Template talk:History of Croatia

src: g8fip1kplyr33r3krz5b97d1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com

Video Template talk:History of Croatia

Mengapa saya menghapus Origin of Croats dan Migration of Croats dari template

Yes, it would be nice to have Origin of Croats and Migration of Croats in the History of Croatia series, but the article does not exist at the moment, so there's no reason to put red links to Template. When the articles are written, place them inside the template. --Dijxtra 15:31, January 23, 2006 (UTC)

Maps Template talk:History of Croatia

New box parameters, box width, marginleft

09-Dec-2008: To allow the â € Å"Templat: History_of_Croatiaâ € â„¢ infobox to stack on the corresponding "Templates: History_of_Hungary" infobox, the characteristics of the infobox must be changed by passing parameters. The new parameters are:

• boxclass = infobox - CSS class from table (default: infobox)
• boxwidth = 220px - box width of the box (default: 205px)
• marginleft = 0.1em - width margins outside the left edge of the box (default: 1.0em).

Other parameters may be required for further use of infobox in more articles. The above parameters are used when stacked together with other infoboxes. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:32, December 9, 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

"Recent History"

• I will not discuss this with you: Kingdom SHS = Yugoslavia - this is the same country, just renamed. Yugoslavia. I must be a total idiot even talking about this with you.
• NDH is a wartime creation formed by foreign powers in occupied Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia as a country certainly never de jure surrendered (surrendered army, not state), and much of its territory was even de facto controlled by various Yugoslav guerrilla forces.
  • Is Croatia "not in Yugoslavia" during World War II? This is only true if one considers the Independent State of Croatia as the body of law and the successor of Yugoslavia. Who considers NDH as a Croatian law state? Fascists and supporters of Usta neo-nazi? Right wing. Who cares about what they think? Nothing, certainly not the Croatian government, nor am I.

• "Recent History" is actually worse than "Modern History". "Recent History" of course includes "War of Independence" and "Republic of Croatia". This is another silly debate I will discuss. The section titles only that covered Croatia from 1918 to 1991 were "Croats in Yugoslavia". Overcome it, and curb your nationalist censorship of historic facts. The only reason you want to remove the title is because you do not like the fact that Croatia is part of Yugoslavia, OR, maybe you are trying to "add legitimacy" to NDH? Special sensors for the purpose of misleading. It is clear to anyone that you have no idea how to express the passage without mentioning Yugoslavia, and you are cooking strange and inaccurate phrases. I do not support this. - DIRECTOR ^{( TALK )} 23:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(1) This is the State of Slovenia, Croatia, and Serbia. Then the Kingdom of Serbia, Croatia, and Slovenia. You accidentally entered:

• | data9 = Slovenian, Croatian and Serbian conditions

to not show the country

• | data10 = Slovenia, Croatia, and Serbia state

as should be indicated.

(2) Legitimacy. I will not argue with someone who is biased against all forms of Yugoslavia, not because Yugoslavia is a bad thing per se , but because this man (Mr. DIRECTOR) applies modern law, the United Nations to the historical state. This is pure Yugoslav revisionism and fabrication.

(3) History has a flow of time.

(4) Mr. DIRECTOR is not familiar with the term: new history, recent history. Modern History, Contemporary History (Contemporary).

(5) The title he proposes is not neutral and biased because the Croatian Parliament has never ratified the entry of the Trinitarian Kingdom of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia in the Kingdoms of Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia.

Imbris (talk) 00:29, July 1, 2009 (UTC)

• What is NONSENSE: Why does "recent history" really include events that occurred after 1991? Have you just found the category? "Recent history = 1918-1991"? In your dreams. All you do is avoid the term "Yugoslavia" that you delete.
• The Kingdom of SHS is the Yugoslav Kingdom. Both are one and the same. This is not something I would debate. That is general knowledge. Croatia was in Yugoslavia soon after World War II, not after the dictatorship of Alexander I..
• NDH is not valid in accordance with pre-war Hague Convention - as wartime creation. Yugoslavia was also never dissolved as a country during World War I (I suggest you read the Creation of Yugoslavia). Even in our modern Croat, a person who only will bravely defend the "legitimacy" of NDH is a Usta ultranationalist? E-supporters. Why? Because only they are so blinded by the bias that they are able to ignore the simple facts.

