Jump to content

Talk:2014 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

European Groupings

[edit]

The article states:

The article states that the three green parties are standing for election in all regions, presumably because they are the same European grouping as members of The Greens–European Free Alliance but the same is true of the two Labour parties as members of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats but they are treated as regional parties, why the discrepancy? 82.18.177.13 (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Green parties work together more closely and are treated together by reliable sources more, so I see that as a difference. However, I agree that Labour and the SDLP have a relationship, as do the LibDems and Alliance, and indeed the SNP and PC. Can you, or anyone else, suggest some wording to capture that better? Or is the inclusion of the groupings in the table sufficient? Bondegezou (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Political grouping does not make them one and the same thing. May I also point out for the purposes of sitting in the European Parliament The Scottish Green Party, The Green Party of England and Wales, The SNP, Plaid Cymru and Mebyon Kernow are all part of the same European Parliamentary group. I would change the wording to treat the parties as separate entities, it's not like their even fighting joint campaigns with joint budgets, they are separate parties. Just as the UK Labour party is seperate from the Irish Labour party or the French Socialists and the Lib Dems are separate from Fiana Fail and Germany's FDP, despite being part of pan-EU parties and groups. Owl In The House (talk) 09:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be pedantic, the Scottish, NI and E&W Greens are part of the European Green Party, but the SNP, PC and MK are part of the European Free Alliance. So they're in different European political parties. But, yes, those two European political parties are allied in the same European Parliament political group, The Greens–European Free Alliance. Bondegezou (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right I am aware of this but this is an election to the European Parliament whereby they sit as Parliamentary groups and get awarded speaking rights so on and so forth on a Grouping basis, not a party basis. Also lets look at the table of MEP's actually in the article:
Key to political groups of the European Parliament (UK)[1]
Party Faction in European Parliament
Brexit Party 29 Non-Inscrits 57
DUP 1
Liberal Democrats 16 17   Renew Europe 108
Alliance 1
Green 7 11 Greens–European Free Alliance 75
SNP 3
Plaid Cymru 1
Labour 10   Socialists and Democrats 154
Conservative 4 European Conservatives and Reformists Group 62
Sinn Féin 1   European United Left–Nordic Green Left 41
Total 73 Total 750

Owl In The House (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


The Article states that Sinn Fein are not a member of a European Grouping - this is incorrect. Sinn Fein are members of European United Left - Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL) - I would correct it myself but I wouldn't know how to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.44.83.105 (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NI21

[edit]

Do we know if NI21 have made a formal request to join the party/grouping? Or indeed if they are now an observer party of that group? If they have become observers, I would say that is good grounds to add EPP to their box without a footnote. Owl In The House (talk) 09:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's an Irish News article that says the party "would likely align itself in Brussels with the Christian democratic European People's Party." I've cited their manifesto that has their candidate saying, "If elected I will join the European People’s Party (EPP)". However, they are not listed at the EPP's own website. Bondegezou (talk) 10:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I guess that will come clear in time. Seems to me as you've recorded this info in the best way possible. Owl In The House (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Results Section & Ideas for Results Section

[edit]

I have noticed that in articles for previous European Elections there are actually no areas where actual results of been published now is it possible that we could have sections for each of the regions stating with the candidates selected and number of votes cast for each of the regions at all as it looks odd for a election page now a days not to have any actual results, also is there a way we can break down results to how each of the counties within each of the regions voted in England and especially for the areas within Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland? (90.216.23.79 (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Order of parties

[edit]

Why is UKIP second on the infobox on the right? they should be third or fourth... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.145.52 (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, we order parties in the position they came last time the elections were held, that is until we get the results in. Notice the parties are not ranked, 1st 2nd 3rd 4th etc as the election is ongoing. UKIP came second last time these elections were held, these info box is just as it should be. There is no problem here. Wait for the result. Owl In The House (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence

[edit]

This states that the EU elections coincide with the UK Local Elections.

This is not really the case as the Local Election in England and NI were moved from 1st May to be held on the same date as the EU elections. The sentence gives the impression that the EU elections followed the date of the locals when the reverse is the case.

Also the reference to this is via a minor local authority website rather than say the Electoral Commission and does not state why the date of the locals was changed, ChrisInBalham (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Results

[edit]

Does anybody know when are the results going to be announced?--85.74.125.119 (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now, see EU election results - live --Racklever (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many UK MEPs?

