Talk:Geography of the Netherlands
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
[edit] Footnotes
The footnotes mention the names of 3 pdf files. However without the complete download address this information is completely useless to the interested reader. Please provide the relevant information soon. Arnoutf (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Glad to see that you are so eager to consult these sources yourself. I guess careful and reflective reading them can teach you a lot. Ad43 (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your effort. However, I would appreciate it if you took some time to carefully read the Wiki guideline how to present references at WP:CITE. There are 3 ways how references can be formatted in an article and yours do not conform to any of those. Therefore I would ask you again to spend some effort to get it right. Thanks (talk) 10:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I was just in the middle of doing this when you caused an editing conflict and spoilt my transfer of data. Don't be so impatient, o.k.? Ad43 (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Edit conflicts happen sometimes and are nobody's fault. I did not know you were still working on it, and was tryng to suggest how to improve it further. Arnoutf (talk) 10:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I know, and I don't blame you for this, but unfortunately it causes much additional effort. Ad43 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I know, I am suffering from the same.
- I saw you repaired the link to one of the reports; thanks for that, the hard work of getting things right. I was wondering though why you used the Google provided "htm" version in the hyperlink instead of the official CBS version (in PDF). References to pdf files are perfectly alright according all guidelines (the reader is after all freely downloadable). My problem with the Google version is that the figures tend to disappear (as do indead the maps in my browser) and the text layout gets scrambled. Also in these cases I would vastly prefer a page hosted on the website of the original authoring institute. Arnoutf (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Delft issue
While you maybe right that 'some surveys' include Delft in the The Hague large agglomeration, the sources provided at the top of the list do not include it. Based on these sources Delft cannot be listed. If there are other sources that explciitly include Delft, these should be used, instead of the current ones.
This does however raise the point how well-defined the agglomerations are when different surveys arrive at different conclusions. I would suggest that we make a short introduction stating that there is general agreement, but that some small differences between surveys (and probably institutes) exist. That this does not matter for the gist of the argument and that we will adopt the agglomeration definition of CBS / NIDI or whatever relevant Dutch institute we can come up with. Does that sound ok? Arnoutf (talk) 11:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- The list I have used should correspond exactly to the list of Grootstedelijke agglomeraties en het peri-urbane gebied, not including Delft. You are right. This source provided our data, extracted from <2004k4v4p037art.pdf>, on p.46. Ad43 (talk) 11:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think this clustering is basicly or completely the same. Underlying article is: Werken in het stadsgewest: herkomst en bestemming van forensen, by Mathieu Vliegen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad43 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
