This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cultural Heritage of Serbia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Cultural Heritage of SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject Cultural Heritage of SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject Cultural Heritage of SerbiaCultural Heritage of Serbia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
One is about one place that happens to be the eponymous site, the other about the Vinca culture. I see no reason for a merger. Gow 13:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I too don't see why would they be merged. If anything, they should be split further apart. Nikola (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Serbian version of this article has some good pictures that appear to be appropriately licensed. I can't navigate the Wikimedia Commons labyrinth myself, but they would be a good addition. —Joseph RoeTk•Cb, 16:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: