Talk:Limburg (Netherlands)

Queen's Commissioner

In Limburg, the Queen's Commissioner is called the governor (The only province in the Netherlands who calls Queen's Commissioner governor), could this be fixed in the template? It's a piece of the Limburgish culture so I think it's very important. My background: I was born and raised in Maastricht.--83.119.148.104 19:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While this is true, repeating it in parentheses every time the term is used is complete overkill. Clarify it once, then use one of the two terms throughout the rest of the article. 84.28.131.121 (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Limburg does NOT have a governor. The people of Limburg like to call their official such, but that is simply not what he is. There are only 3 governors in the Kingdom of the Netherlands en non of them are in Limburg. The constitutional law of the Netherlands clearly states that Limburg has a Queens Commissioner. The statement that Limburg is the only province with a governor, is therefor false! Limburg is however the only province where the Queens Commissioner is CALLED governor. People may call me prince, it still does not make me a prince! --195.169.206.197 (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Limburgians

What a list! These are mostly locally, or nationally well known from Maastricht. "Famous" implies international fame. Propose to remove the names, that are not really known outside the country. (They already are mentioned in the Dutch editiion under Maastricht) Natubico (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet this is the English Wikipedia, and they should be mentioned in the English Wikipedia if the information is available. Define famous - I have never heard of "international fame" being a requirement for the adjective. If they are Limburgers, and they are famous, then they are famous Limburgers. Allow some of the articles to be created first. There is no deadline. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luxembourgish name

