This template is within the scope of WikiProject Slovakia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Slovakia 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.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.
I have made a request to the user involved in the content dispute to provide a justification grounded in WP:V for adding the EU flag next to the Slovak flag (that is, a reference that says that the nature of Slovak political parties is as defined by being in the EU as much as it is being in Slovakia). Despite a long discussion after multiple irrelevant and unreferenced assertions by the user, none has been forthcoming. Now, the status is that the user is refusing to discuss - which is understandable, given that his or her edits now stand. I suggest changing it back to the version without the EU flag to force the other user to provide a reliable source that supports what I believe to be an intentional breach in WP:NPOV. Bastin 07:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
1) All political parties in the template also compete in the European Parliament elections. 2) Slovakia is part of the EU (policy dictates that the national flag flies left and the EU flag on the right (expect in italy)Flag of Europe#Protocol)Arkangel lucifer (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
You've ignored the question again. Provide a reference that the European nature is notable. Such as, perhaps, a discussion of the effect that being European has on the nature of Slovak political parties that concludes that being European is of comparable importance to defining parties in Slovakia as being in Slovakia. Until then, you've failed WP:V.
On the specific points: 1) False. A whole load of them have never competed in European elections. And, besides which, it's not about the legislature for which some of them run, as it has the flag of Slovakia, not the symbol of the National Council (the national coat of arms) or the regional assemblies. 2) False again. The section you've linked to, and quoted, is on visits from other countries. That is, when a country hosts another European head of state, it sometimes flies the EU flag alongside the national flag at those events and for the duration of the meeting. Countries do not fly the EU flag permanently, as you have incredibly asserted. Bastin 11:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
My simple view on the issue is that the EU flag is all but necessary in European political party templates and in that I agree with Bastin. Anyway, I don't see any counter-indication for including the flag into the templates... I hope more editors will state their opinion on the issue. What is more important anyway is consistency: if we add the flag in one template, we should add it in all the templates about political parties in EU countries, including the United Kingdom, whose editors, I'm sure, will disagree... --Checco (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
all other templates have the EU flag even the UK Arkangel lucifer (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
That's because you added them at the same time! They were not added as a result of community consensus, so you can hardly hold it up as an example. The result of this discussion will be held to be binding across all similar templates unless a separate rationale is given for an individual country. Bastin 08:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The UK template won't be having an EU flag anytime soon, since I can say with extreme certainty that being in the EU has precisely no notable effects with regards to the existence of, or the set-up of UK political parties. My view is that, since the only Wikipedian in favour of adding EU flags is User:Arkangel lucifer, and he or she is not supported by any consensus, no templates should have an EU flag - unless there is a reason why a specific country should have one. Opt-in, rather than Opt-out, as it were. SE7Talk/Contribs 12:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that makes it a pretty clear consensus. I have made a request to edit this template and all other similar ones currently under protection. Bastin 12:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Done. If I had been aware of this earlier I would have blocked User:Arkangel lucifer for edit-warring. That would have been much better than protecting all these templates. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)