Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European Union/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

This page is an Archive of the discussions from WikiProject European Union talk page (Discussion page). (January 2009 - December 2009) - Please Do not edit!

UK map

There's a debate and straw poll about the use of maps on the United Kingdom article. See Talk:United_Kingdom#Straw_Poll_-_Infobox_Map_.26_the_EU. Thanks, --Jza84 |  Talk  18:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Review - Princess Edwige Vincent de Bourbon

Could some one take a look at Princess Edwige Vincent de Bourbon. I really don't know what to make of it. President of the EIT ??? Other claims, some refs missing, others simply blogs. --triwbe (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Opine: the problem with Wikipedia isn't that too much is deleted but rather that things aren't deleted quickly enough. Report hoaxes to Afd. Descendant from Julius Ceasar - yeah me too! — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Roads

The World Roads Portal is at Peer Review, if any editors know of any articles, images, news items or DYKs which could be added to the Portal, please add them directly to the portal or contact ....SriMesh | talk 00:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:07, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Euromyths

It would be useful to have some feedback on Talk:Euromyth where there is some disagreement about how the article should approach the question of "Euromyths" (if at all, and even supposing that such things exist). Lamberhurst (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Apprentices mobility

Could anyone help with the above article a bit? It needs wikifying and I have done a bit in the past, but I'm surprised that there are not articles on some of the EU programes it refers to, like Comett and Petra. It may have been lifted from an EU website and is written in EU jargon, so perhaps a solution is to shorten it. Anyway, it would be good to have some more opinions. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

European Communities Act 1972 (UK)

Please could those project participants with an understanding of the ECA 1972 and the effect that withdrawal from the EU would have on the UK's international law obligations, please have a look here and give their opinion. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions for Apportionment in the European Parliament

1) Which system is currently in use, Nice or Lisbon? Or if neither, when will one become the rule? 2) Why was 732 chosen as a cap? It seems so ...arbitrary. Neither of these points seem to be mentioned at all in the article. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 03:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

ad 1:

"At present, the exact number of seats allocated to each country is determined by the treaties, currently the Treaty of Nice . . ."

"Under the Lisbon Treaty, the cap on the number of seats would be raised to 750 with a maximum of 96 and a minimum of 6. They would be distributed according to "degressive proportionality" . . ." [emphasis added]

--Boson (talk) 05:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The Austria article

Since Austria is a core article for this project, and Wikipedia itself, I believe that members here would agree that it is also highly important. If anyone is interested in substantially improving the article to good or featured article status, please join this discussion at Talk:Austria#Article improvement drive. Thanks for your help, Hayden120 (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent wave of EU project articles deletions

I can't help not noticing that many FP6 and FP7 projects are being targeted for lack of notability and subsequently deleted (see e.g. the alerts section). Is this something endorsed by this project? All these endangered projects provide same arguments, so it may make sence to come with a unified approach, probably negotiating a waver for the notability requirement for projects younger than e.g. 4 years, or such? oxana (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Enhanced cooperation

On the page of Enhanced cooperation there are two contradictory statements: "In the European Union (EU), enhanced co-operation is a procedure where a minimum of eight EU member states can integrate or co-operate in an area within EU structures but without the other members being involved.[1]"

"The mechanism needs a minimum of nine Member States (the minimum being one third of the total number of Member States), who file a request with the European Commission."

Not taking into account the Lisbon Treaty can someone clarify which is the minimum? is it eight or nine MS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronnyy (talk • contribs) 12:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

New SVG maps of the member states

I wanted to bring it up that I am currently in the process of uploading new SVG maps for all the member states. It has been requested a few times before and I wanted to help out. Currently I have uploaded the first twelve members, and I plan to have the other up soon. But I also want to know if there is any abjection to this before I upload them all. —NuclearVacuum 04:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to announce that I have uploaded all 27 member states and that they are all up on their English pages as of now. All member states have all standardized maps. —NuclearVacuum 17:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I support the new maps as long as the following are addressed:

• a map is made for every European country so we have consistency;
• the border for Europe is added;
• a world map is added to the top-left corner showing the country's position (although this may not be feasible with the amount of room in the corner); and
• all bodies of water are shaded blue (with no blue border). Hayden120 (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think those can be reasonable. I may have to redo them a little, but I can make those happen. As for the border of Europe may be a problem for me, but I will do my best. But it may be a while, because I am pooped out. Some users have removed my maps from France and Poland already, and I don't know what do do. —NuclearVacuum 02:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think once there is a complete set for all of Europe, it may be easier to achieve a consensus. This image may help you with the border. Hayden120 (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, thank you for the link. I may just use this to make maps similar to the png versions. —NuclearVacuum 03:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have made an updated version of the United Kingdom's image. The new image includes all of Hayden120's conditions. I plan on doing the other nations ASAP. —NuclearVacuum 03:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not surprised that these maps have been reverted in a number of spots. The maps for European and EU countries have been contentious with significant debate, update (some abortive), and reversion (with prior changes made generally made without wide consensus). The long-standing green/grey-motifed PNG maps (many of which I created) are at least consistent with the bulk of locator maps in Wikipedia (countries, continents), while these newer ones are not. As well, the (dotted) borders for disputed entities are not exhibited: e.g., Kosovo/Serbia, Cyprus/TRNC, Israel/Palestine/Golan; thus, these maps may fail a NPOV test. As well, the world map looks inconsistent with the rest of the map. There doesn't appear to be much discussion regarding these newer maps, and certainly no consensus as yet exists. I'm all for SVG maps and commend the bold efforts of the creator of these, but these may not do. The next logical step would've been (IMO) to create SVG maps with the green motif, not with a novel colour scheme; I tried to do just that, but the files were huge and I didn't have time to pursue it further. Bosonic dressing (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ay-ay-ay! Not trying to sound like I am mad, but I am distraught and tired. Please forgive me, but I have done and redone these maps roughly three times in three days, and I am getting tired. I am not making another map until there is a good consensus on these issues. Now for the coloring scheme, I chose the colors that are the standard for WikiProject Maps. Granted I now see I got the color scheme off on the standards there (and I plan on fixing that in my upcoming updated versions), I still do not see anything about green and grey being anywhere in there (possible the standard prior to the establishment of the wikiproject). So I am still set on the project, but I don't see anything wrong with the green and grey either. —NuclearVacuum 22:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Taking into the true standard colors of the WikiProject Maps, I have made a test example of how I believe these maps should look. I chose France to test this out on, because the article has already removed my picture until a consensus has been achieved. This map contains all the features that my most updated maps have, a world location map on the top-left, a defining border between Europe and Asia/Africa, and has all the correct territories with each other. Please tell me what you think. —NuclearVacuum 23:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I believe the green-grey locator map standard was established sometime ago (though perhaps not explicitly) in infoboxes per the Country wikiproject; the Eurocentric maps (e.g., for EU and non-EU members, like Switzerland) were created later as an extension of that. Similar SVGs variants for other regions and in different projections were created later (e.g., Canada, Asia). The true colour standards you mention are noted for use in topographical maps (e.g., see a number of maps of Quebec), not for simple geopolitical ones per se, and so I'm unsure how applicable they are here. IMO, there's insufficient favour and reason to change the locator maps as such just yet, but I'm not totally resistant either. Nonetheless, you may want to get wider feedback before making these changes. And I know all too well about the frustration which can surround map creation, particularly when a political dimension is added. Bosonic dressing (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing against green at all. But is there a color scheme for them somewhere online? —NuclearVacuum 00:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have made an example of a green and grey version (this time of Germany). It looks just like the png versions. I have also made the debatable countries (Abkhazia, Kosovo, Golan Heights, and South Ossetia) with dotted borders. Like I have mentioned before, I have nothing against it, but I think the "green and grey" is too bland in my opinion. You can't distinguish the bodies of water from the country borders and the small islands tend to disappear in the "white ocean." Other than that, it's all okay with me. What do you all think? —NuclearVacuum 01:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The main reason I support this idea is for the SVG format. However, I think it's best to keep the green and grey colouring because this has become a de facto standard for the English Wikipedia. I oppose the usage of the 'WikiProject' colours for two reasons; it is generally used for topographical maps as Bosonic said, and because I think (in my opinion at least) it looks like rubbish. Hayden120 (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I am all for making my maps look all green and grey. Does anybody have any objections? —NuclearVacuum 02:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

