Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European Union/Archive02

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

Peer review of Accession of Turkey to the European Union

I've posted a peer review asking for advice and suggestions about Accession of Turkey to the European Union. It can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Accession of Turkey to the European Union/archive1. Anything you guys could add would be great. Thanks! --Hemlock Martinis 06:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Flag of the European Parliament

Hi, does anyone know of a free image we can use on Wikipedia of it? Just for history so it is not very important but would be helpful. It is on some photo service images but only very small and the copyright on that isn't sorted. Here is one image from a stamp if you don't know it; [1] [2] - J Logan t/c: 12:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Germany

Any reason why Germany is listed as part of the project? No other member state page is and they are all covered by their national projects. - J Logant: 15:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably just the old Europe=European Union equation. Easily changed... done! Caveat lector 14:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

... next step the World!

Further on the the Germany section above, I can't help noticing that some editors have been overly ambitious on what comes under the WikiProject European Union umbrella. I note the following:

  • Europe is rated as a B-Class European Union article.
  • Apparently the EU now runs the European Song Contest. Articles on every yearly contest plus articles on every entrant fall to be considered under WP:EU.
  • As well as Montaña Corona a mountain in the Canaries, Çorovodë a city in Albania, along with Ahtra and some other Estonian mountains and islands.

It is strongly suggested that the WP:EU (or category label as the case may be) tag should be removed from all these articles. Caveat lector 15:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh I totally agree, I think perhaps we should better define and enforce our scope. On the project page it is; "the following areas of the EU: Institutions, activities and policies. Economy. Enlargement process. History and Treaties". If it doesn't fall under that then it is removed from out lists, could be better defined, I'll be back on that. Also another point is the rating, I've fiddled with it a bit over time but some are still way to high or low, usualy high. They ought to be spread more. - J Logan t: 15:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Further to my point on the Eurovision articles above, I'm having some difficulty convincing alphachimp to reverse the articles inclusion in WP:EU. He rightly points out that only one user responded to my posting. If you agree that they should be removed (or have any opinion on the matter whatsoever) please add a response here! Caveat lector 19:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair point but how can you argue the fact that as Eurovision is nothing to do with the EU, it does not fall within the scope of WP:EU (as even the current scope on the main page states). - J Logan t: 20:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The Eurovision is run by the European Broadcasting Union not the European Union. Other than having similar names these organisations have nothing to do with each other. Caveat lector 23:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Call for a vote

Just a straw poll to see if articles on the Eurovision Song Contest should be included in Wikipedia:WikiProject European Union. Caveat lector 20:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Exclude - for all my reasons stated above. Caveat lector 20:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Exclude & comment - Not a democracy, and it is clearly outside our scope. It is within WP Eurovision's scope though is it not?!! Why would we duplicate another projects work when it is outside out scope. Perhaps if some editors feel strongly, we could partner WP:EU with WP:Eurovision somehow? (along with other simmilar WP?) - J Logan t: 13:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Exclude. Outside scope.--Boson 17:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Right, that's enough of that. I managed to convince another bot owner to move the Eurovision articles out of WP:EU, so there's no longer any need to convince Alphachimp to make the changes. Caveat lector 16:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thought in European Wikiprojects

I just added links to projects like Eurovision in the main page, and I was thinking. We have projects for most, bar three, members - we have projects for Eurovision and European History, we have Eastern Europe and Southern Europe. But no "WikiProject Europe". Was there one and now it is gone? Surely it would be good to have it to fill in remaining gaps in the projects? A parent project for all current European projects where we can co-operate (and cut overheads) and discuss with greater ease. It could cover for areas without projects and might help the smaller projects that are brought in. Thoughts? - J Logan t: 11:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, an overarching "WikiProject Europe" would fill the gaps and provide more "editor-care" for articles such as Airbus and Eurovision Song Contest.
We need answers for all potential scenarios:
  • A franco-german joint venture; both are EU members - EU project or Europe project?
  • Is the final criteria for EU project entry of an article that the subject of the article is directly linked, or a part of the EU system? - S. Solberg J. 14:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well on the joint-venture, I'd say it would be Europe. Unless the EU was involved in running it of course. There is a hole in that of course, something like Eurocorps or the EGF. Considered to be EU projects but not under EU control. An the higer education area - a project extending across EUrope but heavily influence by the EU - pracitialy an EU project. To be honest I'm not sure, this ambiguity can be annoying sometimes. I say in such cases we do actualy follow the idea of it being directly linked/part of the EU system. It would exclude a bit currently in the scope but I doubt it would change much to be honest. In light of these problems though, I suggest we have some kind of "Scope Committee" or something, members who will solve disputes about what falls under which project.

On a side note, here is a draft scope document, me trying to deal with the other projects;

The Scope of WikiProject Europe shall cover all elements of Europe, subject to the exceptions below. It shall concentrate on improving and expanding content about the continent, its people, culture organisation. The Project would also maintain Portal:Europe.

Aside from the first exception, WikiProject Europe shall play a supportive and cooperative role where the project is small, inactive or makes a request. Materials and systems such as peer-review shall always be open to those projects. If a project becomes too small, it is free to become a taskforce of WikiProject Europe.

Specific exceptions;

Disputes concerning WikiProject Europe's scope shall be dealt with by an internal committee to be established.

