Talk:Political groups of the European Parliament

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 26, 2008[edit]

Previous content archived.

Complexion or "associated"?[edit]

Anameofmyveryown made some edits I don't agree with (see Special:Contributions/Anameofmyveryown). I think that the best solution is still to have "ideology" and "complexion" in the infoboxes. In fact "associated" doesn't mean very much and make me think about the internationals to which the group is associated not the parties of which it is composed of. I think that everyone agrees that "complexion" was farily cleaer.

He was definitely right in replacing "complexion" with "ideology" in many cases, but I still prefer "complexion" istead of "associated". What do you think about it? --Checco (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Soman and others have issues with this characterisation, for instance with UEN-NGL. "Complexion" is rather unclear, "constituent parties" is not entirely correct in the cases of UEN-NGL and I/D, and so on. I think "associated with" is the best compromise solution. —Nightstallion 11:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For me it is incredibly incorrect, in fact most European parties are associated to political internationals. Would "composition" be better for all of you? --Checco (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it wouldn't, and not for trivial reasons.
The question is whether
  1. a group is made up of its (full/associate) member national parties and the MEPs derive their membership of the group from their membership of the national party, or
  2. a group is made up of the individual MEPs.
Consider the Hannan case. Hannan, (a member of the British Conservative party) was thrown out of EPP-ED by Joseph Daul, (a member of the French Union pour un Mouvement Populaire and chair of EPP-ED). Hannan is still a member of the British Conservative party (I think, and apparently still a Conservative candidate for the 2009 elections) but is not a member of EPP-ED. Labeling EPP-ED as being "composed of" a given national party/Europarty would indicate that all the members of that party/Europarty were therefore members of the group, and that is not the case. Legally the groups and the associated Europarties are separate entities. Using the phrase "associated with" sidesteps this problem and addresses the issues that User:Magioladitis, User:Soman and User:Nightstallion had with the term "complexion" (a phrase akin to "affinity" I think more often used in French, which nobody understood and was only causing confusion). Anameofmyveryown (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who started this as I misused the term complexion, by separating it from ideology here. I think the term complexion is too confusing. Furthermore I really prefer somehow linking the related Europarties to the European parliament groups. For the PES, the EG EFA etc, this is really rather logical. I think the best solution is to do the following

  1. keep a separate ideology line in the template
  2. add composed out of for those groups in the European parliament where there are strong links between Europarty and Eurogroup
  3. and add associated with for those groups in the European parliament where this is not the case.

C mon (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...Of course, if I'd used the English term "ideology" instead of the French term "complexion" (it's the European Parliament, and the phraseology rubs off...I found myself using the phrase "Having regard to..." in conversation the other day...ouch!) or the works-in-both-languages term "affinity", this discussion would never have arisen. If you want to indicate the related Europarties separately, then your case 2 above would be better served by using the term "Related Europarties" instead of "composed of". "Associated with" could then be kept for other transnational alliances. Are you going to do the changes, because I've got my hands full with this little piñata at the moment? Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Composed out", "composed of" or "composition" is ok, "associated to" is incorrect as it reminds to the associations to political internationals. We can work it out other solutions: everything but "associated to"! --Checco (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above remarks explaining why the term "composed of" or variants thereof is not a good idea. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Find another solution: "associated to" is unacceptable and fairly incorrect. --Checco (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Composed of" or "composition" is far more incorrect, insofar as there are degrees of correctness. —Nightstallion 16:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand: "associated to" means that something is part of something other (under language of parties) or linked to something other, while "composed of" means that something includes something. So, as there are degrees of correctness, "composed of" could be not perfect but "associated to" is completely incorrect. As we don't agree on this, can we find something acceptable for everyone? Would be "European parties", "European parties included" or "associated European parties" (I could even live with this) better? Other ideas? --Checco (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it does not address the issue. The problem is not the Europarties, it's the European Democrats (who are associated with EPP-ED but are not a Europarty) and the Nordic Green Left (who are associated with EUL/NGL but are not an Europarty). Did you not realise this? User:C mon mentioned it above. You have shared your feelings concerning the phrase "associated to", but nobody has suggested using the phrase "associated to". The phrase currently used is "associated with", which has a looser, informal meaning in English. Any looser and we'll have to use a phrase like "see also". Anameofmyveryown (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"associated European parties" sounds good to me. —Nightstallion 21:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we assume that there actually is a genuine problem, then "associated European parties" does not fully solve it. Have you considered the European Democrats and the Nordic Green Left, which are not Europarties but are neverthless associated with groups (EPP-ED and EUL/NGL). Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see much problems for "Associated European parties". Would "Associated groups" or "Associated organizations" be better? Other ideas? --Checco (talk) 06:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we find a compromise on this point? --Checco (talk) 06:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the huge support for my proposal I will implement the following structure:

  • "Ideology": after which follows a short characterization of the ideology
  • "Composed out of": after which follow a list of European political organizations out of which this European group is composed
  • "Related to": after which follow European political organizations which have organizational tie with the European group.

- C mon (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is consensus on your proposal. What is sure that I would support a two-fold solution: "Ideology" and "Composition". In fact, why not "composition" instead of "composed out of"? --Checco (talk) 06:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is possible to reconcile your views. I've changed the three options to "ideology", "europarties" and "associated organizations". The "europarties" indicates the associated/composed/whatever Europarties, thus addressing User:C mon's requirement to separate them out. The "associated organizations" indicates those other associated European-level alliances/coalitions/federations that are not Europarties, and incorporates User:Checco's suggestion above. Hope that helps, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You did a great work. Thank you! --Checco (talk) 06:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

The question of how the political groups of the European Parliament should be categorized was the subject of lively discussion between 9-25 May 2008. The diff is here, the talk page at the end of the discussion looked like this, and the discussion itself has been archived here. The results were:

  • The categories are "Communists/Far-Left", "Social Democrats", "Liberals/Centrists", "Conservatives/Christian Democrats", "National Conservatives", "Far-Right Nationalists", "Greens/Regionalists", "Eurosceptics", "Non-Inscrits" and "Heterogeneous", although the Conservative/Christian Democrat category may be revisited after the 2009 elections should EPP-ED split.
  • The placement of groups within those categories remains as before, except that CDI is to be categorized as "Heterogeneous" instead of "Green/Regionalist", and ERA is to be categorized as "Liberal/Centrist" instead of "Green/Regionalist".
  • The word "complexion" (a French term akin to "ideology" or "affinity") has proven confusing for editors, with some interpreting it to mean "ideology" and some "constituent (Euro)parties".

The changes have now been implemented, with the exception of two pngs (I do not have the tech to change the pngs and have left messages with User:JLogan on en.wiki and User:Alankazame on Commons asking them to change them).

The changes were the results of over two weeks discussion and took several hours to implement. I would like to thank you all for your contributions and emphasise that, as changes take considerable effort to implement, I trust that any further changes will not be lightly requested.

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standard group colors after changes[edit]

Standard Group colors
Category
color 		Category Category
Color
(hex value) 		Category
Highlight
(hex value) 		Group
Color 		Group Group
Description 		Group
Color
(hex value) 		Group
Highlight
(hex value)
  Conservative/Christian Democrat #3399FF #DDDDFF   CD,EPP (79-92) Christian Democrats #3399FF #DDDDFF
  Conservative/Christian Democrat #3399FF #DDDDFF   EPP (92-99),FE,EPP-ED Conservatives and Christian Democrats #3399FF #DDDDFF
  Conservative/Christian Democrat #3399FF #DDDDFF   C,ED,MER Conservatives #0000FF #CCCCFF
  Social Democrat #FF0000 #FFDDDD   S,SOC,PES Social Democrats* #FF0000 #FFDDDD
  Communist/Far-Left #990000 #EECCCC   COM,LU,EUL,EUL/NGL Communists and the Far Left #990000 #EECCCC
  Liberal/Centrist #FFFF00 #FFFFDD   L,LD,LDR,ERA*,ELDR,ALDE Liberals and Liberal Democrats #FFFF00 #FFFFDD
  National Conservative #99FFFF #DDFFFF   UDE,EPD,EDA,UFE,UEN National Conservatives #99FFFF #DDFFFF
  Green/Regionalist #009900 #CCDDCC   G Greens #00FF00 #DDFFDD
  Green/Regionalist #009900 #CCDDCC   RBW (84-89),G/EFA Greens and Regionalists #009900 #CCDDCC
  Green/Regionalist #009900 #CCDDCC   RBW (89-94) Regionalists #009900 #CCDDCC
  Heterogeneous #999999 #EEEEEE   CDI*,TGI Heterogeneous* #999999 #EEEEEE
  Independents #999999 #EEEEEE   NI Independents #999999 #EEEEEE
  Eurosceptic #FF9900 #FFEECC   EN,I-EN,EDD,IND/DEM Eurosceptics #FF9900 #FFEECC
  Far-Right Nationalist #000000 #CCCCCC   ER,DR,ITS Far-Right Nationalist* #000000 #CCCCCC

Key: * = changes

Pages that have to be kept in sync[edit]

Img changes[edit]

Okay, I never had the time to follow this discussion properly and as I've missed it I'm not holding up any major banners now its concluded, I just have a few comments. NI's have always been positioned on the far right, that would be my preference as that is now they are seated in Parliament and moving them to centre (when did that happen?) then creates the problem of us making a political decision on which centre parties are left of centre or right of centre. Second, now we have more groups with the same colour sitting next to each other of the same size, in this eventuality we ought to include some way of telling them apart - perhaps a letter code just the side of that slice of the chart or something? As for the depreciated gif image, I think I'd said I'd work on that ages ago in creating a whole new one but, like a lot of things, I never got around to it. I could give it a shot now unless someone else want to with better software. Whatever it is, it should be new and based on the new scheme with a space to put 09 in there. I also do not think it should include by-elections.- J Logan t: 14:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said we should have gone with barcharts! <grin>. Hi, J, nice to see you back: you missed all the fun. I understand the urge to label the hemicycle, but it's not a good idea, for previously expressed reasons and the fact that it'd limit the use to en.wiki. As for who changed it, I guess it's User:Alankazame, for reasons best known to hirself. As for order of the stripes...er, dunno. (ROYGBIV order? Left-right order? Largest-smallest?). As for the deprecated gif....I'm trying not to think about that (it was wrong when it was added, and now it's just hanging around like a bad smell). A conversation is going on on Commons, but Alankazame is Francophone and my French is...limited. You're fr-1, so care to join us? Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Fr-1 because there isn't an Fr-0.5. Well, I probably could but it has been a while. And I understand your hemicycle point, which is why IW as just thinking a three letter code or something, not sure, certainly not a full name. Must be some way to sort it. But the order I think should be as they are in the parliament (theoretically that is, now in practice the NI and fascists get pushed to the far back rows (I think due to the dictatorial behaviour of EPP-PES who effectively control the procedures). But by following their order, we don't have to make political choices.- J Logan t: 22:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and how would bar chars have helped? On the gif, yes we know that's always been a problem. I'll try knocking something up later this week when I have a moment. Someone else can make it more fancy if they want. Any notes on it you want to make before I start, please do so here (and drop a note on my talk page just to make sure I don't forget to check back).- J Logan t: 22:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My reply here. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The remaining undone images have been updated by User:Fvasconcellos at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Image_workshop. All pages now in sync. Yay! Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

/[edit]

Where did we decide to use / instead of and in the template? I would not have supported that decision. --Checco (talk) 06:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some time ago, noone complained when ANOMVO proposed it. —Nightstallion 09:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not understand that that was a real proposal and I did not agre with it. --Checco (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As it seems literally noone shares your concerns on this, I'd ask you to tolerate it. —Nightstallion 16:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will tolerate it for now, even if "and" would be more precise as with "/" it seems that Liberals and Centrists, Christian Democrats and Conservatives, Greens and Regionalists and so on are synonims.
Ragarding another issue you brought to discussion some time ago, the far right issue, I think that you were right: we should have "Nationalists/Far right" instead of "Far right nationalists". --Checco (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. See excerpts below. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that only you now oppose "Nationalists/Far right", exactly as I am the only one opposing the use of "/" instead of "and". Consensus can't be vetoed by only one user, as I acknowledged... --Checco (talk) 06:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your statement that I am the only one who prefers "Far-Right Nationalists" to "Nationalists/Far right" as a description of ER/DR/ITS is incorrect, as evidenced by the above diffs.
  • Your statement that you are the only one who prefers the use of "and" to "/" is correct.
Anameofmyveryown (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember Nightstallion proposing Nationalists/Far-right. Let's wait to hear from him. --Checco (talk) 07:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure, actually, but would probably go with the status quo for now (far-right nationalist). —Nightstallion 15:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. --Checco (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EUL/NGL[edit]

