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. |
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 2007 – December 2007) - Please Do not edit! |
---|
Hi, I have made a barnstar that you may wish to use for people who make good additions to your sections, Contact me on my talk page please Chaza93 17:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The Barnstar of European Merit | ||
Here's my proposal. 12 stars instead of 15. {{ subst:The Barnstar of European Merit|message ~~~~}} | ||
this WikiAward was given to {{subst:PAGENAME}} by ~~~ on ~~~~~ |
└
S. SOLBERG J. /
talk ┐
08:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I had this in mind for some time, but did nothing about it. It's a good one Ssolbergj, I like it, perhaps without the motto inside the stars circle, it would be cleaner. -- giandrea 22:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the first thing we should do is to start improving the articles that we've got, some like Euro and European Union are decent, a great number of other articles need a lot of work though. Once I figure out how to set one up properly a COTF would be good. -- Joolz 23:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Greetings from WP:WSS. On WP:SFD, it looks like Category:Extended MEP stubs is going to be merged with Category:MEP stubs. Because there is a slight difference between the two, but not enough to keep a seperate stub type, User:Grutness suggested to make the category a list and linking it from {{ MEP-stub}}. After asking User:Talrias and User:Joolz on IRC, that list is now Wikipedia:WikiProject European Union/MEP stubs. I'm posting this here mainly as a reminder. -- grm_wnr Esc 6 July 2005 17:46 (UTC)
I'm going to do some work on cleaning up (or creating) the Directives articles. For a start, I'd like to consult on a preferred style for the principal article (with the others as redirects, leaving major existing ones Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions as they are (but with a standard form redirect).
Options are these:
There are examples of all of them! Please add your observations initially, then we can invite a vote.
-- Red King 16:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
-- Daniel Spichtinger 15:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
It seems there is nothing on the EU research policy. I am working for a company that does a lot of EU projects in the IST field (one area of FP6) so I am planning to cover the specifics. I will also try to write an article on EU research policy as a whole and FP6 and 7 in particular. I have started small, with a piece on I2010, the Union's umbrella for ICT development. Comments are welcome. -- Daniel Spichtinger 15:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Some (or all) of the articles in { { EU Coins menu } } also has { {Eurocoins} }, is this on purpose? Or is it ok to remove the latter? MartinBiely 20:12, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
I've been doing some work with the categorization heirarchy of the various lists of MEPs. In the past couple weeks, I've created subcategories Category:Members of the European Parliament by country and Category:Members of the European Parliament by term. The articles listing MEPs by country by term that appear in Category:European Parliament results now also appear in the appropriate country subcategory of Members of the European Parliament by country. Now I'd like to remove them from European Parliament results. The articles that I'd like to keep in the European Parliament results category are those such as European Parliament election, 1999 (UK) that show election statistics. There would be a See Also link to Category:Members of the European Parliament. Also, I think that European Parliament results should possibly be renamed to European Parliament election results. Note-I had placed a suggestion on the talk page for European Parliament results on 21 July 2005 proposing an alternative use of cat sort keys for the MEPs by country by term, but I have since changed my opinion and believe that they belong elsewhere in the heirarchy. Comments? Thanks, LiniShu 03:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it's not necessary, and probably detrimental, to categorize the MEPs by term. The list-style articles of the type "MEPs for <Country> <Term>" serve that purpose, and have the advantage over categories of being able to provide additional information, such as party. The primary result of the work that I've done so far relates to the category paths that one can take to access the "MEPs for <Country> <Term>" type articles. They will no longer be available directly in Category:European Parliament results; instead they are available thru a.) Category:Members of the European Parliament --> Category:Members of the European Parliament by country --> Category:Members of the European Parliament from <country> --> List "MEPs for <Country> <Term>"' or b.) Category:Members of the European Parliament --> Category:Members of the European Parliament by term --> Category:Members of the European Parliament <term> --> List "MEPs for <Country> <Term>"'. Those are two possible paths; there are others. There is a good basic organizational structure already in place for the Lists of MEPs type articles, but I think there is some additional work that could still be done to improve the categorization, navigability, and consistency of these articles; I've had the idea of creating another subpage for this project in which the ideas could be outlined in a systematic way; providing opportunity for others interested in the EU project to have some input. I could get such a subpage started if you wouldn't object. Thanks for your perspective on all of this. LiniShu 12:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I think that it is relevant to create entries for the 25 DGs. I will try to do this as my first real Wiki adventure. What should I think of before I start typing? How do I create a template for the DGs?
-- Drdan 09:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I have a new set of standardisation problems with the DG article names. It is clear that the Internal Services and the General Services only are collective names for sets of Services and DGs that are not policy-making [1]. I have named the General services page EU General Services, but I am not happy with that. Any suggestions before I proceed to Internal Services? A second question: the term External Relations is both a collective name and an actual DG. Though the DG for External Relations is policy-making, I am not sure that all the others that incorporated under the name of External relations are. This is causing me a headache both in terms of article naming and structure. -- Drdan 07:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Revisiting Joolz's comment on top, i thought it'd be a great idea! There are so many articles on the EU which desperately need expanding, and i'm sure everybody knows something about. They just need attention.
Therefore, i cooked up a scheme for a Collaboration of the fortnight (based on the one on the Community Portal). I popped in the Eurobarometer as my first suggestion. Obviously, we'd need to flesh out the place to hold our voting for articles, but if we do, i'm sure that we can expand rapidly.
Here's my scheme, comments are absolutely welcome!
Collaboration of the fortnight |
---|
Help edit
Eurobarometer, the
WikiProject European Union's current
collaboration of the fortnight! Please help expand it and bring it up to
featured article standard.
You can still help with last week's article, seen above, Delors Commission ( see how long its been neglected), or help pick next week's article. |
Someone has proposed that the European Union portal should be amalgamated into the Europe portal... not a good idea if you ask me. I think that the majority share my opinion. You can add your opinion on the talk-page. Looks like someone is busy vandalising the talk-page now. -- Drdan 16:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I found the EU Law template on the Secondary legislation pages (below). The template is a good idea, but it is used in a strange way. I think that something like it is required on the pages describing EU legislation, but it should probably be expanded to include all three types of legislative acts (primary, secondary, and court decisions). Deletion might be a bit harsh. -- Drdan 10:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Seeing that the template EU law has been deleted I figured that something new was required in order to tie together the various pages on EU legislation. This includes not only the pages on how laws are created, but also the pages presenting the actual legislation. I have made a draft template based on the EU politics template. I am open for comments. template:Legislation of the European Union -- Drdan 10:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Hey all. I've spent the past day or so playing with this chart, and I think it's almost unveilable to public eyes. I was curious to see if you lot had any feedback. I imagine it would make an interesting standalone page; personally, I've found it sometimes frustrating to readily find a party of a particular tendency and see where it stands vis a vis transnational groups. Any thoughts, good or bad, edits, what have you would be appreciated. The Tom
On account of its width, it should probably constitute its own article. Anyone have any suggestions for a title? The Tom 21:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
This user participates in the EU Collaboration of the fortnight. |
I have created a template for members, since I could not find an extant one. I'll post it here for the moment, if no one objects I will add it to the headpage for every member of this project to be used. Gryffindor 18:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
This user is a participant in WikiProject European Union. |
This user participates in the EU Collaboration of the fortnight. |
It would look like this (I haven't changed the template yet, just a suggestion:)-- Fenice 19:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Great! This way, Gryffindor's work won't go to waste, either. ;) — Nightstallion (?) 21:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I've just marked myself as inactive in this project for now. I still believe it is a good project, and I enjoyed participating in the COTF in Oct-Nov of 2005. However, I am attempting not to overdo time spent on Wikipedia, and, with the time I do have available, am currently concentrating on other areas of interest. I may take a more active role in this project again, at some time in the future. Thanks and Cheers, LiniShu 16:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Created from scratch to supplement our articles, currently up for WP:FLC. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks! — Nightstallion (?) 11:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
The article European Union regulation is a bit thin. As it stands, it reads as though the "orders from Brussels" conspiracy theory could have some basis. It needs to be expanded with more examples and with more context. Is it the same as a UK " Order in Council"? -- Red King 12:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if any of you have noticed it, but many of the MEP articles have broken links to the MEP's official EU biography. The EU website was redesigned in early January, and all links became broken. Editors have fixed many of them, but there's still a lot left.
Fortunately, the EU webmaster appears to have preserved the individual ID-tag for each politician, so it should be pretty easy to make the updates with little difficulty. I've tried it on three different politicians, and the IDs were identical.
Howto: Simply change the broken link to
[http://www.europarl.eu.int/members/archive/alphaOrder/view.do?language=EN&id=XXXX European Parliament biography]
where XXXX is the four or five digit ID-tag from the old link. If in doubt, see e.g. my edit to
Henrik Dam Kristensen. Best regards. --
Valentinian
13:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm currently working on the various stubs within the Standing Committees of the European Parliament section. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Liam Plested 00:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been meaning to write at least a stub for this, but I can't really think of too much information -- what else could we write, apart from new voting arrangements due to Bulgaria and Romania having joined by then? Input would be greatly appreciated... — Nightst a llion (?) Seen this already? 21:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
We've got Accession of Bulgaria to the European Union, Accession of Croatia to the European Union, Accession of Romania to the European Union and Accession of Turkey to the European Union, but we lack Accession of the Republic of Macedonia to the European Union; in the same vein, we've got Iceland and the European Union and Norway and the European Union, but not Switzerland and the European Union, although that would be a very lengthy article, indeed. Anyone feeling up to it? I may get to it some time in the summer, but that's still some time away... ;) — Nightst a llion (?) 11:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
For anyone still reading this, what we currently need are Switzerland and the European Union, Armenia and the European Union, Cape Verde and the European Union, Georgia and the European Union and Moldova and the European Union. — Nightst a llion (?) 09:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
NPOV
Hi sorry I don't know how to edit, this is my first (well second) time, so here goes.
"After decades of anti-racist campaigns, it became acceptable again to be against foreigners."
Does this seem POV to anyone else?
"Agitated European politicians regarded the support of Dutch politicians for the anti-European sentiments of their population as an uncooperative Calvinist attitude. Most Dutch people support the European Union, but are against too much power for the European institutions."
Now this has got to be POV. I haven't made any edits to the main article (except for disputing the neutrality, i think i put the sign in the wrong place), I want to see what other people think, but there is not one citation (that I can see) in this entire article, and that Calvinist assertion seems to be extremely value laden.
autocratus
I've copied this from the Scouting WikiProject... now all we need to do is actually make it work. Anyone going to help me? ;) — Nightst a llion (?) 09:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of starting to update the portal, hope ya'll don't mind. Over the next few days I'll be adding content, archives, suggestion areas, and populating lists. This should be a major and well laid out portal, not the shape it was in. I'm not a European, so anything I get wrong, let me know. You can see my other portals, as well. Thnx :) Jo e I 16:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm in serious need of suggestions for Selected article and Selected picture. If you have any idea of an article/picture that is remotely semi-good, please post a link on the appropiate page. Also, if anyone knows of any other Featured content, please post it, or let me know, those were all I could find. Thnx :) Jo e I 10:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Just thought I'd throw it out there that many of the articles in {{ IPL-EU}} about intellectual property laws of the EU need to be created (even stubs would help). This is the template below (subst'd to remove category links):
Intellectual property laws of the European Union (EU) | ||
---|---|---|
Austria •
Belgium •
Cyprus •
Czech Republic •
Denmark •
Estonia •
Finland •
France •
Germany •
Greece •
Hungary •
Ireland •
Italy •
Latvia •
Lithuania •
Luxembourg •
Malta •
Netherlands •
Poland •
Portugal •
Slovakia •
Slovenia •
Spain •
Sweden •
United Kingdom See also: EU Copyright Directive • DADVSI • Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection | ||
Austria • Belgium • Cyprus • Czech Republic • Denmark • Estonia • Finland • France • Germany • Greece • Hungary • Ireland • Italy • Latvia • Lithuania • Luxembourg • Malta • Netherlands • Poland • Portugal • Slovakia • Slovenia • Spain • Sweden • United Kingdom | ||
Austria •
Belgium •
Cyprus •
Czech Republic •
Denmark •
Estonia •
Finland •
France •
Germany •
Greece •
Hungary •
Ireland •
Italy •
Latvia •
Lithuania •
Luxembourg •
Malta •
Netherlands •
Poland •
Portugal •
Slovakia •
Slovenia •
Spain •
Sweden •
United Kingdom
|
The template coding itself probably needs work too (I created it, but I'm sure its not very efficient) - Рэд хот 14:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Here I say delete, others say weak keep, merge. Weigh in. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 14:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 16:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, anyone feel like helping me keep this article out of the hands of the Eurosceptics? It's NPOV now as far as I can see and I'd like to keep it that way. But the latest addition to the talk page makes me think it's going to be attacked again soon... Marcus22 23:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I #know# this is not the right page – but can "someone" create relevant redirects for "States/states of Europe" and "States/states of the World" to the relevant listing pages. The former as a search term leads to States of the European Union and the latter to some thing that is nothing to do with what anyone wanting a list of countries would want. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.194.75.209 ( talk) 14:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC).
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 20:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
With Bulgaria and Romania joining the EU in a few hours (at midnight), we'll have to update all statistical data, country listings, maps, tables, templates, etc. related to the EU and its member states. I'm already looking forward to updating what I can alone, but it would be a lot better, effective and quick if we form some sort of team or multiple-member collaboration because there's quite a lot to be updated. Anyone willing to help? :) Todor → Bozhinov 13:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The WikiProject European Union is a wonderful initiative, but it's validity is being compromised by inaccurate and biased content.
For example, Accession of Turkey to the European Union contains obvious factual errors and dubious POV. A casual glance at the article's Talk and History shows that other editors' contributions are being consistently edited out by a single editor.
Perhaps the articles included in the project need to be protected and moderated? 220.233.224.46 14:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I've been trying to diffuse this category as much as possible and I think I've got it mostly done. Does anyone here have any suggestions or ideas to help further it? -- Hemlock Martinis 07:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion underway in Talk: Spain regarding the source for GDP figures in the country info box. It appears that until recently, the Spain box used IMF numbers (for amounts and world rankings). Then an editor wanted to use more current data from Eurostat, with the reasonable position that these numbers may be more accurate, and were apparently more recently released. The obvious concern, however, is with consistency with other countries' info. Has this issue come up in any other discussions? I think the need for consistency among all articles trumps (i.e. let's use IMF data, since that's what other articles seem to use). Another proposal was to use Eurostat for the raw numbers, and IMF for rankings. Any thoughts from the Euro-crowd? Input appreciated! -- Anietor 19:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I fixed it. :). -- Parker007 00:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow editors. A straw poll has opened today (27th March 2007) regarding the use of flags on the United Kingdom place infoboxes. There are several potential options to use, and would like as many contrubutors to vote on which we should decide upon. The straw poll is found here. If joining the debate, please keep a cool head and remain civil. We look forward to seeing you there. Jhamez84 11:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This article is in a dire strait: Accession of Turkey to the European Union. There seems to be a load of information, but they are so disconnected from one another and there is so much argumentative and analytical stuff bordering on banter that it has seriously become one of the worst articles in Wikipedia. There is absolutely no information about the technical aspects of the accession progress, nor is there a sound structure with the two biggest sections being "arguments for TR" and "arguments against". If anyone interested from WPEU can help out, that would be great. The article simply needs to be rewritten; even though there is a nice map and two photos and some stuff in the history section.. Baristarim 01:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to invite you all to participate in a discussion at this thread regarding bilateral relations between two countries. All articles related to foreign relations between countries are now under the scope of WikiProject Foreign relations, a newly created project. We hope that the discussion will result in a more clean and organized way of explaining such relationships. Thank you. Ed ¿Cómo estás? 18:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I proposed a new layout for the EU Portal. The new layout is more like the wikipedia main page, it is more modern and schematic. Please, post any comment on the Portal's talk page. (You can find the link to my prototype EU portal there too) -- giandrea 22:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome to leave a comment on the following Request for Comment (RfC):
Summary: There is a dispute about whether the European Union should be included in this list. Its area equals the sum of its member countries. We are discussing if it should be included in the list or not.