The following states are without a national WikiProject. All are currently covered by a larger project but can still be supported by WikiProject Europe;

I would suggest that, if the projects agree, that Southern Europe forms the current basis of the Project - as its scope is covered mainly by national projects and is lacking only one national project (unlike Eastern Europe)- and Eurovision becomes a taskforce. Microstate might also want to but the others I would imagine continuing as child projects. On a small note, there is one note of support in from WP:EEUROPE. - J Logan t: 15:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. There are a lot of articles which would be at best dubious fits for most of the existing projects, and this proposal could help cover those topics. John Carter 14:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea. I'm frankly surprised we don't have one already. --Hemlock Martinis 18:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Good idea...KarenAER 19:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I have put out a formal proposal here to check wider opinion and get more people onboard. I have a temp page here for details. Meantime, I am going to check opinion on taking over SEUROPE. Albania was going to merge into it, I will check there also. If anyone has ideas or anything to contribute, it would be most welcome. Feel free to edit the temp page. Thanks! - J Logan t: 20:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Project has started and is taking over from Southern Europe. So there is a bit of work do to in addition to normal setting up. Please sign up here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe! - J Logan t: 07:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Territorial application of the Maastricht Treaty

A dispute had been raised relating to the territorial application of the Maastricht Treaty on the Talk:Saint Pierre and Miquelon page. It relates to whether or not a territory could be part of the European Union without being part of the European Community.

Please post any comments you may have on the talk page. Caveat lector 16:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Japan second economy of the world?

On the page of Japan, I found out that that article stated that 'Japan is the second largest economy of the world, after the United States'. So I've tried to change that into: 'Japan is the third largest economy of the world, after the European Union and the United States. That edit was changed back again, so I went to the talkpage of Japan, and I got into a discussion with someone, who argued that the EU's economy can't be called the first economy of the world, for it is not a country. The discussion can be read here: Talk:Japan#Japan second economy of the world? It is changed now (Japans' national economy is the world's second largest (...)), but I'm not sure how I feel about this. I think it's good, but still... If possible, please let me know what you think about this. Furthermore, it raises the question: in what perspective should we place the EU's economy? Are our 'attitudes coloured' if we are offended by the fact that some article's refuse to acknowledge the EU (in several ways)? And if our attitudes are coloured, then why aren't the attitudes of other people coloured, if they don't want to acknowledge the EU? --Robster1983 16:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Rob, I honestly don't know why you get so excited about this. You pushed this matter over on the US article as well. John Smith's 17:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I know, and in both cases (US and Japan) I backed down, for there was a fierce discussion about it, not in my favour. So I reckon that both cases are resolved. But that still doesn't resolve the situation about the EU: the discussion whether or not the EU can, or cannot (or should, or should not) be seen as a single economy. And that is why I wanted to start this discussion, and the place to start that, is the WikiProject EU page (which I'm a member of). I'm not doing anything illegal, I am not asking to people to get in edit-wars, I wanted to know what/ how people think about that topic. Therefore I am glad that you also got into the discussion, for every opinion counts, and every opinion keeps the discussion going. --Robster1983 11:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I say just leave it. Discuss on the talk page but don't change as it won't be accepted. The EU isn't seen by its own people, let alone others, as a single economy and state despite what the facts say. Why should they give up a nice fact like "largest economy" just because of a few facts? - J Logan t: 17:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I will leave it alone. --Robster1983 19:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Isn't this just a matter of counting beans? The tradition is to state the size of the economy of a country as a whole. But in the UK case it is sometimes felt worthwhile to discuss the economy of Scotland, Wales, Ireland, or even London (which makes a big contribution to the UK as a whole). Whether you want to compare the economy of Japan to that of Germany, or the EU as a whole rather depends on the purpose for which you are making the comparison. The EU acts like a state in some respects, but not others. It increasingly acts as one entity for purposes of trade with external nations, so in that context it might well be worth mentioning. On the other hand, the size of an economy also equates to political clout, and in other world affairs the EU may split with each nation having different views. Then comparison of national economies is much more interesting. It is probably also the case that anyone wishing to trade in Europe would be more interested in one country than another, for reasons of language, customs, the sort of product which might sell well rather than in a different country. So the annoying truth would be that both figures are interesting. Sandpiper 08:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Call for comments

Proposal for change of structure on European Union page. Due to the changes, which may be considerable and will practicaly drop the current country-based layout, I request that people comment on the suggestions to achive a stable consensus. See talk page. Thanks all. - J Logan t: 09:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


European and European people

Hi. These are new pages and I was wondering if they are in the scope of this project? Also, in many parts of Wikipedia European seems to redirect to Europe. How can this be fixed? KarenAER 18:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Em, good question. Strictly speaking I don't think so. Unless the scope of the article is only related to EU citizens. Perhaps it could come under the project but if you look above at "Thoughts..." I am proposing a WikiProject Europe which would no doubt have these articles at its heart. - J Logan t: 18:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Member list

What happened to the member list?--Boson 06:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly? - J Logan t: 06:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if that was a bit cryptic. I noticed that I had been deleted from the member list and, when I looked, it looked as if many other members were missing. Since the list was also a few thousand bytes smaller, I assumed that something catastrophic had gone wrong and whoever had been fiddling with the list would be alerted by my query.

It appears that only three users were actually deleted:

A new user seems to have been created (unintentionally?):

The following users had their display names replaced by their real user names

The change was apparently made (without an edit summary) by Ssolbergj, with this diff, presumably with the noblest of intentions, given that the list is now scrollable, etc.--Boson 16:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I see, thanks for pointing it out. I've dropped a note on SSJ's talk page to see if there was something behind it. - J Logan t: 17:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I changed some signature-names back to the actual username because that's the only thing that works with {{user}}. It was a mistake (I did a lot of copy/paste) that names were removed. I have no idea how Aelffin came there. - S. Solberg J. 18:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Totally understandable, thanks. - J Logan t: 18:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ad

The current ad
The current ad

First I'd just like to thank SSJ for the fantastic work on the page he has done, we're very swish now! Lets hope we can all live up to it all. One small thing I'd like to discuss though is the ad, not sure about the message. Interested in Politics, believe in a common future. I think we need something more striking, and inclusive. Tapping into the diversity side maybe, its not all politics and that word might scare people off who could fill the non-politics gaps we have. Also perhaps out message should try to be inclusive of sceptics?

