User talk:Gidonb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive

Please leave civilized messages in any major language. Answers will usually be in English. If the discussion is ongoing elsewhere, or more relevant to an article's talk page, please consider leaving a note drawing my attention to that page. I am flexible: your page, my page, talk page, whatever is more relevant or suits you best. However, please do not post the same message at multiple locations. I look forward to your communication!

Precious[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

balance
Thank you, Gidon, open for many languages, for quality articles on a wide spectrum of topics, such as International Society for Contemporary Music, Moroccan Wall and Dora van der Meiden-Coolsma, for the correct Netherlands, for dispute resolution, consensus building and "creating a first or better balance in many articles", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for you kind words, Gerda. I really appreciate your feedback!!! gidonb (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Peter Georgescu[edit]

Young-&-Rubicam-Logo.svg

Once again a deletion attempt for no good reason though this one appears political. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._GeorgescuMasterknighted (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Masterknighted, since I do not know that there was a political motivation, I assume that there was no political motivation involved. I do know that there was absolutely no valid reason for deleting your article. I made this point, others thought the same, and a fine article has been kept and improved! gidonb (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Bruno Ahrends[edit]

Dear Gidon, many thanks for your appreciated corrections of my rusty English and your review. I just had to correct two things. You corrected two times that Germans considered Ahrends to belong to a "Jewish race" while I reduced that from Germans to Nazis as we should not tend to maximise. Many Germans did not think like that. This is valid for your second correction but not for your first which was definitely wrong. At that time (about 1900) there were no Nazis in Germany since the party was founded after WWI in 1920. In Germany Jews had equal rights after 1871 (foundation of German Reich). Equality was requested by Germanys citizens since revolution of 1848/49 and it was integrated in the German constitution. During the German Empire (1871–1918) developed a very comprehensive Jewish citizenship and culture. But at the same time (1870s) an antisemitism propaganda came up which was not longer religiously motivated only but also racist. The German emperor Wilhelm/William II. hated Jews and held not back with it. German Jews wanted to assimilate and to be recognized as Germans and citizens. So many of them converted to Christianity and some even changed their family name like Bruno Arons/Ahrends and his siblings in 1904. They supported the emperor, wore his beard style and were true German patriots, fought in WWI but mostly got not the recognition like non-Jews.

Regarding Nazi Germany after 1933 you are right with it but in career terms this is really not the political reason for the exclusion of Jewish intelligence in Nazi Germany. The reason was that the Nazis wanted to exclude all Jews but also so called "Aryans" of other ideological or political background like democrats, liberals, socialists or communists from German culture, economy, administration and power. They wanted to clear off all what did not fit in their belief of a German dominated "clean" culture and they believed in a worldwide Jewish power they often described as "Jewish-bolshevist world conspiracy". Starting in 1933 the Nazis tried to detract the economic fundament of German Jews. The "race" ideology is another matter which was administered to cast Jews and others out of ("mixed") families, out of society, out of Germany (in that order), later to even exterminate them. The "race" ideology had really not much to do with career terms. We should not mix that up as Wikipedia should be as exact as possible.

You included a comment to the source of the article as you believe some aspects about todays use of Ahrends' buildings and especially his first self-contained project (his own home) should be transferred to another article (or deleted). I think that it definitely belongs to the article as it shows how much his buildings in post-war and post-Nazi Germany are appreciated. For me it demonstrates the difference in official politics between now and then but also that many of his buildings/his work lasted more than one century. When his work through many of his buildings is considered as cultural heritage and some even as World Heritage Site it shows that he is part of German and world culture. This is characterising him and his work so it belongs to the article. If you look at the German version of this article which I expanded you will see there is even a list of his projects which are considered as cultural heritage or World Heritage Site today. Think about it. Best regards from Germany, Miraculamundi (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Miraculamundi, glad you were super happy with 98% of my many edits! That's a very long story regarding the two that you did not like. I make these edits fast, based on (it isn't humble but the truth) wide knowledge and real POV concerns but I cannot beat the knowledge of each and every subject expert. I recommend also to you to invest your time in the article space. Thanks again for the feedback. I did learn something. Above all, happy editing!!! gidonb (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Notes on long-term RM cleanup efforts[edit]

