Jump to content

Talk:European Union

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleEuropean Union is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 9, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 8, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
April 21, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
May 16, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 9, 2006Good article nomineeListed
February 4, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 23, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
October 16, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 30, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
March 16, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 8, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
November 26, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 22, 2016Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Former featured article

Template:Vital article

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cchigoche (article contribs).


Topical


Brexit two years?

The withdrawal agreement specifically states that extending the transition period is not permitted. So how can brexit take "up to two years"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.80.121 (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Withdrawal Agreement states that a single decision by mutual consent can once be made to extend the transition period, for either 1 or 2 years at most. (Special:Contributions/Foorack (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2020 (CET))

Humanitarian aid vs Development aid

There is a definitive separation between humanitarian and development aid within both fields as well as under the EU. DG ECHO and DG DEVCO operate for each, respectively. I would propose either making a new section for development aid or at least describing the two separately within the aid section. They operate under separate budgets and under very separate mandates. For example, ECHO's mandate abides by humanitarian principles and is separated from EU politics in much the same way UN OCHA is separated from other UN bodies. DEVCO on the other hand must work with governments and politicians in order to provide effective development projects in various countries. Additionally, and probably important to describe, their budgets are separate from each other under the EU.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brookdub (talkcontribs) 23:44, 30 July 2014

Map

As a remain voter in the Brexit referendum I have to say that the only thing I'm looking to about Brexit is that you stubborn editors will finally have to update the map after refusing to give the UK a lighter shade of green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.14.189 (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2018‎

You will get your wish later tonight (2A02:C7F:5622:2000:D0F1:23A4:8CAB:B928 (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Coat of arms of Hungary

That doesn't look like as it's shown in the table. Why?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.87.212 (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Hour Is Upon Us

Midnight, gentlemen. I trust all seasoned Wiki cartographers are poised to spring at 12:01am GMT. Hanoi Road (talk) 09:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean for the event scheduled to occur at 11 pm on 31 January (GMT)? (That is due has started. (refresh)). -- DeFacto (talk). 09:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shit, I thought it was tonight. Sorry. Hanoi Road (talk) 12:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now THAT......is impressive. Hanoi Road (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we leave the EU at 11.PM rather than Midnight!!? We got 1 hour less of EU. Can anyone explain to me why we left one hour earlier? Wojciech G (talk) 00:25, 01 February 2020 (UCT)
Because they wanted us out an hour early? Hanoi Road (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kidding. Much of EU is an hour ahead of GMT. Their rules now. Their midnight. Hanoi Road (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Official languages

One EU Member Cyprus, has two official languages Greek and Turkish. So why Turkish is not among the official languages of the EU? --JeanisDL (talk), 31 January 2020, 2:10 (UTC)

@JeanisDL: You might need to ask the Government of Cyprus? But Wikipedia can only report the position as it is, not what any of us think it should be. See https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-languages_en for the official list. --Red King (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

De facto English is the main language of the EU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎185.54.182.6 (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is English formally an offical language of the UE? Xpicto (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ireland makes it still official and not just a working language, because in it English is both an official and indeed a much more widespread language than Irish.
I'm not sure about Akrotiri and that other UK colony (offiically "sovereign base") in Cyprus (what was its name, again?), as they are extraterritorial in terms of Cyprus, and of the status of officialdom of English in Malta. 109.245.38.9 (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because of Ireland, English is a De Jure EU language and will remain so. It is the De Facto language of communication for reasons I would have thought were blatantly obvious. Hanoi Road (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Euro English de facto the main languages in EU

Please add Euro English as "De Facto" Language and connect it to the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.54.182.6 (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reliable sources describing it at such, that can be considered. BegbertBiggs (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confederation

The EU is de facto a Confederation I think we should add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.54.182.6 (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom invocation of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union Urgent Update

The article United Kingdom invocation of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union has been dormant for quite some time and has not been been updated to include the extension of article 50 in any detail to 31 January 2020. Please can the relevant updates be added to the article. (2A02:C7F:5622:2000:D0F1:23A4:8CAB:B928 (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Remove UK because of Today's Brexit

Hello so today is brexit
please update info, I would do it but article is secured
have a nice day bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by KtośNapewnoToJest (talkcontribs) 17:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The departure doesn't occur until 22:00 UTC. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please stop spreading misinformation? The UK leaves at 23:00 UTC! It's not daylight saving time right now. OP has a legit concern that Wikipedia won't be able to update the information and maps fast enough, there should be some preparations. It will take a huge effort to eliminate everything in articles that points to the UK still being in the EU. --2001:16B8:3160:BE00:B48B:79FF:4926:281B (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's at 23:00 UTC. I was looking at EST conversion, rather then AST conversion :) GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heading text

Criticism

Is it just me who thinks there should be a criticism section in the article - for example the EU's anti-democraticness and federalism by the Von der Leyen Commission? (Airline7375 (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Read "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" on the top of this page. In any case, if it brings you comfort, articles about polities most often don't feature those wish-washy "criticism" sections (neither "support" sections for that matter).--Asqueladd (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait until official brexit time

Don't change anything before — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viktaur (talkcontribs) 22:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Area, population, etc. statistics need to be recalculated.

Now that the UK has left, these statistics need to be recalculated and replaced in the article. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 23:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brexit

In general, good work fellow editors. There was a bit of premature editing, but most, if not all, of it was done in good faith. The world is watching this page and from one editor to another, thank you for your commitment to accuracy and quality. Cheers! PubliusJ (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The new map

We have a couple of new maps, one with borders and one without. The one with borders (that are for the most part unrelated to the EU) shows the wrong border for Western Sahara. This is not acceptable in an encyclopedia. M.Bitton (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wish the border-less map had a higher resolution...--2A00:23C4:3E0F:4400:ACB1:1A1B:1127:FF65 (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, but the alternative is worse. While displaying a wall as a border is plain wrong, it appears that we have a new one, a lot worse, since it completely removes the border between Western Sahara and Morocco. M.Bitton (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't start changing up the map file over disagreements. Come to a consensus here and then the changes will be made to the original file. Let's not clutter Commons with near-duplicate maps.
The border between Western Sahara and Morocco was removed on the map on the 1st April 2018. It was that way until today. There appears no justification for this so, at your request, I restored the border. However I will note that "wall" is the de facto international border between Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara and SADR-administered area. I don't know what the convention is on WIkipedia for such a border. Rob984 (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is there shouldn't be a boarderless map. The EU isn't a federal state. (Airline7375 (talk) 11:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]
The new map that you uploaded after I started this discussion was reverted because it was clearly worse than the disputed one. Unfortunately, adding the missing border and arguing to keep what's not supposed to be there on the ground that the work is based on an earlier version does not make the updated one any less wrong.
The wall (the berm) is not considered as a border by the the United Nations. We don't treat it as such when showing maps of the concerned regions, namely the Maghreb, North Africa and Africa. So there is no reason whatsoever to display the wrong map of North Africa in this article.
I don't mind correcting it. Please let me know what you want to do. M.Bitton (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, adding the missing border and arguing to keep what's not supposed to be there on the ground that the work is based on an earlier version does not make the updated one any less wrong.

So for clear understanding it's yourself that wants to remove a border which has been present on the map for years, which is fair enough.

Please let me know what you want to do.

Let's discuss the map borders more broadly, this isn't isolated to Western Sahara.

The wall (the berm) is not considered as a border by the the United Nations.

Notably the UN also considers the Golan Heights to be Syrian, and Kosovo to be Serbian. Kosovo is a EU candidate. EU–Morocco fisheries agreements include Western Sahara (despite ECJ rulings). So UN-only perspective perhaps isn't ideal for a map of the EU.
Personally I would treat all disputed borders as dotted. Kosovo–Serbia, both sides of the Golan Heights, and Western Sahara−Morocco. The Moroccan-occupied region–SADR border could then be removed since we are indicating Morocco's disputed southern border in the same fashion as for Israel and Serbia. Currently all borders on the map are solid, which means we are not conforming the the UN view or taking a neutral position.
What's your thoughts on this?
Rob984 (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not here to discuss any other map than the North Africa map displayed in this article. The UN map is quite clear, and so is the one by the The World Factbook (a source that is widely used as a reference in Wikipedia). M.Bitton (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't agree with treating Morocco/WS, Serbia/Kosovo, and Israel/Syria differently, cherry picking one case from the UN map while ignoring the others. You need consensus to make changes to the map. Rob984 (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Funny enough, you had no problem with it last month when you uploaded this map. What has changed since I wonder? Like I said, I don't mind correcting it, but if you'd rather do it yourself, please let me know. M.Bitton (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've upload hundreds of maps, many are used across Wikipedia. Most of the time I don't modify the base at all; the base of that map happened followed the UN (no Kosovo, Syria's borders, etc). This is a map of the EU, a organisation which has a agreements with Morocco and Kosovo based on their claimed borders.

you had no problem with it last month when you uploaded...

