This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move after nearly a month. Cúchullain t/ c 03:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Belgian Dutch dialects → Belgian Dutch – 'dialects' not needed here. This article concentrates on Dutch in Belgium; Flemish language is a separate article. There is a failed request for the same name from 2009, but AFAICT there was no separate article on Vlaams/Flemish at the time, and this article was covering both topics, making the choice of a name more difficult. Relisted. BDD ( talk) 17:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC) — kwami ( talk) 03:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I have moved this page back to its original "Flemish", with its original contents. Kwami, first moving a page to one title, and then starting a move discussion for having it moved to yet another title, comes across as very curious. Perhaps starting a move discussion for the original move would have been better if you weren't too sure of where to end with this?
It was also very strange that you split of a new page "Flemish" discussing only East- and West-Flemish, with a reference to Ethnologue which gives Flemish as the language spoken in the whole of Flanders, including e.g. Limburg (but with subdialects obviously).
Anyway, I oppose any move of this page to Belgian Dutch or a variation thereof, and I oppose any attempt to restrict "Flemish" to the dialects spoken in East- and West-Flanders only, as that is not the usual meaning of the word. I support a move to Flemish (language). Fram ( talk) 07:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Fram, you're an admin and you don't know not to delete RS's just because you don't agree with them? At least provide refs for your own POV. As you yourself pointed out more than once, one of the meanings of "Flemish" is the language of Flanders. Now you're deleting that claim as "highly POV". Please make up your mind, and use references to support your edits. — kwami ( talk) 10:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I suggest, when there is a conflict, that newspapers reflect common use much better than government agencies. The NY Times uses "Flemish" [1]. Flemish is more natural and recognizable than any of the Dutch alternatives being proposed. -- B2 C 01:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Few linguistic references make more than a mention of "Flemish". Here are some that I've dug up:
— kwami ( talk) 11:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
So what your sources reveal is that there is no agreement on what Flemish actually is (and still no sources for "East and West Flemish" as one group, as requested at that article).
Other sources:
Never mind that in common usage, Flemish is always meant as the language spoken in the whole of Flanders: e.g. many English DVDs have been dubbed in both "Nederlands" and "Vlaams", this is not some West Flemish, which isn't understandable to people from Antwerp, but either a "tussentaal" or a polished variation of Brabantian, or a mixture of different Flemish dialect sounds (without the more regional dialect words), e.g. mixing people with a Ghent accent with people with a Kempisch tongue and people with a purely Antwerpish tongue. Fram ( talk) 12:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I hope to give this a bit of a fresh start by establishing some facts that we all agree on. Following this, we should have specific proposals and discussions rather than the unfocused mess this discussion has become.
I think it is clear that in light of #3 and my list above that the page Flemish itself needs to disambiguate between the different uses of the word, just like French, English and Austrian do. Does anyone object to this?
Next comes the question of how you break up the content between the different uses of the term to mean languages.
Here I think the best solution is to fork the content into two pages, with each explaining the other. For example, the page on Belgian Dutch should briefly explain that there is a group of dialects often also called 'Flemish', and not touch on that anymore. The page on the dialect group should explain the other version; in its current form it would probably lack content, serving mostly as a description that the four dialects are sometimes grouped, while linking to them individually. I don't see that as a problem.
Now comes another contentious question: what to call the resulting pages. The obvious issue is that Flemish can mean either Belgian Dutch or West Flemish and associated dialects. The problem with a page name like Flemish (language) or Flemish (dialect) is that it's not clear what they're referring to; each could be either. The problem with a page name like Belgian Dutch is that it is more common to call it Flemish. So I think the most productive way forward is to discuss which of these should be followed or to see if we can come up with clear names for each.
For example, if we made an article called Flemish (Belgian Dutch) then it would be very clear what that is, right? ( Belgian Dutch should of course be a redirect, or the other way around.) Could Flemish (dialect group) be a good title for an article? I would like to hear what each of you thinks. Oreo Priest talk 23:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I think Flemish (Belgian Dutch) and Flemish (dialect group) would be good titles, but I'm not especially fond of the second option. Oreo Priest talk 23:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
"X (language)" and "X (dialect)" are deprecated dabs. Some time ago we went though WP and moved all such names to something else. — kwami ( talk) 01:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I read:
"The sound spelled <ch> is a voiceless velar fricative [x] in Northern Dutch and a voiceless palatal fricative [ç] in Southern Dutch.[12] In the North the sound spelled <g> is usually realized as voiceless velar fricative [x] or voiceless uvular fricative [χ], whereas in the South the distinction between voiced and unvoiced has been preserved and <g> is pronounced as voiced palatal fricative /ʝ/."
And a few lines below:
"<ch> and <g> pronounced as (voiceless resp. voiced) front-velars, not as palatals, as often claimed."
This seems contradictory. Based on how I form these consonants (I'm Flemish), I would say the latter is more correct: I indeed pronounce them as velars, and I think this holds for most Flemings east of East-Flanders (in East- and West-Flanders it tends to merge or even swap with the phoneme for the letter h). The Dutch (especially "above the rivers") clearly do something different, I think they mostly use the voiceless uvular fricative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.224.53.151 ( talk) 21:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The byline of the map with language communities seems to be the subject of some disagreement. The problem is that we have to translate the complex Belgian constitution and political situation into an encyclopedic article.
The constitution says that on the matter of culture and languages, Belgian has three communities (Flanders, the French community and the German community) - next to three regions: Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels. Both the Flemish and the French community have jurisdiction over Brussels on cultural and linguistic matters. Therefore, Brussels is an integral part of Flanders on community matters (as it is an integral part of the French community). Now, how do we translate this for those that do not have a university degree in Belgian politics, and preferably contained in one or two sentences?
I believe that User:Oreo Priest's proposal is one of the better attempts. I'd like User:Midas02 to stop reverting to his/her diff, which in my eyes is incorrect. His/her multiple reverts begin to have a disruptive feel... -- LucVerhelst ( talk) 10:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
§ Dutch in Flanders uses the terms
Immediately afterward, § Phonological differences begins by contrasting
but from then on only contrasts
Is "southern Dutch" being used here as a synonym for Flemish? -- Thnidu ( talk) 21:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
"This evolution has led to some controversy among linguists, who are afraid it dilutes the usage of standard Dutch" The cited article only mentions the economist Stijn Verrept. So this source only shows there is at least one scientist having this fear. I would propose to replace "linguists" by "Dutch-speaking persons" or a similar term. BenediktWildenhain ( talk) 22:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
In his edits starting 16 October 2015, editor 84.197.124.248 changed the sourced definition of Flemish as a laguage to variety while keeping the references the same and not providing others. I doubt that the sources treat Flemish both as a language and a variety, so the whole article has been flawed by this. Misrepresenting sources is vandalism. I do not specialize on Dutch of any kind, could someone please sort it out? -- WikiHannibal ( talk) 21:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
.Linguistically and formally, "Flemish" is not and does not refer to a current language or dialect but refers to the region, culture and people of (West) Belgium or Flanders.
why isn't there a language infobox? I very much would like to see the language family Flemish belongs to when I land on this page. I'm gonna go to the Dutch page for that info now, but why not put it here too? skak E L 09:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
This page has just been moved from Flemish to Dutch in Belgium without, as far as I can see, any prior discussion here. Since I imagine a few people (myself included) will be a bit miffed by this, could Wester revert his edit while we attempt to try to reach some kind of consensus? — Brigade Piron ( talk) 18:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm also for renaming this article to Belgian Dutch, which is a less ambiguous name. Mr KEBAB ( talk) 11:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose such a move, per WP:COMMONNAME. [8] 84,000 Ghits for Belgian Dutch + language, [9] 13 million for Flemish + language (yes, this one will have more false positives than the other one, ubt still...) In Gbooks (which will have more reliable sources), 1.2 million for Flemish [10], 4,500 for BElgian Dutch [11]. Even the combination "Flemish language" gets three times as much Gbook hits [12], while "Belgian Dutch language" only gets less than 500 hits [13]. In Gnews, it's 387 for "Flemish language" vs. 5 for "Belgian Dutch language".
If people feel that Flemish on its own is too ambiguous, we can create "Flemish" as a disambiguation (with Flemish people), and move this page to Flemish (language). But that is basically what the hatnote already does. Fram ( talk) 12:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Andreas Philopater: (Redacted) Have you cited a single reputable source? My source is Jan Kooij: 5. Dutch in Bernard Comrie: The World's Major Languages, Routledge, 2009, p.110. You can access it on Google Books. It says that "the variety of Dutch that is spoken in Belgium is often, incorrectly, referred to as Flemish (Vlaams)." It's fair enough to say that I haven't cited it until now, at least not here. I did in some edit summaries.
