Talk:2014 European Parliament election/Archive 1

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 [Melitikus]. 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 t 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. SPS 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 t 18:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have come here following a query raised at Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Nick Dancer' 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.

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/wiki/%C3%89lections_europ%C3%A9ennes_de_2014_en_France ; https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%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 t 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. -- Ե րևանցի talk  05:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Not if it just amounts to an opinion piece. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 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. -- Ե րևանցի talk  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 t 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 Wikipedia. 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  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 NotifyOnline 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

 * {|class="wikitable sortable collapsible" style="text-align:center; font-size:90%; line-height:16px; width:100%"

!colspan="10" |Opinion polls ! style="width:100px;" rowspan="2"| Date!! style="width:165px;" rowspan="2"| Institute!! EPP !! S&D !! ALDE !! Greens–EFA !! ECR !! GUE-NGL !! EFD !! NI ! style="background:; width:75px;"| !! style="background:; width:75px;"| !! style="background:; width:75px;"| !! style="background:; width:75px;"| !! style="background:; width:75px;"| !! style="background:; width:75px;"| !! style="background:; width:75px;"| !! style="background:; width:75px;"| Note: Percentages indicate proportion of predicted seats and not vote share.
 * -style="height:42px; background:#e9e9e9;"
 * 7 June 2009|| 2009 election|| style="background:lightblue;"| 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 || style="background:lightblue;"|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 || style="background:lightblue;"|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 || style="background:lightblue;"|212 (28.2%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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 || style="background:lightblue;"| 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 || style="background:lightblue;"| 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 || style="background:lightblue;"| 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 || style="background:lightblue;"| 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 || style="background:lightblue;"| 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%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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 || style="background:lightblue;"|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 || style="background:lightblue;"|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 || style="background:lightblue;"|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 || style="background:lightblue;"|213 (28.4%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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 || style="background:lightblue;"| 214 (28.5%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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 ||style="background:lightblue;"| 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 || style="background:lightblue;"| 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 || style="background:lightblue;"|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%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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|| style="background:lightblue;"| 265 (36.0%)|| 183 (25.0%)|| 84 (11.4%)|| 55 (7.5%)|| 54 (7.3%)|| 35 (4.8%)|| 32 (4.3%)|| 28 (3.8%)
 * }
 * 10 March 2014|| Scenari Politici ||217 (28.9%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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 || style="background:lightblue;"|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 || style="background:lightblue;"|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 || style="background:lightblue;"|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 || style="background:lightblue;"|213 (28.4%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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 || style="background:lightblue;"| 214 (28.5%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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 ||style="background:lightblue;"| 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 || style="background:lightblue;"| 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 || style="background:lightblue;"|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%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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|| style="background:lightblue;"| 265 (36.0%)|| 183 (25.0%)|| 84 (11.4%)|| 55 (7.5%)|| 54 (7.3%)|| 35 (4.8%)|| 32 (4.3%)|| 28 (3.8%)
 * }
 * 27 February 2014|| Der (europäische) Föderalist || style="background:lightblue;"| 214 (28.5%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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 ||style="background:lightblue;"| 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 || style="background:lightblue;"| 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 || style="background:lightblue;"|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%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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|| style="background:lightblue;"| 265 (36.0%)|| 183 (25.0%)|| 84 (11.4%)|| 55 (7.5%)|| 54 (7.3%)|| 35 (4.8%)|| 32 (4.3%)|| 28 (3.8%)
 * }
 * 2 March 2014|| Electionista ||204 (27.2%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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%)|| style="background:#ffd0d7;"| 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|| style="background:lightblue;"| 265 (36.0%)|| 183 (25.0%)|| 84 (11.4%)|| 55 (7.5%)|| 54 (7.3%)|| 35 (4.8%)|| 32 (4.3%)|| 28 (3.8%)
 * }
 * 7 June 2009|| 2009 election|| style="background:lightblue;"| 265 (36.0%)|| 183 (25.0%)|| 84 (11.4%)|| 55 (7.5%)|| 54 (7.3%)|| 35 (4.8%)|| 32 (4.3%)|| 28 (3.8%)
 * }
 * }

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Wikipedia should follow the principle 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 Wikipedia 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 talk 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 Wikipedia and ZZS from Latvia is NI according to the EP but Green according to Wikipedia. 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)

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)

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)

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)