Talk:Bundestag

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

How about listing the number of seats of each term, names of the president and vice-presidents, etc. as separate articles, say for instance "Bundestag,_11th_term_(1987-1990)" MartinHH 22:34, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The eagle coat-of-arms accompanying the article shows the eagle that is used for Germany in general. There is a special "fat hen" version of the eagle that is used on the letterhead of members of the Bundestag, hung in the parliamentary chamber, etc, and is especially associated with the Bundestag. But I don't know how to deal with graphics here. http://www.trendelkamp.com/adler.html or http://www.bundestag.de should help show what I mean, though. Bhuck 15:20, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Name of article
According to the naming conventions, the file should be named Federal Diet. Gangulf 18:56, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Gangulf/Wilfried Derksen,


 * I've moved this article to Bundestag_(Germany) for the same reasons I give on Talk:Bundesrat of Germany: (I) you should have allowed a reasonable amount of time for people to register objections to your proposal before going ahead with the move. (ii) I think you misunderstand Wikipedia naming conventions. The convention is usually to use the most commonly used name. Also, words like Tsar and Bundestag that have been absorbed into the English language are used as if they were English words.


 * Of course as far as i am aware there is only one Bundestag so the "(Germany)" disambiguation is redundant. As soon as possible someone with administrator access should move this article back to Bundestag until a consensus is reached to move it elsewhere.


 * Iota 03:44, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I meant the convention listed at Naming conventions (use English): That means: names in the English translation and the original native name is placed on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form. Rationale and specifics. The debate can be on the question if Bundestag is more commonly used in English than the translation. Gangulf 21:39, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure. Going on my own experience Bundestag is almost universally used in English media while terms like federal assembly and federal diet are rare. This is hard to prove but (for what it's worth) Google (restricted to English language pages) turns up far more hits for Bundestag. Also the English language version of the official webpage of the Bundestag uses the German term, while, for example, the presidential webpage uses Federal President rather than Bundespräsident. Iota 19:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * OK Gangulf 10:59, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Constituency?
Does anyone else think that this section of the article

"One striking difference when comparing the Bundestag with the U.S. Congress is the lack of time spent on serving constituents in Germany. In part, that difference results from the fact that only 50 percent of Bundestag deputies are directly elected to represent a specific geographic district; the other half are elected as party representatives (see below). The political parties are thus of great importance in Germany's electoral system, and many voters tend not to see the candidates as autonomous political personalities but rather as agents of the party. Interestingly, constituent service seems not to be perceived, either by the electorate or by the representatives, as a critical function of the legislator. A practical constraint on the expansion of constituent service is the limited personal staff of Bundestag deputies."

needs some editing? I refer specifically to comments such as "lack of time spent on serving constituents" - it could easily be argued that the method of serving constituents is the point of contrast, rather than its presence or absence (i.e. as a collective rather than in terms of geographic region) - and "Interestingly, constituent service seems not to be perceived, either by the electorate or by the representatives, as a critical function of the legislator." Again, party representatives are elected to represent the German people as a whole, who are therefore their constituents. The implication (probably unintentional!) that a representative who is not directly elected by a specific region does not engage in constituent service seems inaccurate, because it's predicated on the definition of a constituency only as a group that constitutes a geographic location, rather than a political or ideological one.

Ziggurat 03:20, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

In the end -- the 50% is not true. Our german election system works that way: You have a primary vote for the direct candidate and a second vote for the list vote. The percentage and the power in the parliament is only estimated by the list vote (for the different parties). So if you win your district you go into parliament, but also canditates from the parties list (by nomination order) go into parliament until the percentage of the list vote is fullfilled (the so called Überhangsmandate). Due to this principle the number of members differs from vote to vote. So if you do a good job and the people vote for you (but maybe your party not), you go into parliament. But also small parties (like Green party or liberals) have a chance to go into parliament without winning a single district. You only have to get over 5% of the votes in list vote. To make the whole thing more complicated ... if you win a direct mandate you went into parliament (also if your party don't get 5%). But if your party wins 3 direct mandates you go into parliament with your percentage (even if your party is below 5% -- as far i can remeber this was only the case with the former communist party SED - now PDS). So sorry for my bad english, I hope somebody get the information and can put it into the article. --62.178.221.119 00:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So due my bad english I try it as programmer
 * Direct Vote: If win your district (first vote), you are member of parliament
 * Your party has >= 5% list votes (second vote) or at least 3 districts, your party is in parliament with the percentage of the second vote.--62.178.221.119 00:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I still don't get it though. As I understand it, there are sixteen Länder. And each Lander is split into many "constituencies". But then the article says:

"The 598 seats are distributed among the parties that have gained more than 5% of the second votes or at least 3 direct mandates. Each of these parties is allocated seats in the Bundestag in proportion to the number of votes it has received (Largest remainder method).

When the total number of mandates gained by a party has been determined, they are distributed between the Land lists. The distribution of seats between the parties in each Land is proportional to the second vote results: (Largest remainder method)."

So is there a fixed number of seats for each Land (the sum of which is 299)( I mean : a number determined BEFORE the start of the elections?) Evilbu 14:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, only the number of constituencies for each Land is fixed (it's proportional to the number of inhabitants of the Lands). The above sentence should read: "The distribution of the seats of any one party to the 16 Lands is proportional to that party's second vote results in the Lands (Largest remainder method)." So the number of seats for each Land is essentially proportional to the number of actual voters in that Land, which is not known before the elections.--129.70.14.128 (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

i doubt the following quote
 * "striking difference when comparing the Bundestag with the U.S. Congress is the lack of time spent on serving constituents "

My constituency's direct Member of Bundestag is in the local newspaper minimum 2 times every week at a local event, meeting, what ever... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.238.235 (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is not that complicated in principle:
 * the distribution of seats among the competing parties is based on the numbers of second (list, representative) votes they receive. So a party that gets 40% of the vote (representative votes) get 40% of seats in parliament. (Leaving out the 5% rule and its exceptions.)
 * however, when it comes to the individuals filling the seats, those elected by first votes in their respective constituencies have already secured their seat in parliament. Now, if a party has won 100 consticuencies but its representative vote would give it 150 seats in parliament, the remaining 50 seats are filled by the person's named on the party list, starting from the top. If a party has won 100 constituencies but would have won only 90 seats via the representative vote, all 100 directly elected candidates keep their seats and no one on the list is considered.
 * The resulting 10 extra seats are the "overhang mandates", which slightly change the percentage of seats held by each party. However, if one of these directly elected deputies drops out, his seat is no filled by another candidate as long as there are overhang mandates. Due to political arithmetic, only the two major parties win overhang mandates, as they win the overwhelming number of constituencies.
 * Of course, it gets a bit more complicated because the list vote is distributed on the level of the individual states, hence there is no deducting a seat from one state for an overhang seat from another.

Str1977 (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Categorization
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.

sebmol 18:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 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.