Thank you, -- giandrea 16:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I'm not a member of this wikiproject but I thought I'd share with you some EU-based userboxes I have made.
--
One Salient Oversight
11:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
2 more – Algeria and Tunisia down the bottom -- One Salient Oversight 01:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
+Greenland as well. -- One Salient Oversight 02:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
+Armenia -- Waterfall999 12:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi EU project
I have maded a new navigation box {{ Central banks of the European Union}} and have added link from it to your project page. It should fit within the style of other EU navboxes. I did not know if this project tags its templates with a project tag.
You should conisdering archiving your talk page ist is 53 kilybytes long. Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page
Best Regards Mads Angelbo Talk / Contribs 11:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see WikiProject Malta for more details. We need lots of new members, and help constructing the project page. If you can or would like to help, please do so. Thanks, Anonymous Dissident Utter 02:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see item 1 Chaza93 17:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
See Eurobarometer. Their report on their 2006 polling has some polling maps of Europe I would like to use on wikipedia and elsewhere. See the 2 maps here:
See Eurobarometer 66: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/standard_en.htm -- Timeshifter 14:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you may have noticed the History of the European Union page is a bit limited, basically pre-1945 plus history of enlargement. I'm working on a new draft that has wider content and a better structure to frame history, currently if you want to add something you'd have to start a new section. It also has sub-pages for pre-1993 history – although that is just existing copied information. As its a big task, and needs lots of peoples ideas and points of view, I'd appreciate a hand in getting this going – particularly ensuring all existing information is properly displayed on the new page so it can be transferred over if there are no objections. Thanks. Comments and contributions please: User:JLogan/DraftEUHistory – J Logan t/ c: 11:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I created a new project page. It can be seen here. I would like to remove the old page and replace it with the new content. What do you think about it? Thw1309 18:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
You are right with the stub template. I made this proposal because I did dot find the existing template. It is already changed.
I used this table, because this is a good method to use the templates. Perhaps every template could have a table of it´s own. Thw1309 07:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Yes, page looks good to me. Well done!! Sorry not much else to offer. V busy just now and when on Wiki I'm working on UK history at moment. Not been active on EU for quite a while. Will get back to it though. Marcus22 12:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say only one, in fact I said a cooperation should be started regardless of how many others are going at the time. And a market place yes, that would be a de facto situation but I suggest a formal cooperation for backing so not everyone's talk page is swamped by requests from single users working on minor articles. - J Logan t/ c: 14:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I made
this new layout, but was reverted by Thw1309 because he said that I needed to contact every member of the project.
What do you think?
Ssolbergj
21:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the new proposal is better – though perhaps there should be a little more space between the top of the 'E' and the word 'wikiproject'. Raggio 08:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
A lot of help is needed on Reform Treaty. A lot of nonsense is written about the treaty, for instance that it has already a draft version. The European Council of June 22 and 23 only agreed on the broad outline of the treaty, and gave a 16-page long mandate to the IGC that is to start working in July 2007. That mandate is of course not a draft version of a treaty! I tried to clean the article up a bit, but it still needs attention. Maarten 13:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
(from Talk:European Union, see and reply there please) Okay, I didn't expect the review so soon but we have the feedback nonetheless. I've tried to so something about History. I'm not sure about religion – I think it relates as much to the EU as it is going to, as much as any country article does. Enlargement needs to be looked at still but refs are the continuos problem. The tags put on by the reviewer were removed, but nothing done about them. I just have a simple question, are people serious about improving this article? If they are then we all need to look through all of this and reference it properly, and remove anything we can't reference. No matter how interesting or informative it may be it means nothing unless it can be backed up as a solid fact. If people do not want to put that effort in, and instead carry on adding things at random, then there isn't much point in trying to sort this out. So, everyone, are we going to get the EU's core article up to featured, be proud of it once more? - J Logan t/ c: 14:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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; [3] [4] – J Logan t/ c: 12:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
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 Logan t: 15:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
What happened to the member list?-- Boson 06:14, 21 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)
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)
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;
How does that sound? - J Logan t: 14:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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."
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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;
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)
Thinking further I favour this organisation fur sub-national constituencies;
As opposed to this one;
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;
Under the last one, were London a national constituency it would read;
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)
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)
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: [5] [6] [7]. Oh better example! And I thought it was spotty teenagers doing this: [8] – 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 [9] 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: [10]. - J Logan t: 09:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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) A ecis Brievenbus 00:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
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;
Any thoughts on these? - J Logan t: 19:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
What is he on about? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AEuropean_Commission&diff=179582285&oldid=163620641#Die_Verbrechen_der_Christdemokraten_in_Deutschland] – J Logan t: 17:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
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. |
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 2007 – December 2007) - Please Do not edit! |
---|
Hi, I have made a barnstar that you may wish to use for people who make good additions to your sections, Contact me on my talk page please Chaza93 17:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The Barnstar of European Merit | ||
Here's my proposal. 12 stars instead of 15. {{ subst:The Barnstar of European Merit|message ~~~~}} | ||
this WikiAward was given to {{subst:PAGENAME}} by ~~~ on ~~~~~ |
└
S. SOLBERG J. /
talk ┐
08:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I had this in mind for some time, but did nothing about it. It's a good one Ssolbergj, I like it, perhaps without the motto inside the stars circle, it would be cleaner. -- giandrea 22:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the first thing we should do is to start improving the articles that we've got, some like Euro and European Union are decent, a great number of other articles need a lot of work though. Once I figure out how to set one up properly a COTF would be good. -- Joolz 23:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Greetings from WP:WSS. On WP:SFD, it looks like Category:Extended MEP stubs is going to be merged with Category:MEP stubs. Because there is a slight difference between the two, but not enough to keep a seperate stub type, User:Grutness suggested to make the category a list and linking it from {{ MEP-stub}}. After asking User:Talrias and User:Joolz on IRC, that list is now Wikipedia:WikiProject European Union/MEP stubs. I'm posting this here mainly as a reminder. -- grm_wnr Esc 6 July 2005 17:46 (UTC)
I'm going to do some work on cleaning up (or creating) the Directives articles. For a start, I'd like to consult on a preferred style for the principal article (with the others as redirects, leaving major existing ones Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions as they are (but with a standard form redirect).
