Talk:Norway-plus model

Untitled

Regarding the sentence "It would consist of membership of the European Economic Area".

This sentence is most unclear. The EEA Agreement specifies that membership is open to member states of either the European Union or European Free Trade Association (EFTA). It is not possible to join the European Economic Area without being an EU or EFTA member; the EEA by definition is EU+EFTA, both results of decades of evolution of treaties and cooperation. The sentence therefore should clarify whether the proposal is to join the EU after leaving the EU, or to join EFTA, which are the only ways of becoming part of the European Economic Area. Of course, it isn't up to the UK to decide whether the UK gets to join EFTA, it's up to the EFTA members, and at least Norway has stated quite clearly that there is little reality in such an application. EFTA would most likely reject an application from the UK to join. --Petersuw (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Hyphenation

The hyphenation in the title differs from the one used in the article text. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

An anonymous user seems to have WP:BOLDly fixed that. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

No, they've compounded an earlier error. Six out the seven usages of the term in the article used the hyphenated form (seven out of seven now, because I have corrected it). The citations use the hyphenated form so, per wp:common name, that is what the article should be called. Someone boldly moved it to the spaced name, so I am about to put in a request to Requested Moves to have that move reverted. If anyone objects, please do so asap. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The RtM is at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Uncontroversial technical requests. The justification is that article was moved without discussion, so revert. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Move reversion has been done. Now if anyone wants to make a case for it to be moved back again, please use this talk page first. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

A quick web search for "norway plus" shows that the hyphenated and un-hyphenated versions are pretty much evenly used. Although I prefer "Norway-plus", I also think it's not worth spending any time discussing which option is "best". As far as I'm concerned, either will do. -- User:The Anome 08:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not a big deal but article moves should be proposed first and actioned afterwards. Hands up, though, I too am nearly as guilty because I didn't allow enough time for dissenting voices. Retaliatory flipping without even a note at the talk page is the stuff of edit wars and definitely questionable, notwithstanding wp:status quo. It should be for the requestor to explain, not leave it to the admin to write a long explanatory note.

Anyway, in their edit note Amakuru put it very well: should not be hyphenated unless it's an adjective; i.e. "the Norway-plus model", but just "Norway plus" if it's a standalone term or in quotes. "Norway plus" is not a thing, unlike, say, "Norway plus Sweden make up the Scandinavian Peninsula". You can't say "a Norway plus" or "the Norway plus" but only "a Norway-plus model" or "the Norway-plus option". "Norway plus option" begs the question "equals what?" All the uses in this article use the term as an adjective, none as a standalone noun.

So I propose now that the article be moved to Norway-plus model, leaving Norway plus and Norway-plus as redirects. Comments? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• @John Maynard Friedman, The Anome, and 1234qwer1234qwer4: I have moved it to Norway-plus. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: thanks for the note, and apologies if my response yesterday seemed overly confrontational. I think maybe the disconnect is because I see the instructions and long-standing conventinos at WP:RM as the binding guideline for cases like this. If any editor feels a move is uncontroversial, they are free to make that move without a formal procedure as I did in March 2019. I thought it uncontroversial because I had already checked at that point and seen that sources were largely hyphenating as an adjective and not as a standalone noun, as you've noted above. Of course, if someone disagrees with my bold move then they can move it back unilaterally, or request an admin/page-mover to do so at WP:RM/TR. Where perhaps we disagree is how long it takes before the new title becomes "stable" (which is the guiding term used at RM). That also depends somewhat on whether the article has been edited in the intervening time or not. In any case, once it's stable, if it's later thought to be controversial then an RM is initiated. Your thread above is good for informally gauging the appetite for a move, but it is not a substitute for an RM in terms of the procedural approach.

Anyway, that's all water under the bridge now. Re your suggestion of "Norway-plus model" I don't think I'd object to that, as it gets around the grammatical and common-usage issue quite nicely. So if The Anome is happy with it, then I'd be happy to bypass RM in this instance and go ahead with that move. (although of course we'd still be subject to someone else who isn't in this conversation coming to challenge it within the next few weeks if they so chose, and that would mean a formal RM again).  — Amakuru (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fine with "Norway-plus model", which seems the most reasonable of all the options so far. Go for it. -- The Anome (talk) 11:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Great, thanks all. Hopefully this one will stick!  — Amakuru (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

That was quick! My thanks to all concerned. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)