Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European Union/Archive 4

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 2010 - December 2010) - Please Do not edit!

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Leonard Orban

Leonard Orban has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Maastricht Treaty

There's a discussion on renaming this article on its talk page, of course. Pcap ping 21:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I've tagged Delegation of the European Union to the United States. APK whisper in my ear 04:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on MEP category renaming

A proposal has been made at to rename a series of categories for Members of the European Parliament (MEPs).

If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments to any or all of the 3 discussions at on the Categories for discussion page:

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 6#Category:Members of the European Parliament from Ireland
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 6#MEPs by country
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 6#MEPs by term

Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

European Union articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the European Union articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Categorization

Dear friends, the German version of Wikipedia is currently elaborating a new category system (see de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Politik/EU/Systematik). Is there any similar project in the English WP? If not: where could it be opened? all the best! --Ngowatchtransparent (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

So, if you do not mind, I will start this page soon: Wikipedia:WikiProject_European_Union/Categories Ok? --Ngowatchtransparent (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Single market

I've nominated Single market for deletion on the basis that it's being original research. The deletion discussion page is here. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 14:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Leonard Orban

Leonard Orban has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Maastricht Treaty

There's a discussion on renaming this article on its talk page, of course. Pcap ping 21:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I've tagged Delegation of the European Union to the United States. APK whisper in my ear 04:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on MEP category renaming

A proposal has been made at to rename a series of categories for Members of the European Parliament (MEPs).

If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments to any or all of the 3 discussions at on the Categories for discussion page:

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 6#Category:Members of the European Parliament from Ireland
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 6#MEPs by country
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 6#MEPs by term

Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

European Union articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the European Union articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Categorization

Dear friends, the German version of Wikipedia is currently elaborating a new category system (see de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Politik/EU/Systematik). Is there any similar project in the English WP? If not: where could it be opened? all the best! --Ngowatchtransparent (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

So, if you do not mind, I will start this page soon: Wikipedia:WikiProject_European_Union/Categories Ok? --Ngowatchtransparent (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Single market

I've nominated Single market for deletion on the basis that it's being original research. The deletion discussion page is here. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 14:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

EU projects to be deleted?

I wrote an article on an FP7 project of the EU, PARSIFAL Project EU. This and other project articles face deletion discussions, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

In that context: European Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection should be improved, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That certain research (?) projects receive EU funding doesn't make them EU projects or for that matter anything to do with this Wikiproject. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 21:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

BHL, you are a quite NPOV in your statement. You doubt that these are research project, which is fair and sometimes true, you say they are not EU projects, which is false: they are selected and signed by representatives of the EU; you say that they have nothing to do with this wikiproject, but as far as I can see, people involved in the wikiproject are deleting a lot of those pages. Am I wrong in seeign that? Cause otherwise the point raised by Gerda is actually quite relevant, contrary to what you stated. --Max-CCC (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of discussion about deletions (my article have also been deleted). The editors have a point: too bureaucratic language, lack of facts etc. I would propose to create a template or example articles to show how to write a wikipendia-level article on an EU project, e.g. standardizing and limiting administrative information, emphasizing results and cross-links. There is a large community interested in this information. But I agree there is a difference between a wiki-page and a project web site. Dear Editors, what would you say?--Boris Krassi (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Poor quality, including bureaucratic language, is a reason for improvement, not deletion; so article improvement flags (e.g. {{Multiple issues}} should be added if an editor can't fix the problem him/herself. In my experience, the reason for deletion of articles on EU projects is usually lack of notability. The article should state why the project is notable (e.g. biggest waste of money since the creation of the EU, as claimed by Warren Buffett), preferably in the first paragraph. References supporting notability should cite multiple third-party publications that discuss the project. --Boson (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Renaming of some legal categories

See :Category:Copyright laws of the European Union for link to proposals on renaming some legal categories. Hugo999 (talk) 02:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Open Ireland page move discussion

After a two-year ban imposed by Arbcom, a page move discussion for the Republic of Ireland can be entertained.

• (Discuss) –Republic of Ireland →Ireland (republic)Kauffner (talk) 08:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move of European Fiscal Union

An editor has proposed that the article European Fiscal Union be renamed to Fiscal Compact. The discussion is at Talk:European Fiscal Union#Requested_move. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

European Union acronyms, jargon and working practices - nomionated for deletion

I've nominated European Union acronyms, jargon and working practices for deletion the discussion is here. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 21:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Traineeship scheme of the European Commission

Hello, I have written an article about Traineeship scheme of the European Commission and am currently running a project that coordinates native speakers of other languages (mostly current European Commission trainees) in an effort to create translation of that article in other languages (for other Wikipedias). In the meantime, I have been wondering which is the place that this article would fit in all the portals and templates that have been created in the scope of this WikiProject European Union. As I could not find anything that would be really obvious, could you please help me and add a link to that article wherever you think it fits? Thank you for your cooperation and hope this little contribution of mine is welcome. Blahma (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Globalization

The article Globalization has undergone major re-structuring. WikiProject European Union members are invited to review and comment on the article and add relevant missing information or sections in which your project may have an interest. Also, you may be interested in reviewing the updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Globalization proposal for a new WikiProject. Regards, Meclee (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Perth requested-move notification

A requested move survey was started at Talk:Perth_(disambiguation)#Requested_move, which proposes to move:

• Perth → Perth, Western Australia
• Perth, Scotland → Perth, Perthshire
• Perth (disambiguation) → Perth

Background: There was a previous requested-move survey which ran from late May to mid June. There was a great deal of controversy surrounding the closure and subsequent events, which involved a number of reverts and re-reverts which are the subject of an ongoing arbitration case. There was a move review process, which was closed with a finding that the original requested-move closure was endorsed; however, the move review process is relatively new and untried. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

{{Neweuc}}

template:Neweuc has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium) at WP:FLRC

I have nominated Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium) for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Twittprognosis query

The European Parliament election, 2014 has a section dedicated to Twittprognosis predictions. Can anybody cast light on whether these have any validity? Nunquam Dormio (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's failly clear that Twitter is not a reliable source. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 13:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The sovereign-debt crisis

