Talk:Limburgish/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Limburgish = South Low Franconian?

• Finally, we should always remind our readers that the scope of the dialectologist definition of Limburgish (= East Low Franconian = South Low Franconian) does not fully correspond to the sociolinguistic and language-political definition

• This list needs to be more qualified since some of these varieties are not generally considered Limburgs, both in common parlance and in dialectological classifications, e.g. Kleverlands (especially north of Horst) and Lommels. And we should also mention dialects on the German side which are sociolinguistically not considered Limburgish, but nevertheless belong to the Limburigan (or East LF or South LF, whatever you may call it) dialect group.

Do you (@Austronesier:) happen to have any sources for the equation Limburgish = South Low Franconian?
Some sources:

• This article: It mentioned Southeast Limburgish (Aachen, Kerkrade) which is considered Ripuarian and not South LF. It still mentions Noord-Limburgs or ik-Limburgs which having ik would be North LF and not South LF. But well, in large parts it was and is unsourced.
• Belemans et al. (Dutch-language dialectological sources) have Noord-Gelders Limburgs = Kleverlands. This would be North LF and not South LF.
• Per Goossens (1965, Die Gliederung des Südniederfränkischen, p. 79), Limburgish is the Netherlandic-Flemish part of South Low Franconian (= East Low Franconian). That is, South LF is broader than Limb.
• HSK 30.4, p. 528 about South LF: "[...] in den Niederlanden und Belgien fort (Eupener Land, große Teile von Belgisch Limburg und Niederländisch Limburg). Hier ist die Bezeichnung Limburgisch üblich." This could be understood in different ways:
  • Dutch Limburgs being the same as German Südniederfränkisch (different terminology refering to the same area).
  • Dutch Limburgs like German Limburgisch being South LF in Benelux (Limb. and South LF being different terms refering to different areas).
• [1]/[2] (refering to Jo Daan) has Limburgish roughly being South LF in Benelux. There's also "Noord-Brabants en Noord-Limburgs" or "Dialekt von Nordbrabant und Nordlimburg". The German refers to one dialect of two areas. The Dutch sounds like two dialects forming one greater dialect. But instead of understanding Noord-Limburgs as northern Limburgish (northern part of Limburgish) it might rather be North-Limburg-ish (dialect of North-Limburg).
• Heeringa 2004 (ch. 9, p. 231) has Southwest Limburg roughly as central-southern part of Limburg (Belgium), and Limburg as north-eastern part of Limburg (Belgium), in parts of Limburg (Netherlands) (incl. Venlo) and small parts of North Brabant. So Heeringa's Limburg includes some parts of Goossens South LF and North LF. But it also doesn't overlap with the area of Limburg (Belgium & Netherlands).
• Heeringa & Nerbonne 2006 ([3]) present 3 dialect classifications.
  • "Figuur 6. Verdeling op basis van lexicale afstanden": here the area of Limburg is part of Zuidoostelijke dialecten (south-eastern dialects) and there's no dialect Limburgish.
  • "Figuur 8. Verdeling op basis van uitspraakafstanden": it's roughly West−Limburg / Oost-Limburg = Southwest Limburg / Limburg (Heeringa 2004). So includes parts of South and North LF.
  • "Figuur 10. Verdeling op basis van gecombineerde afstanden (lexicon en uitspraak)": it has Zuidwest−Limburg and Oost-Limburg (lacking the north of the previous Oost-Limburg but includes Ripuarian Kerkrade).

