Talk:European Union

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please consider reading the frequently asked questions for this article before asking any questions on this talk page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the European Union article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
Former featured article European Union is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good article European Union has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 9, 2004.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Arnoutf, J Logan, Lear 21, Sandpiper, Simonski and S Solberg J
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.



Contents

[edit] BBC thing

Hmm.. no idea where the rest of the discussion went (it wasn't all archived apparently), but anyway, just a brief point - Lear nobody was disputing the fact that the EU is an important actor on the international stage. Like I keep saying, if you used the BBC site often you'd see the EU average is often given on polls/graphs etc to highlight the average opinion in Europe. Not quite sure whats hard to understand about that. Anyway, this sort of thing is off topic and doesn't belong on the talk page so in future please keep these sorts of articles to user talk pages! --Simonski (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] no anthem

There is no official EU anthem. It was removed from the Lisbon Treaty in a token attempt to appease the Dutch votors who voted strongly against the Constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.178.58 (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The anthem was adopted as the official anthem by the Heads of States in 1985. The Lisbon Treaty is not yet in force, so it is still the anthem. Lwxrm (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
No, the Lisbon treaty will not even change that. It will not formalise the Anthem in a treaty, but neither does it (explicitly) discontinue the current Anthem (note this discussion has been debated extensively before, also with reference to the flag. The consensus, backed by reliable sources was to keep both). Arnoutf (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GDP issue

Right, I've come to the conclusion that the reference to the GDP thing in the intro, at least as it is currently worded, is grossly misleading. I was reading today that the EU, the organisation itself, spends less than 1% of the overall European GDP. The source I read also stated that less than 1.3% of the European gross social product is directly available to organisation. - see this, at p. 119, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FI0v_hCKcFAC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=ecj+still+constitutionalising+the+treaties&source=web&ots=EECnXvldI2&sig=ovUyfx7elnviUYeTX95A0bcSey0&hl=en#PPA119,M1 The sentence surely has to be clarified then to state that the figure comes from taking Member State GDPs all together, or removed. --Simonski (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The EU is not one organisation. I'm not saying that it is a nation or a federation (not that debate), but the internal market is one market that encompasses every member state. "GDP is defined as the total market value of all final goods and services produced in a given period of time". The spending of the institutions in Brussels has little to do with the total GDP of the block. I'm not an economist, but I know that it is commonly emphesised that the EU is acting supratationally in trade (WTO membership), and is one single market in trade. And as you know, the EU has a common citizenship. If there is one area of policy I'll argue the EU is one supranational thing, trade and the single market must be it. Remember the main objective of the Commission? - S Solberg J 14:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
GDP isn't really related to what the government can spend. You wouldn't put the budget of the Houses of Parliament in the UK infobox under GDP. The one thing the EU is if anything is an economic community, it doesn't matter that only 1.3% is used in institutions. 86.151.168.38 (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


I agree: it is quite normal to speak of the GDP of the EU as a whole. The term "European Union", or "EU", can occasionally refer to the organization, but it can also (and in my experience very often does) refer to the collection of countries as a whole. This usage is different from that applying specifically to organizations — which often have the word "organization" in their name, e.g. United Nations Organization (UNO), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The organization of the EU (as opposed to the Union) may have a budget, but it cannot have a GDP.
Examples of GDP applying to the union as a whole (collection of sovereign states that are members of the UN):
"Public expenditure by the Member States amounts on average to 47% of the GDP of the European Union, while the budget allocated to cohesion policy is less than 0.4%." http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/g24006.htm
". . .the tourist industry produces goods and provides services estimated to represent 5.5% of the GDP of the European Union." http://www.europarl.europa.eu/pv2/pv2?PRG=CALDOC&TPV=DEF&FILE=960213&TXTLST=1&POS=1&LASTCHAP=5&SDOCTA=3&Type_Doc=FIRST&LANGUE=EN
"In fact, promotion of cross-border careers for European researchers is a crucial factor if public and private investments in research are to reach three percent of the GDP of the European Union by 2010." http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/video/video_search_en.cfm?videoref=&StartRow=41&keyword=gdp&witch=video&src=1
"This bias is relatively stable and represents, each year, from 4 to 6% of the total amount of exports, i.e. approximately 0.8% of the GDP of the European Union." http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/23/44/2670588.pdf
"Therefore, the Commission forecasts growth in GDP of the European Union to be close to 2.8 % and 2.9 % in 2001 and 2002." http://www.imf.org/external/spring/2001/imfc/eu.htm
Personally, I would normally add the word "combined". --Boson (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like a good proposal. It might also be worth noting that the single market in many respects is far from complete - its still far too early to generalise and just assume that the EU's GDP can be measured as a whole without reference to the fact that "EU GDP" is nothing more than the sum of the Member State's GDPs themselves. It does need clarified otherwise we run a risk of misleading people as to how thing stand. --Simonski (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The single market is complete for all practical puposes. Yes, it's not a 100% perfect single market, but even large countries like the US don't have a perfect single market - income tax differs considerably from state to state, for instance. Cambrasa confab 15:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
That is an opinion rather than fact though, albeit a fair one to have. At the same time, you can see with EU Citizenship for example that the free movement of persons in general has remained far from fully complete. I think it could be argued either way, though I'd still say its not quite complete. I got the impression thats what I was getting taught this year as well. --Simonski (talk) 09:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The EU's GDP PPP and Nominal needs to be adjusted to 2008. Please can someone do this when possiblePryde 01 (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irony at its best

I see somebody added a link to the fact that this article has been cited as a source. I don't think its necessary to have the link personally as the journalist quite clearly shouldn't be in a job if she's relying on wikipedia to tell her about the EU. Its laughable, particularly when the website is called "accuracy in media". I'm going to remove it in the meantime I think just because it seems so pointless to have it, I don't think Accuracy in Media is a particularly noteworthy source (perhaps to American readers it is), nor should it be by the looks of their work. Plus it was from 2005, the page being completely different now than it was then, and the phrase she quotes not even forming part of the article anymore. --Simonski (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

...ok. (NovaTabula (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] New city template

Template:European Union cities

I made a new city template that matches the others used in the PRC and Russia (to name a few). — NuclearVacuum 16:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's too big. The current city table in the article works. - S Solberg J 16:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It'd probably be fine if it more like the table in this article now. Removing the width in the template and allowing text to go around it too. Just my opinion though.. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Display combined GDP

The 'GDP' section has to be removed, its completely misleading, otherwise you could list continents as having a huge GDP and list them as such as opposed to the reality that entirely seperate nation-states are involved. The EU is not a country and the article should reflect that.Twobells (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: I suggest that the term 'not applicable' be applied without further reference, the body of the article informs the reader of the reality and there should be no confusion.Twobells (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It is common place to list the combined GDP of the EU member states as the EU GDP; the IMF, World Bank, and CIA are reputable references and they are doing so. You are free to argue on the NAFTA article that it's combined GDP should be stated (if that is not yet the case). I would even support you, since I think it makes perfectly sense to report this value for trade organizations, not only for comparison purpose. This way I want to suggest to decouple the debate on whether to report the GDP for the EU from the very difficult question of whether the EU is one country or not. If the latter issue is the true motivation of your comment than I would like to refer to the abundant respective discussion that can be found in the archives of this talk page. Tomeasy (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The GDP information doesn't hurt. It will be useful to some readers. The EU is not a country, but it is a single market, so the GDP figure isn't completely meaningless. Who said that only country articles can quote the GDP? The "domestic" term in GDP can be interpreted flexibly. You'll notice that articles such as North American Free Trade Agreement and Association of Southeast Asian Nations also have the GDP listed in the fact box. Also, entities such as Hong Kong, Scotland, and United Arab Emirates are not technically countries so according to your stringent rules the GDP figure should be deleted there too. As for "non applicable", the GDP is applicable - it can and has been measured for the EU by highly notable organisations such as the IMF. You seem to be confusing "non applicable" with "not important". Cambrasa confab 15:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Cambrasa. I fully agree with your argumentation. Just two small things. It made me laugh, when you mentioned that Scotland is technically not a country, because people on the Scotland talk page are currently discussing this and have already filled pages with that matter. So, I just found it funny, without criticizing. The second thing: Why are the UAE technically not a country. It's a federal monarchy. There are many federal states and many monarchies around, so why should a federal monarchy not be a state? Tomeasy (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Whether the EU is a nation state or a country and whether GDP information should be included are two different issues. Is anyone claiming that the EU is a country? If we talk about "combined GDP" it is obvious that we are not talking about a country, since a country does not usually have a combined GDP. As stated above, many official sources give the combined GDP of the EU.--Boson (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Scotland IS a country damnit! And anybody who says otherwise deserves a Glasgow kiss. --Simonski (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I suppose there must be a word for expressions like Glasgow kiss and Birmingham screwdriver. I suppose it ends in -nym. If one knew the word it might make a useful Wikipedia category.--Boson (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps Euphemism?? Arnoutf (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping to find something more specific like topometonym, or something with exo- or xeno- but I suppose nobody has got round to inventing anything more specific. --Boson (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

