Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European Union/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DO NOT EDIT / POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

Contents

Barnstar Proposal *NEW*

Proposed Barnstar for contributions concerning the EU
Proposed Barnstar for contributions concerning the EU

Hi, I have made a barnstar that you may wish to use for people who make good additions to your sections, Contact me on my talk page please Chaza93 17:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Barnstar of European Merit
Here's my proposal. 12 stars instead of 15.
{{subst:The Barnstar of European Merit|message ~~~~}}
this WikiAward was given to {{subst:PAGENAME}} by ~~~ on ~~~~~


└ S. SOLBERG J. / talk ┐ 08:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I had this in mind for some time, but did nothing about it. It's a good one Ssolbergj, I like it, perhaps without the motto inside the stars circle, it would be cleaner. --giandrea 22:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Fortnight

I think the first thing we should do is to start improving the articles that we've got, some like Euro and European Union are decent, a great number of other articles need a lot of work though. Once I figure out how to set one up properly a COTF would be good. -- Joolz 23:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject European Union/MEP stubs

Greetings from WP:WSS. On WP:SFD, it looks like Category:Extended MEP stubs is going to be merged with Category:MEP stubs. Because there is a slight difference between the two, but not enough to keep a seperate stub type, User:Grutness suggested to make the category a list and linking it from {{MEP-stub}}. After asking User:Talrias and User:Joolz on IRC, that list is now Wikipedia:WikiProject European Union/MEP stubs. I'm posting this here mainly as a reminder. -- grm_wnr Esc 6 July 2005 17:46 (UTC)

Clean up Directives articles: consistent titling

I'm going to do some work on cleaning up (or creating) the Directives articles. For a start, I'd like to consult on a preferred style for the principal article (with the others as redirects, leaving major existing ones Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions as they are (but with a standard form redirect).

Options are these:

  • 1 2001/37/EC
  • 2 Directive 2001/37/EC
  • 3 Cigarette packet warning signs directive
  • 4 EU cigarette packet warning signs directive
  • 5 European cigarette packet warning signs directive
  • 6 Directive on Cigarette packet warning signs
  • 7 Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products.

There are examples of all of them! Please add your observations initially, then we can invite a vote.

--Red King 16:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure it's the best idea to just dive into a vote. It would be good to discuss the relative merits of the proposals first. 1 and 2 I am not greatly keen on because they are jumbles of letters and numbers to most readers, and don't have meaningful or memorable titles. 7 I think will be impractical. Now the question is while they have official long titles what about short titles. Are they official and specificied anywhere, in which case isn't one of "directive on cigarette packet warning signs" and "cigarette packet warning signs directive" going to be right and the other just wrong? Also, I think I would prefer to avoid specifying "EU" or "European" where possible (i.e. unless disambiguating). We don't do this for most laws of the world. British laws, for example, are always Name Year, such as Gender Recognition Act 2004. Unless another country uses the same formulation there's no need to specify, and I would suggest the same goes for directives. My first thoughts though are 6, 3, 4, 5, 2, 7, 1. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Fair comment. I've pulled the invitation to vote.
  • Whist agreeing with Trilobite's logic in the ideal, my reason for favouring the prefix is becuase that is how I hear people refer to directives. It's nearly always "EU Directives" - but yes, there are certainly exceptions such as "Working Time Directive". Of course, if we put redirects in for all of these to the primary article, they'll be picked up anyway. How important is it to have "correct" title? For example, it's the Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions, not the EU software patents directive or the software patents directive. (Restrains Pavlovian response to the red links!). How correct to you want to be? Option 7 is clearly the "official" title.
  • The first two are non-options for me, they're not common nor useful for people. Option 7 is just too long winded. I don't see any need for 'EU' to be specified unless disambiguation is needed. I think in all cases, such as the Working Time directive, the common usage should prevail. Consistency between our articles is one thing, but consistency with common usage is more important, I think. Personally, I prefer option 6, failing that, option 5 would be my second choice. -- Joolz 21:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the late reply. I guess the problem is that the EU itself is not really consistent with its' naming conventions. For instance both REACH and chemicals directive are used in discussing this policy. Given the example above I woul go for 3 and 6. The most important thing would be to have the appropriate redirects in place, I guess

--Daniel Spichtinger 15:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

EU research policy & IST

It seems there is nothing on the EU research policy. I am working for a company that does a lot of EU projects in the IST field (one area of FP6) so I am planning to cover the specifics. I will also try to write an article on EU research policy as a whole and FP6 and 7 in particular. I have started small, with a piece on I2010, the Union's umbrella for ICT development. Comments are welcome. --Daniel Spichtinger 15:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Eu Coins menu

Some (or all) of the articles in { { EU Coins menu } } also has { {Eurocoins} }, is this on purpose? Or is it ok to remove the latter? MartinBiely 20:12, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

It seems rather redundant to have {{Eurocoins}} and {{EU coins menu}}, maybe {{Eurocoins}} should be sent to WP:TFD -- Joolz 21:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Done. Finally. ;) ナイトスタリオン ✉ 19:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