So possibilities are:

• Limburgish = South LF in Benelux (Goosens; possible Jo Daan)
• Limburgish = South LF [unsourced]
• variously defined: Limburgish = some dialect(s) in Limburg (Belgium & Netherlands), be they North LF, South LF or possibly Ripuarian (Heeringa 2004, Heeringa & Nerbonne 2006)
• politically: Limburgish = dialects in Limburg (Belgium & Netherlands), be they North LF, South LF or Ripuarian (e-WLD could be understod this way)

--2003:DE:3700:672F:606F:14E4:BB48:829E (talk) 12:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@IP: I can't ping you, but you'll read it anyway :)

The key for bullet point 2 lies with Goossens (1965). On page 79, he indeed writes: Der niederländisch-flämische Teil dieses Gebietes ist unter dem Namen 'Limburgisch' bekannt. But on p. 93, he suggests to replace the terms "East Low Franconian" (NL) / South Low Franconian (D) with "Limburgisch". And he implements this terminological revision in his Map 2, where e.g. Krefeld lies in the area of "Ostlimburgisch".

More about it is found in the chapter "Phonological features of Limburgian dialects" in the 2017 De Gruyter volume Dutch that I have mentioned before. Here, Ben Hermans writes on p. 337:

Goossens proposes to replace the terms Southern Low Franconian (Südniederfränkish[sic!]) and Eastern Low Franconian (Oostnederfrankisch) with the term Limburgian, because it is difficult, if not impossible, to use the labels for the finer distinctions with the general term. In that case, collocations like East-East Low Franconian (for East Limburgian dialects) would result, or West-South low Franconian (for West Limburgian dialects), or even West-East-Low Franconian, etc. If we adopt the term Limburgian, the result is that Limburgian dialects are also spoken in Germany, in particular in the area around Dülken. In Map 18.1, I present Goossens’ map of the Limburgian dialects. This map has met with general approval since its publication, and it also figures, in a simplified form, in the popular literature (cf. for instance Keulen et al. 2007).

NB: "This map has met with general approval since its publication" (= Map 2 in Goossens 1965).. Since WP is largely built on secondary sources, here is one that tells us why following Goossens is probably not as bad an idea as Sarcelles appears to think it is.

Of course, the term "Limburgish" in Goossens' sense hasn't really caught up in Germany where Südniederfränkisch/Südrheinmaasländisch are commonly used. I suggest to write something like the following at the top of the section "Subdivisions of Limburgish":

• Dialects of Limburgish belong to a group in the Continental West Germanic dialect continuum that is commonly called East Low Franconian in Dutch dialectology and South Low Franconian in German dialectology, and which extends across the Dutch-German border as far east as Remscheid. Goossens (1965) suggested "Limburgish" as a general term for this dialect group although in Germany, this term is hardly used for South Low Franconian dialects on the German side.

Or something like that. With this disclaimer, we can list Goossens's grouping, but place the focus in the further discussion on B/NL dialects, based on sources like the Taal in stad en land overview for the Belgian side. Currently, there is way too much detail about SLF varieties in Germany. Sure, there is a lot of interesting things to tell about them, but I admit it feels odd that this should happen in an article entitled "Limburgish".

And of course, we need to talk more about the fuzzy transition areas and the quite non-transitional dialects (like Venrays) that nevertheless are often called Limburgish by virtue of being spoken in Limburg. –Austronesier (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The equation East Low Franconian = South Low Franconian is doubtful. If it is right, the sentence in the German interwiki

Das Südniederfränkische entwickelte sich überwiegend aus den Dialekten des Ostniederfränkischen. meaning South Low Franconian mainly developed from the dialects of East Low Franconian. has to loose two logical errors. Sarcelles (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Goossens' seminal article and Hermans' chapter in the De Gruyter volume are. Here is another one:

In de Nederlandse dialectologie staat Zuidnederfrankisch (in de Duitse dialectologie Südniederfränkisch) bekend als Oostnederfrankisch.
— Frens Bakker (2016), Waar scheiden de dialecten in Noord-Limburg?, p. 10, footnote 11. URL: https://www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/435_fulltext.pdf)

Another one for Oostnederfrankisch = Südniederfränkisch = Limburgish:

Zwischen dem ripuarischen Mdagebiet und dem brabantisch-niederfränkischen Dialektraum, dessen Südostgrenze die Ürdinger Linie ist, liegt eine breite Übergangszone, die in der deutschen Fachsprache Südniederfränkisch, in der ndl. Oostnederfrankisch, aus praktischen Gründen aber auch Limburgisch genannt wird.
— Hartmut Beckers, José Cajot (1979), Zur Diatopie der deutschen Dialekte in Belgien, p. 155. URL: https://www.dbnl.org/tekst/cajo001zurd01_01/cajo001zurd01_01_0002.php

Again, I know that Limburgish = South (or East) Low Franconian is just one of several definitions of Limburgish, and clearly not the most common one. But it can be helpful to justify a short mention of South Low Franconian dialects in Germany (as sister dialects of Limburgish varieties in B and NL) in this article, and also the Low Franconian dialects spoken in Liège (which AFAIK are generally not referred to as Limburgs in Belgium). –Austronesier (talk) 20:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

FWIW. another mention in the literature about the use of Limburgisch for dialects in Germany:

Noch bevor die intensive Erforschung des ripuarisch-niederfränkischen Übergangsgebietes von deutscher, limburgischer und niederländischer Seite begann, klassifizierte BREMER bereits 1892 den etwa von der Ürdinger Linie umspannten linksrheinischen Bereich von Tienen bis Krefeld und Düsseldorf ähnlich wie 1965 Jan GOOSSENS als Limburgisch.
— Peter Wiesinger (1975 [2017]), "Zur Stellung der bergischen Mundarten", p. 348. URL: https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/60904

The easternmost part of the South Low Franconian area is assigned by Bremer to a separate dialect group, viz. Bergisch. Here are direct links to the archived map and text by Bremer from 1928 edition of Der Große Brockhaus:[4][5]. –Austronesier (talk) 09:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiesinger merely quotes an old work. The maps based on Daan 1969 mainly cover perceptual dialectology, but are used frequently in Wikipedias. The ik/ich-line is without classifying value at least in the Western part of Germany. Aspects of Tonality, not features of consonants, are the main features of mittelfränkisch-maasländisch (Central Franconian-Meuse area) dialect.

This is a debate between probable Germans: Austronesier, the IP user and me.

We still have neither a convincing division of Limburgish nor convincing definitions of Kleverlandish or South Guelderish. Sarcelles (talk) 05:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sarcelles: The IP challenged the point Limburgish = South LF (in its entirety) as unsourced. My job here has been simply to illustrate that this terminological usage has a long history. Whether we can follow it without giving it undue weight is a different story.

The actual range of the area of Limburgish (= E. Low Franconian = S. Low Franconian = ripuarisch-niederfränkisches Übergangsgebiet = whatnot) that undoubtly exists as a somehow definable entity is again another question. At the mid-level, the Uerdingen line has served as a handy starting point to roughly delineate the northern arc of its extent, but everybody knows by now that it is inadequate. To the west, it is too inclusive (cf. Gete line), to the north and northeast, it is too narrow. It is probably only useful from Panningen to Beringen, where it forms a relatively tight bundle with other, structurally more relevant lines.

There will always be a residue of conflicting results, especially for transitional areas like West Limburgish, or the dialects north/northeast of the Uerdingen line. Conflicting classifications mostly hinge on methodological questions such as which piece of evidence is given more classificatory weight. For Wiesinger it's all in the vowels, for Lameli, it's about significant clustering of data points in a "blind-folded" analysis of the Wenker data.

In this context, the question or Kleverlandish/South Guelderish is only relevant insofar as it has a southern border with Limburgish (= etc.). Its northern and western extent in the Netherlands is a different story, and is only discussed in Dutch literature.

