I thought at first that some vandal had deleted the map! I don't understand how the template works, but could you modify it so that it's shown, rather than hidden, by default? It looks as if there's the same problem at other Euroconstituencies. Thanks. PamD ( talk) 21:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for this and all the rest of your work! Now sit down quietly and have a nice cup of tea or whatever your chosen tipple... , and take a little rest! Cheers,
PamD (
talk)
22:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi there, I appreciate it is a major effort but I would like to ask why you have created several hundred single-use templates with {{ Infobox European Parliament constituency}}? Most of them seem to hard-coded and used on one article each which defeats the purpose of a template. It would be better to transfer the hard-coded information straight into the articles in the same manner as the vast majority of Wikipedia articles. Green Giant ( talk) 03:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your entry above. Spinning the infoboxes off into their own templates has the following advantages.
So this approach made possible the creation of gallery and other pages, simplified the underlying code, separated out formatting and textual information, minimised disturbance, and centralised associated information. This approach solved so many problems and caused none in its turn.
I note from your talk page that you have a pattern of behavior involving the deletion of templates. As luck would have it, I will be away from my terminal until late Friday/early Saturday. Should you wish to nominate the templates for deletion/speedy deletion, I would appreciate it if you would wait until then so I may present the reasons above for the templates' retention. Please note that a lot of information is held on those templates (sources, maps and numbers of MEPs over time for all 195 constituencies of the European Parliament since 1979) and their speedy deletion will cause much inconvenience and lost information. I will leave a note on the Wikiproject:European Union & Elections in the European Union pages asking other users to maintain a watching brief on the templates and save the information contained therein should their deletion proceed in my absence. Regards, Anameofmyveryown ( talk) 00:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
European Parliament constituencies in Italy | ||
---|---|---|
{{ Infobox North-West Italy (European Parliament constituency)}} | {{ Infobox North-East Italy (European Parliament constituency)}} | {{ Infobox Central Italy (European Parliament constituency)}} |
{{ Infobox Southern Italy (European Parliament constituency)}} | {{ Infobox Italian Islands (European Parliament constituency)}} |
{{ Infobox Pomeranian (European Parliament constituency)}}
Unlike all the other European Union member states, Poland does not allocate seats to its constituencies (see right for an example) until after the election. Lists are aggregated at the national level via the D'Hondt method to ensure they pass the 5% limit, but thereafter seats ('mandates') are assigned to constituencies via the Hare-Niemayer method - the more votes a constituency casts, the more seats a constituency gets. Candidates are then assigned to those constituencies depending on how many votes they got from that constituency. This combination of two assignment methods and open lists enables Poland to have geographically stable constituencies (compare other nations, who use borders based on NUTS divisions which must be changed periodically as populations shift), proportional representation, and MEPs tied to a specific constituency: a combination which other nations have yet to achieve. However, the complexities make it difficult to understand and administer. No other EU nation is planning to adopt this method.
Another difference concerns the constituencies' names. Unlike the other nations, Poland does not give its constituencies individual names: instead, the relevant legislation denotes each constituency with a number, description, and location of the Electoral Commission central office for that constituency. This leads to some ambiguity, with some commentators referring to the constituencies by their office location ("Gdansk"), and some by the
voivodeship whose borders it matches ("Pomeranian"). European Parliament practice is to use the latter, and this usage is followed (although not exclusively) by the Polish media and public.
{{
Infobox Podlachian and Warmian-Masurian (European Parliament constituency)}}
This in turn leads to another complexity. Although the description of the constituencies is well established in Polish, the English translation is not. This leads to some debate: for example, should a constituency be rendered as "Podlachian" (the formal and somewhat archaic term, approximately equivalent to rendering "Spain" as "Iberia") or "Podlasian" (the more modern but unofficial term, approximately equivalent to rendering "Florida" as "The Sunshine State")? The usage in these pages follows the official usage.
The impact on European politics with the accession of Poland in 2004 has yet to be fully evaluated. Given its political makeup, it has been hypothesised that it will arrest the long-term decline of national conservative votes in the Parliament caused by a three-way squeeze between the Christian Democrats from one side, the far-right from another, and the Eurosceptics from a third. Initial impressions bear this out, with commentators noting that its politics, whilst certainly right-wing by Western European standards, are not far-right (compare Bulgaria and Romania, whose accession allowed the formation of the first far-right group in the Parliament since the Technical Group of the European Right collapsed in the 1990's). Analogies have been drawn to the religious right in the United States.
Ironically, given the fact the Poland is among the more Europhile of nations, turnout in the last European Parliament elections in 2004 was low, as was the case in the other former Warsaw Pact members, although in Poland's specific case there were additional complications regarding the formation of a national government following domestic elections the same year. This pattern has its obverse with the more Eurosceptic nations (UK, Denmark, Austria, Finland) experincing higher turnout (although still low by domestic standards).
The next Polish European Parliament election is scheduled for 2009.
Comment from PamD Although I sent you a "cookie" above, that was in response to your huge amount of work and stress level rather than being a considered response to the merits of the project of creating the templates! Reading GG's comments above, I must say I agree with GG in being unhappy about the templates.
I can see you've put a lot of work into creating the templates, but I'm afraid I agree with GG that the information would be better left in the articles rather than taken out into constituency-specific templates. PamD ( talk) 09:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought at first that some vandal had deleted the map! I don't understand how the template works, but could you modify it so that it's shown, rather than hidden, by default? It looks as if there's the same problem at other Euroconstituencies. Thanks. PamD ( talk) 21:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for this and all the rest of your work! Now sit down quietly and have a nice cup of tea or whatever your chosen tipple... , and take a little rest! Cheers,
PamD (
talk)
22:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi there, I appreciate it is a major effort but I would like to ask why you have created several hundred single-use templates with {{ Infobox European Parliament constituency}}? Most of them seem to hard-coded and used on one article each which defeats the purpose of a template. It would be better to transfer the hard-coded information straight into the articles in the same manner as the vast majority of Wikipedia articles. Green Giant ( talk) 03:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your entry above. Spinning the infoboxes off into their own templates has the following advantages.
So this approach made possible the creation of gallery and other pages, simplified the underlying code, separated out formatting and textual information, minimised disturbance, and centralised associated information. This approach solved so many problems and caused none in its turn.
I note from your talk page that you have a pattern of behavior involving the deletion of templates. As luck would have it, I will be away from my terminal until late Friday/early Saturday. Should you wish to nominate the templates for deletion/speedy deletion, I would appreciate it if you would wait until then so I may present the reasons above for the templates' retention. Please note that a lot of information is held on those templates (sources, maps and numbers of MEPs over time for all 195 constituencies of the European Parliament since 1979) and their speedy deletion will cause much inconvenience and lost information. I will leave a note on the Wikiproject:European Union & Elections in the European Union pages asking other users to maintain a watching brief on the templates and save the information contained therein should their deletion proceed in my absence. Regards, Anameofmyveryown ( talk) 00:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
European Parliament constituencies in Italy | ||
---|---|---|
{{ Infobox North-West Italy (European Parliament constituency)}} | {{ Infobox North-East Italy (European Parliament constituency)}} | {{ Infobox Central Italy (European Parliament constituency)}} |
{{ Infobox Southern Italy (European Parliament constituency)}} | {{ Infobox Italian Islands (European Parliament constituency)}} |
{{ Infobox Pomeranian (European Parliament constituency)}}
Unlike all the other European Union member states, Poland does not allocate seats to its constituencies (see right for an example) until after the election. Lists are aggregated at the national level via the D'Hondt method to ensure they pass the 5% limit, but thereafter seats ('mandates') are assigned to constituencies via the Hare-Niemayer method - the more votes a constituency casts, the more seats a constituency gets. Candidates are then assigned to those constituencies depending on how many votes they got from that constituency. This combination of two assignment methods and open lists enables Poland to have geographically stable constituencies (compare other nations, who use borders based on NUTS divisions which must be changed periodically as populations shift), proportional representation, and MEPs tied to a specific constituency: a combination which other nations have yet to achieve. However, the complexities make it difficult to understand and administer. No other EU nation is planning to adopt this method.
Another difference concerns the constituencies' names. Unlike the other nations, Poland does not give its constituencies individual names: instead, the relevant legislation denotes each constituency with a number, description, and location of the Electoral Commission central office for that constituency. This leads to some ambiguity, with some commentators referring to the constituencies by their office location ("Gdansk"), and some by the
voivodeship whose borders it matches ("Pomeranian"). European Parliament practice is to use the latter, and this usage is followed (although not exclusively) by the Polish media and public.
{{
Infobox Podlachian and Warmian-Masurian (European Parliament constituency)}}
This in turn leads to another complexity. Although the description of the constituencies is well established in Polish, the English translation is not. This leads to some debate: for example, should a constituency be rendered as "Podlachian" (the formal and somewhat archaic term, approximately equivalent to rendering "Spain" as "Iberia") or "Podlasian" (the more modern but unofficial term, approximately equivalent to rendering "Florida" as "The Sunshine State")? The usage in these pages follows the official usage.
The impact on European politics with the accession of Poland in 2004 has yet to be fully evaluated. Given its political makeup, it has been hypothesised that it will arrest the long-term decline of national conservative votes in the Parliament caused by a three-way squeeze between the Christian Democrats from one side, the far-right from another, and the Eurosceptics from a third. Initial impressions bear this out, with commentators noting that its politics, whilst certainly right-wing by Western European standards, are not far-right (compare Bulgaria and Romania, whose accession allowed the formation of the first far-right group in the Parliament since the Technical Group of the European Right collapsed in the 1990's). Analogies have been drawn to the religious right in the United States.
Ironically, given the fact the Poland is among the more Europhile of nations, turnout in the last European Parliament elections in 2004 was low, as was the case in the other former Warsaw Pact members, although in Poland's specific case there were additional complications regarding the formation of a national government following domestic elections the same year. This pattern has its obverse with the more Eurosceptic nations (UK, Denmark, Austria, Finland) experincing higher turnout (although still low by domestic standards).
The next Polish European Parliament election is scheduled for 2009.
Comment from PamD Although I sent you a "cookie" above, that was in response to your huge amount of work and stress level rather than being a considered response to the merits of the project of creating the templates! Reading GG's comments above, I must say I agree with GG in being unhappy about the templates.
I can see you've put a lot of work into creating the templates, but I'm afraid I agree with GG that the information would be better left in the articles rather than taken out into constituency-specific templates. PamD ( talk) 09:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)