Options are these:
There are examples of all of them! Please add your observations initially, then we can invite a vote.
-- Red King 16:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
-- Daniel Spichtinger 15:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
It seems there is nothing on the EU research policy. I am working for a company that does a lot of EU projects in the IST field (one area of FP6) so I am planning to cover the specifics. I will also try to write an article on EU research policy as a whole and FP6 and 7 in particular. I have started small, with a piece on I2010, the Union's umbrella for ICT development. Comments are welcome. -- Daniel Spichtinger 15:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Some (or all) of the articles in { { EU Coins menu } } also has { {Eurocoins} }, is this on purpose? Or is it ok to remove the latter? MartinBiely 20:12, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
I've been doing some work with the categorization heirarchy of the various lists of MEPs. In the past couple weeks, I've created subcategories Category:Members of the European Parliament by country and Category:Members of the European Parliament by term. The articles listing MEPs by country by term that appear in Category:European Parliament results now also appear in the appropriate country subcategory of Members of the European Parliament by country. Now I'd like to remove them from European Parliament results. The articles that I'd like to keep in the European Parliament results category are those such as European Parliament election, 1999 (UK) that show election statistics. There would be a See Also link to Category:Members of the European Parliament. Also, I think that European Parliament results should possibly be renamed to European Parliament election results. Note-I had placed a suggestion on the talk page for European Parliament results on 21 July 2005 proposing an alternative use of cat sort keys for the MEPs by country by term, but I have since changed my opinion and believe that they belong elsewhere in the heirarchy. Comments? Thanks, LiniShu 03:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it's not necessary, and probably detrimental, to categorize the MEPs by term. The list-style articles of the type "MEPs for <Country> <Term>" serve that purpose, and have the advantage over categories of being able to provide additional information, such as party. The primary result of the work that I've done so far relates to the category paths that one can take to access the "MEPs for <Country> <Term>" type articles. They will no longer be available directly in Category:European Parliament results; instead they are available thru a.) Category:Members of the European Parliament --> Category:Members of the European Parliament by country --> Category:Members of the European Parliament from <country> --> List "MEPs for <Country> <Term>"' or b.) Category:Members of the European Parliament --> Category:Members of the European Parliament by term --> Category:Members of the European Parliament <term> --> List "MEPs for <Country> <Term>"'. Those are two possible paths; there are others. There is a good basic organizational structure already in place for the Lists of MEPs type articles, but I think there is some additional work that could still be done to improve the categorization, navigability, and consistency of these articles; I've had the idea of creating another subpage for this project in which the ideas could be outlined in a systematic way; providing opportunity for others interested in the EU project to have some input. I could get such a subpage started if you wouldn't object. Thanks for your perspective on all of this. LiniShu 12:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I think that it is relevant to create entries for the 25 DGs. I will try to do this as my first real Wiki adventure. What should I think of before I start typing? How do I create a template for the DGs?
-- Drdan 09:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I have a new set of standardisation problems with the DG article names. It is clear that the Internal Services and the General Services only are collective names for sets of Services and DGs that are not policy-making [1]. I have named the General services page EU General Services, but I am not happy with that. Any suggestions before I proceed to Internal Services? A second question: the term External Relations is both a collective name and an actual DG. Though the DG for External Relations is policy-making, I am not sure that all the others that incorporated under the name of External relations are. This is causing me a headache both in terms of article naming and structure. -- Drdan 07:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Revisiting Joolz's comment on top, i thought it'd be a great idea! There are so many articles on the EU which desperately need expanding, and i'm sure everybody knows something about. They just need attention.
Therefore, i cooked up a scheme for a Collaboration of the fortnight (based on the one on the Community Portal). I popped in the Eurobarometer as my first suggestion. Obviously, we'd need to flesh out the place to hold our voting for articles, but if we do, i'm sure that we can expand rapidly.
Here's my scheme, comments are absolutely welcome!
Collaboration of the fortnight |
---|
Help edit
Eurobarometer, the
WikiProject European Union's current
collaboration of the fortnight! Please help expand it and bring it up to
featured article standard.