Funny enough, I get this a lot. No I'm not endorsing a view because I uploaded a map. I'm trying to improve Wikipedia, not push political agendas.
Change the map without consensus and you will be reverted per Commons policy (COM:OVERWRITE). Upload a new file and you will need consensus to add it to this article.
Rob984 (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are trying to improve Wikipedia by publishing a map of North Africa that, for obvious reasons, is different from the one displayed in the North Africa article?
Change the map without consensus and you will be reverted per Commons policy (COM:OVERWRITE). Upload a new map and you will need consensus to add it to this article. You changed the map. Did you seek consensus for it? M.Bitton (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You keep ignoring my point that this map is in respect of the EU, not the UN, and now you're implying that I'm acting in bad faith? Really?

You changed the map. Did you seek consensus for it?

There was consensus to recolour the UK and add the border between Western Sahara and Morocco, I don't see anybody opposing this. The map in it's current form prior to those edits was present on the article for years, see WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS.
Rob984 (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
this map is in respect of the EU, not the UN For the EU (not that it matters in this case) the map of Western Sahara looks no different than that of the UN. See page 9 and 6 of these EU documents.[1][2] The berm (which also runs inside the Moroccan territory) is usually only shown and described as such in articles that deal specifically with the conflict. M.Bitton (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the map of Western Sahara looks no different than that of the UN.

The maps in those documents include dotted borders between Morocco and Western Sahara, which is what I'm proposing.
Rob984 (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which one includes the wall? What's the position of the European Court of Justice? M.Bitton (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you wish to use these sources as justification remove the border between Moroccan-occupied WS and the SADR-administered area, but not to dot the currently solid border between Morocco and WS? I wish to follow the EU sources in both cases. Rob984 (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't want to use the EU maps, its position (as I said before) is irrelevant, and the examples given were meant for you. Let me repeat. What's the position of the European Court of Justice? M.Bitton (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The ECJ hasn't ruled that Western Sahara is not disputed. Rob984 (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has acknowledged what everyone knows: "the territory of Western Sahara does not form part of the territory of the Kingdom of Morocco."[3] So, there is no reason to pretend that the EU somehow treats it any different that the UN. M.Bitton (talk) 02:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The ruling resolves whether "the territory of Morocco" in past agreements covers Western Sahara. It's nothing new that the EU doesn't recognise Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara. This is irrespective of being a disputed territory and Morocco being the occupying power of most of the territory, of which neither the EU nor the UN have explicitly ruled as "illegal". For example the recent EU-Morocco fisheries partnership includes Western Sahara's waters, as it was explicitly included in the agreement.
Rob984 (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

English an official language

@Robincard: Do you have a source for English no longer being an official language? Previous sources have said that it would continue to be one after Brexit unless there is a unanimous vote by all member states to remove it, which I highly doubt has happened given the inconvenience that would cause. 0x9fff00 (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@0x9fff00: The EU's official page explicitly lists English as an official language with a note that, after Brexit, it will remain the official language of Ireland and Malta (and therefore of the EU). Xwu (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. This dispute should be rather brief since it's black and white. There's a huge body of evidence that says English will remain an official language. If someone has new evidence to the contrary, please share it with us. PubliusJ (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It even says in Languages of the European Union that English is spoken by 51% of all adults in the EU. It might be out of date as far as the UK is concerned, but it still reinforces the fact that English is popular in the EU. Lokii192 (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
English will remain an official language not because of that, but because it's an official language of Ireland and Malta. Frenzie23 (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The official languages of the European Union are regulated by Regulation No 1 from 1958. It has been changed several times, see the latest consolidated version here. Formally speaking it has nothing to do with which official languages there are at national level. --Glentamara (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Largest city

