Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European Union/Archive 1

message: Hi, I have made a barnstar that you may wish to use for people who make good additions to your sections, Contact me on my talk page please Chaza93 17:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barnstar Proposal *NEW* 

message: I think the first thing we should do is to start improving the articles that we've got, some like Euro and European Union are decent, a great number of other articles need a lot of work though. Once I figure out how to set one up properly a COTF would be good. -- Joolz 23:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration of the Fortnight 

message: I'm going to do some work on cleaning up (or creating) the Directives articles.  For a start, I'd like to consult on a preferred style for the principal article (with the others as redirects, leaving major existing ones Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions as they are (but with a standard form redirect).
Options are these:
* 1 2001/37/EC
* 2 Directive 2001/37/EC
* 3 Cigarette packet warning signs directive
* 4 EU cigarette packet warning signs directive
* 5 European cigarette packet warning signs directive
* 6 Directive on Cigarette packet warning signs
* 7 Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products.
There are examples of all of them! Please add your observations initially, then we can invite a vote.
 --Red King 16:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair comment.  I've pulled the invitation to vote.
* Whist agreeing with Trilobite's logic in the ideal, my reason for favouring the prefix is becuase that is how I hear people refer to directives.  It's nearly always "EU Directives" – but yes, there are certainly exceptions such as "Working Time Directive".  Of course, if we put redirects in for all of these to the primary article, they'll be picked up anyway. How important is it to have "correct" title?  For example, it's the Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions, not the EU software patents directive or the software patents directive. (Restrains Pavlovian response to the red links!).  How correct to you want to be?  Option 7 is clearly the "official" title.
* The first two are non-options for me, they're not common nor useful for people. Option 7 is just too long winded. I don't see any need for 'EU' to be specified unless disambiguation is needed. I think in all cases, such as the Working Time directive, the common usage should prevail. Consistency between our articles is one thing, but consistency with common usage is more important, I think. Personally, I prefer option 6, failing that, option 5 would be my second choice. -- Joolz 21:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up Directives articles: consistent titling 

message: It seems there is nothing on the EU research policy. I am working for a company that does a lot of EU projects in the IST field (one area of FP6) so I am planning to cover the specifics. I will also try to write an article on EU research policy as a whole and FP6 and 7 in particular. I have started small, with a piece on I2010, the Union's umbrella for ICT development. Comments are welcome.
--Daniel Spichtinger 15:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU research policy & IST 

message: Some (or all) of the articles in { { EU Coins menu } } also has  { {Eurocoins} }, is this on purpose? Or is it ok to remove the latter? MartinBiely 20:12, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
:It seems rather redundant to have  and , maybe  should be sent to WP:TFD -- Joolz 21:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Finally. ;)  ナイトスタリオン ✉ 19:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eu Coins menu 

message: I've been doing some work with the categorization heirarchy of the various lists of MEPs.  In the past couple weeks, I've created subcategories :Category:Members of the European Parliament by country and :Category:Members of the European Parliament by term.
The articles listing MEPs by country by term that appear in :Category:European Parliament results now also appear in the appropriate country subcategory of Members of the European Parliament by country.  Now I'd like to remove them from European Parliament results. The articles that I'd like to keep in the European Parliament results category are those such as European Parliament election, 1999 (UK) that show election statistics.  There would be a See Also link to :Category:Members of the European Parliament.  Also, I think that European Parliament results should possibly be renamed to European Parliament election results.  Note-I had placed a suggestion on the talk page for European Parliament results on 21 July 2005 proposing an alternative use of cat sort keys for the MEPs by country by term, but I have since changed my opinion and believe that they belong elsewhere in the heirarchy.  Comments?  Thanks, LiniShu 03:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to proceed with this plan after having waited for 9 days and not seeing any comments to the contrary.  LiniShu 16:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was on holiday at the time and I missed your comments :P I'm not entirely sure how the category scheme will end up, will the MEPs be categorized by term as well? If so I don't think that's a good idea because some have been re-elected many times, which means a lot of categories. -- Joolz 18:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

text: It looks good, I remember looking at some of this a while back but it was in such a mess I didn't have the time to tackle it properly :) -- Joolz 12:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MEPs Lists categorization 

message: I think that it is relevant to create entries for the 25 DGs.  I will try to do this as my first real Wiki adventure.   What should I think of before I start typing?  How do I create a template for the DGs?
--Drdan 09:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! There's a short article on one of the DGs already, Directorate-General for Translation of the European Commission. I think a new template (I suggest ) would be useful listing all the different DGs, as a starting point a modification of . I suggest putting this at the bottom of each DG article. Are you sure there's only 25 DGs? I'm looking at the EU commission list of Directorate-generals and Services and there's a fair few more than 25 (not all have a commissioner). If you need help just drop me a note on my talk page. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks!  Yes, there are a quite a few DGs.  I had only planned to do stubs for the policy-making and external relations ones.  I also found an entry for DG Infso.  I will make an attempt on making a new template and post on your Talk page if/when I have problems.  BTW Why aren't  listed on the project page with the other templates?  --Drdan 17:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Probably because no one has got around to adding it yet (or it was created before the EU wikiproject was founded). :) Cheers, Talrias (t | e | c) 17:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we could list it on Wikipedia:Requested moves and ask people's opinions on how the articles should be named? Or even email the European Commission somethingorother and ask them what the official name is, since their websites aren't really much help unless you know the lingo. Talrias (t | e | c) 09:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commission Directorate Generals 

