Talk:Vlissingen

message: I've considered this in light of the above old discussion from 2005, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places), and am fairly convinced that this article really ought to be renamed to Vlissingen, for the following reasons:
# "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." I'd contend that "Flushing" is a mostly old-fashioned and imprecise name, and that nowadays Vlissingen is equally well-known and commonly used. It is also less ambiguous than other meanings of Flushing.
# "Generally, use the official English name for the place and its type." I have seen no evidence that "Flushing" is in any way an official English name, just a traditional one (as "Rheims" is for Reims or "Lyons" for Lyon). Hence, Vlissingen would, by default, be the usual English name.
# "Determine prevalent usage." Going on Ghits, flushing +holland gets 801,000; vlissingen +holland gets 1,260,000. However, flushing +netherlands gets 823,000, whilst vlissingen +netherlands gets slightly fewer at 736,000. Vlissingen still wins overall though.
# "Use English but foreign and historical names can be acceptable in some cases." I'm not convinced that this is one of those cases where the traditionally English name is better than the modern local and international name.
# Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) provides no country-specific guideline for the Netherlands, but generally for Europe the rule is, "In absence of a common English name, the current local name of the city should be used." Again, I'm not convinced that the traditional English name is sufficiently common and well-known to be used in preference to the local name.
Therefore, I propose a requested move. Cheers, DWaterson 17:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Allow me to comment:
#What is it precisely that you contend? That Flushing is old-fashioned and thus less known than Vlissingen — or that it is equally known and commonly used? The most relevant other meanings are derived from the English name for the Dutch city; the inherent ambiguity might thus be very informative.
#Obviously Flushing cannot be official. How does it follow from this that Vlissingen is more usual?
#Why didn't you use the UK pages only? On these Flushing wins. Remember that Holland and The Netherlands in general are called "Holland" in many languages, all of which but one do not use "Flushing"; most have no common name for Vlissingen.
#The rule is equivalent to: "Use English in preference to foreign and historical names, except for some special condition to hold". Flushing is English. Flushing is not a foreign name. Vlissingen is. Flushing is not an historical name, i.e. the former name of a place. What is the special condition? That there is a modern local name — and international imitation of it — is not sufficient. A special case has to be made for this.
#The only empirical evidence you give contradicts your personal conviction, because according to the rule it must be shown that the traditional common name is so fallen into disuse that it can be considered "absent". Yet you have discovered hundreds of thousands of uses of it!--MWAK 17:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your google usage of "Holland" is faulty as you assume that "Holland" is only used in English, when in fact Holland is the Dutch name of part of the Netherlands, specifically the provinces of Noord-Holland (North Holland) and Zuid-Holland (South Holland). Therefore any google search including "Holland" is bound to turn up many Dutch pages and not only English as you appear to have assumed. See Holland. Koekemakranka (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The English are not the only people who commonly refer to the whole of The Netherlands as "Holland".    So do many other languages,  for example,  Chinese.Eregli bob (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've received a response back from the communications department at the municipality of Vlissingen. There is no official policy to use "Flushing" in English. Schildewaert (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to add that all the references to Flushing should be removed from the article as well, except of course in any text that discusses the historical use of "Flushing" as an English term for Vlissingen. I would welcome anyone who knows the history of this usage and is prepared to expand on it in the article. Some of the references to Flushing in the article are rather unusual. For example, it is surely highly misleading to refer to the train station of "Vlissingen Souburg" as "Flushing Souburg". Schildewaert (talk) 07:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  No responses so far unfortunately. I'd like to add that I've been reviewing various English-language reference works to determine how modern writers refer to Vlissingen in English.  It seems that the some writers, including prominent modern writers, primarily use "Flushing". Others primarily use "Vlissingen". Tellingly, my Michelin and Rough Guide prefer "Vlissingen".  My impression is that "Flushing" is a British localism. And only some British writers use it. I also found an odd reference on the "Flushing, New York" page to the effect that "Anglophones still today refer to Vlissingen as Flushing", a statement that I've marked as dubious as I'm quite certain that the great majority of English speakers out there would never connect "Flushing" to "Vlissingen". If anyone has specific information about the use of "Flushing" in English, please feel free to share it. Schildewaert (talk) 10:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.
I changed the references in the body of the text from Flushing to Vlissingen. I also repaired the broken links and did some minor editing. I added a section on the Englsh name "Flushing" and added a few comments that I hope will appease those who feel strongly that Flushing is the right name in English. They are welcome to explain this usage in this section if they want. It's a shame none of them came forward to defend this usage. In the end, this seems to be the best way to proceed. Schildewaert (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

text: In other words, you're just going to impose a Dutch usage upon the English language wiki. Why not remain on the Dutch wiki, instead of vandalising the English one?Jatrius (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Jatrius, I think you've misunderstood. The English usage (using the correct name "Vlissingen") has prevailed here. I instigated this change and I'm an English speaker. The incorrect usage promoted by several Dutch speakers here (ie the mistaken belief that "Flushing" is still used in English) has not prevailed. This is all explained above, but in general the convention in English is to refer to Vlissingen by its correct Dutch name. "Flushing" is primarily historical. Schildewaert (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 2011 

message: I've seen at least three (there may be more) typically Dutch misspellings of English words: 'marketbuilding', 'marketsquare' and 'shoppingstreet' (photograph caption) should all be written as two words. And no, this is not optional, or an American/British difference, but a Dutch writer carrying Dutch spelling conventions over into English.213.127.210.95 (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dutch misspellings