Template talk:Supranational European Bodies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Europe (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject International relations (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Image should be renamed "Multinational European Bodies"[edit]

I am rather perturbed by this naming error. Only the EU is a supranational organization, the rest aren't. --130.208.165.5 (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite. The others remain intergovernmental bodies. – Kaihsu (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

proposed improvement/update[edit]

This is a great image; really informative! I was looking at it in some detail today and would like to suggest some changes, because:

  • the EFTA now has its largest volume in the part: council of Europe (CoE),not EEA,not Schengen. But there is no country there (and it is unlikely that a country will get there). Would it be possible to get the EFTA sphere completely in the schengen/EEA-shere.
  • (alternatively, it could go completely in the schengen-sphere as soon as Liechtenstein can implement schengen)
  • The Euro+Schengen-sphere-part is getting really crowded (no political meaning intended ;-)). No space for Estonia in Jan...

I am not bold enough to date to change the image (and mainly the underlying image with the circles), but would be happy to help if someone produces a new set of spheres that would accommodate the expected membership changes; and makes the EFTA somewhat smaller... L.tak (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I understand your concerns about the area of the EFTA circle being largely in the CoE with no countries there, but it is difficult to imagine how to change the diagram without it looking unnecessarily ugly and cumbersome.
I do, however, recognise that something will have to be done to accommodate Estonia when it adopts the Euro (if it actually does so next year). Since it will disappear from the EU's blue circle, all the flags will shuffle along, meaning Sweden's place will be empty. This, if you can imagine it, will allow for an enlarged Eurozone green circle, in order to contain the extra flag of Estonia. Wdcf (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that Estonia's been confirmed, this issue might want to be brought up again. —烏Γ (kaw at me), 03:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. We should really update at this point - this may require I bit more work than prev. thought. The circles will need to be moved. Outback the koala (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorted! Wdcf (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Viewability[edit]

It is also quite hard to read the yellow sphere. Help! Greggydude (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it really that hard to read the text in the yellow circle? Wdcf (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes! Greggydude (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It would also be nice if there was a version with text labels of the countries, rather than having to mouseover to identify the flags. -- Mindstalk (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought the charm of the diagram was the relative lack of words. Besides you should learn the flags! :P Wdcf (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Right, in line with my own comments from, June, (has it been 6 months!?) I am making the necessary changes to move Estonia into the Eurozone. The image map will also have to be updated as well. Hopefully I'll get this done within the next couple of days. Wdcf (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Split future Euro / No euro plans countries?[edit]

My proposal is to move the "Eurozone" circle to the centre of the "European Union" circle, making room above and to the left of it for the UK, directly left and left/below it Denmark and Sweden, and below it the remaining EU countries, which will have to adopt the euro. A dotted line showing planned euro expansion could then be added.

To be fair, and I know the design geeks (it's a compliment!) are going to disagree, this would look a lot better, and be much, much, easier to edit if it were based on rectangles. You can round the corners if you have to?

212.23.104.60 (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...remember we have to respect the Schengen Zone circle too...an interesting idea - but I don't want to make this too complicated - more countries are likely to join the EU before countries like Poland, Czech Rep. join the Eurozone - if it lasts that long :P Wdcf (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
yes, that's why the UK (and the Republic of Ireland, and Cyprus) would be above the "core" circle while the remaining EU countries would be below it. I don't think it'd be a good idea to include speculation on the diagram: all the EU countries that weren't in EU-15 have an obligation by treaty to introduce the euro, and we can represent that. Croatia and Iceland have been given more concrete assurances on EU membership than others.
I must admit that the entire diagram looks cute initially, but isn't overly useful. Identifying microstates by flag is a bit of a pointless exercise, and it seriously looks like the data has been selected to fit the diagram: we omit NATO membership, EFTA logically does subsume the EU customs area even if it doesn't formally do so, we omit data on free movement of labour (the EU-25 expansion had a 7-year delay on that, I believe).
Overall, I think this is a fun work of art but unfixable (indeed it seems quite difficult to maintain even the current information as things change) in the long term, as well as impossible to read without mouseover. It's not even usable in other languages, where country names and their alphabetical order varies.
92.116.70.93 (talk) 06:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you should visit Andorra or San Marino and tell them their microstate is 'pointless'. I have omitted NATO membership because this is a diagram of European organisations. I have omitted the free movement of labour because this a diagram of organisations and there is no "group of free movement of labour countries". I fail to see why it's unreadable without mouseover - if you don't know the flags of European countries, you aren't really going to be that interested in the relationship between the supranational organisations of which they're members. Wdcf (talk) 11:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree that the microstates should be in here; they are just as legitimate as any other (size does not matter!). As an interested person in the subject I have to admit however that I do not recognize every flag with certainty, but the mouse-over clearly solves the problem to me. The inclusion of (European) NATO states however seems very useful to the NATO article, e.g. as the fact that some countries are and some countries are not EU members is a point of interest both in EU and in NATO politics. I would be in favour of having this circle included; or to have two templates, which differ only in the absence/presence of an (european part of?) NATO subcircle... Would be interested to hear how realistic/desirable that is in your views... L.tak (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
File with NATO, OSCE and CIS at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Supranational_European_bodies_with_OSCE_members-en.svg TeraCard (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Bigger version?[edit]