MEPs Lists categorization

I've been doing some work with the categorization heirarchy of the various lists of MEPs. In the past couple weeks, I've created subcategories Category:Members of the European Parliament by country and Category:Members of the European Parliament by term. The articles listing MEPs by country by term that appear in Category:European Parliament results now also appear in the appropriate country subcategory of Members of the European Parliament by country. Now I'd like to remove them from European Parliament results. The articles that I'd like to keep in the European Parliament results category are those such as European Parliament election, 1999 (UK) that show election statistics. There would be a See Also link to Category:Members of the European Parliament. Also, I think that European Parliament results should possibly be renamed to European Parliament election results. Note-I had placed a suggestion on the talk page for European Parliament results on 21 July 2005 proposing an alternative use of cat sort keys for the MEPs by country by term, but I have since changed my opinion and believe that they belong elsewhere in the heirarchy. Comments? Thanks, LiniShu 03:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to proceed with this plan after having waited for 9 days and not seeing any comments to the contrary. LiniShu 16:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I was on holiday at the time and I missed your comments :P I'm not entirely sure how the category scheme will end up, will the MEPs be categorized by term as well? If so I don't think that's a good idea because some have been re-elected many times, which means a lot of categories. -- Joolz 18:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's not necessary, and probably detrimental, to categorize the MEPs by term. The list-style articles of the type "MEPs for <Country> <Term>" serve that purpose, and have the advantage over categories of being able to provide additional information, such as party. The primary result of the work that I've done so far relates to the category paths that one can take to access the "MEPs for <Country> <Term>" type articles. They will no longer be available directly in Category:European Parliament results; instead they are available thru a.) Category:Members of the European Parliament --> Category:Members of the European Parliament by country --> Category:Members of the European Parliament from <country> --> List "MEPs for <Country> <Term>"' or b.) Category:Members of the European Parliament --> Category:Members of the European Parliament by term --> Category:Members of the European Parliament <term> --> List "MEPs for <Country> <Term>"'. Those are two possible paths; there are others. There is a good basic organizational structure already in place for the Lists of MEPs type articles, but I think there is some additional work that could still be done to improve the categorization, navigability, and consistency of these articles; I've had the idea of creating another subpage for this project in which the ideas could be outlined in a systematic way; providing opportunity for others interested in the EU project to have some input. I could get such a subpage started if you wouldn't object. Thanks for your perspective on all of this. LiniShu 12:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

It looks good, I remember looking at some of this a while back but it was in such a mess I didn't have the time to tackle it properly :) -- Joolz 12:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


Commission Directorate Generals

I think that it is relevant to create entries for the 25 DGs. I will try to do this as my first real Wiki adventure. What should I think of before I start typing? How do I create a template for the DGs?

--Drdan 09:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! There's a short article on one of the DGs already, Directorate-General for Translation of the European Commission. I think a new template (I suggest {{eu-directorates-general}}) would be useful listing all the different DGs, as a starting point a modification of {{EU countries}}. I suggest putting this at the bottom of each DG article. Are you sure there's only 25 DGs? I'm looking at the EU commission list of Directorate-generals and Services and there's a fair few more than 25 (not all have a commissioner). If you need help just drop me a note on my talk page. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! Yes, there are a quite a few DGs. I had only planned to do stubs for the policy-making and external relations ones. I also found an entry for DG Infso. I will make an attempt on making a new template and post on your Talk page if/when I have problems. BTW Why aren't {{EU countries}} listed on the project page with the other templates? --Drdan 17:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Probably because no one has got around to adding it yet (or it was created before the EU wikiproject was founded). :) Cheers, Talrias (t | e | c) 17:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I have a new set of standardisation problems with the DG article names. It is clear that the Internal Services and the General Services only are collective names for sets of Services and DGs that are not policy-making [1]. I have named the General services page EU General Services, but I am not happy with that. Any suggestions before I proceed to Internal Services? A second question: the term External Relations is both a collective name and an actual DG. Though the DG for External Relations is policy-making, I am not sure that all the others that incorporated under the name of External relations are. This is causing me a headache both in terms of article naming and structure. --Drdan 07:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we could list it on Wikipedia:Requested moves and ask people's opinions on how the articles should be named? Or even email the European Commission somethingorother and ask them what the official name is, since their websites aren't really much help unless you know the lingo. Talrias (t | e | c) 09:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Collaboration of the fortnight revisited

Revisiting Joolz's comment on top, i thought it'd be a great idea! There are so many articles on the EU which desperately need expanding, and i'm sure everybody knows something about. They just need attention.

Therefore, i cooked up a scheme for a Collaboration of the fortnight (based on the one on the Community Portal). I popped in the Eurobarometer as my first suggestion. Obviously, we'd need to flesh out the place to hold our voting for articles, but if we do, i'm sure that we can expand rapidly.

Here's my scheme, comments are absolutely welcome!