Perhaps if we sell it as a massive, diverse, underdeveloped topic and link it to real world stuff. Talk about how important the EU is, how much of an affect it has - that way we could also introduce topics of out articles - get people interested so they want to contribute and edit. And use striking colours, like the bar code flag idea, to catch the eye? Thoughts anyone? - J Logan t: 06:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Very difficult to come up with 2-4 neutral , not boring, short and catchy sentences about a strange "political creation" as the EU. And at the same time make it appeal to people against the whole thing?
Perhaps humour? An empire is rising.. Will you be a part of it? Join WP:EU! or Emperor Barroso needs servants...(if thats funny)... etc.
To be honest I think there's enough eye-soaring ads on wikipedia:ads. But of course we could for instance have a less depressing background image in addition to the new sentences. - S. Solberg J. 19:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand the problem, and I didn't mean to offend or anything. Just searching for ideas. Like the idea on humour though! Then again if the tabloids read it they would take it seriously, I can see the headlines already :p. Still, not asking you to change it though, like I said, looking for ideas. No one else seems bothered (no one seems bothered with the project anymore). Except you of course. Thanks for your constant and fantastic work here! - J Logan t: 18:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much!! Yes we just need ideas. - S. Solberg J. 13:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is for when we next feel a need to change it. Just had a thought on what to write after watching a promo vid from my old university. Humour is perhaps the way to go, but empire isn't quite right. Just be sarcastic. Say the opposite of what people see the EU as;

  • Interested in...
  • Exciting, intense debates on vital issues?
  • Dynamic, popular personalities known the world over?
  • Fast moving, dramatic events?
  • Streamlined, democratic institutions?
  • Powerful and polarising leaders?
  • Then join...
  • WikiProject European Union!

How does that sound? - J Logan t: 14:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Would everyone understand the sarcasm? I'm not sure if it would be comical to directly imply that the EU is undemocratic and its leaders unpowerful, unknown and irrelevant. There might be a risk of it being interpreted as extreme bragging or very eurosceptic.
We could just do it safe and boring:
  • Interested in articles related to the European Union? Then join WikiProject European Union! We need you. - S. Solberg J. 11:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah they'll get it, its just playing on perceptions - not reality. The thing is the perception is our weakness too, which is why I am trying to think of some kind of gimmick. When dealing with the EU you can't be safe and boring, because for many it is boring enough as it is. Ooo, I just had an idea. How about we have no words? Just images? Flashes of the kind of ideas I put above but being serious - showing dynamic Europe and just ending with WikiProject European Union. That way we avoid the whole problem! :). All we would need of course is good enough images (we can work that I'm sure) - how does it sound in principle though? - J Logan t: 19:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Yea, i guess only images would work.
For the sake of developing the sarcasm idea:
  • Fascinated by the Mickey Mouse Parliament?
  • Love bureaucracy?
  • Interested in europhilia issues?
- S. Solberg J. 21:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Interesting, and everyone loves bureaucracy! Red tape binds Europe together (seriously). Oh how about "Like traveling circus'?" too? Not sure about the last one. Another idea though is we could use figures, most of the project is obsessed with them; population, area, GDP, treade, borders, members etc etc. We could show importance through those maybe? - J Logan t: 07:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

part two

Sorry, bringing this back again. I do think actually we could do with something a little more balanced, "believe in a common future" is just a bit odd for me and I'm not sure how many people we will draw with this. How about, white and a stick man walks in and you have a speech bubble that, bit by bit, reads out the following: "Hi, I'm here to tell you about a WikiProject. It's European. You know, that place where good wine and beer comes from! But we don't write about that much. But we do drink wine and beer while we write. No, we're talking about something else, it is very important and has a big effect on everyone in Europe. And indeed the world. Not everyone likes it, it is a very interesting debate actually, but we try to be NPOV about it and just want to give you the facts as not many people know much about it. It's called the European Union. So, perhaps you might want to help us out some time. Thanks, merci, danke, gracias, tak....." (fades out to "WikiProject European Union" and just a simple EU flag next to it. nothing fancy).- J Logan t: 19:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Something like this?
Something like this?
Made this.. but I think we need to work on the text. Europe is probably not nearly as famous for its beer as it is for wine etc.. The normal flag didn't look very good next to the stylised logo. (insane aspect ratio of these ads) - S. Solberg J. 02:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Fantastic SSJ, great graphics as always! Yes, text needs working on, probably shorter! And yes beer might not be as famous, but we do have great beer. How about wine and history? I'm sure we could come up with something fun, lots of things we are great at. Like chocolate and healthy food, good living, great coffee, the renaissance and lots of beautiful women. The latter might get their attention. I'll drop a note on the EU article talk page so people actually see this. In fact, on the chocolate and healthy food, how about contradictions? land of cheap flights and the environmental movement, of fine art and Erasmus drinking parties? I know I know, keeping things simple and short is not my speciality! - J Logan t: 16:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
How about one stick man walks on saying "Come and discuss sports and the EU!" before several other stick men come on the screen and beat the first stick man with baseball bats. That'd be lovely. Otherwise its fine, I have to say I never really liked the whole "Believe in a common future?" thing as it was a bit biased. Not everybody loves beauracracy, overpaid MEPs and pointless Strasbourg buildings etc. The recent suggestions are definitely fine though! --Simonski (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Request - legal specialist needed

Been trying to get the institution pages up to scratch, got most up to GA but European Court of Justice is a tad harder. While I could write something, and I've been trying to get it sorted with organisation and references, it needs proper legal attention (I did a bit of law but it was ages ago). So do we have any legal specialists around who could work in that article? I'll still help on everything else, but I am politics - not law. Thanks. - J Logan t: 18:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Same as above for European Court of Auditors, but ECJ priority of course. - J Logan t: 16:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

For the moment I've not got enough time to get involved here but I'll try and get round to it in January or something, though what exactly needs fixed up? --Simonski (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Request - economic specialist needed

Same situation as above, but now it is the European Central Bank page. Started work but again if this is going to be woth while there needs to be someone with an economics background working on it also. - J Logan t: 16:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Is European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System part of EU?

