Template talk:Belgian political parties

message: Some remarks:
* In my opinion the new template layout is much to cluttered. I would prefer the simpler old layout.
* It is somewhat a dubious choice to put List Dedecker as a liberal party (and not as an autonomist party) while putting Spirit as an autonomist party (and not as a liberal party).  Although both parties are very different they both claim to be as well autonomist as liberal. 
* What kind of logic is used to include or exclude parties? 
** A seat in the federal parliament? As far as I know the Christian Social Party has no seat in the federal parliament and is included.
** A seat in any federal or regional parliament? The Union des Francophones has a seat in the Flemish Parliament and is not included
--Donar Reiskoffer 13:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the table is cluttered, but I also like the rows and collums alot. I think our best shot is to emphasise the cartels more instead of the ideologies. C mon 14:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, yeah. I tried to make it less cluttered by using the abbreviations instead, and I do agree with including the UF. —Nightstallion (?) 17:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's stick to parties that have representation on the federal and regional level. Intangible2.0 17:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criteria

message: I'm opposed to the current division of parties in the template. It's confusing and inaccurate. N-VA is not christian democratic and is a separatist party, with a comprehensive liberal-economic program. N-VA and Bart Dewever himself have complained that media only portrays him and his party as only seperatist. Wikipedia should not be equally biased. List Dedecker and VLOTT are liberal parties, that also strongly focus on Flemish independence. Spirit is a regionalist and leftish liberal (not social democratic; they are followers of John Rawls) party. Furthermore, Vivant was a Belgian-wide political party, not a Flemish one. Further, the current template division is clearly inspired by the current cartels, but these parties were not always part of one group (N-VA participated in the 2003 federal elections without a cartel, and the cartel was briefly blown when Dedecker joined N-VA). As a consequence, they should be separated. I would just return to the old division: alphabetical order per language group (including a "Belgian" group: Vivant, BUB). Sijo Ripa 10:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's better to call those latter parties unitary instead of Belgian, to avoid confusion. Intangible2.0 17:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone entered bilingual in this table. This is not fully correct, as parties like Ecolo and Vivant also take part in the elections for the German-speaking Community. Intangible2.0 01:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current template

message: I reverted some anon edits and further edits by Electionworld here. I know the template looks akward now, qua alignment but I felt that the anon was reverting to a version which was illogical. I hope template can be realigned. 
We need to have some consensus what this template is about and how to organize it. The version I reverted to works under three assumptions
# The template is about parties, not cartels or common lists. That means the UF is off and Vivant is on
# Only parties are included with federal, European or regional (gewest/gemeenschap) representation.
# The parties are ordered according to language group (no problem there) and the five basic trans-lingual party families (socialist, green, liberal, christian democratic, nationalist).
To me these three assumptions seem logical: include what is necessary and not more (or less) and order them in the least number of clearly defined categories. I call to editors to respond to these assumptions so we can agree on a set of assumptions and I hope that any further changes are discussed in line with some alterations of such assumptions. C mon 22:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: --81.82.13.110 20:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion

message: The PRL still exists, just take a look at the site of the MR and especially the statutes of the MR (here. The PRL is on equal stand with the MCC, PFF and the FDF. The first line of the MR statute reads "Le Mouvement Réformateur est l'alliance des formations politiques PRL, PFF, FDF et MCC." (Translation: The Reformist Movement is an alliance of the political formations PRL, PFF, FDF and MCC.). For the entire statutes the PRL is treated as a member party of the MR. The description of the PRL on the MR site: "Le PRL (pour Parti Réformateur Libéral) est le plus ancien parti belge" (Translation: the PRL (for the Liberal Reformist Party) is (note: present tense) the oldest political Belgian party.).I have tried to represent the strange relationship between MR, PRL, FDF, PFF and MCC on the template.C mon 15:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had read the statutes of the party, but I can nowhere find information about the continuation of the PRL after the formation of the movement. I've got the impression that the PRL doesn't exist anymore (see also the entry Liberal Reformist Party. Electionworld) as it was until today.  Talk? 17:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that wikis are not considered reliable sources. But one could also try the French wikipedia (native language, longer, which I did not edit). "Le Parti réformateur libéral ou PRL est un parti politique libéral belge composante principale du Mouvement réformateur ".  The reformist liberal party or PRL is (present tense) a belgian political party, which is the principal component of the Reformist Movement. It also lists the allegiance of MR members to the component parties. C mon 17:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that when I speak members of the MR, they never present themselves as members of PRL, where members of MCC and FDF still consider themselves members of the component parties. PRL was member of ELDR, but this is continued by MR. The MR has a president, but does the PRL still have a president. The Dutch WIkipedia] lists its last president in 2002 and it writes at MR that only the last three members (MCC, FDF and PFF) have kept their own structures. I think it is worthwile to contact MR. Electionworld Talk? 21:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You can do that, but that would be original research. C mon 08:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: BUt it wouldn't be original research if it would lead us to a source. Electionworld Talk? 19:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PRL