message: Someone has proposed that the European Union portal should be amalgamated into the Europe portal... not a good idea if you ask me.  I think that the majority share my opinion. You can add your opinion on the talk-page.  Looks like someone is busy vandalising the talk-page now. --Drdan 16:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal merger 

message: I found the EU Law template on the Secondary legislation pages (below).  The template is a good idea, but it is used in a strange way.  I think that something like it is required on the pages describing EU legislation, but it should probably be expanded to include all three types of legislative acts (primary, secondary, and court decisions).  Deletion might be a bit harsh.  --Drdan 10:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine.  --Red King 19:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU Law template 

message: Hey all.
I've spent the past day or so playing with this chart, and I think it's almost unveilable to public eyes. I was curious to see if you lot had any feedback.  I imagine it would make an interesting standalone page; personally, I've found it sometimes frustrating to readily find a party of a particular tendency and see where it stands vis a vis transnational groups.  Any thoughts, good or bad, edits, what have you would be appreciated. The Tom
:Two, no, three points:
:*I like it.
:*It's huge. Don't know what one can do about that, though. Probably nothing.
:*I added the BZÖ to it; it's rather laughable (much about Austrian politics is), but it's still notable (for now). ;)
: ナイトスタリオン ✉ 08:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mh, a fourth point: What about Hans-Peter Martin's list? It got 14% in the last European Parliament elections... :en: doesn't even have an article about the list, though. Mh.  ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I had him in the centre column some drafts ago, but figured that now that he's lost his party-mate, he's basically an independent and should be skipped accordingly. The Tom 09:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Either way, great work. Congratulations!  ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I like it too. Where would you place this article? Now if only there were a table namespace. Good job though. Jacoplane 08:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: If you ever need my support vote for having table namespace, you've got it.  ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Table of pan-European political organizations? This is a tricky one, I'm not sure what the best name is. Can always be moved, though. Jacoplane 21:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Table of political parties in Europe by pancontinental organisation is in keeping with List of xxx by yyy syntax the list folks like, so I think I'll use that for the time being.  Thanks all. The Tom 15:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Table of European Parliamentary groupings. Phrases like "pan-European", when used to refer to the EU only, make some people (Russians) cross.Seabhcán 15:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Except these aren't parliamentary groupings, nor constrained to the EU :) The Tom 17:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for comments on party chart 

message: I've just marked myself as inactive in this project for now.  I still believe it is a good project, and I enjoyed participating in the COTF in Oct-Nov of 2005.  However, I am attempting not to overdo time spent on Wikipedia, and, with the time I do have available, am currently concentrating on other areas of interest.  I may take a more active role in this project again, at some time in the future.  Thanks and Cheers, LiniShu 16:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too bad. Try to come back again when time allows you to, good luck! Gryffindor 22:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, we have slowed down a bit lately.  Don't know why.  You are always welcome back! --Drdan 16:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participation Note 

message: Created from scratch to supplement our articles, currently up for WP:FLC. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 11:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of European Union member states]] 

message: The article European Union regulation is a bit thin.  As it stands, it reads as though the "orders from Brussels" conspiracy theory could have some basis.  It needs to be expanded with more examples and with more context.  Is it the same as a UK "Order in Council"? --Red King 12:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Order in Council article is not very clear. Based on my understanding of it, it is not similar to a EU regulation in concept or purpose.  The regulations are the EU's most powerful/comprehensive legislative tool, so it makes sense to expand on the article.  The current examples are slanted towards patent law.  --Drdan 16:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Union regulation 

message: I don't know if any of you have noticed it, but many of the MEP articles have broken links to the MEP's official EU biography. The EU website was redesigned in early January, and all links became broken. Editors have fixed many of them, but there's still a lot left.
Fortunately, the EU webmaster appears to have preserved the individual ID-tag for each politician, so it should be pretty easy to make the updates with little difficulty.
I've tried it on three different politicians, and the IDs were identical.
Howto: Simply change the broken link to 
European Parliament biography
 where XXXX is the four or five digit ID-tag from the old link. If in doubt, see e.g. my edit to Henrik Dam Kristensen. Best regards. --Valentinian 13:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another method is used on the article for Jörg Leichtfried. It might be even better. In any case, it should be pretty easy to update the broken links. --Valentinian 14:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MEP articles with broken links to the EU website 

message: I'm currently working on the various stubs within the Standing Committees of the European Parliament section. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Liam Plested 00:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Committees 