We had a good compromise on this issue just three entries above. The word 'combined' implies that the EU isn't a perfect single unit, and in reality, the economic harmonisation of the EU isn't complete. But the EU acts entirely as a single unit in the WTO and trade talks etc. The word 'member states' is already mentioned six times in the intro, and that's enough in my opinion. - S Solberg J 16:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

can conceal your IP address and be provided with —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.135.177.224 (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image map of the EU

Image:LocationEuropeanUnion.png
Robinson projection with PNG (proposed)
Mercator projection with SVG (current)
Mercator projection with SVG (current)

I made this map a while back. It was deleted because it didn't have "all" the territory (i.e. French Guiana). I fixed it and it was still removed, all because it isn't in scalable vector graphics (SVG). Why is this? When I look at the current image, all I get is a long time for it to download, and it still is smaller for me to see. What is wrong with my image? It's big, it shows all the territory, and it in very simple to use portable network graphics (PNG). — NuclearVacuum 00:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

SVGs are preferred for their edit-ability. Besides that and with respect to the case at hand, all your arguments are valid and I think you did a good job with your map. Comparing the two options simply as they are displayed yours certainly does the better job. Unfortunately, your png does not offer other users to edit the image as a vector. Tomeasy (talk) 05:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure editability is an essential quality of an image, only if it still requires further amendmends. Arnoutf (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The point is that the Robinson projection is good for countries around the Equator, but it distorts Europe (too far up in the Northern hemisphere). The Mercator projection (my SVG) is more appropriate for the European Union. - S Solberg J 12:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Now the difference in projections is indeed an argument for the lower map. Arnoutf (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
@Solberg: Both projections are perfect at the equator and both have their problems up north. Your implication that the difference between the two projects lies in that Mercator handles an offset from the equator to the north better is just wrong. True is that, while Mercator stretches distances (hence surface areas become larger), Robinson distorts angles increasingly when approaching one of the poles. Tomeasy (talk) 07:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't see much difference from my larger map and the currently small map. If you can't use mine, is there a way to make the current image any bigger then it is. I can barely see Switzerland's border withing this extremely small map (let alone any external territories witch was my first argument for it's removal). To me, it just seems stupid for you to say that SVG is better then PNG, or that Mercator projection is better suited then a Robinson projection, when you can't even enlarge the image to see it's details. That's why I am proposing this map, size and accuracy, not design and graphics. — NuclearVacuum 16:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Scalable Vector Graphics are, well, scalable. You can get any size of this map, see Image talk:Location European Union.svg. It might be that you're pointing out that the default view at the Image: page is small, and that can probably be fixed. -- Jao (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
That should certainly be done! The way it is implemented now shows up much too small. Not even can you tell from this map that there is a sizable territory in Sauth America that is part of the union. As long as the mercator map isn't scaled User:NuclearVacuum's map aapears better to me. Tomeasy (talk) 07:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Please consider the differences in the Nordic countries (norway, sweden) which are almost in an east-west orientation, and heavily distorted on the Robinson, compared to the Mercator one where these countries are more or less in the (true) North-South orientation. This is easy to see. Hence the Mercator projection is more accurate for use in Europe. So for accuracy alone Mercator is to be preferred over Robinson. Arnoutf (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
There are obviously different approaches for planar mappings of spherical surfaces, and none is perfect (see also my above reply to Solberg). You might know, and it can easily be observed, that the Mercator projection has its inherent problems, too: Finland shows up larger than Spain and Portugal! Is that appropriate for the EU? Tomeasy (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but the Robinson projection distorts Europe as a whole even more (Finland looks almost as small as the Baltic region). No other continent is as far up/down in one of the two hemispheres as Europe is. For that reason, the robinson projection will always make Europe look much smaller than it really is, e.g. compared to Africa which is in the equator belt. To me it seems like the decisive thing should be which (mainstream) map projection gives the most detailed image of the area the article is about. And in this case, it's the mercator projection. Re-scaled renditions of PNGs are always slightly blurry in Wikipedia. - S Solberg J 18:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly the opposite is true. Mercator makes the northern countries far too large. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Finland looks almost as small as the Baltic region. Please, do not insinuate things that are simply wrong. It is the Mercator projection that distorts sizes at a maximum. So, while Mercator makes Finland appear too large compared to the more southern Baltic region, Robinson is more correct in this respect. I am not saying that we have to use Robinson, I am just not happy with the false argumentation that is exposed here. There are valid arguments for using the Mercator projections. I think we should stick to them.
Valid arguments are the true angles of the Mercator map and that it just shows Europe bigger than it is (which might be desired, since this article is on the European Union). People should just decide, whether these arguments are more important than the counter argument of extremely wrong surface areas, i.e. Finland larger than Spain or Greenland larger than Africa (while it is more than 10 times smaller in reality)!
As I said, I am indifferent to the choice, but would wish to see less skewed argumentation. Tomeasy (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. There is nothing better than a vector for an illustration. Tomeasy (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the Mercator SVG. —Nightstallion 22:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I prefer a larger SVG. Whether it is Mercator or Robinson does not matter, because they both do have their issues. Tomeasy (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the image of the Robinson projection much more. The other uses scaling that makes Greenland look twenty times larger than India, even though it's only half the size of India. - PietervHuis (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, you've picked up the most disturbing point about the Mercator projection. Surface areas, and their distortions, are internationally extremely delicate.Tomeasytalk 22:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree. The distortion of the relative sizes in the Mercator (Skandinavia alone almost as large as all of the rest of the EU, and Europe as a whole far too large compared with Africa) is a far more serious problem than the distortion of the orientation in the Robinson. Relative size is something that really affects perception. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