It would probably be better to: a) if this RM closes to move, then re-propose the other one for a move later (3 months? people don't like a lot of back-to-back RMs), citing this one as precedent and look for others; or b) if this RM closes as no-consensus, give it a rest a while and try again at another article later; or c) if this RM closes with a clear consensus against moving it, just forget about it and let those fighting for it have their parenthetical disambiguation, at least until WP:AT is clarified yet again to even more strongly disfavor PARENDIS when there are alternatives. It seemed to me to already do this sufficiently, but we still keep having these discussions, so it evidently isn't getting its point across clearly enough. Anyway, patience is a virtue. It can sometimes take a couple of years to clean up a category, because individual editors at any given article may resist change just to resist change, and particular wikiprojects or other knots of editors may systematically oppose for territorial reasons.

Consensus can form slowly, especially if any "don't you touch my articles!" personalities are involved. My efforts to get any consistency at all in animal breed article names was stonewalled by a three- then two-editor tagteam for about 3 years, and I'm still not done yet, only about 90%. Because of the extreme tempers some of these people bring, and a particular "fuck that SMcCandlish guy" attitude in particular, I only do a couple of RMs in that area every few months. Policy- and source-based arguments ultimately win out over temper tantrums. Some editors have taken a more direct approach, e.g. the efforts to get compliance with MOS:JR (see Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr. RM now running, probably the last major one); that whole mess has been cleaned up in about 3 months, but it took an RfC, a change at MoS, and a long string of RMs, with a lot of heated words, to get there. I'm taking the less contentious approach and just massaging things into consistency and trying to avoid flare-ups of conflict. That may be necessary for geographical name stuff, especially if it everycomes to removing unnecessary disambiguation from US place names like Alameda County, California.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  18:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish Thank you for the strategic advice and for sharing your expertise and experiences, both here and on the discussion page! I appreciate that you fight for consistent quality at Wikipedia. I have single handedly corrected almost the entire Dutch geography domain from nl.wiki styled paratheses to en.wiki styled comma delimitted dabs. It was a huge effort initially confronted by folks rolling my changes back, because why would we deviate from the standard at the Dutch Wikipedia (???!!!), then nearly completed but for a few cases where I would have needed special rights to move. These were actually completed by other contributors so my change was accepted over time! A setback was a user, he calls himself "fixer", who moved dabs from the Netherlands to the provinces. I moved them back again. Now only "Limburg (Netherlands)" is left over. Here I also had to suggest change to its Belgian counterpart, then was asked why one Belgian province and not the other, so that's how we met at the "Jardin du Luxembourg". I am glad we did! gidonb (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Glad to help. If any of those NL cleanup moves were conducted by RM discussions, they're good precedents to cite; see how the Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr. RM is citing previous, essentially identical cases. I do this a lot in my WP:BREEDDAB moves, too, and it has made the difference in many cases. The average RM respondent, in a case that isn't stark obvious, mostly cares about whether this is how we normally do things, or whether someone's trying to do something weird. The more evidence they have that the move is routine, the more likely they are to support it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I will study it all and take into account the next time I attempt to make an article move. V&D is another one that annoys me. It was moved from its long lived name to its short lived name, under false pretenses, after the chain went bankrupt (there would have been some logic to the short name when the chain still existed). I missed the discussion. On the same topic, I still have open CfDs from June 29. I am curious what would be your take would on these. gidonb (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Jensen Localization[edit]

Dear Gidon, about Jensen Localization article: Could you be so kind of explaining me what I am doing wrong that the article is being set for deletion after I have added the required links and deleted the pro-marketing info?

