Talk:World War II in Yugoslavia/Archive 7

missing content
The article mentions concentration camps in the lead and in the casualty sections, but doesn't mention them in the main chronology. I guess it can be said that they weren't places of battle so it's hard to compose them in, but still, the main ones need to be mentioned. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * They should be listed under the territory in which they were established ie NDH, or the force responsible ie Ustase, Germans, etc I think. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think those articles already mention the camps. I'm saying this one should, too, because they were a significant feature of World War II in Yugoslavia. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Invasion of Yugoslavia and the Balkan Campaign
So, does this article include the Invasion of Yugoslavia? I completely forgot about this problem when the move was being discussed: the current title is that of an article that includes the Invasion of Yugoslavia within its scope, which rightly belongs in the context of the Balkan Campaign. In other words, it would be silly to suggest that the Invasion of Yugoslavia was followed by "World War II in Yugoslavia", as we do now.

Because the present title doesn't really correspond to the scope, we can only logically either modify the scope and include the Invasion, or we can modify the title. The problem is that turning this into an article about a meta-conflict that includes the Invasion, is not only artificial, but creates WP:OVERLAP with the Balkan Campaign article.

Sigh.. This war is a separate conflict from the Invasion. And I again point out these problems are all created by the arbitrary rejection, by way of bare user "consensus", of the only accurate (and widely used) term we have available. -- Director  ( talk )  09:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Unsurpisingly perhaps, I don't follow your logic. The Balkan Campaign was short, like the invasion of Yugoslavia. The Battle for Greece would be part of WWII in Greece (or whatever it is called), AND the Balkan Campaign. There is no reason whatsoever that this article cannot include the invasion. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the current "Invasion" section should be renamed "Capitulation" with the two first paragraphs edited, and a new "Invasion" section created before that with a brief summary of the invasion motives and the military campaign in a couple of paragraphs. walk victor falktalk 11:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * For clarity, are you or are you not suggesting the invasion should be part of the scope of this article? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do we even need an article on the Balkan Campaign of 1940–41? Couldn't we just convert it to a "set index" listing the Greco-Italian war, invasion of Yugoslavia, battle of Greece and battle of Crete? Srnec (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the Balkan Campaign is highly notable as a subject. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What role does the Balkan campaign article play? I can't see that it does anything but point the reader to other articles, which is more easily and reliably done with a list. It's a classic case of redundancy by cannibalisation. The article has one footnote. Srnec (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The "Yugoslav Front" was a war that followed the Invasion of Yugoslavia, that's how these articles are written (it matters not at all how brief or long either of them were). I am merely pointing to the fact that the title does not currently correspond to the scope of the article: the title "World War II in Yugoslavia" clearly includes the Invasion of Yugoslavia, whereas neither this nor the Invasion article are written in that way. As I said, either we modify this article's scope, or its title.

And I add, as I did, that I am not in favor of modifying this article's scope to include the Invasion. The guerrilla war (essentially between the Partisans and Germany) is a completely separate conflict, that one way or the other deserves its own article. And the Invasion is tucked very neatly into the Balkan Campaign. I think this is a problem we did not address in the RM.. -- Director  ( talk )  12:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Director.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not a "separate conflict", it was a direct consequence of the invasion and division of the country (as well as internal political issues that had not been resolved between the wars). The Germans and to a lesser extent, the Italians, by invading the country and doing what they did in terms of dividing it, set the conditions for the fighting that followed between themselves as occupiers and the resistance, as well as the fighting between the various factions. IMO, this article, with its current title, should incorporate all things that happened in Yugoslavia during WWII, including the events that occurred between 1 September 1939 and 6 April 1941, as well as the invasion itself, the fighting that occurred within it while the country was occupied/annexed/puppet-stated?/whatever, and the eventual expulsion of Axis forces and their helpers from the borders of Yugoslavia and the end of WWII in Europe. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is then also a "direct consequence" of the First World War, whereby Yugoslavia was formed, necessitating a renewal of conflict in the region and its subsequent future re-dismemberment by Germany. And of the opening of the Eastern Front of World War II, which caused Tito's Partisans to receive the go ahead to start an actual conflict. I could go on..


 * The point is that one conflict causing another does not mean they are the same conflict, i.e. that they should be covered as a whole. The combatants are different. There is a distinct time gap. The nature of the fighting and of the conflict as a whole - are entirely different. -- Director  ( talk )  13:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * For any other area, this would not be a problem. Peacemaker's comments are perfectly reasonable in this regard. Writing about Yugoslavia would certainly involve a discussion of WWI as you observe Direktor, but WWI was several rounds of "direct consequences" before this one! This is a real non-issue in my opinion. Brigade Piron (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * They are reasonable, but they do not relate to the issue: one conflict causing another does not mean they are one; its a non sequitur. Indeed, it can be argued Operation Barbarossa is probably more a cause of the guerrilla war than the Invasion, as the Communists would likely have organized trouble even had Yugoslavia remained unoccupied and in the Axis, and would certainly have kept quiet had there been no Barbarossa.. The Invasion of Yugoslavia is almost always covered in the context of the Balkan Campaign, whereas it is mentioned merely as the prelude in publications covering the guerrilla war.
 * Well.. does the article or does it not include the Invasion of Yugoslavia within its scope? Do we need another tier in the infobox? -- Director  ( talk )  13:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

