Talk:Serbia and Montenegro/Archive 1

message: And a question; doesn't the national motto "CCCC" (Only Unity saves the Serbs) refer only to Serbia and does NOT include Montenegro? I think that it's not the motto of the commonwealth... You'd make Njegos very, very angry... --Muhamedmesic
it is placed even on coat of arms.
:No, but your comment would make him very angry. Even traditional Montenegrin hat has Serbian firesteels (CCCC) on it. Njegos considered himself a Serbian nationalist. -- Obradović Goran  (talk 00:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: National motto

message: Would anyone like to guess what "which is precedence to new constitution" means?   Morwen - Talk 10:22, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording

message: Please stop this edit fight! --ThomasK 07:29, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
Stop it! --ThomasK 12:29, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
I believe this is only a small part of the general quarrel regarding Wikipedia:Country infobox vote etc. --Joy [shallot] 16:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit fight

message: Removed map
I have removed one of the maps of Serbia and Montenegro (M_scg04.jpg), because it was very incorrect. First of all names are written in Serbian (which is not incorrect – just a bit inappropriate on English Wikipedia :) 
2: Kosovo should be Kosovo and Metohija or Kosmet (according to Serbian constitution). 
3: it should be stated that Kosovo and Metohija, and Vojvodina are autonomous provinces (on Serbian maps is used abbreviation AP), and administrative border between the Kosovo and Metohija and Vojvodina  and the rest of Serbia should be drawn in different manner than for example border between Serbia and Montenegro (thiner or rambling line – look at the other map on this article, Yugoslaviamap.png) 
4: According to this map, Vojvodina and Kosovo and Metohija aren’t part of Serbia (which is completely not true). There are two solutions: 1. Instead of  Serbia should stand narrow Serbia or Serbia proper (this solution is bad because of great edit fight it caused on Serbia article); 2. To stretch inscription Serbia across both Vojvodina and Kosovo and Metohija (optimal solution).  -- Obradović Goran  (talk 00:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed map 

message: Could someone confirm about Nov 29th being celebrated in Montenegro, and what is the correct name of the holyday. I changed the name to "Day of Republic", although I am not sure if it is correct. Saigon from europe 12:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holydays 

message: I couldn't find any info on it... Pure inuyasha 01:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am living in S&M and I don't know :) --millosh (talk (sr:)) 01:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Serbia and Montenegro agreed (illegaly but no one cares) that Montenegro can separate from Serbia after a democratic referendum. The government of Montenegro is saying that it is planning the referendum for this year (but it is saying so for past ten years), however it is already obvious that it won't be democratic. So, if they hold the referendum, legally, they won't be able to separate, but they will try anyway and probably succeed after being recognised by the USA. It is an interesting question whether EU will recognise them because it is pushing for the democratic referendum. Nikola 09:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  COuld someone please tell me if they're splitting or not? 

message: Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring, a poll is currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article.  Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Republic of Macedonia#POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article|POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article]] 

message: Someone do it. Please. Thank you. :) --estavisti 05:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transfer to standard country template 

message: The Provic Kosovo is in FR of Yougoslavia. This correct, but how it is now in wikipedia is better to write RS of Serbia.--Hipi Zhdripi 02:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not acceptet from UN 

message: I think is wilcomen--Hipi Zhdripi 02:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Image 

message: No argumet!!! please dont inteprete the documents 
Sombody have putit this Kosovo place in Serbia stub or category or template here with out argumet. We dont have a argumet that Kosovo is part of S/M. We have tha Constitution of this countrie but we have the rez. 1244 wich is more importen for the Wikipedia and is saying that Kosovo it is a part of Yougoslavia and is prototoriat of UN. Till we dont have a clearly argument from UN, aricel about Kosovo must be out of this stub or category or template. Pleas dont make the discution with intepretation or the Law wich are not accordin to 1244. Everybodoy can do that but that is nothing for Wikipedia.--Hipi Zhdripi 05:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No argumet 

message: I've sprotected the article for the moment. Complaints here, please William M. Connolley 20:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sprotect 

