Talk:Military Administration in Serbia

Title of Article
I'm not sure this is title is sufficiently disambiguated. Couldn't this be confused with other periods? Maybe (1941-1944) should be added? Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge?
Imo this POV article by PANONIAN (created solely for the purpose of differentiating between his "Serbia country" and the Territory of the Military Commander) is also an excellent candidate for merging into the main article. -- Director  ( talk )  02:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm keen to hold onto these forks until the main article is fleshed out. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If we agree they're WP:POVFORKS they ought to be merged. The very act of "merging" entails ensuring the main article adequately covers the content from here. -- Director  ( talk )  07:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not agreeing that is what they are. There is so little in them, they couldn't be POV, unless you are suggesting that they are POV just because they exist... Or that there is no valid reason to create separate articles for the governments that operated in the Territory. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. A "POVFORK" (or often just "FORK" for short) is basically an article created to promote a POV in a dispute. These articles were all created by PANONIAN in one flurry, during a discussion, to push his same old claim that there was a WWII country called "Serbia" and that it is what the main article is about. Back then we did not know the territory was officially called "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia", and were referring to it by the name of its administration. In order to somehow separate his "country" from the German occupation, he created this empty article. He's prone to doing that sort of stuff.


 * I for one see no reason to cover the administration in a separate article. In fact I think it can be very elegantly and adequately covered as (part of) the TMCS. There are certain restrictions of WP:NOTABILITY that must be taken into account. -- Director  ( talk )  09:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not POV forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary, conform to Neutral Point of View.' That is what I believe is worth looking at with TMCS and this and the other two governmental forks. I will not be supporting a merge until the summary article is brought into order, and my initial position is that the three subarticles are justified. The only one I believe is under any threat at all  at present (purely on a WP:NOTABILITY basis, mind you) is the Commissioner Government, and as far as I am concerned, not yet. There is no need to rush to a merge when the main article is in such a parlous state. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well. Since you're the one leading the expansion over at the main article, for now I defer to your judgement. -- Director  ( talk )  11:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * *Support. Having tried to expand this article appropriately, I can't see how it will make any sense unless it is presented alongside the economic and police branches of the Military Commander in Serbia's staff. I have therefore changed my view, and I will now support the merge of this article into Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. I think we will have to give some thought as to how we present the material about how the staff branches worked, because it is fundamental to understanding the situation Nedić found himself in, with multiple 'bosses' and no clear lines of responsibility. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're changing your position?? In a dispute?! Based on sources research?! You're mad! Peacemaker, you're one in a million Wikipedians, I hope you know that :). I think we should keep you in a display case to demonstrate to others that one can do something like that and not die, since the opposite is usually the belief among participants on this project (myself not excluded). -- Director  ( talk )  05:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A discussion, Director, a discussion. Not a dispute. I'd never change my position in a dispute! :-) Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes well, close enough :-). Now, since I don't think anyone's very interested in this, should you do the honours or I? I don't want to cause offense again. -- Director  ( talk )  07:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)