Talk:Roads in the Netherlands

Stalemate
Disclaimer: I don't know anything about Dutch roads and do know GTB from the past (COI?). Ten, 20,285 bytes is a hell of a bold cut, and you have made it an all-or-nothing deal. Breaking it up into pieces might make it easier to deal with. If you two can't cut a deal you'll need more people, and they'll want to know what's going on. GTB, you know that you'll probably lose a fair chunk, right? And you personally didn't post everything, other people's work was also cut? I don't really have any horse in this race, but I'm going to be annoying until you two talk or get more people here. With any luck I'm done. Have a nice day/night. Sammy D III (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Normally I do partial copyedits with long articles, but when vast amounts of it contravene Verifiability, whether by being unsourced (by result of no citation provided or links that are now dead and unsalvageable via archiving) or by using user-generated content, I will not spend time copyediting those. I'll note issues going down the article (save for copyedit issues, as those are a different can of worms).Consider:


 * 1) The two references are to different Wikipedia projects (French and Dutch, respectively) and cannot be used as sources per WP:CIRCULAR. As such, the information should be removed unless its equivalent can be found elsewhere in a reliable source.
 * 2) I used Google Translate so some of it might be incorrect, but nowhere in the source provided do the years 1821, 1825, or 1850 appear. The only use of the number 42 appears to be used in relation to a state highway in Germany. Find another source that corroborates this information.
 * 3) Refers to a wiki (which almost definitely runs afoul of WP:USERGEN). The main page says that they're the same people who run autosnelwegen.nl, but references aren't given in the source article provided.
 * 4) Citation needed.Citation needed.
 * 5) WP:CIRCULAR, and citation needed.
 * 6) Is this supposed to be cited by the reference that comes before it? If not, citation needed.
 * 7) Citation needed.
 * 8) §Roads by safety policy category: As noted by the maintenance tag, this section has been noted to be (Added 23:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)) wholly unreferenced since September of this year. Find some references for the information provided or it doesn't belong here.
 * 9) §Outside of built-up areas: Most of the paragraphs in this section aren't cited to anything; there is another use of WegenWiki (which pretty much fails WP:USERGEN immediately), and the one source that I left seems like it could be valuable, but has become a dead link. I managed to find an old archived version via the Wayback Machine (PSA: sources because they might not exist forever), but someone else should confirm that this is what the source should be saying.
 * 10) Inappropriate formatting removed, citations needed, and the last excerpt sounds like a statement from some third party.
 * 11) Inappropriate formatting removed. Citation needed.
 * 12) Inappropriate formatting removed. While the Belgian Traffic Code site may potentially be used as a reliable source, the German Wikipedia cannot.
 * 13) Citation needed.
 * 14) As I noted in my edit, citation needed.
 * 15) Citation needed.
 * 16) §Carpool / H.O.V. and reversible lanes: The entire section is completely unreferenced. Find some reliable sources that support this information.I understand this article has been around since 2014, but Wikipedia's policies—especially Verifiability, one of the five pillars of the encyclopedia—have been refined since then. What may have been acceptable at that time isn't necessarily what is acceptable now. I'll give a week for appropriate sources to be added and for issues to be fully resolved; otherwise, I will take that as silence and will revert back to my changes.

— Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow. I think you got a touch carried away with your answer, but thanks for your time. Have a nice one. Sammy D III (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I hardly consider the above being a touch carried away when my edits are being called into question. I'm pointing out the problematic parts of the article that go against a (current) core policy of Wikipedia. If anyone has an issue with that they're more than welcome to take it to VPP.Like I said earlier, if anyone has reliable sources that can support the poorly-sourced (or unsourced) information, now is a good time to do so. As stated on WP:BURDEN:Footnote omitted, emphasis mine. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Get over yourself. I didn't say anything rude to you, in fact, I was friendly. Even though you answered like a pompous Ivory-tower ass I was pretty happy with the result. But nooo, you just had to throw an extra offensive comment in. Pointless WP links ignored, I've heard it all before and you know it. Sammy D III (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Saying [you're] going to be annoying wasn't needed, even if it was supposed good-natured ribbing. If you've nothing productive to contribute to this discussion, let others chip in. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It worked, you're here. "If you've nothing productive to contribute to this discussion"? I'm the one who started it, I'm the one who got your testament posted, and I'm going to be the one who points out that nobody has disagreed with you here, you're flipping out about nothing. Sammy D III (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

thank you for your initiative, which has led Tenryuu to laying out the various sourcing issues. , in your opening statement, you said: "..when vast amounts of [an article] contravene Verifiability, whether by being unsourced (by result of no citation provided or links that are now dead and unsalvageable via archiving) or by using user-generated content, I will not spend time copyediting". Okay, I can see your PoV now. But can you imagine why I initially flipped out over your 20,000+ Byte delete, summarized by: "Copyedit complete; removed unsourced content" given without any further explanation, or general policy / guideline reference ? And also: are you aware, that as of this writing, over 175,000 articles use the template "This article does not cite any sources" ? — OK, sometimes it's "only" a section or paragraph, but the scope of the template currently defaults to 'article'. That says something in itself. This article however counts 32 sources, and is coherently written. If one half seems okay, does the content of the other half not at least deserve the benefit of the doubt ? And please keep in mind, that Wikipedia not only works, based on reliable sourcing, but also through the vetting of its readers and community... Even when 99% of pageviewers never click on a single source, one percent will notice when content is off, and will take some kind of measure: either edit and/or post to talk page. Virtually without exception, edits by others than myself (that includes the two big ip-contributors: that's all me; back then I often skipped logging in), were small corrections or additions. Apart from the two Wikiproject templates above, and our current discussion, this talk page remained utterly blank, for over eight years – until three days ago. And I know this is a rather obscure article, generating little traffic (no pun intended), but 75% (over 30,000 Bytes) were there since August 2014, with more than 105,000 pageviews since 1 July 2015, when the Pageview started counting; and over 90% of the article (~36,700B) was online since October 2018, four years ago, with over 60,000 pageviews. At least 100 to 200 Wikipedians must have glanced at this article, and dozens have studied at least the sections they elected to edit on. Regardless of sourcing, do you not think at least a single editor before you would have raised serious content issues on the talk page during all that time, before you chose to delete 50% of – by your own admission – a long article ? Is that not the normal way to go, instead of first performing a monster delete, and then walking it back to where we are now: constructively listing the issues, and working through them one by one ? I know I'm a number of years out of touch, since I fell seriously ill in September 2015, but which policy change did I miss here ? Did you alert anyone ? Is there a watch-list or bulletin-board, that I should have kept my eyes on ? Moreover, you are citing the rules against user-generated sources, however templates such as "This article may be expanded with translation from a corresponding article in another language" are still active – not deprecated. But instead of using the Dutch WP, I used a 'better wiki, the Dutch-language, global roads-specific "Wegenwiki" (Roads wiki). Contrary to WP, it does not allow ip-edits. Account-holders and logged-in edits only. Its coverage of Dutch roads and streets was simply on a higher level than the Dutch WP coverage, which is already a level up from this general article in English. It is well sourced by all kinds of thick manuals and reports, but I thought generally, English WP users would be much better served by links to this Dutch wiki, which still presents a somewhat legible explanation, when read through Google Chrome browser, with translate on. Plus, it forced me to figure out any discrepancies I (thought I) saw between the account each Wiki gave, and gave me a clearer picture, and more confidence in writing it here, as I already had two, mostly corroborating overall perspectives to write from. Furthermore, you spoke of "..links that are now dead and unsalvageable via archiving.." You then proceeded to correct your initial assessment, by rescuing four sources from archive... Thank you for that, I guess, Tenryuu – but what went wrong the first time you assessed these ? Did you forget to try to rescue them ? Or did your #IABot malfunction ?

Never mind. In order to move forward, Tenryuu, I propose, for the sake of practicality, that each issue be numbered and/or named, for brevity and unambiguity of discussion. Would you do the honors, Tenryuu ? And to what extent, if any, do your four successful rescues impact the issues you formulated ? Would you be so kind as to work this into the issue list above ? Forgive me for not doing that myself, but I became a severe chronic pain sufferer during 2018/2019, and began suffering from psychological problems since March 2020. You are at present much more current with the article than I am... This also brings me to the time-frame. You presented a one week deadline from last Thursday. That is completely unfeasible for me, in my current condition. I think I might be able to solve one puzzle a week – on average – at best. Oh, and in case you're wondering: I took a considerable extra dose of oxycodone to be able to put this novella together, and will certainly pay a hefty price for that the coming week. Cheers, --GeeTeeBee (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * . GTB, other than Ten's attitude/ultimatum (default?), is there anything wrong with what they say? If they had just said "if you don't answer in four days" or something? Did they add anything incorrect, or just cut? Anything they cut you can fix up and put back in? Are you better off with a start-over? They did the dirty work and left you with a whole junk-yard of parts.
 * Pick your fights, there isn't much to win here, is there? You've got a clean sheet of paper and a lot of info. Just let them go, come back in a couple of days? Sammy D III (talk)
 * @GeeTeeBee: But can you imagine why I initially flipped out over your 20,000+ Byte delete, summarized by: "Copyedit complete; removed unsourced content" given without any further explanation, or general policy / guideline reference ? Emphasis in original. I regularly come across articles, both poorly- and well-written with a dearth of sources provided. I assume longtime editors remain abreast of Wikipedia's core policies, especially if they attempt to use a guideline as a defence.And also: are you aware, that as of this writing, over 175,000 articles use the template "This article does not cite any sources" ? Emphasis in original. I am aware that there are maintenance categories in the backlog that catches tags like Unreferenced or More citations needed, but again, that doesn't mean that that content cannot be challenged or even removed. In fact, the template that you mentioned, Unreferenced, states that [u]nsourced material may be challenged and removed. Using it is not a guaranteed method to ensure the information stays on.If one half seems okay, does the content of the other half not at least deserve the benefit of the doubt ? The burden is on whomever added the content to provide verifiability. It's easy to recover deleted content as you have demonstrated, and it doesn't do readers any service to have unsourced content. If you believe the removed content is usable, then it should be easy to find sources that support it.Regardless of sourcing, do you not think at least a single editor before you would have raised serious content issues on the talk page during all that time, before you chose to delete 50% of – by your own admission – a long article ? Emphasis in original. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't, especially for an article that doesn't get a lot of page views.Is that not the normal way to go, instead of first performing a monster delete, and then walking it back to where we are now: constructively listing the issues, and working through them one by one ? Bringing it up/alerting is a courtesy, not an obligation. In the past I've gone on talk pages to leave excised content on there mentioning a lack of source, but no action has ever been taken on those.Is there a watch-list or bulletin-board, that I should have kept my eyes on ? WP:VPP is a page where proposals for policies and guidelines are refined and potentially promoted.Moreover, you are citing the rules against user-generated sources, however templates such as "This article may be expanded with translation from a corresponding article in another language" are still active – not deprecated. Link in original. You're confusing Wikipedia's stance on translation with the problem of citogenesis. As it states in the latter: You cannot cite the other Wikipedia pages directly; you must still cite them to whatever sources were used, not to mention that the sources meet the English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (as cautioned at  and reinforced at WP:OTHERLANGS. WP:TFOLWP describes how to attribute to Wikipedias in a different language).But instead of using the Dutch WP, I used a 'better wiki, the Dutch-language, global roads-specific "Wegenwiki" (Roads wiki). Contrary to WP, it does not allow ip-edits. Account-holders and logged-in edits only. Emphasis in original. That doesn't prevent it from being user-generated or mean it possesses editor oversight; if you think it could be used as a reliable source, bring it up at the reliable sources noticeboard.Furthermore, you spoke of "..links that are now dead and unsalvageable via archiving.." You then proceeded to correct your initial assessment, by rescuing four sources from archive... Thank you for that, I guess, Tenryuu – but what went wrong the first time you assessed these ? Did you forget to try to rescue them ? Or did your #IABot malfunction ? [...] And to what extent, if any, do your four successful rescues impact the issues you formulated ? Would you be so kind as to work this into the issue list above ? Emphasis in original. You have the order of events wrong.
 * The discussion was started.
 * I ran IABot to see if there really were sources that could be saved.
 * I reported my findings later on here, the talk page.
 * The four that I rescued were in places that weren't even excised. For the purposes of this dispute, they are irrelevant.Never mind. In order to move forward, Tenryuu, I propose, for the sake of practicality, that each issue be numbered and/or named, for brevity and unambiguity of discussion. Would you do the honors, Tenryuu ? As a courtesy I've renumbered each point above, though I don't particularly care for discussing them as the core issue is that they're not reliably sourced. Provide a reliable source and I won't have an issue with them.This also brings me to the time-frame. You presented a one week deadline from last Thursday. That is completely unfeasible for me, in my current condition. While your life circumstances are unfortunate, that doesn't impact you from finding sources to the quoted excisions above even after the article is reverted post-copyedit. Feel free to re-add the passages when they're reliably sourced. Planned reversion still stands. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say a lot of the article constitutes common knowlege and does not require to be cited When to cite and should therefore not be be deleted. TobyJ (talk) 08:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The readership for Wikipedia is a global audience. I strongly doubt that much of the information here can be considered common knowledge for someone who doesn't have an interest in roads or the Netherlands, much as I wouldn't expect the average Wikipedia reader to readily accept the items in Parvati's hands as a fact known to all. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific about what would've constituted common knowledge? I'm not particularly interested or well-informed about roads, let alone roads in the Netherlands, and the vast majority of the content before Tenryuu's edit was new to me. Not that it wasn't informative, provided it was sourced, which a lot of it unfortunately wasn't. Desan 五 | Talk  20:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As no sources for the unsourced and inappropriately sourced content have been provided, I have reverted to after my copyedit. I must reiterate that this is not permanent; if reliable sources can be found and cited to the excised content (which can be found in the article's history) to satisfy Wikipedia's verfiability policy, it can be re-added. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)