This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Belgium 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.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles
Removed this flag from the list this is the flag of the neighbouring Grand Duchy
This is the orange white blue flag of the
Grand Duchy of Luxemburg and replaced it with
source : following email received from the greffe de la province de luxembourg
Bonjour,
Le drapeau de la Province de Luxembourg est celui annexé (bandes horzontale azur et blanc avec le lion rouge couronné) .
Celui du Grand-Duché est celui avec les trois bandes colorées rouge/blanc/bleu.
Il y a effectivement une erreur sur Wikipédia au niveau du drapeau.
Bien à vous.
I******** B*********E
Chargée de communication
Cellule Communication
Place Léopold, n°1 - 6700 ARLON
communication@province.luxembourg.be
http://www.province.luxembourg.be
--
DerekvG (
talk)
10:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Les seuls pour la Province de Luxembourg de Belgique
The Governor of the Province of luxembourg ( Belgium ) with the colors nationals ( Belgian ) and representatives with colors as the Grand-Duchy of Luxemburg
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I agree with AjaxSmack. I, too, had the same thought about potential confusion with the other Luxembourgs, although I hadn't considered the problem with the current title that AjaxSmack pointed out. Quite right, though.
PowersT02:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose The primary topic for
Luxembourg is undoubtedly the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. Having established, by a disambiguator, that this is in Belgium, not Luxembourg, there is no need for any further disambiguation. There is only one Luxembourg in Belgium, just as there is only one Luxemburg in Iowa. This situation is not, contrary to the proposer's remarks, analagous to the other Walloon provinces, where it is necessary to disambiguate between the city and province of both Liège and Namur (of the other two Wallon provinces,
Hainaut (province) should not be disambiguated as it is clearly the primary topic; and
Walloon Brabant is not disambiguated). The page should, however, be moved to
Luxembourg, Belgium per
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), where disambiguating by parentheses is deprecated.
Skinsmoke (
talk)
11:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment See
Category_talk:Provinces - Province of X is deprecated. Only 2 or 3 out of 74 sets use that style. Most common is "X Province"-format followed by plain name. "Luxembourg (Belgium)" is a real outsider. I think only the two Punjab use such a format.
Schwyz (
talk)
15:06, 3 August 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Requested move 6 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: No move. There is no agreement that the proposed title is preferable or more in line with the guidelines. It appears that there is some disagreement about the spirit of
WP:PLACEDAB as well, which ought to be hammered out before more moves of this nature are proposed.
Cúchullaint/
c20:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose: claim about
WP:PLACEDAB is incorrect, that is the practice for settlements not country subdivisons/states/provinces which tend to use the parentheses such as:
Victoria (Australia). As was noted by
Schwyz in the previous discussion the proposed format makes it look like a city or town or village.
Ebonelm (
talk)
18:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:PLACEDAB the guideline for cities, towns, and administrative divisions is exactly the same, I'm quoting directly from our guideline: 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]
gidonb (
talk)
21:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Gidonb: You are truncating the guideline to justify your preferred title. The full quote is With the names of cities, towns, villages and other settlements, the tag is normally preceded by a comma, as in Hel, Poland. This is often applied to low-level administrative units as well (Polk County, Tennessee), but less so for larger subdivisions or historical regions (Galicia (Spain); Nord (French department)). (emphasis mine) A Belgian province is roughly the same size and administrative level as a French department, and nobody would seriously suggest renaming the latter to "Nord, France" although that would technically match the
sufficient precision criterion. This consideration supports
Luxembourg (Belgian province) or the status quo. —
JFGtalk15:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)reply
JFG, it was changed during the discussion, and after I had quoted, by someone who has a particular opinion in this discussion. See at the very bottom his own thoughts and the possibility that, from his "activism", he could have closed the discussion (yet didn't). Your false allegations, for which I saw no apologies, are most unfortunate and do not make it more pleasant to participate in this discussion. I gave it a break but firmly stand my ground in all that I have said in this discussion. The choice is between clear categories that would be dabbed in different ways by
WP:CONSISTENCY and the relevant version of
WP:PLACEDAB for this discussion, and unclear bigger and smaller regions with ill defined limits. This would make discussions go on forever. Some like that, some not.
gidonb (
talk)
10:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Gidonb: When I answered your comment, I had not noticed that the guideline had recently been edited, sorry for accusing you of misquoting it. I do however stand by my arguments in this Luxembourg case (a name which applies to 5 very close geographical and administrative areas) and I support the new wording of this guideline. Remember that guidelines should follow reality; they can evolve as new cases are debated where a strict application of the current guideline does not serve readers best.
WP:Readers first should be our guiding light in ambiguous situations. —
JFGtalk12:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)reply
In addition,
Victoria is a state, i.e. very different from a province in Belgium that is an administrative division and local government. It is important not to confuse the provinces of Belgium and the Netherlands with those of Canada that really are states. Belgium also has states, even two different kinds (three of each kind), that can be compared to the states of Australia and Canada (naturally there are also differences), but the provinces of Belgium are local government. That said we could also look at the correct name for Victoria but the purpose here is only to correct the last local government administrative divisions that have their dab in brackets. Our guideline is very clear about these!
gidonb (
talk)
23:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)reply
The historical status of provinces within Belgium however is much closer to that of a state than a mere local government administrative division. The
Communities and Regions of Belgium represent a unique federal arrangement which cannot be easily compared to any other country. Provinces are definitely not equivalent to US counties, the appropriate Belgian equiavlent for this would be the
Arrondissements of Belgium. The provinces of Beligum are defined by the Belgian Constitution. Under your sub-divison logic we should be calling this article Luxembourg,
Wallonia because we tend to not 'skip' division levels. The risk of confusion with the country of
Luxembourg makes the use of the parentheses vital otherwise there is risk of giving the impression that the country of Luxembourg is actually part of Belgium.
Ebonelm (
talk)
16:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Absolutely untrue. The provinces are local government and are correctly categorized as such. They can be compared with the American counties as both are the highest level of local government. I purposefully raised the similarities and differences of the Belgian federation so you are not correcting me in any way. The differences could allow us to skip Wallonia, in any case they allow doing that at present, but the provinces are not sub-national government and the discussion wether to skip Wallonia or not is just another distraction. You try this also below in your answer to
SMcCandlish: to lead away from the fact that the current format that does not follow our guideline. That is the problem and that needs to be fixed!
gidonb (
talk)
14:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Maybe what underlies Ebonelm's position on this is some kind of "historical importance" angle. E.g., because in Ye Olde Tymes some of these places were sovereign entities, it's somehow disrespectful, or something, to treat them as local. The thing is, our title policy doesn't care. Texas and California were both independent nations for a while, but they are not marked out through some kind of special differentiation in article title formatting. Whether the analogy to counties in the US is good (maybe one to counties in Ireland, under the provinces, and the UK, under the constituent "countries plus Northern Ireland" of the UK, would be better) is ultimately irrelevant. The fact remains that these are not direct subnational entities (of which there are three in Belgium – Flanders, Wallonia, and the Brussels Capital Region – none of which need any disambiguation). —
SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)reply
SMcCandlish, I am really unsure what Ebonelm says. From my perspective, he says a lot but he doesn't say anything. Points here, points there, makes claims that are totally incorrect, and does not explain why we need to deviate from the guideline. I am even more puzzled about those who object per Ebonelm. It's just a bunch of Other Stuff Exists and I don't Like It with a thick smoke curtain. And no, other stuff exists is not a valid argument, as the closer in the other discussion claimed, if used to sidetrack and to deviate from the guidelines and the majority of the cases while pointing at a few exceptions. I will contest that decision as the closing person made an incorrect statement at closure, disregarded the strength of the arguments, and their foundation in the guideline.
gidonb (
talk)
18:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't. The close wasn't faulty. The problem was that the RM had insufficient participation for a consensus to move to emerge. The closer is correct that
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments are weaker at RM than at XfD, due to
WP:CONSISTENCY. However, the consistency alleged by the few participants there actually, site-wide, runs the other direction, and this was not clear in that discussion; it's much clearer in this one. —
SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)reply
I think that movers had much stronger arguments, based on the guidelines, and this should have been reflected in the close, but agree that there was a problem of unequal support. I'll follow your advice and relist after a reasonable period of time.