As usual, I don't see any point whatsoever in employing finicky compartmentalization with regard to history articles. The invasion was the first part of WWII in Yugoslavia. It was also a part of the Balkans Campaign. It has its own article, and it's summarized in the articles with broader scope. It also has 'child' articles, such as the two order of battle articles, which are in turn summarized in it. On the other hand, the occupation+resistance doesn't have the same layout - the parent article could be German-occupied Europe, but it's just a list; the child articles about those more generic concepts don't exist, but numerous articles do exist covering specific occupations, administrations, factions, massacres, uprisings, battles, war heroes, etc. Through numerous examples, we have already established a consensus that we really needed an article of this scope, but didn't really need an article with the scope of "people's liberation war sans invasion" and esp. not one with an odd name. That horse is dead and buried. I've actually gone through this article and organized it in a normal chronological manner, and I've also gone through a myriad of references to the old article name, only to find that it was actually used in but a dozen or so actual sentences, while everything else was largely artificial - mainly infoboxes, but also many see also lists, and some clumsily written sentences, pipe links, etc. The Yugoslav term, while slanted, is also used in context in a bunch of specific articles, and pretty much nowhere else. As it stands, the premise to this discussion is largely passe. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, this is a relevant issue: does this article, or does it not, include the Invasion of Yugoslavia? by the consensus of all you fine non-nitpicky gentlemen? No amount of nonchalance can make sense of an article that both is and is not just one part of its own scope. -- Director  ( talk )  14:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Clearly you (and Antidiskriminator) remain in the minority here. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to remain "in the minority", if I only knew which "minority" that is. The point of this thread is to ask the question: is the Invasion of Yugoslavia a part of the scope? Now if the ruling clique would be so kind as to make a ruling on the issue, I could proceed to edit the article without fear of being overruled by the bosses. -- Director  ( talk )  14:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The title of this article implies that the invasion falls within its scope. If it is not supposed to, then we screwed up the title. Srnec (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Up to this point, and at the time of the title change, the article did not include the Invasion of Yugoslavia within its scope. The problem completely slipped my mind at the time of the RM, I'm sorry. The title introduced corresponds to a wider scope than the article had, or has currently. Hence, as I said, we can either change the scope, or the title. Do we include the Invasion here (with a third tier in the infobox and all the other edits that would necessitate)? I am against that scope expansion, for several reasons as I explained, but either way some kind of consensus should be made on this. -- Director  ( talk )  15:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No. Even prior to the latest move discussion, this article had summarized the invasion (because it needed to do so - otherwise it would have been missing its own premise). Link for trivial verification. Saying that the people involved in the discussion the other day somehow "missed" the fact that the "World War II in Yugoslavia" article has the "World War II invasion of Yugoslavia" in its scope - is an outright insult to the most basic reading comprehension of all those people. Please stop doing that. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, so we're pretending that the Background section means the article included the Invasion? Well, see, if that was the case, it wouldn't have been called the "Background" section, would it?
 * Please, Joy, do not insult my intelligence here, and that of everyone else. There is no question whatsoever that the "Yugoslav Front" and Invasion of Yugoslavia were (and really still are) covered as two separate conflicts, each in their own article. The Yugoslav Front is the "Aftermath" in Invasion of Yugoslavia, and the Invasion is the "Background" at Yugoslav Front. Well of course you're going to mention and summarize previous events, but by your definition, the Invasion of Poland is part of the scope at Battle of France ("trivial verification"). Of course the Background section mentions the Invasion of Yugoslavia, or "summarizes" it, whatever - but it also mentions more, it mentions events after the Invasion, and in general: the damn "background" to its topic. This article most certainly did NOT include the Invasion of Yugoslavia as its topic at any point in its entire history. I ought to know: I wrote both its infobox, and much of the lede.


 * I get everyone is sick and tired of this issue, but I didn't expect we'd be trying to warp reality. The article does not include the Invasion, and never did. Lets decide whether or not it should. -- Director  ( talk )  19:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That the section was called "background" was clearly a sign of divine providence (not just of the fact that the old title implied a slightly narrower scope). Then all these weird, annoying people came, and clearly decided to rain on your parade (not just to slightly expand that scope by moving to a more appropriate article title). The horror! And even worse, those bastards have actually won this battle, because apparently one of the ways of gaming the system is employing a sneaky technique they call "consensus". But there's no limit to the amount of discussions we can start, so the war is not lost!
 * --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't "personal" for me at all - which is more than can be said for you, apparently. I repeat: at no point in its entire history will you find this article stating the Invasion of Yugoslavia was its topic. Before I worked on it, afterward, you name it. And in its original conception, some time before I even signed up, you will find it titled "People's Liberation War". The Kingdom of Yugoslavia won't be in its infobox, and at all times you will find the topic clearly defined as being the conflict between the resistance and the occupation. Naturally the article with such a topic must mention that the occupation actually took place, but to claim that therefore its topic includes the Invasion - is just plain silly. Stop it. -- Director  ( talk )  20:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am re-considering my views on this. I have gone back and re-read the RM arguments, and I can see that the consensus was not for a scope change, it was for a title change to match the scope (which is the resistance to occupation and civil war post the invasion until the end of the war). Nearly everyone (including me) was opposed to National Liberation War, for a range of what I consider legitimate policy reasons, so we chose a neutral descriptive title, which I think nearly gets us to where we need to go. It may be that we need to tweak the current title to ensure that the scope of this article is clearer. The issue I see is that while the current title makes it clear that this article only relates to activities in the territory of Yugoslavia during WWII, we are missing something that narrows the WWII temporal aspect so that it only includes the period after the invasion, and does not include the period before it (except as necessary background). To me, the defining adjective for the territory of Yugoslavia during that period is "occupation". Regardless of the fact that there were annexations, a puppet state and other diabolically convoluted arrangements, Axis troops effectively occupied all of the territory of Yugoslavia from 18 April 1941 until they were pushed out. This started in a small way from September 1944, but continued through to the end of the war. We have no need to split straws in this latter regard. The defining characteristic of the territory of Yugoslavia in the period that falls within the scope of this article was "occupied". I suggest we should consider tweaking the title to make it "World War II in occupied Yugoslavia". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That'd do it, and would solve the problem. I will still say, though, that the fundamental reason I dislike descriptive titles like these is that they doesn't define the conflict as an entity of its own, but merely as the course of WWII in a specific geographic area. Its not technically wrong, but its not the best choice either. Its like renaming the Eastern Front to "World War II in the Soviet Union", or the Vietnam War "Cold War in Vietnam".. For example: "the Invasion of Yugoslavia was followed by World War II in occupied Yugoslavia" doesn't sound well. "The Invasion was followed by the Yugoslav Front" or "NLW", that makes sense. -- Director  ( talk )  04:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As I say, I think "World War II in occupied Yugoslavia" is the solution to the issue. I know you do not like NDESC titles, but I myself have no problem with them so long as they are within the title guidance. I am not swayed by your argument with respect to NLW, and I think it was clear during the RM that the consensus is firmly against it. He's dead Jim. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Its a good idea, and I'm for it. At least until the next episode. -- Director  ( talk )  05:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Its a good idea, and I'm for it. At least until the next episode. -- Director  ( talk )  05:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

