Talk:Zabranjeno Pušenje

Belgrade band members

I'd be really nice if someone could help with members of Belgrade band... --Dijxtra 16:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio

I just noticed that the big chunk of this article is a verbatim copy of this: [1]. Can somebody please try to clarify it? It seems like a simple copy/paste. Anyway, parts of the article, like intro and band members is still salvagable. --Dejan Čabrilo 14:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Could you please quote parts of article that are problematic? The thing is I myself wrote probably 50% of the article and I used all kinds of sources, but not that one, so if there is a copyvio problem, it is minor. Therefore, I beg you to remove the tag and I promise I'll rewrite all disputable data myself. I put a lot of work in this article and I know for sure it donesn't deserve copyvio (but I acknowledge the posibility there are some copyvio disputes, and if there are any I empasise they are minor and will be fixed at once). Now, please remove the copyvio tag and lets get to work. --Dijxtra 14:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, now I see... Everything from here: [2] is a copyvio, and it was merged (of course, that's nobody's fault) in this article at some point. I think I got it all removed now. --Dejan Čabrilo 14:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Damn, damn, then I merged the copyvio material. Sorry about that. I'll fix this article ASAP. BTW, the source you quoted is in fact a copyvio too, the original is here. --Dijxtra 14:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I removed everything that was copy/pasted. See if you can find anything else (or if I removed some valid content). --Dejan Čabrilo 15:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Translation of the name

I thing that "forbidden smoking" is very much wrong, since it would represent a kind of smoking which is forbidden, which is not the meaning of "zabranjeno pusenje". I think that "smoking is forbiden" is by far more precise literal translation. --Dijxtra 13:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Given that the group calls itself in English "No Smoking Orchestra", why aren't we using that? Their web site is http://www.thenosmokingorchestra.com. - Jmabel | Talk 05:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No Smoking Orchestra is an entirely different name. That band was spawned from Zabranjeno pušenje, but at one point they stopped calling themself Zabranjeno pušenje and started using similar but different name (No smoking Orchestra). Now, "Zabranjeno pušenje" is best translated as "No smoking", as it's a set phrase found on signs saying that smoking is forbidden. :) --dcabrilo 07:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What Dejan didn't mention is that one of two currently existing fractions of original "Zabranjeno pušenje" still uses that name. So, strictly speaking, it is not true that "the group calls itself in English "No Smoking Orchestra"". Only one fraction of the gruop does that. --Dijxtra 09:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "Zabranjeno pušenje" simply means "No smoking". I don't see why we would need a more literal translation than that. Zocky | picture popups 15:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the truth IS that the name of the band has those two meanings: 1. simple "no smoking", like "no smoking" sign; and 2. "the forbidden smoking" - the smoking that is illegal (zâbranjeno pusenje) - meaning of course: the drugs.--LifeOnMars (talk) 08:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Satan

Why "As you wait for the dawn with the Satan"? "…with Satan" would be more normal English. Is there anything in the original that requires the definite article? I don't know Serbian, but in general Slavic languages don't even have a definite article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No, the original language has no definite article, so what ever sounds more natural in English. --dcabrilo 07:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. --Dijxtra 09:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Two diferent articles

I think this article should be divided into two after the break up of Sarajevo and Belgrade branches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.66.133 (talk) 20:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I support this idea. --PrimEviL 04:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. I will, however, create Zabranjeno Pušenje as a redirect. Jenks24 (talk) 07:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Zabranjeno Pušenje → Zabranjeno Pušenje – the name of the band is misspelled with digraphs "nj" ("U+01CC LATIN SMALL LETTER NJ") spelled out as combinations of "n" and "j" letters, which goes against the rules of Serbo-Croatian (or Bosnian if one prefers) language. As long as there is no English name of the band (see this thread for details), the native language convention should be followed per Wikipedia:Article titles § Foreign names and anglicization. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: Apart from spelling issue the difference between digraph and two characters heading is pronunciation: the current title reads as IPA: [zabranjɛno puʃɛnjɛ], while the name of the band (and the proposed target) – IPA: [zabraɲɛno puʃɛɲɛ]. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion between Czarkoff and In ictu oculi

