Template talk:Political organisations at European Union level

European Union Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I have added

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]

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 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

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]

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 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]