Template talk:European Union candidates

message: === 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)
thread_title: Discussion moved from '''MediaWiki talk:EU countries'''

message: 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)
thread_title:  Should non-member countries be included in the footer? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Making it a bit smaller 

message: As of 18 June 2004 Croatia is an official candidate country.  - Zoney 11:24, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That requires registration - try http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3818485.stm instead. -- ChrisO 11:34, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Croatia

message: 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)
thread_title: Romania and Bulgaria

message: 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)
thread_title:  Flags 

message: 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), . With friendly greeting and respect to Bomac and everyone, Politis 12:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: EU, FYROM and RoM

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Montenegro 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Candidates and future candidates

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

text: Aditionally all the Eastern European Neighborhood Partners have recognized European aspirations, as seen in ,  or . 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, ENP Partners 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Alphabetic order 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  ENP or EaP 

message: 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". Timing was quite bad. Ciprian.Enache (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ukraine 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Centralized discussion - Macedonia 

message: 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*":  , .  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)
thread_title:  Kosovo 

message: 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)
thread_title: "Other geographically European countries"