Talk:Croatia–NATO relations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cranloa12n (talk | contribs) at 17:08, 9 April 2023 (→‎Requested move 4 April 2023: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Croatia–NATO relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 April 2023

– Conforms with Turkey in NATO, as well as Romania in NATO. I saw some consensus for this in a requested move on another page. Thoughts? Cheers, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. – Treetoes023 (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment not taking a formal side on this discussion yet. Just wanted to note that the list here is fairly varied. As an example, Finland has a significant amount of past relations with NATO before actually becoming a member (i.e. the case could be made the primary topic of the article should be the 60+ years of relations prior to formal membership), whereas Canada, as a founding member, had almost zero relations before NATO was formed and the article should primarily cover how Canada interacts as a member of NATO. Maybe both articles are maintained: Finland–NATO relations covers the era prior to membership up to ratification and Finland in NATO covers post-membership? Then, for any country that doesn't have significant coverage of past relations prior to becoming a member (i.e. Canada) would just have an "...in NATO" article, like Canada in NATO. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment expresses my position. ~TPW 15:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support, however each article needs to have sections that make it clear whether the information being talked about is from before their accession into NATO. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for Canada, neutral for Albania & oppose for Croatia, Finland, Montenegro & N. Macedonia. Canada's article is about its history in NATO. Albania's article isn’t particularly detailed. The articles for Croatia, Finland, Montenegro & N. Macedonia contain many details about what happened before those countries were in NATO. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do agree that uniformity in the page titles would be a good thing, though personally im leaning more towards the "x country-NATO relations" format, given thats the norm used for most articles on diplomatic relations✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  00:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as another suggestion, what about renaming all in the style of Canada and NATO, derived from other existing international organization articles such as Canada and the United Nations and Canada and the International Monetary Fund. I think that fixes some of the problems with the nom as 'in NATO' makes the whole article sound like it should cover only content while as a member state and not before.Yeoutie (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC) EDIT: Oppose suggestions changing just Canada. These articles should be uniform as they all cover the same thing: how their country relates to NATO. Yeoutie (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for Canada, Oppose for all others – For all articles on non-founding members, a significant portion is dedicated to the time before the country joined the alliance; "Country–NATO relations" includes that, "Country in NATO" does not. DecafPotato (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes on Canada, but everyone else has an external history with this entity. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for those countries which were not founder nations. For non-founder nations, if "X in NATO" is to exist, it should be solely as a redirect to "X–NATO relations". — The Anome (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, except for Canada. Indeed uniformity is great, but when it is at the expense of suitability of the title (which also handles pre-accession relations, as ao DecafPotato clearly indicated), it goes to far.. L.tak (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only for Canada. As per above the other countries aren't founding members so relations should be better. - azpineapple | T/C 13:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for Canada. I agree that the others should also be moved from their current titles. So, this move request can perhaps be salvaged if the others are moved to "[Country] and NATO" – e.g. Finland and NATO. Either that, or Gonzo fan2007's suggested solution. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. // 💪Benzo💪 (Talk!) 12:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Jeffhardyfan08 (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for Canada as it was a founding member. Vamsi20 (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Yeoutie's proposal for consistency with other such articles. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Article titles have consistency after this move. The person who loves reading (alt) (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for Canada, but for the others, I support User:Gonzo_fan2007's proposal to have "–NATO relations" pages detailing pre-membership history, and "in NATO" pages detailing post-membership history.
--MtPenguinMonster (talk) 06:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible support per nom. I've always thought the term "relations" is a bit odd when the country in question is a member. It's fine for non-member states though. – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 09:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for Canada, oppose for Finland, Montenegro & North Macedonia, and neutral on Albania and Croatia. I largely agree with the comments by Gonzo fan2007 and Blaylockjam10. Finland/Montenegro/North Macedonia in NATO should be separate articles from their relations prior to joining. Finland and North Macedonia have relatively long histories to cover, and the Montenegro article is fairly extensive despite a short history. Albania and Croatia have shorter histories (1991-2009) outside of NATO, and their articles are not that extensive. But if they are expanded, they should also be separate. BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for Canada, as it was a founding member. I do think that it warrants having an article on Finland-NATO relations on the 70+ year history of those relations prior to Finland's joining of NATO. The same goes for Albania (though a few less years were spent apart). I'm neutral on the former Yugoslav states; there was substantially less time where they were interacting NATO prior to joining, and I'm not sure if WP:NOPAGE would prefer the subjects be covered separately or together. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As suggested by User:Yeoutie and User:IJBall, I think these should be moved to "[Country] and NATO". This avoids both the problem of "in" for countries that are not members and the problem of "relations" for countries that are members. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Teemu Leisti (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Yeoutie's proposal which provides the most succinct and consistent way to title these articles. Oppose all other proposals. :3 F4U (they/it) 18:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as proposed these titles are dumb, we don't have "Texas-U.S. relations" Red Slash 07:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•Support Yeoutie's proposal for consistency, there is nothing special about NATO in this regard Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 17:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Croatia–NATO_relations&oldid=1149012107"