Talk:Duchy of Brabant

[Untitled]
The article should reflect current format of naming duchies, see Duchy of Lancaster and Duchy of Cornwall for reference sake. Gryffindor 08:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The analogy does not work: the point about the Duchy of Lancaster and Duchy of Cornwall is that they provide a private income for the British Queen and Prince of Wales; they are not about Lancaster or really about Lancashire or Cornwall.  But this article is about one of the many historical forms of Brabant.  Your next stage would be Province of Brabant rather than Brabant (province) and then you would have to change the provincial articles in Spain and elsewhere. (previous unsigned comment by User:Henrygb)
 * Exactly, that would have to be changed as well, thank you for pointing that out. The article has a link to Duke of Brabant and not Brabant (Duke), and other historical forms are also listed as Duchy of Bremen, County of Burgundy, Principality of Lüneburg, Duchy of Limburg, etc... This article is the only one that is not up to format, it should change in order to be consistent with the rest. Gryffindor  11:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. See various other principalities with a similar naming scheme at Category:Former countries in Europe. Olessi 19:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved for consistency's sake. (The "province" one, too.) &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 08:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hm Province of Brabant is pushing it a bit, we don't want to rename all the other provinces to "Province of East-Flanders" and "Province of Hainaut"? We don't want to move Connecticut to "State of Connecticut" do we? In the province case we're talking about a disambiguation and in that case we use the brackets, like for Antwerp (province). Duchy of Brabant can stay where it is but I disagree on the province. Piet 21:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Kevillips
a redirect to this page was removed, and now, countless amounts of confusion ensue.--K3vin (talk) 02:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV query
IP User 81.165.131.103 may be infringing NPOV in changing the names of towns from English to Flemish. The 81. prefixes are Belgian Skynet users, like myself, and there is a hot political battle happening in Belgium at the moment between the Flemish and French - us English expats refuse to get dragged into it, which is partly why I am asking this and not simply reverting the edits. In Belgium and some parts of Northern France, many towns have two names, one French, one Flemish, sometimes with rather similar spelling (Watermael/Watermaal), sometimes radically different(Lille/Reuzel), and worse, there are cases where two different towns have similar spelling (Itterbeek and Etterbeek, Mechelen and Machelen). England has had historically strong links with Belgium, and has its own nomenclature for many of these places which often does not reflect recent changes, particularly because the English learn French as a second language because of its diplomatic weight, rather than Flemish, the dialectical nature of which makes study by neutral non-residents rather unusual. I therefore feel that unless there are strong reasons to the contrary, for all that "Leuven" and the like are the correct name as used by the local public administrations, none the less they are almost unknown as such outside Belgium and the pages should be reverted for NPOV reasons, because this is an English page. The Flemish/Dutch pages should reflect the placenames in their own language, as should the French.[IP editor]
 * Hi. The best way to keep the peace is to use the local names, except when there are clear English ones. For Brussels-related topics, see WikiProject Belgium/Brussels naming conventions.  Oreo Priest  talk 18:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In any case this page is a good page, a very good page. Sincereley, José Fontaine (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)