User talk:JLogan/2004 Enlargement

Great initiative! Once it's launced, do you think we should merge Treaty of Accession 2003 into it? I think so. - SSJ ☎ 22:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen before that the 2004 enlargement is called "the first part of the sixth EU enlargement", and the 2007 accession "the second part". The ten countries aren't very different from Bulgaria and Romania; should we use another title? E.g. Sixth enlargement of the European Union (and later rename parallell articles in line with that) or 2004 and 2007 enlargement of the European Union? - SSJ ☎ 22:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I also think articles like Bulgarian membership of the European Union should be merged into this article, as individual EU memberships are partly irrelevant and likely to be neglected. (much condensable low-quality text per now)
 * Accession of Poland to the European Union
 * Accession of Romania to the European Union- SSJ ☎ 23:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Poland would be good to merge, but I think RO & BG should be kept apart. Thing is, 2004 was a major event in itself and I think more self contained than the odd noises from the commission say. If we include 2007, then it becomes an odd 2004/2007 east-west enlargement wishy washy area to deal with. They are similar, hence my inclusion of them to the bottom, but they are different events and if we deal with both we'll spend the whole time distinguishing between them due to the different timetable and reactions.
 * If it concerned smaller number of countries then it might be good, but we already have 10 here. We could merge the Romanian and Bulgarian articles together? And if we did one on the 1980s, we could do Iberia and Greece together... But if we get all the relevant data here, this is going to be a big article.- J.Logan`t : 23:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Aye the accession of the 10 is probably complicated enough. This is the best solution. Though ultimately (in theory) perhaps it would be neat to have six enlargement articles with ordinal-numbered names. - SSJ ☎ 00:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could always change to Sixth (part one) so to speak? But I don't think anyone recognises them by a number - except maybe the first.- J.Logan`t : 10:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)