Active discussions
See also: Talk:Sarajevo/Archive

wrong pictureEdit

This bridge shown in picture Sarajevo_bridge.jpg is not The bridge in Sarajevo which directly across the street from where Archduke Franz Ferdinand was killed.-- 10:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Please plunge forward and help us fix it! --Inas (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Done: This picture is no longer on the page when I checked. Doubleplusjeff (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Should we call it "Old Town" or "Bascarsija"?Edit

This article switches back and forth between both terms, and they're used approximately equally. (Most use is in addresses and directions.) I think it would be helpful to standardize on one term. I never heard the area called "Old Town" while a tourist in Sarajevo, so my vote would be in favor of standardizing upon "Bascarsija". (And I believe this meets wikivoyage's Romanization recommendations by omitting haceks.) Doubleplusjeff (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

It's most helpful to the traveller to use the name they'll see, so please plunge forward and make the changes you propose. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
According to,_Sarajevo, Old Town (Stari Grad in Bosnian) is a real name, and it consists of both Bascarsija and the old Austro-Hungarian half. As a traveller this makes sense to me too. I'm clarifying locale listings' Directions to specify Bascarsija instead of Old Town (when they are in fact in the Bascarsija neighborhood). I'll leave "Old Town" when it appears in locale descriptions ("Content") or when the listing is located in the Austro-Hungarian half (since I don't have any better name for that neighborhood). Doubleplusjeff (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there is a policy to ignore diacritcal markers for names written in Latin alphabet originally. And if there is, I think it should be changed. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Haven't seen Old Town anywhere in Sarajevo, but many guides and places refer to Bascarsija (for example, the indication on tram 3). The term Stari Grad is also used a lot as a reference to Bascarsija + the Austrian part. ArticCynda (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Rafting/canoe excursionsEdit

The rafting and canoe excursions listed in the Do section all take place in Konjic instead of in Sarajevo, on the Neretva river. Should they not be moved to the Konjic article instead? Suggesting to keep SarajevoFunkyTours, since this company offers rafting and canoe including a shuttle bus from/to Sarajevo.

This sounds sensible. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Done. Moved rafting, canoe and canyoning excursions to their respective articles (Konjic and Foča) ArticCynda (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Alas some tout put them back again. Re-done, I left the Sarajevo mentions as web links, since they do run packages from the city. Grahamsands (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Embassies TableEdit