Just wondering. I have Talk:European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System on my watchlist, and today I saw that European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System has been included as part of the European Union WikiProject.

The ECTS, eventhough is originates from the Erasmus program, is in my opponion not a EU system, and therefore I find the inclusion in the EU WikiPeoject kind of misleading. The ECTS system is today best known as a central part of the Bologna process, which is a coordination of independent countries including all of the EU members, but also countries that will probably never become members of the EU (ie Russia).

Apperently the Bologna Process has also been included in the EU Wikiproject, which in my opponion is even more worng. Esspecially due to the fact that EU does not have any legislative power over education (article 149 of the ToA).

It would be more correct to link to the EU project from those articles, or have I misunderstood the concept of the EU Wikiproject?--Rasmusdahl 12:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yes and no. Erasmus is part of the EU, but is open to non-EU members (eg, Switzerland, Norway, Israel). ECTS is seperate from the EU (as is the whole Bologna process) but is actively supported by the Commission. I don't see any harm in having ECTS as part of the EU wikiproject, given that otherwise it would have no one looking after it! Physchim62 (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Wrong, now there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe just for this problem. On the actual question of EU or not, I always hear it called the EU system, yet it is used by others. I have a feeling it is one of those EU standards we've got the rest of Europe to adpot through the BP, like with the Energy Community, it is covering the Balkans yet the standards are those set by the EU - they just agree to follow them. That doesn't mean the standards are not EU, they are just used outside via a treaty. - J Logan t: 14:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, maybe I should take some time to look at the page. I agree with Physchim62 that it is OK to have it as a part of the EU WikiProject in order to look after it, but when that is said, I think that the distinction between EU and the Bologna process has to be clarified. I do not agree that because some call it the EU system, that it then is a EU system. The ECTS originates in 1989 with the first Erasmus program, but ONLY as a credit transfer system, and due to article 149 of ToA, only as a conversion table (both grades and credits). With the Bologna process the ECTS has seen much development. First as the credit system to be implemented nationally by the signatory countries, secondly as a accumulation system (which is very different from the transfer system, and still rather controversial). It therefore true as JLogan states that originates from within the EU, but only by name. The function and content has changed during Bologna. My conclusion is (unless someone disagrees) that it is OK that the system is included in the EU Wikiproject, but that some further development to the description of the ECTS should be done. I will make an attempt, but am a little busy right now with my final thesis. --Rasmusdahl 16:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Basically agree with Ramusdahl; however, there are quite a few EU projects in the field of education which extend beyond EU borders (Marie Curie grants, just as one example), it might be as well to start at Directorate-General for Education and Culture (European Commission) and work downwards... Physchim62 (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I would have thought any wiki project might adopt articles which have something to do with, or affect, their nominal titular area of interest. It can't just be things which belong to the EU. I don't know, but assuming there is an article about GATT, then logically the EU would take an interest and might reasonably adopt those articles as relevant to the EU. That would not stop other projects also adopting them. The importance of such an article might well be graded differently in different projects. Sandpiper (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

ugently needed media

I've noticed that you don't have a picture of Robert Schuman. As this is a quite important person I think that a non free image could be used. The EU has a audiovisual archive that allovs the use of the material as described below:

"This material is offered free of charge for EU-related information and education purposes. For any other use, prior clearance must be obtained from the Central Audiovisual Library of the European Commission."

copyright page


Make use of it as you see fit:

the European Commission’s Audiovisual Service

U5K0 20:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


Still can't use it as we would a PD, it would illustrate RS article only and there are pleanty missing on that topic (PHS, AS and so on)- J Logan t: 07:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yet another design change

I've been 'bold' changed a little on the layout design of the project frontpage, including changing the logo to something more "modern". Is it OK? - S. Solberg J. 21:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Em, I can't see much change in layout, certainly nothing bad, except for the top image - it seems to be badly sized up there. As for the logo, well I have to say I liked the old one better, I don't think it quite works as is. - J Logan t: 08:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted the logo. Sorry but I'm using a small laptop here so i can't see exactly how it will work with bigger screens. - S. Solberg J. 09:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
There is still a problem on the main page, at least for me, as the images are very long, it widens the page beyond my screen and squashes the text to the left. On the logo, perhaps some simple design influence by a building? For example a circle with an indent from the left following the curve of the Berlaymont, or a stylised version of the EP Strasbourg tower. Just a thought. - J Logan t: 16:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, but I don't understand what problem you mean. I've tried the page with larger resolutions. What's your browser and resolution? - S. Solberg J. 17:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Safari 1024. Now I've checked it works on Opera and Firefox. I don't think I have anything disabled on Safari, will check though. Perhaps a notice at the top of the page of what it is best viewed on? - J Logan t: 20:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Should we write "Users running Safari might experience layout problems"?
On the logo-things you mentioned; I guess of principle that I'd like to undermine and ignore the Strasbourg building, or at least not use it in the logo. ;P I hate the fact that it looks so much better than the one in Brussels.. It would have become a wonderful EIIT - S. Solberg J. 23:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but lets see if we can narrow it down. On settings, I can't find anything disabled but I have also had trouble with other small things such as on the reflist, when it is set to two col it still just displays it as one long list. What is the common factor here? Maybe I have an out of date plugin.

Oh I know what you mean about Strasbourg! When I went to the two cities I was thinking, well Brussels is better as a seta politicaly, but come on this building is fantastic! Why can't we move it to Brussels! How to make a hard choice harder. But what I was thinking with the logo is to have some real symbol of Europe in a logo so it wasn't just abstract - a map and stars like the euro coins. We don't have to worry about what the ECB has to worry about, we can be more creative I reckon. - J Logan t: 08:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello beautiful! I love that new logo, I mean, wow! You're a master of graphics SSJ, a true master. - J Logan t: 19:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
What I see with IE7 is a one inch wide, eight inch high column of text to the left, and a picture two inches high by twenty inches wide beside it (making the whole thing about two screens wide). Below this peculiar expanse of white space is a normal sized page which fits my screen. Not quite right, I think. Sandpiper 09:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I have that on Safari, I don't know what the difference is but it works fine on Opera and Firefox. - J Logan t: 11:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Lack of info

Hey, trying to bring European Court of Auditors up to GA along with the others, but I am running out of info. If anyone can contribute something I'd be grateful. - J Logan t: 16:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Standard EU blank map

Which blank (or easily modifiable) SVG map does the EU Wikiproject recommend for thematic maps to be included in articles about the EU? I've tried several. The best are those by Ssolbergj, Maix, etc. (this one, for example) but they are based on an original that excludes the Isle of Skye and other Hebridean islands - in total, an area significantly larger than Luxembourg. That might not seem like much in a European context but, believe me, as a Brit it's as obvious as, say, a map of the EU excluding Wales. (Remember that?) Is there not a totally official EU vector map of the EU available from one of the EU websites? Vinny Burgoo 23:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

MEP Categories

Looking through, the current system of organising MEPs is a total mess. Won't explain just look for yourself and you can see what I mean, for example how does one make sense of this Category:Members of the European Parliament from the United Kingdom. I propose the following system to cover organisation by term, constituency and party;

  • Category:Members of the European Parliament
  • Category:MEPs representing Germany
  • Category:MEPs representing Germany for 2004-2009
  • Category:CDU MEPs representing Germany for 2004-2009
  • Hans-Gert Pöttering
  • Category:MEPs for 2004-2009
  • Category:MEPs representing Germany for 2004-2009
  • Category:CDU MEPs representing Germany for 2004-2009
  • Hans-Gert Pöttering
  • Category:EPP-ED MEPs
  • Category:EPP-ED MEPs for 2004-2009
  • Category:CDU MEPs representing Germany for 2004-2009
  • Hans-Gert Pöttering
  • Presidents of the European Parliament
  • Hans-Gert Pöttering

This would largely limit the categories of each article to just one, while allowing it to be viewed and located by all three levels of division. - J Logan t: 18:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems perfect! - S. Solberg J. 20:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if "representing Germany" could be expressed differently to stress that it is the constituency (or people) that is meant, not the country. Belgium, presumably, would have more than 1 constituency.--Boson 23:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
that would also apply to the UK and Ireland, of course, but I think is somewhat important because they are direct elections.--Boson 23:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking about that, I see too options, we simply add another layer of categorisation above or below "Category:MEPs representing xxx for 2004-2009", or we simply have it based on constituencies so it is;
  • Category:MEPs representing London
  • Category:MEPs representing London for 2004-2009
  • Category:LibDem MEPs representing London for 2004-2009
  • Sarah Ludford
There is also the question of small constituencies, when organising Commissioners some of my categories were removed because there was only one Commissioner thus far. Here that would apply only to 5-6 MEP regions and in which case I would drop the political section of the last category and for political categorisation, they would be put directly into "xxx MEPs for 2004-2009" category. - J Logan t: 12:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thinking further I favour this organisation fur sub-national constituencies;

  • Category:MEPs representing the United Kingdom
  • Category:MEPs representing the United Kingdom for 2004-2009
  • Category:MEPs representing London for 2004-2009
  • Category:LD MEPs representing London for 2004-2009
  • Sarah Ludford

As opposed to this one;

  • Category:MEPs representing the United Kingdom
  • Category:MEPs representing London
  • Category:MEPs representing London for 2004-2009
  • Category:LD MEPs representing London for 2004-2009
  • Sarah Ludford

As the former makes greater allowance for constituency changes. But now I think about it there will often be a problem with small political parties in large constituencies where a category for one or two will be questioned. Ludford for example is a lone LibDem MEP in London. So it would have to be for all cases that if there is just one MEP, the last category is foregone. So Ludford would be categorised under the following;


  • Category:MEPs representing the United Kingdom
  • Category:MEPs representing the United Kingdom for 2004-2009
  • Category:MEPs representing London for 2004-2009
  • Sarah Ludford
  • Category:MEPs for 2004-2009
  • Category:MEPs representing the United Kingdom for 2004-2009
  • Category:MEPs representing London for 2004-2009
  • Sarah Ludford
  • Category:ALDE MEPs
  • Category:ALDE MEPs for 2004-2009
  • Category:LD MEPs representing the United Kingdom for 2004-2009
  • Sarah Ludford

Under the last one, were London a national constituency it would read;

  • Category:ALDE MEPs
  • Category:ALDE MEPs for 2004-2009
  • Sarah Ludford

This could perhaps be clarified in the category, a list showing the details of those not in a subcategory. - J Logan t: 13:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I see your point about the small size of categories. Bearing that in mind , I would go back to your original suggestion, though I would suggest changing the wording to something like "representing United Kingdom [or Irish or Belgian] constituencies", "representing the constituency of Germany", etc. to avoid giving the impression that the MEPs are representing their countries (i.e. a greater degree of indirection of representation). I suppose another alternative would be to have the hierarchy of categories in your second suggestion, except for party allegiance. This would increase the size of the categories, but party allegiance would have to be a separate category (or hierarchy of categories), meaning two categories would be assigned per MEP. --Boson 22:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree on your "representing xxx constituencies" point. In terms of grouping constituencies, we would still have the problem of small states such as Malta so I think it doesn't matter in that respect as to whether we have sub-constituencies listed or now. - J Logan t: 09:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Progress