Current situation
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)

Anyone out there?--62.246.67.188 14:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

613 Abgeordnete since July 1st
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)

612 now --mafutrct (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

president
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)

Namentliche Abstimmung Bundestag Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung 24.4.2008 zu den "Verträgen von Lissabon"

 * 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)


 * Guten Tag? Wie gehts? -- 84.142.82.70 (talk) 11:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Lower house
In every german sources including the german version of this article I found that the Bundestag is, by no mean, the lower house but itself is the German Parliament. Please clarify? --Tikar aurum (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * One could compare Bundestag and Bundesrat to two houses of one parliament since they serve similar purposes as two hoses do in other countries, but in Germany the Bundesrat is never considered a part of the parliament. The two organisations are clearly separated, only the Bundestag is elected, the Bundesrat only represents the state- (Länder-)governments, the Bundestag controlls the government, the military, the federal budget and is manly responsible for the federal legislation. Only if laws are considered that interfer with the constitutional responsibilities of the states, the Bundesrat takes part in the legislation process. 84.162.97.215 (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the reference to lower house, because there is no such thing in Germany. CuriousOliver (talk) 12:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently somebody has restored the references to a "lower house". It is an entirely alien concept to the German constitution, and there are never any -- formal or informal -- references in Germany itself to a "lower house" or anything remotely of the sort. I find it strange that some editors of this article keep restoring what seems to "remind" them of other countries but is in fact an entirely different thing. But I'm not going to engage in an edit war. Ebab (talk) 06:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you say what text you are referring to? I could only find
 * "For its similar function, it is often described as a lower house of parliament along the lines of the US House of Representatives and the Canadian or the British House of Commons. The German constitution, however, does not define the Bundestag and the Bundesrat as the lower and upper houses of a bicameral legislature."
 * which does not seem to be that much different from what you are saying.
 * --Boson (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Simple question: Would you describe the US House of Representatives (in the summary!) by means of "it is similar to the German Bundestag"? Why not describe the main body for German federal legislation in its own terms and not by half-assed and misleading comparisons?
 * I just read another article in the Washington Post (!) referring to the Reichstag as "the seat of the lower house of the German Parliament". Thusly phrased, this is garbage, and it is obviously lifted from this unholy Wikipedia description. ☹️ It should be removed, at least from the summary.
 * --Ebab (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Even though the German Basic Law (constitution) doesn't use the terms "lower house" and "upper house", the Bundesrat is a typical upper house of Parliament in the technical sense. For this it is not necessary that every bill needs approval of the upper house as some users suggest. Only very few countries with two houses of parliament have such a system called "perfect bicameralism" (Italy is an example). In many countries with two houses of parliament the upper house is merely an advisory body. Alterations of the constitution is often the only case where the approval of an upper house is needed. The German Bundesrat is way more powerful than most upper houses in the world as almost half of the bills need its approval. E. g. most types of taxes are shared by the Federation and its states. So bills easily have an effect on the states and thus need their approval.--2A02:908:13B1:B8C0:5004:57F5:FC52:6787 (talk)
 * Even though the German Basic Law (constitution) doesn't use the terms "lower house" and "upper house", the Bundesrat is a typical upper house of Parliament in the technical sense. For this it is not necessary that every bill needs approval of the upper house as some users suggest. Only very few countries with two houses of parliament have such a system called "perfect bicameralism" (Italy is an example). In many countries with two houses of parliament the upper house is merely an advisory body. Alterations of the constitution is often the only case where the approval of an upper house is needed. The German Bundesrat is way more powerful than most upper houses in the world as almost half of the bills need its approval. E. g. most types of taxes are shared by the Federation and its states. So bills easily have an effect on the states and thus need their approval.--2A02:908:13B1:B8C0:5004:57F5:FC52:6787 (talk)

Party change SPD to "Unaffiliated"
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)

most important info about Bundestag and most important part of constitution not quoted
Members of the German Bundestag shall be elected in general, direct, free, equal and secret elections. --Espoo (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe because that's the normal thing in democracies? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Not true bicamercal legislative system in Germany
I would never consider Germany a truly bicamerial legislative system, consisting of Bundestag as lower house and Bundesrat as upper house. First of all, not all bills need to be approved by both houses. For certain bills approval of the Bundestag is sufficient. The second issue is even more critical. The upper chamber is not a legislative body of elected representatives (e.g. USA representatives, delegates or senators), but consists of members of state governments (e.g. USA govenors). This is an obvious violation of separation of powers and certainly lacks the true representation of the people in the Bundesrat. Another weird fact of the Bundestag is, that the Bundeskanzler (leader of the federal government) is also a member of the Bundestag (USA representative). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.162.153.52 (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that Germany has no true bicameral system (though the Bundesrat certainly has more democratic legitimization - and in some ways more power - than e.g. the British House of Lords).
 * The fact about the Bundeskanzler is not so "weird", but quite typical in non-presidential democracies: it's the same e.g. in the UK, Italy, Turkey... (Actually, the Bundeskanzler doesn't have to be a member of the Bundestag, but (s)he usually is.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

the current number of members
at this date, the current number of Abgeordnete is 620. But I cant change the Graphic.

Election: Federal "States" or "Lands"?
The relevant article in Wikipedia is States of Germany, yet the section Bundestag 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)

Election system 2013
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)

Parliament versus Bundestag
I think the lede of this article is not completely accurate. Specifically, the lines:


 * "The Bundestag (Federal Diet; pronounced [ˈbʊndəstaːk]) is a constitutional and legislative body in Germany. In practice, the country is governed by a bicameral legislature, but not a bicameral parliament. While the Bundestag is sometimes viewed as the lower house and the Bundesrat the upper house both do not form a common parliament and do not have powers in the same policies."

The lede of the German article clearly states:


 * "Der Deutsche Bundestag ist die erste Kammer des Parlaments[1] der Bundesrepublik Deutschland mit Sitz im Reichstagsgebäude in Berlin." Translation: "The German Bundestag is the first chamber of parliament of the Federal Republic of Germany, with its seat in the Reichtag building in Berlin." Later in the same article, it refers to the "Bundesrats, der zweiten Parlamentskammer der Bundesrepublik Deutschland" (translation: "Bundesrat, which is the second parliamentary chamber of the Federal Republic of Germany").

