Talk:Communes of Luxembourg
Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
106 Communes as of 2012
editList
|
|---|
|
Requested move 29 October 2017
edit- 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: closed without a decision in deference to the new move discussion below. It does not make sense to have two separate move discussions running at the same time. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Municipalities of Luxembourg → Communes of Luxembourg – The text of this page was changed from "communes" to "municipalities" by a WP:SPA, ALLofME (talk · contribs). [1] That same user also nominated the page at WP:RM/TR for moving to Municipalities of Luxembourg with the justification:
- "Communes" is French, the official English term as used by the Luxembourg government is municipality: http://www.statistiques.public.lu/stat/TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=12704&IF_Language=eng&MainTheme=1&FldrName=1
Now an IP account 77.179.86.68 has listed the category for renaming. The IP range points to the identify of the nominator as user:Tobias Conradi who is blocked on Wikipedia.
- Evidence? 85.178.112.88 (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I have no axe to grind either way, but the move needs to be reviewed by a full RM discussion. – Fayenatic London 08:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment User:Fayenatic london - if you find nothing that was wrong with the move to "Municipalities of Luxembourg" carried out by User:Station1, then it is disruptive to propose to move it to "Communes of Luxembourg". 85.178.112.88 (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- Evidence of WP:SOCK: (i) Two other 77.179... IP addresses from Telefonica Germany were included in the last batch of socks blocked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tobias_Conradi/Archive#27_October_2017. (ii) Pattern of editing: the first and only edits from this address dived straight in with nominations using somewhat arcane Wikipedia procedures.
- As I attempted to make clear above, I am not actually seeking a move back to the old name, but ensuring that a full discussion is held on the name, rather than allowing technical procedures to be used for one renaming after another without full examination of the merits of the case. – Fayenatic London 16:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- RE "(i)" - how is being included in a batch evidence for a relation to Tobias Conradi? Or is it, because Tobias Conradi is related to Berlin and edited geography items all around the world (5 March 2005 he started Wikipedia:WikiProject Country subdivisions) and was concerned with application of WP:UE and naming consistency, that any IP being related to Berlin, and also editing towards naming consistency and enforcing WP policies is accused of being used by Tobias Conradi? So, any edits in conformance with WP policies are now reverted, even if errors are re-introduced? WP:VANDAL: "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose".
- RE "(ii)" - nothing arcane, if one wants to rename a page these rules are easily found. 77.179.110.153 (talk) 04:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- Opppose Per WP:UE and official name. Note that French is only one of the languages frequently used in Luxembourg. 85.178.112.88 (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I have moved the page back to the previous version, at which it was stable for 12 years. ALLofME (talk · contribs) should not have used WP:RMTR which is for "Uncontroversial technical requests" and instead commenced their own RM. The activity from certain IPs and new users is highly suspicious and suggests experienced trolls. AusLondonder (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- User:AusLondonder - You violated WP rules with moving the page during an on-going discussion. The move by ALLofME was not contested for several months. You ridicule WP policies and guidelines. WP:UE, WP:BOLD, WP:FIXIT. Calling new users and IPs troll violates WP:CIV. 77.179.110.153 (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- Proposing a move from Communes of Luxembourg (stable for 12 years) to Municipalities of Luxembourg as an "uncontroversial technical request" was the undiscussed move. I am reverting to the stable version from which it was moved without discussion nor consensus. If you would like to move the page, please start a RM. AusLondonder (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
Requested move 31 October 2017
