This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This article 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
This article 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
Can someone please put the 2021 election results on top with a darker background? These are not opinion polls but a benchmark of sorts for comparison of subsequent polls. This is being done right in other articles and here wrong. Also last time around. One had to scroll pages for comparison. Only right before the elections, it was corrected. Now it's bad again. gidonb (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added this party to the infobox yesterday, as it currently has three MPs. It was removed with the claim that its members are independents. This makes the article inconsistent with Belang van Nederland, which shows the party has holding three seats. Should they be reinstated? Number57 11:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Netherlands has new cabinet and the next elections is in 2025. The polls need be moved but i lack the skills for this table move.Shadow4dark (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We know nothing about which parties will participate. Placing this in the infobox is misleading.. Dajasj (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We always have this lists on English Wikipedia as it shows current seats and not the participants until the election date Shadow4dark (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shadow4dark is correct, this is standard practice. Please stop removing it. Cheers, Number57 21:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need to track those not participating? Were not a news site and after some time this does not have any value anymore... Dajasj (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not uncommon in election articles, or sometimes even in dedicated list articles. See, for example, Belgium, Czechia, France, Ireland and the UK. Luxorr (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of them are recent elections, suffering from the same problem, where something appears major now but isnt in history. And we're not a news site. People now might be interested, but I wont be interested in which backbencher did not participate. I would prefer a balanced discussion of what transpired during the election. Which btw would include mentioning Simons, Rutte, Kaag, Hoekstra, Klaver, Azarkan and Kuiken stepping down as lijsttrekker.
The most problematic thing is that we're dedicating a section on who is not participating, but not discussing who are participating. Dajasj (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The whole section is to long and unnecessary, at least remove the political parties but keep the names. But I prefer to remove it all . Shadow4dark (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, we'll remove it then, provided the notable departures are mentioned in prose. Luxorr (talk) 08:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made a start with changing it. We could add more about leadership elections when those parties have officially selected their party leader Dajasj (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dajasj @Shadow4dark @Ætoms @Number 57 How do you feel about replacing the "Prime Minister before" and "Prime Minister after" infobox fields in Dutch general election articles with "Cabinet before" and "Cabinet after", similar to German election articles? The composition of the government before and after the election seems to me more relevant, especially in a country where the ideological character of the government can change significantly while the Prime Minister remains (eg. Rutte I to Rutte II), and where the Prime Minister is (certainly historically) less powerful than in other countries. Luxorr (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cant add it right now, but the Greens and pirate party are combining a list Dajasj (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source here, but very little is still known (no name, no lijsttrekker, etc.). I'd suggest waiting until there's at least a name and a little more confirmation? AnarchistiCookie (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The same can be said for PvdA - GL btw ;) The problem is that there is now inaccurate info.. Dajasj (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added it to the article. Since it's a list of parties that have announced their intent to participate in the election, I think it should be fine. In theory, all parties in the list can still back out, participate under a different name, etc. — Ætoms[talk] 15:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was several unsourced like that one of FVD that was not supported on their infobox so I had to revert it. Also some parties have 2 positions which was not added. Shadow4dark (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Until the Kiesraad confirms which parties will be on the ballot, I think we should limit inclusion in the parties table to parties which are in the Kiesraad's party register for general elections, or whose intention to contest the election has been confirmed by reliable third-party sources. What say you? Luxorr (talk) 09:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've uploaded a map template now for the upcoming election, as a non-dutch speaker I had to use google translate (and some help from a dutch friend) to get the translation as best as I could. if there's anything that's spelt wrong or worded incorrectly please let me know (other comments for things I could improve would also be appreciated) Matthew McMullin (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthew McMullin: I would strongly recommend deleting everything from the image except the main map. We don't need giant legends, smaller maps pie charts etc. The maps for the last few elections set a clear standard. The map you added to the Slovakian election article was similarly overcomplicated. All that was needed was the main map of the country. The creep of all this crap into maps in recent years is incredibly frustrating. Cheers, Number57 23:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find it a bit insulting that you've chosen to describe my stuff as "crap", there is absolutely no need to degrade the conversation to insults when all I am asking is for constructive feedback in a nice, friendly way... Matthew McMullin (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not describing your maps as crap – I am describing the unnecessary non-map details as crap (or cruft if you want a politer word). Number57 23:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what exactly is your reasoning to think that charts enabling readers to visually interpret the changes in votes that parties received from this election vs the last and allowing them to visualise the results through a pie chart is "crap"?. many wikipedia users are visual learners who can understand what is put forth to them through the use of graphics and visual tools rather than obscure text describing this hidden somewhere in the vast confines of the article itself. Matthew McMullin (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the section of the infobox is for maps, not for pie charts or whatever. Readers can see the changes by looking at the relevant section of the infobox (in this case the seat change column). If you want to add graphs, by all means create separate files and add them to the article, but don't clog up the map section of the infobox with overly-busy things that people can barely read. The maps for previous Dutch elections work well, because although they contain a graph, it's one that is fitted within the shape of the map without impacting the size of the map. Number57 23:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vote change and seat change are pretty much the same thing in the Netherlands as they use pure PR. And there are a lot of terrible maps on Wikipedia, and it doesn't justify terrible maps being used everywhere. The Ontario one is probably one of the worst examples I've ever seen and should probably be used as an example of things to avoid doing. The Brazilian one isn't so bad because the pie chart is fitted into the shape without compromising the map size. Number57 00:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the map. Here's some corrections you might make:
november is not capitalised in Dutch.
A better translation for seats would be zetels (above the pie chart).
The translation of turnout is opkomst.
Not strictly necessary but maybe binnenste ring instead of binnenring for the sake of consistency?
Thank you for the feedback, I've added the fixed translations now Matthew McMullin (talk) 07:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to design a good map with details per municipality for Dutch elections.
The proposed map suits elections with a limited number of parties and a winner-takes-all approach, like elections in the UK and USA. Dutch elections are different as there are many parties and every vote counts at the country level. A party second in each municipality may be largest at the country level.
The map visualises area size of a municipality where it should visualise the number of votes.
Suggestion: Design a Cartogram based on the number of votes.
Densely populated cites will be larger, doing justice to the number of votes.
For each municipality try to show votes for all parties. For example: use one pixel for 1/xth of the votes required for one seat.
I understand that under the dutch system it's difficult sometimes to pick colours but I have taken care to create seperately contrasting colour schemes so each is visible. a cartogram though of the map is not something I am at all willing to do. wikipedia maps are meant to showcase the actual real life boundaries of counties/munincipalities/provinces and not how many votes they get (this is furthermore irrelevant in the dutch system of a 1 singular national list form of proportional representation) Matthew McMullin (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
colours do have to be picked given the nature of shading, if for instance both the CDA and the PVdB win munincipalities I will have to shift their shadings so they are not easily confused with each other on the map. Matthew McMullin (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Municipalities are too small for these nuanced pixels. Dajasj (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a great infographic, thanks for that.
But in general, maps have no real meaning in the Netherlands. And provinces have even less meaning (we have kieskringen, maybe is that more suitable). I have no real objections to inclusion in the article, but visually we should focus in the infobox on the proportion, not on land. So I would prefer to have a bar graph or something to be more prominent. Dajasj (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
a stacked vertical bar chart with 20 bars, one bar per electoral district. Each bar subdivided by votes per party. A mouseover will show the exact number of votes
Keep in mind that not all kieskringen have the same population size or land size. Not every pixel has the same meaning thus. That might make it harder to understand.
I remember there being maps that simply show the vote share for each party in each municipality. In the end, that gives the most relevant information: which party is stronger where (relatively)? Dajasj (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, number of votes differs per district. In the example above Groningen has more votes than Leeuwarden. So each pixel DOES have the same meaning, both in cartogram and stacked bar chart. Uwappa (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah my bad, you're correct.
We should nevertheless not focus on geography. Proportional representation is most important, the rest is for political junkies. Dajasj (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
as I said before I am not doing a cartogram map. my map is fine as it is Matthew McMullin (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That map is suitable for the UK/USA winner of a constituency takes all approach, which does not apply in NL.
That map gives the false impression that blue won by a very large majority.
That map shows geography and area size, not number of votes.