Both lines in the | German article use | this source, which is the website for the Federal Agency for Civic Education, a government agency. I wanted to let anyone who wanted to weigh in before I changed the article to reflect the German article. Input welcome. Ljpernic (talk) 09:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Neither the lesser legislative powers of the Bundesrat nor its not being unelected is a real good argument in this. Much more important are the following facts:
 * Both Bundestag and Bundesrat are separate bodies, not parts of a larger body. The Bundestag is the parliament.
 * The Bundestag is certainly not "lower" than the Bundesrat but actually higher. Not just in power but in prestige. Don't porject ideas fitting to the UK or the US to other countries.
 * Str1977 (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You should not take the word "lower" literally, in the UK the lower house is also the one with higher power and prestige. The term "lower" do not refer to that, it refers to the house that supposedly represents more directly the common people (as in the "low classes") may have a terrible original meaning but is not about having more or less power/prestige. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How else can we take that word but literally. While the House of Commons has had more (almost absolute) power for a while, the House of Lords has been more prestigious until at least quite recently. While House of Lords have been beaten badly, given the scandals surrounding the Commons, the Lords are probably still more prestigious. However, it is not that way with Bundestag and Bundesrat. In any case, they are not chambers of anything but distinct bodies. The solution lies not in seeing various bodies in the light of bad terminology (which isn't even used in the UK) but to use proper terminology. Str1977 (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * By not taking literally because it isn't. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

17th vs. 18th Bundestag in infobox
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Official Final Results
According to | last Wednesday's official final results, the SPD gains another seat and will have 193 MPs in the 18th Bundestag, not 192. Please correct.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links 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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

630 Members
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)

Missing info about predecessor
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), 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)

External links modified
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)

Seating of the Bundestag
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)

External links modified
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)

Euro 400.000.000
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  192.121.232.253 (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Diagram
Dear Dereck Camacho,

I have reverted your recent edit in the Bundestag article and wanted, to tell you the reasons: The diagram should do two things: It should show the political makeup of the parliament and the actual seating. The CDU and CSU are in fact two different parties, but in the Bundestag they join in one group (the CDU/CSU-group, often also called Union-group) and this is the only thing, which matters here. I think, the word "party" (Partei) does not appear once in the standing rules of the Bundestag, at least not with respect to the actual MPs and the session-procedures. The FDP-group is seated between the CDU/CSU-group and the AfD-group (although they are not happy with this), this is simply a fact. The four independent members should also not be shown seated together, partly because that would be misleading (three of them are fomer AfD-members -> right-wing/conservative and one is a former SPD-member -> rather left-wing) and because that's not the way, they are actually seated. The two AfD-members are seated behind the AfD-group and the former SPD-member is seated behind the SPD-group.Alektor89 (talk) 12:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear Alektor, I think you're confused about something. The function of the arch diagram is not to show how the members are seated, the function of the arch diagram is to show the spectrum position, otherwise there's no sense on having an actual arch. What you want is a diagram that shows the seating, for example the one in the Cortes Generales or the Croatian Parliament, as it's currently is the Bundestag diagram would cause confusion. I suggest you to work in a diagram like those I mentioned above. Besides, be sure that sooner or later someone is going to overwrite on the one you're using or someone from the FDP is going to complain. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I doubt this. Or why do we use a different model for parliamtents in Westminster Systems, where parliament members of government and opposition sit in front of each other? Because the diagrams show - at least to some reasonable extent - the actual seating. But this is only secondary. More importantly, I think the question of "spectrum position" is very arbitrary: Why are the Greens more "centrist" than the SPD? (As a german citizen, I would question that) Is the FDP really more "centrist" than the CDU/CSU? (I think this really depends on the field of policy) Is the left-centre-right-scheme still up to date with early 21st century politics? One could discuss these questions at length without reaching a definite conclusion. These are very difficult questions and as Wikipedia-articles should not represent "theories" or arbitrary opinions, we shoud use a more evident principle: The actual seating in the BT, which is beyond reasonable doubt. As "your" diagram is wrong anyway (there are three independent former AfD-members), I have again reverted your edit. If you disagree, please start a discussion on the article's talk page before editing.Alektor89 (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not the author of the diagram so is not mine. The Westmister system is not an arch, and its design is to show the government vs opposition which is part of the Westmister system, but does not necesary corespond with the actual seating, you can see it yourself; this is how they actually seat in the UK House of Common, and this is the diagram use for Wikipedia, as you can see, they dont seat as the diagram shows. In fact is quite the opposite, the government is "up" and the opposition is "down".
 * Now regarding the other aspect, it is true that the sprectrum position is subjective, the current order is, let's sat, traditional or customary and all diagrams of all previous Bundestag follow that custom, you can questioned if you want, that is valid, but even if you change this diagram in particular you would left dozens of diagrams of all the previous Bundestags and elections used in several dozens of Wikipedia pages which would cause confusion among the readers. My suggestion is that you discuss the issue, and try to reach a consensus and thus the change can be made in all diagrams at once and not just in one. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * PD: In any case the best you can do and it will be the easiest and fastest way to have the result you want, is as I suggested before to make a diagram that actually represents the Bundestag's shape, like the ones I show you from Spain and Croatia, or you the one use in the Legislative Assembly of Costa Rica or this one from Mexico. No one is going to question the seating, there will be no need to have long discussions about what party is more right or left wing and the independents can be located where they are literally seated without the problem of see where in the spectrum actually are. Seriously, is by far the best option and the easiest and fastest way, trust me. Give it a try. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Good idea, do you know a tool to create such a diagram? I will do this, if you tell me. But please respect that you started changing the article and don't threat people with edit-warring-reports after your edits have been reverted. You need to get a consensus here. I told you, why the diagram you implemented is wrong.

If other articles have it that way, this is a reason to change them, not this one. Alektor89 (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no CDU- oder CSU- group in the BT, they are one group and this is the only thing which matters in the Bundestag (see standing rules).
 * There are four indepentents, not three.
 * Spectrum position is arbitrary and theory-building/original research


 * I did not started changing the article. The first change of the diagram was made by Liambaker98 on 26 november 2018, followed by yours on 30 november 2018. What I did was actually reverse to the stable version before. Now the number of independents can be fixed by modifiyng the current diagram if you want. Also if you want to change the FDP position in all other diagrams be my guest but suggest it for discussion somewhere, maybe in the Germany Project or the Parliamentary Project or the Elections Project.
 * About the diagram, I can do it if you find me the exact seating composition to know where to put the different seats and the shape of the chamber. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there is a "official" seating composition somewhere. As a regular BT-session-watcher, all I can say: They sit in an arch, starting with "The Left" on the left, then the SPD, the Green in the middle, then the Union (CDU/CSU), then the FDP and on the right the AfD. Three of the four indepents sit behind the AfD and one behind the SPD (Independents who once were members of a group always sit behind their former group). Just like in the diagram, I prefer (maybe with the exeption of the independents, but the standard diagram tool does not allow to "seat" them anywhere specifially)Alektor89 (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * PS.: This is the best I found, but it's not completely up to date (only two independents, both former AfD): https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/20056000.pdf (page 2)Alektor89 (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

From what parties are the people in the front from what I assume is the directorate? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * On the left side of the President's podium is the government-bench, on the right side is the Bundesrat-bench (one seat on this side reserved for the Comissioner for the armed forces). We should not include them in the diagram or simply leave them dark gray or something like that, as people sitting there do not sit there in their capacitiy as BT-members. The same goes for the president's seat, as all groups are represented in the presidium and they rotate in leading the sessions. Some members of the government are also BT-members, but if the want to act as parliament members (for example voting), they have to walk over to the MP's benches where they also have a seat, they are not allowed to vote or make interjections from the government-bench. Alektor89 (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, then how about taking this diagram for the European Parliament as a base, changing the colors of course a matching the number. I think is very similar to the Bundestag in shape and also has a similar number of seats which would make it easier. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh and make it upside down, for some reason I have the impresion that matches better. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you have to make sure that the walkthroughs mark the "borders" of the groups. Alektor89 (talk) 10:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll keep that in mind. I'll be back with a draft after a while then. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, the only thing I am concerned about is: It will be a bit complicated to change this manually after every election or affiliation change of an MP. But maybe you have an idea...? Alektor89 (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That will be a problem in any case no matter the shape. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Alright here some drafts, identify as Draft A and B.



