Talk:Kruidnoten

Comment removed

I have removed an uncited user comment, which contradicts the cited material in the article. Twice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)behijdsfivb7geseudtvfkcsrndg

Merge with Speculaas

Since this biscuits use the same recipe as Speculaas and this article is short, perhaps it would be better to merge this content into a section of the Speculaas page?

Inferno986return (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

They're thought of as separate things. Nobody calls kruidnoten speculaas, even if they are made of the same thing. It's like having separate articles for tagliatelle, penne, spaghetti and lasagne instead of merging them all into pasta. Rua (mew) 18:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Large edit

Because of the poor quality of the lemma and the poor quality of the references, I modified the article. Most references are still poor, so further improvement is required. HenriDuvent (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Reverted. Please do not remove information when the correct references are provided and/or without proper explanation on what is lacking. Your grammar was incorrect as well. --Ananasz (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for my grammar, but the information is partly wrong, not rooted in good sources and very subjective and time dependent; sources are very poor (only commercial and popular ones), see discussion on Dutch WP. Hopefully you can respect this and improve my grammar. (By the way: previous text was poor English (too)) best regards, HenriDuvent (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

If you can, list the questioned claims and sources for examination, so they may be adjusted. The sentence building in the article was acceptable and there were no spelling errors; It'd be better not to touch anything if English is not your first language. I can help you with this, no problem. --Ananasz (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I will add a list of errors, but please respect that all the additions of the same user have been removed on Dutch WP, because of their poor quality, best regards, HenriDuvent (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

List of mistakes and oddities:

1. Traditions: When children come to witness Sinterklaas' arrival to the country: which country -- I suggested to replace it by the Netherlands and Belgium; no source
2. to receive a handful of kruidnoten from one of his helpers is often expected. --"Is often expected", what is meant by that, by whom? I suggested to modify
3. An old practise that's rarely performed anymore is the throwing of kruidnoten on the pavement during the entry event -and one also with lowered consistency- across the classroom floor in elementary schools. --"An old practise"? What is meant by that, very unclear, and it is not a tradition as is suggested by the title, no good source; "lowered consistency", what is meant by that? Throwing kruidnoten is still common practice at home and at schools. I suggested to modify.
4. Children crawl around to collect as many as they can, which is considered to be a form of entertainment, though the act itself is guessed to be comparable to the throwing of rice at weddings or merely a symbol of Sinterklaas' generosity.-- This is just own interpretation, " crawl around?" no source. There is no connection to throwing of rice, no good source; I suggested to leave this out and to modify.
5. Around the 2000s, hygiene concerns grew, and visiting Piets now tend to lay down a pile or small bag on the student's desk or directly in the child's hand. -- Probably it started around 2000, but this is not sure, and for what reasons, no serious sources, I suggested to specify - or leave it out.
6. Another typical holiday practice related to the snack is to make them yourself. Children are given pre-made dough and are tasked to shape them into kruidnoten; though these usually end up like round pellets, are either pale or very dark in color, and taste different from the mainstream product. --It is not "a typical holiday practice". What is meant by holiday practice? Wide spread? No serious sources. I suggested to leave it out or, in case of good sources, to modify.
7. Variation: Kruidnoten are one of the most popular and recognizable holiday candies.-- Probably Untrue. no sources; I suggested to leave it out.
8. Pop-up shops, fully devoted to selling the many variants that have been produced over the years, are a usual sight in big cities around Sinterklaas time. --"usual sight in big cities"? In some 'big' cities these types of shops can be found, but a usual sight? Own interpretation of the writer. I suggested to leave it out or, in case of good sources, to modify.
9. Nevertheless, the common grocery- and candy store has a high selection to choose from as well. -- Why "nevertheless"? "high selection"? Own interpretation of the writer. I suggested to leave it out or, in case of good sources, to modify.
10. Besides the regular variant and packages that include gummies and sugar candies, kruidnoten can be covered with a layer of (white/milk/pure/truffle) chocolate, which is one of the earliest and most loved variants, or with any of the following confirmed flavors. --"most loved variant"? No sources. "Confirmed flavors"? In what period, by what authority? I suggested to leave it out or to reduce it, at least the list and to only give some examples. As is said in the following text brlow (about 'Bolletjes' ), the list will change yearly, and some flavors are rare.
11. Note: many are also sold in mixed bags or combined with each other -- why is this a 'note'? Relevant? I suggested to leave it out.
12. Caption: Kruidnoten with candies, called "strooigoed -- " strooigoed" not explained (it means something like: small candies, pepernoten, chocolates, kruidnoten and other sweets to throw around). I suggested to put this in the main text and to explain.
13. Trivia: It's become a yearly trend for certain food producers, like Bolletje, to hold contests and ask people to introduce and vote for a new flavor. -- Not sure if it is a trend, own interpretation, why is this trivial compared to previous information, which is just as trivial? I suggested to leave it out or put it in the main text, if good sources are available.
14. While kruidnoten are a holiday-exclusive snack, most stores choose to sell them many weeks prior. -- "holiday snack" , what is that? "most stores" ? Why in trivia? I suggeted to leave it out.
15. Though perceivably different; some Dutch residents mistakenly call kruidnoten "pepernoten" and online stores list them under this category as well. -- This is partly true but not trivial. On line stores? Most stores in some parts of the Netherlands do. I suggested to put the pepernoot issue in the main text, and to leave out the rest.
16. References: most of the references are poor, youtube, local news papers, information from producers; the lemma seems to be based on many sources, but most of them are not serious, and do not cover what is said in the lemma. I suggested to make a selection of sources, and, better to add good ones.