Previously the largest city has referred to the city proper. This means that Paris should be in the parameter. IWI (chat) 00:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: I meant it did NOT refer to the city proper but the urban area, as it always should in this parameter. IWI (chat) 00:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure the largest city is always the city proper. Some articles add (city proper) to make that distinction too. Lokii192 (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well London was never the largest then. Technically the City of London has only a few thousand. You see the issue here? Previously the field said "London and Paris" due to their similar sizes. IWI (chat) 00:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lokii192, so you want Berlin as the largest city? I just gave up with the London vs Paris debate. Justification for Paris was based on it's agglomeration population, while London was based on its "administrative limits" (the London Region). Eventually Paris was removed because certain editors didn't respect consensus.
To summarise, there's those like yourself who claim "it's convention to use city-limits" ignoring the fact the EU is 27 countries that define cities differently, while the alternative view is that agglomerations are used to measure cities on an international level. I've always supported changing the heading from "Largest city" to "Largest agglomerations" or "Largest urban areas" and listing the two largest agglomerations: London and Paris. Now Paris is by far the largest, I'd go with "Largest agglomeration" or "Largest urban area".
If Berlin is going to be listed as the "largest city in the EU" I've lost all hope in humanity.
Rob984 (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree that "Largest city" needs to be changed to something like "Largest urban area". The limits of city propers don't do justice. It doesn't tell the full picture. By this logic, London was always wrong as well as the "City of London" only has a population of 1000, whereas "City of Westminster" has 255,000 and the rest of the region isn't even classified as being a city.
Stating Berlin as the largest would be ridiculous. The urban areas of Barcelona, Milan, Madrid, and the Ruhr region of Germany have a larger population by a long shot, alongside Paris. We definitely need to change "Largest city" to "Largest urban area". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.177.182 (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is obvious by now that some people prefer to list the largest city by population within city limits (Berlin), while others prefer the largest urban area (Paris), I made an edit earlier tonight which included *both* cities in the Infobox just as it is the case on other Wikipedia pages like the one about China (where Shanghai is listed as the largest metropolitan area and Chongqing as the largest city proper under "largest city"). It took not long before someone changed it it back to solely listing Berlin as largest city and I'd be willing to bet real money that an hour from now it will list only Paris again. In all likelihood, this won't end until someone's willing to compromise and the truth is that as of this moment we haven't managed to reach that point yet. Der_Hans (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Made a suggestion with this edit. Feel free to revert. I prefer to refer to urban area/agglomeration over metropolitan area, due to the former being a more standard measure. It's possible under some definition of "metropolitan" there is groupings of cities that surpass Paris's population for example, it's not really a strictly defined concept. Rob984 (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of like the way that China handles the Largest city a bit more than what we currently have. Seems cleaner. What do you guys think? Lokii192 (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rob984, I like your edit, particularly the idea of an urban agglomeration. By some definitions, an urban area would mean only a continuously built-up area. For example, the London urban area is much smaller than the London metropolitan area. The Paris metropolitan area is comparable with the latter but is much larger in size (meaning area, not population) and clearly not a city as per the previous single field title. Dubmill (talk) 10:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin is bigger than Paris within city limits. The population of Berlin is 3,748,148 the population of Paris is 2,140,526. Luis9595 (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And that's exactly what the infobox says at this very moment. It adds also Paris as the largest agglomeration, which is also a true statement. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Luis9595, the case has already been clarified several times in the case of London. At that time, Berlin was larger than City of London by administrative boundaries. A consensus was reached against Berlin in favor of two megacities: London and Paris. For a long time London was in the infobox, London is gone (Brexit), now - Paris is largest metropolis of European Union. Berlin is 2-3 times smaller metropolis, and the artificial city limits do not matter much today. So, generally nothing changes, there was a consensus for both: London and Paris, London is gone, so Paris remains. Subtropical-man ( | en-2) 17:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of Brexit edits

I think we should be careful not to overdo it with Brexit edits, and by that I mean let's be as judicious as possible with removing references to the UK. The UK has left the EU, but the UK's 47-year membership in the EU should not be understated in this article. It is okay to leave mentions of the UK that are in the context of historical data, e.g. economic and population statistics, and of course its role in the EU's political development and general history. Thoughts? PubliusJ (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Historical data that has no need to be updated or deleted should not be corrected. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 02:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I, on the other hand, think that nonsense such as this: "Besides the 24 official languages, there are about 150 regional and minority languages, spoken by up to 50 million people. Catalan, Galician, Basque, Scottish Gaelic, and Welsh are not recognised official languages of the European Union but have semi-official status: official translations of the treaties are made into them and citizens have the right to correspond with the institutions in these languages." should not have been left in but edited right away.
But I do not feel like logging in and potentially editing it. Let the younger editors deal with it, I've been editing since the early stages of Wikipedia just short of 2 decades ago.109.245.38.9 (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2020

In the Lisbon Treaty (2007–present) section: change "increasing migration from the Middle East" to "increasing migration from Asia and Africa", because migrants also came from Africa and nations to the east of the Middle East. 92.40.177.182 (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The linked article European migrant crisis makes it clear that migration also came from areas outside the Middle East Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Last Polity Withdrawn" in Infobox is dumb and should be changed

The last Polity Withdrawn essentially suggests that multiple countries have withdrawn from the EU - so far and presently only the UK as withdrawn from the EU.

