Talk:List of European Union member states by accession

Likely Next Enlargement

This section begins with It is generally expected that the states of southeastern Europe will be the next states to join the European Union, and that it will still take some time for Iceland, Norway and Switzerland to join, since public opinion is not yet in favour in those three states I think this section should at least be rewritten as it is, in my opinion, insinuating that eventually Iceland, Norway and Switzerland will join. That it is just a matter of time. I know the Norwegian situation best, and it is far more likely that Norway will stay out than ever join the EU. This because: 1) Membership was turned down twice in Referendum already, and it's widely accepted in Norwegian politics that the "rules" wont be changed in case of a new membership application. Thus there will be held a referendum in that case. 2) Last years the opinion polls have mostly shown a "no" majority 3) Joining the EU is a greater step for the population each time, as the EU continues to include more national matters in its international cooperation. 4) The EEA has proved to work very well 5) The main arguments against entering the EU remains the same as before. Fisheries and agriculture being one of the main argues and the people not really seeing the need for joining as the economy is boosting and the everyday matters like work, education, travel etc are taken care of thanks to EEA and Schengen.

It's also worth mentioning that Iceland becoming member is also an unlikely scenario, especially if Norway don't. As i wrote, fisheries is one of the main reasons why Norwegians voted "No", Iceland is by far more dependent of it's fisheries than Norway and so the "fisheries-argument" is even stronger there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tordenskrall (talk • contribs) 13:37, 29 October 2007 --Tordenskrall 13:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)(UTC) --Tordenskrall 13:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's true - Norway does not think it's overfishing the North Sea (Nor is Iceland willing to come to the table on Cod War issues), and joining the EU will mean that it has to stop illegal whaling. it's unlikely they'll ever do so - the section is mostly original research, and should be removed. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 13:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[1] Has a good neutral description of the situation in Norway. I don't know the details on Icelandic whaling, but discussions on whaling probably belong to another article. It's however true that if the EU in membership negotiations demand a stop in Norwegian whaling, that would probably be enough to cirtain "No" in the referendum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tordenskrall (talk • contribs) 13:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC) --Tordenskrall 13:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Redundant redundancy

Geez, one might think that European Union member states was enough. Actually, that one was already pretty much redundant, but I guess you can never have have enough redundancy. That's why it's called redundancy.

People just seem to want to create more and more articles about the European Union, without even bothering to check if they are actually serving any need. Someone else please bother with all the merging and/or deletion tags that should be applied to this and the other article. Aris Katsaris 01:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. What is the point of having this article, or European Union member states, when this information is already included in European Union? What surprises me is that a moderator even placed this article in the "Did you know?" category. It seems like he or she would have realized that surely this information about a topic as big as the EU was redundant to some other article in Wikipedia. 71.65.54.92 04:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

European Union desperately needs to be merged, and European Union member states is not really good at what it does: It's just another futurology compilation. I'd rather suggest that the relevant sections from European Union and the whole of European Union member states be merged into this, and that European Union be split up further. In addition, no one complains that List of U.S. states by date of statehood lists info already available elsewhere (History of the United States, and many others, probably); that's what lists are there for, giving list-like information quickly and easily. —Nightstallion (?) 05:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem with that; I'll merge European Union member states into this one. Good? —Nightstallion (?) 06:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Cell color

I am seeing black colored cells in the table. Can we fix that please? Shawnc 07:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's a problem on your end of the line, not on Wikipedia's — it appears as light green, light yellow and light red for the majority of the users. What's your system configuration? —Nightstallion (?) 07:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It was also a problem for user 137.189.4.1 whose edit summary read "Changed colour of some unreadable cells". I have the problem under IE 6.0.29 but Firefox 1.0.7 works ok. Shawnc 08:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Mh. I s'pose similarily coloured cells in the tables at trade bloc, African Economic Community and so on don't work either? —Nightstallion (?) 08:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I just tried, and they show up fine there. I s'pose the problem is related to the... curious colour codes used; I'll change them to standard web colours. —Nightstallion (?) 10:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Changed the colours to pastel tones that actually work in IE, as well. —Nightstallion (?) 13:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It works for me now, thanks. Shawnc 18:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Gladly! —Nightstallion (?) 20:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Explaining my revert

Akrotiri and Dhekelia are already listed under Cyprus, where they logically belong IMO; this can, of course, be discussed and changed, but the way it currently is feels intuitively "right" to me. —Nightstallion (?) 10:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

