Talk:European Union

Please consider reading the frequently asked questions for this article before asking any questions on this talk page.

"United Europe" redirects here but not mentioned within the text

I've just spotted that United Europe redirects to this page, which seems a bit odd as the term "United Europe" is totally absent from this article. It is standard Wikipedia practice to at least mention redirects (and bold them) in the article they redirect to, and preferably to properly explain the redirected term. Otherwise, the redirect ought to be nominated for deletion, turned in to a proper article (a stub would do for starters; probably the best option) or else redirected to another more suitable article. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with this observation, but I think I think the problem is with the redirect, not this article. So I would say this redirect ought to be nominated for deletion, turned in to a proper article (a stub would do for starters; probably the best option) or else redirected to another more suitable article. Arnoutf (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

No preferences then? --Mais oui! (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

My preference is not to change this article; and do something (whatever) with the redirect page. I have no preferences what to do to that indeed. Arnoutf (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Given that the project for a united europe is most realistically associated with the EU, I think it's a fitting redirect. It's not specifically an EU concept, and not a phrase used by the EU (any more?), but that doesn't mean that this is a bad place to redirect to. Lawdroid (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Can we lock this article?

Can we lock the article, or at least the lede? We still have people trying to change the article to refer to a federation (contra the poll here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:European_Union/Archive_27#Result_of_survey). We have repeated vandalism. It just seems like the situation locking is designed for Lawdroid (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Ladies and Gentlemen, the last 3 days of over-eager updating to include Croatia are why we should lock this article Lawdroid (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

In about 10 minutes Croatia will actually become member state. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/30/croatia-joins-eu-celebrations-uncertainty .--Triglav 2000 (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Croatia became a member state 47 minutes ago. The map of the Union should be changed to include it. --94.253.169.191 (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to do it. Lawdroid (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Well whoever included Croatia should do it properly as there are still some parts of the article that are exuding Croatia, even though it is a full member. Like official languages for etc.

Whoever you are, feel free to correct it. Lawdroid (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

A subsequent edit request

It looks to me like this article has now been locked. Can someone who has access consider the following amendments: .....the European Commission refers only to "Kosovo*"".... should have only one quote at the end there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.103.174 (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done —Sowlos  16:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Area of the EU

The quoted area of the EU is unsourced; more distressingly, it has been obsolete for several hours. Given recent activity here, I assume that every hour that passes without this information being updated causes much pain and suffering.

Could any of those keen editors that so desperately want this article precise please help find some reliable geographic information. I've spent some time on the European Commission's own website (www.europa.eu), but haven't found anything precise. The best I could find is a map published by the European Commission (http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/the-european-union-pbIK3111290/) which states the area of EU27 as 4,234,000 km² and that of Croatia as 56,000 km², which gives an EU28 area of 4,290,000 km². This figure does not agree with the unsourced figures of 4,381,376 km² and 4,423,147 km² that are both currently in the article. The map quotes Eurostat (the European Commission statistic department) (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/) as a source, but the website is too arcane for me to find simple geographic information. Maybe someone else would have some luck.

So, let's try and put all this recent editing activity to some useful purpose. Cheers, Travelpleb (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Once again, is Brussels the capital of EU?

Currently the article infobox states that Brussels is the EU capital. The controversy of such claim has been discussed a couple of times (e. g., on the template talk page, on this page: at least once and before), but my attempts to remove the nonconsensual edit faced some resistance. I still consider the issue rather sensitive to keep in the article even if it'd be added that Brussels is de facto capital as proposed by some. —Volgar (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Brussels is de facto capital of European Union. Subtropical-man (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/policy_advisers/archives/publications/docs/brussels_capital.pdf nice Murry1975 (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I fully support listing Brussels as capital. How do we initiate a formal voting process on this? Lawdroid (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Voting only shows which majority favour something, not if its correct or not. And if you read my link above you would know its not. Murry1975 (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy consensus is the argument for inclusion, not a majority. In any case, the status of Brussels as capital is confused at the moment. Does the EU have a capital at all? Is it Brussels alone or should Strassbourg and Luxembourg share the title? I would not recommend adding Brussels at this time (although the situation may change in the future). Arnoutf (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

In most cases/topics about EU, Brussels is treated as capital of the European Union. Brussels is de facto capital of the European Union. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

To some extent true, but should we list it for being "de facto" capital or do we need a clearer reference it is the actual capital? Arnoutf (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Why? We all agree that it is the de facto capital, and it is possible to support that with multiple references. Saying it is the de facto capital requires only supporting references that it is the de facto capital. Lawdroid (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, who's "we?" Britmax (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Not all countries have de jure capitals, but we still list their de facto capitals (ie Nauru). For other countries, their de facto capital differs from their de jure capital, and we list both (ie Bolivia). It can be well sourced that Brussels is the de facto capital of the EU, and this is notable to the topic so should be mentioned. However, we should be careful to make clear that it isn't the de jure capital. TDL (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

simply the term "de facto" speaks for itself, do not need descriptions of term of "de jure". Subtropical-man (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Funny how so many years pass, yet the same arguments / debates remain on this page. I think people still need to separate what they may wish to be true with what is factually true. Brussels has not been officially designated as the "capital" of the EU as far as I am aware, and certainly the argument that it is, is subject to some debate. The ECJ being in Luxembourg and one of the parliament buildings being in Strasbourg would at the very least show that the matter is not so clear cut. Can we really state with certainty that if one of the parliament buildings were to be scrapped, it wouldn't actually be the one in Brussels? I think it highly likely that the one in Strasbourg would be retained for political reasons, while the Commission / Council might remain in Brussels. I think the reference to "de facto" capital serves no purpose other than to please those who edit this page who for some reason still fanatically want to treat the EU as though it is a country. What planet these people are living on is beyond me. Simonski (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

It's called "Planet WP:Reliable Sources". If you would take an interplanetary journey and visit this planet you would find many reliable sources from across the globe, such as:

• USA Today: ..."Brussels is the de facto capital of the 27-nation European Union..."
• WSJ: "Frankfurt and Brussels," he said, alluding to the headquarters of the European Central Bank and the de facto capital of the European Union, respectively."
• New York Times: "Brussels, the capital of the European Union"
• Der Spiegel: "Brussels, the capital of the European Union"
• BBC: "Incidentally the fact that Brussels is not only the capital of Belgium but also the de facto capital of the European Union..."
• Haaretz: "Brussels, the de facto capital of the European Union"
• Brussels Studies: "Brussels has become the de facto capital of the European Union"
• Times of Malta: "Brussels is not only the capital of the 25-nation EU"
• Times of India: "Brussels, recently became by consensus the capital of the European Union"
• Baltic Times: "Brussels beer and chips failed to cheer up Algirdas Brazauskas, leader of the opposition Social Democratic Party. He returned from the capital of the European Union..."
• Denver Post: "Brussels is not only the capital but also the capital of the European Union"
• Chicago Sun-Times: "BRUSSELS, Belgium ...here in the capital of the European Union"

which describe Brussels as either the "de facto capital of the EU" or the unqualified "capital of the EU".

Yes, "Brussels has not been officially designated as the "capital" of the EU", but if you re-read the discussion you will see that no one has argued that so all of your opinions on this, and which parliament buildings would hypothetically be closed, really aren't relevant to the discussion. This has everything to do with accurately reflecting usage in reliable sources.

While you may "fanatically" wish this wasn't the case, that doesn't change that it is "factually true" that Brussels, as the main administrative center of the EU, is commonly described as the capital. Your ad hominem attacks aren't a very convincing argument. TDL (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not whether Brussels is named the EU capital in colloquial use. I think all of us agree, and the newspapers are good sources for that.

The issue us however, whether widespread colloquial use is enough support to add Brussels as capital to the infobox.

Other supranational organisations do not use the term capital in general (e.g. United Nations does not list New York as its capital; NATO does not list Brussels; the Commonwealth of Independent States does not list Minsk -- to name but a few). So why should the EU do so (it would be easy to provide newspaper articles that mention any of the examples as a capital).

