Jump to content

Talk:Flag of Yugoslavia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No "State flag"

[edit]

According to the Constitution of Kingdom of Yugoslavia from 1931 (Art.2), The national standard is blue-white-red in the horizontal sense against an vertical staff. There is no such thing as a "state flag" in constitution.

According to the Law on the Flags of Yugoslav Ships from 1937 (Art.2), there is a naval ensign (ratna zastava, literally "war flag") with COA.

The The Law on the Ensigns of War, Merchant and Private Vessels (Art.1) describe Yugoslav naval ensign: The Naval ensign shall have a ratio of 1:1.5, and shall consist of three horizontal fields of equal height. The colors shall be blue-white-red. On one third of the ensign length there shall be the state coat of arms with the crown. The height of the arms and crown (without the globe and cross) shall be half of the ensign height.

So, the only official flag of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was blue-white-red without the COA.

This article should be corrected.--N Jordan 17:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the flag from the article. (Buttons (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

References

[edit]

I edited some parts of text and descriptions of images according to those references. Please don't change the text unless you can show different referenes.--N Jordan 18:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like this new images markup, someone disagree? FkpCascais (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can use instead the "infobox flag". --Theirrulez (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cite something or stop

[edit]

Maybe our dear community do not know what nosense R-41 tryed to impose to this community. He tried to push the Naval Ensign of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (which were called Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes at one point) as the State flag. He has done this because wanted to show simmilarity with todays State flag of Serbia. R-41 attempted to use colours that were previously used for the Flag of the Republic of Serbia, and he has tryed to do the same with the newly agreed colours (that were in fact closest to the official ones in the Recommendation) - doubly trying to do such offense. He tryed to use Serbian colours for the flags of Kingdom of Yugoslavia.

Also he constantly push for existance of the State flag of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes), that never existed as official flag but was briefly used (and that brief usage is dubious, without sources and proofs). The only flag of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was blue, white, red banner used as a national flag (which means in FIAV as the civil, state and war flag), it was also used as the Civil Ensign and the State Ensign. Only the Naval Ensign used the Lesser CoA of the Kingdom.

Imbris (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation from that Italian site goes like this:

National flag, of state and commercial navy adopted in 1918 and abolished in the beginning of April 1941 with the German occupation. The chosen colours for the flag of the unified kingdom were the same ones in various sequences of those of the three nations that constituted it. And they were the Pan Slavic colours. After 1922, on the state flag, the Coat of arms with the double headed eagle was sometimes placed bringing on the chest a Coat of arms of the three countries, Serbia, Croatia and, in tip, Slovenia; however the flag of the official state was that cleaning up of it.

Imbris (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article

[edit]

There are not separate flag articles for each segment of Germany's government nature (i.e. German Empire, Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany, West Germany, East Germany) a Yugoslav state existed in different names and forms from 1918 to 2006, the separate articles for each of the different states called Yugoslavia were far too short and unnecessary--R-41 (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless of that German "unification" of all in the same (one) article there is a big difference there. Yugoslavia as a state of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs existed in virtually unchanged territory from 1918 to 1941, soon were emancipated Montenegrins, Macedonians, Muslims (to a lesser degree Vojvodinians and Kosovans). This entity existed up to 1991. Serbia and Montenegro should have its own article which would be called Flag of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro and portray even that Pantone 300C for blue proposal. So I am changing the proposal to split the article in two.

  • Flag of Yugoslavia (Kingdom era and Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia era)
  • Flag of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro (for the period in which the two were in union, FRY, SCG).

Imbris (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Imbris, I have already conceded to Rainman about the colours of the Royal Yugoslav flag, it was presumptuous of me to assume that they would be the same as Serbia's, I assumed so because the coat of arms of the flags appear to be related, but it was wrong to impose assumptions. People have accused me of trying to impose my views, I am sorry if I have been too pushy, I just want to replace as many of the rastered images for coat of arms and flags with SVG images. I found sources for each of the flags I have uploaded, the sources for the state flag of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia comes from that Italian webpage and a Croatian webpage, just click here [1] and [2] to see. As you can see, I didn't make up the flag out of thin air, it was an error on my part to trust the sources, I'm sorry--R-41 (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not object this flag to be present in the article, just unofficial should stay. -- Imbris (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be modest, an unofficial flag shouldn't be on the page. A new problem has arisen, it is about the colours of the tricolour, and whether the Pantone colour shades described at the Flags of the World (FOTW) for the FRY should be considered official Yugoslav colours, as they are the only ones I've seen described. If not which colours should be used? I suppose a new flag page for the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro could be made as it was not officially a Yugoslav state, just a confederation, I think the FRY flag could still remain on the "Flag of Yugoslavia" article, unless we are going to take into account the lack of UN recognition of the FRY as a direct successor of the SFRY. I'll support either option if there is enough support for one or the other.--R-41 (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FRY could not be considered as a solemnly successor of SFRY so its flag should go into the Flag of Serbia and Montenegro. In the article Flag of Yugoslavia we could have wikilinks to all of the flag articles of former Yugoslav republics and autonomous provinces (of Serbia and the SFRY).

Like:

FR Yugoslavia should be included in the Flag of Serbia and Montenegro.