arbitary break
Given your involvement in the pretty wide-ranging RM above and its weak consensus for the current title, it would helpful if you could indicate below whether you support or oppose World War II in occupied Yugoslavia as a title tweak (for the reasons explained in the relatively short discussion above). Can I say that I believe the issue of whether there should be a separate Yugoslavia in World War II article is a matter for further discussion, I'm just focussed on making sure this one reflects what we think it should reflect. I must credit FkpCascais with suggesting it during the RM. Thanks, Fkp! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC) *Support I think the situation is very similar to German occupation of Norway, which is the "main" Norway in WWII article, while the invasion of Norway is covered in "Operation Weserübung". walk victor falktalk 07:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. -- Director  ( talk )  06:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support yes In ictu oculi (talk) 06:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I forgot a small detail. Yugoslavia was a liberated country 1944-45. As I said in the RM, it was one of the things that "Yugoslav front" had going for it, it covered the fighting as the southernmost part of the Eastern Front. It would be a bit like having an German occupation of France (1940-45) article (the last of the Atlantic pockets did not surrender until 10 May 1945, but saying that France was occupied because of that is pedantry of the worst kind). I'm not saying I oppose the proposal, but I think this should at least be more thoroughly discussed before we change the name. walk victor falktalk 07:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually thought of that myself, but didn't want to bring it up.. :) Technically parts of Yugoslavia were still "occupied", but the conflict wasn't taking place "in" the occupied areas by that point (at least not the main part). I won't change my "vote", because this is definitely a better descriptive title and I can't think of any others that would actually reflect the scope properly. Descriptive titles, that is. -- Director  ( talk )  07:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is not an accurate characterisation of the "liberation" (if you can call it that). Yugoslavia only began to be "liberated" when the Red Army moved into what is now Serbia, in late 1944. They did not move forward beyond Serbia until early in 1945. Yes, there were parts of the Yugoslavia that had been "liberated" by the Partisans that were behind the Syrmian Front, but to characterise Yugoslavia as "a liberated country 1944-45" is factually incorrect. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * They did move beyond Serbia, holding Macedonia, Montenegro, and much of Bosnia and Croatia (including the entire Dalmatian coast) . But be that as it may, the war was in its final phase fought mainly along a proper front, not "in occupied" territory. With this I merely hope to clarify my above comment.. as I said, I can't think of any better title short of NLW. -- Director  ( talk )  07:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Checking Syrmian front, I see that the Axis still held large parts of Croatia and Bosnia in April 1945, whereas I thought they had been reduced to Slovenia much earlier. Nevertheless, Alsace-Lorraine was still under German control it the early months of 1945. This line of discussion leads nowhere but to sagital tetrapylectomies on arguing that a country with 33% of territory is occupied while one with 25% is not. As says, the important principle is that Yugoslav units fought along a conventional front. walk  <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 08:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the current title is no better. Worse, in fact. Even if we did expand the scope to include the Invasion, the guerrilla war itself more than justifies its own, new article. -- Director  ( talk )  09:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Victor, I can't speak for that article, but Alsace-Lorraine has no relationship in terms of size to the amount of Yugoslavia that was still under Axis control or occupation at the beginning of 1945 (for example). In early March 1945, a fairly potent Waffen-SS division was still holding Zenica in north central Bosnia. Things in Yugoslavia accelerated in the last months of the war. We are talking about an occupation that was effectively in place from April 1941 to October 1944 at the very earliest (ie 3.5 years), and probably more like early 1945. So, you are really talking about the period from January 1945 until May 1945 (ie five months out of forty-odd months). You may be more familiar with France, but comparisons between France and Yugoslavia in this respect (and others) are completely inappropriate here. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right, France had substantial numbers of conventional troops before the liberation, so they could hit the ground running. And most of France was liberated within weeks of the landings, while the liberation of Yugoslavia was much more gradual from Belgrade to the end of the war. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 12:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's actually a common misconception. It took the Allies two months just to break out of Normandy past Caen, due to a truly impressive German defense (and unimpressive Allied offense). They reached Paris some eleven weeks after the landings. -- Director  ( talk )  13:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I said "weeks", not "a few weeks". 12 weeks or 3 months was exactly what I meant. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 00:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support to Occupation of Yugoslavia during World War II, per dozens of similarly titled articles. Whatever was said about "WWII in..." vs. "...in WWII", this really is semantic.Brigade Piron (talk) 07:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, I believe the RM consensus was that it wasn't semantic. IMO, such a title would change the meaning, making it about the occupation, not the war in the territory of Yugoslavia. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Occupation of Yugoslavia during WWII": this article is about a full-scale military conflict, not an occupation (as explained in detail back in the RM). -- Director  ( talk )  07:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose this kind of reasoning from the get-go, both procedurally and factually. Even if we ignore for a moment that we just had a very long and informative discussion that led to a very reasonable solution, which we should not do because it's a violation of WP:CONS, this kind of a change would still be mostly useless - people still expect us to have a "World War II in Yugoslavia" article. If you want to create this kind of an article, one that would focus on the occupation - feel free to try, the name is available, the names occupation of Yugoslavia and occupied Yugoslavia are also available and I've seeded a fair few links to there. And then come back here and make this a bit more of a summary article. But none of this "oh we didn't really mean to do this". Yes, we did mean it. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Joy, it's a tweak. And if you read the RM discussion, there was quite a bit of discussion about not changing the scope. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Tweak or no tweak, it's contrary to the consensus reached in the recent move discussion. Besides, where exactly is the rush to tune this title? Why not create the incoming redirect World War II in occupied Yugoslavia and start linking that, and see if you get to a point where this is the most contextually appropriate and popular option? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That kind of misses the point about not changing the scope, does it not? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What point about not changing the scope? Requested moves aren't bound by arbitrary definitions of scope. If there's a broad consensus to use some title for some content, that's it. We don't place arbitrary limits on those decisions. Wikipedia isn't the legal system... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What are you going on about? Isn't broad consensus being sought right now? And there's a "broad consensus" for the current scope. Whether you choose to ignore that fact or not, the title and the scope must correspond (yes, "legally"). -- Director  ( talk )  08:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Joy, I think this is an entirely legitimate discussion, and the idea that it is somehow not is rather strange, IMO. I appreciate the amount of work you have done in ridding en WP of the "Yugoslav Front" thingie, but there wasn't consensus for changing the scope of this article, and the the idea that in some way I or Director are wikilawyering or acting contrary to what was a "weak consensus" (acknowledged by the closing admin) by wanting to tweak it is a bit weird, frankly. If this is successful, I'm happy to do my bit gnoming out the changes. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If a requested move discussion changed the scope of an article by changing its title, which is what you two appear to believe had happened, then the scope has already been changed. The discussion was had and the option that prevailed changed the scope. If you want to change it back, you have to present some new reasons, as opposed to a claim that the interpretation of that consensus magically missed this issue. They can't have missed it. If you really think they did, you can file a WP:MR request. If you don't do that, then you accept that the move reflected consensus. But then you're not supposed to make changes to that recently determined consensus, because that can easily be considered disruptive per WP:CCC. I don't think you meant it to be disruptive, but it's having such an effect - we're rehashing and rehashing and rehashing. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that is certainly not my perception. The scope was not changed, and in general does not automatically change with the title, unless there is consensus for that as well as part of the RM (which is sometimes the case - and that may be the root of your apparent confusion). In our RM there is no such consensus, the problem seems to have been basically forgotten, and all one can find is opposition to changes in the scope. Only you seem to subscribe to the weird notion that titles determine the topic, as opposed to vice versa. WP:NAME states clearly in its lede that the title is to be the "name of the subject" or the "description of the topic". Not that the article is an elaboration on the topic set out by the title.. Indeed thankfully, as such a system would be very silly. Fundamentally, the title depends on the scope, not vice versa.


 * But this is moot. The whole point of this thread, as I keep pointing out, is to determine the position of participants on whether or not the scope should be (or has been) changed to such as would correspond to this title. I do not see a consensus for that change, and do myself disagree with it. -- Director  ( talk )  19:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't subscribe to the notion that names determine the topic. I subscribe to the notion that when we already have consensus for one specific name, discussed at length, then that specific name already determines the topic. If that discussion did not produce a proper consensus, then the proper recourse is to file for a move review, rather than appear to sidestep it like this. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "I don't subscribe to the notion that names determine the topic, unless the name is there by consensus, in which case it does determine the topic"?


