Talk:Immovable Cultural Heritage of Exceptional Importance (Serbia)

Kosovo Missing

Please clearly mark all locations in Kosovo. thanks mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not locational, this is designational list. There is no need for marking. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 19:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You cannot just add things in Kosovo to lists of things in serbia with no mention of the status of Kosovo, the dispute and the fact that it is POV issue. I consider this to be a POV page. Please do not remove the POV flag until this issue is resolved. thanks, James Michael DuPont (talk) 08:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not list of things IN SERBIA, this is list of cultural designation! This is not locational list, this is offical designation list. You may see more here (http://spomenicikulture.mi.sanu.ac.rs/). Also, if you strive for neutrality so much, why don't you go to Kosovo pages where Serbia is not mentioned at all? After you do that, i may think that you are really neutral. Now it looks like only POV pushing to me. Also, that flag you created is pointless, as RoK cannot be opponent to Serbia's designation list, as those are cultural, and not locational monuments. Also, i have tons of sources that can verify this list. DO you have any source that claim different? If not, then this should be removed. Also, if only you agree to something, that doesn't mean you can revert version that is verified. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 09:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Addition of Category

I have added the category "World Heritage Sites" according to Unesco to the article. This will assist in removing it from this list [1]. If you choose, feel free to revert the page.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Info

There is completely no need to put information in the "info" column. Anyone who wants to know more about particular monument can click and follow the link to the article on that monument. To put information on the monument in the "info" column is not just unnecessary, but looks bad as it distracts the reader from the actual list. I proposed the "info" column be used only to note the monuments that are on the World Heritage list and to note monuments that are wholly or partially destroyed. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely Agree . Also, that would be overwhelming process. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 15:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Addition of Category

I have added the category "World Heritage Sites" according to Unesco to the article. This will assist in removing it from this list [2]. If you choose, feel free to revert the page.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

My apologize for the duplication posted above.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 09:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 27 December 2016

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. Although the disambiguator "Serbia" is not technically required, most commenters still wanted the word to be somewhere in the title in order to help the reader. There is no consensus to move these articles at this time. (non-admin closure) Bradv 01:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

---

• Cultural Monuments of Exceptional Importance (Serbia) → Cultural Monuments of Exceptional Importance
• Archaeological Sites of Great Importance (Serbia) → Archaeological Sites of Great Importance
• Archaeological Sites of Exceptional Importance (Serbia) → Archaeological Sites of Exceptional Importance
• Spatial Cultural-Historical Units of Exceptional Importance (Serbia) → Spatial Cultural-Historical Units of Exceptional Importance
• Spatial Cultural-Historical Units of Great Importance (Serbia) → Spatial Cultural-Historical Units of Great Importance
• Historic Landmarks of Exceptional Importance (Serbia) → Historic Landmarks of Exceptional Importance
• Historic Landmarks of Great Importance (Serbia) → Historic Landmarks of Great Importance
• Protected Historic Landmarks (Serbia) → Protected Historic Landmarks

– Unnecessary disambiguation. The capitalization makes it clear that these are specific lists, like the National Register of Historic Places, and not just places that Wikipedia considers important. As proper nouns, these all look to be restricted to Serbia, and I don't know what else we'd do with the base titles. --BDD (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• At least some of these were renamed after a brief discussion at WT:ARCHAEO. Pinging participants Doug Weller, Mark viking, and Joe Roe. --BDD (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. It seems slightly different than National Register of Historic Places because if you don't notice the capitalisation these are very generic phrases without any indication that they're specific to a single country (i.e. "National") – protected historic landmarks could well be an article, or redirect to cultural resource management or something. I think the extra clarity imparted by (Serbia) is helpful even if it isn't a disambiguation per se. – Joe (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

  I understand, but think of the readers. Someone types "Spatial Cultural-Historical Units of Great Importance" into the search box. What do you think are the odds they're looking for general information on cultural resources, versus the topic in Serbia? --BDD (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• Weak oppose, perhaps rename instead. I understand and would generally agree with BDD about removing unnecessary disambig. In this particular case, however, I am with Joe on this; Serbia needs to to be the title, so the reader knows these are not some badly titlecased Generic Lists Of Totally Important Places, but are particular legal designations used in Serbia. If we wanted to eliminate the apparent disambig, we could rename X (Serbia) to X in Serbia. --Mark viking (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

  Natural disambiguation is still disambiguation, though. And I think the nature of the articles is clear at a glance, with or without Serbia in the title. I should hope we wouldn't have such Generic Lists anyway. --BDD (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as I don't think it will benefit the average reader and certainly would be likely to produce surprises in a search unless the reader was familiar with such Serbian lists. Doug Weller talk 21:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose and propose instead Serbian cultural monuments of exceptional importance. The title is dressed up as a proper name, but does not appear as such in any English-language sources that I can find. The closest it comes to being a thing is in this book where it overlaps some caps and some lowercase. So let's use a clear descriptive title instead. I haven't looked at the others, but I expect some are similar. Dicklyon (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support, easily. This is a case where there's unnecessary disambiguation. What else would be called "Cultural Monuments of Exceptional Importance"? -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Gracanica 1.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)