Talk:Historic composition of the House of Representatives of the Netherlands

Why?
Why was this created when there was already Template:List of cabinets of the Netherlands? Wouldn't it have been simpler to add the pre-war info there? The main difference is that the axes have been swapped, but that seems less handy to me. DirkvdM 08:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The difference is two fold, as I already explained on the talk of the template


 * 1) Compared to the template, this table is more useful
 * 2) It is what it claims an overview of the historic composition of the Tweede Kamer, that should not clash with a list of cabinets of the Netherlands, if that was what it claims it is
 * 3) It is not a template, but an article on its own, so it does not have to be transcluded in articles, but just linked, so people who are interested in the historic composition of the Tweede Kamer
 * 4) This is less clunky.
 * 5) The tables is more legible:
 * 6) It is considerably less complicated because it represents only one type of information and not several different types of information at the same time.
 * 7) It does not need a legenda of ten sentences.
 * If you would have red my comment on the Template talk:List of cabinets of the Netherlands you would have known already. C mon 09:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That was yesterday. I just noticed this first, so I'll comment here. Of course I'm a bit pissed off about the fact that I spent several hours working on the old list and then the very next day you come up with another one and remove the links I created to the old one. If you wanted to do this, then why did you choose this untactful moment for it?
 * But let's put that aside and see which of the two lists is better. To start with your points:
 * Both tables show the chamber composition and the cabinets, so what's the difference? Or do you mean the name wasn't correct? Then why not simply (propose to) change the name?
 * I grant you that. I wasn't too sure about maing it a template either. But that is not about the table itself either - we can just change give the old table its own article, like with this one.
 * Clunky? In a previous discussion you called it 'less professional', but I still don't see why.
 * Give our readers some credit. It's only three columns.
 * That's partly the same argument as the previous one. But ...
 * Both tables give basically the same info. The old one just adds three columns - the cabinet (plus useful link!), the size of the coalition and the seat change, which indeed each require a line in the legenda. The last one might go, I just thought that an interresting addition.
 * The real difference is the changing of the axes, which makes the explanation of two party names (two legenda lines) unnecessary, so that saves two lines in the legenda. All the other lines are a matter of the old one giving more info. So, apart from what other info should be included, the basic question is whether the cabinet should be named and linked. I think that is very useful info, so the style of the old table, with the years on the vertical axis, makes more sense. I have brought the wider issue up at Talk:Politics of the Netherlands. DirkvdM 10:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Both tables give basically the same info. The old one just adds three columns - the cabinet (plus useful link!), the size of the coalition and the seat change, which indeed each require a line in the legenda. The last one might go, I just thought that an interresting addition.
 * The real difference is the changing of the axes, which makes the explanation of two party names (two legenda lines) unnecessary, so that saves two lines in the legenda. All the other lines are a matter of the old one giving more info. So, apart from what other info should be included, the basic question is whether the cabinet should be named and linked. I think that is very useful info, so the style of the old table, with the years on the vertical axis, makes more sense. I have brought the wider issue up at Talk:Politics of the Netherlands. DirkvdM 10:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Two notes, on what you said here (I have taken the principle discussion to the Dutch politics talk):
 * I did this because I noticed your table now and was inspired by your comment "I know it's a bit messy, but just try and come up with something better, so I did.
 * I'm very sorry if you spend a lot of time on something which didn't work out, perhaps you can learn from that, that before you contribute something to wikipedia, you should assess whether there aren't easier ways to do things like copying information from other language versions. C mon 11:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That comment on the table being messy was about the ordering of the parties, not the rest of the layout. I should indeed have checked the Dutch Wikipedia, but if I would have, I would still have disagreed with the way the axes are oriented. But let's indeed continue this discussion at the politics of the Netherlands talk page. DirkvdM 12:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)