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

Horticulture and Gardening Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Horticulture and Gardening 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.Horticulture and GardeningWikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningTemplate:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningHorticulture and gardening Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. 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

@Johnbod: blanked reverted my recent edit with the comment "no, no, no" and no specifics. Let me sketch my rationale and argue that at least some of my changes were improvements: The first sentence currently reads:

Dutch garden refers firstly to gardens in the Netherlands, but also, mainly in the English-speaking countries, to various types of gardens traditionally considered to be in a Dutch style, a presumption that has been much disputed by garden historians in recent decades.

Several problems here. First, it violates WP:REFER -- we should be talking about what Dutch gardens are, not what the phrase "Dutch gardens" refers to. It is also a bit of a run-on sentence, which could be made crisper, e.g., starting with:

A Dutch garden is a garden in the Netherlands, or a garden considered to be in the style of gardens in the Netherlands.

The dispute about whether gardens called "Dutch" outside the Netherlands are in fact Dutch is clearly important, but spending 4 times as many words on Dutch-style gardens than Dutch gardens in the lead is the tail wagging the dog. There is room for that level of detail later in the article.

various types of gardens traditionally considered to be in a Dutch style

What "tradition" is this? Perhaps it would be better to mention the time period. Is this 18th century terminology? Modern scholarly terminology? And is it in fact "in the English-speaking countries"? The article only mentions England (not even the UK).

...a presumption that has been much disputed by garden historians in recent decades.

Wouldn't it be simpler to say that it is disputed? Also "recent decades" doesn't seem right, since Hadfield's remark is now 50 years old. Or maybe it isn't even disputed. Does anyone today argue that "Dutch" is a correct characterization? --Macrakis (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just say that WP:REFERS, which you can't be bothered to link to, is in an ESSAY, not a guideline or piolicy, and ACTUALLY SAYS: "Phrases such as refers to, is the name of, describes, or is a term for are sometimes used inappropriately in the first sentence of Wikipedia articles. For the vast majority of articles, the introduction is using a term, rather than mentioning it. This is known as the use–mention distinction...." There's no "violation" here, and the misleading use of the link is typical. Unless anyone else shows an interest I can't be bothered to go into the rest, but you might read beyond the first para and see that the article is very little about actual gardens in the Netherlands (the "tail", therefore), and mostly about so-called Dutch gardens elsewhere (the "dog"). Johnbod (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that WP:REFERS is a redirect to Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Use of "refers to", which is an essay elaborating on the Manual of Style guideline MOS:REFERS. The same guidance is given in the policy WP:ISAWORDFOR (which WP:REFER redirects to). Having REFER and REFERS point to different places is admittedly confusing, but the basic point remains.

I am not sure what "the misleading use of the link is typical" is supposed to mean. Typical of what?

Your reversion of my changes has the edit comment "no, no, no", and here in Talk you say "I can't be bothered to go into the rest", which isn't very helpful for collaborating on the article. Perhaps you could take the trouble to reply to my points above. For example, are "Dutch-style" gardens a feature of the "English-speaking countries", or of England in particular? What exactly is the "presumption"? -- that some gardens are in a Dutch-derived style, or that they are "considered to be" in a Dutch style. etc. --Macrakis (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions, questions, questions! You might look at the text you left: "Dutch garden are gardens in the Netherlands, and in the English-speaking countries, various types of gardens considered to be in a Dutch style, a characterization that is disputed by garden historians." and ask some questions about that. Do all "garden historians" dispute the characterization? Did some actually create it? And when, who, where? What does the puzzling form of the first two (or four) clauses actually mean? Aparat from scratching your "refers" itch, how did this rewording help any reader? The article makes it clear that the term is generally under suspicion in modern scholarship, though still used, by tradition, by the owners of some alleged Dutch gardens. No doubt the concept has spread somewhat to thwe rest of the Anglosphere, and perhaps beyond, but I don't have sources on that. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]