That is your perception of the issue; in my opinion the shape distortion is worse especially for Europe the mercator projection has become more or less an iconic of the continent; allowing for fast recognition and interpretation. Arnoutf (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Arnoutf to also disgree with you on this topic, but in my perception the use of the Mercator is getting less and less. The reason for this is indeed the wrong representation of surface areas, which rendered it politically incorrect to many observes since it appears to marginalize primarily areas that feel already marginalized in many other respects. It's use is often discouraged by societies that professionally deal with the subject. Actually the use of any cylindrical projection (of which Mercator is just the most prominent) is discouraged. That's why, in my perception, the trend goes more to make it out of fashion.
When thinking of Europe, you anyways think of a very different projection, because a mental picture of Europe will probably not refer to a world map, but a Europe map only, which is much more likely a conical than a cylindrical projection. Tomeasytalk 20:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the two proposed maps, I would like to emphasize again that what we are currently using shows up much too small. The alternative proposition would also solve this problem, i.e., when you click it it gets larger. Can anyone please fix this limitation of the current map, while we discuss which projection is better. As far as I can see the urge for a larger size is not controversial here, but I do not know how to do it myself. I do not want to use the robinson map (which I would like to, simply for the sake of its larger display), because it is so far opposed for different reasons. Tomeasytalk 22:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As none of us seems to know how to enlargen the SVG image on the description page, I posed the question at Wikipedia:SVG Help#Image dimensions on description page. -- Jao (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Rescaled version
Rescaled version
Jao brought this to my attention on SVG Help. Just to let you know I have changed the default scaling on the image - the updated image is shown to the right. User A1 (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
There's something green in the Sahara. Tomeasytalk 15:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Problem is, it took me about 1 minute to load this image into my browser (medium speeds ADSL connection); which I think is way too slow. (and there is some green country in central africa). Arnoutf (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't see anything green in Sahara, and I have no problem loading the image (?). When the margin around the mercator image is removed, it doesn't look very good in the infobox (and Europe doesn't get much bigger). The (default) robinson image has even more blank space. - S Solberg J 13:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Gone now, and very fast on this explorer browser, perhaps a glitch in my home installed firefox? Arnoutf (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Independent from the projection discussion, I feel everyone agrees that we should have a larger display upon clicking. So I will put the rescaled Mercator now. Tomeasytalk 20:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Not everyone agrees with that. Three messages above this, I explained why there should be a margin around the image. The infobox template has default margins above and beneath the map. When the left and right in-image margins are removed, only the default margins from the template remain. And that looks weird IMO. Europe doesn't get much bigger anyway. - S Solberg J 21:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not know that this margin thing was so important to you that you would oppose the larger map for it all together. I understood it as a small thing that should still be fixed. Fell free to revert me, since consensus is apparently not achieved yet. BTW, I find it OK without margin. Does not look weird to me, but that's personal.
I don't get one point of yours: Europe doesn't get much bigger anyway. Did you click on it? Of course, the map does not get bigger in the infobox, but it does get much bigger when you click on it. So big that now you can even see that French Guyana is part of the EU, which was not possibly seen before. Tomeasytalk 06:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
"it does get much bigger when you click on it" - that's not an argument. This is an SVG that can be rendered to any size. - S Solberg J 11:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course this is an argument. What do you think readers will do when the size of the infobox map appears to small to them. They will just click on it! Now, it's up to us to make this solution helpful or not. Conversely, how many readers do you expect to download the file and then open it up in an application that allows them to scale up the image. For us editors it should be an imperative to make things easily accessible to the users.
Independent from that: Do you agree that it is of importance that users are able (in what ever way) to see so much detail in the map that they can tell French Guyana is part of the EU? Tomeasytalk 12:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually I think therein lies a hazard of SVG for maps. So you can scale to infintiy, fine, I'd like to see the individual trees in my street rendered; if I scale enough ;-). But no kidding, we should look carefully at the purpose of this map, which is only twofold 1) to provide an overview of the general shape of the union and 2) its relative position on the globe. Everything else is (in my opinion) irrelevant for this article, and people looking for high quality maps should order them from ordnance survey and not look on Wikipedia. Arnoutf (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean that requesting a resolution wherein French Guyana becomes visible is too much asked? So to point one in your list: Be specific as to where the general shape of the union ends! I think a world map with 250px width is too poor. Tomeasytalk 15:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) No, I only mean that we should not take scalability to the ridiculous. The problem with the scalable map above is for example that the coast of the Netherlands is one single line and omits IJsselmeer, Zeeland and the Waddeneilanden. These features are important. No problem that it is impossible to see these on the small map; but the newly proposed map allows scaling to a size where these features should definitely be detailed. That is in my opinion the problem here, you cannot make a sufficiently exact scalable map without implementing detail levels that are not realistic. Arnoutf (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I think I understand what you mean. Just to make sure: Since we have now a preview for 1000px upon clicking, the underlying svg should be more detailed. So, you prefer the version that only displays to 250px, because it matches the level of detail provided by the vector. Tomeasytalk 17:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
That is indeed basically my point. Arnoutf (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

