Talk:Dutch Wikipedia

This article was nominated for deletion on February 18, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Wikipedia Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books: Reference works

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article is supported by the Reference works task force.

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

Belgium

	Belgium portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium 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.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

"This article or section does not cite its references or sources.

You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate citations."

Interesting template, since the source is Wikipedia itself. How about:

"This Wikipedia is full of template-maniacs, who are not interested

in the contents at all, but just enjoy playing around and making this

a bad place for others. You can help Wikipedia by giving these people

a good playground, far away from here."?

Quistnix 16:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:) Waerth 18:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - :-)) Leodb (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia schrijfwedstrijd"

Does somebody knows something about "wikipdia schrijfwedstrijd" (wikipedia writing-contest)? As far as I know the Dutch wikipedia was even the first to start it. 213.118.244.33 10:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

first article

Is there a source for the first edit? The first one I find nowadays is 'Definitie' on august 7th 2001 Henna 11:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title is ambiguous

The current title "Dutch Wikipedia" falsely suggests that it the Wikipedia for the Netherlands only. I think the title should be Dutch language Wikipedia. Andries 11:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Success of Dutch-language Wikipedia

In terms of population, the Dutch-language Wikipedia is proportionally larger than the German Wikipedia. Maintaining the same ratio, the German Wiki would have 1.3 million articles, close to the English-language Wiki. Also the success of the Dutch-language Wikipedia seems to have inspired the regional languages of the Benelux region: Luxembourgian, West Frisian, Limburgian, Dutch Low Saxon, West Flemish and Zealandish, plus the related Low Saxon language in Germany and the geographically close Ripuarian. Not to mention French-related Walloon in Belgium.

By contrast, despite the recognized quality of the German Wikipedia (N° 2 in absolute terms), High German regional languages are represented only by Alemannic, with less articles than Limburgian, and Bavarian, with less articles than West Fleming.

How can this difference between the Low and High German areas be explained?

The "success" of the Dutch Wikipedia is rather questionable. Many articles are mere stubs or just a title without substantial content, which distinguishes this Wikipedia from the English, German or French versions. The recent usage of bots for generating "articles" from other databases is certainly contrary to the intentions of the Wikipedia creators. Seemingly, some Dutch contributors to the Wikipedia are content with the idea of "having more articles than Wikipedias in other important languages" instead of offering good articles. In my opinion, this approach is quite childish and should be replaced by other approaches. I suggest that they better motivate pupils, students and retired persons, in order to fill the existing articles with informations and write new ones. What about a Dutch and Flemish "Wikipedia-knowledge" campaign in the media to facilitate this proposition? Discordion (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Italian

The Italian Wikipedia have already overtook the Dutch one. We need to put that in the article.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. JPG-GR (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Wikipedia → Dutch language Wikipedia — nog only for the Netherlands but also for Suriname and Flanders. Andries (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Oppose. All the Wikipedias are by language (en.wp is for English language, not England). Would not follow pattern seen at Category:Wikipedias by language. Zuiver jo (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose: it's more than clear enough that by the adjective Dutch the language is meant, not the country. --Roofbird (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with Zuiver jo and Roofbird. China Crisis (talk) 06:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No evidence that there's any ambiguity or other problem with the current name, or that the proposed new name has any significant usage. As others have said, the context makes it clear that Dutch (or English) language is what is meant. Andrewa (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments: Andries (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was

Bots

Out of curiosity, do the Dutch wikipedia use bots?--Jaimevelasco (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes in fact that is why it has expanded so massively in the past few months. One user is using a bot to give every insect their own page (with minimal facts pulled from a database) and already has created 10% of all articles on Dutch Wikipedia with his bot. Many people there think it's a great idea, I rather prefer handcrafted articles even when they are only stubs. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 01:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some bot activity on the Dutch Wikipedia. Recently this has increased when the project for animal articles published info on how to write a bot and operate it. The last few months I think about 5 bots have been running this, of which 3 are most active. Also someone has been creating articles by a bot on other topics. Examples [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Best regards, Taketa (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They want to convert the Dutch Wikipedia to Volapuk 2.0. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to this I guess. They automatically generate tiny new stub articles about species and other subjects which are better served being grouped in lists based on common characteristics. They have reached 1.000.000 articles now and are already talking about surpassing German Wikipedia and even English Wikipedia next year. It's a bit sad trying to compete on quantity rather than quality if you ask me. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 05:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not the third

The Dutch is not the third but the sixth largest Wiki. Wikipedia#Language_editions 37.138.185.238 (talk) 09:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Effective control?

@Vlaemink:, where in the article does it say effective control, relating to the 200 hardcore editors? Dajasj (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Include a sentence about Suzy Eddie Izzard?

There's been coverage about Suzy Eddie Izzard's article on Dutch Wikipedia and the community there refusing to convert the article to the proper pronouns and name after she came out as transgender. Here's one of several Dutch sources on the topic:

"Transfobie heerst op Nederlandse Wikipedia-pagina Eddie Izzard" [Transphobia reigns on Dutch Wikipedia page Eddie Izzard]. BNNVARA (in Dutch). May 11, 2022. Retrieved March 12, 2023.

Should we include a sentence about this somewhere in this article? Silver seren^C 02:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]