Collaboration of the fortnight
Help edit Eurobarometer, the WikiProject European Union's current collaboration of the fortnight! Please help expand it and bring it up to featured article standard.

Eurobarometer is a survey performed by the Public Opinion Analysis sector of the European Commission since 1973. It regularly produces reports of public opinion of certain issues relating to the European Union across the member states.

You can still help with last week's article, seen above, Delors Commission (see how long its been neglected), or help pick next week's article.
I've created a page for it - see Wikipedia:European Union collaboration. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Hmm too bad, i kind of liked my own scheme and all, i was hoping for comments first. But still, glad the page is up! --The Minister of War 12:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean! I just created the page where you nominate and vote on stuff and the associated templates (I haven't duplicated anything you have done). Talrias (t | e | c) 12:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah, its not very important! Let me be clear: good work!
It's just, i dont like the colours on the {{eucollab}} very much, that's all. My attempt above was done in EU-standard colors, i thought that'd look nicer. And i like the short quote also. But i admit, it's also probably just my ego working up ;-) --The Minister of War 12:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
The colours used on that template are the standard chosen by the community - see WP:TS. The short quote is a nice idea but I think putting it on the template as well will cause it to take up too much room. The main COTW short blurb is only used on one place - the Community portal - in other places it uses a template like the one I created. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the link; thought it might be standardized, but couldnt find it anywhere. I admit i still have to come to grips with WIki SOPs! Where would this {{eucollab}} usually be used? Just on this project page, or also on other places? If only here, i'd say lets expand it a bit. Just a short notice like this is hardly inspiring methinks!
By the way, i'm impressed with the speed by which you put up that page! --The Minister of War 12:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
To be honest, I pretty much copied and merged the WP:COTW and WP:UKCOTW pages (both of which I helped create in one form or another). The template could conceivably be used anywhere - some people put the collab. templates on their user pages, it could go on the EU portal page, etc.. I don't think it should be much longer - if we are going to have a longer section it should probably be another template (or indeed just update the actual page without using a template). Talrias (t | e | c) 13:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Portal merger

Someone has proposed that the European Union portal should be amalgamated into the Europe portal... not a good idea if you ask me. I think that the majority share my opinion. You can add your opinion on the talk-page. Looks like someone is busy vandalising the talk-page now. --Drdan 16:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

EU Law template

I found the EU Law template on the Secondary legislation pages (below). The template is a good idea, but it is used in a strange way. I think that something like it is required on the pages describing EU legislation, but it should probably be expanded to include all three types of legislative acts (primary, secondary, and court decisions). Deletion might be a bit harsh. --Drdan 10:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Seeing that the template EU law has been deleted I figured that something new was required in order to tie together the various pages on EU legislation. This includes not only the pages on how laws are created, but also the pages presenting the actual legislation. I have made a draft template based on the EU politics template. I am open for comments. template:Legislation of the European Union --Drdan 10:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks fine. --Red King 19:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


Looking for comments on party chart

Hey all. I've spent the past day or so playing with this chart, and I think it's almost unveilable to public eyes. I was curious to see if you lot had any feedback. I imagine it would make an interesting standalone page; personally, I've found it sometimes frustrating to readily find a party of a particular tendency and see where it stands vis a vis transnational groups. Any thoughts, good or bad, edits, what have you would be appreciated. The Tom

Two, no, three points:
  • I like it.
  • It's huge. Don't know what one can do about that, though. Probably nothing.
  • I added the BZÖ to it; it's rather laughable (much about Austrian politics is), but it's still notable (for now). ;)
ナイトスタリオン ✉ 08:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Mh, a fourth point: What about Hans-Peter Martin's list? It got 14% in the last European Parliament elections... [[:en:]] doesn't even have an article about the list, though. Mh. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I had him in the centre column some drafts ago, but figured that now that he's lost his party-mate, he's basically an independent and should be skipped accordingly. The Tom 09:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. Either way, great work. Congratulations! ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I like it too. Where would you place this article? Now if only there were a table namespace. Good job though. Jacoplane 08:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Note: If you ever need my support vote for having table namespace, you've got it. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

On account of its width, it should probably constitute its own article. Anyone have any suggestions for a title? The Tom 21:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Table of pan-European political organizations? This is a tricky one, I'm not sure what the best name is. Can always be moved, though. Jacoplane 21:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Table of political parties in Europe by pancontinental organisation is in keeping with List of xxx by yyy syntax the list folks like, so I think I'll use that for the time being. Thanks all. The Tom 15:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Table of European Parliamentary groupings. Phrases like "pan-European", when used to refer to the EU only, make some people (Russians) cross.Seabhcán 15:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Except these aren't parliamentary groupings, nor constrained to the EU :) The Tom 17:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Member template

This user participates in the EU Collaboration of the fortnight.

