Revision as of 05:51, 16 October 2020 editMikola22 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,399 edits →Edit summary: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:58, 16 October 2020 edit undoMiki Filigranski (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,849 edits →Edit summaryNext edit → | ||
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
WP:FRINGE, WP:HOWCITE. Regarding WP:HOWCITE, everything is entered according to the rule. I have seen dozens of such sources and this cannot be a reason to start deleting information from Misplaced Pages. As for WP:FRINGE, you have ] and there try to determine fringe theory. This is information from RS and extra RS can be added. In this RS groups of scholars make conclusion about Serbian name and it is not fringe theory. In the same article you have this information "Furthermore, he says that the town of Servia received its name from the Serbs who once lived there" This term Servia is because of Constantine VII explanation ie same information from RS which I added. Cannot first information be not fringe and information from my RS fringe, and it's about the same thing, same basis and from same historical document. ] (]) 05:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC) | WP:FRINGE, WP:HOWCITE. Regarding WP:HOWCITE, everything is entered according to the rule. I have seen dozens of such sources and this cannot be a reason to start deleting information from Misplaced Pages. As for WP:FRINGE, you have ] and there try to determine fringe theory. This is information from RS and extra RS can be added. In this RS groups of scholars make conclusion about Serbian name and it is not fringe theory. In the same article you have this information "Furthermore, he says that the town of Servia received its name from the Serbs who once lived there" This term Servia is because of Constantine VII explanation ie same information from RS which I added. Cannot first information be not fringe and information from my RS fringe, and it's about the same thing, same basis and from same historical document. ] (]) 05:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC) | ||
:Well, there's no controversy for citing Constantine VII's interpretation of the etymology, but it needs additional secondary context and rephrasing that it was wrong etymological derivation using Latin and Greek language like in the case of the Croats.--] (]) 07:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:58, 16 October 2020
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
My edit
To explain my edit. I have re-added the Serbian Latin alphabet (don`t understand why it was removed in the first place) and a tag that was dated from November 2010. I will delete this statement now (that was taged citation needed) since no reference was provided since November. About this edit I have re-entered it because it has a reference and it was removed for no apparent reason. Adrian (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Relation to the sorbs
Why isn't there any mention of the sorbs in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.117.64.74 (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Names of the Serbs and Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161011060838/http://diclist.ru/slovar/fasmera/r/serb.html to http://diclist.ru/slovar/fasmera/r/serb.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Edit summary
WP:FRINGE, WP:HOWCITE. Regarding WP:HOWCITE, everything is entered according to the rule. I have seen dozens of such sources and this cannot be a reason to start deleting information from Misplaced Pages. As for WP:FRINGE, you have Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and there try to determine fringe theory. This is information from RS and extra RS can be added. In this RS groups of scholars make conclusion about Serbian name and it is not fringe theory. In the same article you have this information "Furthermore, he says that the town of Servia received its name from the Serbs who once lived there" This term Servia is because of Constantine VII explanation ie same information from RS which I added. Cannot first information be not fringe and information from my RS fringe, and it's about the same thing, same basis and from same historical document. Mikola22 (talk) 05:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well, there's no controversy for citing Constantine VII's interpretation of the etymology, but it needs additional secondary context and rephrasing that it was wrong etymological derivation using Latin and Greek language like in the case of the Croats.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class Serbia articles
- Mid-importance Serbia articles
- WikiProject Serbia articles
- Start-Class Linguistics articles
- Unknown-importance Linguistics articles
- Start-Class etymology articles
- Etymology Task Force articles
- WikiProject Linguistics articles
- Start-Class Middle Ages articles
- Unknown-importance Middle Ages articles
- Start-Class history articles
- All WikiProject Middle Ages pages