Link to archive: Archive 1
EU party seats lower upper houses
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)
- 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)
Module:EUPP seats
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
Political party data
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)
- 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)
- Done.Sjö (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Much appreciated and thanks for having my back on this one! Julius Schwarz (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Done.Sjö (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Breaking change
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)
- 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)
- 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)
Disambiguation link notification for May 2
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)
- Good bot! Julius Schwarz (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
New template question
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Done Julius Schwarz (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Political party data - EU
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)
- Hi @Spleodrach, thanks a lot for spotting this and flagging it. Let me correct asap. Julius Schwarz (talk) 07:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Done! Julius Schwarz (talk) 07:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! Spleodrach (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Done! Julius Schwarz (talk) 07:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Nomination of Jean Monnet Prize for European Integration for deletion
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.CS1 error on Europe of Sovereign Nations Group
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. (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
European Liberal Forum
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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- OK by me if no other objections. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:26, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
— GhostInTheMachine talk to me 14:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- OK by me if no other objections. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:26, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
European political foundation
is enough detail for a SD. How would it be incorrect? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 11:41, 18 December 2025 (UTC)- 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)
- 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)- 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)
- 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
- 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)
Patriots.eu
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)
- 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)
March 2026
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to The Left in the European Parliament, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Remember: Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. GenoV84 (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Julius Schwarz's actions were not disruptive. Please do not WP:SANCTIONGAME, by mischaracterising Julius' actions to make them seem unreasonable or improper. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:50, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Cambial Yellowing Wrong: the informations that I added to the lead section before their reverts were already cited throughout the article (not by me, btw), and the improvements that I made to the citation templates were reverted without a reasonable justification as well. You are mistaken. GenoV84 (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- No. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Cambial Yellowing Yesss (compare with the current revision). You're still wrong, get over it. GenoV84 (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Not that I do not enjoy a bit of banter myself, but this is not very constructive. Though I do appreciate the support, @Cambial Yellowing, and I obviously side with you on this.
- @GenoV84, I will gloss over the condescending message above and focus on the issue at hand. Regardless of whether the sources in question were added by someone else or not, they do not support the ideologies you added. Now, you may well disagree with that, but, in line with WP:BRD, you have made you bold editing, and it was reverted; now please go to the talk page and discuss to find consensus. Julius Schwarz (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- No, I don't think I will. If you're really that convinced that my good-faith contributions to the article were not useful at all (even the edits where I simply updated the sources and fixed the citation templates), and if you really cared about the current state of the article (while stating that the cited sources are outdated, somehow implying that they are inadequate or irrelevant), then the best thing that you can do is to look for new, reliable sources to cite and replace the old ones, and you should do that yourself. I'm sure that there are plenty of academic publications about left-wing politics and parties in the European Union. You clearly don't need my help, don't you? GenoV84 (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- I am not the maintainer of that article and I am not your service boy. You came in wanting to make changes, not me. Your technical changes were welcome, but if you mix them in with unsupported ideologies or going against an established consensus without discussion, they will be reverted. Since we are trading advice, I recommend that you separate your technical contributions from the rest. Julius Schwarz (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- No, totally false. You deliberately reverted 5 edits that I had made (including the technical improvements) in a row with your first revert, misrepresenting my contributions as a mess (totally false again: ) to the article solely for adding 4 wikilinks to the ideology section of the party's Infobox, and you did the exact same thing with the following reverts (). It looks more like an attempt to own the article than anything truly helpful, to be honest. If you're not trying to own the article and you're neither required to improve it by any means, then why did you care so much about reverting another user's edits when those edits were meant to improve it? Do you even listen to yourself? GenoV84 (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- Moreover, you're clearly in no position to give other editors advice about how to contribute to this encyclopedia when you don't even seem to have a clue about what you're doing, to the point where (Personal attack removed) about your poor decisions and lack of consideration for other editors' contributions (about that, see WP policy WP:ROWN: "It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a questionable prior edit than to revert it entirely"). See? Hence, if you're really honest and you meant well for the article, you would have kept or restored the technical improvements that I had made to the lead section while removing the ideologies from the Infobox's section, or by simply tagging them as unsourced. You made a mess over 4 wikilinks for nothing, while disregarding the most simple and