Both are very similar, the B has darker tones and locates the independents where they seat according to you, the A has clearer tones and locates the Independents as a faction. However the change can be made to locate the independents where they seat in the A. In both cases there will be a need to make the white background transparent but that is something is better done once everything is finished. Also is possible to add the Presidium in gray like here if I manage to find a better picture that can be use as template. Leave your opinions, if I don't answer soon is because I went to sleep for the next 8-9 houras hopefully. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I personally like B better, although these are not yet the correct colours (look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Germany_political_party_colour_templates). Maybe esthetically the arch should be a bit "straighter" at the ends. I don't think a "dot" for the presidium is necessary. In contrast to a "Westminster Parliament-speaker" the President and the Vice Presidents are normal BT-members, who alternately chair the sessions, but while they don't do this, they are "normal" parliament members who sit with their groups without beeing obliged to any form of political neutrality. So the president's chair is no chair of a specific parliament member. Have a good night. Alektor89 (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * PS.: Could you maybe explain to me (in some detail) how you did this in Paint? Alektor89 (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * By taking a template as base, is pretty easy. The other option which I considered at first but it became too hard is to painstakingly change each of the dots from the EP's diagram according to the German seating but this represented a problem and it was the division between the groups, that's almost impossible to make without doing a whole new diagram. Changing the colors is relatively easy but there is no way with that as a base to make the space between the groups. I can show you how it looks in case you're curious.
 * And on that ordder of things, using the exact tone is also very difficult unless you can find me a template that already have them. Btw, so where do you think is better to locate the independents? as their own group or at the back of their previous groups? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * PD: I personally like draft A more, and I'm thinking that it would look better upside down as how they are currently, besides that's how most diagrams are located including the examples of Spain, Croatia and the EP. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey! I think B now has a perfect form and A the perfect colours (to find the exact tones is not that difficult, the hexadecimal coulour-codes for german parties in WIKI are listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Germany_political_party_colour_templates ...the Greens, for example, have 64A12D). Maybe I will experiment around a little bit by myself, but I think B with the correct colours would be perfect. The Indepents should be seated behind their former groups like in B (just watch a Bundestag-debate, now an then you will see them sitting alone behind the last row...it was the same, when Erika Steinbach left the Union-group in the last Bundestag (2013-2017), here is a picture of her "special-seat": https://www.bz-berlin.de/berlin/mitte/erika-steinbach-hat-jetzt-den-vertriebenen-stuhl). I don't knwo, where a BT-member, who has been elected as an Independend would be seated, if he does not join a group, but this has not happened since 1949 and is imho unlikely to happen in the nearer future...Alektor89 (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you think about this one? The grey of the independents is not yet "perfect", but apart from that? Alektor89 (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Not bad, I think we almost got it right, but is there a way to make it a little bit more rounded? To be more similar to how the actual hemicycle looks like. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not found a template, that is formed that way, apart from the EU-parliament template. But I still don't get, how the transposition of the dots should work in MS-Paint. I admit that I am an absolute non-expert in these things. To make this diagram, I worked with the wmflabs-tool, but alway put 25 seats between the groups, which I "rubbered away" in paint, to create the passageways. Then I changed the colour of one SPD-dot and three AfD-dots in the last row into grey, to mark them as Independents... Alektor89 (talk) 13:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * PS.: By the way, the BT is not always this much rounded: Because of the very complicated election laws in Germany, the BT has 111 additional seats since the 2017 election, normally it should only have 598 seats. And so the seat structure normally looks more like a real half circle. Alektor89 (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * My only objection is that it looks too much like the standard arch-style (because it is) so the idea that is the hemicile gets lost and looks more like a badly made arch. I think the best option is using draft B while changing the color to the "official" ones, I can do it but it may take a while.
 * What I do on those cases is literally select one of the dots, copy it, paste it and then move it where I want to. In this case what I would do would be to open your file, lets say Draft C, copy the yellow dot, open Draft B, paste the yellow dot and move it until is over one of the golden/wrong yellow tone dots. And do such exercize one by one. You can try if you want. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why not simply overwrite the dots with the correct colours (with this ink-pot symbol)? But once again, if you want to use draft B, I would strongly recommend that you also create a blanco version (without passage-ways and let's say with 800-900 "empty" dots, so that it is a bit easier, to make changes in the future. My alternative proposal would be, to use my diagram, which can be created relatively easy via wmflabs and MS-Paint. The arch is not as much rounded as the actual BT, ok, but I personally think you are a bit pedantic about this. The diagram should give the article's reader an impression of the seating order and the size of the groups and my proposal does this perfectly. Who want's to know it more exactly, should maybe just travel to Berlin and visit the building ;-). Alektor89 (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Because if I drop the color in the dot it won't cover every pixel, and no, sorry but I oppose any attempt to use the regular arch. That was the origin of the problem, at least until there is a consensus that the FDP is more right wing than the CDU and other aspects that we already talk about. Otherwise if using a fancy diagram is the thing there is already a nice one in existence with even a logo, but it has the FDP on the "wrong" side according to you (like all diagrams have):



On the other hand this is also an option, and yes we already said not to place the directorate but I think it looks great and as the directorate's dots are actually gray and squares probably most reader would no be confused. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)



PD: Btw check Draft A, I already change the location of the independents (refresh the page in case you don't see it) which I think it was the only different from Draft B apart from the tones. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * We have discussed this ad nauseam, I think the dots in the diagrams suggest a representation of actual seating (in contrast to a pure arch-diagram, like german WP uses in parliament-articles) and the FDP does not sit in the middle. This is not my opinion, this is a fact. Please just take half an hour and watch a bit of a BT-debate (you can find them on youtube, for example). The question of left-wing/centrist/right-wing is by nature controversial and arbitrary and must therefore not be fundament of diagrams in WP-articles. This is also not my opinion but a core Wikipedia-principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research). And if other article's have it another way, this is simply not an argument: If 100 people say 1+1=3 and one person says 1+1=2, the one person is right and the 100 wrong; science is no democracy, science is about verifiability. (Although it may be, that the FDP sits in the middle in some state parliaments...but this is not important for an article about the Bundestag). We can use draft D (which is basically my draft upside down, but that's ok with me.) I would nevertheless leave out the directorate, I see no advantage in putting it in (too small by the way and lacking the right proportions). Alektor89 (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * PS: The diagram "already in existence" is no option in my opinion: It has the wrong colours and places both the FDP and the Greens wrong, i.e. in arbitrary positions in an arbitrary left-wing/right-wing- spectrum (and it is not up do date, but seems to refer to the 17th Bundestag (2009-2013) with the CSU as a seperate group, which is also wrong). To make it clear: I really like the diagrams you designed, especially B if it would have the colours, which are used in Wikipedia for german parties per consistency (which is very important). ["A" looks a bit "disengaged" (I don't know if this is the correct english word, my first language is german)-> the front rows are not in the same level etc.] But I see one problem: We will have to actualize the diagram quite often in the next time (I think the AfD-group will loose more members over the next months/years, who will become independent, and the SPD is also in trouble and not very stable), apart from the fact that of course there are big changes after each election (and as a diligent observer of german politics I won't rule out a snap election over the next 12-18 months). And your diagrams are sadly not very easy/fast to actualize, as they are not result of a simple tool, but "handmade". So I would strongly recommend, as a compromise (because you don't like the results of wmflabs), version D (in my opinion without the president's podium and government-/bundesrat-benches. This is a bit nearer to the real seat-arrangement (of course with a grain of salt, but diagrams are by nature not "reality" but representations of reality to be taken with a grain of salt), but is easy to reproduce with wmflabs and MS-Paint for every Wikipedia-editor. And it gives the articles readers a good impression, which will help them understanding, what's happening, if they happen to watch an actual BT-debate. My proposal: I will improve a few things (the grey of the independents does not yet follow the WIKI templates for example) and then will upload the diagram and integrate it into the article with the upside-down orientation, you prefer. Alektor89 (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * So, Draft E is done. I think that is as close as you can get to the real seat-order (as I said, with a grain of salt naturally). I will integrate that one in the article, but of course, if you find a way to integrate a representation of the directorate, which fits proportionally, you can integrate this later on. Or the best would be, if you/someone were able to make a tool, which enables us to use the diagram-style, which you have made by hand (draft B), in a convenient way (i.e. with a few clicks in a few minutes). The good thing in Wikipedia is: No solution has to be for ever. :-) Alektor89 (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * No sir, I do not agree with using Draft E.
 * I can show you how practically non of the diagrams whether arch-style or Westmister correspond to the actual way how the parliaments seat in real life if you wish, so you can stop thinking wrongfully that "is a fact" when it isn't. Show we proceed?
 * If you want to argue that FDP is more right-wing than CDU and therefore should be place on the right of it, be my guest but you should open a new thread. But don't use the fake statement that archs represent how the parliaments are seated, because they don't.
 * I oppose the use of Draft D without the directorate precisely for what you said, is just your wrongfully made arch-diagram, with the directorate at least makes it clear that is not a political espectrum order but the actual physical seating. Also I remember you that you said Draft A had the right colors and Draft B the right shape, well now Draft A has the exact shape as Draft B so I suggest we use Draft A. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * To sum things up; I could go for Draft A or a version of Draf E with the directorate, tho I strongly prefer Draft A for that matter. Otherwise I'm afraid we may need the intervention of the arbitration committe. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Sry, I did not want to integrate E - and did not do so - before hearing your opinion, that was not well formulated (as I said, English is a foreign language to me). Then, you should take my Draft E and integrate the directorate, but it should be bigger, to represent it's real size in contrast to the MP's benches [with a grain of salt, not to the millimeter ;-)]. I do not argue that the FDP is more right wing, nor do I think it is more centrist. It is senseless, completely senseless, to discuss this (I think they are more right wing in questions of economics and in some aspects immigration policiy, but more centrist/left-wing in questions of society policiy, for exemple they are pro gay marriage, abortion rights, contra video surveillance ect. -> you see, this is senseless). I can only give you authoritative sources that the FDP actually sits right of the Union, no matter of their policies:


 * (this is the official "Sitzordnung" as shown on the Bundestag-Homepage) https://www.bundestag.de/parlament/plenum/sitzverteilung_19wp
 * https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/20056000.pdf (you already know this PDF, which is an official Bundestag-publication)
 * For the last time: just watch a Bundestag-debate, if you do not belief this sources.
 * By the way, as far as I know (and I would consider myself quite an expert in german political history), the FDP has always sat right of the Union since 1949 (even when they had a coalition with the SPD) [apart from 2013-2017, when the FDP was not represented in the Bundestag at all].

Although I like draft A, I strongly oppose it's usage, until there is a tool, to update it quickly comparable to wmflabs (if you have the skills, or know someone who has, go in...I sadly do not). This article is fluent and will change every few weeks, months...because of that a handmade diagram is not a good solution, beautiful as it may look.

Maybe it would be nice, if some other users would join this discussion. Alektor89 (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Point is, arch styles do no represent how parliaments seat if that is your whole quarrel. In fact they generally have two ways how they are made, from biggest to smallest which in this case would be The Union, SDP, AfD, FDP and Greens or by political spectrum (as "subjective" as it may be).
 * But anyway. I also don't like how the Independents look in E, seems odd, but I can overlook that. I really don't see why you think that update Draft A is harder to do than Draft E considering that the first can be done by just a small Paint modification whilst the other requires to add all the data all over again party by party on the wmflabs. But anyway, if the best to reach a consensus is E with a smaller size Directorate I will agree, you better do it as you have a more clear idea of the size proportions, by the way you don't have to do a new file you can just update one of the already existing ones like I did.
 * And yes, will be great to see other opinions, I have no hurry to replace the file if you want to wait. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * But: if archs do not represent the actual seating, why do they have a dot for each parliament member? I think there is a difference between an arch with dots and "pure arch", like german Wiki uses: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutscher_Bundestag)
 * This is no "fake statement", I will stay with it. Of course these archs are not 100% reality, but they are a representation of reality with a grain of salt. It never get's better than this, even if you would implement a foto of the chamber (from a philosophical standpoint).
 * By the way: the german BT-articel, also places the FDP right to the Union. The german editors should know, don't they?
 * If you want to put the arbitration comittee in this, no problem. I am 100% sure, to have the better arguments (and sources!) on "my side".Alektor89 (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * That's an authority phalacy, just because they are German-speakers doesn't mean they know better, and then I guess you can show evifdence that the other parliamentary diagrams seat the same way as they are depicted in the real life doesn't it? Can you mention one example?
 * And if you feel so sure then go for the abritration committe yourself. After all the one who change the picture in the first place was you. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Another compromise suggestion: We use draft E (without directorate), but put in a subscription ("schematic diagram of the current seating" or something like that) (the term "schematic" should tell anybody that this is only an orientation and no 1:1 reality seating-plan) Or, if you have a better formulation, go on: You are the native speaker, I suppose ;-):

