Talk:Europe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Europe was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 26, 2008 Peer review Reviewed
March 5, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Geography (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Europe (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Core (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Europe:

To get to good article level


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Verify : ADD inline citations - particularly geography to biology sections and for statistics throughout the article

Economy of Europe[edit]

I think this would be in the economy section: Europe has a long history as the world's richest and most productive part of the world. At the time of Christ's birth is estimated western European output per capita was approximately 30% higher than the world average. Year 1500 had this advantage increased to 40%.[1] After the development of science and the Industrial Revolution in Europe grew its lead quickly, in 1700 produced an average European almost 70% more than world's average population, and in 1850 was taken over the entire 150%. Around the year 1900 was Western Europe's leading role as the world's most productive area has been taken over by the former European colony of the United States, but Europe has continued to belong to the world's richest, most productive and knowledge-producing regions.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.103.205.2 (talkcontribs) 12 January 2011

References

  1. ^ a b Madisson, Angus (2009). [http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/Historical_Statistics/horizontal-file_09-2008.xls Statistics on World Population, GDP and Per Capita GDP, 1-2006 AD].

Chinese Name Change[edit]

I deleted the following sentence from this page:

which is an abbreviation of the transliterated name Ōuluóbā zhōu (歐羅巴洲)

I did this because, I have never heard this term though I am a speaker of Chinese. I asked some native Chinese speakers, and they also had never heard this term. I have found any research indicating that the term 欧洲 is an abbreviation of 欧罗巴州, as the deleted sentence suggests, though 欧罗巴 is direct transliteration of the word Europe into Chinese. The word was used on the Chinese Language Wikipedia page refers to 欧罗巴 only as a transliteration for the Greek word "Europa." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agenbite (talkcontribs) 27 January 2012

The image[edit]

Isn't that Europe image a bit big?

City selection criteria for infobox inclusion[edit]