Currently, in pages that transclude this template, such as Member State of the European Union, it appears very small, with the text size almost half that of regular text. Differently from normal images, readers can't simply click on it to see a bigger version. And even if a reader makes it here, it still is too small; with the text much smaller than regular. Therefore, I'm wondering if we could transclude a reasonably large version of this onto a page on its own, and add a link to that page to the caption. — Sebastian 01:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been bold and done just that. CS Miller (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
And its been put up for speedy deletion for being a sub-stub. Any editors who wish to comment are invited to do so at Talk:Supranational_European_Bodies. CS Miller (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I moved it because it did not belong in article space. It's now at User:Csmiller/Supranational European Bodies. It can be moved into template space if needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured image?[edit]

This is a great picture, and I had been thinking about proposing it as a featured image; I've never done that, and the red tape of Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates seems be tailored for self-nominated images (or photographs). If anyone proposes it; let me know and I will add my vote. — Sebastian 01:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to nominate it myself, and I can't work out how to go about it, and I'm the author of the image. Wdcf (talk) 10:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

OSCE?[edit]

Also the OSCE? – Kaihsu (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the OSCE has the word 'Europe' in it's title, but its members include Canada and the USA, which are hardly European countries. Wdcf (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I might also ask similarly about Nato and the OECD. – Kaihsu (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

And I would reply similarly.Wdcf (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

See also #Other diagrams below. Japinderum (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Diagram including OSCE, CIS, SEPA, EBA at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Supranational_European_bodies_with_OSCE_members-en.svg TeraCard (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

New Design?[edit]

I can't help but notice that this template has a new design. I think it looks overall good, but I can't help but notice that the European Free Trade Association circle protrudes from the Council of Europe circle. I don't see any particular reason for this. I suggest that the Council of Europe circle is just expanded to the left to encompass the EFTA ring. Also, just a side-note: Liechtenstein will most likely be joining the Schengen Area later this year, so be sure to change the template when that happens. Cheddar2012 (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.236.224 (talk)

Thanks for the heads up on Liechtenstein.Wdcf (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Some advice[edit]

There's an error, because Romania and Bulgaria aren't members of the Schengen Area. Should be corrected.

CEFTA or EU candidates could be added. Örsvezér (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well they were due to join on 1st March, but then put it back to October without telling me. Wdcf (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
that's unfortunate (both that they did not tell you; and that it is delayed again...). I have reverted (I hope correctly, as it's a complicated chart...), now at least it's ready for November.... L.tak (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

CEFTA[edit]

Why is the CEFTA not inlcluded in the diagram? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.215.197.33 (talk) 12:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

See the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Supranational_European_Bodies.png#CEFTA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdcf (talkcontribs) 13:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Countries that use the Euro as a de facto currency[edit]

Would it be possible to show countries like Kosovo or Bosnia that use the euro but are not in the Eurozone and can't mint euro? Or even countries who have currencies directly pegged to the euro, like the CFA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stpaul (talkcontribs) 11:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There are some errors in your statement:
  • Bosnia does not use the euro.
  • Unilateral currency adoption (e.g. in the case of Kosovo) is not a "body". See several different discussions at File talk:Supranational European Bodies.png (regarding CEFTA and CTA) mentioning non-bodies.
  • Likewise, a currency peg isn't really a "body" either.
  • The CFA franc users don't really make up a European body, since all users are in Africa. (130.237.227.56 (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC))
No, it would not be possible, for all the above reasons. Wdcf (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Unilateral adoption shown for Montenegro at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Supranational_European_bodies_with_OSCE_members-en.svg TeraCard (talk) 04:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Vatican and Shengen ?[edit]

There is no border between Italy and Vatican (at least the tourist areas of Vatican; been there personally). So is Vatican part of Shengen ?

