Talk:2019 European Parliament election/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requesting help to decypher

I found this page published by Hungarian polling company Nézőpont in April 2018.

However, since I'm not fluent in Hungarian, I don't understand what it is exactly: a poll or a prognosis based on other polls?

It has a complete country-by-country table. Could it be added to the other polls in the article?

Kahlores (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Date

Here I read that the date is on 23–26 May 2019.

Does this mean that the elections do not occur a Sunday? Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.191 (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Each country has their own voting day. Most countries will vote on Sunday the 26th, but six countries vote earlier: the Dutch on Thursday, the Irish on Friday, the Czechs on Friday and Saturday, and on Saturdays, the voters of Latvia, Malta and Slovakia. The results are supposedly kept secret until Sunday night, but the silence isn't always respected. Kahlores (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Not every country votes on Sunday. The Dutch for instance aren't allowed to vote on sunday, because it's a Christian religious day. Saturday for the Jews, Friday for the Muslims. So they vote Thursday. BasBr1 (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

References

What if UK revoke Article 50

Will they still get to participate in the election?

• it looks to be a possibility: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/16/tories-tell-meps-to-consider-election-run-if-brexit-deal-fails — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.30 (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• but EU elections will be mandatory in case UK tries to keep membership extension for more than three months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.30 (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Leaders' seats/constituency

At the moment, the indicated seats/constituencies for the party leaders do not cohere. In the nomenclature of the EP, only the member state is consulted, for example Guy Verhofstadt (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/97058/GUY_VERHOFSTADT/home) from Belgium or Farage for the UK, whilst in national electoral systems constituencies are taken into account, either with fixed (Belgium, UK) or flexible (Germany) contingents. I would prefer to transfer the systematics applied for Belgian leaders to the others, i.e. especially Manfred Weber (Bavaria). --Connoisseur of politics (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Manfred Weber's constituency is called "Germany", the fact that he runs in a party that comes from Bavaria does not officially count. Guy Verhofstadt's constituency is called "Dutch-speaking electoral college" and that's reported correctly in the infobox. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie92 The CDU and CSU run with state lists, because the CSU existed only in Bavaria and the CDU in the other states, but they do not want to congress (earlier, otherwise, the CSU would have failed at the 5% threshold if the CDU had also been there) (see de:Europawahl in Deutschland 2019#Wahlrecht and [1]) Braganza (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but still the European constituency is "Germany". There is no "Germany (Bavaria)" seat. This is only the internal voting organization, but the European Parliament constituency is just "Germany". --Ritchie92 (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The Same is true for Italy, but still the Infobox of the 2014 elections has “Southern Italy” for Pitella and “North-East Italy” for Borelli. The definition of Constituency is “Generally, only voters (constituents) who reside within the district are permitted to vote in an election held there.“ – which is true for Weber/Bavaria.—ElTres (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Nothing can be less true. Italy has five official constituencies for the European Parliament, since it is one of the countries that make exception along with Belgium, UK, Poland and others. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Germany has 16 official constituencies for the European Parliament; and additionally the possibility to present the same list in all constituencies.--ElTres (talk) 08:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

No that's simply not true, Germany has 16 States but that is a different matter. In the EP election each country has one constituency as a general rule, except a few "exceptions" like Italy indeed. From the page on European Parliament constituency: "Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy, Poland and the United Kingdom are respectively divided into 3, 8, 3, 5, 13 and 12 constituencies, while the other member states have a single national constituency. In Germany, political parties are entitled to present lists of candidates either at Länder or national level." That does not mean each one of the Länder forms a different constituency. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

That statement has no source whatsoever. In Italy and in Germany, seats are allocated nationwide. In a second step, seats are allocated to the constituencies. Where is the difference? —ElTres (talk) 10:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a souce for the existence of Italian constituencies officially. Candidates can only present themselves in these constituencies, and not at a national level. There are different ballots for different constituencies. Similar thing for Ireland. There is nothing like this on the German counterpart of the same page. In Germany the candidates can present themselves both in local and national lists, hence the fact that there is officially a unique constituency, and the rest is just internal organization. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Each of the 16 German constituencies has it own very different ballot, see here (some links are broken). Candidates can not present themselves in local and national lists. They can however stand in more than one constituency, even in all of them, if the party present a nationwide list for all constituencies.--ElTres (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Two ballot examples can also found on the European parliaments page.--ElTres (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

As I said, the German MEPs can run in each different State, so obviously there must be different ballots for each State. However this does not imply that there are 16 Germany constituencies in the European Parliament! This means that, in principle, Germany can internally organize their vote differently (nationally or on a regional scale) but for the EP purposes Germany has one constituency only. On the contrary, the sources explicitly say that Italy is divided in 5 constituencies for the EP, these are established. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Any member state can organise their vote internally and differently. I agree that Italy has constituencies, but so does Germany. If you need an official source, see here - also the EP is wrong here, as there is no explicit CDU/CSU rule; other parties have chosen to stand in only one constituency too.—ElTres (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I copy-paste from your source: In European elections most of the Member States function as single constituencies. However, five Member States (Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy and the United Kingdom) have divided their national territory into a number of regional constituencies. Constituencies of merely administrative interest or distributive relevance within the party lists exist in the Netherlands (19), Germany (16, only in the case of the CDU/CSU) and Poland (13).