gidonb (
talk)
23:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Gidonb: I have carefully read both sides of the arguments and I stand by my choice. This is not a case where we should blindly apply the
WP:PLACEDAB guideline, because of the risk of giving the impression that the country of Luxembourg is actually part of Belgium in
Ebonelm's words. I would also support
Luxembourg (Belgian province) to clarify the title irrespective of any reader's perspective or assumptions. —
JFGtalk09:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)reply
JFG, personally I view this is one of the weakest claims made on this page as [1] The intelligence and knowledge of Wikipedia readers should not be underestimated [2] The bracketed dab does not make it clearer vs a comma that Luxembourg is a province and that another independent country exists [3] We have a disambiguation page and references to that page and/or the other entity on top of the Luxembourg/Luxemburg pages that already resolve the ambiguity. Therefore it's just another distraction or piece in the smoke curtain mentioned above, where Ebonelm real arguments are I don't like it and Other (yet extremely rare) stuff exists, leading away from thousands (conservative estimate) of similar dabs. Dabbing with (Belgian province): [1] Would allow bracketing [2] Conflicts with
WP:CONCISE as
Luxembourg, Belgium is the one and only Luxembourg in Belgium [3] Solves a non-problem or solved problem (as explained before) that doesn't need to be fixed once again, lest we insult our readers and complicate our article names.
gidonb (
talk)
10:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Gidonb: You've made your point loud and clear; neither of us will convince the other to change their mind on this case. Neighbouring provinces are titled
Namur (province) and
Liège (province) to distinguish them from the eponymous cities. We could arguably switch this one to the same format per
WP:CONSISTENCY. Similar cases in Switzerland have been standardized to "Canton of X" form (
Canton of Zürich vs
Zürich and
Zürich District,
Canton of Geneva vs
Geneva, etc.). The "Luxembourg" name is overloaded with 5 meanings, all in the same geographical area (city, canton, district, Grand Duchy and Belgian province), so
extra precision is justified. Far from insulting readers, title precision contributes to help them grasp the nuances of this subject no matter their background (see
WP:Readers first#Our audience). —
JFGtalk15:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support The naming convention is very clear. The article should be at
Luxembourg, Belgium. There is only one "Luxembourg" within Belgium, and disambiguation by parentheses is deprecated for administrative entities (towns, villages and provinces), while it is preferred for geographical features (hills, lakes, rivers and mountains)
Skinsmoke (
talk)
01:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Just like Ebonelm above, you are comparing apples and oranges. Ohio is a state in the US, a province in Belgium, however, is local government. It is the highest level of local government and comes *under* the Belgian states! The equivalent in the US is counties, such as
Lake County, Michigan, where the dab is consistently written with a comma as prescribed in our guideline! You may have been set off by the provinces of Canada that actually are states. This is not the situation in Belgium!
gidonb (
talk)
11:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose per
User:Ebonelm. The comma format reflects a common American convention for towns, cities and smaller administrative units but it does not translate as well for larger units outside of the US. In addition, I will copy part of my comment from the previous RM
above: if there is a problem with the current title, move the article to
Luxembourg (Belgian province) (or
Luxembourg (Walloon province)?) for clarity if not succinctness. —
AjaxSmack22:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)reply
For a total lack of foundation in the guideline and extremely weak
WP:IDONTLIKEIT and
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, I understand that AjaxSmack now proposes a compromise. This compromise, however, conflicts with
WP:CONCISE and there is no need for a compromise when the yay sayers have a clear advantage over the nay sayers, based on the strength of their arguments and Wikipedia's guidelines.
gidonb (
talk)
22:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support per gidonb and Skinsmoke; their actually analytical, instead of assumptive and knee-jerk, approach is correct. This is a local administrative unit, not a subnational one. Furthermore the comment 'the clear assumption with a comma following the name is that it is a place. Would you take "Ohio, United States" seriously?' doesn't even make sense. Ohio certainly is a place; I've been there. We have a parenthetical convention for major subnational divisions as a completely arbitrary rule, and in fact you can find innumerable sources that use a comma between subnational and national geographical entities. If people are going to split hairs this fine, we should simply eliminate the parenthetical convention here, and use commas for all such things, without the arbitrary subnational-vs.-local split. This would be more consistent with both
WP:PARENDIS and
WP:CONSISTENCY policies. —
SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)reply
@
SMcCandlish, then surely you want the title to be "Luxembourg, Wallonia" or "Luxembourg, Wallonia, Beligum" as otherwise you are skipping administrative levels?
Ebonelm (
talk)
13:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)reply
No, that would be unnecessary over-disambiguation. Our article titles are not a geographical categorization system (we have actual
categories for that). If there are not two Luxembourgs in Belgium, there is no need for the title to include additional administrative units to disambiguate; doing so would be pseudo-disambiguation. In some countries there are quite a number of layers of geographical administrations, and we do not chain them all in the title, because it would get unwieldy quickly. (I know this by direct experience, having worked on a geographic coding system for genealogical data, which did not skip administrative units; modern
Paddington would be coded as Paddington, WMN, LON, GRL, ENG, GBR [imagine how long that would be when not abbreviated!], while for pre-modern data it would be Paddington, MSX, ENG.)
