Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:04, 27 June 2014

European Union C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving 2014 European Parliament election was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 June 2014.

NETHERLANDS EXIT POLL

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2014/05/early_exit_poll_puts_cda_d66_a.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.57.185.74 (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant Information

now that the EP elections are approaching, I believe that we should start to clean his article from all the irrelevant information and start building it with clear info --Melitikus (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with you . This is how I see a restructuring of this article :

1 Candidates for Commission president 1.1 PES 1.2 EPP 1.3 ALDE party 1.4 EGP 1.5 Other parties (for which there is a lack of information)

2 Constitutional issues

2.1 Apportionment of seats

2.2 Debates on improving European elections : EP debates on EU electoral law (no result), EP debates on Reforming European party regulation (no result yet), institutional debates about Commission president candidates (Barroso State of the Union address, EP resolution of 22 Nov 2012), about primaries (Cohn Bendit, etc.), about moving the election date in May (EP, council), about merging Council presidency with Commission presidency, or about making Council president a sort of Belgian-style mediator (Reding), about a direct election of the Commission president (Eurobarometer), about TV debates between presidential candidates (Barroso)...

3. Eligibility.

What do you think about that?

Infobox elections

It is a non-sense to display the pictures of group chairs of the 2009-2014 European Parliament as leaders of the political parties for the 2014 election campaign, in the "infobox elections". Chairmen don't play any role in the campaign. That's why no wikipage on any other parliamentary elections in the world presents parliamentary group leaders of the previous legislature in the infobox.

As for any parliamentary election, the box should only contain the pictures of the parties' frontrunners in the elections, their candidates for Commission president. If parties do not designate any frontrunner, well, there should be simply no picture at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien-223 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think you will find it does make sense to display the images of the LEADERS of the parties in the EU Parliament in the 2014 campaign. The majority of the information in this entire article is irrelevant and nothing to do with the actual election of the Commission President. The 'election' is still based on the proposal by the European Council and is therefore more akin to the ratification by the US Congress of appointments by the President to the Supreme Court. As such a reversion to the previous style is in order and shall be implemented. There is more information on this in the European Parliament Election 2009 talk page. 82.28.40.202 (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Daul, Schultz and Watson are not leaders of EPP, PES, and ALDE. Where have you found these info??? What is more, where have you seen that they have been designated as party leaders for the 2014 campaign? nobody has for now. I doubt that the Commission has the same powers as the US supreme court. The main parties have committed to designate their frontrunners for the 2014 elections, who will at the same time be their candidate for Commission president. See for instance here : http://www.pes.org/en/system/files/Resolution2_adopted_EN.pdf Julien-223 (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Polls by Twittprognosis

Here is a copy of the paragraph on Twittprognosis, awaiting a solution of the current edit war on the issue of the reliability of this source:— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubiscube (talk • contribs) 18:58, 1 October 2012

"No Europe-wide polls are currently conducted on European elections, but political scientists compile national polls in order to give an overview of the future composition of the European Parliament.

Following these compilations, polling for European elections would be as such:"

TABLE

Twittprognosis: a reliable source?

There's really no need to post this table here. Please have a read of this. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't be stubborn and please read the rules you're quoting. The Verifiability rules say "If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence with the template by writing or . Other templates are available here for tagging sections or entire articles. Alternatively, leave a note on the talk page requesting a source, or move the material to the talk page and ask for a source there."

That's exactly what I just did. The fact that you're in an edit war and you want to obtain satisfaction doesn't entitle you to remove an entire material from a talk page. And if there is a source for this material, why don't you leave it in the article and ask for verification politely by tagging the material with ? You apparently don't realise the time it takes to edit such a table.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubiscube (talk • contribs) 14:31, 2 October 2012

The policy also states that:

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source."

But there's no need to place a {{fact}} tag. I don't want to request a source. There is a source. I can clearly see it. It's a twitter account called twittprognosis. Misplaced Pages:SPS#Self-published sources states that:

"For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." (my emphasis)

Were the twitter account run by recognised expects in their field (it's anonymous, although I take it you are one of the authors?) things might be different, but it's not. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I have come here following a query raised at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Politics. I have tried to hunt down some background information on this twitter account but have drawn a blank. I therefore have to agree with Blue-Haired Lawyer that the source cannot be used to support any article material at this time.

If there is evidence that the source has been referenced in reliable sources or if the owner of the twitter account can be identified then I will review the situation again. Road Wizard (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but this doesn't prevent us from letting this information on the Talk page. I insist on letting on the Talk page. You won't find compilations of national polls anywhere else on the Internet, It would bea pity to remove it from a Talk page whereas no Wiki rules forces us to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubiscube (talk • contribs) 14:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Keeping the table above on this talk page is a useful starting point for contributors to this discussion. However updating the table here to get around the restrictions on article space is not really acceptable. Misplaced Pages is not a forum, a soapbox or a web-hosting service.

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. If updating the table is not adding to the discussion then it isn't relevant. Road Wizard (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like some information on where Twittprognosis gets its data from so I can judge its reliability. I follow UK polls quite avidly but I have seen no polls relating to the European Parliament, nor do I expect any until the spring of 2014. So given there is no data from the UK, quite a large EU member, I can't see how the whole poll can possibly be reliable. If you can inform me otherwise, I'd be interested to know. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean http://twittprognosis.wordpress.com/ as the link above requires log in details. Road Wizard (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/twittprognosis/status/279977662779383810/photo/1/large

Add colour to EFD

I was just wondering if we could discuss adding a bit of colour to the EFD's part of the info box? I would suggest purple since the EFD doesn't seem to have an official colour scheme! Also UKIP is the dominant party within te group and purple does not appear in this table which is helpful for distinctiveness!

No, I don't find it relevant to give EFD a colour or to link it to the UKIP. The Lega Nord weighs as many seats as UKIP within EFD, favouring UKIP would be inconsistent.

More generally, I don't think EFD will run for European elections as a group or an alliance; I don't think they'll have a frontrunner either. Putting them in this info-table seems exaggerated.Julien-223 (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Calm down! Why so aggressive? You've got problems mate! I was merely suggesting a colour! Calm down, it's not good for your health!

Ok, what I've decided to do to hopefully satisfy all concerns either side is simply add the party logos. This makes the table look less drab and satisfies the concern of the EFD not having a colour. I've simply copied and pasted from the previous election! Nick 00:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I would have liked to change my comment in the revision history just after I realised your (unsigned) proposition was serious. So my apologies.

Thanks for the logos. I would like to try to put parties logos instead of groups logos, but I'm not sure all of them are available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien-223 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Non-Inscrits

Is it an idea to put the Non-Inscrits in the infobox too?81.58.144.30 (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Can anybody help me with NI and put Alliance of European National Movements in the box. I can not get it right. He says template, why?81.58.144.30 (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Party/Alliance in infobox

Is it a good idea to change the infobox? Perhaps both names of the Parties instead of 1. you put better both names in the infobox, that is orderly. As an example : Alliance ALDE / parties ELDR + EDP : Alliance Greens–EFA / parties EGP+ EFA. And the same with the next three81.58.144.30 (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC) nobody against? Then I will change it.81.58.144.30 (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Can somebody helps me with this please?81.58.144.30 (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC) It don't work van anybody helps me?81.58.144.30 (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

change infobox

I change the whole infobox because the percentage and seats are from Europian Alliance and not from parties what is written here. It is not possible to find the percentages of parties so I wil change it in only alliances. I somebody find them change it then :)81.58.144.30 (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll restore the mention of European parties because parliamentary groups don't run for elections, contrary to political parties. This point has already been discussed months ago.

The fact that the results of the previous elections are expressed by EP groups doesn't question the reality the only parties are campaigning, not groups. Rubiscube (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Then we must change the Last election results. Because that are the results of the alliance and not of the parties.81.58.144.30 (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

We can't change the reality of the past to make it correspond to the reality of the present... Let's just wait until the results of the 2014 elections are known before losing our time changing everything.

European Parliament election, 2014

← 2009 22–25 May 2014 2019 →
← outgoing members
All seats to the European Parliament
Leader No presidential nominee yet No presidential nominee yet No presidential nominee yet Alliance EPP S&D ALDE Last election 36%, 265 seats 25%, 184 seats 11.4%, 84 seats   Leader No presidential nominee yet No presidential nominee yet No presidential nominee yet Alliance Greens/EFA ECR GUE/NGL Last election 7.5%, 55 seats 7.3%, 54 seats and 1 observer 4.8%, 35 seats   Leader No presidential nominee yet No presidential nominee yet Alliance EFD NI Last election 4.3%, 32 seats 3,7%, 27 seats
Map of European Parliament constituencies
Incumbent President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso EPP

Map of European Constituencies Incorrect!

The new Constituency of Croatia has been missed out from the map, they will have elections there too! Guyb123321 (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Croatia is not a member of the European Union. Its accession is pending on the ratification process of the Treaty of Accession 2011. It will be added when it joins the Union, probably on 1 July 2013. --Glentamara (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

But they have already had their first european "off year" election's there and they now send full voting MEP's to Brussels Guyb123321 (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Not "now", the MEPs will take office only (presumably) on 1 July. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Creation of national pages

I think now as the election campaign has started to ramp up ahead of the elections in seven months time it would be a good idea to create the pages for each individual country, as has already been done with the UK and Ireland.

This poll from Finland was recently published http://yle.fi/uutiset/poll_national_coalition_and_centre_to_lead_in_european_parliamentary_elections/6946085

But as Finland dont have a european parliament page there is no where to put it

There have also been a couple of polls from France such as this one

http://www.euractiv.com/eu-elections-2014/french-far-right-leads-latest-eu-news-530985 http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/politique/20131009.OBS0267/sondage-exclusif-le-fn-a-24-aux-europeennes-en-tete-pour-la-premiere-fois.html

But again, France lacks its own national page for these elections Guyb123321 (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

France and Belgium have their own national pages for this election, tanslated in German and in only one case English : https://fr.wikipedia.org/%C3%89lections_europ%C3%A9ennes_de_2014_en_France ; https://fr.wikipedia.org/%C3%89lections_europ%C3%A9ennes_de_2014_en_Belgique Rubiscube (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Links

+ need background of the fiscal crisis >> Far-right parties eye pan-European alliance (Lihaas (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)).

Which Pages have been made yet.

Yes, a few pages have been made.

Belgium Ireland Malta Portugal Romania United Kingdom

So out of the 28 pages, 22 are left to be created. Could anyone just copy the entirety of the pages on over language wikis for now, we could edit them later? Guyb123321 (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Anyone, I think France, Germany, Spain & Italy should be a must as they are so large??? Guyb123321 (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Missing Articles

There still needs to be articles created on the english wiki for the majority of countries which are holding elections in 2014. This needs to be done as a matter of urgency. Guyb123321 (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Election map needs updating

According to the article European Parliament election, 2014 (Ireland), the Irish constituencies were modified since the last election. The map in the infobox needs updating. --Yair rand (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Eligibility

Given the eligibility to vote and stand doesn't change from election to election, shouldn't the section be at Elections to the European Parliament? — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Malta row broken on eligibility table

I'm not sure what happened and when, but the row for Malta is broken on the eligibility table. I'd gladly fix this myself but I'm not sure what happened to whatever text may have already been there - if any at all - and I don't really know much about this subject. Could someone who is more familiar with the subject of this article care to fix it? I'm also surprised that Cyprus is not included in the eligibility table. Again, I don't know much about this subject, but something seems amiss (or perhaps it's just that these are among the smallest EU countries) and I'm sure that anyone who knows more about these elections will know exactly what needs to be done. Thanks! --ToniSant (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Background

I think we need a background section that will summarize the political situation in the EU before the election and talk about the predictions made by experts. Don't we? I've came across a number of articles that talk about the rise of right-wing populism, especially the expected success of UKIP in the UK, National Front in France and the far-left SYRIZA in Greece. And Barroso and Samaras denounced them during the former's visit to Greece this month. --Երևանցի 05:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Not if it just amounts to an opinion piece. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 00:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your definition of an "opinion piece" is, but I'm talking about adding a few sentences about the past five years and the rise of populist and eurosceptic parties, supported by appropriate citations. --Երևանցի 06:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Updates Needed

1) How many seats are up for election at these elections. All the other pages has a simple line such as "All 736 seats to the European Parliament - 369 seats needed for a majority" at the top of the infobox, this page does not have that line.

2) The map is inaccurate, it shows the old Irish constituencies which since then have changed as there are only 3 in the Republic of Ireland as opposed to the old four shown on the map

3) Great progress has been made over the last few months regarding individual pages for countries. However while the majority of countries now have national pages, the following don't:

Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Finland Germany Hungary Latvia Luxembourg Poland Slovakia Spain Sweden

While it probably isn't important for a smaller, less significant country like Malta or Luxembourg getting a page right this instance, for the larger countries like Germany and Spain its odd that they don't already have a page Guyb123321 (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

poll

A good poll : http://www.pollwatch2014.eu/#country81.58.144.30 (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

EU Elections poll — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.57.185.74 (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

EU Elections poll — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.57.185.74 (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Photos in the infobox.

I believe that the photo currently used for Guy Verhofstadt is not suitable as it does not show his face as clearly as the old one did.

Also, I believe that we should include a picture of Jose Bove in the infobox, since the Greens nominated joint candidates, with neither having more importance. Byzantium Purple (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Duff proposals in apportionment table

Why does the table showing how many seats each country is allotted include four columns for un-adopted proposals by Andrew Duff? I think it is more likely to be confusing to readers to include un-adopted proposals along with actual apportionments. The Andrew Duff proposals can be included elsewhere in a more appropriate article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I'm guessing that the table dated from before the decision on the actual apportionment had been made. I've now moved that table to Apportionment in the European Parliament and added a simpler tables just showing the change since the last elections. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for simplifying the table. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Tsipras not running in the elections?

What does it mean when Ska Keller said this?: “The Left Parties. Nice try, but you know: just being against everything doesn’t change a thing. And I’m not sure they want to change things in the future. How else are we supposed to interpret that their top candidate is not even running for elections? Campaigning yes, work no? I think that’s simply not enough.” (emphasis added) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.29.157 (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Tsipras is not running in Greece according to this: http://www.webcitation.org/6PBoaqbqv — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.29.157 (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Euronews debate without Tsipras?

The Euronews debate advert does not mention Tsipras at all. By the way, Keller will be representing the Greens there. http://euronews.com/2014/04/14/what-will-you-ask-the-potential-future-president-of-the-european-commission/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.29.157 (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems like Tsipras declined the Euronews debate and has not confirmed if he will participate in the 9 May debate, probably for linguistic reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.29.157 (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Shrink the EU poll

Is there anyway to collapse the EU poll table? it's enormous and could get even messier. --Erzan (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. The trick was class="wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed". – Kaihsu (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks but they have gone back to looking enormous and messy again and stopped following a chronological pattern. --Erzan (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on European Parliament election, 2014

Cyberbot II has detected links on European Parliament election, 2014 which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://t.co/EInDb47WCN

  Triggered by \bt\.co\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II _Online 12:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Juncker v Schulz in English on France24

Here is a video of a joint interview (debate?) of Juncker and Schulz in English on France24: http://www.france24.com/en/20140410-talking-europe-1-schulz-juncker-debate-election-commission/ In the same series there are also interviews of the other top candidates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.29.157 (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Different party alignments in polls

PollWatch and TNS uses the groups the parties currently sit in, while the other polls seem to try to predict what groups the parties will sit in. For instance putting ANO 2011 with ALDE (they seem to have had some contact), and leaving New Flemish Alliance out of the green group (they seem to be planning to leave the group after the elections). I think this ought to be noted in some way in the polls section, but I don't know how best to do it. Øln (talk) 09:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there is a problem. For readers' sake, opinion polls must be distingushed. I suggest this edit. If someone wants the chronological order, then it is up to him to click on the column.

Proposal

Opinion polls
Date	Institute	EPP	S&D	ALDE	Greens–EFA	ECR	GUE-NGL	EFD	NI
		style="background:Template:European People's Party/meta/color; width:75px;"|	style="background:Template:Party of European Socialists/meta/color; width:75px;"|	style="background:Template:Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe/meta/color; width:75px;"|	style="background:Template:European Green Party/meta/color; width:75px;"|	style="background:Template:Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists/meta/color; width:75px;"|	style="background:Template:European United Left–Nordic Green Left/meta/color; width:75px;"|	style="background:Template:Europe of Freedom and Democracy/meta/color; width:75px;"|	style="background:Template:Non-Inscrits/meta/color; width:75px;"|
7 June 2009	2009 election	265 (36.0%)	183 (25.0%)	84 (11.4%)	55 (7.5%)	54 (7.3%)	35 (4.8%)	32 (4.3%)	28 (3.8%)
23 April 2014	Pollwatch	217 (28.9%)	208 (27.7%)	63 (8.4%)	41 (5.5%)	41 (5.5%)	51 (6.8%)	36 (4.8%)	94 (12.5%)
16 April 2014	Pollwatch	222 (29.6%)	209 (27.8%)	60 (8.0%)	38 (5.1%)	42 (5.6%)	53 (7.1%)	34 (4.5%)	93 (12.4%)
3 April 2014	Pollwatch	212 (28.2%)	212 (28.2%)	62 (8.3%)	38 (5.1%)	46 (6.1%)	55 (7.3%)	36 (4.8%)	90 (12%)
19 March 2014	Pollwatch	213 (28.4%)	214 (28.5%)	66 (8.8%)	38 (5.1%)	40 (5.3%)	57 (7.6%)	33 (4.4%)	90 (12.0%)
5 March 2014	Pollwatch	202 (26.9%)	209 (27.8%)	61 (8.1%)	44 (5.9%)	45 (6.0%)	67 (8.9%)	31 (4.1%)	92 (12.3%)
19 February 2014	Pollwatch	200 (26.6%)	217 (28.9%)	70 (9.3%)	44 (5.9%)	42 (5.6%)	56 (7.5%)	30 (4.0%)	92 (12.3%)
22 April 2014	Cicero Group	205 (27.3%)	200 (26.6%)	83 (11.1%)	48 (6.4%)	35 (4.7%)	55 (7.3%)	28 (3.7%)	97 (12.9%)
9 April 2014	Cicero Group	208 (27.7%)	198 (26.4%)	86 (11.5%)	47 (6.3%)	39 (4.8%)	59 (7.9%)	28 (3.7%)	89 (11.9%)
2 April 2014	Cicero Group	203 (27%)	193 (25.7%)	86 (11.5%)	56 (7.5%)	39 (5.2%)	56 (7.5%)	28 (3.7%)	90 (12%)
26 March 2014	Cicero Group	198 (26.4%)	196 (26.1%)	84 (11.2%)	52 (6.9%)	43 (5.7%)	61 (8.1%)	27 (3.6%)	90 (12%)
18 March 2014	Cicero Group	201 (26.8%)	195 (26.0%)	87 (11.6%)	51 (6.8%)	41 (5.5%)	58 (7.7%)	24 (3.2%)	94 (12.5%)
21 April 2014	Scenari Politici	215 (28.6%)	218 (29.0%)	65 (8.7%)	37 (4.9%)	42 (5.6%)	53 (7.1%)	25 (3.3%)	96 (12.8%)
14 April 2014	Scenari Politici	215 (28.6%)	219 (29.2%)	64 (8.5%)	37 (4.9%)	41 (5.5%)	57 (7.6%)	25 (3.3%)	93 (12.4%)
7 April 2014	Scenari Politici	216 (28.8%)	220 (29.3%)	63 (8.4%)	35 (4.7%)	41 (5.5%)	56 (7.5%)	25 (3.3%)	95 (12.6%)
31 March 2014	Scenari Politici	212 (28.2%)	224 (29.8%)	63 (8.4%)	36 (4.8%)	41 (5.5%)	56 (7.5%)	25 (3.3%)	94 (12.5%)
24 March 2014	Scenari Politici	212 (28.2%)	226 (30.1%)	63 (8.4%)	34 (4.5%)	41 (5.5%)	57 (7.6%)	26 (3.5%)	92 (12.3%)
17 March 2014	Scenari Politici	216 (28.8%)	226 (30.1%)	63 (8.4%)	33 (4.4%)	41 (5.5%)	58 (7.7%)	30 (4.0%)	84 (11.2%)
10 March 2014	Scenari Politici	217 (28.9%)	226 (30.1%)	63 (8.4%)	34 (4.5%)	41 (5.5%)	62 (8.3%)	30 (4.0%)	78 (10.4%)
3 March 2014	Scenari Politici	216 (28.8%)	224 (29.8%)	63 (8.4%)	34 (4.5%)	42 (5.6%)	62 (8.3%)	30 (4.0%)	80 (10.7%)
21 April 2014	Der (europäische) Föderalist	216 (28.8%)	215 (28.6%)	74 (9.9%)	44 (5.9%)	41 (5.5%)	48 (6.4%)	26 (3.5%)	87 (11.6%)
14 April 2014	Der (europäische) Föderalist	218 (29.0%)	216 (28.8%)	72 (9.6%)	43 (5.7%)	41 (5.5%)	50 (6.7%)	27 (3.6%)	84 (11.2%)
7 April 2014	Der (europäische) Föderalist	219 (29.2%)	212 (28.2%)	72 (9.6%)	45 (6.0%)	39 (5.2%)	51 (6.8%)	27 (3.6%)	87 (11.6%)
2 April 2014	Der (europäische) Föderalist	213 (28.4%)	213 (28.4%)	72 (9.6%)	48 (6.4%)	43 (5.7%)	55 (7.3%)	28 (3.7%)	79 (10.5%)
27 March 2014	Der (europäische) Föderalist	212 (28.2%)	213 (28.4%)	72 (9.6%)	44 (5.9%)	43 (5.7%)	58 (7.7%)	28 (3.7%)	81 (10.8%)
19 March 2014	Der (europäische) Föderalist	211 (28.1%)	215 (28.6%)	71 (9.5%)	43 (5.7%)	39 (5.2%)	58 (7.7%)	30 (4.0%)	84 (11.2%)
15 March 2014	Der (europäische) Föderalist	211 (28.1%)	219 (29.2%)	69 (9.2%)	43 (5.7%)	41 (5.5%)	56 (7.5%)	25 (3.3%)	87 (11.5%)
27 February 2014	Der (europäische) Föderalist	214 (28.5%)	214 (28.5%)	70 (9.3%)	45 (6.0%)	44 (5.9%)	57 (7.6%)	24 (3.2%)	83 (11.1%)
21 April 2014	Electionista	212 (28.2%)	205 (27.3%)	60 (8.0%)	42 (5.6%)	43 (5.7%)	56 (7.5%)	34 (4.5%)	99 (13.1%)
27 March 2014	TNS	212 (28.2%)	208 (27.7%)	58 (7.7%)	43 (5.7%)	40 (5.3%)	53 (7.1%)	32 (4.2%)	105 (14.0%)
13 March 2014	TNS	219 (29.2%)	204 (27.2%)	61 (8.1%)	45 (6.0%)	42 (5.6%)	51 (6.8%)	26 (3.5%)	103 (12.7%)
2 March 2014	Electionista	204 (27.2%)	206 (27.4%)	72 (9.6%)	42 (5.6%)	45 (6.0%)	59 (7.8%)	31 (4.1%)	92 (12.3%)
23 February 2014	Kapa Research	202 (26.9%)	215 (28.6%)	74 (9.9%)	43 (5.7%)	41 (5.5%)	56 (7.5%)	38 (5.1%)	82 (10.9%)
27 November 2013	Notre Europe	209 (27.8%)	213 (28.4%)	62 (8.3%)	38 (5.1%)	61 (8.1%)	47 (6.3%)	32 (4.3%)	89 (11.9%)
7 June 2009	2009 election	265 (36.0%)	183 (25.0%)	84 (11.4%)	55 (7.5%)	54 (7.3%)	35 (4.8%)	32 (4.3%)	28 (3.8%)

Note: Percentages indicate proportion of predicted seats and not vote share.

Parties or parliament groups?

The election articles are inconsistent about whether the European political parties or European parliamentary groups are listed as the affiliation of the national parties in infoboxes and other charts. This has the potential to cause a lot of confusion, particularly because many of the parties and parliamentary groups have similar names. Which should be listed as the primary European affiliation? On one hand, the parliamentary groups could be said to be less "stable", and national parties that don't currently have any seats aren't even part of any group. On the other hand, the groups are more influential than the parties in certain areas, such as influencing the selection of the Commission (I think?). Thoughts? --Yair rand (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

During the elections, it does not make much sense to talk about the parliamentary groups other than for historical comparison or speculation of the future. The parties are the ones campaigning in the elections. For example, a party could say: With the parliamentary group we sat in during the last term, we achieved this or that, so vote for our party. Another example: The British Conservatives did not commit to sitting in any group in the 2009 elections and only decided their parliamentary group after the elections; only later did they create a European political party based on the group. On the other hand, one could not speak about European political parties until the late 1990s at the earliest. Before that, there were only parliamentary groups and national parties (which might participate in political internationals with varied consistency).

turnout

Should it not be displayed? I think it is a relevant information.

Regards, Tamaas 89.133.129.35 (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it must be shown.The Northaptonshire pins (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Illioplius (talk) 07:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

new parties

I think the "new parties" column is totally useless. Sooner or later every MP will choose a party or stay as independent. I would not make a column for this short term. Especially when we know where they want to go. e.g. http://www.results-elections2014.eu/en/country-results-hu-2014.html All the Hungarian parties have already chosen a European party, where they want to join, then why would we separate three of them for this short term until the new parliament will get to work?

Regards, Tamaas 89.133.129.35 (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It's useful to have this column with the results there until each party joins a block. The data will be updated once the info is known. --Shabidoo | Talk 00:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Table including #MEP's, Population, Population/MEP, influence, turnout, effective population, effective population per MEP, effective influence

I made a table including #MEP's, Population, Population per MEP, influence (MEP's per person), turnout (%), effective population (people who voted, population*turnout), effective population per MEP, effective influence (MEP per effective population) I think it might be nice to include this on the page data: Turnout MEP's, Population & Population per MEP the rest can be calculated using this data

87.211.105.24 (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• This strikes me as being original research in the sense that I haven't seen published election analysts calculate statistics like these. If you do decide to do something with this, though, I would suggest using something like "MEPs per million persons" rather than "MEPs per person" and rounding to fewer significant digits, since it is easier to think about Germany having 1.19 MEPs per million population than having 1.19219E-06 MEPs per person. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• part of these statistics can be found at the sources I provided, the others can be found using simple calculations (e.g. influence = (# of MEP's)/population, and effective population = population×Turnout) which anyone can repeat to find the same numbers, which I would therefore classify as routine calculations, so I don't see the problem, perhaps you can explain what the problem would be? also, I think you're right about the MEP's per million, rather than per person, I edited it in the table above 87.211.105.24 (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting table. You're right about WP:CALC IMO. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

While I understand where you're coming from on this, I would like to see a source for the concept of "effective population" per your calculation. Although it makes sense I'm afraid I would agree it could be original research otherwise. AndrewRT(Talk) 18:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

This original research is not correct: Population x Turnout is not equal to Number of People who Voted. Only a part of the population has voting rights. Number of voters can be found in the official results.Otto (talk) 09:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Relevance of presidential candidates

This article about elections to the European Parliament, but a substantial chunk is devoted to candidates for the Presidency of the European Commission. I know President of the Commission is now supposed to be from the largest European party in the Parliament, but this election is for MEPs, not the President. Should this not be in a separate article? Opera hat (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer to see this stay here for now given how connected they are, although depending how the process for determining the next EC President pans out it could be spun out separately if it becomes complicated. AndrewRT(Talk) 18:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Official Results - 2014

2014 Results(Coachtripfan (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC))

Could someone make the results table's first column (of states) alphabetically sortable? It took me a while to even notice it was in descending order of seats in the EP. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

correct seats and correct group

Use this site http://europedecides.eu/ You see the Seats by (national)party and and which group it will join. example Potami(greece) 2 seats group Alde81.58.144.30 (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Results table is too big

I thought I isolated the edit that made the results table too large, but changing the wikilink didn't fix it; it's here . I'm not sure how to fix it. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It's been fixed.David O. Johnson (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

German Pirate Party

Shouldn't the German Pirate Party be put under the Greens-EFA group given that the Swedish pirates sat under that group in the 2009-2014 legislature? Or at least be colored green, like some other 'Other' parties are? - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 12:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

We do not know yet which group the German pirates will sit in. They do not necessarily have to or want to follow what the Swedish pirates did in the last parliamentary term. Let’s wait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.29.157 (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/sven_giegold/status/473815220864163841

Results colours

Is it possible to have more of a difference in the results table in the colour of GUE and S&D? In my browser they are almost indistinguishable and it's good to know which one they relate to from the last column. Are they derived from official colours? AndrewRT(Talk) 18:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - much better! AndrewRT(Talk) 22:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Pre-inaugural session group reshuffling

Waking up from a looooong wiki-slumber, I notice that the election results table is getting hard to read with the color explosion in the last column. I propose that a new subsection is added to the "Results" section, with a reshuffling table along the lines of what's below this lines. Yes, it's incomplete because I didn't take the time to fill it without knowing if it will be accepted. What do you think? Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 20:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Between the election and the inaugual session of the 8th European Parliament, scheduled for July 1, parties and individual MEPs are able to switch allegiances between the Political groups of the European Parliament. This process, which sometimes has resulted in the disappearance of whole political groups from the Parliament, or their recomposition in another form, is particularly important for new parties and MEPs. The following table describes the announced membership changes in the Parliament groupings:

	2014 electoral impact on political groups of the 8th European Parliament																		MEPs
	EPP		S&D		ALDE		G-EFA		ECR		GUE/NGL		EFD		NI		New parties
End of 7th Parliament	274		196		83		57		57		35		31		33		—		766
Election changes (see table above)	204	-51	188	+4	55	-29	44	-11	44	-10	48	+13	38	+6	41	+11	79	(new)	751	-15
Group reshuffling					FW (other countries and parties)	+1 (etc)					TIERSCHUTZ	+1							751
Start of 8th Parliament	Summed	up	totals	go	here														751

In principle, yes please, although I'm not sure what the best way of doing this is. I do like the end column colours myself. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go about filling it then, it can always be modified/reverted if it turns out not to be more informative than the rainbow column. Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 22:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the True Finns and the Danish People's Party have moved to the ECR, should we put it under the group reshuffling?

On the other hand, the Latvian ZZS is part of the European Green Party, so I think it's almost sure they'll join the Greens --Jbenju (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Flanagan (Ireland) and LPD (Spain)will join GUE/NGL Jbenju (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

New parties column

I am working on updating the table and note that some parties in the new parties column are reflected in a party group according the website of the EU parliament. There can be no better source (or at least more authoritative) than that of the EU parliament. Therefore, I am aligning the table to match the results on the EU parliamentary website. (whoops forgot to sign, it was me - Nbpolitico (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC))

I should probably remark that this unidentified IP user is definitely not me, even though he/she copied the intro I put in the previous talk section Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 23:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

We should agree to either (1) strictly put all parties that were not represented in the previous session in the "new parties" column, or (2) follow the table on the European Parliament's official election website () and put parties that had already declared their future group affiliation before the election in the respective group's columns. At the moment, the table shows a hotchpotch of both options, which is not acceptable. I think the latter of the two options is preferrable because the total of seats for each group will then correspond with the total of seats as given in the European Parliament's official result. --RJFF (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the latter is preferable. I had updated to the table to match what was on the European Parliament site. - Nbpolitico (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

"New" parties are by definition (and by note under the table) parties, which are new in EP. But yeah, whatever.

There is separate table for "Group reshuffling". But yeah, whatever. Lets follow some stupid "table on the European Parliament's official election website"... Ivojr (talk) 11:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The latter "declared affiliation" standard is unworkable, imho. Some parties had "declared" their intended affiliations but had not been accepted into the group. Some had informal agreements to enter, but the formal membership was not completed prior to the election. Moreover, the table pointed to above has been updated with new information, and even if we were to look at archived information, it's impossible to know if the information posted as of election day was a) accurate and b) complete. I think the simplest and clearest thing to do is to put all new parties in the "new party column", with the appropriate colour indicating their eventual affiliation. Gabrielthursday (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll expand a little on my original comments. I think the ideal would be that "new parties" would only be ascribed to their eventual group if the party was already a member of the European party at the core of the EP group. For example, if the Romanian party "Noua Republică" had elected a MEP, they could be in the ECR column because the party was previously admitted to the AECR. That's a formal affiliation, and any newly elected MEPs would more or less automatically join the EP group. c That said, I think this standard would be difficult to track down at this point, and we should put all the newly-represented parties in the "new party" column. Gabrielthursday (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Map of the largest group as elected by each member state

• Result per State
• Results per constituency (current)
• Results per constituency (striped)

I made a map representing which parliamentary group got the most MEP for each member state, using the data from the table on the bottom of the page. If two or more groups were tied, I put both colors using a strip pattern. For France, in which the party that got the most MEP (FN) isn't affiliated with any group, I used a dark grey colour, the same used for the Non-Inscripts column.

Juma93 (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Will the map be changed if, for example, the Belgian N-VA leaves the Greens/EFA or if Front National succeeds in creating a new group? --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, after all in the 2009 election map ECR is in the map, even though the group was only formed after that election. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure who's editing this map now, but I think the stripes should be used for those jurisdictions where there was a tie. Perhaps we can use narrower stripes, since there are smaller jurisdictions used now? Gabrielthursday (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree; using stripes instead of grey with tied countries/districts would be more informative. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll edit the current map later today to turn the grey into stripes as is the case with the map to the right. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done I made a striped version of the current map (see gallery above). TBH, I feel the first map, with results per state, instead of per constituency was the best (except the fact that part of Cyprus was cut off). The current one looks empty/unfinished with all the grey constituencies, and the striped one I made looks too busy. /2cents -ArnoldPlaton (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the third map is the most useful. Though Sinn Féin is the wrong colour in Ireland (but correct in Northern Ireland).86.43.72.9 (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the first option is superior. The second and third maps are too busy, and as some constituencies are entire member states it can be a bit confusing to look at. One recognizes Germany and Spain as whole entities and wonders what is going on elsewhere. I would stick to the first image for this page and then break down by constituency at member state-level articles for the election. Another option may be the form used to show results by province in Canadian elections; they colour the jurisdiction but then show the seat totals in bars (see below for example):

- Nbpolitico (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Question: Should I mark the unaffiliated independents (Ireland) as Non-Inscrits as well? - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. I think they are N-I's until they affiliate at least. Gabrielthursday (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Why have a separate colouring for ties? Why not just go by the popular vote? Thorbecke2012 (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Because the map is about MEPs, not votes. In countries with several constituencies, it's possible for a party to win (not tie) the MEP count but to lose the popular vote. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you can't possibly win a region's popular vote but lose the seat count there. That's mathematically impossible.

Thorbecke2012 (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.71.22.191 (talk)

"you can't possibly win a region's popular vote but lose the seat count there. That's mathematically impossible". In the Netherlands D66 (ALDE) was the largest party in share of votes but CDA (EPP) was the largest in share of seats due to list combination with CU/SGP (ECR/EFD). For the file it's not an issue because another large party in the Netherlands, the VVD, is also in the ALDE-group making the ALDE-group still by far the largest in the Netherlands. - FakirNL (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It is possible, when there are several national parties affiliated with the same EP group. In Finland the two EPP parties, NCP and CD, got 22.6 percent and 5.2 percent support respectively for a total of 27.8 percent. The two ALDE parties, Centre and SPP, got 19.7 percent and 6.8 percent support respectively for a total of 26.5 percent. There were no electoral alliances, despite the shared European affiliations. The EPP was thus the most popular group in Finland measured by popular vote, but ALDE got four MEPs (three for Centre, one for SPP), while EPP got three (for NCP), since CD's 5.2 percent support was too low for a seat. So Finland's colour depends on whether we measure the largest EP group in seats or popular vote. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Danish People's Party has been accepted to ECR, which makes ECR the biggest group in Denmark. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 07:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Arnold or whoever else has access & expertise may wish to wait until the shuffling ends to change the map - some other affiliations may change. But yes, Denmark should eventually become blue. Gabrielthursday (talk) 06:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

With the N-VA affiliating with the ECR, the Dutch-speaking constituency of Belgium should change colour to dark blue as well. I think that also should change the national colour to just yellow (ALDE). Gabrielthursday (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Updated map to match current affiliations - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Awesome! Many thanks. Gabrielthursday (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

"Current election" template

While that would have made sense on Monday, are there still any results yet to be released? If not, why is that template still there? - AJF (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Party reshuffling

The parties that are claimed to be switching to a new party group need to be cited for that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC) KKE withdrew from GUE/NGL http://www.rizospastis.gr/page.do?publDate=4/6/2014&id=15288&pageNo=7&direction=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.129.211.62 (talk) 10:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

References

1. "What the Polls Say". pollwatch2014.eu. Retrieved 23 April 2014.
2. "What the Polls Say". pollwatch2014.eu. Retrieved 22 April 2014.
3. "What the Polls Say". pollwatch2014.eu. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)
4. "What the Polls Say". pollwatch2014.eu. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)
5. "What the Polls Say". pollwatch2014.eu. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)
6. "What the Polls Say". pollwatch2014.eu. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)
7. ^ "EU 2014". Eutwentyfourteen.com. Retrieved 2014-04-22. Cite error: The named reference "eutwentyfourteen1" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
8. pubblicato da Andrea Lenci. "European Elections 2014 SEATS PROJECTION (11)". Scenaripolitici.com. Retrieved 2014-04-22.
9. pubblicato da Andrea Lenci. "European Elections 2014 SEATS PROJECTION (10)". Scenaripolitici.com. Retrieved 2014-04-14.
10. pubblicato da Andrea Lenci. "European Elections 2014 SEATS PROJECTION (9)". Scenaripolitici.com. Retrieved 2014-04-13.
11. pubblicato da Andrea Lenci. "European Elections 2014 SEATS PROJECTION (8)". Scenaripolitici.com. Retrieved 2014-04-11.
12. pubblicato da Andrea Lenci (24 March 2014). "European Elections 2014 SEATS PROJECTION (7)Scenaripolitici.com". Scenaripolitici.com. Retrieved 2014-04-11.
13. pubblicato da Andrea Lenci (17 March 2014). "European Elections 2014: SEATS PROJECTION (6)". Scenaripolitici.com. Retrieved 2014-04-11.
14. pubblicato da Andrea Lenci (10 March 2014). "European Elections 2014: GENERAL SUMMARY – S&D 226 – EPP 217 – ALDE 63 – GUE/NGL 62 – ECR 41 – Green/EFA 34 – EFD 30 – Non Inscrits 78". Scenaripolitici.com. Retrieved 2014-04-11.
15. pubblicato da Andrea Lenci (3 March 2014). "European Elections 2014: GENERAL SUMMARY – S&D 224 – EPP 216 – ALDE 63 – GUE/NGL 62 – ECR 42 – Green/EFA 34 – EFD 30 – Non Inscrits 80". Scenaripolitici.com. Retrieved 2014-04-11.
16. ^ "Der (europäische) Föderalist: Wenn an diesem Sonntag Europawahl wäre: Prognose für das Europäische Parlament". Foederalist.blogspot.de. Retrieved 2014-04-22. Cite error: The named reference "foederalist.blogspot.de" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
17. Eingestellt von Manuel Müller (15 March 2014). "Der (europäische) Föderalist: Krisenstaaten wählen links, kleine Länder liberal, und die Christdemokraten sind vor allem in der Eurozone stark: Zur Wahlgeografie der Europäischen Union". Foederalist.blogspot.de. Retrieved 2014-04-11.
18. "Twitter / foederalist: #EP2014-Prognose". Twitter.com. 2014-02-27. Retrieved 2014-04-11.
19. "Twitter / electionista: The #EP2014 prediction in". Twitter.com. Retrieved 2014-04-22.
20. ^ "2014 European elections: latest projections of seats in the Parliament". Elections2014.eu. 2014-03-24. Retrieved 2014-04-11.
21. "Twitter / electionista: The #EP2014 prediction in". Twitter.com. 3 March 2014. Retrieved 2014-04-11.
22. Έρευνα της ΚΑΠΑ Research - Τι δείχνει η κωδικοποίηση όλων των δημοσκοπήσεων στην Ευρώπη για τις επερχόμενες ευρωεκλογές
23. http://www.notre-europe.eu/media/balanceofpowerep2014bertoncinikreilingerne-jdinov2013.pdf?pdf=ok
24. http://en.wikipedia.org/Apportionment_in_the_European_Parliament#2014_Amendment
25. http://en.wikipedia.org/Apportionment_in_the_European_Parliament#2014_Amendment
26. http://en.wikipedia.org/Apportionment_in_the_European_Parliament#2014_Amendment
27. http://www.results-elections2014.eu/en/turnout.html
28. "Sieben Einzelkämpfer für Europa". Zeit Online. 27 May 2014. p. 3.
29. https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fi&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fuutiset.perussuomalaiset.fi%2Fperussuomalaisten-ryhma-europarlamentissa-on-ecr%2F&edit-text=
30. http://en.wikipedia.org/Union_of_Greens_and_Farmers
31. http://www.guengl.eu/news/article/gue-ngl-news/strengthened-left-will-fight-for-alternatives-to-eu-leaders-dud-politics

German Pirates

On my user talk page, User:JFG has asked my why I have put the German Pirate Party in the Greens' column. The whole results table follows the official result as provided by the European Parliament on its website. In this official result table, the German Pirates are arranged as affiliates of the Green/EFA group, therefore I did the same in our result. Otherwise the number of seats of the Green group do not add up and differ from the official figures that have been reported by the European Parliament. I do not know if it is true, to be honest I was surprised too, because I have never heard of the Pirates declaring their intention to join the Green group, either. But I think that Misplaced Pages should follow the principle Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, not truth. If the European Parliament files them as part of the Greens/EFA, we should do the same. --RJFF (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand your point of view. However our results table is well-sourced and more detailed, because we have looked at where each newly-elected MEP comes from and we are aiming to track where they go to. The EU parliament page in your source is dated 28 May and notes: "Source: TNS/Scytl in cooperation with the European Parliament", so I do not think we can take it as sole authority on the subject. By the way, total Greens-EFA match at 52, so there must be other discrepancies between your source and the Misplaced Pages compilation. I believe that our approach is sound and respects the hard work that many editors here have put into making things clear and citing proper sources where certain published group affiliations differ. Opinion from other editors is naturally most welcome. — JFG 15:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Now the only differences between this article and the official result provided by the EP are: Pirate Party Germany is Green according to the EP but NI according to Misplaced Pages and ZZS from Latvia is NI according to the EP but Green according to Misplaced Pages. That's why the total numbers are correct, only the German Pirates and Latvian ZZS are switched and both parties elected one MEP. Thank you for your attention.--2.82.98.188 (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

As I said above (and no one contested), we have to go with the European Parliament site IMO; it is the authoritative source. - Nbpolitico (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The MEP herself had a podcast up where she is talking about group negotiations, which would indicate that they didn't any formal agreement with the Greens before the election (she has stated that she will sit with with the greens now though.), as opposed to the Swedish Pirates which clearly stated that they were almost certain to sit with the Greens again. So I guess the EP website may have made some assumptions. I don't know the guidelines well enough to say whether they should be put in the party reshuffling box though. Øln (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/sven_giegold/status/473815220864163841 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.29.157 (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Nova & pre or post-election joining of ECR

The Slovak "Nova" won a seat; it is a little unclear as to whether Nova is a coalition of two parties, or whether it is a new party itself which ran in coalition with two other parties. At any rate, one of the parties in coalition was an admitted member of the ECR; at least one was not. And according to this , Nova (or the member from Nova) was only formally admitted following the election. That said, the BBC (check under Slovaki), appears to attribute Nova to the ECR at the time of the election, as does this: . So I'm not entirely sure how to treat the Nova member. Suggestions? Gabrielthursday (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

European Parliament lists Nova as ECR as of the election. That should be the authoritative source. - Nbpolitico (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I see that the EP website has been updating group affiliations. Is there a specific reference on the site I'm missing? Was Nova down as a member of the ECR at the time of the election? I'm happy to move Nova back, but it doesn't seem to be very clear. Gabrielthursday (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I was not aware that the EP was making changes post-count, if so then you are right this is not the best source. - Nbpolitico (talk) 01:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Like you, I assumed that the result table on the EP website was static, showing the result at the time of the election, without post-election reshuffles. As it is not, we should not follow it, but return to the earlier version that put all parties that are represented in the EP for the first time in the "new parties" column, regardless of whether the EP website puts them in one of the group's columns. --RJFF (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I found this cache of google: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QfaFOuGgE9UJ:www.results-elections2014.eu/en/seats-member-state-absolut.html (time: 27/05/2014 15:51 CEST) --87.0.50.123 (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Big Result Table

The big table of the election's result is thought to count the MEPs for each political group on the basis of groups' composition at the end of the 7th Parliament (BEFORE the election). Unfortunately the source for that table is this one: http://www.results-elections2014.eu/en/seats-member-state-absolut.html , in which the numbers change accordingly with the moves of the parties AFTER the election. This makes a lot of confusion: people think that there are errors and change parties' position in the political groups and then totals change accordingly with these later changes. Is it possible to find a stable source for these numbers? --79.21.143.70 (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

New parties decided

Swedens Feminist Initiative have decided to join the Social Democratic S&D group, while Germanys Ecological Democratic Party will join the Greens.

http://feministisktinitiativ.se/fi-ska-inga-i-den-socialdemokratiska-gruppen-i-eu-parlamentet/

https://twitter.com/Dr_KlausBuchner/status/475247901942509568

It does not only depend on the national parties/candidates to decide on which group they want to join, but also on the EP groups to admit them. So we have to wait for the respective groups to confirm this. --RJFF (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The left socialist group GUE/NGL has announced that Podemos (Spain), L'Altra Europa con Tsipras (Italy), the animal rights parties from the Netherlands and Germany (PVDD and Tierschutz), Bildu (Los Pueblos Deciden coalition, Spain), and Luke "Ming" Flanagan, an independent member from Ireland will join their group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.16.173.43 (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

New parties for socialist group

The left socialist group GUE/NGL has announced that Podemos (Spain), L'Altra Europa con Tsipras (Italy), the animal rights parties from the Netherlands and Germany (PVDD and Tierschutz), Bildu (Los Pueblos Deciden coalition, Spain), and Luke "Ming" Flanagan, an independent member from Ireland will join their group.

http://www.guengl.eu/news/article/gue-ngl-news/strengthened-left-will-fight-for-alternatives-to-eu-leaders-dud-politics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.16.173.43 (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Synchronization

The first and the second table are not in sync, for example with Flanagan, N-VA's move to ALDE and other confirmed changes. Someone™ should sync the top table with the bottom table (the latter is more up-to-date right now). —Nightstallion 18:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Grigule/ZZS → ALDE

Confirmed here: http://euobserver.com/eu-elections/124572 —Nightstallion 16:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

BBTs → ECR

Fully confirmed here: http://m.novinite.com/articles/161243/Bulgaria%27s+BWC,+Germany%27s+AfD+Join+EP+Conservatives —Nightstallion 14:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

While I suspect this is accurate, I think confirmation from another source is probably the best course of action. If I remember correctly, there was an inaccurate report a few days ago saying much the same thing. Gabrielthursday (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

this the another source, BBT web notice section http://bulgariabezcenzura.bg/novini/bbts-se-prisaedinyava-kam-grupata-na-konservatorite-v-ep/1316#.U516BPl_s08 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.234.100 (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC) i add, for the ECR twitter they had accepted only one of BBT MEP https://twitter.com/ecrgroup/status/477029031159033856 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.234.100 (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. I'll add Barekov, and separate out IMRO. Gabrielthursday (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

SUM

the tables sum from group subtotals are wrong for the first table is 750 for the second is 748 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.234.100 (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC) i corrected both but the 2nd table need a graphic help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.234.100 (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

New Parties inappropriately assigned in the Results table

As I've mentioned above, I'm sceptical that any of the new parties should be attributed to their EP groups in the results table. That said, I don't want to change it wholesale just yet. That said, there are a fair number of parties currently shown as elected in their EP group when I doubt they were formally part of the group when elected. Specifically, I believe the German "Free Voters", "Pirates", the Spanish LPD and PE and the Czech "ANO" should be in the "New Parties" column. I think I'd like to see some references suggesting those parties had committed and been accepted to their EP group prior to election, or we should go ahead and adjust the table. Gabrielthursday (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support. --RJFF (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

generally i don't support, and maybe before to a request using google is best, however for ANO i've the source http://www.alde.eu/nc/press/press-and-release-news/press-release/article/czech-ano-party-joins-alde-group-in-the-european-parliament-42998/ for the LPD the source was already in the article http://www.guengl.eu/news/article/gue-ngl-news/strengthened-left-will-fight-for-alternatives-to-eu-leaders-dud-politics for german piraten http://www.greens-efa.eu/up-to-date-list-of-the-meps-for-the-new-legislative-period-12490.html --Francomemoria (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not contesting that the parties have affiliated to the groups in question; instead, I'm saying they should be in the "new parties" column since they weren't elected as part of the various EP groups. Thanks for the references: I note that the ANO reference clearly shows ANO was only admitted after the election. Gabrielthursday (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

the reshuffling table there is for show the post elections situation otherwise is the same table of the result table. for free voters http://www.fw-bayern.de/aktuelles/archiv/2014/freie-waehler-ziehen-ins-europaparlament-ein/ --Francomemoria (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

i've misunderstand your position so i'm agree news parties in the new parties column with highlight and note four source, just need take attention that some parties that was not in the EP would be members of a european parties also before of the elections --Francomemoria (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a "New parties" column makes much sense, since the new parties will all join one of the groups (or NI). I'd prefer to have an extra horizontal line for "New parties", where we could list them in their chosen group or else in NI. Currently the new parties already in groups are listed under "Accession" together with some old parties, but the new parties not (yet?) in any group aren't named at all. It'd be interesting to have a list of those somewhere in the table. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think it does add some useful information, which is appropriate for the results section. The performance of the EP groups as they stood prior to the elections is a slightly different question than how well they might do in attracting new parties or existing parties in other groups. The National Liberal Party of Romania, for instance, should probably be in the ALDE group for initial results, even though after the election they disaffiliated from the ALDE and joined the EPP. Similarly, if the EFD fails to requalify as a group, its constituent parties will head in different directions. Nonetheless, it will be important to mark how the EFD did in the actual election. Our headline "results" in the infobox show the positions post-shuffling; but it's still importanct to see how the various EP groups performed in the election as they then were. Gabrielthursday (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The remaining newly-represented parties in the EP that aren't in the "New Parties" column are: Altra Europa, the Italian far-left party; TOP 09, a conservative Czech party; NEOS, the Austrian liberal party; the Left Alliance in Finland; the Danish Social Liberal Party; Most-Hid (EPP) and SaS (ALDE) from Slovakia; HNS & IDS, liberal parties in Croatia. I suspect most of these were affiliated prior to the election, but it would be nice to confirm that is the case for each of them. Also, for the sake of consistency, if there are any new parties currently in the "New Party" column that had established an affiliation with one of the European parties prior to the election, we should move them to their appropriate column. Other things that would be nice: better references for the parties that have affiliated with the Greens/EFA and the Socialists, and a good ref for the Five-Star Movement's affiliation to EFD. Gabrielthursday (talk) 06:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

SGP go with ECR

http://www.sgp.nl/Actueel/Belder%20in%20ECR.wli#content --Francomemoria (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The reference definitely says the SGP member is intending to seek membership in the ECR. I think, however, that we should hold off on reassigning people until they've formally switched; i.e. been accepted into the new group. Gabrielthursday (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This Dutch newspaper http://www.refdag.nl/nieuws/politiek/belder_sgp_treedt_toe_tot_europese_conservatieven_1_835056 says "Maandagmiddag heeft Belder de formulieren getekend om tot de ECR toe te treden" which means the papers have been signed this monday afternoon. - FakirNL (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

is confirmed also from ECR fb page https://www.facebook.com/ECRgroupEU --Francomemoria (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

first ALDE group meet

https://twitter.com/ALDEgroup/status/478926505515712513 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francomemoria (talk • contribs) 15:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC) they have deleted this tweet... mistery --Francomemoria (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC) now there is a tweet from the spokeman but w/o the NV-A https://twitter.com/ALDESpokesNeil --Francomemoria (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

We have more accessions to the ALDE: . The UPyD, C's of Spain and the MPT of Portugal should be accounted for by whoever has the time. Gabrielthursday (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Some clarification on N-VA: ALDE voted in principle to allow them if they want to join, but N-VA still has to decide which group they want to join. They will likely decide in the next few days, and it will likely be ALDE, but nothing is formal/definitive at this time. SPQRobin (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Authoritative source for pre-election affiliations?

While not an official source, the website Europe Decides is run by the major PR firm Burson-Marsteller. In its candidate lists the site notes European Party affiliations, and it appears to be entirely based on pre-election affiliations. I'd suggest this is the source we were looking for to deal with the new parties issue. Gabrielthursday (talk) 06:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

some european parties page had in the members list also the parties that had not get MEP in the last elections — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francomemoria (talk • contribs) 09:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Problem with the infobox "leaders"

As I've been thinking about the use of party logos in the infobox, it has occured to me that the use of the Spitzenkandidaten as the group leaders has a number of problems. Least importantly, it leaves the infobox aesthetically uneven and unattractive, due to the decision by some groups not to nominate such a candidate. Secondly, it gives the appearance of endorsing the notion of the Spitzenkandidaten as the appropriate focus, when this is hotly disputed. We address the Spitzenkandidaten events and discussion in the article; it need not be inappropriately highlighted in the infobox. Thirdly, the Spitzenkandidaten are, in many cases, most assuredly not the leaders of the groups elected to the EP. While some have prominent roles in their EP groups (Verhofstadt, Shultz) others did not even stand for election (Juncker, Tsipras). It is difficult to see Tsipras as being the "leader" of a group when he was never going to become leader of the GUE/NGL, or even his own party, SYRIZA in the EP Parliament. Fourthly, the Spitzenkandidaten never had legal significance, as the jostling over Juncker has demonstrated, but rather was a suggestion to add greater democratic significance to the EP elections. Fifthly, the use of the Spitzenkandidaten necessarily means that we are now inconsistent with the infoboxes on previous EP elections, which used the Chairmen or Chairwomen of the EP groups to represent those groups visually in the infobox. Lastly, the voids for the ECR and EFD give the impression that they weren't equally significant. If we want the Spitzenkandidaten to be represented visually, I suggest we could put a box together in that section. That would be far more appropriate, in my view. The one remaining question is whether we should use the Chairmen as they were when the election was fought, or who will be the initial Chairmen in the new Parliament. I know this is relevant for the ECR, who elected a new Chairman in the past week or two. The infobox uses the re-affiliated numbers to determine how the groups did; but on the other hand, the info box incapsulates the events of the election, and the chairmanship during the actual election period is probably more important than who ends up leading these groups into the next Parliament. Gabrielthursday (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The infobox uses the word "Leader", which is not the same as top candidate. The top candidates were running to be Commission President, not to be the leader of the parliamentary group. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Not hearing any objections, and with some positive feedback, I'm going to go ahead and change the infobox. I don't consider the matter closed, so if anyone thinks I'm off base, by all means, make your objections known. Also, help getting the pictures for the leaders would be appreciated, as I haven't done that before. Gabrielthursday (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll put the irrelevant references here that are no longer needed in the infobox: Gabrielthursday (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I object. The infobox has been like this ever since the creation of this page, you two decided to change it in one day. The EP group have not campaigned at EU level, parties did, and EP group chairman are not party leader. Legally, constitutionnally speaking, only party frontrunner campaign at election, including if we look at things from a purely legal point of view at EU level. The Spitzenkandidaten process has been everywhere in the media. Only the 6 Spitzenkandidaten did campaign, and the fact remains that your 3 minority parties/groups did boycott such a campaign, which was their choice. Any parliamentary election page on Misplaced Pages on any country in the world displays candidates for Prime ministers, not for Group leaders, and whichever party boycotting the election doesn't get any face to put in the box.

And if Juncker i elected EC president, your objections will be totally void... Rubiscube (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

"The article has been like this for a long time" is a poor argument. Not using group leaders goes against the precedent of previous EP election articles. The infobox uses the word "Leader", and the fact remains that that is different from "top candidate". Tsipras, for example, is not even MEP, so how could he be called the leader of the parliament group? The parliament groups are the ones that matter in the infobox; the numbers presented are their numbers. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

In response to Rubiscube, as Jaakko notes, the infobox reports results for the EP groups, not the Europarties. And that is the case in the articles on past European elections. Nor is your generalisation about candidates for Prime ministers always the case: see Indian general election, 2004 and French legislative election, 2012. Most parliamentary elections there can be no real distinction between party leader and candidate for "prime minister" (or in this case, President of the EC); however, there is a clear distinction here between party leader and candidate for EC President, and a clear distinction between Europarty leader and EP group leader. The infoboxes give the results for EP groups. Europarty suggested nominees for EC President are quite a distance from the EP and its groups, which is what actually is getting elected and forming.

If Juncker is elected EC president, none of my objections will be void. His selection will have clearly been the result of a political struggle, not by law. This is not a matter of an unwritten constitutional rule. Such practices need to be repeated and accepted to become such, and this is the very first time it has ever been suggested. Juncker's nomination has been strongly contested, and while people have argued it's undemocratic not to elect Juncker, no one has argued it is illegal or unconstitutional not to elect him. Gabrielthursday (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Gabrielthursday and his version of the Infobox. Otto (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Rubiscube. The page should display the top candidates wich actually were the leaders of their parties during the electoral campaign. These group leaders are been electing in these days and they have not been "party Leaders" this month. If we want to change this version we should indicate the group leaders also in the British general elections, In the Italian elections, in the Spanish elections etc.. E.G. In my country ALL the leaders of the parties (The prime minister too) are not in the parliament. Sorry for my english. I can't speak it very well. barjimoa (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries about your proficiency in English, your contribution is appreciated. I see the attraction of having the "leaders of the parties during the election campaign". However, this raises a whole host of further issues. Surely, the naming of a Spitzenkandidaten is not the only way to have a functional party leader. Martin Callanan surely was the functional party leader for the AECR during the election, even if he didn't have as high a profile as some other leaders. But a far greater problem is the fact that the infobox shows the outcomes for the EP groups, not Europarties, and it was the Europarties not the EP groups which nominated the Spitzenkandidaten. It is hardly fair to attribute to the EFA, for instance, the leadership of Bove & Keller when the EFA did not select them, or campaign under them. Nor is it fair to attribute the leadership of Tsipras to not only the European Left (who did select him) but also the NGLA (which did not), not to mention parties like Sinn Fein which is an independent member of the group. I'm afraid the only "leaders" of the what the infobox is actually counting are the EP group leaders. I'm afraid I regard this as an insuperable difficulty in having the Spitzenkandidaten as the "leaders" in the infobox. If the infobox reported the results by Europarty, I could kind of see it, but that's never been the case. Gabrielthursday (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Barjimoa and the version of Rubiscube. User:Webdriver Torso — Preceding undated comment added 15:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Can't we simply change the word leader by the word candidate to the Commission presidency or First candidate in the infobox? IMHO using candidates of the Commission presidency is better in a page about the election while using group leaders is better in a page about the parliament composition. Captain frakas (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

We could, but that's not really what the numbers in the infobox represent. They represent EP group membership. There's a huge interpretational problem when you use EP group success as a proxy for support for Europarty nominees for the EC presidency. Do EFA seats in the Green/EFA group provide support for the Green nominees? Those numbers are contained under the Bove/Kaller nomination. Do the six seats elected under the National Liberals in Romania count for the EPP nominee even though they were ALDE members when elected? This is one reason why I think using the Spitzenkandidaten is unworkable. Not to mention a potential NPOV problem: if we keep the Spitzenkandidaten in the infobox, aren't we endorsing the view or appearing to endorse the view that they are the real focus of this election, when that is highly disputed? Gabrielthursday (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that the infobox should show the European political parties, not the Political groups of the European Parliament. As yet it mixes both, which is inconsistent and confusing. Other users have already pointed out that e.g. EUL-NGL is not just the European Left party. MEPs of MELD member parties are even a minority in the EFD group. As only European political parties campaigned for this election (some more, some less), but not parliamentary groups (which are only composed after the election), the infobox should focus on the parties, not the parliamentary groups. The composition of the groups is — as we could observe during the last weeks — not a direct result of the election as such, but of political talks that may continue long after the election. Political groups are in some cases nothing more than alliances of convenience, they are not the same as political parties. The infobox says "first party, second party, etc." not "first group, second group, etc." I also think that the infobox should show the result of the election at the time of the election. Romanian PNL was a member of ALDE party at the time of the election (and still is, according to ALDE party, as they have neither withdrawn, nor were suspended). Belgian NVA was a member of EFA at the time of the election (and probably still is), even if they have left the Greens-EFA group. Danish People's Party and The Finns were members of MELD at the time of the election (and perhaps still are), even if they have joined ECR group by now (which is not identic with AECR party). There are other examples, but I think I have made clear what I mean. --RJFF (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Briefly, I'll say that this would be an even bigger break from past practice than the use of the Spitzenkandidaten as "leaders". Also, in the functioning of the EP, EP groups are far, far more important than Europarties, many of which sit in different groups, and which don't encompass significant forces within the EP. Gabrielthursday (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I do agree that the current infobox does mix both EP groups and Europarties in a somewhat confusing manner. Maybe we could change the "party" line to "leading European party". Maybe we'd be better off getting rid of the party line altogether. Although the EP groups are to a certain extent alliances of convenience, they still are the principal operative units within the EP. If we're concerned with showing the "result of the election at the time of the election" I think we should still use pre-existing EP groups, just not use the reshuffled numbers. Maybe we should have both a "post-election" line and a "post-reshuffling" line? I do think we should still keep the post-reshuffling numbers as the bottom line: ultimately, the election and the formation of alliances are processes that go together, and the final outcome is the resulting EP groups in parliament (which determine committee membership, speaking time, committee chairs, EP officer positions, etc.) Let me know your thoughts. Gabrielthursday (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

If we look at how the media has covered the election results on a union-wide level, it has been the EP groups that have been in the spotlight, not so much the parties (most reports have talked about the ECR, not about the AECR). And like Gabrielthursday mentioned, it is the size of the groups (not parties) that determine important things like committee chairs etc in the parliament. On reporting of the ECR becoming the third biggest group, many have called attention to changing power dynamics in the EP, if ALDE indeed loses its long-held position as the third most powerful force. Yet that change would not be visible to a new reader glancing over the page, if the numbers for Europe-wide parties were used instead of parliament groups (because the new ECR parties are not yet members of the AECR). Deciding to use parties instead of groups, and the affiliations on election night instead of the first session of the new parliament would also mean making changes to all previous EP election articles. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

While I agree with RJFF to the extent that the infobox structure and terminology could be improved, I'm not familiar with infoboxes (I think we'd need an entirely new infobox template), but I encourage others to adapt the election infobox template for EP elections. That said, I think I've addressed the points raised by others, I haven't seen much engagement with my counter-points, and I'm therefore going to be bold and go back to the EP group leaders. Gabrielthursday (talk) 08:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the EP election differs from national election to the extent that a separate infobox template for European elections is necessary. Saying that ECR is the "third party" is plain wrong, because ECR is not a party, but a parliamentary group. The third-largest party on the European level still is ALDE (as long as the new ECR group members are not member parties of AECR). But, e.g. in France there are also parliamentary groups that include members of different parties, and even political parties whose members sit in different parliamentary groups. Still the infobox shows the parties, not the groups. I admit that the differences between the groups and the parties is much more significant in the European Parliament, though. --RJFF (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I do think that we should change the headings from "First party", etc to "First group". Unfortunately, I'm not sure if that can be done without getting an entirely new infobox template. I do disagree to the extent that information in the infobox relates to the EP groups (as does our results table and the reshuflling table). Perhaps we should have an additional table just summarising the results for the Europarties? That is a blind spot; while I think the EP groups are significantly more important, the Europarties are certainly relevant. That all being said, I am not sure I understand what your continuing objections to using the EP group leaders in the infobox are. It sounds as if you agree that the EP groups are the more important factors in the EP; so why would we not use the EP group leaders in the infobox? Gabrielthursday (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

To help clarify the conversation, I thought I'd summarise the main arguments for using the EP group leaders rather than the Spitzenkandidaten in the infobox.

• Using the Spitzenkandidaten is inconsistent with other EP election articles.
• The infoboxes give the results for the EP groups. The Spitzenkdidaten were not selected by the EP groups, but by some Europarties.
• Since EP groups include independent national parties, MEPs and even members of different European parties, the Spitzenkandidaten are shown as leading parties and individuals that have no affiliation to the Spitzenkandidat.
• In multiple cases, Spitzenkandidaten were not even candidates in this election.
• The election has no legal effect in regards to the selection or nomination of the Spitzenkandidaten. If they are taken as merely being prominent campaign leaders, so too were other, non-Spitzenkandidaten figures such as national political leaders, and the leaders of the EP groups.
• The actual election is to the European Parliament, not to the Commission. The EP has a role in selecting the EC president, but is not determinative, so the election is not even indirectly to the EC presidency.
• By using the Spitzenkandidaten in such a prominent position, we fly close to violating WP:NPOV by appearing to endorse the view that the election was primarily about which Spitzenkandidat would become EC president. If this were unavoidable, or we had some overriding reason to have it this way, maybe this could be defensible, but as it is we have a perfectly reasonable alternative that does not present POV issues.

Overall, I recognise the desire to have higher-profile figures in the infobox; but I hope I've made the case that it presents insuperable difficulties. Certainly, the Spitzenkandidaten merit the extensive treatment they receive in the article, but their place is not as leaders of the EP groups in the infobox. Gabrielthursday (talk) 06:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Using the Spitzenkandidaten is inconsistent with other EP election articles -> That's right, but the election is done according a new legal text. The TEU and TFEU were quite changed by the Treaty of Lisbon, so, in my humble opinion, a change may be understandable as the rules are not the same as previously.
• The infoboxes give the results for the EP groups. The Spitzenkdidaten were not selected by the EP groups, but by some Europarties -> That's right. The infobox label them political parties thus, so either the infobox label have to be changed to political groups or the infobox should present political parties and not political groups.
• Since EP groups include independent national parties, MEPs and even members of different European parties, the Spitzenkandidaten are shown as leading parties and individuals that have no affiliation to the Spitzenkandidat. -> That's right.
• In multiple cases, Spitzenkandidaten were not even candidates in this election -> They are candidates to the presidency of the European commission, so they do not have to be member of the Parliament but have to be supported by the European Parliament. I do not think that this argument is a good one.
• The election has no legal effect in regards to the selection or nomination of the Spitzenkandidaten. If they are taken as merely being prominent campaign leaders, so too were other, non-Spitzenkandidaten figures such as national political leaders, and the leaders of the EP groups. -> It have no legal effects but there is a strong "democratic" effect. It's the principle of an indirect election. They same can be said about French town councillors in the election of French mayors, for American electors in the election of the President of the United States, for British members of the House of Commons in the election of the British Prime Minister, & caetera desunt.
• The actual election is to the European Parliament, not to the Commission. The EP has a role in selecting the EC president, but is not determinative, so the election is not even indirectly to the EC presidency. -> The European Parliament's role is determinative as the European Parliament is the sole body who have the power to elect the European Commission's president and as the president of the European Commission have to be elected by the European Parliament. I strongly disagree with this argument.
• By using the Spitzenkandidaten in such a prominent position, we fly close to violating WP:NPOV by appearing to endorse the view that the election was primarily about which Spitzenkandidat would become EC president. If this were unavoidable, or we had some overriding reason to have it this way, maybe this could be defensible, but as it is we have a perfectly reasonable alternative that does not present POV issues. -> I am not sure with this neither. They are the candidates supported by the political parties during the electoral campaign. MEP may or may not change their mind, as it is an indirect election, but the election was presented as such, and it is a consequence of the Lisbon Treaty who state that the president of the European Commission is now elected by the European Parliament. That doesn't mean in any way that one of the candidates to the presidency of European Commission will be elected president (even if I find it improbable that the president may not be one of the six candidates) but it mean that the political parties were elected on the premise to support one specific candidacy to the presidency of the European Commission.

Best Regards Captain frakas (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. Of course, not every objection made has to carry in order for the recommendation to stand. If we agree that the Spitzenkandidaten are not really assignable as leaders to the EP groups then shouldn't we at least have an accurate infobox? They simply aren't the EP group leaders; at most they became the trans-national campaign leaders for some of the Europarties (functionally, the national leaders of the Europarty member parties remained the most important campaign leaders in every country, with perhaps the exceptions of Luxembourg and Belgium).

The importance of the EP in determining the next president of the EC is overstated. The actual text of the treaty states:

Taking into account the elections to the European Parliament and after having held the appropriate consultations, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall propose to the European Parliament a candidate for President of the Commission. This candidate shall be elected by the European Parliament by a majority of its component members. If he does not obtain the required majority, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall within one month propose a new candidate who shall be elected by the European Parliament following the same procedure.

The EP is limited to a role of confirmation or ratification. They cannot elect a candidate which is not proposed to them by the EC; they have no legal role of proposing candidates to the EC. This is not an indirect election; the EP has a veto power, but no power to elect. The correct analogy is not to town councillors electing mayors, or the Electoral College in the United States (both of which have these candidates on the ballot); but to the confirmation power of the US Senate over members of the US Cabinet. If, by repetition, it becomes custom (an unwritten law) that the candidate of the leading Europarty had to be elected as EC president (i.e., a real indirect election), then I agree, we should have the infobox reflect it. But we are nowhere near that point.

Finally, pretty much everyone recognises that the significance and propriety of the Spitzenkandidaten is under significant debate. Appearing to endorse the more positive view of the Spitzenkandidaten is an avoidable WP:NPOV problem. We can cover the Spitzenkandidaten without making out the election to be all about them. Gabrielthursday (talk) 05:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

After thinking a bit more about that, I think that the article should include two infoboxes, one parliamentary infobox, in the head of the article, about the election of MEPs (according either to groups or to parties) and one presidential infobox in the chapter about candidates to the Commission's presidency for the election of the new president of the Commission by the European Parliament. This infobox would thus only have one candidate except if the first candidate proposed by the Council is not elected by the EP (which will not happen this year as the Council will propose J.-C. Juncker and as the Parliament will elect him, AFAIK, the United-Kingdom is the only member state who oppose J.-C. Juncker; it may however happen in next elections if the candidate supported by the first political group in the EP do not find an agreement with the absolute majority of the EP).

However, if possible, instead of creating a new special election infobox for European parliamentary election as it was suggested elsewhere in this talk page, in the case where we would want to show "political groups" instead of "parties", I would rather enhance the current infobox so it include the option to label either "party" or "group".

PS: (For me, it's more like the 16 May 1877 crisis, but without the crisis as contrary to MacMahon, the Council would not dare oppose to what is seen by many as the direct expression of people's suffrage. I just say that to talk but it have no encyclopaedic value ;)) Captain frakas (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to have a presidential infobox for the EC presidency; I can try to produce one, if you haven't the time. As an aside, I've read that Hungary and Sweden are opposed to the Juncker candidacy as well as the UK. I agree Juncker is probably going to be elected; it will be interesting to see if the lead candidate from the winning Europarty gets elected next time as well.

My understanding is that you're in favour of my proposed changes, with the understanding that the EC president is given an infobox in the proper place.

As for the question of adapting or enhancing the infobox, I think we're pretty much in agreement in terms of substance. In terms of how we get there I think any change in the terminology requires a new infobox template (I may be wrong). Thanks, Gabrielthursday (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am not against removing candidates to the European Commission's presidency from the top infobox, as long as this infobox do not show political parties but political groups as they are firstly candidates of the parties and not candidates of the political group even if the whole political group may in fact support them. I think that it is more precise, especially since it is an indirect election. I find it really fine to have an indirect election separated from the direct election, hence having a second infobox in the same article, but in the correct chapter, about election of the president of the European commission is totally okay for me. Will the initial EP election box show any portrait? Of the new president of group? of group's logotypes? Or just a coloured flag? Captain frakas (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

So my suggestion would be to:

• Use parliamentary groups and parliamentary leaders (after having change a bit the infobox so it show "groups" instead of "parties", I'm sure that it is doable, maybe someone should post a request on the infobox talk page), and use president of parliamentary groups or just groups colours.
• Add a result table with European political parties somewhere in the article. Not a table to show detail of national parties in parliamentary groups, like we already have, but complete it with another table who show European parties, popular vote and seats.
• Use a presidency infobox in the chapter about Commission presidency

voilà Captain frakas (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

About the parliamentary groups, we can also simply use the "alliance" entry without using the "party" entry, that would be fine for me. About the European commission election, the infobox may look like that Captain frakas (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm okay with replacing the Spitzenkandidaten with group leaders as soon as we have an adapted EP election infobox template that reads "first group, second group" etc. instead of "first party" etc. (I am afraid that I won't find the time to produce it myself, but I imagine that it should not be too difficult). I agree that it verges on advancing POV to highlight the Spitzenkandidaten as they are an idea promoted by the pro-European parties while rejected by the Eurosceptic ones. --RJFF (talk) 12:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to see what can be done in this respect. Thanks all for your thoughtful contributions. Gabrielthursday (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The Treaty of Lisbon clearly states that the one of the candidates for the President of the European Commission should be elected as the President of the European Commission after the elections. The “Spitzenkandidaten” have been presented as leaders on this article since the day when European parties held elections or primaries to elect their candidate. They were on the debates and they were the leaders of the election campaigns. They were the leaders of their European parties on the European elections. It is complicate to understand how European parties work. First they are an alliance of parties, and their structure is different from those of the national parties. Tuvixer (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

(The agreement was not reached. Have you even read the Lisbon treaty? Please, stop . You clearly don’t understand how the European elections work. The elections in 2009 were not held by the Lisbon treaty rules, so please don’t try to change something you do not understand.) Tuvixer (talk) 11:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Your condescending and insulting manner is offensive. And the change was the result of lengthy discussion which resulted in an agreement. I quoted the relevant section of the Lisbon treaty above and your account of its terms is incorrect. Gabrielthursday (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Modifications made by RJFF are quite incoherent in my humble opinion

Hi RJFF and hi all,

I open this talk, because the modifications comments made by RJFF are quite non-understandable for me. I think I need to have some clarifications. I also think that RJFF may need this discussion to realise some very incoherent aspects of his modifications. I thank him anyway to participate to the elaboration of this Misplaced Pages article :).

RJFF seem to prefers to have political parties in the table (to quote him: writing the names of the electoral lists, instead of the parties is not helpful. Even people with high interest and knowledge in European politics won't be able to identify them. Official EP result indicates the parties, too.) which is fair, but obviously his change have to be coherent. Alas, it is not in the current state of the article from his modifications. If I understand correctly the comment from RJFF, rev: sorry, but there is no consensus for your changes. We go by the official results as provided by the EP and/or competent national authorities, not a system that is prefered by some user who thinks it is more logical, we have to agree that e go by the official results as provided by the EP and/or competent national authorities.

I am not sure what RJFF have in mind when he say that We go by not a system that is prefered by some user who thinks it is more logical and if this comment may apply to him, however if RJFF think in good faith that he go by official results and not by self prefer, he should read again the official sources because his behaviour is not true to his remark: his editions have for object to label what official lists name Alternative (UDI+MoDem) as UDI+MoDem but to label what official list name FG (PCF+PG+Ens.+et al.) by FG.

Anyway, there is in my humble opinion a quite significant problem with his lasts modifications: he insert electoral lists in some case (like EE, FG or UOM), the detail of all parties of a coalition in others (like UDI+MoDem), only list some parties of the coalitions in others (like PS+PRG) and, finally, only name one party of a coalition in the last case (like FN or UMP). All of this is very misleading. And it is not limited to the French entry as coalitions are used in other entries of the table (like the CoE for example).

So, to be quite clear and factual, the fears that RJFF have regarding sources are quite erroneous as the European Parliament use Alternative for the Alternative (the coalition of UDI and MoDem created in 2013, ), the Ministry of Interior use liste bleu Marine for the Blue Marine Gathering (the coalition of the Front National with other far-rights and right-wing populists parties and with independents ), and there is tons of newspaper who use the same, so did the official ballots. The links are given in the French entry of the table :

I can see three choices for the table, who have to be coherently applied and not anarchically used in some case and not in others:

1. using coalition/electoral lists labels used in official sources when parties are elected from a coalition/electoral list;
2. using label used in official sources for all elected parties and independents who are part of a coalition/electoral list;
3. using label used in official sources for the main party of a coalition/electoral list only.

I would myself favour the first option as it is the shorter most precise and complete way to qualify who are elected. The second option would crowd too much the table and the third one would result to somewhat misleading results.

So... what do you think, RJFF and others?

Best Regards,

Captain frakas (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this issue. My preference is to make this comprehensible rather than rigorously consistent, and use footnotes to note the complexities. In some cases coalitions are better understood than their constituent parties (in France, The Left Front); in others, the principal parties have continued to be principally identified (National Front). In Poland, every Party list contained nonpartisan candidates, I'm not sure how we'd deal with that, but I don't think it's important to do so. In general, I think the national parties should be preferred, since they are normally the most recognisable. Gabrielthursday (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, slightly off-topic, can we dispense with most of the references in the reshuffling table in order to narrow the table for better presentation? The references will still be there in the results table. Gabrielthursday (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank for your answer. Just my two cents: I fear that determining ourselves what is best understood may be a bit too much argued and subjective. I am not sure, for example, if the Left Front is really better known than the French Communist Party or if the PRG is that much better known than the SIEL and I am pretty sure that all the French electorate is well aware of the Marine Blue Gathering. We have official sources and I think that we should use them rationally rather than sensitively: Doing case by case, on a subject about next to thirty states would expose the article to be quite an original editorial content, IMHO, rather than a rigorous and neutral encyclopaedic content. I fear it may be argued endless.

I also have to say that I share with you the willingness to narrow the table's width for better presentation. Perhaps that we may have a note per country (put just after the flag or the country name) who detail composition of list (whatever the name who was choose in the table: main party or coalition name). It will narrow a bit the table's width but would somewhat expense the table's height. It would still be better than actually IMHO.

Also, we should not use flags, IMHO, in the columns of the reshuffle table. Perhaps that we may have lines for the few countries who have parties who change groups. And when the official composition will be known, we should, IMHO, erase the column new parties of the reshuffle table.

Best Regards Captain frakas (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for your thoughtful contribution. You're right that there is a bit of a consistency problem going on, where some parties elected in coalition have been represented together and others represented separately. I suppose I'm still of the view that we should not press a desire for consistency to the point of making the chart less comprehensible, but obviously one should prefer consistency when all else is equal. I'll also note that my experience has been that identifying a clear standard does not significantly reduce dispute/discussion on Misplaced Pages, so I fear you'll be a little disappointed. On the other points, I think the flags on the reshuffle table are actually one of the best things about that table, both in terms of improving understanding and visually. I do agree about the eventual erasure of the new parties column. Gabrielthursday (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps that the flags should be the sole visible but should link to the article on the political party/political coalition/electoral list concerned? Captain frakas (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

According to the result page of the French Ministry of Interior, it is the "Listes Front National" (i.e. lists of the National Front) who won 24 seats. According to the result page of the European Parliament, it is the Front national who won 24 seats. If a party has an electoral agreement with one or more minor parties and/or independent candidates to let them run on their party list, it is basically an internal issue of this party. Even if the FN cedes some places on their party's lists to candidates of another party or an independent, it is still the FN list. And the FN lists won 24 seats, even if some of these seats will be taken by MEPs who are not members of the FN. They are associated with FN, they ran on the FN list, they were elected on the FN list, therefore they will be listed as FN in this result table. This table is already complex enough. I think it is acceptable to make some slight simplifications in order to keep it not too complicated and confusing to users who are not experts. We have a separate article on the election in each member state, where national peculiarities and details may be included, that do not have major implications on the result of the whole European Union, including members of minor parties or independent candidates who run on the list of a larger party. --RJFF (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the alliance of UDI and MoDem, I do not have a strong opinion. The French MoI lists them as "Union du Centre" (I do not know why), the EP page as "Alternative (UDI+MoDem)" or "Coalition (Union des Démocrates et Indépendants + Mouvement Démocrate)". The lists were called "UDI-MoDem-les Européens". To me it would be both acceptable to list them as "UDI+MoDem" (the names of the two constituent parties of the alliance, which are also in the name of its electoral lists) or as "The Alternative", the name of the alliance. I think that "The Alternative" is a little less preferable, because this name is not very well known, even in France. To my knowledge, the names of the two constituent parties are much more well known, probably the reason why electoral lists were called "UDI-MoDem-les Européens" and not "L'Alternative". --RJFF (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The Left Front is different from "The Alternative" or the "Marine Blue Gathering" as it is not just an alliance formed for this election, but an established long-term coalition that has already run in several elections.--RJFF (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

1. A key to read the code used by the French ministry of Interior. LFN/List Front national or LUC/Liste Union du centre is not a coalition name but a political tone. Political tone's names are decided by the French Ministry of Interior, not by candidates or by political parties. Each political party and each independent is attributed a political tone by the French Ministry of Interior. The key is here:. As you can read in the previous document, the French Interior Ministry use LUC/Liste Union du centre for electoral lists invested by the Alternative, LUG/Liste Union de la gauche for electoral lists invested by the Socialist party and another party, either left-wing or the MoDem and LUD/Liste Union de la droite for electoral lists invested by the UMP and the UDI. It use LFN/List Front national for list being invested by the National Front.

2. Your last assumption is erroneous: The Alternative was formed in 2013 and already run in the French municipal elections of this year and are an alliance whose main objective is a common candidature to the French presidential election of 2017. The Marine Blue Gathering are even older as it was created in 2012 and also already did compete to the French presidential election of 2012, to the French Parliament Lower House election of 2012 and to the French municipal elections of this year.Captain frakas (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

3. You are right here, however: We have a separate article on the election in each member state, where national peculiarities and details may be included, that do not have major implications on the result of the whole European Union, including members of minor parties or independent candidates who run on the list of a larger party.. Maybe there should be a nota bene in the table that announce that an abstraction have been used in the table. I still think that the table should use a coherent abstraction for each electoral lists thus. Captain frakas (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

lead of the article

User Tuvixer might want to explain his arguments in a civil way instead of making personal attacks toward others in the edit summaries. UKIP is certainly not considered to be a "radical-right party". The Feminist Initiative getting one MEP in Sweden is a detail, which does not belong in the lead of the article dealing with the election of 751 MEPs. That is called undue weight. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, I did not realise that this was in the lead of the article. Again sorry. Tuvixer (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Groups reshuffling

After groups reshuffling ECR are the third group and GUE the fifth as in the Infobox at the top of the page, so we have to conform also the templates which are present in the section "Results".--Serb1914 (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's a necessity, but that being said, I can't see any reason for not doing so. It certainly has the merit of introducing greater consistency. Gabrielthursday (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with you and I think it will explain better the political situation after the EP election.--Serb1914 (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Results table - new parties

TOP 09 + STAN (Czech Rep.) and Most-Híd (Slovakia) should be in the "new parties" column.----Bancki (talk) 08:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe the rough compromise we had arrived at was to treat previously unrepresented parties as "belonging" to a EP group if they were already members of the principal Europarty of that group. That was the way the results were reported, by and large, on election night. TOP 09 & Most-Hid were already EPP members. Gabrielthursday (talk) 08:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

1. "EU Conservatives call single candidate election campaigns a '1950-style vision'". EurActiv.com. 24 February 2014.
2. James Crisp. "Liberals now third largest group in European Parliament". EurActiv. Retrieved 2014-06-18.
3. Cécile Barbière (13 March 2014). "Far-right parties join Tories in rejecting common EU candidate". EurActiv. Retrieved 11 April 2014.

• C-Class European Union articles
• High-importance European Union articles
• WikiProject European Union articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles