Talk:E-government in Europe

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Internet

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

Politics

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

European Union

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

Untitled

Initial "Copyright concerns" discussion has been archived.

Rewriting from scratch

As of a few days ago, I started all over again; I hope that copyright issues will be over now. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 09:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia

{{helpme}} Carelessness from my side, I admit, however, I consider that the coverage of Estonian eGovernment here is far better than the one in the existing topic. Could someone please advise on how to proceed? Rentzepopoulos (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You could redirect the article to here. I'd bring it up on the eGovernment in Estonia talk page and see if anyone has any objections. Beach drifter (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I just did so. Would 10 days be a reasonable time to wait for a reaction? Rentzepopoulos (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would only give it two or three days, but it looks like the article is seldom visited so maybe more time would be prudent? You can always undo the redirect if other editors want the page back. Beach drifter (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, the eGovernment in Estonia redirects to eGovernment in Europe#Estonia as of 22/2/2010. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit guidelines

This article is full of names or titles of different things. Could someone please help me on how to present the following types of names or titles? Should they be left as plain text? Italicised? Quoted? Other? I provide for each type an example in italics:

Persons

Titles of officials: The Vice-President for Administrative Affairs is responsible...
Names of groups, committees, boards, etc.: In 1995 the federal government set up an Information Society Working Group tasked with identifying...

Organisations

Names of public administrations:
- (At the level of ministry) The Information Society and Media Directorate-General implement[s] this strategy...
- (Departments etc.) The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications, and especially the Department of State Information Systems is responsible...

Non-physical entities

Names of activities, projects, websites, action plans, etc.:
- (strategy, action plan) activities that implement the e-Commission strategy.
- (project) the IDABC programme
- (website – should it be capitalised or not?) The federal portal Belgium.be serves...
- (services) ...the Danish Genvej portal won...

Documents

Official documents:
- (strategic documents) the eGovernment policy of the European Commission is described by the i2010 Action Plan that defines
- (declarations) [they] presented the Ministerial Declaration on eGovernment on 18 November 2009.
- (laws) The eGovernment Act and the General Law on Administration Processes and the Electronic Signature Act set...
- (legal documents) In 1998 an IT-Cooperation Agreement was signed...
Studies, reports, etc.: The report Leadership in Customer Service: Creating Shared Responsibility for Better Outcomes is based on...

I think that the above list is more or less exhaustive. The existing Wikipedia style guide answers adequately for most other names presented in the document.

A related question is whether the described special treatment of the above names is to continue in second references to the same documents or not. For example, there is a report addressing the eGovernment current state of play in Europe. This report is referenced many times as it contains information for many countries. Apart from the title shortening (which I consider appropriate) should I have it e.g., italicised, or not in its second+ reference?

TIA, Rentzepopoulos (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are looking for the MOS? (It's rather long though.) I don't know if anyone who knows it well can shed some more light on this, although you should put short documents into quotes. fetchcomms☛ 23:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fetch is correct. Go to the Manual of Style for such questions. As an example, go to | for infor on titles and honorifics. You will find other helpful links there too. JodyB_talk 23:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both, however, I consider that the above categories are not fully covered in the MOS (which I had already read before asking for help...). For example, there is no reference to legal documents, and the reference of JodyB on titles and honorifics relates to capitalisation, not emphasis (italics, etc.). Nevertheless, I will proceed with a "logical" and uniform ruleset and see how it goes. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the facilitation of me and next contributors, I present below the formatting rule-set used in the text:

Normal text
Persons

Titles of officials: The Vice-President for Administrative Affairs is responsible...

Names of groups, committees, boards, etc.: In 1995 the federal government set up an Information Society Working Group tasked with identifying...

Organisations

Names of public administrations:
(At the level of ministry) The Information Society and Media Directorate-General implement[s] this strategy...

(Departments etc.) The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications, and especially the Department of State Information Systems is responsible...

Italics
Non-physical entities

Names of activities, projects, websites, action plans, etc.:
(strategy, action plan) activities that implement the e-Commission strategy.

(project) the IDABC programme

(website) The federal portal belgium.be serves...

(services) ...the Danish Genvej portal won...

Documents

Official documents:
(strategic documents) the eGovernment policy of the European Commission is described by the i2010 Action Plan that defines

(declarations) [they] presented the Ministerial Declaration on eGovernment on 18 November 2009.

(laws) The eGovernment Act and the General Law on Administration Processes and the Electronic Signature Act set...

(legal documents) In 1998 an IT-Cooperation Agreement was signed...

Studies, reports, etc.: The report Leadership in Customer Service: Creating Shared Responsibility for Better Outcomes is based on...

Quoted
none

Rentzepopoulos (talk) 09:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major failures section in Ireland

{{helpme}} I consider inappropriate the inclusion of a heading "Major failures" in the Irish section, not on its own merit, but for the reason that there are no citations backing it. Shouldn't this be removed? Rentzepopoulos (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "Unsuccessful Initiatives" would be more neutral in tone. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"a reliable source in the form of an inline citation be supplied for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, or the material may be removed." (Wikipedia's verifiability policy) - therefore you could have removed the information yourself; I have removed it, and I am placing a copy here, in case other users wish to try and find appropriate references and reinstate any of it. Cheers, Chzz ► 13:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of removed section, which was unsourced:

Major Failures

Reach Services / Public Services Broker
Mobhaile
E-voting

Actors

Since the substantial governance reform operated in 2008, the eGovernment policy drive and coordination has been entirely resting with the Department of Finance, in particular its eGovernment Policy Unit. The Cabinet Committee on Transforming Public Services monitors the implementation of the strategic priorities lied down in the aforementioned Transforming Public Services Programme. Local governments devise their own eGovernment strategies with the support of the Local Government Computer Services Board.

A few templates too many

This article is yet another example of a theory that proposes the existence of two distinct categories of editors active in this encyclopedia: those to work building and perfecting articles, namely, the Contributors, and those who devote their time and energy to criticize articles built by Contributors, namely, the Critics. The second lot never add any value whatsoever to the vast encyclopedic effort being made in every country and language on a daily basis; all they do is to add their ubiquitous (and sometimes infamous) templates objecting whatever they feel can satisfy their urges to mar the work of others, and that objectionable attitude includes condemning articles and images to oblivion, excuse me, to deletion.

The all too common result of the "work" done by Critics is that the reader, eager to learn what Wikipedia has to say about a subject, gets the literary equivalent of a smack in the face, telling him/her about the defects or issues that someone thinks has found in the article. How disgusting!

After several years of editing, this article reached a rather flawless and very acceptable status, so it merits being thanked for, and a lot at that. But then comes a Critic or two who "contribute" affixing obnoxious "multiple issues" tags that --oddly enough-- no one saw before. For a change, they could instead have spared a little effort and corrected whatever they didn't like, but sadly, that never happens.

I have deleted such spurious templates. Let's hope no Critic reverts this edit.

Regards, --AVM (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on EGovernment in Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 37 external links on EGovernment in Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 33 external links on EGovernment in Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 March 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved to E-government in Europe. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EGovernment in Europe → E-Government in Europe – To be consistent with similar pages in Category:E-government by country, and future articles. Joseph (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. SITH (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Joseph - for consistency with the category wouldn't E-government in Europe be a better proposal? SITH (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be better. Joseph (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.