"Wikipedia policy is to reflect current usage, not to try to correct whatever misunderstandings it might lead to." - do I have to remind you that this article says that the term Flemish is used in at least five different ways? Surely, in this case WP:IGNOREALLRULES is a more sound policy than WP:COMMONNAME, as the 'common name' is incredibly ambiguous and misleading.
Fram: "Written Flemish and written Dutch are much more similar than spoken Flemish and Dutch, although differences in word choice and the like exist." - there's no such thing as "written Flemish" as opposed to "written Dutch" nor "spoken Flemish" as opposed to "spoken Dutch". They are the same language, and Flemish is an ambiguous term with multiple meanings. There are differences between written Belgian Standard Dutch and written Northern Standard Dutch, or spoken (Belgian/Northern) Standard Dutch and non-standard local dialects (West Flemish, East Flemish, Brabantian, Limburgish) - among these, only East Flemish is not spoken in the Netherlands as well (West Flemish in the Netherlands is called "Zeelandic" and "French Flemish" in France), or something in-between ('tussentaal').
Buster7: "In my experience, Flamands know two languages, Flemish and Dutch whereas the Dutch only know one." Cite your sources, because this looks like nonsense. Flemish is an ambiguous term with multiple meanings, none of which is 'a language separate from Dutch'. Again, has any of you actually read this article?
I'm not against considering West Flemish or Limburgish to be languages separate from Dutch. Linguists generally consider the latter to be a language, but not the former. But to say that "Flemish is a language separate from Dutch" (or however you want to formulate it) is totally meaningless, and in many cases simply not true. (Redacted)
This would all be avoided if the standard language of Flanders would be a standardized form of West Flemish, which was proposed at one time. Neither I or the majority of linguists would have a problem with calling it a 'language'. Mr KEBAB ( talk) 14:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Alternative Transport has ignored the need for consensus and created a content fork at Dutch in Belgium in order to conform English Wikipedia to the usage on Dutch Wikipedia, in preference to the established policy for article titles. So what steps should follow? -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 08:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
That map of dialects in the Benelux may have some historical value, showing the different dialects in the Spanish Netherlands or something, but it is not at all an accurate representation of the current situation, or the situation for the past few centuries for that matter. Anyone living near the border (or anyone from Holland and Belgium to be honest) knows the way Dutch is spoken changes drastically once the border is crossed, there may be some mixing in border towns, but it is absolutely not true that people in Antwerp speak roughly the same dialect as people in Breda. It's also misleading in that now it looks for example as if the Antwerp dialect is more similar to the Breda dialect than it is to the Ghent dialect. That map is a real eye soar, I'm curious what data the map maker used to come to their conclusions, they cite "publications" by the Dutch dialectologist Jo Daan, but the map shown on Jo Daan's Wikipedia page is completely different and looks infinitely more accurate to my experience. I suspect if the map maker did use data from one of Jo Daan's books, it may be "History of Dialectography in the Dutch language area" (not that I've read it, but as I said it looks more like a historical map than one depicting today's reality). If a version of that map on Jo Daan's article would be used for this article that would be alright with me, but the inaccurate map currently shown also appears on numerous other Wikipedia articles and it's a real shame, it should really be removed or changed all together. Dapperedavid ( talk) 01:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Does anybody want to add the German interlanguage link to "Belgisches Niederländisch" ? I can't figure out how to do it, because there is a conflict in the wikidata terminology. This stems from the fact that the English article here uses the colloquial term for the language (Flemish) while the German article uses the professional linguistic term (Belgian Dutch). They are on the same topic though. Thanks! EnTerbury ( talk) 10:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
The introduction states: "MultiTree considers Flemish to include the four principal Dutch dialects in the Flemish region (Flanders): Brabantian, East Flemish, West Flemish and Limburgish as well as three other dialects.[13] Glottolog considers Flemish to be a separate (regional) language, which includes the dialects French Flemish and West Flemish.[14] Ethnologue considers Limburgish and West Flemish to be separate (regional) languages.[15][16]", while the Language Codes bar on the right uses nld and dutc1256 as ISO639-3 and Glottolog codes respectively. I would like to update this so that the Language Codes use the Vlaams codes as identified within the introduction text. Is there a reason these are different? PaulSutherland ( talk) 13:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move after nearly a month. Cúchullain t/ c 03:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Belgian Dutch dialects → Belgian Dutch – 'dialects' not needed here. This article concentrates on Dutch in Belgium; Flemish language is a separate article. There is a failed request for the same name from 2009, but AFAICT there was no separate article on Vlaams/Flemish at the time, and this article was covering both topics, making the choice of a name more difficult. Relisted. BDD ( talk) 17:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC) — kwami ( talk) 03:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I have moved this page back to its original "Flemish", with its original contents. Kwami, first moving a page to one title, and then starting a move discussion for having it moved to yet another title, comes across as very curious. Perhaps starting a move discussion for the original move would have been better if you weren't too sure of where to end with this?