message: I've been meaning to write at least a stub for this, but I can't really think of too much information -- what else could we write, apart from new voting arrangements due to Bulgaria and Romania having joined by then? Input would be greatly appreciated... —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 21:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Croatia aims to join the EU in 2009 so that it can participate in the EP elections . That's the only thing I know about it. Maartenvdbent 13:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[European Parliament election, 2009]] 

message: We've got Accession of Bulgaria to the European Union, Accession of Croatia to the European Union, Accession of Romania to the European Union and Accession of Turkey to the European Union, but we lack Accession of the Republic of Macedonia to the European Union; in the same vein, we've got Iceland and the European Union and Norway and the European Union, but not Switzerland and the European Union, although that would be a very lengthy article, indeed. Anyone feeling up to it? I may get to it some time in the summer, but that's still some time away... ;) —Nightstallion (?) 11:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add Ukraine and the European Union to that. —Nightstallion (?) 20:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing articles 

message: I've copied this from the Scouting WikiProject... now all we need to do is actually make it work. Anyone going to help me?  —Nightstallion (?) 09:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject European Union/Assessment|Assessment]] 

message: I've taken the liberty of starting to update the portal, hope ya'll don't mind.  Over the next few days I'll be adding content, archives, suggestion areas, and populating lists.  This should be a major and well laid out portal, not the shape it was in.  I'm not a European, so anything I get wrong, let me know.  You can see my other portals, as well. Thnx :)  Joe  I 16:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal 

message: I'm in serious need of suggestions for Selected article and Selected picture.  If you have any idea of an article/picture that is remotely semi-good, please post a link on the appropiate page.  Also, if anyone knows of any other Featured content, please post it, or let me know, those were all I could find.  Thnx :) Joe  I 10:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: Just thought I'd throw it out there that many of the articles in  about intellectual property laws of the EU need to be created (even stubs would help). This is the template below (subst'd to remove category links):
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          	Intellectual property laws of the European Union (EU)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     	
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          	                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          	
Austria • Belgium • Cyprus • Czech Republic • Denmark • Estonia • Finland • France • Germany • Greece • Hungary • Ireland • Italy • Latvia • Lithuania • Luxembourg • Malta • Netherlands • Poland • Portugal • Slovakia • Slovenia • Spain • Sweden • United KingdomSee also: EU Copyright Directive • DADVSI • Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection	Austria • Belgium • Cyprus • Czech Republic • Denmark • Estonia • Finland • France • Germany • Greece • Hungary • Ireland • Italy • Latvia • Lithuania • Luxembourg • Malta • Netherlands • Poland • Portugal • Slovakia • Slovenia • Spain • Sweden • United KingdomSee also: EU Copyright Directive • DADVSI • Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection	Austria • Belgium • Cyprus • Czech Republic • Denmark • Estonia • Finland • France • Germany • Greece • Hungary • Ireland • Italy • Latvia • Lithuania • Luxembourg • Malta • Netherlands • Poland • Portugal • Slovakia • Slovenia • Spain • Sweden • United KingdomSee also: EU Copyright Directive • DADVSI • Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          	                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          	
Austria • Belgium • Cyprus • Czech Republic • Denmark • Estonia • Finland • France • Germany • Greece • Hungary • Ireland • Italy • Latvia • Lithuania • Luxembourg • Malta • Netherlands • Poland • Portugal • Slovakia • Slovenia • Spain • Sweden • United Kingdom                                                                                                     	Austria • Belgium • Cyprus • Czech Republic • Denmark • Estonia • Finland • France • Germany • Greece • Hungary • Ireland • Italy • Latvia • Lithuania • Luxembourg • Malta • Netherlands • Poland • Portugal • Slovakia • Slovenia • Spain • Sweden • United Kingdom                                                                                                     	Austria • Belgium • Cyprus • Czech Republic • Denmark • Estonia • Finland • France • Germany • Greece • Hungary • Ireland • Italy • Latvia • Lithuania • Luxembourg • Malta • Netherlands • Poland • Portugal • Slovakia • Slovenia • Spain • Sweden • United Kingdom
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          	                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          	
Austria • Belgium • Cyprus • Czech Republic • Denmark • Estonia • Finland • France • Germany • Greece • Hungary • Ireland • Italy • Latvia • Lithuania • Luxembourg • Malta • Netherlands • Poland • Portugal • Slovakia • Slovenia • Spain • Sweden • United Kingdom                                                                                                     	Austria • Belgium • Cyprus • Czech Republic • Denmark • Estonia • Finland • France • Germany • Greece • Hungary • Ireland • Italy • Latvia • Lithuania • Luxembourg • Malta • Netherlands • Poland • Portugal • Slovakia • Slovenia • Spain • Sweden • United Kingdom                                                                                                     	Austria • Belgium • Cyprus • Czech Republic • Denmark • Estonia • Finland • France • Germany • Greece • Hungary • Ireland • Italy • Latvia • Lithuania • Luxembourg • Malta • Netherlands • Poland • Portugal • Slovakia • Slovenia • Spain • Sweden • United Kingdom
The template coding itself probably needs work too (I created it, but I'm sure its not very efficient) -Рэдхот 14:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intellectual property 