It states explicitly that only five Member States are divided in constituencies, while German States have merely administrative or distributive relevance within party lists, w.r.t the European election. --Ritchie92 (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Still, the states are constituencies. BTW, there is a very good explanation on Elections to the European Parliament#Country by country: "Germany, Italy and Poland use a different system, whereby parties are awarded seats based on their nationwide vote as in all of the states that elect members from a single constituency; these seats are given to the candidates on regional lists." The system in Germany, Italy and Poland is exactly the same, with one exception: the possibility to present the same list in all constituencies. --ElTres (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

No, the states are not constituencies (in Germany). The system in Germany and Italy is not the same, it is different exactly because in Germany there is the possibility to run at a national level (i.e. within their one true constituency) while in Italy this possibility is not there, hence making Italy one of the countries where more European constituencies are established. --Ritchie92 (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It is not possible to run on a national level in Germany. It is possible to run in all states/constituencies simultaneously. Read the German law. Or the ballots linked above: "Gemeinsame Liste für alle Länder" – "joint list for all states".--ElTres (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Gemeinsame Liste für alle Länder = national list --Ritchie92 (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Nope. I think we have to agree to disagree. However, we should go back to the starting point of the discussion: Is Weber elected in Bavaria or not. The Bundeswahlleiter does think so: Link. It is completely normal that MPs stand and can be elected on different levels, e.g. Direktkandidaten and Landeslisten in Bundestag, see infobox in 2017 German federal election. Yes, there are joint list/national list and state lists, and depending on which list you will be elected, this defines your seat/constituency.--ElTres (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

No. He simply was elected in the German single constituency with votes from Bavaria only (yes, because of how Germany internally organizes the vote). There is no Bavaria constituency for the European election, thus it is wrong to put it on the same level as other real constituencies like Central Italy or the Dutch-speaking electoral college in Belgium. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

To support ElTres' claim: Look at the article concerning 2017 German federal election. Formally, there is no constituency named North Rhine-Westphalia either and a Landesliste of the SPD will bring no one to the Bundestag if it be not related to the other Landeslisten. Actually, it is not even stated in the box there be a constituency of that name. It simply says seat. --Connoisseur of politics (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I think this supports my claim more than ElTres' one, actually. Also why are you taking as proof the article about the German federal election? We are talking about the European election. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

We are talking about systematics in Wikipedia. And one rule is to not always revert the article while discussing... --Connoisseur of politics (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it was reverted to the previous state and I re-reverted it. Anyway, systematics does not mean equating two different things like German federal election constituencies and European election constituencies. --Ritchie92 (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no point in going on with this discussion. There is only one person who is against adding Bavaria, the rest is for adding Bavaria, so I think majority wins.--ElTres (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Ahem, this is not how Wikipedia works, consensus is based on the quality of the arguments not on minority/majority. And even if you want to establish majority you need a poll. And by the way I'm not alone. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

As I showed it is even insignificant if there is a formal constituency for a "Leader's seat" does not belong to such always. You simply could trust the Germans who know their electoral system. --Connoisseur of politics (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

They apparently do not, because they mix the federal election constituencies (for the Bundestag) with the European Parliament election constituencies. --Ritchie92 (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@User:ElTres, you're keeping making the same edit again and again without explanation, nor with new reliable sources explaining it. Stop this. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Brexit postponement

The UK will participate in European elections. This article needs to reflect that. Dogblock (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Leaders

In the template to the right in the beginning of the article, we have to decide whether we should have the Spitzenkandidaten or the group leaders of the parliamentary groups. It looks very strange now with mixing the two kinds of leaders.

Bytheway, the Spitzenkandidaten are candidates of political parties, not political groups. The groups are formally dissolved and then reconstituted at each new term of the parliament. They only consist of MEPs, while the political parties are permanent organisations that are carrying out political activities outside of the parliament, especially during election times. --Glentamara (talk) 08:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Glentamara: Indeed, the political groups do not contest the elections. The European political parties do. Kaihsu (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

national election systems table - please help

I am currently working on the national election systems for the EU parliament election, in form of a table. Your help is welcome, especially if you speak other languages from EU member states (I use the laws in foreign languages as references) C-Kobold (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Nice initiative! Kaihsu (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Navigation to daughter articles

There seemingly needs to be a slightly easier-to-find way to get from this article to its daughter articles about the elections in each country.