And by the way (just in case, you continue to disagree), it would be nice, if you would source your assertions, what an arch in Wikipedia "does" and "does not" represent. I have already given you reliable and authorative sources for my standpoint (official Bundestag-publications). Alektor89 (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * On the first, it looks incredibly ugly to me but if it is the best we can do in order to end what seems to be a very wasting discussion, I will agree. Is there a point in a discussion when you can only aspire to what is the lesser worst option. However I will star to suggest the change for a better looking (probably Draft A) diagram in the other languages I collaborate, to see if I can at least take away the bad taste.
 * On the second, actually the burden of proof relies in those who affirm something, not in those who deny it, both in sciences and laws, it is you who affirms that diagrams show the actual physical seating something I'm very skeptical about should be you the one who proofs it. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is very sophistic in my opinion (with this argumentation, you can argue against any change in any article). I have made a change, yes, and can give reliable and authoritative sources for this change. This is scientifically 100% correct. By the way, the fact that the diagram is an arch suggests that it somehow represents the parliament seating (as most non-Westminster-Parliaments have the form of an arch). And as yet, only one user - you - has raised a fundamentally different standpoint. But, ok, I see that you have a point. These diagrams are not 1:1 representations of reality, so we needed to find a compromise, which is absolutely ok. So may I understand, this case is settled with the "subscription-solution" or did I get you wrong?Alektor89 (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Look if you are so interest in me to show you how the arch-diagrams do not represent the actual physical seating it won’t be so hard to do:


 * Costa Rican parliament diagram
 * Actual physical seating


 * Nicaragua
 * Actual physical seating


 * Poland
 * Actual physical seating


 * Spain
 * Actual seating


 * American house
 * Actual


 * American Senate diagram
 * Actual


 * Australian Senate
 * Actual


 * Australian House
 * Atual


 * Should I continue? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Then one should change these diagrams. What point is there with an arch diagram with dots [which stand for parliament seats], if they do not represent the actual seating to at least some point? And in case of the Bundestag, there is really no point to put the FDP in the middle. They do in fact not sit in the middle and are in the end of the day also not more "centrist" than the Union [apart from the fact that the right/left-wing scheme seem - at least to me - out of date anyway, but that's another story and is irrelevant for an encyclopaedia, as is the whole question (no original research!)] ... But again, am I right to understand that you accept the "subscription solution" as a compromise (which both of us do not like 100%, but does meet both your and my concerns at least to some point and - not unimportant - can be sourced reliably and authoritative)? Alektor89 (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Because as I said before the diagramas were always made using one of two possible rationales: whether showing parties from major to minor (that's why the tool says "party 1") or by showing the left to right political spectrum. Good that you finally realize it, it took quite long. About the other, I have a second counteroption, wihtout the directorate there's no sense in putting it backwards. If we are going for the defectuos version at the very least let's make it reasonably acceptable to look at. So I suggest this one:




 * And yes, with a very clear schematics explanation. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, this looks good (the eagle needs to go maybe one millimeter to the right, to be in the middle). My suggestion for the subscription: "schematic diagram of the seating order" (cf. Oxford Dictionary of English s.v. schematic, p. 1577: "[of a diagram or other representation] symbolic and simplified"). I think this adjective is exactly, what we want. But if you have a better proposal, go on ;-)Alektor89 (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Fine, feel free to make the change if you want (you know, just click in upload a new version of this file) and replace it in the main page's infobox you have my consent. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * All right, I will do so (tomorrow, time to get some sleep).Alektor89 (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't know how to update a file right? Lol. Greets. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Alektor89 do not refer to me in your summaries, that's rude and is agains WP policies. And allow me to correct you by the way. I do not hold a different view, arch-diagrams and even Westmister diagrams do not represent the way how parliament member seat, I really though you realized that after the many examples I gave you and the fact that you couldn't provide nor even a single example otherwise, which feel free to do if you want. You are the only person in the whole Wikipedia who thinks that as far as I'm aware off.

And just for the record, I think the chosen diagram is terrible, there were other much better options, let's hope other users indeed take part in the discussion, maybe we can came with a better choice, which isn't hard to be honest. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not summarize you, in fact I told the user to read this discussion to get to his/her own conclusions (which is fair enough). OK, here is an example for a parliamentary diagram which represents the order of actual seating (FDP right of Union)...I do not think that it is important that every dot is in the exactly right spot, but ok, I have gotten that you are a bit pedantic about this:
 * [] (look in the box on the right side)
 * I have told you that I like your diagram-proposals but have concerns about their practicability in a fluent article. Make a tool to update them quickly (like wmflabs), and I am with you. Alektor89 (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * That is not a diagram with dots, is a cake, and has no independents anywhere. Not quite the best example. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In any case, the tool already exist, check this and this, they were created by Inkscape. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * User talk:Dereck Camacho: [...] Would you be OK if I would change the diagrams of all past Bundestags (this are only 17 diagrams [there was no FDP in the 18th]) so that the FDP sits right of the Union (which it always has done and which can be proven with sources easily)? I would take a few hours an do this, if this settles our argument.Alektor89 (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Alright, let's do something, if you change all the diagrams of past Bundestag and all the diagrams of all the State parliaments, and no one complains, I'll be satisfy. If someone complains or reverts you, then you'll have to convince him/her and/or re-start the discussion. Do we agree? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The state parliaments are a case on their own (at least in principle), they have their own seating order, which is decided roughly the same way as in the BT. In most state parliaments the FDP, if represented, sits on the right side of the Union (as it does in the BT), but I think at least in Baden-Württemberg (where the FDP has a different tradition from the other FDP state-associations, but I don't know if this is the reason): here the FDP sits in the middle between the Greens and the CDU. But in alle the other states (or let's say "most", I have not checked it) I think, there is no problem: It's always "The Left - SPD - The Greens - CD(/S)U - FDP - AfD" (I think, one can call this "established praxis"). And what makes it easier, the FDP is by far not represented in all state parliaments (only in 9 of 16 at the moment, I think). So, I could do this over the next days. Alektor89 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

If you are going to turn the state parliaments into how they are seated (something new for Wikipedia btw) you should do it in all cases and fit them accordingly, not just changing FDP's postion. And if you're not going to change FDP's postion in the election articles then the situation will be confussing. All because you want to see FDP "where it seats". Anyway, I would like to ask the opinion of some collaborators who know a lot about these sort of things and had worked a lot with diagrams mand. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Well now that my opinion was requested, I would say the following.
 * First, to be honest I did not read the whole thread, is too long, sorry, but I think I have enough of a grasp about what has been discussed here. But if something I say was already touched upon please bear with me.


 * Second, I never heard that this kind of diagrams represented how the MPs are seated; I was also under the impression that they represented the spectrum or sometimes represented the blocs of government vs opposition or in some minority cases the largest group to the smallest.


 * Third, in any case if you want my opinion about which of the options look better, I’ll go for A. I don’t think the current is bad, but I think the option A looks much better, if the idea is to show how the MPs seat that’s the way to go. I don’t really see the problem in updated assuming it becomes necessary is something that can be done in a couple of seconds just by changing the color of the dots needed, it is probably even easier than using the Parliamentary Tool.


