WikiProject iconEuropean Union Template‑class (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
TemplateThis article has been rated as Template-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Reduce size[edit]

Is all that information really needed? It is very big, perhaps something smaller and to the point? Re-evaluate what links people need and don't need? -JLogan 20:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

new design

I've always though it was cluttered and unclear, so I've drafted a new version here. I have tried to clean it up without the hundreds of minor links (The CoR or EIB isn't that major) and organised less like a shopping list. What do you think? - J Logan t/c: 11:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Coat of arms"[edit]

Okay, I have to say that yellow on while simply doesn't work, fine there isn't a coat of arms, not even the Commission has its own logo and the EU flag is over used but there must be something else we can use? Previous;

Now I put up the latter as I found it looked better, reduced the size of the box and was the closest thing to a coat of arms of sorts (taking the European Council in a head of state kind of manner), plus it will be kept fresh with every new presidency. However that was removed by User:Barryob : "restore stars as the logo cannot be used in templates and plus they look better" Of course I disagree on the latter point but can't argue with legal gumpfh. So what else is there? The Euro symbol was supposedly designed to generally represent the community but now that is associated with the Euro if that was true or not. Coat of arms are usually on coins but its not like we can adapt the common euro coin to use in there either. So has anyone seen anything (legal) used by the institutions that could be used? At least some kind of backing (different from the flag) Or am I alone in thinking the stars on their own look dreadful and at first sight look like some kind of image error? -JLogan 21:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of the stars, I think they're a good approximation of a European coat of arms. —Nightstallion (?) 13:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be in favour of returning the flag to the template. The stars on their own don't stand out very well. « Keith  t e  » 17:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The stars on the white background are a pain in the eye. We could use the stars in a blue circle, like the flag, but circular, as used by the Eurofor on the arm. --giandrea 23:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, I'm not sure about a circle background but it would be easier on the eyes. But do you mean a solid circle or one with a transparent centre. -JLogan 17:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I've added a test that I've done in the gallery above, tell me what you think. I can modify it. --giandrea 20:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon it works, a lot better than just the stars. It's not like it hasn't been used like that before so it has legitimacy, and the yellow stars are meant to be on blue. I say we use it. -JLogan 21:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the blue circle option, too The Tom 21:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not yet convinced about the border. I've put a thin dark blue border around the circle, but we should think about something more evident, and perhaps the circle should be a bit larger compared to the stars. I would like to define this things very well before changing a template used on so many pages. --giandrea 22:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks fine as it is, not sure about making it much larger, I reckon it should be kept proportionate. As getting things right, well the only way you will get much feedback on this is by changing it as few look at the talk pages on templates. -JLogan 10:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also like the blue circle with stars. —Nightstallion (?) 11:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the blue circle looks really weird..(the flag looks better i.m.o.) I made a new star-SVG. I know some of you thaught that the yellow-on-white was painful, so this one has more contrast+"3D shadow"...hopefully better. I don't want to be rude, but as JLogan said, you have to change it to get feedback...S. Solberg J. 22:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this 3D stars are something that I haven't seen before and quite different that the official logo, I prefer the flat yellow stars. The blue circular badge that I made was the logo used by the Eurofor, and other EU military bodies, on the arm. I'm reverting to the original one. --giandrea 23:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm half and half, I think some logos may have gone 3D-ish and there isn't anything against it as such aside from the colour not being the strict official one. However of course the flat stars are more common, if painful. Oh the Parliament logo that has been put up, the main problem is the absence of a unique Commission logo - using the flag instead (unless you count the Berlaymont as a logo in itself). However I do think there is something in it, I feel the box as it is isn't great and we might gain something by having a variation; on Parliament pages some extra info missing and details Parliament info instead; on Commission pages parliament info reduced and Commission info expanded. Then the institution logos could be used - though the Commission still uses the flag we could possibly excuse that now there are fewer pages it would appear on? Thoughts? -JLogan 08:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on the Lifeintheeu.png image put in the template by User:Kaihsu? It is free of copy-write and it does look all right in the template, however it isn't remotely any kind of official logo/CoA, we might as well invent our own CoA perhaps? -JLogan 17:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already saw that on the template about the life in the EU, and I like it very much there. Here it stretches the template too much, and perhaps it is a bit out of context, but I like it anyway. --giandrea 18:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The streach is certainly a problem, the box is already rather big. I've dropped the size to 225. -JLogan 20:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded the four latter logos with the "Official insignia"-tag on wikimedia commons. No more fair-use hell. Therefore, I guess we can choose what we want. The "life in the EU"-image is off topic for this politics template. I'd say the EU2007 logo would be best. It represents the politics of the EU this year.--S. Solberg J. 18:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here-here. Particularly considering the Council is the highest executive body of sorts. The Presidency is also cross EU rather than a single institution and closest to a CoA. Plus we get a new one every 6 months to keep up with the latest fashions! -JLogan 18:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. --giandrea 21:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed that it is displayed incorrectly. It needs to be corrected. Try to open it in Inkscape and you will see the correct version, but the wikipedia software won't render it properly. --giandrea 21:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have corrected it, and now should display perfectly on wikipedia. I just need someone with a commons account older than 4 days, or the original uploaded to overwrite this file, with the new version. OK? I can email you the file, leave me a message. --giandrea 23:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted from commons due to "copyright violation"..(just use the english wikipedia file instead) To be on the safe side we should really find a page on that clearly says that "official logos and insignias of the EU are in puplic domain." I fear no such copyright-notice exist in the europa-network. Just because 90% of it is seemingly made by web-amateurs and last updated in 2004. It's obvious that the EU screams for attention, so in real-life, i'd guess they would love to see their logos in high-res on every street-corner. It's just annoying because most coat of arms and governmental logos on wikipedia doesnt have any real copyright-law or reference for the individual countries, but just a "I made it, and release it into bublic domain"-tag.--S. Solberg J. 23:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I updated your version with one I've found on a PDF on [1]. Now the two top stripes are displayed correctly. I could make a phone call tomorrow to the press office of the EU (if I find the number) asking about the copyright of the logos. --giandrea 23:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great!--S. Solberg J. 10:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On replacement with image of Parliament. Yes legally that is good but I'm afraid it doesn't work for me. it is not just about the Parliament (with two hemicycles) which that suggests, it is no form of logo and, at least from my point of view, simply doesn't look very good on the template. But what do the rest of you think?
On a separate legal note, if you were to take a photo of something displaying a logo, would that count as showing the logo? I mean sure if you took it up front it would give it away but what if it was in context with something else, like a sign outside a building?-JLogan 15:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


