217:
strictly-EU related. In terms of natural kind, the three divisions I had do have a affinity to one another, in contrast to the EP groups, which are distinct from them in the sense of their existence being defined by and contigent on one EU institution, the EP. Whether we have them in one template or two, that bifurcation needs to be respected. Finally, "party groups" is an ambiguous phrase that I've been trying to phase out from
Knowledge (XXG) anyway--are they groups of European parties (ie, EFA plus EGP, and then what about the PES group?), or groups of national parties (and if so, how is that any different from the parties? and what about independents?). They're groups of legislators, and the EP itself very strictly styles them "political groups".
175:
innacurate--while
European Parliament goings-on are certainly on its plate a fair amount of the time, it's also a straightforward political international concerned with coordinating the work of various national parties (including some outside the EU, and many without any eĒlected MEPs), and does work in EU institutions like the Council or the Committee of Regions quite apart from the EP. I think giving the groups their own template probably beats getting too wrapped out in trying to spell out the nuances in the this template's layout.
22:
71:
53:
81:
390:
I saw that you re-added defunct
European political parties (albeit at the bottom of the template). Do you really think this is worth it? As indicated, 1/ the template is already very full, 2/ these parties are accessible via the page on European parties, and 3/ some parties disappeared a long long
216:
or whoever else is further down the template. It's also important to fudge the EU-ishness of all those organizations on the template, as again they aren't strictly speaking EU-only creatures... some get EU funding, yes, but most have non EU members and concern themselves with matters that aren't
174:
I think various previous iterations of this template, my own edits included, probably weren't sufficiently clear at segregating the different roles between the Europe-wide "parties" and the groups within the EP. Certainly labeling something like the
European Green Party a "parliamentary body" is
408:
I work with defunct
European parties and I found having them in the navbox very useful. There's also that this navbox is present in the articles of defunct parties, so I found it more sensible to make a section for them since the navbox was already present for them, yet they were missing from
272:
that are members, some of which have MEPs in the
European Parliament. The EP recognizes those MEPs as being members of (a) their respective national parties and (b) the ALDE parliamentary group. ELDR's continuing existence is entirely independent of the EP. Any clearer?
424:
I can make a separate template for defunct
European parties (with the understanding that just like former national parties, they're of incredible historical value), though that'd just be setting up more work for other Wikipedians once more European parties inevitably
333:
This banner is *very* crammed and not very understandable. At this point, does it really make sense to keep defunct
European political parties and other political alliances? I would suggested removing them, especially since they remain visible on the page of
242:
that the latter officialy has MEPs? My point (IMHO) is that it would be best to try to perfect this template instead of dividing it. The connection between "parties" and "groups" is so close that it would make more sense to exclude
Newropeans. -
420:
Lastly, I must also "berate" you for deleting a section of the template, but not removing the navbox from the articles of these parties! That was very sloppy and you made it just a matter of time until a person like I would notice and "fix"
412:
In comparison to political templates I've seen before, like the Polish political parties one for example, this one doesn't appear full to the point where it'd be a problem. I suppose it's an aesthetics issue for you, which I
416:
As for how long ago these parties dissolved, I got to say that I don't think this argument is relevant. I for one am interested in historical parties! In case of national parties, there's always a section for the defunct
353:
Anyone wants to weigh in on this? I really doubt keeping entities that were dissolved sometimes over a decade ago is informative and useful. As indicated, these do remain visible and accessible in the article on
463:
391:
time ago. I get that this can be useful, but I feel like this is so marginally useful that, given the crammed template), it's not quite worth it. Happy to discuss.
468:
473:
103:
239:
205:
185:
I don't think the casual reader will understand more by dividing it into two different templates. I've clarified the wording. Parliamentary bodies : -->
94:
58:
235:
209:
405:
Hello there and my bad, because I haven't seen this discussion (well, unfortunately a monologue, but that also happened to me once) before!
142:
234:
I'm not an expert on the different roles of
European Parliament groups, parties and creations, but isn't the difference between
442:
400:
381:
367:
347:
323:
301:
277:
247:
221:
191:
179:
163:
149:
33:
335:
428:
In the case a section for the defunct parties is kept though, all it takes is just changing their section. Handy!
311:
396:
377:
363:
355:
343:
39:
319:
201:
102:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
86:
156:
392:
373:
359:
339:
315:
159:. The bounds of the EU have very little to do with membership, but it does receive EU funding.
432:
387:
338:. Or is there a best practice of indefinitely retaining defunct parties in similar banners?
