European Union Template‑class | |||||||
|
Can we put at least a header with Candidate countries, and write below it Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey? -- Danutz
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)
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)
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)
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.
Probably it will go like :
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
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)
As of 18 June 2004 Croatia is an official candidate country. [1] - Zoney 11:24, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Eliminated "(preliminary date)". The date is now official. -- Danutz
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
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
North Macedonia Template‑class | |||||||
|
==
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. — Nightst a llion (?) 11:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
{{
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)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)
Remember - this is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia with it's own rules. Bomac 10:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
My points:
•NikoSilver• 18:24, 15 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)
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)
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 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)
is an official status. Check list of European Union member states. — Nightst a llion (?) 15:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
European Union Template‑class | |||||||
|
Can we put at least a header with Candidate countries, and write below it Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey? -- Danutz
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)
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)
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)
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.
Probably it will go like :
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
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)
As of 18 June 2004 Croatia is an official candidate country. [1] - Zoney 11:24, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Eliminated "(preliminary date)". The date is now official. -- Danutz
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
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
North Macedonia Template‑class | |||||||
|
==
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. — Nightst a llion (?) 11:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
{{
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)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)
Remember - this is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia with it's own rules. Bomac 10:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
My points:
•NikoSilver• 18:24, 15 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)
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)
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 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)
is an official status. Check list of European Union member states. — Nightst a llion (?) 15:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)