Talk:Yugoslav auxiliary Ugor

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

Article deletion[edit]

This article was created by user who had similar content removed from M-87 Orkan page. He created this article for personal purposes and it contains false information. After creation he linked this article with M-87 Orkan page were same content was deleted after Talk.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Loesorion (talk • contribs) 02:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After discussion and many improvements I agree to keep this article Loesorion (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent false edit summary, so I reverted[edit]

I've reverted this edit by Loesorion because the edit summary of "Deleted and corrected false information from article" is not borne out by the sources quoted. Reference "nac" specifically mentions both fuel for SCUD missiles and the Orkan. The seebiz webpage verifies the sale of the vessel to Splitska Plovidba. Loesorion, you are skating on thin ice here. The article is almost certain to be kept, despite you attempts to get it deleted. It seems to me that you are intent of pushing your own POV. Suggest you drop the WP:STICK or you are likely to find yourself at WP:ANI. Mjroots (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thin ice you say, get your facts first. Article was edited numerous times and updated after I stated delete attempt (see dates for deletion proposition and dates and updates in Edit after). Before that article only contained false statements and was created by author who knew that information provided are false. Given references are wrong and story in them is made up by yellow press, there is police report and court decisions about this event, not a single word in them about M-89 Orkan or Scud. Do you know what type of fuel Scud is using? See more info about it at Talk:M-87 Orkan page. This article was created by author of same false information given on Orkan M-87 page who when saw that content is going to be deleted from M-87 Orkan page created this article with same false information again and linked it latter to M-87 Orkan page. If you have any question before you undid my revision or edit ask first Loesorion (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Nacional clearly states that the ship was involved in the running of arms. It says that nitrous acid was the fuel for SCUDs. The Seebiz webpage gives details of the sale of the ship. There is nothing apparently "false" about either statement. Mjroots (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to Croatia supreme court decisions [1]. Scud uses liquid fuel and Orkan M-87 uses solid NGR-375 and NGR-376 are solid rocket fuel in cylinders with specific inhibitors. NGR-375 and NGR-376 was made in former Yugoslavia only in factory Vitezit in Bosnia. In judgment it is clearly sad that in ship there was one base gunpowder(nitrocellulose used for artillery and in rockets after chemical modifications as part of Triple-based propellants for complex rockets) and two base gunpowder(combined nitrocellulose and nitroglycerine mostly used in pistols and shotguns) (both are smokeless gunpowder) and this two types of explosive gunpowder has nothing to do with specific rocket fuel used for Orkan or Scud. If you look rocket fuel in Orkan it is solid extruded cylinder 2 NGR-375 and one NGR-376 and Scud-A uses liquid fuel that is made of nitric acid with cerosine and Scud-B and C uses even more complex liquid fuel which has nothing to do with mentioned one and two based gunpowder found in ship. Mentioned gunpowder are not just raw material for Orkan or Scud(warhead if any) they can be raw material for many others rockets, artillery shell and different kinds of munitions but only for some factory who can procede them because of complex chemical process that is needed to produce different types of rocket propellant or shells. Since specific fuel for Orkan and Scud was not on ship hence it is lie to tell otherwise. Nacional is yellow press newspaper and they as many other yellow press invented story to get better attraction of their readers. Accused Marko Balić was never in prison or in court(judged in absence) and supreme court has altered his accusations to only customs probation. I hope it is now more clear what is in question when we talk about that ship and its cargo, Loesorion (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was

