Talk:Friesland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Netherlands (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Frisia (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Frisia, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Frisia-related articles to a feature-quality standard. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Since we only have a handful of active members at the moment, we are in urgent need of help right now.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Flag[edit]

Bold textNO MENTION of the fact that this province flies the oldest flag still in use today. This is a varifiable claim and an improtant one

good article! 0-0 -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 16:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The dutch article on this province is much better than the english version. Is there any way to translate it?

Either find someone who speaks Dutch or try AltaVista. --Khoikhoi 02:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll spend some time picking out pieces from the Dutch that are clearly missing in the English. Not sure an out and out translation is worth the time time though jdevries 00:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Friesland was the first to acknowledge the independence of America's Thirteen Colonies from the United Kingdom.[edit]

Friesland was the first to acknowledge the independence of America's Thirteen Colonies from the United Kingdom.

I'm Frisian but have never heard of this, does anyone know the deal about it? -- I for one think its bull. Fact is that The Netherlands(in there then current form), Acknowleged it as a whole state.

And thats not the only bull in the article.

My 2 cents

Not bull, John Adams went to the Netherlands just after the young nation was born. It was the Frisian province (Oostergo?) which was the first of the dutch provinces to vote in favour of acknowledging the United States. A Duck 22:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Move to Fryslân[edit]

I suggest moving the article to Fryslân, since that is the official name of the province. Perhaps Friesland could replace Friesland (disambiguation). --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Not agreed. Friesland is a province of the Netherlands (just as 11 other provinces) and all of them go by their official Dutch names.--Willem Huberts 21:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Not true. Check the official website of the Province of Fryslân: www.fryslan.nl where the name of the province is Fryslân, both in Frisian and in Dutch. Also, the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations www.min.bzk.nl refers to the province as Fryslân. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 10:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The official website of the Province of Fryslân says Fryslân because they have a choice: Friesland or Fryslân. Being the official site of the province, they understandably opt for Fryslân. That's their reasoning. Being a province of The Netherlands, Friesland is the official Dutch name.--Willem Huberts 17:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither the Dutch name, not the Frisian name, nor the official name matters. The article should be at the most commonly used name in English, which is Friesland. Eugène van der Pijll 17:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
This is clearly nonsense, the province is clearly called Fryslân at the moment in all communication by the province and dutch governmental organisations. Friesland is used colooquially, which should be mentioned in the article and a redirect should be in place Romanista (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
We have to use the name for it in English, because this is the English wikipedia. So that means it stays as Friesland. Names like Fryslân can be a redirect. There is no such character as â in the alphabet as used in English. This also means that the name Fryslân cannot be typed by the great majority of English speaking computer users. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Friesland is neither the official name of the province in the province itself, nor is it the official name in the Netherlands - the Dutch government and media refer to the province as Fryslân. There is no such thing as "the name for it in English"; English doesn't have an exonym for Fryslân. The argument about 'â' not being part of the English alphabet is of no value either, the English Wikipedia is full of articles with names that contain non-English characters (e.g. A Coruña). This article bears a colloquial name, instead of the official name which an encyclopedia ought to use. Therefore, move to Fryslân. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
You use the English name for places, not the native name. Hence Japan not Nihon. It applies to Dutch provinces too- its South Holland, not Zuid Holland. It just so happens the Dutch name for Friesland is the same as the English name. --Him and a dog 19:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Except... Friesland isn't the English name for the province, nor is Fryslân. English doesn't have a name for it. Therefore it makes more sense to use the original (Frisian) name on the English Wikipedia than using the Dutch translation for it. This is already happening with Frisian places: we have Ryptsjerk not Rijperkerk, Reahûs not Roodhuis, Blije not Blija (Dutch names in italics). - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Frisia clearly is an English exonym for Friesland / Fryslân. That the word also has a wider meaning is irrelevant. Both other words have wider meanings too. What is official is also irrelevant. I suppose Friesland could be used as well if it is a commonly used name in English for the province. I doubt very much however that "Fryslân" is an English exonym or even en English word. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

