Talk:Croatia–Slovenia relations

Proposed merge

• I support the merger of the contents of Slovenia's blockade of Croatia's EU accession into this article that has been proposed. Given the present size of the parent article, there is plenty of room for the material currently in the more detailed "blockade" article. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - weak idea. No need to merge Slovenia's blockade into anything - it's a huge article (49,227 bytes) that more than merits to stand alone. This article's size is 5,607 bytes. So let's examine what you are proposing here: that the blockade - which spans a time of 10 months - should encompas a total of 90% of the Croatia – Slovenia relations article, which encompases 20 years. Silly.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Putting the blockade information into the relations article will put it in context. If I understand you right, this will make it obvious how we've wasted many kilobytes on a seemingly transient issue, and have a gross WP:UNDUE violation on our hands. If you ask me, that is a completely satisfactory result! --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    • No, Joy, you don't understand at all. When you cram such a huge article into such a small article, you are completely deforming it - it won't be anymore about Croatia-Slovenia relations, but basically a "one man show" about Slovenia's blockade of Croatia's EU accession. An example of a smaller event becoming more important and larger than the whole category. Then someone will definitely erase half of it because he will say "this isn't an article about Slovenia's blockade, but about Croatia-Slovenia relations", and the whole event will be "mitigated". It would be as if someone had a bright idea of merging Iraq War into Iraq-United States relations. By the way, I cannot believe that you are actually suggesting that Steve Urkel is allowed to have his own article, but this isn't.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Like I said already, yes, most of it can probably be erased already because it doesn't matter anyway i.e. it's an existing WP:UNDUE and WP:N violation. Have you read this article? Quotes from unknown diplomats, Internet polls, an entire paragraph of Milan Jajčinović verbatim? It's a complete hodgepodge. Finally, the last part of your argument boils down to WP:OTHERSTUFF, so I don't have much more to say to that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support, as I've supported this idea when the article was created in the start. The article is excessive in details, lists minor and relatively unimportant events in the case and could be reasonably shortened to a paragraph or two. Of course, the relation article could be expanded with other content as well. --Tone 14:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Note that there's also a bunch of material in the Gulf of Piran article that is also about Croatia-Slovenia relations rather than the geographical feature. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support per everything Tone said - this article is excessively big in relation to the importance of the topic. I think at least 50-60 percent of the article could be safely cut, without losing anything relevant. It would still dominate the relations article after the merger, but that only means that the target article should be expanded. For example, Slovenia and Croatia have other disputes which are worth writing about (Krško and Ljubljanska banka come to mind) and the article does not even say anything about the pre-1991 period. And it's not like we're talking about the bizarre case of Mongolia here - Slovenia and Croatia go back a long way and this article should reflect the entirety of their relationship, in which Slovenia's blockade is just a minor episode. Timbouctou 20:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

“ I think at least 50-60 percent of the article could be safely cut ”

Not even a day has passed, and my prediction is already becoming true. The twilight of Wikipedia...--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Twilight? Hopefully not... ;-) But seriously, do you have counter-argument to the ones stated above? --Tone 16:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If twilight ever occurred here then it must have happened when Justice compared the blockade and its importance for Croatia-Slovenia relations to the importance of the Iraq War for Iraq-United States relations. In the Slovenian referendum about the agreement about the Piran dispute (which was the reason for the blockade) and which is basically an agreement to potstpone the resolution for a later date, only 42% of registered voters in Slovenia actually turned out. A petition to launch a similar referendum in Croatia lapsed after it collected some 200,000 signatures, or roughly 5% of the total number of voters. Even at the time it was considered a rather marginal issue on both sides, in spite of right-wing politicians both sides of the border who tried to make it appear more important than it was (for illustration, the blockade was Josip Jurčević's main talking point when he ran in the 2009–2010 Croatian presidential election, wich netted him a whopping 2.74% of the vote). This whole article looks like a translation of the Croatian version of the article on hr.wikipedia, which is itself a textbook example of WP:RECENT. And let me remind you again that the Croatia-Slovenia relations article should encompass a span of at least 93 years if we are to take the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs into account, which makes the 10-month blockade a minor event if there ever was one. So yes there are two options here - either merging it into the relations article OR renaming it and expanding to turn it into an article devoted to the Piran border dispute, which is a 20 years old issue, which the whole blockade boils down to, and which is still unresolved. Either way, what we have now should be pruned from all the redundant crap - and not cutting it would be a fine example of WP:UNDUE. Regards. Timbouctou 18:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that the article (Slovenia's blockade of Croatia's EU accession) is excessively big in relation to the importance of the topic. But the problem is that the target article (Croatia–Slovenia relations) should be expanded, not vice-versa. And as Joy noted above, there's also a bunch of material in the Gulf of Piran article that is also about Croatia-Slovenia relations rather than the geographical feature. There is also the same thing with Foreign relations of Croatia, Foreign relations of Slovenia & Accession of Croatia to the European Union. Timbouctou noted that Slovenia and Croatia have other disputes like (Krško, Ljubljanska banka...). So I would support second proposal by Timbouctou (renaming it and expanding to turn it into an article devoted to the Piran border dispute). This way we wouldn't "choke" longer period of good relations between Croatia and Slovenia in Croatia–Slovenia relations article. --Kebeta (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • So... Croatia-Slovenia border disputes? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This makes sense. Will you perform the merge? --Tone 13:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Why not Piran Bay dispute? It's by far the biggest single issue, it is still unresloved and will remain that way for some time (so we can expect more content related to it to be added when the mediation committee's ruling comes into effect). Timbouctou 14:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I could agree to that as well. In that case, other problematic border points should be listed in this article and a link provided to the section. --Tone 14:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It's too specific, the villages of Kaštel and Plovanija are inland (near the bay but not actually on it), and then there's also issues with Sveta Gera as well as Sveti Martin na Muri. Granted Sv. Gera is an issue long dormant, but the others have been in the news more recently. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Piran Bay has an article already and a dispute can be a short paragraph there. Croatia-Slovenia border disputes is a fine solution in all regards. --Tone 15:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I am OK with that solution, but mergeing could turn to be challenging - good luck. Kebeta (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I've moved both to Croatia–Slovenia border disputes. Some copyedit is still due. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight

Issues with Krško NPP are now referenced. It is a source of various, long-standing and rather severe disputes (see Index.hr) that were elevated to the diplomatic level, so I'd say it was (is?) important.

The Štrigova issue is completely marginal by comparison.

I'd propose removing the Štrigova paragraph, keeping Krško (while preferably expanding it a bit) and possibly renaming the section to just Krško NPP. GregorB (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

A caveat: I might be wrong about Štrigova, as it might have simply been underreported by the Croatian media. GregorB (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the expansion on Krško: Krško Nuclear Power Plant already has a paragraph on the disputes, using the same Slobodna Dalmacija source. It is just a question of where to cover it - I'd say in the Krško article, with a summary here. GregorB (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that the story about Štrigova should be mentioned. It has been reported in a number of Slovene media, like here. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 23:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Croatia–Slovenia 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120830052336/http://daily.tportal.hr/191790/EC-calls-for-bilateral-solution-to-Ljubljanska-Banka-issue.html to http://daily.tportal.hr/191790/EC-calls-for-bilateral-solution-to-Ljubljanska-Banka-issue.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 18:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Improving the article

Hello fellow Wikipedians, Due to an university project, I will be working on the ‘Croatia-Slovenia relations’ Wikipedia page. I am planning on expanding the ‘history’ and ‘Krsko nuclear power plant’ sections as well as adding some new parts to the article. Let me know if you have any comments or questions! Greetings, Mmmmppp (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)