Jump to content

Talk:2013 Luxembourg general election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title

[edit]

I realize that in previous years, election articles have been called "Luxembourgian general election..." but this is incorrect. The correct title should be "Luxembourg general election..." See Wikipedia:WikiProject Luxembourg: "'Luxembourgish' is to be used for the adjective of Luxembourg. 'Luxembourgian' has unfortunately become widely used on Wikipedia, however this is incorrect and should be changed when encountered. 'Luxembourgish', is also the name of the language, whilst 'Luxembourger' is the demonym." I will go ahead and correct it.--Ipigott (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Luxembourgian is a common English demonym for the country and is used by reliable sources such as the BBC and the Independent. As this move is controversial, please use the WP:RM process. Also, you can't move this article and not the tens of others in the series. Number 57 18:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS - the article title should be an adjective, not a noun (see e.g. Belgian federal election, 2010, Dutch general election, 2012 etc), so Luxembourg by itself is not appropriate. Number 57 18:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot agree with these arguments. The usual style is "Luxembourg elections", "Luxembourg franc", etc., as any thorough research on the matter will reveal. As for current usage, a search on Google gives c. 3,800 hits for "Luxembourg elections" (see here) compared to only 77 for "Luxembourgian elections" (here). I would be more than happy to correct all the other errors associated with previous elections but let's at least get this one right.--Ipigott (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "Luxembourgian" in your Independent article should be "Luxembourger" but is not a comparable example.--Ipigott (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then please start a Requested move process. Whatever the correct demonym may be, the first word has to be an adjective - regardless of what happens elsewhere, Wikipedia style for election articles is "Demonym election type, year", as shown above for Belgium and the Netherlands. Number 57 21:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should not be creating its own rules of correct English usage. The argument you cite above may be applicable for countries where the demonym (which usually refers to the inhabitants) is clearly an adjectival form (like Belgian) but in the case of Luxembourg, the noun form is commonly used as a qualifier. In any case, the demonym for Luxembourg is "Luxembourger" (the inhabitant) and the name of the language is "Luxembourgish". "Luxembourg" behaves rather like "London". You have "Londoner" for the inhabitant and "Londonian" exists as an adjective but nobody would talk about the "Londonian elections". I've looked at the procedure you mention but cannot understand the terminology. On the off chance that this is the starting point, I'll copy my request below.--Ipigott (talk) 07:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not creating any rules about English usage, it's just that we have a standard format for titles that involves using the adjective for the country. Number 57 12:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The google search confirms that Ipigott is correct. You move them back Number then, what a time waster you are.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I make no apologies for insisting that things are done properly and that there is consistency in naming formats. Ipigott moved one article and left all the others at a different title. You moved all articles except this one, meaning that again the articles had a mix of titles. There are of course also referendum, European election etc articles with matching titles, which seem to have been forgotten about. Number 57

Then the common sense would have been to move this one wouldn't it instead of moving all of the others back. Look you've done a lot of great work on politics articles but this is just petty. It is also a standard format to call something from Luxembourg Luxembourg as well as Luxembourgish/ian. Ipigott is a resident of Luxembourg himself and should know what is commonly the correct term towards his elections and what translates correctly. His London example applies to Luxembourg. Have you even considered the possibility that he might be right? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course I've considered that he may be right. However, there are so many opinions about what is correct or not, I wanted him to go through a formal process so we could have a proper informed discussion with more outside input. The Luxembourg articles have been moved around a lot (they've also been "Luxembourgish" in the past), so a RM would provide a conclusive result and give us a final say on the matter. If this is petty then I'm happy to be petty. Perhaps instead of name calling, you could contribute more constructively to the debate. Number 57 20:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dr. B. for your support. Unfortunately, this seems to be developing into a bone of contention. As so many articles have been titled "Luxembourgian general election..." we seem to be getting bogged down in developing a reasonable approach to covering them all. In the reformatted request, only two are covered: the others are 2004, 1999 and 1989. I had tried to include them too but now they seem to have disappeared. The template is not easy to use.--Ipigott (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You say, Number 57, that other articles have been forgotten about. I would willingly have included them all if I could have mastered the procedure but I think we should at least try to get the general elections right then we will have a basis for the other changes if we succeed. I sure that like me you are intent on bringing Wikipedia up to the highest standards of reliability. Correct terminology plays an important part in this process.--Ipigott (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved per consenses. bd2412 T 19:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– I am trying to create a discussion to have "Luxembourgian" changed to "Luxembourg" in this title and all similar titles. I have already given explanations above. --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 09:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC) --Ipigott (talk) 07:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They can all be found here.