We should not guess the English name - we should wait until a representative sample of authoritative sources agree the English name (for example the English language versions of the Dutch Government and the Fryslân provincieraad websites. Once there is a consensus, then Wikipeidia can follow suite. However there is no harm in noting a possible change of name in the lede paragraph.
BTW, according to the naamsaannemingsakte where my name was officially recorded for the frist time (1811), the province's name was given as "Vriesland". Martinvl (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

put Friesland <-> Frisia together[edit]

Since this is the English Wiki, why won't we put Frisia and Friesland together, or so??

The article should be named Frisia, because that is the right (English) exonym for the Dutch word Friesland. NOW, we have 2 almost similar articles. Idea??

Fc turner 18:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ow, by the way: the official Dutch name of the province changed in 1997 to Fryslân. Friesland is still what we use/speak on the street as Dutch people, but officially it was changed. So I figured that the article Friesland should become a REDIRECT to Frisia. And that also goes for the article Fryslân.

Anyone aware that we momentally have 3 articles about one piece of land?? It really has three names: Fryslân (endonym, Frisian language), Friesland (exonym, Dutch language), Frisia (exonym, English language). We should use the English word, for this IS the English Wiki. I think those are really good arguments...

Explanation; Frisia is the historical region of greater Frisia. Friesland (official international recognized name Fryslân) is an article about the dutch province Friesland. East-Frisia and Groningen were also a part of Frisia. But Frisia and the seperate regions are not the same. Friesland is only a part of the old Frisia, so Friesland and Frisia are two completely seperate articles.
Kind regards, Kening Aldgilles 10 apr 07, 20:27 CET

Friesland is not the same as Frisia, as correctly stated above by Kening Aldgilles. So putting the two together is not an option. Concerning Friesland/Fryslân, I would suggest making Fryslân the main entry and Friesland a redirect, since Fryslân is the official name of the Dutch province and has been since 1997. Hope this helps. WanderingSpirit 20:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Reopening Discussion 2011[edit]

I would like to reopen this discussion. I agree that historic region of greater Frisia is something else as the current dutch province of Friesland. Only the correct name in dutch for what is now named Frisia is also Friesland! The point is that in dutch Friesland is not the same as Friesland. There's the historic region of Frisia (Friesland in dutch) and the current dutch province of Friesland (also Friesland in dutch). On the dutch wikipedia they also struggled with this issue (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg:Groter-Friesland). Page names for what's the dutch version of what's Frisia on the English wikipedia went from names as "Friesland in bredere zin"(Frisia in a broader sense) to eventually Groter-Friesland (Greater Frisia), to distinct it from the province of friesland, wich is the more known meaning in dutch (common usage). The thing is that Friesland is the name for the greater region in dutch, and for the province, two things, same name. Compare it to Province of Brabant until 1995 a province of belgium, which shouldn't be confused with the historic Duchy of Brabant, and there's also North Brabant in the Netherlands, just as there is East Frisia which isn't named East Friesland (german name is ostfriesland, dutch name is Oost Friesland, ost and oost meaning East of course) either. This is the same situation as with brabant, only here the english word happens to differ from the dutch word. The solution that is used on the english wikipedia is artificial in opinion, the correct translation of the dutch Friesland is Frisia, because the correct translation of the english Frisia to dutch is Friesland! There are more places that are distinctive, but have the same name, take for example Utrecht and Utrecht (province). Two distinctive areas, but closely related because of one being inside the other, is not that rare. Using the dutch word for one and the english for the other to solve that is artificial, if there's no difference in names in dutch, and Friesland is clearly a dutch word and not a english one, why would we use the dutch word, just to distinguish it from something with the same name?