 * Hope my intervention was constructive, best regards. --TV Guy (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * All right: as we say in german: Der Klügere gibt nach (~"The smarter one concedes"). Just to reach a consensus: If User talk:Dereck Camacho is (A) willing to oversee the update of the diagram regularly and quickly (I would be ready to inform him about changes, if wished so) and (B) improves draft A a little bit more (I think the passageways should be a little bit tighter and the front rows of the groups need to be on the same level, which is not the case as yet - if the diagram shall be a "perfect" representation of the actual seating, this should be done the right way), I am ready to accept that solution. The future will show, if this works. Alektor89 (talk) 09:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem, I just find a program named Flourish which works the same as Parliamentary Tools. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 12:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Diagram A
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)




 * 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)


 * 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)
 * I made the walkspaces, what do you think? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)




 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * OK, I will do so. Good that this problem is solved. Alektor89 (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Second diagram discussion
Alektor89 If you want to change the diagram again, which I remind you should be done after consensus is reached as it was a controversial subject already discussed before. Fine. I would suggest to use this one, which is the one used by far in most languages and is updated. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the proposal. I like this one, with two exceptions, one being a "hard" problem and one a "soft" one. First; CDU and CSU should not be shown apart, as this is not the case in the Bundestag. They build one joint group with one parliamentary leadership, are counted as one group with respect to committee-positions and so on. The other thing is the position of the FDP. I understand that you are once again proposing a "left wing-right wing scheme", which one can of course consider to be a reasonable thing to do. But I would ask you to take a step back and accept, that at least with respect to German politics this is a very difficult thing to do. Many people would disagree with the sentiment that the FDP is more centrist than the CDU/CSU and at least with respect to economic questions, I personally would agree with them. I would agree with you that the Greens are more centrist than the SPD but many people in Germany would probably not. I don' knwo if this is easier in other countries, at least in Germany it is highly problematic. In my opinon there are two ways so "solve" this problem adequatly:
 * Variant A: Keep the "left wing-right wing sheme", but in unclear cases (i.e. SPD/Greens, FDP/CDUCSU) follow the seating arrangements, as they as a matter of fact follow a left-right ratio in a way, the parties themselve see it. In this case: ...SPD-Greens-CDUCSU-FDP...
 * Variant B: Abandon the "left wing-right wing sheme" applying a "government-opposition sheme" in which from left to right first the governing parties are shown from largest to smallest and then the opposition parties from largest to smallest.
 * Do you think one of this variants feasible? Best regards, Alektor89 (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I see no problem in unifying the CDU/CSU, nor I see a problem in locate the FDP in the right of the CDU/CSU, in fact is how is presented on the Deutscher_Bundestag which I guess they know what they're doing as they're Germans.
 * On the other option, I see no problem with a government-opposition diagram as far as is not an arch. I see no way how an arch can unambiguously show what is opposition and what is government. How do we signal where government ends and opposition starts in an arch? Is very confussing. In that sense a Westmister-style diagram would do it. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, if I get you right (arch diagram: Left-SPD-Greens-CDUCSU [as one group in black]- FDP - AfD; non-inscrits next to their former groups), I agree and have no objections. Would you mind doing the edit? Thank you in advance! Alektor89 (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have a diagram with those characteristics already or would it be necessary to make it? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose, it would be necessary to make a new one, I guess... Alektor89 (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll check if is one already on Commons if not I'll make it, but in a couple of hours as right now I'm doing something. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Alektor89 would this diagram be ok? I found it in Commons. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nearly :). There have two be two more non-inscrits next to the AfD and two less AfD-members. Then it's up to date! Alektor89 (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, that party really had some quitting. I'll check commons if there's one already first. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 13:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There wasn't any, but I did updated this one. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they lost their first two MP's one day after the election, before the legislative period had even startet :D...thank you, this looks perfect! Alektor89 (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Non-inscrits / groups versus parties in infobox
Looking at this edit by Alektor89, I am not certain whether we give the correct information in the infobox, which somewhat mixes group (Fraktion) and party membership. For the CDU/CSU group, we show party membership. For the Linke group, we don't (Anke Domscheit-Berg is a group member, but not a party member). Non-inscrit links to Independent politician, implying these people do not belong to a party, but several of them indeed are members of either Liberalkonservative Reformer or DIE PARTEI. If we emphasise group membership over party membership that much, we still shouldn't call these people "independents". I don't have a particularly good suggestion what we should do, but I think there should be better ways to do this. (There are other possible choices: United States Senate displays party membership instead of caucuses. But of course these things carry rather different connotations in the US and in the German political systems). Does anybody have suggestions how to display this more accurately? —Kusma (t·c) 15:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey Kusma! :) Your are absolutely right: A non-inscrit can be member of a party (Bülow, also some of the former AfD-members, who are now in the LKR) and a group-member can be independent. We should call them non-inscrits (Fraktionslose). The problem is that the existing article Non-inscrits only refers to the European parliament, although the definition given there ("Non-Inscrits [...] are Members of the European Parliament (MEP) who do not belong to one of the recognised political groups.") does also perfectly apply to the non-group-members in the BT. So it is this article which must be worked over, to reflect that there are parliaments in the world (for example the European Parliament, the german Bundestag etc. etc....), in which parties must fulfill certain requirements (holding a minimum number/share of seats etc.) in order to qualify for parliamentary recognition, and that parliamentary members whose party does fail to do so, sit as non-inscrits... Alektor89 (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * PS.: It would be also possible, to do it this way (of course with the colourboxes): Alektor89 (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I like that much better. Both not linking non-inscrits and giving the party memberships of all of the Fraktionslosen should help to clarify. (Maybe we need an article about the concept of Fraktion in German politics, or at least a section in Parliamentary group where Fraktion redirects to). Or work on non-inscrits as you suggest. —Kusma (t·c) 17:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Done! :)Alektor89 (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Two objections:
 * 1. Why do we use such an obscure term like "non-inscrits" that, according to its own article, is restricted to the European Parliament?
 * 2. While it might be okay to mention parties these idependent MdB are affiliated with (e.g. the South Schleswig group or years ago the predecessor of the Left Party) - as long as they are only a few of them - it is confusing and misleading to list independents as belonging to a party already has a Fraktion. Confusing because the reader will wonder why they are independents when they are members of such a party. Misleading because in each of these cases, there is a rift between the mainstream of the party/Fraktion and these individuals, even if they have not yet left the party or have not yet been expelled from the party (which in Germany is a very difficult process).
 * Str1977 (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey Str1977, the point is: There is a difference between 'independent' and 'non-inscrit' (german: Fraktionslos). An independent is a politician, who is not member of party per WIKI-definition (Independent politician). A non-inscrit is a politician sitting in a parliament, who may or may not be member of a party, but is no part of a group/faction of that parliament. (As a matter of fact, a group/faction-member can be an independent, for which there are to my knowledge many examples in the history of the Bundestag and many other german parliaments). The current situation is a case in point: There are 4 members, who do not belong to a faction/group, but two of those are no independents, as they are members of political parties. We have to somehow reflect on that. Alektor89 (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The definition is not that clear-cut. It is quite common to speak of independent representatives or MPs even if they are member of a party. BTW, it is 3 of the Fraktionslose that belong to a party, not 2. But you are totally glossing over the issue that labelling someone who chose not to sit with a certain Fraktion someone still should be bear the same label. In fact, they are more independent than the SSW MdB. I, for my part, never saw any merit of giving a detailed make-up of the Fraktionslose.
 * In any case, non-inscrit is such an obscure term that it should not be promoted by WP beyond its sourced applicability. On the Bundestag page the word had never been used before 2017 - before that we always wrote "Indepdents". Str1977 (talk) 12:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * PS. There are alternatives like non-attached. Also, Parteilose actually are "non-partisans", not "independents". Str1977 (talk) 12:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey Str1977! Sorry, I did not notice that you had already continued the discussion here (I should have checked this before posting on your talk-page, admittedly). To put a long matter short: I am totally ok with non-attached. We can leave it that way, as far as I am concerned and as long as this is not opposed by other editors. "I, for my part, never saw any merit of giving a detailed make-up of the Fraktionslose." Well, this may be your opinion, to which you are perfectly entitled. But I (and as I assumue, others) will argue that it should be clear that in contrast to the groups, the non-insctits/non-attacheds-'bloc' is very(!) heterogenous, i.e. consisting of an AfD-member too extreme to have been allowed in his partys group (which is saying a lot; https://www.rnd.de/politik/afd-abgeordneter-will-nicht-mitglied-der-fraktion-werden-OR5IQDNYGYHZADULUH2YSZTK6E.html), two former AfD members, who have left the party which became too extreme for them, to a center-left politician of the SSW. Also please note, that it is done the very same way in the german article's info-box. But if we have a consensus with the term 'non-attached' and can otherwise leave the list as it is, we don't need to discuss that here at length either. Alektor89 (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I am glad that we could agree on "non-attached". It is IMHO a much clearer term than the very obscure "non-inscrits"
 * I still think the AfD-but-not-AfD too confusing for the average reader. I recall that in 2017 with the Frauke Petry situation we used to put the make up of the non-attached members in a footnote, where this can be discussed better. Str1977 (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The situation with F. Petry was different, as she announced one day after the election that she would not join the AfD group and at the same time ended her party membership in the AfD. So, she clearly was an independent MP from that time on. Of course, I would have no objection, if you would want to add a footnote, in which the 'Helfferich-problem' is explained. Alektor89 (talk) 09:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Caretaker Option
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)

