Talk:Bundestag

message: Why so much detail on the 11th term (1987 thru 1990)? MartinHH 22:34, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ?

message: I took the liberty to remove a few of the categories that this article was placed into.
Removed categories:
*:Category:Political science terms: "Bundestag" is not a political science term such as Realpolitik or Nation-state are (all found under that category). Since "Bundestag" is only ever used to refer to the German legislature, it's more like a proper noun similar to the "United States House of Representatives" or the "British House of Commons".
*:Category:German loanwords: "Bundestag" is only ever used to refer to the German legislature. Until it is used to refer to something else, it is merely a German word used in the English language when talking about that specific meaning. As Loanword suggests, for a word to be a loan word, it must have a somewhat common use within its respective field (e.g. law, political science, etc.) which "Bundestag" does not.
*:Category:Germany: Both :Category:Government of Germany and :Category:Politics of Germany are sub-categories of :Category:Germany so there's no need to explicitly add :Category:Germany to the article.
*:Category:Government of Germany: :Category:Legislative Branch of the German Government is a sub-category of :Government of Germany so there's no need to add this category explicitly.
*:Category:German law: The "Bundestag", while originator of most positive federal law in Germany, is not actually part of the German law. For any legislation to become law, the Bundestag is only one part in a complex play between several constitutional institutions. How out of place "Bundestag" as an article is within that category is especially apparent when looking at the other articles within :Category:German law.
sebmol 18:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization 

message: One MP left the Group of the Left Party an is now independent (Winkelmeier). Could anyone more experienced than me change the graphics? Thanks.--62.246.31.81 18:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current situation

message: Yep, no longer 614. Matthias Wissmann (CDU/CSU Fraktion) has resigned an there's no possible replacement per overhang seats in Baden-Württemberg: see  and . I have edited List of Bundestag Members, but I think we need a major review of all Bundestag-related articles. --Neigel von Teighen 13:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  613 Abgeordnete since July 1st 

message: The name of the first president is wrong ! It was Erich Köhler.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.34.252.245 (talk) 10:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: president

message: :Beweisen Sie vor dem Bundesrat, Bundespräsidenten, Bundesverfassungsgericht, Europäischen Gerichtshof alle bzw. jede Einzelne "Ja-Stimme" bzw. alle Enthaltungen und Gegenstimmen!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.193.11 (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Guten Tag? Wie gehts? -- 84.142.82.70 (talk) 11:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Namentliche Abstimmung Bundestag Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung 24.4.2008 zu den "Verträgen von Lissabon"

message: Jörg Tauss (MP for the SPD) left the SPD recently, becoming unaffiliated. Thus SPD now has only 221 MPs. Could someone change the infobox accordingly? 
Also, Peter Jahr (CDU) will leave the Bundestag until mid July for the European parliament, reducing the CDU to 222 seats. (His seat will not be refilled since it's an overhang seat). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Party change SPD to "Unaffiliated" 

message: Members of the German Bundestag shall be elected in general, direct, free, equal and secret elections. --Espoo (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe because that's the normal thing in democracies? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  most important info about Bundestag and most important part of constitution not quoted 

message: The relevant article in Wikipedia is States of Germany, yet the section Bundestag#Election here uses "Lands", which may be linguistically correct (although the corrent plural is "Länder"), but it becomes awkward with "Land lists" (Länderlisten) and it seems "states" or "federal states" is the common name in English and of course the one used in Wikipedia. -- megA (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election: Federal "States" or "Lands"? 

