Talk:De Club van Sinterklaas

Fair use rationale for Image:Soesa & Sassefras.jpg

Image:Soesa & Sassefras.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wegwijspiet.jpg

Image:Wegwijspiet.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Chefpiet.JPG

Image:Chefpiet.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit request: replace short stub with expanded translation from nl-wiki

Hi all — I'm a COI-disclosed editor representing the Dutch rights holder (see my user page User:Michael-jabadoo for the {{paid}} disclosure). I've prepared a substantially expanded translation of the corresponding Dutch Wikipedia article in my userspace:

• Draft: User:Michael-jabadoo/Draft De Club van Sinterklaas

The current EN-wiki article (~6.9 kB, last substantive update in 2021) is severely outdated — it does not cover the fourteen theatrical films released 2012–2025, the four Videoland-original streaming seasons (2021–2025), the discography (multiple Album Top 100 / Single Top 100 entries), the spin-offs, or the awards (including the 2015 Golden Calf Audience Award for Het Pratende Paard and fourteen consecutive Golden Film awards 2012–2025).

The draft is a translation of nl:De Club van Sinterklaas and carries 20 inline references to independent Dutch sources (NRC Handelsblad, Trouw, NOS, NVPI Film, Nederlands Film Festival, Nederlands Filmfonds, RTL Boulevard, dutchcharts.nl, Algemeen Dagblad, Top 40, etc.).

Per WP:COI / WP:PAID I will not perform the swap myself. Would an uninvolved editor be willing to (a) review the draft for tone, neutrality and source quality, and (b) either replace the current article with the expanded version, or merge in the new sections at their discretion?

Happy to address any review feedback. Thanks. Michael-jabadoo (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Reply 1-JUL-2026

  Edit request declined  

• The proposed text omits the controversy section in its entirety while not offering any explanation for its removal.

References

Regards,  Spintendo  22:43, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Reply to decline (COI editor)

Thanks for the review and the pointer to the missing rationale, Spintendo. I've now added a `== Depiction of Zwarte Piet ==` section to the draft (User:Michael-jabadoo/Draft De Club van Sinterklaas) that:

• retains the existing sourcing from the current article (Superguide, AD.nl (RTL stopt met Zwarte Piet), Videoland, SinterklaasVEVO)
• adds one contemporary source (Doolaard, Algemeen Dagblad, 28 September 2017) documenting the 2017 transition to roetveegpiet
• keeps NPOV wording (no removals of critical framing, no promotional language)

The section heading follows WP:CSECTION guidance by naming the subject ("Depiction of Zwarte Piet") rather than using a generic "Controversy" label, but the substantive content and all existing sourcing are retained.

Would you or another uninvolved editor be willing to reconsider the swap? Happy to adjust further if the section still doesn't meet expectations. Michael-jabadoo (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

 Approved  I've replaced the heading. Unfortunately, much of the information (especially in the tables) is not referenced. Regards,  Spintendo  16:57, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Reply 13-JUL-2026 — v6 refs sprint

Hi Spintendo, thanks for the Approved-heading and the honest feedback that the tables were under-sourced. I've done a major refs sprint on the userspace draft (User:Michael-jabadoo/Draft De Club van Sinterklaas) that addresses the sourcing concern:

• Cast tables converted to prose per FA-style precedent, with per-actor citations to reliable secondary sources: TheaterEncyclopedie (Fred Butter, Erik van Muiswinkel, Piet van der Pas, Hugo Konings, Hidde Maas), NOS (Bram van der Vlugt), Entertainment Business plus Top 40 (Harold Verwoert), NRC Handelsblad and Trouw (background). ongehoordnederland.tv (which sourced Verwoert in the previous version) has been removed as unsuitable for BLP claims.
• TV-season table: per-row Beeld & Geluid Wiki citations (seasons 1–10), the Dutch national broadcast archive.
• Videoland seasons: per-row FilmVandaag citations.
• Theatrical film table: per-row citations to Nederlands Film Festival and Nederlands Filmfonds (Gouden-Film thresholds), plus Cinemagazine reviews.
• Discography: per-row dutchcharts.nl citations for chart entries, Muziekweb for the compilation.
• DVD-releases table removed entirely as WP:NOTCATALOG.
• "One of the first" softened per WP:PEACOCK; Depiction-of-Zwarte-Piet section kept NPOV.

Net effect: 63 uniquely-defined refs (was 21), roughly 100 in-text usages, with the WP:UGC-tier Beeld & Geluid Wiki share reduced and cast/film/discography claims now backed by RS-tier sources.

Would you be willing to look again at whether the full swap now meets WP:V and WP:BLPSOURCES? Happy to iterate further if specific sections still need work. Standard COI/paid disclosure on my user page. Thanks! Michael-jabadoo (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2026 (UTC)