Tag meaning day?
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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud (talk • contribs)

Wikimedia Commons template placement?
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)
 * Moved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Parliament diagramm
I oppose showing the CSU separately in the diagram and showing parties with colours that do not have parliamentary group status in the Bundestag. This could very quickly give the impression that the CSU has something like an independent status in the Bundestag, which is simply not the case. Its MPs are fully part of the Union parliamentary group - the CSU has no right to its own vice-president, no committee representation, no separate speaking time, CDU and CSU act as one party in the Bundestag. And a diagram should reflect this fact (German Wikipedia does so too). I have always been of the opinion that the best possible solution is to show all CDU/CSU MPs in black in the diagram (since they form a single block in parliamentary procedure) and to break this down by indenting the political groups below. By the way, that's how it was before the graph extension failed. So I would be in favour of returning to that - regardless of whether with dots or pie charts: Colours for official parliamentary groups ("Fraktionen"), all non attached members in grey. Alektor89 (talk)


 * I disagree. The CDU and CSU belong to the same parliamentary faction, but they are not the same party. By using borders coloured after the factions around dots coloured after the parties, we can visually represent the same information we are providing below through indentation. Users can, for example, quickly see how strong the CDU/CSU faction is compared with the others, while also seeing how strong the CSU is within that faction. If this information is important enough to include it in the party breakdown below, why wouldn’t it be important enough to include it in the diagram?


 * The “faction-less” MPs include independents, members of the AfD, and an MP from the South Schleswig Voters' Association. Representing them all in grey could leave users confused as to why there’s a grey dot in the centre of the diagram when all the others are at the far-right; this way, they can see that’s the SSW MP. They can also differentiate between the AfD members in the AfD faction, the non-attached AfD members, and the independent MPs. Again, information important enough to include it in the party breakdown below. Brainiac242 (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The difference is that the overview under the diagram is clickable. If someone wonders why two parties have been indented under the CDU/CSU, they can immediately call up the corresponding WIKI articles and find out about it. The diagram cannot do that: it only gives an impression of the political groups in the Bundestag, and only the CDU/CSU as a whole can be described as such. Moreover, the representation is inconsistent: Why are CSU MPs shown in blue with a black border and CDU MPs only in black? The CDU/CSU parliamentary group is not a CDU parliamentary group, where the CSU members are also allowed to participate, but a joint parliamentary group of two parties. This makes it look as if some are 'real' members of the parliamentary group and the others are a bit of an appendage, which is simply wrong. A diagram should not be 'loaded' with such complex facts, as it can't explain them.


 * By the way: When the Graph Extension works again, this will be over anyway, because such representations are not possible there. There is a colour coding for the CDU/CSU (black) and that's it. Why should we now do things differently for a few months just because there are technical problems?


 * A possible compromise: Perhaps the CDU/CSU would need its own colour as a joint parliamentary group; for example, a dark blue (which should, however, be much darker than that of the AfD, because otherwise it is difficult to distinguish)?Alektor89 (talk) 07:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)


 * (1) The representation is not inconsistent. If you download the file and look at its code you’ll see that both CDU and CSU MPs have a black border representing the CDU/CSU faction, you just can’t see it around the CDU MPs because they are also coloured black. I actually agree with you that using a different colour for the faction would be better, but Wikipedia uses black. The colours in the image have to match the colours in the party breakdown below. If you want to change the colour, I suggest you start a debate here.


 * (2) Many election apportionment diagrams were images before the extension failed, and many will continue to be images after it works again. One of the reasons editors used images was precisely the lack of options in the extension to do things such as this. The most common reason, however, was that diagrams are often used in several articles; using the extension meant that, when they had to be updated, they had to be updated manually in every one them. Images have to be updated only once. As long as the extension doesn’t allow us to represent both the factions and the parties in the Bundestag in some way, I think this one should be one of the diagrams that continue to be images. Brainiac242 (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

New voting system
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)

BSW is not a political party
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)
 * 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)

The Chairs of the Bundestag
Now this may sound silly, but I think the Chairs (the ones people sit on) should be discussed in the English Wikipedia article as well. It may seem weird, but the Chairs of the Bundestag have been object of some Questioning and Importance, as the German Article to them (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figura_(B%C3%BCrostuhl)) may show. Of course, it could also be handled in a seperate Article, but i dont think that would be fitting with their lack of Importance in the wider world.

They do provide a great Insight into the Bundestag though, for those interrested in the day to day of it. Have a Nice day. TheDestroyer3 (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * As the link you gave doesn't work, and the article you've linked does not appear to have existed (?), I am not sure how noteworthy exactly they are. The line in der main article that reads:
 * makes them seem like fairly standard, e.g. non-notable, parliamentary procedure. JackTheSecond (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * makes them seem like fairly standard, e.g. non-notable, parliamentary procedure. JackTheSecond (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)