They are "possession" of the UK, so their were "not included" for the first time when UK joined (for contrast - Gibraltar joined then; other UK possessions don't joined, etc. - why divide the SBAs from the other British territories and not list them in the UK list (also I would like it to be specifically listed, not only "the other 12 territories" - like France list is full, etc.). Of course there is this detail that when Cyprus joined there was declaration that this does not change the status of the SBAs - eg. they are dealt with in this case too, but the first case is when UK joined. Agree? 199.64.72.252 07:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can see your reasoning and will change the table. —Nightstallion (?) 23:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Not potential candidates?

Why are Russia, Byelorussia, Moldova, and Ukraine not considered potential candidate countries? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.142.82.224 (talk • contribs) . on 20:59, 16 February 2006

Ask the European Commission or take a look at Enlargement of the European Union. —Nightstallion (?) 20:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Denmark's Accession

Could someone tell me, why did Denmark (and Norway) withdraw their application when the UK's was vetoed? I know why Ireland did, but can't think of any reason why the other 2 would've - ^Red_Hot 18:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Solidarity, I s'pose, and protest against de Gaulle's arbitrary actions. —Nightstallion (?) 19:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Out of place statement

"On May 19, 2006, the European Union's Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn said that he expected Iceland to join the European Union before Croatia would."

What is the purpose of this statement? What does it add? There's nothing in the paragraphs above that imply that there's some reason we should have thought that Croatia would join before Iceland. It gives the impression, like too many Wikipedia articles, that facts that have very little encyclopedic value are just thrown into the article as they happen. Unless some context is added that explains why anyone would care that Iceland might join the EU before Croatia, this statement should be removed. —Cleared as filed. 12:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was more or less assumed that the Balkans would be the next states to join after BUL and ROU, but Rehn stated that he expected Iceland to join first, which was something of a surprise to insiders... I'll try to make it a bit clearer still, okay? —Nightstallion (?) 06:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

World picture broken

Image:European_Union_as_a_single_entity_in_the_world.png is somehow not working properly as thumbnail. Watching the high res version does work, but I have o idea how to fix this.

Yeah, I've noticed this too; it works properly for me as an image on this page, and when viewed at full size, but not on the image page itself... No clue as to why. Help? —Nightstallion (?) 20:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Name

Now that I've split off list of European Union member states by political system, which I'm going to expand shortly, what should the name of this article be?

• LoEUms by membership?
• LoEUms by status?
• LoEUms by membership status?

Somehow, all of that doesn't sound right to me... Help? —Nightstallion (?) 20:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Mh, another idea: List of European Union member states by enlargement or something along those lines? —Nightstallion (?) 13:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• LoEUms by accession date?

lG — Shir Khan (?-"-!) — 18:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

By accession date sounds good to me. TheGrappler 20:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I have with "accession date" is that there's a list by application date included, too... —Nightstallion (?) 20:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to move it to "LoEUms by accession". —Nightstallion (?) 08:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This article was selected for DYK!

<removed DYK box> (reapperance because of the merging, the merged from article is what I beleive appeared in January. Please do not nominate this article again though... ) ++Lar: t/c 11:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong, the article that was featured was list of European Union member states by political system. —Nightstallion (?) 12:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

Should this article be merged into Enlargement of the European Union? Seems to cover a lot of common ground AndrewRT - Talk 19:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No; I'll explain below. —Nightstallion (?) 12:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Structure of Articles

I would like to propose a reorganisation of articles about the EU, including merging and renaming as follows:

• Enlargement of the European Union (EEU): rename to Future Enlargement of the European Union

• List of European Union member states by accession: Merge future info into EEU article, and past info into History of the European Union. keep as a simple list.

