Template talk:Defunct political parties in the Netherlands

Some 'rules':

• parties must have been in the Dutch parliament to be taken up in the list;
• party is are grouped per pillar;
• party is are ordered by year of foundation;
• parties that have been in government are bolded.
  -C mon 17:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement above is that parties must have been in parliament to be included, but at least 2 of the parties currently on the list (haven't checked them all): New Right, National Alliance.

Do we want to change the rules, or remove the non-represented parties? Whaledad (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've opted for the second. The parties listed were not very relevant in Dutch politics, two out of five weren't even represented in parliament. C mon (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Alliance for the Democratization of the Army, Peasants' League and Middle Party for City and Country were also not in parliament. SpeakFree (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, didn't see a Representation section. SpeakFree (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Dajasj: care to share your reasoning behind this revision? --NFSreloaded (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the mix of bold and non-bold is restless/chaotic, while it is a bit arbitrary to highlight parties that at some point have been in government. Also slightly confusing when you see this template on a page, because the page is automatically in bold (and the party I was looking at has not been in government). Dajasj (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. You also removed the Only parties represented in parliament are shown. line, however. For the sake of notability and readability, it might be prudent to retain that 'rule'. --NFSreloaded (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yeah, that was a mistake! Dajasj (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]