Talk:Netherlands/Archive/2004-20

City vs Province
Shall we let Utrecht and Groningen point to the cities or to the provinces? I think most travellers will be happy when we let them point to the cities. So then we need Utrecht (province) and Groningen (province)... (WT-en) Guaka 22:03, 17 Apr 2004 (EDT)


 * Seems reasonable. If you go this way then list the pages at Famous Places. -- (WT-en) Huttite 22:43, 17 Apr 2004 (EDT)


 * I think it would have been clearer if you had left it like Project:Disambiguation_page_index. I think Utrecht is famous enough for that, and Groningen isn't. (WT-en) Guaka 07:03, 18 Apr 2004 (EDT)


 * I don't have strong feelings about one or the other, but I don't think you can compare Utrecht and Groningen with famous places such as Paris or London. I'd go for Utrecht (city), Utrecht (province), Groningen (city) and Groningen (province). Just my 2 eurocents. (WT-en) Akubra 05:10, 18 Apr 2004 (EDT)


 * The Netherlands are so small, I seriously doubt there's a point in creating regional/provincial subpages. -- (WT-en) Nils 06:08, 18 Apr 2004 (EDT)


 * Yes, it is small, but it's packed with things to see and do. IMO, putting all that in a single country page is not very realistic. (WT-en) Akubra 06:44, 18 Apr 2004 (EDT)


 * Well, that's what city pages are for... I am just not sure the intermediary step of regions is needed. But, don't let me stop you. -- (WT-en) Nils 07:09, 18 Apr 2004 (EDT)


 * Right now I tend to agree that the province pages aren't necessary, but just wait until we start filling in more of the Netherlands. I live in what is by all means a small, dull town in the Netherlands (Barneveld; an agricultural town of approximately 28000 inhabitants) and I could easily write a pretty large page on it alone. Heck, we've got four musea! (It's said that, not counting city-states, the Netherlands have the highest ratio of musea per square mile of all countries in the world. Just wait until we've listed 'em all :-)) (WT-en) Gorath99 13:11, 2004 Jul 8 (EDT)

I added them to the disamb page. Reasons to simply let Utrecht and Groningen point to the cities is that most travellers won't even notice that the provinces are called the same. :) Many will probably only be confused if they arrive on a disambiguation page. (WT-en) Guaka 07:08, 18 Apr 2004 (EDT)


 * I tend to agree. I'm thinking the same about Switzerland, there Swiss Cantons which share their names with Cities, but the Cities are dominant for travelling.  For the traveller the official political region is often barely noticlable, so it makes more sense to use travel-oriented regions here, perhaps with notes on political sub-divisions within the ==Understand== sections of the individual places. -- (WT-en) Mark 07:13, 18 Apr 2004 (EDT)


 * I think that Utrecht and Basel would, say, pass the way-way-way-more-famous test, compared to their surrounding countryside. Note that travellers aren't supposed to see disambig pages -- those are just there to help us make our links better. --(WT-en) Evan 13:03, 18 Apr 2004 (EDT)

ALSO: Dutch People talk very much, its very socialistic and that is one of the negative points of this country. They live according 'consencus' that means lots of debats, meetings etc. not really fast forward socieity.

Visit Holland Visit Holland.com at the bottom of the page apears to be a death link. --(WV-en) bartvanslobbe

Cities list
I notice the Cities list is becomming very large here. I reverted the page after some helpful anonymous users pruned it severely, possibly as an act of vandalism or malicious disinforming. While the list does need to be pruned, before that is done can someone decide what cities should be listed here and what ones should be pushed down onto the regional or provincial pages. Some of the places listed here do not show on their provincial pages and need to be added there first to avoid creating orphan pages. -- (WT-en) Huttite 06:54, 27 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Per request and in accordance with The 72 rule I reduced the long list of cities down to 9. The previous list was: Amsterdam, Alkmaar, Almere, Assen, Arnhem, Breda, Delft, Eindhoven, Groningen, Haarlem, The Hague, 's-Hertogenbosch, Leiden, Leeuwarden, Lelystad, Maastricht, Middelburg, Nijmegen, Rotterdam, Utrecht, Zutphen, Zwolle. I reduced the list down to: Amsterdam, Delft, Groningen, The Hague, Leiden, Maastricht, Nijmegen, Rotterdam, Utrecht. I tried to pick a representative sample of popular/important tourist destinations. Is my choice OK? Please discuss. (Also, please discuss here before making any changes to the list). --(WT-en) hopha 14:58, 20 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Personally I am of the opinion that atleast one city per province and national capital should be represented as it would be a more even spread. Though this breaks the 72 rule as it would be 13.


 * If we take the capital cities we get: Arnhem, Assen, Den Haag, Groningen (stad), Haarlem, 's-Hertogenbosch (gemeente), Leeuwarden (stad), Lelystad, Maastricht, Middelburg (Zeeland), Utrecht (stad), Zwolle + Amsterdam. Though I don't think these are all the best representative cities for tourism.


 * Then there is the option to do it by population picking the biggest cities in each province. Which means Rotterdam takes over The Hague, Eindhoven takes over 's-Hertogenbosch, Almere takes over Lelystad, Enschede takes over Zwolle, Apeldoorn takes over Arnhem. The question however becomes, are these cities the most representative for travel? As for example it would be very odd to only have The Hague or Rotterdam on it as both of these are major tourism cities.


 * I found some statistics on most visited cities here: https://kerncijfers.nbtc.nl/nl/magazine/11936/821905/thema_-_steden.html (click on: populaire binnenlandse steden) which are: Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, Utrecht, Eindhoven, Groningen, Zwolle. So inconclusion I would suggest that these 7 are included, since they represent the largest tourism, which means the current list lacks Eindhoven and Zwolle.


 * Now comes the question about Delft, Leiden, Nijmegen and Maastricht. as these do no show up the above list. So I suggest to atleast swap 2 of these out for Eindhoven and Zwolle. Now I looked a little bit at spread. Of the list so far we have: Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, Utrecht, Eindhoven, Groningen, Zwolle which gives a spread of most of the netherlands except the south. So looking at limburg keeping Maastricht in for spread of the country seems a good idea. So we have 8 now, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, Utrecht, Eindhoven, Groningen, Zwolle, Maastricht. That leaves 3, Delft, Leiden and Nijmegen are any of these really that large enough and well representative for a city trip? I see the value of tourism to these places. But in most cases Delft and Leiden are more or less day trips out of bigger nearby larger tourism cities. As for Nijmegen as I see the historic value and attractions to the city again I am not fully convinced this is a city I would come specifically to the Netherlands for. I mean I could argue 's-Hertogenbosch value over Nijmegen and visa versa, same goes for Delft and Leiden.


 * The question now I think is do we need a 9th city? Currently these 8 cover 7 provinces (south holland being represented by 2 cities, namely the Hague and Rotterdam. The provinces we lack are Zeeland, Gelderland, Leeuwarden, Flevoland and Drente. I am not sure I feel like any cities in these provinces are seriously important city trips to the netherlands, and I think any of these cities in these provinces are better suited on the respected province pages.


 * I peronally feel we represent The Netherlands well with these 8: Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, Utrecht, Eindhoven, Groningen, Zwolle, Maastricht.
 * They all are large enough for multiple-day city trips. They spread well across the country to represent different parts and history. They are all nearby other major attractions and smaller-minor cities to visit as day-trips. -- Velorian (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Port of Rotterdam
Rotterdam may not be the largest seaport in the world, but Singapore centainly isn't either. This should be Shanghai, China

smoke
FYI, I added a small paragraph on softdrugs policy. It is a major legal tourist attraction in many cities. Maybe we should even give some average prices? --145.99.202.92 19:42, 24 Nov 2005 (EST)


 * Sorry, but no we can't give average prices. "Soft drugs" aka Pot and Hash are in fact still illegal in the Netherlands even though the police have a policy of looking the other way.  We have a Project:Illegal activities policy which covers this.  We don't list prices or anything else which would encourage such behaviour.  Also we don't have a "Smoke" section in the template.  To the extent that we want to talk about this subject at all we should do so in "Drink", or "Understand". -- (WT-en) Mark 23:06, 24 Nov 2005 (EST)


 * I'd posit that smoking is a sufficient important part of the Netherlands (or at least Amsterdam) experience that it deserves its own section, if only to clear up the legal status etc. The templates aren't carved in stone: Japan has a "Bathe" section and Indonesia has a "Smoke" section already.


 * But I agree that average prices are perhaps a bit too much (and rather unnecessary at that). (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:42, 24 Nov 2005 (EST)


 * Lets not get into the legal-illegal discussion here - We (the Dutch) have an official policy of ehm gedogen (look through fingers) which makes smoking and buying small amounts (less than 5g) of pot defacto legal. Its not in the law, but it is in the instruction as set out by the public prosecutor that there will no one prosecuted when trading is related to a coffeeshops with a license and when the amounts are small. --145.99.202.92 06:02, 25 Nov 2005 (EST)


 * Only now I review the changes made. I think Marks work is rather week. You wont get prosecuted with small doses of coke either. You know how much work the authorities would have? To put it like that is *realy* false information. But it is true that coke is formally illegal. As said above, Hashiesh arent. Also the pejorative judgment from his Culture paragraph doesn't feel right. While your at it, please at homosexuality, which in some countries is also considered as an offense, and euthanasia. That would make proper sense from a culture perspective. I think I 'll just re-add Smoke, because its about consuming, not about culture. Mark, could you please in the future give some more motivation for your copyedits? Thank you. --145.99.202.92 06:11, 25 Nov 2005 (EST)


 * Folks, let's not make this personal. Mr. 145.99.202.92, you added the Smoke section, so it's your job to justify it.  What part of the current text in "Culture" do you think is pejorative? (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:45, 25 Nov 2005 (EST)


 * I already corrected it. Normal people in Amsterdam as well as other tourists were according to Mark's Culture bothered by the youngsters doing holland for its wide abundance of drugs. That didnt have anything to do with Dutch culture. But why did you remove smoke now altogether? I think the subject can do with some more detailed description. --145.99.202.92 08:06, 25 Nov 2005 (EST)
 * D00d! I didn't write that.  I copied it in from Amsterdam.  The other culture stuff was already there.  I don't know who wrote it, so feel free to do whatever to it. -- (WT-en) Mark 08:37, 25 Nov 2005 (EST)
 * So? Can or Can't I add the Smoke paragraph? And if yes, what am I allowed to write there? 145.99.202.92 14:49, 28 Nov 2005 (+0100)


 * What is wrong with Understand#Culture? What more do you want to right? (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:56, 28 Nov 2005 (EST)


 * I want to right ;) a smoke paragraph where i explain that a lot of tourist visit the neterlands for softdrugs, and that they cant buy them drugs on any street corner, but that only in a coffeeshop they can get stoned, and coffeeshops are not allowed to sell beer there, and that in small towns there is something like a weed-cab which was a sort of mobile coffeeshop, but that this was still illegal. So a bit more specific on this subject than just summing it up with euthanasia, abortion and homosexuality (very! nasty sum-up). I think the topic is worth it. Just like the article on France is worth an article on frog-legs. --145.99.202.92 17:06, 28 Nov 2005 (EST)


 * While I haven't looked at any of the pending/reverted edits, I would like to quote this part from the Project:Illegal activities policy:
 * * Where an illegal activity is an important or integral part of the reason people visit the destination, such as destinations famed for their drug supply. 
 * In this last case, Wikivoyage needs to tread a fine line about giving information. The test is that information should be provided for a traveller's safety, rather than solely to promote illegal activities. When writing about safety issues with illegal activities, Wikivoyage articles must always emphasise that that activity is a crime when mentioning safety issues. For example: "X activity, in addition to being illegal, is dangerous because of Y." 
 * I am only bringing this to the forefront for consideration... I will place no opinion on this subject. -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 20:04, 28 Nov 2005 (EST)


 * OK, plunge forward and add the section, and if necessary we'll tweak it to fit the policy. Thanks for your persistence :) (WT-en) Jpatokal 20:07, 28 Nov 2005 (EST)


 * OK, thanks. I just want that the legal rights we have as Dutch are not watered down because of unfamiliarity with our law system by outsiders. We have difficulty enogh understanding it ourselves :) Thanks Ilkirk for pointing out Wikivoyage's policy. I like to stress again that although it is technical illegal to smoke marijuana in the Netherlands, that there is no risk at all for Wikivoyage being sued bu the prosecutor for explaining travelrs how to pick the fruits of the Dutch liberal drug policy. The prosecutor is under explicit orders not to press charges against (the visitos of) legal coffeeshops or small time users. I'll see what I can do. --145.99.202.92 10:40, 29 Nov 2005 (+0100)

The "rant" deletion.
I don't understand how the respect section could have been construed to have been a "rant," despite that I agree the section could have been summed up better (I attempted that). That said, completely deleting/rewriting the section is not helpful to business travellers, who may find the information useful. Even deleting the section to read something as brief as "Dutch people are among the most informal and easy-going in Europe, and there are few social norms to speak of. Dutch people are infamously 'direct'." doesn't help anyone. A lot of cultures could be considered informal and "direct," but not to the extent that a Dutch middle manager tells the CEO Microsoft that the Windows OS is a 'piece of crap.' I found the information useful and I'll ask everyone to leave it in the article. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 07:25, 9 June 2006 (EDT)

The Amsterdam and Netherlands pages attract rants, touting, and other unhelpful additions. I have deleted some of that in the past. Both of them still need further cleanup. This bit of useless information, for instance "Fire trucks are red... ". (WT-en) Wesopa 07:42, 9 June 2006 (EDT)
 * I don't have a problem with deleting "Fire trucks are red" or any other clear-cut vandalism, however, I do disagree with deletion sections like this, which, could be useful to someone. The information that you deleted will be useful to me in the coming months if I get a job with a Cincinnati company with a branch in Netherlands. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 07:46, 9 June 2006 (EDT)

Anyone else notice the irony here? A section explaining how the people of the Netherlands can be very direct and seemingly rude without meaning to, was abruptly removed and dismissively called a "rant". Wesopa, your efforts to remove material that doesn't belong in Wikivoyage are great. Really. But keep in mind that this famous Dutch directness (which is also part of my culture: my surname is Ver Beek and Western Michigan is littered with towns named Holland, Zeeland, Vriesland, etc.) does come across as rude to other people, and "respect" here on Wikivoyage means trying first to fix things before deleting them. That applies to a commentary about Dutch social standards that goes on too long, a "Buy" or "Drink" section with nothing in it, or hotel recommendations that don't include addresses. It may not be fully in keeping with the virtue of tidiness that I learned from my grootmoeder, but in the long run it makes for a richer, more useful travel guide. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 10:05, 9 June 2006 (EDT)

Respect section
I deleted this information, which was left over from a longer rant

''They may actively interrogate you about your country's most painful episodes in history, but do so out of genuine interest. In business, the Dutch will have no problem telling the CEO of their company (or of your company), regardless of their own position on the corporate ladder, that a product or plan "sucks" or is "too expensive". They may be very vocal with respect to the quality of your product, but they are professional enough to sell any "piece of crap" at the price the market will bear.''

Most of this is simply wrong. Most Dutch people have no interest in other countries history, and would not be able to make any comment on it. Employees in Dutch companies can not talk to their CEO like this, if they ever got to meet him (it would rarely be a woman). In any case info on Dutch business culture would at best belong in the Work section.

The Amsterdam and Netherlands articles attract a lot of nonsense and vandalism. Compare this one to the Germany article to see how it can be improved. Deletions and copy-editing will however be needed. (WT-en) Wesopa 16:12, 9 June 2006 (EDT)

Voordeelurenkaart
A while ago I added this paragraph to get around - by train, but I cant fnd who or when or why it was deleted. Someone explains to me what's wrong with it? Are budgettravellers not welcome in Wikivoyage? 


 * Another way to travel cheaper is to find a student with a OV-kaart, or someone who possesses a Voordeel-urenkaart who is going in the same direction as you. They are allowed to take up to three fellow travelers (this would be you) who can enjoy a 40% discount. You have to buy the discounted ticket in advance, but it won't be a problem to find someone accompanying you. This deal only works during weekends, or during weekdays after 9:00 am, on national holidays and in the summer months July and August. --145.99.202.92 04:22, 27 June 2006 (EDT)

I did not delete or change this paragraph, but this is considered slightly on the edge of legal traveling. Although it is not uncommon it will not be appreciated by Dutch students. Besides that, even on platforms you can be asked for your ticket, (happens regularly in Nijmegen for example) and if you are not accompanied by the student you may be fined. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 131.174.208.96 (talk • contribs) 4 September 2006

It is indeed a bit strange to advise travellers to 'illegaly' use discounted tickets. It is true that it is not appreciated by most others, and the only reason people might be accepting you to travel on 'their' card can be out of courtesy. (Of course, some genuinly don't mind.) Besides, the argument above about the platforms is correct. I would like to see this part deleted. (WT-en) Stijn 09:22, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Totally agree, it's illegal and not appreciated by many locals. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 12:55, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

I just removed the following section based on the consensus above on traveling using someone else's discount card.


 * Slightly more adventurous is to make use of the extra advantages of 'Off-peak Discount Passes' or people who have a 'Year Pass' (most students or some civil servants). It is possible, but some people may be offended when asked by strangers. There is a way to travel cheaper without having a pass yourselves: find a student with an 'O.V.-kaart' (Year Pass for Public Transportation), or someone who possesses a 'Voordeel-urenkaart' who travels on the same traject (or part of it) as you do. They are allowed to take up to three fellow travellers (this would be you) who can enjoy a 40% discount. You have to buy the discounted railway-ticket in advance (no need to show your Pass at the desk or buy it from an automatic ticket machine), but it won't be a problem to find someone accompanying you. This deal only works during weekends, or during weekdays after 9:00AM, on national holidays and in the summer months July and August. When the conductor asks for your 'cheaper' railway-ticket, the fellow who is accompanying you must show his 'Discount' or 'Year Pass'. It doesn't matter who it is as long as someone helps you out during your travel (when they come to check the tickets). Please note that both passengers should travel the same route--(WT-en) WallyTheWalrus 07:47, 4 December 2011 (EST)

I'd say we obviously should not be advising people on playing probably illegal tricks with strangers' cards. On the other hand, this discount may be legitimately available to visitors who travel with Dutch friends or relatives, so it should be described. Pashley (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Netherlands vs. Holland
Not to accuse the author of ignorance, but calling the Netherlands "Holland" is far from inaccurate. It is quite common & popular among the Dutch themselves to use the term when speaking of their country in English. I live here, & have family here, though when I first arrived several months ago I made the same [incorrect] assumptions about the name. Holland is perfectly acceptable, & I will make the appropriate edit.


 * It's not as acceptable as you may think. In the western part of the Netherlands "Holland" and the adjective "Hollands" are common indeed, but the people of the southern regions (fe Limburg) and of course Frisia do have quite a different attitude. A "Limburger" may find it really offensive to be seen as an inhabitant of "Holland". It's better to keep consequence in using the country's official name.(WT-en) Plaas 10:14, 7 November 2007 (EST)


 * Coming late to this, but do this in Groningen and I will not be responsible for your injuries. It is most unacceptable, and decidedly inaccurate. Blame the overly arrogant Hollanders. Fgf10 (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The modern Dutch are known throughout the world as one of the most tolerant, educated and cultured peoples of the globe; if they call their own country "Holland" it's often only to pander to the ignorant. They have a good enough education system to perfectly well know that Holland is no more correct when really referring to the Netherlands than "England" is when referring to either Great Britain or the whole of the United Kingdom. -- A l i c e ✉ 08:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I fear you're over-stating the education levels of the Dutch (speaking as one, though now thankfully living abroad). This usage is common in Holland proper (North and South Holland), either due to complete ignorance of the rest of the country, or due to wilfully ignoring it in a superiority complex. This does, of course, not make it any less incorrect. Fgf10 (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think the usage of "Holland" by some Dutch people and English language media in the Netherlands is due to any ignorance. I doubt that any but the bravest would misuse this in a bar in Groningen any more than someone from Essex would take their life in their hands by misusing "England" in a Glasgow bar. Incidentally, what do you think about the use of 9AM or 11:30PM used in the article - is this something often seen in Dutch timetables, newspapers and on shop doors? (Presumably by shopkeepers that think they need to pander to ignorant and mathematically challenged yanks - and, lest anyone take offence, I'm referring to the mindset of the hypothetical shopkeeper when placing an opening hours sign not in the local format). -- A l i c e ✉ 23:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In the west it's definityle ignorance. "What do you mean you're not from Holland, Groniningen is in Holland!" The amount times I've come across this..... But I'll stop moaning for now.
 * AM and PM are not used in Dutch, probably a significant portion of the population wouldn't have a clue what they meant. Written down, times are always 24h. When spoken, 's ochtends (in the morning) or 's avonds (in the evening) would be added. Fgf10 (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought. So why the heck are we using the ugly Americanisms of AM and PM when the policy at Times is "Choose between 24 and 12-hour formats by following predominant local usage. Ask yourself: which format will visitors see in timetables, on shop doors and in newspapers?" -- A l i c <font color="#00EEFF">e <font color="#FF3333">✉ 07:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They're not Americanisms, we use them here in Britain too, but I agree, they have no place in this article. Fgf10 (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But the Brits and Paddies understand and use the 24 hour clock for printed stuff like timetables, don't they? I've Pf'ed and standardised to the 24 hour format and Commonwealth spelling since I understand that's the version that's taught in most Dutch schools: English language varieties -- <font color="#0000DD">A <font color="#0066FF">l <font color="#0099FF">i <font color="#00CCFF">c <font color="#00EEFF">e <font color="#FF3333">✉ 01:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

(De-indent) Correct on both accounts. Fgf10 (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I know Dutchies who are not from Holland who will use the term "Holland" to refer to the Netherlands in German or English but never in Dutch. And I am pretty sure there are Dutch people who do get annoyed at being called "Hollanders" Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Cities
The Netherlands have many cities and towns of interest to travelers. Below is a list of the most notable (i.e. selection because of amount of inhabitans, capital of a province or historic reasons):


 * Amsterdam - Capital city of the Netherlands with impressive architecture, lovely canals ("grachten") that criss-cross the city (a bit like a spiderweb) and great shopping. There is something for every traveler's taste here, whether you prefer culture and history, serious partying, or just the relaxing charm of an old European city.
 * Alkmaar - This city, north of Amsterdam in the so calles 'West-Frisian region', preserves the 17th-century pattern of canals and narrow streets, and has many historic buildings. Inland is a historic agricultural landscape, with 17th century polders: one (De Beemster) is a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
 * Almere - Country's newest and fast growest city. It is expected to become the fifth largest city in a few years time. Founded in 1981 and built below sea-level on the polderland in the province of Flevoland.
 * Assen - Capital of the province of Drenthe
 * Arnhem - Capital of the province of Gelderland
 *  Breda - historic city in south of Netherlands, with beautiful historic buildings but also pretty modern architecture.
 * Delft - Historic city between The Hague and Rotterdam. It's a beautiful, unspoiled town with traditional architecture, canals, bikes, and the world famous blue and white ceramics.
 * Eindhoven - This city has grown from a little village in 1232 to one of the largest cities in the Netherlands with over 210,000 inhabitants in 2005. Much of its growth is due to Philips and DAF Trucks. In 1891, brothers Gerard and Anton Philips founded a small light bulb factory that would grow into one of the largest electronics firms in the world. Nowadays Eindhoven is a mix of old industrial factories and modern architecture. It sloagan nowadays is 'Leading in Technology' and 'Brainport of the Netherlands'.
 * Groningen - Capital of the province of Groningen. One of the older cities in the North of the Netherlands: Groningen was founded around 1100 and has a rich history, which can clearly be told from the old medieval buildings in the downtown area. Groningen won the award of 'best city center' in the category of 'large cities' for 2006.
 * Haarlem - Historic city and capital of the province of North-Holland. Haarlem is the center of a flower-growing district and the export point for flower bulbs. The famous Keukenhof gardens is nearby.
 * The Hague/'s-Gravenhage (Den Haag) - Seat of the Dutch government, place of residence of the Queen, Juridical Capital of the World due to the seat of the International Court of Justice, International Criminal Court, Peace Palace and some other International Institutions. Also capital of the province of South-Holland and the third largest city of the country. The Hague offers great architecture, some of it picturesque, such as the medieval government complex of the Binnenhof, some grand and stately, like the mansions on Lange Voorhout. The museums in the city rank among the best in the country.
 * 's-Hertogenbosch (Den Bosch)- Capital of the province of North-Brabant.
 * Leiden - Known for the oldest university in the country, the birthplace of Rembrandt and for it's beautiful, old city center which is the second biggest after Amsterdam and a plethora of pubs.
 * Leeuwarden - Capital of the province of Friesland.
 * Lelystad - Capital of the country's newest province: Flevoland, a part of the Noordoostpolder in the IJsselmeer, created on the bottom of the formerly Zuiderzee ('Southern Sea').
 * Maastricht - Historic city in the very south of the country and capital of the province of Limburg. Great shopping areas and many pubs in the city centre. Said to be one of the most beautiful cities in the Netherlands. Maastricht, however, is quite different in style and architecture than traditional Dutch cities. Most 'Burgundic' city, founded by the Romains and second eldest city of the country. Nowadays it hosts a large amount of European and international institutions.
 * Middelburg - Capital of the province of Zeeland
 * Nijmegen - Oldest city of the Netherlands (dates back to Roman times; said to be founded in the year 6 after Christ), known internationally for its '4 Day Marches' (120-200 km's) including '7day Summer-festivities', it's often left-wing politics, and it's large student population.
 * Rotterdam - The city was known for having the world's largest harbor, but lost the title in 2004 to Shanghai. Still it is the countries second largest city. It may feel difficult to get in touch with the heart of Rotterdam; its natural center was bombed away during WW2 in 1940, forcing the city to renew itself completely. The result is a lot of modern architecture.
 * Utrecht - Capital of the province of Utrecht. Utrecht is a central Dutch city with a long history. With 290,000 inhabitants it's the fourth largest city in the Netherlands. The history of the city goes back to 47 AD when the Roman emperor Claudius ordered his general Corbulo to build a defense line along the river Rhine whitch was the northern most border of the empire.
 * Zutphen - Ancient medieval city in the central-eastern part of the country, very well preserved center. The city was voted as having the best city center of The Netherlands in the category of small cities in 2006. Together with some other cities it formed in the past the union of 'Hanzesteden' (Hanze-cities).
 * Zwolle - Capital of the province of Overijssel.