message: Here I say delete, others say weak keep, merge. Weigh in. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU-related VfD 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 16:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: I #know# this is not the right page – but can "someone" create relevant redirects for "States/states of Europe" and "States/states of the World" to the relevant listing pages. The former as a search term leads to States of the European Union and the latter to some thing that is nothing to do with what anyone wanting a list of countries would want. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.194.75.209 (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  States of Europe 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 20:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: With Bulgaria and Romania joining the EU in a few hours (at midnight), we'll have to update all statistical data, country listings, maps, tables, templates, etc. related to the EU and its member states. I'm already looking forward to updating what I can alone, but it would be a lot better, effective and quick if we form some sort of team or multiple-member collaboration because there's quite a lot to be updated. Anyone willing to help? :) Todor→Bozhinov 13:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulgaria and Romania acceding in a few hours 

message: The WikiProject European Union is a wonderful initiative, but it's validity is being compromised by inaccurate and biased content.
For example, Accession of Turkey to the European Union contains obvious factual errors and dubious POV. A casual glance at the article's Talk and History shows that other editors' contributions are being consistently edited out by a single editor.
Perhaps the articles included in the project need to be protected and moderated? 220.233.224.46 14:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor quality articles in WikiProject European Union 

message: I've been trying to diffuse this category as much as possible and I think I've got it mostly done. Does anyone here have any suggestions or ideas to help further it? --Hemlock Martinis 07:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking something to cover things like european symbols/europeanism/supranationalism/intergration and so on, all those things that are general ideas, but can't think what name I could group them under. Same for the long lists of committies, organisations etc. - got the major ones in Institutions and its subarticles but some of these just don't fit well. -JLogan 20:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:European Union]] 

message: There is a discussion underway in Talk: Spain regarding the source for GDP figures in the country info box.  It appears that until recently, the Spain box used IMF numbers (for amounts and world rankings).  Then an editor wanted to use more current data from Eurostat, with the reasonable position that these numbers may be more accurate, and were apparently more recently released.  The obvious concern, however, is with consistency with other countries' info.  Has this issue come up in any other discussions?  I think the need for consistency among all articles trumps (i.e. let's use IMF data, since that's what other articles seem to use).  Another proposal was to use Eurostat for the raw numbers, and IMF for rankings.  Any thoughts from the Euro-crowd?  Input appreciated!  --Anietor 19:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDP figures 

message: I fixed it. :). --Parker007 00:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment Box 

message: Hello fellow editors. A straw poll has opened today (27th March 2007) regarding the use of flags on the United Kingdom place infoboxes. There are several potential options to use, and would like as many contrubutors to vote on which we should decide upon. The straw poll is found here. If joining the debate, please keep a cool head and remain civil. We look forward to seeing you there. Jhamez84 11:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox flag straw poll 

message: This article is in a dire strait: Accession of Turkey to the European Union. There seems to be a load of information, but they are so disconnected from one another and there is so much argumentative and analytical stuff bordering on banter that it has seriously become one of the worst articles in Wikipedia. There is absolutely no information about the technical aspects of the accession progress, nor is there a sound structure with the two biggest sections being "arguments for TR" and "arguments against". If anyone interested from WPEU can help out, that would be great. The article simply needs to be rewritten; even though there is a nice map and two photos and some stuff in the history section.. Baristarim 01:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention needed 

message: I would like to invite you all to participate in a discussion at this thread regarding bilateral relations between two countries. All articles related to foreign relations between countries are now under the scope of WikiProject Foreign relations, a newly created project. We hope that the discussion will result in a more clean and organized way of explaining such relationships. Thank you. Ed ¿Cómo estás? 18:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bilateral relations discussion 

message: Hello, I proposed a new layout for the EU Portal. The new layout is more like the wikipedia main page, it is more modern and schematic. Please, post any comment on the Portal's talk page. (You can find the link to my prototype EU portal there too) --giandrea  22:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:EU|EU Portal]] new layout proposal 

message: You are welcome to leave a comment on the following Request for Comment (RfC):
;Talk:List of countries and outlying territories by area#Request for Comment: EU inclusion in the list of countries and outlying territories by area
Summary: There is a dispute about whether the European Union should be included in this list. Its area equals the sum of its member countries. We are discussing if it should be included in the list or not.
Thank you, --giandrea  16:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on [[List of countries and outlying territories by total area]] EU inclusion 

message: Hello everyone. I'm not a member of this wikiproject but I thought I'd share with you some EU-based userboxes I have made. --One Salient Oversight 11:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU-based Userboxes 

message: Hi EU project
I have maded a new navigation box  and have added link from it to your project page. It should fit within the style of other EU navboxes. I did not know if this project tags its templates with a project tag.
You should conisdering archiving your talk page ist is 53 kilybytes long. Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page
Best Regards Mads Angelbo Talk / Contribs 11:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New EU template 

message: Please see WikiProject Malta for more details. We need lots of new members, and help constructing the project page. If you can or would like to help, please do so. Thanks, Anonymous Dissident Utter 02:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maltese WikiProject 

message: Please see item 1 Chaza93 17:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BARNSTAR 

message: See Eurobarometer. Their report on their 2006 polling has some polling maps of Europe I would like to use on wikipedia and elsewhere. See the 2 maps here:
*http://gallery.marihemp.com/polls
See Eurobarometer 66:
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/standard_en.htm --Timeshifter 14:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are Eurobarometer images in the public domain? 