I have created a template for members, since I could not find an extant one. I'll post it here for the moment, if no one objects I will add it to the headpage for every member of this project to be used. Gryffindor 18:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Mine's older, I'm afraid:
This user is a member of WikiProject European Union.
 ;) —Nightstallion (?) 07:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
You cheat! just kidding :-) hm... should the colours maybe be changed a little to reflect more of the European colours? like a yellow instead of peach? or a blue? Gryffindor 14:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Mine was intended to follow the standard set by a slight majority of other WikiProject userboxes (which does certainly not mean that all follow it, though), and I'd personally prefer to keep it that way, actually... Nightstallion 14:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
One of the templates could be used for the EU Collaboration of the fortnight.--Fenice 14:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Are we allowed to use two templates for one project? Fenice what was your proposal..? Gryffindor 18:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that they are both the same project. A user might, for example,like to participate in the Collaboration of the fortnight but hasn't signed up for the project and will not do much at the portal. I agree that all these pages can be seen as part of the same project. Still, most collaborations of the week have distinct identities, colors, templates...so, yes, I'd say, let's take the yellow one for the COTF and the beige one for this page. Because, as Nightstallion said, most of the projects have beige userboxes.--Fenice 18:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
This user participates in the EU Collaboration of the fortnight.

It would look like this (I haven't changed the template yet, just a suggestion:)--Fenice 19:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good too I have absolutely no problems with the proposals. Gryffindor 17:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Great! This way, Gryffindor's work won't go to waste, either. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 21:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

How sweet :-) well, just trying to help here, nothing more. any other comments, advice, Fenice...? Gryffindor 22:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Participation Note

I've just marked myself as inactive in this project for now. I still believe it is a good project, and I enjoyed participating in the COTF in Oct-Nov of 2005. However, I am attempting not to overdo time spent on Wikipedia, and, with the time I do have available, am currently concentrating on other areas of interest. I may take a more active role in this project again, at some time in the future. Thanks and Cheers, LiniShu 16:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Too bad. Try to come back again when time allows you to, good luck! Gryffindor 22:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, we have slowed down a bit lately. Don't know why. You are always welcome back! --Drdan 16:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

List of European Union member states

Created from scratch to supplement our articles, currently up for WP:FLC. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 11:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

European Union regulation

The article European Union regulation is a bit thin. As it stands, it reads as though the "orders from Brussels" conspiracy theory could have some basis. It needs to be expanded with more examples and with more context. Is it the same as a UK "Order in Council"? --Red King 12:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The Order in Council article is not very clear. Based on my understanding of it, it is not similar to a EU regulation in concept or purpose. The regulations are the EU's most powerful/comprehensive legislative tool, so it makes sense to expand on the article. The current examples are slanted towards patent law. --Drdan 16:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

MEP articles with broken links to the EU website

I don't know if any of you have noticed it, but many of the MEP articles have broken links to the MEP's official EU biography. The EU website was redesigned in early January, and all links became broken. Editors have fixed many of them, but there's still a lot left.

Fortunately, the EU webmaster appears to have preserved the individual ID-tag for each politician, so it should be pretty easy to make the updates with little difficulty. I've tried it on three different politicians, and the IDs were identical.

Howto: Simply change the broken link to [http://www.europarl.eu.int/members/archive/alphaOrder/view.do?language=EN&id=XXXX European Parliament biography] where XXXX is the four or five digit ID-tag from the old link. If in doubt, see e.g. my edit to Henrik Dam Kristensen. Best regards. --Valentinian 13:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Another method is used on the article for Jörg Leichtfried. It might be even better. In any case, it should be pretty easy to update the broken links. --Valentinian 14:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Committees

I'm currently working on the various stubs within the Standing Committees of the European Parliament section. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Liam Plested 00:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

European Parliament election, 2009

I've been meaning to write at least a stub for this, but I can't really think of too much information -- what else could we write, apart from new voting arrangements due to Bulgaria and Romania having joined by then? Input would be greatly appreciated... —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 21:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Croatia aims to join the EU in 2009 so that it can participate in the EP elections [2]. That's the only thing I know about it. Maartenvdbent 13:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Missing articles

We've got Accession of Bulgaria to the European Union, Accession of Croatia to the European Union, Accession of Romania to the European Union and Accession of Turkey to the European Union, but we lack Accession of the Republic of Macedonia to the European Union; in the same vein, we've got Iceland and the European Union and Norway and the European Union, but not Switzerland and the European Union, although that would be a very lengthy article, indeed. Anyone feeling up to it? I may get to it some time in the summer, but that's still some time away... ;) —Nightstallion (?) 11:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Add Ukraine and the European Union to that. —Nightstallion (?) 20:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

For anyone still reading this, what we currently need are Switzerland and the European Union, Armenia and the European Union, Cape Verde and the European Union, Georgia and the European Union and Moldova and the European Union. —Nightstallion (?) 09:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Hi sorry I don't know how to edit, this is my first (well second) time, so here goes.

"After decades of anti-racist campaigns, it became acceptable again to be against foreigners."

Does this seem POV to anyone else?

