Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Dutch vegetarians/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:06, 26 May 2008.

List of Dutch vegetarians
Self-nomination This is a list of all Dutch vegans, vegetarians and pescetarians. It's extensive, well-referenced, has good aesthetics and high usability. I believe it meets all the fl criteria.
 * Support as nominator Baldrick90 (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Image:AuteursfotoSusanSmitblauw.jpg shouldn't be used. Someone's uploaded it onto Commons under the GNU free Documentation license, but if you look at http://www.susansmit.nl/index.htm there's a pretty clear © Nico Kroon under the image in question, plus another copyright at the bottom of the page (not that I speak Dutch). — 97198 talk  13:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The copyright at the bottom you refer to, "Alle teksten op deze site © Susan Smit, tenzij anders vermeld.", translates as such: "All texts on this website are, unless stated otherwise, © Susan Smit". This is probably not relevant to this particular image, since there is indeed a pretty clear © Nico Kroon. You are right, the information is at best incomplete. I contacted the uploader on the Dutch Wikipedia and I will wait for his reply before I take action (and remove the image if necessary). Baldrick90 (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Just a member just replied to me. See here . His message reads "Beste Baldrick90,De desbetreffende foto is door Susan Smit naar mij gemaild. De foto was rechtenvrij en ze gaf toestemming om de foto te gebruiken op wikipedia. Mvg, Just a member" In English: "Dear Baldrick90, the relevant image has been mailed to me by Susan Smit. The image was copyright free and she permitted me to use this photo on Wikipedia. Regards, Just a member". NB: nl:Gebruiker:Just a member is an administrator on the Dutch Wikipedia. Baldrick90 (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, thanks for checking that out. :) — 97198 talk  07:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't think this is acceptable copyright status. If it's copyright free, we don't need her permission to use it anywhere, and why did she expressly place a copyright notice on the picture, claiming copyright on it. Her giving permission for it to be used on Wikipedia is not sufficient, because we require the ability to re-use it in other settings. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If she granted permission to use the image freely on Wikipedia, placing it under the GFDL, what's the problem here? Apparantly she no longer wishes the image to be copyrighted, and as the rightful author she also has the right to do whatever she wants with it, including releasing it into the public domain. Baldrick90 (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support: This is a good list, it is well referenced, has a good descriptive lead and is neatly structured. Salavat (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm a little hesitant about the wikilinks to articles in Dutch. This is an English encyclopedia, so it does the vast majority of readers of this article absolutely no good to be directed to a page in another language. I also think the comments table goes into far too much detail for the topic at hand (the fact that they are vegetarians).  For example, why do we care that Luitzen E.J. Brouwer was the creator of "intuitive mathematics"?  For an example of what I would suggest as a better alternative, take a look at the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people series.  Also, the above brings up another question: what is the criteria for inclusion?  Notablity?  Then people without their own pages shouldn't be mentioned.  The fact that they are vegetarians?  Then the list would be endless.  The fact that there's a source saying they're vegetarian?  Then any Dutch person with a MySpace that mentions they're vegetarians should be included too.  Therefore, I feel like inclusion criteria is on shakey ground, since there doesn't seem to be a clear justification for who's in the list. Drewcifer (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply You raise a few good points, allow me to retort. 1) Dutch people are represented poorly on the English Wikipedia, just because they don't have an article of their own here doesn't mean they're not important. 2) Exactly because we lack a lot of those articles I felt inclined to include additional information in the table. 3) Yes, their notability. And yes a person can be notable while not having an article on the English Wikipedia. All people on the list have been confirmed vegetarian by a reliable source and all are notable Dutch people. Can you present evidence I included any common person who just happened to be a vegetarian? That's also a reason I included the additional information. It shows why they are important and why they're on the list. 4) What do you suggest? Do you think the article will improve if I erase all additional information? In case all people do have an article of their own (list the lgbt list) it would be silly to include that info but I still believe it is valuable in this case. 5) I've dug quite deep and these are pretty much all notable Dutch vegetarians. The list won't get endless if I only include notable people. 6) I think it might very well be true a great proportion of the people reaching this particular page do speak Dutch, but for the numbers of people who don't, you have got a point. I just think that when I have to choose between a red link or a light blue link to the Dutch Wikipedia that might be the best option. I'm currently quite busy but I will be working on creating articles for the people on the list.

I think you've got a few valid points, but I hope you can see my side of the argument and maybe we can work something out. Thanks for your critical review. Baldrick90 (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments &mdash; The prose in the lead could use some work. My biggest concern, however, is notability. Surely there are more Dutch people who follow vegetarian diets, so how notable does a person have to be to be in the list? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  17:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you please specify? What work needs to be done? I am not a native English speaker, if you could make a revision, you're welcome. I am going to address the notability issue asap. Baldrick90 (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates about the Dutch links. As with other people-lists, the entries should be notable (a reasonable chance of a Wikipedia article) so the unlinked entries should either go or be linked (redlinks for now). Colin°Talk 18:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah good idea. I agree with you, and I want to work towards a solution. I have changed the names into red links and will be creating the articles asap. I am contemplating asking assistance from WP:Netherlands. I am currently in my grammar school exam period so I'm sort of busy, but I assure it will be done soon. For this, I would like to have the review time extended for another two weeks, I promise it will be done. Baldrick90 (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's quite a lot of writing to do in two weeks. I very much doubt you'd create more than stubs in that time. It would be much better if good short articles were translated. There is absolutely no problem in letting this nomination become archived and then renominating after you have created the linked articles. It removes the pressure from you and a renomination will stimulate new reviewers to look at the article. That's my suggestion -- take your time. Colin°Talk 09:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree: there's no shame in renominating the list when you feel your ready. I think we'd all prefer you do a solid job rather then a quick one.  We'll all be here when you're ready to give it another go. Drewcifer (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll agree with above: renominate and rework it would be the best way to go here. Noble Story (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose—Cr. 1, poorly written; Cr. 6, too many red links. Here are examples of prose glitches—just a portion of the problems.
 * "a vegetarian would not eat any meat, poultry, game or fish, shellfish or crustacea."—try "a vegetarian eats no meat, ...". The "any" construction is repeated in the subsequent sentence. Why are the last four items grouped as two by twos?
 * Fixed


 * Is "by-products" not one word nowadays?
 * Merriam webster says 'by-product'. I guess that means it's correct English.


 * "Furthermore", like "moreover", "in addition", and usually "also", is a redundant back-connector. What do we lose by losing it?
 * Fixed


 * Why the conditional "would" all over the place?
 * Fixed


 * "which includes seafood but does not include meat of mammals" --> "which includes seafood but not the meat of mammals".
 * Fixed


 * Why are we told that the Netherdlands is "wealthy"?
 * Fixed


 * The dot in those big numbers??? TONY   (talk)  08:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Something wrong with that?


 * PS And English translations of foreign-language titles in the ref list [many people use square brackets for this].
 * Is there an official policy on how this should be carried out? Many featured articles like German occupation of Luxembourg in World War I and Warsaw Uprising use non-English sources with untranslated titles. I haven't found an article that uses square brackets for translationed titles, could you give an example of such an article?


 * I am working on the red links, see the discussion above. Your comments are appreciated. Baldrick90 (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.