User talk:Le Fou

Road v highway

You say "Since i'm just talking about highways and not about any other roads, it's probably better to use the word 'highway', no? Because that is the point of the sentence, explaining the highway connections." Before we get into a war over this please define your understanding of "highway", which in British English is generic and can apply to all public roads, including minor ones. In British English, "road" is more likely to be used in this context. As a native English speaker, I find it's more natural to use "road" or "motorway" than "highway" for a main route: "highway" is more widely used in US English or in formal titles that wish to include everything from tracks to motorways. I shan't fight this one, but it reads more like a translation than an English text. Folks at 137 17:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not my intention to argue about it, it was more like a question to you. But you're absolutely right. I forgot they use the word 'motorway' in the UK while they use 'highway' in the US. I Actually like the British English better and as I am not a native English speaker, I can't do anything but agree with you. I didn't know either that in the UK 'highway' is used for all public roads. So lets make it 'road' again:) Greetings! Wikifalcon

Image:Tzandmetconcertgebouw.jpg listed for deletion

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Tzandmetconcertgebouw.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, a non-profit website, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 12:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having permission to post a copyrighted image to Wikipedia is insufficient, you must have permission from the copyright holder to release the image under a free license that allows modification and redistribution. I see that you've uploaded this image onto Wikimedia Commons under {{Copyrighted free use}}, so that addresses the concerns brought up earlier. As a kind of courtesy, you might want to notify your friend that you released his copyright of the photograph (this is functionally equivalent to releasing something in the public domain), to see if he has any objections. Anyway, thank you for quickly dealing with the situation, and happy editing! ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, the file hosted at Commons should show up as just another image on the English Wikipedia. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruges intro

Hi Wikifalcon. On the Bruges intro, the text "It is one of Europe's most important landmarks as the city centre has hardly changed since the Middle Ages. Bruges also has an important port." sounds very strange to me. The first part reads as an exagerated touristic folder: a city center that hardly changed since the Middle Ages (link) is not very credible and I don't understand the relation with landmark. Secondly, this port thing sound like an appendix that someone glued quickly to the intro. I prefer to talk with you first. --Foroa 21:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps we should make it a little more general. Maybe the intro on the Dutch page might be a good example...? Wikifalcon 22:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC) edit: What do you think? Wikifalcon 22:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now it is turning in the opposite side with too many figures that nobody reads nor grasps (does an average person understands what it really means having 20.000 people in 430 ha ? I don't). The coming days I will try to formulate a summary of the spirit of Bruges as I see it as an outsider and without turning it into brochure-talk. I have my doubts on the hectare (en even more on ha) as this is probably meaningless for many (or most) English speakers. Overall, I would prefer the french intro, but I didn't check others. In the first part, I would take the word accepted away: it sounds as if Bruges has been begging and Unesco did a great favor to Bruges: Alternative: "The historical city centre is a prominent World Heritage Site of UNESCO.

Sorry for the trouble (it is always easier to criticize), but in an intro, each word counts ... And no, I am not searching for extra work, just giving a hand if needed. --Foroa 06:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're right. Give it a try;-) Something like this:

"Bruges (Dutch: Brugge, stemming from Bryggja, which assumedly used to signify 'landing stage' or 'port') is the capital and largest city of the province of West Flanders in the Flemish Region of Belgium. It is located in the north-west of the country.

The historic city centre is a prominent World Heritage Site of UNESCO. Bruges also became European Capital of Culture in 2002, together with Salamanca, Spain.

Bruges is called "Venise of the North", as there are numerous canals running across the city, but it has a quite big economic importance as well, thanks to its port. It's also home to the College of Europe."

?

Wikifalcon 10:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a serious improvement. I am further thinking in the line of (incomplete):

"Bruges (Dutch: Brugge, stemming from Bryggja, which assumedly used to signify 'landing stage' or 'port') is the capital and largest city of the province of West Flanders in the Flemish Region of Belgium. Its origins started some 2100 years ago and its location on the coast in the north-west of the country made it a dominating driving factor of Flanders' history.