This should be changed.Theprussian (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greenland withdrew from the EEC in 1985. Frenzie23 (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with "UK withdrawal", if anything at all. It's the notability of the event that matters in my opinion. If Malta left the EU tomorrow, would it be more notable? Probably not.
I also don't know why it says "Last polity admitted", "Last expansion" is much more natural. Mayotte was in affect "admitted" to the EU in 2014.
Rob984 (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would go with "Last enlargement" for the 2013 enlargement, and just plain "Brexit" instead of "Last polity withdrawn". For now the UK withdrawn is an isolated event by itself that can be treated singularly. --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2020

It is requested that the a parameter in the European Union info box be changed from:

"alt_map = Globe projection with the European Union in green"

to:

"alt_map = Globe projection with the European Union in blue"

On account of the fact that the EU is coloured blue and not green. 81.156.12.102 (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The map has been changed back to green Danski454 (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The green EU map still has The UK coloured in when it is displayed on the Wikipedia page instead of the blue EU map which doesn't. Go with blue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.42.83 (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maps to update

Among other maps that need to be updated to show the UK's EU withdrawal, most of the maps at Future enlargement of the European Union, as well as File:Potential Superpowers.svg need to be updated. --14:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistent map layout

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit#/media/File:UK_location_in_the_EU_2016.svg

... the map displays the markers for each country that is a member of the EU.

Here, it does not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#/media/File:Global_European_Union.svg

As such, this implies that the EU is a single country, when of course it is not.

In terms of accuracy of represented visual information, this is the correct method of display: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#/media/File:EC-EU-enlargement_animation.gif

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.103.147 (talkcontribs) 06:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is an identical version showing internal borders: File:European Union (orthographic projection).svg. We could even have a radio button which shows and hides internal borders (similar to at Europe). However this is a locator map so it doesn't serve the same purpose as a map within the article, it's not an issue of consistency, just editorial or stylistic preference. Should the focus be to locate the EU within it's surroundings, or to show the member states of the EU? If the latter, we could have a radio button to show a map of the EU in Europe and the EU on a globe (as is the case for France, United Kingdom, Norway, etc.).
Idea 1:Idea 2:
Rob984 (talk) 06:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. This is a useful interactive element to allow for user choice. Though, I also think your point regarding "internal borders" - which in the strict definition of borders of members states, is important, since in actual fact - the EU is a collection of nations, or members. The EU is not, yet perhaps, a single sovereign entity - as such your design may be useful to compare land-mass vs. border, for example, but the full-block-line-less display does not accurately reflect the fact that the EU is still made-up of individual European sovereign nations. As such, I would simply provide a HD map displaying the internal borders' lines. Interestingly, the USA map and corresponding states map could be displayed using your method - since at small scale showing borders might degrade the image making it difficult to 'read/scan' at small-scale. So, on an accessibility level, the US map works well like that, but the US & EU are not comparable in political terms. Italy is a sovereign nation, and not a state, of course. Though, by your example, it seems like the EU map is still legible at small-scale with internal border-lines visible. The same point could be make about the map of the UK - since the UK is made up of 4 countries. As such, I think your method of display could work in all cases: to show the fact of geo-political-borders, and also to illustrate the extent of the collective land-mass for purely geographic purposes and interests.? I think IDEA 1, with the "Show map of Europe" option is most accessible and most accurate. But I think your idea to allow users to select from multiple views is useful. I SEE NOW! Yes, France map works well like that. Though, as a user, I find the "Show all" option causes the interface to shift. As such, perhaps move the options to the top, so they are static relative to the whole layout.?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.103.147 (talkcontribs) 06:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New section: critisms and controversies, e.g. expenses

One particular criticism regarding the EU is the (now) undisclosed expense system, as documented here by a former MEP, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqdNbjhvlxA

Also, the cost associated with relocating the parliament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.103.147 (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read the FAQ at the top of the talk page. A 'criticism' section (and, indeed, a 'support' section) could never be neutral (WP:NPOV). Frenzie23 (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2020

Remove the United Kingdom from the map titled "Classification of regions from 2014 to 2020" Dkm49 (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty ratifications

I have decided and I hope you will support me To cross out the United Kingdom like this in the ratification pages of the Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon treaties as we need to show although the UK signed and ratified the treaties they are no longer a member state and no longer bound by those treaties but still shows they were a part of the ratification process.(MOTORAL1987 (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

No, I think that this not a case for wp:BEBOLD, it is significant enough to need raising at wikipedia talk:Manual of Style as it is an important precedent. I understand the issue and you are absolutely right to raise it, but I believe that this is the wrong way to go about it, too reminiscent Nineteen Eighty Four. --Red King (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The green map that cones up on the European Union page when I go onto the article on Wikipedia still has The UK coloured in green as a member state

Whilst the blue map has omitted The UK from its colour, the green map still has The UK coloured in as before January 31, 2020. Only when you click on the image does The UK appear grey.