  • The "Tel.", "Fax" and "Email" columns "abuse" the listing_template by not providing a name (which is a required field), and thus the "edit"-function beside each item in these three columns doesn't work properly (cannot save any changes) - so the only way to edit the table is to edit the source code. I guess at least the Fax-column could be changed so, that it would not include the listing_template. Also ☎ could replace the icons in the Tel-column. And of course one could put just plain email addresses in the last column... Found this out this "feature" after the fact... Loaoa (talk) 06:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
It's not the end of the world that the table can only be updated in source, but it's not a very elegant solution. Perhaps there are other ways to get the icons in the table? There doesn't seem to be a consensus to include embassies in the capital articles of countries; every article does it in its own way: a long list of listings (for example Helsinki), a list in 2 columns (for example Berlin) or a full listing with generic markers (for example Brussels). I personally do prefer the table, since it's a cleaner representation, and the type of data also favors a table format rather than an incoherent list. Perhaps a template for embassy lists should be added to Wikivoyage to provide an uniform way of presenting embassy data in each capital article. ArticCynda (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I wish the "type=vicinity" marker color (dark red) could be more different than the "type=go" marker color (red). Is there a way to modify the marker colors? Page template options, perhaps? Loaoa (talk) 06:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be no formal context definition for the use of the vicinity marker type, so I'm not even sure if it's the right one to use here. Alternatively, the more generic markers (green) could be used, which are also the default for tourism offices and medical facilities. ArticCynda (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Embassies marker color options
Country Address Tel. Fax Email
  1 Austria. Address 01 [the_current_version] +387 33 279 400. fax: +387 33 668 339. .
  2 Austria. Address 02 [almost_formatted_as_the_current_version] ☎ +387 33 279 400 fax: +387 33 668 339 e-mail: sarajewo-ob(at)
  3 vicinity (800000). Address 03 [current_version_stylized] ☎ +387 33 279 400 fax: +387 33 668 339 sarajewo-ob(at)
  Lua error in Module:Map at line 340: attempt to concatenate field 'group' (a nil value).. Address 04 [generic_default empty type field] ☎ +387 33 111 111 fax: +387 33 222 222
fax: another_fax_number
  1 Generic (C0C0C0). Address 05 [generic_default called with a goofy term] ☎ +387 33 333 333 fax: +387 33 444 444
  1 without type (228B22). Address 06 [the_green_marker] ☎ +387 33 555 555
☎ another_phone_number
fax: +387 33 666 555
  1 go (A52A2A). Address 07 [middle red] ☎ +387 33 333 333 fax: +387 33 444 444
  1 other (228B22). Address 08 [the_green_marker] ☎ +387 33 333 333 fax: +387 33 444 444
fax: another_fax_number
  1 view (4169E1). Address 09 [light blue] ☎ +387 33 333 333 fax: +387 33 444 444
  1 around (800080). Address 10 [purple] ☎ +387 33 333 333
☎ another_phone_number
fax: +387 33 444 444
  1 gold (FFD700). Address 11 [deprecated (?)] ☎ +387 33 333 333 fax: +387 33 444 444
  1 lime (00FF00). Address 12 [deprecated (?)] ☎ +387 33 333 333
☎ another_phone_number
fax: +387 33 444 444
fax: another_fax_number
  1 red (FF0000). Address 13 [deprecated (?)] ☎ +387 33 333 333 fax: +387 33 444 444
  1 silver (C0C0C0). Address 14 [deprecated (?)] ☎ +387 33 333 333
☎ another_phone_number
☎ another_phone_number
fax: +387 33 444 444
  1 see (4682B4). Address 15 [already in use] ☎ +387 33 333 333
☎ another_phone_number
fax: +387 33 444 444
  1 do (808080). Address 16 [already in use] ☎ +387 33 333 333
☎ another_phone_number
fax: +387 33 444 444
  1 buy (008080). Address 17 [already in use] ☎ +387 33 333 333
☎ another_phone_number
fax: +387 33 444 444
  1 eat (D2691E). Address 18 [already in use] ☎ +387 33 333 333
☎ another_phone_number
fax: +387 33 444 444
  1 drink (000000). Address 19 [already in use] ☎ +387 33 333 333
☎ another_phone_number
fax: +387 33 444 444
  1 sleep (000080). Address 20 [already in use] ☎ +387 33 333 333
☎ another_phone_number
fax: +387 33 444 444
  2 listing (228B22). Address 21 [the_green_marker] ☎ +387 33 333 333
☎ another_phone_number
fax: +387 33 444 444

I guess the formal formatting style would omit the empty lines between each row_datacluster, but personally I like them, because it makes it easier to read the code (and doesn't break the page). Of course there's the option to write each row_datacluster on a single line, but that would IMO make each line excessively long. AFAIK the "br /" is permitted (if not, then a series of colspan commands could be inserted where there's more than one datasource in one cell (or those be separated with a comma without a new_line)... --Loaoa (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if br/ is permitted to force a line ending, some might see it as HTML injection into a wiki. But it does the job elegantly, so I don't have any objections against it. The only minor bother is the point after the country names, which are inserted because of the listing type. ArticCynda (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Changed the marker type to silver as a compromise to the remark that the red tint of go was too similar to vicinity. The tint of silver is quite easily distinguishable from do markers. Thoughts on silver makers for the embassy table? ArticCynda (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Silver was one of my favourite colors for the Embassies markers - the color gives a nice contrast to the other markers... Loaoa (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Administrative BuildingsEdit

