Template talk:Politics of Yugoslavia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Politics of Yugoslavia template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Yugoslavia Template‑class

	Template:Politics of Yugoslavia is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Wikipedia coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia articles
Template	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Image size[edit]

PRODUCER, there is no "standard size" for these templates, its naturally dictated by the proportions of the image in question. In other words, there's no policy or consensus on this, and the CoA looks unwieldy and inelegant at this overly-increased size. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Kingdom with communist symbols[edit]

Rather then to dispute like a little naughty child about a logo size, we should observe that this template has a communist symbol, and includes links to kings and electionsheld under the royal period. I don't find any other template in wikipedia with such a mega mix. I think that we should have two different template for the Kingdom and the SFR, or completely removing the CoA.--95.236.141.237 (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can't split the templates, and we have to have a coa. Since we have to choose one, we went with the last one, which is also the one that was in place longest. Communism and monarchy are just systems of government. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, looking to your userpage, you want to impose the idea that SFR was the real Yugoslavia, and that the Kingdom was something to hide.... This template is different from all others of its category: I don't see lists of kings here. --95.236.141.237 (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I'm not really interested in what you think about me, and I strongly advise you to comment on content, not on the contributor (WP:NPA). It goes without saying that I'm an "old school" Wikipedian :), and I always maintain (or do my utmost to maintain) absolute objectivity (NPOV). Your assertion that this template is somehow "different" because you think it is does not really carry a lot of weight. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your "weight" problem.....--95.236.141.237 (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying this template is "different", does not make it so. Especially when its no different than any other template about a country that changed systems of government... 13:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)--DIREKTOR ^(TALK)

Can you give me an exemple of this other template?--95.236.141.237 (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Template:Politics of [enter state name]". Template:Politics of Germany, for example. Should that template be split into two, or use the CoA of Nazi Germany? Be advised I'm getting tired of this. There is no viable alternative so the coa stays. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see links to Fuehrers or Kaisers or to elections of the 20's or to the Zentrum party in that template, that is a template about the Federal Republic of Germany. The exemple you found confirs my opinions, not yours.--95.236.141.237 (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope that this discussion wouldn't escalate into personal war bethween participants. Anyway, my opinion is that we have three choices: 1) To create two different templates, one for Kingdom and one for SFR Yugoslavia, 2) To remove current Socialist CoA, and 3) To delete current template completely. This is really rare case on Wikipedia; There is usually no template for a non-existing country. I hope that majority of participants in this discussion would agree to implement some of my sugestions. --Иван Богданов (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, there is no viable alternative so the coa stays. It will not be removed, it cannot be replaced, and we shall certainly not be creating new articles and templates because of an image. This nonsense charade is not much more than petty ridiculous POV-pushing over some IP's dislike of an image. I don't think there's much more to say. (Please do not remove content from the template.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Иван Богданов and I'll appreciate any of the three solutions he proposed.--95.236.141.237 (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You completely agree with yourself? I should hope so... :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merging the duplicate Template:SFRY sidebar[edit]

It's unused and largely consists of red links, but it has the same scope. Should these red links be carried over or should it be outright deleted? -Vipz (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]