Portal talk:Europe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This talk page is for the Portal about Europe. Ensure this portal's details are listed in the Portal directory.

Discussion should centre on improving the Portal. Content disputes should take place on the appropriate article's talk page.


For discussion about Portals generally, please see the WikiProject on Portals.

Contents

[edit] Improvement Drive

The article Culture of Italy has been listed to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. You can add your vote there if you would like to support the article.--Fenice 06:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Subportals of the Europe portal

Could someone add Denmark to the Subportals of the Europe portal Remove this talk if u did it.

Dear Friends. I made some correction here. There is Russia mentioned as part of Europe subportal (“Portal:Geography” page) and here in the list of European countries. But there is not Russian Flag and corresponding link in the “Subportals” mesh at this page. I added the link and the page. I hope I was right. But Russia does not signed in the Map as well. I guess why Russia was excluded from the European Map? Half of European territory belongs to Russia. Or somebody make gift to Asia and gave out Russian European lands to Asia? I propose to correct map and to mark “Russia” there. Best regards Sanatus 18:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Subportals don't have Serbia and Montenegro

...because such a portal doesn't exist. We could, however, put Portal:Serbs instead. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Georgia and Armenia in Europe?

The geography suggests that Georgia (country) and Armenia are in Asia, being east of the Black Sea and south of the Caucasus mountains. Is there a reason to include them (that doesn't equally apply to Turkey and Azerbijan, to take two at random)? --Red King 23:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC), revised to add Caucasus. --Red King 23:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, those two countries (along with Cyprus which doesn't seem to have a portal yet) are geographically in Asia, however they're considered to be a part of Europe for cultural reasons. Since the concept of Europe is itself more of cultural and political distinction rather then a geographic one, I think it's appropriate to include those three countries, including the above disclaimer where relevent.
Actually, they aren't considered European by most for cultural reasons. They're mostly included there not to upset the residents, because not being included into Europe equates to not being civilised for a nation in close vicinity of this continent. --Humanophage (talk) 05:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

................ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.167.130.104 (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that Armenia is european because of sociopolitical reasons but Georgia is geographically,well at least partially. I think Europe page has enough information about it.--UltioUltionis (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the EU website that lists member and non-member European states and I hope it will explain everything.

http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/others/georgia/index_en.htm

--Darevanche (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Czech Republic

I miss the Czech Republic in the list of subportals. -- 89.57.188.125 16:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moldova

I do not see Moldova in the sub-portals.

MANY THANKYOUS FOR PUTTING MY COUNTRY ON MAP

 Mihai R  13/6/06 22:43

[edit] Slovakia

Back up guys? Where is slovakia on the portals?

[edit] Europatriotism

I'd like to call attention to the article Europatriotism. An editor (Paul111) has recently made substantial changes and move the article to Pan-European identity without prior discussion. The article is now a list of very negative comments about European identity and pan-European projects. I think that this issue should be discussed and I hope some of the users interested in European topics will join it. Dumbledore 18:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I second this. I suspect Paul11 is a paid anti-EU lobbyist. I starte dthe article as 'Europatriotism' and Paul111 completely tweaked the article and worse yet renamed it. 212.83.71.69 01:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of countries on subportals

I would like to see the following countries put on the subportals:

Slovakia

Vatican City

Andorra

Czech Republic

Thankyou --Gerrado 19:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sofixit. They'll only be added once they exist.--cj | talk 09:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of missing countries (subportals)

ok, I think, this are all 12 missing country-portals:

  • Andorra
  • Austria
  • Belgium
  • Cyprus
  • Czech Republik
  • Iceland
  • Liechtenstein
  • Luxemburg
  • Monaco
  • San Marino
  • Slovakia
  • Vatican City

btw, nearly all this subportals exist in the German Wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.130.246.186 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 4 September 2006.

As above, once they exist, they'll be added.--cj | talk 09:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added Azerbaijan

I added Azerbaijan to the list of countries/portals. Azerbaijan is partially located in Europe so it should be listed.--Húsönd 19:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Current events/Europe

At the moment, Portal:Current events/Europe isn't listed on the Current events news browser, presumably because the European portal is not active. I'm willing to bring it back to life, but I won't be able to do it on my own. Is anyone willing to join me? Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 13:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Help with European

Hello. Currently, many European links redirect to Europe. Can anyone help with correcting that and redirect European to the newly created disambiguation page European?? KarenAER 19:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Republic of Macedonia

Shouldn't there be the officially recognized name by the UN? The "Republic of Macedonia" is considered unacceptable by Greeks. Alternatively there should be a "informal" or "unresolved naming dispute" label next to the "Republic of Macedonia". See [[1]] and [[2]].

What do you think?

Everydaypanos 11:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current events subportals MfD

A discussion about most of the Current events subportals has been opened at Miscellany for deletion. You are invited to participate in discussing the fate of these subportals. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Logo Banner

I have added a logo for the Europe Portal. There is an ongoing disagreement regarding this logo with user User:Ssolbergj . Who has contributed with his own image. I would like to bring this issue to the knowledge of other users so to decide whether his image or mine should stay. Hope to hear from you. Camilo Sanchez (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Europortal.png

By Camilo Sanchez

OR:

By S. Solberg J.

I see that you have been trying to adapt a common logo format for the different continental portals, with designs based on generalising cliches and conceptions. (animals for Africa, Yin and yang for Asia) Just to make it clear; manhours of work and ambitions to create uniform logo standards for the continents, are totally irrelevant for this portal. And I'm not intending to 'hunt down' the logos you've made for Asia and Africa.
I honestly think the calligraphy style illustrates an extreme stereotype of an old-fashioned and retrospective Europe. That could be perceived as quite subjective and negative. I also think that the font is too extreme and hard to read. It reminds me more of Third Reich fonts [3] and the Middle Ages, than a living continent. If we're talking about symbolism, I'd say that the blue colour from the Flag of Europe is more adequate.
Having the Wikipedia logos placed here and there in wikiproject and portal logos is very rare and not standard. And I think the wiki-globe is quite irrelevant for the Europe portal. I'm in favour of a compact logo that doesn't push the real content of the portal too far down, in contrast to the one Camilo Sanchez made. And if that PNG is rendered to a lower size than it is now, it would be slightly blurred, like all PNGs do when placed into Wikipedia.
You wrote on my talk page that "Your logo is just as small and does not acknowledge Wikipedia as i have done it in a humble way.". Firstly, the current rendering size of my scalable SVG image is much smaller than yours. (If you're referring to its width, that's the extendible coloured table beneath the image.) Secondly, why would or should we "acknowledge" (?) Wikipedia in every logo?
Please, other editors, comment.
- S Solberg J 18:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that you are taking a fanatic of Europe point of view. First off I think we should try to find a respectable solution. I don't know whether this is your own artwork or not and if it is, then good for you. I can tell you that my banner is totally made by myself. It does not make it any better than yours. If we continue this argument and since this is more about art than anything else we will continue to have a subjective point of view. You are not proposing anything different than the fact that your banner is better. I can't say that mine is better or worse. I decided to use the Old Text typeface because it is the widest most recognized European typeface.(Although many other typefaces have been designed in Europe). If you don't like my banner then so be it. But I think what Wikipedia stands for is neutrality and collaborative work. Criticizing my artwork in other portals is something that as an artist I appreciate but that as a Wikipedian does not contribute to the solution of the issue. As far as the rasterized vs vectorial image goes. IMHO although the SVG standard is becoming of widespread usage I do not consider it to be overly better than a rasterized image. Especially because although you and I use a browser that can read such image, I am sure there are many people whose browsers are not capable yet of handling this kind of file which is a disadvantage. In conclusion I am willing to change my mind about my image if we take into account the collaborative aspect of Wikipedia by either working together on a new image or else just leaving it with the default font until a new much acceptable idea is proposed. I would like to add that the blue color represents only the countries that belong to the European Union. ThanksCamilo Sanchez (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I think my critisism was fair, and mainly not about aesthetics. I have never said that your image just "looks bad". I pointed out that your image is perhaps too big. (it's a PNG file, ergo; it shouldn't be resized. SVGs are officially encouraged in Wikipedia) The second thing I mentioned was that I think the calligraphy font is very generalising and could be considered negative. I just think it can't be used to represent a modern Europe. Do not insert your image before this is settled. And no, the Flag of Europe also represents the Council of Europe. (which includes virtually all of Europe) - S Solberg J 17:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sanchez's image cannot be used because, aside its aesthetic and technical merits (or lack thereof), it uses copyrighted elements. The Wikipedia logo is copyright and the permission of the Foundation is required for its reproduction.--cj | talk 22:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Keeping in mind you have granted several barn stars o your friend Ssolbergj, I do not consider your opinion neutral at all.Camilo Sanchez (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
?? No, me and CJ haven't exchanged any barnstars. - S Solberg J 14:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense, and, in any event, completely irrelevant. I have informed you of the legal status of the images you've uploaded, and, unless you've attained the permission of the Foundation, they will be deleted according Wikipedia policy. --cj | talk 23:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm completely neutral to this dispute, however I'd have to say I much prefer Ssolbergj's version as it is actually legible. No offence intended, Camilo Sanchez, but your banner also doesn't make any sense - should it not read "Wikipedia's Europe Portal"? It's particularly discourteous to make such a big change to so many portals that you aren't even involved in - especially when there was already a decent banner in place here. Seaserpent85 22:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If Camilo Sanchez hasn't got anything more to say, I'll insert mine. - S Solberg J 17:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on the few comments I gladly accept User:Ssolbergj's as the banner for this particular portal. However, I would like to inform you that I am working on a banner that includes the wikipedia logo and some features shown in Ssolbergj's banner. I strongly believe the portals have the potential to become more than simple portals and I also believe they can evolve into more attractive subsets of Wikipedia. Of course there is still a controversy regarding the copyright status of the wikipedia logo which I find totally baseless since we are adding it to the wikipedia itself. But in the meantime enjoy Ssolbergj's work. Thanks.Camilo Sanchez (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'll support anything with the Wikipedia logo, as I consider it pointless to include it.
"more than simple portals"? Is this discussion that fundamental? - S Solberg J 00:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Your position is totally destructive and uncooperative. Mine was a statement regarding something I have not posted yet and you still think it's pointless. About "more than simple portals" as you put it, no, it's not a fundamental discussion. Do you mind terribly me expressing my ideas regarding the issue? Or should we start a discussion whether or not I can even write anything here??Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course you can say what you want. I am simply against sporadic use of the Wikipedia globe in logos of wikiprojects- and portals. It will never be a coherent practice, and does rarely look anything but redundant. - S Solberg J 09:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't ask how I ended up at this page but from what I see, I prefer SSJs. In most media (ie. colour coded maps, board games, the EU flag being used in general to represent Europe etc) I'd say when every continent is given a colour, Europe is given Blue. I would honestly estimate that most people would associate a blue background with Europe. Also the Old English font, which as somebody pointed out, reminds me more of Germany, and not Europe in any way. That is my opinion, for what its worth (I'd like to consider it a neutral one as well). Hopefully the situation can be solved without needing to get annoyed at one another. I'd look for more opinions though, as it'd be interesting to hear what others thought. --Simonski (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Title

The title looks a little grainy ATM. Mønobi 02:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)