Closed discussion per request of original poster at WP:Requests for closure
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A debate over the merit of mentioning the debt crisis in a country article's lead recently started at Talk:Greece. A few editors felt that such a mention in Greece's lead lent the issue undue weight and was improper as none of the other 'PIIGGS' nations have similar mentions in their leads. The opposing user, DeCausa (talk · contribs), received similar concerns of recentism and undue weight when he brought the issue to the help desk. How significant is the current event in the context of the thousands of years of history of Greece - or the other countries. In a subsequent RfC, I suggested an abbreviated wording under the condition that a consensus here can establish how to handle this issue equally and consistently amongst all affected nations. This received consensus. This was developing into a slow edit war. While DeCausa has withdrawn from the debate, I would still like to see this properly resolved so it doesn't start again and - as I previously stated - this issue is relevant to multiple EU articles. —Sowlos (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC) While I have withdrawn from the debate on that Talk page, I feel I should make one or two additional )(and final) points. Firstly, on the question of recentism, the point of it being in the lead doesn't relate to its historical significance - unquestionably for a country of several thousand years of human history it is insignificant from that point of view. Its significance is as a descriptor of the country currently. As much the same way as GDP, current standard of living and quality of life indices are often cited in the lead. (In the case of Greece, the latter two for 2010 are cited). Secondly, the reliable sources clearly treat the Greek crisis differently in terms of impact/magnitude than the other countries hit. Undoubtedly other countries may catch up and in the end may be significantly bigger - but as of today, Greece is different. Thirdly, and this is a specifically Wikipedia point, it is entirely the wrong attitude to say we can't have Bad Point X in country A's article because country B's Bad Point Y is just as bad but it's not in that article. That way encourages editors of the nationality of the country in question (any country) to treat the article as a WP:BATTLEGROUND to "defend" their country. Each article should be looked at on its own merits and anything that encourages articles to be a forum for national rivalries and comparisons (God knows we have enough trouble with that trait as it is) should be deprecated. Finally, two minor points. Sowlos refers to a "slow edit war". That isn't correct. The article lead had a sentence on the crisis in it for 5 months. An editor removed it without discussion. I reverted and eventually a talk page discussion was opened up. While the discussion was ongoing, another editor took it upon himself not to wait for its conclusion but took out the reference. I didn't revert that. In total I reverted twice throughout this issue, and that was over 2 days. I don't call that an edit war fast or slow. Also, Sowlos says that consensus was reached in an RfC. There was no RfC. I tried to get agreement to a neutral question for an RfC and the other three editors (who were already against me on the Talk page) didn't seem to understand that that wasn't the actual RfC, or indeed how an RfC works. I then withdrew from the discussion leaving the 3 pre-existing opponents to do as they wished. The RfC never happened! I won't post on this subject again - however, I will provide a link to this discussion on the Talk page of WP:WikiProject Countries, as I think this is a much broader issue than the EU - particularly in relation to my third point above. DeCausa (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC) Your statement: That way encourages editors of the nationality of the country in question (any country) to treat the article as a WP:BATTLEGROUND to "defend" their country. is offensive and betrays your deep misunderstanding of the points I raised at Talk:Greece and plays the "nationality card" against your fellow editors. This tactic is deeply offensive on many levels and betrays a total lack of good-faith or understanding of the points I tried to communicate to you during our discussion. I have been subjected to personal attacks and discriminatory innuendo based on my nationality from you during this debate. I hope that whatever you are trying to defend or promote is worth this level of emnity. But I know one thing for sure: Whatever it is you are trying to promote or defend is not related to Wikipedia's interests and it does not speak well for your advertised "neutrality", not when you suspect your fellow editors, whose only fault is to be of Greek extraction, so deeply. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC) Grow up. "I have been subjected to personal attacks and discriminatory innuendo based on my nationality from you" is utter garbage. This is nothing to do with you being of Greek extraction (if indeed you are). This is everything to do with your emotional and increasingly paranoid outbursts. That's a real personal attack for you. I see that you are now ranting at Sowlos on the Talk page because (s)he had the temerity not to agree with you. DeCausa (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC) I see. You try to demonstrate to me your ever increasing skill at character assassination. I am unimpressed. Judging from your previous personal attacks, this is just a natural development. Your attack also demonstrates that you are either in denial or incapable of understanding what you write but I will leave it at that because I don't want to respond in kind. As far as your attack regarding my reply to Sowlos' comments, I will not dignify it with a response. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC) You really have some nerve. I was going to drop the stick but then I re-read the Talk page and saw how you de-railed the discussion with your histrionics and deluded accusations of an anti-Greek conspiracy. It was a perfectly reasonable sensible discussion until you arrived with this absurd rant in which, with absolutely no basis or provocation whatsoever, accused me of "downright economic POV against Greece". Your first post: I had no communication with you on this before then. DeCausa (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC) I tried to give you a chance to disengage from this without having to describe your despicable acts against me any further. I gave you a very reserved response so that we could disengage from this without any more mudslinging. That your attack instincts got the better of you is unfortunate but not quite unexpected. As is also your dishonesty: I did not accuse you of "downright economic POV against Greece". At that time I did not know that you had added this edit. It was just a general remark about the removed edit. But even if I knew that you made that edit, criticising the edit is my right. My comment was obviously about your edit, not you personally. If you don't understand the difference between criticising your edits and criticising you personally I cannot help you further. You may not even know that the edit was POV, according to your own preconceptions and I accept that in good faith. But seen from my perspective the edit was indeed "downright economic POV against Greece" and I had a right to express my opinion about the edit. And by the way expressing my opinion and ideas in a commentary fashion does not make them a "rant", so stop disingenuously mischaracterising my perfectly legitimate points. In your fanatic adherence to that edit you see red flags where there are none. Talking about being paranoid. How ironic. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC) You made no effort to disengage whatsoever. Your last post said I had an "ever increasing skill at character assassination" and that I am "in denial or incapable of understanding what you write". If you think that is a "reserved response so that we could disengage" you are utterly delusional. As is claiming that "downright economic POV against Greece" wasn't a personal attack on me - I don't believe for one second you were unaware that it was my edit. I said it was so in black and white in the thread you were supposedly responding to. Oh wait - unless you didn't read what you were responding to as the frothing at the mouth got the better of you. DeCausa (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC) You seem to revel in rabid dog imagery. This shows the depth of your character. I will leave your delusional character assassination attempts and barking all to yourself. There is no point arguing any further. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC) I agree this is an utterly pointless exchange but I'm damn well not going to leave your ridiculous assertions and accusations unanswered. DeCausa (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

European Ombudsman

Dear Wikipedia editors,

My name is Anne Christensen and I work for the European Ombudsman. We have had a look at the Wikipedia entry European Ombudsman and noted that it links to some quite old content.

On the page about P. Nikiforos Diamandouros, the info is accurate and corresponds to his CV. The only thing we could add is a reference to the CV on our website.

So our question is: would you be okay with us adding some links under References/See also? We are not going to touch the body text.

Thanks in advance for your kind advice,

Anne Christensen EO-socialmedia(at)ombudsman.europa.eu — Preceding unsigned comment added by EUombudsman (talk • contribs) 14:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done Seems to have been taken care of by Noiratsi (talk · contribs). --Boson (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

National identity cards

Not long ago I proposed a merge of National identity cards in the European Economic Area and National identity cards in the European Union, two parallel articles which seem to be being edited by the same group of people, on the basis that having two articles basically necessitates duplication of some information. The merge tags were summarily removed and nobody's replied to my talk page comments. I hope this is a good place to come to look for a second opinion. At the moment the two articles seem confused, neither taking full account of the contents of the other. In National identity cards in the European Union we currently have have:

National identity cards are issued by 24 European Union member states to their citizens. EU citizens holding a national identity card can not only use it as an identity document within their home country, but also as a travel document to exercise the right of free movement in the European Economic Area (European Union, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway) and Switzerland.

At present, three European Union member states (Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom) do not issue national identity cards to their citizens. Therefore, EU citizens from these three countries can only use a passport as a travel document to enter and reside in the EEA (EU, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway) and Switzerland without a visa.

A virtually parallel lead in National identity cards in the European Economic Area reads:

National identity cards are issued by European Economic Area member states (European Union, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) to their citizens. EEA member states' citizens holding a national identity card can not only use it as an identity document within their home country, but also as a travel document to exercise the right of free movement in the EEA (European Union, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway) and Switzerland.

At present, five European Economic Area member states (Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, Norway and United Kingdom) do not issue national identity cards to their citizens. Therefore, EEA member states' citizens from these five countries can only use a passport as a travel document to enter and reside in the EEA or Switzerland without a visa.

