Politics Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Netherlands Template‑class

This template falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Please stop removing links to individual elections in this kind of templates. As you can see the purpose is to create links to political pages on the netherlands. I do not see any disadvantage of listing these elections. PZFUN stated that This template is for over-arching themes in the politics of a country, and the invidiual years are not over-arching themes. I do not see why this statement is true, especially since I was the one who started this template. Improvements are welcome, but do not delete this kind of links. Gangulf 12:38, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The presentation is a bit odd, with the monarchy and the constitution in one section. The Netherlands is often called a 'constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy', but that's just a phrase. First of all it's the latter. That it's a monarchy is hardly political because the king has no power at all. Only in an advisory sense and if that is a criterium it makes more sense to put the Council of State in. At the very least, the monarchy bit should go to the bottom, I'd say, and separated from the constitution (which should remain at the top becaue that is the most overriding 'power'). I know I'm going against the grain, but that doens't mean I'm wrong. :) Or does this presentation follow some general political template? DirkvdM 07:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just changed the way the whole template is set up because there was little structure in it. I don't know if there is a Wikipedia standard (there should be), so I used Template:Politics of Canada as a basis to work from because that is also a 'Parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy'. There are, however, no judicial articles to link to, so I omitted that bit. DirkvdM 13:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is more or less a informal standard developping. This is different from the Canadian one. Most of the country politics templates do not link to articles that are not concerning the country. Bijvoorbeeld: een artikel over parlementaire democratie hoort niet in deze template thuis, die gaat namelijk niet over Nederland.

Het is overigens moeilijk om alle templates identiek te krijgen, omdat sommige sterk beïnvloed worden door de voorkeur van editors uit het betreffende land. Zie bijvoorbeeld Israel of Venezuela. De meeste Europese templates hebben nu een vrijwel identieke opbouw, daar wijkt Nederland nu vanaf. Ik zal de template weer in overeenstemming brengen met wat thans meer gebruikelijk is. 159.46.248.232 15:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC) (=Electionworld)Reply[reply]

Please speak Dutch and sign and/or indent properly. You say there is a standard emerging for European countries. Is this a more or less official policy (in other words has it been discussed in general terms?) or is there just a convergence in the way it's done? I'm not too fond of the way it looks now. For example, it states right at the top that it's a kingdom and then follows that it's a constitutional monarchy. But it doesn't say it's a parliamentary democracy and only then come the parliamentary bits. This is misleading to say the least. For us Dutch it might be clear that the bit at the top is just in name (although I've even heard Dutch people who think the king has real power), but for others that will not be quite so obvious. DirkvdM 08:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some of us have been working on a list of technical terminology of dutch politics, which is not easily translated into english (see Politics of the Netherlands (terminology)). Can I put this page on the template? C mon 17:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I've already put the template in the article, so why not return the favour? :) The template is mostly for institutions (although the drugs policy is also on it, which I have my doubts about), but the article concerns all things to do with Dutch politics, so it does make some sense. DirkvdM 09:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Balkenende II is currently demissionair, B. announced the resignation of the cabinet 3 minutes after that the D66 minsters. I think it is confusing to mark BII as a CDA/VVD cabinet. V8rik 23:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But currently, the government only consists of CDA and VVD, and so will the new rompkabinet, no? —Nightstallion (?) 12:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In different tables, graphs and articles the Dutch political parties are given different colors. I would like to propose a standard list of RGB colours to use consistently. Please react to my proposal for consistent RGB colour scheme discussed at Talk:List_of_political_parties_in_the_Netherlands/colours. thanks for any input Arnoutf 17:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nightstallion changed the wikilink for 'First Chamber Elections 2007' from Dutch provincial elections, 2007 to Dutch Eerste Kamer election, 2007. I wonder if it's wise to create a separate article for thes elections. There is already very little to say about them and whatever political implications they may have, these can easily be dealt with in Dutch provincial elections, 2007. I really appreciate your effort to completely cover Dutch politics on en.wikipedia, but I also appreciate lean/meanness. Other opinions?--Dengo 17:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beter have one good article then 10 bad one i'd say. C mon 23:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just created a new article Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands (which apparently is the official name of the Statute according to the ministry of Internal Affairs). Please critically review (and edit). Would it be something to maybe include in the template? Or do we rather limit the template to the European Netherlands? Personally, I stand neutral at this point. oops forgot to sign: --Dengo 21:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can someone please remove the orange coloring? -- eiland (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why? C mon (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

None of the other templates have a color, and i think its a reference to the last name of the dutch royals, "of orange", but its hideous to imply that all the politics in the Netherlands are colored by the royals. -- eiland (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It implies that orange is a colour linked to the Dutch state, which is true. Any way there is no standard colour for templates (see ((Politics of Belgium)) and ((Politics of Germany)) and "smaken verschillen" (hideous is no argument). C mon (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, at least the german is readable, which you cant say of the Dutch and Belgian ones :) -- eiland (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since you feel so strongly about this, I won´t revert your actions. But I won´t do the edit either, cause it is an arbitrary issue of taste. C mon (talk) 07:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks, thats friendly. However, Im not so familiar with this complex code for the blox. -- eiland (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]