Move to Yugoslav auxiliary Ugor. Parsecboy (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that things have settled down a bit, we need to look at the title for this article. Per WP:NC-S, Yugoslav auxiliary Ugor (PO-92) would be correct. @Loesorion:, do you have any objections to this title? Mjroots (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslav is not a part of name of class or any weapon system build in former Yugoslavia and auxiliary is a a description that could be used but it is not to descriptive. In Yugoslavia prefix for weapons was given with a few letters as standard without a state name as adjective. Other ship of similar class do not have country name in article headline and it would be wrong to add it here as prefix. In Yugoslavia not a single weapon was without prefix, take for example M-70AB2, M-56, M-84, M-79 Osa were M was prefix and numbers and letter after that described more weapons. When we talk about ships two letters was prefix for example RF-33 Kotor - Kotor class frigate. RF stands in Serbian for "raketna fregata" in English is "rocket frigate". So PO stands for Serbian "Pomoćni oružar" - english "Auxiliary armourer". But auxiliary is maybe too wide description I think or maybe not. This class had 3 roles: replenishment, transport and tank and infantry landing. If we look design it is perhaps more a tank and infantry landing than a classical transport or replenishment ship. Hundreds of island was in Yugoslavia coast so many ships were natural built or bought with landing operation and amphibious warfare doctrine in mind and used in such a way. Yugoslavia Peoples Army had one marines brigade and they were part of most trained forces in army and used ships such is this class of ships, So prefix should stand PO and after that auxiliary or landing or something like PO-class auxiliary landing - PO class ('Ugor') auxiliary or PO class ('Ugor') auxiliary landing. These ships were class for themselves and not to many similar to their counterparts and unique in many ways because of roles(auxiliary and landing) thanks to their design. If we take in count lead ship in class 'Lubin' to include it in name it would be to complicated. Loesorion (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at WP:NC-S? It is the naming convention for ship articles, covering many ships from different countries. For military vessels, the convention is that a naval prefix is used where these are in common use (USS, HMS, HSwMS etc), e.g. HMS Victory. Where no prefix is in use, we go with [nation][ship type]name[pennant number] e.g.Russian submarine Kursk (K-141). Taking aboard your comments on the ship type/use, Yugoslav landing ship Ugor (PO-92) or Yugoslav landing ship PO-92 Ugor would be suitable titles. The latter format has a precedent, as many WWII German ships had the pennant number as part of their name, e.g. German destroyer Z20 Karl Galster. Mjroots (talk) 06:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The German Z destroyers are an odd case as only the first batch seem to have been given real names. But in their articles, apart from the titles, the Z numbers are not actually included in the name (in the Lead not italicised, and absent thereafter and from the infobox). Not a good precedent for anything.Davidships (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did look but you cannot compare countries that don't have prefix for some weapons systems with one that have and also there is a difference in naming and design of ships between countries so you cannot always strictly apply naming for something made for example in USA to something made in Argentina. What have WWI German ships and their making in common with PO class to take them as example? You should first look similar ships design and then make some conclusions if any. I will say again ship type and as given in Wikipedia now don't cover all possibilities henceforth we should consider a making of new ship class and or type. There is not a single restriction in the world to make a categories description and names of categories that will more suite existing ships or anything else if there is a need. Such things are not fixed and should not be taken as granted and without possibilities to change. You cannot enforce something and say it is right just because somebody tell you so you must broaden views. If for example we were now in 13 centuries and talk about frigates as a class that does not mean that one day they could not exist and that we should not invent such a class of ship when a need arise. Broaden your view and think about it. In any case Yugoslav as prefix is wrong. This ship had transport, replenishing and landing role. Auxiliary ships Auxiliary ship does not cover in Wikipedia description landing role. We need to change auxiliary to cover landing ships or invent new type of ships that will cover design such is this and by looking at many ships around the world there would be more ships that could fit in such new class and description. Prefix PO should stand as USS or any other from any countries you cannot enforce some nations naming conventions to other countries and you should stay neutral with names in this case. This is not NATO codification and when countries all-ready have their own respected names and prefix we should use them. Loesorion (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having checked with Miramar, there appears to only have been one Ugor, so Yugoslav auxiliary Ugor should do, no need for the (PO-92) dab. And, of course, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) should be followed. Manxruler (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you first tell me what is Yugoslav? Describe Yugoslav, I know it is adjective but what does it mean, to what can refer, describe it. Ugor is part of 3 class ship so we talk about naming convention that applies to 3 ship and not one. USS is United States Ship and PO is "Pomćni oružar". Both naming are based on orders. First (USS) is based on President Theodore Roosevelt Executive Order 549 on 8 January and second is based on order number 38 from 20.06.1969. by supreme commander of Yugoslavia Peoples Army and president of Yugoslavia Josip Broz Tito. Yugoslavia Peoples Army had order how all ships should be named and have standard ship prefixes so they must be used. Naming convention "This guideline documents an English Wikipedia naming convention. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus" Why not use landing auxiliary and make occasional exceptions for ship type ore crate ship type in auxiliary article were there is no reference how types are made. In any case landing is better ship type then auxiliary. Loesorion (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Landing ship is an alternative. Yugoslav landing ship Ugor could work just fine. As for the other ships of the class they would, according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships), be named Yugoslav landing ship Lubin and Yugoslav landing ship Carlota. As for orders, those of Tito, or Roosevelt, do not concern English-language Wikipedia. I do not think "landing auxiliary" is an established term for ships in the English language. Landing ship is fine. As for occasional exceptions, this does not seem to be a good case for one. Manxruler (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manxruler - why you don't explain to what Yugoslav refer, and in naming convention it is clear "For ships of navies that have standard ship prefixes, use the prefix in the article name." You can not enforce something because you like it and English when it does not have its own terms for something it takes it from language of origin not vice versa and imposing names are not something you should do. How does Roosevelt order does not concern English Wikipedia when we talk about USS? USS it is clearly used for ships prefix and in that context why you think you cold enforce for others something different?

