Talk:Lists of Dutch inventions and discoveries

Page length

This article is 617,879 bytes long at the time of writing. This is too long. The simplest split would seem to be "List of Dutch inventions" vs. "List of Dutch discoveries". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose split: won't fix major POV problems. A large amount of material has been added recently by one editor diff. The claims being added such as "Foundations of software engineering", "Structured programming", "Aerial telescope", "Van Leeuwenhoek microscope ", "stereochemistry", financial centre, etc are dubious if not a WP:CONTENTFORK with the articles they link. These entries (and others) are overly long, sometimes having longer descriptions than the articles they link (trying to prove these are "Dutch" inventions?). The weasel phrase "first modern" is used 10 times in the article, inconsistent with the title claim of "invention". Deleting the dubious content and knocking entries back to maybe one sentence descriptions is going to make this a short article, not a long one. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The issue of page length has nothing to do with NPoV. The page length before your diff was 590,090 bytes - still far too long Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
    • The page length before this round of edits started was (131,212 bytes)[1]. Trimming back item descriptions (re: List of English inventions and discoveries) would probably produce an article around 80,000 bytes. Cleanup is needed but I think the list should be trimmed back to something encyclopedic following MOS:LIST, then split if needed. I have seen suggestions at other national lists that these be turned into timelines re: "Timeline of Dutch inventions" and "Timeline of Dutch discoveries", tells a better story and you don't get into nationalist claims of who invented what. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• Conditional oppose, in favor of "naturally" reducing size by condensing the prose, like mentioned above, but to the whole page, not limited to the most recent large edit. If that can't be done without losing meaningful information, then support splitting in some way.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I wish the IP editor who seems to be responsible for most of the expansion and seems to be continually reverting back in material without comment would participate in discussion. I guess we can note the needed cleanup, take lack of response as consensus, and proceed. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
    • You are confusing "oppose" votes with "consensus". You can not proceed. DeVerm (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Conditional oppose: I am against the split but I do agree with Tom Reding that the prose should be condensed, especially when there is a main article about the list entry. DeVerm (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Question: which part of MOS:LIST does this article not comply with? DeVerm (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Andy Mabbett I do agree with your tag in the article header but oppose your proposed split. Wish you would have kept all the tag options in this Talk page, like condensing the article, because I would agree with that! DeVerm (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Info I have started condensing a section; let's see if it holds or get reverted. DeVerm (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  • You added 2,315 bytes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
    • The 2,315 bytes replaced 2,972 bytes which is about a 20% reduction. DeVerm (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

tag removed I have removed the tag with the article at 505k down from 621k. There is still more room for improvement but I believe we are now well under the limits that we don't need the tag anymore. DeVerm (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• I restored the very long tag. Suggestion – split out and make a new article out of the Dutch voyages of exploration. Doing so will give full tribute to those intrepid explorers – and cut down on the excessive Kbs which make this article a slow one to upload. – S. Rich (talk) 07:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Not so much a question of a new article as of making this a list of links to articles instead of a list of mini-articles. As several users have already mentioned, List of English inventions and discoveries provides a viable model. I've checked a few of the links given, and find in each case that the information here simply repeats what is in the lead at the article linked to, so we can lose it without loss of information (no need even for a merge). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with Andreas Philopater. Article is a list of over-long mini-articles, sometimes with dubious content/WP:CFORK. Should be (more) cleaned up. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Please note the English list does not mention voyages of discovery (and is one-third the length of this one in terms of bytes). So using the English model does mean the voyages gets parsed out. – S. Rich (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Redux

Two years on, the situation is little better. The page is still 503,801 bytes long. It's time to decide how to split it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Splitting

Hi all,
I think that we should split this page into several portions as this page is too big (~503kB). I suggest that we split this page into the following subpages.

List of Dutch inventions and innovations

List of Dutch discoveries

List of Dutch explorations
‑‑V.S.(C)(T) 12:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

That would be a good start. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, that's done. Please check the lede and external links of all four articles. A bot should fix any reference issues shortly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)