If not, are Italy and Vatican part of any other travel agreement ?

How about the open border between Ireland(country) and Northern Ireland ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.202.152 (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe Italy and the Vatican have an open border, so even though the Vatican isn't technically Schengen, you can access it without a visa from Italy, meaning it may as well be. Ireland and Northern Ireland have an open border as part of the Common Travel Area promoting free travel between the UK and Ireland. Due to the UK not wanting to join Schengen, Ireland hasn't either. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

See the section on Monaco above. (Stefan2 (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC))

fiscal union[edit]

I wonder if it was possible to include the European Fiscal Union as well once it is established. Might be a challenge. --spitzl (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not really a 'supranational organisation'. It's more of a group of government which have agreed to some limits on their budgets.Wdcf (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

EFTA circle[edit]

I think the EFTA circle should not extend (with empty space) outside of the CoE circle. And outside the Schengen one also. Japinderum (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Fully agreed! Gilles 08:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Other diagrams[edit]

I suggest that similarly to that one and the African one some additional diagrams are created:

  1. G groups "north" powers - from Template:International_power - G7, G8, G8+5, G20north
  2. G groups "south" powers - from Template:South-South - NAM, G90, G77, G33, G24, G20south, G15
  3. Co-ordinated organisations/Western European and Others Group related
    1. CoE, ECMWF, ESA, NATO, OECD, (maybe also WEU) + OSCE, EU, (maybe also WEOG)
    2. maybe those, WEOG
    3. OECD, G20north, EU, ESA, NATO
  4. Eurasian Union/Post-Soviet_states#Regional_organizations - CIS, CISFTA[1], EurAsEC, CSTO, Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia, Union of Russia and Belarus; GUAM Organization for Democracy and Economic Development, Community of Democratic Choice
  5. OSCE, CoE, NATO, EU, CSTO, EurAsEC, (maybe also GUAM or CDC)

I see that there are discussions above about adding some of these to the current diagram and I think having the above additional separate diagrams would allow greater flexibility - to have a diagram for more cases. Japinderum (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Andorra[edit]

Shouldn't Andorra be a member of the Eurozone? They use the Euro there. -- Y not? 17:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Not being a member of the EU, they aren't officially part of the Eurozone. In addition, unlike Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican, they don't use it by agreement either. Like Kosovo, they use it because they had unilaterally used the currency of another country beforehand that switched to the Euro. CMD (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
But in 2011 they've reached a currency union, according to Eurozone, n'est-ce pas? -- Y not? 21:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Not until it's passed and implemented, which isn't expected to happen until 1 May 2013. Therequiembellishere (talk)

Geographically in Europe?[edit]

What do people think of a further circle for "Geographically in Europe"? It seems strange that Belarus and Kazakhstan are not in this diagram somewhere. If you move the flags for "Council of Europe but nothing else" to the bottom - separating out Armenia below the rest - and also place Cyprus higher than Ireland, you should be able to get another circle around everything but Cyprus and Armenia. You would then also have space for Belarus and Kazakhstan in the "Geographically in Europe but not in Council of Europe" area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verochio (talkcontribs) 10:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

IMHO it is irrelevant to the matter at hand - Supranational European Bodies. CultureArchitect (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Why do you want to clutter the diagram with countries that are not part of any European Multinational organisation? Wdcf (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Belarus and Kazakhstan are OSCE and CIS members. File that includes these organisations: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Supranational_European_bodies_with_OSCE_members-en.svg TeraCard (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Monaco[edit]

Why is Monaco shown IN the Shengen zone, when San Marino is shown outside? As written in Wikipedia, "three European microstates – Monaco, San Marino, and the Vatican – can be considered as de facto part of the Schengen Area as they do not have border controls with the Schengen countries which surround them."195.128.1.27 (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Croatia[edit]

Can anyone make an update with Croatia as memeer of EU - this will happen in one week from now...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.57.142.214 (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

There is an SVG diagram which already has Croatia in the EU section at File:Supranational European Bodies-en.svg. SiBr4 (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Kosovo[edit]

Republic of Kosovo is not in CEFTA, UNMIK is. Those two entities have different flags, see here: CEFTA. That should be changed. --91.212.199.130 (talk) 06:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Andorra, Montenegro and Kosovo adopted euro[edit]

If you move CEFTA to the right, you can circle Andorra, Montenegro and Kosovo as "adopted euro".

