Talk:Stećak

singular or plural?
In 2009 and 2011, User:PRODUCER moved it from the singular to the plural without explanation (in the meantime in 2010‎ User:Timbouctou had moved it back without explanation). I've checked Google Books, and the English results seem comparable, although there's a lot of fodder (non-English books wrongly recognized as English). It seems to me that stećak is better because it's less hard to pronounce by native speakers, and other similar articles also use singular - e.g. stele, hilarri, totem pole. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I re-read IN:SINGULAR and IN:PLURAL and can't really find a justification for the (foreign-language) plural here. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Bosnian and Serbian state
, think there is misunderstanding in latest edits. What are you trying to edit?--Crovata (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Lovrenović 2014 reference
Several footnotes refer to a work labelled Lovrenović 2014, but there is only a Lovrenović 2013 in the reference list. Are these references to the 2013 work, or to another work that has been left out of the list?- Andrei (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Idiocy of the article
I don't get it, the monuments are not slavic (?), although the oldest ones are written in slavic language and cyrillic alphabet and made for old-slavic tribal leaders like Grdeša. What kind of bullsh*t is trying to be sold here?! I get that there are fringe authors trying to propagate this or that theory, but it is obvious that the monuments are of slavic origin. For Gods sake, the earliest monuments are obviously made for slavic tribal leaders and lords, written in a slavic language and a slavic alphabet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.82.84.16 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)