message: Aren't these two separate (now historical, apparently) state systems that deserve separate articles?  I should also note that the latter will now merit categorization in :Category:Short-lived states.--Pharos 02:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that, we should have two separate articles about Serbia and Montenegro (2003-2006) and Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1992-2003). I think much of the content of the current Serbia and Montenegro article could be used in both. PANONIAN (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Disagree; I don't quite see the point. I don't think that the reasons that Federal Republic of Yugoslavia redirects to Serbia and Montenegro ceased to exist now. It was one state, with the same borders throughout, different name and slightly different political systems. And why repeat the information which is 90% shared? Duja 10:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I just started new article about Federal Republic of Yugoslavia based on the this one. I do not agree that it was same country. More correct definition is that it were two countries with same borders. Serbia and Montenegro article should describe only events between 2003 and 2006, and another article that I started should describe situation between 1992 and 2003. Besides that, if we accept your view to have only one article then the natural name for it would be Federal Republic of Yugoslavia since for most of its existence it had this name. However, we still should retain some article about Serbia and Montenegro so the readers of Wikipedia could read something about what Serbia and Montenegro was. PANONIAN (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What was so different in situations before and after 2003? The contents of the article, remind you, are: 1 History 2  Political divisions 3 Geography 4 Demographics 5 Economy 6 Transportation. Of all that, only History and, to an extent, political divisions have something different. Call the article whatever you like but, again, there's no need to split it. Duja 13:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: ...remind you, Yugoslavia since 1945 was called "People's Republic of Yugoslavia", "Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia" and "Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia", each time with different constitutions. Should we now split that also because they had different constitutions and different names? And each of those lasted much longer than S&M. Duja 13:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If Wikipedia had been around earlier, I'm sure we would have just moved Kazakh SSR to Kazakhstan for convenience sake, but with historical perspective the necessity for the two articles would become apparent.  Now we have to consider how future history will see these two states: it will certainly see SM as a sort of transitional state between FRY and the imminent period of separation.  The contents of the two article should not overlap too much; the bulk of it will be at the FRY article as that's where most of the history occured.--Pharos 10:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If (in the long term) one is to be a redirect to another, it'd be more sensible to redirect Serbia and Montenegro to Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, not the other way round.  (But obviously not yet).  Morwen - Talk 14:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, we must first agree about the question whether we should consider these two as two different countries or as one country with two names. Can somebody help with this problem? PANONIAN (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd consider it the same country (1992-2006?), just having changed it name in 2003. It may be better to get the Wiki Community to vote on this topic. GoodDay 19:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that the form of government also changed quite significantly, going from a strong federation to a weak confederation.  I'm not saying we should have all the separate specialist articles like Transportation in... for both, but I do think at the least 'Serbia and Montenegro' deserves its own article separate from the 'Fderal Republic of Yugoslavia' article as in many ways it constitutes a distinctive state system.--Pharos 02:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still disagree the the change in state system justifies separate articles. We didn't even change Passports and IDs in 2003, for God's sake. Why did the end of union's existence suddenly changed the principle according to which one was a redirect to other? Duja 08:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, some of my personal documents claim that I am still citizen of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but that does not mean that it is same country as Serbia-Montenegro. :) I agree with Pharos, the main article about the country should have name Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, while we should also keep Serbia-Montenegro article dealing only with 2003-2006 time period. Of course, the articles dealing with transportanion in SCG, politics in SCG, etc, should not be doubled. They should be subarticles of FRY only. PANONIAN (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather that you put the issue to WP:RM than to do it unilaterally. Personally, I'd prefer the title "Serbia and Montenegro" (not to dwelve into reasoning). Duja 14:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia = Serbia and Montenegro? 

message: Serbia?--Greasysteve13 04:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this country does not exist any more. So, this article will retain its name just it will not be geographical article any more, but historical. PANONIAN (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, but according to the Montenegro article, independance has been voted on but not yet adopted. Therefore technically, Serbia and Montenegro is still a country and it's article should not've been put in the past tense. Small but important facts. User:SuperWikiman 8:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, that is why I did not yet changed name of Serbia and Montenegro in another articles that mention it. Seems that we will have to wait a little. :) PANONIAN (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure, but we need to keep the present tense until the union is actually dissolved, just as we would wait until a president or prime minister is sworn in/appointed.   Morwen - Talk 14:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What will this country be called now? 

message: As a citizen of former Serbia & Montenegro, I say  that these 2 countries ARE seperated. There were the news on the TV that said that those 55.4% of positive votes for seperation of these 2 countries are enough to conclude that this union WILL be broken. News also said that during the next 3 days (during whom the votes will still be counted) the votes won't change much, so we could freely say that IT IS FINISHED. Boky 09:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The referendum gives Montenegro the right to declare independence. As far as I'm aware the declaration hasn't been made yet - until it is then Serbia and Montenegro still exists. Cynical 09:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbia & Montenegro ARE seperated 

message: Since the countries have split, should the article now be named "Former Serbia and Montenegro"? I know it may sound stupid, but it's like with Former Yugoslavia, right? Serbia has its own article and so does Montenegro. So... The Runescape Junkie 00:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's fairly obvious, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and State Union of Serbia and Montenegro will be chapters in the histories of Serbia and Montenegro. The only issue is which name to pick (the former name actually existed for more years than the latter). --Joy [shallot] 17:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What will happen with this article now? 

message: Tomorrow in 20:00 hours by the local time Montenegro will officially declare its independence, thus Serbia-Montenegro will be former state and we will have to change all articles related to it. I hope that more Wikipedia users will participate in this because it is pretty big job. PANONIAN (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't Montenegro need to enact some legislation before it is actually independent or is that is what is happening tomorrow? So independence happens before all the issues are resolved. If I remember correctly Czecholsovakia split with a timetable (see Velvet Divorce). I suppose that Montenegro has been pretty much independent for the past 9 years or so (except diplomatically, militarily, sports etc) Phil -- 18:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I just read in newspaper that Montenegro will officially declare its independence tomorrow. I think that future history books will mark that day as end of Serbia-Montenegro, no matter that it will take some time to fully dissolve its entire structure. PANONIAN (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As Serbia is taking the place of Serbia and Montenegro in all the international bodies I assume we can simply delete "and Montenegro" from the relevent pages or add an appropriate footnote. Once Montenegro itself becomes a member (for example of UEFA, FIFA, CoE, UN etc) then it can be added. Phil -- 12:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't there a "Serbia and Montenegro" team in the World Cup this year?  Will it stay as the "Serbia and Montenegro" team, or will it compete as simply the "Serbia" team? john k 16:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One more day