Kind regards, Nicolas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicolasMartinFontana (talkcontribs) 07:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Nicolas Martin Fontana, the problem is with the references. These are not independent. gidonb (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

gidonb, could you be more specific about independent references, as I am a quite beginner in wiki articles creation. Do you mean like newspaper or news agencies will be acceptable references for example?(talkcontribs) 10:32, 28 August 2016 (CEST)

Nicolas Martin Fontana, please check out Verifiability, WP:NOR, and WP:POV for more details. Especially the first among the three. gidonb (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

gidonb thank for the info, I will have a look, as I wrote in the deletion talk, sorry for the newby troubles I am causing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicolasMartinFontana (talkcontribs) 13:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

NP, this is not personal! Just doing my WP chores. The article was deleted. gidonb (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


Joost de Valk[edit]

Hey Gidonb, thanks for your edits on Joost de Valk. My main concern is that the subject is suffering from a decision to do most of his work through his company; the citation from The Guardian did mention Yoast, which has its own collection of substantial sources -- there's no question Yoast has demonstrated its significance. What would you suggest here? Supplementing sources between the two articles? Wondering what the best way to clear up the issues would be. Crud muffins (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Joost or Crud Muffins, if you have valid sources please add them to the article. As off now you or this person do not meet our notability standard and should be deleted from en.wiki gidonb (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Gidonb. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Gidonb. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Transfermarkt[edit]

Tansfermarkt should not be cited in Wikipedia. As reference, it qualifies as a self-published source since most of its content is user-generated; as an external link, it runs afoul of point #1 of WP:ELNO. There being a plethora of different football stats websites out there, it is not a unique resource, and most of transfermarkt's content (provided it can be reliably sourced) would be included in a featured article. Please do not re-add it to articles. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Sir Sputnik, can you backup these claims with reliable sources? In any case, after your comments I added it as an external link, not as a reference to anything. Imho a good compromise, but you seem to be eager to create an edit war around Transfermarkt. This is far from my editing style! gidonb (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I have to leave for work in a few minutes, and so don't actually have the time to explain myself sufficient detail right now. I will of course do so in due course. Please do not take my silence in the mean time as acceptance of your position. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Sir Sputnik, good luck with your other activities! You seem to be knowledgeable on sports at Wikipedia. I'm an eclectic editor myself, always happy to learn about problems and solutions, where these exist. gidonb (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay, now that I'm not so short on time, let me explain the problems with Transfermarkt. Almost all of the content in the site's database is created by the site's users, not its staff. To quote the Transfermarkt login page: Whether player, manager, club, or match report – as a Transfermarkt user you can edit and complete almost all data yourself. Simply click the gear, fill in the form, and click submit. Furthermore, the site's terms of service explicitly say that Transfermarkt does not vouch for the veracity of user submitted content. This issue is also not just in the abstract. A few years ago User:Zombie433 was banned for, among other things, adding false information to Transfermarkt so that they could then use it as a source to add the same info to Wikipedia. So a decision was reached by the WikiProject Football that Transfermarkt should not be used in articles within scope the project. I trust you see now why I'm so reluctant to allow the link the website to stand. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
As I mentioned before, edit warring, ownership by supposedly "allowing" edits and, moreover, threatening colleague editors with bans is not my style. I keep away from all that. Of course, you may be luckier picking fights with others, if that is what you are looking for. Personally I prefer to extend help to other users. My recommendation to all others is to do exactly the same. It makes editing more pleasant. gidonb (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Zwart-Wit '28 for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zwart-Wit '28 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zwart-Wit '28 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JMHamo (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Aftermath: Result of this unnecessary procedure was speedy keep. The nomination seriously conflicted with the policies of Wikipedia and these of the WikiProject of the nominator. 18:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Robin Schmidt[edit]

The article Robin Schmidt has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. PKT(alk) 18:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Result was keep. Absolutely no case for deletion! gidonb (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Frank Peeters[edit]

Hello Gidonb and thank you very much for your various corrections April 9th = 4 items.

Revision as of 22:25, 9 April 2017 There are a few items which, in my view need further review and which I propose as follows:

(1) Solo exhibitions should read: Solo exhibitions (selected). Reason: this is a selection of exhibitions, the photographer had several more exhibitions, the list is not complete. I notice the mention (selected) is common practice with other pages of photographers: example 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Gruyaert solo exhibitions (selected) Collections (selected) example 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Killip (selected joint exhibitions) example 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Bohm (selected group exhibitions)

(2) This also goes for 'Publications' (selected)- as per (1)

(3) Line 44 Catalogs added seems not an accurate description. These are not exhibition or museum catalogs but refer to (a selection) of publications of a portfolio ie several pages of the work of the photographer, published in photo magazines, in various countries.

Therefore would suggest under heading Publications (selected)

-Portfolios in photo magazines. 
-Books - as is -

Again, thanks for your revisions and kind assistance --FredMertens (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

FredMertens, thank you for your warm feedback. I edit tons of articles, very quickly, slashed this article by a lot and rewrote/condensed most section titles, so I definitely can make mistakes or overlook something. Overall you were a true sport about my drastic changes. I appreciate this. As for your comments, selected (item 1 and 2) is not an improvement. Lists are generally incomplete and by writing selected above a list we may create the impression that this isn't usually the case. Further: where exhibitions and selected exhibitions essentially mean the same thing (because of lists generally being incomplete), exhibitions without selected has a clear preference as it is far more focused. You claim that other stuff exists but the error may be at the other stuff. It probably is. Still not a wasted effort; I'll improve the other articles if my suspicion is correct. I expect to find something to improve in your item 3. Will look at this soon! Thanks again, gidonb (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Gidonb for the clarification on 'selected'. Point understood and well taken! Thank you also in regard to item 3. Kind regards --FredMertens (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

From what I could tell these are basically articles. Please stick to their original names as titles. gidonb (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Baron de Wael[edit]

the last de waal, jan, died 20 years ago, so nobody "wants to be baron " as you quoted the more the title and the historic acts, docs are in wien registered in their files as quoted address of the institution Have a closer look at the books and docs quoted. If you only "google"to check, that looks to me not so professional the topic is the following: because of the anniversary of the reign of Karl VI of 300 years; thousands of unstudied documents of his time are currently studied to get more insight in the politics of those days. especially "The Wael Baron " is a topic: explain: the southern Netherlands were occupied by the austrians ( lower austrian countries) as we know until 1790 and then the >Northern part of the Netherlands were put with the southern part ( now belgium) and luxembourg together,and in 1814 the Kingdom of the Netherlands was founded under Kong William I of the Netherlands.

The question here is; why did Karl VI give sijmon the austrian title of baron ? Was he (sijmon) spying for the austrians ?. What we know from history that there was a tension between the netherlands (north netherland and the lower österreichische Lande (southern part ) Was Karl intensions to extend his territory towards the northern part of the Netherlands, and thatswhy he wanted to influence important people in those times ( like sijmon?) So this is the topic why this article could be of importance. we will know much more about this when the scientists finish studying KARL VI.

PS I do not like the sentence "bit fraught" as everything can be proven by the official authorities in Wien as put in reference. I made the effort to get more insight in older dutch history influenced by the austrians which occupied the sauthernpart of holland, I hope you appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claas de wael (talkcontribs) 11:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Claas de Wael, we do not allow Original Research in Wikipedia. gidonb (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
oke got it, well ask official statements with reference code

Work has become a bit fraught, so I will not be able to review in depth as I intended. I have struck my "keep" in accordance with your assessment of the sources. Cheers, Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Dlohcierekim. All this is without prejudice. The person could be notable. We just do not know that until sufficiently referenced. gidonb (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gidonb,

1.- I can also put the crest of "de Wael" with picture. I just have to see how I can do it technically.

2.-Also a picture with Baron Evert (1900-1956) with HM Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands. They were very good friends. Evert through the family of his grandmother, were direct descendants of the Counts of Holland. HM Wilhelmina was direct ancestor (11 generations) 7th cousin's direct descendant (5 generations) from baron Evert.

if you think this could make the articles more interesting, pls advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claas de wael (talkcontribs) 09:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Claas de Wael, as long as the article is there, you can add almost anything over which you own copyright. However, I also need to refer you to WP:NOTINHERETED. Enjoy the editing! gidonb (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
My problem is my opinion that all nobility are inherently noble. Don't know how much water that holds today. Wikipedia:Notability (royalty) never achieved consensus.]] The sources we have would probably be sufficient to establish da Wael as a noble house. And that was the basis for my keep. Perhaps we can userfy and he can run it through Articles for Creation. Of course, once deleted, all efforts to source the thing on the part of the project as a whole will cease. Sometimes it takes more than a week to find sources on 18th century subjects.Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I do not know if this Sijmon de Wael was a baron and if someone inherited that. It's a claim hat creator made and that I could find only in some amateur family trees. My comment above refers to any knowledge of the members of the house of orange, if real. I also met 2 reigning kings and 1 such queen. 2 out of 3 were Dutch. It doesn't make me 1 bit notable! Baron is lesser in the failed policy you referred to. gidonb (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


Dear All,

First of all want to express my gratitude for looking at this subject, your time and effort to understand it.