Hi Dmitrij. The relevant convention on WP:SERBIANNAMES makes note of Gaj's Latin alphabet but does that demand use of nj rather than nj? Can you give a couple of examples of other en.wp article titles? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC) I'm pretty sure I can't name neither article with U+01C4—U+01CC in it's name, nor with 2 characters representation. Anyway, Wikipedia handles decomposition of the chars in that range when needed, and these are the actual names. One may think of the difference as spelling word "Français" in eg. Club Français as "Francais" – intelligible but wrong. BTW, the difference in pronunciation is similar. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Hi, there's a big difference, ç is easy to type and distinguishes a real pronunciation difference. Croatian nj like the Dutch IJ (digraph) is difficult to type and adds no value from nj or ij. Aren't there any articles on en.wp already using nj? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC) The difference in pronunciation: "nj" is pronounced as ɲ (eg. "pušenje" puʃɛɲɛ) and "nj" – as nj (eg. "injekcija" injɛktsija). Regarding typing: I have several PCs with 2 different Latin layouts; neither is able to type ç, while both allow to type nj. BTW, the common practice is to have the article under correct title and redirects for people lacking specific letters on their keyboards, not vice verse. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC) Hi, yes but if it's common practice for "nj" please show another article as an example, cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure whether there is a way to know that, actually. Not so many articles on Wikipedia do have names in Serbo-Croatian, and yet less of them have digraphs in their names. Thus searching for such titles is a considerable effort, which looks more like a waste of time, given the lack of arguments against it. Or am I missing something? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC) FWIW, Divlje jagode contains "l" and "j" sequence in place of "lj". What can we conclude from this fact regarding the proper name for the article on Zabranjeno Pušenje? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC) lj is avoided. What about Petar Dobrnjac Nemanja Andrić Nemanja Arsenijević Bojan Banjac Goran Bunjevčević? Should these technically use nj or is nj different here? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC) All of these should have been "nj". I also found some other examples. So what? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC) So what is that en.wp doesn't use the digraphs. Neither does sr.wp, if you try sr:Забрањено пушење and sr:Петар Добрњац click through to Latinica you'll see nj is being used, not the digraph. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC) In fact none of the interwikis use the digraph, Bosnian bs:Zabranjeno pušenje, Croatian hr:Zabranjeno Pušenje, Serbo-Croat sh:Zabranjeno pušenje. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC) So now we are aware of the fact that spelling on Wikipedia is severely damaged with 8-bit character sets' legacy. How does this finding help us with deciding this RM? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC) There are two things you probably should be aware of. (1) there is still some resistance to use of WP:SERBIANNAMES on Wikipedia. You will notice that Category:Serbian male tennis players contains 5 or 6 names which are "anglicized" - some of them because they are resident in Australia or the USA. David Savic Nikola Spear Miljan Zekic for no sensible reason. Also Category:Serbian ice hockey players - for both tennis and hockey there is "history". Sometimes however like Category:Olympic bobsledders of Serbia where Slobodan Matijevic and Milos Savic are anglicized by accident and could easily be moved. With this background it's not productive to hold out for Gaj's digraphs when sh. hr. bs. sr. wp don't use them either. (2) the point of having accents is to aid pronunciation. In the case of the names above accents and carons would help. In the case of Gaj's Latin alphabet digraphs they don't. Neither does the Dutch IJ (digraph), neither does German ß called s+z in German, but now ss. As far as I know we don't use digraphs in any article title. But we do use accents and carons. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC) Given that digraphs look (slightly, though) different from two chars combinations and sound pretty much different, they aid pronunciation. Furthermore, there is no rationale behind spelling words the way they are not spelled neither in English, nor in native language. The redirects ultimately eliminate any need in intentionally misspelling words. I just see no reason not to move article in this and all the other cases. P.S.: per WP:UE only the titles with no common English usage pattern are spelled in native languages, so there is no mystery behind anglicized names. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC) Well, I've said above what the situation is. WP:UE is a badly written guideline in flux - we can't do Google hunts for what uses digraphs (and I can predict that none will). Sorry after discussion I oppose this move. If someone does a r.move for Bogdan Jankovic, Bojan Jankovic, Ivan Prokic, David Savic, Nikola Spear, Miljan Zekic, Slobodan Matijevic and Milos Savic then I'd support those. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - use of digraph nj adds no value over nj. per sh. sr. bs. hr. en.wp usage. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose First of all, there seems to be a typo (you wrote "Zabre..." rather than "Zabra..."). But more importantly, Croatian websites don't actually use this digraph Unicode character, they invariably use n + j. Go to http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/HR to see any of the top Croatian websites and verify for yourself. You will also surely have noticed that the Croatian Wikipedia article hr:Zabranjeno Pušenje does not use the digraph Unicode character either. It's not clear why Unicode includes this character; perhaps it is simply to permit a one-to-one character mapping between Latin and Cyrillic (i.e., the Serbian Cyrillic letter њ), or perhaps it can be used in specialized applications like online crossword puzzles (where lj and nj fit within a single square). — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I fixed the typo in proposal, thanks. Legacy software (specifically older versions of Internet Explorer) failed to render these glyphs, so they are generally avoided or converted to separate glyphs on display. Wikipedia has different tradition of dealing with such issues. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

    But the point remains, this Unicode character is not in actual use, at least not in any ordinary texts. It's not a display issue. When the Unicode standard was drawn up, it was desired to have a reversible one-to-one mapping between Unicode and each of the many legacy 8-bit character sets, and a lot of odds and ends found their way into the Unicode character set in this way, including ligatures for "ff", "fi", "fl", "ffi", "ffl" (starting at U+FB00), but those aren't used in ordinary English text or English Wikipedia article titles. The fact that the Croatian Wikipedia uses n+j exclusively, as do other Croatian websites both major and minor, should give you pause. It is hard to think of any website where the digraph nj character is actually used. It might perhaps be useful internally in some application that needs to reversibly map Latin to Cyrillic and back. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

    I wouldn't insist on that, actually. The most common practice in computing (at least for Indo-European languages) is to provide one-to-one mapping of letters to displayed characters. A bunch of historical reasons led to the breach of this principle, including the fact that before Unicode 1.1 no character set included code points for these letters (which never were and are not ligatures) mainly due to the restrictions, imposed by 8-bit character sizes and bi-alphabetic nature of the language. Though I came across U+01C4 – U+01CC letters in the wild, I see the widespread use of "n+j" and friends as a compatibility and inertia trait. BTW, the code points for these letters also serve purposes of fixing the collation order (which is severely broken with "n+j"), pattern matching, string length measuring and (the last but not the least) restoring the one-to-one mapping of letters to characters. Also note, that compatibility characters are specifically labeled so in Unicode standard, while these are not. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is not wrong to not use the digraph characters, and it is misguided to think that they are necessary. First: according to Unicode, digraphs should be represented by their constituents. The Croatian digraphs were “only encoded in Unicode because of votes on the negative ballot on the first version of ISO/IEC 10646” ([3]). Second: contrary to what you claim, Unicode does not always label its compatibility characters; and these digraphs do have compatibility decompositions. Third: collation is not broken with ⟨n⟩ + ⟨j⟩; use contractions. For applications that need to reversibly map Latin to Cyrillic, use ⟨n⟩ + ⟨j⟩ for ⟨њ⟩ and ⟨n⟩ + U+034F ͏ COMBINING GRAPHEME JOINER + ⟨j⟩ for ⟨нј⟩. Gorobay (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

  You mean "(n)+(j) for (нј)" and "⟨n⟩ + U+034F ͏ COMBINING GRAPHEME JOINER + ⟨j⟩" for (њ), don't you? Overall I see no reason to prefer U+034F ͏ COMBINING GRAPHEME JOINER over specific Unicode code points. Can you cite Unicode standard on such preference? FWIW, UNIX-like systems include two groups of keyboard layouts for Yugoslavian standard keyboard: ordinary and Unicode, with the latter featuring U+01C4 – U+O1CC on respective keys. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

  Confusingly, the CGJ is used to split digraphs. The Unicode FAQ on digraphs explains why new digraphs are not to be encoded. The Croatian digraphs were encoded, but they are seldom used, they are unnecessary, and they run counter to general Unicode policy.

  Let me put it another way: Croatian is not special. There are countless languages that use digraphs exactly as Croatian does. They get along fine without distinctly-encoded digraphs, and so can Croatian. Gorobay (talk) 11:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

  I got your idea. Pretty convincing, though it gives me more questions then answers. Could you please recommend me a starting point to investigate the issue further? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

