Talk:Luxembourgers

Luxembourgish rather than Luxembourgian
‘Luxembourgish’ (indeed along with ‘Luxemburgisch’ and ‘Luxembourgeois’ ) is in the Oxford English Dictionary. The form ‘Luxembourgian’ is not. Could we please be correct and change this everywhere in Wikipedia? Thanks. – Kaihsu (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree that this change should probably be made for the reasons given. It could be changed to "Luxembourgian" or even to just "Luxembourg", since that word as an adjective is also common in English-language sources.
 * History: As far as I can tell, "Luxembourgian" was originally proposed as the adjective by WikiProject:Luxembourg to avoid confusion with the language Luxembourgish. See here for where it was adopted in categories. (Seems like kind of a crappy reason to me: imagine someone inventing "Chinesian" to use as an adjective in order to avoid confusion with the written language.)
 * This change has been floated a number of times, but I don't think it's ever gained a consensus. See, eg, this proposal, again related to categories. I'm not sure how active the WikiProject is these days, but it would certainly be worthwhile to drop a note there about this proposal, since it would be changing a longstanding convention first proposed by someone at the WikiProject. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I found on WikiProject:Luxembourg: "'Luxembourg' is to be used for the adjective of Luxembourg (e.g. Luxembourg elections, Luxembourg government). 'Luxembourgian' has unfortunately become widely used on Wikipedia, however this is incorrect and should be changed when encountered. 'Luxembourgish' is the name of the language, whilst 'Luxembourger' is the demonym." So I think we should go ahead and fix things. – Kaihsu (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Luxembourgish is the only proper word. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think "Luxembourg" is also an appropriate adjective, according to style guide suggestions I am finding (as is "Luxemburgisch" or "Luxembourgeois"). We should decide which one we want to use. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a loop we've gone round pretty often in WikiProject Luxembourg. At the risk of blowing my own trumpet, I'd suggest my own user essay as a reasonably fair summary of the different merits...—Brigade Piron (talk)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Luxembourgers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/publications/papers/Country%20Case%20Luxembourg.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090805183103/http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_QTP13&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U to http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_QTP13&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722153526/http://www.cdmh.lu/resources/pdf/_base_documents/3108332430.pdf to http://www.cdmh.lu/resources/pdf/_base_documents/3108332430.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121202023700/http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_393_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_393_en.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Population figures
Re this revert:
 * The Brazilian and Argentinian figures are in no way supported by the source
 * Ethnologue gives 40,000 for France, not 60,000. This is for speakers of the language (but not necessarily with Luxembourgian ancestry), while other entries are for people with Luxembourgian ancestry (but not necessarily speaking the language)
 * Other figures seem hard to check as well (e.g. US)

Please don't reintroduce these without much better sourcing and corrections. Fram (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)