| Revision as of 21:00, 23 January 2013 editPeacemaker67 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators95,467 edits →Puppet State of Serbia: this isn't it← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:28, 23 January 2013 edit undoAŽDAHABEZDAHA (talk | contribs)3 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| *'''Comment''', leaning to '''Delete'''. WP's whole coverage of what is commonly known as German-occupied Serbia (or something like that) is a mess, with multiple competing articles under multiple different names seemingly covering the same ground and duplicating material; or pretty much the same ground but with a twist so that people can claim they are actually about different things. Most of of them – including the main "Territory .." article – exist under made-up or little known names. We need one main article about the German occupation during WW2 of the area that comprises most of Serbia as commonly understood geographically, then and now, with spin-off articles about clearly defined and commonly understood aspects of that as necessary (eg the administrative structure/government etc). <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 20:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC) | *'''Comment''', leaning to '''Delete'''. WP's whole coverage of what is commonly known as German-occupied Serbia (or something like that) is a mess, with multiple competing articles under multiple different names seemingly covering the same ground and duplicating material; or pretty much the same ground but with a twist so that people can claim they are actually about different things. Most of of them – including the main "Territory .." article – exist under made-up or little known names. We need one main article about the German occupation during WW2 of the area that comprises most of Serbia as commonly understood geographically, then and now, with spin-off articles about clearly defined and commonly understood aspects of that as necessary (eg the administrative structure/government etc). <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 20:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| **Agree that it needs to be resolved, however, this is not the article to do it with. It is clearly a work-around. ] (]) 21:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC) | **Agree that it needs to be resolved, however, this is not the article to do it with. It is clearly a work-around. ] (]) 21:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| * '''KEEP''' Article is well sourced unlike territory of the commandeer, which have support from only one or two sources. ] (]) 21:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:28, 23 January 2013
Puppet State of Serbia
- Puppet State of Serbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is a content fork of Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia and Government of National Salvation Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. per nomination. There was an ongoing and quite vigorous discussion at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia (which was move blocked for a year in November 2012 after several unsuccessful WP:RMs) where some editors quite strongly advocated a move to a title that indicated that this territory was a puppet state). On 22 January 2013, a new account User:RogueSchoolar is created and its first edit is to create this article and then redirect all existing redirects to Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia to point to this article, including editing complex templates like Template:Yugoslavia timeline. A look at the 35 edits made immediately after account creation indicates that article creator is an obvious WP:SPA, and probably a sock. That aside, the article is an obvious WP:POVFORK. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Srnec (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- AFAICT, this is basically a violation of the WP:ARBMAC temporary injunction on moving the Territory... article. Speedy delete and block the bad-faith single-purpose account? --Joy (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Quite obvious POV-fork. And a reminder for everyone: we also need to deal with Axis occupation of Serbia. No such user (talk) 08:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- The Territory of... and the Axis occupation of ... articles can technically coexist, if one of them describes an administrative unit and the other describes history. However, descriptions of former administrative units are history in and of itself, so the merge potential is glaring. There's an apparently vocal group of editors who fancy former country articles, which in turn duplicate or make a mess of regular history articles. It's impossible to make a clean cut there without a more general decision by the community. --Joy (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Technically yes, because the Territory was German-administered (with Bulgarian help) but the Axis (ie Germans, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Italian-puppet Albania and the NDH) all occupied parts of what is now Serbia. What rankles me is the insistence on the ahistorical and revisionist philosophy that underpins Axis occupation of Serbia. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Didn't you say that you'd AfD that too if its scope wasn't clarified?--— ZjarriRrethues — 18:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Technically yes, because the Territory was German-administered (with Bulgarian help) but the Axis (ie Germans, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Italian-puppet Albania and the NDH) all occupied parts of what is now Serbia. What rankles me is the insistence on the ahistorical and revisionist philosophy that underpins Axis occupation of Serbia. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- The Territory of... and the Axis occupation of ... articles can technically coexist, if one of them describes an administrative unit and the other describes history. However, descriptions of former administrative units are history in and of itself, so the merge potential is glaring. There's an apparently vocal group of editors who fancy former country articles, which in turn duplicate or make a mess of regular history articles. It's impossible to make a clean cut there without a more general decision by the community. --Joy (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Keep – I do not agree that my new article is POVFORK of article Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. My article is much better sourced and most sources which speak about that time are speak about puppet state of Serbia rather than about territory of military commander. Article Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia fail to provide definition what that territory really was and what was relation between that territory and puppet state of Serbia which was described by most sources. Here is example of Kosovo case (there are 3 different articles about it):
Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija
All 3 articles are about 3 different entities that coexist in same territory. If such 3 articles are not POV fork why article about puppet state of Serbia is POV fork? Most sources say that there was puppet state of Serbia and minority of sources say that there was territory of military commander. My new article can even solve dispute about name for article Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. If there are two articles about both things described in sources then there will be no dispute about name of one article. Article Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia have support only from minority of sources and oppose majority of sources. If there are two entities that coexisted in same territory in that time Misplaced Pages should have articles about both. Article Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia primarily speak about German occupation and there should be article that speak about Serbian collaboration. Current article Government of National Salvation cover only part of that collaboration because that government had state to govern. RogueSchoolar (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- delete, clearly a POV fork. Frietjes (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment, leaning to Delete. WP's whole coverage of what is commonly known as German-occupied Serbia (or something like that) is a mess, with multiple competing articles under multiple different names seemingly covering the same ground and duplicating material; or pretty much the same ground but with a twist so that people can claim they are actually about different things. Most of of them – including the main "Territory .." article – exist under made-up or little known names. We need one main article about the German occupation during WW2 of the area that comprises most of Serbia as commonly understood geographically, then and now, with spin-off articles about clearly defined and commonly understood aspects of that as necessary (eg the administrative structure/government etc). N-HH talk/edits 20:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Agree that it needs to be resolved, however, this is not the article to do it with. It is clearly a work-around. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- KEEP Article is well sourced unlike territory of the commandeer, which have support from only one or two sources. AŽDAHABEZDAHA (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)