What about Northern Ireland's solution? They don't have an independent CoA (yet). Could something similar work for the EU?--S. Solbrg J. 22:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think your on to something. So long as were not passing it off as a CoA we could put something up, like with the life image. A map outline like the NI would be the simple solution, though personaly I dread another map of the EU I'm not sure we have much choice. I was going to suggest mixture of stars with a ballot box but some might complain considering the democratic deficit. -JLogan 22:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about Image:EU Insigna.svg? Could be better perhaps, I have to make the stars circle appear in the exact center. But what do you think? I like it. Did I miss any EU country? I don't think so ;-) --giandrea 18:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, it's okay but I don't think it works that well, the EU map isn't very good for centring. I reckon Image:European politics.svg works better. -JLogan 06:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the current one with the map although it might be better to make the countries blue so that they stand out better as for Image:European politics.svg it looks like something that you would get in a kids book. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 18:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I centered it a bit, I'm considering blue for the continent, I'll make some tests to see how it come out. In addition, do you think that we should add France overseas territories and Spain African cities? Or is it ok as it is? --giandrea 14:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, think it would over complicate it with the spread, size and types but they are equal so to speak with the rest. Perhaps if we class it as the EU - OMRs? I'm not sure if blue is a good idea, the colour is fine although perhaps without the internal borders? Not sure what people's views are on that and its not a big thing but I think as were talking about the politics of the EU, rather than the member-states, I think it might be better. -JLogan 16:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


a flag or one of the star circles, everything else is nonsense, I'm afraid. All the other templates have the CoA, so this should have the closest equivalent there is. —Nightstallion (?) 18:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


What a pain I am sometimes, but look, they're logo is flashier than ours.... :( Can we allow this to happen?! Ancient Rome can't be allowed to beat us! Anyone got ideas for making ours as spiffy? - J Logan t: 12:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha I made that one too.. But I'm not sure if the EU 'logo' should be any flashier than it is now. A sober colour like grey is probably the most 'correct' we should use for a serious political template.. I'm not sure. - .  . 13:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh of course, should have guess it was yours! :) To be honest I'm not sure how either. How about a grey-blue though? With the faded elements and perhaps a different projection of Europe to make it more... more... oh best ignore me! I really should get back to writing rather than messing around with images, just so long as we're not out done by the US articles! :p.- J Logan t: 14:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


transclusion removed No, not for drinks. I was just thinking of articles where politics crosses between the EU and a member/candidate/another country and you have two bars side by side looking stupid or one has to go. Perhaps if we created a mini version of the EU politics bar which can slot above the national one? Just a few basic links, probably on enlargment of foreign relations as that is where it would be placed. Thoughts? -JLogan 19:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brought idea back after seeing them squashed together on election pages to the detriment of maps etc. Idea shown to the right-User:JLogan/New politics template - J Logan t: 12:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post Lisbon revision[edit]


Created a revised version for post-Lisbon. FP doesn't fit into any single institution so created a small space for that, other details are up to date for it now except for the people -whom we do not know about yet.- J Logan t: 15:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very good to me. —Nightstallion 20:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. if anyone wants to fiddle please do (with the template I mean of course), especially if someone has some amazing new idea. Its good to be at the forefront of design here rather than follow other's leads too much. - J Logan t: 20:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Oh, and the other of the institutions is as they appear in the treaties, to avoid problems of defining executive/legislative and the chain of power. That okay with people?)- J Logan t: 20:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The box looks good. I'm just terrified by the latest poll in Ireland.. - SSJ  11:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, its scary isn't it. Those guys are meant to be pro-EU and most of the anti side are just saying they don't understand it. I don't blame them. Plus, its not like last time, I doubt they could attach a declaration and try again as there is no specific fault this time. If only we could get more people reading our articles they might understand and hence vote yes? Who knows...- J Logan t: 21:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, perhaps reading our summary of changes could be a helpful addition to the government's denials of the text enabling free abortion. I just want to throw up every time Sinn Féin says that "a better deal for Ireland is possible". - SSJ  10:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel your pain, yeah. Well, we can only hope... —Nightstallion 23:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fingers crossed on the Irish again guys, if you want to do more than that though you can go over and help. Considering the no camp is bank rolled by Americans I don't think the interfering argument can be used against someone handing out leaflets. I've rejigged my ideas for a post-lisbon bar (look right), feel free to tweak. I was thinking about trying to introduce some graphical elements to liven it up, but not much aside from simple decoration which we should avoid.- J.Logan`t: 15:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work as always. Ugh.. According to the latest polls, it does really look like it's going the right way this time, though I HATE the anxiety. Right now it kills me, but if the treaty is passed I'll probably use 100% of that energy to edit post-lisbon topics here while drinking Guinness. And I can't wait to see what sort of political threat/pressure Sarkozy and other leaders will impose when Klaus is the only hurdle left. - SSJ  23:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New proposal[edit]

European Union

This article is part of the series:
Politics and government of
the European Union

Look of the template[edit]

I have returned the flat stars and blue from the EU flag, no discussion or reasoning was made for the change to a darker blue and silly 3D stars. Fry1989 eh? 20:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legislature of the European Union[edit]

The template appears in the article Legislature of the European Union, but the article is neither linked nor easily accessible from the template. --Van Tuile (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Code overhaul[edit]

I recently completely rewrote the template using proper ((sidebar)) syntax, which make it far easier to maintain as well as much less distracting. This has been undone; assuming there's no substantive reason for this other than one editor's personal sense of aesthetics I'll be reinstating the new version shortly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thumperward, thanks for the overhaul. I just came here, because I was shocked by the dark box in the article European integration. Your version is much more pleasant to read for me. (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reordering to demote "European Council"[edit]

I moved the (powerless) "European Council" to the bottom of the list to reduce the chronic confusion with the (powerful) Council of the European Union. 2604:2000:6A90:3000:BC2F:C827:A1DB:A519 (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it would be better to list the (powerless) "European Council" under "Other bodies"; I've moved it there. This should avoid a LOT of confusion in the future. 2604:2000:6A90:3000:BC2F:C827:A1DB:A519 (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "Legislature"[edit]

Since there is no EU "Legislature" (note that the link to "Legislature of the European Union" redirects to "European Union legislative procedure"), I re-titled the "Legislature" heading as "Council and Parliament". This change makes the Council and the Parliament visible at the top level, but it might be even better to promote them to separate top-level headings. 2604:2000:6A90:3000:BC2F:C827:A1DB:A519 (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luxembourgish ?[edit]

I was just coming to try and find out a bit about the structure of the EU and the changes of leadership, when I looked at this template I spotted a link to luxembourg under the words 'luxembourgish presidency' - having noticed the second link (to Presidency_of_the_Council_of_the_European_Union ) and followed that - it looks incorrect (perhaps it was correct 3 rotations ago, but it appears to be Maltese at the moment) - I'd suggest that having the nationality of a thing that changes every 6 months in a widely seen template is probably unwise. I'm going to be bold and attempt to carefully remove the word Luxembourgish (and link) from the template, but I thought I'd best give you the heads up here in case that's an error. EdwardLane (talk) 08:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this template white on blue?[edit]

It is pretty jarring to see this huge blue box on an article when every other info box is gray with black text. Is there any reason it's like this, and would anyone be against changing it to te standard color scheme? Obviously, the flag/coat orf arms would retain a blue background WikiWisePowder (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a navbox, I think it's ok to theme them like portal pages. This one looks reasonably decent as well. I'd agree if we were talking about an infobox or something. Rob984 (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the blue[edit]

The white text on the blue background needs to go. It violates WP:COLOR. Also if you look at Category:Politics by country sidebar templates, no other "Politics of ______" sidebar has a non-standard background. Wanted to put this here before I started the process of removing the color. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2018[edit]

Under Member States, please change Sweeden, Kentucky to Sweden. Manicscumcat (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thank you. Gulumeemee (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2019[edit]

All mentions of Macedonia should be changed to North Macedonia


*((flagicon|MKD)) [[Accession of North Macedonia to the European Union|Macedonia]]

should become this:

*((flagicon|NMK)) [[Accession of North Macedonia to the European Union|North Macedonia]]

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((edit semi-protected)) template. there is an ongoing discussion about how to refer to Macedonia/North Macedonia. DannyS712 (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2019[edit]

  1. Since the 1st of December, 2019, the incumbent President of the European Council is no longer Tusk (EPP), but Michel (ALDE)[1].
  2. Respectively -- in the European Commission section -- change: a) Juncker Commission to its successor: Von der Leyen Commission; b) President Juncker (EPP) to Von der Leyen (EPP)[2]; c) Secretary-General Selmayr to its successor: Juhansone[3]. // Bukauskas (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  1. ^ "Charles Michel takes over from Donald Tusk as President of the European Council". General Secretariat of the Council. Press release. 29 November 2019. Retrieved 2019-11-30.((cite web)): CS1 maint: others (link) CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ "MEPs back von der Leyen as EU Commission head". BBC News. 16 July 2019 – via
  3. ^ Kostaki, Irene (25 July 2019). "Ilze Juhansone to serve as interim EU Secretary General". New Europe. Retrieved 26 July 2019.
 Done. meanwhile, I got autoconfirmed and I edited the templated myself. // Bukauskas (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous size[edit]

This looks like somebody tried to cram entire Wikipedia into one template. Needs to be trimmed down ALOT. --Palosirkka (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review content[edit]

Initially, I wanted to simply suggest to add another section dedicated to European political parties, which seems very warranted for a menu on the politics of the European Union. In light of the numerous comments above regarding the size of the menu, I still think that a section of European parties is very needed, but I also want to suggest merging sections on institutions. Currently, the menu contains:

All of these could be merged under a single item called "Institutions". Would this be agreeable to all? Julius Schwarz (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]