Talk:World War II in Yugoslavia/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

So the casualty rate of the german army comes from the officer of public propaganda?

Seriously? More germans died or were captured in the last withdrawls from Yugoslavia than listed there. With sources as good as these it's better not to add any at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.59.34.174 (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Yugoslavia in World War II needs editing

This article, rated high-importance by wikiproject Yugoslavia, is extremely stubby. All help appreciated. Cheers, ^walk victor falk ^talk 13:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Article title and scope

Contents of Talk:Yugoslavia in World War II
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Talk:Yugoslavia_in_World_War_II

For everyone's convenience, I transcluded the above discussion, which includes title and scope issues with this article.

— No such user — continues after insertion below

Because this is going to be archived now, the transclusion no longer makes sense. --Joy [shallot] (talk)

I would tend to agree with N-HH that Yugoslav Front lacks recognizability and is not really a common name, and that we'd be better off with a descriptive title like Yugoslav theatre of World War II, Yugoslav front in World War II, Yugoslavia in World War II... Since there is not a clear target, I'd rather start a discussion before a WP:RM (which would, by my experience, likely meander a lot and end up as "no consensus").

For what it's worth, the most common title pattern in {{WWII history by nation}} is [[<country> in World War II]], which would work well here in my opinion, being simple and recognizable. While I agree with DIREKTOR that WWII in Yu raeally started in 1941, we could accommodate User:Peacemaker67 by expanding the Background section with a brief summary of 1939-41 events, and the causes of German invasion. Of course, Invasion of Yugoslavia would remain the main article. In other words, we should:

• merge what is worth of disputed contents of the current Yugoslavia in World War II article here
• move Yugoslav Front to Yugoslavia in World War II
• expand at will

Thoughts? No such user (talk) 07:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Currently this is a military conflict article, describing the war in Yugoslavia. [[<country> in World War II]] would be a period article. Thing is, we don't need a period article: because this war and the events that surround it - are the only thing of WP:NOTE that happened in Yugoslavia. I hold that anything of note in the 1941-45 period can be covered as part of the military conflict article.

So, to be clear, I oppose a parallel [[<country> in World War II]] article, but I particularly oppose the idea of changing this article into an article of that type. If you did that, we'd still justifiably need a military conflict article... -- Director (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Essentially agree with Nsu's proposed COA. "Yugoslav Front" isn't a title known outside WP, one approach across WP has been to have a summary article "Military history of X during World War II". See Military history of the United States during World War II or Military history of France during World War II etc, or "History of X (1939–45)" per History of Poland (1939–45). Even just "History of Yugoslavia during World War II". We need an overarching summary article for the country during the war, if this is it, so be it. But the current name is not it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yugoslav Front is not a good title - for this military conflict. I've been saying that for years. But we're talking about making this into a period article, as opposed to a military conflict article. We're taking about changing the scope and type of article. That I oppose first and foremost. It is rather absurd to compare Yugoslavia's involvement in WWII with that of the US or even France. Yugoslavia only fought this war, and nothing else.

See, for example the Soviet Union in World War II article. It covers mostly the "Great Patriotic War", but it also has the Machurian Campaign to cover. And also the Invasion of Poland, and the Winter War. And it has the home front. Well, Yugoslavia only has the "great patriotic war", and her Home Front was literally a "home front". The Soviet Union in World War II article would not be justifiable if the Great Patriotic War was all there was to the Soviet experience.

And no, I would argue we do not need an "overarching summary article" at all. I've seen no reason why it wouldn't be a WP:CFORK. As for summarizing, 90% of it would summarize this article, and the rest would summarize the 10-day Invasion of Yugoslavia. Although I would object to such a thing considerably less than a thoughtless change of this article's focus. This is a military conflict article. -- Director (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd stand by the comments of mine cited above and would also tend to agree with those suggesting, at least, a rename and/or a broad overview article. I'd also dispute again the line of reasoning which posits some fundamental and unbridgeable distinction between "period" articles and "event" articles. As noted elsewhere, events by definition happen during periods. There's no either/or choice and it's an odd philosophical tangent to hang article naming issues on. N-HH (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

"Event articles" is a red herring, of course "events happen during periods", but a period of time is a different topic than an event that occurred in said period of time.

