Template talk:European Union candidates

Discussion moved from MediaWiki talk:EU countries

Should non-member countries be included in the footer?

Can we put at least a header with Candidate countries, and write below it Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey? --Danutz

There is a group of 10 countries that are acceding to membership to the European Union on May 1, 2004. The main reason why they are listed at all, prior to this, is that the full membership is actually impending. Even though it is likely that at least some of the candidate countries actually will be joining the organization this is a fact that ultimately remains to be decided. The real question is whether only members, but also prospective members ought to be included in this footer. I think that for the sake of clarity only those who are in fact members ought to be included. However, the enlargement process is important to the EU and the enlargement article should probably continue to be linked even after the current round is concluded on May 2. Any others who wants to have a say on this?-- Mic 12:16, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Now, Romania and Bulgaria are going to acced to membership surtenly in 2007, EU established that on the Thesaloniki summit, then they had a reunion and decided with only few votes against, but the majority for, to fix 1st of January 2007 as a accesion date for Romania and Bulgaria.--Danutz 13:20, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

The European Union and Enlargement pages mention both the 2004 and the (proposed) 2007 enlargements. The map on the European Union page also lists Romania and Bulgaria. As long as it's made clear that Romanian and Bulgarian accession are provisional, I'd definitely prefer them to be listed here as well. It's consistent with the other pages, it's accurate, and it adds to the knowledge-value of the page. KevinC 18:35, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Talk:Romania

Hey User:Cantus, what is the matter with the message with EU candidates? Romania (as Bulgaria and Turkey, for the matter) are official candidates to membership (and in the next future also Croatia and FYROM could be added to the list), so it seems natural they could be enlisted there .. --Alessandro Riolo 11:53, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Don't blame me, I added the candidate nations to the EU_countries msg but somebody deleted them, and then you added a different msg. Just edit the EU_countries msg at Template:EU_countries --Cantus 03:06, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me, now I see. I created the Template:EU_countries_and_candidates to be added in the candidate's countries instead of the Template:EU_countries 'cause I was betting modifying the latter could start revert wars. The EU enlargment is a sensitive matter, and there are plenty of people totally against that they would probably try not to allow the names of the candidate countries to be enlisted in the page of their own country. From another point of view, I think it is a meeaningful information, surely to be shown in the EU related main pages and in the pages of the candidate countries. --Alessandro Riolo 09:53, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

EU countries and candidates

Creating the Template:EU countries and candidates is a good initiative, since it will be able to solve the desire of displaying the candidate status to the European Union for Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey, without alluding to membership status. I also think that it is a good idea, as it is currently done, to display this footer rather than the footer with just the member countries on the European Union page. The Template:EU countries footer is for listing countries which actually are members of the European Union, the notable exception beeing the countries joining on May 1. The countries in that group will not be members until May 1, but as they have been listed so far and accession is less than three weeks away it does not seem meaningful to remove them at this stage. -- Mic 08:32, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

I completely agree --Alessandro Riolo 09:01, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would ask for at least Bulgaria and Romania to be listed in the EU countries listing, too, because EU wants these countries to join on January 1, 2007. Perhaps one could think about this issue. Until the issue is resolved, I will revert my edit of the EU countries list. --EBB 16:22, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Croatia is likely to become a recognised candidate country soon, but should it or should it not be included in the footer before that happens? More generally should only the recognized candidate countries be included or should the circle be wider? And if so, where should the line be drawn? -- Mic 19:42, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

Both Croatia and Macedonia are now posted under the banner of "likely candidate countries". Any opinion on the issue? -- Mic 07:04, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Making it a bit smaller

OK, I know this isn't the easiest task, but would it be possible to try and express the information in this footer in slightly fewer lines? I'm undecided whether I like these navigation boxes at all, especially with pages ending up with several large boxes at the bottom taking up a whole screenful of space. However, if they are going to stay, perhaps it would be best if they were as small as possible. Since there's already debate about this one, I don't want to jump in and fiddle with it, but with Turkey on a line by itself, I think it could perhaps be more succinct. - IMSoP 12:39, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Including 2007-2015 possible candidates

I think it is rather unpractical to list all those possible EU members (2007-2015) because they are in no way official and they might not even join. Therefore, they should not be put alongside countries like Romania and Bulgaria which joined in late 2006.

Not all countries. I included all possible. --Avala

Probably it will go like :

• 2010 - Croatia
• 2012 - Macedonia, Albania
• 2015 - Turkey, Montenegro
• 2020 - Bosnia, Serbia and Moldova

Russia will never join, Belarus is very close to Russia and with current communist regimes they are not moving any forward especially Belarus. Although Ukraine has adopted a more pro western stance lately.

Serbia, considering the northern part and Belgrade is developed, has problems on their political scene with nationalist politicians being regarded as harboring war criminals wanted by the Hague Tribunal and poverty in the south is pulling Serbia back. Also Serbia started it`s process of integration in 2000 which will in best case join in 2012.Montenegro recently broke ties with Serbia, mainly because of the feeling of being held back by Serbias slow reform progress. War affected Bosnia the most. The biggest problem are impatient people that vote again for nationalist parties because they hoped that Serbia will join EU in few years after milosevic gone away. It is very similar to problem that Slovakia had few years ago. But only in last few months in serbia signs of better life are showing.

Macedonia is still undeveloped but in next few years I guess everything will be just fine.

Albania is not too far away. I was surprised that Albanian GDP per capita is not that bad , it is even very close to Bulgarian. Albania recently signed a Stabalisation and Ascosiation Agreement(SAA) with the EU, when it get's ratified by all EU members Albania will obtain candidate status.

Croatia will may join in 2007 but it would be more than unfair thing to do. Because they haven`t done all the job yet especially like Romania and Bulgaria , countries that are strugling to join EU for last 15 years.

--User:Avala, 16:25, 15 May 2004

I don't think we should include candidates beyond 2007 at all - it's pure speculation. http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/candidate.htm (the official web page on the matter) only goes up to 2007. -- ChrisO 18:14, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Those years up there are very speculative and prone to change. I agree that we shouldn't list countries that haven't been given candidate status because if we do, it's a slippery slope. --Shallot 19:03, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

We should only list recognised EU candidates (Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey) and if we want, we could also list "likely" countries - Croatia, Macedonia and Albania. These countries have already submitted their membership application, and are waiting for the EU to give them official candidate status. We can include them if we want, though I would say not to (Croatia will get candidate status very soon this year, and when it does, it should be included).

Official Candidates, Applicants, Accession Countries

Bulgaria and Romania - Official candidates. I added a note about the date - AFAIK it has NOT been confirmed for either as definite yet - Bulgaria has had the "shouldn't be any problems" line, while question marks have been set about Romania for 2007 (it may still be OK, but that's not been officially declared). I believe people are waiting for an announcement on this from the EU. Until then I vote we have the "preliminary date" qualifier, or no date. Also - after the date is confirmed - are they not then accession countries?

Turkey. Is it now a candidate and not just an applicant?

Croatia. Keep a sharp eye out people, apparently it's due to get candidate status by June, and there's talk of Croatia joining alongside Bulgaria and Romania.

Macedonia is the suggested next - but I don't know that it's even an applicant - is it an official applicant?

Who are the other official applicants besides Croatia - should they be listed as such? (I'm guessing not if there's too many or it's a LOT less likely than for Croatia).

Zoney 15:06, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Even after the negotiation of the accession treaties has been completed, the treaties also need to receive approval from the national parliaments of the member countries. It may seem unlikely that a member country would use their veto against a joining country, thus blocking their accession, but there are examples where thas, or threats to that effect, has been used as a bargaining chip in intra union "power struggle". Even the smallest member states are in this way able to cause delay or even to halt an accession process. -- Mic 16:41, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

Croatia

As of 18 June 2004 Croatia is an official candidate country. [1] - Zoney 11:24, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That requires registration - try http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3818485.stm instead. -- ChrisO 11:34, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Romania and Bulgaria

Eliminated "(preliminary date)". The date is now official. --Danutz

No, it isn't. It'll be confirmed in October. —Nightstallion (?) 15:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Final report due 26 September at 3:00 p.m CET. However, it has leaked out to the media and the EU commission no longer denies it.

Romania, Bulgaria approved for this January EU entry - sources http://www.euronews.net/create_html.php?page=europa&article=381161&lng=1

Entry boost for two EU hopefuls http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5372924.stm

Verheugen Confirms Bulgaria, Romania in EU Jan 2007 http://novinite.com/view_news.php?id=69329

Flags

Nice idea, and they are pretty, but such a mish-mash of colours is distracting and over the top for such a template in my opinion.

I shall revert it for now, until such time as more people come out in favour of the change.

zoney ♣ talk 20:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding

We use "Republic of Macedonia" in all of our articles, including those about the EU. I see no reason to use FYROM in this template. We shouldn't follow EU policy, but Wikipedia consensus in this. I've reverted. —Nightstallion (?) 11:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland is shortened to "Ireland" in this template. Why not shorten Republic of Macedonia to "Macedonia"? --Fred Bradstadt 09:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I know this will sound biased since I am Greek, and I wish someone had pointed it out before: Please take into consideration the fact that neither EU itself, nor most of its present country-members recognise the country by the constitutional name 'Republic of Macedonia' ("European Union". European Commission, Enlargement, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Retrieved July, 17 2006. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)). In that regard, and in view of the pending naming dispute with Greece (which is an active bona-fide member), I am modifying this name to 'FYROM' for this template. Any other appellation is contrary to the status-quo in the EU, highly unprobable since Greece will definitely veto the country's entry by that name, and misinforming since it puts words in EU's mouth. Please keep in mind that even the 'FYROM' name can be considered pejorative by some Greeks, but it is respected by both countries as a stop-gap measure("Interim Accord between the Hellenic Republic and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", United Nations, 13 September 1995). For more details, kindly refer to the respective articles, or to the featured article Macedonia (terminology). •NikoSilver• 08:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

PS, I am prepared to accept any form of note or footnote or star or link or whatever for that issue, but EU cannot be quoted for something it doesn't endorse. •NikoSilver• 08:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I'm afraid I'm not convinced. We aren't "quoting" the EU here, so any suggestion of EU "endorsement" is not an issue. Just because the template is about the EU, doesn't mean we are bound to follow EU officialese on terminological matters such as this. And as for a disclaimer note, the Macedonia-related articles are already burdened with tons of footnotes and disclaimers and tags, it's really no use adding another heap of them to every single page that links to the Republic of Macedonia article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So I suppose we should tell the world that there is a candidate country for EU with that name, while it is not the case? Please consider it like the name of a river, or a city. If we have Vardar, Solun, Bitola in the Mk-related articles and Axios, Thessaloniki, Monastiri in the Greek ones then in this case we must have 'Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia'. I am afraid that this is considered EU ground, and Greece is part of it. It is a matter of self-identification. EU self-identifies this candidate (prospect part of EU) as 'Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia', the same way as Greece self-identifies its part called 'Thessaloniki' as such. •NikoSilver• 09:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"EU self-identifies this candidate"? Sorry, but "self-identify" isn't a transitive verb for me... :-) The EU is currently imposing use of "FYROM" on the candidate because Greece forces them to, okay. Calling that a matter of "self-identification" is a bit far-fetched for me. And yes, the statement "There is a candidate country of the EU called Republic of Macedonia" is absolutely true. Just as the statement "Niko is a Wikipedia editor" is true. The fact that you are a Wikipedia editor is one thing; the question of whether to call you by your official wikipedia name "NikoSilver" or by the informal name "Niko" is another. The assertion is true no matter which of the names I choose for referring to you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

FP, please don't respond with technicalities. I suppose Greece doesn't self-identify (sic indeed) its city as Thessaloniki either then? •NikoSilver• 11:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur. It's a matter of NPOV, and the NPOV way on Wikipedia is "Republic of Macedonia". —Nightstallion (?) 10:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Guys, please. EU is forced by Greece is an overstatement! All (EU, Greece and the Republic) are forced by the UN (which cannot be considered as forced by Greece either). The point is, that we are not here to solve this. Please provide citation for "Republic of Macedonia is EU candidate". In contrast, I have the primary source for "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is EU candidate" (here). Now read in WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position why if A (RoM) is equivalent to B (FYROM), and B (FYROM) is equivalent to C (EU candidate), we cannot state that A is equivalent to C. •NikoSilver• 11:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, good lawyering. But you met with the wrong debating partner here, mate. :-) The principle of OR doesn't apply to naming decisions between two synonymous names referring to the same entity. These are editorial decisions made by Wikipedia on the basis of its own self-defined policies. Your "A=B" is ontologically of a different status from your "B=C". B=C is a factual assertion, which requires citation (but is uncontroversial in this case.) A=B is not a factual assertion but a mere matter of choice of language. Imagine we had an article on, say, groupers, and a source was saying that "Epinephelinae eat scuba divers". Would we be allowed to summarise that statement as "Groupers eat scuba divers", to make it fit the conventions of our article, given the fact that groupers are epinephelinae? Of course we would. Same here. The Republic of Macedonia is a candidate of the EU. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ha, nice try! But you wouldn't use 'epinephelinae' in a template of, say, 'unofficial names of fish'. Same here, you must use 'grouper' (sorry) FYROM for 'candidate countries in EU'. Otherwise EU citizens or officials may not understand you (like the English fishermen). Aside from the fact that they may threaten you legally! :-) Now, if they are 'synonymous', then why are we having this conversation? I suppose you won't mind using the other synonymous either... :-) •NikoSilver• 12:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This is quote ridiculous. The name Wikipedia uses, NPOVly, is ROM, not FYROM. Period. Same in all other EU articles. —Nightstallion (?) 21:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"Quote" ridiculous? WP's NPOVness in the article title is another story. Please stop giving ultimatums ("period"). I am not here to push my POV. I am here to push EU's POV. EU doesn't know which country is the one you keep inserting in the template. Please do not keep misquoting EU. This is ridiculous. •NikoSilver• 17:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and since we were all wondering about Greece's veto for on accession in the EU by that name, here's a nice recent comment by the Greek FM: "Embassy of Greece - Washington, DC". Answer of FM Ms. D. Bakoyannis regarding the FYROM name issue. Retrieved September 12 2006. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) •NikoSilver• 22:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not mean to issue ultimatums. However, we are not here to represent the EU's POV, but a NEUTRAL point of view, and that neutral point of view in use on Wikipedia is to use "Republic of Macedonia", in all articles. —Nightstallion (?) 10:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering that the name is in dispute, Republic of Macedonia is not NPOV - it is the government of that country's POV and the government of that country accepted to use than name under the 1995 agreement, and accepted to become an EU candidate under that name. Also, as they keep proposing the double name formula as a solution to the problem, this practice should be right up their street. In the worst case, we can mix and match - Google Earth uses the name Macedonia (FYROM). --Telex 10:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Remember - this is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia with it's own rules. Bomac 10:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Nightstallion. Silver, if you are politician, make politics in your office, not in Wikipedia. Bomac 10:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

---

My points:

1. Template EU, represents EU POV, which at the moment is FYROM (here) per all naming settlements decided in WP. See e.g. the precedent of Gdansk/Danzig (discussion/vote here)
2. You have no source for "RoM EU candidate". I have the primary source for "FYROM EU candidate" (above)
3. Under WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, if A (RoM) is equivalent to B (FYROM), and B (FYROM) is equivalent to C (EU candidate), we cannot state that A is equivalent to C.
4. Any unaware reader can safely assume that EU has accepted a candidate country by the RoM name. This is like misquoting EU (i.e. putting words in EU's mouth)
5. That can neither be the case in the future, since Greece will definitely veto, as seen here.
6. RoM as a name clearly violates the human right to self-determination of Greek Macedonians (among others), who are EU members, as seen here.
7. The FYROM spellout (which I put in the template) is not considered offensive, as seen here (btw unsourced, speculation).
8. NPOV is to treat the sides equally. WP endorses the FYROM/RoM position 100%, even in articles where it does not apply, on the basis of self-determination, while there are other's self-determination rights which are clearly oppressed if you do so (those of the Greek Macedonians). This is unfair for the other side of the dispute and 'prescriptive' from WP's side.

•NikoSilver• 18:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Still, this is not something which you will unilaterally enforce in this template, and then try to get it to creep to other places. I've proposed a compromise solution in the template. —Nightstallion (?) 18:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ha! You figured me out ("creep to other places")! Listen, first of all, I agree with the compromise (both yours and FunkyFly's versions) because I am not a WP:DICK; I had proposed it myself —see my first comment above. Second, I am not unilateral at all in this, as I am sure that there are other supporters, even non-Greek. I believe that it is unfair to accept and endorse (i.e. push) only one POV in this everywhere, regardless if applicable or not, and regardless if it offends others or not. Third, I've had no response to my rationale above (because there isn't any). However, out of my abundant WP:AGF, kindness and politeness, I am accepting your desperate unilateral compromise proposal! :-) •NikoSilver• 09:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Btw the same outcome should apply to the NATO template as well.   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

NikoSilver -> Mouseover to get an idea of who will do that in the next few days...:-)

Fair enough. :) —Nightstallion (?) 13:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to get much involved here again, but just for the record I'll lodge my complaint. No offence personally against Niko and the others here, but I find this disclaimer sentence quite ridiculous, and am afraid it will be seen as reflecting a totally exaggerated determination by Greek editors to force the controversy around those names upon the rest of the world. We are already giving a huge amount of space to this controversy in articles; there's really no need to let it spill over into infoboxes too. Infoboxes must be short and crisp, they are by their very nature not suited to reflect every minute aspect of NPOV-balancing. That means readers should be prepared to occasionally see wording in infoboxes and the like places that they might find objectionable. The place to point out the intricacies of POV-naming is in the articles. Readers who have political/ideological issues over controversial names should not expect to have those names accompanied with NPOV disclaimers at every single occurrence in Wikipedia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It should have just been Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia without any explanation whatsoever. I too find the totally exaggerated determination of Slavomacedonian editors to force their POV upon the rest of the world ridiculous. A big part of that world does not embrace their POV, and that should be reflected in the relative articles of that big part. •NikoSilver• 14:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The difference being that Macedonian editors seem to agree with the majority of international editors here in Wikipedia that "RoM" is the most straightforward, most commonly used name most suitable to normal Wikipedia usage. Live with it, official stance by EU and other state organisations aside, it's Greeks who are internationally isolated in this respect. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Heavy statement. I am sure you can source all that. Can you? I had tried once... See Talk:Republic of Macedonia/FYROM name support position... In any case, don't you think it'd be WP:NPOV#Undue weight to keep what you consider 'commonly used' everywhere? Doesn't that twisted Greek doctrine deserve the weight it has managed to pull off in all those countries and int'l orgs by claiming falsified information about part of their citizens' self-determination rights being oppressed? •NikoSilver• 15:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. You guys have had this silly debate in dozens of places. Over the name of the main article, the names of the categories, the names of the portal. Once we solve this here, people will find some other obscure place where the name "Macedonia" has been used and whip up an issue about it. So far, every such debate has ended in "Republic of Macedonia" as the most acceptable and least offensive name to all. Can't you guys just call it a day and give us a break? This is a goddam infobox, its purpose is quick orientation, not legal assertions about political status. - If nothing else helps, I'd support Telex' "Macedonia (FYROM)". If we can't come together in the middle, let's have the two extremes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do not consider "Republic of Macedonia" as "middle". I consider it as one extreme. In that sense your proposal for Macedonia (FYROM) would find me agreeable, but I doubt it will be popular with the guys up north. BTW, do you sincerely think that RoM is "middle"? Would there be a dispute to begin with if it were? And no, I am not pushing this everywhere, and I have tolerated everything on the issue. From twists in guideline interpretation to "divide and conquer" polls. I really don't see why one side's opinion ('minority opinion' in my view) should be reflected unduely everywhere in WP. And I am really tired of either being called 'tentative nationalist' for providing full argumentation or 'lightheaded nationalist' for not doing so. Please respect the self-determination rights of the Greek Macedonians which are heavily oppressed, as yours would be if I renamed myself as Fut.Perf. ☼, closed your bank account, got hired using your cv, and tried to sleep with your wife. This is not an easy one! •NikoSilver• 15:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Bah, your analogy is as flawed as this debate is silly. The Greek Macedonians have nothing to do with this. Bank accounts, WP user names and (ideally) wives are not shared. Ethnic names may easily be. In the case of Macedonia, the only issue for WP is one of simple disambiguation. "Republic of" serves that purpose beautifully, just as similar tags serve that purpose in the case of China, Congo, Flanders, Tyrol, etc. Adding "Former Yugoslav" makes the name neither less confusable to the outside reader, nor does it express anything about the primacy of the heritage to that name. The only motivation that we outsiders can discern behind you guys' insistence on that addition is one of sheer spite: it serves to continually cast aspersions on the legitimacy and permanence of the existence of that state as such. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

But the Greek Macedonians are offended by that name. Their right to self-determination is as important as that of their northern friends. No? PS The CV was a nice example, though, wasn't it? •NikoSilver• 17:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that we Greeks have come to the position of pushing for the compromise name (FYROM) to be kept, while you know that the views of the Greeks vary from "no Macedonia at all in the name" to "Macedonia, yes, but with a disambiguating term next to it". I really don't see why the compromise name "serves to continually cast aspersions on the legitimacy and permanence of the existence of that state as such", and not the RoM name "serving as continually casting expectations of the country managing to call itself as it wishes, despite international law, Greek diplomacy, and apparent violation of self-determination rights of the Greek Macedonians". The fair thing is the middle solution, as you said, and the middle solution, as agreed by both sides was FYROM. Greeks don't feel "privileged" with the FYROM name...•NikoSilver• 17:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I still find your argumentation deeply flawed, and the insistence on this issue (not just by you but by Greek editors in general) absolutely over the top. But all the relevant arguments have been exchanged so many times, it's not worth continuing this here. Also, the disclaimer we have now is so grotesquely ugly that, sorry, I'm going to revert it - to simple Republic of Macedonia. I can see no reason why it should be named anything differently here than in its main article title. Your objections are noted, but they would have applied everywhere else just as well, and discussion in those places has shown they are not shared by the majority of editors. - I'll then leave this to whoever wants to revert-war about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You understand ofcourse that my 'flawed' argumentation has received no response and that you are acting on your own in this, despite the consensus reached by the few other editors here. I am not going to edit-war with you. Especially with you. So at least give my argumentation the dignity it deserves: RESPOND! •NikoSilver• 21:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, only because you insist. :-) (Sorry to any others who may find this a waste of space.) The main flaw is in your appeal to "self-identification" of the Greek side. Once we accept that ethnic names can in principle be shared across groups and countries, as it happens in many places in the world, it becomes clear that self-id of the Greeks simply has absolutely no bearing on the issue. The only thing I grant Greeks can reasonably demand (in terms of Wikipedia policy, not real-world policy) is some form of disambiguation, and that's done with "Republic of" (as with China and Azerbaijan). "Former Yugoslav" is officialese, redundant, ugly, wordy, outdated, and doesn't add anything of value. But this has all really be rehashed thousands of times and is a matter of the fundamental issue regarding the article itself, not the specific issue of this template. The template can simply follow the naming decisions for the article, which, like it or not, have been made. - If you insist on more discussion, I'd suggest we take it elsewhere to relieve this page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Move all of the discussion in my talk if you feel like it, but that will exclude other interested parties, I am afraid.

• "Ethnic names can in principle be shared across groups and countries." How is that? In most cases we have a disambiguating element: York->New York, England->New England, Mexico->New Mexico and hundreds more. So the usual practice is adding a disambiguating word. Even self-id-ing RoC is called Taiwan by everybody! The only example I am aware of without dab is in Luxembourg. So, no. Ethnic names in principle cannot be shared accross groups and countries, especially those who have apparently irredentist aspirations, and teach their youth that their country should be as large as the conveniently synonymous region, thereby aiming to create havoc! In any case, the Greeks are offended. You can't change that by argueing with me. It is a sourced fact. (Also, remember the millions who protested on the streets in Thessaloniki.) This discussion, however, is off-topic, because it appeals to the sympathy of the editors. As you said, it's WP policy vs Real World policy.
• WP stuff: Check my numbered list above. Let's not flood this page like a broken record. Particularily check the Gdansk precedent. In my view, it applies here, as well as in all other Greek-related articles. Now if we match this precedent 100%, then Greek related articles should contain "Republic of Skopje" or "Slavomacedonia", because THAT is the Greek POV and not FYROM! FYROM is the compromise, again: compromise, again: compromise name. Not the Greek POV.
• Officialese, redundant, ugly, wordy, outdated, doesn't add anything of value: Now that is ranting! :-)
• Rehashed: Nope, FrancisTyers made a proposal (here) for the naming conventions. Typically it was per Gdansk/Danzig but it made no specific reference on the international organization issues. My view is that the same principle should apply there too. i.e. we spell the country as the int'l org calls it, like we do in Greece related articles.

What is your opinion? •NikoSilver• 23:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

MACEDONIA IS GREECE! Now, having got your attention, we should use Republic of Macedonia. There is no ambiguity. - FrancisTyers · 01:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Nice slogan. I didn't cite "ambiguity" as a reason though...•NikoSilver• 09:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Then there is no real argument? - FrancisTyers · 09:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the protests in Greece, you know there are were protests in Romania at Gay Fest. Some people were offended by Homosexuality. Sad, but true. - FrancisTyers · 01:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Bad for them. How does this realte though? As I said, the name is offensive and this is sourced. Also, this discussion is off-topic, but I thought I should respond to the implication that FYROM spellout can be offensive (which is off-topic too).•NikoSilver• 09:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There are many sources for "homosexuality is offensive". We don't start the article on Homosexuality with a textual note saying "Homosexuality is an offensive sexual persuasion". - FrancisTyers · 09:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Further to the assertion that "FYROM" is the compromise, I think you'll find it was the compromise. The compromise is gradually being eroded so that rather than being a "compromise", it is becoming the Greek position. The majority of countries recognise the Republic of Macedonia, not that this should be decided merely by numbers. There is nothing offensive about the name "Republic of Macedonia", apart from what is in your head. - FrancisTyers · 01:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Heavy statement. I am sure you have a source for all that. Or is it WP:OR? •NikoSilver• 09:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

And the fun keeps on coming... Niko, the proposal I made took into account this issue, 'Articles not directly related to the region will use the self-identifying term. For example, "Serbia borders the Republic of Macedonia" or "notable person is from Macedonia, in Greece".' - FrancisTyers · 02:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sure you'll find that Greece has more connections with the EU, than with Serbia. Fmore, Serbia, doesn't call the country FYROM. Let me push it a little further so you understand: What if Bulgaria called the country FYROM for similar reasons with Greece; would you put "Bulgaria borders the Republic of Macedonia" in her article? If not, then why do you do it for EU? •NikoSilver• 09:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Listen, Fran. We have a nice compromise here, that mentions both names and links to the self-id name (RoM), despite the fact that EU doesn't seem to know that country by that name. I've posted my rationale above, in the numbered list. There are other considerations too. If you're still not convinced that the compromise in the template works, kindly respond to that (I put lines above and below to show you where that is). •NikoSilver• 09:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

EUROPEAN UNION IS NOT GREECE! The EU is not directly related to either Greece or Macedonia (no, the fact that Greece is in the European Union doesn't make it directly related). If a country that isn't Greece refers to the country as "FYROM", then we should still use "Republic of Macedonia" in the article. The compromise was for Greek related articles only. The current compromise is clunky but almost acceptable. Some kind of asterisk'd note would be better. - FrancisTyers · 09:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Greece or not, EU still calls the country FYROM. Feel free to put asterisks or whatever. I won't object. Just, please, don't make it sound like we quote EU using RoM. •NikoSilver• 09:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

---

This is an EU related article. According to the EU, there are 3 'candidate countries'. One of them, says the EU, is 'the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia' [2]. This concerns institutional matters, which Wikipedia editors, particularly administrators - have to communicate them faithfully and without compromising the source. Therefore, the entry should read as former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [3] (the link sends us to the RoM and the external link to the EU site). The arguments pertaining to the contrary are POV-based and more appropriate to a discussion forum. To the best of my (limited) knowledge, if, despite the factual evidence, an administrator persistently violates such basic principles, then he/she is compromising the integrity of wikipedia. Politis 18:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

But, the most important of all is that this is Wikipedia article, and not some pro-Greek site. I mean, Greece is the reason that EU sometimes refers to R. Macedonia with that pitifull "name" (if I can call it that way). Have on mind that EU refers to R. Macedonia as "R. of Macedonia" in most of the bilateral relations. Bomac 00:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please provide citation for:

• "Greece is the reason"
• "sometimes" vs always
• most of the bilateral relations

Thanks. •NikoSilver• 00:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm really tired of those citations (which I'm sure were cited before), and I'm also sure that the users, admins etc. are, nevertheless, already familiar with the Greek problems over the name "Macedonia". I hope that everybody here is willing to create an reliable and free Wikipedia, and not some pro-Greek nationalist site, calling a souvereign country "former Yugoslav Republic". The most ironic of all is the "former" part. Regards, Bomac 09:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding unverified and irrelevant comments. There are others who feel that RoM is a POV appellation too, and sovereignity is not a justification for semantic confusion and violation of the self-identification rights of the Greek Macedonians. They would rightfully respond to you that 'Wikipedia is becoming a pro-MacedoSlav site'. This discussion does not end, and does not lead anywhere. We are not here to 'settle the score', we are here to describe it.•NikoSilver• 10:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

EU, FYROM and RoM

Please familiarise yourselves with the EU's modus operandi before crediting it with initiatives that are contrary to its principles. In this respect see (again), [4]. With friendly greeting and respect to Bomac and everyone, Politis 12:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Name of my country is Republic of Macedonia and is recognized by 121 countries including United States ,Russia ,Canada etc. We don,t have anything against our friends and neubours Greece ,just call us Macedonia or Republic of Macedonia . fyromizing us is like we calling Greece Former Ottoman Province -Hell Ass .Get the point? Mo1981 12:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"potential candidate country"

is an official status. Check list of European Union member states. —Nightstallion (?) 15:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Just wanted to re-enforce that this is still the case in 2022 with the recent applicants: Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. Only Bosnia and Herzegonvina (BiH) and Kosovo are recognised as "potential candidates" and Kosovo is not an applicant. So, BiH is a potential candidate and applicant, Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia are applicants but not "potential candidates" and Kosovo is a potential candidate but not an applicant. Happy to discuss. Thanks --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)--DilatoryRevolution (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)--DilatoryRevolution (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

So if everyone agrees that it is an official status, why remove it? TDL (talk) 06:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Because there is overlap between "Applicants" and "Potential candidates". "Potential candidates" would also include BiH. It is misleading to display Kosovo like it is the only "Potential candidate". In my view, it is also misleading to display "Potential candidates" below "Applicants" as PCs have been identified as being on the enlargement agenda, while non-PC applicants have only expressed an interest. Only having a section for "Applicants" removes this ambiguity by not ranking one above the other in their proximity to candidate status. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Did you read my edit summary?

There is also overlap between candidates and applicants, so if you are proposing logically distinct categories then how do you propose to deal with that overlap? And if Kosovo submits an application, do you suggest it remains a "disputed territory" or moves to applicant, as there would again be overlap?

Ultimately "disputed territory" is not a accession status, and so it should not be used to categorize the states. It gives the implication that their accession to the EU is not possible due to these disputes, when the fact is that the EU has recognized them as a potential candidate. TDL (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed I did read your edit summary. The difference is that all candidates are applicants. Having them as distinct categories is okay because it is implied that all candidates are also applicants. This is implication is visually obvious to any casual viewer who has a basic understanding of how an application process might work. However, a casual observer would be incorrect in assuming that all applicants are potential candidates as this structure implies. It makes the EU's enlargement agenda look wider than it currently is. I agree that listing Kosovo as a disputed territory isn't the ideal way to express its relationship with the EU but it is accurate and does not misdirect the reader. It also expresses that not all members of the EU are in agreement as to its status (i.e. disputed). I am more than happy to hear other suggestions for a category for Kosovo.--DilatoryRevolution (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that it is "visually obvious" that all candidate are applicants.

The only alternative to the current setup I can think of is to drop the "Applicants" category entirely, and use Candidates/Potential Candidate/Other states that aspire to join. That would clearly separate the states formally on the EU's agenda versus the states that want to join but haven't been formally recognized by the EU.

Regardless, I suspect that this will become a moot point int the not too distant future, as I expect that the three states will be formally recognized as potential candidates by the EU. (Candidate status will take some time, but potential candidate status is really just a public political acknowledgement of the fact that they can eventually become members.) TDL (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Montenegro

Now, we have Serbia and Montenegro further splitting into the two nations of Serbia, and Montenegro. While Serbia was listed as a potential candidate (as S & M), does that mean Serbia and Montenegro both are possible candidates, with Montenegro's independence?

The reason i added the country to the list of Potential Canadidates is from its listing on several pages... List_of_European_Union_member_states and Enlargement_of_the_European_Union#Montenegro User:Raccoon Fox - Talk 22:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, both are potential candidate countries, as will be Kosovo when it attains independence. This has nothing to do with my "desire to make Montenegro part of the EU", or however Aldux put it. —Nightstallion (?) 22:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The EU announced a few hours ago that they will discuss Montenegrin independence in a few days. At that point they will probably declare that both Serbia and Montenegro separately are potential candidates, so that there is no ambiguity. --Joy [shallot] 22:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. However, shall i re-instate Montenegro onto the List of Potential/Possible candidates, or wait for the EU's ruling? I also don't live in europe...so my "desire to have montenegro included in the EU" is baseless. I truly would not be affected if Montenegro was accepted or declined, as it does not affect me directly and therefore, the matter does not concern me. I'm just trying to portray the current events as accurately as possible, by adding only the most accurate data to the Wikipedia. User:Raccoon Fox - Talk 23:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

People seem a bit too touchy here. The phrase "desire to make Montenegro part of the EU" was only meant to be a joke, not an insinuation (I knew that neither of the editors were from the Balkans). What I'm simply trying to say is that I highly doubted that the potential candidacy was automatic, and that it would be up to the UE to proceed to the candidacy.--Aldux 23:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Romania and Bulgaria in 2008?

http://europa.eu/generalreport/en/2005/rg92.htm The reports adopted in October 2004 concluded that Bulgaria and Romania complied with the political accession criteria and that they will be ready for accession on 1 January 2007. --81.180.168.24 09:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That's simply not true. The final decision will be taken on 26 September, not earlier. —Nightstallion (?) 12:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It has always been 2007, the 1 yr delay threat was to push BG and RO to go faster with reforms. Final report due 26 September at 3:00 p.m CET. However, it has leaked out to the media and the EU commission no longer denies it.

Romania, Bulgaria approved for this January EU entry - sources http://www.euronews.net/create_html.php?page=europa&article=381161&lng=1

Entry boost for two EU hopefuls http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5372924.stm

Verheugen Confirms Bulgaria, Romania in EU Jan 2007 http://novinite.com/view_news.php?id=69329

Yep, I also have the impression the date has always been 2007, with 2008 being only a special option (even a bit of an extreme measure) in case the two countries' accession efforts go totally wrong, which wasn't the case, of course. I think it wasn't like, the report had to choose between 2007 and 2008 as two equal possibilities, but whether to enforce the special clause or not.

Apparently, the report's contents are largely known already and BG and RO would be joining 2007 with no precautionary clauses enforced, but the monitoring would be quite strict (which is great IMO, since it simply wouldn't let our statespeople slip up and would ensure we're going the right way). Todor→Bozhinov 13:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidates and future candidates

Both supplements, candidates and future candidates have no influence on EU structure or internal politics. They are highly controversial in terms of becoming an EU member at any time at all. To avoid a misleading image they cant prevail in this template. all the best Lear 21 12:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. The are little chances chances of a future expansion of the EU borders for a considerable amount of years, if ever. Also, similar templates don't generally include the candidates. To thiswe should add that originally the template:EU countries ehisted individually, and was merged quite unilaterally with the present template.--Aldux 13:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidates have official talks with the EU and joining is possible. I think the candidates should included but it may be correct without potential candidate countries. Cheers Zaparojdik 15:24, 03 January 2007 (UTC)

1) Only Croatia and Turkey are having negotiation talks 2) oh sure, as for these two, it's possible, but certainly not in the close future - the EU has been quite clear about this. Candidates are generally not inserted in tese sort of templates, and no good reason exception has been given for making an exception here. Also, as I said, there were orginally two templates; these were unilaterally merged, and now should be seperatade, one with the members, the other with the candidaes or future candidates.--Aldux 13:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

At least for Turkey, the agreement is that there are no guarantees that they would become one day a member of the EU. They can simply be refused at any moment. bogdan 18:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Templates are gathering parts of an entity or a broader togetherness. This is not the case here now and should be changed. The issue of candidate country status is represented in the article, but can´t have a place here. all the best Lear 21 18:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've put them in again for a very simple reason: This template is for "EU countries and candidates". If for some reason you don't want to include candidates and potential candidates, use Template:EU members. Case closed. —Nightstallion (?) 23:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly the reason why I used the rollback function at one point. If the title says 'and candidates', then this template includes the candidates. I suspect that this inane problem arose around the inability of users to change pages where this template is included. --Joy [shallot] 02:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What's with Ukraine?? It's also a potential candidate. Lool also here Ukraine and the European Union --134.147.63.126 12:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, ENP Partners

Should Kosovo be listed here? In order to be a "potential candidate", it must first receive diplomatic recognition as a sovereign state from the EU, i.e. each member state individually. This is more than unlikely in the foreseeable future. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the ongoing dispute is, the EU sees Kosovo ("under UNSCR 1244") as a "potential candidate country", see [5]. It is listed here by the Commission next to Serbia and other potential candidate countries. --DaQuirin (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Aditionally all the Eastern European Neighborhood Partners have recognized European aspirations, as seen in [6], [7] or [8]. As these countries have also expressed interest in membership, they should also be included in the template. Their membership aspirations would probably realized in the same timeframe as Bosnia's or Kosovo's. Kosovo is actually facing higher obstacles to membership than countries like Moldova or Ukraine, since it's not *even* recognized by all current EU members. --Ciprian.Enache (talk) 08:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It is very unlikely any ENP country will get in before the western Balkans is in, primarily because the EU is committed to the western Balkans whereas enlargement fatigue would rule out the ENP for a long while. There is certainly no appetite for Georgia etc., especially after recent events and Georgia's neighbours are far from ideal democracies. Moldova has a frozen conflict and is so incredibly poor no one really wants them in and Ukraine is a massive headache right now. If we include the ENP, then there are other countries who are potentially years away - in the same way Iceland turned around so rapidly. Expressing interest is nothing, just look at the enlargement article and you'll see all those countries which have "expressed an interest". I have expressed an interest in retiring to Lapland - doesn't mean I will and certainly doesn't mean it will be any time soon! The only ones we should follow are those which the EU has declared it will accept and/or those which have made a formal application.- _J.Logan`^t: 09:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, but by the way. Thanks for not reverting then asking to bring it to the talk page. Rather annoyed by all the people demanding it be brought to talk while fighting to get the last edit at the same time. Thus I've reverted myself and gone with your version until this is settled.- _J.Logan`^t: 10:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Alphabetic order

Stabilization and Association Process states: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo (under UNSCR 1244), Serbia.

Respect the alphabetic order just as it is respected on Candidate countries and Application submitted. Kosovo takes preceding before Serbia on alphabetic order and it is not being integrated into EU through Serbia but rather on it's own path.

Thank you.--kedadial 13:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

ENP or EaP

While I am somewhat sceptical on inclusion of EaP/ENP states in this template, I should admit that there are arguments for: the ENP action plans of the eastern european partner states have the "european aspirations noted" and more recently - the ENP was moved to the Enlargement commissioner portfolio (see here). Then, I think that I understand the reason for changing ENP to EaP - to narrow the scope only to the european ENP states, right? But, so far we have no mention of EU membership in the EaP documents, I don't know for any offical Belarus EU membership goal announcement, EaP is still not inside DG Enlargement (such re-arrangement would be similar to the 2005 move of the SAp states from DG External Relations to DG Enlargement - but it has not yet happened, and as it seems - it may not happen at all is EEAS gets the ENP). So, I propose that until we have some confirmation of EaP-Enlargement link (even as weak as the "aspirations noted") we wait and stick to ENP (as it was 2-3 edits ago)? Alinor (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, in fact I think I mentioned this before. We ought to keep it to the confirmed agenda.- _J.Logan`^t: 20:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ukraine

The European Parliament adopted on the 25 Feb 2010 a resolution recognizing "that Ukraine, as a European country, shares a common history and common values with the countries of the European Union, and acknowledges Ukraine's European aspirations"[9]. Timing was quite bad. Ciprian.Enache (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Centralized discussion - Macedonia

Noting here Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/international organizations -- the first option was by far the most popular. So with respect to this template, that means that it can use the simpler options when referring to the Republic of Macedonia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo

For the last five years this template has referred to "Kosovo under UNSCR 1244". This was due to the lack of unanimity by the EU on recognizing Kosovo (5 states still dispute its existence) so the EU has taken a status neutral approach to Kosovo's independence, and NEVER refers to the "Republic of Kosovo" and instead only to "Kosovo*". Since the recent normalization agreement between Serbia and Kosovo was signed, the two parties agreed that Kosovo could participate in international organizations under the heading "Kosovo*". Since that time, the EU has exclusively referred to Kosovo as "Kosovo*": [10] [11], [12]. As such, to respect WP:NPOV we must follow their lead. I propose we change the note from "under UNSCR 1244" to a "*". I made this change more than a month ago, but a user has just showed up and objected, claiming that there should be no asterisk. However, we can't say "The Republic of Kosovo" is a candidate for EU membership because that is false. The EU has never said that. They don't even acknowledge that the Republic of Kosovo exists. They have said "Kosovo*" is a candidate for membership. Attempts to distort this don't accurately reflect what the sources say on the matter. TDL (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"Other geographically European countries"

I propose to delete this line from the template. Right now only Kazakhstan and Vatican City are listed, and neither are in serious talks to join. Right now the wikilinks merely point to "EU-X country relations." So it's over-inclusive in listing countries that are not actually candidates. It's also under-inclusive, since you may as well list every other non-EU European country (regardless of sovereignty status), like Northern Cyprus, SMOM, Transnistria, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia. Because none of these countries are really EU candidates, all of this information is better captured on the Template:Foreign relations of the European Union template instead of the candidate countries template. Wl219 (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)