A list of administrative buildings has been added under See, but it seems that most of them have little to no touristic value: they cannot be visited (or there would be nothing to see/experience inside), and the architectural value from the outside is limited. I don't think they should be listed under See, and probably not even listed at all. It should be noted that, at the time of writing, there are 72 different See listings in the article (!), which becomes impractical from a visitor's perspective. Unless there are objections, I propose to remove the list of Administrative Buildings, and move Konak to one of the other sections. ArticCynda (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Myself, I start thinking about subdividing city articles into some kind of districts when the number of listings in one section starts approaching 40-50 (or several sections start approaching 30). If the listed places aren't really of interest to visitors it's better to remove them, though. --ϒpsilon (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
About the architectural value of the Presidency building of Bosnia and Herzegovina it could be mentioned, that it was designed by the architect Josip Vancaš in the style of Florentine Early Renaissance. The groundbreaking ceremony was held on March 1884 and the building was opened in March 1886. It was discussed back in the day that should the building be built in Florentine Early Renaissance style, in Italian Gothic style or in Italian Late Renaissance style, but due to the limited funds, the cheapest option was selected. Source: Loaoa (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
About the architectural value of the Building of the BiH Parliamentary Assembly could be noted, that at the time it was finished, the building of the Assembly of SRBiH was the only building for that purpose in this part of Europe designed in a modern style. It was commenced back in 1954, designed by the architect Juraj Neidhard, and finally built during 1978–1982. The architect, who was a close associate of Le Corbusier, considered this building to be one of the most important achievements of his creativity. A guideline of "Architecture is always a work of an individual, an individual who sees and understands, who decides and creates; it is the sublime moment of crystallization arising in the depth of one's inner personality, just like in a foundry" was followed when designing the building, and by the words of Hamdija Salihović: "The Parliament building interprets a creative productive and sculptural act in a dynamic architectural composition, being a synthesis of functional requirements and the spatial organization of its epistructure in modelling its semantic character. Neidhardt's inimitable modern architectural art shows fancifulness in its conceptual imagina­tion by playing with lines, planes, volumes and shapes in a harmonious and proportional manner."
Source 1:
Source 2: Loaoa (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I thought that the Central Bank building of BiH would be a no-brainer to include, but seems that it's of no interest to every traveller (or rather, maybe I'm in the minority here...). Likewise, from where I'm from, there's no cantonal system in place, and for me, at least, I think it'd be nice to see the building where the local Canton officers work, even though not admitted in. But as earlier, I might be in the minority. An apparent question of course is, that if something from a certain category is included, why not then include XYZ, which arguable is "more important" or wields more decision making power? As the original submitter of these places I feel like I have to recuse myself and let the community next editor decide on this matter. Loaoa (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
The descriptions should focus on the qualities of the buildings, rather than the roles of the institutions, which are more appropriate for Wikipedia articles, which have been linked. I have edited to reflect this. Ground Zero (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I trimmed the list a bit and added descriptions about the buildings. I really wish that there was a way to list places such as the Head Office of the Central Bank of BiH or The Government of Sarajevo Canton, but as ArticCynda noted, they really aren't great touristic destinations at all, and thus don't belong under the "See" category. -- Loaoa (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
For a travel guide, articles should focus on the most interesting things to see/do for a destination, from the perspective of a traveler with limited available time. Few travelers would spend an entire vacation of a week in Sarajevo alone, but are likely to visit the city in the context of a weekend city trip or as a day excursion in a tour around Bosnia. So if you'd only have a day or two to see Sarajevo, then the administrative buildings are in my opinion not worth the detour, if that means dropping other more unique see/do experiences. I'm not an architecture expert, but I presume that most of the administrative buildings share large architectural similarities with other contemporary buildings in other cities, and would therefore not be considered a must see. ArticCynda (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have to agree with ArticCynda on all points made. For me the biggest issue is the header itself (Administrative buildings), which can't easily be traced on the page or from the header guidelines page, so the remaining POIs would have to be listed as regular buildings under "See". But then comes the 7±2 rule ( ) of avoiding long lists... So perhaps one could move the excessive POIs here, the Konak where it could fit (on the main page) and remove this header altogether? -- Loaoa (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I also don't like the sound of Administrative Buildings, it does not sound very inspiring to the visitor to take a look at all! Perhaps a new section Architecture can be created, with buildings of architectural value that don't fit well under other sections. Maybe the City Hall can also be moved there, since this building has exceptional architectural value? ArticCynda (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Basically, we're looking for the English equivalent of the Italian word "palazzi". "Architecture" doesn't quite do it. How about "Notable buildings"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
"Notable buildings" is just fine IMO or perhaps something along the lines of "Notable buildings with architectural value"? In any case I think you guys are better with these headers than I am, and will be content with any structural modifications you come up with... --Loaoa (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia, the word Palace as a literal translation from the Italian Palazzi would fit the description quite nicely, although it doesn't quite match the definition in English. A proper English word seems to be missing. Think about why a traveler would be interested to visit the POI: is it because of the contents inside (i.e. like a museum)? Or for the architectural value of the building itself? In the latter case, a denominator like Architecture seems a good option. If the POI doesn't have anything interesting to offer inside or outside, then why would a visitor be interested in the first place? ArticCynda (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
That's quite wrong. Palazzi are buildings, not usually palaces. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
From the Wikipedia article you linked: "In Italy, any urban building built as a grand residence is a palazzo; these are often no larger than a Victorian townhouse." Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