 * There is no automatic change of scope, and titles do not determine topics. Hence, you're looking at this the other way around. As there has been no agreement to include the Invasion into this article, the burden of consensus is on anyone supporting the scope expansion (which is the point of this thread). And if there is no such consensus, then the error which slipped all our minds during the RM should be rectified, quickly and efficiently, without much fuss. You shouldn't find yourself defending, out of spite (za dišpet)?, a state of affairs where the title misleads the reader as to the article's content (a fruit article talking only about apples). -- Director  ( talk )  12:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No, consensus determines the topic. And in this case, pure, unadulterated logic seems to have determined the topic. The WWII invasion of $country was part of WWII in $country, because that's egregiously obvious. Well, it's obvious if you ask anyone who actually uses the English language simply to convey information, as opposed to using it for arbitrary wikilawyering. Talking about the occupation of Yugoslavia without actually saying that it happened would be nonsensical. The distinction of whether we talk about it in a section called "background" or "that part of 1941 that is before May but after March" - is utterly meaningless to the readers. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "No"? of course consensus determines the topic. But in our RM any scope expansions were at best left unaddressed, and it seems actually rejected. Because of the uncertainty I posted this thread to ask the question: had we expanded/should we expand the scope. And there doesn't seem to be consensus for that. How can you pretend the topic was changed, "by consensus" no less, when more than half of the participants appear to oppose that move? Clearly, the matter was simply forgotten, and the oversight should be swiftly amended. -- Director  ( talk )  19:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Of the 23 people notified here, only 5 have so far expressed support for this proposal, and another one proposed something similar; before we judge that "more than half of the participants" did anything, let's wait for that to actually happen. (JFTR the current title was supported by 12 people.) But more to the point, none of them "appear to oppose that move" because that's simply not the question asked! (This kind of faulty reasoning is mind-boggling.) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you direct your attention to the top of the thread, you will notice that is precisely what is being asked. By "participants", I referred to users willing to render an opinion on this specific question. As I said, you can not infer consensus for a scope expansion from the above RM. -- Director  ( talk )  08:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * People canvassed here aren't all responding to the whole kit and caboodle, they're !voting on the specific proposal. As for RM consensus, we clearly have to agree to disagree, I won't waste any more effort on restating my position about that. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh no, we agree, you just said: "names don't determine the topic". All titles are more or less there by consensus, that makes them no more or less capable of changing the topic, unless such a change is also agreed upon as part of the consensus-building process. Which was not the case here. Here nobody realized that the title foes not quite correspond to the scope this article had since its conception. -- Director  ( talk )  09:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - I agree that this issue needs to be handled, mentioned it myself shortly before closure of previous RM, proposed adjustment seems a sufficient fix.--Staberinde (talk) 09:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The very first sentence, and most of the first paragraph, of the lead and the first main section in the main body are rather explicitly about the invasion (with the latter provding a link to the main, more detailed page on the invasion itself). I don't quite understand why a whole debate has suddenly been kicked off on this with the question "So, does this article include the Invasion of Yugoslavia?" Even if it did not, although adding the qualifier " .. in occupied Yugoslavia" might arguably have added some clarity and precision, I'm still not sure it would be required or that it would be incorrect or misleading not to have it. This seems to be the proverbial solution in search of a problem.  N-HH   talk / edits  10:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously? The lead has been significantly modified since these discussions began. Here is a diff. And Victor has added material to the first section today... An attempt to provide additional (quite reasonable. IMO) clarity and precision does not make this "a solution in search of a problem", it is merely a tweak. I fail to see what the problem would be with improving clarity and precision. They are principles of WP:TITLE after all. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, seriously. That wouldn't be a helpful response to a perfectly reasonable observation, even if the the logic that followed held up. Which it doesn't: since this dicussion began, about adding "occupied", this is the only edit that has been made to the page (you've amended your orginal comment to refer more specifically to this edit since I started writing this). And even your diff shows that the lead briefly detailed the invasion in its first sentence back at the beginning of May, just as it does now but with marginally different phrasing, rather than revealing significant changes. Hence my observations about the lead – not to mention the first section, which was barely touched, bar the standalone addition in the very latest edit about events prior to the invasion – stand. Also, you haven't quite followed the thread of my argument. I said the addition would arguably provide clarity if the page did not have that detail on the invasion. I also said it would not an outright error that simply had to be corrected. Given that, as noted, the page does have that detail it arguably in fact only adds confusion and inaccurate precision. And after a settled RM, I really don't see why yet another Yugoslavia talk page needs to fall, only a few weeks later, into sprawling arguments about the purportedly enormous and critical significance of one word, which in fact has pretty marginal import.  N-HH   talk / edits  10:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * By "these discussions" Peacemaker no doubt referred to the entire RM. The page may have some information about the Invasion, but whether those are "details" is arbitrary, and either way - much of it was added after the RM. Your position makes no sense, N-HH, so "seriously" is a more than adequate response. There was no consensus for expanding the scope to include the Invasion, indeed, opposition was expressed to such a move. This article has always been about the resistance war, it never included the Invasion, and you should not be claiming otherwise. Talking about "one word" is irrelevant: the word is necessary in order for our title to correspond to the scope. (And I still think you're missing rather huge chunks of Yugoslav history..) -- Director  ( talk )  13:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As I have pointed out – whatever precisely Peacemaker was referring to and whatever you are claiming now about changes – no details about the invasion have been added since this particular post-RM discussion began or since the RM. The page does now, and has ever since I can recall, included an overview and references to the invasion from the very first sentence of the lead on, as well as a whole main section devoted to it, pretty much in the form that they are there now. The scope, as reflected in the content, has not been "expanded". That is simple, incontrovertible fact and it is bizarre, frankly, to suggest that instead it is a mere "claim" which I "should not be making". The question with which this latest convoluted and exponentially expanding piece of pedantry and semantics, coupled with a bid to force everything into discrete boxes and single demarcated areas into which things in the real world do not fit, was opened – and on which it is all premised – is rather simply answered by a "Yes, as it always has done". That is not really a problem of any sort nor, given that, is the current title, which was only just agreed, FFS. The comment below suggests we should "move on" – rather, we should have done.  N-HH   talk / edits  14:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Overview", "details", you can mince words all day if it makes you happy, but the only mention of the Invasion was in the "Background" section. Any article about a war between the resistance and an occupation naturally has to mention how the occupation came about - that doesn't mean the invasion is part of its scope. The Invasion of Yugoslavia has this article as its "Aftermath", and prior to the recent non-consensus edits, this article included the Invasion in its "Background". You can also obviously tell from the fact that there's no "Yugoslavia" in the conflict infobox (and never ever was) - because its already gone when this conflict begins. One would think that the "Invasion of Yugoslavia" would include "Yugoslavia" as a combatant, don't you think?


 * The Invasion was never the topic of this article, to say otherwise sounds desperate and ridiculous. The bottom line here is that an expansion of the article's scope was not agreed upon, and that the bold changes along those lines will naturally be rolled back if no consensus is achieved (the latter being the whole point of this thread). You should not focus on the article's current state.