Hopefully you understand my intervention better now, and again, in the Dutch lemma neither this information, nor the sources were accepted. best regardsHenriDuvent (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the effort. I'm sorry for the late reply, my hands are pretty full. Let me go through each one of your points:

1. I tried to look this up and the answer is The Netherlands. What I found conflicts with the page's introduction, though. Articles online state kruidnoten not to be a thing in Belgium, yet a Flemish user insisted it is and it's been added to this page. The articles are old, so this leads me to believe it's gradually become a thing. There's an interesting titbit to add.
2. It's expected by children, but I agree, that section could be worded differently.
3. "An old practise" entails that throwing kruidnoten to children was part of the holiday celebration and everyone used to do it. According to the added references, doing so outdoors is no longer enacted, because of vermin and the overall mess it left behind. The latter issue seems to also relate to the act of throwing kruidnoten inside schools, but since there are still schools who don't mind doing this, it's done with "less consistency" compared to the past (which would be somewhere before the 2000s, as stated). You and the page don't seem to directly disagree on this.
4. I suppose the "crawling" is an assumed action, since it involves candy getting thrown onto the floor. I wouldn't judge it too harshly, but.. I do think it could be worded better. Concerning the rice and generosity topic; the page makes sure to use loose language and states it's "guessed", which is not incorrect, as long there're references added wherein people indeed express this belief. Nowhere does it say these claims are the solid truth. You may add speculation, as long you emphasise it's speculation.
5. The date listed is again loose language and allows for believable estimations that are hard to debunk.. The hygiene issue is mentioned in one of the added sources. I have mixed feelings about forum conversations, but not every little change in the world gets an official news article, so the experiences of real people will have to be considered. Nevertheless, I don't disagree that these points would benefit from further examination and more direct references.
6. Again, the word "practise" really only means it's a reoccurring activity. So, either parents decide to bake kruidnoten with their children at home, or like the references insinuate, at Sinterklaas events hosted by organizations.
7. The page made sure to argue it is "one of the most", not "the most". It's loose language, and by now you know what my opinion is on the art of loose language. The claim isn't wholly untrue when reading about the activities attached and ever-growing flavors. The page itself is the reference to this claim, unless it's the word "holiday" you're tripping over?
8. I see. To change the sentence into "Pop-up stores can be sighted in some big cities" would be the most honest.
9. The word "nevertheless" assumes that the reader believes that all these types of kruidnoten are only sold in these specialized pop-up stores; "nevertheless, many are sold in regular stores as well". Something like that. Do you wish to change it into "but", and "high" into "fair"?
10. The chocolate claim has a reference listed to back it up. Not sure what else to say here. I'm not doubting there are rare flavors or that new ones will be introduced; but Wikipedia urges contributors to help them keep info up to date. So, if flavors stop existing, that needs to be mentioned/removed. If a new flavor is confirmed, that needs to be added.
11. The note conveys that some flavors listed aren't solely the flavor you can buy, but also come as an addition to other kruidnoten, like the powdered sugar one.
12. You're right, would be ideal to add strooigoed in here. The external link is sufficient, but an extra step people shouldn't have to take.
13. "Trend" is a fad, so a more fitting term would be better. No idea why it's in Trivia, this could go under the variants header, but maybe because it's something only Dutch people can join in on, so the focus on it is lowered this way?
14. "Holiday snack" can only be interpret as candy-like food products you can buy around the holidays, in this case referring to Sinterklaas, since that's what this page is about. I don't know how important it is to mention the early selling of kruidnoten, but it seems to be a running joke among Dutch people. The sole intention could be to give the page character and some further insight, but I can understand not everyone cares. We can remove it.
15. The "online" detail should be removed, but I don't think it deserves a place on the main body of the page, because of the same reason I gave above. Only Dutch people know and deal with this "confusion", so this will likely not interest the rest of the world. This is something for the Dutch Wikipedia to feature and expand on.
16. The Youtube videos confirm the claim that these other kruidnoten usually come out round and odd in color. I've dealt with worse references. Local news papers are fine, as long they give some support to the claim. I agree general news sources to be more appealing, but it can be hard to find one single link that covers an entire claim. To have a row of reference numbers littered throughout a page will add nothing besides affect the readability, so sometimes, you just has to settle for something.

