Template talk:Yugoslav elections

message: Why not simply change to "Yugoslavian", rather than the whole "Kingdom of..."? --PaxEquilibrium 19:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support that. Number 57 20:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what about the SCS Kingdom? --PaxEquilibrium 15:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would leave that as it is, unless the country commonly went by the name of Yugoslavia even then? Number 57 16:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Serbia, Montenegro and South Slavic lands in Austria-Hungary were commonly referred to as "Yugoslavia", a term which was fully implemented during the Great War. --PaxEquilibrium 12:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I wouldn't do that. "Yugoslavian" for KoY is okay, but we should leave SCS as SCS. —Nightstallion 16:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: No. The scheme that uses the proper country name is consistent. Making the distinction between KSHS and KoY in titles but not between KoY and FRY is really silly. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to separate them in this template - that is the job of a history article or template. Number 57 12:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, there is, because a common list implies a degree of commonality between these disjunct groups of entities that did not exist in practice. There's a world of difference between the kingdom and the federal republic, and the existence of a common template based on their commonality (one that exists, but is not major). Indeed, the commonality between the missing link SFR Yugoslavia and FR Yugoslavia was contested at so many levels, so even the existence of a common template as such might reasonably be contested. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is, are all three entities legal successors of each other in the same way that Imperial Germany, Weimer Germany and the Federal Republic of Germany are? If so, then there is no problem. As far as I am aware, they are all legally the same entity - for instance the FR retained the membership of international organisations that the SFR had. Number 57 13:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, that's the thing, they aren't. FRY was not the sole successor to SFRY, following Arbitration Commission of the Peace Conference on the former Yugoslavia and relevant United Nations decisions (requiring them to apply for membership like all others, etc). This is documented in the relevant articles. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  So then do we have any actual objections to splitting the timelines, indeed splitting the templates between one that lists KSHS+KoY+SFRY and one that lists FRY elections? I propose we do that, as well as revert to article titles that use canonical country names. There was nothing really wrong with them, and using generic names just brings in a superfluous implication of continuity. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lacking further counter-arguments, I will restore the properly delineated version. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have split it to create a new . Number 57 08:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, now you're really starting to be obstinate. Why exactly are you acting this way? What exactly bothers you about having clear, informative navboxes? Are you enforcing some sort of a policy or guideline I'm not aware of? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If I was being obstinate, I would have refused to separate the templates. The reason for my latest edit: they can all be described as parliamentary elections regardless of the composition of the Assembly, so there is no need to complicate the template (some countries have had a different composition every few years and separating them would make the templates unreadable). Number 57 21:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  But I'm not suggesting we change election navboxes for all sorts of other countries, only this one (these two) where the set of differences is very well defined and finite - there were exactly two historically distinct countries with two distinct systems, and they each had a different set of elections - the rules, territories and actors of the two sets simply did not match. And the buck stops there - it's all in the past, so it cannot expand further. We even ignore the difference between KoSHS and KoY in the interest of conciseness. I fail to see how this simple, elementary distinction that matches the supporting articles would be a needless complication. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

text: As for the linguistic issue, "Yugoslavian" is not the proper demonym, Yugoslav is. I realize now that I can't cite a source trivially, but the longer form just seems so clumsy, and I'm not even a native speaker :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As a native speaker, I can assure you that Yugoslavian is not clumsy - it is far more common (in speech at least) as the main English method of creating demonyms for countries ending in "ia" is simply to add an "n" to the end. We have similar problems that people even more pedantic than myself will insist that "Slovak" is the proper demonym, when 99 out of 100 people on the street will say "Slovakian". Number 57 13:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, that doesn't strike me as a particularly encyclopedic rationale :) But anyway, we can skip that issue by using canonical names. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Someone should put in the 1945 referendum/election between Monarchy and Republic (the King and Tito).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SavoRastko (talk • contribs) 11:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done it, but you could also have done - be WP:BOLD! Number 57 12:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  1945 referendum 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Yugoslavian parliamentary election, May 1992 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 17:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Yet another point remained unfixed and unexplained - the grouping of SFRY elections under "parliamentary elections" together with the KoY elections, and that in turn pointing to Parliament of Yugoslavia, which clearly explains the single-party system. It's unclear to me why these should be listed together and not in separate groups. Surely a drastic change in political system warrants at least a linebreak. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  SFRY elections