Template talk:Political organisations at European Union level

EFGP

I have added European Federation of Green Parties which includes parties beyond the European Union. – Kaihsu 17:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm unsure of the specifics, I'm fairly certain EFGP is pretty much the European Green Party. The bounds of the EU have very little to do with membership, but it does receive EU funding. The Tom 05:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parties as "Parliamentary bodies"

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 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. The Tom 18:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the casual reader will understand more by dividing it into two different templates. I've clarified the wording. Parliamentary bodies > European Parliament; Groups > Party groups. - S. Solberg J. 13:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's honestly no closer to providing clarity, IMHO. Ultimately, the European Free Alliance or the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party are no more of a European Parliament-associated body than, say, the European Christian Political Movement or Newropeans 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 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 Wikipedia 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". The Tom 17:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on the different roles of European Parliament groups, parties and creations, but isn't the difference between European Christian Political Movement and European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party 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. - S. Solberg J. 20:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. ELDR doesn't, strictly speaking, have any MEPs. ELDR has howevermany parties 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? The Tom 22:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsable?

This box won't collapse on pages even with the collapse command, problem with the code? - J Logan ^t: 08:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

European Communist Action

European Communist Action is not included here. I'd add it myself but I'm not sure where it should go. Charles Essie (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of defunct parties

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 European political party. Or is there a best practice of indefinitely retaining defunct parties in similar banners? Julius Schwarz (talk) 09:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 European political parties, so I would argue that they can be safely removed from the template. Julius Schwarz (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of opposition (or even reactions), I am proceeding ahead with this. Julius Schwarz (talk) 07:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Brat Forelli 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 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. Julius Schwarz (talk) 11:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there and my bad, because I haven't seen this discussion (well, unfortunately a monologue, but that also happened to me once) before!

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 it.

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 understand.

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 ones.

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" it.

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 disband.

In the case a section for the defunct parties is kept though, all it takes is just changing their section. Handy!

Have a great day! Brat Forelli🦊 12:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]