Does this sound feasible? AndrewRT - Talk 23:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No, for the simple reason that this article is only meant to be a very quick overview -- I created it with the explicit intent of making a featured list on the topic, summarising only the most important aspects of enlargement and leaving the details (likelihood of future enlargement, controversiality of Turkey issue, ...) to Enlargement of the European Union. The main part of this article are its lists, diagrams and maps, that's why I'm strongly against merging it. (Besides, the other article is already far too long, anyway, and should be partially split into the respective "COUNTRYNAME and the European Union" articles...) —Nightstallion (?) 12:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Timeline - Macedonia

The timeline suggests that the country is negotiating its entry. This, as far as I know, isn't true. It's been recognised as a candidate, but the negotiations are yet to be opened. Any thoughts on how to fix this? --20:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)RedZebra

I'd like to fix this, but I'd need distinct dates of beginning negotiations for *every* country that ever negotiated entry -- and I wasn't able to find any data on that for the EU-12 when I wrote up this list. Can you help? —Nightstallion (?) 17:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I've found:

• the United Kingdom (8 November 1961) dspace/bitstream/2134/2355/5/CHAPTER3.pdf (a PDF file)
• Denmark (30 November 1961) dspace/bitstream/2134/2355/5/CHAPTER3.pdf (a PDF file)
• Norway (12 November 1962) dspace/bitstream/2134/2355/5/CHAPTER3.pdf

The British were vetoed twice by de Gaulle. On 14 January 1963 de Gaulle officially expressed his opposition against the UK entry [2]; negociations were officially suspended on 29 January 1963 [3]; on 27 November 1967 the application was vetoed for the second time [4])

• Denmark, Ireland, Norway, and the United Kingdom (30 June 1970) [5]
• Greece (27 July 1976) [6]
• Portugal (17 October 1978) [7]
• Spain (5 February 1979) [8]
• Austria, Finland and Sweden (1 February 1993) [9]
• Norway (5 April 1993) [10]
• Cyprus, Poland, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovenia (31 March 1998) [11]
• Malta, Romania, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania and Bulgaria (15 February 2000) [12]
• Croatia and Turkey (3 October 2005) [13]

I hope I haven't missed anyone. --RedZebra 19:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ireland's first and Norway's third attempt are missing, and the rather imprecise information about de Gaulle's actions are what makes it rather difficult to pinpoint exactly when the accession negotiations were stopped... Great work in finding those dates out, though. —Nightstallion (?) 20:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, Ireland never opened accession talks in the 1960s despite its repeated attempts. See the dspace....pdf file for more (I think it was pages 30-35). Norway's third attempt has now been included in the list. I'll see if I can find more information about de Gaulle's vetoes and its repercussion on the other two countries (dates when their applications were suspended/withdrawn) (I'll try to do this when I find time). --RedZebra 08:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, great! Especially important would be the dates that negotiations were stopped for the four countries who wanted to join back then, and we'd also need a specific date for when Morocco's date was shot down. —Nightstallion (?) 14:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Timeline - Cyprus

Hi all. There is a problem with the timeline under Cyprus. Here the timeline suggests that Cyprus part called "TRNC" is excluded from accession. 2 major issues arise from that.

1. The EU does not recognize nor refer to "TRNC" as a state de facto or otherwise, instead refers to Turkish Cypriot community, and
2. Cyprus as a whole entered the EU, whereas the acquis is suspended in the northern part of the island (“areas not under effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus”). This means inter alia that these areas are outside the customs and fiscal territory of the EU. The suspension has territorial effect, but does not concern the personal rights of Turkish Cypriots as EU citizens, as they are considered as citizens of the Member State Republic of Cyprus.

Evidence here

I suggest the removal of "TRNC" as politically incorrect statement (this is ipso facto a political article) and the inclusion of "areas not under effective control" renaming to North Cyprus.

There is also a fundamnetal POV error in the Notes under "L" as well. The referendum that was held was between the two major communities in Cyprus and not between the "Republic of Cyprus" and the "Trnc" as the original editor suggests. see "DRAFT ANNEX IX: COMING INTO BEING OF THE NEW STATE OF AFFAIRS" on the actual annan plan here. Thoughts? Aristovoul0s 17:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Your re-definition is arbitrary and Wikipedia does not need to represent the EU's point of view on this, we should only be using our own conventions and standards. Likewise, the term "de facto" means precisely what you say -- de iure, Northern Cyprus is part of the EU, but de facto, it isn't, due to the suspension of the aquis. I see absolutely no problem with the text as it stands. —Nightstallion (?) 12:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Nightstallion, it is not my definition of anything. I am pasting below what i suggested directly from the EU web page on the relevant issue: "In light of Protocol 10 of the Accession Treaty 2003 Cyprus as a whole entered the EU, whereas the acquis is suspended in the northern part of the island (“areas not under effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus”). This means inter alia that these areas are outside the customs and fiscal territory of the EU. The suspension has territorial effect, but does not concern the personal rights of Turkish Cypriots as EU citizens, as they are considered as citizens of the Member State Republic of Cyprus. DG Enlargement has set up a Taskforce “Turkish Cypriot Community” dealing with the consequences of this unique and complex situation. It exists since 1 May 2004, the date of accession of the Republic of Cyprus to the EU".