message: Hi, you may have noticed the History of the European Union page is a bit limited, basically pre-1945 plus history of enlargement. I'm working on a new draft that has wider content and a better structure to frame history, currently if you want to add something you'd have to start a new section. It also has sub-pages for pre-1993 history – although that is just existing copied information. As its a big task, and needs lots of peoples ideas and points of view, I'd appreciate a hand in getting this going – particularly ensuring all existing information is properly displayed on the new page so it can be transferred over if there are no objections. Thanks.
Comments and contributions please: User:JLogan/DraftEUHistory – J Logan t/c: 11:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU History 

message: I made this new layout, but was reverted by Thw1309 because he said that I needed to contact every member of the project.What do you think?Ssolbergj 21:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: New, def. -and it is unrealistic to contact everyone. Be bold so to speak. - J Logan t/c: 21:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Infact, I've rv the rv of the rv of the, whatever. Point is in improving this, users should be bold. If we get bogged down in bureaucracy of attacking everyone talk pages every time someone changes an image it will discourage spirit that drives collective improvement. If you think that the old one should stay then by all means try to get support against the change, but it helps no one to revert first ask questions later. Not like this is vandalism. - J Logan t/c: 22:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Approve Yet newer version is a further improvement on design. Caveat lector 23:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Definitely approve – I have always thought the old banner looked amateurish – the shadowed font looked a bit too 'WordArt' for me, and was hard to read. The new banner is much more crisp and professional looking. Rossenglish 09:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Approve  The older one has a certain intensity which the new one lacks; but the new one is more immediate.  So, on balance, the new one.  Marcus22 10:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Approve The new one has a better graphic touch and reflects the EU flag.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 13:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Definitely approve – I love it!!!! Looks so professional. I'm not keen on the size of the EU Globes in the === H3s === though, maybe they could be a tad smaller. Bennelliott • Talk • Contribs 16:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Approve but I'd prefer a sans-serif font. - EstoyAquí(t • c • e) 17:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Approve much simpler than the previous version, and much less striking. (good thing!) Scibah 17:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Approve It has my approval :-D (Btw, isn't it very EU-like to ask everyone's permission? In my opinion one of the things the EU could do without. Is a majority not enough?) --Robster1983 17:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Approve. Much easier on the eyes. Why isn't it up yet? --Hemlock Martinis 05:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Approve Looks much better! Politics rule 16:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Aprove for all the reasons already given. Do it. --Red King 22:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, good, you already have. --Red King 22:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Approve – Just randomly stumbled across this on NightStallion's talk page and I definitely see the new proposed banner as an improvement. It just looks more professional.  Way to go guys! --Naha|(talk) 20:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another new design 

message: A lot of help is needed on Reform Treaty. A lot of nonsense is written about the treaty, for instance that it has already a draft version. The European Council of June 22 and 23 only agreed on the broad outline of the treaty, and gave a 16-page long mandate to the IGC that is to start working in July 2007. That mandate is of course not a draft version of a treaty! I tried to clean the article up a bit, but it still needs attention. Maarten 13:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to ref the thing but as few others were adding them I was just going to wait till everyone had calmed down and maybe official details had come out. We have the press release and a few media analyasis so I'll get back to it now but I think it is pointless to develop it in too much detail until the IGC. - J Logan t/c: 14:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help on [[Reform Treaty]] 

message: (from Talk:European Union, see and reply there please)
Okay, I didn't expect the review so soon but we have the feedback nonetheless. I've tried to so something about History. I'm not sure about religion – I think it relates as much to the EU as it is going to, as much as any country article does. Enlargement needs to be looked at still but refs are the continuos problem. The tags put on by the reviewer were removed, but nothing done about them. I just have a simple question, are people serious about improving this article? If they are then we all need to look through all of this and reference it properly, and remove anything we can't reference. No matter how interesting or informative it may be it means nothing unless it can be backed up as a solid fact. If people do not want to put that effort in, and instead carry on adding things at random, then there isn't much point in trying to sort this out. So, everyone, are we going to get the EU's core article up to featured, be proud of it once more? - J Logan t/c: 14:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU page 