The high-level classification of Limburgish (= etc.) is more contentious. For Wiesinger, it can be included within Ripuarian (thus within High German) based on its vocalism, but this only works because he is concernced with its varieties spoken on the German side, thus with a transitional area within a transitional area. This also holds mutatis mutandis for Lameli. Traditionally (both in German and Dutch dialectology), it seen as part of Low Franconian based on the Benrath line. Within Low Franconian, German dialectologists group it with Kleverlandish (= Nordniederfränkisch = "North Low Franconian"), which only makes sense if you limit the discussion to the German part (and probably als when extending to adjacent parts in the Netherlands in the Rhine-Maas area, hence Rheinmaasländisch), but in a holistic perspective, it makes little sense, simply because Kleverlandish is much closer to ABN by any parameter than Limburgish is (whether you treat is as a language of its own, a dialect of Dutch, or a dialect group in the Continental West Germanic dialect continuum).

But then, our job is to present these topics in all their complexity (NB I haven't even touched sociolinguistic and language-political aspects), based on good sources and always considering due weight. Linguistics and specifically dialectology is not all about rigid taxonomy. "Save the trees" is best left to environmental policy :) –Austronesier (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Southern Meuse-Rhenish is an article never existing in the last 15 years. However, the German interwiki de:Südniederfränkisch of the article Limburgish is to be translated as South Low Franconian.

http://www.wjheeringa.nl/thesis/thesis09.pdf has a map including map showing a group of dialects Limburg mainly coexistent with Dutch Limburg. The clarly non-Frisian varieties have the following two highest categories: One grouping including Limburgish and Northeast Luik including Kerkrade in the Netherlands inter alia and running to the respective area of all three official languages of Belgium, the other grouping including all varieties non mentioned hitherto as well as most of Belgish Limburg. This supports the idea of East Low Franconian. However, the study doesn't cover the part of Germany bordering to the Low Franconian area of Belgium and the Netherlands.

What should be done with the long, recent quotes above? Sarcelles (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sarcelles: I slowly try to bring all related articles more in line with the picture of widely accepted research results, especially considering due weight. I makes little sense e.g. to give too much weight on German research that largely focusess on the marginal area of South Low Franconian in Germany when we want to present a broad picture of the entire dialect area. As said before, I envision for this article a broad article concept: the main focus is of course on South Low Franconian varieties in Belgian and Dutch Limburg, since this is the topic that readers expect to be dicussed here based on its very title. But at the same time, we can give room to South Low Franconian varieties spoken in Liège and Germany. So to address one of your main concers: IMHO, the cross-wiki equation with de:Südniederfränkisch is justifiable. –Austronesier (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree Limburgisch originally is only defined in the Benelux (Jo Daan), South Low Franconian was introduces by Goosens to include Germany and is still used by Cornelissen in LvR link. The demarcation is academic as Low Franconian and Kleverländisch are highly endangered dialects in Germany only spoken by the 60+ generation. See Georg Cornelissen Meine Oma spricht noch Platt (My grandmother is still speaking dialect). Hans Erren (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Jo Daan worked on perceptive linguistics.

This is not useful. Neuere Forschungen in Linguistik und Philologie. Aus dem Kreise seiner Schüler Ludwig Erich Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet, 1975, p. 57 has the Ripuarian-Low Franconian transitional area from Panningen to Germany on both sides of the Rhine as rarely demarcated by Uerdingen line. The Ripuarian-Low Franconian transitional area includes Duisburg on that page. Sarcelles (talk) 08:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hans Erren: South Low Franconian was introduces by Goosens to include Germany This is not quite correct. Usage of the term South Low Franconian for the dialect area from Tienen to Remscheid obviously predates Goossens. Even "Limburgish" as a synonym of South Low Franconian to include dialects in the Rhineland predates Goossens. Dialect demarcations are always "academic", regardless of vitality. And academically relevant.