So the issue is basically back to the very old discussion - is the EU similar enough to a state to assign it institutions typically reserved to states, or is it more of a supranational organization. With the EU in transition, I would discuss the status of Brussels only when including all nuances in immediate proximity to the claim. This is impossible in the infobox, so I would say NO to inclusion of Brussels as capital there. I would support if Brussels' status as de facto capital would be discussed somewhere lower on the page. Arnoutf (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, it should have nothing to do with how similar the EU is to a state. Ignoring RS because of some arbitrary rule is not a good idea. If New York was commonly described as the "capital" of the UN by RS, then that is how we should present the information, regardless of how similar the UN is to a "state". However, in all the examples you listed, the administrative center is not commonly referred to as the capital. All of the following phrases get 0 (relevant) hits since 2000: "Capital of the United Nations", "Capital of the UN", "Capital of the Commonwealth of Independent States", "Capital of the CIS", "Capital of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization", "Capital of NATO". Meanwhile, "capital of the European Union" gets numerous hits referring to Brussels so the situations really aren't comparable.

One option, to address the concerns about the complexity of the situation, would be to wikilink Brussels and the European Union, where all the details can be found, from the infobox. TDL (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You would find hits with somewhat more specific search terms [1] [2] but that is not the matter here.

The question remains: Does the EU have a capital - even is one city is often mentioned as such. At least there is disagreement on that count, so while you can find reliable sources that use the term colloquially to make the claim based on more than "hearsay" we probably need sources that actually provide a full chain of argumentation that (1) The EU has a capital that fits mainstream definition of capitals (de facto or de jure does not matter) (2) If (1) is the case, that this is Brussels. The evidence so far seems promising for the 2nd part of the evidence, but the first, crucial link is missing so far. Arnoutf (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The the 2001 report put out by the EC (linked to by Murry1975 at the start of this debate) answers the question. In the first paragraph of page seven, it states "At the Nice Summit of December 2000, it was decided that the role of Brussels as capital of Europe should be strengthened. Brussels will become, after 2002, the main seat for European Council meetings and this will give more institutional stability to the role of Brussels as capital of Europe."

While it is technically not the de jure capital (i.e. it was not made so by treaty), it is at the very least the de facto capital. However, it can be argued more than just de facto as it is a matter of policy. The fact that some EU institutions are seated outside of Brussels does not detract from this. Not even all nations-states seat their governmental institutions in their capitals (de facto or de jure), but this is irrelevant. What matters is that the sources clearly and regularly refer to Brussels as the capital (qualified and otherwise).
As a capital, Brussels is sui generis. The cited document bears this out. It will "...not follow the example of national capitals", but is clearly recognized as the "capital of Europe".  —Sowlos  09:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem with your reference to the 2000 Nice summit, is that it predicts a future state(post 2002) at the time everyone assumed that the EU constitution would be signed. The latter was rejected; or at least not ratified (in 2004) meaning that much of the strong intentions/ambitions in the early 00's never materialised.

If you are referring to this source [3] be aware of the opening disclaimer

In May and September 2001 the President of the Commission, Romano

Prodi, and the Belgian Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt invited a group of intellectuals to discuss the needs and functions of a European capital and how Brussels could best express them.This report presents the main ideas and proposals resulting from those meetings. They are intended as a contribution to an ongoing debate.

So the report clearly states everything reported are ideas and proposal part of an ongoing debate. Which means that this document can never fully cover the topic (as it was never intended to do so). If you read the document, it becomes clear that much of the discussion is about what a capital is, and whether Brussels is a classical capital or some kind of new entity. Whether the de facto role of Brussels as capital should be legitimized is one of the topics under discussion.

In its conclusions it states " the European capital should not follow the example of national capitals." - so that statement alone would argue that it should not be added to the infobox here (as that would be following the example of national capitals).

My problems with this whole discussion here is that in the absence of clear primary sources (legal text), directly relevant secondary or tertiary sources (analyses on the capitalnes of Brussels that do not bring in original ideas) any conclusion is likely going to be original research or synthesis to some extent (if only by handpicking and over-interpretation of sources).

