Template talk:EU countries

Interlanguage links

nl:MediaWiki:EU landen

(moved to MediaWiki talk:EU countries/Test -- Kaihsu 12:14, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC))

Why is this here?... -- Timwi 12:43, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I guess it makes it easier to talk about the msg: if you can see it on the talk page? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:45, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Discussion moved to: MediaWiki talk:EU countries and candidates

Is it a good idea to insert [[nl:MediaWiki:EU landen]]? Won't it be transferred to any page including this element? — Sverdrup 11:07, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I do not see that it affects anything. That is the litmustest isn't it? The link is there to point out that there is a related page in a different wikipedia. GerardM 21:23, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, it is not a good idea! Inserting interlanguage links also inserts extra line-breaks at the end which has disruptive effects in the pages where the footers are used. I tried reducing to a single line break but the effects are still visible and not acceptable. I'm moving the interlanguage to a section at the top of the talk page. -- Mic 22:35, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Mic. GerardM 06:52, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Flag

I reverted Kaihsu's edit [1] which included countries acceding on May 1st as already being members (and concealed as minor edit). I simply reverted, but one more skilled with tables should consider adding an EU flag -- I wasn't able to incorporate it in my edit. Przepla 18:56, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I removed the flag posted to the footer. I am not principally against displaying a flag in the there, but there has yet to be created an example of a footer with an image which is at least acceptable. -- Mic 08:52, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

I wonder why you think the footer with the flag was not "acceptable". When you look at similar footers in the nl:wikipedia you will find that they all have flags/logos like that. So, what makes them "unacceptable" ??

Thanks, GerardM 22:01, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Even if what we are doing is a web encyclopedia I think that there should be some standards regarding layout. This might not be Wikipedia's strongest point, but I think we should still strive to maintain consistency from one article to another. This also goes for the article elements such as footers. It is not so hard to accept a bad layout as long as it is done uniformally throughout the entire edition, as when it is introduced as the odd example. Images do provide additional information though the examples that I have seen so far has had to compromise simplicity and useability to accommodate the additions. Presently we have seen a round of updating a lot of the footers with flags, which might not be ideal, but at least it has been preformed uniformally. Besides appearance there is also some discussion on how and to what extent custom messages ought to be used over all and I think that all would be served by instituting some form of WikiProject like WikiProject MediaWiki custom elements, to discuss and resolve the matters regarding this. Regards. -- Mic 09:59, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Eurozone and Schengen and candidates

I have just added the Eurozone and Schengen Treaty countries in a new list under the big headline of the European Union. I have added them because not all countries of the Treaties are Members of the EU and not all Members of the EU are countries of the Treaties. On the other hand both institutions are mentioned in the European Contracts --> new list, but under the headline of the European Union. I hope you don't mind. --EBB 16:04, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please don't overload this short box. The firm candidates will be added once 1 May 2004 comes; they are already in Template:EU countries and candidates. Also see MediaWiki talk:EU countries/Test. Sadly I have to roll you back again. -- Kaihsu 16:19, 2004 Apr 25 (UTC)

The officially recognized candidate countries belong in the Template:EU countries and candidates footer. See MediaWiki talk:EU countries and candidates for a discussion on the boundary issue on what candidates to include. -- Mic 19:57, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

Too big for modem users?

I reverted back to full list. Avala claimed that: some users said that footers are too big for their modems and we should not list all countries just say that it is a member!, as seen in page history. This is not true, as less than 30 words can not be any burden to even modem users. Moreover, this page is named EU Countries for, not any other. If one wish to have EU Member note, then (s)he should do one. Przepla 13:41, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you but many users complained so I decided to make it smaller.

Avala 14:45, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

By ths rsning al pgs shud b < hlf sz. rmv al xtra ltrs & X WP 2 hlf sz.

What nonsense, there's no point to having anything on Wikipedia by this reasoning of removing content because it might take too long to load. The list IS the content! If you don't like this list, please start a WikiProject debate. Don't arbitrarily remove a Wikiproject's content. The WikiProjects are to link series of articles.

Please prove yourself in debate before reverting to a decision which I am confident most users would consider bizarre and nonsensical.

Zoney 15:13, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

[[2]] what users said about NAM box. If they say NAM is big than EU is big too.

The EU box was about half the size of NAM.
The EU tends to have more impact on foreign affair than NAM
It is poor form to go around editing other boxes because you're mad about your pet project being disputed
The box design that you have taken the EU and NAM boxes to is even worse than the originals, in that it only contains one link, which is completely not box worthy.

Please stop. Snowspinner 15:36, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Let's forget about the NAM box for the moment. Take a look at the Spain article. It has four great clumps of boxes at the bottom, with over 100 links. It links to Germany, for example, four times. I don't want to read about Germany, I want to read about Spain! It would seem to be infinitely preferable to have one box at the bottom which said something like "List of European Countries | EU Countries | OECD Countries | NATO countries" with appropiate links.

