Talk:German–Yugoslav Partisan negotiations/Archive 1

Title
Closed thread regarding naming of article - resolved Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Once more for old times, eh, Antidiskriminator? Yet another title that is completely disconnected from WP:TITLE. Who in the world is going to search for this topic as "March negotiations"? Please just move it to "German-Partisan negotiations", if you must have a "working title". At least people might have some idea what this article is about. This is even more generic than "Moslem militia", if that is even possible. Your titling of new articles is actually becoming tendentious. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've moved it. If you move it back without preceding with a cogent discussion of how the old title is a better one in terms of WP:TITLE, I'll be taking it, Moslem Militia and June Uprising in Eastern Herzegovina to WP:ANI as examples of tendentious article title creation and WP:IDHT. By now you should be getting the message, surely. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There was nothing tendentious in naming this article. The title I gave to this article corresponds to the name used in Serbian language sources for this event and on sr.wikipedia and sh.wikipedia. The same title has been used by multiple English language sources. It is easy to Google it. Some sources even emphasize that this German-Partisan negotiations "has subsequently become known as the 'March Negotiations'".
 * There was nothing tendentious in naming Moslem Militia and June Uprising in Eastern Herzegovina. You actually supported those names I created for those articles, only with different capitalization (diff) or disambiguated (diff). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You again wrote another unnecessarily harsh comment to me threatening to report me. Almost every single comment you write to me is unnecessarily harsh and contains unjustified accusation and violation of AGF which made editing of many articles unpleasant for me and discouraged me from further editing. In order to avoid being subjected to this kind of treatment this will be my last comment in this article. This page is removed from my watchlist, like all other pages you chased me away from. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How many times do I have to remind you, this is ENGLISH Wikipedia, not Serbian or Serbo-Croat WP. It is tendentious to create articles using titles that clearly do not meet WP:TITLE. I'm also sick of the tendentious carping on about how "harsh" I am. Keeping a list of all the articles you have decided not to edit anymore because you get challenged about sources or your POV is equally tendentious and transparent. I look forward to the day you try to bring all this up in order to have me banned or blocked. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Title
In my opinion, the new title is awkward. "German–Partisan negotiations in Yugoslavia" or "German negotiations with the Yugoslav Partisans" would be better. Srnec (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the second suggested title would make it appear that the Germans initiated the negotiations, and "in Yugoslavia" in the first one is pretty much redundant. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If "in Yugoslavia" is redundant, then why did you move the article from German–Partisan negotiations? Srnec (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Because it was pointed out in the ACR that it needed further clarity...? Where else could German-Partisan negotiations occur? The Soviet Union. So I used the full common name of the Partisans. You and I might feel only the Yugoslav Partisans should have an initial capital P, but others may not agree or even get it. It is clear now, I don't see it as awkward. You can RM if is you want a wider view. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)