 * And btw, if you don't give a damn about this topic enough to define what the articles are actually about, calling that "pedantry", I suggest you shouldn't consider yourself called upon to render your opinion to begin with on this subject. You don't see me editing on cricket or whatever.. -- Director  ( talk )  15:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I really can't respond to much of that other than to say, quite apart from noting the increasingly abusive nature of your comments and the tendency to be telling me what I should or should not be doing, that the usual convoluted and tangential purported logical reasoning actually doesn't make much sense and to repeat my comments about the actual content of the article, which has been pretty much unchanged for a long time now, regardless of the title changes, as the history makes clear (I have no idea what recent "bold changes" you are referring to). The broader problem here is the obsession with trying to put things in boxes and imparting great meaning to every single word and minor detail, and the belief that if we argue and analyse long and hard enough, some objectively perfected, accurate and unimpeachable title will emerge. The world isn't like that. Titles such as this one are a broad description and scopes have fuzzy edges. Sure, sometimes individal words matter, and their omission or inclusion can be significant, but that doesn't mean every single one always does, and it is indeed pedantry to obsess over them when they don't; and disruptive to start these whole debates up when we had settled this only a few weeks ago. And let's say we do move to "WW2 in occupied Yugoslavia". Who's to say someone else won't come along and kick the next round off and say, "it's not clear or precise enough without adding "Fighting during WW2 ..." or that the scope is all wrong as it is inaccurate to include events in Croatia since, arguably, it was not technically "occupied"? Sometimes we really do need to just stop and say "that's more or less OK now; we could do it 101 different ways again, but none of them would actually be better". Anyway, I've posted an oppose and am not sure what more words I can or should add, especially to the above kind of comment.  N-HH   talk / edits  10:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps your world isn't like that, but the world of Wikipedia does require that we know what we're talking about. Both the articles, and the users in general. -- Director  ( talk )  10:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My world and most other people's. As for the latest snide comment, I do know what I'm talking about, as does the article, nor did I suggest that it would not matter. It is called "World War 2 in Yugoslavia", about World War 2 as it happened in Yugoslavia, from the invasion through to the occupation, resistance and civil war-type conflicts which followed it. We also have a separate main article on the invasion itself, with more detail, which is linked to from a summary section here. That section has been here, pretty much in the same form, for at least three years – the invasion, unsurprisingly, is and always has been included to that extent (an abstract debate about whether the invasion is really included or merely mentioned as background really would be meaningless and pedantic). In what way is the title, content or structure at all misleading or confusing to any English-speaking reader? As I said originally, I do not see quite what the problem is here that we are expending thousands of words on; and as I said later, and others have pointed out, adding "occupied" also raises new problems and creates as much confusion as it purportedly solves. Finally, as also pointed out already, we have had an RM. It came to a conclusion. If you don't like it, open a move review or, god forbid, another RM rather than trying to rewrite the result afterwards.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - Let's move on. Oz Cro (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - No need to change the title. Its enough to reach the consensus about the inclusion of invasion within its scope.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You're contradicting yourself above... -- Director  ( talk )  15:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My comment does not mean I support inclusion of invasion within its scope.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you? -- Director  ( talk )  16:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I was against last renaming this article from Yugoslav Front. The proposed title does not resolve any of the issues of the existing title, so I don't see any need to change it with another equally problematic title. It is better to focus to the scope of this article because the scope and the title are directly connected. Once there is a consensus about the scope, it would be easier to determine the best name. Both current and proposed name are equally wrong regarding inclusion of the invasion topic. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well Antid, as this thread is basically about whether or not to include the Invasion, I suggest you abstain until/if you make up your mind.. If you're for mixing up the invasion with the civil/guerrilla war, then this right now is your title - your only title, in fact. Neither "Yugoslav Front" nor especially "National Liberation War" could possibly extend to include a part of the Balkans Campaign. If however you're against mixing the topics, then I do recommend changing your vote regardless of whether Peacemaker's proposal is your ultimate preferred title. I too prefer both 'Yugoslav Front' and especially 'National Liberation War' over either variants, but the "occupied" bit at least makes the title denote the same damn war... -- Director  ( talk )  19:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My comment is reply to question whether I support or oppose World War II in occupied Yugoslavia as a title tweak. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And its strange you oppose the tweak while supporting "Yugoslav Front". -- Director  ( talk )  20:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is my !vote strange? My opposition to existing or proposed title does not mean I support the previous (Yugoslav Front). I clearly proposed to first reach clear consensus about the scope, then to decide about the article title. After some thinking, I believe that having one broad concept article (WP:CONCEPTDAB) for all armed conflicts during WWII on the territory which belonged to Yugoslavia might be the best solution. The articles about invasion, civil/guerrilla war and all other individual conflicts can, of course, remain or be created as because they are notable separate topics. Having them within one broad concept article would not require mixing because they are actually already mixed. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ufff... Antid, if you support including the Invasion here, then vote against the tweak. If you oppose having the Invasion here, then vote for it. If you don't know - don't vote. An overview article of the sort you're thinking of would be best avoided, since it only covers two articles, but if this place is in fact turned into such an article, I do intend to create a separate article about the civil/guerrilla war. And no, you can not dissect the civil/guerrilla war into smaller conflicts, as they are entirely intertwined. E.g. when the Partisans destroyed the Chetnik base in southern Serbia, they did so due to being pressured by the combined Axis push out of Bosnia, etc. -- Director  ( talk )  12:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You used two fallacies to dismiss my position (straw man and false dilemma). First you misinterpreted my position as being connected with my opinion about the scope (which I did not even have when I !voted oppose to proposal to tweak the article title) and then you successfully refuted this misinterpreted position of mine using false dilemma fallacy. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "False dilemma"?? I did advise you to avoid trying to call upon supposed fallacies. This whole thread is about a dilemma! Do we or do we not include the Invasion here! If you do not have a position on that, you can't possibly contribute to resolving said dilemma. The proposed title modification is directly related to the dilemma, and is a proposal in support of excluding the invasion. And I didn't dismiss your position at all, I asked you what it is! Uggghh.. -- Director  ( talk )  13:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I gave fairly clear explanation about my position which can be summarized as: "No need to change the title. Its enough to reach the consensus about the inclusion of invasion within its scope." "Both current and proposed name are equally wrong regarding inclusion of the invasion topic" I believe you dismissed my position saying "I suggest you abstain....", "If you don't know - don't vote" (although I explained that both current and proposed name are equally wrong regarding inclusion of the invasion topic), "And its strange you oppose the tweak..." (although there was nothing strange in my position), "You're contradicting yourself above..." (although I did not), .... and you shouted at me. That kind of behavior is quite usual for you and small group of editors that frequently interact(ed) with you and Producer. I was against partial resolving of this issue by banning only Producer at Jews and Communism tag teaming report, but my position was not supported by majority of editors so it is now necessary to suffer the consequences. I understand that you might be dissatisfied because my opinion is different than yours, but I don't think you can expect me to be somehow obliged to keep discussing with you here because of that. You can have the last word here. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Since this discussion began, the layout of the article has changed. The issue that prompted this proposal has been addressed by other means. Srnec (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, less talking, more walking. On a serious note, I think mismatch between scope and title should be no hinder to productive editing. There is a reason movies have a placeholder name while shooting, or that publishing houses and not authors decide book titles. <sup style="color:green;">walk  <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 22:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * All this subsequent editing has done is screw up what was previously an OK article. The conflict within occupied Yugoslavia is an entirely suitable subject for a separate article of considerable size, yet this article, which was supposed to cover just that, has now been widened to include the invasion, which has it's own set of commanders, forces, etc. Yet it does not cover what transpired between Sep 1939 and April 1941. It is already completely unwieldy. It's like combining the Battle of France article with the occupation of France one, except that the occupation one is far more complex and needs a lot more space. I'm going to create a new article as a content fork at the proposed name in order to cover the subject this article was supposed to be about, you can do what you want with this one, but I suggest you expand it and change the name to Yugoslavia in World War II, then it can be a summary article covering the German economic domination and diplomatic campaign, coup, invasion, government in exile and occupation/etc. Good luck. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Now I don't understand, you said my edit was An attempt to provide additional (quite reasonable. IMO) clarity and precision does not make this "a solution in search of a problem", it is merely a tweak. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 00:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a tweak of the title, to make the scope clearer, the scope which was supposed to remain the same as it was prior to the RM. I saw no consensus in the RM for a change of scope, and much of the discussion was about matching the new title to the existing scope. The argument some have put forward, that now we've changed the title we can change the scope, even though there was no consensus for a scope change, is actually quite bizarre. It is essentially an attempt to hijack this article and make it about a much wide topic. Except that the way it current is, it is half-pregnant, because it doesn't include the elements of what happened between Sep 39 and Apr 41, yet they happened during WWII in Yugoslavia. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the RM had absolutely nothing to do with the content, as regardless of what it was, "Yugoslav Front" was simply not an acceptable title as an ngram flatline. And as I say below, I concur the current one might be confusing about exactly what period "WWII Yugoslavia" is, and that adding "occupied" clarifies that. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 01:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Any "hijacking" was committed by the large majority of us who !voted for "World War II in Yugoslavia". Besides, this article was actually located at "Yugoslavia in World War II" once upon a time, so you could easily say that back then, the people who thought invasion should be wholly separate were the ones who "hijacked" the article. This entire line of reasoning is bogus. We know that readers e.g. reading about the history of Yugoslavia will expect to see an article about this period of Yugoslavia's history. How we compartmentalize that is hardly a contentious issue for the readers, and it really shouldn't be one for us, we're wasting effort on these endless discussions instead of contributing to the main space. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, this article has never been about "this period of Yugoslavia's history". It has been about the guerrilla war in this period. There is far more to the history of Yugoslavia in 1941–45 than the guerrilla war, but this article has never covered it. Since we've never had an article about "this period of Yugoslavia's history" before, why assume readers want one? Srnec (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The war was by far the most important thing that was happening in this period of Yugoslavia's history, and there is no alternate history-but-not-military-history article that covers it. You can always make the argument that our historical articles miss a lot and focus only on the most notable aspects - that's a common issue in general, and more to the point, one that certainly won't be fixed by continuing these meaningless discussions. I'm certainly unimpressed by any references to what happened to the article as indicative of what readers want. What happened was what editors wanted. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support More for WP:AT than scope reasons. Because of wp:criterion #1; as a reader, "WWII in Yugoslavia" might create expectations of coverage 1939-45, or at least extensive background on 1939-41. "Occupied" clarifies that it is mainly from April 1941. And because of wp:criterion #5, to differentiate it from other "X in WWII" articles, so makes clear for editors that that it not a misnamed such format. <sup style="color:green;">walk  <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 00:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. Can't make a better argument than N-HH: this latest convoluted and exponentially expanding piece of pedantry and semantics, coupled with a bid to force everything into discrete boxes and single demarcated areas into which things in the real world do not fit, was opened. The proposed title is unnatural, overly pedantic, and naturally raises the question: "OK, and where's the article about WW2 in unoccupied Yugoslavia?" No such user (talk) 07:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The answer to which would be: "right here", just where it was these past ten years. Since its conception, throughout those same years, this article was never about the Invasion, which is a separate preceding conflict. It never had Yugoslavia as a combatant in its infobox. Its nothing short of laughable to suggest that the addition of one word makes this title suddenly "unnatural" and "convoluted", and N-HH's position that the article should have a different title than its scope is indefensible and absurd. -- Director  ( talk )  08:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not my argument of course. Whether you're saying it in bad faith or because you simply don't understand my point I'm not sure of course but either way it doesn't help.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well its either that or you're declaring consensus for a scope expansion that has no consensus. Neither helps. -- Director  ( talk )  09:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Er, no, I'm not doing that either, nor do I just not care. Do you really not understand anything I've said (and others have made similar points)? I don't know how much more explicit I could be that the scope has not expanded, as the history of the page content makes clear, (nor does it need to) and that the current title – as agreed at the RM – describes the topic perfectly well. It's bad enough people start all these word-fests on WP about non-points: if they don't even have the good faith or intelligence to then follow the arguments that result, the whole thing is even more pointless. I'm blunt about that because this is getting ridiculous now and you don't seem to worry about holding off with the insults.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There's nothing really to "understand", there is no third way about this. The current title does not correspond to the scope (the one this article had since forever), to pretend otherwise is indefensible and manifestly untrue (outside your "world", that is). I call that not giving a damn whether the article's scope is well defined, or whether its title corresponds with it. -- Director  ( talk )  10:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand that your argument is about scope-title divergence; my point is to dispute your conclusion that there is a divergence at all, or that the scope has suddenly been dramatically changed, whether by the title change or any content change, as explained here (and previously). You are still twisting that by declaring that I am actually saying there is a divergence but that it doesn't matter, which has my position totally on its head. Your asserting that my position, correctly defined, is "indefensible and manifestly untrue" does not make it so; not least because these are matters of judgment to some extent anyway. In so far as it is about plain evidence, and what is manifestly true or "untrue", anyone with eyes can see that the actual content about the invasion has not been expanded in three years or more and has sat there, relatively happily, under both titles.  N-HH   talk / edits  11:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I understand perfectly what you're saying - its just that what you're saying is manifestly untrue and indefensible. Have a look at the article now, in its state at the time of the move. You may notice things like "took place after the invasion of Yugoslavia", "guerrilla and civil war", the fact that there's no Yugoslavia in the infobox, that the invasion is mentioned only as part of the "background", etc. Since there clearly is a discrepancy, your position amounts to advocating our ignoring it, by pretending it isn't there. I didn't misrepresent your position at all. -- Director  ( talk )  12:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you've failed to display any such understanding, as your own words and the need to rebut them shows. Anyway, I have looked at the differences, some time ago. Here's at the page move and here's how it stood just before you started this all off again. The changes are minor. As I keep saying, the opening of the lead and the main section on the invasion are more or less unchanged. Of course there have been minor tweaks, partly in response to the name change and partly as part of what would have been normal editing anyway – for example, yes, the "The war began after [the invasion]" formulation has been switched for "Subsequently [to the invasion], a guerilla liberation war was fought". The world has been tipped on its head! And if you want to zero in on every minor detail and individual word that happens to be there, as usual, thus avoiding the wood for the trees – or perhaps rather the forest for the twigs – you might care to notice that the infobox also said in the old version that the war started on "6 April", ie the date of the invasion, not the date a partisan or chetnik first fired a shot in anger. As also noted over and over, whether the invasion is included as "background" or really included is abstract pedantry of the highest order. The content is there and has always been there, under both titles; just as we still do, nonetheless, have a dedicated and mroe detailed invasion page. If it had taken a year to conclude the conquest and occupation, and the country had then been at peace for a year before resistance began, this hair-splitting about concepts and presentation might have some point, and perhaps you could tell real-world historians that they are wholly wrong to write books which deal with these events as a coherent continuum. Otherwise, no.  N-HH   talk / edits  08:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I advise you to have a look at the second sentence of the article at the time of the move ("The war began after the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was overrun by Axis forces and partitioned between Germany, Italy, Hungary, Bulgaria and client regimes"). I'd be interested in the convoluted twist of logic by which you will explain that this does not in fact indicate the war described here took place "after the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was overrun by Axis forces and partitioned". Aaand go! -- Director  ( talk )  15:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Shutting up is indeed probably the best answer. Your whole position defies reality and pushing it is essentially disruption. -- Director  ( talk )  01:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would you think that I had not looked at that sentence when I quoted it in my own comment – and of course pointed out how the amended version actually uses a similar, if slightly vaguer, phrasing? Anyway, all these points have been addressed. Yes, there is some overlap and not everything in the real world fits into discrete boxes; no, minor tweaks to one word or phrase do not turn the world on its head, they simply reflect the reality of those blurred boundaries; et cetera. As for disruption, I'm not the one aggressively arguing, at great length, for another page move when the ink is barely dry on an RM and decrying all those opposed as historical ignoramuses for the sake of one word. I and others are simply asking you to accept that agreed and perfectly reasonable settlement, drop this and move on.  N-HH   talk / edits  07:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Scope expanded
In case nobody noticed, which is understandable given the amount of bickering on this page, I've just WP:BOLDly created the "Background" section, in an attempt to summarize key aspects of the events before the Invasion, mainly 1939-1941. Certainly, the section needs quite some editing, but I think it provides a reasonable overview. Yeah, scope of that section largely matches Invasion of Yugoslavia, but so what? No such user (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Does it mean that you expanded the scope of this article to include invasion?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I just have to quote N-HH again: the invasion, unsurprisingly, is and always has been included to that extent (an abstract debate about whether the invasion is really included or merely mentioned as background really would be meaningless and pedantic). - No such user (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just wanted to have this clarified, taking in consideration the above discussion. I agree with inclusion of the invasion within the scope of this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Scope unexpanded. Rolled back all WP:BOLD changes introduced after the move, pending consensus on turning this article from a resistace war to an overview of all conflicts in WWII Yugoslavia. That motion, as things standnow, does not appear to have consensus. -- Director  ( talk )  12:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Fuck off. After two months of development, those changes are not bold anymore, but part of the article's status quo. You cannot just come and erase all the effort that has been put in the article in the meantime, by a number of good-faith editors. You had the ample time to voice your protests in the meantime, had you not been involved in the fiasco called "Jews and Communism". No such user (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Achieve consensus for your edits prior to re-introducing them, please. I'll restore all changes not relating to the scope within a few hours, no worries. -- Director  ( talk )  12:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You are not the one who dictates the consensus. Nobody needs to achieve a consensus prior to editing an article, and those edits were not just mine, but Victor falk's, Peacemaker67's, Tzowu's, Joy's, N-HH's and few other editors. Apparently, nobody of them had a problem with the scope of the article, so now it is up to you to prove that your proposed version has a consensus. No such user (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither are you: there was no talk whatsoever of changing the scope on this talk page, so please try not to claim "consensus". The whole point of this thread is to build consensus, yet you decided to force the issue with your edits. I will be back in a couple hours restoring all text relating to the invasion to its state at the time of the RM - pending an agreement here to morph this article into an overview of all Yugoslavia's conflicts in WWII. -- Director  ( talk )  12:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that. No such user (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You too. Good luck your attempt at presenting the community with a fait accompli. -- Director  ( talk )  13:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No such user aditions look very good and usefull. FkpCascais (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Their usefulness, if any, is not the point Fkp. Do you think this should be an "overview" of all conflicts, or an article about the Partisan/Chetnik/Axis conflict, the uprising and civil war? -- Director  ( talk )  15:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh whatever, if you geniuses think the German Balkans Campaign and the damn NOB are one and the same strategic conflict, I hope you enjoy your mutant article. Just be advised they are such about as much as the Battle of France is a part of the French resistance struggle, or Fall Weiss with the Polish resistance, or Greece, or Fall Weserubung and Norway, etc. And I think its telling that users most familiar with this topic disagree with such kindergarten-level, simplistic, a-historical nonsense. I'm quite tired of dealing with ignorance and contrarianism. -- Director  ( talk )  15:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You rolled back a variety of changes made between May 6 and June 16 in good faith, both by users who agree with you and those who don't. I tend to say something about productive behavior at this point... :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As I have clearly pointed out, I was in the midst of reintroducing said changes when reverted! And it was not me who tried to force the issue through new edits known to be opposed, misquoting WP:BOLD in the process. And also Joy, I didn't degrade myself by spouting drivel ("the article included the invasion") just because I want to counter someone. Btw it seems to me you use the word "productive" just a bit too much, regardless of whether it makes sense in the context.