[edit]

This article indicates that the UK (including Northern Ireland) sends a total of 73 MEPs to the European Parliament. However, the article European Parliament election, 2009 (United Kingdom) indicated a total of 72. Which is correct? Natalie-S (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"As a result of the Treaty of Lisbon coming into force, the UK became entitled to a 73rd MEP as from November 2011." --Racklever (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2014

[edit]

For the European parliamentary elections, 2009 (United Kingdom) page, results and leaders' pictures were shown for the top four parties. Now the Green Party has overtaken the Liberal Democrats as the fourth party, it seems unfair to leave them out of this box.

5.66.169.53 (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly notable enough to warrant inclusion in the infobox, UKIP won three back in 1999 and didn't get to be included, in the past only parties that have got 10%+ or more than 10 MEP's have been included, since so far the Greens are only on 7%, with 2 MEPs, maybe 3 when London finishes counting, its not large enough to warrant infobox inclusion Guyb123321 (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Guy, this has all been explained before, the info box is a national summary. 3 seats is not nationally significant. As Guy points out, it wasn't nationally significant when UKIP achieved it in 1999, it isn't a nationally significant number just because the Greens have achieved it. The reasoning of this has been done a death on these talk pages. Owl In The House (talk) 02:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Mz7 (talk) 03:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we either unlock this or update it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.250.246.35 (talk) 07:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Results are In

[edit]

I have the election results on the BBC. UKIP won. Why has nobody edited it yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.227.131 (talk) 08:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article appears to have been put on anti-vandalism lock over a content dispute. Which shouldn't happen, but what can you do...Iliekinfo (talk) 09:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, the protection was applied within Wikipedia policy. Owl In The House (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2014

[edit]

UKIP Seats before 13 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/vote2014/eu-uk-results Adnaan101 (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

done. I've actually removed the duplicate (and wrong) info. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 15:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'First victory by a party other than Labour or the Conservatives since 1906'?

[edit]

This article currently claims that this is the first election to be won by a party other than the Conservatives or Labour since 1906.

However, in the January and December 1910 general elections, the Liberals won the most seats. Accordingly, though they didn't win a majority (as UKIP haven't either) and didn't win the popular vote (which in general elections does not determine the winner, but rather determined by how many seats each party wins) the Liberals should be considered the winners of both elections. 42.124.87.16 (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the page to reflect this. Ebonelm (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about the 1918 election? Wasn't that technically won by a splinter group of the Conservatives? 81.156.158.169 (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, in the 1918 election some members of the Conservative party ran supporting the Coalition and others ran without formally supporting it. However, there wasnt a formal split in the party and Bonar Law remained leader of the party as a whole. If anything those Conservatives who didn't support the Coalition were the 'splinter' group as they formed the minority of the party. Typically the term Coalition Conservative is used just to help make it clear how the Coaliton government achieved its majority not because of a more formal divison of the party. The same is also true of the Liberal Party between the Coalition Liberals and the other Liberals however matters are later confused with the formation of the National Liberal Party highlighting a stronger divison in this party. Ebonelm (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Info on the Green Party needed in the main infobox, having came forth

[edit]

Following the layout of the previous European and Local elections infoboxes, I think it's only fair to add the Green Party into the template. So, if anyone has the appropriate stats, (Leader/Party/Alliance/Leader since/Last election/Seats won/Seat change) please take the time to insert them into the table. Thanks Robo37 (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The unofficial rule that is used is that if a party gains more than 10 seats it is included in the infobox, this decision has been discussed elsewhere on this talk page. I have therefore reverted the infobox back to only include UKIP, Labour and the Conservatives. Ebonelm (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This argument has been done a death. There is no justification for including either the Greens or the Lib Dems (or anyone else who isn't already in it for that matter) in the info box because they have not gained a nationally significant number of MEPs. This argument has been outlined above. It's done with, if you want an explanation then go and read it and look at the talk archives too. Its very frustrating having to answer the same question on the same page over and over again. Please scroll up and drop this non issue. Owl In The House (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add Greens to polls.