- Some cities do not have their own lemma in wikivoyage, so a lit bit more space to mention and describe them under the lemma Netherlands. And they also do not correspond with the map used for the Netherlands, so some improvements may be neccessary - ((WT-en) Brabo 23:03, 1 September 2007 (EDT))

Languages
but also Spanish, Chinese, Arabic and Russian are thaught in some schools)(of course ancient languages like Latin and Greek can be learned in secondary school aswell)

I removed this sentence. These languages are barely teached in high schools. The usefulness of Latin and Greek during travel is none. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 19:35, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Racism
Horrible that muslim/coloured racism is growing. The Netherlands used to be a great country before the immigrants started pouring in. I was very serious when i wrote this on the article-page.

--Violent tensions between different ethnic groups are rising in the local Dutch cities. Be carefull with whom you speak and stay away from muslim/coloured neigbourhoods. Asiatic and European people are usually respected by the Dutch but not by the local muslim/coloured majority.-- 85.146.24.65 23:05, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

I can accept that you are serious in your opinion, but your comments are opinionated, and should be removed unless there is a broad consensus behind your opinions. Thus I have removed your comment. You claim that "The Netherlands used to be a great country before the immigrants started pouring in". Can you substantiate the numbers of immigrants that are implied? Are they all Muslim or coloured, as you imply?

Your edit also implies that Muslims and coloured residents are a majority in the Netherlands. Surely not true? I also doubt very much that the majority of Muslims and coloured people disrespect "Asiatic and European people", if that is what you meant to say.

Finally, to say "Be carefull with whom you speak and stay away from muslim/coloured neigbourhoods" is just scare-mongering, as thousands of travellers can testify. (WT-en) Jnich99 11:20, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Provinces
Why do we still have these province pages? I think they're fairly useless. There is barely any information on them, and the information travellers need to know can also be found on the Netherlands page. For important tourist destinations, city pages can be created (like for Amsterdam). (WT-en) Globe-trotter 10:35, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Changed listings
I changed the listing of regions to be more in line with France and Germany. However, I am left with this and don't know where to put it. For later reference, or if someone else know where to stick it, here is the text I removed:

West
The western part is the most urban, with the four largest cities (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht), Amsterdam Airport Schiphol and the Port of Rotterdam. The Randstad is a collective name for this conurbation.

North
The northern part is the least densely populated region. It is mostly an interesting region for tourists who are interested in the cultural heterogenity of the Netherlands. These provinces all have their own distinct dialects and languages. Nature and beaches can be enjoyed on the West Frisian Islands.

East
The east offers ancient historic cities in rural and wooded landscapes. You can head out to the forest for a weekend or experience the earliest Dutch towns the way they were in the middle ages.

South
All provinces in the south are separated from the north by three large rivers, the Rhine and its main distributary Waal, as well as the Meuse. These rivers function as a natural barrier between earlier fiefdoms, and hence created traditionally a cultural divide, as is evident in some phonetic traits that are recognisable north and south of these "Large Rivers" (de Grote Rivieren). In addition to this, until quite recently there was a clear religious dominance of Catholics in the south and of Calvinists in the north.

As well as:

Amsterdam — Capital city of the Netherlands with impressive architecture, lovely canals ("grachten") that criss-cross the city (a bit like a spiderweb) and great shopping. There is something for every traveler's taste here, whether you prefer culture and history, serious partying, or just the relaxing charm of an old European city. Delft — Historic city between The Hague and Rotterdam. It is a beautiful, unspoiled town with traditional architecture, canals, bikes, and the world famous blue and white ceramics. Groningen — Capital of the province of Groningen. One of the older cities in the North of the Netherlands: Groningen was founded around 1100 and has a rich history, which can clearly be told from the old medieval buildings in the downtown area. Groningen won the award of 'best city center' in the category of 'large cities' for 2006. The Hague/'s-Gravenhage (Den Haag) — Seat of the Dutch government, place of residence of the Queen, Judical Capital of the World due to the seat of the International Court of Justice, International Criminal Court, Peace Palace and some other International Institutions. Also capital of the province of South-Holland and the third largest city of the country. The Hague offers great architecture, some of it picturesque, such as the medieval government complex of the Binnenhof, and some grand and stately, like the mansions on Lange Voorhout. The museums in the city rank among the best in the country. Leiden — Between Amsterdam and The Hague. Known for the oldest university in the country, the birthplace of Rembrandt and for its beautiful, old city center which is the second biggest after Amsterdam and has a plethora of pubs and three national museums. Maastricht — Historic city in the very south of the country and capital of the province of Limburg. Great shopping areas and many pubs in the city centre. Said to be one of the most beautiful cities in the Netherlands. Maastricht, however, is quite different in style and architecture than traditional Dutch cities. Most 'Burgundic' city, founded by the Romans and second eldest city of the country. Nowadays it hosts a large amount of European and international institutions. Nijmegen — Oldest city of the Netherlands (dates back to Roman times; said to be founded in the year 6 after Christ), known internationally for its '4 Day Marches' (120-200 km's) including '7day Summer-festivities', its often left-wing politics, and its large student population. Rotterdam — The city was known for having the world's largest port, but lost the title in 2004 to Shanghai. Still it is the country's second largest city. It may feel difficult to get in touch with the heart of Rotterdam; its natural center was bombed away during WW2 in 1940, forcing the city to renew itself completely. The result is a lot of modern architecture. Utrecht — Capital of the province of Utrecht. Utrecht is a central Dutch city with a long history. With 290,000 inhabitants it is the fourth largest city in the Netherlands. The history of the city goes back to AD 47 when the Roman emperor Claudius ordered his general Corbulo to build a defense line along the river Rhine which was the northern most border of the empire.

(WT-en) Globe-trotter 11:08, 2 August 2009 (EDT)

Zeeland and Flevoland
I am not sure about Zeeland in the "Southern Netherlands", as it's actually incorrect. Of course geographically it's in the south, but culturally it's not part of it as it's not mainly catholic (as North-Brabant and Limburg are). And it has always been closer to Holland than to Brabant.

Maybe Zeeland should therefore be moved to Western Netherlands, as it's also located in the west.

Then I think Flevoland could be moved to the Eastern Netherlands, as most touristic sights (Schokland, Urk) are in the Noordoostpolder, which used to be part of Overijssel. Theme Park Walibi World can pretty much only be accessed via Harderwijk in Gelderland. The only reason Flevoland could be considered "western" is because of the large traffic flow from Almere to Amsterdam. But as Almere is not an important tourist destination, I think this does not apply to Wikivoyage.

I also noticed the DK Eyewitness Guide does it like this.

What do others think of this?


 * Western Netherlands (North-Holland, South-Holland, Utrecht, Zeeland)
 * Northern Netherlands (Drenthe, Friesland, Groningen, West Frisian Islands)
 * Eastern Netherlands (Flevoland, Gelderland, Overijssel)
 * Southern Netherlands (Limburg, North-Brabant)

Also, maybe we shouldn't use the Western Netherlands as an actual article, but just make them bold, as like the Chicago article. It's better I think, because these four subpages are probably not going to contain very interesting information.

(WT-en) Globe-trotter 13:27, 7 August 2009 (EDT)

The Western Netherlands page currently reports that Western Netherlands is the Randstad. Randstad redirects to that page. Of course Zeeland is not part of the Randstad so I am not comfortable with putting Zeeland on the West Netherlands page. What about forgetting the 'Western Netherlands' as a region and change it to the name of Randstad, and moving Zeeland to Southern Netherlands? Your statement about Zeeland being closer to Holland is true for the northern part of the province (Schouwen-Duiveland), but Tholen is mainly focussed on Bergen op Zoom (North-Brabant). Middelburg and Vlissingen, and Goes, are the economic heart of middle-Zeeland with probably a less important connection to other provinces. The history of Zeeland (being isolated because of the islands) makes it difficult to place the province in a region.--(WT-en) WallyTheWalrus 10:17, 19 September 2009 (EDT)


 * I agree that you have a point... Especially as Zeeland is geographically in the south. Zeeland is really hard to fit in a category, but due to it's small size, it wouldn't be correct to let it be it's own region. It's rather different from Brabant and Limburg as they have a catholic culture with Carnival and everything. But you're right that from the eye, it seems more logical in the south. I'll change the map soon. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 14:39, 24 November 2009 (EST)


 * The border between Catholic & Carnival / Protestant & no Carnival goes through Zeeland: All of it except Zeeuws Vlaanderen do more resemble Holland, while 'Zeeuws Vlaanderen' is Catholic, does have Carnival, and is more like Brabant and Limburg. Tholen BTW is orthodox Protestant, therefore it can hardly be considered part of the 'Southern Netherlands'. Also, historically, Zeeland did belong to the 'Seven Netherlanths' while Brabant and Limburg didn't. Zeeuws Vlaanderen belonged to France (Western Flemish is spoken) and a few months to Northern Brabant before it was added to 'Zeeland'. If one wants to group regions with the same religion / culture / history, Zeews Vlaanderen should belong to Southern Netherlands, the rest of Zeeland should belong to Western Netherlands. In the same way, Flevoland might be separated: The largest island with Lelystad / Almere is in majority populated people who moved from Holland, while the "Noordoostpolder" (and Urk) have a different culture. I don't know if it makes sense to divide provinces, but when grouping according to culture / history it makes sense. Apart from that, even the Dutch Government thinks about re-dividing the provinces and redrawing borders, showing some of the present borders are quite arbitrary. If Zeeland can't be added to the 'Western' region because it doesn't belong to the Randstad, the same goes for the Northern part of North Holland. - hkwint 82.170.165.133 19:21, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

"Other destinations"?
What shall we do with Volendam and Scheveningen? They are included in "other destinations", but they are towns, so should either be included in the cities list or be omitted altogether. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 07:19, 4 September 2009 (EDT)


 * Scheveningen looks to be a rather small town; Volendam is already well linked to via the Hague link in the cities list. I recommend we simply remove them. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 10:12, 4 September 2009 (EDT)


 * Peter it's the anther way round. Scheveningen is in fact a district of The Hague at the Northsee, Volendam is an island northeast of Amsterdam near Edam. --(WT-en) Rein N. 01:00, 11 November 2009 (EST)

Germans
Under the "respect" part of the article, it is said that the dutch hold a grudge against Germans for WW2, but speaking as a Dutch person, I'd say that this generally isn't true, and Germans are generally regarded like other foreigners. Perhaps this information can be removed? Also, to avoid getting intentionally bad directions, ask adults.85.144.133.46 09:47, 29 September 2009 (EDT)


 * Plunge Forward please - --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 10:23, 29 September 2009 (EDT)


 * I agree. Grudges being held toward Germans are in my experience a thing of the past. Dutch people tend to get along with Germans nicely and the relationship between the two nations is very good indeed.


 * I also agree, the information should be removed. My experience is that the Dutch and Germans get along very good, this is especially the case in the province of Zeeland, a popular destination of German tourists. --(WT-en) WallyTheWalrus 12:18, 16 October 2009 (EDT)


 * It's preferable to have a little more plunging, and a little less talking. I've removed it. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:17, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

I've also heard the claim that Canadians are particularly well treated in the Netherlands for reasons going back to WW II. Queen Wilhelmina took refuge in Canada and Juliana was born there. Later in the war, Canadian troops liberated the country.

I don't believe it; I'm Canadian and feel quite welcome when I visit, but I do not think we are treated any better than other visitors. My guess is that this may once have mattered, but not any more. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Stay duration
I've read that travelers may be limited with their stay in Europe, requiring a residence permit to stay longer than 3 months, however some exemptions are made for English-speaking natives outside of Europe (Australians and Americans). Is this true? Should it be integrated somewhere on the page? I think students would like to know this (and there is a learn section...) -- 203.171.195.7 17:55, 7 November 2009 (EST)
 * I've gone ahead and added a stay section and given an official source for further expansion. This is what I've heard, I'm not sure exactly how it applies to European citizens. -- 203.171.195.7 02:46, 8 November 2009 (EST)


 * Info about visas and working belongs in "Get in" and "Work" respectively. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:54, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Driving in The Netherlands
I removed the following from the 'driving in the Netherlands' part in the Get in - by car section. Zebra crossings are common. Giving way to pedestrians is not worth mentioning as a special rule in the Netherlands since this is the rule in most countries. It is however true that some local drivers do not give way to pedestrians at zebra crossings, especially when pedestrians wait at the curb.

--(WT-en) WallyTheWalrus 07:50, 7 March 2010 (EST)
 * Zebra crossings are uncommon and locals may look bewildered if you stop and let them cross however (just like in all other European countries) one should always give way to pedestrians as failure to do so may result in large fines and/or dangerous situations."

I noticed that in the 'get around' section there is also information about driving. I am not sure where this information belongs, in the Get in or Get around section? --(WT-en) WallyTheWalrus 07:58, 7 March 2010 (EST)

Scandinavian languages and Dutch
Hi! I recently saw a rqther hot debate about the mutual intelligibility between Swedish, Norwegian, German and Dutch. I am Swedish and have been to Berlin (5 times), Frankfurt (once), Munich (once), Zürich (4 times), Vienna (4 times), Amsterdam (once) and Brugge (once) and NOWHERE had I any trouble whatsoever to make myself understood in Swedish (of course I spoke slowly). As this anonymous Swede says, they probably won't understand every word you say, but the worst that has ever happened to me is that I have been asked to repeat, or that they need to register my sentence for a few seconds, but afterwards I do get an answer in German/Dutch (generally in the standard languages, which are the easiest) and it is NOT to say that they do not understand what I am saying. Even though I cannot speak for Germans or Dutch in general, I have spoken to a lot of people in the above mentioned places, and I cannot recall being forced to switch to English ever.

And Norwegian is even more similar to German and Dutch, so if they understand Swedish, Norwegian must be a pece of cake. --(WT-en) MySweden 18:08, 10 September 2010 (EST)


 * The Scandinavian languages are quite different from Dutch, and there are almost no Dutch people who speak one of these languages. Norwegian, Swedish and Danish are mutually intelligible, but Dutch certainly doesn't belong here. I know quite some Swedish people, and to be frankly, I have no idea what they are talking about, especially if they talk fast. Sure, maybe if they'd talk really slow and articulate, but in general, Dutch and Swedish and not mutually intelligible. Dutch is not even mutually intelligible with German, even while that is the closest related language. I'd say speaking English, German and even French and Spanish would bring you further. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 05:40, 11 September 2010 (EDT)


 * I live in Brugge and speak perfect Dutch (my native language being West Flemish). And, to tell you the truth, I agree with MySweden that if spoken slowly Swedish, Norwegian and Dutch are largely (but of course not totally) mutually intelligible. I also agree with globe-trotter that is spoken fastly things are pronounced quite differently making it a lot harder (but not impossible) to understand them. But if you read the article, I do think it says "might be able to get along at least partially if spoken slowly" and this is true to 100%. I have encountered many Swedes at the Markt in summer (since there is a cruise route Stockholm - Istanbul stopping at Brugge among others) and when they speak English I recognize the accent and respond in slowly spoken Dutch (since Flemish is more distant from Swedish than Dutch) and they are absolutely stunned to find that they do understand me perfectly (perfectly here means well enough to understand my message --194.17.116.224 14:26, 15 September 2010 (EDT)
 * to anon user 194.17.116.224: You use the same IP as user killerduh so i suspect you are the same person. I asked some Dutch colleagues and they confirmed that they don't understand Scandinavian languages intuively and you restart an old discussion where you were obviously in the minority. Don't start the discussion under a new login. (WT-en) jan 10:49, 15 September 2010 (EDT)


 * i didn't know there was someone called Killerduh, but I assure you that our IP similarity has to be a pure coincidence. From what I recently read he is Swiss, but I am Flemish, and even though your colleagues may not understand Scandinavian languages, the article still says MIGHT be able to get along at least PARTIALLY. --194.17.116.224 14:26, 15 September 2010 (EDT)


 * This is complete nonsense. I'm from the Netherlands (and native to the Dutch language), but have to rely on English when visiting Scandinavian countries. The languages are far apart and not mutually understandable. Speaking slowly doesn't help in any way. Jahoe (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Get in entry requirements
In case anyone wants to know the source of my edits to include information about the visa exemption for 'Annex II' nationals to work during their 90 day visa-free entry, see this European Union document -. 195.195.166.57 17:41, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

Other destinations
Yesterday, in the section on other destinations, Volendam was replaced by the Waterland en Zaanregion of which it is a part. A good choice, in my eyes, but I now went ahead and removed Zaanse Schans in Zaandam too, as it is one of the main destinations in that same region. That leaves a place for another destination. I know that it doesn't /have/ to be filled, but I think there's a bunch of places that would deserve to be up there. I could see the cheese market of Alkmaar there (which is cheesy but popular with foreign tourists), or better yet the Friese Meren (Frysian Lakes), which is a popular tourist destination with lots of sailing and water sports opportunities. Westerbork concentration camp, where over a 100.000 people were brought during WW2 (only 5200 of whom survived), is an experience that's hard to forget too, even though it's not a pleasant one. I just can't remember if there's English language facilities there. (WT-en) Justme 15:58, 18 August 2011 (EDT)


 * The Zaanse Schans is widely popular, it has 900,000 visitors a year, that's why I included it. But it can be omitted, as long as the description at Zaanstreek-Waterland makes a mention of it. I agree that the section could use more regional variety, but frankly, there is not that much to do in the North. Wadlopen is a popular activity, but it's hardly an "other destination". Frisian Lakes sounds interesting, but I wouldn't know the boundaries of that article. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 17:21, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
 * Zaanse Schans definitely is a popular destination, it's just essentially the same destination as Waterland en Zaanregion (which we should develop a bit too). I'm not even sure if the Frysian lakes would need an article of their own, technically. Could it be covered in a section of the Friesland-article, which still is very underdeveloped, with a link here to the relevant sub-heading? We could always split it off when that Friesland article gets overcrowded. In any case, Wikipedia has a (rather limited) article on the touristy lakes-region, to give a rough idea of the borders. (WT-en) Justme 19:01, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

Getting the Netherlands to usable
Swept in from User talk:Globe-trotter

Hi! I've been working on The Netherlands and its main destinations a bit and I was wondering what you think are the main priorities for that guide? I thought it would be nice if we could bring it at least to usable level? Looking at the guidelines, I would say we're getting close, but I'm not quite sure. Cheers, (WT-en) Justme 09:09, 22 August 2011 (EDT)


 * At a quick glance I would say that the 9 linked cities and 9 linked ODs should all be usable, and then the country guide definitely would be. The rest is all there.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:41, 22 August 2011 (EDT)


 * The Country guide status page states the following to make it usable: "Has links to the country's major cities and other destinations (usable status or better), a valid regional structure, and a Get in section describing all of the typical ways to get there. Information about the country's currency, language, cuisine, and culture is included. At least the most prominent attraction is identified with directions."


 * We made it ourselves a lot harder to include regions in the "Other destinations" list, as that means we'll have to get all those regions up to usable status instead of just the destinations! ;-). To get a region usable, it states it "Has links to the region's major cities and other destinations (the most important of which must be at usable status or better), and a Get in section describing all of the typical ways to get there. The most prominent attractions are identified with directions." I don't know what we'd do with the Frisian Lakes, but I guess it should also be a region someday. So to get the Netherlands usable, we must get the following destinations to usable:

So still quite some work left I guess. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 10:52, 22 August 2011 (EDT)


 * Crikey..... you have whole regions as Other destinations? Not sure that is desirable.  It does happen a bit in countries where a region is also an island, but you might want to look at that again for the Netherlands--(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:59, 22 August 2011 (EDT)


 * Wow, quite an extensive reply, thanks :-) However, now I'm confused. If I look at other countries that have usable status, say Belgium for example, many have a bunch of "other destinations" that aren't even close to usable. That led me to the conclusion that the main ones should be usable, not all. I wouldn't want to define the Frysian Lakes as a region in that sense, especially not if that would keep the main article further from usable status. I suggested it as a tourist destination for its water sports facilities, and it does have a few interesting towns. However, it doesn't make sense to me that full articles for places like Sloten (650 inhabitants) or Workum (4000), which might not even be mentioned in other guides due to their limited importance for travelers, should be a condition for a usable article for the Netherlands?


 * As for the regions, in principle I'm in favor here, as in our small country regions like South Limburg or the Zaanstreek really are commonly considered as "one destination" and tourist information materials are structured in that way. With Hoge Veluwe as an exception, national parks are not even known to the general public. (WT-en) Justme 11:11, 22 August 2011 (EDT)


 * If you find mistakes like Belgium, please change the status of the article, leaving an edit note explaining why.
 * On regions, I thought we had a guidelines that a top level region should not also be listed as an Other destination in a country article? I might be dreaming though as I can't find it....--(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:17, 22 August 2011 (EDT)


 * Regions as ODs makes sense for the Netherlands I think, and there are many countries where this happens as well (like Krabi Province is an OD in Thailand and the Loire Valley in France). The difference between an island and a region is in a way artifical, as an island is also a region. None of the regions listed under OD in the Netherlands are top-level regions.


 * About the Frisian Lakes, that was just my interpretation of it, I am not sure how else to define it. The Frisian Lakes region in a sense is similar to South Limburg, except that the latter region is much better developed on Wikivoyage. We could also maybe cramp the Frisian Lakes into one destination article, though it sounds like it could have a lot of content and span a very large area.