It was also very strange that you split of a new page "Flemish" discussing only East- and West-Flemish, with a reference to Ethnologue which gives Flemish as the language spoken in the whole of Flanders, including e.g. Limburg (but with subdialects obviously).
Anyway, I oppose any move of this page to Belgian Dutch or a variation thereof, and I oppose any attempt to restrict "Flemish" to the dialects spoken in East- and West-Flanders only, as that is not the usual meaning of the word. I support a move to Flemish (language). Fram ( talk) 07:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Fram, you're an admin and you don't know not to delete RS's just because you don't agree with them? At least provide refs for your own POV. As you yourself pointed out more than once, one of the meanings of "Flemish" is the language of Flanders. Now you're deleting that claim as "highly POV". Please make up your mind, and use references to support your edits. — kwami ( talk) 10:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I suggest, when there is a conflict, that newspapers reflect common use much better than government agencies. The NY Times uses "Flemish" [1]. Flemish is more natural and recognizable than any of the Dutch alternatives being proposed. -- B2 C 01:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Few linguistic references make more than a mention of "Flemish". Here are some that I've dug up:
— kwami ( talk) 11:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
So what your sources reveal is that there is no agreement on what Flemish actually is (and still no sources for "East and West Flemish" as one group, as requested at that article).
Other sources:
Never mind that in common usage, Flemish is always meant as the language spoken in the whole of Flanders: e.g. many English DVDs have been dubbed in both "Nederlands" and "Vlaams", this is not some West Flemish, which isn't understandable to people from Antwerp, but either a "tussentaal" or a polished variation of Brabantian, or a mixture of different Flemish dialect sounds (without the more regional dialect words), e.g. mixing people with a Ghent accent with people with a Kempisch tongue and people with a purely Antwerpish tongue. Fram ( talk) 12:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I hope to give this a bit of a fresh start by establishing some facts that we all agree on. Following this, we should have specific proposals and discussions rather than the unfocused mess this discussion has become.
I think it is clear that in light of #3 and my list above that the page Flemish itself needs to disambiguate between the different uses of the word, just like French, English and Austrian do. Does anyone object to this?
Next comes the question of how you break up the content between the different uses of the term to mean languages.
Here I think the best solution is to fork the content into two pages, with each explaining the other. For example, the page on Belgian Dutch should briefly explain that there is a group of dialects often also called 'Flemish', and not touch on that anymore. The page on the dialect group should explain the other version; in its current form it would probably lack content, serving mostly as a description that the four dialects are sometimes grouped, while linking to them individually. I don't see that as a problem.
Now comes another contentious question: what to call the resulting pages. The obvious issue is that Flemish can mean either Belgian Dutch or West Flemish and associated dialects. The problem with a page name like Flemish (language) or Flemish (dialect) is that it's not clear what they're referring to; each could be either. The problem with a page name like Belgian Dutch is that it is more common to call it Flemish. So I think the most productive way forward is to discuss which of these should be followed or to see if we can come up with clear names for each.
For example, if we made an article called Flemish (Belgian Dutch) then it would be very clear what that is, right? ( Belgian Dutch should of course be a redirect, or the other way around.) Could Flemish (dialect group) be a good title for an article? I would like to hear what each of you thinks. Oreo Priest talk 23:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I think Flemish (Belgian Dutch) and Flemish (dialect group) would be good titles, but I'm not especially fond of the second option. Oreo Priest talk 23:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
"X (language)" and "X (dialect)" are deprecated dabs. Some time ago we went though WP and moved all such names to something else. — kwami ( talk) 01:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I read:
"The sound spelled <ch> is a voiceless velar fricative [x] in Northern Dutch and a voiceless palatal fricative [ç] in Southern Dutch.[12] In the North the sound spelled <g> is usually realized as voiceless velar fricative [x] or voiceless uvular fricative [χ], whereas in the South the distinction between voiced and unvoiced has been preserved and <g> is pronounced as voiced palatal fricative /ʝ/."