User Aecis asks: Why on earth put the Luxembourgish name in the lead? It's LIMburg, not LUXEMburg! It is strange, of course, but I may have a clue here. There exists a special relationship between the Limburgish regional language and Luxemburgish. Both are related to the group of Moselle Franconian dialects, although only a very small part of Limburg (the southeastern most) actually belongs to Middle German (see: Southern Meuse-Rhenish). I can understand why Luxemburgians recognise a lot meeting Limburgians from that part of Limburg. Both vernaculars are almost mutually understandable. Of course it remains a kind of a joke to mention (Luxembourgish: D'Provënz Limburg), but at least to some degree I can feel the rationale behind it. Ad43 (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. 'Other stuff exists' is an argument to avoid at XfD, but it is actually a good argument to make here at RM (as long as the examples are relevant) because consistency is one of our key naming criteria. Jenks24 (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:PLACEDAB. Other locations have already been fixed. These are last relics of an old standard. gidonb (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. These are provinces, not towns or cities (cf. Luxembourg (Belgium)). — AjaxSmack 10:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Ajax, I missed that one, but the fact that other stuff exists does not justify deviating from our guideline. I will nominate Luxembourg (Belgium) soon. Can you find other regions that have the same wrong dab? By our guideline, Dutch/Belgian provincies, cities and towns follow the same format! gidonb (talk) 12:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, other stuff exists for a reason. The existence of articles from Azerbaijan (Iran) to Georgia (U.S. state) to Lapland (Finland) to Litoral Province (Equatorial Guinea) to Santa Cruz Department (Bolivia) to Styria (Slovenia) to Victoria (Australia) shows a consistent use of parentheticals rather than commas for large regions or administrative units (would a move to Georgia, United States, be in order?). Others have provided detailed arguments in favour of this practice at Talk:Luxembourg (Belgium); refer to User:Ebonelm's among others there. — AjaxSmack 03:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Limburg, Netherlands is local government and hence, if dabbing only by a geography (i.e. Limburg (Dutch province) would be valid), should be dabbed by a comma delimited geography. WP:PLACEDAB is very clear at this point: "With the names of cities, towns, villages and other settlements, as well as administrative divisions, the tag is normally preceded by a comma, as in Hel, Poland, and Polk County, Tennessee." [the bold is mine]. You said "other stuff exits" in Belgium, I have nominated that one province (i.e. also local government), we have just completed fixing the dabs for about 100 geographic units in the the Netherlands by WP:PLACEDAB. These followed nl.wiki format that always uses bracket dabs, rather than en.wiki format. Limburg, Netherlands really seems to be the last one wrong dab for the Netherlands, its counterpart and Luxembourg are the last ones in Belgium. What matters is that the guideline should be applied to all cases (or take the discussion to the guideline talk page if you disagree). Many or all of the examples that you just provided are *not* local government and the offer stuff exists arguments is in any case invalid. gidonb (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is no requirement in WP:PLACEDAB for all places to use commas with the disambiguator; the text of the guideline reads "the tag is normally preceded by a comma" (my emphasis). There is always room for exceptions in guidelines and several users have given reasons for one in this case and at Talk:Luxembourg (Belgium). I am fine with Limburg (Belgian province) if only to better disambiguate from Limbourg, Belgium. — AjaxSmack 14:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment pointing out again that the sole objection is an Wikipedia:Other stuff exists argument, not based on the relevant guideline. To be on the safe side, I have initiated a discussion on the sole (?!) other occurrence of a bracketed dab for a local government administrative division. gidonb (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: the proposed change makes it look like these provinces are towns. The current use of parentheses makes it clear that this is a province. WP:CONSISTENCY. Also WP:PLACEDAB does not recommend this format. Arguement that other locations have been 'fixed' is clearly false the vast majority of equivalent sub-units use this format. Ebonelm (talk) 08:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is still an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, now slightly masked by WP:CONSISTENCY. The purpose of consistency is not to copy or justify errors or to stop applying the Wikipedia guideline. If you look around, you will find that provinces of the Netherlands and Belgium are local government (hence perhaps the confusion: in Canada provinces are not local government). WP:PLACEDAB is very clear at this point: "With the names of cities, towns, villages and other settlements, as well as administrative divisions, the tag is normally preceded by a comma, as in Hel, Poland, and Polk County, Tennessee." [the bold is mine] Finally, the claim that the majority of the geographic units, dabbed by only a geography, are bracket delimited, is totally untrue. There are tons of villages, towns, cities, counties, and other forms of local government delimited by commas. It is the overwhelming majority of the cases! When cherry picking a few others and discussing these, one leads the discussion away from our clear guideline. So you say WP:CONSISTENCY. I say bring it on! See also response to AjaxSmack above. gidonb (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, I am not saying anything new here. The need to move these administrative divisions to the comma-delimited dab has been noted many years ago by Skinsmoke and Green Giant. gidonb (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The naming conventions are quite clear. Administrative divisions are treated exactly the same way as cities, towns or villages and should be disambiguated by comma, not by parentheses. Geographical features (rivers, mountains, lakes), on the other hand, are disambiguated by parentheses, not by comma. The Province of Limburg (the Dutch or Belgian one) is an administrative division, not a geographical feature. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per AjaxSmack. "Administrative divisions" is an ill-defined term for the naming purpose, and WP:PLACEDAB requires clarification; it uses Polk County, Tennessee as an example, apparently referring to small administrative divisions. However, Luxembourg (Belgium), Limburg (Belgium), Azerbaijan (Iran), Styria (Slovenia) or Lapland (Finland) are all significant regions or provinces, sometimes resulting from division of a greater historical regions or polities, and the trend there is clearly to not use the comma-convention. No such user (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comment. Based on the outcome of this RM, I amended WP:PLACEDAB. Please continue the discussion on its talk page, if necessary. No such user (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a good idea to amend a naming convention on the basis of one RM discussion. RM discussions frequently come to totally different outcomes based on the participants in that particular discussion, and the administrator closing the discussion. If you wish to change the general pattern, it would make more sense (and be more stable) to discuss the general principal on the talk page of the naming convention before making any amendments. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

history and name sections

I think I am responsible over the years for making the name section contain too much history. I will try to fix this by moving material between the sections. As a longer run issue, perhaps there needs to be a history article if ever this article becomes to overloaded with history, but I don't see that as a big concern at the moment.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a translation

and reads like one, most likely by someone who is not a native speaker. The syntax is awkward and highly unnatural. Needs thorough revision! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.119.173 (talk) 06:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could be said of many articles. Simple non-controversial edits, which is what grammar corrections normally are, should be done whenever you see the need, if you have a moment. You do not need a Wikipedia account for this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]