Notice how there is no mention of "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus".

Why do you disagree? If on an EU article wikipedia does NOT reflect EU point of view then whos point of view does it reflect? What are the references for the article as it stands?  Aristovouλos   ^(T) 17:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does, by definition, represent *NOONE*'s point of view -- it presents a neutral point of view. This includes presenting the facts as it is, not as the Union acknowledges them to be; de facto, Northern Cyprus (neutrally referred to as "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus") is not part of the Union currently. De iure, it is. That's what the article currently states. I'm willing to slightly rephrase it if you can point out what exactly breaches any of our policies or is incorrect, but as it stands, I'm fairly sure the article is okay... —Nightstallion (?) 18:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

ok sounds good. My initial argument is that the EU intentionally does not refer to "Turkish Republic of .." because it is a biased way of looking at the situation. Lets consider "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" (those five words together with their meaning) and see whether it is a neutral statement or a biased one/ "a specific point of view" not whether it is de jure (by law) or de facto (in practice either legal or illegal) as we both agree is not de jure. Once again whether "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" is a neutral statement.

On the one hand we have the support of Turkey and turkish diplomacy as the only country stating that "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" is the norm/neutral view for describing northern territory of the Republic of Cyprus. Do we have any other supporting evidence for it being a neutral statement?

On the other hand we have:

• the United Nations ~190 countries (excluding one), refering to "Turkish Cypriot Community of (the republic of)Cyprus and never as "Turkish republic of Northern anything" see resolution 541 as an example
• the European Union (all of its members) same as UN refering to "Turkish Cypriot Community of the Republic of Cyprus" [14]
• the ECHR not mentioning "Turkish Republic of..." but described as a "Turkeys subordinate local administration" [15]

Even the ciafactbook [16] states "Turkish Community of Cyprus". (US foreign policy).

With the above in mind and according to independent, verifiable and reliable sources, please cite references that prove "Turkiish republic of Northern Cyprus" being an NPOV argument.

What are the references that support that the words "Turkish Republic of Cyprus" is the neutral way to describe the Turkish community of Cyprus? other than the creators words? Note that i am using only third parties. Those specific words in the specific order is a specific POV namely Turkish Pov unless i have skipped a source. if so please point it out. Aristovouλos   ^(T) 20:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your reasoning, but as you will certainly concede, neither of these other terms actually refers to the de facto independent state of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, or this article wouldn't be at this name currently -- "Turkish Cypriot Community" refers to exactly that, Turkish Cypriots on Cyprus no matter whether they live in the north or the south of the island. You could try to file a requested move for Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus to be moved to some other name which you consider more neutral, but I doubt you will have too much luck with it... Or would you also want South Ossetia moved to Region in northern Georgia which asserts independence, which would certainly be more neutral? ;) —Nightstallion (?) 14:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right nightstallion, South Ossetia is not refered to as Republic of South Ossetia just like North Cyprus should be mentioned. Do two wrong moves make a right on WK?  Aristovouλos   ^(T) 17:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No, of course not, but Northern Cyprus (which was the article's name for some time, I believe) is too ambiguous, so the current name is the most neutral, unambiguous name possible. —Nightstallion (?) 17:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

And the independent, verifiable and reliable sources, proving that the current name is the most neutral, unambiguous name possible are...???  Aristovouλos   ^(T) 17:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, I don't want to butt in, but I see this as a spill-over of the debate from the debate on the TRNC page. We are actually in the process of developing, both in that page, and on the Wikipedia:Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board, a proper solution to this exact issue. Please let's debate there and stop it from spreading to other Wiki articles. Aristo, you might have a valid point or not on this, but let's solve this not here but on the related talk pages. We just created the cooperation board to resolve precisely such articles-wide disagreements. Baristarim 17:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for butting in. I can only agree and would kindly ask Aristovoulos to return when there's consensus on this. —Nightstallion (?) 17:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok agreed Nightstallion, Baris, we may continoue this conversation at a later stage under a just condition however. Since there are no evidence in support of the current status and since it is being under debate "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" must be removed until the dispute is settled. In its place "Turkish Community" should be used that is supported by solid evidence, once again until the dispute is settled. Thoughts?  Aristovouλos   ^(T) 18:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree. The article has been at this location for a long time and this was deemed okay by the vast majority of editors, while your proposed name is incorrect in that it only describes Turkish Cypriots and not the de facto state they live in. I strongly advocate leaving the article where it currently stands until there's consensus on what to do (if anything). —Nightstallion (?) 19:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Accession: Notes for later inclusion in the article