edit- 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 — Amakuru (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Communes of Luxembourg → Municipalities of Luxembourg – Move was carried out during an on-going move discussion. The former move to Municipalities of Luxembourg was well explained, based on WP:UE and not contested until User:Fayenatic london made up a relation between the move proposer User:ALLofME and User:Tobias Conradi. The behavior by User:Fayenatic london (proposing the move back to French terminology) and User:AusLondonder (carrying out the move back to French terminology) is forbidden per WP:POINT "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". 77.179.110.153 (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose As already stated, this is not a technical request and serious concerns have been raised by well-regarded editors about sockpupperty. The original move from Communes of Luxembourg (stable for 12 years) to Municipalities of Luxembourg was the undiscussed move, incorrectly labelled as an "uncontroversial technical request". AusLondonder (talk) 09:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- And the move itself is problematic because...sockpuppetry allegations? Or is it just because Luxembourg calls their municipalities "communes"? I guess I'm missing the point here. ToThAc (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- It needs discussion to form a consensus as is the usual practice for moving articles. This is not an uncontroversial technical request by any stretch of the imagination. I and other editors oppose the move on several grounds. AusLondonder (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- @AusLondonder, ToThAc, and 77.179.110.153: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- User:Anthony Appleyard did you see that above on this page there was a move discussion and that User:AusLondonder disruptively moved the article while the discussion was still going on? The technical request by 77.179.110.153 was made on that ground [2]. AusLondonder misrepresented the case by claiming "incorrectly labelled as an "uncontroversial technical request"" and "serious concerns have been raised by well-regarded editors about sockpupperty" - but no such "serious concerns" "by well-regarded editors about sockpupperty" can be found. 77.179.131.232 (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Now this has been moved here I will reiterate my opposition on several grounds. Firstly, per WP:TITLECHANGES ("If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed") - the page has been stable at the present title for 12 years. Secondly, no actual credible reason has been presented for a move. The only rationale presented is WP:UE but no explanation is given how it applies here. Apparently some editors are unaware "commune" is an English-language word. AusLondonder (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- The request was not made on the basis of WP:UE, but on procedural ground and it was placed in the section "Requests to revert undiscussed moves". Your move was undiscussed and you were aware that it is controversial. 77.179.131.232 (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- There is no point in telling lies. On 11 April this page was moved without discussion as an "Uncontroversial technical request", after 12 years of being at this stable title. This was then opposed by a number of editors. I restored the stable, consensus version. AusLondonder (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- User:AusLondonder Then stop doing it. Yes, you restored a title, but you did it after it was stable for several months. And you did it while the move back was discussed. You circumvented the move discussion. You ignored the text of the move tag: "Do not move the page until the discussion has reached consensus for the change and is closed." 77.180.191.133 (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- 12 years vs a few months (after a move by a SPA). My view is the original title was the stable version. This discussion will decide. Concerns had been raised about sockpuppetry and circumvention of a global ban, and our policy is to revert edits by banned users. AusLondonder (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- User:AusLondonder Then stop doing it. Yes, you restored a title, but you did it after it was stable for several months. And you did it while the move back was discussed. You circumvented the move discussion. You ignored the text of the move tag: "Do not move the page until the discussion has reached consensus for the change and is closed." 77.180.191.133 (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- There is no point in telling lies. On 11 April this page was moved without discussion as an "Uncontroversial technical request", after 12 years of being at this stable title. This was then opposed by a number of editors. I restored the stable, consensus version. AusLondonder (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. Another instance of WP:UE being misinterpreted. It does not say or mean that we should translate absolutely everything. "Communes" as used in French-speaking countries is not generally translated in English-language sources produced in English-speaking countries. Its meaning is well understood everywhere. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- User:Necrothesp : did you bother to check the sources before spreading your allegations of "WP:UE being misinterpreted"?