I was looking for my own country (Ireland) after coming here when the relevant Irish article didn't come up when I tried Search Wikipedia, thought for a while about how to proceed, eventually went to the Apportionment section here, clicked on Ireland, ended up in Republic of Ireland, went back here, thought again for a while about how to proceed, then clicked on 2014, went to results, and clicked on Ireland, which got me to the Ireland 2014 vote, and there clicked on 2019, which got me where I wanted to be, only to then discover that I had wasted my time as the info I was seeking wasn't there (the list of candidates in the 3 Republic of Ireland constituencies - I later added a link to that info there). I then wrote up this item with some proposed options for a fix (now removed as unnecessary). I then discovered that I could have done a Find for "Ireland", which would have got me to 5 items, one of them the desired wikilink, but this would not have worked for many/most other countries. I started working on a proposed fix of creating a list to the elections, only to finally discover that this article already has such a list, which you reach by clicking on 'show' in 'Elections to the European Parliament' at the bottom of the article (but which you won't normally reach by doing a Find for the desired country name).

So what I'm basically looking for now is suggestions on how to make that list easier to find. Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:BOLD? Kaihsu (talk) 04:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but BOLD only works if one knows what needs to be done. I don't - that's why I asked for suggestions.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

On further reflection, (per WP:Bold as suggested by Kaihsu above, for which my thanks) I think I'll add a message on how to find the list in a subsection of See Also (so it can be seen from the Table of Contents). Tlhslobus (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Done.Tlhslobus (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

To further facilitate navigation (again per WP:BOLD, as suggested by Kaihsu above), I've now also changed the default to have the list showing, so individual Countries now get found using our readers' browser's Find-on-this-page command (such as 'Find' using Google Chrome). Tlhslobus (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I've now also suggested here possibly amending the relevant template to allow only the 2019 list to get displayed by default, tho I don't know how likely such an amendment is, nor how soon it could be ready. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The best way (IMO) is simply to list all the daughter articles in the see also section. Instructing the reader to go to the template and click "Show" is not really how Wikipedia should work. Number 57 16:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Except that unfortunately this unsurprisingly got removed as duplication. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh well. The direct instruction to readers isn't an acceptable alternative though IMO. Perhaps Mélencron could suggest an interim measure until we have a results table? Or perhaps we could just insert an empty results table, which would link to the individual articles (like the 2014 does). Number 57 21:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I suggest rewording to:

See Also
Elections in individual countries
The list of articles on these elections in individual countries can be found at the bottom of this article (here). (If the list is not already showing there, it can be found by clicking there on 'Show', beside 'Elections to the European Parliament').

There is then no direct instruction to the reader (if that is what was deemed 'inappropriate' and 'unacceptable'). But doing as little as possible to help readers find the list is liable to lead to them experiencing some of the problems I listed above after experiencing them myself, which seems contrary to WP:READERS (and, if necessary, also contrary to WP:IAR and WP:5P5) and thus seemingly deeply inappropriate and unacceptable for Wikipedia.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The suggested text is a direct instruction to the reader. Anyway, as Mélencron has agreed with the results table idea, I've added one, which includes links to the individual election articles. Number 57 22:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Number 57, I won't bother disagreeing with you (about whether it is a direct instruction, etc), as your latest fix seems adequate enough not to be worth arguing about anymore (at least provided nobody decides to delete it as premature, or whatever; if anybody does, please feel free to ping me if you need help defending it). Tlhslobus (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that it would hurt to just have a summary table of the elections by each country? It wouldn't be difficult to rework, say, the "Apportionment of seats" table to include a bit of additional information regarding the elections in each country and retarget the country links there to the election articles for each country instead. Mélencron (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Fine in theory, except that it would seemingly involve quite a bit of work and duplicated effort to produce a seemingly inferior solution (at least IMO) that doesn't directly address the problem, is liable to be reverted as premature and/or the wrong fix to the wrong table, etc, and will then require similar duplication of effort in future years, seemingly all because the seemingly simplest current solution (at least as previously worded) has been declared 'inappropriate' and 'unacceptable' without a very precise explanation as to why this is so, so I'm currently not clear whether the objection also still applies to the above proposed rewording or not. (Deleting previous answer, written before I noticed Number57's above latest reply and latest fix, which seems adequate enough not to be worth arguing about anymore, at least provided nobody decides to delete it as premature). Tlhslobus (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

New Parties

We need to add Nigel Farage's Brexit Party to the list of new parties. It's polling at 30%.

