Template talk:Yugoslav elections

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Elections and Referendums This template is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles Yugoslavia Template:Yugoslav elections 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

How about splitting to Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Council of Citizens election (Serbia), 1992, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Council of Citizens election (Montenegro), 1992, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Council of Citizens election (Serbia), 1996, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Council of Citizens election (Montenegro), 1996, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Council of Citizens election (Serbia), 2000, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Council of Citizens election (Montenegro), 2000, Nightstallion? --PaxEquilibrium 12:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also think about pulling out the elections for the 1931-1941 Senate separately from the parliamentary ones...how 'bout that? --PaxEquilibrium 12:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that as per precedent. However, were they direct elections, or were they only voted for by councillors or such? If the latter is the case, then they should not be on the template. I would disagree with the first suggestion though - that can be done in seperate sections in the election articles themselves.

Also, what about putting elections for the joint Serbia-Montenegro parliament from 2000-2006, as it was the successor state to Yugoslavia (we don't have a new one for Ethiopia following Eritrea's split). Number 57 13:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were separate elections for the Senate of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia - half of it was elected, and the other half appointed. Why do you disagree? The Republic of Serbia on its own elected 108 members of the parliament, and then (even on a different date) the Republic of Montenegro would elect its 30 representatives, which're later combined into the Council of Citizens of the Federal Assembly of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

There were no elections in the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. --PaxEquilibrium 15:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have split the Senate results - Is the Council of Republics effectively a Senate too? Number 57 13:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, it has the same role - the role of the Senate was as a representative body of the Banates and the role of the Council of Republics' role was that of as a representative body of the Republics. However, in 1931-1941 there were a National Assembly and a Senate - in 1992-2003 there was a single bicameral Federal Assembly. --PaxEquilibrium 15:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the "Senate" line could be changed to "Upper House"? From what you've said this might be problematic, as it doesn't really look like an Upper House, but if you think so, then I'll go with it. Otherwise, we could have another line, but it would look a bit strange for one election. Number 57 11:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the solution seams a bit sympathetic, well, you already get the problem. Rather you decide, since it's your idea. --PaxEquilibrium 11:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FR Yugoslavia is not the successor to SFR Yugoslavia. This isn't my opinion, but what the Badinter Commission says. FR Yugo's elections therefore don't belong in the same template with these Royal Yugo elections, just as Croatian, Bosnian, etc. elections don't belong here either. --Thewanderer 14:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is not a comment on the political status, but rather a tool for navigating between elections in a country called Yugoslavia. As there was still a country called Yugoslavia after 1992, it seems a bit pointless to have a separate template. Number 57 14:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it's not that simple. The two states had vastly different borders, and vastly different ethnic compositions regardless of what it was called. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia's politics were largely based on ethnic principles as it was a genuinely multi-ethnic nation, while FR Yugoslavia was an overwhelmingly Serb state led for the most-part by a man who waged war on the other successor states of SFR Yugo (for, at least, some time). Considering FR Yugoslavia the successor state is offensive to people from other ex-Yu countries and innaccurate.--Thewanderer 14:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Badinter Commission showed worthless in the end, didn't it? ;) Also according to the 1992 Constitution of FRY its the successor of SFRY, and it was created as a remains of the remains of Yugoslavia. Recognition of its successorship was a subject of the 1995 Dayton Accords, and was internationally recognized on 1 November 2000 when representatives of its first democratic government went to New York.

In the end I get what you mean (btw that man became its President in 1997, when there was no war in other ex Yugoslav countries IMHO), but that's Yugoslavia too, and this is a simple table. Take the African countries as an example. AFAIK all these users advised me to just put all 1920-1938 and 1992-2000 plainly over at Template:Serbian elections, just because of successorship and order. :)

P.S. Also I wouldn't call it "an overwhelmingly Serb state", but a Serbo-Montenegrin state. --PaxEquilibrium 15:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but we cannot put these two countries in the same bag.
Badinteurs Committee worthless?? What are you talking about? Do you know how far-reaching were its conclusions? Forget your wishie-wishes.
All countries are equal successors, it's only the Serbia and Montegro that insisted that they're the only successors (all other republics find them as normal to be equal successors).
Don't use Wikipedia as Greater Serbian virtual wishie-wish world. Kubura (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. The Badinter Commission was in 1991, before the FRY was created

2. The Badinter Commission had an advisory character

3. The Badinter Commission advised against Croatia's independence. Croatia has declared independence and was recognized by Germany, later followed by the international community

4. The Badinter Commission advised against Bosnia and Herzegovina's independence. Bosnia has declared independence and was recognized by Germany, later followed by the international community

5. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has proclaimed itself successor-state to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; it was, as such, recognized and accepted into the international community. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I missed this fallacy earlier.) No, the FRY only proclaimed itself as such, but it was not recognized as such or accepted into the international community. The lead section of its article clearly explains how the UN did not accept this proclamation, and how ten years later they themselves finally ceded on the issue. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply change to "Yugoslavian", rather than the whole "Kingdom of..."? --PaxEquilibrium 19:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that. Number 57 20:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the SCS Kingdom? --PaxEquilibrium 15:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Lacking further counter-arguments, I will restore the properly delineated version. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have split it to create a new {{Serbia and Montenegro elections}}. Number 57 08:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've done it, but you could also have done - be WP:BOLD! Number 57 12:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]