Oakland, California is sufficient disambiguation per
WP:PRECISE and
WP:CONCISE; the article is not
Oakland, Alameda County, California, United States. It turns out there's actually
more than one Minneapolis, but one is by far the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and the article is just
Minneapolis, not
Minneapolis, Minnesota;
WP:CONCISE generally trumps
WP:CONSISTENCY unless for a particular topic the consistency has been applied very uniformly and for clear reasons. The use of any geographical disambiguation (whether it be
WP:COMMADIS or
WP:PARENDIS) serves only a single purpose: to make it clear to readers that they're at the right article. It is not a replication of a governance hierarchy, nor is it a replication of regional natural language usage (e.g. the British habit of writing something like "Long Crendon in Aylesbury Vale in Buckinghamshire"). Sometimes it coincides with a regional natural language pattern, but this is inevitable unless we use something completely unnatural, e.g. forcing parenthetic disambiguation in all cases. The accident that the comma pattern happens to be familiar to a large subset of readers is a) a feature not a bug, producing incidental
WP:NATURALDIS for a lot of readers (perhaps a majority), and b) even if it were a bug, insufficient reason to change policy to prefer parenthetic disambiguation over comma and natural. —
SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Once again there is an over-reliance on the United States in trying to make arguments in support of this move. The Oakland example is a poor one as it is a town not an administrative unit. A better analogy would be to focus upon the 'Alameda County' part of the example. Under the logic you are using above it shouldn't be entitled: 'Alameda County, California' but 'Alameda County, United States' given that there are no other Alameda Counties. However I hope you can see that to move the page to 'Alameda County, United States' would be ridiculous.
Ebonelm (
talk)
17:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm not "relying on" the US (see Paddington example already given), just using my current location as another example (a few years ago I would have used Toronto; going back further, I would have used a town in Buckinghamshire). If the US were the size of the UK or (population- and administrative-units-wise, of Canada) what you suggest about Alameda Co. would not be "ridiculous" at all. The problem in the US is that it is huge, and it has a large number counties with same names in different states (especially Jefferson, Washington, and Lincoln;
Alameda County is actually a unique name, so
Alameda County, California is actually over-disambiguation, and would be moved to
Alameda County, but for the fact that a particular wikiproject has a
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS/
WP:OWN stranglehold on US place names, for now, and would
filibuster any such WP:CONCISE move attempts as a
voting bloc; we've seen that before already with some of these names). As I noted further above, an analogy to Ireland or the UK is better; if, for some reason,
County Kerry had to be disambiguated (e.g. because they dropped the "County Foo" convention), it would be sufficient to use
Kerry, Ireland, not
Kerry, Munster, Ireland, nor
Kerry, Munster (because Munster is not globally
WP:RECOGNISABLE), and there would be no call to use
Kerry (Ireland); the combined pressure of COMMADIS and (for probably a majority of readers) NATURALDIS outweighs any argument in favor of PARENDIS, which (because it is awkward) is the last choice, other than
WP:DESCRIPTDIS, which we only resort to when something doesn't really have a proper name (and which would result in CONCISE problems in this kind of case, e.g.
Kerry in Ireland which can be compressed to
Kerry, Ireland; note that "Kerry (Ireland)" is exactly as long as "Kerry in Ireland" and thus has a comparable lack of concision). I'm content that we've both laid out our rationales, and I don't feel the need to continue back-and-forthing about it, per
WP:BLUDGEON; other respondents and the closer don't want to read endless two-party argumentation. —
SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Ebonelm. The comma format is commonly used inside and outside the Wikipedia world for towns, cities, and a few low level administrative units (primarily in the US). It is rarely used for large subnational units, however, of which this is one. (Yes, technically there is one level between this and the nation state, the Wallonia/Flanders/Brussels level, but as this is one of just 10
provinces in the country, it is de facto equivalent to a large subnational entity. Furthermore, there is a
WP:RECOGNIZABILITY issue with the proposed title. Many people may be unaware there is a Belgian province called Luxembourg, so would interpret the present title as some sort of comma separated article talking about the two nations of
Luxembourg and
Belgium. —
Amakuru (
talk)
14:18, 19 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.