That's why I propose:

  • Rename the article Friesland to "Frisia (province)" and put
    This page is about the dutch province. For the larger region of which it's a part of, see Frisia.
    on top of the page.
  • Keep the article Frisia being named Frisia but put
    This page is about the coastal region along the southeastern corner of the North Sea. For the dutch province within the region, see Frisia (province).
    on top of the page.

now grumpy people, start your protests! thug_n_g 23:29, 15 September 2011 (CEST)

It has been 3 months without a response so i am performing the move. People had long enough to protest and they didn't. So please don't come now, it is to late. thug_n_g 13:57, 2 December 2011 (CEST)
Do you have a reliable source that defines the English version of the province's name? Wikipedia's role is to echo reality, not to create it. I recommend restoring the article to its old name and awaiting a consensus from a variety of sources such as the English language versions of the Dutch Government and the Friesland Provincial websites. Martinvl (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I have put it back to the previous name. It is not too late. Frisia is for the ancient land. Friesland is the modern province. I must have missed this proposal before as it is not at the bottom of the talk. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Graeme. Frisia is wrong anyway: "Fryslân" has two sylables - "Frys" => "Fries" and "lân" => land, so if the English variant of the name was to change, it would be to "Fryslân", not "Frisia", but as I have said before, Wikipedia reflects outside sources, it does not dictate them. Martinvl (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Have you even read what i wrote Graeme? I know there is a distinction between the larger historic region and the province. I explicitly pointed that out. The thing is that i'm not creating the reality here, naming the article Friesland in the first place was Wikipedia creating reality.
The dutch name for the larger historical region is: Friesland, translates to English as Frisia.
The dutch name for the german region is Oostfriesland, in German it's Ostfriesland, translates to English as East Frisia. (at least on wikipedia it does)
But then the dutch name for the province is Friesland translate to English as Friesland? That's not only inconsequent. Friesland is not an English word. The dutch province was named after the historical region. Just liker there is Limburg in Belgium and in the Netherlands. If we had a distinctive English word for Limburg, would we start to use that one for the historic region and the dutch word for the province? That's ridiculous. But some writers on wikipedia thought it would be a nice way to distinct the historic region from the province by using the dutch word for the province. But in dutch the word is the same. And it is a dutch province.
What pisses me off is the statement Wikipedia's role is to echo reality, not to create it. That is exactly the thing that happened here before and i was trying to correct. And now i am accused of this? That's the world in reverse. Go to the page Frisia about the historic region. Click Nederlands in the language box. You will end up here. [1] How does that article start? Exactly: Friesland is een gebied dat door de jaren heen van definitie is veranderd, meaning Frisia/Friesland is a territory that had a changing definition over the years. The province was named after the larger historic region! Doing this language trick is artificial and that's wikipedia creating reality, i was correcting that.
But the thing i have a problem with most is this, you do not have to agree with me, but at least answer my arguments instead of just saying that i'm wrong. If there is no distinctive name in dutch why should there be in English with one name translated and not the other? thug_n_g 00:19, 8 December 2011 (CEST)
If we are following Graeme's reasoning this way we can even go a bit further. Use The Netherlands for the historic region and use Nederlanden For the current country of The Netherlands. Not surprisingly the Low Countries article is called [2] Nederlanden on the dutch wikipedia. The point is we are talking about a dutch province, a dutch historical region, and you are telling me there are more words for that in English as in dutch. By the way, don't bring the Fryslân thing into is, that's the name for the province in the frisian language, it only makes it more complicated. By the way here is my source: [3] . The whole naming of the province friesland in dutch was a toto pro pars. thug_n_g 00:40, 8 December 2011 (CEST)â
As far as I can tell the term Frisia is not used for the province of the Netherlands in English. However Friesland is the common term used in English, and that will be what is found on maps and most books. I agree we should not be using Fryslân as the primary name. To show that one name is more prevalent than the others I suppose we are going to have to prove it with sources that use the name, or discuss the names. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This artcile shows the province's ISO 3166-2 code as "NL-FY". Every other source that I can find gives it as "NL-FR". Having remembered the ISO codes, I have changed my view slightly - the English version of Wikipedia should echo the official English language ISO 3166-2 name for the province. As far as I can see, this is "Friesland", though if somebody can find an up-to-date reference for the ISO 3166-2 code, I am willing to accept that. Martinvl (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Searching the web shows that use of NL-FY is restricted to a few Wikipedia articles. So Wikipedia probably has the mistake. But in any case an ISO abbreviation code is not actually an English name. So this would not be an argument for naming one way or another. THe reference [4] shows no entry for FY but one for FR, and ISO 3166-2:NL confirms FR. Checking English language encyclopedias and dictionaries: Collins shows Friesland with Frisa as an ancient term. Macquarie only shows Friesland. Readers Digest only shows Friesland. Oxford advanced learner shows none! In Atlases the Times atlas shows Friesland and so does Readers Digest. So the summary is a vaste predominance of "Friesland" in English language use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Graeme,
I think that you misunderstood - the ISO 3166 standard consists of the ISO code together with the official name in English and in French. I was advocating that we take the English name as per the standard. In this was we use a completely neutral and internationally recognised source. Martinvl (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, if someone has access to the genuine standard it can be confirmed. But I think that is just one of many uses, albeit a fairly strong indicator of common use. ISO 3166-2:NL says Friesland. We do not have to differ in opinion since everything is pointing to "Friesland". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Dutch nationalists warning[edit]