294:
This box won't collapse on pages even with the collapse command, problem with the code? -
244:
188:
99:
457:
372:
In the absence of opposition (or even reactions), I am proceeding ahead with this.
274:
218:
176:
160:
296:
146:
213:
155:
While I'm unsure of the specifics, I'm fairly certain EFGP is pretty much the
76:
314:
is not included here. I'd add it myself but I'm not sure where it should go.
70:
52:
200:
That's honestly no closer to providing clarity, IMHO. Ultimately, the
358:, so I would argue that they can be safely removed from the template.
208:
are no more of a European Parliament-associated body than, say, the
15:
98:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
145:
which includes parties beyond the European Union. –
32:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s
264:Nope. ELDR doesn't, strictly speaking, have
8:
240:European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party
206:European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party
112:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject European Union
47:
49:
464:Template-Class European Union articles
469:NA-importance European Union articles
236:European Christian Political Movement
210:European Christian Political Movement
92:This template is within the scope of
21:
19:
7:
143:European Federation of Green Parties
474:WikiProject European Union articles
115:Template:WikiProject European Union
38:It is of interest to the following
14:
186:European Parliament; Groups : -->
170:Parties as "Parliamentary bodies"
79:
69:
51:
20:
1:
106:and see a list of open tasks.
302:08:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
278:22:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
268:MEPs. ELDR has howevermany
248:20:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
222:17:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
192:13:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
180:18:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
443:12:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
401:11:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
329:Deletion of defunct parties
324:16:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
490:
356:European political parties
95:WikiProject European Union
382:07:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
368:07:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
312:European Communist Action
307:European Communist Action
64:
46:
348:09:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
336:European political party
164:05:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
150:17:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
118:European Union articles
202:European Free Alliance
87:European Union portal
157:European Green Party
431:Have a great day!
34:content assessment
134:
133:
130:
129:
126:
125:
481:
440:
187:Party groups. -
120:
119:
116:
113:
110:
89:
84:
83:
82:
73:
66:
65:
55:
48:
25:
24:
23:
16:
489:
488:
484:
483:
482:
480:
479:
478:
454:
453:
433:
331:
309:
292:
172:
139:
117:
114:
111:
108:
107:
85:
80:
78:
12:
11:
5:
487:
485:
477:
476:
471:
466:
456:
455:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
429:
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
406:
393:Julius Schwarz
374:Julius Schwarz
360:Julius Schwarz
340:Julius Schwarz
330:
327:
308:
305:
291:
288:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
281:
280:
255:
254:
253:
252:
251:
250:
227:
226:
225:
224:
195:
194:
171:
168:
167:
166:
138:
135:
132:
131:
128:
127:
124:
123:
121:
109:European Union
104:the discussion
100:European Union
91:
90:
74:
62:
61:
59:European Union
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
486:
475:
472:
470:
467:
465:
462:
461:
459:
444:
441:
438:
437:
430:
427:
423:
419:
415:
411:
407:
404:
403:
402:
398:
394:
389:
385:
384:
383:
379:
375:
371:
370:
369:
365:
361:
357:
352:
351:
350:
349:
345:
341:
337:
328:
326:
325:
321:
317:
316:Charles Essie
313:
306:
304:
303:
299:
298:
289:
279:
276:
271:
267:
263:
262:
261:
260:
259:
258:
257:
256:
249:
246:
245:S. Solberg J.
241:
237:
233:
232:
231:
230:
229:
228:
223:
220:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
198:
197:
196:
193:
190:
189:S. Solberg J.
184:
183:
182:
181:
178:
169:
165:
162:
158:
154:
153:
152:
151:
148:
144:
141:I have added
136:
122:
105:
101:
97:
96:
88:
77:
75:
72:
68:
67:
63:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
31:
27:
18:
17:
436:Brat Forelli
435:
434:
388:Brat Forelli
332:
310:
295:
293:
290:Collapsable?
269:
265:
173:
140:
93:
40:WikiProjects
29:
413:understand.
458:Categories
214:Newropeans
425:disband.
30:template
297:J Logan
275:The Tom
270:parties
219:The Tom
204:or the
177:The Tom
161:The Tom
147:Kaihsu
36:scale.
417:ones.
28:This
397:talk
378:talk
364:talk
344:talk
320:talk
238:and
137:EFGP
421:it.
409:it.
266:any
212:or
460::
439:🦊
399:)
380:)
366:)
346:)
322:)
300::
395:(
386:@
376:(
362:(
342:(
318:(
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