I imagine you can see why I suggested the merge. Any thoughts? --Noiratsi (talk) 13:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about the ratification process sections on Talk:European Fiscal Compact

There's a discussion on the talk page of European Fiscal Compact about what should be included in the "Ratification process" [for late ratifiers] [ex (status and developments)] sections of the article. I would appreciate it, if anyone took the time to give us his/her thoughts on the issue. The particular discussion can be found here. Heracletus (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Catgorization of European Cybercrime Centre

In response to a suggestion at Talk:European Union, I created the article European Cybercrime Centre. I am not happy with classifying it as an agency (which, I think, may require it to have its own legal personality). I believe it is part (?) of Europol, itself an agency, but its status seems a little unclear. I am also not sure how strictly the word "agency" is interpreted in the other categories but I am assuming it is part of Europol (which does appear to be an agency). I believe the terms "institution" and "agency" are well-defined (at least, by enumeration) in the EU, but I am not sure about "body", which is also used. It would be nice if we can keep the "by country" categories. So I would be happy if other, knowledgeable editors would look at the categories. It might be appropriate to re-examine the category structure.--Boson (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Please help review or provide suggestions for Ferenc Szaniszló

This newly created article, Ferenc Szaniszló, could use some work from people familiar with European politics. Any help is appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Croatia

Articles to update that mention Croatia July accession in the future tense: Croatia, History of Croatia, European Union, History of the European Union, Treaty of Accession 2011, Enlargement of the European Union, Future enlargement of the European Union, Member state of the European Union, Countries bordering the European Union, Currencies of the European Union, Template:Member states of the European Union, Central European Free Trade Agreement, Balkans, History of the Balkans, Template:Foreign relations of Croatia and all the articles that the template links to, European Commission, European Parliament, European Council, Council of the European Union, European Central Bank, Croatian European Union membership referendum, 2012, Croatia and the euro, List of observers to the European Parliament for Croatia, 2012–2013, Croatian language, Schengen Area, European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy, European Economic Area, Croatian passport, History of Croatia since 1995, History of the European Union (since 2004), European Parliament election, 2013 (Croatia), Croatian identity card, European Patent Convention, European Parliament election, 2014, Croatia–Slovenia border disputes, European integration, 2013, European Fiscal Compact, Eastern Europe, European Union Association Agreement, Visa policy in the European Union, Single Euro Payments Area, Passport stamp, Template:Foreign relations of the European Union, as well as all other EU-related articles that mention "27 members", and there are probably still more articles including various maps of Europe. Mallweft (talk) 03:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• In articles: Accession of Serbia to the European Union, Accession of Iceland to the European Union, Accession of Turkey to the European Union... should be changed average area (km2) and population of EU member state.--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Covering EU in different Wikipedias

As a result of discussions with several Wikipedians about improving the coverage of EU in different Wikipedias, I wrote a summary of a proposal to coordinate the efforts on Meta: meta:Wikimedia EU. Please see and ponder if you're interested. --Oop (talk) 05:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

{{Official EU languages}}

Template:Official EU languages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

{{Member states of the European Union}}

Template:Member states of the European Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

NUTS: update

The NUTS statistical division has been updated in December 2013.[1] Our articles therefore need an update. I'm volunteering for Slovenia. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

European Citizens' Initiative is not an initiative: There are no "initiatives" in Europe

I have started a discussion on the "initiative" article under the heading "There are no 'initiatives' in Europe" proposing to remove mention of the European Citizens' Initiative as an "initiative". I would like a discussion on the matter, and I think it is important enough that I have brought it up on the German article and I want to bring it up here as well. Please help prove me wrong or prove me right. Int21h (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

CfD discussion for societies and cultures

There is a discussion going on right now at WP:Categories for discussion that involves changing the category names for all cultures, from, for example, "Afghan society" to "Society of Afghanistan". I can see that next will be changing "German culture" to "Culture of Germany" and the like. This would be for all ethnicities, nationalities and cultures.
If you would like to weigh in, the conversation is occurring at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 27#Society by country. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Seventh European Parliament??

I noticed that there are a number of articles on the European Parliament that are labelled as "Seventh" European Parliament (or 6th or 5th). I do realise it is common in the US to refer to the "nth" congress, but I have never heard that used for the European Parliament anywhere else than on Wikipedia. As far as I know there is only 1 European parliament with ever changing members. Of course if there are reliable sources coining that term or if there are internal documents from the EU parliament consistently using that term we should use it, but I have seen none of those. So in my view the use of the "nth EU parliament" is an original idea by Wikipedia and hence violates WP:OR. I suggest to remove throughout. Arnoutf (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Notification: Croatian regions discussion

Requesting additional input in the discussion on Talk:List of regions of Croatia, regarding the organization of Croatian regions on Wiki. I feel it is currently a mess, lots and lots of WP:OVERLAP, and a general division that is not justified or particularly prevalent in sources. Imo the topic suffers somewhat from a lack of user attention. Am seeking consensus for a package of changes that might bring the whole thing "up to snuff", as it were, and any feedback would be welcome. -- Director (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles within Category:LGBT in Europe may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:European Council on Foreign Relations

Hello. You might be interested in replying to my question about whether the 'advertisement' tag on the European Council on Foreign Relations's page should be removed or not. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Founding or accession to the EU as part of the establishment of a country

Founding or accession to the EU seems to have been recently added to the "Formation" field of several EU country infoboxes. Has there been any discussion of this that I missed? Or would this be the appropriate place to discuss it? For the sake of consistency, it doesn't seem appropriate to discuss it at each country page individually. --Boson (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Request from European Commission Social Media Team

Can someone please take a look at these two requests?

• Talk:Common Agricultural Policy#Offer for cooperation on editing the article .28European Commission.29
• Talk:Johannes Hahn

utcursch | talk 21:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

On demonyms

In running text, or in tables filled with EU party names, such as lists of commissioners or election articles, is it ok to sometimes omit "European" or similar variants? E.g. to refer to the European People's Party as the People's Party or to the European Green Party as the Green Party. It's common do so for national political parties, and in my view it's as correct as calling the European Commission "the Commission". What do you think? The following list contains much "European"; it would be practical to shorten the names when placed in lists etc:

• Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists
• Alliance of European National Movements
• Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party
• European Alliance for Freedom
• European Free Alliance
• European Green Party
• European People's Party
• Party of European Socialists
• Party of the European Left

- Ssolbergj (talk) 02:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Russia–European Union relations

What about the sanctions?Xx236 (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

European Central Bank's GAR

European Central Bank, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. GamerPro64 03:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Templates nominated for Deletion: Members of the European Parliament 1999–2004, etc.

The following templates of interest to this WikiProject have been nominated for deletion:

1. Template:Members of the European Parliament 1999–2004;

2. Template:Members of the European Parliament 2004–2009; and

3. Template:Members of the European Parliament 2009–2014.

Please join the TfD discussion underway @ Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 2#Template:Members of the European Parliament 1999–2004 and voice your opinion there. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride!

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

• What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
• When? June 2015
• How can you help?

  1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here

  2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)

  3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

European Company Regulation listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for European Company Regulation to be moved to Societas Europaea. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC Proposed list merger

I have initiated an RfC at the following link, pertaining to the proposed merger of two lists dealing with the population of cities in the E.U. Talk:List_of_largest_cities_in_the_European_Union_by_population_within_city_limits#Proposed_merge_with_List_of_cities_in_the_European_Union_with_more_than_100.2C000_inhabitants. Safiel (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

European_emission_standards: Regulation (EU) No 333/2014

The "European_emission_standards" page is not uptodate because of "Regulation (EU) No 333/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 to define the modalities for reaching the 2020 target to reduce CO 2 emissions from new passenger cars". Perhaps someone who knows what they're talking about (I don't! :-) ) could make the necessary amendments? Thanks.Stoxsl (talk) 12:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Carl Bildt

The biography of Swedish diplomat and politician Carl Bildt needs checked for its compliance with WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:Due weight, even more than usual BLPs. is a 12:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Map