This is an article focusing on a military conflict in which Yugoslavia took part. Changing the focus to Yugoslavia itself - is a change in the focus of the article. For one thing, in such an article - the infobox would have to go, or rather be moved into the new article on the Yugoslav Front. -- Director (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You raised the issue of "events" vs "periods", here and elsewhere. Anyway, the point is that we don't need to try to read quite so much into the wording of proposed broad descriptive titles. As for the infobox, I'm not sure we would have to lose it nor whether it would be a disaster if we did. And why would we have a new article called "Yugoslav Front"? The whole issue is with that very title, as you yourself acknowledge. The bottom line is that this page needs a better, more generic title and that its scope may expand a bit with that. I'm not quite sure why that's a problem or why that would constitute changing focus altogether. N-HH (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said, its not about the title - its about the scope. And, per WP:NAME, the title must describe the scope. "Yugoslavia in World War II" is not a name for this war that's the subject of the article. "Yugoslav Front" at least doesn't imply an entirely different focus and subject. I mention the infobox to illustrate how changed the scope and focus would be.

We would need a new article because we'd need an article about this war. Which would then have no article covering it (and thus probably be the only war in history without an article on Wikipedia :)).

Now, "Yugoslav Front" is a bad title. No question. But that just means we may need a better title for the war. As I said before, "National Liberation War" is what this thing is usually called in sources, but I have no wish to open that can of worms now. -- Director (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, this thread is titled "title and scope", I believe, so it rather is about the title. And of course "Yugoslavia in WW2" isn't the only name on the table (and of course even that one would mean "[what happened] in Yugoslavia in [respect of] WW2" – ie primarily, if not exclusively, the military conflict and its context – as much as it is about every single other thing that happened during that period or about "[what] Yugoslavia [did] in WW2"). The original post also suggested more expanded and precise, but non-capitalised, variations on the current name, such as "Yugoslav theatre in WW2", which would surely satisfy the stated objections on that score, for what they're worth? N-HH (talk) 09:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

My point was that the scope determines the title, not vice versa. Its not about "reading into the title", its about making sure your title describes the scope. So really, the thread should probably be called simply "Scope" :).

But if we are discussing just the title of this article, in its current scope as covering the war, then we're in for a complex discussion. And if that's the case then I will put forward "National Liberation War (Yugoslavia)" again [1] (keeping in mind that "People's Liberation War" [2] is really the same term, representing a different translation of the word "narodno", which can mean both "people's" or "national" in about the same measure). But my primary concern is that we don't turn this article into something other than it is. -- Director (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

is Partisan and communist POV. It would not be an acceptable title, even if the scope was right, which it isn't. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Its much simpler than that: the Partisans won the war, and they named it. And that's its name. The lot of it. Is it Partisan "POV"? Sure, but its no use trying to rename the war now. The name "American Civil War" is just as "POV", shall we name it something else on Wikipedia? I put forward the name because its used in many, reliable, scholarly sources. Its up to them to decide if its biased. And again: claims that the term does not extend to whatever aspect of the conflict - need to be substantiated. As far as I can see, the sources do not use it in such a manner. -- Director (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

But we avoid WP:POVNAMEs when there are neutral and common alternatives, and I doubt that National Liberation War even nearly satisifies the "referred to mainly by a single common name" criterion. It was hardly ever popular in anglophone historiography (and it isn't popular in Ex-Yu historiography since 1990s). For example, Great Patriotic War redirects to Eastern Front (World War II). In fact, I would say that there is not a single common name for the current topic of this article (the conflict), so we should stick with one of descriptive alternatives. "Yugoslav Front" is not that bad, but it lacks recognizability as to when. No such user (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You mean like "War Between the States"? But yes, when there are neutral and common alternatives, we're supposed to use them. Trouble is - there are none. Not to my knowledge. User-invented, descriptive titles can not be used in lieu of sourced names. "Yugoslav Front" is only 'not bad' in that its simple and in that it does actually denote a military conflict. The question connected to it isn't really "when?", since no other conflict but this one has such a name, but rather more importantly - its "what front?". If there's any military theatre of WWII where there wasn't really a "front" to speak of - its this. I mean there was the Syrmian Front, but that's about it as far as "fronts" go here. -- Director (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

"User-invented, descriptive titles can not be used in lieu of sourced names" - wtf I beg your pardon?! And what is WP:NDESC about?
I agree with your assessment that this was not a front, but then, what's wrong, description-wise and POV-wise with e.g. Yugoslav theatre of World War II, or perhaps even World War II in Yugoslavia (which does focus on war rather than Yugoslavia)? No such user (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean "what's NDESC about"?

“ The prevalence of the name generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. ”

And not only is it prevalent, its the only name I can find for this war as such. -- Director (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree with NSU again. As ever, this discussion seems to be spinning off into overly complex theoretical tangents and broad assertions, as well as having left-field alternatives suddenly being thrown into the mix, rather than focusing on the actually quite simple and reasonable options and suggestions that were first put in front of everyone. As for National Liberation War, is it really that prevalent as a formal name, especially for the entire conflict in Yugoslavia? That's debatable, surely. N-HH (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

ps: this is the same problem as at the Territory page: everyone agrees there are problems with the existing title and the way it not only uses but formalises a rarely seen and unclear description, but then in any discussion people suddenly dive in and say, sometimes with a wholly new suggestion mid-way through, "but this is the only correct replacement for it, and I'm going to prove to you why". To get consensus and improvement, we need slightly more by way of open minds, acknowledgement that there is not necessarily a "correct" answer and people able to say "I'd prefer option A but I could live with option B if everyone else could". N-HH (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

And, as often enough, its you who started down the tangent, with me stating my reluctance to open up the "can of worms" that is said tangent.. :)

Are we discussing a) a change in the focus of the article (with the attached title change), or b) the title of the article in its current focus?

• If we're discussing the possibility of changing this article to a general article on Yugoslav history between 1941 and 1945, then I'm opposed on grounds that: #1 we don't need a general article on said period, because virtually all that happened in Yugoslavia in said period was this war; and #2 we would then need another article for the war.
• If we're discussing the need for a separate article that covers the period, then #1 we don't need a general article on said period, because virtually all that happened in Yugoslavia in said period was this war; and #2 (or rather "1.5") it would therefore be a WP:CFORK.

If, on the other hand, we're veering off towards "b)" a discussion about the article's title in its current scope, then I affirm that this case is not "similar to the territory", as the territory doesn't really have a commonname. This war does, with 62,000 (+25,000) hits in the SET. Its just that people don't like it, presumably because its Communist. I for one don't care if its "Communist" or "Nazi", or *Kentucky accent* damn Yankee hogwash. I care about following policy and the sources. And yes, I can pull of a credible Kentucky accent! :)

There is no question that the war needs an article either way, but the summary article is debatable. If we can avoid having two articles with a 90% same subject, we should. And, as the war article is always necessary, we should go with it as our article. -- Director (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Part of the reason we always talk past each other is that we don't share your rigid preconceptions that articles must by any means fit into an "event", "period", "military conflict" or "former state" compartments, with an appropriate infobox to boot. Yes, 90% of what happened in 1941-1945 in Yugoslavia was war, that much we agree. That war, however, had its political, historical, economic, whatever background, that should be covered somewhere (that's the remaining 10%). I originally proposed just to slightly enhance the scope to accommodate for that (because I also think it's stupid to have another article), and find an better title for the end result (because Yugoslav Front has never been appropriate). The National Liberation War or a variation thereof is not appropriate, as it has POV problems and recognizability problems: if it were so common as you claim, it wouldn't have been a redlink thus far, would it?

