This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
cities,
towns and various other
settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
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
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
The red stripe over the Lion of Flanders means "Dependency of".
During the middle ages the county of Namur was sold to the Count of Flanders and he changed the coat of arms to reflect his new acquisition.
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: moved. The consensus is that the Belgian city is the primary topic for anything called "Namur", both in terms of usage and long-term significance. Dab page moved to
Namur (disambiguation). Note that opinions by the blocked socks were discounted.
Jenks24 (
talk)
11:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I agree WP:COMMONNAME as a move rationale is not applicable here. My logic is, however, not based on this policy precisely because it is not applicable.
Tridek Sep (
talk)
13:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose: Fails
WP:NWFCTM,
WP:PTOPIC (A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.). Wikipedia cannot be consistent in the way that all Belgian cities get the plain name. And guess what is behind
Quebec - no, it is not the city, but the province. Several meanings for Namur exist, even in Belgium and no prove has been presented that all the other meanings combined are less thought of than the Belgian city.
Domlesch (
talk)
19:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Support: The number of times articles are viewed are often used in discussions about article names. These are the figures which prove the city of Namur is the primary topic.
Namur, Belgium has been viewed 10583 times in the last 90 days.1
Other topics combined have been viewed 11120+ times in the last 90 days. The eight counts provided above by the proposer sum up to
9955, adding
1161 for the ships one gets 11116 views which is more than the 10583 for the city.
Domlesch (
talk)
00:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)reply
There's an obvious failure to apply policy here. Some of these are obvious examples of partial title matches (
WP:PTM). Roi-Namur island and the the Diocese of Namur are not likely to be referred to as simply 'Namur'. The total is therefore 11116-2586=8530 views for other topics vs. 10583 for the city. The city is therefore the primary topic. Oreo Priesttalk15:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment The question is not restricted to "based in Namur", Tridek Sep completely ignored the ships, e.g.
Comment I’m impressed by Domlesch' math, but less enthusiastic about his attempt at logic. My proposal does not fail WP:NWFCTM or WP:PTOPIC. They describe the statement used by Domlesch as one of two aspects that are commonly discussed. It is not a strict policy. I believe it is unnecessary to take sentences out of context. WP:NWFCTM and WP:PTOPIC also state that the guidelines are best treated with common sense. Using common sense, I can only conclude that the city of Namur is the primary topic in relation to other similar articles, and indeed more so than any of them combined. Also, there is no reasonable possibility people might confuse ships with a city. A lot of ships are named after cities or states, and this never was a reason to link directly to disambiguation pages.
Tridek Sep (
talk)
02:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose no rationale provided. This article is already residing at the proposed "common name", since "Namur" is the base name, and this uses comma disambiguation. The part after the comma counts as disambiguation, and thus does not enter common name dicussion in this case. --
70.51.202.113 (
talk)
07:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Support, per
Tridek Sep. I'd also support a move of
Namur (province) to
Province of Namur (ditto for the provinces of Liège and Antwerp) to bring it into line with the French Wikipedia tradition. Speaking as someone familiar with Belgian history and geography, in a Belgian context "Namur" would always be understood as relating to the city unless specifically indicated otherwise.—Brigade Piron (
talk)
22:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: Renaming should be done based on article title policies. Users Brigade Piron and Tridek Sep don't provide any policy backing.
WP:PTOPIC is crystal clear. They ridicule the process by playing
WP:ILIKE. Wikipedia is already in decline. Gosh, what has "French Wikipedia tradition" to do with writing an English language encyclopedia?
91.9.103.179 (
talk)
02:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Personally, I'm a fan of
WP:COMMON. I have neither the time nor the inclination to become a full-time
Wikilawyer, even though regulations do certainly have their place. What does French Wikipedia have to do with anything? Well, if you check the name of the website you're on you might find out. French Wikipedians are not stupid, and work by the same logic we do. What they decide sets some kind of precedent to at least consider. —Brigade Piron (
talk)
10:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Domlesch and
91.9.103.179 are the same person. Yesterday, Domlesch was
confirmed as one of
many socks of Tobias Conradi. I promise not to remove his comments in this discussion, but I believe it is unfair to game the system like this. It is therefore unnecessary to accuse us of ‘ridiculing the process’. Anyway, I am also a big fan of WP:COMMON and a more common sense approach. That said, I’d like to point out that renaming to Namur doesn’t even violate WP:PTOPIC. Tridek Sep (
talk)
16:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Support, per
Brigade Piron; he is exactly right. In a Belgian context "Namur" would indeed always be understood as relating to the city unless specifically indicated otherwise. It's important to remember this when counting references to the Province, County, Diocese and Arondissement as somehow denying the city its status as the primary topic. Oreo Priesttalk15:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Support per
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The page views provided by
Tridek Sep show that this is by far the most prominent "Namur" by usage. Disregarding partial matches on the dab page, the page views for this article dwarf the sum of page views for the other contenders, namely the non-Belgian cities, and the province. —
Amakuru (
talk)
10:55, 22 September 2015 (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.