Talk:2014 European Parliament election

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. Wikipedia: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 ^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)

Blog of Twittprognosishttp://twittprognosis.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=9&action=edit&message=6&postpost=v2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.34.19.28 (talk) 21:26, 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)

Add colour to EFD

European Parliament election, 2014

June 2014
All seats to the European Parliament
Leader No presidential nominee yet No presidential nominee yet No presidential nominee yet Party EPP PES ALDE Alliance EPP S&D ALDE Last election 265 seats and 8 observers 183 seats and 5 observers 84 seats   Leader No presidential nominee yet No presidential nominee yet No presidential nominee yet Party Green AECR Left Alliance Greens/EFA ECR GUE/NGL Last election 55 seats and 2 observers 54 seats and 1 observer 35 seats   Leader No presidential nominee yet Party UKIP Alliance EFD Last election 30 seats

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)