Talk:Bosnia (disambiguation)

Redirect

See Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina#"Bosnia" redirect. --Joy [shallot] 21:45, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

exports/imports

Disambiguation

How should this page be disambiguated? What links should point to Bosnia and Hercegovina, and which to Bosnia proper? --Smack (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is actually never expressed as "Bosnia". Rather only "Federacija" (primary by Bosnian Serbs).

Merging Bosnian

The only entry in Bosnian not here is Bosnian language, so I think it should be merged here. On another note, this should be moved to Bosnia (which needs an administrator), unless retargeting Bosnia is preferable (it seems that both Bosnia and Herzegovina and Bosnia (region) would be reasonable, so Bosnia should be a dab page). TimBentley (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalist allusions

the use of Bosniak used sinominously with bosnian is absolutly un acceptable.

The other 2 contitutent ethnic groups of Bosnia- Herzegovina believe they are as indigenous to Bosnia, if not more, than Bosniaks. Again, inlcude neither ethnic group or all, not soley just Bosniak!

I agree with your opinion, but I don't see where the word is being used this way. Could you please show us? --Smack (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sure nowories

I think it is pritty clear what user Bosoni is trying to allude to: ie Bosniaks are the heirs to Bosnia.

quite frankly wikipedia is about neutrality, and 2(Serbs and Croats)! of the 3 CONSTITUENT NATIONS of BiH have a very conflicting view with this, so therefore their view, regarding a ISSUE that CONCERNS THEM, should also be heard.

i suggested 2 neutral versions, which would be NUETRAL to ALL concerned parties, however it seems that Bosnoni is very eager to pass his very one minded revisionist agenda regarding the history of BiH.

This is the version i would want to pass

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnia_%28disambiguation%29&oldid=71162156 or as a last resort include Croats and Serbs aswell!

however Bosnoni wants this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnia_%28disambiguation%29&oldid=72221430

quite a diference isnt there..?..again it is ironic that Bosoni puts a Neutrality tag on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnians 'Note on use of term 'Bosnian-Herzegovinian' and as i can see from his contribution to the discussion page has some issues with describing the actions of some Bosniaks "aggresive" with regards to the noun Bosnian and sinominsouly associating it to Bosniaks.

CLEARLY the user Bosoni is the epitome of these 'agressive efforts' through his actions on the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnia_%28disambiguation%29&oldid=72221430

Regarding Bosnia (disambiguation): I think that 'Bosniak' should be included on the page, though the wording should not imply that Bosniaks are the only ethnicity in Bosnia. At the same time, I believe that 'Croat' and 'Serb' should not be included, because of the rules governing dab pages: the names are not ambiguous with 'Bosnian,' so they don't need to be dabbed. Note that the links to Bosnia and Herzegovina, etc. refer to the place and all of its inhabitants, not just Bosniaks.
Regarding Bosnians: I do not know enough about the issue to comment. Furthermore, the disputed section is poorly written, and I can't understand it. --Smack (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primary topic

Earlier today, Biblbroks redirected Bosnia to Bosnia (disambiguation) with the following comment: "redirect to dab page : Bosnia (disambiguation) - as strange as it may appear, there is no primary topic (see the discussion page)". I've looked at this discussion page as well as Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina and Talk:Bosnia (disambiguation), and don't see any real discussion of whether the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC standard is satisfied. To summarize -- the fact that a title is ambiguous (as "Bosnia" clearly is) does not determine whether or not it has a primary topic. In fact, only ambiguous titles can have primary topics. The question is whether one of the topics on the disambiguation page "is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box." Based on usage in newspapers, web sites, and other sources, I think it is highly likely that a reader who searches for "Bosnia" is searching for the contemporary state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, not for one of the other meanings. A reader who was searching specifically for information about the Federation of B and H, for example, would probably know that this is an entity different than the sovereign state, and would at least use the word "Federation" in the search. Likewise, a reader looking specifically for one of the predecessor entities would most likely use some search term specific to that entity. Comments? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted to the primary topic redirect, as the most recent stable version. Since a change from that primary topic has proved controversial (and would result in a malplaced disambiguation page if redirected to the dab page), a move request should be initiated if the suggestion is to remove the primary topic (moving Bosnia (disambiguation) to here). -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly seems to me that B&H is the article the vast majority of users would be looking for on typing "Bosnia". --Kotniski (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that Bosnia and Herzegovina is the primary topic by criteria given. Perhaps we can conclude this discussion. --Biblbroks (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]