 * But even if that is quite certainly your only interest in this thread, I'm nevertheless glad you're having fun at Peacemaker's and my own frustration. At least some good somewhere will come of sacrificing this article to public stupidity.


 * You fine gents should perhaps learn a thing or two about just how vastly complex and intricate the NOB was, and how much it is a self-contained conflict. Only an ignorant user, or an indifferent contrarian (or a combination of the two) could possibly suggest that the German Balkans campaign and the NOB are one conflict. -- Director  ( talk )  22:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You're not the only one who really, really understands all this you know, against us dummies, and it might be an idea to drop that refrain, which constantly crops up in your contribution to discussions. Sometimes acknowledging complexity means working out how best to manage it and avoid getting drowned in it rather than trying to make everything even more complicated than it already is. Actual historians deal with these events as an interrelated continuum, and there's no reason why WP can't, even if one editor thinks they know better. And your mass revert of every change and piece of basic copyediting from the past two months was indeed out of order, whether you were in the midst of trying to repair it or not. As for other equivalent pages, the Greek one for example does exactly what we do here, by providing information on the invasion itself and the beginning of the occupation – with a link to a main invasion article – and not simply setting up a rigid barrier at the point of capitulation. There simply is not some appalling error or fraud being perpetrated here.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I shall keep repeating that refrain so long as I feel it is accurate. You have no idea what you're talking about, so shouldn't be making claims as if the opposite was the case. I.e. you should probably stop talking out of your arse. All authors covering the resistance war will most certainly mention the invasion and the dismemberment of the country, some five months before the resistance war began in earnest - that does not mean they regard it as a single conflict, and NONE do, to all intents and purposes. The Invasion of Yugoslavia is an integral and indivisible part of the German Balkan Campaign, which forms the background to the resistance war which has little to do with the Invasion. Yugoslavia might as well have surrendered without a fight, and the impact on the resistance struggle would have been the same. -- Director  ( talk )  14:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Jesus. I'd rather be talking out of mine – which I'm not of course – than be one. Get over yourself. And as for "All authors covering the resistance war will most certainly mention the invasion and the dismemberment of the country ... that does not mean they regard it as a single conflict". Yeah, like this page, as it always has, respectively does and does not necessarily (on the latter point, at least to necessarily mean part of precisely, to the last microbit, exactly the same single discrete conflict; as opposed to the broader one, commonly known as, er, World War 2).  N-HH   talk / edits  22:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be misconception that background section can be turned into part of article's scope simply by renaming it, and writing another background section in front of it. While ending result may pretend to be an article with expanded scope, in practice it is simply an article with two background sections. Level of detail does matter. For example at unit level "Partisan general offensive" lists division numbers and names individual army commanders, in "Invasion" section same thing is basically limited to naming countries involved. If Invasion is actually supposed to be part of the article's scope, then section about it needs to be expanded significantly to fix discrepancy in level of detail. I personally think that previous scope was better, and would support forking pre-move situation into separate article sticking to old scope.--Staberinde (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The issue is nevertheless entirely moot because we really don't have a consistently comparable use of detail in the entire description of the guerilla war. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * More from the spout. If its the background section, then its not part of the scope beyond being its "background" - that is the point. The consensus infobox we have now and have had for years is the best indicator of the scope - the infobox with NO YUGOSLAVIA. and the text stated clearly that this was a conflict that took place "AFTER the Invasion of Yugoslavia" I'm sorry, but I did not anticipate such an utterly ridiculous and indefensible line of argument as "the invasion was a part of the scope". Contrarian disruption bogging down discussion, and the whole article. Nothing more.