Country	In favour — against	Estimated accession date
Albania	??? — ???	2015–2020, 2017
Bosnia and Herzegovina	83% — 7%	2017
Croatia	64% — 21% 49.8% — 38.6%	2010
Kosovo	??? — ???	2015
	??? — ???	2012 or 2013
Montenegro	76.5% — 5.6%	2010
Serbia	57% — ??? 69.3% — 30.7% 68% — 16% 73% — 10% 74.9% — 16.0%	2012 or 2014
Turkey	45% — 29% 54.1% — 37.1%	2013, 2019
Iceland	34.3% — 42.3% 55.1% — 44.9%	2015 Also considering whether to join the eurozone.
Norway	43% — 46.8% 41.3% — 48.3% 41.8% — 48.2% 35.6% — 52.5% 34.6% — 53.4% 34.6% — 54.3%	????
Switzerland	23.2% — 76.8%	????
Andorra	??? — ???	????
Liechtenstein	??? — ???	????
Monaco	??? — ???	????
San Marino	??? — ???	????
Belarus	47% — 25%	????
Israel	??? — ???	????
Russia	36% — 26%	????
Ukraine	??? — ???	????

Fair use rationale for Image:EU Accession Croatia.png

Image:EU Accession Croatia.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Turkey EU logo.jpg

Image:Turkey EU logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Sun too is a star.jpg

Image:The Sun too is a star.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

two lists

How about merging these into one sortable list? Would require each on its own line and a bit of reorganisation but not too hard to do. But would it be a bit to complicated?- _J.Logan`^t: 22:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Em.. The width of the lists are already full of useful information ("special territories" and "application result/notes" respectively) already. Maybe I'll try something in my sandbox, but I think it would be hard to come up with a pleasant compromise. - SSJ ☎ 22:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Granted, thanks. With the territories though, I was thinking some kind of drop down or we could cut it out. I'm quite sure that data is elsewhere, or at least it should be, in a more generic list. It is something that ought to be in the table on Member State of the European Union rather than the lite info like domains etc.- _J.Logan`^t: 22:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, special territories are more important than web domains. - SSJ ☎ 23:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If I may be so bold, you could kill the last three columns on the member states page, and indeed the official name col (which seems the source of quite a few reverts per week), and the essential value will still be there with plenty of room for data like territories which matter far more to the list.- _J.Logan`^t: 00:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Affirmative. - SSJ ☎ 00:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly prefer to keep these two lists as they are now, as they have different content for a reason. —Nightstallion 14:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody intends to flush valuable data down the toilet! We were talking about the possibility of merging them, in any case without killing data. The insertion of a row for special territories in Member State of the European Union preserves the facts of the uppermost table in this article. And if this article merge is fullfilled, the data in the lower table will also be preserved in some way or another. In my opinion, all the edits that were done since yesterday were good, and neither of them represented a preparation for a merge of articles. So please don't revert them all. - SSJ ☎ 22:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

As I see, 10 days later, much of the info (mostly references links) is gone and NOT TO BE FOUND ANYWHERE on the other pages. Additionaly, there is NO CONSESSUS FOR REMOVAL in this discussion. I am restoring the article to the status that it had achieving "featured article". Any meaningfull and referenced changes are of course welcome, but AFAIK blatant deletions are not. Alinor (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note - I am against removing text (and it is mostly referenced) or columns of the table, but yes, if someone thinks that he can do it - a merge of the two tables may be good - columns: "appliaction number", "accession number", "state", "application" (date; for the initial 6 - start of negotiations/initial contacts for the first Treaty), "accession" (date), "result/status", "special territories". The last two may be show/hide type - or better all columns to be made with show/hide per column (and sort by button). Alinor (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a consensus, and the merge request tag linked to this talk page. Please discuss there if you disagree with the merge. No data is lost. - SSJ ☎ 15:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)