Talk:2006 Dutch municipal elections

message: 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)
replies: text: No reactions yet, so I'll make the move. And I'll give it the same format as the general elections articles, so "Dutch municipal elections, 2006" (was "2006 Dutch municipal elections").  DirkvdM 20:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plural

message: 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)
thread_title: Page doesn't load right

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Delfzijl 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Van Aartsen 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree, fraction seems incorrect. SanderJK 22:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are incorrect. Parliamentary Party is the right translation (according to my dictionary) C mon 22:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  thats fine with me also, as long as fraction goes :) Boneyard 22:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  fraction 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Help 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Order of sections 

message: I think if the politics box is ging to be there, then it ought to be at the top. It looks ridiculously out of place there. Circeus 21:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and what is that new box doing there? It doesn't give any extra info, except for the percentage change, which doesn't seem necessary to me or else could be added to the table. I'll be bold and remove it and move the politics box up. DirkvdM 07:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I wanted to put the photo just to the left of the politbox, but forgot how to do that. Anyone else? DirkvdM 07:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't do that without removing the clear:right; style on the box or picture, something I would not recommend. Circeus 16:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politibox 

message: Maybe it is just me,but wouldn't it makemore sense to have the sections in chronologicval order? That is, "campaign", "voters turnout", "results" and "aftermath"? (although I haven't read thoroughly through "Voter turnout",which might have more to do with "aftermath"). Circeus 18:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seemed to make more sense to me to have the results first, because that's what it's all about and what readers will be interrested in first. If you'd read an article about some elections somewhere what part would you look at first? Having said that, I suppose the table should also give an indication of the political orientation of the parties. I'll fix that now. DirkvdM 19:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to know the political orientation of the parties you can just click the link. Things like left liberal or right-wing don't have meaning anyways. Intangible 20:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They have vague meanings, but how else can one describe a party in a few words? A more precise description should be in the party article, but no-one is going to read all those first before reading this, so a short description is needed for those who don't know what kind of parties they're looking at but want to know a bit about the Netherlands. DirkvdM 05:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  section order 

message: Quote from the article:
"D66 fractievoorzitter Lousewies van der Laan remarked that this was the tenth election in a row (over 12 years) that D66 lost seats and that this time they would not seek the cause in external factors but within the party itself. People no longer know what D66 stands for. An example was the wavering stance of D66 on the Afghanistan mission debates in December and January, first opposing it and then going along with it."
What bothers me is the last sentence. Is it true? As far as I know, D66 remained against sending soldiers to Afghanistan, even though there was a large majority in the Second Chamber for the proposal. One of the few times D66 didn't waver at all. Freako 13:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afghanistan & D66 

message: Maybe this is a good place to gather info on which coalitions were formed, so that when the list is compete for the most important cities, that info can be added to the article. Adding it bit by bit would be a bit messy. DirkvdM 06:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coalitions