All five articles with titles beginning Luxembourgian general elections... should have been included in this request but I was unable to get it to work. Please do not fault the request on the absence of other articles.--Ipigott (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I very much appreciate your help Number 57 in formatting the request. Templates never seem to work for me. You are of course perfectly within your right to oppose the move and for people not too familiar with modern English usage and grammatical terminology, many might agree with you that "Luxembourg" cannot be an "adjective" (although in fact it is just as adjectival as "chicken" in "chicken soup" (one of the 57 varieties?) - see noun adjunct). I just think it is a great pity that Wikipedia cannot reflect general usage and feels under an obligation to lay down unjustified rules. I do nevertheless highly appreciate the work you constantly do on elections and if all else fails I will simply add redirects where necessary.--Ipigott (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having taken mild affront at your comments re familiarity with modern English (having formerly taught English), I looked it up in the full Oxford English Dictionary (the online, and therefore most modern version). Neither Luxembourg or Luxembourgish are in there as adjectives - in fact the correct adjective appears to be "Luxembourgeois" - " Of or pertaining to Luxemb(o)urg or to its inhabitants". I would therefore support moving all the articles to "Luxembourgeois general election, XXXX". Number 57 20:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's an extremely archaic form. Any text that suggests "Luxemburg-" can be used in any form is just wrong...Brigade Piron (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the authoritative text on British English, I very much doubt that the Oxford English Dictionary is wrong. Number 57 11:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The term itself isn't "wrong". I never said it was, unlike Luxemburg (no "o") which equally used to be commonly used in the 19th century. It's just that it doesn't reflect the modern usage of the term in English and as such is archaic... I challenge you to find a single newspaper/government/corporate/academic written since 1950 which uses the term "Luxembourgeois".Brigade Piron (talk) 11:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I didn't say that you said the term was wrong. You said "Any text... is wrong", and I was pointing out that the text (the OED) was unlikely to be wrong. I don't have time for a detailed search, but British government, 26 January 2012, Academic paper written 2003 for starters. Number 57 12:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Luxembourgeois" in the first example is used as the name of the language (which is still acceptable in lieu of Luxembourgish) and is therefore a noun and not an adjective. I could not find it in your second example.--Ipigott (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You probably need full access to the paper in question. But in addition, here's a news story from eight days ago. Number 57 17:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I support this move. While Number57 is correct that "Adjetive election type, year" is the commonly used format for election articles, there is precedent for disregarding it when it conflicts with the standard use of language. For example, all elections in the states in the US on wikipedia follow this alternate format. I.e. North Dakota gubernatorial election, 2012 as opposed to North Dakotan gubernatorial election, 2012. In this case, the title change reflects the standard use of language, as do the other instances on wikipedia where the "Adjetive election type, year" format outlined by Number57 is not used. In this sense, I find the move to be entirely consistent with existent formatting precedent. 4idaho (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Although not for the reasons proposed. There's plenty of currency for the term "Luxembourg" being used as an adjective, see here.Brigade Piron (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support We should go with what gets most usage.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As I did not create the request, it is perhaps not clear that I support the change. It may be useful for Wikipedia to try to develop rules for helping editors to find titles for their articles but I strongly believe standard usage should outweigh any theoretical approach. In any case, it has now been established that "Luxembourgian" is not listed in the complete OED while "Luxembourg" is used all over the place as an adjectival qualifier. See also the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Luxembourg. "Luxembourgish" is plainly incorrect while the use of "Luxembourgeois" as an adjectival form in English is so rare as to be inacceptable.--Ipigott (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2013 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

What the...?

[edit]

What the hell is a Luxembourgian? Someone from Luxembourgia? The correct adjective is Luxembourgeois. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And a Canadian is from Canadia? A quick Google search shows the word "Luxembougian" is used in English-language sources (however, it seems, more often just "Luxembourg's" is used). And it is used as an adjective here, and not referring to a person. SPQRobin (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Luxembourg general election, 2013. 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:

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) 09:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_Luxembourg_general_election&oldid=1196642393"