Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European Union/Style guidelines

Spelling of euro
See also Linguistic issues concerning the euro

This issue seems to be the subject of deliberations in the EU.

There are two relevant EU style guides: the Interinstitutional style guide and the Translation Directorate style guide. Both seem to agree on the spelling "euro" and on non-capitalization. They also now seem to agree on the use of the plural form "euros", though that is less clear.

The style guide of the European Commission Directorate-General for Translation currently says: 20.8 The euro. Like ‘pound’, ‘dollar’ or any other currency name in English, the word ‘euro’ is written in lower case with no initial capital and, where appropriate, takes the plural ‘s’ (as does ‘cent’):This book costs ten euros and fifty cents. However, in documents and tables where monetary amounts figure largely,make maximum use of the € symbol (closed up to the figure) or the abbreviation EUR before the amount.

The Interinstitutional style guide, (7.3.3. Rules for expressing monetary units  http://publications.europa.eu/code/en/en-370303.htm ) currently has a caveat: ''The text in point 7.3.3 is in draft form and is currently being analysed by the institutions. When it has been finalised you will be notified on the News page of this website. '' but has the following note (using "euros" in the plural): When a monetary unit is referred to generally but an amount is not included, it is written in letters, except in tables (see ‘When to use the ISO code (EUR)’):
 * an amount in euros
 * a sum in pounds sterling

As I understand it, both the Translation style guide and the Interinstitutional style guide had different texts prior to 2006, as quoted in

ECB Legal Working Paper Series No. 2 / February/March 2006 The Application of Multilingualism in the European Union Context

Footnote 111 Translation style guide (20.7) "Guidelines on the use of the euro, issued via the Secretariat-General, state that the plurals of both ‘euro’ and ‘cent’ are to be written without ‘s’ in English. Do this when amending or referring to legal texts that themselves observe this rule. However, in all other texts, especially documents intended for the general public, use the natural plurals ‘euros’ and ‘cents’ " Interinstitutional style guide (7.3.1): "In English, the terms euro and cent are invariable (no plural 's'), notwithstanding the acknowledgement in a footnote that ‘The spellingwithout an “s” may be seen as departing from usual English practice for currencies’. Notwithstanding that in Italian, German and Greek the words ‘euro’ and ‘cent’ are also used in their plural-less form, in most other languages, including French and Spanish, the name of the single currency tends to vary in the plural, both inofficial and in everyday use." --Boson (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Some proposed amendments
With a view to fleshing out this MoS at bit... Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Common names for treaties and legislation are to be preferred over official names. Official names of legal acts are very long and official names of treaties change over time. Using common names avoids unnecessarily long and unfamiliar page titles. Thus:


 * Avoid beginning articles names with "European Union..." for things which are specific to the EU and where "European Union" is not part of the official name. If disambiguation is required, use appropriate brackets. Thus

Straw poll
Before I past my proposed changes in EUMOS, I'd just like to see if they really enjoy general support. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm splitting sections, as I would like to comment separately on each part. Maybe other editors will too – if not, sorry for the inconvenience! Physchim62 (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Treaties

 * Support — Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hold on! – I can see the logic behind the suggestion, but I'm not sure that it is the best answer to the "problem", and the problem seems the least serious of the three anyway. Maybe BHL was unlucky in his choice of example, but there is a very real sense in which the Treaty of Rome is not the same as the Treaty establishing the European Community. Apart from the fact that there are two treaties of Rome, neither of them is the "Treaty establishing the European Community". One of the Treaties of Rome is the "Treaty establishing the European Economic Community", which has now been subsumed into the "Treaty establishing the European Community". However, the "Treaty establishing the European Economic Community" has a narrower scope – and different article numbering – than the "Treaty establishing the European Community". I must seem to be very pedantic in insisting on the point, but these are treaties with direct effect, and as such they generate a lot of case law. It is important to realise that article 6 EC is not the same as article 6 EEC! God knows, if the Treaty of Lisbon ever gets ratified we're going to have yet another number change! One option would be to have the articles at EC Treaty, EEC Treaty etc. This is how they're actually referred to in speech, and corresponds with the standard system of citation. Physchim62 (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You make fair points here, particularly as there aren't that many treaties. But the proposal represents current practice: Treaties of Rome admittedly, but Maastricht Treaty, Amsterdam Treaty, Nice Treaty and Treaty of Lisbon. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Directives

 * Support — Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support – I've opposed this idea in the past, but I've changed my mind. Most directives on which we will ever have articles do have a short name which can be found in EU documents, even if it is not official in the text of the directive. I would suggest that we recommend using the number when there is any doubt over the short name, e.g. Directive 67/548/EEC, which should probably be moved to Hazardous Substances Directive. Do we still use full capitalization? Physchim62 (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the support and input. I think they are normally capitalised so I'd go along with that. I'll amend my proposal to prefer the official unofficial short titles, as it were. Although I would suggest the caveat that opaque titles, such as "the Brussels II-bis regulations", should be avoided if possible. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - before moving the 67/548/EEC article to Hazardous Substances Directive, I noticed that proposed name does not seem to be mentioned in the current article. Perhaps the new naming should be established in the Directive 67/548/EEC article with sources before any move? Note there is also a Canadian Hazardous Substances Directive which although defunct is potentially notable for a future article. Also how is 67/548/EEC distinguished from the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (2002/95/EC)? Otherwise, having articles on EU Directives under their common short names seems reasonable, where such names are verifiable and where disambiguation is satisfied. Dl2000 (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Directives with similar common names could, and probably should in any case, have disambiguation banners. Were it to happen that two directives had the same common name I think the style "Common Name (0000/00/EC)." — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good call, D12000! "Dangerous Substances Directive" seems to be the widely used common name for 67/548/EEC, and there are definitely two "Dangerous Substances Directives" (also 76/464/EEC which is specifically about water pollution as far as I can see). We are going to have to have some mechanism for disambiguation, and BHL's idea seems as good as any to me. Physchim62 (talk) 08:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's useful to have the date-code in the title in all cases - it makes scanning categories easier, for example; and some of these directives have so many short names (which may vastly differ in different languages), that emphasising the "official" code in the title is a good thing to do. (IMO). So I think all directives should have the style "Common Name (0000/00/EC)".  Jheald (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, no, I wouldn't advocate the systematic use of code numbers in titles, only where they are objectively necessary. We don't, for example, have titles such as Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (Pub. L. 105-298) or European Communiteis Act 1972 c. 2, although we could do if there was a good case for them. Physchim62 (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

 * Support — Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong support will make linking much easier, and bring EU institutions etc. in line with the normal practice for national institutions etc. Physchim62 (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - the AAAA (European Union) disambig format is better than using European Union AAAA. Dl2000 (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC/discussion on Wikipedia date format proposals
Note that the following discussion is currently in progress: Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Proposal on international date format. Dl2000 (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"Member States" or "member states"
I'd recommend the latter. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support "member states" in Wikipedia. Use of capitals may be following conventions applying in treaties or in Eurospeak that don't apply here. --Boson (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: We should make sure that any consensus we reach here does not contradict WP:MOS. Would it be appropriate to raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style?--Boson (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

UK/IRL spelling and grammar
We should perhaps be more specific in the text and write that we prefer the -ise spelling, rather than just giving examples with ise, which implies that that is the only recognised British spelling. The Oxford University Press and some other publishers still use the ize spelling, and the article American and British English spelling differences states the ratio between -ise and -ize stands at 3:2 in the British National Corpus.--Boson (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Party or group colours
Why have these particular shades been chosen? Some bear little relation to the shade of colour used by either reliable sources or the parties themselves. For example, the shade for AECR/ECR is far too bright (the party uses #0054A5), while ELDR/ALDE use gold (#FFD700), not yellow. If no justification can be given for these colours, I will update them to their correct shades. Bastin 01:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

