Talk:Limburg (Netherlands)

message: In Limburg, the Queen's Commissioner is called the governor (The only province in the Netherlands who calls Queen's Commissioner governor), could this be fixed in the template? It's a piece of the Limburgish culture so I think it's very important. My background: I was born and raised in Maastricht.--83.119.148.104 19:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen's Commissioner 

message: What a list! These are mostly locally, or nationally well known from Maastricht. "Famous" implies international fame. Propose to remove the names,  that are not really known outside the country. (They already are mentioned in the Dutch editiion under Maastricht) Natubico (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet this is the English Wikipedia, and they should be mentioned in the English Wikipedia if the information is available. Define famous - I have never heard of "international fame" being a requirement for the adjective. If they are Limburgers, and they are famous, then they are famous Limburgers. Allow some of the articles to be created first. There is no deadline. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Famous Limburgians

message: User Aecis asks: Why on earth put the Luxembourgish name in the lead? It's LIMburg, not LUXEMburg! It is  strange, of course, but I may have a clue here. There exists a special relationship between the Limburgish regional language and Luxemburgish. Both are related to the group of Moselle Franconian dialects, although only a very small part of Limburg (the southeastern most) actually belongs to Middle German (see: Southern Meuse-Rhenish). I can understand why Luxemburgians recognise a lot meeting Limburgians from that part of Limburg. Both vernaculars are almost mutually understandable. Of course it remains a kind of a joke to mention (Luxembourgish: D'Provënz Limburg), but at least to some degree I can feel the rationale behind it. Ad43 (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Luxembourgish name

message: :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: not moved. 'Other stuff exists' is an argument to avoid at XfD, but it is actually a good argument to make here at RM (as long as the examples are relevant) because consistency is one of our key naming criteria. Jenks24 (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.
Comment. Based on the outcome of this RM, I amended WP:PLACEDAB. Please continue the discussion on its talk page, if necessary. No such user (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

text: It is not a good idea to amend a naming convention on the basis of one RM discussion.  RM discussions frequently come to totally different outcomes based on the participants in that particular discussion, and the administrator closing the discussion.  If you wish to change the general pattern, it would make more sense (and be more stable) to discuss the general principal on the talk page of the naming convention before making any amendments.  Skinsmoke (talk) 07:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 3 July 2016 

message: I think I am responsible over the years for making the name section contain too much history. I will try to fix this by moving material between the sections. As a longer run issue, perhaps there needs to be a history article if ever this article becomes to overloaded with history, but I don't see that as a big concern at the moment.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  history and name sections 

message: and reads like one, most likely by someone who is not a native speaker. The syntax is awkward and highly unnatural. Needs thorough revision!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.119.173 (talk) 06:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be said of many articles. Simple non-controversial edits, which is what grammar corrections normally are, should be done whenever you see the need, if you have a moment. You do not need a Wikipedia account for this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is clearly a translation