Template talk:UKEUparties

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles

Merge cells for The Greens–European Free Alliance Parties

I'm trying to merge the cells for the The Greens–European Free Alliance parties i.e: The Green Party of England and Wales, SNP and Plaid Cymru. I am trying to do this because it avoids duplication of information and actually makes it clearer that these 3 are actually the same party at the European level. If anyone has any ideas I'd be much obliged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They sit together in the European Parliament, but that doesn't mean they're the same. They contest elections separately in the UK. I see no reason to merge them: the template works as it is. Bondegezou (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very common misinterpretation, yes they sit together but at European level, they are actually part of the same federal party, they are not whipped by their national parties, they are whipped by their European Party. I nearly had that and you deleted it! It makes it more reader friendly, why write the same thing 3 times in a row? Especially if the MEPs that we are concerned with are in the same party! The Greens–European Free Alliance is a party, not just a group, it is not like the EFD which is a group but not a party, the Greens are both! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's done now. Revision 531688621 is the final edit for this section, all sorted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The The Greens–European Free Alliance article contradicts you. It describes a group not a unitary party, made of two parties (the Greens and the European Free Alliance, with the Green Party of England & Wales in the former and the SNP and PC in the latter). As such, I think three separate rows is more appropriate. Bondegezou (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, sure they are 2 separate parties in alliance but they share the same whip! At the very least SNP and Plaid should have their cells merged, that is at the very least. Non the less how the MEPs are whipped is key! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, can you show me some citations to reliable sources showing that the SNP and PC, or all three parties, effectively work as one? If so, merged cells and perhaps a footnote explaining are in order. Bondegezou (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it but what your actually objecting to is nothing in terms of content but basic formatting! I wouldn't know where to begin to look for the rules etc but they do vote/ whipped to vote as one party. Members can break the whip if they choose but that's normal. This basically says that, I'd like to find something better but hey: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/007f2537e0/Political-groups.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lets be honest guys, this edit isn't a big deal is it? However I am in favour of it, purely because it simplifies the table! You 2 have been looking into this in far too much irrelevant detail! The point is that, there is no factual or content change and that the edit makes the article more user friendly. That's all there is to it, leave it with the cells merged, it's an improvement! Sheffno1gunner (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UUP

Merged UUP into same group as Conservatives, I see no issue with this, although I understand t slightly different from the Green-Free Alliance change s I have actually altered the order of thing. If this is not okay with all please say. I can see why this one is up for debate but not the Greens one.Sheffno1gunner (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you un-do? The parties should be listed by the number of MEPs they have. The UUP has one MEP now and should be next to the other parties with one MEP. Bondegezou (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Nattress rejoins EFD

Here's the source showing 35 EFD MEPs, 11 of which belonging to UKIP: http://www.efdgroup.eu/members.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re-order and Merge non-inscrits?

Should we arrange the table so that all non-inscrits (except UKIP's Trevor Colman) are moved to the bottom of the box so that we can merge the cells to avoid repetition on the word "none". What are people's thoughts? I think it would finish the table off and it would just look a lot tidier and user friendly, without sacrificing the integrity of the table. Sheffno1gunner (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

Sorry to be a pain, but I think the recent changes have ended up with a less clean design. Should the UUP be under the Conservatives when they have only one MEP? Is the table now ordered by number of MEPs by UK political party or by number of MEPs by European group? Why is a total for non-inscrits given next to most of the rows, but not for the UKIP MEP who is NI? Bondegezou (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By and large I think the recent changes have greatly improved the box. However on that one point of the placing of the UUP, I am inclined to agree with you. I would favour moving it down to directly above the non-inscrits and directly below Sinn Fein. Other then that I think the merging of the Green-Free Alliance cells was a good idea, I also think it was good to merge the non-inscrits cells. What I thought was a particularly good idea was to add links for the individual MEPs in single seat parties! Nick 23:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Moved the UUP as mentioned. The table is now perfect, can't imagine how you could improve it lol Nick 23:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. It's a very minor point, but why is a total for non-inscrits given next to most of the rows, but not for the UKIP MEP who is NI? Bondegezou (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fixed that now. Bondegezou (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to say let's not have a total for non-inscrits because they don't have a shared whip or party, there just the left overs. It is of no significance how many of them there are across the continent for the purposes of this page because they don't work together unlike the rest! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point and don't have a strong feeling either way, but I think the number still gives useful context. It lets the reader see whether being an NI is some whacky oddity or is common place. Bondegezou (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I don't think wacky oddity has anything to do with it, you could make the same claim about being part of the smallest group of the Parliament, the European United Left–Nordic Green Left. I have managed to merge the cells for Trevor Colman, the UKIP non-inscrit but I'm struggling with the formatting at the bottom. Anyone any ideas of how to extend the width of the bottom right column so that the table is square? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Stihler

