Talk:United Provinces

Requested move

United Provinces redirects here.

support Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
support. I was surprised that the Indian United Provinces gets as many google hits [1] as the Dutch [2]. Initially I wanted the Dutch page moved back to its location at United Provinces, but after the google search, I agree with the proposed move. Eugene van der Pijll 21:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
hmm. Take a look at what links to United Provinces right now ([3]). Of the 466 links (who's going to fix all those?) I saw 3 to the Indian state, and 2 to Argentina, none to Central America. I may have missed some English noblemen who were in India. I agree that "Dutch Republic" is a better title than "United Provinces", but it's probably better to redirect "United Provinces" to "Dutch Republic", with a dablink on top to "United Provinces (disambiguation)". Markussep 15:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- we will fix this step by step. and avoid by any means a redirect "United Provinces" to "Dutch Republic" this would only enforce people not to link correctly. Links to a "United Provinces"-dab page are better than to a redir-page, because than people are ask to disambig the link that lead them there. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may call it incorrect linking, but "United Provinces" is a very common name for the "Dutch Republic" (see those 400odd links). I fixed the five non-Dutch UP's I found, and created United Provinces (Argentina), which redirects to History of Argentina. Markussep 12:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- why are you attacking me? "you may call it incorrect" ... United Provinces is a generic term, not only used by NL. That's it. And the article is at Dutch Republic. And UP redirects to "UP (dab)". And all links to UP therefore go to UP dab. Better linking IMO is a link that leads to Dutch Republic or wherever the artivles about the Republic of the UP resides. And you from NL think UP should only stand for the UP of NL? I think you are NL biased. Disrespect for other UPs. Ciao. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Am I attacking you? Come on, I hope you're joking. It's not just me or the Dutch inventing this. You'll notice that the other UPs were shorter-lived (e.g. the Indian one 1902-1947, the Central American one 1823-1840, the Argentine one is a bit vague), and didn't have the historical impact of the Dutch one, internationally. But that's not the point I'm making, I'm being practical here. If you prefer changing all those links, be my guest. I'll ignore your bias and disrespect remarks, they're totally misplaced. Markussep 21:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Am I attacking you? Come on, I hope you're joking." (thanks for allowing for this possibility ;-))
Why did you say You may call it incorrect linking, but "United Provinces" is a very common name for the "Dutch Republic" - First I thought it's not up to you to give me permission to call something incorrect. I perceived your phrasing as kind of arrogant (maybe you did not mean it that way). Second: I did not doubt at all that UP is common word for the Dutch Republic. I called it "not correct linking" because the links will lead to a dab page. Yes the links will be changed, step by step. WP has time. And better have more over-accurate links than possible unclear links. But with the UP it should nearly allways be easy to see from the article context which UP is meant. This is not so for some other topics. Sometimes it's not clear if XY was conquered and XY now beeing a dab between between XY (city) and XY (province) what really was conquered. That's what I mean by correct / more accurate. Best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that it's not up to me to allow you to say something. "you may call ..." doesn't mean "I allow you to call ...", but "it's possible that you call ...". It was my intention to show that there are other possibilities, that's all. For the time being, with 99% of the links to "United Provinces" implying "Dutch Republic", I prefer my solution, but eventually, when you have changed all ambiguous links ;-), your solution is preferable. Markussep 14:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...but I knew that it is possible, so the wording could be perceived as talking to an idiot.

I think linking to Dutch Republic is not good. I prefer "Republic of the United Netherlands" or "UP (Low countries)". This than can be directed wherever the article is. "Dutch Republic" is this really clear? Is this 100% referring to "UP of the NLs"? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm not calling you an idiot. You have a tendency to read negative things. AFAIK "Dutch Republic" is not ambiguous, provided we don't kick the queen out tomorrow. The only other Dutch republic I can think of is the Batavian Republic (Bataafse Republiek), which is only known under that name. Another "trivial" name for the "Republic of the Seven United Netherlands" is "Seven Provinces" (Zeven Provinciën, with an archaic plural). RotSUN is way too long, so let's keep it at DR. Markussep 18:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

" I'm not calling you an idiot. " - thanks :-) For the tendency - I disagree. But maybe you are right. So it seems fine to use DR in the links. I made some with RotSUN or RotSUP but they redirect to DR. The archaic plural looks more german. "Provinzen" as we say. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 09:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support - From a Euro-centric perspective, UP as the Dutch Republic makes sense. However, to a large part of the English-speaking world, UP refers to India. Combined with the existence of other uses, a good case is made for a link to the disamb page. LuiKhuntek 08:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The page was moved. Someone had better get busy on disabiguating all those links ;-) the wub "?!" 22:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Big flags

What's up with the big flags? I find they are distracting rather than being useful. --moyogo 14:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]