Regarding this, I agree with C mon that we should stick to the compromise we reached. Anyway I support the idea of changing "Communists/Far-left" to "Communists/Socialists", as Itanesco does. --Checco (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Checco, nice to see you back: how were your exams? As for the compromise, User:C mon is right: it was hard-won and should be adhered to. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Checco for your message.This is my idea:in the EUL-NGL there are also socialist parties like The Left,United Left,Left Bloc,Synaspismods and the Nordic Green Left parties.That's why I suggest to write Communists/Socialists.What do you think of? Itanesco (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, and I'll tell you why.
The category names were chosen after a marathon discussion session which all those who took part will one day remember without screaming. The diff is here, the talk page at the end of the discussion looked like this, and the discussion itself has been archived here. To write about the European Parliament, we need stable, consensual definitions so that articles can be written, maps drawn, categories created, etc. But there are no pan-European definitions of even basic terms like "conservative", "centre-right", "liberal", as all these terms mean different things in different countries. So the Compromise was necessary so that we could get on with our jobs without continually revisiting definitions according to the view from America/France/Ireland/UK/Poland/Italy/etc., all of whom have very different polities. User:Checco has stuck by the Compromise, even tho there are bits of it he disagrees with. So have I, and so has everybody else who haunts EP associated pages like lost souls locked in purgatory. So stick with it. There's no point in reciting the member parties of each Group - we know the member parties. Some people can recite them in our sleep at this point. Leave it alone.
We have approx nine months until the 2009 European Parliament elections. There is much, much work still to be done and little time to do it in. If you want to spend your time usefully now you're here, you could do this:
  • add details about this report or this report to Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland Bill, 2008,
  • or you could establish whether Germany can be treated as divided into subconstituencies or not for purposes of EP elections (it's both, but I'm not sure results by subconstituencies are given, so we can't write articles about them in the same way as the other subdivided constituencies. The sources are in German, btw),
  • or you could work out which system Greece uses for EP elections (the EP website and the Greek government website disagree),
  • or you can work out why, given that each constituency must elect proportionally, there are at least two subconstituencies with only one MEP (hint: I *think* the member state constituencies are covered by the principle but the subconstituencies aren't, but I haven't got the time to chase a source),
  • or you could write the article Intergroups of the European Parliament (Kangaroo, LGBT, Disability, Federal, Age et al. there's about 80 of them, 22 official. See this, or this - do not confuse them with lobby groups, they're a different concept),
  • or you could read up and write about Foundations at a European level (a new concept from the last couple of years),
  • or you could source the unsourced tables on European Parliament election, 2004, which may actually be pure fiction but - because they're unsourced - are difficult to check,
  • or you could bring Union for Europe up to the standard of the other groups (sorry for the delay, Checco, but EPP-ED is taking longer than I thought),
  • or you could go thru the European Parliament constituency articles and make sure they use a consistent table structure,
  • or...but enough: you get the point.
All those things would be a useful, productive use of your time, but revisiting and redebating the Compromise would achieve nothing but waste the time of those who have worked so hard. The Compromise works. Leave it alone.
Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Itanesco. PES is a social-democratic party, while EUL-NGL is a collection of socialist/democratic-socialist and communist parties. There is nothing simpler than this in my view. I strongly favor a new compromise, but until we reach it we should stick to the current (bad) compromise. --Checco (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word "compromise" is a rhetoric trick of Checco's. There is no new compromise. I am strongly against reopening the discussion. C mon (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of gowing through the discussion again has made me go quite pale. I remember at the time saying that politics, European in particular, are so liquid and flexible that our comprimise was the best that could have been agreed. I agree with anameofmyveryown above. We have until JUNE 2009 (eight months) before the largest ever European Elections. I would rather do a lot more to make the project better than reopen all the endless discussion for just one word! doktorb wordsdeeds 17:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C mon misunderstood my opinion. I consider the current compromise very bad, but as long we don't find a new compromise the current solution is what we should stick to. It is true, as Itanesco said, that many EUL/NGL parties are socialist (not communist, maybe far-left) and that all PES members are social-democratic parties, but I strongly agree with Doktorbuk that it is better "to make the project better than reopen all the endless discussion for just one word". --Checco (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colours of the Greens and ERA group 1989-94 and 1994-99[edit]