You can still help with last week's article, seen above, Delors Commission ( see how long its been neglected), or help pick next week's article. |
Someone has proposed that the European Union portal should be amalgamated into the Europe portal... not a good idea if you ask me. I think that the majority share my opinion. You can add your opinion on the talk-page. Looks like someone is busy vandalising the talk-page now. -- Drdan 16:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I found the EU Law template on the Secondary legislation pages (below). The template is a good idea, but it is used in a strange way. I think that something like it is required on the pages describing EU legislation, but it should probably be expanded to include all three types of legislative acts (primary, secondary, and court decisions). Deletion might be a bit harsh. -- Drdan 10:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Seeing that the template EU law has been deleted I figured that something new was required in order to tie together the various pages on EU legislation. This includes not only the pages on how laws are created, but also the pages presenting the actual legislation. I have made a draft template based on the EU politics template. I am open for comments. template:Legislation of the European Union -- Drdan 10:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Hey all. I've spent the past day or so playing with this chart, and I think it's almost unveilable to public eyes. I was curious to see if you lot had any feedback. I imagine it would make an interesting standalone page; personally, I've found it sometimes frustrating to readily find a party of a particular tendency and see where it stands vis a vis transnational groups. Any thoughts, good or bad, edits, what have you would be appreciated. The Tom
On account of its width, it should probably constitute its own article. Anyone have any suggestions for a title? The Tom 21:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
This user participates in the EU Collaboration of the fortnight. |
I have created a template for members, since I could not find an extant one. I'll post it here for the moment, if no one objects I will add it to the headpage for every member of this project to be used. Gryffindor 18:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
This user is a participant in WikiProject European Union. |
This user participates in the EU Collaboration of the fortnight. |
It would look like this (I haven't changed the template yet, just a suggestion:)-- Fenice 19:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Great! This way, Gryffindor's work won't go to waste, either. ;) — Nightstallion (?) 21:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I've just marked myself as inactive in this project for now. I still believe it is a good project, and I enjoyed participating in the COTF in Oct-Nov of 2005. However, I am attempting not to overdo time spent on Wikipedia, and, with the time I do have available, am currently concentrating on other areas of interest. I may take a more active role in this project again, at some time in the future. Thanks and Cheers, LiniShu 16:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Created from scratch to supplement our articles, currently up for WP:FLC. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks! — Nightstallion (?) 11:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
The article European Union regulation is a bit thin. As it stands, it reads as though the "orders from Brussels" conspiracy theory could have some basis. It needs to be expanded with more examples and with more context. Is it the same as a UK " Order in Council"? -- Red King 12:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if any of you have noticed it, but many of the MEP articles have broken links to the MEP's official EU biography. The EU website was redesigned in early January, and all links became broken. Editors have fixed many of them, but there's still a lot left.
Fortunately, the EU webmaster appears to have preserved the individual ID-tag for each politician, so it should be pretty easy to make the updates with little difficulty. I've tried it on three different politicians, and the IDs were identical.
Howto: Simply change the broken link to
[http://www.europarl.eu.int/members/archive/alphaOrder/view.do?language=EN&id=XXXX European Parliament biography]
where XXXX is the four or five digit ID-tag from the old link. If in doubt, see e.g. my edit to
Henrik Dam Kristensen. Best regards. --
Valentinian
13:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm currently working on the various stubs within the Standing Committees of the European Parliament section. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Liam Plested 00:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been meaning to write at least a stub for this, but I can't really think of too much information -- what else could we write, apart from new voting arrangements due to Bulgaria and Romania having joined by then? Input would be greatly appreciated... — Nightst a llion (?) Seen this already? 21:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
We've got Accession of Bulgaria to the European Union, Accession of Croatia to the European Union, Accession of Romania to the European Union and Accession of Turkey to the European Union, but we lack Accession of the Republic of Macedonia to the European Union; in the same vein, we've got Iceland and the European Union and Norway and the European Union, but not Switzerland and the European Union, although that would be a very lengthy article, indeed. Anyone feeling up to it? I may get to it some time in the summer, but that's still some time away... ;) — Nightst a llion (?) 11:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
For anyone still reading this, what we currently need are Switzerland and the European Union, Armenia and the European Union, Cape Verde and the European Union, Georgia and the European Union and Moldova and the European Union. — Nightst a llion (?) 09:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
NPOV
Hi sorry I don't know how to edit, this is my first (well second) time, so here goes.
"After decades of anti-racist campaigns, it became acceptable again to be against foreigners."
Does this seem POV to anyone else?
"Agitated European politicians regarded the support of Dutch politicians for the anti-European sentiments of their population as an uncooperative Calvinist attitude. Most Dutch people support the European Union, but are against too much power for the European institutions."
Now this has got to be POV. I haven't made any edits to the main article (except for disputing the neutrality, i think i put the sign in the wrong place), I want to see what other people think, but there is not one citation (that I can see) in this entire article, and that Calvinist assertion seems to be extremely value laden.
