Talk:Belgium in the long nineteenth century

I suggest "the Long Nineteenth Century"
I saw this title, and read further, wondering whether the Nineteenth Century was longer than most (irony). Only when I read the introduction to this article did I discover that the term comes from someone's book by that name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terry Thorgaard (talk • contribs) 16:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure I understand your point, but if you're arguing the title should be "Belgium in the Long Nineteenth Century" (with capitals), I think that's covered by Naming conventions (capitalization). I'm not too good at grammar, but I don't believe that "Long nineteenth century" is a proper noun. Brigade Piron (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Quoting from Naming conventions (capitalization), to which you linked, "In general, each word in English titles of books, films, and other works takes an initial capital, except..." The noun phrase is, as I understand it, the title of a book, so it should be so capitalized.   Terry Thorgaard (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Still not sure I understand. The "long nineteenth century" is an academic concept, created to make the usual arbitrary periodization (based on century) a little less arbitrary, not a title of any sort. My point above still stands, I think - the first phrase in bold is "Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper noun". If this isn't a proper noun (which I don't think it is), it therefore shouldn't be capitalised...Brigade Piron (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Page name
Whay do we have France in the long nineteenth century but Belgium in "the long nineteenth century"? Why do we have Dutch Golden Age but not Dutch "Golden Age"? I'm guessing it's because the pages on France and the Netherlands have heavier traffic so bizarre personal quirks don't stand as much chance of becoming established. Who can move this back to a sensible page name? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 07:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I've opened a move request below. Tagging you since you discussed this previously. 〜 Festucalex  •  talk  14:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 27 May 2023

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Belgium in "the long nineteenth century" → Belgium in the long nineteenth century – Per WP:TSC, and to maintain consistency with France in the long nineteenth century as pointed out in previous discussions. 〜 Festucalex  •  talk  14:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support. If any quotation marks were needed they would only be needed around 'long', but I don't really see the need for them at all. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support no need for quotes—blindlynx 01:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I'm not sure either is better than History of Belgium (1789–1914), but removing the quote marks is an improvement. Walt Yoder (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support No quotes is better and consistent with other pages. Meanderingbartender (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Yuk! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)