@Sarcelles: rarely demarcated by Uerdingen line, sure about "rarely"? It is still often seen in academic literature, even Giesbers uses it in her 2008 dissertation Dialecten op de grens van twee talen, which is the first monograph dedicated to Kleverlandish. And frankly, I start to feel uncomfortable to persistently see an emphasis on German works when discussing West Germanic varieties that are for the most part spoken in Belgium and the Netherlands. Austronesier (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Many of the sources entered by me on this talk page are from Belgium or the Netherlands. Furthermore, Wiesinger was an Austrian working in Austria. The many times I used his works rarely pertained to Belgium or the Netherlands. I have stated doubt on several sources from Germany. Which sources should be used for the borders of dialects? @Bertux: @Briegelaer: @De Wikischim:

@Hans Erren: @Hoyanova:

@Matroos Vos: @MWAK: @MicBy67: @Steinbach: @Tevergeefs: @Tomaatje12: @Vinvlugt: Sarcelles (talk) 09:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I'll not take part in this discussion! I've other “construction sites” that are more important than this one.

Have a pleasant day! -- MicBy67 (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why I'm mentioned here. Vinvlugt (talk) 13:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Because of having left a comment on the talk page of the Dutch article. There is the following incomplete jigsaw puzzle:

• Limburgish in Germany is divided into Bergish and the remainder
• Limburgish in Belgium is divided into three vertical parts
• North Limburgish is part of Kleverlandish

Sarcelles (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Nice to see further discussion.

Excluding one place in Holland, Central Dutch in the Netherlands can be grouped into a cluster in Central Gelderland and a one of other varieties. Both clusters border to Germany. Most varieties in Gelderland South of the aforementioned variety of Central Gelderland cluster together with the dialect of Amersfoort and several varieties in North Brabant.

Dutch Limburg can divided into a small area around Weert, a large area until Venlo and an area North of this.

Centraal zuidelijke dialecten which encompasses Brabantic and parts of Northern Dutch Limburg and Northern Belgium Limburg.

It clusters with Tienen and also with Zuidwest-Limburg and Centraal zuidelijke dialecten and Urk Oost-Limburg doesn't group with these varieties.

Heeringa (2004) distinguished (names as in Heeringa):

• Frisian
• Frisian mixed varieties (including town Frisian (Stad(s)fries) and Stellingwerfs)
• Groningen
• Overijssel
• Southwest Limburg
• Brabant
• Central Dutch varieties nearly entire Holland and Utrecht Province, as well as large parts of North Brabant and Gelderland
• Limburg also nearly all of North Limburg. This part of North Limburg has a long border with Germany. For the most part, the places on the German side of this part of the border are in the Kleverlandish dialect area.
• Northeast Luik, including Kerkrade and Eupen, could also be given as Southeast Limburgish.

Dialektologie. 2. Halbband Werner Besch, Ulrich Knoop, Wolfgang Putschke, Herbert E. Wiegand Walter de Gruyter, 2008 p. 858/859 has Ripuarian as to include

Nördliche Eifel

Mittleres Erft- und Rurgebiet

Aachener Land

Bergisches Land

Ripuarisch-niederfränkisches Übergangsgebiet ohne nordbergischen Raum

Nordbergischer Raum

Klaus J. Mattheier (ed.): Aspekte der Dialekttheorie. Tübingen 1983, p. 76

• • Werden
  • • Cronenberg
    • Elberfeld
      • Barmen
  • Mülheim
  • Velbert
  • Breitscheid
• • • Mündelheim
    • Solingen
    • Haan

Neuere Forschungen in Linguistik und Philologie. Aus dem Kreise seiner Schüler Ludwig Erich Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet, 1975, p. 82 are the following ones, the first place the one used exemplarily by the source entered today above.

• Mülheim an der Ruhr, Oberhausen, Dümpten, Heißen
• Werden, Heisingen, Kupferdreh, Bredeney
• Haan, Hilden
• Solingen, Hörscheid, Solingen-Wald, Ohligs
• Barmen
• Elberfeld
• Cronenberg, Remscheid, Ronsdorf

Sarcelles (talk) 08:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Die Einteilung der niederdeutschen Mundarten auf Grund der strukturellen Entwicklung des Vokalismus

from 1971, p. 41 by Baldur Panzer has Uerdingen line as irrelevant particularity. Sarcelles (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Legibility of this talk page

