Talk:Member state of the European Union/Archive 2

Table in Member state of the European Union is unwieldy - could it be cleaned up?
The table in question currently has 16 columns. I don't think I've seen any with this many on any other article, and It makes navigating it difficult, even on a desktop PC. Would people be open to removing some of the columns from the table? The ones I think that could most easily be done away with are those that are unuseful for making direct comparisons. These are:	Native name, code, and capital. Furthermore, I think 'territories' could be better integrated in the table, and flags positioned to the right of the country's name rather than as a separate column. I have indicated with Cyprus and Denmark in the table below how the this might look. Domeditrix (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! All of this stuff is in the country articles, so only 'comparison at a glance' is needed here. I would lose
 * List of countries by GDP, it tells you that Germany has the largest economy and Malta the smallest shock. GDP per capita is the useful comparator.
 * Languages
 * Territories
 * But maybe best if you do your proposals first (which I support) and then consider mine as they are maybe more controversial. But in the meantime, I suggest a change to the GDP column title in case we must have it, to GDP (US$M) [I have done this below but not in article]. --Red King (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've amended the table in the main article. I'd also support removing languages and GDP. Domeditrix (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have pasted back below your revised (live) version. It really does look a lot better now, it fits on a reasonable (25cm) laptop or tablet screen. So let's let it stand like that for a week to see if anyone has further comments. --Red King (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We could make it even slimmer, and more compliant with Wiki guidelines by removing the flag icons per MOS:FLAG. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be averse to that, it's still a large table by most standards. Domeditrix (talk) 10:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is just clutter. If it were a list of UN members, flags provide a quick access method but here it just cruft. --Red King (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to confess I've just added ISO3166 codes into the table. Tables are data, and means of linking data together between tables is useful. Wikipedia is a general reference source, used widely by many people. Is the 'Czech Republic' referenced in this table the same as 'Czechia' referenced in another source? The ISO3166 code verifies that yes, it is. It may reasonably be argued that one of the two columns is superfluous, but (in my opinion), they cannot both be. There may be an argument for having a more comprehensive table as a separate page, with only a subset of its columns on this page, provided there is a link to the more comprehensive table. Simon standingstone (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality - withdrawal section
The following text under the "Withdrawal" section lacks neutrality of tone.

"The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020 at 23:00 GMT ending 47 years of membership despite (subsequently incorrect) allegations of electoral misconduct during the referendum and repeated calls for a second referendum by those seeking to remain in the European Union irrespective of democratic votes otherwise"

In particular: "irrespective of democratic votes otherwise" and use of "despite". Further the allegations of electoral misconduct are not entirely settled especially given footnote 31: Dan Sabbagh, Luke Harding, Andrew Roth: Russia report reveals UK government failed to investigate Kremlin interference The Guardian, 21 July 2020.

Better text would simply read: "The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020 at 23:00 GMT ending 47 years of membership."

Allegation of electoral misconduct during the referendum should be handled separately. It would probably require engaging with the Russia report mentioned in fn 31. Similarly the issue of a second referendum would need to be addressed separately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.247.124 (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Repetition in Withdrawal section
The final para, which is a summary of the stages of withdrawal of the UK, repeats a lot of info from three or four paras earlier. Boscaswell  talk  07:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)