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

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

message: Further on the the Germany section above, I can't help noticing that some editors have been overly ambitious on what comes under the WikiProject European Union umbrella. I note the following:
*Europe is rated as a B-Class European Union article.
* Apparently the EU now runs the European Song Contest. Articles on every yearly contest plus articles on every entrant fall to be considered under WP:EU.
*The template Template:World Trade Organization (WTO) does as well.
*The Fauna of Europe now come under our dominion.
*We are also responsible for edits to The Moog, an indie rock band based from Budapest and groups of Hungarian, Slovenian and Serbian dancers.
*As well as Montaña Corona a mountain in the Canaries, Çorovodë a city in Albania, along with Ahtra and some other Estonian mountains and islands.
*European scouting now is part of the EU now. See: WAGGGS-Europe Region and WOSM-European Region.
It is strongly suggested that the WP:EU (or category label as the case may be) tag should be removed from all these articles. Caveat lector 15:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I totally agree, I think perhaps we should better define and enforce our scope. On the project page it is; "the following areas of the EU: Institutions, activities and policies. Economy. Enlargement process. History and Treaties". If it doesn't fall under that then it is removed from out lists, could be better defined, I'll be back on that. Also another point is the rating, I've fiddled with it a bit over time but some are still way to high or low, usualy high. They ought to be spread more. - J Logan t: 15:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Just a straw poll to see if articles on the Eurovision Song Contest should be included in Wikipedia:WikiProject European Union. Caveat lector 20:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, that's enough of that. I managed to convince another bot owner to move the Eurovision articles out of WP:EU, so there's no longer any need to convince Alphachimp to make the changes. Caveat lector 16:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call for a vote 

message: A dispute had been raised relating to the territorial application of the Maastricht Treaty on the Talk:Saint Pierre and Miquelon page. It relates to whether or not a territory could be part of the European Union without being part of the European Community.
Please post any comments you may have on the talk page. Caveat lector 16:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Territorial application of the Maastricht Treaty 

message: On the page of Japan, I found out that that article stated that 'Japan is the second largest economy of the world, after the United States'. So I've tried to change that into: 'Japan is the third largest economy of the world, after the European Union and the United States. That edit was changed back again, so I went to the talkpage of Japan, and I got into a discussion with someone, who argued that the EU's economy can't be called the first economy of the world, for it is not a country. The discussion can be read here: Talk:Japan#Japan second economy of the world?
It is changed now (Japans' national economy is the world's second largest (...)), but I'm not sure how I feel about this. I think it's good, but still... If possible, please let me know what you think about this. Furthermore, it raises the question: in what perspective should we place the EU's economy? Are our 'attitudes coloured' if we are offended by the fact that some article's refuse to acknowledge the EU (in several ways)? And if our attitudes are coloured, then why aren't the attitudes of other people coloured, if they don't want to acknowledge the EU? --Robster1983 16:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rob, I honestly don't know why you get so excited about this. You pushed this matter over on the US article as well. John Smith's 17:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, and in both cases (US and Japan) I backed down, for there was a fierce discussion about it, not in my favour. So I reckon that both cases are resolved. But that still doesn't resolve the situation about the EU: the discussion whether or not the EU can, or cannot (or should, or should not) be seen as a single economy. And that is why I wanted to start this discussion, and the place to start that, is the WikiProject EU page (which I'm a member of). I'm not doing anything illegal, I am not asking to people to get in edit-wars, I wanted to know what/ how people think about that topic. Therefore I am glad that you also got into the discussion, for every opinion counts, and every opinion keeps the discussion going. --Robster1983 11:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say just leave it. Discuss on the talk page but don't change as it won't be accepted. The EU isn't seen by its own people, let alone others, as a single economy and state despite what the facts say. Why should they give up a nice fact like "largest economy" just because of a few facts? - J Logan t: 17:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I will leave it alone. --Robster1983 19:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this just a matter of counting beans? The tradition is to state the size of the economy of a country as a whole. But in the UK case it is sometimes felt worthwhile to discuss the economy of Scotland, Wales, Ireland, or even London (which makes a big contribution to the UK as a whole). Whether you want to compare the economy of Japan to that of Germany, or the EU as a whole rather depends on the purpose for which you are making the comparison. The EU acts like a state in some respects, but not others. It increasingly acts as one entity for purposes of trade with external nations, so in that context it might well be worth mentioning. On the other hand, the size of an economy also equates to political clout, and in other world affairs the EU may split with each nation having different views. Then comparison of national economies is much more interesting.  It is probably also the case that anyone wishing to trade in Europe would be more interested in one country than another, for reasons of language, customs, the sort of product which might sell well rather than in a different country. So the annoying truth would be that both figures are interesting. Sandpiper 08:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japan second economy of the world? 