"Agitated European politicians regarded the support of Dutch politicians for the anti-European sentiments of their population as an uncooperative Calvinist attitude. Most Dutch people support the European Union, but are against too much power for the European institutions."

Now this has got to be POV. I haven't made any edits to the main article (except for disputing the neutrality, i think i put the sign in the wrong place), I want to see what other people think, but there is not one citation (that I can see) in this entire article, and that Calvinist assertion seems to be extremely value laden.

autocratus

Assessment

I've copied this from the Scouting WikiProject... now all we need to do is actually make it work. Anyone going to help me? ;) —Nightstallion (?) 09:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Portal

European Union Portal

I've taken the liberty of starting to update the portal, hope ya'll don't mind. Over the next few days I'll be adding content, archives, suggestion areas, and populating lists. This should be a major and well laid out portal, not the shape it was in. I'm not a European, so anything I get wrong, let me know. You can see my other portals, as well. Thnx :) Joe I 16:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Numismatics Portal
Image:Texasflaginstate.png Texas Portal

Suggestions

I'm in serious need of suggestions for Selected article and Selected picture. If you have any idea of an article/picture that is remotely semi-good, please post a link on the appropiate page. Also, if anyone knows of any other Featured content, please post it, or let me know, those were all I could find. Thnx :) Joe I 10:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Intellectual property

Just thought I'd throw it out there that many of the articles in {{IPL-EU}} about intellectual property laws of the EU need to be created (even stubs would help). This is the template below (subst'd to remove category links):

Flag of the European Union Intellectual property laws of the European Union (EU) Flag of the European Union
Copyright
Austria • Belgium • Cyprus • Czech Republic • Denmark • Estonia • Finland • France • Germany • Greece • Hungary • Ireland • Italy • Latvia • Lithuania • Luxembourg • Malta • Netherlands • Poland • Portugal • Slovakia • Slovenia • Spain • Sweden • United Kingdom

See also: EU Copyright Directive • DADVSI • Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection
Trade Mark
Austria • Belgium • Cyprus • Czech Republic • Denmark • Estonia • Finland • France • Germany • Greece • Hungary • Ireland • Italy • Latvia • Lithuania • Luxembourg • Malta • Netherlands • Poland • Portugal • Slovakia • Slovenia • Spain • Sweden • United Kingdom
Patent
Austria • Belgium • Cyprus • Czech Republic • Denmark • Estonia • Finland • France • Germany • Greece • Hungary • Ireland • Italy • Latvia • Lithuania • Luxembourg • Malta • Netherlands • Poland • Portugal • Slovakia • Slovenia • Spain • Sweden • United Kingdom
This box: view • talk • edit

The template coding itself probably needs work too (I created it, but I'm sure its not very efficient) -Рэдхот 14:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

EU-related VfD

Here I say delete, others say weak keep, merge. Weigh in. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 16:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Euromyth article

Hi, anyone feel like helping me keep this article out of the hands of the Eurosceptics? It's NPOV now as far as I can see and I'd like to keep it that way. But the latest addition to the talk page makes me think it's going to be attacked again soon... Marcus22 23:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently without irony, Marcus22 says he wants to keep this article NPOV by keeping it "out of the hands of the Eurosceptics". So the "neutral" point of view is the Europhile one, in other words. This seems to be part of a broader trend to turn Wikipedia into just another arm of Brussels' already huge propaganda machine. Why?
(The above comment was made by an ip-address some months ago and then removed by Marcus22 recently saying that:
"this is an unsigned comment, so i cant reply to the author, which makes a daft allegation and with specific reference to my user name. so out it goes".)
This is not a user talk page. There is no rule than ip-addresses cannot participate in discussions. It does not qualify as personal abuse. Comments cannot just be deleted because a user doesn't like their tone. Marcus can reply to the author. That is what a talk page is for. Saving this Marcus can ask an admin to delete the comment. Caveat lector 23:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, OK.. so this comment can stay as well then? Caveat Lector deletes things from articles such as the Euromyth article without ever trying to agree any kind of compromise. The bias of some editors in Wikipedia is shocking! Whatever happened to Wikipedia is NOT paper?
I doubt you'd trust me, but I am willing to mediate on disputes to ensure NPOV is followed. I can see a pro-EU bias on the page and would support reasonable changes that treats sceptic concerns fairly. I won't edit it myself and I'll only involve myself if someone asks for a quick mediation on a certain topic. If you do trust me, just drop a note on my talk page and I'll get onto it ASAP. Should be quicker than a formal process. - J Logan t: 15:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

States of Europe

I #know# this is not the right page - but can "someone" create relevant redirects for "States/states of Europe" and "States/states of the World" to the relevant listing pages. The former as a search term leads to States of the European Union and the latter to some thing that is nothing to do with what anyone wanting a list of countries would want. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.194.75.209 (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 20:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Bulgaria and Romania acceding in a few hours

With Bulgaria and Romania joining the EU in a few hours (at midnight), we'll have to update all statistical data, country listings, maps, tables, templates, etc. related to the EU and its member states. I'm already looking forward to updating what I can alone, but it would be a lot better, effective and quick if we form some sort of team or multiple-member collaboration because there's quite a lot to be updated. Anyone willing to help? :) Todor→Bozhinov 13:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Poor quality articles in WikiProject European Union

The WikiProject European Union is a wonderful initiative, but it's validity is being compromised by inaccurate and biased content.