 * Oh, and about Belgium, that one is just wrong. It should be downgraded to outline. It does not even have 9 ODs listed, and many of those listed are outline destinations. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:23, 22 August 2011 (EDT)


 * All good on the regions then. Just one important point to understand - no country has to show 9 ODs. The wording at Project:Country article template is pretty clear on that: Sometimes a country has destinations that aren't really cities; for example, large national parks like the Grand Canyon, or archaeological sites like Angkor Wat. These should usually be listed on the region page for the region they're in, but for especially prominent ones you can also list them separately here, with descriptions, if they exist. Otherwise, leave out this section. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:30, 22 August 2011 (EDT)


 * I understand they are not necessarily required. But Belgium has 11 million inhabitants, it should easily be able to boast 9 ODs. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:37, 22 August 2011 (EDT)


 * Right. I suggest we leave the Frysian lakes out of the equation then, for now. I'll add its sports activities under the Do-section, does that make sense? Then we can always look into the need/desirability of that region later. I don't think it compares to South Limburg very well, as that is an official and much referred to region, highly more developed in terms of tourism. As far as I know, the Frysian Lakes in daily life are rather used in senses like: "i'm going sailing on the Frysian Lakes this week". But I'm not 100% sure either.
 * As for the Belgian mistake: that explains then, but it does mean we have a bunch of other countries with usable status that don't meet those criteria. A quick survey of the first 5 shows me that Andorra, Bulgaria, Bosnia, China can't meet the criteria you would set for the Netherland above.. (WT-en) Justme 11:44, 22 August 2011 (EDT)


 * Yes, all those countries should all be downgraded to outline. The Netherlands is quite far in development, except for regions listed as ODs. We could turn the Frisian Lakes into an article, but then we'd still have to develop the most important destinations in the Zaanstreek-Waterland (which would at least include those villages I mentioned, although Purmerend probably could be left out). --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:53, 22 August 2011 (EDT)


 * Anyone who notices an incorrect article status should just please just change it. Little attention is paid to these until we get to the top of the status list.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 12:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)


 * I will downgrade some of those countries that don't fit the criteria. About the Frisian Lakes, there are three options:


 * Describe them in the Do section of Friesland, this means that all "important" destinations in Friesland would need to be usable, which would be a hard task to complete.
 * Make them a region, which means we'd need to make the "important" destinations in that region usable (I selected a few large towns and the towns of the Elfstedentocht in the table above, but it'd be up for debate I guess). Probably even harder to complete.
 * We could turn the Frisian Lakes into an article. Easier to do though its a bit odd as at least some towns deserve their own articles I think (notably Sneek).

--(WT-en) globe-trotter 12:09, 22 August 2011 (EDT)


 * I'm not sure what the best option is. The cheese market in Alkmaar might be much more popular, especially with foreigners, but personally I'd prefer a sailing trip in Friesland over it. Again though, I think we should not be creating situations in which the guidelines lead to unlogical or unreasonable criteria. Personally, I'd prefer a consensus that something like the Frysian Lakes don't have to meet the full usuable criteria for the Netherlands guide to be usable. It just doesn't make any sense to demand full guides for villages I, as a Dutch person, have never even heard of, for the country article to be just usable. If we can't make an exception, then I think we should either make a simple article out of it or replace it with another "other destination". In any cast, perhaps I should have put my question on the talk page of the article. Feel free to move it there, if you want. A copy of the table would be useful there in any cast. I'll try to find some more statistics and info later. (WT-en) Justme 13:07, 22 August 2011 (EDT)


 * I moved the discussion to the Netherlands talk page. I agree with you in principle, as it does sound a bit like a drastic measure. I think the cheese market in Alkmaar cannot qualify as an OD as it is an attraction of Alkmaar (which, if important enough, should be in the cities list). And at least one OD should be from the Northern region, and I don't know a better one than the Frisian Lakes. I think the best solution would be to create a Frisian Lakes article and see how it evolves. We could make it usable quite easily I think. It doesn't have to be a "region" in the traditional sense straight away, it could be a normal destination article, an extra-hierarchical region or even a travel topic. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 13:45, 22 August 2011 (EDT)


 * As to that last choice: I'm not familiar enough with common practise here to choose between those. A normal destination article, would that be something like Wijdemeren, where you have also combined a number of villages in one article? That would work I guess, the other two options I'm not sure what the differences are. In any case, I've now removed the villages from the checklist above, as well as Purmerend (which I agree is really not a place you want to send people to). That leaves us with quite some work still, but at least there's a clear overview. Any interest in a collaboration? ;-) What are your thoughts about that template on Zaanse Schans, suggesting it should be merged into Zaandam? I'm not sure. You can spend the night there, if that's the rule of thumb. (WT-en) Justme 15:02, 22 August 2011 (EDT)


 * Yes, an article would be similar to Wijdemeren, an extra-hierarchical region would be similar to French Riviera or the West Frisian Islands (a region that overlaps with the traditional region hierarchy) and a travel topic could be similar to Cycling in Scotland. Spending the night is not the only rule for establishing an article, there must also be enough content available to fill it. But as Zaanse Schans is often visited separately from Zaandam, I think a separate article is warranted. Getting the Netherlands up to usable status sounds like a great idea. I'm not too familiar with the outline destinations though. I could work on Zaanse Schans and maybe Kinderdijk, Noordoostpolder and Texel, but the others would be a challenge. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 15:41, 22 August 2011 (EDT)


 * Alright, I've plunged ahead and put your name to Kinderdijk, Zaanse Schans & Zaandam and Texel. I've changed Emmeloord into Noordoostpolder and filled that one up to usable level (forgot that you volunteered, so please check/add). Marken and Broek in Waterland are now usable too, and I'll work on Edam, Monnickendam and Volendam next. That should get us a good deal further, and then we just have those Frysian lakes to tackle. How to do that, still not sure :-) (WT-en) Justme 08:26, 23 August 2011 (EDT)


 * We're almost done, just one left. I'm starting to think we should drop the Frisian Lakes though. It's not a typical "other destination", more a region, and it will take long to properly develop. I don't have a good alternative though. I think the Delta Works could make a good replacement, a classic "other destination", but that means we wouldn't have any ODs from the north. Although is must be said that Zeeland is not represented at all, the Delta Works could balance that out, and it would represent the "struggle against the sea" part of the See section. Do you have any alternatives to suggest? --(WT-en) globe-trotter 20:13, 29 August 2011 (EDT)


 * :-) Firstly, I'm not sure what the preference is: popular places, or the ones we think are most interesting? In that last case, I think the Frisian Lakes have a lot more added value. In terms of popularity, the Deltaworks/Deltapark Neeltje Jans is a good option, although I do think they're more of a "see"/day-trip thing than a destination where you'd stay overnight. The same however goes for Madurodam, which is another foreigners favourite, I think? The Biesbosch is probably the second most popular National Park. I'm not that worried about the North: I would be if we'd be making a guide or star article, but we're only aiming for usable, so plenty of room for improvements later. Texel is already there, too.


 * All in all I think it would be best (in terms of diversity) if the Frisian Lakes (as a region or as something else) will be included at some point. It's a lovely area and booming in terms of tourism, due to an 300+ million euro investment in the area, improving tourist facilities. However, I'm perfectly fine with choosing a more straight forward one as an other destination now, and allowing the Frisian Lakes to develop properly and at their own pace, before forcing them in. (WT-en) Justme 07:55, 30 August 2011 (EDT)


 * Yes, things like Madurodam are considered attractions, as they are already covered in The Hague in the cities list. The Delta Works I thought is somewhere in the middle of an attraction and a destination, as there is no common place to visit it from (just like Schokland). The vfd nomination has made me reluctant to develop it further though. I agree the Frisian Lakes still sound like the best one, but I am having a hard time developing it further. It's a big geographic area with many towns and villages. And the article overlaps with those underlying articles — so I don't really know which things to add and which to leave out. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 10:57, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

Culture
I think the culture paragraph should be about more than just sex and drugs. Maybe some about Museums? —The preceding comment was added by 80.112.160.128 (talk • contribs)


 * I agree that that section gives a pretty bad overview of Dutch culture. Feel free to plunge forward and improve the section. Globe-trotter (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a sex museum in Amsterdam and a cannabis museum too. Perhaps that would be a nice compromise? ;) Jahoe (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

OV Chipkaart/other tickets for public transport
I just removed the table as it doesn't represent the actual situation. In many busses and trams you do can buy still paper single tickets! --VanuitVoorburg (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone find the culture section in "Understand" a little bit freaky?
I really don't know how to fix this, but this is awful. Seriously, whose idea was that? --XndrK (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. It was terrible. I read through the article and greatly shortened that section, re-subtitling it "Dutch tolerance," with a link to a slightly expanded "Dutch culture" section in "See," to which I added a short paragraph on music. I also moved some remarks about prostitution to the "Drugs" section, which is now "Drugs and prostitution." Have a look, and if you see anything that can be improved, please plunge forward and make some edits. I'm sure you know The Netherlands better than I do, as I have yet to visit! (That may be remedied later this summer.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. As it stands, the section is dreadful.


 * I am more than a little curious about how the Dutch got from Calvinist Puritanism a few centuries back to their current culture, partly because I can think of places from Lahore to Louisville that might be improved by a similar change. However, that information may not belong in a travel guide. Pashley (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It was worse before my edits, I think. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. My comment was about the earlier version. Pashley (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes to the article
I do not necessarily agree with some of the many changes done by Globe-trotter recently. Here are some of my concerns: It would be brilliant if we could discuss all of the above (save the banner points, which I believe do not need discussion unless there is a clear Wikivoyage consensus to include the flag), each on its own, reach a consensus and only then "plunge" with profound changes. PrinceGloria (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Adding a flag to the banner heading - do we even do that??? Methinks it does not look good at all, and it seems to me to be the only country-level article on my watchlist to have this feature. How did that come about? When did we agree to do that?
 * 2) I appreciate Globe-trotter agreeing not to change the banner picture as per my suggestion, so this is already covered.
 * 3) Removal of images - I do not think all of the images warranted removal as unnecessary. In fact, the only images that were removed that I would agree with removing is the signpost at Schiphol (indeed quite random) and the Van der Valk logo (quite inappropriate indeed). Now some of the sections are totally deprived of images, and we do not even have an image of an OV-chipkaart reader, which I believe is very instructive.
 * 4) Formatting of images - I do not believe we are any better off now. First off, I believe for the guide to look neat, all of the images should be of the same width and formatted to one side, and this is is the right one. Otherwise, the guides will look really awful on many screens, not to mention print. Secondly, I believe that 300 or 350px is too wide for many screens. 250px seems to be the right size to me. I am viewing this article now on a 15" MacBook and I think many users will be viewing this on screens similar to mine.
 * 5) General comment on images - I know standards for both number, size and formatting of images are being described and discussed in more general policies and guidelines, and I will also raise that in due course. Meanwhile, as this is one of the better guides we have, I would rather have this article look good as it did before Globe-trotter's changes.
 * 6) Removal of the inset on gapers - Really, what was wrong with that? I find it one of the few exemplary use of insets to convey something that is really unique, could not really be covered in the regular text without looking too detailed and trivial, while being interesting and worthy of drawing attention to. I fail to see how this is being "promotional".
 * 7) Drinks - so many changes were done to this section, I got the impression some important information was lost. On second reading, it might not be the case, but I would rather that all would not have been rolled into one edit with so many other changes, makes it hard to appreciate what really changed.
 * 8) Drugs - I would agree this section got excessively long and could indeed use copyediting, but in the end I think it remained pretty much the same, but now split between "Drink" (a bit of WTF to me, esp. regarding prostitution) and "Stay safe", which I believe is only adding confusion and making it less useful for a traveller. It also seems that "nightlife" in the Netherlands is all about coffeshops, drug use and paid sex. I do agree with the section removed that while many people hold the image of Netherlands being just that, that image is inappropriate, offensive and putting too much emphasis on what is otherwise a fringe of a very interesting and lively culture (that could use a better and more full description in this article).
 * 9) List of foods - perhaps it was too long and could have been broken up, but I believe they did merit description on their own rather than just an attempt to roll them all into paragraphs of prose (which somehow all wikis strive to promote despite this being a rather bad way of conveying certain information). I would go back to the list as it was and work on it, perhaps also including Globe-trotters nice paragraphs. And, if anything, this section needs MORE images.
 * 10) Vegetarian food - I might have got lost, but did this get removed? If so, why?


 * A long list of issues, while basically, I haven't changed that much. I have just reworked some sections to make them look more like the United States of America article. It seems like every single change upsets you for some reason. Improving articles is what should be done, not something that should be discouraged. I'll explain point by point:


 * 1) The banner flag has been decided by others at Template talk:Quickbar, I only implemented it here. So if you disagree with that, then discuss it at the appropriate page.
 * 2) The current banner picture is pretty bland and boring. It'd be better for this page to have a more interesting one, and also one that's better from a technical standpoint. This is clearly an amateur photo, while there are many semi-professional photos on Commons that we could use (such as the ones on Benelux and Europe pages which are all taken in the Netherlands).
 * 3) The images, just like the text, grew very unwieldy. I cut back 37 low quality tiny images to 13 good quality larger ones. The image policy preaches "minimal use of images", and for good reason. Images of corporate logos, road signs, hotel chains, and public transport passes are not going to excite a traveller going to visit a country and some were added for promotional reasons. Travellers don't want to see images on boring public transport cards.. what's fun in that? Also, Commons has a lot of good quality photos available now, so it's not necessary anymore to have bad quality snapshots in a quality article like this one.
 * 4) All images are of similar width and aligned on the right side, so I don't see what the problem is. Our star articles use at least 300px. Which makes sense, as this is a travel guide, and images are used to give an impression of a destination to the reader. Tiny images are not going to serve this purpose. If you want to resize them, be my guest, but I don't see how it would be an improvement.
 * 5) I think it looks good now.
 * 6) The Gapers bit was added by a museum for promotional reasons. It's a fairly trivial piece of information for a country page, and should be added to the corresponding city page where the museum is located (which it is—see Maarssen).
 * 7) The Drink section was basically one edit. I reworked the information from lists to prose, just like the United States of America article.
 * 8) "Drink" is a badly named section on Wikivoyage, it includes nightlife and related matters (see Country article template). If you disagree with that, well, start a discussion on the relevant policy pages. I have only implemented the current guidelines.
 * 9) It wasn't logical for a Drink (and nightlife) section to be overwhelmed by safety warnings and negative information. So I moved that to Stay safe, where it makes more sense. That section indeed still does not look great, but it wasn't my intention to finish this section once and for all. This is a wiki, improve that section as you see fit. Also, if you want to write more on Dutch nightlife, go ahead. I don't see why I have to defend myself for not adding something. Add it yourself.
 * 10) This list was long. It became the Yellow Pages of foods. See Avoid long lists. I reworked it in prose form, as a travel guide should be written in prose, and incorporated a lot of the original content into it (maybe too much). Travel guides should write in prose, because a traveller wants an introduction about what to eat while travelling in the country, not a full list of all foods that exist there. If someone is looking for lists of Dutch food, there are other places. Maybe Wikipedia, a cookbook or a food database.
 * 11) I incorporated information on vegetarian food throughout the prose where it makes sense. Vegetarian food can be ordered everywhere, so a full dedicated section is a bit much.


 * I think plunging forward is the rule, and if challenged, a discussion follows. This is a collaborative project, not your project, so you should be open for improvements others make to an article. Especially when they're based on current policy, and with other articles as inspiration (e.g. United States of America). If you want to make changes or additions, you're free to do so. Globe-trotter (talk) 02:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to address the above, I appreciate that.
 * In other important articles here, it has been a good practice to discuss wide-ranging changes before implementing them. While this might not be "plunging forward", it was great for consensus, another equally important founding principle. At any rate, we are discussing and this is the most important here.
 * Some of the stuff that I believe merits further discussion on this, rather than other relevant talk pages (sorry but the numbering goes awry now):
 * United States of America is not a Star Article, when did we decide it is a template to follow? I am honestly asking, as by starting this discussion I learned a whole lot about Wikivoyage I didn't know.
 * While the bit about the gapers might have been added to promote a certain museum, I believe it to be legitimate, there indeed ARE gapers throughout the Netherlands, and they ARE a unique (and interesting!) feature. I would keep the inset and remove the reference to the museum if we find it bothering.
 * I don't know what screen resolution you are using, but I never thought of my screen as particularly small and 350px images are HUGE on my screen and distracting the flow of text. I will discuss on appropriate guideline talk pages further, but I'd rather have many relevant images that a few decorative ones. This is not a brochure, it is a tour guide, the images have to look good but also serve a purpose, not just take half of the page every few blocks of text.
 * I, for one, DO WANT to see the images of public transport passes and such. For me, they are interesting as I am indeed interest in public transportation and often travel with the intention to use a particular mode of transportation or public transit system, so please be aware there are travellers like that, not all of us come to the Netherlands for canal houses and windmills. But that's truly secondary to the purely informative value of such images, which help one immensely to find their way around. An OV-Chipkaart sensor might not rival Kinderdijk for being picturesque, but it's better to know how they look like.
 * The rule is "7+/-9 lists" IIRC and not "convert all lists to prose", I believe. We could have kept some of the listings (except for really marginal ones) under paragraphs detailing a particular type of cuisine. I will attempt to reinstate some in due course to see how it works out.
 * I would rather we moved all information on drugs and prostitution to "stay safe". I am not very well-versed in Dutch nightlife, so I cannot really add much instead, but I hope yourself and other locals would. I just happen to know it is not all drug usage and prostitution as it appears now.
 * At any rate, it is great to discuss and I hope others will join in both the discussion and in editing the article. Kindest, PrinceGloria (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * PS. I do not believe the current banner is either bland or boring, I find it brilliant. To me, it depicts the Netherlands as I see it, with some typical historic towns and water and associated features (like the drawbridge visible in the photo). To me, that's Netherlands. And, before you ask, although I made a heapload of banners for the Netherlands, it is not mine, it is by Ypsilon whose banners I usually don't like. To one of the frequent travellers to the Netherlands, this is how we see the country (and it is a very favorable view!), and not the uniquely Noord-Hollandische green houses or the cliche windmills.
 * BTW, I do not keep Benelux or Europe on my watchlist, in fact I might have never seen those articles before you pointed them out to me. The choice of banners there is really inappropriate to me - those are brilliant banners, but for Marken and Kinderdijk, not those articles.


 * I agree that far-fetching changes should be discussed on the Talk page, but I wasn't in the impression my changes were that big. Like I said before, essentially I did what's common practice. Clean up the page a bit and turn lists into prose. As you're working with a numbered list, I'll reply like that again ;)


 * 1) Getting a country to star status is notoriously difficult, so there are no country star articles yet. I used the United States of America page as an example as it's by far the best developed one on Wikivoyage, and the closest to guide status (in practice it's already guide status). It's the best we have, so an example to follow.
 * 2) I'm okay if it's re-added, but it shouldn't be promotional, and well, there shouldn't be a reference to one particular museum in Maarssen on the country page...
 * 3) I guess it's a problem with different screen sizes. My screen is not that big though, and I still feel these images are very tiny, even at 350px. But well, there is no clear policy on the size of images. We may need to discuss that elsewhere.
 * 4) I'm not against all images of public transport systems... there is a photo of Schiphol, of the Thalys. But I do think there should be something in a picture that excites the reader. The OV-chipkaart is, well, just a card. And a bad one at that ;) We can add images of iamsterdam passes, museum cards, etc., but frankly, they're a nuisance, not interesting. A photo of the Thalys at least has some interesting aspect to it, considering it's quite a fast and futuristic train. I didn't aim to just add cliché images, I would welcome it if someone added some impressive photos of modern architecture. While unconventional, it's still something that is interesting for someone to read more about. The OV-Chipkaart.. well, it's just something that has to be read, but not something that one wants to read. It's merely practical information.
 * 5) Prose is the standard, lists the exception. For example, see Tone. I also personally believe it reads a lot easier this way. Bulleted points is report-style: managers who need to scan quick numbers about their company would want their reports using bulleted points. Travel guides use prose, as it's lively and makes a destination more interesting. Prose conveys context better and makes an interesting story, instead of just being a list of dry facts.
 * 6) Moving all information on coffeeshops to "Stay safe" or "stay healthy" would make it seem it's only a safety and health problem. Millions of visitors come to the coffeeshops in the Netherlands just for fun, as a way of going out, and experience no safety or health issues whatsoever. It's a genuine aspect of Dutch nightlife, so I think it makes sense in the nightlife section.
 * 7) The banner, well, when compared with articles like Europe, Benelux and Amsterdam, the Netherlands banner is not as impressive from a technical point of a view. I think the Netherlands page should have the best image as it's the main entry point for those visiting the country. I don't think the Kinderdijk image is that cliché. Tulips, wooden shoes and Zaan houses are a bit out of context as they can only be found in selected parts of the country, but windmills and polder landscapes are found all across the country. Very iconic and makes a reader interested to go there. Globe-trotter (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for taking the time to discuss this.
 * The wiki way can be great for gathering and updating collections of travel facts and tips but does sometimes make for rather lumpy prose. Sometimes it can be a good thing for an editor with vision and a knowledge of our MoS to have a bit of a spring clean. It can be very difficult and laborious to discuss in abstract detail and in advance major changes. G-T has made a lot of his edits in small sections with explanatory edit summaries, so it should not be too difficult for us to reverse or change anything genuinely controversial.
 * One feature of G-T's edits I do deprecate, is his attitude to images (numbered points 3-4 above). G-T removed a lot of images and justified this by our, somewhat out-dated, minimum use of images policy. Although this removal may be good for folks with slow or expensive connections it's rather negated by the use of forced large display sizes in the few images that remain. We need to remember that WV is not just a printed medium and to respect the on-line image display size preferences that may have been set by registered users. (When printed, I understand it's relatively easy to specify different images sizes - but again we might want to consider the cost of coloured inks and provide a user choice.)
 * One of the important features of thumbnails is that they can be easily enlarged if the reader chooses by clicking in the lower right corner. I think it's wrong to effectively usurp that user choice by specifying large fixed image sizes expressed in pixels. My point does not involve quibbling about whether 250px or 300px or 350px is better. No, you should either specify no size at all in thumbnails or use the upright=a-factor-of-the-user-set-preference syntax rather than impose your own prejudices and value judgements on all. Here's a succinct explanation why this preserves reader choice (for readers other than G-T who, I believe, is already well aware of this very useful feature of our MediaWiki platform) :
 * http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage_talk:Image_policy&oldid=2315806#Image_sized_as_factor_of_default
 * --W. Franke-mailtalk 23:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think fewer, high quality pictures are a lot better than many low-quality ones. I'm also strongly against including pictures of boring things like OV-chipcards, trains or roads, unless the image is hard to describe in words. As far as layout and pictures go, we should keep the best practices of printed guides in mind. They serve to illustrate and invite - often showing small colourful details of a country's culture. A train is a train (no matter how fast) and a card is a card: anyone capable of travelling will have no trouble finding or recognizing those (at least in the Netherlands) so adding a picture serves no real purpose. As for GT's changes, I don't see anything really controversial. Rather I would ask: where are we taking this article? :-) Are you looking for guide-status? If so, feel free to suggest a few sections or subpages you would like me (or others) to help improve, in order to get there.
 * Lastly, I too feel we should change the banner. I hate to complain about efforts made, but I find the current one very uninviting and not representative. Anything from windmills to clogs - just some iconic picture or sterotype would be better, I think? JuliasTravels (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Guide status seems like an interesting challenge :-) I have added maps to all underlying region articles, and the Western Netherlands is already at usable status. So we'd need to get the North, South and East to usable, and improve this page to get it to guide. Globe-trotter (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting challenge indeed :-) I'll have a go at the South then, next week, when I'm back. Any thoughts about the banner? JuliasTravels (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Quickly scanned through some of my photos. Is this banner any better? --Traveler100 (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I like the Leiden banner a lot, it is better indeed. I disagree with JT though - it really helps to picture the Thalys train rather than describe it when saying that travellers should not board it unless specifically having tickets for it, and the photo in question was of the OV-chipkaart READER, not the car, and was very useful IMHO. PrinceGloria (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The reader is even more boring, so I don't see how that helps. Travelers shouldn't board the Thalys without tickets and also shouldn't board the ICE, CityNightLine or Eurostar without tickets. Such things are best described in-text. Images should make a destination look interesting to visit and not focus on trivialities. Images on OV-chipkaart readers and trains are typical Wikipedia material. Globe-trotter (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. There's a gazillion of these practical trivialities (museumcards, entry tickets, train tickets, public lockers, different types of buses, trains, OV-rental bikes, stamps, public office logos, road signs etc.). Why picture a Thalys and not an ICE or sprinter? There's no way we want to, can or will picture all of those. Imho, just picking one makes for a geeky and boring decoration, without making any substantial difference in usability. Every Thalys train reads "Thalys" on it in huge letters; it's not like anyone is going to miss it. And if someone is worried, they can always just click on the direct external link or check Wikipedia. Our guides need to have interesting pictures that make you want to see the places for yourself: like in any other travel guide. As for the banner: much better indeed, thanks! JuliasTravels (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Getting to guide
Well then, for the guide-status challenge, I've started working on the Southern Netherlands and sub-cities. It'll take a while for us to get all those destinations up to usable or guide status, but let's do it :-) Would it make sense to make another schedule like you did when we brought it to usable, [Globetrotter? Or would that clutter this page? Also, could someone else maybe take care of the remaining missing banners? That's not really my cup of tea. For the Southern Netherlands, Roermond, the Biesbosch National Park, the Efteling and the Delta Works still need one and the one for Venlo should really be replaced, I think, as it's not recognizable for the city nor pretty. Thanks! JuliasTravels (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I will gladly take care of the banners. It would be brilliant if we could have a laundry list of to-dos here. I think it would be the easiest to start with Zeeland, and also quite interesting, as this province gets perhaps the least coverage in guides and travel publications. JT, will you be making the laundry list? PrinceGloria (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Good, thank you. I'm not too familiar with tables and such, but I can copy the one above (for our usable efforts) and try to work that into a new list? As for the regions, if I read the guidelines correctly, "All immediate subregions must be usable status or better. That means Northern Netherlands, Western Netherlands, Southern Netherlands and Eastern Netherlands. Although I first found that a somewhat unnatural division, I must say, from a travellers' point of view, that seems a more convenient division than the 12 provinces anyway. Globetrotter took care of the Western part, I've started on the Southern region, including Zeeland. I would say jump in where-ever you want, or know most about :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I got you now. Those regions seem very unnatural to me as well, but, contrary to yourself, I find them most unnecessary and confusing (what does Zeeland have to do with Limburg? how is Flevoland more like Zuid-Holland than like Overijssel or Drenthe?), and I was about to suggest having them removed, but I am waiting for the final turnout of a similar discussion in Germany. I am very happy to work on improving province-level articles and below, but I guess this was not what you had in mind. PrinceGloria (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the main cities remain the same and will have to be usable either way. I get what you're saying, but when I think about my own travels, I must say that I also look for spots in say "the north of France" or "the south of India" rather than in Picardie or Karnataka. For trip planning purposes, the Dutch provinces are of particularly limited use, as they're so small that they have no influence in terms of travel distances or times, and even for me, so let alone for a foreigner, North and South Holland or Overijsel and Gelderland hardly differ from each other anyway. But well, that's a whole different discussion. Any improvements to the articles or whichever subarticle would be great. :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Regions vs provinces