And a few lines below:
"<ch> and <g> pronounced as (voiceless resp. voiced) front-velars, not as palatals, as often claimed."
This seems contradictory. Based on how I form these consonants (I'm Flemish), I would say the latter is more correct: I indeed pronounce them as velars, and I think this holds for most Flemings east of East-Flanders (in East- and West-Flanders it tends to merge or even swap with the phoneme for the letter h). The Dutch (especially "above the rivers") clearly do something different, I think they mostly use the voiceless uvular fricative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.224.53.151 ( talk) 21:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The byline of the map with language communities seems to be the subject of some disagreement. The problem is that we have to translate the complex Belgian constitution and political situation into an encyclopedic article.
The constitution says that on the matter of culture and languages, Belgian has three communities (Flanders, the French community and the German community) - next to three regions: Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels. Both the Flemish and the French community have jurisdiction over Brussels on cultural and linguistic matters. Therefore, Brussels is an integral part of Flanders on community matters (as it is an integral part of the French community). Now, how do we translate this for those that do not have a university degree in Belgian politics, and preferably contained in one or two sentences?
I believe that User:Oreo Priest's proposal is one of the better attempts. I'd like User:Midas02 to stop reverting to his/her diff, which in my eyes is incorrect. His/her multiple reverts begin to have a disruptive feel... -- LucVerhelst ( talk) 10:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
§ Dutch in Flanders uses the terms
Immediately afterward, § Phonological differences begins by contrasting
but from then on only contrasts
Is "southern Dutch" being used here as a synonym for Flemish? -- Thnidu ( talk) 21:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
"This evolution has led to some controversy among linguists, who are afraid it dilutes the usage of standard Dutch" The cited article only mentions the economist Stijn Verrept. So this source only shows there is at least one scientist having this fear. I would propose to replace "linguists" by "Dutch-speaking persons" or a similar term. BenediktWildenhain ( talk) 22:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
In his edits starting 16 October 2015, editor 84.197.124.248 changed the sourced definition of Flemish as a laguage to variety while keeping the references the same and not providing others. I doubt that the sources treat Flemish both as a language and a variety, so the whole article has been flawed by this. Misrepresenting sources is vandalism. I do not specialize on Dutch of any kind, could someone please sort it out? -- WikiHannibal ( talk) 21:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
.Linguistically and formally, "Flemish" is not and does not refer to a current language or dialect but refers to the region, culture and people of (West) Belgium or Flanders.
why isn't there a language infobox? I very much would like to see the language family Flemish belongs to when I land on this page. I'm gonna go to the Dutch page for that info now, but why not put it here too? skak E L 09:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
This page has just been moved from Flemish to Dutch in Belgium without, as far as I can see, any prior discussion here. Since I imagine a few people (myself included) will be a bit miffed by this, could Wester revert his edit while we attempt to try to reach some kind of consensus? — Brigade Piron ( talk) 18:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm also for renaming this article to Belgian Dutch, which is a less ambiguous name. Mr KEBAB ( talk) 11:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose such a move, per WP:COMMONNAME. [8] 84,000 Ghits for Belgian Dutch + language, [9] 13 million for Flemish + language (yes, this one will have more false positives than the other one, ubt still...) In Gbooks (which will have more reliable sources), 1.2 million for Flemish [10], 4,500 for BElgian Dutch [11]. Even the combination "Flemish language" gets three times as much Gbook hits [12], while "Belgian Dutch language" only gets less than 500 hits [13]. In Gnews, it's 387 for "Flemish language" vs. 5 for "Belgian Dutch language".
If people feel that Flemish on its own is too ambiguous, we can create "Flemish" as a disambiguation (with Flemish people), and move this page to Flemish (language). But that is basically what the hatnote already does. Fram ( talk) 12:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Andreas Philopater: (Redacted) Have you cited a single reputable source? My source is Jan Kooij: 5. Dutch in Bernard Comrie: The World's Major Languages, Routledge, 2009, p.110. You can access it on Google Books. It says that "the variety of Dutch that is spoken in Belgium is often, incorrectly, referred to as Flemish (Vlaams)." It's fair enough to say that I haven't cited it until now, at least not here. I did in some edit summaries.
"Wikipedia policy is to reflect current usage, not to try to correct whatever misunderstandings it might lead to." - do I have to remind you that this article says that the term Flemish is used in at least five different ways? Surely, in this case WP:IGNOREALLRULES is a more sound policy than WP:COMMONNAME, as the 'common name' is incredibly ambiguous and misleading.
Fram: "Written Flemish and written Dutch are much more similar than spoken Flemish and Dutch, although differences in word choice and the like exist." - there's no such thing as "written Flemish" as opposed to "written Dutch" nor "spoken Flemish" as opposed to "spoken Dutch". They are the same language, and Flemish is an ambiguous term with multiple meanings. There are differences between written Belgian Standard Dutch and written Northern Standard Dutch, or spoken (Belgian/Northern) Standard Dutch and non-standard local dialects (West Flemish, East Flemish, Brabantian, Limburgish) - among these, only East Flemish is not spoken in the Netherlands as well (West Flemish in the Netherlands is called "Zeelandic" and "French Flemish" in France), or something in-between ('tussentaal').
Buster7: "In my experience, Flamands know two languages, Flemish and Dutch whereas the Dutch only know one." Cite your sources, because this looks like nonsense. Flemish is an ambiguous term with multiple meanings, none of which is 'a language separate from Dutch'. Again, has any of you actually read this article?
I'm not against considering West Flemish or Limburgish to be languages separate from Dutch. Linguists generally consider the latter to be a language, but not the former. But to say that "Flemish is a language separate from Dutch" (or however you want to formulate it) is totally meaningless, and in many cases simply not true. (Redacted)
This would all be avoided if the standard language of Flanders would be a standardized form of West Flemish, which was proposed at one time. Neither I or the majority of linguists would have a problem with calling it a 'language'. Mr KEBAB ( talk) 14:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Alternative Transport has ignored the need for consensus and created a content fork at Dutch in Belgium in order to conform English Wikipedia to the usage on Dutch Wikipedia, in preference to the established policy for article titles. So what steps should follow? -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 08:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
That map of dialects in the Benelux may have some historical value, showing the different dialects in the Spanish Netherlands or something, but it is not at all an accurate representation of the current situation, or the situation for the past few centuries for that matter. Anyone living near the border (or anyone from Holland and Belgium to be honest) knows the way Dutch is spoken changes drastically once the border is crossed, there may be some mixing in border towns, but it is absolutely not true that people in Antwerp speak roughly the same dialect as people in Breda. It's also misleading in that now it looks for example as if the Antwerp dialect is more similar to the Breda dialect than it is to the Ghent dialect. That map is a real eye soar, I'm curious what data the map maker used to come to their conclusions, they cite "publications" by the Dutch dialectologist Jo Daan, but the map shown on Jo Daan's Wikipedia page is completely different and looks infinitely more accurate to my experience. I suspect if the map maker did use data from one of Jo Daan's books, it may be "History of Dialectography in the Dutch language area" (not that I've read it, but as I said it looks more like a historical map than one depicting today's reality). If a version of that map on Jo Daan's article would be used for this article that would be alright with me, but the inaccurate map currently shown also appears on numerous other Wikipedia articles and it's a real shame, it should really be removed or changed all together. Dapperedavid ( talk) 01:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Does anybody want to add the German interlanguage link to "Belgisches Niederländisch" ? I can't figure out how to do it, because there is a conflict in the wikidata terminology. This stems from the fact that the English article here uses the colloquial term for the language (Flemish) while the German article uses the professional linguistic term (Belgian Dutch). They are on the same topic though. Thanks! EnTerbury ( talk) 10:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
The introduction states: "MultiTree considers Flemish to include the four principal Dutch dialects in the Flemish region (Flanders): Brabantian, East Flemish, West Flemish and Limburgish as well as three other dialects.[13] Glottolog considers Flemish to be a separate (regional) language, which includes the dialects French Flemish and West Flemish.[14] Ethnologue considers Limburgish and West Flemish to be separate (regional) languages.[15][16]", while the Language Codes bar on the right uses nld and dutc1256 as ISO639-3 and Glottolog codes respectively. I would like to update this so that the Language Codes use the Vlaams codes as identified within the introduction text. Is there a reason these are different? PaulSutherland ( talk) 13:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)