Currently there is a discussion on changing maps in the infobox of Malta - one of the states of European Union. Current map is standard map on based on map of EU and Europe, used in thirty articles about countries in EU/Europe. New map is 50% Europe and 50% Africa, for me is nonsense but EU opponents are trying to push through a new map. First discussion is here. Second discussion and vote is here. I tried to fight, but I can not do anything alone. All member states of European Union should have the same map in the infobox - according to the status quo, if you're of the same opinion - have your say here. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 16:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

"EU opponents"? Please don't make bizarre accusations against other editors. "Comment on content, not on the contributor"; see WP:NPA. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

no comment. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thousands of EU cityscape and other images may be deleted from Commons

Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Two_weeks_to_save_freedom_of_panorama_in_Europe. I think it is an item of major interest to the editors interested in this WikiProject. The (very underestimated) counts for how many images may be affected have been posted to commons:Commons_talk:Freedom_of_Panorama_2015#numbers. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Help with EU financial directive article

Hi there, I'm looking for editors who are interested in EU financial regulation and would want to provide their input on the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive article. I've proposed some improvements to the article, but I haven't gotten much of a response yet. I'm hoping that editors from this project might be able to help. To be clear, I have a financial conflict of interest, as I'm working as a consultant for the Managed Funds Association, so I won't make any edits to the article and am seeking uninvolved editors to review my suggestions. Let me know if you can help. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi again WikiProject EU members! I'm back as I've just uploaded a draft for another piece of European legislation and would love to get input on that, too. The current article for European Market Infrastructure Regulation is very short, not very clear and informative, and seems generally neglected. To help bring this up to a good standard, I'm putting forward a new draft to clean up and expand the article. If you're interested to help, the details are here for EMIR. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive

This article is very nearly B-class (save for a couple of minor referencing issues to tidy up), but I believe it already has a strong chance of getting through Good Article assessment. It would likely need an historically-involved editor (or one otherwise familiar with the subject), but I believe that it is already not far off Good Article standard. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

EU BUdget: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Budget_of_the_European_Union

The data on the page seems to imply that the largest and richest countries of EU (Germany, UK, France, etc.) are subsidized by the poorer countries (Greece, Portugal, Poland, etc.). For example, the net contribution of Germany is shown as negative 9.5 billion euros, which most people, including myself would interpret as "Germany receives 9.5 billion more from EU than it contributes". On the other hand, Greece is shown as having net contribution of almost 5 billion euros. This is contrary to many other sources that show that only rich countries (Germany, UK, France, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Finland, Belgium, and Luxembourg) provide income for EU budget. What is wrong? Do you use some other definition of "net contributor" e.g., with a reverse meaning that positive net contribution equates to receiving funds? Or am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.178.23 (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Bank union

Anyone wish to write EU Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive, EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive? or became a section in Single Resolution Mechanism and Single Supervisory Mechanism? Matthew_hk tc 09:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

How are directorates-general organized?

What is the act or instrument that the Commission and EU Council use to organize their DGs? What is the process for it, e.g., is it published in the OJ and can we find the most recent publication? The list we have on the European Civil Service article gives no legal citation/reference. It seems Wikipedia is inconsistent about the structure of the DGs, IMO because there is no way to keep track of changes when we don't know *how* the structure changes. Int21h (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I offer this page about the Commission "Working as a College", where the following explanation is given: "The President [of the Commission] plays a significant role: under the EU Treaties, he defines the policy direction, assigns portfolios to each of the Commissioners ..." The "portfolios" correspond roughly to the Directorates General (with some DGs handling multiple portfolios). Seniorexpat (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Future enlargement of the European Union

Hello. I posted here questions about Future enlargement of the European Union article. Eurohunter (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

UK EU edit-a-thon 14 May

Hello. I’m a volunteer with Full Fact, the UK’s independent, non-partisan factchecking charity, and organising an edit-a-thon in London to update and improve wikipedia’s content on the European Union before the upcoming referendum. It would be great to have your help and suggestions, either in person on the day or discussed on wikipedia. The meetup page is here UK EU edit-a-thon. Thank you. Whilomish (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

EC President timeline image

The image showing the timeline of European Commission presidents on

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Commission#History

is wrong. It says Thorn was president from 1985 until 1995, while in fact it was Delors.

I do not know how Wikipedia editing works, and this is my first attempt at change. Please help me to refer this comment to the appropriate section if here is not the right location. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holyshaftrelease (talk • contribs) 16:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Break down of participation in the EU for each member state

Special member state territories and the European Union includes a break down of participation in the EU for each member state. However this shouldn't really cover states that don't have special territories (although it does). Opt-outs in the European Union also provides an overview of states with opt outs, but this only covers formal opt outs and not situations where a state has not yet joined a policy (such as states obliged to join the Schengen Area). So I am think we should have a new article, or maybe just as a section at Member state of the European Union, which simply breaks down the level of participation of all member states, not including territories? Rob984 (talk) 09:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Relevance of 2 articles.

I don't see the relevance of CoreNet and ESCB-Net. They should be merged with ECB article. Triplecaña (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

British English and moving towards Irish English

It would seem inappropriate for articles relating to the European Union to continue to use British English and the associated templates. In future, I would assume we should use the Irish English templates instead. Any thoughts? AusLondonder (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Well .. 1) Britain hasn't actually withdrawn yet; 2) even if it does, it shouldn't necessitate a wholesale switch (the point of ENGVAR is not about national ownership, but about consistency and stability, whatever form of English is used, and it is debatable in any event whether "strong [national] ties" apply here); and 3) perhaps most importantly, is there any actual, practical difference between the two anyway when it comes to formal, written English of the sort that would be used here? (which in turns brings up the eternal question of the proliferation of templates re varieties of English, even if that broader issue is better debated at the MOS) N-HH talk/edits 13:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It is without question that the UK is leaving the EU. WP:TIES specifically talks about "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation" - since Britain is leaving the European Union and will no longer have strong ties in the same way Ireland will it would seem more far appropriate to use the Irish English templates (particularly going forward), even though there is little practical difference. AusLondonder (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that within the EU the use of US and British English remain far more numerous than Irish British even after the UK leaves. Arnoutf (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Arnoutf: No, the practice of the European Union institutions is currently to use non-American English spelling. What is your understanding of the difference between Irish and British English? AusLondonder (talk) 07:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what the difference between UK and Irish English is, but evidently it exists otherwise the distinction would not be made in the templates. Arnoutf (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Although these templates are, like all WP content, unilaterally created by random individuals for all sorts of reasons (often simple nationalism). Their mere existence doesn't necessarily prove the existence of any real underlying difference, at least when it comes to formal writing; and as far as I am aware, there is no such difference here. Dialect is another matter, but WP isn't written in dialect. N-HH talk/edits 10:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

What about Maltese English? --Boson (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Malta does not use English as its first language. AusLondonder (talk) 07:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment It just seems rather silly, and almost imperialistic, to use the British templates given the country is leaving when we could easily use the templates of a full member state. AusLondonder (talk) 07:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

For all the reasons I stated above, I'm struggling to see why we would need to do this and what actual change, let alone benefit, would result. The templates are not – or should not be – statements of national ownership either way, or about cultural imperialism, or a means to flag up geopolitical changes. They're simply pointers to explain to people why existing content may occasionally look slightly odd to them and what conventions to follow when adding material. The main, standard distinction between styles of formal written English is usually described, for better or worse, as being between "American" and "British" English and for the most part relates to a few differences in spelling principles and a couple of grammatical quirks. And FWIW, "strong ties" is surely meant to apply in quite a limited sense, eg to things that actually "belong" to a nation (eg James Joyce or Taoiseach). The EU is a supranational organisation. N-HH talk/edits 10:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Best you could argue for is a "English language as used in Europe" template. In France you learn how to speak English the way the British speak English. Not the way the Irish speak English. Listen to any French, Dutch, or German person who is fluent in English and they sound British or American, not Irish. Therefore Irish English is not locally relevant to France, whereas British English is. In terms of academic writing, British and Irish English are largely identical. There are some terms only present in Irish English, such as "Boreen" for a small rural road, but we wouldn't use this term to refer to a rural road in France on Wikipedia because nobody outside of Ireland understands what it means. British English has the obvious advantage that most of its vocabulary is generally understood by those who use the American variety of English. For example, most Americans will understand what a "post box", "car park", or "pub", or is, despite these terms not being used by American English speakers (it's unlikely Americans will understand Irish-specific vocabulary that isn't also used in England). Though, an important thing to note is that Wikipedia should be written in a way that the majority of readers can understand what is written, while respecting one style for consistency. In other words, we should prefer universal terms over regional terms wherever possible (eg "accelerator" over "gas pedal" for American topics, and "apartment" over "flat" for British topics). As a result, Wikipedia is really written in "international English", with a preferred variety for consistency. This is per MOS:ENGVAR:

"Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia."