There is clear stance what is ship prefix on Wikipedia: "A ship prefix is a combination of letters, usually abbreviations, used in front of the name of a civilian or naval ship."

All prefixes in use by different navy around the world are consequence of order given by somebody. You cannot ignore that just for sake of ignoring and use different rules when you don't like something or don't know something.

Please give us clear answers to raised questions and make clear your stance. Don't repeat "could work just fine" without any clues were from you got ideas for that conclusion except your wishes to do something without telling from were you draw that opinion. Loesorion (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslav is the denonym for things connected with Yugoslavia. Look at Category:Naval ships of Yugoslavia, there are a few articles in that category with similar titles. Mjroots (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you don't know to explain your point of view except by listing categories that don't have anything to do about naming convention know let me try to explain my point. Yugoslav per Wikipedia refers to:

So when you use adjective Yugoslav who can know to what you refer or think about. Prefix is something you can not per WP:NC-S change if one exists or invent new one. I am sorry if many editors for articles use wrong naming because they don't know that there exists official prefix or designation and use bad translate for names and types, but that is not excuse to continue with such malpractice for names in this case. If you don't have any clear argument for what you think you should do you don't proceed with it any more. You should learn something new when you have a chance and this is one of them. Prefix exist and should be used as I stated before. Only what is left for discussion is ship type and I can agree with you on that, so let it be Landing. So name could be in format PO-92 landing ship Ugor Loesorion (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, no, Loesorion. I don't think that is a fair conclusion to be reached from the above discussion. Let me detail why:
1. It is completely self-evident from the context (ships) that "Yugoslav" refers to things relating to either of the three manifestations of Yugoslavia.
2. Pomoćni oružar (Ammunition Auxiliary) is a description/designation (like a Hull classification symbol), not a military ship prefix.
3. I find it intriguing that you are stating that "Yugoslav" wouldn't be clear enough for the English-proficient readers of this encyclopaedia, while at the same time claiming that Pomoćni oružar (PO) should be used.
4. When one is having a discussion, with three editors involved, and one is the only one of those three to hold an opinion, then it is very peculiar to decide that ones opinion is the one to follow. That one's opinion of very strongly held, doesn't really matter.
5. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships), and established practice (what you call "malpractice"), the correct title of this article is Yugoslav auxiliary Ugor. No two ways about it.
Now, if you are still adamant about your stance, the I think we should take this over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships, where more editors can contribute to the discussion. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per Manxruler, plus adding Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military History to the list. Mjroots (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should take this to another level if you are still after me without argument except that you call all your conclusions self-evident without supportive fact, because this is not about English language in general but about concrete thing or better to say ships names. Lead the way I am following, inform me when you start discussion, please. BTW ammunition is not the same as ammunition and armament, ship was not carrying only ammunition for transport and Serbian word "Oružar" in his name clearly implies that besides description of possible ship cargo. If you only say ammunition who will guess anything about possibilities to transport armament? I call malpractice giving some fictional names and prefix which is not according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). Ship had established name and prefix given by his navy - please read this sentence twice. To cite rules as examples and in same time to not abide by same cited rules is what? About the number of editor included in discussion you are implying that if majority sad something they are automatically right even they don't know or know but don't apply same rules in same cases. If you don't abide article by facts then they become disputed and Wikipedia