In the green German map, the Faroe Islands appear to be missing. This also happened when Bosonic was making similar maps, but somehow he fixed it. Compare with this: Location Germany EU Europe.png. Hayden120 (talk) 05:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. I also prefer the green-grey map scheme (per H120) due mainly to consistency, but also commend NV for his efforts. Sorry for the trouble. Now that a workable SVG template is available (and mine was monstrously huge and wouldn't compress), I can assist later in the week, if need be.

For the Faroes, I simply reduced the thickness of or removed the outline for the object (sometimes breaking or unlocking the object beforehand): I also did this for small territories (so that they could more easily be seen) or for areas where the shape of the territory was paramount or an issue at its article (e.g., Netherlands/Frisian Islands; Greece/Aegean). Bosonic dressing (talk) 06:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm, never though about that. Now I will do that for my maps. Thank you Bosonic. —NuclearVacuum 17:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you still planning on making the maps green? For some reason, a user by the name of 'Heitor C. Jorge' has restored the red version on both the Germany and France maps. Hayden120 (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing wrong with green at all. I just want to make sure that everybody is wanting that as a consensus. As for the vandalism, I reverted Germany, and France I didn't touch because I will post a green one soon. —NuclearVacuum 00:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have uploaded some of the green version already, and I will have the rest up by tomorrow. —NuclearVacuum 01:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice. Just a suggestion for when you update the Portugal map, I believe Madeira should be shaded dark green. Either that, or autonomous regions should be excluded completely, and therefore the Azores should not be shaded. Regards, Hayden120 (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. If I can help out, let me know. I'm of the opinion that the autonomous territories should be shaded similar to the mainland, as they are technically part of the country. Bosonic dressing (talk) 05:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If the territory is part of the member state's membership, than I color it in with the member state. For example, the Azores will be with Portugal, while the Isle of Mans will not be with the UK. I am aware that I have forgotten Aland for Finland, and I will have to fix that later. But anyway, I am now complete with all the maps. You can check them all out here. —NuclearVacuum 15:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:SVG_locator_maps_of_countries_of_Europe

Good work, but Madeira is still not shaded dark green. It is one of the two autonomous regions of Portugal. For some reason it is shaded dark green on the Spain map, even though it's not part of Spain... Hayden120 (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Great work, NV! Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Bosonic dressing (talk) 03:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Who says you can't still help out. I am far from being done. I still have several European nations to work on. If you want, you can do some and post them yourself. —NuclearVacuum 01:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Will do. :) Bosonic dressing (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

EU Directive 91/440

Hello. Can I request an article. The directive has significance to all the articles relating to european railways eg Rail transport in France (Category:Rail transport by country) etc. , and is already referenced by many of them. I'm also currently attempting to improve the article series "History of rail transport in ... " series of articles, and it would be very useful if there was an article to link to..

If there already is another article that sufficiently covers this topic then please let me know.

If anyone decides to write this article please be assured that there is no need to cover in full detail the individual ramifications per country as this will be done in the rail transport by country series of articles. (yours hopefully..)87.102.78.86 (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy

The Treaty of Lisbon merges the positions of High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy and European Commissioner for External Relations as High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. While the new position did have an article (at High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy) it was redirected to the old Representative. I feel that all three articles need to exist, as they are different positions, and I wanted to have a centralized discussion here. Grsz¹¹ 03:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

agree - converting High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy to historical article as done with European Commissioner for External Relations seems sensible.

recommend de-merge.Shortfatlad (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Two moves currently under discussion

There are currently two move discussions relevant to this Wikiproject:

1. It is proposed to move Member State of the European Union to Member states of the European Union and Special Member State territories and the European Union to Special member state territories and the European Union (lowercase). The discussion is here.

2. It is proposed to move Court of Justice (European Union) (back) to European Court of Justice. The discussion is here. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

...and the European Union

nice to see the articles about External relations of the European Union (see below)

where are the articles about Internal relations of the European Union (see below)

86.148.126.94 (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)