International English with Irish English as the preferred variety, is identical to international English with British English as the preferred variety.

I've argued in the past that we should stop claiming articles are "written in [variety of English]", because policy clearly infers we simply prefer one variety for consistency. As such, you could simply state "this article prefers the the variety of the English language used in X place", and that place could be whatever "Europe", "European Union", "Ireland", "United Kingdom", "Scotland", etc. depending on the scope of the article. Also the flag icons need to go from the templates. Having a British flag at the top of every European article's talk page is obviously going to cause contention, and understandably so.

Rob984 (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Reply I disagree with your first point. We are not debating "sound" / pronunciation. We are debating spelling. Many organisations in Continental Europe use American English when they use the language. There is certainly no absolute use of British spelling. I question the idea that British English is "locally relevant" to France. Regarding "Boreen" I'd ask you how well-known pillar box, hundreds-and-thousands, jobsworth and off-licence are elsewhere? This isn't about Irish-specific words and slang which is not appropriate in formal academic writing anyway but the appropriateness of labelling each European Union article with "British English" and the Union Jack. International English widely uses ize spelling whereas currently the EU uses ise (as does Ireland). WP:TIES already says use British or Irish English for EU topics. Why not just leave it at Irish spelling? Otherwise I cannot see how British spelling can reasonably be imposed (particularly in future writing) AusLondonder (talk) 07:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you please name a reputable Irish English dictionary we can reference for Irish English spelling? I think this is your biggest problem. Irish English is just a dialect. A way of speaking. British English is a variant of English with distinct spelling and formal vocabulary from American English. Australian English adopts a mixture, making it distinct from both. Dare I say it, Irish English is just a sub-variant of British English, like Scottish English. Every "Irish English article" on Wikipedia conforms to what is widely consider British writing standards and British English dictionaries. Unsurprisingly, there is even a Scottish English template to keep the Scottish nationalists happy. Remove the flags. Forget the political garbage. All Europe-related articles are written in British English and you know it. Rob984 (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you please name a reputable British English dictionary that uses -ise spelling? Can I also ask you to name some differences between Australian English and British English? This isn't about nationalism. You are the one insisting on a nationalistic approach. AusLondonder (talk) 08:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

An Oxford English Dictionary lists "Organization (also 'organisation')" and on Wikipedia we use either spelling for "British English articles". Why we have two templates I have no idea.

I'm not sure how your proposal is anything but nationalistic. You want articles to say they are written in Irish English rather than British English plainly because the British are leaving the EU.

I don't know, I'm not Australian. If academic writing in Australian English is identical to that in British English, then I guess that is also British English. But I'd assume there is some difference, with American vocabulary influencing Australian English. Canadian English is certainly somewhere in between, and they have a Canadian Oxford Dictionary for this reason.

Rob984 (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I think we have two templates for British English to assist in maintaining consistency. An article in British English should be consistently written using either "OUP English" spelling (with -ize etc.; IETF language tag: lang=en-GB-oxendict, historically lang=en-GB-oed) or the "predominant" British spelling (with -ise). When the spellings get inadvertently mixed, the presence of a template allows an editor or a bot to determine which spellings should be changed. --Boson (talk) 11:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this has been pointed to previously, but on the point of EU articles specifically, this style guide explicitly suggests that most EU bodies, or at least the Commission, will follow "UK English" style. That seems to add further weight to the argument, which seems to have won through anyway, that there's no need to change practice here (or, more accurately, to change which template is used, since in practice there will be zero difference anyway). N-HH talk/edits 15:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Boson, true, but then we could just look at the history of the page; and instead the template could state "organisation or organization". I think it actually causes American and Canadian editors to get confused, they see the "ize" spelling and assume the article is written in American English. If all British English templates clarified both spellings are correct, less American editors would make this mistake. Right now the "normal" British English template implies "ise" is the sole correct spelling, so an American editor reading that is going to assume the "ize" spelling is American. Even some Britons or non-native speakers might be led to believe "ise" is the only correct spelling due to that template. Rob984 (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the point of this comment. It has nothing to do with the issue of spelling standards in EU articles, and Boson's comment rather clearly explains the points about consistency and the existence of two different templates, the relevant one of which clearly flags up the use of -ize in Oxford-variant British English. If you are arguing that an article written under British English conventions can mix and match -ize and -ise, and/or that both options should be covered in the same template, because one is correct in one version of British English spelling and the other in another, you should probably do it elsewhere than on the EU project page. And, btw, it will make no more sense there than it does here anyway. N-HH talk/edits 22:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of spurious material at Debate over a British Independence Day observed in the United Kingdom

I have raised concerns at the WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom talk page about the repeated insertion of spurious material at Debate over a British Independence Day observed in the United Kingdom and thought this may be of interest to this project also. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Book_talk:Brexit, Article 50, and other articles - should have a {{WikiProject European Union}} project banner?

Thought this book (collection of articles) might be in the scope for this WikiProject. --Kakurady (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:European Union Frequently asked questions listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:European Union Frequently asked questions. Since this WikiProject has some involvement with the Wikipedia:European Union Frequently asked questions redirect, watchers of this page might want to participate in the redirect discussion if they have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Specifically, a proposal has been made in that discussion to move Talk:European Union/FAQ back to Wikipedia:European Union Frequently asked questions. Steel1943 (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Brexit task force?

The work of this WikiProject in the next two years and much of the news relating to the EU in the next two years will be focused on Brexit - aka, the UK's withdrawal from the EU. Can I propose that this WikiProject creates a Brexit task force to deal with this? It will allow us to focus efforts in the editing process and to ensure relevant articles are maintained to a high standard. This process will affect all members of the EU, as well as the UK, so it is more appropriate as a task force of this WikiProject, as opposed to another such as Politics of the United Kingdom. Does anyone have any thoughts on this idea? --Andrewdwilliams (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I do think that this is a good idea. JASpencer (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely! MarcoZec (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Pro-EU political party merge discussion

I have proposed a merge of a former Scottish pro-EU party, please discuss at Talk:European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom)#Merge of United in Europe. Fences&Windows 12:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for United States of Europe

An article that you have been involved in editing—United States of Europe—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Oldag07 (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Pro-EU political party merge discussion

I have proposed a merge of a former Scottish pro-EU party, please discuss at Talk:European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom)#Merge of United in Europe. Fences&Windows 12:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for United States of Europe

An article that you have been involved in editing—United States of Europe—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Oldag07 (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

File:EU28-further enlargement map.svg

Hello, fellow Wikipedians! Kolja21 and I were having having a debate (in German) over which countries should be included in the map. Unfortunately, we were unable to resolve the dispute between the two of us, and I am hence writing to you in order to spark a wider discussion on the matter.

