Talk:Rotterdam

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Netherlands 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.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles This article is supported by Dutch municipalities task force (assessed as Top-importance). Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Please if any one knows both the Density and Area of Rotterdam e-mail me or posted.

zionmass@hotmail.com

towns, villages and townships I used to live in rotterdam north, so i was kind of surprised when "noord" was linked to a place in aruba, which is not even on the same continent.

Education

also has the Willem de Kooning Academy Hogeschool Rotterdam and the forward thinking Piet Zwart Institute

Pim Fortuyn isn't born in Rotterdam,but in Zaandam.(I'm a Dutchman,so i can also read the Dutch Wikipedia)

• Pim Fortuyn wasn't born in Zaandam but in Velsen. Aecis 16:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you removed the amateur clubs?

Because Rotterdam has way more than 4 amateur clubs, and the 4 you added do not stand out from the others. In fact, one of them (Zwart Wit '28) doesn't exist anymore. Furthermore, it is doubtful that they are notable enough to be included in an article about Rotterdam (an article about sports in Rotterdam would be another story.) Aecis 20:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• A fix will come up in a few minutes time. Aecis 22:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. Aecis 23:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rotterdam has a green-white-green horizontal striped flag.

Yes, images of the flag and coat of arms (shield with vertical green-white-green stripes, with 4 lions on top, carried by two lions) are available in the commons section of wikipedia http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Arms_Rotterdam.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_Rotterdam.png However I am not sure whether we should add them to the page. --Arnoutf 22:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not?--Scathane 10:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kijkkubus is the show cube, accessible to the general public (after paying an entrance fee). The houses themselves are called the Kubuswoningen. I've changed it in the article. Arvey 09:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they had a major flood in 1953. I didn't read the article well, but I didn't see it mentioned. [] Will look at it someday in the time being, I will save a link [1]

• Nope, the flood was in Zeeland (another Dutch province). The harbour of Rotterdam is protected by, and part of, the Delta Project. Rotterdam was not harmed by the floods of 1953.

Is it true that it is forbidden to speak other languages than dutch in Rotterdam? Or is that a February Fools day joke?

• I live in Rotterdam and I've never heard of this. I can safely say that it is nonsense. Ruffnekk 07:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Although one of our cabinet ministers has been making statements about a convenant of speaking only Dutch in public spaces in the Netherlands (welcome tourists!!), which seems unlikely to be implemented. Arnoutf 10:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It is partially true that there are plans to arrange a rule that says that local citizens are not allowed to talk any other language than Dutch. It is to prevent any plotting for terrorism in secrecy. Also, there have been recent acts of genocide in Rotterdam, respectfully because of discrimination against the native Dutch by especially Turkish and Morrocan citizens. A significant example is Theo van gogh, although I'm not sure if this was in Rotterdam. --Nin 20:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Van Gogh happened in Amsterdam. Still sounds very weird, so in this case a local citizen of one the worlds largest harbours is only allowed to talk Dutch to visting sailors; also very helpfull for Erasmus University for visiting scholars. Besides I just can not believe there is legal grounds for such a rule in Dutch law. But let's see; antiterrorism measures seem to take preference all over the world without reasonalbe arguments anyway.... Arnoutf 21:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the sentence saying the "rotterdam agglomeration is vies with the amsterdam agglomoration for first in the nation" . no idea what the means, if someone knows please add.

I agree that is a incomprehensible sentence, and you are right to remove. The meaning is that although Rotterdam Municipality is smaller than Amsterdam; greater Rotterdam is about the same size as Greater Amsterdam. This is no small feat of pride for Rotterdam as there is a fierce competition between the two cities on all kinds of issues. I think many people from Rotterdam would like to see a reference to this so I added a few words after the first sentence in the municiaplity bit, where there is talk about the greater Rotterdam area to reflect this point: "which is comparable to the greater Amsterdam area" Arnoutf 10:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a proposal indeed, but it will never be accepted. Moreover, the proposal itself wasn't that extreme as it sounds (tourists and imigrants would be allowed to speak their own language) but was more of a measure to improve the Dutch language of immigrants

Please note that there seem to be a new population evaluation of the city of Rotterdam proper (apparently from 2008) on the municipality website: http://www.rotterdam.nl/Rotterdam/Internet/Overig/rdm/ABC-IRIS/factsheet%20Rotterdam%20algemeen.doc It gives a total population of 596.597 inhabitants. Alphast 14:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphast (talk • contribs)

Does anybody have a better picture from the city, as the top picture barely shows it.

