Talk:Greens of Serbia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article name and content

Surely the Greens of Serbia article should have been kept as-is, in terms of article name and scope, with reference to the fact it merged into the NDS?--Autospark (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

My guess is that it would be better to have two or three separate articles: the present article on the joint party, one on the pre-merger Greens of Serbia and, possibly, one on the pre-merger New Democratic Party. --Checco (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Checco. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, I agree with Checco. There is no need to eliminate an article about an organisation just because it has merged with another.--Autospark (talk) 11:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Split

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose this article be split in two: "New Democratic Party (Serbia)" and "Greens of Serbia".

This party (New Democratic Party–Greens) was formed when the Greens of Serbia party was joined by the Tadić group, and then the Greens of Serbia were renamed "New Democratic Party–Greens". According to the information from the official web site [1], the party was split in two again on 14 June 2014. Actually, the party was not split, but its name was changed back to "Greens of Serbia", and New Democratic party seceded from it to become independent political party.

First option is to create two new articles, and leave this one as a disambiguation page.

Second option is to rename article back to "Greens of Serbia" and move some content to a new article titled "New Democratic Party (Serbia)". This option would be more in line with the actual renaming of the party. But I don't think this would be a good idea, as de-facto successor to the New Democratic Party–Greens is the New Democratic Party, not the Greens. Both the leader of the party (Tadić) and the parliament seats were transferred to the New Democratic Party, not to the Greens.

Anyway, one option or another, but the article has to be split in two, as these are two independent parties now. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please do it. Anyway, the merger was not really ideological but purely utilitarian: Tadić needed a registered political party to enter the elections, and Greens needed some publicity. Now that they divorced again, it makes sense to split them back.

I think the "merger" was executed around this version, so we should rename this article back to Greens of Serbia. New Democratic Party (Serbia) has certain editing history before the merger, so it should be un-redirected and relevant parts from this article moved there. I propose that New Democratic Party–Greens be made a redirect to New Democratic Party (Serbia), as the more important partner in the union. Of course, in both articles a paragraph about the period of common history should be added. No such user (talk) 08:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this seams like a good idea. To rename this article to "Greens of Serbia", revert "New Democratic Party (Serbia)" to a full article, and make this one a redirect to the "New Democratic Party (Serbia)". Let's hear what other editors say. No need to hurry. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with No such user's proposed solution - we need separate Greens of Serbia and New Democratic Party (Serbia) articles.--Autospark (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does this need a history split? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I don't have experience with such things. I un-redirected "New Democratic Party (Serbia)", and now, I'm waiting for "Greens of Serbia" to be deleted, so to move this article to "Greens of Serbia". Vanjagenije (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

This is probably at least a bit tricky if I want to do this neatly and untangle the history. I'll see if I can do it completely "right" and if not, I'll just move and you can cut-and-paste spinout, which unfortunately is the most probably end result. I'll let you know. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no history splitting feasible here, so I just did the move. Let me know if you need any other button pressy stuff. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)