@Solberg: From your revert edit summary I understand that the missing margin is more important to you than the invisibility of French Guyana in the smaller map. How would you react to a map that has a margin and still shows up larger upon clicking? Or, do you completely dismiss clicking an svg as a method to display it larger? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomeasy (talk • contribs) 07:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

When Image:Location European Union.svg is set to 250px, I can clearly see some dark pixels in French Guyana. The maximum rendering size of images when they are clicked, is optional (click my preferences). I sat the default size of Image:Location European Union.svg to 250px (so you see a 250px rendering when you click on it). I understand you want more default "detail", so I reuploaded the SVG with a bigger default size. Is that OK? With Opera you can zoom without downloading the file. - S Solberg J 14:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Very good! For my part the discussion is on size is this way concluded. Tomeasytalk 15:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is pointless. Nobody is going to use this map for navigation; it's point is to show the relative position of the EU on Earth. Relative Size is important for basic comprehension of relative position. The Robinson Projection is used because it shows relative size. The Mercator Projection might plot the actual angles of the coasts correctly, but distorts the size of the polar regions. For reference, see a globe, or satellite images. Using Mercator projection on a map intended for relative global position in an encyclopedia is about as accurate as just printing "Greenland is the second largest continent after Eurasia." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.123.76 (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Mercator Projection...yuck. But seriously, Robinson seems to be the de facto standard used here on Wikipedia, even on the article for Europe. As mentioned above, the only purpose of this map, as with the map in the Europe article, is to show relative position. --71.112.145.203 (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I have requested in WP:RFPP to semi protect this page due to the recent high level of vandalism. It has been done for a period of three weeks. Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map Change

