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