[edit]

They have surpassed the Liberal Democrats in Wales, and in the UK-wide popular vote, came ahead of them. I think we should include the Green Party in the UK and Welsh polls or remove the Liberal Democrats. Byzantium Purple (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, we have been through this and all the reasoning that is above on this page still stands. I know you "think" we should add the Greens to the polling tables, you have been going on about it for about 2 weeks or something now. If anything there is a case for moving the Lib Dems to join the Greens etc in the "Others" column but we should reflect reliable sources and the current format does this. All the reasoning is on this talk page and it still stands. Owl In The House (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with Owl In The House on these Green issues, I think some people might be being a little partisan and letting it cloud their judgementGuyb123321 (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Completely disagree with Owl. We have polling data on the Greens. Most polls listed them separately, certainly later in the campaign. We should do what reliable sources say, and the reliable sources are the polls and what they report. Articles for the European parliament elections in other countries list smaller parties in their polling, so why are we being so restrictive and excluding available information? Bondegezou (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bondegezou we've been through this and you still ignore the substantive points....even in light of the election results. You talk about reflecting reliable sources, that is what this article does. I have already provided sources for articles in which these polls appear and this article's format broadly reflects their coverage. As far as polling tables go, polling tables show the score of every Tom, Dick and Harry. You can go on as much as you like about French articles, German articles, Italian articles and even Israeli articles as much as you like but this is a UK article, backed by UK sources and that is the basis we work from. The specific reasoning and detailed argument is all outlined above, you can read it until your heart is content and yet you're still ignoring and refusing to answer any of the substantive points. Oh well. Like I say I respect you as an editor and the way you conduct yourself but on this issue you're just plain wrong and are not even engaging in the discussion. Anyway Goodnight. Owl In The House (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UK sources do give the Green Party, though. How about for 2019, we include the Greens in the opinion polling, but don't include them here? That sounds like a fair compromise. Byzantium Purple (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, I have provided sources where the polls have been published and they do not give equal prominence to the Greens polling figure and only have so on a handful of occasions. If you look at the raw data tables they show data for all parties polled, this is why we take our lead from a variety of reliable sources, not reams of polling dats.
Now, as far as 2019 is concerned, we don't even know if there will be a UK component of the 2019 European elections. Not sure if you've noticed but there is a very real debate going on and it is seriously within doubt/question as to whether the UK will be in the EU within 2019. Now, I realise you seem to be having difficulty taking the election results in but they are what they are.
As far as creating an article for any potential/forthcoming UK component of the 2019 EU elections, I for one would be dead set against it until we have a clearer idea as to what is actually going on: This certainly won't be before the 2015 General Election and it might not be for at least 2years after that. We shall see what happens. Right now, I suggest we avoid use of the crystal ball and ignore the "possibility" of a UK component of the 2019 EU Elections until we have a much clearer picture as to whether there will be one.
In any such case given the actual election results it seems to me that the case is more a question of "should we relegate the Lib Dems to others" not "should we give the Greens their own polling column". Thinking about it, it just seems ridiculous to even bring this up now. We are literally a good four years away from when any such polling might potentially take place (that is if the UK partakes in these elections at all). So, no, this is a hypothetical discussion for some hypothetical point in the future. Owl In The House (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Party Colours on UK Map

[edit]

Shouldn't the third Northern Ireland seat be light blue to represent the Ulster Unionists instead of Conservative blue? It is misleading.

Jakatbroughshane (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Bondegezou (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Table of MEPs by party

[edit]

How to include this up dated table in the article as withthe previous election? Owl In The House (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Key to political groups of the European Parliament (UK)[2]
Party Faction in European Parliament
Brexit Party 29 Non-Inscrits 57
DUP 1
Liberal Democrats 16 17   Renew Europe 108
Alliance 1
Green 7 11 Greens–European Free Alliance 75
SNP 3
Plaid Cymru 1
Labour 10   Socialists and Democrats 154
Conservative 4 European Conservatives and Reformists Group 62
Sinn Féin 1   European United Left–Nordic Green Left 41
Total 73 Total 750


Inclusion of Greens and Lib Dems in infobox

[edit]

I know that there have been various discussions to do with where the Greens should be included in this article but without reading every last sentence of the arguments, has the point been made anywhere that both parties should be included in the infobox because they both got above 5% vote share? I thought that that was the usual cut-off point, as it was that that was normally considered to be significant. As a quick example, see the below article:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/London_Assembly_election,_2012

Kookiethebird (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, someone has tried to make that case before but no that is not a valid reason for inclusion. Sorry to be frank but I have been over these points time and time again. 5% means absolutely naf all in EU elections. London Assembly elections are different as only party's scoring above 5% get allocated seats, it is a completely different voting system and a completely different sort of election all-together. In UK parliamentary by-elections we include all candidates in the info box who secure more than 5% of the vote as that is the score needed to have your deposit returned, these are two very clear examples with very clear reasons as to why 5% is used for those specific info boxes. 5% means absolutely nothing in EU elections, it isn't even the threshold for returning deposits. As with all previous EU elections and indeed general elections info boxes are meant to reflect a summary of the national result. I'm sorry but by no stretch of the imagination is 3 seats of national significance, it wasn't in 1999 when UKIP achieved it and it isn't now. This discussion has been done to death, can we please please leave it at that. Owl In The House (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion here either way, but if I may make some observations. The question of whether the Greens should be in the table of opinion polling is a different one to whether they should be in the infobox. The infobox is a summary and summaries are necessarily selective in coverage. The table of opinion polling can be more inclusive.
I don't entirely follow Owl's reasoning. The deposit in European elections is secured if you get 2.5% of the vote in European elections.[3] If you're arguing the elections are different to other elections, well then the logic would appear to be we should include all parties who got more than 2.5%. However, I take the point that 3 seats does not seem very significant overall. Bondegezou (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Bondegezou must we really have this needlessly academic discussion? They create a massive destraction from constructive edits. Don't get me wrong, I respect and actually like you as an editor but on this particular issue my head is beginning to hurt.
1. I did not raise the deposit issue, I was merely making the point that 5% is no marker and has no significance in these elections (a point I think you would accept without question), yes 5% is relevant in different election articles in different ways to varying degrees but it has zero relevance in this article. That is all I was saying.
2. I am well aware of the fact that the % required to secure a deposit in a constituency is 2.5% but may I point out that there is no UK wide constituency, just as with general elections, this is a national election, therefore we work on a national basis. I don't think for a minute that you are suggesting that all who saved their deposits should be included in the info box but for the sake of this academic argument may I point out that both the SNP and Plaid gained seats (and more than saved their deposits) but they did not get 2.5% of the national vote. The clear point here is that 2.5% has no national significance, it is only relevant at the constituency level.
3. I'm pleased to see you accept the point that 3 seats is by no stretch of the imagination a nationally significant number of seats (especially when we consider the cliff edge fall from 20 and 19). Given previous results, established precedents and let's face it the results themselves it would be quite wrong to include any other party's in this election box.
3.1. That said if (and I say if with good reason) it becomes clear that there will be a UK component of the 2019 European elections, we could reassess who appears in the info box for that hypothetical article. Recent events highlight the need not to focus on short term indicators in the run up to the election. Indeed it was on this basis that many kept trying to add the Greens to everything, when making such decisions we need to consider long term trends and the bigger picture in general. I fully accept and do indeed see potential circumstances whereby the Lib Dems and or the Greens would warrant being added to the info box for the 2019 article ahead of the results being known. Obviously the current reality screams otherwise but who knows after the General election, a few locals and the devolved assembly elections, circumstances can change (as is the nature of democracy), if certain changes were to happen and a compelling case for inclusion were to be made (again no such case currently exists) but I would advocate inclusion of an ascending/recovering party to the info box if it was a fair and honest reflection of reality.
4. Polling: I acknowledge that the grounds for including a party in an info box are not the same as the grounds for including a party in an opinion polling table. They are two completely separate things but we have been here before of course. We now have all the polling data, the result and indeed the previous result, we also have the polling data from the previous election and what is clear is that there is a boost in the polls for the Greens in the build up to the European elections and that on no occasion have the Greens secured a strong national percentage, never mind a significant number of seats in Strasbourg. That said polls are polls and the thing to look for with polling is trends and not to obsess over election results. However, if we look at the polls we can see that there are a very small number of polls across all of the data that highlight the greens and even towards the end of the data their inclusion or added noteworthiness is sporadic. Now obviously all sheets of polling data from all pollsters show figures for all parties in one way or another but that does not mean every party should have it's own column. Indeed if we look at a wider range of reliable sources who cover the polls, more often then not the Greens didnt even get a mentioning. I really really do not want to repeat everything that is higher up this talk page and now also stored away in archives.
4.1. Obviously it is important to acknowledge that the Greens did actually beat the Lib Dems on a national level and there are at least 3 places (including graphically) where the article highlights this but polls are not actual results and we must not confuse the two, we must look at each case separately. May I hasten to add that the poll results for "Green" are not just poll results for The Green Party of England and Wales, many (but not all) of them include the Scottish Green Party. Now I don't want to get into original research here but if you remove the Scottish Greens from the Green %, you will find that there is only 1 poll whereby the Green % exceeds the Lib Dem %. There is no grounds for including the two Green Parties as one party, they don't even want to be part of the same country. Also if we look at the Conservative/UUP example of 2009, we can see that such behaviour would break precedent. Please please please let's not go over all of that again though.
4.2. The Lib Dems warrant inclusion in the polling table and the Greens don't because across most of the polling data they were polling at a consistently stable and (just about) significant rate. The Greens were very late bloomers. Indeed if you look at their polling average at various points in time and then compare it to the actual result, you can see that they actually performed worse then even they themselves had expected. It seems they only kept their (now) only MEP, in the largest constituency (which requires the smallest % of vote to get a seat), through sheer dumb luck. Interestingly though (this is a side note, not part of my reasoning), I don't know if you are aware of the effect AIP had on the election (with the whole confusion with UKIP and folded ballot papers etc) but had the AIP factor not been there, it is fair to say that the Greens would most likely have only secured 1 MEP (SouthEast, having lost London and not gained SouthWest) also. Personally, I can see why people might be tempted to remove the LibDems from the polling table but I think the fact that right throughout the data they were consistently polling a note worthy percentage (the Greens did not) and the fact that Clegg was so integral to the swaying of public opinion etc with the Farage debates etc, I can't justify seeing them removed. But more importantly the LibDems polling figures are highlighted right throughout the campaign and indeed the reporting of every poll in all reliable sources, this simply is not the case for the Greens.
In conclusion, looking at the info box and the opinion polling table as separate entities, there is no grounds for including the Greens in either case. This argument has been had before and non of the substance or arguments have changed since last time the discussion was had. Owl In The House (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Pirate Party UK in the results table?