If I have to answer your questions as stated, (although they have a lot of mu- taste to it), it would be b) Keep the focus on the war (with some additional background) and find a better title. No such user (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Its not so much an issue of rigid categorization, but primacy. And efficient coverage. War articles can cover periods, and period articles can cover wars, but one is always the primary topic. Articles primarily focusing on periods as such - have a disadvantage in that articles on wars and former states in the period can always legitimately have their own (sub-)articles. This is fine if the former states/wars cover only a relatively small part of the period article's scope. If a war, or a former state, cover the period completely - then the period article needs to go. Why the period article and not the other two? Because, again, a period article has an arbitrary, user-defined subject, whereas the others do not. If I was to create a "History of Germany 1933-1945" article, who could legitimately contest the creation of a "Nazi Germany" article? Etc. *other numerous examples..*

I am not advocating a rigid scope for this article. In fact, if you gathered, I support it as our article for covering the wider topic of the period itself. But I would like to see the main focus remain the war. P.s. there's an entire article on Wars of national liberation, and National Liberation War (Yugoslavia) does redirect here. @"if it were so common as you claim" I wouldn't say I'm "claiming" anything: I posted the SET results. -- Director (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all NSU says above and would be broadly happy with any of the proposed descriptive titles, eg "WW2 in Yugoslavia", "Yugoslav theatre in WW2" etc. Yes they may slightly expand the scope, or may not, but as noted this is not fatal. The world simply doesn't run on such rigid lines and both of us have said the focus would remain primarily on the war/conflict. You're raising problems that don't exist, which is part of the whole problem with all these discussions. As for "cans of worms", sorry but you seem to have forgotten that you were the first to mention "National Liberation War" at all and then went on, directly after saying you didn't want to open the can, to discuss it in great detail before anyone else had even referred specifically to the option. I certainly didn't even respond to the point or mention it myself until about 6 comments later, so I'm not sure why you're pinning that on me (and btw you need to dig a bit into those hits before claiming quite so many numbers – nor do they show that it is the standard name for the overall conflict as a whole). As for tangents, as noted, you're the one taking us into esoteric debates about the distinction between periods, entities and events. N-HH (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I get that you agree with Nsu. :) Picking a topic for an article is always "esoteric". Here's a question for you: "is this article primarily about a period of history, or a war?" Is this a irrelevant question? As I said, I don't advocate rigid scopes, in fact - quite the opposite. But I'm merely being realistic in pointing out that an article always has a primary topic. -- Director (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, N-HH is my sockpuppet... shhh (Re: [3]). No such user (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Converging?

OK, are we converging towards one of

• World War II in Yugoslavia
• Yugoslav(ian) theatre of World War II (cf European theatre of World War II, Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II, South-East Asian theatre of World War II) ?

We're not in rush, so more options are still on the table. Personally, between these two, I'm divided 50%-50%, the first being somewhat simpler and natural, the second more in line with similar articles. No such user (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I oppose both! Oppose oppose oppose! :).

Seriously, though, what's the idea avoiding the commonname with no policy-relevant argumentation? Yes, lets us Wikipedia users get together and discuss vague phrases and pick our personal favorite.. Not a fan, never was. -- Director (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this discussion is happening here as opposed to talk:Yugoslavia in World War II, but -