The map has Sweden labeled wrong

I assume it's a map of biggest parties in each state by European parliamentary group? Because Sweden should be red- the largest party there was the S&D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8388:8703:9d00:b131:69d7:578f:5cf2 (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Number of seats

Anyone know how many seats there gonna be up for Election after the UK leave? Djallese (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

According to a proposal from the European Parliament, there will be 700 seats after the UK left. This proposal has to be adopted by the European Council before it can take effect. --Glentamara (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Plus, that is assuming the transnational list isn't applied prior to the 2019 election (the proposal is 23 redistributed and 50 retained for transnational and enlargements, number given to transnational varies and could be the full 50). Southern states have just backed transnational. Either way no doubt there will be some horse trading of seats (remember Italy making a huge fuss to get one extra seat a while back). I wonder how late they're going to leave it... - J.Logan: 20:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, but it is very unlikely, if not impossible, that there will be transnational lists applied to the 2019 election. Such a change would require an amendment to the electoral act, which requires unanimity (at least the Swedish and the Danish governments are completely against it). The decision also needs to be ratified by all member states in accordance with their own national constitutions. As pointed out in this document, there might even be constitutional obstacles to get such a change done before the next election, even if there would be a political consensus in the European Council.

In addition, the European Parliament has already initiated the legal process and adopted a proposal in accordance with article 14(2) of the EU treaty. This proposal will be considered by the European Council and adopted later this year. --Glentamara (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The seats elected differ from the official numbers in quite a few places. https://www.election-results.eu/seats-political-group-country/2019-2024/ JurijFedorov (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

In the case of France and Denmark (not sure if there's other cases), the official number of seats filled by the elections under their election laws was the post-Brexit number, not the pre-reallocation numbers, so there'll be a discrepancy between the number initially seated in the next session (unless the UK somehow leaves by July) and the number considered to have been officially elected under their own electoral laws. Mélencron (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Why no sub-section heading for the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy group under section 2, Parties and Candidates?

Why is there no sub-section for the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy grouping under section 2, Parties and Candidates? I don't see any mention of the grouping in that section either.

This is a genuine enquiry from someone not terribly well-versed in EU elections (I don't live in an EU country). Not meaning to cause contention. Oska (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Oska: EFDD is a loose alliance of convenience rather than a long-term, coherent "political family". Plus, at least some members of the group are hard Eurosceptics. They want to disband EU institutions rather than participate in them. They do not run a common European electoral campaign and they reject the idea of common European lead candidates (Spitzenkandidaten). Each of their national parties runs separately in their respective country. Moreover, EFDD is likely to dissolve or completely transform after the election, as the Five Star Movement of Italy, the second-biggest member party, is not too happy with this alliance and may try to join a different group after the election. --RJFF (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

In this case why not to deal with Steve Bannon, its super-group which will unite several of previous parliamentary groups, making work together Nigel Farage-Brexit Party, Matteo Salvini, Marine Le Pen-National Rally, Vox and Orban, who agree on many things [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.251 (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should dedicate a section to the European Alliance of People and Nations, the new alliance of radical right-wing populists and hard Eurosceptics, which is expected to play a big role in this election (may become the 3rd or 4th biggest group). Unlike earlier far-right and Eurosceptic groups like EFDD, that were rather uneasy bedfellows, only huddled together for convenience (longer speaking times in Parliament, more money from EU), they actually consider themselves partners, have a lot of ideological common ground and shared some mutual campaign appearances.

However, Bannon did not play a significant role in this development. His "Movement" was explicitly rejected by most of the parties he targeted or met with lukewarm reactions. So he was basically left out in the cold by his desired partners. Also, Orban's Fidesz and Farage's Brexit Party are not (yet) part of the alliance (but may decide to join after the election).

Or, perhaps we could make it a generic section about right-wing populist and Eurosceptic groups, covering the fate of the crumbling EFDD group, Bannon's unsuccessful initiative and the much more hopeful EAPN that Salvini has put together. --RJFF (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The ALDE has too accounced they will likely disband after the elections (Politico) We also don't know where several big parties will end up (Romanian social democrats, Orban's Fidesz etc.), so using this political group division embedded so strictly into this article is in many ways rather problematic. --Pudeo (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Why is Fidesz shown as part of EPP when they are suspended and not part of this party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.102.166.200 (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Might be because official results are computed "based on the structure of the outgoing Parliament." http://www.election-results.eu/

This is subject to change when the group for the 2019-2024 period are formed.

But wikipedia cannot change the total, each time that one MEP says other MEP will change group...

What is your proposal? That is what is your source of a different total? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.85 (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Map

I would love to see a map, like the vast majority of elections results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucasW (talk • contribs) 17:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Single map have a meaning when MP are elected seat by seat. When there are eight groups, eight maps would be welcomed, to see the result of each group in each country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.85 (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

FranceTvInfo published a European map of the far right result (Italia 39%, Romania 0%), and an European map of the ecologist results (Luxembourg 27%, UK 18%, Romania 0%). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.85 (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Orban not EPP anymore

Why do you put the 13 elected seats from Hungary for the Fidesz party in the EPP column. Orban clearly stated that he refuses to support Manfred Weber. Fidesz is at least ECR.

62.226.78.252 (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Might be because official results are computed "based on the structure of the outgoing Parliament." http://www.election-results.eu/

This is subject to change when the group for the 2019-2024 period are formed.

But wikipedia cannot change the total, each time that one MEP says other MEP will change group...

What is your proposal? That is what is your source of a different total? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.85 (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Orban is still a member of the EPP. He has not formally left yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8388:8703:9d00:b131:69d7:578f:5cf2 (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Text size

Following up to the comments above about accessibility. I've just had to reinstate my removal of overly small font sizes from the text. Accessibility is not an optional consideration in our articles and editors are expected to follow guidelines unless there is a genuine valid reason not to. The whim of an editor is not such a valid reason. If anyone can see a good reason why this article should have exceptions to the MOS:TEXTSIZE:

Avoid using smaller font sizes within elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes ... This means that <small>...</small> tags ... should not be applied ... Under no circumstances should the resulting font size of any text drop below 85% of the page's default font size (i.e. 11.9 px in Vector skin or 10.8 px in Monobook).

I'm happy to debate that reason here. --RexxS (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Accessibility

Yeesh. I have removed the use of just color for designation, added table headers, added alt text, removed inappropriate small text (note that the function of the <small> tag is for "fine print" in HTML, not just styling as you see fit), and removed auto-collapsing. Anyone notice anything else that is hostile to user access? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: Thanks for all your efforts to improve accessibility here. The table captions will be particularly welcome. However, I'm going to take issue with two points:

1. The use of an association list to mark up a Key (as <dt>...</dt>) and the two definitions associated with it (as <dd>...</dd>) is quite accessible. The common accessibility issue is caused when editors misuse the <dt> as a pseudo header and omit any <dd> to go with it. I've restored the previous markup.
2. The image File:EP2019-Member States.svg still isn't accessible. It really doesn't help a screen user user to tell them that "the UK is teal", for example. They still don't have the information that the leading party in the UK is EFDD. I have difficulty distinguishing between the three darker shades of blue used (besides teal), so I'm not 100% sure but I think that alt text along the lines of

   The leading party in Malta, Portugal, and Spain is S&D; in UK is EFDD; in Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands is ALDE; in France and Italy is ENF; in Poland is ECR; and in the other 15 is EPP.

   should do the job of conveying the information for anyone who can't see the map. Perhaps someone can check my assertion, and update the image alt text accordingly.

Hope that helps further. --RexxS (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@RexxS: I thought about making the alt text X, Y, and Z are [color] (indicating a win by [party]) but I was really tired. :/ As for the dd/dt thing, I think you mean where I removed a semi-colon for formatting due to WP:PSEUDOHEAD but you are correct: the "pseudo-head" is actually the intro to a definition list. You've done good work, Rex. Wow, I didn't even notice these were different colors. Unfortunately, it looks like these are standardized to refer to these party bloc but man that is tricky. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: I've just spotted the description (in French) on the File:EP2019-Member States.svg page. It looks like I got the connections between countries and parties right, so I'll go ahead and update the alt text to just use the party acronyms. I'm pretty sure nobody using a screen reader cares what colours the parties are associated with, and everybody else has the inline legend in the caption to work from. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@RexxS: Yes, please do fix it--I messed up France and Italy anyway. I'm working on the Commons legend. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Projections

EU.19 is fake and so is EUElectionStats. They're not affiliated with any media. pollofpolls is affiliated with POLITICO Europe and Europe Elects is affiliated with euronews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.41.30.125 (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

additional projection from Europe Elects just before election day: https://europeelects.eu/2019/05/21/a-right-wing-surge-a-glimpse-into-the-new-eu-parliament/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.190.229.82 (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

What's wrong with these two agencies? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Overcoloured

I have removed the {{overcoloured}} template from the article. Although it is quite colourful, it doesn't seem especially so in comparison to other election articles (e.g. 2017_United_Kingdom_general_election, 2014 European Parliament election, and as far as I can see there was no specific part of the article which was highlighted as deficient. This suggests that it is an issue that should be addressed more globally than just on this article, and there is no known specific action which we can take locally here to redress the issue. If anyone feels there are specific issues that need to be dealt with here, please highlight them in this section. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

It is only this article that it was relevant for, not all the others - which may well require attention too. And it isn't just the amount of colour, compliance with MOS:COLOUR is an issue too. I've reinstated it for now, until we make some progress on the issues.

Note that there is an ongoing discussion on colour at Talk:2019 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom#Misuse of colour too. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: maybe you can highlight some specific points that don't meet the guidelines then. Simply tagging the article with no other context on what's wrong doesn't seem particularly useful. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: it's all in MOS:COLOUR, but at the most basic level, there should be nothing in the article that relies on the ability to perceive and distinguish colours to be able to understand the full meaning of it. So charts, maps, tables etc. should have an alternative method (text, pattern hatching or whatever) of keying what each element is showing.

So specifically in this article:

• The map under the infobox needs an alternate to colour to say the same thing as the colours might be trying to say (although they don't seem to be keyed currently either)
• The tables under "Seat projections" have got unexplained colours in the cells
• The table under "Groups" relies relies entirely on colour recognition

-- DeFacto (talk). 12:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• I've asked at WT:WikiProject Accessibility if anyone there wants to contribute to this discussion. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that information should not be conveyed by use of colour alone. The map in the infobox and the groups with plurality are completely inaccessible to a blind visitor and that's not acceptable. The former needs a text or tabular description elsewhere in the article showing the affiliation of the leading party in each country, or the image should be removed. The latter could use a symbol such as {{dagger|pluraity}} next to each figure that represents a plurality, and a key that specifies that.

I've removed the instances of where the font-size has been forced below the minimum agreed for Wikipedia pages (85% of normal text size) at MOS:TEXTSIZE. --RexxS (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Update: In the 2019 European Parliament election #Groups section, IP 107.190.33.254 has tried to help colour-blind readers by making the figures for majority and plurality bold and italic, respectively. Unfortunately, the inaccessibility problem is not solved for screen reader users, who normally won't hear the bold and italic attributes. The recommended solution is to use an accessible symbol matched to a legend, and so I've implemented that for the table, using {{dagger}} and {{double-dagger}}. Consequently I've removed the {{Overcoloured}} template from that section, although it may need to be replaced elsewhere to draw editors' attention to the misuse of colour in the infobox map, which remains inaccessible for screen readers. --RexxS (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The map suffers from low-contrast colour choices - 3 shades of blue of very similar luminosity, which for a colour-blind user are probably not easy to distinguish (I looked up the simulated difference at this suggested page (as suggested by WP:CONTRAST)). So, strictly speaking, the problem is not with the article but with the map - the (I assume, simple) solution would be for someone to make an alternate colour-blind version of the map. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The main problem with the map is that anyone using a screen reader cannot get any information at from it, because they can't see the colours (even if they were improved). I suppose that the information in the map could be gleaned from the 2019 European Parliament election #Groups table. But if that information is important enough to warrant a large chunk of prominent space in the infobox, it doesn't seem right to me to make blind visitors wait until almost the end of the article, and then expect them to work out from figures that they hear which was the European party leading in each member country. Let's not give already disadvantaged visitors a second-rate experience here. --RexxS (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, the map is a good thing to have in the article since it provides information (for those [probably, vast majority] users who can distinguish it) at a glance which otherwise comes in the form of, as you said, a table which is not nearly as convenient. It also seems common to include such a map (when available) in similar articles (random examples: 1968 United States presidential election, 2017 French presidential election, 2009 South African general election; at least, common sense is that there should be one). As for screen readers, the "solution" (since they can't possibly "see" the map) is to add a text based description using the |alt= parameter. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, doing things just for the vast majority is not a good strategy for Wikipedia. Considering that Wikipedia gets around 18 billion page views per month, if even as few as 1% of those use screen readers, that represents 180 million potential poor experiences per month when we get accessibility wrong. I don't have the global percentage of screen reader use, but it's around 1.4% in the USA.

Other articles performing below par by using colour alone to convey information isn't really a good reason to do the same here. It's more of an argument to improve the other articles.

It would be a misuse of the alt attribute to try to cram all 28 pieces of information into it; it's meant for a short description, and sadly MediaWiki software doesn't implement the longdesc attribute. Screen reader users can't navigate the information if it's in alt text anyway, so it would be far better to put it into a table like this:

European party leading in each member country

Country	European party leading
Germany	EPP
France	ENF
United Kingdom	EFDD ... and so on

As I said, if that information is important enough to appear in the infobox, it is probably justified to place it somewhere near the top of the article, perhaps the final part of the lead, as a summary of the results. --RexxS (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The table would be clumsy, occupy a great deal more space, and it would basically be just a watered-down version of the one already present at the end (where else would it go? the results should logically be at the end, and this table obviously goes there). The graphic is a preferable alternative for those who can see it, per WP:IUP, since it "[increases] readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, [by directly depicting content found in the article.]" Now I don't know (tried but it's not good enough, apparently) how to make a better alternative for blind (or otherwise impaired) people (since we can't really use the |alt= attribute for anything but a summary description), however I know that by the same token (that we should make this as good as possible for people with accessibility issues), we should also keep this as good as possible for people who don't have such issues. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

In what way would a table with two columns and either 28 rows (by country) or 6 rows (by leading party) be "clumsy"? especially compared to some of the monstrosities already in the article. Your implication is that it's okay for a map, usable only by some of our visitors to take up a great deal of space in the infobox, but a table that's accessible for everyone takes up too much space. That's getting priorities the wrong way round. If "the results should logically be at the end" then the map of results should logically be at the end, shouldn't it? I'll move the map down to the results section to fit in with your logic. The graphic is not preferred because it violates MOS:ACCESS by using colour as the only means of conveying information. We not in the business of saying "you can't see it? tough luck" to our visually impaired visitors, and I've proposed a perfectly accessible alternate means of supplying the information as we should do. What's your solution for providing the information? --RexxS (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Two things - 1. logically, the infobox contains an overview (i.e. not the full details) of the main elements of the article. The results of elections are such an element, and a map provides a rapid look at them... 2. With an appropriate (even if it's a bit long) alt text (as present) for those who can't see it, I don't see any ground for removing the map and replacing it with a less visual alternative - especially when MOS:ALT clearly suggests alt text as the appropriate solution. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

"far-right" gains?

Try right-wing conservative, patriotic gains.

BBC often looks and sounds like left-wing smear.

62.226.78.252 (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

More specifically, which parties/groups do you mean? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Far right mentioned on Wikipedia's main page, yet no mention of "far right" in the article. I think many readers are curious who these far right elected officials are?Dig _deeper ^talk 16:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• As I understand, the term “far right” is used to refer primarily to the ENF. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 16:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Should this information not then be added to the article to help the reader?Dig _deeper ^talk 18:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The definitions aren’t that simple. There are groups with principles like those found in the ENF who aren’t in the ENF at all. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 18:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Com'on folks, the simple solution here was WP:DFTT (which is obvious considering that the original poster has an aversion to well established WP:RS (i.e. BBC) and provides an opinion that is directly opposed to what is in the article in a confrontational manner ("smear") without providing any WP:RS to back his statement)... As for the legitimate issue of which party is far-right, ENF has multiple sources describing it as right-wing or far-right, though after checking (even the questionable Daily Mail describes it as "far-right"), most of them describe it as far-right. Where this goes in the article remains an open question. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

% vote in preliminary table of results - should it be removed?

I would advocate removing the columns for % vote for each EP group in each member state election. What matters to this page is the ultimate number of seats per group per state, rather than how each party fared precisely in votes, or any disproportionality in member state elections. Readers interested in how a party performed nationally in vote share can click through. At the moment, this table is quite large, and removing this column for each group would reduce this page, making it more likely the whole table will fit without having to scroll horizontally. I'd go ahead and WP:BOLD but it's a fair bit of work to do so where there might be consensus to retain it. I'd note that there isn't such a column in tables at 2014 European Parliament election, and I find 2014 European Parliament election#Make-up following election conveys the information a lot easier than what's currently on this page. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Marco Zanni.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Party colours

Given the change/re-branding of the ALDE as "Renew Europe", there has been a change of party colours. Given that the map that is currently used still uses the old colour, and bearing in mind accessibility requirements (as already discussed sufficiently on this talk page), I think we should keep using the old colour throughout the article (this is in response to recent edits; on talk just to make it clear). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Reminiscent of an argument I had with editors when ALDE changes its official colours to pink. Yellow is the customary colour for liberal groups and it should stay that way on Wikipedia for clarity, regardless of what colour palette Renew EU chooses to use. 20:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The true problem does not come from colors, but from the use of uniform color to represent results of a proportional election. The European map correctly shows 3 colors for the 3 northern seats of Ireland which has three MEPs of each three color; that means one third of the result for each. The England map is all blue, the same color than if Brexit add 100% of the seats, while the Brexit party do not even has half of the seats (and Brexit MEPs do not even have a group)! In fact using an arbitrary color based on the part which has locally most seats has no sense; does-it?