Imbris (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The flags of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia should be restored to the article

[edit]

There is no one single set of flags for Yugoslavia. There were two acknowledged Yugoslavias. One from 1918 to 1943, first officially known as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (though informally acknowledged as Yugoslavia) until renamed the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1929, and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia beginning in 1943 as Democratic Federal Yugoslavia. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was not recognized as a successor to the SFRY. But the Kingdom of Yugoslavia's flags should be shown.--R-41 (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's heavy-duty Serbian monarchist POV. This article displays the last set of flags in official use in Yugoslavia, as does any flag article: Flag of Germany, Flag of France, Flag of the United Kingdom, etc.... No there were not only two sets of Yugoslav flags, and all historical flags, both of socialist Yugoslavia and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia are listed in the List of Yugoslav flags article, as is (I emphasize again) standard practice with flag articles. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say this, but I am NOT a Serb, nor Yugoslav, and not a monarchist. I am a Canadian of British, Irish, and Italian descent who does not like the British monarchy nor any monarchy for that matter. I am very angry at your ignorant accusation and personal attack, so with all due respect, I have the right to say that what you have said is total bullshit. I am interested in the history of flags and the history of Yugoslavia. Perhaps it is you who seems to have an animosity towards the Serbian monarchy, I don't really care about the Serbian monarchy one way or the other. Watch out what you accuse people of, or you'll end up caught in a stupid situation like this again!--R-41 (talk) 04:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean the above as a personal remark in any way. Which should've been obvious from the fact that I already know you are not a Serb or a monarchist. Misunderstanding. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but why should not we use here some important flags, like Standard of the President that was used during most of the time? That shouldn't be problem, and none bothers. Also, it will make article more useful. And where are flags of Kingdom of Yugoslavia? Why are those removed? It is totally pointless to compare Flag of France (still existent country) and Flag of Yugoslavia. I am asking to revert flags, as it was wrongly removed. What both of you say? :)--Tadijaspeaks
All the flags are neatly listed at the List of Yugoslav flags article, which I just created taking most other country flag articles as an example. Why do we need two articles listing all Yugoslav flags? Here I included the images of all flags used officially by Yugoslavia at the time of its dissolution, but I excluded all the government standards since they represent people, not the state (the SKJ flag is there as it was always hoisted alongside state flags). I mean, we could theoretically add all sorts of flags here, like those of the republics, but nearly all other flag articles leave that for the "List of XY flags" article. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, Direktor, just two sorts. SFRJ, and Kingdom of Yugoslavia main flags. Those where two different countries. !
I propose creating two Infobox flags, first, one with Kingdom, and second, (this one that is in the article now) infobox SFRJ. That is neutral. --Tadijaspeaks 21:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As it is presented here ([3]) why did you removed. This was great. Two separate sections! --Tadijaspeaks 21:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said above, I strongly disagree in that it would be an unheard-of precedent. All articles about countries (former or no) that include this infobox(es) only have one set - that of the latest flag. Also, it is not that simple - there are more than two sets of Yugoslav flags. Its just POV. Its all Yugoslavia - its the same country. Much like the Kingdom of Romania and Communist Romania's flags are both listed in the same article: the List of flags of Romania, while the Flag of Romania article only places the latest flags in these infobpxes (as does the Flag of the Soviet Union, for example). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O, man, if that is only problem, than we should place disambig here, and create two separate articles. That list is cool, but we need that. Also, it is not the same country. One was kingdom, and other socialist republic. Everything was different, including government, internal orders, and even borders. (in small part, but still border). So, what do you say?
And no problem left! :) -Tadijaspeaks 21:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can do that, if you dont have time? --Tadijaspeaks 21:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am utterly opposed to creating separate flag articles. That entails the creation of six additional articles (2x flags, 2x list of flags, 2x coats of arms). Do we need one for the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia as well? Again, this is all simply the standard way these flag articles are written. I do not know of any comparanble country that has seperate flag articles for different systems of rule (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, DDR, etc.). I merely copied the same thing for Yugoslavia. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
? I didn't understand you? What Democratic Federal Yugoslavia? Are you saying that Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia are the same countries? You didn't respond me again. Also, per this, i see that you have some problem with this separation, you merge it? Why? --Tadijaspeaks 22:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SFR Yugoslavia is the continuation of, and the sole successor to, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. On this level of consideration on Wiki they are indeed the same country. They are not the same country on a more detailed level. I hope I'm making sense. In terms of writing history articles they are obviously different enough to warrant separate articles, but we certainly do not need six or seven new articles for the insignia of what was, when all is said and done, the same country under the rule of a communist party.
(Serbia and Montenegro does not compare for many obvious reasons.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont agree with that. As they have different articles on wikipedia, they deserve two different articles for national symbols. I requested comment. We will see what will say someone neutral. I am going to bed, talk tomorrow after 7h. :))) All best! --Tadijaspeaks 22:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(All the best, Tadija. :) You know me, I always argue about this sort of nonsense xP [4])

Ha, ha, you are funny! First, what is that link? I dont understand? It is totally WP:TLDR! :) You should told me that it is like that on wiki. I will teach you.: "Tadija, you know, it is like a rule on wikipedia to do things like that. See: (all other articles) Also see this: (Wiki official guideline regarding this). So, it was not me, it is like that! :)" And i will say then: "Ok, man, i understand, i didn't know that, we should then add those flags in the article gallery, as in all those articles you give here, ALL relevant historical flags were presented. So we should place those here also."