I've uploaded and added a new image that better shows the skyline of Rotterdam. --Mecil 03:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I liked the spooky foggy picture better than the current one. Anyway. I have a problem with the new one for two reasons. Firstly the image quality of the sky (too white) is less than perfert. Secondly The focus is more on the foreground than on the skyline. The soccer stadium and the (relatively small) apartment buildings are not that interesting. Also this is again a high point of view for the photo. I think a lower point of view gives a better rendering of the skyline. Personally I might like a picture from taken from the border of the Kralingse Plas. If anyone could make a good one???? Arnoutf 18:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, sadly my only pictures from that vantage point also have the same sunlight problems. But I think that the location would be great for a picture, could a wikipedian take a stroll, take a good picture and upload it? :-) --Mecil 18:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked a professional landscape photographer whose work I know from a calendar to donate a picture. If that doesn't work, I might take a picture in the near future from the Euromast, de Kop van Zuid or from the Maasboulevard. A picture of Rotterdam's center should at least show some highrise buildings, the Nieuwe Maas river and preferably both the Erasmusbrug and Willemsbrug. Sippin Soda 19:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get a professional picture that would be briljant. Be sure that the photo when uploaded gets the correct usage license, Wiki is very carefull about copyright violation. Arnoutf 19:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The professional photographer answered my e-mail and is willing to cooperate and donate a picture. How do we best protect his copyrights? Sippin Soda 12:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you upload the picture you get to choose from a list of Licenses. Please use Wikipedia:Copyrights to determine which applies. I myself have only uploaded a few of my own pictures, so the GNU-self made always applied. This situation is a bit more complicated, so I think it is important to get it right. Arnoutf 13:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. As soon as he has a picture, I'll just show him what licences there are and make him pick, since I know little of copyright. Sippin Soda 19:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please do something about the main picture a skyline or something because this is a pretty crappy picture that doesnt show the downtown or something —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.207.46.4 (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that there was a beach in Rotterdam during the summer 2003 and 2005. As far as I know, that beach is still there. Is that not so?

Only in the summer I guess, so it would be again rather than still, if you know for sure it is there in the summer of 2006 (i.e. now) feel free to add that to the relevant section. (PS please sign using four tildes (~)) Arnoutf 20:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Anno 2012, it is still there every summer. It's an annualy returning beach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.156.152.62 (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I noticed some reverting on the addition of the nickname Manhatten upon Meuse. Before a revert war starts. Please discuss. Personally I can live with both inclusion (as this term has been used fairly frequently, especially for the Kop van Zuid development) and removal (as this has been used mainly by planners as a PR stunt). So before a next revert, please list arguments why here. Thanks Arnoutf 09:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think thousands of Google hits in combination with some decent references like [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] and last but not least [7] will clarify the name is used quite often by locals and official instances. You're right when you say that it's mainly used in combination with the Kop van Zuid project, but it's becoming a nickname for the city more and more. SportsAddicted 12:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the only true nickname is Rotjeknor.