As I stated before, the only way to prevent this is to make sure all nuance is mentioned in close proximity to any reference to the existence of any EU capital. Arnoutf (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You make good points. My intention was to highlight that:

1. The EC report shows Brussels was already considered a capital by EU officials and the discussion was about how that role should be strengthened.
2. The capitals of nation-states (what I assume you are comparing Brussels' worth as a capital to) are far from homogeneous. Therefore, Brussels' uniqueness shouldn't count against it.

...that statement alone would argue that it should not be added to the infobox here (as that would be following the example of national capitals).

I don't see why Brussels should be removed. The section is titled "Political centres" and Brussels is most definitely a political centre and definitely more politically central than the other two cities included with it.

My problems with this whole discussion here is that in the absence of clear primary sources (legal text), directly relevant secondary or tertiary sources (analyses on the capitalnes of Brussels that do not bring in original ideas)...

Brussels is listed in the infobox with a parenthetical "de facto capital". That does not require legal text. If there was, it would be de jure. As for analysis, what about the CIA World Factbook?  —Sowlos  17:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

 —Sowlos  17:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I am fine with the current version (which shows enough nuance), however I would object if the political centres caption would be replaced with capital: Brussels as only entry. Arnoutf (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Simply referring to how the media covers / reports on the EU does not change the fact that it is not factually (or indeed legally) correct to say that Brussels is the capital of the EU (referring to EU literature pre-dating the failure of the constitutional treaty does not assist here either). Rather it is (incorrectly) commonly referred to by some media sources as the capital. Again, I am not sure what planet you inhabit TDL where it is the media that creates the facts. I personally would still argue against using such strong words as "de facto" capital for Brussels (being "something that is such in fact", which it is not, or at the very least it is subject to dispute) but obviously I appreciate that when one is dealing with fanaticism that it is quite difficult to enter into any meaningful discussion on the issue. Is there an actual consensus on this point then or are we just being driven here by one or two editors shouting louder than others (who would otherwise hold a view that the previous format, i.e. no reference to "de facto capital", was fine?) --Simonski (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

As a side note, the two sources currently referred to on the page in support of the de facto point are questionable - I am a huge supporter of Euractiv as a source but the article notes that the research into the Brussels as capital point "argues" that Brussels is the de facto capital. Questionable whether you can "argue" something that is by definition, a fact. Secondly, the Commission paper was prepared (as Arnoutf alludes to above) pre-Constitution defeat and comes from the Commission itself (headed by none other than Mr Prodi, one of the most ardent federalists in recent history) - this is something which we were warned against by objective reviewers back when this page last went for FA status. The point remains that it is far from something which is agreed "in fact" in my view. If necessary, the common colloquial usage of "capital of the EU" in respect of Brussels could be covered off within the article, but the infobox as it stands is contestable. --Simonski (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Please don't restate already hashed points or rebuttals just to be heard. Doing so creates a circular debate where the same issue are constantly re-raised and re-rebutted ad nauseam with no actual conclusion. If you want to indicate your support for something above, just refer to it without posting a wall of text. If you have new/original elements you wish to introduce, focus those.
2. ... such strong words as "de facto" capital for Brussels (being "something that is such in fact", which it is not, or at the very least it is subject to dispute) ... Questionable whether you can "argue" something that is by definition, a fact.
   Perhaps you are confused by how de facto is used in English (especially in legal contexts). In law, it often means "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law". That is to say it is not de jure ("from law"). The phase "de facto" is not strong, it is merely an indicator of how something is treated in practice. It is precisely for this reason that a status which is only de facto may be open to debate.

 —Sowlos  07:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, many thanks for your patronising advice there on how to contribute to this debate, which will of course be ignored. I find it interesting that you would take such an approach with a good faith contributor who takes the time to set out an opposing view, as opposed to following the route that many other editors on this page have done in the past, i.e. take advantage of Wikipedia's consensus rules and initiate some sort of edit war until the other side grows so tired of them that they just agree for the sake of consensus.

That said, to address your points - 1) I would strongly dispute that my arguments are simply "rehashed" - while there may be a degree of overlap with the views of certain editors above (i.e. Arnoutf), if there is an alternative way I feel certain points can be put across, I am entitled to make them - in my view my contribution above is just as valid as referring to the dreaded CIA factbook as if it is gospel. 2) While I am hesitant to play the "native speaker" card, your patronising response does not leave me much choice I feel - I am very well versed in how de facto should be used *correctly* in UK English (the language of this article) - the colloquial use of de facto which you refer to does not concern me. The phrase de facto does imply a basis in fact and a degree of strength - my point as noted above is that the use of de facto here is contentious and in terms of an article such as the EU, is potentially misleading. My view (and I am sorry again if you feel this is "rehashed") is that if there is any doubt as to the matter, the wording should be removed (and restored to the version under the previous consensus). We have all worked so hard to keep the article free of contentious matters, why should this be any different? If it will put an end to this discussion, I would be open to a vote on the matter. If I then stand alone, then so be it. Simonski (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Good faith contributor? You seem to be unable to engage in an adult conversation without insulting and calling those that disagree with you names. If you want to be taken seriously, please focus on the content, rather than the contributors. I understand that you "hate" European Federalists, so naturally you will lash out at anyone who does not share this hatred, but this behaviour does not help the discussion reach a consensus. I'm neither a European Federalists nor a euroskeptic, a fanatic nor a hater. I could care less whether the EU has a capital or not. I simply think that the article should accurately reflect what reliable sources say about the matter, rather than simply relying upon unsourced opinions. Clearly you disagree with me on this, but please keep the discussion to policy based arguments rather than ad hominem and straw man attacks. TDL (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That is your take on matters - I would argue that your response above (as with Sowlos most recent response to my comments) was more inflammatory than any initial statement I made on the matter (and only hardened my resolve to put across the other side of the argument which was being ignored to appease those who wished to include "de facto").

However, if you want to waste your own time in digging out an edit of my user page from 2008 as some sort of basis for ignoring the valid comments I make above (and hilariously, building your own straw man to attack my views with) then that is your prerogative. I hate to tell you however that it does not change the position that the statement that Brussels is the de facto capital of the EU is a contentious one. I note that my comments for example about the two sources which are currently relied upon as references for the inclusion of "de facto" has just been ignored amongst Sowlos (and your subsequent) attempts to shout me down. As I mentioned, even the Euractiv source notes that the research group "argued" that Brussels is the de facto capital. I still see no reason for the inclusion of this watered down use of "de facto", *regardless* of whatever political views you believe I currently hold. My view is a sufficient paragraph could be put in the article to note that it is suggested by some that Brussels is the de facto capital, without it being in the infobox. But please, do feel free to patronise me some more as I am sure we will reach a consensus that way. --Simonski (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Subsection on environment under economy

According to http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2007/aug/17/biofuelsmenacerainforests, biofuels menace rainforests. This should replace the last sentence of the subsection. Sarcelles (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

official languages

sorry but if irish is listed, then so should welsh and scots gaelic as official languages of the uk, and all the localised official languages in spain etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.126.102.161 (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

No, because none of these languages was put forward as an official EU language by their national government. Arnoutf (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but Welsh and Scots are only regional languages, the UK hasnt presented them forward as offical languages of the state, and on a linked point the UK also has Irish as a regional language (in Northern Ireland). Irish is actually the first offical language of Ireland and English the second language Article 8 of the Irish Constitution

1. The Irish language as the national language is the first official language.

2. The English language is recognised as a second official language. .Murry1975 (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The Republic of Ireland is not part of the UK. The status of Irish as an official language of the EU has nothing to do with the UK.  —Sowlos  10:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

In other words, we all agree, Irish is the (main) national language of an independent EU member state and as such a language of the EU. Arnoutf (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as I was pointing out, and showing detail for a language that is a regional language of the UK yet might cause confussion (and has in this case) because it is an offical language of th EU, because it is an offical language of Ireland. Murry1975 (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

EU acronym

Given that EU is a popular acronym for "Estados Unidos" or "United States" In Spanish speaking countries. I suggest changing it for UA for "United Europe". --Dagofloreswi (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, I think this an extremely bad idea (1) UA (or UE if the A was misspelling) is never ever used anywhere in any official or even casual situation for EU in English as far as I know, (2) This is not Spanish Wikipedia. Arnoutf (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