 * Since we already started discussing this, we may just as well continue here, as I believe this is important. While I agree that provinces may be of limited use for trip planning purposes to most first-time tourists, who will do Amsterdam, perhaps Keukenhof, a trip out to Haarlem, Zaanse Schans or Enkhuizen and may accidentally end up in Den Haag/Scheveningen or Efteling. They do not need any information on provinces to do that tour, those destinations should, and most are, mentioned in the main article.
 * But if you start exploring the country more in-depth, provinces are great to go by. I do not agree that e.g. Noord- and Zuid-Holland are the same, Zuid is much more urban and modern, while the North consists of Amsterdam, the uniquely medievally semi-rural towns north of it, and the Gooi, which are quite different from the continous urban area of Zuid-Holland. While entirely possible to move from Den Helder to Dordrecht in a short time, it is not entirely recommended to plan a trip including those destinations in one go. They are also quite different in character and cannot really be lumped into one box.
 * Moreover, while Noord- and Zuid-Holland can be deemed similar, much like Overijssel and Drenthe, this does not hold true for Flevoland and Zuid-Holland, or for Zeeland and Limburg, especially that getting from Vlissingen to Maastricht is not really an easy operation.
 * I believe the traveller would be best-served by a sufficient explanation of the geographical, transportational and touristic differences between the provinces in the main article. There are 12 of them, with perhaps not more than half being of major tourist interest. I do not think the traveller would have a problem comprehending those and would be better off without an artificial idea of "Southern Netherland" imposed on them when, in fact, it doesn't really exist. PrinceGloria (talk) 08:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose we just don't agree :-) I agree, there is no such thing as the "Southern Netherlands", but I think it's easy to explain that (if you want) in the article, and indicate that this is a rough division for planning purposes. I don't think it's in the interest of the traveller to have to work through 12 regions, when for most, the division in 4 provides an easy way to get familiar with the major differences and options. And let's face it, the average visitor of the Netherlands never steps out of "Western Netherlands" anyway :-) I don't think of region articles as a place to "lump places in a box". For me, they should provide enough depth and destinations to plan a trip through the country, without flooding the traveller with too much detail. For anyone who's staying longer, wants to know more, get so familiar with the Dutch that they'll really feel the difference between North and South-Holland, or North Limburg and the east of North-Brabant: sure, there are the province articles and the many smaller destinations linked from there. I have no objection at all to developing those better. I've split this topic off from the guide discussion to keep things organized. JuliasTravels (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Dank u wel for the split. I agree that the average traveller will probably only visit both Hollands, and whet they need to know if where Amsterdam is, how to get from Schiphol there and perhaps how to get to Keukenhof or Zaanse Schans from Amsterdam. This information is accessible from the main article without even having to read through the section on provinces/regions.
 * I don't know how region articles will help "to plan a trip through the country" if one of them includes Zeeland and Limburg, this won't help at all. If anything, Zeeland belongs with Zuid-Holland more. So then we have in the West. But then, how is Western Brabant (Breda etc.) not as close to Rotterdam as Zeeland? But if we add Brabant to Zuid-Holland to form a usable region, where does it leave Limburg? Or do we splice Brabant in half, but where? And I believe Zuid-Holland and Noord-Holland belong together. Flevoland is more like Drenthe or Overijssel, but then it is most easily accessible from Noord-Holland or Utrecht for most travellers. Etc. Etc.
 * What I am saying is that the Netherlands is TOO SMALL to form reasonable, meaningful regions. We can devote a few sentences to describing how the country differs geographically (catholic heritage and hills in the southeast, agriculture and Frisian in the northeast, Randstad in the western centre, Hoge Veluwe in the middle), and point to where Amsterdam and Schiphol are, while describing in "get around" how close and easy it is to get around (and list notable exceptions).
 * The provinces are then useful because a) they exist in the actual world b) there are transportation systems organized around province c) they indeed have rather peculiar characteristics moreso than the invented "regions". If anybody cares to read into their articles, they will get more travel ideas and a better understanding of the region. Most other travellers will head straight for Amsterdam and God bless them, we needn't worry they'll be scared by 12 province articles, they won't blink at those whether they are four regions or twelve provinces. PrinceGloria (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That reasoning just doesn't work for me. Dividing a small country up in 12 provinces with separate articles to read for all, doesn't seem to make things easier. Placing the 12 provinces directly under the country level guide means (provided we develop those into complete articles) a level of background detail that's way too much for an average traveller and a long list of linked cities and destinations, many not of serious interest unless you're spending more than a few months in the Netherlands. There's also no need for province level info when it comes to transportation. Sure, concessions and tenders for regional transport are managed by the provinces, but that's an administrative thing, not something you'll notice as a customer. I wonder what others think though. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not see what is the problem here. We just need to introduce every province with one sentence each I guess, we MAY mention the top location or two in the province (Amsterdam for Noord-Holland, Den Haag and Rotterdam for Zuid etc.), but in general the cities and other destinations go to their separate section, where we list the ones of arguably most interest regardless of what the next level of regional division is.
 * My problem, which I should have stated earlier, is with not with the listing of regions in the main article, but with the regions' articles. Regions will be hard to describe in an uniform and useful manners e.g. due to concessions - one region will have railways fully on the NS/OV-chipkaart system, the other not, plus in general I found that the transportation systems (the way bus lines, railway lines, hubs and transferiums are arranged) are the easiest to comprehend on a provincial basis - otherwise, it is too much to take in in one go, and very hard to describe coherently.
 * Moreover, a province is just the right size to describe in a coherent and reasonable manner, and provinces are generally quite consistent when it comes to base characteristics. One can describe the whole of e.g. Groningen in one go, without oversimplification or providing outright false information. But then, Friesland is quite different, and so is Drenthe, so to make a correct description of a "Northern Netherlands" or "Eastern Netherlands" consisting of those free is listing more exceptions than commonalities, which defies the purpose of describing them as a region. Moreover, listing all important destinations for a "region" of 3 or 4 provinces would also be either a very long list or one with many very subjective omissions we might debate endlessly. Within provinces, it seems easier to organize destinations into one digestible list without glaring omissions.
 * I hope I managed to get my point across clearer this time. Would be brilliant to hear from others as well. PrinceGloria (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

pointless and very odd advice
Citing the article: ''In order to avoid paying for an international train ticket on the route between Amsterdam and Antwerp, you can get off in one of the border stations of Essen (Belgium) and Roosendaal (the Netherlands) and walk to the other on foot. You can follow the main road between the two places and will need to walk some 10 km in a flat and open, though particularly uninhabited terrain.''

A very odd advice, walking 10 km across the border for this reason is completely pointless. I'm removing this paragraph from the article.

An international ticket between Belgium and the Netherlands does not cost more than the two national tickets combined (it's slightly cheaper even). Also, when you've bought a discount plan in one of the two countries, or are traveling free (e.g. Dutch students), that also applies to the international ticket (for the part up to the border of course). When in doubt ask at the ticket box in the railway station, they'll be happy to advice you on the cheapest ticket for your personal situation. Jahoe (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * P.S. Found alike paragraphs on the Belgium and Netherlands articles. Removed them both. Jahoe (talk) 09:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That's fine, Jahoe. Please feel free to correct and adjust any parts you find odd or wrong. The sections you refer to sound like they might have been true at some point far in the past, but indeed, its not good advise now. Thanks! JuliasTravels (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

VVV logo
The description of the image here features the logo of the tourist information organization mentioned in the text. I can't remember ever seeing pictures in descriptions. Not to mention the fact that AFAIU we strongly discourage featuring various organization's logos in our guides.

BTW the file at Commons for that logo is CC-licensed. I thought trademarks are almost never freely licensed? ϒpsilon (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd say remove it - it isn't adding any significant value to the article, so if there are concerns about licensing and/or promotion then we should just take it out of the article. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 20:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ ϒpsilon (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh God, why so? The very first piece of advice given to me when I was about to visit to the Netherlands for the first time was somebody drawing or showing me (don't remember now) the VVV logo. I would say this was the only piece of advice I actually needed. One needs to know how the logo looks like and what it stands for - VVV is far better, more important, universal, reliable and omnipresent than any other tourist information service in any country. I believe their logo absolutely belongs to the article as much as a picture of a windmill does, or even more.PrinceGloria (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm very much with the Prince here. I think the logo is essential information and must be included unless copyright concerns preclude it. I must admit, though, that I am not certain how copyright rules apply here. Pashley (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This raises a more general policy issue, so I have started a discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:Image_policy. Pashley (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Assuming we do want to show the logo, I would think a clean direct image of the logo, like the one here, would be far preferable to a photo of a dirty sign. Texugo (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Pashley (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Separate section for specific protests
I've removed the advise about participation in any protests against the "zwarte piet" tradition. It's fine and even good to explain the Sinterklaas tradition and mention the discussion about it in the Understand section or elsewhere, but actual protests have been incidental and are unlikely to continue now that the celebrations are over for this year. There's no safety reason to mention them or discourage people to engage. The issue has been a lively one among Dutch nationals in the past month or two, but visitors are highly unlikely to encounter any Zwarte Piet related demonstrations throughout the year. Protests about health care cuts, student loans, the Occupy movement, ISIS, Israel and other topics have brought together at least as many people and have regularly seen a less friendly atmosphere. These kinds of protests about social and political themes are common in most democratic countries and I see no reason to list them. If serious protests will be expected next November, we can always use a temporary box. Anyone disagree? JuliasTravels (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Nine cities
We currently list more than seven plus minus two cities... Which should be axed from the list? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The Netherlands are guide and nobody noticed it...
Whoever did the huge amount of work to make this possible, deserves my gratitude. However, unlike our article on Germany this seems to have happened largely in silence. We now have three countries that are the actual size of countries (i.e. excluding Nauru Singapore and Vatican City) at guide. We can now think about which of those could serve as a model for our first star country, to show what other country articles should aspire to... Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I changed the status because it meets all the criteria, after the lot of work me and some others did on it a while ago (especially bringing lots of sub-destinations up to usable and guide). No silence (see the talk page above), we just abandoned it for a while. I've been upgrading a few destinations and countries recently, in light of the discussions you started, and then came back to this one too. I even borrowed a well-known travel guide for the Netherlands to compare and found that our coverage of the country is much broader than that of the book. So it's definitely a guide. That said however, I myself have no interest in bringing this or any other country article to star status soon. I also think we should try to keep more general discussions (like choosing examples) in one place, rather than push them on all relevant talk pages. JuliasTravels (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well first of all thank you, and yes you are right that we should not have the general issue discussed in more´than one place. I accept that you are not willing (or able) to elevate this or any country to star status, but we should see whether at some point in time some country can get there. As for the silence, well it happened with less fuzz than I Noticed at talk:Germany. Anyway, thanks a ton Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I bungled up the "by bus" sections
Editing from a mobile device, I got confused and now there are two "by bus" subsections each under "get in" and "get around". Could someone please consolidate them? I think the opening of the long distance market in Germany and the fact that Flixbus also operates domestically in the Netherlands has made some of the information obsolete or outdated regardless. IIRC, the companies serving both the Netherlands and Germany include Flixbus Berlinlinienbus, Postbus and Student Agency (which is a Czech company), but I may well have forgotten some. At any rate, maybe it makes sense to have a distinction similar to the British English Bus vs. Coach with (sub)sections in this article? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well just for historical purposes, Berlinlinienbus and Postbus are no more. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

2018
Request for comment. Talk:Netherlands TheTrolleyPole (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that there are at least 2 articles offering substantial info on the OV-chipkaart:
 * Netherlands
 * Rail travel in the Netherlands Redirect: OV-Chipkaart

Both articles offer useful info on the card. But both articles offer somewhat different details in the sense that one should read both to get the total picture. I find there are few links from city articles to the OV-chipkaart sections of these two articles.