1.- I saw you did not approve the article and already destroyed it, and read the comments why.

a.- the books quoted were issued in 2004 and 2012 which mentioned the topic. (not dusty old books, as mentioned) b.- the more the austrian officials confirmed the fact, and will publish a new publication about Karl VI and mentioning sijmon and his patent letter confirming his austrian (not Dutch!) title. c.- if this subject was publicised many times in google already, no effort would be made to contact you. d.- I do understand the load of articles you have to look at and the time you have to invest to check everything out, but... if the person in question, who has to decide, is not 100% fluent in dutch and german language, then it is difficult to check this topic and read the send in articles.

Well anyway thank you again , and we will not address you anymore regarding this subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claas de wael (talkcontribs) 10:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Claas de wael, I contest the notion that my opinions are more valid because of the languages I speak. There were several contributors to the discussion. All raised valid points and concerns. WP is more successful when more diverse. Also please stop vandalizing my talk page. It is OK for you to empty your talk page. It's not OK for you to censor my talk page. gidonb (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Just saw the message. I do understand your point. When the study of Wien, Austria will be publicised, I will come back to you in due course. Thanks again for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claas de wael (talkcontribs) 12:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Lancaster Memorial (Netherlands)[edit]

Hi Gidonb,

I noticed that you have renamed the page Lancaster Monument (Beuningen, the Netherlands) into Lancaster Memorial (Netherlands). I also saw that you renamed the article on the Memorial in Weiswampach in Luxemburg. I disagree with your action. There are dozens of Lancaster momuments in the Netherlands, and this causes ambiguity. I think that the title of the artilce must refer to the specific monument in Beuningen. Your motivation was probably that there is currently only one article about a Dutch Lancster Memorial in the English WP, but this is of secondary importance compared to mentioning the location. The article is simply not about "THE" Lancastermonument in the Netherlands. It suggests there is only one.

Would you please be so kind to revert both actions? Thanks, Take Mirrenberg (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Take Mirrenberg, I will respond to your inquiry soon. gidonb (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Take Mirrenberg, it is nowhere implied that this is the only such monument in each country. The dab needs to be as large scale and concise as possible to make it well understood to which EXISTING INTERNAL article the name refers. Has nothing to do with all that is out there in the real world! This means that if there are, let's say, 100 similar monuments in the Netherlands AND in Luxembourg and only one of each has an article, then the articles are exactly at the correct names. Hence the move! Now if you create out of these two hundred only one single third article for, let's say, a monument in Raalte, Netherlands, the correct names would be:

  • Lancaster Memorial (Overijssel)
  • Lancaster Memorial (Gelderland)
  • Lancaster Memorial (Luxembourg)

etc. You should not get to towns in the dab (and even less so double locations) until there is an absolute need! gidonb (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi gidonb, thanks for clarifying! Ok, I get the picture. I think we have a difference in naming approach between the NL wiki and EN wiki here. At the NL wiki we like refinements between parenthesis. EN wiki does it the minimalist way. Ok, if this is the convention.
Still I think that the suffixes (Gelderland) or (Overijssel) are really a bad idea. To dutch ears it sounds like a joke. It's concise, but mentioning the province is obsolete and therefore unclear. Provinces are not comparable with states in the US, which are indeed used for clarifying locations. Provinces are in no way related to the monument, so I don't see the advantage above identifying it directly by municipality. I would also think it is conflicting with WP:Article_titles#Use_commonly_recognizable_names. It's known as the Lancaster Memorial in Beuningen, and not the Lancaster Memorial in Gelderland.
I thought of the following example: imagine you would have a Museum of Modern Art in Amsterdam and a second one in Rotterdam. Then the naming convention would lead to Museum of Modern Art (Noord-Holland) and Museum of Modern Art (Zuid-Holland). That wouldn't be clear, I think. Take Mirrenberg (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)