Template talk:Yugoslavia topics

Technopedia Center

Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science
S1 Informatics S1 Information Systems S1 Information Technology S1 Computer Engineering S1 Electrical Engineering S1 Civil Engineering

faculty of Economics and Business
S1 Management S1 Accountancy

Faculty of Letters and Educational Sciences
S1 English literature S1 English language education S1 Mathematics education S1 Sports Education

Template talk:Yugoslavia topics - Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag

I noticed a slow burning editwar about the flag and no discussion. Is it necessary to have a flag on this article? It seems to be controversial, whatever flag is used... The Banner _talk 00:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per this request the page has been protected for a period of 2 weeks. I suggest that those edit warring talk together and try and resolve the war for the sake of the template. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is that there are two main flags that were used by Yugoslavia. One with no star Kingdom of Yugoslavia 1918–1943 and one with a star Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 1943–1992. Then there was the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia which essentially used the same flag as the old Kingdom. It is clearly quite controversial and I consider that no flag is a better option than one over another. It appears unnecessarily simplistic and reflects a particular point of view on what "Yugoslavia" was. I suggest we adopt a "no flag" policy for this template. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes, no flag is the way to go. Frietjes (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, couldn't have said it better. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the consensus is No Flag will be used on the template :). Unprotected. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have not heard the opinion of the template-creator/flag-placer, so this seems to be a bit premature. Let us hope it works anyway. The Banner _talk 09:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whilst it's not a vote, it does look like a consensus is forming. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Issue?

What's the issue now? If we include one successor we also include the others. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 20:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you keep it neutral. Just don't remove what you consider unpleasant. The Banner talk 20:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was neutral. It was either removing that one successor and its little features or adding all the other ones and their features. I went with the former to keep the already packed template simpler. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 20:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could create a second template, specific for the period after 1992 (?), to offload some of the weight of this template. I guess the template can have a focus of politics and war. The Banner talk 21:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add Ustaše to WWII

I think the Ustaše should also be in the little parenthetical next to WWII topics. The Chetniks are in there. I'm putting it in... Gamle Kvitrafn (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Categories: