Talk:2023–2024 Dutch cabinet formation/Archive 1

Campaign section
In the Campaign section, there's a line, "With the arrival of Yesilgoz, the VVD did not rule out governing for the first time since 2010." It's not clear what this means here. Was it meant to be "... governing in a coalition with the PVV..."? Bondegezou (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, it probably should be "governing with the PVV". See translation of NOS news, 18 August:
 * VVD party leader Yesilgöz does not rule out cooperation with PVV in advance
 * Uwappa (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, fixed it! Dajasj (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

2024 in Title
Isn't it a bit too early to include 2024, as if certain it will last until 2024? Shouldn't we go with "2023" for now, unless it ends up going longer? 74.101.0.251 (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Good point, but the most important source - Parlement.com - already included 2024. And it is virtually impossible to finish this year Dajasj (talk) 06:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Support for Plasterk
@W.G.J., DENK was already against Van Striens appointment. So it is really necessary to highlight the objections of 3-6 seats in the House? Seems pretty inconsequential Dajasj (talk) 12:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether it is inconsequential, it is noteworthy to mention any objection to the appointment of a scout. Whether that is against Van Striens, Plasterk or both. It shows that there is no unanimity. 𝕎.𝔾.𝕁.  ( t 12:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Unanimity is not required tho. I doubt this will make the history books tbh. But its fine for now Dajasj (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I get what you're saying and no – unanimity is definitely not a requirement. But uninformed readers might get a better grasp of the complexity of Dutch politics if objections of small parties, a direct consequence of the fragmentation of the Dutch political landscape, are mentioned. 𝕎.𝔾.𝕁.  ( t 12:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

including -2024
As I understand it, the *entire* reason that this article was moved to 2023-2024 Dutch cabinet formation is that pointed out that https://www.parlement.com/id/vm8gemegasko/kabinetsformatie_2023_2024 had 2024 in its name. I don't believe that the name of the page represents any sort of verifiable information that the cabinet formation will not occur before December 31 and without that Verifiable information, I don't think the page title should include that. I thought I'd start this for discussion before making a formal proposal to change the name.Naraht (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Fair, but I based it on the best source available. In any case, it is simply impossible to form a cabinet before the end of the year. So I wont object to changing, but in the end it will simply be more work for us on 1 January. Dajasj (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * To me that seems like Original Research, but I wanted your comments as well as anyone else interested. I'm not going to stand on a table yelling my position on this and looking at List of Dutch cabinet formations, it seems *far* more likely than not that this will go into 2024, I was just looking to see if the consensus was an IAR here. (Note, if this was a *Belgian* cabinet formation, I'd actually consider 2023-2025 to be a possibility as well.)Naraht (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, not completely OR because parlement.com assumes so as well. The first moment when parliament can debate with the scout will be 11 December (see https://nos.nl/l/2499930). The formation will then move into a second phase. That leaves twenty days, including holidays and weekend days, for the remaining two phases. One of which is doing background checks for incoming ministers, which is already a week. And 2025 is also theoretically possible, but Im not predicting the end date beyond that it will be later than 2023.
 * Anyway, feel free to change it. It's just more work. Dajasj (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Rewriting
Sorry I published without completing edit summary. Reason I changed a few sentences is that it was outdated. PVV retracted 5 laws. And the rewritten sentences give less attention to De Zwaluwenberg. I'm also not sure whether mentioning all co-negotiatiors is relevant because there are so many this year. Dajasj (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem! Just shifted the info about so it's in chronological order (which seems to make more sense!) Jdcooper (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, on 8 January Wilders withdrew 3 laws. The other 2 were withdrawn later. So I figured it would be better to ignore the chronological order and just link them directly to the conclusions of that phase. Dajasj (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, how about now? Is the new wording sensible to you? Jdcooper (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Background
Hi @Jdcooper, I removed part of my own text both here and on nlwiki, because the background is a bit long and some information isn't really necessary to understand the formation. I believe that should be the focus of the background. Not everything that is sourced, is relevant. (I realised afterwards that I did not restore all internal links, sorry for that). Dajasj (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, I see it now! Thanks for the note. I removed one bit of unnecessary detail, but I don't think the rest of the sentence does any harm, it's useful for casual observers of Dutch politics (like myself :) Jdcooper (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But in hindsight, does it help to know that PvdA-GL have merged, given that they hardly participated in this formation? Or that BBB slowly lost its lead (except that they have many seats in the Senate, but that's noted below). I can imagine more context might be useful, but I don't think this is the right context? Dajasj (talk) 06:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)