serbia." Thoughts? --Khajidha (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you suggest is already in the lede of the article. I am not sure where else do you suggest this to be put. Anyway, i agree with you that the current state of the infobox might be the optimal - we probably should await a response from Alinor. Regards, --biblbroks (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 July 1999 the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Kosovo Bernard Kouchner issued UNMIK Regulation 1999/1, vesting "all legislative and executive authority with respect to Kosovo, including the administration of the judiciary" in the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) to be exercised by the Special Representative, which came into force 10 June 1999. UNMIK authorized the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government (PISG) per UNMIK Regulation 2001/9 of 15 May 2001 which explicitly provides that "laws, once promulgated, are binding legislative acts of a general nature", "the President shall sign each law adopted by the Assembly and forward it to the SRSG for promulgation" and "laws shall become effective on the day of their promulgation by the SRSG, unless otherwise specified." Section 1.5 creates the Assembly and all the other institutions of the PISG, which did not exist prior to that, correct?

Was it this PISG Assembly that adopted this Constitution of Kosovo of 9 April 2008? If regulation 2001/9 was still in effect, wouldn't the SRSG have promulgated this act? Does anyone have verification the 2008 Constitution was promulgated by the SRSG? Int21h (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the Republic of Kosovo article: "In February 2008 individual members of the Assembly of Kosovo (acting in personal capacity and not binding the Assembly itself) declared Kosovo's independence as the Republic of Kosovo." Also, no one (SRSG or anyone else) would need to promulgate it. The passage of a Declaration of Independence immediately nullifies all of those requirements of outside people or bodies controlling the government of the people declaring independence. --Khajidha (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure whether the declaration nullifies anything, but it seems that after the declaration the PISG institutions (including the assembly) don't function anymore (but whether they continue to exist legally is a separate issue). Instead we have RoK institutions functioning. Obviously RoK institutions don't follow UNMIK regulations and don't need SRSG promulgations. The question is whether there was some process/document about PISG-to-RoK transfer or it was done ad-hoc by the people (such as Assembly members) simply not anymore utilizing PISG "credentials" and utilizing RoK credentials instead. Alinor (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also here. Alinor (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the point of view of those making the declaration it did nullify those requirements. Whether others accept that is another matter. --Khajidha (talk) 11:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but the question is how the PISG-to-RoK transfer was arranged and whether PISG remain existing "on paper" according to UNMIK or there is some 2008 UNMIK regulation that disbands PISG or transfers PISG to RoK. Alinor (talk) 12:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the PISG can officially transfer things to RoK given that not all UN members recognize the RoK. It has probably been done ad-hoc as you suggested earlier. --Khajidha (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration of Independence != Constitution of Kosovo. This is important, as the Declaration was passed by "individual members" per the ICJ opinion, but the Constitution was passed by "Kosovo's parliament" per the BBC article. As was mentioned in the ICJ opinion, the Declaration had no legal force, so a group of individual members acting outside Ksovo's parliament couldn't legally disband the PISG parliament and replace it with another one that adopted a Constitution replacing it with the RoK parliament. (Phew!) According to UNMIK regulations, UNMIK only recognizes the PISG acts of parliament as law once they have been promulgated by UNMIK, since unless otherwise regulated, UNMIK has "all legislative and executive authority with respect to Kosovo", which is still in force AFAIK. So the question is has the UNMIK been recognizing the RoK assembly acts? Int21h (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The PISG was operating after passage of the Constitution on 9 April, since the PISG parliament passed a law (2008/03-L017) on 29 April which was promulgated by UNMIK Regulation (UNMIK Regulation 2008/34 of 14 June 2008), which shows that the PISG parliament was still operating as of 29 April. Int21h (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo is adopted by "Kosovo parliament", but does this mean "PISG Assembly" or like the Declaration of Independence it's again "individuals in personal capacity and not representing the PISG Assembly"? That's the question.

The second link you gave above is about 14 June 2008 UNMIK promulgation of a law adopted in May 2008. The RoK Constitution entered into force on 15 June 2008. Are there any UNMIK promulgations/PISG acts after that date? So, it seems the PISG Assembly continued to function at least until the entry into force of the RoK Constitution. But the question remains - who has adopted the RoK Constitution ("individuals" as in the case of the Declaration of Independence - or PISG Assembly or RoK Assembly if such was established before 9 April 2008)? Do we have a link to some official version of the constitution and the accompanying ratification acts or other document for "entry into force" and similar (such as promulgation, president signature or something else)? Alinor (talk) 06:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is an important question. Because it might help differentiate importance on governance claims and government of Kosovo in general. All the best, --biblbroks (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]