Bruges is a city of contrasts. On each corner of its quiet surface, it transpires many facets of the last 900 years of its history. Underneath and almost invisibly, the merchant spiritual heritage from its portal and proud capital role continues to thrive a lively and modern economical and cultural evolution that influences the whole region.

Bruges is called "Venice of the North": it has a comparable nostalgia and numerous canals are running across the city. The historical city centre is a prominent World Heritage Site of UNESCO and was a European Capital of Culture in 2002. --Foroa 11:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds not bad. But won't some people find some POV in it? I don't, but I have the feeling some will... Only this: "Its origins started some 2100 years ago..." > how accure is that number? And 'portal' is not really a word for port, is it? Wikifalcon 21:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ik heb getracht de moeilijke balans te vinden tussen feiten en het suggestieve, tussen een semi-verhaal en droge opsommingen, tussen korte zinnen en nog kortere zinnen. Pas op, deze tekst is eigenlijk maar een scenario, een script (persoonlijk vind ik dat er nog een grapje, eerder een clin d'oeil ontbreekt, zoals ... comparable but fresher nostalgia floating over a network of canals)

sommige fragmenten gaan waarschijnlijker beter klinken/vloeien indien bepaalde volgordes en eventueel constructies veranderd worden; nu is het de beurt aan een echte GB-er om dat te tunen, om de arrangementen te maken (dat Venice spul vloeit nog niet genoeg, nog te hoekig, numerous klinkt misplaatst, network of canals beter ?)
some 2100 year: correct indien de 100 year BFC in het artikel juist is, some 2100 is ook niet echt precies
met portal bedoel ik havenstad, toegangspoort tussen twee werelden: belangrijk suggestief beeld, maar misschien gedevalueerd door het hedendaags gebruik. Ook de verwoording "proud capital role" (rol van de trotse hoofdstad) vloeit nog niet genoeg. --> GB-er
POV: ik denk het niet, we zien wel, maar het kan moeilijk slechter dan de nl tekst. Daarvoor kan ik binnen een paar dagen de "arrangementen" leveren.

--Foroa 22:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oei, maar die 'fresher' is in feite wel degelijk een POV. Ik heb persoonlijk niets op tegen, maar daar zou al zeker reactie op komen. Toch oppassen dat het niet té brochure-achtig wordt. Het blijft een encyclopedie, dus een droge opsomming kan wel wat ingekleed worden, maar téveel gaan verhalen lijkt me niet echt goed. Vind je de nl tekst dan zo slecht? Ik vind die persoonlijk eigenlijk vrij goed als intro. Wikifalcon 22:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inderdaad, het is niet gemakkelijk om niet brochure-achtig te worden, maar de vorig versies met die landmark waren nog meer brochure-achtig. Met die fresher bedoel ik in de eerste plaats het klimaat (ik ging eerst rainier zetten maar dat klinkt, net als colder, al te negatief), maar ergens ook dat Brugge vermoedelijk beter onderhouden, cleaner is dan Venetië (en dat laatste is inderdaad een suggestieve POV).

De tekst die hier voorligt is ongeveer hetgeen ik vertel aan buitenlanders als ik Brugge moet uitleggen in één minuut: voor mij het essentiele en de sfeer.

In de Nederlandse tekst zie ik de volgende hoofdfouten.

de opsomming van cijfers en oppervlakten in het midden sla ik gewoon over. Het enige dat ik onthoud is dat het centrum eivormig is en dat er mensen in leven; bij andere steden zou ik een dergelijke cijferreeks vermoedelijk overslaan, voor sommige lezers misschien een reden om de intro of het volledige blad over te slaan
de historische en hoofdstedelijke rol van Brugge komt niet uit de verf
het is alsof Brugge zonder haven economisch niet zou bestaan
die passus over het bisdom geeft de indruk dat dit het belangrijkste historische feit is in de geschiedenis van :Brugge: dat zal niet echt veel interesse opwekken denk ik

Persoonlijk ben ik niet geimpressioneerd door die Unesco en cultuurstad referenties, maar ik neem aan dat dit voor een aantal mensen betekenisvol is.

Zo zie je maar, een samenvatting vraagt ongeveer veel werk en men kan er over discuteren ad vitam eternam.

--Foroa 06:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wel, kijk, probeer er iets moois en beters van te maken;-) Ik kan je wel volgen bij bepaalde punten hoor... Wat dat Engels trouwens betreft, daar reken ik ook op een of andere Brit die eens langskomt en alles in een vlotte constructie gooit:-) Gr, Wikifalcon 08:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruges - Air [1]

I'm not sure what this is saying now. Before, I assumed that it meant that it was easier to get to Brugge via Brussels since the rail link was better. Now it seem to be saying that it is always better to go from Brugge via Brussels - wherever you are going, at whatever time, whether by road or rail? That doesn't seem to make any sense at all. -- Ian Dalziel 23:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amsterdam

I like your image sorting on the Amsterdam article. Too often people just place images randomly on an article - it's good to come across someone who has an eye for good image placement. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 07:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asking You

Do you believe in superstition? Please leave an explanation at my talk page. Pokemon Buffy Titan 09:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gent/Ghent

Dear Wikifalcon, I've been enjoying our cooperation on the Port of Antwerp article. However, I would like to inquire about you insistence on "Ghent" as the preferred spelling for Gent in English. As you will have noticed I favour Gent. I do so for the following reasons: Gent is the name that appears on all road signs, except in those cases where Gent is followed by (Gand)- mainly near Lille/Rijssel - the (h) is ignored in English, and the "G" is not aspirated - the capitalization is enough to prevent it from being confused with "gent". The name G(h)ent has undergone various transformations in English over the years, most memorably as "Gaunt" as in "John of Gaunt". It seems to me that the only people who cling to the Ghent spelling are those who like to show off their knowledge of English, whereas most English people are flummoxed by the inclusion of the h, indeed you will rarely find the Ghent spelling in a modern UK/US atlas, as geographers tend to stick as closely as possible to the local appellation. In general, the names of many Belgium's have been so frequently distorted that the geographically less conscious are often misled into thinking that the divergent names refers to different places. I had the greatest of trouble some years trying to convince somebody that that Wipers and Ieper are in fact the same place. I agree that compromise in certain cases is inevitable, and here in particular I'm thinking of "Brussels" and "Bruges" both of which have become so well established that I doubt they will change. We have though seen Malines abandoned in favour of Mechelen (Mechlin in the past) and Kortrijk now established in preference to Courtrai. As the h in Ghent is redundant I suggest it should be abandoned. During the past 30 years I have worked as a freelance translator for various Belgian and Flemish authorities and the foregoing has consistently been advice. I will include a note to this effect on the Belgium talk page. In the meantime, kindest regards Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I changed it back to Ghent because "Ghent" is still the official English name for the city. Also on Wikipedia "Ghent" is used. The same for the article about the canal we are actually talking about. So my main goal is in fact to bring as much consistence as possible on Wikipedia... Greetings, Wikifalcon (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But official where? Not official in the UK I think. Official in Gent? I think the language laws would have something to say about that, don't you? Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, on the official website I can't find anything about the English name (it seems there's no English version of the site). But if I look to some international organizations like the port, the International film festival or the International convention Center I see "Ghent" is used the most... Wikifalcon (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit: The official tourism site. Also see Use-It. Greets, Wikifalcon (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Ports

		Interested in ports-related articles?
		I notice you recently made major improvements to the Port of Antwerp article, possibly while looking for an article on stemming bleeding from a main artery. Given your interest in this article, you may also be interested in the WikiProject working to improve coverage of similar pages. Your help would be appreciated, so please consider joining WikiProject Ports. Euryalus (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian Infoboxes

Sorry for incorrect edits to Zeebrugge, I dont duppose there is an infobox for settlements like Zeebrugge?