That map does not show which party per area came out second, third, fourth, etc...
We should look for a graphic that suits the Dutch elections, where MP's do not represent a constituency, votes are summed up on a national level, with 20+ parties and even the largest party won't be anywhere near a 76 seat majority. See current polls, it would take at least 3 parties to form a majority coalition. Uwappa (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 2021 maps shows indeed the problem with such first-past-the-post colouring which has no meaning as the seat are divided proportional to popular vote. The blue party was indeed by far the largest at about 22% of the votes / seats. But the maps suggests a (huge) absolute majority. Nevertheless such chart are presented by newspapers too (albeit infrequently at province level).
My main concern however is, that given the relative un-importance of geographical distribution of votes in the Dutch system, and given that the infobox should give a high level summary of essential parameters, and given that the info box can only give a small panel for images (making it less suitable for complex graphs), I wonder whether it is a good idea at all to include this complex map in the infobox. Arnoutf (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your input however as I said before I will not be changing my map to a cartogram or a graph or a pixel combo, I am following the same style of map used in every previous dutch election. Matthew McMullin (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that sentiment. However that raises the question whether the map should be included in our (not only your) wikipedia article at all. (but I agree stacked bars and cartograms seem even a worse idea than the current map suggestion) Arnoutf (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC) Arnoutf (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You do have a point however that past Dutch election (all the way back to the 1930's) are reported at municipal level on a map. (There seems to be a shift in layout in the mid 1970's). So for consistency it makes sense to have a map this way here too (or discuss removal everywhere else). The questions raised before seem valid though. Is province (12) sensible or would it be better to either omit that presentation (it was not in any of the previous ones) or substitute by " kieskringen" (there are 20 of those with the Caribbean being one - not counted as separate province). Kieskringen may have some relevance as parties have to register per kieskring (even if votes count on national basis) which means that some of the smaller parties are not eligible in all kieskringen. The second concern raised on the pie chart also makes some sense to me. Pie chart are very hard to read especially if you have multiple parties with a similar orientation that cannot be ordered in an obvious way. So perhaps that is one to drop. Arnoutf (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find "we did it in the past" not a convincing argument. I agree that pie charts suck, so bar chart might be a better option (or maybe two horizontal stacked bar charts, one for seats and one for votes). But such a propotional chart should be made more prominent in the infobox. Because in the end municipal level maps are very misleading.
Btw, only very small parties dont participate in all kieskringen. Visually that wont really matter. Dajasj (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your comments. We did in the past is not a good argument indeed. However, I am a fan of consistency across current articles, so if we decide here a map makes no sense, that should probably also be implemented/dicussed in all other articles. I also agree all parties that will have a seat will be presentin all kieskringen, but if we need supra-municipal depiction kieskring still makes more sense than province in my opinion. Not sure about bar charts either, the theatre depiction (as in the results section) of seats distribution in the actual house does in my view give all the information that could be included in bar or pie charts already as the Netherlands has a proportional system. So I would go for such a graph if any. Arnoutf (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For a graph in the infobox I suggest a bar chart that shows just the end result, seats per party on a national level
sorted, largest parties first
including change since previous election.
That will make it easy to see:
which parties gained a lot of seats?
which parties lost a lot of seats?
which parties are new?
which parties won't return?
which larger parties add up to a possible majority coalition?
The map could move down, out of the lede. Uwappa (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this is the single most chaotic and frankly ill-faithed debate I've ever seen, I started this to get feedback on my maps dutch translation ect. not for it to be completely debated on not only its own removal but the removal of all dutch maps because some people for some reason think that pixel level cartogramic bar charts are a sound idea, what a mess of a debate frankly. Matthew McMullin (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not personal, your infographic looks great as I mentioned before. However, you specifically say: other comments for things I could improve would also be appreciated. And users like me then point to some downsides of maps in the context of Dutch elections. I also don't believe anyone is advocating for removing these maps altogether. But I personally believe these shouldn't be the most highlighted one on the page. A point I have also made on the Dutch Wikipedia (with some success).
So this might not have been the debate you wanted, but it is not ill-faithed (WP:AGF). Dajasj (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Apologies if it came across as personal. It was not intended as such. The map you created is well designed. The issue is whether that much detailed information gets its due in an infobox (given small size). Perhaps your maps would be better served by a larger picture later on in the article. Also my reference to earlier maps was meant as a second thought to my earlier post - if such maps are to be included in Dutch election articles (as they are in newspapers) we should do it in all, and if we doubt it's relevance here (a topic cropping up in this discussion) we should consider whether consistent removal across all Dutch elections would be the way forward. But you are right, that is beyond the current discussion (and within the current status quo adding a municipality map seem to be common, so based on that I suggest to maintain that for now). Arnoutf (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, the infobox has a parameter for maps, but not for graphs. Bar charts/pie charts should not be added to the infobox. They can be added in the results section though. Cheers, Number57 21:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe time to update the infobox parameters then ;) Dajasj (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree the moment parameters start to trump content, parameters should be updated ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC) (PS time for Template:Outdent as we ar moving to the edge of the paage)[reply]
Matthew McMullin, please do not get me wrong. I do like your work and appreciate your efforts to improve the chart. Please have a look at another graph File:2020_Irish_general_election.svg with a design similar to yours.
. Would it be OK for you to create a such graph for NL and
replace dots by squares. Each square representing x votes for a party
show all votes for all parties with at least x votes in that district
group squares per electoral district (NL: kieskring)
use light grey for the chart, so it serves as a background for the votes per district.
The result would do justice to the many parties in NL, the nationwide vote counts while still showing the the geographic distribution of votes per party.
Uwappa (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Uwappa (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
those dots in Ireland do not represent votes, they represent seats. Ireland awards seats by Single transferable vote which is a completely different voting system to the Netherlands which uses an Open list form of Proportional representation. what you are asking me to do is to create a singular square for every single vote cast for every single party in every single munincipality, that is both impracticably impossible and a visual presentation of the results which neither clearly informs readers about who won where nor does it present the information in a clear view for the average user. Matthew McMullin (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do understand that the Irish system differs from the Dutch one. So the question is for a map adapted to the Dutch situation, not a square per seat but a square for x votes, for example one square for 10000, 20000 or 50000 votes. See 2021_Dutch_general_election#Results which x would work best. Please be aware that this x must be below the Electoral_threshold as a party that gains 10,000 votes in 9 districts would have 90,000 votes, enough for one seat.
forget a map with districts as location is not so relevant in Dutch elections
create a table, parties top to bottom, districts left to right, visualisation of # votes in cells
sort parties large to small, sort districts large to small
election results, = 10,000 votes
district b
district a
district c
...
party z
party x
party y
...
The left hand top corner will show votes for the largest parties in the largest districts.
A row will show votes for one party,
a column votes in one district. Uwappa (talk) 10:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have been trying to figure out how to shade and color election poll leaders. For example, if the NSC is leading a poll, their number of seats predicted (ie 28 seats) is shaded in yellow.
I am wondering how exactly you shaded in the poll leaders' color (in this case, NSC is commonly leading, and their lead is shaded in yellow). I would like to know how I can be able to do this, for when I add future polls to election wikipedia pages. Can you explain how candidates' leading in polls have their poll lead colors shaded in? Thanks Giantsfann48 (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, @SirSX3:. Why did you delete the New York Times article saying that the results were a "landslide" for PVV? The overwhelmingly majority of sources term it as such.
I don't like Wilders, either. But I feel like editors are letting emotionalism take over in this case. Not sure if you were intentionally attempting to revert my edits or if it was an accident.
(Wanted to confirm because of the 3RR rule. Thanks.) KlayCax (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KlayCax: We dont have the full results, just about half the vote in. An exit poll, despite it being historically accurate, is not a final result. If you look at the previous 2 dutch elections, the pluraity won by similar marjins to the exit poll, so calling it "unheard of" is a bit ridiculous LordEnma8 (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remove it, it wasn't there when I started editing page, it was ABC News, The Guardian, and MarketWatch. By the time I finished editing, there are some new edits updating the results, leading to a merge conflict, so I just copied my citations and replaced what was there.
