Template talk:History of Serbia

message: This it must be chanchet in Histori of Central Serbia. It dosen reflect the History of Kosovo and Vojvodina.--Hipi Zhdripi 19:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Estavisti, can you change a colour of the 3 main links in the template (Medieval Serbia, Ottoman Serbia, Modern Serbia) that space where these 3 links are is more different from the space where links of sub-articles are placed? PANONIAN (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it myself, it looks better now. :) PANONIAN (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Colour

message: Should it be included into the template? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbian Wojwodship 

message: Discuss your edits, they are mostly historically incorrect. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discuss 

message: Some medieval states listed here are more related to Bosnia or Montenegro than to R. Serbia? Any comment ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.188.32.8 (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of those lands could be included in the Template:History of Serbs, but not in the History of Serbia template.--Mladifilozof (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medieval states 

message: Call me crazy but the template seems way to flashy and out of touch with standard Wiki templates. Softer colors? Less accessories? Izgleda "seljački", imho. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This colors and design maybe proper for History of Medieval Serbia but this template requires more neutral and "secular" design. However, see Template:History of Serbia on sr.Wikipedia.--Mladifilozof (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe to make something like this: :Template:Serbs?--Mladifilozof (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flashy... 

message: there is no source to support name used by peacemaker. name should not be used with no source. HuHu22 (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: as I explained in my edit summary, there are two WP:RS for that name as the official name for that territory between 1941-1944, and they are footnotes 1 & 2 on the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia article. I will copy them here. The appropriate WP procedure in this situation is WP:BRD, so please discuss properly. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have now added the references to the template. The relevant pages are: Hehn pp. 344-373 and Pavlowitch p. 141. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nobody can read your refences. I can name 100 books and say they saying something. I still wait for you to show here references that can be read by others. HuHu22 (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: ww2

message: I added references to this template regarding the official name of the German occupied territory during WW2. There is no WP policy against putting references on a template, but they have been removed twice at least. This is disruptive and needs to stop. It appears that some editors wish to pretend that Serbia existed as an independent country between 1929 and 1945, for their own reasons. Including factual information in this template is not POV. 'Serbia' cannot have been occupied between 1941-1944 because Serbia stopped being an independent country in 1918, and stopped even being a division of Yugoslavia after Yugoslavia was reorganised into banovina in 1929. It was only restored as a division of Yugoslavia after the war. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  For info, the MILHIST discussion on the official name which was sorted out by an experienced admin is  here Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

text: @Peacemaker67, Although there is probably no WP policy against putting references on a template, it is not a general practice on wikipedia as far as I know. Is there any specific reason for your insisting to add references to this template?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The references are there for this exact reason. That is, the references point out to any casual reader (and to editors that do not like it due to a personal or other conviction about the name of the territory, rather than a WP policy and source-based reason for challenging it) that there was an official name for it. The official name of the territory has been clarified, and the references are reliable published sources for the official name. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is better to use  instead. There you can explain that during WWII Nazi Germany established the puppet state of Serbia with puppet government and that the common name of its territory was the "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" according to the discussion held here - link.  --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of references 

message: Drmies, can you explain your revert? You replaced link Occupation of Serbia in World War II with Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia and your argument is that “there is no such article”? Perhaps you do not know, but there is such article, just look again: Occupation of Serbia in World War II. That article is made as part of this series about history of Serbia. However, page Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia is page about German occupation military administrators and that page should not be promoted here. Why you want to promote this page here, Drmies? How page about German occupators is related to history of Serbia and its people? Nemambrata (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Last revert

message: @Joy: 
Vinča, Starčevo... and other articles removed with this bold edit of yours are listed within this template for years. Based on provided rationale in edit summary and following BRD cycle I reverted your bold edit. Instead to discuss your position you opted for edit warring and reverted me. I am opposed to your bold removal because I don't agree with your position which is based on "the *territory* wasn't called Serbia at the time, so this is anachronistic". In order to support your position you linked this talkpage section which actually does not support your position at all. On the contrary. Besides, there are plenty of other related templates with obvious consistency in listing all articles about history of certain territory although it didn't have the same (modern) name all trough its history link. 
Taking above mentioned in the consideration I politely ask you to revert yourself and return the stable version of this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Antidiskriminator. I see no reason not to include here prehistoric civilizations or Roman one. All of that is part of history of Serbia. Modern Serbs are mix of Slavs and Illyrians and why Illyrian part of Serbian past should be deleted? I suggest that template is restored to old version. CrnoBelo (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree. Rv per Antidiskriminator. --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  BRD not BRB