Talk:Beek

	Netherlands portal 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.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles
	This article is supported by Dutch municipalities task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The articles will be merged, to bring it in line with the 99% majority of Dutch municipality articles. CRwikiCA (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Beek (municipality) be merged into Beek. I do not think there should be seperate articles for both, especially seeing that that one is really short and that most other municipalities named after their main town have only one article, or that the main article is the municipality article. I think combining these would stick with the normal usage on the English wikipedia. Please note that I made a similar proposal for Heerenveen and that the argument there, both for and against would hold here too. CRwikiCA (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 24 May 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved, but if more matching topics are added to English WP from the sources mentioned by Crouch, Swale, could readily be revisited regardless of how recent this RM is then. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beek → Beek, Limburg
Beek (disambiguation) → Beek

– There are 15 entries listed at the Beek (disambiguation) page and a town of 8,800, municipality of 16,400, recent consideration (through an archeological site discovered in 2005) as the eldest village in the Netherlands notwithstanding, has not achieved sufficient international renown for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in English Wikipedia. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nominator's rationale. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm not convinced that this isn't the primary topic, besides the dab page itself there are only five bluelinked entries that are just named "Beek", but even if we're generous and include Prinsenbeek and Beek en Donk it still gets nearly 60% of all pageviews. "International renown" (and how are we measuring this?) is not one of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria. PC78 (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP:PRIMARYUSAGE specifies "much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term". PC78's pageview stats suggest to me that the current PTOPIC satisfies those criteria (though not by a wide margin). Colin M (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support there are more and per WP:PRIMARYRED there are more red links and articles on other WPs that could probably be created and if so that would reduce the dominance of the Limburg one. Also the proposed title is a WP:PDAB because of Beek, Venray, @Roman Spinner: but I'm not sure what the best title is, any thoughts? Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale: Thank you for pointing out the incomplete disambiguation. In February 2013, the separate articles for Beek (municipality) and Beek (town) were merged. At this point, since Beek, Limburg and Beek, Venray are both in Limburg (Netherlands), the main header for Beek, Venray, which does not even have an entry in Dutch Wikipedia and, in the final sentence of its three-sentence write-up, is referenced as "Basse" and described as having "a population of about 80 inhabitants", could be moved to Beek, Venray (hamlet) or Beek, Limburg (hamlet), with the latter header being analogous to Beek, Limburg. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roman Spinner: the problem isn't with the Beek, Venray title (there seems only to be 1 Beek in Venray) but with moving Beek to Beek, Limburg because Beek, Venray is also in Limburg, unless we can find a better single qualifier I suggest Beek, Limburg (town) since the municipality is a sub topic of the town. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale: I would support either Beek, Limburg (town) or Beek, Limburg (municipality), although it would seem that since the municipality has a population of 16,400, the town 8,800 and the hamlet only 80, it should be the much smaller same-named place that would receive the qualifier "(hamlet)" to disambiguate it from the much larger population center, rather than the other way around. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roman Spinner: why does Beek, Venray need the hamlet qualifier? (unless you're suggesting moving it to just Beek (hamlet) which doesn't seem necessary as its the only place in Venray with that name) This town and its municipality both have the same name but Beek, Venray is in Venray municipality and there doesn't appear to be another Beek in Venray municipality. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale: In a WP:2DABS situation of Beek, Limburg where the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is the town and municipality Beek, Limburg and the WP:ONEOTHER is the hamlet Beek, Venray, it would be the secondary topic that would receive the qualifier, rather than the primary topic. On the other hand, a compromise would eschew the qualifier for either one, with a hatnote atop Beek, Limburg stating, "For the Limburg hamlet, see Beek, Venray". Incidentally, since Beek (disambiguation) lists more than one Beek (town) and Beek (municipality), I pointed those redirects to that dab page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think the double disambiguation is needed for this one otherwise we'll have a WP:PDAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.