This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the History of Belgium before 1830 page were merged into History of Belgium. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Ctrl+V by 172 Nobody does it better !
Does the Dutroux scandal really need to take up this much space? The article is about the entire history of the country, but a significant portion of it is dedicated to a single scandal. -- Sesel 07:26, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
Very true. There is barely any time spent discussing VITAL parts of Belgian history such as the school crisis or the splitting of the University of Leuven in '68. ... not to mention that the Congo received a very rosy treatment.
"Rumour has that both France and the Netherlands had plans to fully occupy or annex Belgium well after World War I, but these never came to fruition." Source? Junes 10:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"In 675 BC, the Belgae were overrrun by the armies of Julius Caesar" : in 675 BC Julius Caesar was not even born ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.205.46.216 ( talk) 14:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This article seem to suggest that the belgae are viewed as almost perfectly Gauls. This isn't true. They were more of a melting pot between German and Celtic culture. With certain tribes claiming to have german blood, and originating from Germanic lands. At least thats what Caesar says in his Bello Galllico. If noone minds I'll go do some reading and expand (and possibly correct some mistake) in this section. When I find more time and have good sources at hand. Need spelling, grammar and opinions afterwards. Titirius ( talk) 10:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
The process that lead to the stablisment of the federalised institutions (Flemish, Walloon, ... governements) is not discussed at all in this section. Quite strange.
I'll have a go at it when I find some time. Though I could use someone proofreading spelling and grammar. Titirius ( talk) 10:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
What is the last country that Belgium was at war with before the two World Wars? The answer I hear most often is .. Germany, during the Franco-Prussian war. This article doesn't mention it all. However, I am far from an expert on that war, and not a native speaker of English either... So I must resort to asking for help. Evilbu 14:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi. In looking at Category:Military history of Belgium during World War II it appears that there is no lead article for this. Belgium was a key state in the beginning of the Second World War. If anyone can assist by starting Military history of Belgium during World War II it would fill an important gap. There are many good and reliable sources for this topic. Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 13:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll try and write a short basis for this section when I find some time. Titirius ( talk) 10:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Image:Taal Aktie Komitee.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 06:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Atomium-sm.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC) comment : The image of the Atomium is copyrighted by the monument's creator (architect engineer) therfore it cannot be fair use-- DerekvG ( talk) 23:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Aside from political sympathy, a key objective for both the British and the French governments was to keep the harbors of Antwerp and Rotterdam in two separate, hostile countries.
Are there any independent sources for this claim? It seems unlikely that Britain, which was at the apex of its economic and military power at that time, would have felt remotely threatened by a united Netherlands. In fact, the united kingdom of the Netherlands was a British creation. Furthermore, in the absence of a land route, cargo for the European mainland couldn't have gone to London instead, and cargo for the UK couldn't be unloaded in Antwerp, even if one harbor was much "better" than the other. It seems more likely that Britain recognized and guaranteed the Belgian independence and its borders to prevent it from joining France, so shortly after Napoleon, and very shortly after the French july revolution.
--
Mzzl (
talk)
08:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The comment that Belgium recieved no war reperations is incorrect. During the 1920's when the German Government could not pay, a Franco-Belgian force invaded the Saar land to collect what was owed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.173.253 ( talk) 19:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I read this sentence: Although he narrowly won the referendum, the militant socialist movement in Liège, Hainaut and other urban centres incited major protests and strikes. Many people said, long before (in 1945) the strike of July will occur (Gillon, Van den Dungen, Frans Van Cauwelaert... In General strike against Leopold III of Belgium, there are evidences the Socialist party didn't incite. I think it is difficult to say that a party would be able to incite or to order a General strike, which is always rather uncontrollable. Sincerely, José Fontaine ( talk) 22:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I did a pretty big revert of content added by Andrew Lancaster, so I would like to explain my concerns.
