Talk:EU three

This article was nominated for deletion on September 19th, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Italy Low‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

"EU Three" vs "Group of Three"

Regarding the back-and-forth between User:Dpaajones and User:69.46.82.36, a cursory Google search shows that "Group of Three" is such a general expression that the pertinent page could be better had as a disambiguation one; for instance: http://www.sice.oas.org/TPD/G_3/G3_e.ASP . "EU Three" is far more unambiguous, although I would recommend its capitalization. Dracontes (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up on the disambiguation bit perhaps we should take a page from the Spanish Wiki: G-3 (América) vs G-3 (Europa) and their disambiguation page, G3.

Looking at the pertinent page here, G3, makes me wonder why is there such a fuss... Dracontes (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no fuss: if you look into the editing history of this annon IP you'll see he's a vandal. David (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i rather think its more relevant to discuss you rather then me (if we should discuss this at all rather then the dispute itself) you know the thing is not so much me being a vandal but you being a sockpuppet ! so sure let us all continue the accusations instead of discussing the "Group of Three" thing 69.46.82.36 (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone's wondering what the background to all this is: the annon IP has been banned numerous times for vandalising numerous pages under different user names. It's all rather droll. Not sure who he thinks he can kid. David (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People, leveling accusations at each other, which is basically what you both have done with your edit war, isn't getting the situation nowhere. So as I said above muster your sources and reasoning instead of your vitriol. Heck, if you'd both back off, I'd be perfectly happy with resolving this myself... though I'm not too sure you're willing to do so. Mind you that both because I have other things to do and to see if you have some self-control the "EU Three" vs "Group of Three" situation won't be my highest priority. Dracontes (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what hacks me off? Being a continuous contributor to Wikipedia for years and years, then having to put up with some silly 'annon IP' person go round deliberately attacking pages I've edited, AND THEN having the situation not being recognised for what it is. I'm very close to giving up with Wikipedia because of the annon IP editing and the lack of regard for long-standing editors like myself. At least the great power article is now locked. And thanks for clearing things up generally - but I'm still quite irritated and a little upset at the palava I sometimes have to go through before the annon IP attacks are dealt with. Right, rant over. David (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm in agreemtn with Dpaajones and Dracontes. EU-3 is a specific term.

Some sources are: http://csis.org/publication/us-and-iranian-strategic-competition-competition-involving-eu-eu3-and-non-eu-european-st

http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,2015544,00.html

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2005/07/00_langenbach_eu3-iran-approach.htm

Group of Three refers to many different things and through be disabiguated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.140.187 (talk) 08:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can i atleast remove the term from the Great power article as a compromise? the "EU3" edits in "Great powers" article is a recent invention not being there most of the time and is obviously controversial 69.46.82.36 (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason for that. The term which is the subject matter of this article is as relevant in that article as anywhere else. You have yet to provide a reasonable explanation of why you want to replace it with another more ambigous term. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]