This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, realise, defence, artefact), and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Frisia, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Frisia-related articles to a feature-quality standard. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Since we only have a handful of active members at the moment, we are in urgent need of help right now.
126.96.36.199, Maczkopeti, Kbb2: First, IP editor, you can't really use a revert to call someone out on edit warring because then you are edit warring. You should have gone to the talk page yourself. Anyway, I think MOS:PRON is pretty clear: "Do not include pronunciations for names of foreign countries whose pronunciations are well known in English (France, Poland)." Newfoundland is not a good example because it is not pronounced as one would expect in English and many people probably mispronounce it. The schwa in "Netherlands" is to be expected just as with "England", etc. By the MOS the IPA should not be there. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm a non-native speaker myself and even to me the pronunciation /-lənd/ feels more natural than /-lænd/.
Newfoundland actually can't be compared to Netherlands nor England because it's most commonly stressed on the last syllable, and a stressed /ə/ (which is /ʌ/ in our diaphonemic system - see Help:IPA/English) is never spelled like that in native English words, except perhaps for a small group of words such as what (only in AmE and perhaps also CanE). Neither the noun land nor the suffix -land belong to that group. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
It should be noted that the Dutch officially refer to their country as Nederland, singular not plural; the plural refering to the wider historical region. In English this would simply be Netherland - Netherlands is bit like Englands, Scotlands or Irelands. Also, the article often refers to "The Netherlands" when simply Netherland would do - it is a problem Ukraine also suffered from. Are there actually any countries that are officially known as The [Country]? I've just looked it up, The Gambia and The Bahamas it seems. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
"Netherlands" is the common English name for the country and since it is plural, "the Netherlands" is used to make sensible sentences. Compare it with "the United States". Thayts••• 11:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Netherland is not a normal English word. It is even slightly more complicated: in UK English you prefer to use "the Netherlands" in US English "Netherlands". In addresses, both are good, depending on the language variant used. Wikipedia prefers "city, Netherlands" because the variant without "the" is also good in a variant of English. The "the" never has a capital letter, except at the beginning of a sentence. So this article is in UK English because it always uses "the" before "Netherlands". --EgelReaction? 12:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Americans say "the Netherlands" too, I don't think there is a difference between UK and US English there. Thayts••• 13:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Netherlands is official also in the "Netherlands". IP's suggestion is WP:OR. Also, in this respect there is no difference between US, AU, IE, NZ and UK English. It shouldn't surprise. It's all English. gidonb (talk) 04:51, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm uncertain why this article has such an extensive history section. Apparently there's confusion with the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which has existed in its current form since 1815 (more or less, taking continuity through the loss of Belgium and occupation during World War 2), and has various predecessor states. However, this Netherlands concept as a constituent country was only created in 1954. It doesn't make sense to talk about it before that date. There are also a lot of irrelevant dates in the infobox that don't apply to this article. I suggest moving a lot of the historical content to Kingdom of the Netherlands. ghouston (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I disagree, just because the state has only existed for a short time in its modern form doesn't mean we shouldn't include details of its history before its foundation - the article describes the people of the Netherlands (and thus their history) as much as it does the modern state. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
You could also argue the other way around: the Kingdom of the Netherlands historically used to be what the constituent country of the Netherlands currently is (BES islands aside). The Kingdom in its current form came into being only in 1954, constituting a new entity with more than just the Netherlands. Yet, the history of the territory that is now the constituent country of the Netherlands includes that of the Kingdom of the Netherlands until 1954 and also that of the many states before that like the Dutch Republic. Thayts••• 13:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
That's part of the confusion: the Netherlands in this article isn't a "state", and it's not the successor to the actual Netherlands state (the Kingdom). It's just an internal division, and one that's likely to change in future, since the Netherlands tends to reorganise itself relatively frequently. It recently gained some Caribbean islands, for example. Perhaps in a future reorganisation, it will cease to exist entirely, like the Netherlands Antilles. ghouston (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I think it's probably best to think of the Netherlands, as it's currently formulated, as a state with three semi-autonomous regions (Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten). In theory, the Netherlands is equally a semi-autonomous region, but in practice, it doesn't really work that way. It doesn't have it's own parliament, for example. ghouston (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
We don't know about the future, so let's focus on the past. The Dutch Republic as it was ceased to exist, the Batavian Republic did too, as well as the Kingdom of Holland. But they all are part of the history that led to the current constituent country. I would also not say that the Netherlands is an 'unimportant' internal division, it is the country that de facto runs all Kingdom affairs. Thayts••• 07:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
It's the distinction between the Netherlands and the Kingdom of the Netherlands that's unimportant. In practice, they are practically the same thing. The Netherlands has over 98% of the population of the Kingdom and probably a larger share of the economy. The idea that the Netherlands has some kind of separate existence as a separate country, semi-autonomous from the Kingdom is only theoretical, since it makes up nearly the entire kingdom, and dominates it economically and politically. ghouston (talk) 08:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, so you would say it is better to merge the two articles? But that's a different discussion that has been held before (I'm no proponent of that myself, because legally speaking we're talking about two different entities). Thayts••• 17:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd say they'd be better merged, because it would resolve a lot of confusion and wouldn't really lose anything. The idea of the Netherlands as a constituent country can be described in a sentence or two. The problem now is that this article is basically about the Kingdom of the Netherlands: it's talking about a sovereign state, with foreign relations, a military, and an immigration policy, when the (theoretical) constituent state of the Netherlands has none of these things, since they are Kingdom affairs. There's also the history I mentioned earlier: the history section of this article could be copied to the Kingdom article and it would still be valid. ghouston (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
external links that belong elsewhere or need labeling
Since this article is about a country that is only within the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the latter is the national government, the external links section seems to have several links that don't belong in this article or, if this is where people would look for them, that should be annotated as being for the national government, not the country government per se. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)