F karlo (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Except for Kosovo all shown at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Supranational_European_bodies_with_OSCE_members-en.svg TeraCard (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Croatia[edit]

Need to be changed--Spacejam2 (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

If you mean that it's not in the EU circle anymore, I fixed the file on Commons, but it won't update the image here. SiBr4 (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad! Thanks for fixing my mistake SiBr4. That's what happens when I edit past my bedtime!
Sometimes it takes Commons a few hours (or days) to clear their cache of old images. TDL (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Err... The current version of the file on Commons is wrong. Croatia is in EU, and out of EEA, not the other way. Also Andorra does have the right to mint coins starting 1 of July. See the corresponding articles. —Volgar (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Croatia is now updated. Andorra should be added to the "Mints Euros" circle if it now de jure has the right to mint them. SiBr4 (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
@Volgar: Croatia is correct on the file on commons, SiBr4 fixed it yesterday. It's probably just a caching issue for you as it looks correct to me (Croatia is in the EU and out of the EEA.)
As for Andorra, their treaty specifies that they have the right to mint euros as early as July 1, but they do not yet do so because they have not satisfied all the other requirements of the treaty. As the title of the circle is "mints euros", I think we should wait until they actually mint euros before adding them. TDL (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
"Mints Euros" until 2013-06-26 was "Agreement with the EU to mint Euros", now it is misleading if taken by word, since "Mints Euros" also applies to other countries. A file that shows the "Agreement with the EU to mint Euros" is found at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Supranational_European_bodies_with_OSCE_members-en.svg TeraCard (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, if the text of the circle is changed back to "Agreement with the EU to mint Euros" then Andorra should be included. But as it stands now, it would be incorrect to include Andorra. TDL (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
That file doesn't show the full "Agreement with EU to mint Euros" either: it shortens it to "€ mint". Also Moldova & Andorra are mixed up. SiBr4 (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I've changed "Mints euros" to "Monetary Agreement with EU" and included Andorra. This way we don't have to worry about whether they are actively minting euros, just that they have a MA authorizing them to use othe euro as their currency. TDL (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense: EEA is only a scaled down version of EU for members of EFTA and it's only possible to be a member of EFTA without being member of the EEA, not member of EU. Here is the article: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d2206187-87e4-4afd-9083-6f9f0dab2967 . Contrary to this one http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/Iceland_Likely_to_Extend_Restrictions_on_Croatians_0_401527.news.aspx transitional provisions to freedom of movement of workers is decided by each member of EEA individually and not related to a membership in EEA in general http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_for_workers

Usage on European integration‎[edit]

This template has long been used on European integration‎. However, User:TeraCard has repeatedly removed it claiming that is is "wrong", and refuses to follow the WP:BRD process. If there is something wrong with the image, then we should fix it, but the template seems to be highly appropriate for that article. Any input would be helpful. TDL (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Missing logic:
  1. "If there is something wrong with the image, then we should fix it, but the template seems to be highly appropriate for that article." - A wrong image is not appropriate for any article in the English Wikipedia. Also a correct image does not make a template "appropriate".
  2. Discussion on "Usage on European integration‎" does belong to Talk:European integration‎. TeraCard (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Placement of the Republic of Kosovo[edit]

The Republic of Kosovo, different from Kosovo (UNIMK) should be included in this under "Eurozone". If not, it should be next to Belarus and Kazakhstan. [Soffredo] 15:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The Republic of Kosovo isn't part of the eurozone. They unilaterally adopted the euro, but that doesn't make them part of the eurozone. The microstates, which adopted the euro via a monetary agreement with the EU, aren't even listed as part of the eurozone. Also, I don't think it's a good idea to list them beside Belarus+Kazakhstan. Their status is disputed, so better to leave it as it is for now. (We don't list Northern Cyprus, Transnistria, Abkhazia or South Ossetia.) I suspect the RoK will join the CoE in the not to distant future, so we can figure it out then. TDL (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Why not put the Republic of Kosovo next to Belarus and Kazakhstan, and place Abkhazia/South Ossetia/Transnistria/Nagorno-Karabakh under a new circle for the Community for Democracy and Rights of Nations? Not sure about Northern Cyrprus being involved, but if it were included, it would go with Kosovo. [Soffredo] 10:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The CDRN is pretty insignificant compared to the organizations currently displayed. As far as I can tell, it's barely even functioning. (Their website hasn't been updated in years.) So I don't think that's a good idea. Plus N-K doesn't even have any territory in europe. Perhaps someone else will give their opinion on the matter. TDL (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

How about to put the flags in a geopolitic relative position?[edit]