New style guidelines?
As we are part of the WikiProject European Union, we should follow the European Commission's set of rules about writing, as in:

We should follow:
 * Part 1:
 * Spelling
 * Punctuation
 * Numbers
 * Abbreviations and Imports
 * Verbs
 * Gender-Neutral Language
 * Part 2:
 * Primary Legislation
 * Secondary Legislation
 * The EU Institutions
 * Member states

And, if it is in there, the part about writing the plural of the word EURO and [euro]CENT.

– Plarem (User talk contribs) 19:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be so sure. While the EC style guide is a very useful source, I don't think we should adopt it en masse. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 18:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * En masse means in all? If I am right then I mean only the style aspects of the 'English Style Guideline' by the EC, not all the other aspects. – Plarem (User talk contribs) 19:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Blue-Haired Lawyer. The European Union's style guides
 * European Commission Directorate-General for Translation English Style Guide: A handbook for authors and translators in the European Commission (7th ed. 2011) and
 * the Interinstitutional style guide
 * are good sources that should be given consideration regarding normal English use, but their recommendations cannot be taken over wholesale, particularly when they conflict with Wikipedia guidelines, and in particular WP:MOS.


 * For example:
 * Names and spelling of countries should conform with Wikipedia guidelines, whatever EU publications do.
 * The EU style guides may require use of diacritics where the Wikipedia consensus is not to use diacritics. Personally I am in favour of including diacritics for European proper names, but we must bow to Wikipedia-wide consensus.
 * Wikipedia MoS rules on the use of the euro symbol may be different from the EU style guides' rules.
 * Punctuation, capitalization, etc. should follow WP:MOS, not the EU style guides. For instance
 * Rules for dashes (em dash, en dash) may differ
 * Formatting of numbers according to WP:MOS may differ from EU style guide rules. MoS rules take precedence.
 * We should normally write "member states" uncapitalized, whatever the European institutions use in their publications.
 * Some of the articles we look after may be written in American English- (en-us) or use Oxford spelling (en-gb-oed) . According to WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN it may be appropriate to retain that spelling. I would tend to use British English for most European subjects, but that is a matter for Wikipedia-wide consensus. The EU style guides require use of British English only and suggest non-Oxford spelling. Oxford spelling is more in line with WP:COMMONALITY.
 * Wikipedia consensus is to use "Eurozone", rather than "euro area" (as prescribed by the EU style guides).


 * So our "style" is mainly guided by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, e.g.


 * WP:MOS
 * WP:ENGVAR
 * WP:RETAIN
 * WP:English
 * WP:COMMONALITY


 * As for the plural "euros", we do use the plural form (the uninflected plural being used only in EU legislation and on banknotes); this has been discussed at length elsewhere. See, for instance: Linguistic issues concerning the euro, Euro, Talk:Euro/Archive 6. There might be some exceptions for Irish topics.


 * We should also avoid adding advice on how to write English. We should stick to conventions that apply only to our project. Other things are best handled by WP:MOS or not at all. Project conventions are not the place for advice on how to write British English ((or even whether to use British English when in conflict with Wikipedia-wide guidelines)[sentence subsequently modified, Boson].
 * Conventions should be proposed and discussed on the Talk page before editing the project page. --Boson (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: So I think most of what (I now see) you have already added should be removed. It does not belong here. --Boson (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Conflict with Wikipedia "Manual of Style/Dates and numbers" on date format
This project page conflicts with the "Manual of Style/Dates and numbers", especially the "Strong national ties to a topic" section. This was recently discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. My understanding of the guidelines is that the "Manual of Style" takes precedence over project pages. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You are correct, per (a textbook example of) the WP:CONLIMITED policy. Mojoworker (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)