Please do not merge the article Friesland into Frisia, it is not the same. We cannot do this, because the history of Frisia is not the history of the province Friesland. Then you can merge the article into East-Frisia or Groningen as well. So if its only the history of the province Friesland (according Dutch nationalists), this would be discrimination towards other former Frisian regions. I haven't seen one good reason so far for merging this article into the province Friesland, so please reject this proposal.

Name Fryslân[edit]

Eugène van der Pijll wrote that the official name doesn't matter, excuse me?! The official name is Fryslân, that is the common name used in the European Union, every Dutch ministry (including forreign affairs!) and the province itself. The moderators are the best persons to decide which name is correct. Should be the regionally, nationally and international recognized names, Fryslân.

I recognize this discussion from the Greek nationalists concerning the Macedonian articles.

Kind regards, Kening Aldgilles 10 apr 07, 20:22 CET

Indeed, therefore I repeat my request to move to Fryslân. Fryslân boppe! --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Fryslan boppe, benne; i've moved it... -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 05:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fryslân is official, but it's not an English (or a Dutch) word. Not every Dutch ministery uses Fryslân b.t.w. because it's simply not a Dutch word and can be translated. Only the Interior ministery uses it. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Frisians project?[edit]

How about a Wikiproject dedicated to the Frisians? --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If this project will in fact start, I for one am willing to participate. A Duck 22:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Does such a project excist? May I join it? Please, give me some directions. -The Bold Guy- 15:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a sub-project of the Netherlands project. I would suggest not just Frisians, but Friesland as well would be in the project. Graeme Bartlett 22:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds okay. But not as a sub-Project. In a world, were even tv and book-series get there own projects, I think the Frisian people deserve a project of their own! Is there something of project allready, then please give me some directions! -The Bold Guy- 17:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It will be a matter of how many people want to work on it. I see you are keen, perhaps others can add their interest to this thread. However there is still nothing stopping work on Frisian articles without a project. If you get more than 4 volunteers I could try to make a new project. I have not done this before, but I am trying out all different kinds of wikiactivities. Currently I am concentrating on Geology though, there are too many worthwhile projects around. Graeme Bartlett 23:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I dunno if I can get that many interested people to volunteer, but what I can recommend you to do, is to watch the category:Frisian wikipedians (from those who carry the template, and ask them. When you'd do that, I think you can get enough volunteers to run the project, don't you agree? -The Bold Guy- (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, except that there are only 4 with that template on their user page, perhaps you should encourage it's use, more useful that category:ancestors of Pier Gerlofs Donia. Perhaps you could find those with surnames that are Fiesian -stra and -sma type names, de Vries etc. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Frisian and Low Saxon[edit]

