Talk:Leeuwarden

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

Untitled[edit]

I am told that the world's first museum of excrement is in Leeuwarden. Has anyone got a citation? Nat 15:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs some serious modifications to make it less confusing for a non Dutch person reading. It was clearly written by a Dutch person with only a moderate knowledge of English, and there are quite a few noticeable literal translations. (Highest building, and claiming Leeuwarden has no University. It holds multiple, as HBO translates to university of applied sciences or university of applied arts. See Vocational_universities_in_The_Netherlands etc.)

I will take care of a few of these, but it's advisable to do a complete revision of the full Leeuwarden entry by someone who knows more of the city and can write English proper.

Rewrite[edit]

Placed the tag, this article is rubbish. Badly written, confusing, way too short and no references are cited. Baldrick90 (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge municipality[edit]

I propose to merge the Leeuwarden (municipality) article into this one. There are several reasons. First of all; the municipality article is a stub, and is not likely to grow beyond that without creating significant overlap with this article. Secondly with about 95% of all inhabitants in the municipality Leeuwarden is almost synonymous with its municipality. In that regards it is different from e.g. Sittard-Geleen, and more like Utrecht (city) (which lists its municapility inside the main article). Thirdly, the definitions city and municipality are only subtly different, subtleties not always obvious to all readers, hence this division would create some confusion. Arnoutf 12:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why the municipality couldn't be handled like with Utrecht. Merge away. --Y-M4N (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is an important issue. I myself believe municipalities and cities should have seperate articles. Right now the question whether or not to create seperate articles is made entirely on the (different or not) name of the city and municipality. Drachten and Smallingerland for example: the municipality Smallingerland is almost synonymous with Drachten, except the name. Do you think we should base such decisions entirely on the name?? We should definitely address to this. If you have any suggestions, I would very much like to hear them. Baldrick90 (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, you have a point fo the Drachten case; that is weird. One solution could be to use the official municipality (Smallingerland) and create a redirect page from Drachten towards that.
My main problem is that the separate articles can lead to two situations; in cases (like) Leeuwarden where the Municipality is almost the same as the city; especially if they share the name. The first possibility is that one of the articles (either city or municipality) is, and will always remain a stub (ie a one-line article referring to the developed article). I hope you agree that this is not satisfactory; and a redirect over the stub is to be preferred. The other option is that both articles develop but contain much the same information. This type of redundancy will inevitably create differences in information on the same topic; and hence will lead the reader to a different conclusion depending on whatever article is accessed. In my opinion this is even (far) worse then the case where one of the articles exists as a stub and must be avoided at all cost. A third option is that both articles develop to reasonable sized articles, but in my opinion this can only occur when there is a lot of difference between the municipality and its main city; and will not apply to articles like Leeuwarden. (Note that (e.g.) the Utrecht population centres have their own articles for indepth information on these smaller population centres; solving (in my opinions) all above mentioned problems). Arnoutf (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think the redundancy you mentioned is inevitable. Look at the articles Amsterdam and Government of Amsterdam. The are definitely complementary. It would be great if we could organise it the same way the American articles are organised: Boulder, Colorado for example is a comprehensive article on the city, whilst Boulder County, Colorado shows only the informatian necessary for an article of such kind. But I appreciate your sense of reality; it's not likely these articles (not just Leeuwarden but almost any Dutch city) will develop into something that comprehensive and it might be best to have it your way. For now it might be best to shift this discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Dutch municipalities since it applies to the whole country. Baldrick90 (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we ever have enough to split the articles into two I will not argue against it. Your suggestion to move this discussion to WP:Netherlands and/or Dutch municipalities is a good idea, as we will probably attract more opinions, and more examples where it does and does not work that way. Bit rushed myself, but feel free to open the discussion in the projects. Arnoutf (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a slightly different proposal - merge the two articles and move them back to Leeuwarden which at the moment is just a redirect. Green Giant (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The articles have been merged and moved back to the original name. Green Giant (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stadsfries[edit]

What is the pronunication of Liwwadden in Stadsfries? – Editør (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, the area of this municipality is speaking Stadsfries (not a or part of a Frisian language) rather than West Frisian. Is the area of the municipality partly in the traditional and current area of the West Frisian language?Sarcelles (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leeuwarden. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archive is stuffed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leeuwarden. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cites to Groot and Jansma[edit]

Someone deleted the "Further reading" section which contaiined the bibilographic information for the citations to de Groot and Jansma.

  • Groot, P.J. de, Karstkarel, G.P. & Kuipers, W.H., 1984. Leeuwarden, beeld van een stad. Zeven eeuwen stadsleven in woord en beeld. ISBN 90-330-1341-X. (in Dutch)
  • Jansma, K., 1981. Friesland en zijn 44 gemeenten ISBN 90-6480-015-4. (in Dutch)

--Bejnar (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of Jewish History[edit]

Hi, I noticed that the article really lacks information about the city's rich Jewish history. I added a short paragraph in the history section with some information about the Jewish community in the 17th - 19th centuries but there is still more that could be added, seeing as there is no other wiki page that deals with this topic. If anyone objects to my edits or wants to talk about adding more Jewish history, please let me know. Zchai72 (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but don't have expertise.--Goldenrowley (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huge History Jumps[edit]

I'd like to see this part of history expanded: the way it jumps from 1860, to 1901, then right to 1940s (at the the end of World War II), in just three sentences.--Goldenrowley (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leeuwarden&oldid=1208132579"