 * I say again that including the invasion here equates to claiming the Invasion and resistance struggle are one and the same conflict (because otherwise we still need a resistance struggle article!). And that is exactly like claiming the Battle of France is the same conflict as the struggle of the French resistance - or any other occupied country's invasion and its subsequent resistance (Greece, Norway, you name it). Not only that, but the Invasion of Yugoslavia is already summarized as part of its scope within the Balkan Campaign article. To mention it here as part of the background (along with the partition et al) is one thing, but to cover its entirety as part of the scope of this article - that's WP:OVERLAP, content duplication. -- Director  ( talk )  14:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The level of emotion you're bringing into this discussion has gone from merely inappropriate to downright peculiar. I don't see any new information conveyed in the entirety of that comment, just more of the same axe-grinding. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose "Fuck off" would have been more appropriate? Be its delivery "emotional" or not, repeated or stated only once, my position is no less valid: the scope of this article was expanded without consensus or even discussion, against clearly stated opposition, and against all reason and sensible coverage. -- Director  ( talk )  11:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know how many more times this has to be restated for it to get through to you... The twelve people who supported this title at the move discussion time said they like that title for this content. They didn't say we should move some imaginary entity to that title. They said we should move this specific article to that title. So it was done. Moving it back requires an argument a tad bit better than this finicky musing about scope. The musing about scope is mostly a rhetorical exercise, because we don't stop needing a slightly more general article about .yu in WW2, and this article doesn't become any better (in any practical way, one discernible to the overwhelming majority of our readers) if we sequester the cause of the occupation/guerilla war/liberation a little bit differently. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * And, for the record, another reason why I particularly continue to be entirely unimpressed by these arguments is that despite the fact the phrase "World War II in occupied Yugoslavia" has been mentioned on 27 April, which is almost two months now, it has continued to languish as a red link. Creating that redirect and building the web towards it (linking other articles that use that kind of a phrase to the redirect) would have been a great way to start putting your money where your mouth is. But no, let's dwell on theoretical discussions instead... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding dwelling on theoretical discussions, the history of this page shows that 5 out of 10 last edits belong to you Joy. There is a clear consensus here. There is no need to compromise it with further "theoretical discussions". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is indeed hard to resist trying to straighten out the Drina. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Then perhaps, Joy, you will consider explaining here what the hell this article is about? Is it an overview of conflicts in Yugoslavia, a "more general" article about Yugoslavia in WWII - or is it about some mutant merged conflict that combines elements of the Balkan Campaign with the resistance struggle starting almost half a year afterwards? One effectively created through obstinate and incoherent defense of an obvious oversight born of exhaustion during the long rambling RM above. The current state of this article is such that we'd be better off deleting the whole thing: its scope, defined quite clearly as the resistance war from its creation years and years ago up til now - is still undefined after being derailed by the rash move and subsequent editing. -- Director  ( talk )  01:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

What. a. joke. Provided this is to be our title (in spite of majority support for "occupied"), then its either an article about some mutant merged conflict (which is historiographically indefensible), or its an "overview", in which case a separate new article about the guerilla war is perfectly justified. So in answer to that basic question about the scope, one only gets calculated silence from the stonewalling minority. And a ridiculous status quo, where no one still knows exactly what this place is about. -- Director  ( talk )  06:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I was explicitly trying to stop replying because it doesn't seem to be productive to further appease these self-righteous rants of yours. It's best to stop ranting and instead use the standard means of dispute resolution: WP:3O, WP:DRN, etc. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * BTW, the raw headcount of 7 : 5 indicates a majority, but no actual consensus. If the five opposition !votes were unexplained, one could set them aside, but that's simply not the case here, only to the contrary. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Same here, as well as the fact that it just involves repeating comments made 1000 times already and rearguing the RM and is distracting from actually improving the page itself. This page is, as its name suggests and the opening para of the lead explains, about WW2 as it happened in Yugoslavia. That includes the 11-odd days of invasion and initial fighting – as a prelude, if you wish – plus the four years of guerrilla and civil conflict that followed more or less immediately afterwards and as a direct consequence. The latter of course takes up most of the page, although it still includes a brief introductory section about the invasion, which in turn provides a link on to a discrete and more detailed page about the invasion itself, as it always has done and as, for example, the similar page on Greece does (again, no major changes have taken place to the content; I really don't know why you keep repeating this one). Most people, whether WP readers, actual historians or professional publishers, would not have a problem with this broad title and overall structure or obsessively see it as an outrageous historiographical blunder which simply must be corrected, either by adding one word to the title or starting a whole new page whose words are also 95% about the post-invasion situation. As for adding "occupied", as noted, this arguably adds a whole new confusion. Does it include pre-formal occupation irregular activity, Croatia/NDH and late-war liberated areas, for example, or are these the "non-occupied" Yugoslavia the proposed title would suggest also exists?  N-HH   talk / edits  07:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)