And, i think that we don't need that request any more? Do you agree? How to remove it? Do you know? I think it is too early in request to remove it now. --Tadijaspeaks 23:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That link is me dethroning Pavelić's "Tomislav II". I think I got CTS xP.
Well its not really a rule, more like an agreed-upon format. Like I said, all I did was copy the standard format used elsewhere for Yugoslavia. Glad we agreed :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, i added three flags of Kingdom of Yugoslavia in the gallery. Maybe one more should be added, but we can do that later. Also, this article need reorganization, to show much easier that two main Yugoslavia's existed, out of 4. --Tadijaspeaks 20:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I separated the section into three periods during which the flags of Yugoslavia were different sets. My concern however is the addition of flags to the "Other flags" section. There has to be some criteria, or else that section (and its gallery) should go altogether. We already have an entire separate article for a gallery of all historical Yugoslav flags. As things stood when the section was created, only those state flags which were in use at the time of Yugoslavia's collapse were included in the article, the others were all listed elsewhere.
Why should, for example, the royal standard be included and not the presidential one? Or the one for the prime minister? Why should the historic flags from the 1943-1945 period be excluded if the one's from 1922-1943 are there, etc. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslavia flags separation

[edit]

Flag of Yugoslavia article should be separated to

Those two are now redirects, but user who merge those two earlier is refusing to admit that those two (Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) are two different countries. It would be nice that someone say something highly constructive. :) In a good Wikipedia way! :) --Tadijaspeaks 22:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk is above. We agreed. --Tadijaspeaks 23:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Direktor, since your intervention here, the article has not improved in almost any point. You practically added only the republic flags (which were not essential here) and on the other side, the most important flag, the national flag of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, which shares importance with SFRY one, is now completely in the bottom of the article, together with the party ones... Despite the oposition of several users, you still didn´t corrected that situation. It is another exemple where you are editing the articles in your POV way. I read the discussion here and I herd your reasons, but I can also find you many precedents and cases where your formula for this article just doesn´t apply... It would be really great if you could put aside your personal simpaties and make this article where the same weight would be given to both Yugoslavia´s (the Kingdom, and the Socialist). I am really not willing to go with you again the long road...
P.S.:Did you heard me saying "Socialist Yugoslavia", well, that is what I beleave. We could eventualy be together on this, because despite many people calling Tito´s policies "Communist", I really beleave that "Socialism" is a term much more apropriate and correct regarding Tito Yugoslavia (I´m not including in this theory the beginning, because then, he was communist, but more when analising the entire period). FkpCascais (talk) 06:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Fkp, I am not interested in your pretentious estimates of article quality. Keep them to yourself please.)
Articles on flags of former countries display the last official flag(s) of that former country in the infobox, certainly not the one you happen to favor most. What you suggest would be ok if there were seperate articles, however that is also against standard practice since we're talking about the same country. If the Kingdom's flag were the last flag in use, it would be in the infobox. Unfortunately for you, apparently - it is not. I can only say what I keep telling you: deal with that fact and do not try to alter it with empty arguments.
In short, this is how things are done with flag articles of modern countries. I did not edit "in my POV way", but merely copied exactly what was done elsewhere. I am not prepared to enter into a long theoretical-philosophical-ideological discussion on this. Show me an example of a comparable flag article where there are different flag infoboxes for different ideological systems within the same country, and show me that this is standard practice as opposed to the format used now. (Yes, I do already know that what I am asking is impossible since I already checked what the standard practice is and copied it here - this is more of a sematic request.)
Also, please consider yourself warned about WP:STALKING me around. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, regarding your interess, or not, I don´t really care, I am an editor and I will say my opinion in all situations I feel adequate to do. In this case, they were directed towards you, but they are directed to all the community, as well.
Regarding "your" theory in wich is the last official flag the one to be used, well, I cxan´t see that. I´ll just give you exemples of flags of former countries that completely opose to your edit:
  • Flag of Galicia and Lodomeria - It starts in oposite order, from the older to the newest.
  • Flag of Khiva - Despite being differently arranged, it also follows the logic contrary to yours.
  • The best exemple:Ottoman flag, representing historical flags of a major former state, also follows the chronological order.
  • Another excellent exemple:Flag of Prussia, clearly following the chronological pattern.
  • One more:Flag of Rhodesia, chronological order...
  • Flag of Gran Colombia, major South American former state, following the same chronological order.
The only one that follows your logic is the Flag of the Soviet Union, but there are substantial differencies when comparing it with Yugoslav case: the first difference is that the state was the same troughout the history of USSR (quite different from Yugoslavia, wich had a Monarchy and afterwords a "Socialist" state), and the second difference is that in USSR case the flags are only slightly different, but in Yugoslav case, the flags have a difference that marks exactly the different political system.
So, what I propose to do here is to restore the previos chronological order that explained quite well the evolution and history of the flag and to remove the Socialist Republics flags from this article and to make a separate one just for them (as in the case of the Flags of the Soviet Republics).
Just to clarify:I don´t support two articles, but one, which will be donne chronologically and acompanied with its quite interesting history.
You say, "this is how things are done with flag articles of modern countries", but I feel sorry to let you know that Yugoslavia is no longer a "modern country", but a former one, so please edit the article in accordance to that fact. If Yugoslavia one day lives its rebirth, we will fix that in the proper moment, that is not a problem...
Regarding WP:STALKING, well, I noteced this edits of yours a long time now (if you go to my user page you can see that I have the userbox indicating my interess in "flags and emblems" for years now), but I was even trying to see a correction donne in this article without the need of mine intervention, because, you know, I already told you, I do all I can to avoid editors that use expressions like "empty arguments" or "deal with it!", when confronted with oposing views, just like the ones you just used in your previos comment, and I already asked you a number of times to avoid such arguments, they are clearly not a good practice.
Regarding my preferences, well, you can see by my edits history that I even like very much SFR Yugoslavia, but what I don´t like is to see edits that give preferences for ones against others. I usually in those cases tend to give a hand to the "others"... FkpCascais (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All I can do is point out that I specifically highlighted the necessity that the flag articles be comparable to the Yugoslav one. Which is to say, no Roman Empire, no Seleucid Empire, no Ghaznavid Sultanate, etc. 1) Flag articles of similar, comparable (Romania, Hungary, DDR, Bulgaria, Poland, Soviet Union etc. etc....) ALL use this format (regardless of whether the flags are obslolete or not). 2) Even if your few examples were comparable (which they are NOT), they are still in a minority to the main format used by most other comparable countries.
To push a different format here would be therefore different from established NPOV formats and thus POV, since we would be altering an article written up in a standard flag article mode to accomodate for your personal tastes and views. You are wrong on two levels. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you continue insisting in your version despite the oposition of ALL other participating editors, I decided that it will be productive to restore by consensus the last acceptable version prior to your intervention on the article. I will also be kind and answer to all the points you have mantioned on your previos comment:
  • 1)I just had given to you the list of all comparable flag articles.(I found 7 aplicable articles for comparation, meaning, former states that had more than 1 official flag): 6 follow the chronological order. Only one (Soviet Union) follows your logic, but having in mind that the flag was only slightly different in its versions, and the state was the same, it is even doubtfull that can be considered "comparable", but, I´m giving you this one, as benefit of doubt.
  • 2)I can´t answer this point since I detect clear inconsistecy in the entire phrase.
Please don´t engage in phalse acusations since I had already pointed you out that I have no preference between any one of this flags (I like them all). It looks more that you are the one acting on personal preferencies since you are wrongly associating the flag of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia with "heavy-duty Serbian monarchist POV" [5] thus showing incapacity of being NPOV on this article. You should clear some issues regarding the history of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia for better understanding these kind of situations in the future and prevent yourself from entering into wrong argumentations as the one this exeple clearly showed.
Resumingly, you edited this article in a manner that was against the will of 4 editors: User:R-41, User:Thewanderer, User:Tadija and myself.
When confronted with arguments from users that expressed disagreement with your edits, you, very uncivily, engaged in making phalse accusations towards the users, as you did with User:R-41, (already mentioned, and you had to appologise to him [6]) and ridiculously acusing me of WP:STALKING you.
I made some edits that are in accordance with the community, if you continue to disagree, please don´t engage in edit-wars, but please be kind and adress this issue to Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, or you can, obviously, further continue the discussion here.
Oh! And regarding the discussion you had with User:Tadija that discussed this issue with you so a compromise could be archived, well, you didn´t edited the article as agreed, as User:Tadija himself axpressed to me. If you don´t beleave, I can easily ask him to express it in his talk page. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@DIREKTOR, I invite to participate in improving the separate article that was created: Flags of the Yugoslav Republics. Despite owr past discussions, I invite you to participate in improving the article if in a NPOV way. In that case, you will be welcome. FkpCascais (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forget about this, FkpCascais. I've restored the standard article format. I will NOT have you following me around and undoing all my hard work out of spite per your fanciful ideas, that stops right here and now. Further obvious vandalism, disruption via malicious editing & WP:STALKING will be immediately reported. I seriously recommend against your starting yet another WP:EDIT WAR. You wisely followed my advice on the mediation talkpage, which I am certain prevented a long-term block, I hope you will do so again. Let me assure you: you will not alter the article in the slightest by revert warring. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* Fkp, Filip, what I generally do is improve Yugoslavia articles. I do not do things "my way", I first check how other countries handle these issues and I merely bring equivalent Yugoslavia articles up to standard. This is what I did here as well, for the millionth time, most of my 25,000 edits were done this way (compared to your 11,000) for the past four years or so. What you're doing here, this following me around and reverting all my hard work on a whim, this will not fly. What you're doing is starting a personal vendetta, a "war" if you will. Please do not do that. A looong list of users that decided to do that are no longer with us (User:Imbris, User:Иван Богданов, User:Luigi 28, User:Giovanni Giove, etc.)
I have nothing against us editing the same articles, but this is obviously a pure malicious attack and provocation. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are being disruptive pointless of what is told to you... Stop treating WP articles like your battleground. I´ll tell you this for the last time: Your "hard work" is:
  • 1) ...against the will of all 4 other editors.
  • 2) ...reverted. Don´t edit-war.
  • 3) ...not suported by the project, even worste, your edits are against it.
  • 4) You made nationalistic and other nonsence attacks against oposing editors.
  • 5) You should learn that Yugoslavia is not equal to SFRY (basic history). If you dislike the royal period, that´s your problem...
  • 6) I have pointed to you all other comparable articles that follow, or not, your way of editing (not even one supports your POV and 7 support mine).
Be very carefull here, your (&co.) recent actions were very disturbing to many good people here. Stop making unnecessary troubles... I even touth that you&com. were punished for your recent undescriptible behavior... It would make all the logic. If one simple, ignorant and lonely editor as myself makes you two completely "loose it", speaks it all.
P.S.:I haven´t seen even one article that you had "improved". Can you mention one? FkpCascais (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop the edit warring and personal attacks everyone. Let's just have the flags for the whole history of the Yugoslav state included in this article. There were two acknowledged Yugoslav states and during a period of time during World War II, two Yugoslav governments existed (the kingdom and the communist republic) that were in competition with each other. Since 1992, or according to some, 2003, Yugoslavia has ceased to exist, so there is no current flag. Whether it is organized from recent to past or past to recent, there were at least two Yugoslav states. No more emotional arguments should be posted, no more wild accusations of Serb monarchist POV or nationalist POV, or Titoist POV, just keep to the issues. If one wants an example of an article on flags of a state that has ceased to exist, look at the articles for defunct countries like Flag of the Soviet Union, Flag of Korea or Flag of Manchukuo. Personally, I think that the current layout as of me writing this that shows the flags of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and SFRY in separate sections in the article avoids problems of bias.--R-41 (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that direktor wants to make a single article where, as you can see in the article past version, much more importance is given to "Socialist" Yugoslavia, in detriment of the monarchic period. Me and other users have been oposing that, but direktor has been insisting... We just want to have same importance given to both. Are the articles good the way they are now? I hope so... The only "Yugoslavia´s" included should be as they are now, the KIngdom (1918-WWII) and the Socialist (WWII-1992). The FR Yugoslavia (1992-2003) is not even being discussed here because it is part of another article. Thank you very much for all help. FkpCascais (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fkp, there is no "community" supporting you (LoL), and there are no "WikiProject recommendations". You're just one spiteful guy following me around in some revenge campaign for my opposition to your edits on the Draža Mihailović article. My edits merely copy the format other flag articles, your edits push your POV based on your (very obvious, well-established, textbook) Serbian nationalist perceptions.
If you think I am going to have you follow me around and edit-war about everything I do, then you are quite obviously in for a surprise. I'll say again:
  • 1) My edits here are a mere copy of other formats.
  • 2) In a word, please back off and leave me to "work in peace" here on enWiki. I will not stand for this harassment. Please take this seriously. I do not follow you around. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listen to me, I don´t care what you do, I don´t care who you are, I don´t want to have any contact with people like you, but that doesn´t mean that I am going to "leave you work in peace" vandalising WP articles. "Please back off"? Are you asking me please to let you edit articles against all logic, historical facts, all this by torturing all other editors? I already said several times, I have nothing against people disagreing with me, but I do have much against uncivil attitude when I see it! Please restore the article as it was and don´t make further problems. You have already demonstrated your hate towards the monarchic family and Serbs in general, something I knew a long time now, but Encyclopedias don´t work on personal hate, so I am really having doubts about you being actually able to edit a single article in NPOV way. The flag (just as in the coat of arms case) of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia has EXACTLY the same importance as the flag and coat of arms of the Socialist Yugoslavia, so whoever edits the article in other way than that (you, in this case) is pushing his POV. I am the one defending equal status for both, so why are you acusing me of all things that come up to your mind? Be able to recognise errors and correct yourself for your own good. Can somebody please fix this. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objections

[edit]

Fkp, as on Draža Mihailović it is necessary first to find some way to stop you from constantly edit-warring before normal Wikipedia discussion of any sort can even begin. I will not engage in discussion while your harassment and destruction of my work continues. Please leave the articles alone and lets see if we can reach an agreement. Unless of course you are simply deleting everything I do categorically (as I am completely certain is the case here) and there is no hope for proper Wikipedia discussion or compromise.

I cannot help but note how strange and interesting it is that every single edit of mine on every single article is so unacceptable to you that you feel the need to revert-war over it. How interesting that you've not reverted anyone else, and that you've yet to make any sort of other contribution to these articles you've quite obviously followed me to. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the heart of this issue is one question: does enWiki regard these two as separate states or merely as two periods of history of one state. Now, you've not been editing on Yugoslav history articles that long, so I'll tell you: its one. I don't like it myself, and I opposed it, but there it is. (See here, and see the current state of the Yugoslavia article.) On enWiki, the consensus is that Yugoslavia is one state, and that Kingdom of Yugoslavia and SFR Yugoslavia are two main periods of its existence (though arguably there is a third, that of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia, 1943-1945, which btw has its own separate set of flags). It is important to understand that Yugoslavia (1918-1992) used three, not two, different sets of flags.
So as I said, the two are one. Now, even if these were two separate states, your version of the article still makes no sense - since then we would need two separate articles instead of the weird two-in-one you push. Again, they are one, and this user consensus is also supported by the majority of the sources on the subject (your favorite Britannica included). Since Yugoslavia is (again:) regarded as one country, the latest set of flags must be present in a flag infobox. This format is used by the vast majority of flag articles.
Now please explain what you're doing? "Equal status"? Fighting for the "honor of the fatherland"...?
(On an unrelated note let me say that I warned you mediation on Draža Mihailović would not work. In spite of your apparent hatred of me I hope you acknowledge that I do sometimes know what I'm talking about. WP:DR does not work/works badly here in the Balkans. (I've known this for quite a while [7]) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Turn it up the pair of of you. These pages will all be fully protected and then no user can edit them but the time when which an admin locks the article will determin which of two conflicting versions stays in place. At this rate it will favour one and disenfranchise the other. If you can't agree on the list of pages, why don't you both push for a concensus on each dispute? User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 02:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just angry as heck about all this. I've done 0 work lately because o Fkp's edits on the Draža Mihailović article, so I finally go ahead and fix-up some obscure flag articles when all that dies down. Next thing you know Fkp's here removing my work, edit-warring and following me about. I've gone through all that with Imbris and Giovanni Giove, I am absolutely allergic to stalking and having to waste energy on massive disputes about everything I do because someone thinks whatever I do must be biased in some way (Imbris thought I was a pro-Serbian POV-pusher, GG that I was a "Croatian nationalist", now I hate Serbs again it seems :). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Didn´t you just heard what User:R-41 said? Now is 5 against you. And its not in numbers but all with arguments.
What is this text of yours? We are not talking about countries, but flags, and infobox is only essential for CURRENT flags, the historical ones doesn´t necessarily have infobox (only Soviet has, but the flag has been quite equal troughout his history, so doesn´t apply for this case), specially if there were more then one flag (two in this case, not 3, or whatever you say...). You just want to use the infobox so you could eliminate the Monarchic one... (basic POV pushing)
And YES, there is a community, specially when the article is belonging to a project, like this one belongs to Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology and I asked for help there, and they said that what you´ve donne is wrong. W.R.O.N.G. The "community" of the project suports "my" version, the "community" of editors supports "my" version, all the comparable flag articles supports "my" version. Who or what supports yours? The current flags articles? They don´t count for this case...
You are even disrespecting a person that has been quite kind with you (Admin LessHeard vanU that asked you clearly not to edit war and discuss until an agreement is reached...
P.S.:Regarding Mihailovic, what do you want? The mediation is on hold... unless you finally want to acknolledge you´ve been exagerating and missinforming about sources content? And "my Britannica"? Aren´t you messing up everything? Wasn´t that other user, BoDu? Where did I ever mentioned Britannica? Resumingly, and about everything, what are you talking about??? FkpCascais (talk) 03:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LoL, oh just stop it with the "everyone's against you/five users" nonsense. xD Why you keep repeating that obvious fiction is beyond me... And please stop trying to interpret English language dialogue, I did not "disrespect" (lol) anyone, I've known the guy for years now, what's with you?
"We are not talking about countries, but flags." Bravo, FkpCascais, we are talking about the flag of a country. Now please read this carefully: the infobox is to be used for countries that have modern sets of flags (national flag, war flag, civil ensign, state ensign, naval ensign, and their amalgams). It is used to make sense of the modern flag system (per the Fédération internationale des associations vexillologiques, FIAV). FkpCascais, ALL significant 20th century countries that had modern flags (like Yugoslavia did) use the infobox, former or not (those few that do not use it do so because the article lacks quality, just like the Yugoslav flag article up to recently, not because they are against it). When they use it, they display the latest flag of the country. The country is (as I explained above) Yugoslavia, and displayed here are its latest flags.
All older flags that were used at one time or another are always listed in the "List of XY flags" article, and are not listed in the infobox. And so are Yugoslav flags. Your personal preference for one of the defunct flags is not going to degrade and damage this article by removing an excellently designed infobox. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Evlekis:There is really not much to "discuss" here, I´ll tell you why:
This was how the article was before direktor intervention: [8] chronological, correct, complete and informative, and most important, stable (nobody complained, edit wared, nothing).
This is the direktors "hard work": [9], cleaverly inserted an infobox (completely unecessary in historical flags, specially to cases where there was more that one official flag) so he could remove the monarchic flag. Btw, he removed the monarchic set of flags, leaving only the official one that is now at the bottom together with the Communist Party one!
Now:

  • 1) 5 (all) editors disagree with him (User:R-41, User:Thewanderer, User:Tadija, User:Zscout370, me and I see now the User:Imbris.
  • 2) I asked the project intervention (Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology) and it was User:Zscout370 that explained to me that was wrong having the article the way it was on that moment (direktors version was on).
  • 3) I searched in WP for other articles on flags comparable, meaning flags of FORMER states that had more then one official flag, and I found 7 (6 made the way the article was before direktors "hard work", and 1 the way he wants, but that one is of the Soviet Union, that didn´t had "more than one" flag, but rather flags with minimal slight differencies in the communist arms coat in the corner, so it even that one doesn´t really count).
  • 4) Direktor accused User:R-41 of being Serb nationalist, even having to apologise to him, as you can see on his talk page, and I don´t need to tell you all the crazy things I have been acused by this person, direktor...
  • 5) I don´t remember now what more I had to say here, but this is already enough for seing how absurd all this discussion is. Direktor is deeply wrong, he touth that his edits here, by inserting his POV on Yugoslav flag article (and coat of arms is also the same situation) and doing his best to eliminate the monarchic Yugoslav simbology, that he offensively considers "heavy-duty Serbian monarchist POV" as seen on the top of this page (see the begining of the "The flags of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia should be restored to the article" section on this exact talk page). Is there anything more needed to say to this absurdity? Please somebody fix this article against this biased insulting version of "hard work". FkpCascais (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@direktor, infoboxes are not esential, specially not in this cases where their use would be very innadequate. Also, there are no infoboxes in flags in the same situation: former country with more than one version of official flags. Find exemples, then talk. The article had far more "quality" before your intervention. Is there any reason why you removed all the set of monarchic flags beside your POV? And also, how many times am I going to need to tell you that I´m defending EQUAL status for both, as they deserve! FkpCascais (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solving this issue...?

[edit]

Well direktor, despite all said in previos sections, it would be good, for everybody, so they don´t have to read all, to make a summary of why you defend your version, since it was you who changed the article. If you feel defensive, and you feel that it should be me to say all the reasons why I think your version is wrong, we can also go that way, whatever you prefer. So, be my guest... FkpCascais (talk) 04:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you so much, Fkp.
The infobox is to be used for countries that have modern sets of flags (national flag, war flag, civil ensign, state ensign, naval ensign, and their amalgams). It is used to make sense of the modern flag system (per the Fédération internationale des associations vexillologiques, FIAV). FkpCascais, ALL significant 20th century countries that had modern sets of several flags (like Yugoslavia did) use the infobox, former or not. When they use it, they display the latest flag of the country. The country is (as I explained above) Yugoslavia, and displayed here are its latest flags (and not the one's you personally like best).
There, knock yourself out... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You two should stop this passive aggressive nonsense, or you should both be blocked for personal attacks. FOCUS ON THE ISSUE, NOT EACH OTHER. Yugoslavia is a deceased state, it has no present set of flags. Now find some examples of Wikipedia articles on flags of former states to make your cases.--R-41 (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason for this overbearing tone, R-41. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overbearing, no, it's in line with what the Wikipedia principles state: be polite, be welcoming, don't assume bad faith (at least until it becomes apparent), and if there is a disruptive editor or editors they should be reported. You and the other user are engaging in pointless vicious arguments and derogatory manners. If you wish to fight with another editor, take it to some blog outside Wikipedia. If you wish to rationally discuss the claims you are making, present evidence to justify those claims, in this case, I suggest that articles on flags former states would answer this problem. I am willing to uphold Wikipedia's principles ahead of personal agendas, and I hope that a solution to this problem can be made sooner rather than later, that is why I mention it.--R-41 (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we say you are "reminding us of Wiki principles" - in an overbearing and derogatory tone? If you read the above discussion you will notice that examples were already presented, and that much of your advice is completely useless. Nobody likes being talked down to, R-41, even Fkp may agree with me on that. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@R-41, can you please replace me on this? It is because direktor makes this issue personal with me, this way, if you are the one presenting arguments, he can´t say anything about me, and maybe (maybe...) you can focus more on the edits itself. Thank you.
@DIREKTOR, please don´t escape from arguments, R-41 made you a clear question regarding other articles in same situation (former countries). Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To DIREKTOR and DIREKTOR, you might call it "overbearing" or "derogatory" for third party intervention to acknowledge the fact that vicious edit wars involving condescending insults between users and to request those users to resolve the dispute, but I consider it responsible in the apparent absence of such responsibility either done in awareness or lack of awareness by other users. I will say that I am highly frustrated by the fact that the simple issue of a format of an article has descended into a full blown edit war, and my capital lettering was an illustration of that frustration, not an attack on you or anyone. I don't want to see this talk section become a fighting blog like so many on the internet, it should adhere to Wikipedia's principles on discussion. If people can't uphold that basic commitment, they should take their arguments elsewhere. To FkpCascais I will not and cannot accept an invitation to "replace" you, that would be vouching, I am not going to firmly take any side on the issue. But if the edit wars continue, as a responsible editor, I will report them to an administrator. So please, how about we all just stop the attacks, calm down, and focus on the issue, which is the format of the article, not each other. I propose in good will that all users contributing to this article participate in a vote on the issue to end the dispute and that should that fail to resolve the issue, it be sent to administrators to arbitrate a resolution.--R-41 (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Six articles instead of two?

[edit]

I would ask anyone to find any country on Wikipedia, defunct or presently in existence, that uses six different flag and coat-of-arms articles - apart from Yugoslavia. The question here is why these WP:POVFORKS, apparently in existence for political reasons, should be allowed to remain in existence? Why should there be a half-dozen useless articles where this can all be covered in the usual way in just 2? -- Director (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which six articles exactly, can you enumerate them here? I noticed only the KoY vs. SFRY separation, and that - in principle - is a matter of editorial policy, not necessarily a case of POV forking. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first was Kingdom. Then was a war, big one, and during the war and especially after, it was created the new state - socialist one, with totally different system. On this wikipedia there is a lot of useless articles, but i think that articles about flag of Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and SFRY are not useless. --Ex13 (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ex13, by all means, follow through with your logic and try to apply it to every "new state" that happened to be created on this earth and not just to Yugoslavia. You will see that hundreds of unnecessary articles (ex. Flag of Weimar Germany, Flag of Nazi Germany, Flag of the Federal Republic of Germany, Flag of the German Democratic Republic) will be created in the process. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 16:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy we had two disambiguation pages, two flag articles, and two coa articles - now we just have two articles. The reason why the articles remained separate for so long is that FkpCascais (who's now topic-banned for tendentious pro-Chetnik editing) really liked to have an article where the royalist Yugoslav coa was displayed as prominently as possible. That's why I call them POVFORKS. No matter how you look at it, its nonsense to have six or four utterly insignificant stubs instead of two marginally useful articles - especially when that is common practice. By the logic used to seperate those two we might also add two more articles for the semi-royalist/semi-socialist WWII Democratic Federal Yugoslavia as well, since it too had a whole seperate set of flags and emblems along with a different political system... -- Director (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ex13, I have to ask, are you restoring the Karađorđević symbols article at the behest of the pro-Chetnik user FkpCascais? I have to ask since he has been lobbying all over the place. -- Director (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Producer, I can see that http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Flag_of_Germany is a combination of various points in history about that flag. Yet, if someone would have written about the flags of, lets say, Nazi Germany or East Germany, it wouldn't be deleted or given a second thought. But there will be a point that, given the various states Yugoslavia was in and time periods it had, it had many flags and having just a Flag of Yugoslavia would be very big. I know the former Soviet republics have their own articles about their symbols and flags during Russian history is broken up. So there is no one set look each article has. My specialty is symbols, so I will be able to guide what the articles can look like, but this edit warring for over 2 years isn't going to work. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Zscout370, it seems you are abusing your admin tools. You are WP:INVOLVED in this dispute. Not only that, but you first participated in the edit war before you applied an article protection to keep what is obviously your preferred version on top. Now you're discussing this issue again and advocating the article versions you have protected in place. A very clear-cut case, in my opinion. In accordance with Wikipedia policy, I request that you please revert your edits and remove the article protection, or else refrain from participating in this dispute. If you do not want to do so and think I am wrong in these assertions we can take it up on the appropriate noticeboard. As for the edit war itself, you of course have my word I myself will not take this farther than the customary 3RR limit. Please respond to the aforementioned request at your earliest convenience.
Regarding your argument itself, I feel it is entirely flawed and without basis on every point. The Flag of Russia article actually covers and includes graphically the flag of the Russian SFSR. While there really is a tiny Flag of the Russian SFSR article, it is the perfect example of a useless article and a good case in point for what I am trying to say above. In addition, Flag of the Russian Empire redirects to Flag of Russia. As for the article being "big", all I can say is: that's the point. Yugoslavia was actually a rather brief state, with a total of two (2) regimes that controlled it, and did not have very many flags. Thank you for your offer of guidance, but I believe we all of us here are perfectly capable of quickly reviewing Wikipedia's flag articles. -- Director (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have some suggestions for the FSRY article, such as specification details, but not sure if we have one of those diagrams online. But I have been involved in a lot of your disputes; or anything else related to Yugoslav history. Plus the edits to this "bigger article" is only you and others have disagreed in the past. It is better to have this article go back to the pre 2012 edit and no one gets blocked instead of letting this go back and forth. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what exactly you mean by "a combination of various points in history about that flag". The flag of Germany article includes every previous flag that Germany had - regardless of whatever form the state may have taken - all properly consolidated into one article. A Flag of Nazi Germany article had, up until October 2008, existed and was merged to the Flag of Germany article along with the other previous state flags. Now you bring up the various republics that the SFRY existed of and their similarity to the USSR republics. The SFRY republic flags do not have their own articles nor should they as they will exist forever as stubs like the USSR republic flags. That is absolutely in the wrong direction. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 21:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the article sucks; regardless of what state it is in it feels like it is mashed together and not having a sense of direction. When it was everything here, the royal flags was always removed in edit wars. When those were put in, it was just scant and still everything was about the Socialist period. Here is what I am thinking; we, in theory, could have this page be like a summary such as Flag of Russia or Flag of Germany where it has descriptions of all flags of Yugoslav history. Then, you could have sub articles that goes into specific details and galleries of flags of those eras. Thoughts? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mean SFRY? Zscout, I have no problem with you participating and suggesting various courses of action, but Wikipedia policy prohibits you from both using your admin tools and actively participating in the same dispute [10]

