Talk:United Belgian States

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles

Belgium Low‑importance

	Belgium portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium 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.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Map[edit]

The self-descriptive title of the Map is "...A Most Exact Map of Flanders of Austrian Netherlands." When one zooms in on the map the description becomes....A Map of Belgium. Not sure which to use but I would like to re-establish my original edit. OK?--Buster7 (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flanders was part of the Austrian Netherlands, so a caption that says "Flanders and the Austrian Netherlands" is misleading. Jvhertum (talk) 09:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The map descibes itself. ""Flanders OF Austrian Netherlands""...the title is what it is. To change it to something else is misleading. Lets give the reader a little credit.--Buster7 (talk) 03:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the map describes itself as "Flanders OF Austrian Netherlands", why did you change it to "Flanders AND Austrian Netherlands"? Jvhertum (talk) 08:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for removing comments. It was not intentional and I dont recall what they were. Please let me know so I can retrace my steps. Thank you. As for the Map...I still do not feel it is accurate. I will ask a cartographer for help--Buster7 (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as though the proper title, to me, would be "Map of Flanders of Austrian Netherlands". This would both be a derivative of the original title (having "Most Exact" seems quite strange) and an honor to the original author of the map itself. Rarelibra (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flanders (located with-IN) (the) Austrian Netherlands...--Buster7 (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but that makes no sense, "Flanders in Austrian Netherlands" is not even proper English! And it not a map of Flanders only but one showing the Southern Netherlands (identified by Herman Moll as the Pays-Bas Catholiques), which includes not only Flanders but also Wallonia and Luxemburg and parts of present-day France and the Netherlands. Jvhertum (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about Belgium...not Southern or Northern Netherlands, France or Luxemburg. How do we get a mediator involved? Please advise.--Buster7 (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Opinion intervention[edit]

Hi, an editor has asked for help at the Third opinion page. I'm happy to help if I can. Can you each give me a brief description of the dispute? Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 11:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The initial dispute was about the previous map and what it should be titled. Since my request was made, Jvhertum has changed the map to the one in use. I am satisfied with that change.Thanks for your time.--Buster7 (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it worked out! A facinating article. --Kevin Murray (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes! Infoboxes! Infoboxes![edit]

Now we have two enormous infoboxes ...and some stuff written at the top and at the bottom of the page, with a huge empty gap in between. Nice! --Lubiesque (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two infoboxes? I only see one and a rather oversized template menu. Rather than making funny comments on the talk page, please try to improve the article or at least remove some of the random (and only tangentially connected) pictures on the bottom of the article. Best wishes, ---Brigade Piron (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've done my part by writing the two paragraphs immediately under "History". (I see 2 infoboxes, not just one) --Lubiesque (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine you mean Template:Netherlands state? As I say, it's a template not an infobox even though I agree, it does look pretty huge. --Brigade Piron (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 October 2015[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: Moved to United Belgian States Mike Cline (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United States of Belgium → United Belgian States – The current title is a poor translation of the French/Dutch title of the country. The term "United Belgian States" has much greater currency in academic and contemporary literature. A Google books search for "United Belgian States" produces 283 results; "United States of Belgium" just 18, many of which are Wikibooks. While it is certainly true that both terms are used to some extent, it would seem to me that "United Belgian States" is the more natural choice for the reasons outlined. It has the other benefit of not getting confused with the USA... —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC) —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:ASTONISH. sst ✈ 16:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom.--Wolbo (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2015 (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.

@Mike Cline:, could you also move the associated category or will we need to do the whole process again? —Brigade Piron (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Mike Cline (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the subtitles: politics[edit]

The subtopic "politics" comes in a strange place in my opinion. The background leads to no extra historical information under the politics subtitle, only in the next part -about the revolution- do we learn how the United Belgian States was established. Isn't it more logical to regroup the historical information? - I am new to the community, so if there are any rules for this; sorry for not knowing them - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floriands (talk • contribs) 12:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please take Luxembourg out of this article and also out of the map![edit]

Luxembourg did not join this state and was never a part of this revolution or state. Please take Luxembourg out of this article and alos of this map which is wrong.

i advise to consult the french article and the map used in that article!

Letzebuergerr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letzebuergerr (talk • contribs) 14:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's only half true. Luxembourg remained under Imperial occupation, and was not officially part of the United Belgian States according to Judge (p.182-3) but it did experience revolutionary unrest. She states that "Luxembourg, as it remained under Austrian rule throughout the independence experiment, complicates the narrative somewhat. Ultimately, historians of that country find that Luxembourgers felt themselves Belgian until the Napoleonic era" (p256).—Brigade Piron (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]