International organisationsEdit

Added this header. Any thoughts (include, exclude, move, delete, add a listing, remove a listing...)? Loaoa (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Office of the High Representative - Almost certainly one of the most powerful ruling offices in the complex political system of BiH, overseeing the civilian implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement. OHR is only responsible to the Peace Implementation Council and has dismissed over a hundred officials from their posts including judges, ministers, civil servants and members of parliaments. This hierarchical setting and OHR's position in it is unique in the world, I guess.
  • Council of Europe Office - removed
  • World Bank Country Office - One of the key facilitators in changing the economical landscape in BiH. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) finances the country ca. US$750 million during FY16-20, and the level of the International Finance Corporation (IFC) investment program will be dependent on the pace of reforms made in the business sector ("the Reform Agenda"). Some of the notable projects include for instance the Federation Road Sector Modernization Project (€58 million), which was approved in August 2016, cofinanced by the European Investment Bank and the World Bank, in which 178 kilometers of main roads will be rehabilitated, including three tunnels and nine bridges, and a new route M17.3 (Neum-Stolac road) will be constructed. Also provided financial support (a US$100 million International Development Association (IDA) credit from the World Bank Group's Crisis Response Window) for emergency goods, when an unprecedented rainfall in 2014 affected more than 1 million people (25% of the population), and the resulting heavy flooding caused estimated damages and losses equivalent to nearly 15% of the country's GDP. (Source 1: (PDF, 644kb) Source 2: )
  • International Crime Tribunal for former Yugoslavia Field Office - Self explanatory (I guess), since there are other war related POIs listed on the page, but ICTY is also mentioned under the UN House, so this POI might be redundant.
  • UN House - Trimmed the description field as noted by Ground Zero above. There are many UN sub-branches currently working in this building and around the city under the UN umbrella.