Man, since when are nicknames included man..? I mean before a few months ago I didn't even know what the hell Rotjeknor of the (very ugly) "Roffa" was..Roffa is supposed to be derived from the slang. Come on man... Mallerd (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Rotjeknor is derived from Rotjeknar, you may want to go further than only what's in *your* opinion the only true nickname and provide some historical depth by mentioning Rotjeknar, instead of removing it while it even has a reference (check it out on the NL-wiki page from Rotterdam). — Preceding unsigned comment added by R08-42 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current translation of the motto (Sterker door Strijd) is given as(Stronger through Effort). This is based on the translation made for the American town Rotterdam (NY state) see: here. There is no account to be found why it was thus adopted, neiter could I find any other reference to a translation. IMHO the translation is not correct (it may have been adapted in the American case) as the translation of Strijd should be somehting like "Strife" "Struggle" "Fight" or "Battle" which is a much stronger statement dan "Effort" (Which would back-translate to "inspanning" "moeite" or something similar). So can someone provide the official translation (supported by the Dutch Rotterdam) Arnoutf 19:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Effort" just doesn't cover the more dramatic meaning of "Strijd." It may sound warlike to modern ears, but we shouldn't tone it down. According to my (authoritative) Dutch-English dictionary, "strijd" is "fight"/"struggle." In the English-Dutch version, "struggle for freedom" translates as "vrijheidsstrijd," and in Merriam-Webster, "effort" isn't even a synonym for "struggle". I think we shouldn't look at the American case as authoritative just because it's already been there for a while. Sippin Soda 12:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The device "Sterker door strijd" was awarded "…in memory of the courage and strength with which the population has endured the tests of the Second World War." From Nederlandse Gemeentewapens (Dutch municipal coats of arms) site. (I made my own translation from Dutch because the given English text uses different wording.)
Same site translates the device as "Stronger through Battle," which reflects the context of war.
Struggle, the current translation in this article, comes in the device of Zeeland: "Luctor et Emergo," I Struggle and Emerge. RToV 22:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the WWII bombing of Rotterdam is the origin of the motto, I support the translation Battle (lit. slag). Not knowing that was the origin, struggle (lit. worsteling) seemed an adequate translation of Strijd (lit. fight); at least much better than effort (lit. inspanning). Arnoutf 22:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more about the awarding of the device in this PDF in Dutch. It's the best source I could find so far. But I'm not yet sure which translation to choose, see outdented below. RToV 20:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strijd is a generic term, appliccable in many contexts. It may even mean competition. "Sterker door Strijd" is equally wide applicable, and applied. For instance, many sports clubs in Rotterdam use it as their device. For these, battle would be a rather unfitting translation. Other translations may be as unfitting in other contexts.
I think we should eigther try to find a generic English translation, or else outline that the translation depends on the context. For the moment, I think, struggle, fight, battle and maybe contest deserve equal consideration. RToV 20:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the following:

Constructing a second Maasvlakte was the subject of political debate in the 1990s, because it would be partly government-financed. Construction started in the summer of 2004 (press release, PDF in Dutch).

In my recollection, the controversy wasn't so much about the way of financing as it was about environmental issues. This is backed up by the Dutch Wikipedia article on the Maasvlakte. In addition, construction did not start in 2004 at all; it was stopped by the Raad van State. I collected the rest of the information from the Dutch Wikipedia Maasvlakte site again and from the Havenbedrijf Rotterdam's second Maasvlakte website (www.maasvlakte2.com). Sippin Soda 18:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone find out the length of the Nieuwe Waterweg? The Dutch Wikipedia article says 20 kilometers, but seems to include the Scheur. So does the English Wikipedia article, which says 15 kilometers. Old maps, however, suggest the length that must actually have been dug appears to be only 4 kilometers.Sippin Soda 20:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On old map on the Internet (http://www.genlias.nl/_resources/images/deelnemers/nationaal_archief_kaart_1865.gif) indicates that the Nieuwe Waterweg starts west from a vertical line from Brielle. A measurement on Google Earth results in a length of less than 6.5 kilometers for the Nieuwe Waterweg. Sippin Soda 20:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No politics section? Given what has happened in Rotterdam poolitics over the last decade, that is a serious omission. DirkvdM 09:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does Rotterdam have the same liberal laws that makes Amsterdam popular among tourists? *ahem* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.201.181 (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Dutch law? Yes obviously as it is in the Netherlands. Arnoutf (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excelsior won't be in the Eredivisie for the next season (2008-09). Only Sparta and Feyenoord will be playing in the Eredivisie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.128.41.131 (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The intro says: "The city, which had a population of 584,046 on 1 January 2007, comprises the soutern part of the Randstad, the 6th-largest metropolitan area in Europe, with a population of 6.7 million inhabitants."

Section "Municipality" says:

"Rotterdam lies in the Zuidvleugel ('South Wing') of the Randstad ('Rim City') conurbation with 7.5 million inhabitants, the sixth largest metropolitan area in Europe".

Now what? VKing (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Nl version it's about 7.1 million. Who can know better? Changing it right away. VKing (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday Ahmed Aboutalib was appointed mayor of rotterdam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.205.197.9 (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was just removed from Amsterdam as unsourced and likely to be false. I know what a twin city is, but partner? Sister? Connecting? What does this mean? I suggest it be zapped unless it can be substantiated. It is very suspicious to me.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have found some citations (from each city website) for some of the twin/partner cities, and inserted into appropriate section - I'll add more when I find them.

The titles (partner, twin, sister, etc.) are a little confusing, please see town twinning for more information. In summary, in UK we referred to ‘twin towns’, in the US I believe it is ‘sister cities’, in Europe ‘partner cities’ and in the ex-Soviet bloc ‘brother cities’. There seem to be a mixture of these on Wikipedia, (plus various others) without any obvious standard. -- Marek.69 ^talk 04:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rotterdam has been described as the capital of Eurabia in an article by noted Italian journalist Sandro Magister. While this is certainly controversial, it would be interesting if this aspect of the city could be mentioned somewhere in the article. [8] ADM (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the following links are almost essential to the topic Rotterdam as not much other video and photo material is shown or linked to right now, and the material is not easy to find for non dutch speakers, so it's a pitty if they are not allowed to be in the weblink section, greetings Floris5 (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Video Rotterdam 1920/1960
• Rotterdam 1920 - Video
• Rotterdam 1940 - Video
• Rotterdam 1900/1940 - Photo

Presumably this meant "Western", which is what I've changed it to. But this description is still unclear and possibly racist. What does "Western" mean exactly? Could the author please find an acceptable English translation? Schildewaert (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Rotterdam city hall.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Rotterdam city hall.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the template?? I can't fix it.--GeoTrou (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rotterdam
City and Municipality
The Erasmus Bridge across the Meuse
Flag Coat of arms
Nickname(s):  Rotown, Roffa, Rotjeknor, Manhattan on the Meuse
Motto:  Sterker door strijd (Stronger by struggle)
Location in South Holland
Coordinates: 51°55′N 4°30′E / 51.917°N 4.500°E / 51.917; 4.500
Country	Netherlands
Province	South Holland
Boroughs	14 Districts Centrum Charlois Delfshaven Feijenoord Hillegersberg-Schiebroek Hoogvliet Hook of Holland IJsselmonde Kralingen-Crooswijk Noord Overschie Pernis Prins Alexander Rozenburg
Government [1]
• Body	Municipal council
• Mayor	Ahmed Aboutaleb (PvdA)
• Aldermen	List of aldermen Jeannette Baljeu Alexandra van Huffelen Hugo de Jonge Antoinette Laan Korrie Louwes Marco Florijn Hamit Karakus Richard Moti
Area [2][3]
• Municipality	324.14 km2 (125.15 sq mi)
• Land	217.55 km2 (84.00 sq mi)
• Water	106.59 km2 (41.15 sq mi)
• Randstad	3,043 km2 (1,175 sq mi)
Elevation [4]	0 m (0 ft)
Population  (Municipality, January 2021; Metro, 2008; Randstad, 2011)[5][6][3]
• Municipality	651,631
• Density	2,995/km2 (7,760/sq mi)
• Metro	1,169,800
• Randstad	6,979,500
Demonym	Rotterdammer
Time zone	UTC+1 (CET)
• Summer (DST)	UTC+2 (CEST)
Postcode	3000–3099
Area code	010
Website	www.rotterdam.nl

As part of WikiProject Dutch municipalities I am going through the municipal articles and updating the infoboxes with new information and with using data templates to keep population number up-to-date. Usually I am bold and implement them, but because of the details in the current infobox I am suggesting this on the talk page first to see if there are any comments. I propose to use the version on the right here as the new infobox, this includes

• Updating it using the current fields used in {{Infobox settlement}} including white space and the order as discussed in the documentation.
• Updating population numbers and using data templates
• Standardizing some of the wording
• Having the districts and aldermen in a collapsible list.
• Urban and Metro areas are not officially defined in the Netherlands, it seems proper to use Stadsregio Rotterdam as the metropolitan area. I sourced and updated the population numbers for Metro and Randstad. I am open to suggestions if this should be done differently in your opinion.
• I sourced various statements, including some stats. The following references are used in this suggested infobox

