Talk:Limburg (Belgium)

History[edit]

This section is almost as long as the special article about that subject; propose to replace its text by just the intro of the History article:

The Belgian province of Limburg in Flanders (Dutch speaking Belgium) is a region which has had many names and border changes over its long recorded history. It's modern name is a name shared with the neighbouring province of the Netherlands, with which it was for a while politically united (under French and then Dutch rule from 1794 until 1839). And in turn both of these provinces received their modern name only in the 19th century, based upon the name of the medieval Duchy of Limburg which was actually based in neighbouring Wallonia, in the town of Limbourg on the Vesdre.

For much of its recorded history, most of what is now called Belgian Limburg was known as Loon. Loon was a medieval county, and when the line of the Counts died the area became part of the Prince-Bishopric of Liège but was still often referred to as the "land of Loon" (land van Loon in Dutch). The original capital of medieval Loon is today officially called Borgloon, and the capital of the province is now Hasselt.

In Roman times, Belgian Limburg, and probably also at least parts of the Dutch province and the medieval Duchy, were in the Civitas Tungrorum, which had its capital in Tongeren.

Limbico (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think I wrote most of both, starting with the one in this article, and then at a certain point I made the History article because the history section here got to big. I think the section must be shorter than the article but indeed some more compression might be called for. If you don't mind, I shall try to peel back to something close to your proposal, but I want to go over it myself and see if there are other things I would propose to leave in. Then tell me what you think.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have done some compressing. Personally I have doubts about whether an extreme compression would make the article better. I do not think we need to aim at zero article overlap. Some readers will like to have some history in this article. Anyway, comments welcome.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe indeed some readers will like to have some history in this article. But very likely many more others visit it to learn about the nowadays situation in this province. For them that much history is very inconvenient. Some history is OK, but not thát much. Just a few lines and for those who like to know more, just one click on the link to the special article will do. I really don't think it's rational to maintain this (also after some compression) very big section, now that there's a not much bigger special article about the relative subject. Efficiency for every visitor has to prevail here over what "some like", I think. Limbico (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not really all that long? See WP:LENGTH. So your concern seems a little exagerrated, and I am not sure convenience of finding current facts is the main aim we should have. We are supposed to be writing descriptive articles, not directories. Consider WP:NOTDIR. In fact, without the history section this article is not really ideal according to WP norms, because it is dominated by lists of things like personalities. I guess some people also like that, and some people don't, but in any case there are actually guidelines about the need to avoid that style.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A nice place to visit, but . . .[edit]

Limburg sounds really nice, but there is simply too much local puffery in this article, not to mention all the photographs. WP is not Wikitravel. How can we best downsize this article to a reasonable length. And what about references and citations? There aren't nearly enough. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the puffery is a typical problem on many articles about modern places. However a common alternative is that there are many "un-loved" stub articles that are even worse. I think you've already done a lot to help in that regard, so thanks.
You have culled the photos a lot also, but concerning this issue, I am not so sure why you see it as so important. In any case, do we really need to remove more photos than you have already done? And similarly, why does the article need to be shorter? I see these as debateable aims, so are they a high priority? I do not see how the article is breaking any Wikipedia norms in terms of length, and at least since your edits, also not concerning photos?
More important than the above two points: yes more sources and fact checking would be great. But on the other hand, there is also no point deleting simple information about a modern place like you did when you deleted the whole economic section. Better to point to specific information that you think is most urgently in need of sourcing. Things like local newspapers or government websites can help in some cases. I can read Dutch so though I was not planning to spend time on this at the moment, I'd be happy to help if you can point to priority issues. If the question is just a generic request for more footnotes, then if you do not read Dutch we'll need more time as per WP:DEADLINE (or another volunteer!). --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article was already noted as being too long in 2012; see the discussion just above. There was more I could have taken out this time, but I simply left a tag instead. It is up to the editors who add information to cite where they found it. No editor who removes uncited information is under an obligation to try to find sources before he removes it. As for information that needs sourcing, well, all of it does. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Demanding sources for "everything" is obviously impractical and Wikipedia can not, and never has, worked that way. Again, see WP:PRESERVE, and read the careful wording of our core content policies, which were specifically written and maintained in order to avoid extreme interpretations like you make. And again, see WP:DEADLINE. The two WP pages I refer to are widely accepted and go back very far into the practical history of Wikipedia. Put simply, you might indeed have no obligation to add to the article (and no one asked you to), but you also should not delete materials unless you have cause for concern and you have tried to discuss it. By demanding sources for "everything" you are refusing such discussion and showing that apparently you have no specific sourcing concern except a concern based on simply looking at the number of named sources? That does not seem to make your concerns very high in priority, so rapid deletions seem very inappropriate. Furthermore, the fact that the economic section contains some simple facts about a place people live in is in a practical sense relevant to considering the urgency of your sourcing demands. I am not defending that section as such but simply stating that deleting it without first attempting any discussion or tagging is obvious overkill which clearly has a high risk of making the article worse for no good reason. Making the article worse for no good reason would be against the ultimate aim behind all Wikipedia policies and guidelines, that of making a constantly improving encyclopedia. WP:IAR covers this.

Secondly, the historical discussions about the length of this article which you refer to above were about the history section, which was my main interest and it eventually led to a split out article. If the history section is your concern, then that is a new issue to discuss now. If the concern is length of that section that is one thing, but if it is the sourcing of that section then we should also look at the specialized articles which this article now tries to summarize.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting opinion, but how do we know that any of this stuff is true? We need sources. That's why we have tags like { { Inline } }. Anyway, time would be better spent in finding the sources rather than criticizing editors, which I have not done, and won't do. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Know any of what stuff? What are you accusing me personally of? Tags are fine by me. Deleting whole sections without discussion is not normally a good approach, especially if they seem straightforward or if they are clearly summaries more detailed information elsewhere (such as one finds in intros and in sections handled by specialized articles). I have explained why above in terms of Wikipedia's norms. This is not the first time Wikipedia had a discussion like this.

Practical: If you can tag specific points needing sourcing most urgently, there is a better chance of quicker action than if you complain about a whole article or section. I have offered to help if possible, given that I can read Dutch (and I know the region). --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Limburg (Netherlands) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]