Talk:Von der Leyen Commission

VdL's manifesto

I found this the other day, Ursula von der Leyen's formal proposal to the EP is also available. This document's title makes this clear that it is a statement by her as a candidate for the presidency of the commission. It is undated, but must have been produced in the autumn of 2019, between her proposal as a candidate by the Council, and confirmation/election by the Parliament. I think it should probably be on this page, let me know if you think not .. DaveLevy (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

References

The infoxbox category pertaining to parties should be renamed

To precise, that it includes only EU parties. Virginijus is currently, affiliated to no european party, but is affiliated to ecologists. Should he not be considered as a green by being in a party affiliated with greens at EU level? In the count of the parties/colours of comissionners, instead of being labelled as "independant". Putting him in the same category as the French comissioners, who never ever joined a party neither at France's level, or at EU level.

--83.118.219.9 (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Deleting candidates

Should all of the candiadtes that have not yet been officially nominated by member states deleted from the table? Deleteing only one candidate (Romanian) for that reason is strange. Majority of candiadtes in the table have not yet been nominated. Until this is resolved stop with all revertngs.Sredina (talk) 08:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it is sufficient if a government representative has publicly declared a certain person to be the candidate of that country. Most (all?) of the names in the table have been publicly declared as candidates by their respective governments. --Glentamara (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. That said, the source for the Romanian candidate clearly says that "this has not been officially confirmed in Bucharest", so removing her is not wrong under that standard. Regards SoWhy 15:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. --Glentamara (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

No user agrees that the source explicitly labelling her as a "likely" nominee merits her inclusion. The others who have not been formally nominated yet have the explicit backing of their governments, as reliably sourced. Removing based on the consensus here. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

If you removed her, then upload the correct maps as well. Situation now is even more confusing. Sredina (talk) 08:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how to do that, nor is the burden on any other editor but yourself to fix an issue that you created. The situation is confusing because you jumped the gun and violated wP:CRYSTAL and the onus is on you to fix it yourself. Therequiembellishere (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Party affiliation of commissioners national party

Is the european party affiliation to be designated according to the european party membership or according to membership in the corresponding European Parliament Group?

E.g. Lithuanian Farmers and Greens Union sits with the Greens/EFA-Group. The corresponding french article to this one has them designated "green" (as of time of writing). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.77.147.150 (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Similar discussion was held about Macron in the European Council, his party is member of liberal group RE in the Parliament, but it was decided that he stays independent officially. I think parties and their european affiliationss hould be used, and if party is not member of any european political party, then commissioner should be independent. It can be solved in some other way, with multi-color maps (those stripped one, but i dont know how to make them), Slovenian candidate Lenarčič also said that he will attend party meetings of the Slovenian Prime Minister's Party (ALDE in that case). It can get very complicated so for now the best way is to just use national parties European affiliations.Sredina (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree that it is the political party affiliation that has to be used. The political groups in the European Parliament are internal structures of the parliament consisting of MEPs. They have nothing to do with the Commission or the European Council. A commissioner cannot be member of a political group of the European Parliament, only MEPs can. --Glentamara (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Janez Lenarčič's affiliaton on his EC declaration of interests page is not ALDE Party : https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/sites/comm-cwt2019/files/commissioner_declarations/declaration-of-interests-lenarcic_en.pdf molui (talk) 08:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Table

I don't see the point with making the table huge and completely unreadable. The old/current table is much better, gives a better overview and doesn't contain a lot of unnecessary things, like EU flags and EU commissions logotypes that are made huge. --Glentamara (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, at least for now. The argument that this is done on another article does not hold much weight because there is no consistency. For example, Barroso Commission uses a standard table while Prodi Commission uses a different style table. There is also no Manual of Style that applies here as far as I am aware. I would keep the old table format at least until the commission is completely nominated and confirmed because the Juncker-style table does not allow for such fine points. I would also remind Sredina that per WP:BRD, one should not edit-war to keep a page in their preferred version but instead use the first revert as a basis for a discussion. Regards SoWhy 16:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Im am working on old articles, but it takes time, I think that this type of table is completely fine, it offers same kind of data as the old one and its not that difficult to read. There were no objections on European Council nor on Juncker COmmission.Sredina (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

So your argument is that you are changing the old articles to fit your preferred style so that you can then cite them as precedent for changing it here? That's not how it works... Regards SoWhy 16:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

You had chance to object when first changes were made, EUCO table is now used for almost a year I think, so I really don't understand why there is problem now, but not back then. Similar type of table is also used for Cabinet of Donald Trump.Sredina (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The table is totally ill-equipped to show any changes that occured mid-term. Just putting it underneath is not ideal. A simple table with one commissioner per row, like in Scholz cabinet, would do a lot better and be easier to read. XAnio (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, I have contributed the most to this very article, as well as to the Ninth European Parliament, so I think I can have a say in how this page looks. And I am really not doing anything revolutionary.Sredina (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Contributing more does not mean you get to decide. Regards SoWhy 17:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm very worried about this new layout that makes thing much less readable. I don't understand the point of making everything so big, it makes it less easy to overview. In addition, there's a lot of redundant elements in the proposed layout, like identical EU flags for each member. The current/old version is much better, it gives a better overview and makes it possible for the user to sort the table according to different parameters. --Glentamara (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah and literally no one does that..., why weren't you objecting on the Juncker table? Will you change the EUCO table as well?Sredina (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

What do you know about that? What is the advantage with your layout? There are many obvious disadvantages. And yeah, I have already written om the discussion pages for the other articles, right after I became aware of this. --Glentamara (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

You contributed nothing to this article, except reverting that table. Why did you not object, when it was used on EUCO or Juncker Commission.? Why is it problematic now? It is not that big, there are pictures of commissioners, that this table does not have. And saying that pictures are too big is just ridiculous.Sredina (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

It makes it less user-friendly. Is there any argument for the new layout? --Glentamara (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Define user-friendly, thats just your opinion.Sredina (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think I can say quite objectively that the current/old layout gives a better overview, it places the information in different columns so that you can easily compare different members and also sort the information. I'm asking again, what is the advantage with the new layout you are proposing? --Glentamara (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

_It has pictures of all commissioners, it looks better, its modern, so it makes the article more attractive for users (thats what we want), it was used before and never objected, it includes all the data that current table provides, no one is really using the table to analyze the commission in details with sorting columns and also that just ruins the table adding extra flags, when sorted by any criteria, there is enough other data (party composition, gender composition, maps) on the page, European flags can be removed if they are so problematic.Sredina (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I think there are many people, including myself, using the sorting function. For instance if you want to see how many women and how many men there are in the new Commission it's nice to be able to sort the table according to gender. Or if you want to see who belongs to EPP, PES, ALDE etc. We can include small pictures of the people in the current table too, if that is the important thing. That's how it was before in, e.g., the article about the European Council. --Glentamara (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

And as a general principle, I think functionality is more important than aesthetics on Wikipedia. --Glentamara (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

You literally have two additional tables (also with graphical presenation) and two maps under that table that tells you what the composition of the commission is like. Why do you still need sortable table?Sredina (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

But they are not showing who these members are etc. In the sortable table you get the maximum possibility of extracting information. You can order it according to any parameter in the table. --Glentamara (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

"Looks better", "modern", "no one is really" are all subjective terms. After all, both Glentamara and me thing the old table looks better and is easier to use. Since you are aiming to change the status quo in this article, the onus is on you to demonstrate why your preferred version is objectively better. Remember that people use all kinds of devices to access Wikipedia and your preferred version is extremely difficult to read on mobile devices, forcing users to scroll both vertically and horizontally. I'm pretty sure this table is also a nightmare for anyone using screenreaders. Remember that MOS:ACCESS which says "Wikipedia articles should be easy to navigate and read for people with disabilities." is in fact a guideline that should generally be followed. Regards SoWhy 17:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Here's a screenshot with the table on a device the size of the iPhone X. You can use the developer tools in browsers like Firefox and Chrome (press F12) to access device previews such as this. On the other hand, the old layout shows a lot of information at the first glance. Regards SoWhy 17:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Im done here, you will get it your way anyway, as always.Sredina (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sredina:, @SoWhy:, @Glentamara: The proposed layout has too many distracting colours and symbols and it is too big and not particularly readable. But the current one doesn't seem like the ultimate table either. The gender column (regardless of how much importance had with the selection process) could be dealt with in another section dealing with prosopographic details of the commissioners (including age, profession, how many of them were Former PM, Former Foreign Ministers or whatnot, or whatever detail sources interested in a prosoprographic approach come up with). I don't see how a column gendering politicians is more important than portraiting them.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

As I said I am done with this article, the other two make decisions about everything, so good luck, they think they have some super table now. Thanks for including me tho. Sredina (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. For my part, it would be fine to remove several of the columns, such as the gender (which can be discussed briefly in the text), the official nomination dates as well as the colors of the national parties (I don't see the point with these colors). --Glentamara (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not just the colours or the actual columns. It's also the sorting feature. For example, there is no purpose in the sorting feature for the national parties column (it doesn't group anything, it delivers another alphabetical sorting without actual purpose; contrary to possibly the case of the country, nobody searchs the commissioners based on the acronym of their "national party"). If the information is preserved in the table, I just cannot do anything but recommend to insert the "national party" in brackets after the "european party" (particulary given that as individual membership is often a "no-thing" for european parties, in most cases the information connecting commissioner and european party is extracted from the "national party" the commissioner is supposed to be a member of). The sorting feature does not really make sense in the "references" column or the "portfolio one", either. So barring other considerations, I would also fix those ones as class = "unsortable".--Asqueladd (talk) 06:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure, we can remove the possibility to sort these columns, but I don't see any problem as the table stands now. Just refrain from sorting these columns if you don't want to do it. --Glentamara (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Glentamara:,@SoWhy:: What do you think of this version as layout? (I would additionally consider disallowing the sorting of most columns as commented above, the addition of a mugshot and the replacement of the "nomination date" by the day they took office).--Asqueladd (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

(pinged) Looks okay to me. I don't think the portfolio names for the first few rows are really NPOV though. Regards SoWhy 12:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me. But I think it would be good to add the national party affiliations in paranthesis after the European parties. The column title "Portfolio" should maybe be changed to "Official portfolio" or "Official portfolio name" to emphasize that these are the official names (which might be POV). --Glentamara (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

This source published today can help vis-à-vis the creation of a "prosopography" section where the additional information mentioned aboved (on the likes of gender balance, age, ministerial experience and EP experience et al.) might be best suited.--Asqueladd (talk) 08:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Status in legislature

Is the "Status in legislature" number not a bit misleading? VDL was approved with 383 votes, far less than this way of measuring the status in the legislature implies. For sure it would be better to use the number of MEPs that actually end up voting for the entire Commission right? 82.168.247.47 (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. We should stress that she won the vote only by 9 votes above the required majority (383-327-22, with 374 required).

However, the vote was a secret ballot, so while we know who the 14 absentee MEPs were, we can only guess how the 732 others voted based on the party press releases and other public confessions. But there might still be individual MEPs not voting according to their party. Kahlores (talk) 11:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Missing UK still in the EU at least until today

Missing UK still in the EU at least until today — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.154.64 (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Paolo Gentiloni 2019 Official.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)