For example, Accession of Turkey to the European Union contains obvious factual errors and dubious POV. A casual glance at the article's Talk and History shows that other editors' contributions are being consistently edited out by a single editor.

Perhaps the articles included in the project need to be protected and moderated? 220.233.224.46 14:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


Category:European Union

I've been trying to diffuse this category as much as possible and I think I've got it mostly done. Does anyone here have any suggestions or ideas to help further it? --Hemlock Martinis 07:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking something to cover things like european symbols/europeanism/supranationalism/intergration and so on, all those things that are general ideas, but can't think what name I could group them under. Same for the long lists of committies, organisations etc. - got the major ones in Institutions and its subarticles but some of these just don't fit well. -JLogan 20:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

GDP figures

There is a discussion underway in Talk: Spain regarding the source for GDP figures in the country info box. It appears that until recently, the Spain box used IMF numbers (for amounts and world rankings). Then an editor wanted to use more current data from Eurostat, with the reasonable position that these numbers may be more accurate, and were apparently more recently released. The obvious concern, however, is with consistency with other countries' info. Has this issue come up in any other discussions? I think the need for consistency among all articles trumps (i.e. let's use IMF data, since that's what other articles seem to use). Another proposal was to use Eurostat for the raw numbers, and IMF for rankings. Any thoughts from the Euro-crowd? Input appreciated! --Anietor 19:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessment Box

I fixed it. :). --Parker007 00:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox flag straw poll

Hello fellow editors. A straw poll has opened today (27th March 2007) regarding the use of flags on the United Kingdom place infoboxes. There are several potential options to use, and would like as many contrubutors to vote on which we should decide upon. The straw poll is found here. If joining the debate, please keep a cool head and remain civil. We look forward to seeing you there. Jhamez84 11:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Attention needed

This article is in a dire strait: Accession of Turkey to the European Union. There seems to be a load of information, but they are so disconnected from one another and there is so much argumentative and analytical stuff bordering on banter that it has seriously become one of the worst articles in Wikipedia. There is absolutely no information about the technical aspects of the accession progress, nor is there a sound structure with the two biggest sections being "arguments for TR" and "arguments against". If anyone interested from WPEU can help out, that would be great. The article simply needs to be rewritten; even though there is a nice map and two photos and some stuff in the history section.. Baristarim 01:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Bilateral relations discussion

I would like to invite you all to participate in a discussion at this thread regarding bilateral relations between two countries. All articles related to foreign relations between countries are now under the scope of WikiProject Foreign relations, a newly created project. We hope that the discussion will result in a more clean and organized way of explaining such relationships. Thank you. Ed ¿Cómo estás? 18:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

EU Portal new layout proposal

Hello, I proposed a new layout for the EU Portal. The new layout is more like the wikipedia main page, it is more modern and schematic. Please, post any comment on the Portal's talk page. (You can find the link to my prototype EU portal there too) --giandrea 22:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment on List of countries and outlying territories by total area EU inclusion

You are welcome to leave a comment on the following Request for Comment (RfC):

Talk:List of countries and outlying territories by area#Request for Comment: EU inclusion in the list of countries and outlying territories by area

Summary: There is a dispute about whether the European Union should be included in this list. Its area equals the sum of its member countries. We are discussing if it should be included in the list or not.

Thank you, --giandrea 16:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

EU-based Userboxes

Hello everyone. I'm not a member of this wikiproject but I thought I'd share with you some EU-based userboxes I have made.
--One Salient Oversight 11:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

2 more - Algeria and Tunisia down the bottom --One Salient Oversight 01:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

+Greenland as well. --One Salient Oversight 02:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

+Armenia --Waterfall999 12:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Code Result Users
{{User:UBX/EU Armenia}}
This user wants Armenia
to join the the EU.


What links here
{{User:UBX/EU Switzerland}}
This user wants Switzerland
to join the the EU.


What links here
{{User:UBX/EU Turkey}}
This user wants Turkey
to join the the EU.


What links here
{{User:UBX/EU Norway}}
This user wants Norway
to join the the EU.


What links here
{{User:UBX/EU Croatia}}
This user wants Croatia
to join the the EU.


What links here
{{User:UBX/EU Macedonia}}
This user wants Macedonia
to join the the EU.


What links here
{{User:UBX/EU Albania}}
This user wants Albania
to join the the EU.


What links here
{{User:UBX/EU Montenegro}}
This user wants Montenegro
to join the the EU.


What links here
{{User:UBX/EU Bosnia and Herzegovina}}
This user wants Bosnia and Herzegovina
to join the the EU.


