Talk:2012 Dutch general election

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

Number of parties shown (infobox)[edit]

Is there a reason why the rest of the parties is excluded from the infobox?—Totie (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, especially since the infobox lists 9/10(+1) parties currently represented in the lower house, and does not list party for animals (larger than SGP which is mentioned) and group Brinkman, which split off from PVV. Arnoutf (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

box pvdd[edit]

you forgot in the box PVDD. last election 2 seats :)

Martijn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.166.83.216 (talk) 07:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polling colour schemes[edit]

I removed the colouring from the polling data reverting it to match the format for previous Dutch elections and those in other countries.Rsloch (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no problem was just an idea. Arnoutf (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Election figures[edit]

What is the source for the results table showing the number of votes cast by each party? They do not appear at either the NOS or Kiesraad sites cited. Unless a valid source is provided soon I will delete these figures. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Party for the Animals (PvdD) and 50PLUS (50+)[edit]

why are these two parties not in the infobox? they have seats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.58.144.30 (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Wikipedia policy to put only part of the parties in the infobox, namely because a very large infobox looks clumsy, and the primary place for the information is in the 'Results' section, so it is redundant to repeat it twice. In fact most election articles have a smaller infobox than this one currently has. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the IP who won't use a dictionary before hitting "undo"...[edit]

When you win a plurality, it means you win more votes than anyone else. When you win a majority, it means you won more than half the votes. When you win an absolute majority, it means you won a majority of all possible votes. The distinction between the last two can be illustrated thus: In a legislature of 400 members and a quorum of 201 members, a question could pass with a majority of 101 to 100. An absolute majority, though, would require 201 (a majority of 400), no matter how many members voted. VVD won 26.6% of the vote, so it is almost halfway short of being a majority. With a turnout of about 75%, we can estimate VVD's vote at 20% of registered voters, leaving them at about 40% of what they'd need for an absolute majority. -Rrius (talk) 04:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cabinet formation[edit]

Shouldn't there be a separate article for the government formation? I know this government formation was rather short and straight-forward (except for the commotion around the income-dependent health insurance) but it seems such an odd breach in policy that there are articles for the 2003, 2006-2007 and 2010 formations, but there is none for the most recent one. Not to mention it would get really jarring if the next formation does turn out complex enough to warrant a separate page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.176.118.47 (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

Why does this article use a different type of infobox than all of the previous Dutch election articles? Where is the consensus to change this article but not the earlier ones? I thought to ask finally since now the most recent UK election article is using this style but not the previous ones, and some users insist on keeping some election articles in this "new" way, to the extent where the UK election article has been protected. Dayshade (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The TILE infobox has been used for a long-time on this article. I support its continued use here. It better represents the spread of parties winning seats in the election in a neutral manner. If you're the only person wanting to switch to the TIE format, I suggest we go back to what we've been using for a fair while. Bondegezou (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TILE was only used since May 8 of last year (prior to which it was TIE), when it was changed with no consensus, followed by multiple changes back to TIE that were reverted also without consensus. As for neutrality, I don't see how listing the parties in order of their seat numbers violates that, as only the parties with two seats are excluded, so there seems to be an existing standard for inclusion in the main infobox that to me is reasonable, unlike with the problems with TIE on the UK election page. And lastly all the previous elections are using TIE, so unless someone is willing to change all the Dutch elections to TILE I think using TILE here would be quite a negative change. Dayshade (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox election was initially designed for US elections with only two candidates or parties. Then a third parameter was added to reflect three-party systems, and then a second line (parties 4–6) to reflect multiparty systems. However, the template was never designed to reflect massively multiparty systems like the Netherlands. The third line (parties 7–9) was added much later (without discussion – someone just did it) and I didn't think it was a good idea because it created huge infoboxes that dominate the whole article layout, at least on smaller screens. In my opinion, Template:Infobox legislative election would already be better fitting for systems with 7–9 parliamentary parties. Yet, even nine fields are still not enough for a system like the Dutch, with currently eleven parliamentary parties. And the number of parties in parliament may increase yet again after the next election. The infobox template was never designed for such a situation. Including nine parliamentary parties and excluding two, just because the technical limit is at nine, is totally arbitrary and not acceptable. It contravenes Wikipedia core policies WP:NPOV (the two smallest parties with parliamentary representation are ignored in the infobox arbitrarily and without a good reason) and WP:Verifiability (there is no source for a division between the nine bigger and the two smaller parliamentary parties). On the other hand, WP:Having a nice infobox with pictures just like in other election articles is not a Wikipedia policy at all. There is neither an election threshold like in Germany nor a customary division between major (relevant) and minor (irrelevant) parties like in the US that would help us to decide which parties to include and which to exclude. Therefore we have to include all parliamentary parties, which is possible with Template:Infobox legislative election. The latter is much better fitted to a massively multiparty system like the Dutch. Of course the other articles about Dutch elections should use the same infobox. I would like to invite @Number 57: as one of the most active and experienced users in the field of election articles to this discussion. Perhaps you can help in coming to a decision. --RJFF (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the use of the legislative infobox here – it was specifically designed for countries like the Netherlands where there are a large number of parties in parliament and no-one anywhere near having a majority. Infoboxes are supposed to be a summary, but the one currently being used is nothing like that – it's three screens long on my laptop, whereas the other one fits all 11 parties on a single screen. No brainer as far as I'm concerned. Number 57 19:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I don't mind the change at all now that it was applied to all the Dutch elections. :P Dayshade (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Though I would only agree about NPOV/Verifiability if there were two parties of equal seat numbers of which one was included and one not included to be honest. Lots of things are arbitrary. :P Dayshade (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dutch general election, 2012. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 01:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Dutch general election, 2012. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Dutch_general_election&oldid=1196613238"