Template talk:European Union institutions

Hmm, tbh I don't know, whether the new layout is really better than the old one...

1. the heading is gone (done)
2. the "V·T·E"-links are gone (done)
3. the source is gone (done)
4. with only 7 fields the table looks pretty strange and unbalanced
5. the logos of the institutions are gone
6. the assembly of the table is more unstructured
7. the format does not really meet the WP-guidelines (eg the text is too large)
8. the images flow out of the table and so they're not clearly visible (done)

Moreover I think that the EIB should also be included, because it is a central organ of the EU and can be absolutely compared with the others. I have not changed much on the format yet, but I would like to think about it again... — Allrounder (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC) PS: I know that it probably was relatively much work, but tbh I was more convinced of the old version...

OK, well, I think the format is not this bad though.. In the German Wikipedia I have assumed some of your ideas. Look here - this could be a good compromise, right? — Allrounder (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

1. This table will always be used within articles that will have relevant headings and sub-headings anyway. Therefore I don't think an additional heading is needed as part of this template.
2. I agree that the "V·T·E"-links are useful.
3. The deciding factor should IMO be that the European Investment Bank isn't an EU institution. The EU has only seven institutions, as defined in the EU treaties. With this template's seemingly random collection of EU bodies, one might just as well include Europol and the European Ombudsman etc.
4. I don't have a very strong opinion when it comes to the logos, but in I think they are redundant and distracting imagery in this case.
5. "Unconstructed"?
6. The text size could be adjusted, but I don't see how this issue could breach any Wikipedia style guideline.

- SSJ ^t 11:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

1. No, in many articles it stands inline, not at the top of a section
2. good =)
3. you're right - I deleted it
4. no, they're definitly not redundant, but descriptive and memorable. I think it's a nice supplement.
5. unstructured = not structured?! (sorry, German ;-)
6. done

Greetings — Allrounder (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

When the template isn't inline, the heading looks silly, and even when it is inline, a normal text introduction, followed by a colon, would be sufficient IMO. And if that for some reason isn't enough, a heading that looks just like the one in this template could be introduced in each article. I don't see why the template shouldn't be made more flexible. greetings. - SSJ ^t 18:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think, the heading looks "silly" - why? A heading summarizes the content and looks clear and descriptive. It helps the reader to understand the matter and doesn't disturb anywhere... — Allrounder (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC) PS: By the way, there are two more reasons for the heading: 1st. the reference can be put after the heading and 2nd. the Template:Tnavbar-header enables a good looking V-T-E -bar. (not the crucial reasons, but another two)

Order of institutions

Template has ECA before ECB. In the treaty it is the other way around. TeraCard (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Upper house - lower house

Please don't explicitly refer to the EP and the Council as lower and upper houses of the legislature here. It's a contentious issue which is discussed in more detail at European Union legislative procedure. See e.g. this discussion. Yakikaki (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)