Talk:2023–2024 Dutch cabinet formation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Campaign section

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

Yes, it probably should be "governing with the PVV". See translation of NOS news, 18 August:

VVD party leader Yesilgöz does not rule out cooperation with PVV in advance

Uwappa (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed it! Dajasj (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

2024 in Title

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

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

Support for Plasterk

@W.G.J., DENK was already against Van Striens appointment. So it is really necessary to highlight the objections of 3-6 seats in the House? Seems pretty inconsequential Dajasj (talk) 12:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is inconsequential, it is noteworthy to mention any objection to the appointment of a scout. Whether that is against Van Striens, Plasterk or both. It shows that there is no unanimity. 𝕎.𝔾.𝕁. ^{( t | c )} 12:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Unanimity is not required tho. I doubt this will make the history books tbh. But its fine for now Dajasj (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I get what you're saying and no – unanimity is definitely not a requirement. But uninformed readers might get a better grasp of the complexity of Dutch politics if objections of small parties, a direct consequence of the fragmentation of the Dutch political landscape, are mentioned. 𝕎.𝔾.𝕁. ^{( t | c )} 12:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

including -2024

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

Fair, but I based it on the best source available. In any case, it is simply impossible to form a cabinet before the end of the year. So I wont object to changing, but in the end it will simply be more work for us on 1 January. Dajasj (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

To me that seems like Original Research, but I wanted your comments as well as anyone else interested. I'm not going to stand on a table yelling my position on this and looking at List of Dutch cabinet formations, it seems *far* more likely than not that this will go into 2024 , I was just looking to see if the consensus was an IAR here. (Note, if this was a *Belgian* cabinet formation, I'd actually consider 2023-2025 to be a possibility as well.)Naraht (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, not completely OR because parlement.com assumes so as well. The first moment when parliament can debate with the scout will be 11 December (see https://nos.nl/l/2499930). The formation will then move into a second phase. That leaves twenty days, including holidays and weekend days, for the remaining two phases. One of which is doing background checks for incoming ministers, which is already a week. And 2025 is also theoretically possible, but Im not predicting the end date beyond that it will be later than 2023.

Anyway, feel free to change it. It's just more work. Dajasj (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Rewriting

Sorry I published without completing edit summary. Reason I changed a few sentences is that it was outdated. PVV retracted 5 laws. And the rewritten sentences give less attention to De Zwaluwenberg. I'm also not sure whether mentioning all co-negotiatiors is relevant because there are so many this year. Dajasj (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, no problem! Just shifted the info about so it's in chronological order (which seems to make more sense!) Jdcooper (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, on 8 January Wilders withdrew 3 laws. The other 2 were withdrawn later. So I figured it would be better to ignore the chronological order and just link them directly to the conclusions of that phase. Dajasj (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, how about now? Is the new wording sensible to you? Jdcooper (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Background

Hi @Jdcooper, I removed part of my own text both here and on nlwiki, because the background is a bit long and some information isn't really necessary to understand the formation. I believe that should be the focus of the background. Not everything that is sourced, is relevant. (I realised afterwards that I did not restore all internal links, sorry for that). Dajasj (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Dajasj: Gotcha, I see it now! Thanks for the note. I removed one bit of unnecessary detail, but I don't think the rest of the sentence does any harm, it's useful for casual observers of Dutch politics (like myself :) Jdcooper (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

But in hindsight, does it help to know that PvdA-GL have merged, given that they hardly participated in this formation? Or that BBB slowly lost its lead (except that they have many seats in the Senate, but that's noted below). I can imagine more context might be useful, but I don't think this is the right context? Dajasj (talk) 06:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 13 June 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

---

2023–2024 Dutch cabinet formation → 2023–2024 cabinet formation in the Netherlands – Similar to Cabinet of the Netherlands and Category:Cabinet formation in the Netherlands, it makes sense to rename from the ambigious "Dutch" to "the Netherlands". Downside is that other countries also use the current structure, see Category:Cabinet formation, but could of course be renamed in the future. Dajasj (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Small update: I found Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics), which recommends the change. Dajasj (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• strong support. new title is more specific — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.3.91 (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: @Dajasj, I came here to suggest the exact change made, but I wanted to note that @Dekimasu changed the proposed target from 2023-2024 cabinet formation in the Netherlands to 2023–2024 cabinet formation in the Netherlands. This was simply a change from a hyphen to an en-dash, based on MOS:DATERANGE, which is what the original proposed target should have been. Just noting it for transparency. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NOTBROKENWP:AINTBROKE, WP:TITLECON, and WP:WRONGFORUM. gidonb (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Gidonb, thanks for the vote. Could you elaborate what would be the appropriate venue? And how do you view the fact that right now this page is inconsistent with other Dutch politics pages? And finally, I might misunderstand, but how is Not broken relevant here? Dajasj (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Allow me to return to my order, as it wasn't random. So NOTBROKEN should have been AINTBROKE, my bad, also corrected above. The AINTBROKE corresponds to your line it makes sense to rename from the ambigious "Dutch". So while Dutch means both "of the Netherlands" and the language, since cabinet is a political body, the only intuitive meaning here is "of the Netherlands". (Plus, regarding the languages, in titles we disambiguate that at the other end, e.g. by spelling out Dutch-language, Danish-language, etc.) In other words, there is nothing wrong with the current name. The suggested name isn't wrong either, it's just a bit more cumbersome way of saying exactly the same thing. So already this shouldn't move. Regarding TITLECON, you correctly pointed out in the intro that the move you suggest is entirely inconsistent with the name of formations in other countries ("Downside is that other countries also use the current structure"). You forgot to point out that it is also entirely inconsistent with the title used for all other cabinet formations of the Netherlands. To the extent possible, we really want titles to be internally and externally consistent. As for wrong forum: this should have ben set out to all formations of all countries in order to create consistent outcomes for all countries plus internal consistency. This was at the end to focus on the content and consistency of your suggestion as first and second on a scale of importance. I object to this proposal on all counts. gidonb (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I understand your points, although I disagree. In particular because of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics). Regarding the fact that this affects multipe Dutch cabinet formations (most written by me), I figured proposing it here would make more sense because by far more people read this page so would be aware of a proposed change. But I assumed that consensus for change here, would also be consensus for changing all those Dutch pages. But I guess I could add the proposal to all formations, if more people support it here. Dajasj (talk) 10:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not needed. The name is fine. gidonb (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. While WP:NCCST favors spelling out the country name (despite naming many exceptions), I do not see a compelling case to move the many articles required (to retain consistency) in this case to avoid ambiguity. As Gidonb argues, its political subject removes ambiguity that this is about the ethnicity or language. I don't believe one option is superior, hence my weak vote. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per the aforementioned arguments, as well as per NCWWW (following the [when] [where] [what] structure) and CONCISE (the title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects). "2023–2024 Dutch cabinet formation" is already precise enough, but it is more concise than the proposed title. Also, the current title matches the style used for most other government formations elsewhere (see Category:Cabinet formation). Impru20^talk 09:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I see no reason why this should be necessary. Renerpho (talk) 00:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.