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

message: Hi. These are new pages and I was wondering if they are in the scope of this project? Also, in many parts of Wikipedia European seems to redirect to Europe. How can this be fixed? KarenAER 18:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Em, good question. Strictly speaking I don't think so. Unless the scope of the article is only related to EU citizens. Perhaps it could come under the project but if you look above at "Thoughts..." I am proposing a WikiProject Europe which would no doubt have these articles at its heart. - J Logan t: 18:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[European]] and [[European people]] 

message: What happened to the member list?--Boson 06:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean exactly? - J Logan t: 06:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Sorry, bringing this back again. I do think actually we could do with something a little more balanced, "believe in a common future" is just a bit odd for me and I'm not sure how many people we will draw with this. How about, white and a stick man walks in and you have a speech bubble that, bit by bit, reads out the following: "Hi, I'm here to tell you about a WikiProject. It's European. You know, that place where good wine and beer comes from! But we don't write about that much. But we do drink wine and beer while we write. No, we're talking about something else, it is very important and has a big effect on everyone in Europe. And indeed the world. Not everyone likes it, it is a very interesting debate actually, but we try to be NPOV about it and just want to give you the facts as not many people know much about it. It's called the European Union. So, perhaps you might want to help us out some time. Thanks, merci, danke, gracias, tak....." (fades out to "WikiProject European Union" and just a simple EU flag next to it. nothing fancy).- J Logan t: 19:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Made this.. but I think we need to work on the text. Europe is probably not nearly as famous for its beer as it is for wine etc.. The normal flag didn't look very good next to the stylised logo. (insane aspect ratio of these ads) – \mathrm{S}. \mathrm{Solberg} \mathrm{J}. 02:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantastic SSJ, great graphics as always! Yes, text needs working on, probably shorter! And yes beer might not be as famous, but we do have great beer. How about wine and history? I'm sure we could come up with something fun, lots of things we are great at. Like chocolate and healthy food, good living, great coffee, the renaissance and lots of beautiful women. The latter might get their attention. I'll drop a note on the EU article talk page so people actually see this. In fact, on the chocolate and healthy food, how about contradictions? land of cheap flights and the environmental movement, of fine art and Erasmus drinking parties? I know I know, keeping things simple and short is not my speciality! - J Logan t: 16:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about one stick man walks on saying "Come and discuss sports and the EU!" before several other stick men come on the screen and beat the first stick man with baseball bats. That'd be lovely. Otherwise its fine, I have to say I never really liked the whole "Believe in a common future?" thing as it was a bit biased. Not everybody loves beauracracy, overpaid MEPs and pointless Strasbourg buildings etc. The recent suggestions are definitely fine though! --Simonski (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  part two 

message: Been trying to get the institution pages up to scratch, got most up to GA but European Court of Justice is a tad harder. While I could write something, and I've been trying to get it sorted with organisation and references, it needs proper legal attention (I did a bit of law but it was ages ago). So do we have any legal specialists around who could work in that article? I'll still help on everything else, but I am politics – not law. Thanks. - J Logan t: 18:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the moment I've not got enough time to get involved here but I'll try and get round to it in January or something, though what exactly needs fixed up? --Simonski (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request – legal specialist needed 

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

message: Just wondering. I have Talk:European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System on my watchlist, and today I saw that European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System has been included as part of the European Union WikiProject.
The ECTS, eventhough is originates from the Erasmus program, is in my opponion not a EU system, and therefore I find the inclusion in the EU WikiPeoject kind of misleading. The ECTS system is today best known as a central part of the Bologna process, which is a coordination of independent countries including all of the EU members, but also countries that will probably never become members of the EU (ie Russia).
Apperently the Bologna Process has also been included in the EU Wikiproject, which in my opponion is even more worng. Esspecially due to the fact that EU does not have any legislative power over education (article 149 of the ToA).
It would be more correct to link to the EU project from those articles, or have I misunderstood the concept of the EU Wikiproject?--Rasmusdahl 12:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, yes and no. Erasmus is part of the EU, but is open to non-EU members (eg, Switzerland, Norway, Israel). ECTS is seperate from the EU (as is the whole Bologna process) but is actively supported by the Commission. I don't see any harm in having ECTS as part of the EU wikiproject, given that otherwise it would have no one looking after it! Physchim62 (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Wrong, now there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe just for this problem. On the actual question of EU or not, I always hear it called the EU system, yet it is used by others. I have a feeling it is one of those EU standards we've got the rest of Europe to adpot through the BP, like with the Energy Community, it is covering the Balkans yet the standards are those set by the EU – they just agree to follow them. That doesn't mean the standards are not EU, they are just used outside via a treaty. - J Logan t: 14:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, maybe I should take some time to look at the page. I agree with Physchim62 that it is OK to have it as a part of the EU WikiProject in order to look after it, but when that is said, I think that the distinction between EU and the Bologna process has to be clarified. I do not agree that because some call it the EU system, that it then is a EU system. The ECTS originates in 1989 with the first Erasmus program, but ONLY as a credit transfer system, and due to article 149 of ToA, only as a conversion table (both grades and credits). With the Bologna process the ECTS has seen much development. First as the credit system to be implemented nationally by the signatory countries, secondly as a accumulation system (which is very different from the transfer system, and still rather controversial). It therefore true as JLogan states that originates from within the EU, but only by name. The function and content has changed during Bologna. My conclusion is (unless someone disagrees) that it is OK that the system is included in the EU Wikiproject, but that some further development to the description of the ECTS should be done. I will make an attempt, but am a little busy right now with my final thesis. --Rasmusdahl 16:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically agree with Ramusdahl; however, there are quite a few EU projects in the field of education which extend beyond EU borders (Marie Curie grants, just as one example), it might be as well to start at Directorate-General for Education and Culture (European Commission) and work downwards... Physchim62 (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have thought any wiki project might adopt articles which have something to do with, or affect, their nominal titular area of interest. It can't just be things which belong to the EU. I don't know, but assuming there is an article about GATT, then logically the EU would take an interest and might reasonably adopt those articles as relevant to the EU. That would not stop other projects also adopting them. The importance of such an article might well be graded differently in different projects. Sandpiper (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System part of EU? 