My suggestion is to move the OV-chipkaart info from the Rail travel in the Netherlands (leaving only a summary and a link) and consolidate it all in the Netherlands article. Also spelling is inconsistent (OV-chipkaart, OV-Chipkaart, OV chipkaart) in articles; I believe "OV-chipkaart" is the proper spelling. (Can/should the redirect OV-Chipkaart be renamed to "OV-chipkaart"?) I would point the redirect to the Netherlands article.

An alternative is to create a separate article called "OV-chipkaart" and move all but summaries to it.

I would like feedback before starting. Thanks. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It seems most appropriate to put detailed info about buying train tickets in a dedicated article about rail travel in the Netherlands, then summarize it in the article for the country with a link to the section in the rail travel link. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with your first suggestion, as summarised by Ikan Kekek. Good job noticing that the info is spread over two articles. I find it frustrating when two articles seem to be saying different things,bor you have to piece together bits from different places. Thanks. 03:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Since I wrote most of the information on the OV-chipkaart in the Rail travel article (I was under the assumption that it had a capitalised C, which it doesn't - feel free to correct that), I'll add my thoughts as well. Making an article on the chipkaart alone isn't justified for obvious reasons. I too would be in favour of moving all information necessary to Netherlands rather than Rail travel in the Netherlands, since the OV-chipkaart is also used outside of the rail network (buses, trams, some domestic ferries, OV-fiets rental, et cetera). That doesn't mean that the section should be removed from here entirely. The traveller comes first, so leaving enough information in the Rail travel article would be useful to prevent the reader from having to skim through multiple articles to find the information they need. I don't see a benefit in adding information or a link on just about every article for the Netherlands. All Routeboxes I've added recently feature links to the Rail travel article for the train connections already (for example: Sliedrecht, and I suggest that we do that instead of linking here or to the Netherlands article in just about every article.
 * As a side-note: The chipkaart is due to be changed a bit in the near future. The €20 required funds are to be ruled out. Instead, customers are now able to sign up for NS Flex, which allows them to pay in retrospect at the end of the month. There is also a future prospect in paying using a smartphone or debit/credit card at chipkaartlezers, but that has yet to be re-introduced. -- Wauteurz (talk) 09:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry for typing ignorantly. Based on what you're saying, I agree with you. I didn't do due diligence to see that the Chipkaart is used for various forms of transportation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. I think the consensus is to put the bulk of OV-chipkaart info into the article Rail travel in the Netherlands leaving only a summary and a link in Netherlands. I think a link or two from the major city articles to the OV-chipkaart section in the rail article would be useful. The link would be via a redirect in case one wants to change the location of the info in future. If there is no further feedback, I will start work on the weekend. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Since I flipped based on Wauteurz' recommendation of doing the reverse, are you sure that's the consensus? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Sinceit covers more than rail, I guess it should be in the Netherlands article, but I am concerned about it being too much detail for a country article. Let's see how it looks when it's in and then reassess. Ground Zero (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure we have a consensus either and support the procedure that Ground Zero proposed. If we end up deciding against putting the information in the country article, then let me come in with an alternative: The chipkaart alone may not warrant an article for itself, but public transport in the Netherlands might. I've started work on Rapid transit itN around the same time as the rail travel article, and I don't see it becoming a proper stand-alone article anytime soon. I suggest that this article gets merged with the potential that the OV-chipkaart article has, as well with possible articles for other sorts of public transit in the Netherlands, whether it be regular (buses, trams) or somewhat out of the ordinary (the Meuse ferries, Arnhem's trolleybuses). The only thing it may leave out would be OV-fietsen and train travel, which would be OV-chipkaart-related subjects covered in Cycling in the Netherlands and Rail travel in the Netherlands respectively. We don't have to debate on this now, it's just a quick suggestion should merging the info on the chipkaart prove undesirable. Let's get back to this once that turns out to be the case.
 * Back to topic, the four major cities of the Randstad (Utrecht, The Hague, Rotterdam and Amsterdam), as well as major internationally-oriented cities (Eindhoven, Groningen) may be well-off with a mention of the chipkaart. Other than that, we should probably keep the information reserved to either RTitN or the country article, but preferably the latter. -- Wauteurz (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. I shall wait for a consensus to proceed. Currently, with respect to the OV-chipkaart, the Netherlands article has a nice layout but is lacking in content, and the Rail article has a poor layout but has more content. I had changed the Amsterdam article to point to OV-Chipkaart before I realized there were two rival OV-chipkaart sections. I'll change these to point to OV-chipkaart (provided by Wauteurz), but will not add any more. Let me know what you decide. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

2019
Request for comment: Talk:Netherlands TheTrolleyPole (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The descriptions for the OV-chipkaart are split between two articles: Netherlands and Rail travel in the Netherlands. I have added cross-links between the two articles so a reader could find the two complementary chunks of information. Last year, I offered to merge the two descriptions into one article but there appeared to be no consensus where to put the combined description. We could put the description in the country article or the rail article or in a separate article; I don't care which. There was a suggestion to put it in a proposed article such as public transport in the Netherlands; however, it does not yet exist. Since there was a concern about article length: the country article is 65 page scrolls long, rail 51 scrolls, and a separate OV-chipkaart article would be about 5 scrolls. Could we decide on where to put the combined description? Thanks. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't recall exactly what I was for or against at the time, but thinking on it now, I'd be in favour of getting the OV-Chipkaart information to a separate article. I don't have a strong preference about whether that article should be called OV-Chipkaart or Public transport in the Netherlands. The OV-Chipkaart is more widely accepted than just trains, buses and trams. I recall, for example, being able to use the card on the ferry between Vlissingen and Breskens, but they seem to have changed that now. By just listing the exceptions and additions to being able to use the card on bus, tram and train, I think you'd be able to expand the article beyond five scrolls easily. Add to this that I never added information about the additional fees for the HSL-Zuid and the dedicated OV-Chipkaart pole for that. I recall leaving out a few more oddities back when I started Rail travel in the Netherlands some two years ago, which would be much more at home at a separate article.
 * Should a separate article not be the final consensus, I'm neutral on whether to leave the information in the country or RtitN. Wauteurz (talk) 07:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Given that a 'Public transport in the Netherlands' article would either be duplicative of the 'Rail travel in NL' article or would just be about buses and trams basically, I think there should be an OV-Chipkaart article, which would seem to have enough potential content to be justified.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I made an attempt at covering public transit, specifically Rapid transit in the Netherlands before, though that effort has stranded. There's still something to be said about the usual buses and trams in the Netherlands, as in that they're Dutch- not all of them have a bilingual nature to them. Subjects like phrases and whatnot could be covered here, as has been the case with the "Gele borden" at RtitN. Logically though, this may be better off in the Dutch phrasebook instead. We could make an effort to improve Rapid transit in the Netherlands, though that'd give an article that would leave us with the same issue we have now: Information about the OV-Chipkaart doesn't quite fit there that well. Coming back on my previous statement: I'm starting to favour a stand-alone article for the card as well. -- Wauteurz (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I still favour a dedicated article, but what could be tried out on a few relevant articles is an information section on the card that is exactly the same in each article. This allows there to be useful info on the card in e.g. the rail travel article, and the main NL country article, without that info diverging in content or being spread across different places.


 * This can be achieved by use of an invisible template that pastes a set text into a relevant article, and is indistinguishable from the rest of the article's prose. The actual text would be hosted on the template page, however, meaning that any edits to the content automatically show up in every article that uses the template.


 * To my knowledge, this sort of template isn't used on our wiki, but I can think of a couple of examples on the French Wikivoyage to show you what I'm talking about. Every EU member state article uses the same European roaming template in their respective 'Connect' section. The information is standard across the union, but is helpful to include in each affected country article. See it in action here. The template is imperceptible, until you click the 'edit' button. See also the 'Get in' section of any Schengen area country article, or the 'Stay healthy' section of any country with the EHIC.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the sheer volume of information about OV-Chipkaart, I think a separate particle makes sense. A few key points can be put into a template with a link to the article. I used Template:Greycan to put the same text about Greyhound Canada into about 80 articles. Ground Zero (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool, but the style is different - yours is blue and obviously a template, good for a short sentence, but potentially clunky where multiple paragraphs are required. I still recommend looking at how the French Wikivoyage handles this.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I could not see the tags in the FR.Wikivoyage article. Could you identify them? Do they work on EN.Wikivoyage? I expect a small amount of duplicated text in the articles. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Click 'modifier' (edit) next to the heading 'Communiquer' and you will see the template code. I assume it would work here, as long as a template page is made for it.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * .--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Template:TT!Experiment--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The experiment looks different though from your first example which had no box around the text. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I can't see a box. What browser are you using? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Chrome. Perhaps you could do a live example. The list of OV-chipkaart types is repeated in 3 articles. Thanks. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I will make a new article and name it "OV-chipkaart", and this will replace the redirect of the same name. Material will be moved from the country and rail articles to the new article leaving summaries. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Published
I have published the changes. OV-chipkaart is the new article mostly built with material moved from the source articles: Netherlands and Rail travel in the Netherlands. The the source articles have summaries to replace the moved text, and both source articles reference OV-chipkaart as the main article. I dropped mention of any discontinued ticket media. There is only a small amount of duplicated text.

The new article is weak on descriptions for the disposable (single-use) OV-chipkaart. These appear to have different characteristics for each public transit operator using them. Amsterdam, The Hague and Rotterdam all have time-period cards bearing the OV-chipkaart logo with apparently different characteristics by city. I think that these are disposable OV-Chipkaart media. Wikipedia indicates that there are one-hour and three-day passes for the 3 cities that can be loaded onto an anonymous or personal OV-chipkaart, but I couldn't find evidence online to confirm that.

OV-chipkaart article created. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The new article does not mention bike rentals which can be paid by an OV-chipkaart. Is anyone familiar with this? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * In the mean time, I have also gone ahead and worked on an OV-chipkaart article myself, which you can find here. The article is far from complete, but I did completely rewrite the text around the types of card. The only thing in there it really lacks on are the business variants (though these are more or less identical to anonymous and personal cards, except for the company in question pays for their usage), as well as e-tickets, though the latter doesn't go unmentioned. I've some experience with OV-fiets myself, so I'll happily add some about it. If I recall correctly, some little information about it can be found on Rail travel in the Netherlands as well. As may be evident from the table in the userspace article, I am doing some slight testing about what operators let you order single tickets for on their websites, and there may be some more of these 'experiments' around the chipkaart in future, as the card has a few loopholes here and there, this time excluding the ones that are questionable in their legality. -- Wauteurz (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I must add that I'll likely have to take some more topical pictures myself as the ones available on commons are quite limited to accurately supplement the text. Finishing the userspace version above may take some time. -- Wauteurz (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)