- DIRECTOR ^{( TALK )} 08:26, July 1, 2009 (UTC)

Imbris, what's this? Concentrate on the three points of this discussion, each referring to the specific changes in the article: write shorter answers . Impossible to lead the discussion with each post into one page, can you get that ?? Half of the things you write there do not even have anything to do with the question... - DIRECTOR ^{( TALK )} 21:31, July 3, 2009 (UTC)

You do not know how to read the scheme?! Please stop degrading by talking about brevity or legibility. You know very well that your three topic is null and void. The Modern History is a pretty good term most appropriate, not because I say so - but because (1) historians recognize the division of Modern and Contemporary (novija & amp; najnovija). (2a) The Serbian, Croatian and Slovenian kingdoms are not exactly the same as the Kingdom of Yugoslavia because the Yugoslav Kingdom is the constitutional step of dictator Alexander Karageorgevitch; he suspends the previous Constitution of the Serbian, Croatian and Slovenian Empires, which imposes martial law, illegally governs, dissolves Parliament , etc. But I do not claim that the Kingdom of Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia should be included in the list. (2b) You deliberately interpret 2a because I noted and insisted that the State of Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia became independent before 1 December 1918 and this independence was continued i> to the first Constitutions of the Kingdom of Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia. (3) The talk of The Hague Convention of 1907 has nothing to do with this template, you impose it. - Imbris (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Our latest era - Modern Times - begins with the end of this revolution in the 19th century, and includes the era of World War (including World War I and World War II) and the Cold War. The 'contemporary era' follows soon after with explosive research and knowledge enhancement known as the Information Age in the 20th century and the 21st century.

• Further Proof of (1) : Template: History of France has the First Republic (1792-1804) under the heading 19th century , the Third Republic (1870-1940) under the same headings in the 19th century and the Fifth Republic (1958-present) in the 20th century. History is not Mathematics. In this way we can list what you insist we do not call Modern History under the 20th Century canopy. Template: The history of Moldova is also oriented on the historical look of Moldova and not the history of some federations of Moldova is part of. Template: The history of Kosovo contains federal entities only in cases where Kosovo does not own its own unit (names only the latest names such as the Kingdom of Serbia (but not the Kingdom of Serbia) and also mentions the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (but not Kingdom of Serbia, Croatia, and Slovenia).
• (2a) There should be an article about Croatia during World War II (not a current diversion). This template is about Croatian History and not about the History of Yugoslavia. Yugoslav Front can not be part of this template. This new article if it is written correctly and without revisionism must be in the template, and not a part of Yugoslavia.
• (2b) Historiography is not a Law. The state is not formed or destroyed. They are facts during their existence. One can describe some circumstances using different attributes; the fact of their existence can not be illegal, if there is no international law on the establishment of the countries that existed during World War II. Now we have differences, and international law on the establishment of the state and self-determination is still being written (ie in the case of the Republic of Kosovo - and we know how you feel about that issue)
• (3) This is a template used for collection of timelines and topics about Croatian History and not on History Yugoslavia . The two are connected but the look of the countries in which Croatia "participates" is arrogant and certainly not objective.

Imbris (talk) 19:03, July 5, 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Example

For what purpose is this example? The states of Slovenia, Croatia, and Serbia are not within Yugoslavia . - Imbris (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No amount of & lt; hr & gt; can help with your vision that it is not Modern History . That was the previous conversation. - Imbris (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Mr. DIRECTOR uses this talk page as a sand playground. It's arrogant. He removed the Slovenian, Croatian and Serbian states from the template to advance his yugoslav POV. - Imbris (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No need to repeat You will not approve anything I do - I get a message... Please do not edit any of my talk page posts. - DIRECTOR ^{( TALK )} 22:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You should be aware that the push-POV Croatia in Yugoslavia will not work. Did you read the latest in Talk: the Croatian Socialist Republic. - Imbris (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You have started editing the waring knowing that your Yugoslav Front can not be part of this template. Do you read what User: GregorB write here? - Imbris (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

---

All your arguments are the reason so you can have your way regardless of all sense and common sense. Discussing with you is completely and utterly useless, because you do not budge no matter what the evidence is, no matter what meditation. The funny look on Talk: Independent State of Croatia proves my point: even if I have a university publication that explicitly supports my view, you will admit that you are WRONG. What should I do on articles and templates where there is no way to support the way with the source? There was no chance to end the discussion, unless I did not start banging my head against the wall on how much energy I wasted writing all this - and giving up.

Your attempt has destroyed this template. - DIRECTOR ^{( TALK )} 09:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia