Talk:German–Yugoslav Partisan negotiations

where is the link to archived discussions?
? ? ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.28.48 (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There aren't any yet. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox
I'm not very keen on the infobox that's just been added. Infoboxes are useful when they are a concise, accurate summary of relevant information. These negotiations aren't very susceptible to that sort of summarizations. The "Type: Negotiations" line seems of no value, and the "Theme" and "Participants" lines aren't really concise. All of this is in the first two sentences, which contain other useful context, so that the infobox is less informative than the first two sentences. I'd suggest removing it if it can't be improved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Late to this but I agree with removing it; one wasn't deemed necessary by the several people (me among them) who reviewed at MilHist ACR and FAC. I note it's now been removed anyway, which is in line with BRD -- if anyone wants to make a case for it they can still do so here at the talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I should have noted here that I removed it. I didn't think it was necessary when I developed the article, and still don't. Such a complex matter isn't well covered by an infobox. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Title, third time
In former Yugoslavia, these events are called March negotiations. There weren't any other. --  Bojan   Talk   02:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We are using a descriptive title rather than a common name, because "March negotiations" tells us nothing about what the subject is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Using same logic, e.g. Gulf War should be Iraq-American war (of 1991), cause Gulf War tells us nothing about what the subject is. Gulf War could be any war fought in any gulf or bay. March negotiations is simply common name in literature on South-Slavic languages. And also it is common in literature published on English language. It is even section in this article. There weren't negotiations between Germans and Yugoslav Partisans that cause controversy and deserved an encyclopedia article. --  Bojan   Talk   02:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not the same logic. You clearly need to read WP:TITLE. I suggest you read the characteristics of a good Wikipedia article title at WP:CRITERIA for starters. "March negotiations" would fail the recognisability and precision characteristics at a minimum, because it would pose more questions than it would answer (who was involved, for starters). The current title is vastly superior. As to your contention that "there weren't negotiations between Germans and Yugoslav Partisans that cause controversy and deserved an encyclopedia article", you surely must be joking. Clearly they were suppressed then later became well-known and controversial in Yugoslav historiography, and there are plenty of reliable secondary sources that describe them (many of which are used in the article). If you are not going to be serious, there is no point in discussing this with you. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)