User talk:Gidonb/Archive 2015

Netherlands

Where can I find the "standing request not to link to 'the netherlands'?" Thanks for revising your edit (removing the extra "in" that you had inserted). I'm not actually advocating that it's more correct, but that if you're going to change it your edit summary should say why. Dicklyon (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dicklyon, thank you for rethinking that phrase, because the article is currently implying that in all these countries only some use China apple, or at least making an ambiguous statement in that direction. The request to link directly to the article Netherlands is in the redirect where "the Netherlands" would lead. The proper name is the "Netherlands", with the article "the" added in sentence structures or in phrases (e.g. Kingdom of the Netherlands; I'm visiting the Netherlands), just like with the United States and the United Kingdom, as directed by the country and our guidelines alike. gidonb (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not finding the standing request that you refer to. Can you be more specific? I've looked in the redirect, the article, and their talk pages. Dicklyon (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It's in the redirect message. gidonb (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Specifically, "Pages that use this link [i.e., """The Netherlands"""] should be updated to link directly to the target without the use of a piped link that hides the correct details." It not so complicated, Dicklyon. I think you just missed the key phrase. Is that correct? gidonb (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right that it's not complicated, but I don't see that redirect message at The Netherlands, so maybe you can just give me the link to where you're seeing it, and then my question will have been answered. Dicklyon (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it; needed to click on "Show" there. Dicklyon (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Great!!! Just remember always to use "Netherlands" as the country name. It is the common, official and Wikipedia name! gidonb (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Orangism vs. monarchism

Hi gidonb,

In light of our short discussion on CfD, I decided to disentangle the concepts of Dutch Republic Orangism and post-1815 Dutch monarchism. The article Orangism (Dutch Republic) now describes only the former. I've found multiple recent sources that deny Orangism's supposed monarchist nature, so a merger the other way would not be appropriate either, IMO. (The sources do not, as far as I can tell now, cite other sources to establish the supposition; it seems to be a kind of common misunderstanding.)

However, we still have the problem that "Orangism" is ambiguous in the Dutch context, given that late-19th century monarchists/anti-socialists did call themselves Orangists. This book (p. 65 ff.) is a good starting point for a new article about 19th century Orangism. Perhaps you'd like to join me in the effort of documenting both Orangisms?

—QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for this information! gidonb (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Villa Rozenrust

I am mystified by you edit on Villa Rozenrust. As far as I know the information you have changed was already correct. The Banner talk 15:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a very strange comment. The edit came with an edit summary in which no correction whatsoever was implied. gidonb (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Ta'al

You've probably seen from the undo notifications, but I've moved Ta'al back to its original title. The English translation is virtually unused, and Ta'al is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME (Ha'aretz for example has one use of Arab Movement for Change and 1,830 uses of Ta'al; the Jerusalem Post figures are 2,450 to 1 and the Times of Israel is 338 to 0). Cheers, Number 57 16:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I should have done some research before the change or discussed it on the talk page. Likewise your rollback of my edits, that included the total eradication of the official name from the article, was not according to our procedures. I will fix this damage some other time. gidonb (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Douwe Bob

Hi, someone with the number of edits that you have should know better than to remove a BLPPROD template from an article that has not a single source, let alone a reliable source. Only if the latter are present can a BLPPROD be removed. This is indeed very different from PROD templates that any body can remove, without even giving a reason. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll add a few. There is no problem of sources here. Best, gidonb (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Dependencies

Please follow the general practice when dealing with dependent territories. They are normally listed alongside independent states. 58.153.97.134 (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Does not apply in this case as Macau and Hong Kong are part of China. This is why there is a concept "Mainland China", i.e. China without Macau and Hong Kong. If you list China, Hong Kong and Macau are already included. If you list China, Hong Kong and Macau you are double counting and negatively effecting the spatial integrity of China. That said, there is autonomy and there are different standards, so with sufficient text (!) a subsection can be included under China. gidonb (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Casco edit

Hello, how you doing, can you please check the new recourses i added to casco's page? i also changed the name as you suggested, thanks again for your help.Uaearthub (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The name problem is basically the city in brackets. In brackets should be the kind of organization. Not trivial for Casco. It it were, I would have fixed what needs to be fixed. You call it an office but it is not. Elsewhere it says institution which doesn't sound right either. Institute would work but then again the entry is categorized as art gallery. If the organization can be described as art gallery that would make things really simple. You are not the only gallery where people engage actively in art and that publishes books. On the other hand, if Casco is a serious research institute it wouldn't apply. Or is the research more like the publishing of an occasional book, holding a lecture every now and then, and for example keeping up with market trends for appraisal. All that would still fall under art gallery. I appreciate your thoughts! Best, gidonb (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Buddhism in the Netherlands

Yes, outdated numbers. Problem is: there are no reliable numbers, not even reliable standards. 12,000 would already be an exaggaration, I think, let alone 170,000. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the reaction and glad that you share my concern. After some research I have a more conservative and very recent figure. 50,000 in October 2014. By the number of zeros, it will be clear that this is a rough estimate. Source: http://boeddhistischdagblad.nl/37354-bun-schat-aantal-boeddhisten-nederland-op-57-500/ which quotes the Dutch CBS. According to the article the Buddhist Union of the Netherlands accepts the CBS definition over the high "inspired by Buddhism" figures but not the decrease between December 2014 and October 2013 (instead averages the figures). I wouldn't get into such detail, just provide the recent, reasonable figure. gidonb (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Let me double check their number because 0.004*17M is about 70K. gidonb (talk) 05:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Precious

balance
Thank you, Gidon, open for many languages, for quality articles on a wide spectrum of topics, such as International Society for Contemporary Music, Moroccan Wall and Dora van der Meiden-Coolsma, for the correct Netherlands, for dispute resolution, consensus building and "creating a first or better balance in many articles", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for you kind words, Gerda. I really appreciate your feedback!!! gidonb (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)