This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Does this really warrant a page of its own when the main election page and aftermath is so short as it is. See the United Kingdom general election, 2010 for example. A lot can fit on there until it comes close to 100k (which is no where near), this is page is so small as well. This can easily be tagged onto the main election page.
I concur with the formation being covered in a separate article. This is likely to be a long process - the UK case is an exception to the rule that coalition governments take a good deal of time to come together. HonouraryMix (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A coalition with the PVV is being investigated first, because the PVV is the party that gained most seats (compared to the previous election), namely +15. That is the reason that the PVV is part of this formation. This fact is being copy-edited out, because we can't find a good English formulation for it. Rather than editing out an important fact, can we find a good wording for it? Peterbr (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with noting the PVV had its best-ever national result. In fact, I added "best-ever national result", before that was removed as well. The problem with saying "biggest election winner", is that phrase suggests the PVV won the election. It can't be construed any other way. How about a consensus on saying the PVV achieved - using these words - "its best-ever national result"? HonouraryMix (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Dutch terms the PVV won the elections. That doesn't mean they got most seats in parliament of any party, it means they gained most compared to the previous elections. The party that got most seats in parliament is usually not the election winner: they're the biggest party. Peterbr (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]