I propose that the shaded portion of the EU be change to a different color other than green, red, or blue, so as to not be the same color as the African Union-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Union South American Union-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_American_Union

I do not recommend blue as that has been the proposed color of the theoretical "North American Union".

I recommend yellow, but that's not for me to decide.

The whole intentions of this are to create greater color unison with the map on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Union

I have already proposed there that the colors be changed to match the articles above, and that once a new color is decided for the EU here, the map on that page can be changed as well.--Fox P McCloud (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I think that is not a good idea. Almost all of this style of locator maps uses Grey-Green. Yellow seems particularly bad choice as that is light and thus close to both white and grey. I we want to achieve maximum color consistency across Wikipedia we should stick with that. Furthermore I am not convinced that we should match the map of a long and good article to the map of an almost stub sized article on continental unions, I think that would do unjustice to the status of the articles, and might be a precedent for all kinds of instabilities. (In other words if you want color unison in the continental union article you should match the continental union map to the map used on EU not the other way around). Arnoutf (talk) 06:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. I have to be with Arnoutf on this one. Having different colors per different continents does not look appropriate to me, on the contrary, standardizing those colors seems better. The tendency to use green and grey is well known, it will simply look weird. Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. My arguments have already been stated by others. Tomeasytalk 11:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cartogram

Two Wikipedians have, one after the other, removed my EU population cartogram from this article. Miguel.mateo gave no reason; Lear 21 said that the cartogram was "non scientific" (no cartogram is ever really "scientific", old bean). But I forgive them. I was drunk when I made and uploaded the thing and, being a responsible drunk, I accompanied the upload with lots of self-deprecatory nonsense. M.m and L21 were probably unduly influenced by my drunkenly diffident maunderings.

But can anyone spot anything significantly wrong with the cartogram? The Netherlands has internal boundaries that don't belong in this pic (prob. bad shapefile) but is there anything else? I still have reservations about the way the software, ScapeToad, handles world datasets but I'm starting to think that it has worked its magic very, very well on this limited EU population dataset. Vinny Burgoo (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Vinny,
Please do not take it personal, as you saw I put my reversion comment as "mistake?" instead of "vandalism". I do believe the contribution will be great, as long as it is well put. A few comments:
  • Make sure that the map "looks nice"; I think the resolution of your original cartogram was not appropriate. Looking at the high resolution picture you provided, Finland, Sweden and Denmark look weird, because of the angle of the map. Can that be fixed to make flat like all other maps in Wikipedia?
  • Please add an explanation to it, the map with colors is meaningless without an explanation of what those colors represent.
  • Finally, source it.
I can help you out with any of the previous comments, since I do believe that the information you are adding is valuable, if properly added.
Regards,
Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi some question and suggestion for clarification
Indeed the colours are somewhat of a mystery. I thought you distorted the map to represent a homogenous density; or do the colour imply higher than average density (ie expanded size - dark red) lower densitye (purple - reduced size)? This needs clarification indeed.
Also I agree Sweden and Finland look very weird, spidery almost, with their true rounded shape being distorted almost out of recognition. Finally, could you add norway (in white like Swiss) to complete the landmark coastline.
For the rest if your cartogram theme is "landmass scaled towards equal population density" that should be clear in the commons description and in the caption of the image. If this is indeed the case the sourcing is relatively easy as you can use the average pop density of Europe (see Demographics of the European Union) at 112/km2 as a surface factor 1; then Netherlands and Belgium (at 394 and 344 respectively) should be surface area inflated by about a factor 3. Is this indeed the case? Arnoutf (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)