Catherine Stihler has stood down. The European Parliament's website isn't showing a replacement yet. I presume Derek Munn (next on the Labour list) could take over the seat, but may not bother given Brexit is impending. Anyone know what's happening? Bondegezou (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No indications in press reports like this of any replacement. Bondegezou (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kahlores' sort

Kahlores has tried to make the table sortable. However, when I try the buttons, it re-orders the table in a manner that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Thus, I reverted Kahlores' edit, but Kahlores has re-added. (Kahlores: might I remind you of WP:BRD?)

Are these working for anyone? Can they be made to work? If not, we should go back to how the table was. Bondegezou (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since the British MEPs are spread in so many parties and groups, I thought it would've been useful to provide a way to sort both columns alphabetically. However, as far as I know, once the javascript reorders the rows, there is no way to bring back together the merged cells that were repeated. Maybe that's the issue you're talking about? Kahlores (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! You're going for alphabetically? I just presumed it should sort on number, which it doesn't.

I see very limited value in sorting alphabetically.

This table is to complicated to sort, I suggest. Bondegezou (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to trick the sorting system by adding a hidden third row that would disallow sorting on the second column, in order to sort by the third (the number of MEPs). It made the table entirely unsortable.

I understand your point, the table is barely better with alphabetical sorting than without. But if we were to sort by the number of current MEPs, it would spread the three UKIP rows (...4 ... 3... 1...) and the four Independent rows (...4 ... 2... 1, 1) across the table, which are precisely the major factor of disorder and illegibility.

The only solution I can see is rearranging the table in a way that suits the readers' probable demands. Most readers probably wish to know how many party members there are first, and European group members second. Currently the table's rows are arranged according to the second part (European groups). If we do the opposite we'll be able to merge the UKIP and Independent cells of the first part. Kahlores (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to try working out a re-arrangement of the table as you suggest, you could preview it here for comment. I am not necessarily wedded to the current format, although it is the European groups that matter in terms of the business of the European Parliament. Bondegezou (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my suggestion:

Key to political groups of the European Parliament (UK)^[1] v t e
Party				Faction in European Parliament
	Labour Party	19			Socialists and Democrats	185
	Conservative Party	18			European Conservatives and Reformists	74
	Brexit Party	12			Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy	43
	Independent	8	4		Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy	43
			2		European People's Party	218
			1		Europe of Nations and Freedom	36
			1		Non-Inscrits	21
	UK Independence Party	4	2		Europe of Nations and Freedom	36
			1		Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy	43
			1		Non-Inscrits	21
	Green Party of England and Wales	3			Greens–European Free Alliance	52
	Scottish National Party	2			Greens–European Free Alliance	52
	Plaid Cymru	1			Greens–European Free Alliance	52
	Liberal Democrats	1			Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe	68
	Social Democratic Party	1			Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy	43

	Ulster Unionist Party	1			European Conservatives and Reformists	74
	Sinn Féin	1			European United Left–Nordic Green Left	52
	Democratic Unionist Party	1			Non-Inscrits	21
	vacant	1			vacant	1
Total		73		Total		750

I like.

I wouldn't have the extra line splitting off Northern Ireland from the GB seats. An MEP from NI and from GB is identical in what they do. Bondegezou (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kahlores, I like your new table, but I can't yet work out how to edit it. The 2 independent MEPs in the EPP have now joined Change UK. Can you fix? Bondegezou (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what you said. Kahlores (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UKIP now on 3

UKIP are only now on 3 MEPs. Bondegezou (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^ "MEPs by Member State and political group, 8th parliamentary term". European Parliament. Retrieved 16 January 2019.

[1] "MEPs by Member State and political group, 8th parliamentary term". European Parliament. Retrieved 16 January 2019.

[1]