effective solution. Very sad. GenoV84 (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- So, now that I've explained everything clearly, do you still want me to go to the talk page and discuss to find consensus? About what? After all, you're not even "the maintainer of that article", as you said yourself, so you shouldn't even be bothered by it.... I said everything that I had to say about your lack of judgment and poor decision-making here, there's no need to go further. GenoV84 (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- Moreover, you're clearly in no position to give other editors advice about how to contribute to this encyclopedia when you don't even seem to have a clue about what you're doing, to the point where (Personal attack removed) about your poor decisions and lack of consideration for other editors' contributions (about that, see WP policy WP:ROWN: "It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a questionable prior edit than to revert it entirely"). See? Hence, if you're really honest and you meant well for the article, you would have kept or restored the technical improvements that I had made to the lead section while removing the ideologies from the Infobox's section, or by simply tagging them as unsourced. You made a mess over 4 wikilinks for nothing, while disregarding the most simple and effective solution. Very sad. GenoV84 (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- No, totally false. You deliberately reverted 5 edits that I had made (including the technical improvements) in a row with your first revert, misrepresenting my contributions as a mess (totally false again: ) to the article solely for adding 4 wikilinks to the ideology section of the party's Infobox, and you did the exact same thing with the following reverts (). It looks more like an attempt to own the article than anything truly helpful, to be honest. If you're not trying to own the article and you're neither required to improve it by any means, then why did you care so much about reverting another user's edits when those edits were meant to improve it? Do you even listen to yourself? GenoV84 (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- I am not the maintainer of that article and I am not your service boy. You came in wanting to make changes, not me. Your technical changes were welcome, but if you mix them in with unsupported ideologies or going against an established consensus without discussion, they will be reverted. Since we are trading advice, I recommend that you separate your technical contributions from the rest. Julius Schwarz (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- No, I don't think I will. If you're really that convinced that my good-faith contributions to the article were not useful at all (even the edits where I simply updated the sources and fixed the citation templates), and if you really cared about the current state of the article (while stating that the cited sources are outdated, somehow implying that they are inadequate or irrelevant), then the best thing that you can do is to look for new, reliable sources to cite and replace the old ones, and you should do that yourself. I'm sure that there are plenty of academic publications about left-wing politics and parties in the European Union. You clearly don't need my help, don't you? GenoV84 (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Cambial Yellowing Yesss (compare with the current revision). You're still wrong, get over it. GenoV84 (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- No. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Cambial Yellowing Wrong: the informations that I added to the lead section before their reverts were already cited throughout the article (not by me, btw), and the improvements that I made to the citation templates were reverted without a reasonable justification as well. You are mistaken. GenoV84 (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived
 |
Hello Julius Schwarz! The thread you created at the Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
See also the help page about the archival process.
The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing |
Disambiguation link notification for March 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited European political party, a link pointing to the disambiguation page For the People was added.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Good bot. Julius Schwarz (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello
 |
King |
| Good evening Julius,
I recently edited some article on the ESN and say that you undid all the change. In the latest instance, you claimed "changes in ideology/position without sources or discussion (the claim that right-wing cannot be told apart from far-right does not stand)". What I mean to say is that, regardless of weather "right" or "left or "up" or "down", in this example let's take "a" as an example, the political ideology of "a" is essentially the same, regardless of "a", "far-a" or even "extreme a". It is just the level of importance a certain doctrine for the "a" movement has, that gives its "far-a" or even "extreme-a" name. Moreover, this often times, and here it certainly is the case, is based on a subjective understanding and conclusion, bound to no objective standards. Additionally, in this specific instance, by dividing the political spectrum in "left" and "right", important doctrines and principles are completly overlooked and certainly misplaced for political, rather than truthful reasons. Thank you and have a nice day, BobuxMan29 BobuxMan29 (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC) |
- Hi @BobuxMan29, thank you for reaching out. Please note that, as Wikipedians, we are not here to say whether a party is right/left/center/far-right/far-left/etc., but to find a consensus based on reliable sources. Sufficient reliable sources place the ESN as a far-right party, and it is therefore marked as such. I saw that you re-instated your edits, and that they were reverted again. I encourage you to apply the WP:BRD process, by which you make an edit and, if it is reverted, you do not re-instate it point blank but engage in a discussion on the article's talk page or with the people who reverted. All the best, Julius Schwarz (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Good evening Julius,
- thank you for your very informative answer.
- What I meant to say with my first post is that an objective confirmation of the classification cannot be proven until objective parameters are set up and valued by them. Of course as Wikipedians, we shall not solely decide on such important matter. My text however proves that not only aren't there any of such standards been put in place, but that their creation and usage, especially in such cases, is used as a political tool to direct the views of the population rather than actually defining something in a truthful manner. A good example would be the Hungarian party Mi Hazánk : the the "talk" section it was mentioned that they were to be classified as "far-right" as they demanded territories from Ukraine. Instead of such classification, "irredentism" would fit better, because it leaves very less room for interpretation, and more for objective analysis. Moreover, usage of such terms, even from so-called "reliable sources" does not prove the actual truthful meaning of the word - but rather that it has been used, regardless of its truthfulness, in this case not truthful.
- Thank you and have a nice day,
- BobuxMan29 BobuxMan29 (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but I cannot say that I agree with your appraisal at all. There are indeed reliable ways to assess whether a party is "right-wing" or "far-right" -- these terms can always be debated, but this doesn't mean that are no ways to classify parties. At any rate, we work on sources, not on original research. Your example also confuse a party or political group's position with an ideology. Julius Schwarz (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- Good evening Julius,
- what I mean to say with my post is that terminology has roots. In this case you are right, of course there are ways to say whether a party is "right" or "left", but on what exactly do we bound these terms? We bound these terms to different doctrines that themselves are tied to ideologies, in example: Liberalism, Conservatism, Communism, Socialism, etc. It is by these that we make our definition of what "right" or "left" is. "Right" and "Left" originates from the French Revolution, and the seating the different political actors took. Yet these actors had principles in mind, and what we are doing with "right" or "left" is nothing other than classifying principles, doctrines and ideologies in a two-sided system that has no objective standard, in example we could literally rotate the spectrum, call Liberalism "right" and Conservatism "left", etc, and nothing would change because it is the same principle classified in two different subjective ways.
- In regards to the "Far-right" or even "Far-left" problem, it is fairly similar: it is principles that we assess and analyse not directions. Please note that this is not about certain political intention, but rather about the understanding of overall, general politics.
- Thank you and have a nice day,
- BobuxMan29 BobuxMan29 (talk) 10:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but I cannot say that I agree with your appraisal at all. There are indeed reliable ways to assess whether a party is "right-wing" or "far-right" -- these terms can always be debated, but this doesn't mean that are no ways to classify parties. At any rate, we work on sources, not on original research. Your example also confuse a party or political group's position with an ideology. Julius Schwarz (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Patriots.eu and Patriots for Europe
How do you make the distinction between the European party Patriots.eu and the parliamentary Patriots for Europe? Genuine question, because P.eu has sources that apply to PfE as well, and some of them look recycled by the looks of it. Some of P.eu's sources even have "parliamentary group" in their sources, so I was just curious on how the line is drawn. DougheGojiraMan (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
- Well on paper, it is rather straightforward: Patriots.eu is a European political party, registered with the APPF, meaning it is an extra-parliamentary entity with legal personhood and registered in France; conversely, Patriots for Europe is a parliamentary group, so it is a purely a parliamentary entity. You might know that already, of course. The consequence is that they have separate leadership, separate funding, and distinct membership (membership can be identical or not, but membership of one does not lead automatically to membership of the other). Sources used should therefore refer to the entity under discussion, and a source for the parliamentary group cannot be used for the party (unless the text also refers to the party separately). At any rate, there are many, many reliable sources categorising Patriots.eu as far-right. Julius Schwarz (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Volt - Europarty
Hey @Julius Schwarz,
I’ve seen the changes you made to the various articles on national Volt parties. While I agree that Volt Europa is not a registered party under European law, the “European affiliation” section isn’t just about European parties, but also about other political entities that aren’t registered as European parties. Volt Europa falls into this category. In that regard, I wonder whether such a narrow interpretation is really appropriate here.
best,
Heindeii Heideneii (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for reaching out here instead of directly reverting, @Heideneii, this is appreciated. With regard to your question, yes, I do believe that this interpretation is relevant -- the "European affiliation" is specifically about European parties, and not generally about European political alliances. This is the established precedent for all national parties in EU member states, and it mirrors the fact that some entities are European parties while others are not. If you look at the page of European political alliance, you will see that, indeed, opening the affiliation up beyond European parties is really opening Pandora's box and would make affiliation quite hard to define. With regard to Volt more specifically, I really sympathise and I will readily admit that Volt not only should already be a European political party, but also that, in essence, it is more of European party than all those that are actually registered. But this is my opinion only and does not count on Wikipedia, and it is not what the European affiliation field is for. I do hope that Volt manages to register in the near future, and this can be reintegrated. Best, Julius Schwarz (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
- If that is the established practice, however, it seems that many people still haven’t caught on. Among the member parties of the European Pirate Party or the Animal Politics EU party, there are still some that refer to the unregistered European party. The fact that references are made to unregistered European parties is nothing new, but has been the case for years. I would also question to what extent this opens Pandora’s box, provided that references are also made to legally existing organizations of which the parties are members. That does limit things quite a bit.
- About the registration of Volt: Since the hurdles for European parties under European law are relatively high, I assume that Volt will still need some time to achieve this. Especially after yesterday’s loss of the parliamentary seat in Cyprus.
- best, Heideneii (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
- It is true that some pages still list non-European parties under "European affiliation". However, this is indeed not the norm and should not be the case. The issue is that opening things up is not just allowing Volt, the Pirates, and Animal EU, it is also other political alliances, groups, movements, which may all contain parties. It is hard to really justify one without also justifying the others, and then you really lose the purpose of that info field. I know because the same discussion took place in the past with admittedly diverging takes, and it quickly became clear that opening this up to a few (as some initially wanted) also opened to much more (which the same initiators did not want but other supported). Consensus was to stick to the definition of what is a European political party. Julius Schwarz (talk) 06:57, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- i would argue there's difference when there is a legal association with the goal of register as an official europarty. That's at least the case with Pirates and Volt.
- Where do i find this discussion? Heideneii (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
- The discussion took place regarding what to include in the article on European parties, and the decision was made to place entities that were not registered as European parties in the article on European political alliances -- which actually matches the definition of European political parties as political alliances that are registered. The same applies here. Regardless of the status, either an entity is registered or it isn't. But to be clear, this doesn't mean that Volt Europa cannot be mentioned; it can be placed instead in the "Regional affiliation" field, just not the field dedicated to European political parties (or European parliamentary groups, in the same way). Julius Schwarz (talk) 06:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- then i would start adding Volt Europa as regional affiliation and start doing the samw with the European Pirate Party etc Heideneii (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- I agree and, actually, have found an even better way -- using "| affiliation1_title = European political alliance | affiliation1 = "; I did not know this was an option (it is actually not always an option, depending on the wikipedia in question, but it works for English Wikipedia). Julius Schwarz (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- good point, i will use that in the english wiki then. Thanks! Heideneii (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- Perfect! I am very happy to have realised this, as it seems like the best compromise. Don't forget to add a wikilink to European political alliance using the double bracket! Julius Schwarz (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- Also, in case you are committed:
- for en-wiki, you can use "| affiliation1_title = European political alliance | affiliation1 = Volt Europa"
- for fr-wiki, "| dénom autre affi = Alliance politique européenne | autre affiliation = Volt Europa"
- for es-wiki, "| organización1_título = Alianza política europea | organización1 = Volt Europa"
- for sl-wiki, "| affiliation1_title = Evropska politična zveza | affiliation1 = Volt Europa"
- for nl-wiki, "| internationaal = Volt Europa"
- for de-wiki, "| International = Volt Europa"
- for it-wiki, "| internazionale = Volt Europa"
- for pt-wiki, "|internacional = Volt Europa"
- Julius Schwarz (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- Note: the page on European political alliances currently exists on en-wiki and fr-wiki, so those two can use a wikilink, not es-wiki or sl-wiki. Julius Schwarz (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- I'll work on it in the coming days. Thanks! Heideneii (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- good point, i will use that in the english wiki then. Thanks! Heideneii (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- I started doing just this for Animal Politics EU. If you can work on others, this is welcome -- I plan on getting back to it but have work/family obligations that are a little pressing. Julius Schwarz (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- I agree and, actually, have found an even better way -- using "| affiliation1_title = European political alliance | affiliation1 = "; I did not know this was an option (it is actually not always an option, depending on the wikipedia in question, but it works for English Wikipedia). Julius Schwarz (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- then i would start adding Volt Europa as regional affiliation and start doing the samw with the European Pirate Party etc Heideneii (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- The discussion took place regarding what to include in the article on European parties, and the decision was made to place entities that were not registered as European parties in the article on European political alliances -- which actually matches the definition of European political parties as political alliances that are registered. The same applies here. Regardless of the status, either an entity is registered or it isn't. But to be clear, this doesn't mean that Volt Europa cannot be mentioned; it can be placed instead in the "Regional affiliation" field, just not the field dedicated to European political parties (or European parliamentary groups, in the same way). Julius Schwarz (talk) 06:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- It is true that some pages still list non-European parties under "European affiliation". However, this is indeed not the norm and should not be the case. The issue is that opening things up is not just allowing Volt, the Pirates, and Animal EU, it is also other political alliances, groups, movements, which may all contain parties. It is hard to really justify one without also justifying the others, and then you really lose the purpose of that info field. I know because the same discussion took place in the past with admittedly diverging takes, and it quickly became clear that opening this up to a few (as some initially wanted) also opened to much more (which the same initiators did not want but other supported). Consensus was to stick to the definition of what is a European political party. Julius Schwarz (talk) 06:57, 26 May 2026 (UTC)