Talk:Political groups of the European Parliament/Archive 2

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

categorization and formatting[edit]

(see Archive 1 for previous comments)

Responding to J Logan's points as follows:

  • categorization by party and term
I note your points and will discuss the matter further on the WikiProject EU talkpage.
  • table formatting
Patience, young Jedi...I agree with your points and when I've found two sources that agree on the composition of the Parliaments at their last sittings (not easy: there are many-ish sources for first sittings, but precious few for their last), I'll format the table accordingly Anameofmyveryown (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA?[edit]

Anyone got further ideas for this page? Was wondering about putting it forward for GA, see if it up to standards and if they find anything we're missing. - J Logan t: 21:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear God, where would you like to start<grin>? I have to track down all the French acronyms, change all the citations to use that "cite" thingy, check that CDI should appear in the "Green and Regionalists" category instead of the "Mixed" category, get all the Rule 29's through the Parliaments (I think it changes each time the Parliament expands), and general copyediting. Please feel free to submit it for GA if you want, but it's nowhere near finished. On a point that might seem trivial but isn't, we also need to sort out standard colors and highlights for the groups. I have done some preliminary work on this and the first draft is below. The reason why this is important is that I've been doing some work on the Parliamentary elections (see Final Results, Results by Timeline and Infoboxes for progress to date, although there is a shortage of "during" sources for the 84 election and "before" and "during" sources for the 89 elections) and the coloration becomes crucial for some of the elections, particularly those where the groups split and merge (i.e. most of them). The intent is to use colors that are vertically compatible (so for each election, all groups wil have different colors), horizontally compatible (groups have the same colors over time), map-usable (when we get round to doing election maps for each election, the colors will be sufficiently different to be distinguishable on a map), browser-compatible (I know web-safe colors are not as hip as they used to be, but what the hey) and bear some resemblance to the real world. The only major change is the use of black instead of butternut for the far-right: the reasons for this are a) butternut is too close to orange (for the eurosceptics) and yellow (for the liberals) to be safe, and b) matches Euronat's colors. I know you have done work on group colors in the past, and I think SSJ, Nightstallion and others may want input, so I'll post a notice on WP:EU to try and achieve a consensus. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the rule29, how much of that is impacting on this article though? Other articles yes but reason why I put the idea up is that most seems to be done here. On the colours though, yes its good to have a standard like that (ought to copy it over to WP:EU for reference) and they all seem right. If this note is in reaction to my changes on the 1979 election page, I was matching the colours to the present chart rather than the normal ones we use. We ought to make new charts on SSJ's lines for each election. Perhaps we could also animate them together doesn't look to confusing. What kind of chart should we use though? Semicircle, semi with the middle cut out, circle? Horse shoe? I'd be tempted to follow the lines of the Parliament hemicycle so the cut out semicircle. - J Logan t: 10:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing your points above as follows:
  • How much of that is impacting the article: not a lot, really: I was just whining.
  • Standard colors: I've put a message on WP:EU directing people to here if they have an opinion. It's probably better to keep the discussions in one place, and here would seem to be the logical location.
  • Chart selection: To be honest, hemicycles and pie charts aren't really a good idea. Hemicycles imply a single left-right continuum, which is problematic in a EP context: there's the left/right axis and there's the europhilic/eurosceptic axis, and where would the Greens/Regionalists/Independents/Mixed go? Hemicycles can't cope with that. They also give the impression that there's a left or right majority in a given term, which isn't the case in the EP. Pie charts are even worse. Additionally, it makes it difficult to tell (for example) which is the fifth biggest group. In short, they're more decorative than useful. Using pre-generated png/bmp/gif/jpg/whatever images are also problematic: they'e difficult to change, and they either contain words (in which case there are font and attribution issues) or they don't (in which case they're uninformative). So there are problems with the present setup all round. I've attempted to deal with this by using barcharts instead (see Final Results for examples), which don't have these problems and can be easily changed.
  • Reaction to your changes on the 1979 election page: I didn't know until yesterday that you were working on it: should you require reassurance on this point, check out the editing dates on Final Results, Results by Timeline and Infoboxes.
So to answer your question "What kind of chart should we use though?", my answer would be "barcharts", for the reasons given above.
On a segue, I'm having difficulty in finding sources for the 84 regrouping (ie composition of the Parliament post-elections but pre-constitutive session) and for the 89 elections (ie composition of the Parliament immediately pre-elections, and composition of the Parliament post-elections but pre-constitutive session). I've exhauted the Archive of European Integration (AEI), and the European Parliament'sonline records only go back to 95. Academic papers tend not to date their figures, so they're no use. Any idea for a online source for EP composition for May 89, June 89 (not July 89, I've got those) and June 84 (ditto)? Or should I go over to WP:POLITICS and hassle them? Kind regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the chart, how about we position them in the same positions they were in the hemicycle they sit in? Fine it doesn't show anything beyond left and right (exactly how would we categorise other issues let alone display them?) but if it is good enough for the politicians.... And I don't think it indicates anything of left right majority, but I grant you it doesn't make it easy to see sizes. However there is left right voting, if the left parties have a large block, you can see where the voting will be going. On changing images, well for past elections I don't think the result is going to be changing.
Barcharts, they're okay but I find it hard to see who holds the most power and they are split into their own little columns, perhaps though we could do some there the bars themselves and split into their delegations so you can see the largest parties inside them also? So we could have hemicycle for basic view and a larger chart showing a full breakdown?
Just a thought though on that, rather than an image we use a table with coloured squares, one for each seat. Coloured according to party and sections of that linked to national parties? No, way to complicated.
I have no idea on election resources, I doubt WP:Politics would know but you could ask, there might be a generic resource. Isnt there an elections WP? Tell you what, try emailing one of the MEPs who has been around since 1979! I do find it irritating when they lack historical data, been a nightmare finding data for 1979, been wanting to expand that for months and I only got a bit further thanks for a 1979 Time magazine article I got through google news. But on the emailing point, I think if you contacted the Parliament, they must have it down on documents or something and you can get them to send them to you. Poke around on their website, they have a guide to getting documents off the Parliament, Council and Commission somewhere.- J Logan t: 15:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing your points above as follows:
  • Changing results: The election results won't change, but the sources are full of inconsistencies. Take the following questions: how many MEPs were in the Communist group in 1984 - 43 [1], or 41 [2]? How many Socialist MEPs were there at the start of the 79 term? Was it 112 [3] or 111 [4] or 113 [5]? The Communist Group that fell apart in 1993 - was it LU [6]? or was it EUL (Steunenberg and Thomassen (2002) ISBN 0742501264)? What was the electorate in 1999 - was it 288 million [7] or 298 million [8]? How many MEPs were in TGI when it was founded - was it 29 [9] or 18 [10]? The point I'm trying to make is that whatever diagram you produce, you might have to subtly change it when new sources yield new figures. Also, I have to point out that the hemicycles only really make sense for the EU-wide elections, wheras the bar charts work for EU-wide elections (79, 84,...2004) , set elections (eg 1995, 2007), member-state elections (all of them) and any combination thereto. However, I do note that you turned around the 79 hemicycle PDQ and it's of good quality, so if you produce diagrams as good as that, I don't really have an issue. 3D pie-charts are really a no-no, though: they distort the information and they reify the information (we don't use 3D fonts, we don't put flagpoles on diagrams of flags, and we don't render pie charts in 3D - there is a difference between the symbolic representation of data and the thing itself). In short, there are very good reasons why hemicycles are a bad idea but if all of them are as good as your new 79 one (two-dimensional, notation left off the diagram or minimised so people can take in the info at a glance without having to read it to yield the sense, standard colors, Groups arranged in real-world order) I don't have a problem.
  • Sources. The Archive of European Integration is a goldmine. I've gone thru it and other sources and tried to sort them into chronological order: see here for the results. I think you'll fall on something that content-rich like a raptor on a flock.
  • Father of the House: I'll keep a lookout, but no promises.
Kind regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ooo and if you haven't already seen it, this might be good for expanded content on 2002.

[11]. Sidenote though, if you happen to come across who was the oldest member in between 84 and 92: Father_of_the_House#European_Union.- J Logan t: 16:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, on the changing sources, yes it can be annoying. Though perhaps if i leave any numbers of the charts then that should do, as a few seats won't changes the size much and I doubt the inconsistencies are such that it would look too far off. I'll get on the charts though, just give me the numbers you'd want me to work with to start off with. On sources and so on, you know I think with these off site resources, and standardisation like the colours, it might be good to start up some kind of proto-taskforce to bring the data and discussion together? Rather than discuss everything on this talk page and have things in your sandbox? - J Logan t: 11:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Good work on the new nav-box style data, looks good and it seems a sensible way of keeping the information. Why below see also though? Anyway, great work.- J Logan t: 10:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, I appreciate it. As for the proto-taskforce, I agree with you: I'll look at it when time permits - probably in the New Year, but no promises. As for the numbers you requested above (see charts above), the final election results (i.e. the full delegations as at the constitutive/first plenary session in July after the elections) are now on the 79,84,89,94,99 and 04 pages, with copies on the "Elections in the European Union" page: please feel free to create your group+leaders+MEPs+hemicycle table as per the 79 page on the other pages. The reason why they're underneath "see also" is because I put them all immediately above "External Links" - my bad, I'll move them. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think what I put on the 79 page is worth it? In your opinion? Might have trouble getting all the speaker details so perhaps the only useful thing is the chart. Perhaps there is someway to combine with your bar chart?- J Logan t: 10:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you are referring to the group+leaders+MEPs+hemicycle table on the 79 election page, then yes, I do think it's worth it. One of the things on my to-do list is an article for each group, so I'll have to track down the speakers/chairs/leaders/presidents/whatever they're called. So just put in ??? for the time being and they'll get filled out by myself/others as time passes. As for combining the bar charts and hemicycles: there's no real point in having both. I can create ones with bar charts and you can replace the barcharts with hemicycles as you produce them. As I said above, I would prefer that your hemicycles are produced to the same standard as your 79 hemicycle - i.e. two-dimensional, notation left off the diagram or minimised so people can take in the info at a glance without having to read it to yield the sense, standard colors, Groups arranged in real-world order. Regards Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done them for 84 and 89, will do the rest soon. Also still working on the names, do you know where they are again?- J Logan t: 12:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colors[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Use Option 4

Option 1[edit]

Above are proposed standard colors for the Groups. If you have alternative proposals, please make them known. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a though actually, why did you choose green for regionalists?- J Logan t: 11:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good question. I went thru all the parties associated with EFA and the results looked like this (Colors are from wikipedia site if given, website/logo if not. Shades such as gold or lilac were counted as their primary color):

We see that yellow/orange are in first place, with 16, red with 14, blue with 11 (red/blue is a popular combination), and green with only 7.

So why green? The reasons are as follows:

  • 1) Pragmatic 1: numerous diagrams/tables have been done (not by me) using green as a code for EFA on wikipedia, and they'll all have to be changed if the Regionalists are coded orange instead of green. I don't want to be the one to tell Nightstallion, The Tom or SSJ that the color schema they've been using for Table of political parties in Europe by pancontinental organisation is wrong...
  • 2) Pragmatic 2: Will make map coloration a nightmare. Coding Regionalists as orange will lead to confusion with the Liberals (yellow) and Eurosceptics (orange), and we've got enough spectrum blockage with the Conservatives/Christian Democrats/National Conservatives (three shades of blue!) as is
  • 3) Pragmatic 3: coding the Regionalists green will mean we can use consistent colors for Rainbow without having to change colors half-way.
  • 4) Real-world: many websites cover EFA, but few cover their predecessors (ERA, Rainbow, etc). One of the few that does is Parties and Elections in Europe, and they use dark green. So there's a real-world justification for it.

Option 2[edit]

There is an alternative: we could use purple for the Eurosceptics, which would free up orange for the Regionalists. the results would look like this:

Option 3[edit]

Or conversely we could use purple for the Eurosceptics and stick with green for the Regionalists. The results would look like this:

Thoughts? Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought is that I'd prefer not to invent a colour scheme, and I can't remember having seen purple being used for eurosceptics anywhere... —Nightstallion 00:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I assume from your response that you're OK with the original proposal (denoted by "Option 1" above)? Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original yes, absolutely. Wasn't expecting such a long answer I have to say, shows how much work you're putting into this! Much appreciated, thanks for your contributions!- J Logan t: 10:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, absolutely. Something to keep in mind -- in case Newropeans happens to be a success, they'd have to be either purple or orange, as those are the colours they use on their website; but in option 1, purple would still be free, anyway. —Nightstallion 18:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4[edit]

Just one small change... the solid colors are exactly the same as option 1 (compare the hex values) but the fills/highlights/washes (the colors used to color the entire row, rather than the individual solid cell) have all become slightly lighter. The reason for this is that when I put the "delegation at..." boxes in, I noticed that they were too blocky for a fill, and needed to be washed out slightly. If there are no objections, I'll crystallise this "option 4" as the standard and archive this discussion. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me, if its needed then go right ahead.- J Logan t: 10:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_groups_of_the_European_Parliament/Archive_2&oldid=192068829"