Let me know whether there are any objections or additions to this proposal. If not, I will update this infobox in the near future. CRwikiCA talk 20:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally looks good, I only have doubts about the metro area. The problem is that Rotterdam Stadsregio is a semiofficial institution without much legal recognition, and no democratic control over its doing. If you would take metropolitan area as definition this would span the Rotterdam-The Hague conurbation, which would be odd for Rotterdam, or even the Randstad as a whole. Perhaps an idea to use Larger Urban Zones an EU measure to harmonise definitions (Rotterdam ranks 51st) might do the trick here and helps to avoid arbitrary definitions. Arnoutf (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a valid point, I will change the number once I find the proper source. CRwikiCA talk 18:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found the number of 1,169,800 for 2008 on Eurostat. Starting from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/region_cities/city_urban/data_cities/database_sub1 - you might be able to locate it, but user friendliness is not very good and I cant find a way to deeplink to results. Arnoutf (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found a way to deeplink to it, but no area numbers though. I updated it in the infobox. CRwikiCA talk 18:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will implement this in the article now. CRwikiCA talk 08:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can now vote on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Delftsevaart in Rotterdam. – Editør (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are too few featured pictures from Rotterdam, so this would be a nice addition. We only need a few more votes. – Editør (talk) 08:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Today I completely rewrote the introduction (header) of this page to elaborate more on the history and the architectural side of Rotterdam. What is still missing in my opinion is some basic information about economy (which sectors dominate?), tourism and maybe some other highlights like the Van Nelle factory which is UNESCO Heritage. What do you think? Are there parts that can be removed from the intro? It's already a bit long. Zwaardmeester (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rotterdam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090415205510/http://www.portofrotterdam.com:80/en/home/ to http://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/home/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061022074032/http://www.filmfestivalrotterdam.com/en/index.html to http://www.filmfestivalrotterdam.com/en/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rotterdam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080518205030/http://www.erasmuspc.com:80/index.php?id=18253&type=article to http://www.erasmuspc.com/index.php?id=18253&type=article
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130427031335/http://www.abnamrowtt.nl:80/nieuws-en-media/laatste-nieuws/40e-editie/bezoekersrecord-op-40e-editie-abn-amro-world-tennis-tournament to http://www.abnamrowtt.nl/nieuws-en-media/laatste-nieuws/40e-editie/bezoekersrecord-op-40e-editie-abn-amro-world-tennis-tournament

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Detroit Publishing Company - Rotterdam - Delftsevaart, c. 1895.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 17, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-06-17. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

Delftsevaart is a canal in the city of Rotterdam in the Netherlands. It is seen here on a photochrom print released around 1900. During World War II, this area of the city was destroyed in the 1940 Rotterdam Blitz, but the St. Lawrence Church, visible in the background, survived the war.Photochrom: Detroit Publishing Company; restoration: Adam Cuerden

Archive – More featured pictures...

User:Joobo has added a template here that the section on religion needs more content. The user has also added similar templates at multiple European cities without any content wise rationale, nor any discussion page entries. While the text is rather limited there is an larger pie chart and in fact the whole demographics section is rather small. In the Dutch context this more or less represents the importance of religion; which is very limited; warranting a very limited reference in the text. (the text is about half as much as general demographics and ethnic make-up both topics that in the Dutch context are considerably more important than religion). So I see no NEED to expand the section and hence I removed the template. User Joobo reverted that removal without any content argument (asking for data that is simply not collected in the Netherlands to be added) and outright declined my invitation to discuss before re-adding, in particular to provide any reference to any policy or guideline that suggest that religion sections need to be substantial. I would invite a discussion exactly why the religion sections here should be expanded; or be included at all in fact. Arnoutf (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only you say there is no "visible" rationale. So do not speak for anyone else. I added these templates to cities where some expansion is needed to create a nice encyclopedic article. It does not need to be ton of text. But ,as here two sentences, are not enough. Wikipedia is no mere listing of bullet points, but an online book to read. The text you wrote here Arnoutf would be already almost sufficient. It doesnt need to much just a fitting text. Articles need content, and Religion, Demographics, History etc. all neds written text, and not only two or three sentences with some plain numbers. WP:AGF, i hope you understand my rationale now. --Joobo (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"here two sentences, are not enough" this is a personal opinion, not a rationale. "Articles need content, and Religion, Demographics, History etc. all needs written text". Again a personal opinion that religion does need to be included at all, again no rationale.

In fact if you think two or three extra lines would suffice, why not take the effort to just look up the data and add it yourself. I know it is much less easy than happily slapping a templates everywhere, but adding content is actually improving the project, merely adding templates that may linger for years is not.

Please also keep in mind that large articles should be avoided. Top level articles on major cities (like Rotterdam) therefore have extremely limited space for specific details. As it is the Rotterdam article is already about 35% larger than the suggested maximum per WP:LENGTH. So whatever we add it should be little. In fact considering that religion in the secularised Netherlands is really of minor importance, I would personally suggest to merge the line into the general demography section rather than making a separate subsection.

Since it seems clear no content arguments are going to be provided and not other editors have commented I will remove the template in a day or so to go back to the last stable and uncontested version. Arnoutf (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:AGF, I did so, just until the time you decided not to respond on my invitation to explicate your rationale here and you starting to call my editing disruptive. Arnoutf (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the new talk section by you has a question in the heading with double "??" and a bold "NEED". and it was immediately claimed in the first sentence that the edits were done "without any content wise rationale" it is at least doubtful that you assumed good faith from the beginning.Joobo (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Declining invitation to engage in WP:BRD before I started this discussion sheds doubt on your good faith. These doubts are further supported by a combination ofWP:POT and strong indications of WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:LISTEN on your side. Some self-reflection on your account may be overdue as you seem to ignite anger at a substantial number of articles you edit. Arnoutf (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BRD is no guideline but a mere suggestion. That is all. Concerning the importance of the city for the Netherlands and its magnitude more than two sentences are needed. Without even going into detail about the absolutely far-fetched claims of you about me behaving unappropriate; linking to several WP:Essays.- There is absolutely no circumstance in which the including of the templates would in any way be "NPOV". There is no logic behind claiming the edits were NPOV, as the mere intention to include somewhat more of detailed information to major city articles cocnerning demgraphic statistics would NPOV. Giving more information by logic cannot be unneutral. I would ask you to explain to me what exactly is not neutral in doing so, but i cannot imagine one logical answer there. Again this is not about your possible attitude to this topic, but the quality of articles. Nothing speaks against adding couple of more sentences in this or similar article sections of other cities. Except of course one personally has a repugnance to these topics, but then again this would have no influence here and -that would then actually be the real NPOV. --Joobo (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Logic would work. Logic starts with agreed assumption and than combines these in unavoidable steps towards a new conclusion. Your comments were not logic they were assumptions presented as conclusions. But since I disagree with your assumption you have to back up your assumptions, which you vehemently refuse to do.

While BRD is indeed a suggestion how to achieve WP:Consensus (which by the way is a policy), my invitation for a BRD cycle can only be considered as an assumption of good faith. Your refusal to do so, and subsequent refusal for an open discussion in order to reach consensus on the other hand strongly suggest violation of WP:OWN and WP:consensus and to some lesser extent the other policies I mentioned above.

Again - some self-reflection on your part seems in time as you ignore suggestions and refuse to WP:LISTEN to any of my logical arguments.

In any case, there is clearly no consensus on adding the template and in any case the template documentation asks to provide a detailed list of content to be added on the talk page which you did not do. The documentation hence clearly states that the template is intended to be in a way that gives more guidance than merely putting it on. Arnoutf (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Until now all you do is claiming I would not work decently according to WP standards concerning this matter of including a template when I simply aim to improve this article. This is all you present here, since apparently when it comes to the matter itself it seems you just have no arguments/points. You write sentence after sentence how I am apparently not listening and pointing to all kinds of WP essays (which I could do as well just by starting with WP:NPA, as you instantly claimed NPOV towards me right at the beginning); eventhough I do not know at all to what I actually should listen if you do not provide any points backing up your position which is to delete the templates and to let it all as it was. This is ludicrous. I cannot answer/listen to anything if nothing is even brought up, and I cannot see as well how there is a consensus to keep demographic sections or in particular religion sections of major City articles as small or even empty as possible. Absolutely nothing stands against the inclusion of the template here as also absolutely nothing speaks against inclusion of a handful more sentences and content regarding the religion, respectively some of its historic context, of Rotterdam. You just do not want it for whatever reason. I include templates as I did here, and I take them out if the issue is handled (as I just did with the city article of London when there was a template in the history section-pointing out to an improvement to the article and I went on to it- in this case including citations for verification- so it might not possibly lose its "good article" category). How about you start to actually assume good faith when someone as here includes a template or makes a change and intends to make a city article better instead of immediately believe that there has to be NPOV or whatve and becoming defensive and insinuatig stuff. --Joobo (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be brief and go back to content, as throwing around unfounded accusations is not bringing us anywhere.
I did assume your good faith when you first added the template. However I disagree with your analysis there is a NEED to expand the section. So please provide an argument WHY (not THAT as you have reiterated up to now) big cities require religion sections. Then we can start talking about whether we can find reasons we agree on, reasons we may come to a compromise on, and reasons we cannot agree on. But (as I said before) that requires from both sides that we are willing to reconsider our positions. I am, you have not shown any inclination to do so. Arnoutf (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there is some sort of misunderstanding, and i hope so since then things might ease. I did not aim to expand the section massively or weigh in major importance. Maybe such an actual visual inclusion of the template created this perception. Bascially, I see the chart on the right of the section digging extremely into the next section's text below. I also see the section only containing of two short sentences. I believe that for such a major city, as Rotterdam is, some basic information concerning the history of the concerned subject and some mentionings of couple of details is improving the article, instead of giving it a disatvantage. For example the sections in the Cities of Munich#Religion, Auckland#Religion look good, also the section of Boston#Religion for instance, eventhough that one is already somewhat larger than those of the other two cities. Perhaps that gives a bit more light into the intention behind the template.--Joobo (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I doubt whether religion was ever of major importance in Rotterdam. It used to be a fairly minor city in the early middle ages and was already very much bourgeoisie dominated by the late middles age. It only became a truly major city in the 19th century when religion in the Netherlands was already decreasing in importance compared to Germany, the UK and certainly the US. Nevertheless it might be wortwhile to mention that in the Catholic faith Rotterdam is one of the 7 Dutch dioceses (has a bishop) since 1955 (and that the patron saint is Lawrence of Rome). That it currently hosts the largest mosque in the Netherlands (nl:Essalammoskee completed in 2010) as well as the chief congregation of the protestant religion Remonstrants. So altogether how about adding the following:

"Since 1795 Rotterdam hosts the chief congegration of the liberal protestant brotherhood of Remonstrants. From 1955 it has been the see of the bishop of Rotterdam when the Rotterdam diocese was split from the Haarlem diocese. Since 2010 the city is home to the largests mosque in the Netherlands the Essalam mosque (capacity 1,500)." Would that satisfy your need for more content? Arnoutf (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that already looks good. Good enough to take out the template so far. Surely some more details could be possibly added; notwithstanding that as you mentioned and as far as I am aware of- Religion historically did not play such a major role in the Netherlands and in Rotterdam.--Joobo (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just reverted some vandalism, of the pubescent kind by the looks of it, made by an anonymous user from 89.205.225.250. --Ilja.nieuwland (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"It is in the province of South Holland, part of the North Sea mouth of the Rhine–Meuse–Scheldt delta, via the "New Meuse" inland shipping channel, dug to connect to the Meuse first, but now to the Rhine instead."

While it's certainly been modified by humans - which would be true of every river, stream and branch in the region - the Nieuwe Maas is not an artificial branch of the river. So describing the cities position as sitting on a "shipping channel, dug to connect to the Meuse first..." is not close to being the more accurate/appropriate way to describe the location of the city. To put it more simply "It is in the province of South Holland, located in the the Rhine-Meusue-Sheldt delta along the Nieuwe Maas, once a branch of the Maas, but now the Rhine." This could be put any number of ways, but the current wording is misleading. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even that seems a bit tricky as the one time it was a branch of the Maas seemed to have shifted in the early middle ages so any such claim would probably require a reliable source. Why not even simpler "It is in the province of South Holland, located in the the Rhine-Meusue-Sheldt delta along the Nieuwe Maas"

Or if we want to clarify nieuwe Maas we might add ", which connects the confluence of the Rhine distributaries Noord and Lek to North Sea through Het Scheur and the Nieuwe Waterweg canal." (but that may already be a bit over the top). Arnoutf (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I msotly agree with the second sentence of your first paragraph. There isn't much need to describe the function of the Nieuwe Maas in the article's opening, anyway. That said, I think it's of interest and worthwhile to give people a slightly more in depth understanding of this short stretch of river by describing the major river that it currently carries. It's not in dispute that it's one of the main distributaries of the Rhine, and given the importance of specificity when talking about water in the Netherlands, I'd argue it's worth the addition. In any case, the current wording needs to be clarified. Criticalthinker (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the current wording is misleading. My proposal would be "It is in the province of South Holland, along the river Nieuwe Maas, part of the Rhine-Meuse-Scheldt-delta."

My guess is that the canal Nieuwe Waterweg and the river Nieuwe Maas got mixed up while writing the current introduction. The Nieuwe Waterweg is indeed a canal which has been dug between the Northsea and Het Scheur/Nieuwe Maas.

And for the record, the Nieuwe Maas never had a geographic connection to the Maas. The medieval name of the Nieuwe Maas was Nieuwe Merwe and over time this morphed into Nieuwe Maas. Leading to endless confusion ;-). Konstantin3011 (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]