Talk:Table of political parties in Europe by pancontinental organisation

Featured list

You should consider nominating this nominating this for featured lists. Maybe do a peer review first, but I think it's pretty damn good as is. Jacoplane 16:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Needs a references section though. Jacoplane 16:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Fits now in the screen Electionworld 22:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd support it. —Nightstallion (?) 06:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jacoplane. Howsabout we give peer review a whirl? Referencing is admittedly a weak spot. The Tom 22:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I've hit a level where I'm satisfied with this article as it stands at this instant. Anyone else have any feedback? The Tom 00:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of is "fucking great work, mate". 's that good enough as far as feedback's concerned? ;) —Nightstallion (?) 13:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom, it's about time you finally nominated this for WP:FL, or I'll do it. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 18:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I might have to not stop you :) The Tom 18:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I see is that some people might not agree with the fact that the table *NEEDS* to be this big to make sense... —Nightstallion (?) 08:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this should be named "political parties in Europe" when the table only incorporates those sitting in the European Parliament. There are certain pancontinental organisations which are not related to the EP. Blankfrackis 20:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Indicating which parties are in government

First off, a huge tip of the hat to the people who did the hard work of putting this awesome list together. A suggestion: Do you think it would be helpful to put the abbreviations of the parties currently in government in their respective countries into boldface? Or would that overwhelm the reader with information? --Jfruh (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be slightly too much. —Nightstallion (?) 22:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Catalonia?

Not to wade into no doubt fractious politics here, but shouldn't Catalonia be listed under Spain, the way Flanders and Wallonia are listed under Belgium and NI under the UK? It's kind of anamalous out there by itself with no indication that it's not a sovereign state. --Jfruh (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've reverted to our previous configuration, which reflected it as that. The Tom 17:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sammarinese parties

We need to include United Left (San Marino) instead of Sammarinese Communist Refoundation, and we need to add New Socialist Party (San Marino), We Sammarinese, Sammarinese for Freedom and Sammarinese People. —Nightstallion (?) 19:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Possibly also Citizens' Party (Catalonia)? They are in the Catalan Parliament, after all. —Nightstallion (?) 19:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've generally speaking been avoiding one-seat parties that aren't in any international blocs, as they are effectively independents... granted, I can think of at least one exception--Respect in the UK--which probably say more about my own biased attitudes towards notability than anything else. It would also make things rather messy in a few cases in Eastern Europe, where there are hordes of one-man parties. In any case, provided it doesn't render the chart completely unreadable, I'd hardly object to any additions.

I think the case against parties elected only in sub-sovereign parliaments is a bit tighter, though. If you go with Catalonia, then you'll eventually have the case made for, say, the Welsh Assembly, and then regional governments in Italy, and then oblast councils in Eastern Siberia, and then borough councils in Berkshire, and then it would be nightmarishly complex to both fit everything and keep it all up to date. Again, considering that most of these more localish parties aren't in any international blocs, I think it undercuts their relevance to the table, particularly if their assignment to a left, right or centre category is a bit of a judgement call on our part. The Tom 20:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My main reason is that we've got a separate row in the table for Catalonia, so it makes sense to have all parties present in the Catalan Parliament... But I can see what you mean. —Nightstallion (?) 21:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, could you help with finding out where those parties actually stand? I haven't really been able to find out (mostly due to my bad Italian and due to the reluctance of those parties to state "left" or "right" on their homepages)... —Nightstallion (?) 20:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

New European Parliament grouping

Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty -- will have to find its way into this table, I guess... --Jfruh (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No, only parties are in this table, not parliamentary groups. Groups don't mean too much as far as political alignment is concerned, membership in a European political party, on the other hand, *DOES* prove to be highly correlated with similar policies and world views. —Nightstallion (?) 18:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

But the other groups (and the NIs) get a background color ... that is what I was referring to, really. I think all of these parties currently have a grey background for NI and that will need to change. --Jfruh (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup. On its way. The Tom 19:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Right. Didn't think of that. —Nightstallion (?) 12:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo?

Does anyone know if the parties in Kosovo's legislature participate in pan-European political organizations, or how they map onto this chart? I know that this table should probably not get into the many parties in sub-state parliaments, but it seems that Kosovo's de facto independence for the moment might make it a separate case. --Jfruh (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can somehow align the Kosovar parties with European ones, feel free to do so. —Nightstallion (?) 19:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

They do not participate in pan-European political organizations, although some have expressed the desire. --PaxEquilibrium 18:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Serbian parliamentary political parties

The ДХСС (DHSS), СДПО (SDPO), НС (NS) and ЈС (JS) are rightist standalone. The ДС (DS) is with the Party of European Socialists. The ДСС (DSS) and the G17+ are with the European People's Party. The СПС (SPS), СРС, LDP, GSS (ГСС) and SDU (СДУ) are leftist standalone. The other parties are worthless of mention (plus they're mostly coalitions themselves, including the ones already written at the table). --PaxEquilibrium 14:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

San Marino again

The party NS is not a member of EPP. But I don't know whether it is left, central or right. Delete it? -- HansMadalmaad 12:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC+1)

"put far-right into the far right"

The table was recently rearranged to but the Alliance for Europe of the Nations column at the rightmost edge of the table, with the edit summary "put far-right into the far right". Is it really appropriate to put it to the right of the standalone rightist column? Admittedly some of the AEN parties are pretty right-wing, but it seems odd to me to see parties considered mainstream in their own countries, like Fianna Fáil and Law and Justice, put to the right of parties that are more or less considere pariahs, like National Union Attack, the French National Front, and the Freedom Party of Austria. --Jfruh (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:European Democratic Party logo.png

Image:European Democratic Party logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Time to remove ITS?

The ITS group has fallen apart -- it would have ceased to exist after the Romanian elections, but it managed to hilariously collapse into infighting before that by a few weeks... --Jfruh (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,oh darn...

Er, guys, the bit at the top says there are currently nine europarties. Er, what about ADIE? They appeared as a europarty in the accounts for fy2006 (see [1][2]), they messed up the accounts a bit in 2006 (see [3]), but they still appear on the EUDemocrats website as a europarty. They may have been disbanded since, but I don't know. Can anybody shed any light on this? Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Great Britain?

Surely this should be United Kingdom and not Great Britain, and should use the correct flag, not that of the act of union in 1707? 92.233.202.54 (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Europe of Freedom and Democracy

Could someone add the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group. It includes UKIP along with parties from Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Italy,Lithuania, The Netherlands, and Slovakia. DanielR235 17:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Table of political parties in Europe by pancontinental organisation. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060326211142/http://www.european-left.org/about/memberparties to http://www.european-left.org/about/memberparties
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140108114046/http://www.meldeuropa.com/?page_id=4 to http://www.meldeuropa.com/?page_id=4

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) 00:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)