Additionally, the color is subject to Change once Brexit does occur: in France RN and LAREM have respectively 22 and 21 seats before Brexit, but they will have 23 and 23 seats each after Brexit does occur, doesn't it? Coloring the French country with the RN color while this party does not have neither 24% of voices ( 24% < ¼ < ⅓) nor one third of seats has no sense, does it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.208 (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

German do not have a map, but a pie chart of the elected parliament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.208 (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Lack of neutral point of view

why is the "Movement" alliance referred to as right-wing, but the Greens (for example) are not referred to as left-wing? Any Green party is certainly far left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.251.68.246 (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

All you have to do is to find a decent quality, reliable source (in other words I don't mean Breitbart) to justify the description. I think you should be able to find a respectable source that describes the Greens as "left of centre" at least. --RexxS (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

What was the source for referring to The Movement as "right-wing"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.251.68.246 (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

You're looking for Template:Citation needed. --RexxS (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if information is included (and not sourced) that you think is incorrect, add Template:Citation needed after the information in the article. What I'd say is that Green parties are considered to be around the centre-left area, but extending to left-wing and possibly even out towards far-left. The problem is, the whole concept of the left-right spectrum is flawed, since a political party can have various stances on various issues that make it difficult to put them at a specific point on the spectrum. On Wikipedia, the balance is typically made between economic and social stances. A party that's socially left and economically right would be in the centre; one that's economically and socially left would be on the left, and one that's economically and socially right would be on the right. However, differences inside one half of the spectrum, like differences between right-wing, far-right, and centre-right, can easily be ambiguous and often on Wikipedia you'll see wording like "right-wing to far-right" used because political parties change positions on an issue. But there are often exceptions: as I understand it, some racist parties have socialist principles, but are still placed on the far-right. I'd argue for avoiding use of the spectrum altogether, but for know I'd agree that let's be as balanced as possible when considering this situation. I'd say we should say the Movement Alliance is right-wing and the Greens are left-wing. That text should appropriately fit npov without concerning anyone. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 23:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is the policy that governs our use of sources, not editors' opinions. Find the sources first; write the text after. We would have none of these sorts of complaints if editors would just stick with that simple principle. --RexxS (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I go by WP:BLUE here, and I'm also assuming that the statement "the Movement Alliance is right-wing and the Greens are left-wing" matches what would be found in most sources. Maybe they use centre-left, but still, the general principle is there. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't go by BLUE for anything that may be argued about or challenged. You should know as well as I do that editors will argue about whether a particular party is "centre-left", "left-of-centre", "far left" or just plain "left". If you're so sure the the sources exist, find them and use them. --RexxS (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Not all green parties are leftist (let alone far-left). For example, the Ecological Democratic Party of Germany and the Lithuanian Farmers and Greens Union are centrist or even centre-right. --RJFF (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@SelfieCity: See what I mean? --RexxS (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The OP is (unequivocally) wrong because his opinion is not grounded in WP:RS. There are six sources in the paragraph about the Movement, and they all refer to Bannon and/or affiliated parties as "right-wing", "populist", (both or variants thereof), etc... Concerning WP:BLUE, it naturally does not apply (except maybe for a grouping of some parties which are roughly in the same area, ex. "centrists") as such statements are clearly non-obvious and subject to some opinionated misinterpretation (for example, see OP). As for Green parties, that has been properly summarised by previous contributors. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

There are exceptions to many things; what's generally the case, though? Am I "OP," by the way? Also check Green party which makes clear that Green parties are generally on the left side of the spectrum (that's what social democratic means). --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@SelfieCity: "OP" = "Original poster" = not you in this case.107.190.33.254 (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• But to be clear here, my intention was to help the discussion and not hurt it, so if I'm only making this more complicated, I won't comment any more. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• @107.190.33.254: Oh sorry! I thought those remarks were aimed at me. I guess I’m violating the comment I just made, but this will be my final comment in this thread. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm the original poster, BTW. Well, here is a page from Wikipedia itself that includes the Greens, including the Green Party of England and Wales, as a "left-wing" party. Does that meet your requirements? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_left-wing_political_parties — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.251.68.246 (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at WP:NOTSOURCE, then read WP:RS and find a proper source to support your opinion. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@23.251.68.246, Some issues with your assertion: wikipedia is not an accepted sources in wikipedia; classification of a local party does not make classification of an European Alliance; "Movement" alliance referred to as right-wing while the Greens (for example) not as left wing are two distinct questions; the political groups has several dimensions and it is unsure it could be classified with a boolean concept such as left or right.

Source might make believe G/EFA is center left but generally do not explicitly state G/EFA is center left. For instance, you can read The Guardian,

However, the BBC source in 2015 does state "The group generally takes a left of center position on most issues" (read BBC) As it comes from a British media, it might possibly be considered as a British point of view.

Also, now some consider that "that the traditional left-right political divide is getting outdated" (read Euractiv)

But for 'Identity and Democracy' medias have a more explicit wording such as "nationalism in the EU has a new name identity and democracy" according to Euronews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.208 (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)