autocratus
I've copied this from the Scouting WikiProject... now all we need to do is actually make it work. Anyone going to help me? ;) — Nightst a llion (?) 09:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of starting to update the portal, hope ya'll don't mind. Over the next few days I'll be adding content, archives, suggestion areas, and populating lists. This should be a major and well laid out portal, not the shape it was in. I'm not a European, so anything I get wrong, let me know. You can see my other portals, as well. Thnx :) Jo e I 16:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm in serious need of suggestions for Selected article and Selected picture. If you have any idea of an article/picture that is remotely semi-good, please post a link on the appropiate page. Also, if anyone knows of any other Featured content, please post it, or let me know, those were all I could find. Thnx :) Jo e I 10:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Just thought I'd throw it out there that many of the articles in {{ IPL-EU}} about intellectual property laws of the EU need to be created (even stubs would help). This is the template below (subst'd to remove category links):
Intellectual property laws of the European Union (EU) | ||
---|---|---|
Austria •
Belgium •
Cyprus •
Czech Republic •
Denmark •
Estonia •
Finland •
France •
Germany •
Greece •
Hungary •
Ireland •
Italy •
Latvia •
Lithuania •
Luxembourg •
Malta •
Netherlands •
Poland •
Portugal •
Slovakia •
Slovenia •
Spain •
Sweden •
United Kingdom See also: EU Copyright Directive • DADVSI • Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection | ||
Austria • Belgium • Cyprus • Czech Republic • Denmark • Estonia • Finland • France • Germany • Greece • Hungary • Ireland • Italy • Latvia • Lithuania • Luxembourg • Malta • Netherlands • Poland • Portugal • Slovakia • Slovenia • Spain • Sweden • United Kingdom | ||
Austria •
Belgium •
Cyprus •
Czech Republic •
Denmark •
Estonia •
Finland •
France •
Germany •
Greece •
Hungary •
Ireland •
Italy •
Latvia •
Lithuania •
Luxembourg •
Malta •
Netherlands •
Poland •
Portugal •
Slovakia •
Slovenia •
Spain •
Sweden •
United Kingdom
|
The template coding itself probably needs work too (I created it, but I'm sure its not very efficient) - Рэд хот 14:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Here I say delete, others say weak keep, merge. Weigh in. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 14:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 16:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, anyone feel like helping me keep this article out of the hands of the Eurosceptics? It's NPOV now as far as I can see and I'd like to keep it that way. But the latest addition to the talk page makes me think it's going to be attacked again soon... Marcus22 23:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I #know# this is not the right page – but can "someone" create relevant redirects for "States/states of Europe" and "States/states of the World" to the relevant listing pages. The former as a search term leads to States of the European Union and the latter to some thing that is nothing to do with what anyone wanting a list of countries would want. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.194.75.209 ( talk) 14:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC).
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 20:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
With Bulgaria and Romania joining the EU in a few hours (at midnight), we'll have to update all statistical data, country listings, maps, tables, templates, etc. related to the EU and its member states. I'm already looking forward to updating what I can alone, but it would be a lot better, effective and quick if we form some sort of team or multiple-member collaboration because there's quite a lot to be updated. Anyone willing to help? :) Todor → Bozhinov 13:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The WikiProject European Union is a wonderful initiative, but it's validity is being compromised by inaccurate and biased content.
For example, Accession of Turkey to the European Union contains obvious factual errors and dubious POV. A casual glance at the article's Talk and History shows that other editors' contributions are being consistently edited out by a single editor.
Perhaps the articles included in the project need to be protected and moderated? 220.233.224.46 14:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I've been trying to diffuse this category as much as possible and I think I've got it mostly done. Does anyone here have any suggestions or ideas to help further it? -- Hemlock Martinis 07:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion underway in Talk: Spain regarding the source for GDP figures in the country info box. It appears that until recently, the Spain box used IMF numbers (for amounts and world rankings). Then an editor wanted to use more current data from Eurostat, with the reasonable position that these numbers may be more accurate, and were apparently more recently released. The obvious concern, however, is with consistency with other countries' info. Has this issue come up in any other discussions? I think the need for consistency among all articles trumps (i.e. let's use IMF data, since that's what other articles seem to use). Another proposal was to use Eurostat for the raw numbers, and IMF for rankings. Any thoughts from the Euro-crowd? Input appreciated! -- Anietor 19:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I fixed it. :). -- Parker007 00:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow editors. A straw poll has opened today (27th March 2007) regarding the use of flags on the United Kingdom place infoboxes. There are several potential options to use, and would like as many contrubutors to vote on which we should decide upon. The straw poll is found here. If joining the debate, please keep a cool head and remain civil. We look forward to seeing you there. Jhamez84 11:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This article is in a dire strait: Accession of Turkey to the European Union. There seems to be a load of information, but they are so disconnected from one another and there is so much argumentative and analytical stuff bordering on banter that it has seriously become one of the worst articles in Wikipedia. There is absolutely no information about the technical aspects of the accession progress, nor is there a sound structure with the two biggest sections being "arguments for TR" and "arguments against". If anyone interested from WPEU can help out, that would be great. The article simply needs to be rewritten; even though there is a nice map and two photos and some stuff in the history section.. Baristarim 01:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to invite you all to participate in a discussion at this thread regarding bilateral relations between two countries. All articles related to foreign relations between countries are now under the scope of WikiProject Foreign relations, a newly created project. We hope that the discussion will result in a more clean and organized way of explaining such relationships. Thank you. Ed ¿Cómo estás? 18:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I proposed a new layout for the EU Portal. The new layout is more like the wikipedia main page, it is more modern and schematic. Please, post any comment on the Portal's talk page. (You can find the link to my prototype EU portal there too) -- giandrea 22:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome to leave a comment on the following Request for Comment (RfC):
Summary: There is a dispute about whether the European Union should be included in this list. Its area equals the sum of its member countries. We are discussing if it should be included in the list or not.
Thank you, -- giandrea 16:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I'm not a member of this wikiproject but I thought I'd share with you some EU-based userboxes I have made.