I oppose the notion that, with whatever name, this article can equal a full, period-based study of Yugoslavia in World War II. What ever you say, it would be a prime example of systematic bias if we believe that, for some reason, the home front of every country matters except Yugoslavia. The Holocaust, occupation regime, government (and army) in exiles etc. cannot be included in an article of this current scope. Since, in my belief, an article about the history of Yugoslavia during, and later in, World War II is of much more interest and value to our readers, the lack of a summary article is rather sad. I do not believe Yugoslavia to be exceptional in this regard - Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark etc. have all managed to conform to a general convention of "in WWII" articles... Brigade Piron (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no Yugoslav home front, there is no single occupation regime, there is no noteworthy army in exile, and the holocaust was very much a part of the conflict. The occupation regimes are many and diverse (I count 8 separate authorities on Yugoslav territory), they have their own articles, and an overview is already given here. The actual relevance of the government-in-exile to the course of events of Yugoslav WWII history is marginal at best (they exerted virtually no control even over their own loyalists). The holocaust victims were primarily Serbs, as part of the NDH campaign to eradicate them, and also included significant numbers of (pro-)Partisans of any ethnicity and creed. Yugoslavia is not to be compared with virtually any country in occupied Europe. Greece had similarities.. -- Director (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@Director: What common name? First you state there is NO common name (don't let me dig the diff). Then you pull the National Liberation War out of the pocket as if it were the common name, to which everyone else (myself, Peacemaker, N-HH) strenuously objects, for a variety of reasons (POV, recognizability and commonality). The only (and first) hit on the first page of Google books for "People's Liberation war" is a book by Josip Broz Tito (!). That is maybe an English translation of a common but outdated Serbo-Croatian term, but certainly not a common name in English. For comparison, Tomasevich's book is titled "War and Revolution in Yugoslavia: 1941 - 1945", and Pavlowitch's "Hitler's New Disorder: The Second World War in Yugoslavia". No such user (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do dig the diff.. when did I say that? -- Director (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I retract that, I misread this "there are none" statement of yours. Still, I don't think that this proposal is ever likely to gain acceptance: you haven't demonstrated that this is nearly so commonly term in reliable sources as you claim, and my (casual) searches only reveal Yugoslav sources from 1945 to 1985. I'm not a priori against WP:POVTITLEs, but that one does not come close to stated criteria. No such user (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

There are about 85,000 hits for the name I support. There is no other notable contender in use in sources. POV is an acknowledged flaw, but not a very relevant one (again: POVTITLE, "American Civil War", etc). An English term, translated from another language, is still an English term. As for recognizability, I believe the use in sources speaks to that.

As I said, that's the name of this damn war. The only name, really. That name is historical and historiographical. Policy explicitly mandates its use. I really don't understand why I should support a name one of you guys thought up here. -- Director (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it's a name sometimes used for (the main) part of the multi-faceted conflict that took place in Yugoslavia during WW2. As for the 85,000 hits, as I suggested above, you should look into that a bit deeper. They seriously tail off after the first couple of pages. My search for the phrase, with Yugoslavia added, brings up 68,500 hits, but it peters out at about the fourth or fifth page. Searching in Books for the phrase on its own brings, of course, a higher first-glance hit rate but front-page mentions too for Zimbabwe, Vietnam and China. Most countries that have experienced invasion or occupation will have what they, but not everyone, call a "National Liberation War". As for policy, that mandates us to use a title that offers the qualities, among others, of "Precision" and "Naturalness". Yes, policy suggests that if there is a universal name for something, that would help it meet those criteria and also override any concerns about about POV. But you haven't established that we have that here. And policy does indeed allow people to invent "a descriptive phrase" as a name for an article, as you surely know. "American Civil War" is indeed used universally, and also happens to be a title that doesn't come at the issue from one side or other as well as one that could refer to nothing else, just like the Thirty Years' War, the War of the Spanish Succession, the First World War etc – the comparison doesn't stand. N-HH (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