What links here
{{User:UBX/EU Serbia}}
This user wants Serbia
to join the the EU.


What links here
{{User:UBX/EU Iceland}}
This user wants Iceland
to join the the EU.


What links here
{{User:UBX/EU Ukraine}}
This user wants Ukraine
to join the the EU.


What links here
{{User:UBX/EU Moldova}}
This user wants Moldova
to join the the EU.


What links here
{{User:UBX/EU Belarus}}
This user wants Belarus
to join the the EU.


What links here
{{User:UBX/EU Russia}}
This user wants Russia
to join the the EU.


What links here
{{User:UBX/EU Cape Verde}}
This user wants Cape Verde
to join the the EU.


What links here
{{User:UBX/EU Morocco}}
This user wants Morocco
to join the the EU.


What links here
{{User:UBX/EU Israel}}
This user wants Israel
to join the the EU.


What links here
{{User:UBX/EU Canada}}
This user wants Canada
to join the the EU.


What links here
{{User:UBX/EU Vermont}}
This user wants Vermont
to join the European Union. †
What links here
{{User:UBX/Euro UK}}
This user wants the United Kingdom
to adopt the euro.
What links here
{{User:UBX/Euro Denmark}}
This user wants Denmark
to adopt the euro.
What links here
{{User:UBX/Euro Sweden}}
This user wants Sweden
to adopt the euro.
What links here
{{User:UBX/UN Geneva}}
This user wants the UN to move to Geneva.
What links here
{{User:UBX/EU Algeria}}
This user wants Algeria
to join the the EU.


What links here
{{User:UBX/EU Tunisia}}
This user wants Tunisia
to join the the EU.


What links here
{{User:UBX/EU Greenland}}
This user wants Greenland
to join the the EU.


What links here

New EU template

Hi EU project

I have maded a new navigation box {{Central Banks of EU}} and have added link from it to your project page. It should fit within the style of other EU navboxes. I did not know if this project tags its templates with a project tag.

You should conisdering archiving your talk page ist is 53 kilybytes long. Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page

Best Regards Mads Angelbo Talk / Contribs 11:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


Maltese WikiProject

Please see WikiProject Malta for more details. We need lots of new members, and help constructing the project page. If you can or would like to help, please do so. Thanks, Anonymous Dissident Utter 02:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

BARNSTAR

Please see item 1 Chaza93 17:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Are Eurobarometer images in the public domain?

See Eurobarometer. Their report on their 2006 polling has some polling maps of Europe I would like to use on wikipedia and elsewhere. See the 2 maps here:

See Eurobarometer 66: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/standard_en.htm --Timeshifter 14:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

EU History

Hi, you may have noticed the History of the European Union page is a bit limited, basically pre-1945 plus history of enlargement. I'm working on a new draft that has wider content and a better structure to frame history, currently if you want to add something you'd have to start a new section. It also has sub-pages for pre-1993 history - although that is just existing copied information. As its a big task, and needs lots of peoples ideas and points of view, I'd appreciate a hand in getting this going - particularly ensuring all existing information is properly displayed on the new page so it can be transferred over if there are no objections. Thanks. Comments and contributions please: User:JLogan/DraftEUHistory - J Logan t/c: 11:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

New project page

I created a new project page. It can be seen here. I would like to remove the old page and replace it with the new content. What do you think about it? Thw1309 18:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It's good, however I'm not sure what you're doing with the templates, I don't think they should be squashed up in the table. Plus, what is with the new stub template, what is wrong with Template:EU-stub? In terms of the welcome, I think we could find something better than the map with the stars, it's not very good. Aside from that, looks good. Should try to revitalise the project at the same time. Perhaps if you contact some of the members directly about it, get them all back here. - J Logan t/c: 06:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right with the stub template. I made this proposal because I did dot find the existing template. It is already changed.