Not only I have made this talke page difficult to. What can I do to render its content better? Sarcelles (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I've added {{Reflist-talk}} to the section above, and tagged the page so that older sections will be archived by a bot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The reflist makes a better legibility. However, the content still doesn't follow the rules. How can I change this? Sarcelles (talk) 07:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

You don't actually say which are the problem sections. But what I do see is a lot of <nowiki>...</nowiki> pairs plus excessive indenting. These seem to have begun around July 2023. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

You removed the automated archiving code, with an edits summary "Automatic archiving removed, the disputes are not resolved"; this seems to be based on a misunderstanding, as live will not be archived. I have restored the code. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

This talk page currently has not a single resolved section as far as I know. Furthermore, it is difficult to read its content, which is even not formatted properly. Sarcelles (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

South Low Franconian

Just a heads-up for watchers of this page: I've created the article South Low Franconian which covers the West Germanic dialect group spoken (or in some areas, once spoken) in three countries. I've strictly focussed on its linguistic features as presented in sources from Belgian, Dutch and German scholars and left ample room for debated views (which btw do not depend on the nationality of the author, as this article (Limburgish) incorrectly states in multiple places).

Since the scope of this article largely overlaps with the Belgian and Dutch area of South Low Franconian, there are quite a few redundacies in the new article, many of which can be resolved if material pertaining to SLF varieties in Germany is trimmed or removed here (most of which is unsourced anyway). Other details are maybe best discussed here as is (like aspects that mostly relevant to the situation in Belgium and the Netherlands, especially the language-political dimension), while others (e.g. linguistic features common to the entire area, or at least are distributed over the Limburgs and German Rhineland) are better covered there. Austronesier (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for creating South Low Franconian, I think it will prove to be most helpful in the future clean up of this article. Vlaemink (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Clean up of unsourced material (november)

Over the years as well as more recently, various templates and cite-tags have been added to this article, requesting reliable and valid sources for many of its claims. While WP:SOURCE very clearly states that any material that requires but lacks citations may be removed immediately, I'd like to ask any followers of this page to add sources to what is questioned/unsourced within a period of three weeks. Instead of removing the disputed material outright, I think it's more practical to allow for a grace period instead of repeatingly having to go to the page history to re-add material if sources can be found. Following this period, I will remove the sections for which no sources were provided. Vlaemink (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

This article has been flooded by edits that range from blunt language advocacy to an atomistic focus on taxomony. Limburgian linguists have produced fantastic research in last 30 years or so (not to forget older works by Goossens), but little of it is echoed in this article (except for the phonological parts by User:Sol505000, one of the few quality editors ever having touched this page lately). It's a pity for such a beautiful topic. –Austronesier (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, and this is exactly why this article needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. Instead of long defunct partisan and/or websites and unsourced OR, it needs proper linguistic literature. Instead of being an eclectic, hardly readable (let alone understandable) mess, it needs to follow a common thread/framework and needs to clearly define its subject. And thirdly, it needs non-activist editors who understand the topic, or, at the very least, understand that using terms like "varieties", "dialects", "dialect group" instead of using "language" doesn't equate to making a value judgment.Vlaemink (talk) 10:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The quality of Wikipedia does not hinge on a single article. We shouldn't "incubate" problematic material into a standalone article. Two problematic articles are worse than one problematic aritcle. This is why have turned "Spelling 2003 for the Limburgish dialects" into a redirect. I am also worried about WP:GNG when it's just a subtopic of the history of how to put Limburgish varieties into writing. The correct procedure would be first to improve the subtopic "Orthography" in this article along the lines of Assendelft (2019) and potentially split it out if size issues arise. Only then we can think about a Spelling 2003-article as a sub-sub-topic.