We don't make a habit of inventing content at Wikipedia. We depend on reliable sources for what we can and can't say about any topic. Everyone abbreviates "European Union" to "EU"; the sources reflect this. It's not our place to create a new acronym because it may inconvenience other groups. —Sowlos  17:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Ok, I guess as well as acronym are like words, they mean whatever the majority chooses.--Dagofloreswi (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Not really a majority thing. Just like we cannot replace an established acronym with something else, we cannot replace a word like for example Country with some nonword like "Flubberplup" (or even País for that matter) by majority vote. We would need substantial evidence the word is actually in at least as frequently as country in the context.

So for your proposal to have any chance (regardless of majority) you would have to show that the acronym UE is used in the English language for the EU, that this usage is about as frequent as the usage of EU (in English), and even then you would need consensus to put it in. Arnoutf (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox languages and currencies

Listing the name of the EU in all official language is pointless and only serves to bloat the size of the infobox. We already list the official languages themselves. We don't include 20 translation of the motto!

The same goes including lots of currencies which have very little to do with the institutions of the EU. Listing these currencies is akin to listing languages which are official in a member state but are not official EU languages. I vaguely remember a discussion over whether to include the Swiss franc (legal tender in Campione d'Italia^[4]) and the US dollar (some Caribbean islands). As it is we list the Gibraltar pound!!?? — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 20:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not see much harm in the way it currently is, as this information is hidden by default.

In most similar articles we do list the name in English followed by the official local name. The problem with the EU is that there are many official local names, and none of those has preference over any other. This is different from e.g. India where English and Hindi are the official languages of the country and the other languages are not. The comparison with the local languages in India would therefore be more comparable to regional languages in the EU (Frisian, Basque etc).

Similarly, when multiple legal currencies exist they tend to be all listed. (see e.g. Netherlands)

In summary, I don't see the problem which would be solved by removal of the text. So in my view it should stay (but if consensus goes towards removal I can live with that). Arnoutf (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The information is only hidden by default for readers who used the desktop version and have javascript enabled. It not hidden on the mobile version. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 11:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

In that case we should either make hidden boxes available for non-java and mobile devices -- or get rid of them altogether throughout Wikipedia; but having a tool and not using it is plain odd. Arnoutf (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Re your edit summary "the euro is the only official currency in the EU - other currencies are akin to the languages of EU members which are not official languages of the EU". This is a fallacy. If we follow the language analogy: All national languages are official languages in the EU -> All national currencies are official currencies in the EU. Or starting from the assumption that the Euro is the only official EU currency; and that other currencies are akin to recognised but not national official languages: Recognised non-official languages may be official in some region, but the national language will also be official in that region -> A recognised non-Euro currency maybe official in some region or country, but the official; Euro; will also be official in that region. Either way the argument collapses. Arnoutf (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Too many names

The EU does have fewer working languages. Perhaps we could focus stringently only on those. I'm leaning away from this though. Three languages is easier, but everything in the EU is officially known in 24 languages. Also, comparing this article to other national articles such as that of India is probably not very helpful. The EU with all its integration is still a supranational organization with a focus on multilingualism. If the issue is that mobile and non-JS users see the whole list by default, anything which uses CSS to hide content by default should fix that. Most mobile browsers would be fine with that and non-JS clients simply wouldn't be able to expand the list.

Currencies

Non-Euro currencies aren't simply currencies used by nations within the EU. A (perhaps the) core feature of the EU is its common market. All national currencies within the EU are part of that. Also, many national currencies are actively being managed within machinery intended to ease their incorporation into the Euro. —Sowlos  07:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

re currencies: true (except perhaps for the UK pound). But some of these have bargained for an exception (even if pegged to the Euro like the Danish crown), some are still far off. Are they close enough to the Euro to limit the list to Euro? Not really in my view, but I agree this is more of a gray area than the languages (so I would not mind much either way on this topic). Arnoutf (talk) 08:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikivoyage link

Any chance of adding a link to Wikivoyage to the sister projects template? 46.7.249.24 (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)