Talk:Rivers of Justice

notability

Are we sure this title isn't just a bit of hyperbole, a bit of political folklore? :) It sounds like just a preemptive coalition agreement. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure, look at the official website of the coalition: www.kukuriku.org. I'm watching Zoran Milanović on RTL News just now, he says they have adopted the name, and therefore lunched the website with the former nickname.

Requested move 11 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) kennethaw88 • talk 03:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Kukuriku coalition → Croatia is Growing – The coalition changed its name to Croatia is Growing. Source can be find on internet Hrvatskaraste (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Support This is the coalition's new name. Charles Essie (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Support It's official. I agree that we should rename article now. United Union (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent move

"Croatia Grows" is probably a better translation? -- Director (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

That is how they us it on Croatian Radio. --Tuvixer (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

People's Coalition

Hy GregorB, I have a question about Croatia is Growing article. So, this coalition changed its name once so far (Kukuriku coalition->Croatia is Growing), and they are going to do that again, this time into People's coalition. When they changed their name for the first time, we just redirected article, but this time some (new) user created competently new article. My question is, can we delete that new article and simply redirect this old one when Coalition announces its "rebirth" under a new name, since its basically the same coalition, and I think that it would be good to have everything about them on one article. I mean, its logical to have one well written article then dozens of stubs when its about a same subject. Greetings, United Union (talk) 09:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC).

I am sorry if I am interrupting, but I also agree that it is best if we have one article, and not multiple ones. It is still the same coalition, just with a different name. --Tuvixer (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

United Union, Tuvixer: generally, from the start I didn't like the idea of having just one article about as many as three distinct coalitions now. I suppose the only thing they have in common is that they're centered around SDP. Almost like the ship of Theseus... And what will happen in 2020 or so if SDP forms yet another coalition? Should this article grow indefinitely?

On the other hand, I have to agree with United Union is that this might still be better than having three stubs. So, for the time being - unless there are additional arguments to the contrary - I'd support the merge too. GregorB (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I agree that it shouldn't grow indefinitely but I think that it would be better to have everything on one article as long as there are as many as 3 out of 4 original parties within the coalition (that are actively cooperating with the 4th one). This is really a (permanent) coalition of three parties -SDP, HNS-LD, and HSU- that lasts since 2010, and these parties are just inviting few other parties from time to time (most of whom don't even enter the Parliament or are significant whatsoever).

So, merge is supported by three of us so far. Do you know, how long we have to wait for (possible) merge to happen? United Union (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd follow the steps in WP:MERGEPROP, then wait 7-10 days and do the merge per WP:SNOWBALL if there are no opposing views. The guideline itself says 30 days but I don't think it's necessary in this case. GregorB (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you! United Union (talk) 07:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's 2020 now and we had another article name change. It will probably be a fifth name by 2024. I'm not sure if it's a good idea to have them all in one article. Tezwoo (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree – we should have separate articles for each of the incarnations of this coalition, which only really have the SDP's participation as a common thread.--Autospark (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Scope of the article

Should this article simply cover any SDP-led coalition since 2010 that comes into existence, changing name every few years to that of the current coalition? Perhaps it would be better to cover some of them in (a) separate article(s), at least the most recent one (started in 5 March 2024), since it does not seem to be a continuation of any previous SDP-led coalition in any way other than being SDP-led, but rather a new coalition. Niokog (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think Restart and Rivers should be (a) separate article(s) bc Kukuriku and Croatia is Growing and People's were all SDP-HNS-HSU coalitions with other partners and those should for sure be 1 together, and also all clearly a continuation of one another. We can't consider coalitions created 4 years apart the same coalition just bc they're led by SDP. Especially bc these coalitions don't last the 4 years. They're just pre-election coalitions, unlike Kukuriku. The first 3 were all led by Milanović. By 2020, the only relevant party that was the same in the Restart coalition as it was in People's (2016) is HSS (GLAS is a split from HNS but still). I could accept if Restart & Rivers were in 1 article together, but they're clearly separate from the first 3. It is more correct, but it would also make everything less confusing, the members table is so cacophonic by now. CroatiaElects (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I’d also prefer for the different incarnations of the SDP-led coalition to be spun out into separate articles. If nothing else, it would provide a concise view of which partner parties were members of the coalition/alliance. That doesn’t preclude there being an overarching article with a condensed timeline of the various coalitions (e.g. see the article centre-left coalition for the changing alliances formed around Italy’s Democratic Party).— Autospark (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)