  I have answered on your talk page so as not to derail the discussion here. Gorobay (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Nobody uses the UTF-8 digraph for lj and nj; they just didn't catch on, anywhere, and nobody actually cares for that technicality - except perhaps a handful of programmers of database sorting routines, and even they acknowledge the reality of having to handle it like this. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't judge on whether they coughed on or not, as they only recently became available to end users (and yet no IM became established). Though I admit that nearly nobody cares about technical consistency of electronic texts. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
    • It's not actually available to end-users - the South Slavic Latin keyboard layouts don't include the two separate keys. Which is really treated as a non-issue because I don't believe old-school typewriters ever did that, either. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
      • There are several ways to enter these chars on Unix-like systems ("Unicode" flavors of "rs" xkb layouts and its aliases ("ba", "hr", "me"), "us(hbs)" layout, XCompose, etc.) and installable Windows layouts. Probably there is something for Macs. Typewriters didn't include these characters (there is no big difference between "nj" and "nj" when there is no need to process text. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
        • I regularly use the hr layout on Linux and it makes absolutely no difference to my typing of nj - the software layout can't help me much other than to introduce a combination of keys to achieve something that is still by a magnitude more complicated than simply typing nj to get the exact same result as far as humans are concerned, and a very tiny minority of humans actually care for later machine parsing. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I'd welcome a move from Zabranjeno Pušenje to Zabranjeno pušenje (caps!). The rationale would be identical to the one offered here: no established usage in English, and the current title goes against the orthography and prevalent usage in Serbo-Croatian. GregorB (talk) 09:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • At least there site spells both first letters uppercase. The IRL mentions I've seen are also stick with this spelling. Effectively I never seen it written as "Zabranjeno pušenje". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm not surprised - same with e.g. Parni Valjak and their official page. However, in sources with expert proofreading, such as daily newspapers and magazines, it's almost exclusively "Zabranjeno pušenje" and "Parni valjak", as neither pušenje nor valjak are proper nouns. GregorB (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I didn't pay attention to it before, but the sources (I was planning to use for this article's rewrite) indeed name it "Zabranjeno pušenje". As I get it, per MOS:CAPS we should follow the convention of the native language, which means that the proper name of the article would be Zabranjeno pušenje (or Zabranjeno pušenje according to my initial statement). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2012 (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.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Zabranjeno Pušenje/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 17:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I'll be reviewing this. Given the length and subject matter, it'll take me some time, so I'll aim to have a review up by the end of next week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Prose and general (crit. 1, 3, 4, 5):
  • Article seems stable and appropriately broad in coverage for GA criteria.
  • The main stumbling block here is crit. 1. This article is not very well written, probably due to a lack of native English editors familiar with the content.
    • To take apart stuff from the lead: missing an article at the beginning of Band was formed contrary to the then prevalent Yugoslav punk rock and new wave, closely associated with the New Primitivism cultural movement and the radio and television satire and sketch comedy show Top lista nadrealista. (It's also unclear whether the second part of the sentence applies to punk rock or Zabranjeno Pusenje.) The sentences that follow almost all are run-on sentence fused together by commas. There's weird word choices that don't really say what they're intending to (Their debut studio album Das ist Walter (1984) was initially released in the small print—"released in small print" does not mean "limited initial pressings/copies produced", which is what I believe is intended.) Other places: "came to their seats" instead of simply saying the new members replaced the old ones.
    • The lead fails to adequately cover the entire content of the article; it's mostly a list of rotating band members, but with very little about their style evolution, different albums, and history.
    • The prose issues continue through the rest of the article. There's also manual of style issues like inconsistent capitalization, dashes, and quotations.
    • Aside from grammar issues, the prose and flow of the article begins to devolve into a common issue with music-related articles, the "on DATE, X happened" statements chained together. There's not a lot connecting all these disparate statements and telling me why they're important.
• References: (c. 2)
  • Spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 1, 2, 12, 16, 37, 47, and 57. I did not find issues with improper use of sources.
  • I'm not entirely sold on some of the sources meeting WP:RS standards: What makes sources like depo.ba, jutarnji.hr, Muzika.hr, tportal.hr? I'm not a native speaker so it's possible I'm missing details about their editorial policies or something that could give an indication, but many look more like tabloids and blogs than news orgs and web magazines.
    • For the majority of the sources (since they're in Croatian) you should append language information to the sources.
    • You should also archive web sources to prevent linkrot.
• Media: (c. 6)
  • File:Zabranjeno pusenje-1.jpg properly tagged and licensed, no other media in the article.

I'd recommend going through and doing a pass for better sourcing; it seems like the best info comes from the memoirs of one of the members, are there any other books that deal with their career that could be used? Then the article needs a thorough copyedit. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Smocking not good for health eminently ben smocking that seet

Smocking has a banded 110.226.238.173 (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)