I used this table, because this is a good method to use the templates. Perhaps every template could have a table of it´s own. Thw1309 07:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, page looks good to me. Well done!! Sorry not much else to offer. V busy just now and when on Wiki I'm working on UK history at moment. Not been active on EU for quite a while. Will get back to it though. Marcus22 12:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking good, but I'm still not sure about the logos we've got going there. Few small points, oght not the project banner be placed under the heading "Project Banner" below? In general formatting, why is there a line at the end of each section? And I'm not sure about the need for a defult welcome. - J Logan t/c: 14:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
You are right about the banner! The mistake with the banner came from trying to find the right place.
If anyone does not like the logo or anything else, please tell me, but please tell me how to do better, because that´s what I could do. I created this logo because I could not find anything better at commons.
I think that we need something to welcome newcomers. It seems to be the main problem of this project never to be in touch with it´s members. When I contacted the members today, I was not sure, how many of them did not know about their membership any more. This project has to compete with many other interesting projects and tasks within wikipedia. It can only survive, if there is a relation between the members, to show them, they are not alone within this project. A fist small step is such a welcome. (Another perhaps a newsletter) --Thw1309 16:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. In terms of logo, if we leave that till we get members back in maybe. I think we could do better than one welcome message though, look below. How about we replace the current collaboration system with something more flexible. Right now it is one for two weeks. How about someone proposes something, with criteria for success, and if it gains 5 supporters it becomes a project collaboration, regardless of how many others there are. Notice of the collaboration is then posted on the talk pages of the members (unless they say they don't want this - written next to their name on the list). The collaboration would only end when the criteria has been met? (or some failure criteria). - J Logan t/c: 11:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Why should we have only one cooperation. I would prefer to begin with small steps. I think about an exchange of knowledge. Instead of one official cooperations we should construct a kind of market place, where every member can post an article or an article request and search partners for the realization or improvement. Part of this could be an "official" cooperation of all the members of the project. You are right about the form. It is not enough to post these things to the project page. Thw1309 13:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say only one, in fact I said a cooperation should be started regardless of how many others are going at the time. And a market place yes, that would be a de facto situation but I suggest a formal cooperation for backing so not everyone's talk page is swamped by requests from single users working on minor articles. - J Logan t/c: 14:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I like it :-) Looks good to me. --Robster1983 15:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Love it. Big improvement! :)Scibah 16:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
A clear improvement, like it a lot. —Nightstallion 14:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Another new design

I made this new layout, but was reverted by Thw1309 because he said that I needed to contact every member of the project.
What do you think?Ssolbergj 21:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Old banner
New proposed banner

New, def. -and it is unrealistic to contact everyone. Be bold so to speak. - J Logan t/c: 21:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Infact, I've rv the rv of the rv of the, whatever. Point is in improving this, users should be bold. If we get bogged down in bureaucracy of attacking everyone talk pages every time someone changes an image it will discourage spirit that drives collective improvement. If you think that the old one should stay then by all means try to get support against the change, but it helps no one to revert first ask questions later. Not like this is vandalism. - J Logan t/c: 22:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Approve Yet newer version is a further improvement on design. Caveat lector 23:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the new proposal is better - though perhaps there should be a little more space between the top of the 'E' and the word 'wikiproject'. Raggio 08:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely approve - I have always thought the old banner looked amateurish - the shadowed font looked a bit too 'WordArt' for me, and was hard to read. The new banner is much more crisp and professional looking. Rossenglish 09:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Approve The older one has a certain intensity which the new one lacks; but the new one is more immediate. So, on balance, the new one. Marcus22 10:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Approve The new one has a better graphic touch and reflects the EU flag.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 13:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Definitely approve - I love it!!!! Looks so professional. I'm not keen on the size of the EU Globes in the === H3s === though, maybe they could be a tad smaller. Bennelliott • Talk • Contribs 16:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Approve but I'd prefer a sans-serif font. - EstoyAquí(t • c • e) 17:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Approve much simpler than the previous version, and much less striking. (good thing!) Scibah 17:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Approve It has my approval :-D (Btw, isn't it very EU-like to ask everyone's permission? In my opinion one of the things the EU could do without. Is a majority not enough?) --Robster1983 17:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Approve. Much easier on the eyes. Why isn't it up yet? --Hemlock Martinis 05:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Approve Looks much better! Politics rule 16:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Aprove for all the reasons already given. Do it. --Red King 22:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, good, you already have. --Red King 22:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Approve - Just randomly stumbled across this on NightStallion's talk page and I definitely see the new proposed banner as an improvement. It just looks more professional. Way to go guys! --Naha|(talk) 20:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Need help on Reform Treaty

A lot of help is needed on Reform Treaty. A lot of nonsense is written about the treaty, for instance that it has already a draft version. The European Council of June 22 and 23 only agreed on the broad outline of the treaty, and gave a 16-page long mandate to the IGC that is to start working in July 2007. That mandate is of course not a draft version of a treaty! I tried to clean the article up a bit, but it still needs attention. Maarten 13:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to ref the thing but as few others were adding them I was just going to wait till everyone had calmed down and maybe official details had come out. We have the press release and a few media analyasis so I'll get back to it now but I think it is pointless to develop it in too much detail until the IGC. - J Logan t/c: 14:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

EU page

(from Talk:European Union, see and reply there please) Okay, I didn't expect the review so soon but we have the feedback nonetheless. I've tried to so something about History. I'm not sure about religion - I think it relates as much to the EU as it is going to, as much as any country article does. Enlargement needs to be looked at still but refs are the continuos problem. The tags put on by the reviewer were removed, but nothing done about them. I just have a simple question, are people serious about improving this article? If they are then we all need to look through all of this and reference it properly, and remove anything we can't reference. No matter how interesting or informative it may be it means nothing unless it can be backed up as a solid fact. If people do not want to put that effort in, and instead carry on adding things at random, then there isn't much point in trying to sort this out. So, everyone, are we going to get the EU's core article up to featured, be proud of it once more? - J Logan t/c: 14:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)