I suggest that we can put CEFTA in the right-down(south-east), EFTA in the left-up(north-west), mint-euros states in the left-down (south-west) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haojian (talkcontribs) 03:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC) --Haojian (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

If that's possible without the circles becoming complex shapes (such as some of the groups in this file), then go ahead. SiBr4 ("CyberFour") (talk) 10:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
it is easy to make such circles. Just clockwise turn the figure for 90 degrees, and then interchange CEFTA and CIS states.--Haojian (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

about CIS[edit]

furthermore, can we also add a circle for The Commonwealth of Independent States?--Haojian (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

We could, though that would mean adding several countries fully in Asia (Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are CIS members). Then this template would become more like a "Supranational Eurasian Bodies". SiBr4 ("CyberFour") (talk) 10:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
thanks, Maybe, in this circle we could add words like "and 3 asian states" without flags.--Haojian (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Then we could also add the ACD with "and 31 Asian states", the UN with "and 144 non-European states", or any organization that includes at least one (partially) European member. I don't think it matters much if the non-European states are listed with or without flags. (It may be an idea to create a separate template for the former Soviet states only, which could include BSF, CSTO, CIS, GUAM, etc.) SiBr4 ("CyberFour") (talk) 11:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I think this image is already a bit cluttered, adding non-European states will only make it worse. SiBr4's suggestion for a separate image with post-Soviet states would be a much better idea. TDL (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
What other organizations/agreements could be included in a post-Soviet diagram? Some more such as EAEC, CUBKR and CISFTA are listed at Post-Soviet states. SiBr4 ("CyberFour") (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
yes, you all are right. I saw Belarus and Kazakhstan are totally single in this figure, as well as other CIS members are semi-single. But now i give up. any way, this suggestion was not as wrong as to add ACD or UN, because main part of CIS is European. --Haojian (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Hm, I didn't even see this discussion when I updated the diagram to include the CIS and the Eurasian Economic Union. I did not add any non-European countries because this diagram is made for the use of European countries only. CISFTA is not yet in forced, and I did not add the CUBKR. A "Supranational European Bodies" diagram should include organizations/corporations that are not just centered around the European Economic Area states. —SPESH531Other 03:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Maybe, we can change the circles of CIS and EEC into semicircles (i.e. open circles), to indicate outside members.--Haojian (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The image isn't centered around EEA organizations, see the CEFTA for example. The issue is that the CIS is not a European body, it's a Eurasian body. As I said above, this image is already too cluttered, and adding things outside of it's scope only makes it worse. If we are going to include transcontinental organizations, there are plenty of others that should be mentioned (NATO/Asia Cooperation Dialogue/Union for the Mediterranean/Shanghai Cooperation Organisation/Commonwealth of Nations). Better to limit it to things which are actually within the scope of the article, and create a new image for Eurasian states.
Plus, the current image is no longer even a Euler diagram because the circles don't represent sets. I'm going to revert until there is a consensus for the change. TDL (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Your desire is now a reality at Template:Supranational PostSoviet Bodies. The Black Sea Forum (which you mentioned as a possibility) has not been included there as its member Romania wasn't a part of the Soviet Union. Aris Katsaris (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Schengen Area - Bulgaria and Romania[edit]

I'm not sure, but from today aren't the two countries part of the Schengen Area? If so, please update. If not, I'm sorry, but I couldn't find more information about it. information/reference here - Sarilho1 (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

They're not yet part of the Schengen Area - i.e. no passport and immigration controls at common borders. On 1 Jan 2014, remaining work permit requirements for Romanians and Bulgarians were lifted by all EU countries. CultureArchitect (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Eastern Partnership[edit]

I know this diagram is getting really crowded, but since the Ukrainian Revolution of 2014 that has taken it's initial at the last summit of the Eastern Partnership this relationship should not be left out. --Kolja21 (talk) 09:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Croatia now in EEA (since 12 April 2014)[edit]

Croatia is now provisionally applying the EEA agreement, before it is being ratified by all EEA countries in order to fully include Croatia. Should Croatia be moved into the EEA circle already because it is already (provisionally) applying the agreement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.212.65.37 (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Croatia should be included as a member in the EEA circle since as all EEA and EU member states agreed on provisionally applying the agreement since 12 April 2014 CultureArchitect (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Common Travel Area[edit]

Wouldn't it make sense to add the Common Travel Area? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Travel_Area) If the Russia/Belarus/Kazakh customs union is relevant and notable enough to be included surely the common travel area is too? 2.25.216.140 (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)