Template:Outline of knowledge coverage WPT

Netherlands Project‑class

This page 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 Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

In the category "Dutch Singers-Songwriters" Ana Popovic is listed there too although she is Serbian and not Dutch. The category is not named "Dutch Bands" - if that was the case placing her there would possibly make sense since she formed a band in the Netherlands some years ago (she now lives in the US). I don't know, I just thought it's a bit odd really, any thoughts appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by VasVel (talk • contribs) 19:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can approach this in the following way. If Ana Popović didn't have the Dutch nationality, she should not be listed in any Dutch categories as a person. If her band was based in the Netherlands, an article about her band should be listed in Dutch categories. – Editør (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Gerbrandy Tower (Dutch: Gerbrandytoren) is a tower in IJsselstein, the Netherlands. It was built in 1961.

Should this say in IJsselstein, the Netherlands or IJsselstein, Netherlands? What do people think? I've seen it written both ways. Robert4565 (talk) 05:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I would choose the longer form of "in IJsselstein in the Netherlands", but I think your two options are fine too and you can pick any one you like. – Editør (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a list of vital articles within the scope of this project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands/Vital articles. – Editør (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is an interesting list, if the project were more active, we could try to start a collaborative effort to improve some of these articles. CRwikiCA talk 19:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right, although we could try and ask for help from other projects related to a selected article. – Editør (talk) 09:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A logical start would be the 3 level-3 articles. Even though my time to spend on it is relatively limited. If we have a few editors working together it might help it along more smoothly. CRwikiCA talk 14:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I seems logical, but it will also be hard, because there is so much literature about Rembrandt or Van Gogh. Perhaps it is easier to begin at the articles with the lowest class, currently Start class, and try to improve those five articles to the next class, in this case to C class. – Editør (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be another logical approach, to sweep up. Possibly bringing everything to B-class first and then only later on carefully improve articles to GA an FA status, which would be a lot more work. I think B-class is a good aim, because it could even be argued that most of the current Start-class are actually at the C-class level already. CRwikiCA talk 17:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, B class is preferred if that guarantees quality improvement. – Editør (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, now it's a matter of seeing whether we can find some people and to determine what order we would want to start doing this. CRwikiCA talk 17:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've enabled automatic archiving for this talk page. Posts will be archived after they are inactive for 31 days. Is this period too short? – Editør (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The time seems fine, I included a minimum of 5 threads left, so the talk page wouldn't seem to empty. CRwikiCA talk 14:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thread minimum. I saw that WT:GER uses a period of three months, I think this is a better time, so I'll change it for now. – Editør (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please weigh in at Talk:Een beetje. —  AjaxSmack  02:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we start selecting an article for improvement. While considering our previous discussion, I think we should not limit ourselves to vital articles. An 'article for improvement' could be selected from all articles within the scope of WP:NL. I think the criteria for selection should be:

1. two or more users are willing to collaborate on the article
2. the article is likely to be improved considerably

I would like to hear your thoughts on this. – Editør (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we start such a collaboration, we might need to peek at other Wikiprojects to see how they approach it and what format would work best (fixed time frame/target quality). I do agree we should not necessarily limit ourselves to the vital articles, but it is probably desirable to pick articles that are highly relevant and have a relative high amount of page views. CRwikiCA talk 14:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could collaborate on Netherlands at the 2014 Winter Olympics? – Editør (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a good article to start with yes. The following manual of style might be of interest Wikipedia:WikiProject_Olympics/Manual_of_Style_(Games_summary_–_Nations). CRwikiCA talk 14:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We could collaborate on this article: Dutch municipal elections, 2014. – Editør (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good candidate indeed. CRwikiCA talk 13:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should differentiate between articles about current/recent events within the scope of this project, which are a specific category, and all other articles within the scope of the project. – Editør (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, do you suggest to improve current events collaboratively? CRwikiCA talk 20:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That could be a task of this project, alongside a periodically selected article for improvement. – Editør (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a good idea, with the notion that the current events are not targeted for GA/FA per se, but are meant to keep information about The Netherlands up-to-date. CRwikiCA talk 13:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted a description about the AfI and current/recent events. – Editør (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Theo Heemskerk – Goal: – Editør (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Zeeland – Goal: – Editør (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Drenthe – Goal: – Editør (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Hutspot – Goal: – Editør (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the provinces are easiest to improve, so we might want to start with those. CRwikiCA talk 18:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we select the article Drenthe as the Article for Improvement in April. – Editør (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's do it. CRwikiCA talk 23:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We could notify some previous contributors of the article and active members of this project to this month's Article for Improvement. – Editør (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to get some additional people on this as well yes and start with notifying the members on the list. CRwikiCA talk 13:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified the members that were listed in 2013 or 2014. – Editør (talk) 10:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Huis Doorn – Goal: – Editør (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rottumeroog – Goal: – Editør (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's nominate articles for next month's Article for Improvement. – Editør (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We might want to choose one of the three left from the previous list. CRwikiCA talk 19:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To make this collaboration work, we need more people that are actively involved. – Editør (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I unfortunately am limited with time, but I will try to add where I can. Having a couple more editors would be helpful. Rottumeroog seems a good candidate indeed. CRwikiCA talk 18:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we select Rottumeroog as this month's article. Do you think the goal is feasible? – Editør (talk) 01:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The goal is quite ambitious and might only be feasible if we get some more collaborators in. CRwikiCA talk 13:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox government cabinet has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox cabinet. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The members of this project might be interested in Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Goliath windmill. – Editør (talk) 10:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Papaverhof. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It got rejected for some reason so I created a stub. Jane (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for going through the trouble. This should never have been rejected. Would it be possible to include some of the content in that submission to expand this stub? Perhaps we should contact the original creator, if he or she's still around. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original article was resurrected fortunately, though the way that happened is pretty strange: the article apparently was not "rejected" but "declined", and somehow both me and the original creator were supposed to understand that nuance. Anyway, the fix entailed a merge of both articles, but I just discovered that my stub got lost in the merge process. I am sorry, but this experience just reinforces my belief that *any* time I spend on the AfC process, its would-be articles, or any of the terminology used in its complicated queues and so forth, are just a waste of my editting time. Jane (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vrijzinnige Geloofsgemeenschap NPB. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Barendrecht train accident article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The members of this project might be interested in Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mudflat hikers. – Editør (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The members of this project might be interested in: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/A Polish Nobleman. – Editør (talk) 10:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dorst. It needs some references, but looks acceptable. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The members of this project might be interested in: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Milkmaid. – Editør (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]