I reverted the merger of this template and the historical dutch parties template by user:electionworld here. I have several reasons

1. The merger was not done well it just merged the info of the two templates without any logic or consideration. It was split between 5 ideological categories and 3 levels of representation: it was a chaotic and illogical
2. The merger is uncalled for: there are not rules calling for a minumum number of templates. The only logical rule is that we want consistent uncloggy, clear and not overly large templates. The merged template was inconsistent, cloggy, unclear and overly large
3. The merger should have passed through an TfD. It should atleast have been discussed
4. I don't see why these two of the total 6 Dutch party template should be merged.

I would prefer if any further merge would be discussed first. C mon 20:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do people feel about removing duplicates by merging the Senate, HoR and EP rows to one "nationally represented" row? Dajasj (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, preferably without the seat counts or EP groups. Navboxes are for navigation, not for information. Luxorr (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CU-SGP is now in the list of parties that has national or European representation, but that isn't true anymore. Dajasj (talk) 07:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, I've moved the alliance down to local parties (while also represented in a provincial council, it's not a regional combination per se). Adding CU–SGP to its constituent parties in (euro)parliament was mostly done for organizational purposes. --NFSreloaded (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]