I did end up putting a lot of his stuff back in too. My version was certainly not perfect, and nor was his, so I'm hoping that my edits turn out to move the introduction closer to something that gets to the gist of it. Oreo Priest talk 00:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Can we take this a read? Quite frankly it would be surprising if it didn't. Though I don't have a better suggestion off the top of my head, the first sentance is really important and, in its present form, it really does not add anything. -- Brigade Piron ( talk) 17:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Continuing thanks for the work being done on the article, but I do feel that a caution needs to be raised. This article is now getting well above the suggested maximum size for an article, and any quick reading will show that every part and even every sentence is becoming very wordy and trying to fit every possible side-issue into every sentence. It looks like a very big draft at this moment. I am hoping that compression will also be part of the editing process?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 21:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
( ←) I understand that everything seems important and valuable, but this article isn't supposed to be an exhaustive list of everything that's ever happened in Belgium. It's supposed to be a high-level summary, and a reasonable length, and readability suffers if we try to include everything on this page. Per WP:SPLIT:
Readable prose size | What to do |
> 100k | Almost certainly should be divided |
> 60k | Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time) |
> 50k | May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size) |
< 40k | Length alone does not justify division |
< 1k | If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, why not fix it by adding more info? See Wikipedia:Stub. |
Right now we're sitting on 140k, which is substantially more than the 'almost certainly should be divided' listed above. If you print it as a PDF, the prose is 33 A4 pages long. This is simply too much text for the average reader. To pick out a couple particularly egregious examples, someone wanting a summary of the history of Belgium (and not a PhD on it) would probably not care about "Foreign relations and the Franco-Prussian War" (in which Belgium didn't even participate) or a contract awarded to provide tramways to a minor Chinese city. I know we find these interesting, but we are clearly not the average reader, and this article is not the place for those facts. We really have to be bold here with the scissors, and fork some of the more detailed explanations to their own pages. Oreo Priest talk 16:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
consider what new articles can be created in order to be a home for some of this material. For example Economic history of Belgium?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 20:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm starting a new article on Belgium in World War I that will include excerpts from here and from the articles on the Rape of Belgium etc. We can decide later if this article can be shortened accordingly. Rjensen ( talk) 09:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Here is a list of (sub) articles which have been from the text from this article. Please link to them instead of providing long descriptions:
Please update this list as they are created. -- Brigade Piron ( talk) 19:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Historiography can be worth discussing in WP of course, but is it a notable part of History itself?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
This map is presented as a language map. However, the file is called "File:Dutch religion map.png" which is also what it is to my knowledge. It shows the catholic south and the protestant north in the Dutch language area (which is the whole area). Some mistake must have happened here. Can someone replace it with a correct map? -- Thathánka Íyotake ( talk) 02:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Basemetal - no-one doubts that this is what the language divides look like today, but as I'm sure you appreciate, there has been a shift over the past three hundred years. Personally, I agree. I also don't think it is useful to use the map in any context since it seems a bit dodgy for all. I suggest we drop it and leave it at that. Brigade Piron ( talk) 07:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Some editors think that "Cockpit is a problematic term for any modern audience!" Of course not. It's the standard English term for nearly 400 years and has often been used for Belgium with no suggestion whatever of fighting chickens. I added a RS citation from the standard history of Belgium by Cook. Changing the historic phrase used by hundreds of scholars and current guide books to gibberish about fighting chickens is very bad editing. OI can prove it's current: it's used in Belgium - Culture Smart! !: The Essential Guide to Customs & Culture (2010); Encyclopedic World Atlas (2002) - Page 52; America's War for Humanity (2010); Worldwide Destinations (2012); Understanding the Literature of World War I (2004); DK Eyewitness Travel Guide: Europe (2010); Rehearsals: The German Army in Belgium, (2007) ETC etc. Rjensen ( talk) 19:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Proposal: if battlefield of Europe is also a common term, why not use that?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 15:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
The flag of Flanders normally has a red tongue. If the black-tongued flag is to be called "flag of Flanders", a citation would be needed that it has indeed ever been the official Flemish flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.110.29.67 ( talk) 17:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I rmoved the citation request dated 2010 for 13 the century cities and replaced it with a link to the appropriate Wikipeida Article-- DerekvG ( talk) 23:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
The heading is misleading, it kids the reading into thinking some kind of French population or French traders were present and then massacred. The heading or underheading should instead read something like: 'garrisoned' French troops routed/massacred
Anyway, it is the lefthandsided boxed inset image showing some kind of 'battlescape' and it reads: "Massacre of the French in Bruges" the 'Massacre of the French' is bluelinked to: /info/en/?search=Bruges_Matins_%28massacre%29 which is clear about it being garrisoned French troops NOT civilians/traders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.68.32.34 ( talk) 07:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of Belgium. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on History of Belgium. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the History of Belgium before 1830 page were merged into History of Belgium. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Ctrl+V by 172 Nobody does it better !
Does the Dutroux scandal really need to take up this much space? The article is about the entire history of the country, but a significant portion of it is dedicated to a single scandal. -- Sesel 07:26, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
Very true. There is barely any time spent discussing VITAL parts of Belgian history such as the school crisis or the splitting of the University of Leuven in '68. ... not to mention that the Congo received a very rosy treatment.
"Rumour has that both France and the Netherlands had plans to fully occupy or annex Belgium well after World War I, but these never came to fruition." Source? Junes 10:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"In 675 BC, the Belgae were overrrun by the armies of Julius Caesar" : in 675 BC Julius Caesar was not even born ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.205.46.216 ( talk) 14:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This article seem to suggest that the belgae are viewed as almost perfectly Gauls. This isn't true. They were more of a melting pot between German and Celtic culture. With certain tribes claiming to have german blood, and originating from Germanic lands. At least thats what Caesar says in his Bello Galllico. If noone minds I'll go do some reading and expand (and possibly correct some mistake) in this section. When I find more time and have good sources at hand. Need spelling, grammar and opinions afterwards. Titirius ( talk) 10:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
The process that lead to the stablisment of the federalised institutions (Flemish, Walloon, ... governements) is not discussed at all in this section. Quite strange.
I'll have a go at it when I find some time. Though I could use someone proofreading spelling and grammar. Titirius ( talk) 10:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
What is the last country that Belgium was at war with before the two World Wars? The answer I hear most often is .. Germany, during the Franco-Prussian war. This article doesn't mention it all. However, I am far from an expert on that war, and not a native speaker of English either... So I must resort to asking for help. Evilbu 14:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi. In looking at Category:Military history of Belgium during World War II it appears that there is no lead article for this. Belgium was a key state in the beginning of the Second World War. If anyone can assist by starting Military history of Belgium during World War II it would fill an important gap. There are many good and reliable sources for this topic. Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 13:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll try and write a short basis for this section when I find some time. Titirius ( talk) 10:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Image:Taal Aktie Komitee.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 06:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Atomium-sm.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC) comment : The image of the Atomium is copyrighted by the monument's creator (architect engineer) therfore it cannot be fair use-- DerekvG ( talk) 23:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Aside from political sympathy, a key objective for both the British and the French governments was to keep the harbors of Antwerp and Rotterdam in two separate, hostile countries.
Are there any independent sources for this claim? It seems unlikely that Britain, which was at the apex of its economic and military power at that time, would have felt remotely threatened by a united Netherlands. In fact, the united kingdom of the Netherlands was a British creation. Furthermore, in the absence of a land route, cargo for the European mainland couldn't have gone to London instead, and cargo for the UK couldn't be unloaded in Antwerp, even if one harbor was much "better" than the other. It seems more likely that Britain recognized and guaranteed the Belgian independence and its borders to prevent it from joining France, so shortly after Napoleon, and very shortly after the French july revolution.
--
Mzzl (
talk)
08:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The comment that Belgium recieved no war reperations is incorrect. During the 1920's when the German Government could not pay, a Franco-Belgian force invaded the Saar land to collect what was owed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.173.253 ( talk) 19:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I read this sentence: Although he narrowly won the referendum, the militant socialist movement in Liège, Hainaut and other urban centres incited major protests and strikes. Many people said, long before (in 1945) the strike of July will occur (Gillon, Van den Dungen, Frans Van Cauwelaert... In General strike against Leopold III of Belgium, there are evidences the Socialist party didn't incite. I think it is difficult to say that a party would be able to incite or to order a General strike, which is always rather uncontrollable. Sincerely, José Fontaine ( talk) 22:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I did a pretty big revert of content added by Andrew Lancaster, so I would like to explain my concerns.