[edit]

Could somebody please add the PPUK results onto the results table or the 2014 EU election?

The information can be found here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/North_West_England_(European_Parliament_constituency)#Election_results

90.217.199.69 (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have used 10,000 votes as a cut-off for inclusion in the table to avoid it getting too big. Eight parties including the Pirate Party have been amalgamated into "Others".--obi2canibetalk contr 19:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wales Map

[edit]

I see that User:Spiritofsussex has done a fantastic job of producing results maps for England and Scotland but it would also be great to have one for Wales, it would also make the article more consistent.

I don't think it's necessary to do one for Northern Ireland, different political make up, different voting system and given the polar nature of Northern Ireland politics, it will tell us nothing knew to know who won in what area locally, as that is something that never changes and hasn't changed this time.
But a map for Wales I think is necessary in order to finally complete the article. Would be great if someone could produce one. Thanks Owl In The House (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vote shares inconsistency

[edit]

The vote shares listed for the parties in the box on the top right are different from those in the table in the article. I presume this is because the figures in the top right are excluding Northern Ireland (which has a different electoral system) but this should really be stated somewhere to clarify why they're different.

Yes, I just looked at the article and saw this problem. The results in the infobox should be the same as those in the table - this is an article for results in the UK, it surely cannot exclude a part of the UK from the infobox.--82.35.251.109 (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is an established tradition in media reporting, academic papers and on Wikipedia to present GB results only (excluding Northern Ireland) in some contexts. However, this should be clearly marked and the infobox should, I suggest, show the UK-wide figures. Bondegezou (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orkney and Shetland Missing from the Map

[edit]

The Orkney Isles and the Shetland Isles are missing from the map, but Gibraltar isn't. Why? Ezza1995 (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Garish colours in tables

[edit]

Dear colleagues—the high-saturation colours work better in the top two tables and the corresponding maps, although in my view they're at the edge of good design choice. But the use of colour in the tables in the opinion polls section is pretty awful. To start with, two shades of each colour (one highly saturated, one less so) are used for each party. There might be a reason, but readers won't immediately understand it; I'm still trying. The left-most column is particularly ugly (the colours so dark that white text has had to be used). The less saturated (lighter) colours would be much better used throughout those tables, don't you think? Tony (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is very normal for opinion polling tables, it follows a standard agreed format for all election articles, I do not see the problem. For each party their main official colour is used in the tittle boxes etc, we then use a highlighter colour to highlight the lead percentage, this is not a difficult concept and no one else seems tohave had a problem with it. 118.93.202.50 (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox election template too wide

[edit]

'Infobox election' template is too wide for small screens. I've started a discussion on the template's talkpage at Template talk:Infobox election#Template too wide for small screens.Jonpatterns (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Results by national party: 2019-2024 United Kingdom - Final results". European Parliament. Retrieved 28 May 2019.
  2. ^ "Results by national party: 2019-2024 United Kingdom - Final results". European Parliament. Retrieved 28 May 2019.
  3. ^ http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/163526/EPE-Part-2b-Standing-as-a-party-candidate.pdf