You've mentioned the Dutch page multiple times, but it is a stub. Not sure how to implement it to this. In any case, I'll get to work. I have a few more (ex-)stubs to check on, though, so by all means, feel free to reply and list more points of interest if you have them. I'd also like royalty free images of some of these flavors for the gallery, any idea if they exist? I can only find the mix and the chocolate version. --Ananasz (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Ananasz. Thanks a lot for improving the lemma, taking into consideration my comments. I will made some more modifications, however, because some parts of the text are not true and many sources are poor and not convincing. But please check it. To be honest, I am a bit surprised to see that in this case the English WP is more liberal and does accept more bad sources compared to the Dutch one. Is it true that this is the first lemma you are involved in (which is hard to believe), can that be an explanation? Are you familiar with the Dutch or Belgian situation and language? If not, we might ask another user with a Dutch background to look at it, what do you think? Best regards, HenriDuvent (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I work for a company that examines websites and user behavior on the internet; barren pages are undesired, especially when an informative/educational result is expected. You could say that Wikipedia copies that sentiment with the existence of the stub notification and prefers its pages to be a collection of all knowledge available about the subject featured.. naturally, within reason. Something I tell users at other Wikis is "Don't start a page if you have nothing to tell". If there's little to say about a particular topic, then it might be better to turn it into a chapter at another page. For example, you could set up a Sinterklaas candy page and list everything there's to offer on there.
The kruidnoten page looks fine now, but Wikipedia certainly isn't free from misinformation and many pages don't list references at all. Pages about heavy subjects, like political people or controversies, tend to become a war zone among editors, which is a true shame, but not unexpected. We try to keep potential readers up to date on any flaws a page might have, but it can be a chore, sites like these are dependant on the good intentions and cooperation of its users.
Concerning languages in general, I study a few and Dutch is close to my heart. I'm in The Netherlands right now, hi! --Ananasz (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Pepernoten

the infobox says kruidnoten are "mistakenly" called kruidenoten or pepernoten. i find this kind of rude because pepernoten is the more common name colloquially, i feel like you cant claim everyone is mistaken like that. Appelsaus6666 (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)