In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

Not only have you been involved, but you are actually currently involving yourself. I assure you, I will not give anyone the opportunity to block me :). Please revert your edits and remove the article protection before you continue to participate in this dispute, though regardless of whether you withdraw you have already violated Wikipedia WP:ADM policy in a rather big way. I note you did not respond to my request. Again, if you disagree, the matter can be reviewed at the appropriate noticeboard as defined on WP:ADMINABUSE. -- Director (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I submit that no other similar state, indeed virtually no state whatsoever, has separate flag articles for different regimes or periods of its history. Yugoslavia is similar to other Eastern European entities that after WWII switched from a royalist or right-wing regime to a communist one, so I will list only such articles as examples.

Apart from these most simmilar countries, the list goes on and on with a overwhelming majority using one flag article. On the other side of course is the "feeling" that this is not the right direction. Zscout, rather than insisting on the proliferation of the Soviet model, I suggest that the SSR flag articles be merged into their main flag articles, as they are obviously the exception, and seem quite unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORKS. -- Director (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know for Belarus (which I am an author of) I wrote about the Soviet-era flags inside the main article. I think for only the Soviet-era flag I added sources to the page. But I know if I went ahead and merged the articles it would be un-merged. (This is one thing I hate about Wikipedia, but at 4:23 am Arkansas time, why bother). Ok, so if the consensus is one page, ok, thats fine. I don't care; just sick of the back and forth between Director and ex13 on YU related articles. Though the structure of this page really needs to change. The royal flags are first, textually, yet their flags are stuffed at the very bottom of the pages right next to the SFRY republic flags. It should flow in a chronological order from pre-Royal (if that is how you want to start) to the rename of the state to Serbia-Montenegro. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 10:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the infoboxes really need to disappear for right now and maybe just show one image of the main national flag. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 10:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding infoboxes, the reason why we have two on this article is that I tried to make FkpCascais happy and still have the royalist flags prominently displayed, even though in the vast majority of articles only the last official flags are placed in an infobox. This is perhaps why you had the impression of a crowded article? -- Director (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was probably it, but I think the article could be structured better, but it is nearly 6 am and I can no longer think. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 11:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There were essentially three "sets" of flags used in Yugoslavia: pre-WWII (3 flags), during WWII (2 flags), and post-WWII (3 flags again). Each set, of course, had one main flag, that is to say, the national flag. We have the latest official set of 3 flags in the infobox. The question is, do we present the other two sets in their entirety (which would mean having 5 flags in the article aside from the three in the infobox) or do we present only the two national flags from the other two sets? One should bear in mind of course that there is a List of Yugoslav flags article that lists the older flags anyway. -- Director (talk) 12:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would say just the national flags for right now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine either way. -- Director (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2017

[edit]
Letsgom8 (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the Kingdom of Yugoslavia section:
First flag:
Name National flag of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia
Use State flag and national ensign
Second flag:
Name State flag of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia
Use Civil flag and ensign

Fix the Name and Use so that they match. It's confusing when the name says 'state flag' but the use says that it's a civil flag.

Not done: The name and usage of flags do not always correspond exactly. "Name" is what the government or entity that created the flag calls it and "usage" is what flag scholars have identified as the way in which the government or entity allows the flag to be presented. If you have a reliable source that indicates the government of the former Kingdom of Yugoslavia called the flag something besides the National Flag (translated, of course), then we would change it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of color

[edit]

Some of the article spells it 'color' or 'tricolor' other parts are spelled 'colour' or 'tricolour', is there any reason behind this or should it be standardized to one spelling? Coystags (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editors of this article are from all over the world. I don't have a preference for one or the other, nor for complete standardization. -Vipz (talk) 08:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should be written in American English, international arbitration by a Greek. 2A00:23C7:5882:8201:943E:C37D:158C:751B (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flag_of_Yugoslavia&oldid=1200654396"