I believe that the map should also color Russia green ("membership possible" -- I'm putting an accent on the latter word), but Kazakhstan should remain gray. My main point for this is that according to the Treaty on European Union, Article 49, every European country can join provided it fulfills certain criteria. Then comes the question of which countries are European to begin with. The European Union provides the answer to this at their official website: scroll down to the list of "other European countries," where you can see Russia listed as one (and not Kazakhstan). I believe there possibly couldn't be any authority that could be more reliable on further EU expansion than the EU itself.

To this I have not heard any objections. However, a few other points were raised that were meant to show the impracticality of coloring Russia green. However, I did not find any of them particularly prohibitive and overcoming the argument above:

• "Russia does not fulfill the Copenhagen criteria." True. But then again, this does not make membership impossible, because there is a chance the criteria are met and then the country could be accepted. Compare to the case of Morocco, in which membership is impossible no matter what the country does. (Except, of course, for attaining some European territory, but a map cannot reflect such a possibility.) In addition to that, this does not seem to be the problem in case of all EaP countries, so it couldn't be the problem here.

• "The Caucasus countries, Belarus, Ukraine, and Moldova all participate in Eastern Partnership, which Russia does not do." That is not relevant at all. First, Eastern Partnership is not concerned with future membership of these countries. Here is the first sentence of the article Eastern Partnership past the lead section: "The Eastern Partnership complements the Northern Dimension and the Union for the Mediterranean by providing an institutionalised forum for discussing visa agreements, free trade deals, and strategic partnership agreements with the EU's eastern neighbours, while avoiding the controversial topic of accession to the European Union." Second, Russia not participating in EaP does not in any way deny it of a possibility of a future membership. As the saying goes, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" (except the evidence in question is not really evidence to begin with).

• "Russia's membership anytime soon is very improbable." Yes, that's exactly what it looks like. But the map does not say, "membership probable"; it says, "membership possible." (Also, from what I know, a vast majority of people did not see around 1980 the European communism would crumble in a decade and a great number of those former communist countries would be parts of the EEC (which later became the EU) in less than 25 years.) But even saying that Russia certainly couldn't join in an equal period of time from now solely on that basis is the OR I am trying to avoid in this map (even though it looks very unlikely, we're not talking about "likely"; we're talking about "possible").

• This is an exact quote, translated by Google Translate: "If you do not agree with a frequently used graphics and can not convince the creators of the map from your point of view, you can not simply change them by yourself, but you have to create your own graphics. Anything else would be cheating on the authors, which they deliberately incorporated as file him their articles." First of all, factual errors do not fall under this description. Second of all, authors' feelings play no role at all. Moreover, if feelings even come up in a discussion like this, then it is most certain this quote from a Commons guideline should be applied: "You can't stop everyone in the world from editing "your" stuff, once you've posted it to a Wikimedia project".

• Another exact translated quote: "The selection in the map is also conclusive in this respect, since there are also no Russian efforts to join the Eastern Partnership or even to apply for membership of the EU. Instead, the Eurasian Economic Union (EAWU) was founded as a counter-project." First, "no Russian efforts" is by no means "no possibility," as common logic dictates. Second, I couldn't find any traces of Azerbaijani efforts; yet Azerbaijan is not denied the possibility. I couldn't think of any practical Belorussian attempts to join, either (EU sanctions against particular Belorussian individuals and companies were only abolished last year), and the country is also a founding member of the said Eurasian Union; Armenia made a faithful decision to join in 2014. Third, the Eurasian Union was not meant -- or at least declared -- as the counter-project to the EU. According to Putin in 2011, "Some of our neighbours explain their reluctance to participate in advanced integration projects in the post-Soviet space by saying it allegedly contradicts their European choice. This is a false divide. The Eurasian union will be built on universal principles of integration as an integral part of greater Europe, united by common values of freedom, democracy and market laws." Fourth, even if it were, it does not mean that a country couldn't leave this union for the EU. This has even happened in the past a number of times: some examples to begin with are Sweden (leaving EFTA) and Poland (leaving CEFTA). Lastly, there shouldn't be any selection in the first place. I applied simple criteria rather than making editorial decisions. Editorial decisions are fine in minor contexts (what color to choose) but not when it comes to facts.

Then again, none of these precisely contradicts my general point, which is: every European country is granted a right for membership in the EU under certain conditions; Russia is recognized as a European country by the EU; therefore, it is correct to include under "membership possible" (and not correct not to do so). Maybe the map was intended to show something else; then, however, it should say something else in its legend.

I'd love to hear from you on this topic. When I suggested we have a wider dialogue, I invited Kolja to a future (=this) discussion, but he rejected the offer. I will send (upd: have sent) a link to this discussion just in case, anyway.--R8R (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

P.S. The reason why I am so interested in this change is that I want maps to be correct in en.wiki. I am not particularly pushing the opinion just because I like it: the reality is, I cannot imagine Russia actually enter the EU (but then again, I cannot imagine the Caucasian countries to do so, either, and probably I wouldn't have imagined the crash of communism in 1980). But I certainly dislike factual errors.

Indeed there was a very long discussion on German WP on that subject and the result was that you kept repeating that your interpretation of the Copenhagen criteria is the only truth and that you are not willig to accept the map because you have the only good arguments. This discussion should have taken place on Commons but on Commons your account is blocked for good reason. --Kolja21 (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I certainly believe that the people here would rather prefer arguments on the matter rather than on me. Please, I do not mean to have any further personal disputes; only those strictly on the matter. You probably do have something to say about it; why won't you? (I chose en.wiki for the simple reason there are more active people here and we can have a wider discussion; that is all. You're very welcome to notify anyone on Commons about this discussion.)--R8R (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

(note) I've been absent the last week and unfortunately no new opinions have been collected, so I'm starting an RfC.--R8R (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Some papers just made open access

This author, whose work was cited in one of our pages, has made several papers open access on Zenodo. They might be of interest as a source for those who follow this page. --Nemo 17:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding a page for the European People's Party Group in the European Committee of the Regions

The European People's Party Group in the European Committee of the Regions Official website does not exist on Wikipedia yet, although references to it are made on a number of pages European People's Party and European Committee of the Regions. Would it make sense to create a page? I'm seeking help as I am new to Wikipedia (and to be transparent as this is where I work).

Ktowens (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Brexit Legwork Action Plan

Hej all, I was a frequent editor here ages back – then I didn’t have the time for it any more (also, got sick of the edit wars). But I have some time now and I’m sensing a lot of monotonous work on the horizon so I’m sticking my head back in.

The monotonous work being Brexit of course. We have hundreds of mentions of the UK that will either need to be removed or reworded and it will take ages to find and change them all. We’re also going to have a lot of people doing that before Brexit actually happens and ending up getting reverted because we’re here to reflect the present rather than the future.

With that in mind, I think the project needs a concrete plan and a way to achieve some of the legwork in advance, or at least make it easier. I propose the following outline and would love to hear your thoughts. Sorry if there is already one, I looked around and couldn't see anything up yet.

PHASE 0 – Creation of Assets

We need a small array of templates and assorted categories set up to organise the later work. This would comprise of a header, section, inline template and image template.

The purpose of these templates would be to add them to a category of pages that will require updating on Brexit day, to inform users not to do so until that day and in some cases to outline what changes are needed. The header and perhaps section template should, until 2019, be as unobtrusive as possible (perhaps even invisible).

If possible, some prioritisation marking should be agreed. Higher priority articles should be those that reach an agreed threshold of links, visits or featured status.

PHASE 1 – Tagging Articles – Through 2018

Over 2018, the project should aim to tag every article and image that will require any level of amendment to account for the UK’s withdrawal. Where more complicated images are concerned, it may be useful to contact the images’ creator and see if they are still active and able to update it in 2018, if not it should be noted that an editor able to update the image should be identified.

Editors should note that if the element requiring updating is not actually required in the article, it may be simpler to just remove that mention than add it to the list to update. Alternatively, if the mention can be reworded to be neutral to Brexit. Also, if information is duplicated across several articles we should look to transclude it from a combined template to speed up updates.

PHASE 2 – Enhance notifications – January 2019

As we hit the months approaching Brexit, the number of people trying to be helpful in updating articles early will increase. Casual readers also need the caveat on the information they’re reading where it concerns Brexit.

The previous unobtrusive or invisible notices need to be made to be more eye-catching and cite specifics on Brexit day for the reader. It may also be prudent to see if articles that already get vandalism should be locked for the months before Brexit – tensions will be high and vandalism on and before Brexit day is a certainty.

We should then look through the workload and priority articles as a project and divide workloads. Where bot work can be done, let’s identify and action.

PHASE 3 – Actual Updates – March 2019 (TBC)

Once Brexit takes effect, firstly the notice needs a small change then we need to collectively work through the priority articles, removing templates as we go. It would take quite a while to clear most of them, but if we’ve talked about any potential contentious changes beforehand (and maybe agreed on certain wording if we come across the same kind of issue repeatedly while tagging) hopefully we won’t get bogged down in edit wars during the process and we can clear the whole lot in a few weeks.

Unrelated note, anyone from my era still active round here? - _J.Logan`^t: 08:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Positions on Jerusalem

I added the WikiProject's template to the talk page of Positions on Jerusalem but it was removed. I think that it's on the scope of the project because it has a section on the position of the European Union and some of its members in the section "Other countries." Do you think that it should be re-added? Rupert Loup (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I've copied out Euro attitudes data, available for anyone who can apply graphics

As you know, the Eurobarometer asks, twice a year, for people's support for a number of things, including support for the euro, and gives us the by-state data. I was looking through a few the other week and thought there may be a pattern in when support rises and drops but it was a bit hard to tell from switching between pdfs though so I went through every survey and copied up the data for that particular question as far back as 2001 (a bit annoying that they kept moving it around, sometimes hiding it in the French version only). link to EB

Once I did a few graphs, I think I was right and the data looks super interesting regardless. But there is so much I'm having trouble putting it in a graph that is actually comprehensible. I've put it all on a google sheet so if someone else here can make use if it, you can make use of it: click here for the google sheet

I'm thinking possible uses (depending on how clean each can be shown);

• Future eurozone enlargement chart of current outsiders
• History of the euro page for the early years, and for the changes around the financial crisis
• Eurozone article by-member support chart
• By country attitudes to the euro for each euro coin or euro accession page

So yeah, hopefully someone who is better at line charts or what-have-you can make the best use of it. If not I'll try do a few smaller charts on sections of the data in a few days. My fingers are tired now. Happy new year. - J.Logan: 20:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Legatum Institute

If someone has time to retrieve more RS, it may be worth expanding Legatum Institute.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Ending the system of portals

Hello, there's a proposal to delete all Wikipedia portals. Please see the discussion here. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources for Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market

Please join the discussion on what sources would be adequate for what claims on this time-sensitive article. We have the problem that countless sources point in the same direction, but the usual sources for such aggregate information fail to provide it. --Nemo 07:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

EU mil. equipment

The article Military equipment of the European Union has been nominated for deletion. Please join the discussion here. - Ssolbergj (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Adjustments for Brexit

Maybe this is a project on its own, but the United Kingdom leaving the European Union will need a lot of changes, both on European Union pages and on United Kingdom pages. The changes take effect only on 29 March 2019 - we have nine months - and in that pregnant pause there could be hundreds (or thousands) of references to be tagged as needing attention after that date.

I am looking at things from the admin side and from the British side of the Channel. I have found that it is not just big articles which contain references which will need changing. It goes even down to village level.

Is this a project for this Project or a new one? LG02 (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I would say getting the UK villages (and other) pages Brexit proof is a UK project thing, (after all, after Brexit these villages are no longer an EU topic ;-) I think it is good to mention the EU pages affected already with some time to share, but that should be enough to keep manageable within in the project.

Perhaps an idea to start working on identifying which EU pages need urgent attention, which section in those articles need to changed and how. I guess the overall EU article, the parliament (and MP) and commission articles and the "UK in the EU" type article need most attention. Arnoutf (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

All good points. I have put the same note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Kingdom and will see if there are any takers. In the morning I can create an invisible, in-line tagging template linked to a 'hidden category'. LG02 (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I have just created {{Brexit note}} for tagging the relevant articles. The tag is invisible until after 29 March 2019, but adds articles to Category:Articles tagged for attention after Brexit. That Category is also invisible until after that date. LG02 (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I see no need for secrecy or Brexit notes at this stage. I suggest the outlined activity should cease for the time being. It will emerge what has to be done if and when the text of the Brexit agreement is known. Till then, editors would do better to take a much broader view to improving the articles on smaller British communities. Many of them badly need improving and augmenting. Bmcln1 (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah - and I'd just answered on your Talk page. No, it's not 'secret': otherwise it would not be published all over this Project page! The tag is invisible inline until Brexit Day because we do not want to disrupt the current material. At that point it can pop up a note that at update may be needed.

Taking the point of any future agreement, no such agreement is going to leave British MEPs in Strasbourg or return the United Kingdom to the European Union nor change the date. The date is now set by law, so we can start working to mark which articles will need to be changed thereafter.LG02 (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

University of Florence project

Hi, my name is Silvia Bruni and i'm librarian in Italy at the University of Florence (Social sciences library). We organised a class with Erasmus students (from China, France, Germany, Italy, Spain) in order to improve some Wikipedia articles about European Institutions and European Unionon. We choose to do it in the Englsh Wikipedia because is our common languege. We will ask for your help, if we will need. Thanks in advance. [2].Silvia bruni1 (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Use of Composition bar in European parliamentary groups and European political parties

Lists like European People's Party group#9th European Parliament use {{Composition bar}} to list how many MEPs are from each party. These visualizations are slightly confusing, as it's hard to tell at a glance how many MEPs come from each area in absolute numbers (as opposed to relative to each country's delegation). I propose replacing {{Composition bar}} with {{Composition bar 2}} in lists of MEP groups, to make it easier to compare absolute numbers. See example.

Thoughts on this? --Yair rand (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Brexit

Is anyone coordinating all the updates to articles, categories and templates, once the UK leaves the EU in half an hour? Wikipedia:WikiProject European Union/Brexit task force appears moribund. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I could update some of the articles and templates tomorrow if I have time but I am sure someone will be coordinating all the updates. Pkbwcgs (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about article "Brexit"

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Brexit#Restructuring of articles, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Ythlev (talk) 07:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

European Atomic Energy Community

Did the UK leave this organization together with EU on 31^st January? If so, please update the article, thanks. --Gce (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Capital Markets Union

Hello guys. Very nice to meet you. I'm a a Master's student on "European Studies" in Belgium and I found out your project whilst writing an article for a course entitled "Economic and Monetary Union". It turns out that during the course I am supposed to write an article on wikipedia and since there is nothing about the "Capital Markets Union", we engaged in the project. The moderators want me to build consensus in the talk page of the article entitled "Economy of the European Union" since it is the "mother page". I was wondering if you can give me a hand on that by leaving a comment on the talk pageTalk:Economy_of_the_European_Union, either through a supportive comment or a negative one. I appreciate that. If you want to have a look at the article written you can go to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Capital_Markets_Union. Have a nice week. --JoaoPillon (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about including the EU in country lists

I imagine this discussion has been repeated a thousand times? If so maybe someone can end it quickly or a new consensus might be needed. You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population#European_Union_should_be_in_the_list. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

East StratCom Task Force

• East StratCom Task Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was edited relatively recently including in relation to COVID-19, but its talk page lacks participation. The criticism section may be undue as well as using unreliable sources. The section's valid criticism, if any, should probably also be merged into its reception section. More eyes welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 22:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for the accession of Spain and Portugal to the EC

Hi folks!