Greens/SNP/Lib Dems in Infobox

[edit]

Having noticed a helpfully placed note I didn't make my edit to add the Green Party of England and Wales into the infobox and instead came here to discuss. Standard infobox inclusion criteria is 5% of the national vote + seats (hence why neither the Greens nor the Lib Dems are included in the 1989 infobox despite getting over 5% of the vote as they got no seats; and why the SNP are not included in the 1994 infobox as while they won 3 seats they only won 3% of the vote [in Great Britain, as Northern Ireland percentages were calculated separately, though of course this means they actually won an even smaller share of the vote] - though of course these elections were also carried out under FPTP). Seeing as the Greens meet this criteria in 2014 having won 3 seats and 6.91% of the vote [whole United Kingdom this time] I don't see why they shouldn’t be included. The Lib Dems also scrape into meeting the criteria with 6.61% of the vote and 1 seat. As the SNP gained two seats it also seems logical that they should be added to the infobox in the fifth position as while they achieved 2.37% they still won more seats than the Lib Dems however this would be an exception to the standard rule. Also having six parties would keep the infobox physically balanced as opposed to the rather lopsided or stretched 5 party versions we would have to try otherwise. Thoughts? Ebonelm (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As nobody seems to have an objection I am going to go ahead and make the edit. If any objections emerge than per WP:BRD the 6 party infobox should be considered the default and a discussion should be made to remove the Greens, SNP, and Lib Dems. Ebonelm (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is something that has been discussed previously on various related talk pages, including this one (see archives). It is a debate that has been settled. We have never applied this 5% criteria to info boxes for UK elections. So please do not assume silence means it is ok for you to make an edit that goes against the established consensus. I am reverting your edit on this basis, please do not edit war. 122.59.226.247 (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the dates during which those 'debates' about infobox criteria were held you will see that they occurred before the election took place and did not take into account the results. Per WP:BRD I have reverted your edits. If you wish to remove these parties from the infobox please provide a rationale. Ebonelm (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FYI I just reverted similar removals by several single-purpose IP editors on this and other election pages. — JFG talk 02:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was sneaky, the edit has been reverted. What you have done on this talk page does not represent a change in consensus. May I point you in the direction of the archives of this talk page where this was discussed at length and a broader consensus was reached and the discussion was much more thorough. This was established with a large number of editors long ago, please do not change retrospectively, I will give you the benefit of the doubt on this occasion. 118.92.135.162 (talk) 05:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You mean to discussions which took place before the election and which therefore had no knowledge of what the results would be. This policy has been adopted on other pages and is clearly supported by other editors who have reverted edits removing parties which achieved the standard 5% vote share and at least one seat threshold. Ebonelm (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing like a new consensus;

a) you have not sought to contact/invite any of the previous contributors who established the old consensus (you are required to do so)
b) you have so few contributors and have not posted this discussion to any of the boards to attract wider discussion,
c) There isno new information since the old consensus was established,
d) You have not addressed the points established in the previous consensus (though this point is less relevant as they trump this point).
I am therefore reverting the addition of the 3 smaller parties, I will put a hidden note in the article's text, so that there is no excuse for adding this back again. Next time this happens it will need to be reported as vandalism and edit warring. 86.141.113.136 (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of United in Europe

[edit]

I am proposing to merge United in Europe here. This party was founded in 2014, to contest the European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom), but failed to stand and was deregistered the next year. Aside from a couple of pieces in the Herald, a Scottish newspaper, when the intent to stand was announced, I cannot find any other coverage in independent reliable sources. The bulk of the article text is sourced to the party's own archived website. The party is not notable and would be better described in the section on parties and candidates. I performed a selective merge in April but this was just reverted. Fences&Windows 12:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds sensible. Number 57 16:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose on the ground that mentioning the party on that would give them undue weight. Perhaps List of political parties in the United Kingdom#Defunct Scottish parties might be better. Klbrain (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

oppose Not the right place to merge the article. It would be ridiculous to have a list of parties then a long explanation about this one. BRFC4104 (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MEPs defeated section

[edit]

Would it be worth noting that some of these were elected in 2009 under for a different party to the one they represented when they were defeated? For instance Edward McMillan-Scott was re-elected as Conservative in 2009, but soon after lost the party whip and then left the party, before becoming a Liberal Democrat in 2010. Marta Andreasen likewise was elected as UKIP MEP in 2009, but switched to the Conservatives in 2013. Dunarc (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_European_Parliament_election_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1196661754"