This article is still in a very poor state, as it focuses almost exclusively on the Frisian language, as though nothing else ever happened in the province. Notwithstanding, I should like to add to the section comparing English and Frisian that Frisian syntax and vocabulary bear a closer resemblance to the neighbouring Low Saxon dialects of the Netherlands than to Standard Dutch. I've noticed this through personal observation, but I'll only add this info when I find a source confirming it. Ni'jluuseger (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Saxon and Frisian were obviously closely related back in the Middle Ages, both of them being regarded as Lower German. But that goes for Lower Franconian (the more direct ancestor of Dutch) as well. The Groningan variety of Saxon has a potent Frisian substrate, because in the Groningen countryside Frisian was spoken until about the 15th century. The same goes for East-Frisia in Germany. In a way that substrate could also be present (in a lesser strong form) in the dialect of Holland, where a form of Lower-Franconian took over from a more sparse population of Frisian speakers centuries earlier. I doubt that the "non Groningan" varieties of Lower-Saxon resemble Frisian as much as Groningan does. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Needs a history section[edit]

This article needs a history section.

'Hearts' on the flag?[edit]

Does any one know what the 'heart' shapes on the flag are, or represent? They seem quite an unusual feature. They also appear on the inter-Friesian flag, in the this article: West_Friesland_(region)

Water lily leaves. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Those seven water lily leaves are representing 7 parts of Fryslân (or more accuratly Frisia), called the "Sân seelannen" (seven sealands) accoording to a site with the same name on Wikipedia in the Frisian language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.70.218.130 (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Mennonites[edit]

It might be interesting to note here that the name "Friesen" is a very common surname in the Dutch/Russian/Mexican Mennonite community.24.57.249.250 (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Lost land of Friesland[edit]

Legend has it from the Norse mythology of "Asgard" to 13th century navigational maps that in the North Atlantic lied a sunken continent by the name "Friesland", but it is uncertain the Frisian people were descendants of those islanders whom were displaced by the sinking of the continent thousands of years ago. + 71.102.11.193 (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

A sunken land in the North Sea rather than the Atlantic Ocean would be more credible - Doggerland (the current Dogger Bank) was submerged about 6000 years ago. Since the modern province of Noord Holland was known as Wes Friesia in medieval times, give a clue as to why Doggerland might have been called Friesland. However I do not have any references (other than Wikipdia). Martinvl (talk) 08:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Do the sources from the other pages you have sight anything abour friesland? It would be a really cool addition to the page.Meatsgains (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
An article about the mythical island can be found under Frisland. Not sure if this belongs here. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I see a hatnote already takes care of this. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Change of name to Frisia[edit]

Would user:Triomio please revert the change of name in this article or provide a justification for the change - the discussion last December ended with two editors wanting to keep the name Friesland and one wanting to change it to Frisia - ie a majority to keep the status quo which is cetainly not a consensus for change. I did a Google search on the word "Frisia" and there was nothign to suggest that "Frisia" is the English translation of the Dutch province "Fryslâ" (or "Friesland"). Martinvl (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I have moved this back and protected against a move. I think a discussion needs to take place before moving this, and there have been a few unilateral moves in the past that should have had a discussion first. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I would support Frisia because it is at least an English word. The fact that it is also used for a wider historical area is interesting but that also goes for Friesland (at least in Dutch).Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I could not find any documentary evidence of the name "Frisia" being applied to the modern Dutch province. I found the following references using Google:
In view of the absence of any references, the name change is improper - Wikipedia reflects what has happened, it does not cause things to happen. Martinvl (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Frisia may be used in a historical context (University of Leiden), but the common name of the Dutch province in English literature is apparently Friesland (cf. Enc. Brittanica), so there's no need for a move. With this reference from Leiden we may however change the redirect of Frisia (province) to this page. De728631 (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
User Talk:Triomio has removed references from artciles containing the name "Frisia" from the Friesland (disambiguation) page. He has been reverted a number of times. I have invited him to state his case here. He has also undone a redirection of from the article West Frisia (historical) and West Friesland (historical region). This could also be discussed at the same time. Martinvl (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a strong misrepresentation of what I have done. Please use the appropriate talk, which are Talk:Friesland (disambiguation) and Talk:West Frisia (historical), where I contributed to the matters but you did not. Triomio (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The articles Friesland and Frisia both get about 400 hits a day. The other articles in the list Friesland (disambiguation) get maybe a dozen. Clearly the two most important articles are Friesland and Frisia which is why they do not have qualifiers. People who are looking for one of the articles with qualifiers are directed to the disambiguation page. What we need is some stability is the changes that you are making in order to work things out. As there is such a big overlap between Friesland and Frisia, they can share a disambiguation page - the real criteria being what is easiest for the users. The names of the articles should be user-driven - Wikipedia uses existing names where possible. Martinvl (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Frisia and Friesland as synonyms[edit]

There are several entities called Friesland (Dutch, German)/Frisia (Latin, English). How about naming this article at least Friesland (province) to give at least some better arrangement?

The terms are used as synonyms inside Wikipedia for these articles:

Would it be more consistent to do that with Frisia and Friesland too and to not offer completely different topics under the often synonymous names Frisia and Friesland? Triomio (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC) - History example added Triomio (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The terms - or the adjective form of Frisia - are used as synonyms at other places:

Evidence for "Province of Frisia"

Triomio (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the conventions of the rest of the world, it does not set conventions. The current names are all in line with what the rest of the English-speaking world use. Martinvl (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you trolling? Isn't WikiProject Frisia English? Isn't http://www.hum.leiden.edu/history/research/projects-dei/project-gis.html English? Triomio (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Please calm down. First of all, Frisia is originally Latin. And as to the use of English terms, please see my reference to the Encyclopedia Britannica above which uses the Dutch name Friesland for the province, and we do differ between North Frisia as a historical region and Nordfriesland, the district. As to the history of the WikiProject, it was renamed a year ago to focus more on the broad geographical area that is Frisia (i.e. the entire historical region settled by Frisians), not only on the province of Friesland where the roots of the project lie. And even the University of Leiden uses "The Extension of the Historical GIS Friesland" as their main title of an English page while presenting Frisia only as an alternative name in brackets. De728631 (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Regarding your other points:
Patronizing does not earn you anything in finding out the truth. That there is a Latin connection was stated by myself in the intro of this very section. Did you look at the WikiProject Frisa page that I linked to above? It clearly states "Friesland, usually known in English as Frisia, is a 500 km long coastal region on the soudern coasts of the North Sea." The project was renamed by YOU after that statement existed. Also before User:Bermicourt came in on 18 July 2010 with an edit the statement was "Friesland is a 500 km long coastal region on the soudern coasts of the North Sea. Friesland is also a northern province of the Netherlands with its own distinct language and people. " The statement with only a little difference was added already 15 April 2009 [5]. So it is used synonymous. Triomio (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I know where the current project name comes from, and the introductory text at the Wikiproject page is by no means an indicator to be used at article level. And no, the terms are not automatically synonymous. It all depends on geographical and historical context. E.g. this page Friesland is about the Dutch province which is not commonly called simply Frisia by the majority of reliable sources. The various local Frieslands, be they Dutch or German, are all parts of the historical region that was called Frisia but the modern subdivisions should be reflected by the commonly used modern names. And while it is not scientific, the search term Friesland Netherlands on Google gets 1.4 million hits while Frisia Netherlands yiels 500k results. You suggested to rename this page with a disambiguation term (province) but there is no need for this. De728631 (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Btw, changing your own comments in a talk page discussion after others have already replied to that paragraph as you did here is considered bad practice since it confuses other editors. Next time you'd like to add points to your reasoning please insert them at the bottom of the existing thread. De728631 (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
For the previous arguments about the name I did some checking for use in English by checking dictionaries atlases and encyclopedias to get an idea of the common usage. For this topic the name was always "Friesland". Frisia did appear in some references, but it was not just covering the province, and mentioned it as historical. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
As to Friesland (disambiguation), I would advice against including too many instances of "Frisia" on that page since it is only cofusing and may appear unclear to the general reader. Instead I suggest to use the layout as of this revision with additional entries like the recently added class of destroyers. The multiple instances of Frisia should be dealt with at Frisia (disambiguation) with mutual cross-referencing in "See also". De728631 (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
In summary then, we keep both the Friesland (disambiguation) and the Frisia (disambiguation) pages with cross-references to each other on an article-by-article basis - for example
  • East Frisia (East Friesland), an area of northern Germany, in Lower Saxony
will appear on both pages in an identical format. If this is everybody's understanding, then I will withdraw the AfD.
Martinvl (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Principally I agree with you but we should carefully differ between the common and not so widespread synonyms. So I suggest we use
  • East Frisia, also called East Friesland,...
  • Friesland, sometimes called the "Province of Frisia",...
and so on at the dab pages, with the most common names being explained in the articles proper. And from the sources I've seen so far it appears to me that Frisia is more related to historical contexts than Friesland. And we mustn't mix up the terms when it comes to today's administrative districts, since Nordfriesland district includes the former North Frisia but is not identical, and also Friesland (district) is only small part of the former East Frisia. Not to mention the various definitions of old and new West Friesland / West Frisia. De728631 (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
That seems fine to me. I will withdraw the AfD request. Martinvl (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Cool, thank you. I suggest the next step should be synchronizing and verifying the multiple West Frieslands. If West Frisia and West Frisia (historical) only serve to denote the western parts of ancient Frisia we may as well redirect them there. No need for two nearly identical stubs. On that note, has there ever been a history-related section in Friesland? De728631 (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
History of Friesland redirects to History of Frisia, the latter covering the period up to 1523. Martinvl (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Chapter 6.1 Languages[edit]