Okay, I'm going to push forward on this. I will be noting progress below, if you carry out a reorder do please also list it below. - J Logan t: 14:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh and a small revision, changing "for" to "serving", makes a bit more sense, also I'm removing the state element from the political party, having it as "CSU" for example applies only to Germany anyway so it just makes it longer, to avoid clash of names though I'll just have "German CSU". - J Logan t: 14:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I have completed reorganisation of current German MEPs' so please look over the changes and provide feedback before I continue please as there are some points which may cause problems for some people. Thanks. - J Logan t: 19:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I've done France as well now. Still no comments? - J Logan t: 14:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
As promised on Talk:Political groups of the European Parliament, here is my response. Looking at the comments above, I cannot help but stand in awe at the scale of the committment (you're going to classify every MEP ever by Group, party and term. Wow!) But I do have serious reservations as previously expressed, both in the wisdom of the approach (WP:OC, specifically WP:OC#NARROW), and in the logistics (how many categories are you going to end up with?!), and in the time it's going to take, and I do get the feeling that I'm watching someone build a yacht in their garage ("Well, it's a lovely yacht, and it's beautifully turned out - but it's 20ft wide and the garage doors are only 10ft wide..."). I would also question whether this level of categorization will be maintained in future (what happns if User:JLogan falls under a bus?). It's a free Wikipedia and there is a part of me that wants to see it done, so please feel free to continue if you wish, but I would be failing in my duty as a consciencious human being (okay, maybe that could be phrased a little less pretentiously<grin>) if I didn't point out that this is perhaps too much. If asked, I would recommend the alternative categories of "MEPs for constituency x", "MEPs for term x", "MEPs for group x", "MEPs for party x", etc, which would be way simpler and quicker than the proposed "MEPs for party x for constituency y for term z", which may be an accident waiting to happen. (Using your Sarah Ludford example above, just put her in state, constituency, term and party categories "MEPs representing the United Kingdom", "MEPs for 2004-2009", "MEPs representing London" and "LD MEPs", not the categories "MEPs representing the United Kingdom", "MEPs representing the United Kingdom for 2004-2009", "MEPs representing London for 2004-2009" and "LD MEPs representing London for 2004-2009") I understand that difficulties have already been encountered and a proposed workaround is to divide MEPs into pre- and post-04, but that might just be sawing off table legs 2&3 to compensate for sawing off table leg 1.
So if you're asking me for my opinion, it's simple: don't do it.
If you're still going to do it, then good luck but please keep going until it's all done properly. For example, the category Category:Green MEPs serving 1984-1989 should be in a category ("Green MEPs"), but right now it's an orphan category (no sub- or super-members). You've got the category Category:Green MEPs serving 1989-1994 in the category Category:Greens–EFA MEPs, which poses an interesting problem: namely, G/EFA didn't exist before 1999 (for 84-89 it would have been just "Green MEPs"). You've got Philippe de Villiers categorized under a specific constituency (Category:MEPs representing the Ouest France constituency serving 1999-2004), which is in turn categorized under a general constituency (Category:MEPs representing the French constituencies). Which is fine. But then you've got Roseline Vachetta, who was also a 1999-2004 MEP, just categorized under a general constituency (Category:MEPs representing the French constituencies). And that's just the first few I've looked at. This illustrates the problem: by creating such narrow categorizations, you run the risk of multiple errors and the certainty of much work. I don't want you to take these comments as a slur on your hard work and dedication, which you have certainly demonstrated in the past beyond peradventure. But I do want you to take on board that the task is overcomplicated, error-prone and inadvisable. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but please reconsider. Kind regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, just on your last points first. The first category is empty because I buggered up with the names. G-EFA is the generic as that is what is there now, and hence the older sub-categories by term as just "green" as that was the name of that party back then, there would be a parallel category for pre-EFA members but under the G-EFA top category. On French constituencies, I had that overall to make it easier for people looking for French MEPs, and hence the plural, but there are people in that category because I do not know what they constituency is so they are there till I find out.
I don't think it will take very long though, I sorted the existing German and French categories within 48 hours (combined, did have a break of course) and we don't have articles for a lot of historical MEPs. Considering that though, what if I just have pre-2004 MEPs as individual categories but maintain the proposed system for post-2004 MEPs? As we have the data on them, articles for most of them and it limits the amount that is done. It wouldn't take much to categorise further members as each election takes place. - J Logan t: 15:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Sigh...OK, if you're daft enough to do it, then I'm daft enough to stand back <grin>. I strongly agree that the MEPs for 1999-2004 and earlier should not come under your proposed new system, and restricting it to the 2004-2009 term seems a good compromise. If it proves to be too much work/error-prone, then it shouldn't be too hard to revert. Conversely, if it's doable and accurate, then it can be rolled on to 2009-2014 and every term therafter. So everybody's happy. Best of luck, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Scanner

FYI: You may have noticed edits from people from the Council of Europe in their effort not to get lost under the EU. Though I thought to do a scan of EU institututions, the Commission is clean (bar one) but there are over 600 edits to the English wikipedia alone from the Parliament, if people have some spare time I suggest these are checked out for any bias, we do tend to elect some nuts: Wikipedia Scanner Results. - J Logan t: 09:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Example of the nuts, take a look at someones edits to the Alexander Lukashenko article, dffs: [3] [4] [5]. Oh better example! And I thought it was spotty teenagers doing this: [6] - J Logan t: 09:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, can't find much in the way of bias in the light search I did, except for [7] but from what I can tell it wasn't that accurate to start off with. And I thought there might be a good story in this :(, just childish edits mostly: [8]. - J Logan t: 09:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Overuse of main article tags