I think that the criterion of the 9 largest cities is arbitrary and should be modified to better represent the diversity of cities in Europe. I hope some consensus emerges which will better reflect the European city demographics. I think that by using the 3 million population criterion, the inclusion of Milan and Athens enriches the content of the article. Further, I think that Athens, the oldest city of Europe and the cradle of its civilisation, cannot but enrich the mix of available cities. I could also go for the 11 city criterion as in the infoboxes of several other continents. Dr. K. 00:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The reason I added two more was because I felt the cutoff of 3 million was reasonable, being based on the size of a city (3 million resulting in not too many and not too few cities), and also because other articles had 11 cities in the infobox (Africa, North America, South America). But yours are even better arguments. And even better than "9 is the largest single digit number" and "So, you're a Greek...". Athenean (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I oppose your change because I don't see any good reason to change it. I don't actually have a preference for 9 over 11 (11 is just as arbitrary, although more contentious). I do oppose using a population criteria because:
Its still arbitrary because you still have to choose a population cut-off based on how many cities you want. 4 million gives you 7, 3.5 million gives you 9, 3 million gives you 11, 2.5 million gives you 15. So choosing 3 million and therefore 11, is just as arbitrary as choosing 9. Being discriminate doesn't make it any less arbitrary. I mean, I could equally argue 3.5 million is a "reasonable cutoff".
It is inadequate as a consistent definition since it obviously wont give a consistent number of cities for every continent. I think the definition should be consistent per WP:INFOBOX, and both of you seem to infer you agree, despite using many Europe-specific arguments to support 11.
As for being "the oldest city of Europe and the cradle of its civilisation"—this is irrelevant. It states "largest cities" not "most notable". It's also obviously not a consistent definition.
I don't even know what you mean by "enriches the content of the article". Its just a list of the largest cities.
At this point, we are just waiting for a Ukrainian or Portuguese editor to come along and argue "15 is reasonable"!
You have given conflicting arguments. On one hand you want consistency with other articles, but then you justify 11 because it is an "over 3 million cutoff", and that Athens is a notable European city (I don't see editors at Asia accepting that criteria for their article...)? Those two arguments directly contradict each other.
So with that said, I think there really needs to be an appropriate number chosen for all continents articles agreed at the template's talk page. But if you two both think a convoluted criteria is "reasonable", I wont bother.
Athenean, you're Greek and you want to expand the list to include Athens. I was just inferring that you probably have a POV in the issue. Don't take it offensively.
Rob984 (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
The previous status quo is not an argument. In fact I don't see any arguments in favor of 9 cities in your above post, only straw men, slippery slopes, and of course ad hominems. What about you Rob, do you have a POV [1]? Oh no, not at all. So please keep your brilliant deductions about my motivations to yourself. Athenean (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
It isn't. I reverted because you don't have a coherent argument for changing it. WP:BRD, you know? The situation now is no better or worst than before. And what is that suppose to mean? Everyone has POVs. But I don't have any view on whether or not a Greek city should be in the infobox, if that is what you are asking. It's funny, you really have no real interest in consistency, do you? Because you know if we had a discussion at the template, the outcome probably wouldn't be 11, since that is such a random number that obviously isn't going to be based on a Europe-specific criteria. Your incoherent argument isn't really holding up too well, is it? Then again, you aren't even denying your POV is the main reason behind the change. Rob984 (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't see the need to defend myself against trolling. Which, by the way, is a very poor substitute for proper arguments, of which you have none. But whatever, you can keep thinking that. It won't sway anyone though. Athenean (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I am trolling? After years of instability, I added the source for the list with the figure for each city cited, and set the limit to 9. Since then numerous editors have come and added their city because according to some obscure definition it should be included. I have reverted countless times to keep the list accurate. But yes, I am just trolling you.
In seriousness, you are making two entirely separate arguments for your change, both of which I think are flawed. Either it is for consistency, in which case it would need to also apply to Asia and any other currently non-conforming articles; or it is because you think there should be a cut-off of 3 million. You can't have your cake and eat it, so what it is my friend?
And also, who am I not convincing? Right now its two editors who both happen to speak Greek. I don't suppose you would mind if I RFC?
Rob984 (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I also don't know how you can say I have no argument. My argument is your change is arbitrary and not at all improving the article. Your justification is that it is more "reasonable" to cut of a 3 million rather than 2.5 million OR 11 rather than 9 OR that it is more consistent based on a select number of other articles OR that because Athens is culturally significant to Europe it should be included. And you're telling me my argument is a slippery slope? You have simply convoluted a number of weak and irrelevant arguments for your change. Rob984 (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Amidst all this noise, you are missing one simple thing. That Athens and Milan are among Europe's largest cities. No appeals to tradition, slippery slopes, or ad hominems will change that. And as far as I see that's all you got. Athenean (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay, RFC it is. I might just ping the regulars on this talk page if you don't mind? Wouldn't want to be accused of canvassing. Rob984 (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Also that is just plain dumb reason. So is Kiev, Lisbon, Manchester. Lisbon is a beautiful place so I think we should extend the list to 15! My preference would probably be 5 in a horizontal list, per MOS:INFOBOX. Hence why a centralised discussion at the template would be ideal. Rob984 (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The only "plain dumb reasons" are your "9 is the largest single digit", appeals to tradition and ad hominems. You make it sound like adding two more cities somehow ruined the article. It is becoming more and more evident you are doing this out of spite. Which is probably why no one reverted to your version. Notice that? Athenean (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
It is suppose to be arbitrary to avoid contention... how is that dumb when the list has been persistently disrupted over the last few years? And yes, partially out of spite, otherwise I would probably just let it be since it is fairly trivial. You could've avoided that by not being impudent. Rob984 (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to ping the regulars, unless you have any reason to object? Rob984 (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
So you are admitting to trolling and being partly motivated by spite. Well, at least you're honest, I'll give you that. Which "regulars" are you speaking of? As far as I can tell the only regulars here are you and me. Athenean (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not really a regular, am I? Maybe the odd edit and vandalism reversion. Looking at the talk page, Arnoutf, Zoupan, Alessandro57, Khestwol and Jirka.h23 look like active editors here. This isn't exactly a complex discussion so I doubt they would mind giving their thoughts. Probably after laughing at how trivial the matter is. Rob984 (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
And being more vigilant towards an editor in spite because they are rude is not trolling. Rob984 (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm don't think that made any sense, its late. I just mean if you are rude, I'm obviously less likely to let it slide or compromise, you know? Its not trolling. Rob984 (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, the problem with rudeness is that it has a tendency to escalate. I admit I was rude because I was really annoyed at your insinuation that I added Milan and Athens solely because I am Greek (that is not the case). So then I responded rudely, and things just went downhill from there. Anyway, I am glad to see you are de-escalating. This is indeed a tempest in a teacup. I was thus wondering if you would be willing to let it slide in the spirit of AGF, and that way we can both move on to more productive endeavors. Athenean (talk) 04:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay. I accept that comment was disdainful to begin with. Regards, Rob984 (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you both for your honesty and open-mindedness. This type of exchange does not happen often, either on-wiki or off. Dr. K. 19:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I agree with User:Rob984. My preference would also be to have only 5 cities in a horizontal list, in all the articles about major regions of the world. The infoboxes must be made consistent. Khestwol (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why individual cities need to be listed in the infobox at all. The problems and nuances associated with defining the size of a city by various measures are best suited for a discussion in the article text, which currently does not mention Europe's largest cities at all (which makes it even more difficult for me to understand why the infobox needs to have this information.) Cobblet (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Bugs[edit]

The capital of the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia isn't Mariehamn but more likely the Episkopi Cantonment. I'm not allowed to edit myself. Someone please update the article. Oxel (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Woops, thank you. Done. Rob984 (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2016[edit]

Could a source be provided in the "Etymology" section , third paragraph (see below):

"The term "Europe" is first used for a cultural sphere in the Carolingian Renaissance of the 9th century. From that time, the term designated the sphere of influence of the Western Church, as opposed to both the Eastern Orthodox churches and to the Islamic world. The modern convention, enlarging the area of "Europe" somewhat to the east and the southeast, develops in the 19th century"

The paragraphe does not quote any source and this makes the claim impossible to verify.

Thanks

Alexislefranc (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I've added a {{cn}} tag. Stickee (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)