Talk:European Union/Archive 14

message: In January I modified the code of what then was the Country/terretory infobox template, and made it into a new template called Infobox European Union. I had enlarged the centralised EU flag in the infobox (the presidency logo wasn't there), turned "Government" into "presidencies", (later) turned "Capital" into "Commission seat" and implemented space for the collapsible list of member states simply because the previous wikitable-infobox had one.
Later, somebody had modified Country/terretory infobox so that the Infobox European Union template became redundant, allowing equivalent modification in the new "Infobox Country" (now allso for "Geopolitical organizations"). Suddenly, the UN article used "Infobox Country" instead of "Infobox organization" - with Membership	| 192 member states.
The 50 states of the USA isn't listed in the USA article, and the UK (a union) doesn't mention England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland in its infobox.
I believe listing all "members" in infoboxes has become a very redundant habit/standard. In articles about organisations, all "members" are often mentioned anyway.
Anyhow, I believe the EU (a semi-country. Not a standard 'organisation') shouldn't need to list all members in its infobox. We've allready got a complete list in the enlargement section. - S. Solberg J. 15:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooo interesting point. It seems right to include it, and we don't have to do what others are doing. Also it is a good ref point. Then again it is getting a long list, there is detail elsewhere, this is more about the EU than members.... I don't know. I'm torn. I'm going to wait for other peoples arguments on this before making up my mind. - J Logan t: 16:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the collapsible info box with member states - it provides the information on demand, but doesn't require significant extra space. Not a strong opinion, mind you - just my 2 cents. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Same for me, I have no strong opinion about this (yet) and can see both sides (if the collapsible option is used), so I'll wait how it develops. Arnoutf 16:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though question SSJ, is the member states the only difference between this and the country infobox? Will its removal allow use to use the country base without any other changes? - J Logan t: 14:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing all member states in the infobox 

message: Why is a little part of South America green in the map of the EU in the world?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.130.31 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 17 August 2007
:It is French Guiana. It is not independent, it is an overseas department of France, an intergral part of the country. As an intergral part of France, it is also an intergral part of the EU. Hence it is EU territory. See Special member state territories and the European Union. - J Logan t: 20:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: South American Country?

message: The structure much better now, however I'm not sure about the "Intergovernmental cooperation" heading. Both "Justice, freedom and security" and "Foreign relations" have significant supra-national/Community elements, and moreover are significant enough to have sections in their own right.Caveat lector 16:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I wasn't satisfied with it but I couldn't come up with anything better to be honest. Any better ideas? We need something to cover those elements while being understandable to the average reader. - J Logan t: 18:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Unless we just split off JFS as its own section, which is what I was planning before. It would be better for Foreign Relations as the title would be simpler however JFS would be a very shot section, and I don't think it belongs under politics or governance. - J Logan t: 09:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it is now split as part of my efforts to take into account Lear's changes. Idea still rejected so please contribute new thoughts. Merge into politics for now? - J Logan t: 12:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New structure 

message: Of the nine commenting editors 
* 2 have given their preference in favour of option 1
* 4 have stated a preference for option 2 
* 2 prefer option 3; but another editor states he would not mind
* 1 prefers option 4; and 2 other state that would be acceptable as well.
This means there is a small preference for option 2 - of 4 out of 9. 
Both option 3 (removal) and 4 (long table but based on version 2 principles) are seen as preferred or acceptable by 3 out of 9.
As there is no clear majority for a single option, there are basically two approaches. Put the favourite (version 2) to the vote (oppose/support). Or figure out which option has the least radical oponents (ie people who vote this option should NOT be used whatever). In the light of compromise and consesnsus I think the second would lead to the least hurt feelings all around Arnoutf 08:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although that is supporting my pref. Wikipedia is not a democracy so we can't base this on votes alone (especily if we are using FPTP to get No.2). Which is why I suggets we take the leading proposals and try to make them acceptable to others enough for it have some kind of consensus. Asking what people wouldn't accept at all would help a bit also though, considering 3 and 4 have the same support. We should be taking into account the full comments when doing so. - J Logan t: 08:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Number 4 in itself is basically a compromise between number 1 and 2, that may need some work. But if you want to dismiss that one out of hand the choice becomes easier i.e. the short table or no table at all. Arnoutf 11:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of the above

message: Should pictures be included or not? If so, how many?
* No pictures. Difficult to decide which cities to include, and they are too small to see detail anyway. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Yes I have been part of that discussion, and have been forced by a single stubborn editor to either go to edit war - or tolerate a bad format; which is not nearly as compact as the alternatives discussed here....... Arnoutf 17:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: Should there be 5 cities or 10 in the list?
* 10. The EU is quite large and diverse. Even an American would have to admit that. ;) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Comment Milan and Barcelona would add a second city in respectively Italy and Spain each; again showing less rather than more variety in Europe. Arnoutf 19:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Cities 

message: Should the list be sortable (with the top X by city population shown) or pre-sorted (with the top X in each column shown)?
* Sortable. However, I don't feel strongly about this. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sortable 

message: Should the list be organised by city, with its data displayed in subsequent columns? Or should it be three separate lists showing how cities rank on the different parameters (as current)?
* Rank by city makes more sence as then we have just one row for a city with its data following it. Ranking according to area uses up more space and makes it harder to compare. - J Logan t: 14:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Organisation 

message: Should population density be included in it's own column, combined with city limits (as it is derived from city area and popluation), or omitted?
* Combined with city limits It doesn't make sense outside of that context. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment. The massively differing city definitions and discrepancy between Paris and London's area is the exact reason why I (as an American) find this information so helpful. It helps explain why London has so many more people than Paris. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population density 

message: :This has been copied from my talk page (User talk:JLogan)
:::Not sure about you removing the table of EU expansion, you're right it is covered in history but I think the table is useful as a quick reference on who joined when. Plus I am having viewing issues with it (tad too wide). But I am not saying it needs to be brought back as it was, I think we can look at a simpler and smaller way of presenting it. - J Logan t: 14:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: About removing the table, it just seemed that the article repeated the enlargement info 4 times. In the history section, in the member states section, in the table and in the image used to illustrate enlargement. Perhaps we could have some kind of table/image with javascript to show the respective enlargements. Just a thought. Caveat lector 20:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it shouldn't be repeated in both sections, and you were right to remove the text, however I think a table helps illustrate it and is something we ought to have, possibly in the history. Granted I am not quite sure how to work this, and the two maps together illustrate most of it unless you want to get into detail in which case you can go to the main article for it. I'll copy this to the EU page incase anyone else has a thought on it. - J Logan t: 07:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Enlargement information

message: The history has been trimmed recently. Some useless POV information has gone, that is good. Important facts have been deleted as well. Schuman declaration, Fall of the Iron Curtain and the introduction of the EURO currency are essentials in this section and have to be reinstalled. Lear 21 11:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that there is a larger History of EU article; where these are mentioned, so we should not reintroduce too much detail. As I read the current version Euro is explicitly mentioned, so I miss your point there.  The Schuman declaration and the fall of the wall are implied in the section. As they are not essential EU history events (but outside events co-shaping the EU) I am not sure they need to be mentioned explicitly. However you are free to disagree (but please please please do not put down your personal opinion as a fact again, as you did in above line). Arnoutf 07:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, reading through the basics are there, everything else can be found in the main pages (although they do need major expansion) - J Logan t: 15:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I've just put in a clearer reference to the iron curtain as it occurred to me that German reunification is essentially stated anyway. On the point of the Schuman declaration, the article actually quoted from this! Not enough? Caveat lector 02:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History section