IDK how all this relates to the but personally I find these POIs very interesting even if not let inside the buildings. But as always, the next editor may decide otherwise. -- Loaoa (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Removed the WB and ICTY offices, since they are not great travel destinations. If there only was a better way of adding these kinds of interesting POIs... but as a POI for "see", I don't think they qualify. -- Loaoa (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Moved the remaining two POIs here, since I couldn't find a suitable category for these on the page. Politics is mentioned on the Understand section of a City, Country, or Region page, but I don't know how the data should be formatted. So here they are, if found somehow useful: -- Loaoa (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Weak POI candidatesEdit

From the traveller's point of view some of the POIs in the city really aren't that great visiting destinations. As noted on the 7±2 page ( ) Wikivoyage shouldn't be a phone book and list everything, so I'm putting up this section mainly for case by case study and discussion about the POIs that are (or have been) featured on the main page, but have awoken some concerns about their status. -- Loaoa (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Officers’ Casino
Even though the story behind this building is great and gives insight to the history of the city, the building itself is bit underwhelming and not much of a visiting destination. It is classified as one of the "National monuments" of BiH, but so are about ~150 other buildings in Sarajevo (including the Central Bank building...). Source: -- Loaoa (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
A photo gallery of the Officers' Casino (Federation Army Centre, Army Centre): -- Loaoa (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • 4 Magribija Mosque (Magribija džamija), Ulica Magribija. The mosque was built in the mid 16th century and named after the Magribija Sheik of the Dervish Order from Maghreb, who accompanied Isa-Bey Ishakovic (Isa-Beg Ishaković) on his arrival to Sarajevo.  
This mosque is very modestly built and probably not worth visiting at all. As a part of a list of places in Sarajevo this would be great, but as a travel destination, well, not that great. -- Loaoa (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
There are literally dozens of mosques scattered around Sarajevo, it's probably sufficient to add the most historically relevant ones, or those with exceptional architectural beauty. ArticCynda (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • 5 Church of St. Cyril and Methodius with Seminary (Crkva sv. Ćirila i Metoda s Vrhbosanskim bogoslovnim sjemeništem), Ulica Josipa Štadlera 7. The complex was designed by Josip Vancas in 1895. The seminary has two wings, designed for studying with a library, and a domed Catholic church in the middle. The church’s interior is richly ornamented with baroque altars and frescos in the Neo-Renaissance style.
Yes, there is a church in that complex, but for most travellers this wouldn't be much of an interest, I guess. -- Loaoa (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, the link mentions valuable frescos in Neo-Renaissance style but I can't find any other reference to them, so probably not that exceptional after all. ArticCynda (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
A photo gallery of the church: -- Loaoa (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • 6 The New Grand Jewish Temple, Branilaca Sarajeva 24. The temple (Templ) was built in 1930 in pseudo-Moorish style according to the design of Rudolf Lubinski. The unique elliptic dome covered in copper was the third largest in Europe at the time. In 1964 the temple was transformed into a cultural centre (Bosanski Kulturni Centar), and its interior was divided horizontally into three levels.
Interesting to the historians, maybe, but for the regular travellers? Not so much. Besides there's so little Jewishness left in this building, that I'm not sure to which category this would actually belong. -- Loaoa (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Might be relevant to the Judaism article, though? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thank you! I think the perfect new home for this POI could be Judaism -> See -> Synagogues -- Loaoa (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Didn't know there was a Jusaism article, but it seems it might be more fitting there indeed. ArticCynda (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The Central Post Office seems to be a debatable weak POI candidate, since it is located closer to the touristic districts, and can be visited freely by travelers (unlike the other administrative buildings which are restricted). I added it to the Administrative Buildings section for now. ArticCynda (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Another version of Central Post Office (Obala Kulina bana 8) is also/still listed under "Connect". Should the (even weaker / "unupdated") duplicate version under Connect be removed? Personally I'd include the updated version of the Central Post Office on the main page, but would not object the removal of this POI (Central Post Office) in its entirety, either, if consensus that way could be achieved. Post offices usually reside in the Connect section of a City page. If stamps can be purchased and postcards be posted there, I think the (newer) POI (perhaps with the alt name changed to BH Pošta) might be useful to some tourists. Loaoa (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Apparently it's architecturally quite impressive, at least the interior seems worth a visit judging from the pictures, so that's why I added it to "See" as well. Stamps are sold by most post card vendors too, so it's not really a necessity to list the postal office under "Connect" I think. There is a small post office selling stamps and accepting post cards in Basarsjia as well. ArticCynda (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