People here may notice that I have recently taken an interest in the 'European Union ' article. |Editing this article is currently a little difficult, so I though it might be a good idea to look at some of the 'main articles' mentioned in various sections. Only... when I did I started to find articles which seemed like they had been cut and pasted from the main article, and themselves contained lots of 'main article' redirects. This is daft. Someone might go in circles hopping from main article to main article until you ended up back where you started, none the wizer. There should not be this crazy maze of 'main articles'. Some of them should be minor articles actually dealing with the topic in question, not passing the buck to another article. There also needs to be considerably less repetition of exactly the same points in all the articles. I recall the GA examiners on EU made some comments about overuse of 'main article', too. Sandpiper (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless something has gone very wrong, it should not be possible to go round in cicles, as the Main template should always yield a tree structure. One reason to avoid use of the Main template might be that reviewers could justifiably regard daughter (and grandaughter) articles as a part of the main article, which should jeopardize chances of FA status, given the state of some of the articles. I think the use of daughter articles is probably appropriate for topics like Law of the European Union. I also think the amount that needs to be said might justify daughter articles there too. I was wondering if this would be a suitable place to discuss the overall structure and expansion of the articles about EU law. --Boson (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
More specifically what I saw was EU having, say, 10 sub article. Link one of these and I found text very similar to what I had just read, and the same links to main articles which appeared in the original EU article. So the subordinate article is performing the same 'head article' role as EU. This may make some sense where obviously an article on one part of the EU structure refers to different parts. But they are all ending up quick summarising separate parts and linking to another article which itself quick summarises most things. Too much repetition. I don't want to be reading the same text over and over, and I'm not too keen on seing the same set of pictures over and over in each article either. It gets boring, repetitious and ultimately uninformative for a reader. Sandpiper (talk) 11:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The main problem is we just don't have the detailed minor articles, a lot of stubs have been created and people try to patch over. Only way to solve the problem properly is to to try press expansion of our articles. In regards to structure, where on earth does one start! The whole topic needs looking at, its a mess but my knowledge of the law is limited so I don't see much help I can be in that respect. - J Logan t: 16:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
On the hatnote point though, the rework on the European Union article has meant in some cases we have better or more exact data on the EU page than the main page. I suggest that once we get that page up to FA, we use it as a basis for improve all articles linked by hatnotes from it - these are out core articles anyway. - J Logan t: 19:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Navbox

v • d • e
Flag of Europe International reach and expansion of the European Union
Theory
Reach
Expansion
Representation
Assets
Economy · Euro · ECHO · Galileo · Military

Please see this new navbox, it seems very POV (and the European Empire like isn't even a page) and redundant (to the existing FR template) to me. Please comment on its talk page. Thanks. Template:Reach of the European Union. - J Logan t: 12:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

POV in European Union v. Microsoft?

I just came across the article European Union v. Microsoft. I don't know the details of the case, but the following sentence came across as quite pov to me: "The illegitimate granting of software patents in Europe by the EPO has been supported in the past by the European Commission but opposed by the European Parliament and European SMEs represented by UAEPME, as seen in the debate surrounding the failed Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions, so the motivation of the European Commission in allowing Microsoft to charge even limited patent royalties has been questioned by the FFII, an organisation that, as part of its wider campaign, opposes the introduction of European software patents. [22]." Another issue is that this single sentence is so long that it's very hard to understand. What do others think of this? (I know that the article's talk page is the appropriate venue for this, but that hasn't been edited since October 27, so my hopes of a response are higher here) AecisBrievenbus 00:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of problems with that article, it needs a major clean up and brining up to date. Commissioner for Competition has a few articles referenced for the case if you want to see if you can find anything to back that line up in those.- J Logan t: 10:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

To give the project direction

I think the project could benefit by reviewing and promoting our short to medium term goals following a successful FA bid for European Union. What areas are lacking, what can be done to help our articles in general? Here are a few ideas off the top of my head;

  • GA or general improvement for major articles linked by hatnote from European Union.
  • Improve the law or economic topics, as a principle aspect.
  • Improvement of election articles ahead of the 09 vote (establish a taskforce with national projects for the election?)
  • Get Reform Treaty, and articles of new positions and changes, up to GA
  • Try to link in EU topics to pages across Wikipedia to ensure their raise profile, rather than risk them being isolated to all but those looking for them directly
  • Promote the use of euro along side dollar in lists in the hope of raising the profile of those articles
  • Get all Top and High important articles, with some exceptions, to GA
  • Try to promote mirror projects in other language Wikipedias, not all Europeans speak English! (Those of us who speak other languages could promote this in their native Wikis and we could create a basic set of WP:EU pages that are easily translatable for an easy start) Perhaps also a Project presence on Commons and WikiNews?