And no, editors are not "letting emotionalism take over". Wikipedia requires well supported facts and neutral language; the editors are just following that requirement. SirSX3 (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times, LATimes, et al. are reliable news papers. It's not like Breitbart is saying this stuff. It's a near-unanimous description provided by mainstream, reputable sources.
Due to the nature of the Dutch political system — in which there are dozens of political parties — majorities are essentially impossible. KlayCax (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the previous 2 dutch elections, the pluraity won by similar marjins to the exit poll, so calling it "unheard of" is a bit ridiculous LordEnma8 (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources termed both as landslides as well, however. KlayCax (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So why arent the previous two defined as landslides then? LordEnma8 (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And not only the last two, but most elections in the past had a larger largest party. Calling an election a landslide doesnt fit the Dutch political system and certainly not this election. Calling it an upset ofcourse seems fair Dajasj (talk) 07:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think a good solution might be to say that "International media have described the election as a landslide victory" or something along those lines. Luxorr (talk) 08:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but should we focus on international media at all? I agree that we should follow sources, but we can also follow Dutch media, who generally have more knowledge about Dutch elections. Because calling all elections a landslide would be weird. Dajasj (talk) 08:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. It could be noted in the Aftermath section but should probably not be in the lede. Luxorr (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the article at the top show the "current seats" next to the results...[edit]
of each party and not the predicted number of seats in the next parliament? The latter one is much more relevant. 2003:DA:C723:1500:5955:7A76:1B38:3C21 (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we are a playing a round of political BS bingo today... I can offer "racist", "nationalist", "conspiracy theories" and of course "islamophobic".
On a serious note, how about the use of neutral, objective terms rather than left-wing smear terminologies?? 2003:DA:C723:1500:5955:7A76:1B38:3C21 (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not words chosen by me. They are all present in every article that was sourced. I was hesitant about including them too, but when so many publications all say the same thing and feature those words so prominently in the titles and introduction of the articles, it becomes more accurate to use the words that they use.
I would leave out "euroskeptic", because thats mostly the focus of international media, but isnt really the point in this election Dajasj (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dajasj once again, those are not words chosen by me. Almost every source cited used the words "eurosceptic" or "anti-EU", and talked about his support for Nexit. It's what he's known for, really. The congratulations from the European leaders like Orban, Le Pen, etc, are also because he's Eurosceptic. SirSX3 (talk) 07:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but he is known for that outside NL. This campaign was barely about EU. I think that's a downside of relying too much on foreign sources Dajasj (talk) 08:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the MSM has become a cesspool of writers who have no issue with using this terminology. This isn't necessarily a problem until all the media sources that counter-balance these allegations and smears become persona-non-grata, which is exactly what has happened on Wikipedia. The only sources allowed on wikipedia seem to all walk lock-step in the aforementioned behavior, and editors are simply unable to reach NPOV because the counter viewpoints are deemed "unreliable".
There's only so much editors can do at this point. For myself, I just sit back and watch the train wreck. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is promoting a "nexit". he's not eurosceptic. he's downright anti eu, idk why this is a controversy, Geert himself would probably agree that he is in fact anti eu 83.83.206.27 (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current section Aftermath consists basically of speculation. I don't see how this fits with Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper. It also requires a lot of changes over time. Can't we leave it out and just write what happens/happened instead of what might happen in the upcoming weeks? I believe that benefits the quality and neutrality of the article. Dajasj (talk) 09:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Most of the Aftermath section can be moved into the 2023–2024 Dutch cabinet formation page. This page should just have a basic summary of the immediate reactions and declarations. SirSX3 (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not fully satisfied with the current map in this article and I would like to hear other people's thoughts on it as well. Personally I would like to point out a few things and see whether people here agree.
