Jump to content

Talk:Georgia–European Union relations: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
{{Old move}}
No edit summary
Line 5: Line 5:
}}
}}
{{Old move|date=October 2013|from=Georgia–European Union relations|destination=European Union–Georgia relations|result=no consensus|link=Talk:Georgia–European Union relations#Proposed move}}
{{Old move|date=October 2013|from=Georgia–European Union relations|destination=European Union–Georgia relations|result=no consensus|link=Talk:Georgia–European Union relations#Proposed move}}
== Croatia is in EU ==
Someone has to correct the svg map in this article, since Croatia joined EU the 1 July 2013.

== WikiProject class rating==
== WikiProject class rating==
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. [[User:BetacommandBot|BetacommandBot]] 16:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. [[User:BetacommandBot|BetacommandBot]] 16:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:24, 30 November 2013

Croatia is in EU

Someone has to correct the svg map in this article, since Croatia joined EU the 1 July 2013.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update?

I noticed that while Ukraine seems to move slowly to EU membership I never hear any news about Georgian membership of EU but a lot of news about Georgia's NATO membership. Could that mean EU membership for Georgia is extremely unlikely? Mariah-Yulia (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not the case here. Georgia is much more advanced both in NATO and EU membership than Ukraine. But NATO will be first, and this will bring EU membership fast as few years later. Recent info (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 08:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]



– The prevailing naming convention is alphabetical order. If anyone knows where this was decided, that would help. --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 09:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC) Relisted bd2412 T 14:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 05:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had it that way for four minutes before I realized the talk page also needed to be reunited with the present location of the article. That was accomplished with CSD. The move request above is current. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alphabetical order is politically neutral. Its consistent use in titles on topics such as bilateral relations and borders provides an answer for nationalistic disputes that otherwise would have no clear solution. --BDD (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does the EU have any relations with the US state? Not sure, but with the U.S. state being more than twice as large by population, it doesn't seem too far out. Oh, and there is one exception: Georgia (country)–NATO relations. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 07:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While I dispute that there could never be an article about the foreign relations of a US state, there aren't any for now, and Georgia isn't particularly likely to be among the first anyway. Alphabetical order is a good principle that's supported by the consistency criterion of WP:CRITERIA even if it isn't formalized elsewhere. --BDD (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be interested to read an article about the U.S. state of Georgia's relations with the European Union! Until that article is written... Support all without disambiguation for Georgia. 172.56.21.69 (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all - the European Union is not a country, so the rule about alphabetical order doesn't apply here. Each of these articles is of more relevance when considering the country in question, rather than when considering the European Union, hence it makes sense to list country first. This is similar to United States and the United Nations.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all. I was going to support things until I read Amakuru's statement: we should put the EU second because of its unique position in international relations, and because we should focus on the country with which it's relating. Meanwhile, we also shouldn't have (country) after Georgia, because this is a situation in which it's unambiguous: US states aren't able to have foreign relations, so the only time when Georgia could have foreign relations was before the United States existed, and there wasn't an EU at that time. Note that we have many other articles in which the disambiguator isn't present because of the context: List of Governors of Georgia and President of Georgia are undisambiguated because the country has no governor and the state has no president; National Register of Historic Places listings in Georgia is undisambiguated because the US government's historic preservation program doesn't include places in the Caucasus; and Coast Guard of Georgia is undisambiguated because the state doesn't have its own coast guard. Nyttend (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all The EU is not a country and so it should be treated like other organisations such as NATO and always put second. No opinion on "(country)". Timrollpickering (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.