Talk:Geography of the Netherlands

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Netherlands 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 Geography High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Geography To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles. Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes Map : See Wikipedia requested maps Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places Stubs : See Geography stubs

On 31 August 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Geography of the European Netherlands to Geography of the Netherlands. The result of the discussion was moved.

The footnotes mention the names of 3 pdf files. However without the complete download address this information is completely useless to the interested reader. Please provide the relevant information soon. Arnoutf (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see that you are so eager to consult these sources yourself. I guess careful and reflective reading them can teach you a lot. Ad43 (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your effort. However, I would appreciate it if you took some time to carefully read the Wiki guideline how to present references at

WP:CITE. There are 3 ways how references can be formatted in an article and yours do not conform to any of those. Therefore I would ask you again to spend some effort to get it right. Thanks (talk) 10:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I was just in the middle of doing this when you caused an editing conflict and spoilt my transfer of data. Don't be so impatient, o.k.? Ad43 (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflicts happen sometimes and are nobody's fault. I did not know you were still working on it, and was tryng to suggest how to improve it further. Arnoutf (talk) 10:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and I don't blame you for this, but unfortunately it causes much additional effort. Ad43 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I am suffering from the same.

I saw you repaired the link to one of the reports; thanks for that, the hard work of getting things right. I was wondering though why you used the Google provided "htm" version in the hyperlink instead of the official CBS version (in PDF). References to pdf files are perfectly alright according all guidelines (the reader is after all freely downloadable). My problem with the Google version is that the figures tend to disappear (as do indead the maps in my browser) and the text layout gets scrambled. Also in these cases I would vastly prefer a page hosted on the website of the original authoring institute. Arnoutf (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While you maybe right that 'some surveys' include Delft in the The Hague large agglomeration, the sources provided at the top of the list do not include it. Based on these sources Delft cannot be listed. If there are other sources that explciitly include Delft, these should be used, instead of the current ones.
This does however raise the point how well-defined the agglomerations are when different surveys arrive at different conclusions. I would suggest that we make a short introduction stating that there is general agreement, but that some small differences between surveys (and probably institutes) exist. That this does not matter for the gist of the argument and that we will adopt the agglomeration definition of CBS / NIDI or whatever relevant Dutch institute we can come up with. Does that sound ok? Arnoutf (talk) 11:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list I have used should correspond exactly to the list of Grootstedelijke agglomeraties en het peri-urbane gebied, not including Delft. You are right. This source provided our data, extracted from <2004k4v4p037art.pdf>, on p.46. Ad43 (talk) 11:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I had some trouble finding the 2004 document, I located a newer version of the map and list from 2007 [1] [2], perhaps useful to know. Arnoutf (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this clustering is basicly or completely the same. Underlying article is: Werken in het stadsgewest: herkomst en bestemming van forensen, by Mathieu Vliegen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad43 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason Emmen was mentioned in this list, which is wrong. The number of inhabitants for the city of Emmen is around 55000. The municipality has 100000+. NitroX infinity (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence currently links to the

Since I cannot change the whole article at once, I will for now simply fix this problem by stating which Netherlands is meant (i.e., mainland) in the lead sentence. However, I think that conversely, the article should be about the Netherlands and not just its mainland. This will require a lot of work (e.g., the highest mountain is on Saba).

Before I start with such a makeover (if I ever find the time), I wanted to hear second thoughts:

1. Do you agree that before I fixed the opening line, there was a factual error as explained above?
2. Do you think this article should be about the constituent country, on which there is the Wikipedia country article, or on the mainland only?

I look forward to receiving your input. ˜˜˜˜