IMHO this is a too obvious POI, since there are over 100 cafés around the city. This café can't be missed if Sebilj is visited. Loaoa (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Promotion to StarEdit

The quality of this article has significantly improved in the last months, so let's make a list of stuff that needs to be done to make it into a Star article. ArticCynda (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

In the meantime, I think the article could be nominated for Destination of the month, I believe there is still one month open next summer. However, I notice the article has quite many listings in the See section so we might need to divide it into districts first. --ϒpsilon (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
ϒpsilon - Depending on how late in the year Sarajevo can be featured, we have empty DotM slots in August, September, and October of next year. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
It'll be August or September, I believe. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that dividing the city into districts would be useful since most of the attraction are located in one district (the old town). The article is more valuable to travelers if it is not split up. ArticCynda (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
My vote also goes for not splitting up the Sarajevo article, since the city is such a special destination... But if it has to be split to subdistricts, I'd fancy the division between an eastern and western part (made as westernly as possible), for instance along the Kulovica street (between National Theatre and Central Post Office), or more preferably along Halida Kajtaza (between National Museum and Bosnian Historical Museum), but I've have not yet calculated, if these would actually do the trick of reducing the POIs up to 9. As ArticCynda mentioned, all the main POIs are densely located in the old town (Baščaršija). Vratnik could also be another district, too, as it previously has been. Loaoa (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
The See POIs are already properly divided in subsections so that none exceed the 9 items per section rule. However, as far as I know, there are no formal limits to how many POIs an article can have in total (across all subsections). Perhaps one of the admins could shine their light on this matter? ArticCynda (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Since no consensus on districtification (yes/no) could be reached, and the discussion has stalled for over 5 months, I have removed the districtification banner from the page (status quo). ArticCynda (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Static Map ProjectEdit

Before making a chance of being upgraded to a Star article, Sarajevo still needs a static map. As the consensus seems to be to not districtify the article, the question is how such a static map for Sarajevo should look like. I propose 2 maps: a general one of Grad Sarajevo (including the airport and attractions like the Tunel Spasa, yellow and white fortress etc.), and a close-up of Bascarsija. What do other Wikivoyagers think? ArticCynda (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

By no means is there a consensus not to districtify. See dotm#Sarajevo, where I said districtification would probably be a necessity for Star status if not for DotM status, and Granger strongly implied that s/he felt similarly. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
To clarify my thinking: It looks to me like the article is long enough that districtifying might be worth considering, but it also might be fine as is. I don't know the city at all, so I'll defer to others' judgment. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
It would be hard to do proper districtification without breaking the coherence of the article, I think. For instance, if you would split into Grad Sarajevo, Bascarsija and Vratnik, then the Latin Bridge and Goat's Bridge would end up in different sub articles, wheras they're currently discussed together in a neat section to illustrate their important. And where to put the Festina Lente bridge then? The same goes for many other sections as well. In my opinion, breaking up the article solely because of its length would harm readability more than it could improve it, and reduce its value for the traveler. ArticCynda (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Embassies in SarajevoEdit

Swept in from the pub

The embassies section in the Sarajevo article is setup as a table, which is different to all other articles. Should we change it to a listing format, similar to the others? -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I think so. Currently, you could miss that "expand" button altogether, and therefore miss valuable information in the article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Did we not have a discussion some months ago about collapsing embassy lists as they take up a large amount of some articles and are only interesting to travelers on rare occasions? --Traveler100 (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
If it's too hard to see the button, then we need to change the button. A background color would help signal that something is different there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
See Madrid for an example of a collapsible section, but just listings the list format rather than a table. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I plunged forward and made them all conventional listings but took most markers down since it looked like there'd been an accident in Sarajevo to a truckload of Brussels Sprouts. If the listing is now too long, my suggestion is to dismiss most of them in a one-liner: "Other countries represented here include Indonesia, Iran, blah blah". Grahamsands (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Sarajevo" page.