I see that one year ago there has been a huge discussion about the categorization and the colours of EP groups, and I decidedly don't want to reopen it, and less as I usually only contribute to the German (and sometimes Spanish) Wikipedia. However, as the picture with the history of the groups is so useful that it is also used there in prominent position in several articles, I would like to bring up two points which I have the impression sometimes cause confusion among WP users:

  • In the first place, I think the history of the Green/Regionalist/Rainbow group would be clearer if light green was used for the Rainbow (84-94) and dark green for the Greens (89-99) and the Greens/EFA group (since 99). By now, the same "Greens only" group is painted in light green between 89 and 94 and in dark green between 94 and 99, which is surely not the best solution.
  • Second, I think the European Radical Alliance (94-99) should have a different colour from the Liberal group. I have seen that the categorization of the ERA group has been subject of discussion here and that it finally has been changed from green (Green/Regionalist) to yellow (Liberal/Centrist). However, the consequence of this is that now there are two identically yellow groups between 1994 and 1999, and it is not very clear which one of them is the continuation of LDR/ELDR and which one is ERA. As a solution, I would propose to use light green for ERA if light green is also used for the Rainbow, as ERA was partly a continuation of it. Moreover, light green is half-way between green and yellow, which would fit quite well with ERA's left-liberal position.

Both of these proposals only concern the colours of historical groups, so that none of the articles about current groups would be affected; the categorization in general would not be affected at all. I hope that it will be possible to have a consensus about these proposals, in spite of the extra work it means after all the changes realized after the discussion last year. Greetings,--El Duende (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

A used edited Template:European Parliament groups. We can discuss about these changes here or there. --Checco (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Group changes[edit]

Does anyone know if there is a timetable for changes to the party groupings and, if so, what that timetable is? It would be nice if such a thing could be included, but I confess I know little enough of the European Parliament to be of any help. -Rrius (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rirus, hi! Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. The timeline looks something like this:

  • May 2009
Last sitting of the Sixth European Parliament
  • June 2009
Elections. Candidates are elected and become elected candidates.
  • Monday July 13th 2009 (or possibly the day before, not sure about this bit)
Last day of the Sixth European Parliament. The previous MEPs and groups still exist at this point.
  • Tuesday July 14th 2009
First day of the constitutive session of the Seventh European Parliament. The previous MEPs cease being MEPs. The elected candidates become the new MEPs. All groups that still have sufficient MEPs in sufficient member states remain in existence. All groups that do not have sufficient MEPs in sufficient member states cease to exist. The groupless MEPs and those wishing to leave their existing group attempt to form new groups.
  • Tuesday July 14th 2009 to Friday 17 July 2009
Formation of new groups. In previous years the new groups are formed on the first/second day but can take a few days to settle down: they're usually relatively stable by the Friday, which will be Friday 17 July 2009 in this case. A constitutive document or declaration is usually signed or in existence at this point: it is the common position to which the group's MEPs are expected to adhere, and it is this document that's used to characterize the group.
  • Friday 17 July 2009
Groups formed and stable-ish.

Hope that helps, Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 12:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self-proclaimed "Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy" was disbanded.--86.3.200.81 (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reformed 20th October with Robert IwaszkiewiczJohn Smith the Gamer (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changes needing at "Non-Inscrits" part of the Board[edit]

I think that in the board of the "current composition of the 8th European Parliament" and exactly at political parties of Non-Inscrits, it must delete the dissolved european poltical party "European National Front" (ENF) and add the european poltical party "Alliance for Peace and Freedom" (APF), that it actually have replace it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.6.83.29 (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Political groups of the European Parliament. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Political groups of the European Parliament. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

effective number of parties[edit]

It would be interesting to calculate the effective number of parties over the decades. Kaihsu (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

8values?[edit]

Why is there an external link for the 8values political quiz? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.204.174.89 (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_groups_of_the_European_Parliament&oldid=1201726916"