ps: also, you've got no support from anyone for the proposed title. You yourself claimed, originally, to be reluctant to bring it up. So why continue to bang on about it, including now under the sub-heading "Converging?", which was an attempt to narrow the focus to what we might all, possibly, be able to agree on, based on everyone's earlier comments? It's just derailing everything again, to no purpose. We're trying to get an agreement to improve the current title, which we all seem to agree is a multiple fail, even if its replacement might not satisfy all of us 100% either. Having everyone – or rather, one person – simply standing their corner and shouting "No! It can only have the one specific title I insist on! I shall veto every other option" is a waste of time, not least yours, and of talk page space. N-HH (talk) 11:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@"It's a name sometimes used for part of the multi-faceted conflict that took place in Yugoslavia during WW2." Part? Ok, lets get that out of the way once and for all. What makes you say that the name excludes aspects of the war? -- Director (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it encompasses:

• Chetnik early attempts of resistance
• Chetnik-Ustasha conflicts
• German disarmament of Italians post-1943 (Operation Achse)
• Red Army incursion in 1944

And even if we that those are episodes of relatively minor magnitude, recognizability and neutrality issues still stand. No such user (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yah, all conflicts not involving the Partisans, I get that. There are various aspects to many wars, and wars are often named after their main aspect. The claim, originating here on this talkpage as a sort of "personal theory" by FkpCascais, needs to be corroborated. I'd like to see some indications that the term has a limited scope in the manner described? -- Director (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Right. Can we just stop with the "limited scope" stuff now? -- Director (talk) 04:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Nsu here. Director can't veto it, we make these decisions by consensus. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and you can't ignore policy. I'm not trying to "veto" anything, but Wikipedia is not a democracy either. What I'm really doing is pointing out that WP:NAME mandates a title none of you like. Hence "veto". You can't "out-WP:VOTE" people and just have your way. -- Director (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Director, we're not ignoring policy. You have a personal issue with descriptive titles, which is well-documented. Unfortunately for your personal opinion, the WP:TITLE policy has options other than WP:COMMONNAME which can be resorted to in a range of circumstances, including one where a suggested (or current title) is POV (or completely unsupported by sources). You can't veto this on a policy basis, because policy doesn't support you. I suggest Nsu RMs it, and the community can decide. Further screeds of stonewalling will not take this forward, and resolution is long overdue. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I did plan to RM it, but I'm still not sure what to propose; that's why I started this discussion in the first place. Apart from the Direktor's preference, there are about three reasonable targets: Yugoslavia in World War II, World War II in Yugoslavia and Yugoslav theatre of World War II. Multi-choice RMs tend to get messy, and messy processes tend to get a lot of traction and end up as "no consensus". No such user (talk) 07:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yugoslavia in World War II would be consistent with several other articles of similar scope, and I would support it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It is against Wikipedia naming policy to use descriptive titles in lieu of sourced names, i.e. the WP:COMMONNAME. The fact that the term is arguably "POV" is not really relevant, and the claim that there is no commonname is manifestly absurd.

As regards the "POV" allegation, I say it is arguable because, as some of the sources point out, this was, in fact, a war of "national liberation" for the individual nations of Yugoslavia, who were only recognized by the Partisans and were officially recognized as separate nations only after the war. -- Director (talk) 08:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

in lieu, and no it's not. This situation is exactly what NDESC is for. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand policy. WP:NDESC does not say descriptive titles should be used to replace WP:POVTITLES, but that descriptive titles, when introduced, should be NPOV. The WP:COMMONNAME "generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue". Unless you hold "National Liberation War" to be a "colloquialism or trendy slogan"?

The claim of "consistency" is spurious, as those articles cover the involvement of certain countries in WWII. This article covers a military conflict. -- Director (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Director, discussing the title of this article with you without an RM is pointless. Title discussions invariably result in screeds of re-stating of positions with no likelihood of achieving consensus. I will re-engage with this if an RM is made. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, to paraphrase your own comment, your inclination towards ignoring naming policy is well documented. You've blatantly misquoted NDESC, I hope we're clear on that at least? -- Director (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)