message: Now there are overhang seats (Überhangmandate) and additional balance seats (Ausgleichsmandate) to preserve the ratio between parties. Given the result of the election 2009 the Bundestag elected under the new system would have 671 members (598 regular + 26 overhang seats + 47 balance seats).--Marnal (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election system 2013 

message: I noticed that the infobox refers to the outgoing 17th Bundestag, but the diagram of seat distribution reflects the incoming 18th Bundestag, which has not convened yet. Should we clarify which one the diagram illustrates, or perhaps include both as the German Wikipedia has done? aoxiang翱翔(user)(talk) 12:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a good idea. The article as it stands now isn't accurate, since the distribution shown is that of the next parliament, which doesn't take office until later this month. It would be fine to include both if we had similar graphics for both the 17th and 18 Bundestage. If not, I would actually just list the 17th Bundestag with a title like, "17th Bundestag (outgoing 22 October 2013)" or something. Something better than that, of course, but with a reference to the fact that it is in the process of being changed. Then we could include the 18th Bundestag data below in a section about the incoming parliament. What do you think? Ljpernic (talk) 13:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think it would be best if we could include both, as this would be the most informative and would have the added advantage of illustrating the difference between the two. If we don't have similar graphics for both, though, I think your suggestion would be ideal, as it would reflect the current composition of the Bundestag while including information about its successor. Looking at a pre-election version of the article, though, it seems that a similar graphic (:File:17th Bundestag of Germany.svg) does exist - would this be usable? Thanks! aoxiang翱翔(user)(talk) 13:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh good, you found a good graphic. I looked around a little, but didn't have time to give it a proper search. I say go for it. Good find! We'll just have to remember to update it come the 22nd. Ljpernic (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for all your help! Unfortunately, I'm not really sure how to insert two diagrams into one parameter. I tried putting both diagrams into the structure1 parameter, but that just broke it. I haven't saved my edits on the article yet, but I've experimented with using the structure1 and structure2 parameters, and here's the result. Of course, I know this isn't really what the structure1 and structure2 parameters are for, and I would rather put the labels above the diagrams to avoid confusion, so an alternative would definitely be ideal. I'm not very good at editing infoboxes, though - what do you think? Might it be possible to insert two diagrams into one parameter after all? Sorry for this! aoxiang翱翔(user)(talk) 14:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  17th vs. 18th Bundestag in infobox 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Bundestag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110112073548/http://www.tab.fzk.de:80/de/brief/brief32.pdf to http://www.tab.fzk.de/de/brief/brief32.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071007072932/http://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/wahlen/pm-wahl-16-dbt/pd040211.htm to http://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/wahlen/pm-wahl-16-dbt/pd040211.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, I dont really know how to change this myself, but there are only 630 members now, as Katherina Reiche dropped out and wasnt replaced. Source for this is the website of the Bundestag itself, with a handy graphic https://www.bundestag.de/bundestag/plenum/sitzverteilung_18wp  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.133.18.58 (talk) 09:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  630 Members 

message: I added that the Bundestag used to be the Nazi Reichstag and was also formed from the East German Volkskammer.  The Volkskammer was merged into the Bundestag when the wall fell (see German reunification#Constitutional merger), but there's no info in the history section of this article or in the Volkskammer history about how they came together.Timtempleton (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing info about predecessor 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bundestag. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304054257/https://open.corsis.eu/ to https://open.corsis.eu/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The image showing the party affiliations of the Bundestag members does not have the correct seat order. The liberals (FDP) are seated between CDU/CSU and AfD.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.112.177.67 (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seating of the Bundestag 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bundestag. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928053901/http://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/bundestagswahl2005/downloads/Karte_Wahlkreise_16DBT_A1.pdf to http://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/bundestagswahl2005/downloads/Karte_Wahlkreise_16DBT_A1.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Der Deutsche Bundestag fördert im Rahmen der Bundesagentur fuer Arbeit ("4.2.5. Gründungszuschuss") die Wirtschaftliche Existenzgruendung mit Stand Novemer 2018 mit bis zu €400.000.000 Euro https://con.arbeitsagentur.de/prod/apok/ct/dam/download/documents/Weisung201305005_ba013707.pdfhttps://statistik.arbeitsagentur.de/Statistikdaten/Detail/201811/arbeitsmarktberichte/monatsbericht-monatsbericht/monatsbericht-d-0-201811-pdf.pdfhttps://www.pwc.se/rpa192.121.232.253 (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Euro 400.000.000

