Shouldn't the title be plural? I believe that is customary in English for any elections, but here there is not just one election but a whole bunch of them. DirkvdM 08:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For me (Firefox 1.5) there is an issue with the [edit] buttons not appearing correctly, the 3 of them are bunched up below the results paragraph and are transposed over the text, making the last sentence unreadable. No idea what's causing it.

Float stack: when several object wth both float and clear (typically images and templates) attributes stretch over headers, it causes the [edit] link to move.--Circeus 01:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On tv last night they said that the turnout in Delfzijl was 47,3% and that of those votes 20% were blanc. This has now twice been changed to those blanc votes being partial cause of the low turnout and the Volkskrant today seems to support that, but states that it was almost a quarter of the votes. Anyone now for once and for all (yeah, right :) ) what the truth is here? DirkvdM 12:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article describes the vote in Delfzijl. Apparently 3.012 of 10.317 votes were blank. If we know how many voters were elligible to vote we can do the math :) jacoplane 12:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That 47.3% turnout number is wrong. 47.3% is the number of valid votes as percentage of the total possible votes. Total possible votes = 10317 / 0.473 = 21812. Total blanco votes = 3012 Total valid votes = 10317. Voter turnout = (3012+10317) / 21812 = 61.2%. Intangible 13:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion arrose early in the evening when the television programme (Nederland 2) on the municipal elections interpreted the figures incorrectly. And as so often happens, everyone else parroted the first medium that announced the figures, whithout checking them. On Groningen television (TVNoord) I watched mayor Cees Waal reading the outcomes; the version that is given in the article that Jacoplane cites is certainly not what the mayor literally said, despite the quotation marks in it. Wikiklaas 17:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Delfzijl results are as given here (source: de Volkskrant): PvdA 3754; Gemeentebelangen 248; CDA 1468; VVD 1168; CU 1823; Lijst Stulp 1204; PvhN 652; together this makes 10317 votes (= 47.3%) but that is without the 3012 blank votes. Wikiklaas 17:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I was browsing through other links and noticed that it naming conventions seem to vary by article. Some use the translated names, others the dutch abbreviations (like this one) others write out the dutch name in full. Is there any standard policy on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SanderJK (talk • contribs)

It's best to use the translated name. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). jacoplane 14:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, the problem is that some dutch political party names become extremely long in nonabbreviated form (People's Party for Freedom and Democracy) and are unclear names to natives since they almost never appear unabbreviated (VVD, CDA in particular) let alone translated. And since political articles tend to mention party names a lot it can become very hard to read. SanderJK 14:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think in this case it's fine to use the abbreviations. They are redirected in any case. The actual article titles should remain in English though. jacoplane 14:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fair. However, 'PvdA' is usually written as 'Labour Party', which is very confusing because that's also the name of a UK party. Labour party even states that the PvdA uses that name. Do they? But then it gives a listing of different socialist parties. So why is the SP not in that list? Alright, I could add it. But is Groenlinks also a socialist party? You can't group parties together like this. In Dutch politics articles, wherever I see 'Labour Party' I always change it to 'PvdA', but there really should be a consistent rule here. Consistent meaning using the Dutch name because some names can't be translated. Have a look at List of political parties in the Netherlands. Take ChristenUnie for example. 'Union' means something completely different in English, so that translation would be even more confusing to the non-Dutch than to the Dutch. In English, any political organisation called 'Union' will most definitely not be a party, I assume. Anyway, shouldn't that be 'Christians Union' (it's not 'Christelijke Unie').

And I'd be curious what a translation of Mokum Mobiel would be. I see ther is a stub on Mobile Netherlands. But shouldn't that be Netherlands Mobile? Why change the order of the words? Different people will translate differently and that is going to be a constant problem unless we decide not to translate at all. And then there's 'O O The Hague'? Oh dear me, yes, that should make that a lot clearer to native English speakers. :) Let's face it, you can't translate some names, so you shouldn't translate any. DirkvdM 19:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is a problem in the translation of names. The current policy, which I support, is to translate names. But to make the discussion as open as possible we should maybe take it to List of political parties in the Netherlands. C mon 20:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Van Aartsen was fractievoorzitter (fractionleader), not lijsttrekker. Infact Van Aartsen never was ahead of a list of candidates.

Well, he was the "politiek aanvoerder", or "political captain", whatever that means. He had said that he would like to be the lijsttrekker, though clearly that is no longer the case. jacoplane 19:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was, until now, the only candidate for the election to become lijsttrekker for the next national election, while not formally having that title. But you are right, last election Gerrit Zalm was lijsttrekker.SanderJK 23:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i don't believe we can just translate fractie with fraction, it just isn't right in english i believe. faction sounds better. Boneyard 19:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, fraction seems incorrect. SanderJK 22:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both are incorrect. Parliamentary Party is the right translation (according to my dictionary) C mon 22:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thats fine with me also, as long as fraction goes :) Boneyard 22:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little more complete, van Dale says 'parliamentary party' for 'representatives of a party' (as in 'in parliament', I suppose) and 'faction' for 'group within a party'. I wonder what that last bit is meant to refer to. Something like Wilders before he split of, or more vaguely like the left and right wing of CDA? DirkvdM 20:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link on the bottom of the page mentioning rutte links to politics in the netherlands, but as far as i can see (ctrl F) there is no mention of staatsecretaris or State Secretary, as seems to be the english translation of the title (as by www.government.nl). Not sure if the concept is explained anywhere, i think i saw it mentioned as "Deputy Minister in some articles"SanderJK 00:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was a typo, thanks for noticing! it was supposed to link to Politics of the Netherlands (terminology)

That page btw was set up to address the issue of the translation of dutch political terms and titles to solve the state secretary/junior minister/deputy minister/vice minister-problem.

C mon 20:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better writing if somebody were to insert at the front of the article what the Party acronyms actually stand for - or provide links for them.--John 02:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made the table, with the seat loss as shown on tv. Someone changed some entries, including the loss for Leefbaar, from -288 to -80. That sounds unlikely. They lost a lot more, didn't they? And another change was for the local parties. I had put down 358, and that was changed to 2204. Out of about 10.000? With a loss of 208? Did local parties have 1/4 of the seats? DirkvdM 20:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC) DirkvdM 20:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the table, according to the Volkskrant of March 8, local and other parties fell from 2412 to 2104 (-208). Leefbaar fell from 266 to 146 seats (-80). Leefbaar was really hyped and they only had candidates in some municipalities. C mon 21:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somone moved the bits under 'campaign' and 'voter trunout' up, above the results. I'd say the results should come first. That would also put the table next to the template, causing less white space (an alternative to that last bit might be to float the table, if anyone knows how to do that). DirkvdM 20:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]