I did end up putting a lot of his stuff back in too. My version was certainly not perfect, and nor was his, so I'm hoping that my edits turn out to move the introduction closer to something that gets to the gist of it. Oreo Priest talk 00:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Can we take this a read? Quite frankly it would be surprising if it didn't. Though I don't have a better suggestion off the top of my head, the first sentance is really important and, in its present form, it really does not add anything. -- Brigade Piron ( talk) 17:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Continuing thanks for the work being done on the article, but I do feel that a caution needs to be raised. This article is now getting well above the suggested maximum size for an article, and any quick reading will show that every part and even every sentence is becoming very wordy and trying to fit every possible side-issue into every sentence. It looks like a very big draft at this moment. I am hoping that compression will also be part of the editing process?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 21:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
( ←) I understand that everything seems important and valuable, but this article isn't supposed to be an exhaustive list of everything that's ever happened in Belgium. It's supposed to be a high-level summary, and a reasonable length, and readability suffers if we try to include everything on this page. Per WP:SPLIT:
Readable prose size | What to do |
> 100k | Almost certainly should be divided |
> 60k | Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time) |
> 50k | May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size) |
< 40k | Length alone does not justify division |
< 1k | If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, why not fix it by adding more info? See Wikipedia:Stub. |
Right now we're sitting on 140k, which is substantially more than the 'almost certainly should be divided' listed above. If you print it as a PDF, the prose is 33 A4 pages long. This is simply too much text for the average reader. To pick out a couple particularly egregious examples, someone wanting a summary of the history of Belgium (and not a PhD on it) would probably not care about "Foreign relations and the Franco-Prussian War" (in which Belgium didn't even participate) or a contract awarded to provide tramways to a minor Chinese city. I know we find these interesting, but we are clearly not the average reader, and this article is not the place for those facts. We really have to be bold here with the scissors, and fork some of the more detailed explanations to their own pages. Oreo Priest talk 16:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
consider what new articles can be created in order to be a home for some of this material. For example Economic history of Belgium?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 20:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm starting a new article on Belgium in World War I that will include excerpts from here and from the articles on the Rape of Belgium etc. We can decide later if this article can be shortened accordingly. Rjensen ( talk) 09:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Here is a list of (sub) articles which have been from the text from this article. Please link to them instead of providing long descriptions:
Please update this list as they are created. -- Brigade Piron ( talk) 19:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Historiography can be worth discussing in WP of course, but is it a notable part of History itself?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
This map is presented as a language map. However, the file is called "File:Dutch religion map.png" which is also what it is to my knowledge. It shows the catholic south and the protestant north in the Dutch language area (which is the whole area). Some mistake must have happened here. Can someone replace it with a correct map? -- Thathánka Íyotake ( talk) 02:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Basemetal - no-one doubts that this is what the language divides look like today, but as I'm sure you appreciate, there has been a shift over the past three hundred years. Personally, I agree. I also don't think it is useful to use the map in any context since it seems a bit dodgy for all. I suggest we drop it and leave it at that. Brigade Piron ( talk) 07:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Some editors think that "Cockpit is a problematic term for any modern audience!" Of course not. It's the standard English term for nearly 400 years and has often been used for Belgium with no suggestion whatever of fighting chickens. I added a RS citation from the standard history of Belgium by Cook. Changing the historic phrase used by hundreds of scholars and current guide books to gibberish about fighting chickens is very bad editing. OI can prove it's current: it's used in Belgium - Culture Smart! !: The Essential Guide to Customs & Culture (2010); Encyclopedic World Atlas (2002) - Page 52; America's War for Humanity (2010); Worldwide Destinations (2012); Understanding the Literature of World War I (2004); DK Eyewitness Travel Guide: Europe (2010); Rehearsals: The German Army in Belgium, (2007) ETC etc. Rjensen ( talk) 19:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Proposal: if battlefield of Europe is also a common term, why not use that?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 15:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
The flag of Flanders normally has a red tongue. If the black-tongued flag is to be called "flag of Flanders", a citation would be needed that it has indeed ever been the official Flemish flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.110.29.67 ( talk) 17:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I rmoved the citation request dated 2010 for 13 the century cities and replaced it with a link to the appropriate Wikipeida Article-- DerekvG ( talk) 23:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
The heading is misleading, it kids the reading into thinking some kind of French population or French traders were present and then massacred. The heading or underheading should instead read something like: 'garrisoned' French troops routed/massacred
Anyway, it is the lefthandsided boxed inset image showing some kind of 'battlescape' and it reads: "Massacre of the French in Bruges" the 'Massacre of the French' is bluelinked to: /info/en/?search=Bruges_Matins_%28massacre%29 which is clear about it being garrisoned French troops NOT civilians/traders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.68.32.34 ( talk) 07:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of Belgium. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on History of Belgium. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)