I have noticed that in chapter 6.1 it states that frisian is the only other official language in the netherlands. However if i look at the official government website about recognized languages I see that it is not that simple as in the article

http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/erkende-talen/talen-in-nederland

21:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.93.146.234 (talk)

Well basically Frisian is only official as an administrative language in Friesland. It's not an official or administrative language in the rest of the Netherlands. Other administrative languages (Papiamento and English) exist in the Caribbean parts of the country. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Improvements[edit]

Here are some suggested improvements:

  • Infobox should have more elements to it.
  • Link and explanation about West Friesland (region)
  • More prose about table contents.
  • subSection about geology and natural disasters
  • Expand the history
  • reference the unreferenced parts.
  • sections on organizations and famous people
  • borders
  • major natural features, bays rivers and lakes.
  • Add canals and ports to transport

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what we could possibly add to the infobox, but I agree that this article needs more prose to complement all the tables. De728631 (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
This edit seems like a step back, bordering to vandalism: entire sections were removed without giving any rationale. – Editør (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted the major edit by Iseldiroedd, sacrificing a few edits that were made afterwards. If there is a problem, please discuss first before making bold changes. – Editør (talk) 09:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Population density[edit]

The 2010 population density is incorrect: 646,305 people / 5749 square km = 112 people per square km, not 190, and 646,305 people / 2220 square miles = 291 people per square mile, not 490.

Errors this large may be indicators of other problems with calculation or consistency. It's a very interesting article with great potential. Thanks all for your hard work. Jackaroodave (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The population density is automatically calculated by the infobox: the population is divided by the land area. You are using the total area, i.e. the land plus water area, which consequently results in a lower density. – Editør (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)