Jump to content

Talk:Brioni Agreement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBrioni Agreement has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 6, 2013Good article nomineeListed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 7, 2019, July 7, 2021, July 7, 2023, and July 7, 2024.

Croatia

[edit]

This article says startlingly little about Croatia's participation. -Oreo Priest talk 03:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Brijuni AgreementBrioni Agreement – Reliable English-language sources, at least by the parameters I used to measure them (previewable books), overwhelmingly favor "Brioni" over "Brijuni". See also PDFs: "Brioni" versus "Brijuni". Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC) - Biruitorul Talk 02:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I concur with the basic premise, but when I look at those results, I see that we actually have an ambiguity - there was a separate "Brioni Agreement" in 1942, and a "Brioni Declaration" of 1991, and I'm thinking that the latter name would be better suited to unequivocally describe the topic at hand. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW your google searches are unclean. Here are some:
--Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Support 144x for Brioni Agreement, 4x for Brijuni Agreement in Google Scholar. Go with it. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Brioni Agreement/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 18:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC) Review will begin soon. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox

[edit]

A pass here.

Background

[edit]

"...Croatia leaving Yugoslav federation because..." Should be "Croatia leaving the Yugoslav federation because..."
"The delegation consisted of foreign ministers of current, preceding and following EC presidencies.[1] The delegation members were Hans van den Broek (Netherlands), Jacques Poos (Luxembourg) and Gianni de Michelis (Italy)." From these two sentences, I extrapolate that van den Broek was the current EC president, Poos the former, and de Michelis the future. If so, why was de Michelis replaced with Pinheiro. If not, please alter the first sentence of the excerpt so that readers can identify which delegation member holds each given distinction. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amended both points. Indeed de Michelis was former presiding minister in June. Since the EC changed presidency on 1 July, Poos became "new former" presiding minister. Added a bit of clarification on the issue as well.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conference at Brijuni

[edit]

Fine here.

Aftermath

[edit]

Excellent here.

Conclusion

[edit]

Once the few minor issues are resolved, the article will pass! Congratulations! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced material

[edit]

Please refrain from removing sourced material, such behaviour may be interpreted as disruptive. Also, please refrain from "renaming" Croatia and Slovenia in the article as "SR" (Socialist Republic) - they were not called SRs for quite a long time before the agreement - more than half a year as a matter of fact, and were declared independent a couple of weeks before the agreement itself. Finally, I reverted name of the islands to the WP:COMMONNAME. Please do not modify it either, the name is not only common, but it is also the contemporary name. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Border control compromise

[edit]

This German news broadcast: [26] of 7 June 1991, shortly before the agreement was reached, mentions that a possible compromise solution about the question who should control Yugoslavia's external borders was being discussed, namely that Slovenians should be in charge of the border crossings but that Slovenia would be obliged to pass on any customs revenue to the Yugoslav central authorities. Our article only mentions Slovenian control of the border and Slovenians probably would have resisted giving Belgrade any say in anything concerning revenues generated in Slovenia, which would mean that this compromise solution was not pursued in the final agreement, am I right? Then the only substantial concession the Slovenians made would have been to postpone the effective date of the declaration of independence for three months. Or was there more in terms of what the central government had wanted to achieve with their military intervention? In these three months, did they maintain any overall control in Slovenia and if so, in which fields? Proofreader (talk) 08:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]