The map is missing the votes from non-continental Netherlands as well as from Dutch people abroad
It doesn't need to be bilingual, we can easily upload a Dutch and an English version of it, this would improve clarity which imo the map is lacking
As for clarity, a couple of points:
The colour variations make this map somewhat hard to grasp, especially for GL/PvdA and SGP - I would suggest sticking to one colour per party
The logos don't need to be included
I would also not assign a colour in the legend to parties that are not the biggest in any of the muncipalities
The change in vote chart would work as a separate image, but including it on this map does not help clarity
The vote % is not necessary for this map - the goal of the map is to give a quick overview, not give all of the data which can easily be found in this article
All in all I would suggest something more like the map for the 2021 elections. Minimalistic, easy to read and gives a quick and clear overview. I'm interested to hear how others feel about this. AnarchistiCookie (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My initial thought when looking at the map was that it wasn't filled in entirely yet, so I think grey isn't a good colour to use to represent any of the biggest parties, unless it's their official party colour. I think using the darker blue, like before, or a lighter blue, as the Dutch Media has been doing, would be a lot clearer. I'm also in favour of using one colour per municipality, since the lighter colours doesn't reflect which party is second or third and you'll rarely ever see a clear majority in the NL, anyway. Sandesh (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it looked to me more like a map template that was not yet filled in rather than what it is supposed to be. I'll try to upload a new file somewhere this weekend, in similar fashion to the 2021, and using different colours also (i.e. a blue shade for PVV, clearer orange for SGP). And of course then it will be up to the editors to decide if they prefer it or not. If anyone is very much against or in favour of one of the points raised above I would appreciate any feedback. AnarchistiCookie (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see the updated Matthew McMullin version is now back in place, which despite the smoother look I still have the same issues with that I have mentioned above. I'll still try to present a 'cleaner' (i.e. more minimalistic) map this weekend, so wikis/projects including en.wiki may choose that version as well if they want. AnarchistiCookie (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
37 seats, PVV (24.6666667%)
113 seats, 14 other parties (75.3333333%)
Parties have standard colours in Wikipedia, e.g. {{party color|Party for Freedom}} = #012758.
The map gives the false impression that PVV won a large majority of seats, where in reality 37 of 150 seats for the biggest party equals a 24.6% minority. A map is not suitable for the Dutch voting system where all votes are summed up at a national level, see #Map_feedback_&_translation above. Uwappa (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
anonymous people are vandalizing, changing Geert Wilders name to something else Svanriesen (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
VVD has ruled out taking part in an upcoming coalition but...[edit]
indicating support for a PVV led minority government.
This pretty much slams the door for Frans Timmermann becoming PM. 2003:DA:C739:7B00:DCE3:7965:B982:4148 (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly thought at first it was still empty before realizing that you have used light black as colour for PVV. Why not adopting the colours being used on the nos-results page? They use light blue for PVV victories on a county based level. 2003:DA:C739:7B00:DCE3:7965:B982:4148 (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded a new map version to Commons; please feel free to use it if you think it fits here better, and of course feel free to change anything about it. AnarchistiCookie (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AnarchistiCookie: It's a big improvement on the current map, but the issue is that the party colours do not match those used to denote the parties (for example, PVV's colour should be #012758). You can see the correct colours to use at (for example) Module:Political party/P. Cheers, Number57 00:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the PVV's colour, but I chose a different one as it was otherwise hard to distinguish between VVD and PVV. I chose light blue as that is what some Dutch media are using to portay the PVV as well (e.g. NOS), but of course it can be adjusted to something else. AnarchistiCookie (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. NOS.nl uses light blue as the PVV colour, not dark blue as the current map shows.
The dark blue on the current map makes distinguishing & differentiating between PVV and VVD difficult Giantsfann48 (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current map also has a pie chart with the country wide totals, which gives a better summary of the country wide results: PVV largest party with 37 of 150 seats, almost a quarter of the total. PVV needs at least 2 other parties for a majority coalition government.