message: To discussed the matter easily, I'll open this subsection. With Flourish I can change the style and form of "Draft A", here an example. As requested the rows are more symmetrical now, the dots can be bigger or smaller, the circle in the middle can be made more borad or the contrary, make it narrower, also the space between the rows can be wider or narrower (however I personally think the current space among the rows works), also the arch can be rounded (i.e. the gap between the Left and AfD can be narrow it down or the contrary), but similarly I think current is the best. 
The only thing I can't do is the space among the groups but that can be solved by creating a ghost group between the real groups and erase it manually like Alektor did. Although if that space is not strictly necessary I recommend overlook it as it would save time and effort. So a temptative option would be this. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 12:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, that's good, I like that! Personally, I think it would maybe look a little bit better with the "walkspaces". Maybe, over the weekend I will "play" a bit with this Flourish-tool (didn't know about it) and make a draft with spaces, upload it here, and then we can look, which one looks better. OK? Alektor89 (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, is here, is very fun to use and user friendly. Feel free to alter the A or any of the other files in existence to save space. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the walkspaces, what do you think? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not bad, we are going in the right direction. Flourish is a nice tool, by the way. After I have seen that one can determine the number of rows in the diagram, I have once again checked the official seat plan and counted them. In the current BT there are 11 to 13 rows with seats, so I made a diagram with 11 rows as a draft (yours had 10, if I counted right). Has the side effect of making the diagram look a little bit more "compact". But I can also make it with 12 or 13 rows, if you think, this looks better. I have also adjusted manually the seat-positions of the four independents (3 behind the AfD, 1 behind the SPD in the last row on the seat that is nearest to the middle and one "chair" distinct from the members of the group). What do you think? Alektor89 (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not bad, tho I personally like the dots to be little smaller. How about that design with the dot size of current A? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, maybe this is the fault of my PC, but in A the dots are so small that I rather see "lines" than descrete points [my eyes are absolutely OK, I don't even have to wear glasses ;-) ;-)]. But just make a draft, maybe this looks better with 11 "rows". Alektor89 (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Must be a matter of size of the picture because I do see the dots, but I guess if that's the case then a more universally looking file would be needed. You have my consent on using the "Bundestag012019" if you wish. And the good thing is that thanks to Flourish it will be as easy to update if necessary as it is with Wmflabs. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I will do so. Good that this problem is solved. Alektor89 (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Diagram A

message: I think that the Bundestag article, should include that the interim government led by Merkel, should be labeled as a caretaker government until the new one is inaugurated. It makes sense and this format was used back in 2017, when Merkel was negotiating Jamaica and the Grand coalition.  - FellowMellow (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caretaker Option 

message: In history it says tag and in brackets (day)
This is not correct, tag means Diet, from the old word meaning people. This is translated as a false friend. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 06:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag meaning day? 

message: As technically an external link, it is usually placed in the "External links" section, but it is currently in the "See also" section.  I'd like to come to a consensus about moving it. —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikimedia Commons template placement? 

message: The Bundestag has changed its voting system.
https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundestag-stimmt-fuer-umstrittene-wahlrechtsreform-nach-hitziger-debatte-a-5c05ff7e-ea42-4be7-8cf5-67e7a7402342
Now it can't be more than 630 Mandats. But it's not in the article.
It will be used at the next election 2025 if the Bundesverfassungsgericht doesn't forbid it. Here's an article in English language:https://www.dw.com/en/germany-passes-law-to-shrink-its-xxl-parliament/a-64471203 Geltopak37 (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New voting system 

message: It does not make any sense showing the BSW as a political party. it is just a verein/association. the main wiki page of it also says that but on the picture of the seats of the bundestag in the info box a small dark purple circle inside of the purple circle and "BSW" would be interpreted by some people as if the bSW would be a party. it is not yet a party. It should be like on the german page of the Bundestag where the 10 members of the left are "Parteilose". Moctezuma1466 (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: supported  tried to change to independent but was reverted.  it is not a party.  nobody knows whether or when it will become a party.  nobody knows, who will then join it.  --Nillurcheier (talk) 09:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  BSW is not a political party