message: I've noticed that you don't have a picture of Robert Schuman. As this is a quite important person I think that a non free image could be used. The EU has a audiovisual archive that allovs the use of the material as described below:
"This material is offered free of charge for EU-related information and education purposes.
For any other use, prior clearance must be obtained from the Central Audiovisual Library of the European Commission."
copyright page
Make use of it as you see fit:
the European Commission’s Audiovisual Service
U5K0 20:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ugently needed media 

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

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

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

message: People here may notice that I have recently taken an interest in the 'European Union ' article. |Editing this article is currently a little difficult, so I though it might be a good idea to look at some of the 'main articles' mentioned in various sections. Only... when I did I started to find articles which seemed like they had been cut and pasted from the main article, and themselves contained lots of 'main article' redirects. This is daft. Someone might go in circles hopping from main article to main article until you ended up back where you started, none the wizer. There should not be this crazy maze of 'main articles'. Some of them should be minor articles actually dealing with the topic in question, not passing the buck to another article. There also needs to be considerably less repetition of exactly the same points in all the articles. I recall the GA examiners on EU made some comments about overuse of 'main article', too. Sandpiper (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless something has gone very wrong, it should not be possible to go round in cicles, as the Main template should always yield a tree structure. One reason to avoid use of the Main template might be that reviewers could justifiably regard daughter (and grandaughter)  articles as a part of the main article, which should jeopardize chances of FA status, given the state of some of the articles. I think the use of daughter articles is probably appropriate for topics like Law of the European Union. I also think the amount that needs to be said might justify daughter articles there too. I was wondering if this would be a suitable place to discuss the overall structure and expansion of the articles about EU law. --Boson (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More specifically what I saw was EU having, say, 10 sub article. Link one of these and I found text very similar to what I had just read, and the same links to main articles which appeared in the original EU article. So the subordinate article is performing the same 'head article' role as EU. This may make some sense where obviously an article on one part of the EU structure refers to different parts. But they are all ending up quick summarising separate parts and linking to another article which itself quick summarises most things. Too much repetition. I don't want to be reading the same text over and over, and I'm not too keen on seing the same set of pictures over and over in each article either. It  gets boring, repetitious and ultimately uninformative for a reader. Sandpiper (talk) 11:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main problem is we just don't have the detailed minor articles, a lot of stubs have been created and people try to patch over. Only way to solve the problem properly is to to try press expansion of our articles. In regards to structure, where on earth does one start! The whole topic needs looking at, its a mess but my knowledge of the law is limited so I don't see much help I can be in that respect. - J Logan t: 16:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: On the hatnote point though, the rework on the European Union article has meant in some cases we have better or more exact data on the EU page than the main page. I suggest that once we get that page up to FA, we use it as a basis for improve all articles linked by hatnotes from it – these are out core articles anyway. - J Logan t: 19:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overuse of main article tags 

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

message: I just came across the article European Union v. Microsoft. I don't know the details of the case, but the following sentence came across as quite pov to me: "The illegitimate granting of software patents in Europe by the EPO has been supported in the past by the European Commission but opposed by the European Parliament and European SMEs represented by UAEPME, as seen in the debate surrounding the failed Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions, so the motivation of the European Commission in allowing Microsoft to charge even limited patent royalties has been questioned by the FFII, an organisation that, as part of its wider campaign, opposes the introduction of European software patents. [22]." Another issue is that this single sentence is so long that it's very hard to understand. What do others think of this? (I know that the article's talk page is the appropriate venue for this, but that hasn't been edited since October 27, so my hopes of a response are higher here) AecisBrievenbus 00:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are lots of problems with that article, it needs a major clean up and brining up to date. Commissioner for Competition has a few articles referenced for the case if you want to see if you can find anything to back that line up in those.- J Logan t: 10:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV in European Union v. Microsoft? 

message: Hello there, now that we have an article on Louise Weiss, the EP's first chairman by seniority (1979–1983), could someone please create a list of MEP chair(wo)men by seniority, or a template ? Thanks, RCS (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a stub section at Father of the House#European Union now where I've put the two I know about, her and the current guy. I'm trying to find the others.- J Logan t: 15:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chairman by Seniority of the European Parliament 

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