The map gives a false image, as if PVV achieved a large majority and could govern on just its own steam. The map could be small, a side show, as districts are not as important in the Netherlands as they are in the USA and UK. Uwappa (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the same type of map has been used regarding the last election showing VVD winning most counties. Switching the rules because certain people dont like the outcome is unfair towards the PVV and its supporters. 2003:DA:C708:BF00:C467:4D22:5330:F79E (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There have beent complaints about this map for months, way before PVV was leading Dajasj (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Wikipedia must maintain a neutral point of view. Charts of different years should share the same design. See 14 Oct above for my comments on the 2021 map and several alternative designs that suit the Dutch election system and could apply to all years:
I totally disagree with the claim that "The map gives a false image, as if PVV achieved a large majority". This is only true if you have an anglo-centric approach that assumes elections take place on the basis of constituency voting. I think readers are intelligent enough to understand that maps do not only depict parties winning seats, but can instead also represent the most-voted for party. As long as the map has a caption like "Most-voted for party by municipality", there isn't an issue IMO. Cheers, Number57 19:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, any misunderstanding of these maps would be based on unjust assumptions about the voting system. Moreover, all these maps also show the seat distribution, from which you can easily conclude that 1 municipality majority vote does not equal 1 seat. So I deem this a pointless discussion. Moreover, the point of these maps isn't to show 'who won' but very simply which party had the most votes in which municipalities, so you can see regional differences (Bible Belt, big cities vs. rural areas, NSC's popularity in Twente, D66's popularity on the Caribbean islands) which you otherwise wouldn't be able to deduce from the tables and charts in the article. Furthermore, I'm not in favour of discussing the use of maps in articles for Dutch elections here as this section isn't about that, and I'm not looking to discuss the principle of using a map itself and/or where in the article it should be put. (Which is also why I won't continue this discussion.) AnarchistiCookie (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The table says PVV lost North Holland, while the map does not. One of them has to be changed Dajasj (talk) 08:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
North Holland switched to GL/PvdA when additional results from Amsterdam came in, as per RTL Nieuws (now added as a source for the table). The map has yet to be updated to reflect this. Luxorr (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthew McMullin, you reverted my last edit though you didn't participate in the discussions above about using an alternative map and colour scheme. I put the map with the official party colours in the article on the request of @Number 57 and from what I can tell, most commentors above dislike using grey for PVV and also prefer this alternative map style I proposed. If colour is the main issue, would you be open for using the map with light blue colour for PVV (also shown above)? I would appreciate any discussion, anyone please feel free to comment. AnarchistiCookie (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The map of Matthew McMullin is much harder to read. So I support the new map. Shadow4dark (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
how is grey hard to read? using dark blue for the PVV and light blue for the VVD is infinitely more hard to read than grey and light blue Matthew McMullin (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a reasonable solution. The map by Furfur is definitely preferable for the infobox for consistency and simplicity's sake (using grey for the PVV is very confusing, as it looks like the map is awaiting being filled in (as usually grey in maps signals it is TBC). I've implemented this. Cheers, Number57 10:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that that doesn't match the colour used on Wikipedia to represent the PVV. Light blue is counterintuitive, as the party's logo does not contain that colour. Number57 12:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57 Yes, with the maps of 2012, 2017, 2021, we used dark blue but with the map of 2010 we used grey,
And in the cases of 2012, 2017, 2021 the PVV only won a few municipalities while now they a majority so light is clearer.
If desired, we can keep the map as it is now and change the caption from "Map of results by municipality & province" to "Map of results by municipality (higher contrast version)" or something like that. The caption should be changed anyway because the current map doesn't highlight province majorities. AnarchistiCookie (talk) 12:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, using both dark blue for PVV and light blue for VVD, as the current map shows, is extremely difficult to visualize. it makes it hard to differentiate between the two parties.