Any thoughts on these? - J Logan t: 19:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think they are all good suggestions.
I wouldn't give the use of euros a high priority, and I can't, personally, work up much interest in the election details.
Personally, I would be more interested in improving the standard of the articles, less interested in the actual GA process.
My personal priority would be the law articles. I think the article Law of the European Union should be a lot longer. I also think there should be a more detailled (and impassionate) discussion of supremacy, direct effect, indirect effect, horizontal and vertical effect etc. I think that particular discussion would be too long for the Law of the European Union article and would not fit it any of the individual articles like Direct effect, but I can't think of a good title for such an article. I'm thinking of something more like the article European Union legislative procedure, which is positioned between Law of the European Union and the individual procedures. I also think we need (short) articles on more of the major court cases (ECJ and relevant national cases).I suppose all articles need reviewing to see how they are affected by the Reform Treaty. There might need to be some discussion of how to word things between signing and ratification.
Many of the MEP articles (mostly stub class and probably low importance) do not yet have a project tag. I was wondering if that could be done by a bot.
The importance of the Commissioners (the office) and the DGs might need revising (mostly my fault). --Boson (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with all the suggestions. May I propose that
They should perhaps be integrated into the annual artices about the EU, so that we don't duplicate information. To properly line up with detailed text about the priorities of the respective presidencies would improve the project. It is really at the core of the political EU. And, we would get a reliable fair-use rationale for our precious presidency logos. A new EU presidency infobox template would also make it more coherent. - S. Solberg J. 01:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
To Boson: Of course not everything is something that interests everyone, so long as there is at least one person working on it! :). On GA process etc, I agree general improving the standard is needed but I'm mentioning it as standard bar really, although it doesn't matter if it is GA it is a useful measure of what we've managed to do.
You bring up a good point on updating due to the RT/TOL (its lets-invent-new-acronyms day!) and I suppose they would be dealt with as people come across them. On wording, I think that would just be the same as what everyone did with the Constitution. On MEP articles, well I wouldn't say it is a huge priority but sure, I'll take a look at the Commissioners, it is hard to get them on the right level I reckon.
SSJ: I was wondering about that a while back, at least something outlining their achievements, but I think we'd probably run out of data for most of them, they are only six months and very numerous. In the annual articles, we could just make sure we mention when the presidencies started or stopped, or have it in two six month sections?- J Logan t: 10:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
On the commons branch, I made a comment on the EU commons talk page to see if anyone there is interested.- J Logan t: 20:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Chairman by Seniority of the European Parliament

Hello there, now that we have an article on Louise Weiss, the EP's first chairman by seniority (1979-1983), could someone please create a list of MEP chair(wo)men by seniority, or a template ? Thanks, RCS (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a stub section at Father of the House#European Union now where I've put the two I know about, her and the current guy. I'm trying to find the others.- J Logan t: 15:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for consensus

I've been doing some work on the European Parliamentary elections (see Final Results, Results by Timeline and Infoboxes for progress to date, although there is a shortage of "during" sources for the 84 election and "before" and "during" sources for the 89 elections) and it has become desirable to decide consistent colors for the Groups. I have started a discussion on Talk:Political groups of the European Parliament. If you want input on this subject, please go there. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

German speaker please

What is he on about? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEuropean_Commission&diff=179582285&oldid=163620641#Die_Verbrechen_der_Christdemokraten_in_Deutschland] - J Logan t: 17:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Everything and nothing!
The heading reads "The crimes of the Christian Democrats in Germany". The rest seems to have been cobbled together by copying random text from a variety of sources. Some seems to be about the EU budget, some is about unemployment benefit in Germany, etc. etc. It's something like the sort of stuff spammers fill their mails with to get past filters. Who knows? Perhaps it contains secret instructions for Al Qaeda operatives. --Boson (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, thought it would be something like that. If it is spam, it should be removed? I forget how WP policy is on this. I'll remove it, if I'm wrong please revert me.- J Logan t: 18:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


195 European Parliament constituency templates

After much hard work, infobox templates have been created for each of the approx 195 European Parliament constituencies since 1979. These templates contain sources, creation/dissolution dates, and numbers of MEPs for each constituency. User:Green Giant has questioned their existence as single-use templates. While I disagree (the whole reason for spinning them off into templates was to allow them to be used multiple times), I will be away from my terminal until late Friday/Early saturday and so will not be able to save them should they be nominated for speedy deletion. Given the work they represent, it would be difficult to resurrect the data should it be deleted. Given that, may I ask the users of these pages to maintain a watching brief on the templates in my absence and take copies should they be deleted in my absence? They can be found here. Kind regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of European Union member states at the 2004 Summer Olympics

European Union member states at the 2004 Summer Olympics, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Union member states at the 2004 Summer Olympics (2nd nomination). Thank you. Paulbrock (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Federal Europe

I just came across the article Federal Europe (formerly called United states of Europe). I notice it is part of wikiproject Europe, but not wikiproject European Union. This seemed to me odd, since essentially it is discussing the prospect of the EU becoming a state. Comments? Sandpiper (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree.. But the article is also about the violent unifications of Europe throughout history, so I'm not sure whether being an article of the EU project would be approperiate. I don't know. - S Solberg J 00:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I posted a comment here rather than simply tagging it, because I didn't know how people here feel about this. It seems to me though, that if it even has just a section about the EU, then the EU project ought to be interested in the article because of that section. The lead definition sentence is currently Federal Europe is a speculative scenario where a politically united Europe, usually in the modern context of the European Union (EU), would acquire the full features of a federation, which puts the issue of the EU squarely at the heart of the article. Sandpiper (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

In light of Kosovo's declaration of independence expected today, there would no doubt be a lot of updating of terms on Wikipedia. However, of course, there would be a lot of disagreements given not every country would recognise it. I'd propose that for articles under our scope we do of course make the necessary clarification but where we face problems we follow the policy of the majority of EU states.- J Logan t: 11:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

So then in articles on the scope of this wikiproject we would say kosovo is an independent country , right? Since the majority of the EU recognizes it this way --Cradel 13:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you would still have to explain that this is disputed. There are a number of EU states with cause to worry whether parts of them might be hankering to become countries. However, the EU as an organisation seems to have a policy of making Kosovo a country and a member and is expending a lot of resources on this. This foray into world affairs is somewhat underplayed in EU articles from what I have seen. (of course, they would no doubt also like the remainder of Serbia to join, and will be pushing that too.) Sandpiper (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Euro coins

Template:Euro coins has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion has been closed as a Speedy keep, per the arguments put forth in the previous TfD. In addition, the concern over the use of non-free images outside the mainspace has been resolved. If you are aware of any articles that this template was transcluded onto in the past, but from which it has now been removed, please feel free to restore it. Happy‑melon 13:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)