Pleased to say I've nominated 1986 enlargement of the European Communities as a featured article candidate! It'd be fantastic if some fellow members of WPEU could take a look through and pop some comments or a support/oppose !vote over at the page for its candidacy.

Cheers! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated European Commission for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

News media specialized on the EU

Hi,

I'm mainly active on frwiki, and the EU project doesn't seem to be very lively, so I'm trying my luck here. Does anyone here know of any media (as in news media, not journals or scientific publications) specialized on EU news? National (MS) newspapers are okay, but can't/won't cover every aspect of EU news, and I'm looking for a rather specific theme (Swiss-EU negotiations on a framework agreement).

Thanks in advance for your help, --Arkhein Drakenov (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Article on EU Battery Directive is Out of Date

Hi! I was looking up some information on the EU Battery Directive and found the Wikipedia article. The article lists the latest directive as 2006/66/EC, but upon further research, there have been updates since. The latest directive is 2013/56/EC. The updates did away with some exemptions for Cadmium and Mercury. <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32013L0056> I don't have the bandwidth to add a whole new section and update the article, but I wanted to make sure that someone was aware that the page needed to be updated. Thanks a bunch!174.109.36.146 (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

100 graphs from the largest survey of the public's attitude to what actions should be taken on climate change

I'm very pleased to say the EU's European Investment Bank (the largest not for profit bank in the world) has released its first batch of content under an open license. To the best of my knowledge this is only the second EU body to make content available under an open license, after the Commission.

They're released around 100 amazing graphs from the largest survey of the public's attitude to what actions should be taken on climate change (+some photos of their buildings). Broadly it shows widespread support for significant action on climate change.

Please help to encourage them to release more by adding them to articles.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Content_produced_by_the_European_Investment_Bank

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

FAR for European Parliament

I have nominated European Parliament for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 04:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

FLR notice

I have nominated List of European Union member states by political system for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 01:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Request for contributions to new article

I've just created an article on the Temporary Protection Directive on refugees, which has seen some discussion in the news recently, for (unfortunately) obvious reasons. I would be grateful for any help improving the new article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Categories for discussion

I’ve listed both LAU 1 regions and LAU 2 regions as categories for deletion. The division has been defunct since 2016, and I don’t see a case for grouping these separate statistical Eurostat definitions, which differed in their administrative significance by Member State. I’d welcome a wider consideration and discussion though. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Empty left column space

"Featured content" and "Under review" boxes on the right column take a lot of space, while the left column is therefore entirely empty. Could the boxes get a little reorganized to use up space on both columns? I see "Related WikiProjects" and "Members" as a potential fit to the left; or just make the featured content into its own full-width box. -Vipz (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Puerto Rico and Spain

A couple of editors are very keen on some text about the idea of Puerto Rico joining Spain(!) in the Potential_enlargement_of_the_European_Union article. I've started a discussion at Talk:Potential_enlargement_of_the_European_Union#Puerto_Rico_and_Spain. Input from more people would be helpful there. Bondegezou (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

European Union main article

The European Union article has been thoroughly rearranged over the last week and discussion is currently ongoing at Talk:European Union about whether those changes have improved the article. It would be helpful if members of your wiki project could contribute. For reference, is the version of the article from before the recent changes. Furius (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Operation Kingfisher (Brexit)

An article which may be of interest to members of this project—Operation Kingfisher (Brexit)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 49.147.253.47 (talk) 07:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Operation Black Swan (Brexit)

An article which may be of interest to members of this project—Operation Black Swan (Brexit)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 49.147.253.47 (talk) 07:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Would love feedbac/help on a draft

I'm attempting to write an article regarding the IGC Constitutional Treaty. I would really appreciate some feedback and collaboration on this. Thank you in advance! Chefs-kiss (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Television without Frontiers Directive

There is no article about the Television without Frontiers Directive ([3], [4]) here in the English Wikipedia, yet the German and Italian editions have it. I've heard that, for example, TV3 was able to target only the Scandinavian countries while originating its signal from London because of this directive. I mean, there's an article about Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010 (2010/13/EU), but no article about its predecessor? JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 15:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Would love feedback !

Hi all– I recently made my first contribution to Wikipedia with my article about France's Anti-Waste and Circular Economy Law. Where many of the users in this discussion have experience working on articles about EU policies, I would love feedback on the article if anyone has time. Thank you! Nustudent1120 (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Merger Proposal from European Union's scientific cooperation beyond the bloc to Foreign relations of the European Union

I've proposed merging the above articles. Discussion here. voorts 21:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Requested move at Talk:Kerosene tax#Requested move 28 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kerosene tax#Requested move 28 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Johan Floderus

Hello! I just wanted to mention that I'm working on a draft for an article about Johan Floderus, a Swedish diplomat and EU official who, as recently reported by the NYT, has been detained in Iran since April 2022.

Just looking for proper sources and assembling the text has been quite a time-consuming process (and I haven't even started working on the main section, yet!), so if anyone can help me complete the draft, I'd hugely appreciate it. Oltrepier (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello again, I've just finished working on the draft and moved it to the mainspace: now you can find it here.

Like I said before, any help or feedback would be greatly appreciated!

(Also, I've inserted the "diplomat" specification, in order to distinguish Floderus from an eponymous philologist and priest who is similarly registered on Wikidata). Oltrepier (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Women in Green's 5th Edit-a-thon

Hello WikiProject European Union:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2023!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Upcoming election cycle preparation

I would love to coordinate with people to organize articles and format them for the upcoming Elections as well as the institutional changes that will occur in 2024. Here's an itemized list but of course we can discuss this further

1. An article about the new EP parliament, similar to Ninth European Parliament --> Medium

2.The European Commission article will need to be updated when the new commission --> Large

3. There will need to be an update like on the Collage itself, similar to the von der Leyen Commission --> Large

4. An update on President of the European Commission --> Small

5. Update the High Representative of the European Union --> Small

Let me know if you are interested! Let me know if you are interested via my talk page or by responding to this message Chefs-kiss (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Redirection of the Common European Asylum System to the European Union Agency for Asylum

I highly disagree with this redirection. The agency and the system is two different things. The CEAS is a series of policies. The EUAA is how it is enforced but it is an agency and does not refer to the body of legislation and policy that encompass the European Union's foreign relations. In the scholarship as well the study of the CEAS is about policies and laws. . An explicit example of the CEAS not being an agency "a frenetic phase leading up to the adoption of numerous EU directives and regulations, the Common European Asylum System".

References

Chefs-kiss (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Timeline of Brexit

Hi all. I nominated Timeline of Brexit at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates a couple of months ago, but it has since only had a couple of reviews. If anyone has the time, I would welcome any comments or feedback on the nomination. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

It looks like they gave feedback on what needs to be changed for it to be nominated. Chefs-kiss (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Gilles Lebreton

I have completed the translation of Gilles Lebreton. Could someone review and re-assess? Also the citations in the Works section need attention as I did my best to re-format them. Ktkvtsh (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

just gave some feedback Chefs-kiss (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you I will work on those. Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Potential enlargement of the European Union#Requested move 30 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Potential enlargement of the European Union#Requested move 30 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)