@Furfur created a good map, but I believe the Light Blue for PVV in the NOS.nl map (https://app.nos.nl/nieuws/tk2023/) will be infinitely easier for readers to differentiate between PVV and VVD Giantsfann48 (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
light blue can be very visually unappealing for viewers given its high saturation and its bad contrast with the surrounding area, you can't even see the municipality borders on the light blue one. grey has precedent in the past for being used and is already used in the PVV's logo AND is listed on their wikipedia page as an official colour. Matthew McMullin (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that your map and the grey colour is the best, but if we are going to do one simple map and your map then light blue is better then dark blue. Tinpo162 (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Light blue is the simplest option for PVV, but if people really want to not use it as @Matthew McMullin is saying, then I suggest using PVV gray from 2010 as the map colour for PVV, and sticking with the VVD blue as is Giantsfann48 (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current situation with the official party colours is fine imo; I addded a link to the light blue version in the map's caption, for those who might find this map hard to read. AnarchistiCookie (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to the light blue necessarily but if the dark blue is used, the contrast between PVV and VVD could be improved if the VVD's colour were changed to its 2021 version (#F8F9FA), consistent with the colour used in the article. Luxorr (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
light black for PVV looks terrible, it looks empty. Why dont you use the colour set NOS choose to pick for covering this election? 2003:DA:C735:7200:A530:628:75E8:699B (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Votes of Dutch Nationals living abroad released[edit]
Should we categorize this election as a landslide, even when the party with a plurality of seats has won with a margin similar to winning parties in previous elections? LordEnma8 (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See an earlier discussion Dajasj (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion was never finished, and no consensus was reached, which is why I brought up this issue again with the final election results. LordEnma8 (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I still support your point ;) Dajasj (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well they gained a massive amount of seats, for Dutch politics this is a land slide, especially for far right parties. 83.83.206.27 (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gaining seats does not necessarily mean that it was a landslide, they only hold a plurality of seats, and they may not even be in government after negotiations. And there are other dutch elections with similar seat margins that arent described as landslides on wikipedia LordEnma8 (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LordEnma8: I am just seeing this thread as a result of your removal of the landslide line in the "Political analysis" section. In your edit summary, you mention it was not characterized as such by Dutch media. I believe this to be incorrect, as I can find many media outlets referring to it as a monsterzege, which is probably the closes equivalent in Dutch of landslide: BNR Nieuwsradio, Trouw, de Volkskrant, RTL Nieuws, and Leiden University. Besides you mention its designation as a landslide victory is not relevant to mention despite the many sources cited. I would disagree: if many reliable sources with political analysis refer to an election as a "landslide election", this does seem to be more than a small detail in the article of the election itself. The first part of the sentence does call it a major political upset but does not explain in what respect (with many parties in Dutch politics, an upset would be possible that has no clear victor). I would therefore propose that this characterization be restored. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Im not sure whether monsterzege and landslide have the same meaning/connotation. If I look at the examples on Landslide victory, the results by PVV come nowhere near it. In most cases they get an outright majority. PVV got around 25%. It isnt even a large number of seats in Dutch history. It might have felt like a big deal then (mostly because it was unexpected) and I understand why media chose the most sensational words. But if this is a landslide, a majority of the elections are (especially because we have a proportjonal system, so it does not matter if you are first or second anyway, only the number of seats matter).
So although many sources use the term, we can nevertheless choose to leave it out. Dajasj (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing the fact that this election is an upset, which it probably is, what i'm disputing is the characterization of this election as a landslide. The word "monsterzege" means in english "monster victory", which is not exactly equal to "landslide". Further, the margin of actual votes is questioning as to whether this election is actually a landslide. They only won about 24 percent of the vote, which in my mind, is not a landslide, even in the context of Dutch Election with how many parties are competing. I would therfore support a removal of all mentions of this election being a "landslide". LordEnma8 (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what Dutch word would be the superlative compared to monsterzege (and would therefore be a better equivalent to landslide). Reporters on television pronouncing it would often already raise their voice/talk more slowly to emphasize it. I personally understand it being called a landslide/monsterzege due to the large amount of parties in Dutch politics, making it hard to compare to foreign elections receiving the label. Dutch electoral victories are often smaller (even more so recently) and in this case there is also a significant gap between the party that came in second. Regardless of our opinions, Wikipedia is there to reflect what reliable sources are saying. And such a variety of media outlets characterizing it as a landslide election should warrant including this in the analysis section. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a source says something, doesn't mean we are obligated to include it, even if multiple sources say it. Wikipedia is designed about being neutral, and most of these sources are from right after the election, when this result was a real shock. Now that more time has passed, we can view the election more fairly, and compare it with previous elections, and when you do this, it is clear that this election is not a landslide. LordEnma8 (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Due to a recount, the exact numbers are incorrect. I don't have time right now to change it, but wanted to at least note it here. Dajasj (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
also has a pie chart with the country wide totals, which gives a better summary of the country wide results: PVV largest party with 37 of 150 seats, almost a quarter of the total. PVV needs at least 2 other parties for a majority coalition government.
