Talk:List of European Union directives
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Naming policy needed before it is too late
We seem to have two house styles, though almost all current articles use the first. I propose that we agree a single house syle:
- Directive on <blah blah blah>
- <Blah blah blah> directive
[I am in favour of option 1] Red King 20:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- I've removed the A/B voting (since these obviously aren't the only two options). It's probably better to discuss it (and hopefully not need a vote at all).
- Perhaps it might be a good idea to include the phrase EU or European Union? For example, "European Union Directive on X"? Talrias (t | e | c) 22:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- Ok, I was taking as given that the article currently uses just those two forms. Either seems good to me, though I prefer the first. I think the prefixes you suggest are excessively lengthy and don't add anything. I know of know other context in which the word "Directive" is used. Do you? --Red King 21:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, we did just agree to put "(European Commission)" at the end of every DG article (see Talk:Directorate-General#Naming Conventions). A similar argument could be made here. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I don't think that this is a valid comparison. "Director General" is widely used. --Red King 20:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Okay, so no one has done anything on this for over a year and no one decided. I think it would still be good to have a naming convention here, and as there is little difference between the two types I would go for the second, as it would be easier with categories, not having to put |name at the end of the category link. As for having a ref. to the EU in the title, well in the off chance there is something of the same name coming along perhaps we could just add (European Union, 2003) or whatever at the end so the date is there too, but obviously a redirect from a page without that end bit. Any objections? -JLogan 11:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Title
Does the title of this article make sense ? In my view, it does not, since we are here giving a very narrow overview of the EC legislation... Some are significant, some not (like the list on health and safety issues). Do we really intend to be exhaustive, when we finally give the link to the official search engine ? Philippe R. 23:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Content / Framework =
The official EU search engine is good - but runs the risk of descending into jargon. The Wikipedia article can contribute most by giving users a clear overview of EU legislation that then points towards the detail. The official search engine covers 20 areas (below). The Wikipedia article only 8. It would be good to use the EU framework but offer the reader an intelligent route through. --Ian Yorston 14:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- 01. General, financial and institutional matters
- 02. Customs Union and free movement of goods
- 03. Agriculture
- 04. Fisheries
- 05. Freedom of movement for workers and social policy
- 06. Right of establishment and freedom to provide services
- 07. Transport policy
- 08. Competition policy
- 09. Taxation
- 10. Economic and monetary policy and free movement of capital
- 11. External relations
- 12. Energy
- 13. Industrial policy and internal market
- 14. Regional policy and coordination of structural instruments
- 15. Environment, consumers and health protection
- 16. Science, information, education and culture
- 17. Law relating to undertakings
- 18. Common Foreign and Security Policy
- 19. Area of freedom, security and justice
- 20. People's Europe