- http://www.statistiques.public.lu/stat/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=12700&IF_Language=eng&MainTheme=1&FldrName=1
- http://www.statistiques.public.lu/stat/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=12701&IF_Language=eng&MainTheme=1&FldrName=1
- http://www.statistiques.public.lu/stat/TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=12704&IF_Language=eng&MainTheme=1&FldrName=1
- http://www.luxembourg.public.lu/de/le-grand-duche-se-presente/systeme-politique/territoire/communes/index.html
- How did you categorize Luxembourg as French-speaking country when the national language is Luxembourgish and there are three administrative languages? What about "municipality" inside "public.lu" (https://www.google.com/search?q=municipality+site%3Apublic.lu) ? Dumb Luxembourgers that don't have your wisdom and don't know how to write in English? 77.179.131.232 (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- It is a fact that when writing in English foreign organisations tend to assume they have to translate everything for the good of us "ignorant" English-speakers (ironically, UE tends to be cited far more by editors whose native language isn't English!). They don't and we don't. Incidentally, re the language of Luxembourg, to quote from our article: "French is the preferred language of the government. Official legislation must be conducted in French." -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- User:Necrothesp Claiming facts without giving sources does not give your points much credibility. Quoting WP on language preferrence of the government does not help either: There is no WP:UsePreferredGovLanguage. The population also uses German and Luxembourgish. And when you invoke the Gov for French, why not for English? This is the English Wikipedia, not the French one. WP:ENGLISH: "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources". Do you claim public.lu is not a reliable source?77.180.172.226 (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Exactly. We use the name that is commonest in reliable English-language sources. These are generally sources from English-speaking countries written by people whose native language is English. Not sources from non-English-speaking countries written by people who native language is something else. All sorts of errors and misconceptions about English usage tend to creep into the latter. And one of those is that everything must be translated. My quote from our article about the preferred government language, incidentally, was merely intended to refute your claim that Luxembourg was not a French-speaking country. Overwhelmingly it is seen as such, even by its own government. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- "These are generally sources from English-speaking countries" - hear, hear. Any source for that claim? Re "My quote from our article about the preferred government language, incidentally, was merely intended to refute your claim that Luxembourg was not a French-speaking country. Overwhelmingly it is seen as such, even by its own government." - Any proof for that? The constitution does not say so. Even the government does not say so. The national language indeed is a Germanic one. 85.181.154.85 (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- Exactly. We use the name that is commonest in reliable English-language sources. These are generally sources from English-speaking countries written by people whose native language is English. Not sources from non-English-speaking countries written by people who native language is something else. All sorts of errors and misconceptions about English usage tend to creep into the latter. And one of those is that everything must be translated. My quote from our article about the preferred government language, incidentally, was merely intended to refute your claim that Luxembourg was not a French-speaking country. Overwhelmingly it is seen as such, even by its own government. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- User:Necrothesp Claiming facts without giving sources does not give your points much credibility. Quoting WP on language preferrence of the government does not help either: There is no WP:UsePreferredGovLanguage. The population also uses German and Luxembourgish. And when you invoke the Gov for French, why not for English? This is the English Wikipedia, not the French one. WP:ENGLISH: "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources". Do you claim public.lu is not a reliable source?77.180.172.226 (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- It is a fact that when writing in English foreign organisations tend to assume they have to translate everything for the good of us "ignorant" English-speakers (ironically, UE tends to be cited far more by editors whose native language isn't English!). They don't and we don't. Incidentally, re the language of Luxembourg, to quote from our article: "French is the preferred language of the government. Official legislation must be conducted in French." -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- User:Necrothesp : did you bother to check the sources before spreading your allegations of "WP:UE being misinterpreted"?
- Comment - The request by 77.179.110.153 was a request to revert the controversial move by User:AusLondonder which s/he carried out single-handed during an on-going move discussion. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&oldid=807981413 77.179.131.232 (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- There is no point in telling lies. On 11 April this page was moved without discussion as an "Uncontroversial technical request", after 12 years of being at this stable title. This was then opposed by a number of editors. I restored the stable, consensus version. AusLondonder (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
OpposeWeak oppose There are many articles linking to "Communes", few linking to "Municipalities". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)- Otoh, http://www.luxembourg.public.lu/en/le-grand-duche-se-presente/systeme-politique/territoire/communes/index.html shows the government's preferred terminology is "municipalities". OECD uses "Communes" in https://books.google.com/books?id=uE0yWbfpWUYC&pg=PA175, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: I've semi protected this page for a week because of a sock infestation from the globally banned Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tobias Conradi who has been disrupting requested moves as well as categories for a few weeks now. All the above IPs are from this sock farm. —SpacemanSpiff 01:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Communes of Luxembourg. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070610225858/http://www.statistiques.public.lu/fr/publications/horizontales/recueil_communes/recueil_pdf.pdf to http://www.statistiques.public.lu/fr/publications/horizontales/recueil_communes/recueil_pdf.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614103918/http://www.legilux.public.lu/leg/a/index.php to http://www.legilux.public.lu/leg/a/index.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)