Talk:2013 European Parliament election in Croatia

candidates per list
Do we really need all this? The vast majority of those people are not notable, and this election didn't really contribute to elevating their notability. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm torn. It does seem rather excessive, but then again, I don't see the problem of it being there. However, I do think the list of parties is now superfluous as all parties are listed in the results table. Number   5  7  09:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The candidates themselves are relatively minor compared to the party list names - their electoral threshold is 10%, and indeed nobody met it on the three winning lists. If a secondary source is cited, with a discussion of individual candidates, those should be mentioned, but not the entire kit and caboodle, that's best left for some izbori.hr data warehouse. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that the "Candidates per list" section should be removed. It is not so important for the article and it occupies a large portion of the page. The "Results" section is almost invisible in comparison to it, and I still think results are more important than a bunch of anonymous candidates. What do you think? --Emir234 (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed all the losing candidates (keeping the losing party lists). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)