becomes unreliable source for her readers. Did you read Hull classification symbol and to what navy does it apply ? Who is right or wrong time will tell best and not a moment of discussion. Best regards. Loesorion (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there may be some misunderstanding about WP:NC-SHIPS - it reads "For ships of navies that have standard ship prefixes, use the prefix in the article name". The word "standard" is important. This is referring to a navy that uses the same prefix for all its commissioned ships. As explained by Loesorion, the Yugoslav navy included a ship-type prefix as part of the name for at least this class of ship, with presumably different prefixes for other ship types, and therefore did not have a "standard ship prefix". The WP guide goes on "Some navies or nations don't use standard ship prefixes. Titles for articles about these ships have the form: <nationality> <type> <italicized name>". Assuming that I have understood all this correctly, it points towards Yugoslav auxiliary PO-92 Ugor as the title, with a number of helpful redirects to cover likely searching. Davidships (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Loesorion:. No one is "after you". I said like a hull classification symbol, not an actual hull classification symbol. As for majority opinion versus "right", Wikipedia functions by consensus. I think Davidships' above listed proposal is doable. Manxruler (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The correct name for this page should, I believe, be Yugoslav auxiliary Ugor; "PO-92" is the pennant number, correct? - The Bushranger One ping only 10:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I sad Yugoslav is what? To what Yugoslav refers? Yugoslavia even don't exist anymore but ships exists and many of them are now in different navies or services. There were ships made in Kingdom of Yugoslavia, there were ships made in Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia. There were imported ships or ships sized during WWII. Naming convention should and must be used same for all ships of one navy. Take this discussion on higher level if you insist on Yugoslav because that must apply to all ships not just this one example we talk now. Pennant number and hull number mentioned before are UK and US designation system. We talk here about Yugoslavia designation system. Taken logic you advertise here we could add to all navies around the world adjective to ship names. Many ships you talk here had clearly designation written in hull with letters and number. For example PO-91 there is a lot of pictures with that prefix and not just hull number google for it. When you talk about "standard" for perfix use in context that it is same prefix for all commissioned ships how do you explain that UK used or uses more then 20 prefix for ships: RMS, FPV, HMAFV, RFA, RMAS, HMS, HMSm, HMT, HMAV, HMY, HMMGB, HMM, HMSML(Her Majesty’s Survey Motor Launch), HNMS, HM, HMHS, HMHSTC, HMAV, RRS and so on. Australian navy use MSA prefix for minesweepers. Many of them clearly describe ships type in a way it is mentioned here for SFRY navy prefix that you now call hull designation. Prefix could describe ship usage and type. When we talk about standard then it should be considered if there were some order, instructions and rules for naming and not what it describes or how many prefix is in use. Standard means sets of rules that equal apply in all situation. Many navies had prefix and many not. If they had it than it should be used. SFRY navy had standard system of nomenclature for military ships. Should we for every ship manufactured in Taiwan add Chinese as prefix and what about Singapore? Why not using your logic and add to all Singapore Navy ships Chinese as prefix, why should we care about their designations rules when we know better? Or for PLA ships we could start using Han as prefix? What is prefix in this article Type 039A submarine please explain? Or in this Type 056 corvette]? Where is Chinese to add to this articles? You care only for this article? And what if we have same type of ship in two or more different navies? Take for example Osa-class missile boat. If I make tomorrow article about RČ-307 is there gonna be Yugoslav or Soviet or Russian Or Egypt as prefix? If I make article about 420 Al-Jaws will it have Saudi as prefix? Same rules must apply for all. How about for start all participants in this discussion to broaden views and learn something I am always eager to learn something new before imposing my view to others. Learn me how will you make universal naming convention and prefix for all ships of navies that have their own designations standards before you start to apply Yugoslav out of nowhere to this one here.

And there is abbreviation JRM (Yugoslavia War Navy) if you insist that this is hull designation without any proof what is JRM and why not use that? In many official documents from period of SFRY JRM is always used when talked about ship names and designation. SFRY navy had naming system for military ships based on order given by president that includes one to three lefter prefix, one to three letter number(hull classification) and name.

Hull classification or pennant number you talk about in JRM when we compare different naming systems was based on numbers. For example submarines had starting number 8 or 9. 8 was for big submarines and 9 was for small. Rocket boats had three number for hull classification starting with number 3. Big Patrol Boats(Serbian: VPBR - commonly known as frigates) had 2 number hull designation starting with number 3. Torpedo boats had three number hull designation starting with number 2. Rocket gunships had three number hull designation starting with number 4, minesweeper stated with number 1 and so on. All that was based on executive order given in 1969. Hull designation was based on numbers and if you just looking at them you could now what is hull type without knowing anything else. PO was used as prefix was for many ships in different timeline(PO-51 for example with total different hull type compared to PO-91) not just these 3 ships here we now talk about and it clearly stands as standard prefix and not hull designation. Outvoting without arguments don't make things right. Loesorion (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PO is a not a prefix used for every ship in the Yugoslav Navy so your point is invalid. It's more like an American hull classification symbol like CV or SSN, not the USS used by every commissioned ship of the USN. And if you started an article on one of the Yugoslave Osa-class missile boats, its proper title would be Yugoslav missile boat XX, just like this one, Yugoslav submarine Nebojša.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger: That is my impression from reading the PO-class article, yes. Seeing as there has been only one Ugor in any of the Yugoslav navies, there appears to be no need for a dab. Thus, Yugoslav auxiliary Ugor seems to be the correct title. Manxruler (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Manxruler: - You plan to add adjective Yugoslav to only one ship? And all talks about standards and perfix for sake of naming 1 ship? In your comments and reply's not a single reasonable word about all argument I stated in my comments? What is your final intention with such discussion? Loesorion (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PO-xx appears to be a pennant number - not a standard ship prefix. Yugoslav auxiliary Ugor or possibly Yugoslav transport Ugor would be appropriate titles for articles on the warship. Articles about the same type of ship being used by different navies are not unusual on Wikipedia - taking your example of Osa-class missile boats, NC-Ships would give "Yugoslav missile boat Josip Mazar" for RC 307, with "Egyptian missile boat 631" as an example of an Egyptian one and "Soviet missile boat R12" and "Soviet missile boat Kirovskiy Komsomolets" as Soviet Osas.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Loesorion: Sigh... The "only one ship" bit was about the absence of a need for a disambiguation. Standards and prefixes of course apply for more than a single ship (unless we're talking about a navy which only ever had a single vessel, then we would be dealing with only one ship). See what Nigel and Sturmvogel just wrote above my comment for answers to the questions you recently raised. The intention of this discussion is to reach a consensus regarding the title of this article. Manxruler (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Under our current naming conventions the ship should be listed either us "Ugor (PO-92) or Yugoslavian Training Ship Ugor (PO-92). This is borne out by the references provided in the article body, which give no hull prefix to the vessel. Because Yugoslavia was once part of the USSR it seems logical that the name of the ship would emulate the current style used on the en.wikipedia for Russian ships - ship country and type, followed by the name, and then the pennent number (ie Russian battlecruiser Admiral Lazarev, Yugoslav frigate Split). These are the only two options that should be considered. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Loesorion - Please read WP:FORUMSHOPPING with regards to your comment here. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Bushranger - I had no attention on spinning or anything similar, I had asked @Manxruler to inform me if he raise question about this talk somewhere else and he did not. I have taken steps to call third parties to resolve this issue in regard to much wider impact than it is naming of one ship. I had attention to post call for third parties first in Wikiships project opened in other tab among hundreds tabs n my browser. I have seen latter his post after I have done my writing but I didn't erase it because I don't know is it against rules to erase such a topic. Since I had no time yesterday to address such possibilities I had leave it as it is and what is dne it is done. Do you intend to argue about naming convention and issues I raised here that is far more important then to jump to conclusions about my spinning this discussion. Question for you is by whom "JRM" is not widely recognized, when you discus please give a clue how you get conclusions Loesorion (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please to all who read this but thinks I am doing something inappropriate. I have no intentions to flame, spin or anything similar but to get answers to raised very important questions based on facts i have given. Do you indited to make this discussion about me or about standards that Yugoslavia war navy(JRM) had is up to you. I just think that more people should involve because you cannot say that one thing apply to one ship and not others or one thing apply to one navy but not others under our current naming conventions WP:NC-SHIPS that clearly equally applies to all ships in one navy and not just one or few ships or from case to case based on personal affection.

Please give some thoughts about prefix in way I explained its use in UK navy above given similar case in "JRM", and hull number descriptions that describe ship type and order that existed for naming ships in Yugoslavia war navy. in my previous discussion. Some materials and references to read that support my previous writing I had found online: Naming of ships in "JRM" [2] [3] Yugoslavia Peoples Army Overview of War Ships and Ferryboats printed in 1988 - official military document classified Top secret look at all pictures aviable [4].

About wider implication of such a wrong ship naming with using adjective instead existing standards I raise question about PLA navy that gives names based on order issued by President of PRC in 1978. Do you consider that we should disregard that order in similar way you propose for SFRY "JRM" order given 1969 and give all PLA ships adjective Chinese? I will not take part in this discussion anymore I have stated all important facts I had and pointed direction in a way that "JRM" ships should be named and what should be taken using in consideration. Arguments should be given and not personal fillings about given facts or clueless arguments about ships naming or making this discussion about my way I talk about it. Thank you. Loesorion (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Loesorion: The reason I haven't brought this discussion up anywhere outside this page is because @Mjroots: had already taken upon himself that task and informed both WP:Ships and WP:Military of the discussion, in a correct and NPOV manner. That job had already been done. Manxruler (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And please refrain from calling other peoples' arguments "clueless", Loesorion. Manxruler (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

References[edit]

  1. ^ https://sudskapraksa.csp.vsrh.hr/decisionPdf?id=090216ba802f0a46
  2. ^ http://www.paluba.info/smf/index.php?topic=1781.0;wap2
  3. ^ http://www.udhrm.com/clanci/2014/imena-ratnih-brodova-na-prostoru-bivse-jugoslavije.html
  4. ^ https://www.kupindo.com/Militarija/24035229_JNA-knjiga-Pregled-ratnih-brodova-i-trajekata
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yugoslav_auxiliary_Ugor&oldid=1206125450"