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 Wikipedia: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 country's first centrally-planned highway system dates back to the early 19th century, when the Kingdom of Holland was annexed by the First French Empire. In 1811, Napoleon, the emperor of France, decreed that a network of 229 paved imperial roads (routes impériales) be created, extending from Paris to the borders of his empire. In addition to systematic paving, the roads were all numbered, an innovation at the time. Amsterdam was connected to Paris by Route impériale 2, of which a section between Amsterdam and Utrecht is today part of the A2 motorway.

   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. After the country's liberation in 1813 during the Napoleonic Wars, William I continued the project with Amsterdam at the center of the road network. In 1821, the network expanded with plans for 42 new Rijksstraatwegen (national paved roads); construction began in 1825 and was completed by 1850.

   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. Since 1927, this network has been transformed into today's system of Rijkswegen (national highways) in the Netherlands.

   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. The first motorway in the Netherlands dates back to 1936, when the current A12 was opened to traffic between Voorburg and Zoetermeer, near The Hague. Motorway construction accelerated in the 1960s and 1970s but slowed in the 1980s. Current motorway expansion mostly occurs outside the Randstad.

   Citation needed.

   Roads are developed and maintained by authorities at all four government levels in the Netherlands. The country is also subdivided into twelve provinces and into 21 water management districts, with the latter not being a subdivision of the former. These two subdivisions of the country exist in parallel and must coordinate with each other to administer the road network. A few water councils cover a water management area that coincides with the area of one of the provinces, like in the case of the council and province of Zeeland.

   Citation needed.

5. Most motorways are national roads, and the remaining national roads are mostly expressways. Only a few motorways are provincial, and these are generally shorter and serve regional traffic. Most road numbers with one or two digits (regardless of the preceding letter) refer to national roads, while those with three digits refer to provincial roads.

   WP:CIRCULAR, and citation needed.

6. They are local, and mostly urban streets and roads administered by the 345 Dutch municipalities.

   Is this supposed to be cited by the reference that comes before it? If not, citation needed.

7. A road may fall under the jurisdiction of a water council because it is part of a water barrier, such as a dike or dam, while others may provide primary access to critical water control structures. A special case is the province of Zeeland, whose area coincides with the Zeeland water council's. Because large parts of Zeeland are below sea-level, most of its extra-urban roadways are controlled by its water council, rather than by the province.

   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: archive sources because they might not exist forever), but someone else should confirm that this is what the source should be saying.

10. Inside of built-up areas, all roads are municipal and are categorised as either distributor roads or local access roads. Arterial roads and collector roads fall into the first category and have a maximum speed is 50 km/h, excluding arterial roads with a dual carriageway, which may allow speeds up to 70 km/h. Bicycle tracks must be segregated.

    Particular types of arterials are stadsroutes and city ring roads.
    [...]
    Stadsroutes (city routes) form a network of numbered arterials that connect parts of a city to a ring road or motorways running outside the city. City routes are signposted, which are prefixed by an s and numbered from 100 to 101. When there is an s 100 present, it is an inner city ring road around the city centre. The Hague also has an s 200 outer ring road, and a few other stadsroutes are numbered in the 200s. Stadsroutes can so far be found in seven Dutch cities: Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, Almere, Zaanstad, Heerlen and Nijmegen. Nijmegen has only its s 100 centre ring operational, but other routes are in progress. Heerlen also has only its s 100 ring right now, but it is shared with the nearby cities of Landgraaf and Kerkrade.
    [...]
    Unlike the way motorways and N-roads are numbered, city routes are not national systems; the same numbers can be used in every city and are therefore not unique. Other Dutch cities have constructed inner city ring arterials without numbering them.
    [...]
    Local access streets include frontage roads, fietsstraten and woonerven although the legal status of the latter two is ambiguous.

    Inappropriate formatting removed, citations needed, and the last excerpt sounds like a statement from some third party.

11. Woonerf (literally "living yard") or legally just Erf, is the Dutch term for a specific implementation of living streets, applied throughout the 1970s and 1980s. The defining characteristic of woonderfs is that the living function of the street (walking, talking, playing) has official priority over its traffic function. Legally, pedestrians and children have priority over all other road users and may use the full width of the street to walk and play. Road paving is more or less continuous, frequently lacking kerbs or other level separators. Under article 45 of the Dutch traffic code, motorised traffic in a woonerf is restricted to "walking pace", which the Dutch Supreme Court has ruled to be 15 km/h. Parking is also restricted. Although it is not officially a part of the Sustainable Safety road categorisation policy, the 'woonerf' remains a legally defined Dutch road type.

    Inappropriate formatting removed. Citation needed.

12. Fietsstraat (literally "cyclestreet") is not an official Dutch road type or category.

    Inappropriate formatting removed. While the Belgian Traffic Code site may potentially be used as a reliable source, the German Wikipedia cannot.

13. Correspondingly, the road portion of the street (between kerbs) is then legally considered to be a bicycle track with benefits for motorists, instead of a street in the conventional sense.

    Citation needed.

14. As a side effect of the dense road network, roadside / verge grass strips account for a full 3 percent of the Netherlands' total land area.

    As I noted in my edit, citation needed.

15. The busiest four-lane motorway in the Netherlands is the A10 in the Coen Tunnel, in Amsterdam, with 110.000 vehicles per day. The widest Dutch motorway is the A15/A16, just south of Rotterdam, with 16 lanes, in a 4+4+4+4 setup.

    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 Wikipedia: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.

References

—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: GeeTeeBee —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:

Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article.

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)

@Sammy D III: thank you for your initiative, which has led Tenryuu to laying out the various sourcing issues.

@Tenryuu:, in your opening statement, you said: "..when vast amounts of [an article] contravene Wikipedia: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)

@GeeTeeBee:@Tenryuu:. 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:

Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources since Wikipedia is considered as a user-generated source. [...] Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly.

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 WP:TRANSLATEUS § Before you start 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.

1. The discussion was started.
2. I ran IABot to see if there really were sources that could be saved.
3. 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 Wikipedia: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)