But oh no, because that would be more effort, with customization required for each page, we do it the silly way. The mania that quantity = quality seems to have taken root far too strongly since the {{msg}} functionality became available. What can we do to change it? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree that countries are already overboxed. A custom box for each would definitely be a good idea - you should track down the WikiProject on countries (I forget it's exact name right now) and bring it up there, as they're about to purge all of the non-geography boxes from country pages anyway. Snowspinner 16:01, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Other European footer

Hi there,

Due to the duplication of countries in both EU and Europe footers, I created a new Template:European_countries_not_in_EU for those European countries not in the EU. This need only be put on pages which have the EU footer - other european countries should probably stick with Europe footer.

Before I change all other EU country pages (I've only changed UK and Ireland), I'm just looking to see if there's any major objections?

Zoney 21:30, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Err.

It does seem a trifle odd - we would have a box at the bottom of an article on, say, the UK about all the countries in Europe that the UK isn't in economic association with. Would this mean, for example, that a country that is in Europe but not in the EU would get the EU box at the bottom?

I'm not sure that this is the best way of doing things, but I agree that having both EU and Europe listed leads to a bit of a mess. How about a box for European countries in the EU:

  +---------------------------+
  |          Europe           |
  +---------------------------+
  | European Union countries  |
  +---------------------------+
  | United Kingdom, Ireland,  |
  | France, Germany, Italy,   |
  | ...                       |
  +---------------------------+
  | Non-EU countries          |
  +---------------------------+
  | Albania, Andorra, Armenia |
  | ...                       |
  +---------------------------+

... and one for non-EU countries:

  +---------------------------+
  |          Europe           |
  +---------------------------+
  | United Kingdom, Ireland,  |
  | France, Germany, Italy,   |
  | ...                       |
  | Albania, Andorra, Armenia |
  | ...                       |
  +---------------------------+

James F. (talk) 23:09, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My scheme is quite similar, for EU countries:

  Template:EU countries
  +---------------------------+
  | European Union countries  |
  +---------------------------+
  | United Kingdom, Ireland,  |
  | France, Germany, Italy,   |
  | ...                       |
  +---------------------------+
   
  Template:European countries not in EU
  +---------------------------+
  | Non-EU countries          |
  +---------------------------+
  | Albania, Andorra, Armenia |
  | ...                       |
  +---------------------------+

... and for non-EU European countries:

  Template:Europe
  +---------------------------+
  |          Europe           |
  +---------------------------+
  | United Kingdom, Ireland,  |
  | France, Germany, Italy,   |
  | ...                       |
  | Albania, Andorra, Armenia |
  | ...                       |
  +---------------------------+

Does it make more sense? Perhaps your solution is better, it was my first concept. I sort of preferred making a greater distinction, and retaining existing EU box though. Zoney 23:31, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The thing is, having a box about the EU when you're not a member, or about non-members when you are, is somewhat incongruous.

James F. (talk)

Pros and Cons

I like the first proposal more than the second, makes more sense to me. I mean the one where it sais "How about a box for European countries in the EU:" (if anyone cares) Sky 13:54, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

still useful?

Now that we have the categories system do we still need these boxes?
--tsca 16:52, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)

I'd defenitely say yes, because this way you can browse from one to the next without having to go to a seperate page. I like them as long as there aren't too many of them at the bottom of a page. Sky 12:08, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Merge

MediaWiki talk:EU countries merged with this page to merge edit histories. There should not be any problems.

zoney ♣ talk 12:46, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Accesion of Romania and Bulgaria

The date for accesion is now official: 1st January 2007! I added Romania and Bulgaria as candidate countries, as you did with the other (ten) candidate states before the accesion on the 1st of May 2004. That if Wikipedia is trying to be a NPOV Encyclopedia. I'm shore you'll find reasons to revert the changes, but please consider this issue. --Danutz

I will remove Romania and Bulgaria. There is another template for candidates and countries acceding to the union. Please use Template:EU countries and candidates for this. This template is only for countries currently in the EU. Thank you for your sensitive cooperation. —Cantus…☎ 04:56, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

But Romania and Bulgaria are not only candidate countries, as Turkey and Croatia, they are acceding countries! --Danutz

Addition of flags

Flags

Nice idea, and they are pretty, but such a mish-mash of colours is distracting and over the top for such a template in my opinion.

This was reverted on Template:European countries and Template:EU countries and candidates. I see no reason to make an exception for this template, because although a smaller list, we are still talking 25 images extra loading on a page! People complain enough about templates without that!!! zoney ♣ talk 17:50, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree, those flags don't look very well in this template. /Jebur 17:58, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The flags are nice. I don't find them "distracting" or "over the top" either.-Heimdal 13:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But, of course, Australia is in no way a member of the EU. Austria is. I've corrected that. -Heimdal 13:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)