Talk:NRC Handelsblad

Untitled
This page was a stub and i fixed that by putting in some historic information which i got from the NRC homepage. I also found the circulation figures somewhere on the net (http://scholieren.nrc.nl/weekkrant/2001/21/4.shtml).

Please let me know if i'm wrong.

I'm not at all clear what circulation figures you are using. Paid circulation data is available from HOI (Insituut voor Media Auditing) at http://www.hoi-online.nl. I would have thought these were the ones to go with. Please let me know if this is not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.122.112 (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a much more detailed article on this paper in the Dutch Wiki: nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/NRC_Handelsblad. It's in Dutch but Google/Babelfish will help you out. 92.0.149.50 (talk) 09:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NRC Handelsblad logo.jpg


Image:NRC Handelsblad logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Algemeen Handelsblad and Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant
There is little information at Algemeen Dagblad, Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant and NRC Handelsblad. Much of the text is rehashed from one article to the other. Hence one strong combined article at NRC Handelsblad works better. Algemeen Dagblad and Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant are its history. gidonb (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for Algemeen Handelsblad, as 142 years of independent history as a newspaper suggests independent notability, even if the current content doesn't show that; perhaps improve from the linked nl pages? Similarly for Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant. Klbrain (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Notability is not a counter-argument because these mergers are NOT about notability but about optimal information organization (not addressed). Furthermore, the user then addresses information at another wiki and never gets to the point of what we have here and now. The sad reality is, and I'm on Wikiproject Newspapers, that printed newspapers are on their way out and their entries tend to be underdeveloped as these entries are. Especially international ones. One can imagine that it isn't so or improve Wikipedia with what we have. If there will be a lot of writing on either historic newspaper in the future, a separate article could still be created. The issue obviously is not notability. gidonb (talk) 05:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * While I accept the short text merge reason, it is also the case that, by that same policy, Merging should be avoided if: ... The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short. So, distinct for 142 years suggests no merge to me. Klbrain (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not applicable because, in any case, the two papers are NRC Handelsblad's early history. Now if there was a lot of text the individual articles would elaborate on this history. With three short articles, i.e. the current situation, it's just repetition. gidonb (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of history, over the course of 140 years of independent history; it is there on the Dutch (and German) pages, and hence I've marked each of the stubs with template:Expand Dutch. I can't see the repetition you refer to; all I can see is that stubs for independently notable topics are ripe for expansion with material available on other language wikis. I respect the approach of removing stubs (through merging) where that is warranted; I just don't think that this is such a case. Klbrain (talk) 09:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Merge as this is standard procedure of a business entity changing names through the years. The current article name should be the most recent iteration of the company, with the two older names merged as its history section.  Content is saved, and one entity is no longer wrongfully SPLIT into three.  This should not be controversial.  Tagging all three.  Regards,  GenQuest  "scribble" 04:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Accept that I'm out-argued on this; happy for merge to proceed without objection from me. Klbrain (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)