As for the rest, we should definitely proceed as you suggest: tag, grace period, remove. Also, everything about wider the South Low Franconian context can be trimmed to a summary paragraph, since there's a dedicated article for the dialect group (please but don't "incubate" stuff there!). At the same time, we should decide how to deal with non-Limburgish dialects in Dutch Limburg and especially Belgian Limburg. According to Dutch streektaal policies, Venrays and Meijels are "Limburgish"; but what about Lommels then? By applying the Dutch logic to Belgium, it would be Limburgish too (and it in fact is in the sense as it is part of the linguistic diversity of Limburg), but for dialectologists, hardly so. And then there's the opposite case of Budels. Spoken outside of Limburg, it is sociolinguistically not Limburgish just as Krieewelsch isn't, but in Dutch dialectology, it is included in the Limburgish gamut (but Krieweelsch etc. not). –Austronesier (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding [...] how to deal with non-Limburgish dialects in Dutch Limburg, see d:Q9303961 in case you need some inspiration. A separate article on this would likely have added value here too.

By the way (it may perhaps be a little surprising...?), I agree as well that a separate article on the "non-official" Veldeke spelling as such can(/should) exist as such. Anyway, it needs to be sourced better indeed than the current version. De Wikischim (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I think most dialectologist nowadays would disagree with labelling the dialects of Northern Limburg as "Brabant-Limburg transition dialects". That term is mostly reserved for the area around the Geteline, while for the northern dialects that do not belong to Limburgs in the linguistic sense, scholars like Giesbers, Svanenberg and Bakker (and also the Raod veur't Limburgs) prefer "Kleverlands" as these dialects display little of the typical features of the Brabantian group. But this is just a minor question. It's more about the rest. –Austronesier (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I undid you edit which redirected the Spelling 2003 for the Limburgian dialects-article to this one [6]. To turn the article into a redirect barely two days after its been created for relying on a single source (btw, the same single it relied upon while previously part this article) is somewhat unreasonable in my eyes and if you, like you said, are in favor of a grace period for deleting unsourced material here, then surely you would apply that same mindset to the spelling article — which has since been expanded.

As for the rest of your comment, I think this is skipping an important step: before defining which dialects are not Limburgish, we will first need to define what is, and on what basis/by which definition. This includes elaborating on the regional language status, which applies only to Dutch Limburg and to the entirety of its territory; regardless of what may linguistically may be considered "Limburgish". Vlaemink (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between a grace period for new junk and old junk. WP is inert and that's good thing. ONUS, BRD, y'know. But I have given up on this... –Austronesier (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it's highly exaggerated to consider big parts of this article as unreliable, and use this as a reason to cut them from the article. First, the article already cites ten apparently reliable sources now (see Limburgish#Sources). Apart from that, you can simply put at least some trust in the editors who worked on this article in the recent years (and longer ago). Indeed there are some question tags, but at least one of them seems very superfuous (In Belgium, the Limburgish dialects are more endangered than in the Netherlands › this is a generally well-known fact, about which nobody who is at least somewhat familiar with the linguistic situation in the Dutch and Belgian provinces of Limburg would have any doubt). De Wikischim (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

No, there have been some really, really bad additions to the aricle in the past years, and it needs to be handled with a WP:TNT-approach, if necessary. If something is "a generally well-known fact", then it won't be hard to find a reliable source for it. WP:V is unnegotiable. For "In Belgium, the Limburgish dialects are more endangered than in the Netherlands", I can immediately think of at least three out of hand from my own knowledge of the relevant literature. –Austronesier (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

[...] Hoewel ook in België muziekgroepen in dialect zingen, is de dialectrevival hier veel zwakker dan in Nederland: doordat de standaardtaal in België minder lang en minder algemeen verbreid is dan in Nederland, wordt er meer op de dialecten neergekeken. Ook de politieke en financiële steun voor streektalen en dialecten is in België minder groot dan in Nederland., [7]. (Do I need to translate this into English, or do you understand it enough this way?). Just one example of a quote which 100% endorses the relevant text part in this article. De Wikischim (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Stop the bickering: WP:SOFIXIT. And I fucking do speak Dutch. –Austronesier (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

While I agree with you, please watch your language. Vlaemink (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Which one of the three languages that I use on a daily basis? –Austronesier (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)