Link to archive: Archive 1

Hi, I have been cleaning up Wikipedia:Database reports/Transclusions of non-existent templates and I was wondering if you had any plans to create Template:EU party seats lower upper houses, or if not, if you could modify your module test so it didn't transclude a non-existing template. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes sure. Actually, I moved the module and relevant pages, so all of it can be deleted :) Julius Schwarz (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I saw your module, and it in use, and I was pretty pleased at how it has turned out. May I ask, have you thought about expanding it out from just European politics? It could work wonders for the likes of South Korea and Japan :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the nice words. What exactly did you have in mind? As you probably saw, there are two aspects for the module -- the first being for European political parties, and the other for national parties (virtually, any national political party, but especially parties that are members of European parties). There are surely ways to expand the module, but my own priority is mostly deploying it and translating it. Expanding it beyond the EU could also be done, but the issue is the tie between parties and their relevant lower/upper houses, which for now we solve by using a table listing European parties' member parties. Julius Schwarz (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, you've answered my question with a national party module. Another thing is how to adapt the module for unicameral parliaments. Is there a way to use the template for unicameral seats, like South Korea's DPK and PPP? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, well the module already works with unicameral parliaments, insofar as the only existing house is considered the lower house. As you can see in the mapping table, the upper house column is left blank for unicameral member states. But, once again, this always hinges on having an up-to-date mapping of countries to their lower and upper houses. We do this with a table (via the mapping of national member parties to their European party), but it could be done with a table just linking a country to its legislative houses. As far as I can see at the moment, it's not straightforward with Wikidata, as sometimes a country's legislature will be the houses themselves (one or two), and sometimes it will be an item for the combined houses which will then refer to the separate houses. For instance, Belgium lists, as its legislative body, the Belgian Federal Parliament, which in turns links to the lower and upper houses. Julius Schwarz (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted several of your changes to political parties because the template caused error messages. May I suggest that you self-revert the rest of your changes and wait until the template works as intended before re-adding them? Sjö (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks. Actually, this is already fixed and was just the result of a hasty change. Would be grateful if you could revert the changes, that would be very helpful. Thanks! Julius Schwarz (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Sjö (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated and thanks for having my back on this one! Julius Schwarz (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've reverted your most recent change to Module:European and national party data because it was rendering Lua errors in articles. You are welcome to reinstate the edit when it doesn't break things (I'm not disputing the change itself). Giraffer (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, somehow I thought my edit saved and I didn't edit conflict with you on your revert. Ignore me then... Giraffer (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries and thanks for the intervention. It's on me, I made the wrong change. Glad it's reverted and work will continue in the sandbox instead. Julius Schwarz (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alliance C – Christians for Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bundesrat.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good bot! Julius Schwarz (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've just seen your migration of the party pages to a new template. I was wondering where I can re-input the colour and other data for parties that have lost it (e.g., Bulgarian Social Democracy – EuroLeft}}. Thanks! Quinby (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message and for catching this! Since the party was defunct, I indeed didn't notice that, for instance, the colour was gone. I already re-instated the color as well as the website. Should anything else be missing, you can either add the information on Wikidata or just ask me :) But I do not think that anything else disappeared. Let me know! Julius Schwarz (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, thanks! The party isn't defunct, it's just that it went by two names and the former is retired. Regards, Quinby (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's confusing. Wikidata has it marked as defunct, based on the French Wikipedia, which has two separate pages. That would probably need cleaning up. Julius Schwarz (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Julius Schwarz (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have added the Political party data for Irish political parties. However, the total number of seats for the the European Parliament is wrong, it says 13, see Fine Gael. Ireland has had 14 seats in the European Parliament since 2024. The total is somewhere in wikidata, and I do not know how to change it. Can you please update this? Spleodrach (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Spleodrach, thanks a lot for spotting this and flagging it. Let me correct asap. Julius Schwarz (talk) 07:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Julius Schwarz (talk) 07:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Spleodrach (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jean Monnet Prize for European Integration is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Monnet Prize for European Integration until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Isderion (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Europe of Sovereign Nations Group, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I found this article by working through the problem tracking list Wikipedia:Database reports/Long short descriptions, which contains articles with excessively long short descriptions, and I edited to comply with WP:SDSHORT. You can find an explanation of the purpose of short descriptions at WP:Short description. SDs merely identify a general field, and aren't intended to serve as a definition: WP:SDNOTDEF. My edit was pretty straightforward and shouldn't be at all contentious. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, this had been raised before. But then "European political foundation affiliated to the ALDE Party" would probably be a better choice. Julius Schwarz (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"ALDE party" isn't good, as a general reader won't know what that means. WP:SDJARGON says "avoid jargon, and use simple, readily comprehensible terms that do not require pre-existing detailed knowledge of the subject". "Transnational political foundation" could work. "European" and "Liberal" are already in the title, and don't need repeating. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:24, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I strongly disagree on this one. What is this entity? It is a European political foundation, which is something specific, not just some "trasnational political foundation" which, in itself, means nothing. As for "ALDE Party", it is as much the party's name as the long form version, so I would dispute that it is jargon (LibDems is as meaningful as Liberal Democrats). I personally prefer the long form version of the name. Julius Schwarz (talk) 10:35, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the long version isn't going to fly. As it is, it's one of the very longest SDs on the whole of Wikipedia. And it's also difficult to believe that ALDE is a simple, readily comprehensible term that does not require pre-existing detailed knowledge of the subject. "European political foundation" is something specific, as you say, and properly fulfils the SD's purposes per WP:SDPURPOSE. That would be my preference. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:57, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Given that ALDE is far more known under that name, can you help me understand why the use of the acronym would be problematic? Julius Schwarz (talk) 11:00, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because short descriptions primarily appear in searches, they should be understandable, so far as possible, by readers worldwide who may well know nothing at all about a topic. Hence the rule about using terms that don't require pre-existing detailed knowledge of the subject. Specialists (and particularly sports fans) often use acromyms which are extremely well understood in their own fields, but which don't convey anything to outsiders. You reverted a different suggestion a few days ago by GhostInTheMachine, who may be able to contribute here. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, which revert was this? At any rate, something we do for European political parties is to place the position (sometimes ideology, when clearer) before "European political party" in the description. Maybe we could do something similar here. Instead of saying what European political party the foundation is affiliated to, maybe we say what position/ideology is has? So, here "Liberal European political foundation"? Julius Schwarz (talk) 11:39, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The words "Liberal" and "European" are already in the title and don't need to be repeated per WP:SDDUPLICATE "avoid duplicating information that is already in the title ... (but don't worry too much if you need to repeat a word or two for context)". But having said that, if you feel strongly I wouldn't object to "Liberal European political foundation". MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point but, indeed, in this case I would recommend to keep these words. Most other European political foundations do not have their ideology in their name (the green one does, admittedly) and I do value consistency across descriptions. I would say this is a fair compromise and I do not mind making the changes if this is agreed. Julius Schwarz (talk) 12:07, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK by me if no other objections. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:26, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 14:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

European political foundation is enough detail for a SD. How would it be incorrect? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:41, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that it is incorrect. I mean "political foundation" would not be incorrect. "Foundation" would not be incorrect. I just think that we can do better whilst respecting the guidance for short descriptions and I am trying to make proposals. Julius Schwarz (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any need for further detail. European Liberal Forum says "Liberal", so adding "Liberal" to the SD is unnecessary. Avoiding "European " has virtue, so International political foundation could be better — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:54, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except "international political foundation" refers to nothing at all. "European political foundation" refers to a legal status, so there is definitely value in keeping this. Also the argument you make for "liberal" does apply here, it's true, but it does not apply for the vast majority of the other European political foundations, and I think there is also value in consistency. So I would argue that it would be acceptable to leave the duplicate in place for the sake of consistency. That seems to match @MichaelMaggs's latest comment. Julius Schwarz (talk) 12:05, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why did you cancel the edit of someone who wrote that Czech parties from this group form the government in the Czech Republic? After all, It's true. IgnacyPL (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @IgnacyPL, as you can read in the comment associated with the revert, the change put the wrong figures for ANO's and the Motorists' number of MPs. Julius Schwarz (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]