File talk:WTOmap currentstatus.png
The legend printed in the picture could use some improvements. I think it uses the word "former" incorrectly. It would be easier just to say things like, "no activity since 2003". Also, it should say when it was last updated. -- Beland 01:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- I also think that the borders between the EU should be removed as they are represented together, not individualy.
- EU member states are members induvidually and the EU itself (referred to as the European Communities) is also a member. In some matters, induvidual countries represent themselves where on other occasions the EC speaks for all of them. It would be nice to have some indications of this special relationship on the map, perhaps by adding a special border around the EU. --Bjarki 01:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hello! Thanks for your comments. I developed this map, based loosely on the prior one and WTO data, partially out of a desire for consistency with the Wiki world maps in use and partially on a quest to improve what was there and elsewhere. If you take a glance at an authoritative list of members on the WTO website, the EU is actually denoted as the 'European Communities' and members are listed separately too. The 148 members include the individual states but (upon counting) excludes the EU, so the map is correct in this regard. I also believe the way prior/pending membership is categorised is correct, but can improve upon this. In any event, I will take your comments under advisement and will modify the map appropriately in the coming days (and will massage the legend); if you have any other comments, please let me know. Take care! E Pluribus Anthony 02:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- Moreover, it may simply muddle the issue by depicting the status of prospective members (since/unless the WTO has a similar scheme), etc. So, there is an alternate map indicating only members or not that should be used, if the other is disputed. As well, I think the best way to modify the map for the EU is to indicate this with a diagonally striped pattern of two different shades of green (for ease) around EU countries. Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 20:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- I just removed the EU borders now. I realise they are also represented individually, but as far as I know (I saw it somewhere else on wikipedia) in 99%(not a fact, just what I saw) of situations, the EU represents its members. I mean, it would make sense since part of the EU is a free-trade organisation itself. But if you don't like it, feel free to revert it. - RedHotHeat 11:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- Great job with removing the EU borders! I think, however, the borders should stay, since the states are listed individually and are separate members within the WTO. I'm going to attempt the diagonal banding of related states that we are in agreement regarding. No need to revert it until then, though. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 11:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- I just removed the EU borders now. I realise they are also represented individually, but as far as I know (I saw it somewhere else on wikipedia) in 99%(not a fact, just what I saw) of situations, the EU represents its members. I mean, it would make sense since part of the EU is a free-trade organisation itself. But if you don't like it, feel free to revert it. - RedHotHeat 11:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- Moreover, it may simply muddle the issue by depicting the status of prospective members (since/unless the WTO has a similar scheme), etc. So, there is an alternate map indicating only members or not that should be used, if the other is disputed. As well, I think the best way to modify the map for the EU is to indicate this with a diagonally striped pattern of two different shades of green (for ease) around EU countries. Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 20:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hello! Thanks for your comments. I developed this map, based loosely on the prior one and WTO data, partially out of a desire for consistency with the Wiki world maps in use and partially on a quest to improve what was there and elsewhere. If you take a glance at an authoritative list of members on the WTO website, the EU is actually denoted as the 'European Communities' and members are listed separately too. The 148 members include the individual states but (upon counting) excludes the EU, so the map is correct in this regard. I also believe the way prior/pending membership is categorised is correct, but can improve upon this. In any event, I will take your comments under advisement and will modify the map appropriately in the coming days (and will massage the legend); if you have any other comments, please let me know. Take care! E Pluribus Anthony 02:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- EU member states are members induvidually and the EU itself (referred to as the European Communities) is also a member. In some matters, induvidual countries represent themselves where on other occasions the EC speaks for all of them. It would be nice to have some indications of this special relationship on the map, perhaps by adding a special border around the EU. --Bjarki 01:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I have updated this map to embrace the dual member nature of the EU countries (dual shades of green), cleaved Serbia/Montenegro, and coloured Saudi Arabia as the newest WTO member. Beyond mere members and observers, the other categories are subjective and not found per se on the WTO website (as are those on other map versions), so I think it's sufficient that further elaborations be treated in-text as currently. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 23:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Mistake[edit]
If someone could fix this: Montenegro apeares as it's own country. – Zntrip 01:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- In case anyone actually reads this: Don't fix it, it's not a mistake. Serbia and Montenegro are negotiating as separate applicants. —Nightstallion (?) 08:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Mistake II[edit]
My revert was purely accidental.. darn thing. I reverted back to last version by EPA. Mceder 02:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