--
One Salient Oversight
11:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
2 more – Algeria and Tunisia down the bottom -- One Salient Oversight 01:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
+Greenland as well. -- One Salient Oversight 02:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
+Armenia -- Waterfall999 12:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Code | Result | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
{{ User:UBX/EU Armenia}} | What links here | ||||
{{ User:UBX/EU Switzerland}} |
|
What links here | |||
{{ User:UBX/EU Turkey}} | What links here | ||||
{{ User:UBX/EU Norway}} | What links here | ||||
{{ User:UBX/EU Croatia}} | What links here | ||||
{{ User:UBX/EU Macedonia}} | What links here | ||||
{{ User:UBX/EU Albania}} | What links here | ||||
{{ User:UBX/EU Montenegro}} |
|
What links here | |||
{{ User:UBX/EU Bosnia and Herzegovina}} |
|
What links here | |||
{{ User:UBX/EU Serbia}} | What links here | ||||
{{ User:UBX/EU Iceland}} | What links here | ||||
{{ User:UBX/EU Ukraine}} | What links here | ||||
{{ User:UBX/EU Moldova}} | What links here | ||||
{{ User:UBX/EU Belarus}} | What links here | ||||
{{ User:UBX/EU Russia}} | What links here | ||||
{{ User:UBX/EU Cape Verde}} |
|
What links here | |||
{{ User:UBX/EU Morocco}} | What links here | ||||
{{ User:UBX/EU Israel}} | What links here | ||||
{{ User:UBX/EU Canada}} | What links here | ||||
{{ User:UBX/EU Vermont}} | What links here | ||||
{{ User:UBX/Euro UK}} |
|
What links here | |||
{{ User:UBX/Euro Denmark}} | What links here | ||||
{{ User:UBX/Euro Sweden}} | What links here | ||||
{{ User:UBX/UN Geneva}} | What links here | ||||
{{ User:UBX/EU Algeria}} | What links here | ||||
{{ User:UBX/EU Tunisia}} | What links here | ||||
{{ User:UBX/EU Greenland}} | What links here |
Hi EU project
I have maded a new navigation box {{ Central banks of the European Union}} and have added link from it to your project page. It should fit within the style of other EU navboxes. I did not know if this project tags its templates with a project tag.
You should conisdering archiving your talk page ist is 53 kilybytes long. Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page
Best Regards Mads Angelbo Talk / Contribs 11:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see WikiProject Malta for more details. We need lots of new members, and help constructing the project page. If you can or would like to help, please do so. Thanks, Anonymous Dissident Utter 02:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see item 1 Chaza93 17:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
See Eurobarometer. Their report on their 2006 polling has some polling maps of Europe I would like to use on wikipedia and elsewhere. See the 2 maps here:
See Eurobarometer 66: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/standard_en.htm -- Timeshifter 14:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you may have noticed the History of the European Union page is a bit limited, basically pre-1945 plus history of enlargement. I'm working on a new draft that has wider content and a better structure to frame history, currently if you want to add something you'd have to start a new section. It also has sub-pages for pre-1993 history – although that is just existing copied information. As its a big task, and needs lots of peoples ideas and points of view, I'd appreciate a hand in getting this going – particularly ensuring all existing information is properly displayed on the new page so it can be transferred over if there are no objections. Thanks. Comments and contributions please: User:JLogan/DraftEUHistory – J Logan t/ c: 11:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I created a new project page. It can be seen here. I would like to remove the old page and replace it with the new content. What do you think about it? Thw1309 18:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
You are right with the stub template. I made this proposal because I did dot find the existing template. It is already changed.
I used this table, because this is a good method to use the templates. Perhaps every template could have a table of it´s own. Thw1309 07:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Yes, page looks good to me. Well done!! Sorry not much else to offer. V busy just now and when on Wiki I'm working on UK history at moment. Not been active on EU for quite a while. Will get back to it though. Marcus22 12:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say only one, in fact I said a cooperation should be started regardless of how many others are going at the time. And a market place yes, that would be a de facto situation but I suggest a formal cooperation for backing so not everyone's talk page is swamped by requests from single users working on minor articles. - J Logan t/ c: 14:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I made
this new layout, but was reverted by Thw1309 because he said that I needed to contact every member of the project.
What do you think?
Ssolbergj
21:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the new proposal is better – though perhaps there should be a little more space between the top of the 'E' and the word 'wikiproject'. Raggio 08:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
A lot of help is needed on Reform Treaty. A lot of nonsense is written about the treaty, for instance that it has already a draft version. The European Council of June 22 and 23 only agreed on the broad outline of the treaty, and gave a 16-page long mandate to the IGC that is to start working in July 2007. That mandate is of course not a draft version of a treaty! I tried to clean the article up a bit, but it still needs attention. Maarten 13:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
(from Talk:European Union, see and reply there please) Okay, I didn't expect the review so soon but we have the feedback nonetheless. I've tried to so something about History. I'm not sure about religion – I think it relates as much to the EU as it is going to, as much as any country article does. Enlargement needs to be looked at still but refs are the continuos problem. The tags put on by the reviewer were removed, but nothing done about them. I just have a simple question, are people serious about improving this article? If they are then we all need to look through all of this and reference it properly, and remove anything we can't reference. No matter how interesting or informative it may be it means nothing unless it can be backed up as a solid fact. If people do not want to put that effort in, and instead carry on adding things at random, then there isn't much point in trying to sort this out. So, everyone, are we going to get the EU's core article up to featured, be proud of it once more? - J Logan t/ c: 14:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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; [3] [4] – J Logan t/ c: 12:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
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 Logan t: 15:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
What happened to the member list?-- Boson 06:14, 21 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)
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)
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;
How does that sound? - J Logan t: 14:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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."
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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;
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)
Thinking further I favour this organisation fur sub-national constituencies;
As opposed to this one;
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;
Under the last one, were London a national constituency it would read;
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)
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)
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: [5] [6] [7]. Oh better example! And I thought it was spotty teenagers doing this: [8] – 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 [9] 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: [10]. - J Logan t: 09:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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) A ecis Brievenbus 00:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
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;
Any thoughts on these? - J Logan t: 19:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
What is he on about? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AEuropean_Commission&diff=179582285&oldid=163620641#Die_Verbrechen_der_Christdemokraten_in_Deutschland] – J Logan t: 17:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)