Talk:Ninth European Parliament

Ninth European Parliament was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 29, 2019). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

European Union

	European Union portal This article 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Coalition

What is your oppinion on divison of the political groups on position/commission-coalition and opposition. EPP, PES (S&D) and ALDE (RE) were expected to vote for Von der Leyen as commission president, those three parties got "EU top jobs" which were previously divided only among EPP and PES politicians, because those two parties formed grand coalition in the past parliaments (now they lost majority). So, EPP, PES and ALDE in coalition/position and other parties/groups in opposition. Pis from ECR and M5S (NI) voted for Von der Leyen as well, but I wouldnt put ECR in coalition, maybe those two parties as supporting parties. Coalition is not official, European Parliament does not use those terms I think, but de-facto there is coalition and opposition in the EP, so maybe we can use it, and add "unoffical" if thats better. Your oppinions?Sredina (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree This is simply WP:OR on your part. Also, what is it with inventing new words? 93.182.179.223 (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's just the facts, I didn't make anything up, if I did, tell me what. And what new words?Sredina (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Position is not an antonym of opposition. If you didn't make anything up, then you're of course welcome to include referenced information to the same effect in the text. This would of course not change unofficial nature of any designation, but at least it would not create any mythological new groupings. 93.182.179.223 (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And what is antonym of opposition then? Government cant really be used in the case of EU. In my language, media and politicians pretty often use term position as antonym of opposition, thats why I used it. Also term coalition cannot be used cause it means something else. Sredina (talk) 08:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My very point is that these terms are not applicable to EP. Certainly not to separate the groups in the infobox based on the commission votes. As I said, it would be perfectly fine in my opinion to describe their support or opposition in the text. No such separation was given in articles about previous parliaments, and I don't see why it needs to be invented for this one. 93.182.179.223 (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of previous articles about EPs was that detailed. I think parties should be divided in opposition and position/government coalition/commission coalition because EU is democratic organisation, EP is directly elected parliament, procedures are similar to those in national states, there is de-facto coalition in the EP and has always been (until now only consisitng of EPP and S&D, which had majority until Ninth parliament).Sredina (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But again, this is exactly my point about WP:OR. It doesn't matter what you think. Provide a source that separates the groups by their relations to the commission and describe it the text. 93.182.179.223 (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New MEPs

Just flagging, the EP infographic in the sourced states the numbers used in the top total EP statistics section (435 new, 295 from last term and 16 who served in a previous term, with the five unaccounted MEPs presumably the five current vacancies). However the statistics chart by member states adds up to 447 new members. The unfinished breakdown by political group counts 346 new MEPs, with figures for G/EFA and NI not known. Identifying which members have been over-counted is somewhat difficult, but would be nice to bring everything into alignment if someone has time to figure it out. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which also tangentially brings up the question on if the number totals used on the page include the five vacancies. They are: 1 S&D from Denmark (Marianne Vind is joining in September), 1 G/EFA and 2 NI from Spain (Catalan expulsions) and 1 S&D from Portgual (Isabel Estrada Carvalhais also joining in September). I have included them the two known, imminent incoming MEPs in the women MEP total but haven't cross-checked the other relevant numbers throughout. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

High Rep portfolio

I would like to hear your opinion, with arguments, on this topic. Should the portfolio of High Rep be "Foreign Affairs and Security Policy" or simply "High Representative of the Union". Portfolio is referod to as High Rep by the European Parliament, while actual portoflio names are used for all other commissioners (look: [1]). Every member of the Commission, even Vice-Presidents hold the title of the European Commissioner. The only exceptions are the President and High Rep, they are not having the title of the European Commissioner. So that's why I think, the portfolio title for High Rep should be "High Representative of the Union". It is clear what that is, since there is only one High Rep.Sredina (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lenarčič, Goulard

Therequiembellishere stop reverting and adding incorrect informations to the page. Your source is not a relevant source for this kind of things. You can discuss the topic here and we can find the solution.Sredina (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ninth European Parliament/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Fiamh (talk · contribs) 01:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of October 29, 2019, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: There are some issues with MOS. The lede does not adequately summarize article contents. In addition, long tables harm readability. Consider reducing, collapsing or moving some to separate lists with prose summaries here.

2. Verifiable?: Sourcing is seriously lacking. Some entire sections have no sourcing. I have flagged some sentences that need a citation.

3. Broad in coverage?: Not evaluated

4. Neutral point of view?: Not evaluated

5. Stable?: It is not possible for this article to meet the stability criterion, because it is about an ongoing event. As votes are done, new actions taken, etc. the article will need to change as a result.

6. Images?: Not evaluated

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 01:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Committees table

Hi, currently the Standing committees table is messed up and I cannot understand how to fix it up. Anyone knows what's wrong and/or has the time to fix it? --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie92: what is the issue? I transferred the chart so it will be found under Committees of the European Parliament Chefs-kiss (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Major Article Clean-up proposal

I've just come across this article and see some issue that could be addressed. I see (to my amazement) that one editor made a good article nomination. I wonder if there is anyone out there who would like to;

1. Input to get consensus on the below issues and that it is, indeed worth reviewing?

2. help work on this as a project to get the article somewhere closer to Good Article status?

The issues I see with the page currently are;

It does feel very appropriate that an article written
about an EU institution has the same criticism as material
often produced by European Institutions!!

1. Length and relevance. There are too many sections to this article that are un-required. I will not list them all here but, if we take this forward, we can take it to the talk page. But, for example, the committees and members can (and should) be moved to separate lists, the delegations are not needed, the council presidency should be a separate article, the secretariat is un-needed as not linked specifically to each parliament cycle, there is no official first half/ second half of each parliament. I believe we could reduce the section down to, for example, election, leadership, probably a section on Brexit (currently missing), something on Sassoli's death, the make up of the parliament, key co-legislative moments etc etc.

2. sourcing is severely lacking from the article overall and need major work to include and update. Often those that are included are generic links or do not include the information they claim to reference.

3. Narrative (MoS). One of the points listed in the Good Article appraisal was relating to the Manual of Style issues in the article. The reviewer hasn't been specific and I am no expert on Manual of Style but this clearly needs to be addressed. The largest MoS issue I see currently (as well as the issues listed above) is;

4. Lack of narrative. The entire article is written with next to no narrative context and relies almost exclusively on charts and tables that should be elsewhere.

Please reach out in reply here on on my talk page if this is something that would be of interest to take part in.

Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 19:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested. I reached out to you via your talk page Chefs-kiss (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested in this I would love to coordinate with you. I already made a draft with proposed changes and would love to coordinate via the talk page. I think it's important this gets done, especially with the new elections for the Parliament coming up. Chefs-kiss (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up [Regarding clearing up of extra information]

Itemized list for each of the changes and reasoning. Happy to discuss and rollback some of them.
Note: This clean up does not address sources. I do intend to work further on this article, maybe in the future this can be resubmitted to the GA review process
1. Leadership Section

Deleted the tables President & VP: Frankly there is no need to make it a tables. It bulks the page and can be made into a list. This page already suffers from to many tables. In addition while their nationalities are important one can also just...look it up on the person's page
Transferred chart in the election of the President Section: While it is relevant it belongs on the President of the European Parliament section.
Quaestors: I left them there since I do not know if there is another place to put it in, although I do not think it is relevant but I did not want to delete it.
Political Groups Leadership: I transferred this chart to the Political groups of the European Parliament because this table was about the leadership of the parties

2. Political groups and parties

I did not touch this

3. Members

I did not modify anything

4. Working bodies

Deleted table from Standing committees: this table bloated the page extremely. Again there is a specific page for the standing committees. I just transferred to Committees of the European Parliament
Other bodies: Left as was

5. Composition of the Executive

Deleted Table with the image + Table detailing other posts: This is not actually related to the EP. It has to do with the EU but frankly has no relevance
Merged section of Appointment of the new executive and President of the Commission Confirmation section. I did this simply by adding the table as text instead.
Commissioners-designate Confirmations: changed nothing
Deleted the table in Schedule of the hearings: the entire chart gives the same information from the following table of the Hearings section.
Hearings: Left as was
Rejected candidates: Left as was

6. Council presidency

Deleted this entire section: This just straight up does not belong in this page. I don't know why it's here but it doesn't. I'm not even sure how the Council is relevant here.

7. Appointments

Deleted the appointment side of the Commission since it is redundant, there is an entire section above which discusses it

8. Statistics

Deleted table of European Parliament statistics: the same info is stated in the chart regarding nation states

9. Delegations

Did not touch: Frankly I do not think this entire thing belongs here but I do not know where to place it and therefore left it as was

10. 2019 elections results

Left Table: 2019 results by political group
Results by country: This again belongs in the 2019 European Parliament election.

Chefs-kiss (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I agree with the whole restructuring that has been WP:BOLDLY done here. Why are there more details on the elections of the Quaestors, and no detail on the election of the President? It seems that the hierarchy of what is more important has been turned upside down. Also why are there two sections called "Political groups" now? Yakme (talk) 09:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yakme: Hi. Yes it was bold. I just have seen no action regarding this page (as the prior attempt to clean up shows). I for sure don't mind rolling them back and working with you. Do you have an email or a discord? Maybe it can be quicker for main communication

I included the quaestors because there is no other place for them to be but for the election of the president they have a page dedicated to them.

I do acknowledge that my edits do perhaps change the importance structure...mostly i did it because the most important sections have pages for the data and charts.

Do you think perhaps it is better to add the charts as a text? The issue is that the tables just contribute stats but not actual content.

Chefs-kiss (talk) 09:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an email or a discord? Maybe it can be quicker for main communication editing WP is not something between the two of us. Any decision on the major structure of this article has to be made on this talk page, not in a private conversation between two editors. Yakme (talk) 09:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thats also ok. What about what i mentioned above? Chefs-kiss (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, I would restore the two tables that you inexplicably removed: [2] and [3]. Tables are far more readable and dense of information with respect to plain manually written lists. I would then also restore the Presidents' elections tables, because otherwise it's inconsistent to show only the Quaestors' elections tables. Yakme (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Will do. Anything else? Chefs-kiss (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I will also then remove said charts from the relevant pages transfered i had transfered them to. Chefs-kiss (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you have to remove it elsewhere. It can be repeated, this is not an issue IMHO. Yakme (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BoonDock: Can we discuss at least before you delete the entire changes done. Why exactly is it unconstructive?

I still needed to implement what Yakme mentioned but I do not understand why the entire thing got reverted. And also with no discussion of it on the talk page. Chefs-kiss (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]