No problem, it might be confusing sometimes. There's indeed no infobox for a settlement like Zeebrugge, which is a village and port in the deelgemeente Lissewege of the municipality/city of Bruges. Also in the Dutch Wikipedia only municipalities and deelgemeentes (and so the "main" town, village or core of the deelgemeente) have infoboxes, because those are clearly bordered areas. For example: Lissewege is a deelgemeente of Bruges. This deelgemeente includes the village of Lissewege (the "main" village), the village of Zwankendamme, the village of Zeebrugge and a large part of the port of (Bruges-)Zeebrugge.

Concertgebouw (Bruges)

Per standard WP policy, if you are going to continue to add a prominent red link to an article, then you should have an intention to create the page. In this example, the red link remained nearly one year. See Wikipedia:Hatnotes#Non-existent_articles. Thanks smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium

As of this moment Yves Leterme is still prime minister of Belgium, he might no longer be in an hour or so, but untill a new prime minister is appointed, Leterme remains the prime minister. Pevernagie (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Hi. You should probably stop marking all of your edits as minor. I suspect if you go to "my preferences" at the top, then the "editing" tab, you have the "mark all my edits as minor by default" box checked. Cheers, Oreo Priest ^talk 04:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Belgian football transfers winter 2009–10

Hi, I reverted your edits on the List of Belgian football transfers winter 2009–10 article, as the Mohamed Dahmane transfer seems to have happened (the references are numerous and Dahmane is now listed on the page of Denizlispor). If you have references that this is not through, please add this ont he discussion page. Also, Maxime Lestienne is listed as a winger, which is a form of midfielder, not forward. If he is a forward, please edit the Maxime Lestienne article and add a reference. Thank you. Pelotas^talk 19:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the transfer is aborted. A contract has never been signed. "seems to have happened" is not enough. Has it happened or not? No, it almost happened, but didn't (see here and here). Once again it's shown how easily wrong information sneaks into Wikipedia. See here again to notice that Lestienne is a forward. Gr, Wikifalcon (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I believe that Lestienne is a winger seeing him play at Mouscron, but if Brugge calls him a forward, then so be it. That's just different opinions anyway. About the Dahmane case, I don't think 'wrong' information has sneaked into Wikipedia, the information was correct but was overturned. That is because not just one source reported the transfer, but several (see this google search), so maybe we should add a note to the Club Brugge section. Something like: on January xxth it was reported that Dahmane had signed a loan transfer deal to Denizlispor, however x days later this news was overturned as Club Brugge claimed some agreements were not fulfilled by Denizlispor. Or something like that... No? Pelotas^talk 20:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, please use the edit summary next time to avoid things like this. Something like: "Dahmane transfer cancelled" would have been sufficient as this would have given a hint why this was removed. Pelotas^talk 20:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any source that ever mentioned Dahmane already signed a contract? Not for as far as I know, but if there was such a source somewhere, that source was rubbish. And so was the concerning information on Wikipedia. Dahmane was close to a transfer, but bijna is ver van Chijna. As there was never a contract signed, the mentioning of Dahmane in the transfer-out list was wrong. I don't think a special note is necessary, because nothing exceptional happened; many almost completed transfers got cancelled in the last second.

And I'll think of the summary next time ;-) Gr, Wikifalcon (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Belgian football transfers summer 2010

Thanks for your help on List of Belgian football transfers summer 2010. But please add references when adding transfers. Also, why do you add two players that move between Standard and Club Brugge only for Club Brugge and not for Standard? Please be consistent when adding information, or your edits will be reverted. Thank you! Pelotas^talk 17:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. I'll mind it next time ;-) Le Fou (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did it again... adding the latest Club Brugge player but not the reference! Please do it next time! You must have gotten the information from somewhere, if it is not electronic, then please search for it, for example using google. Pelotas^talk 18:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of references: the offcial club website, but also a whole lot of online paper articles... It's not like I'm going to invent a transfer. Le Fou (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium FAR listing

I have nominated Belgium for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Organ of St. Salvator, Bruges

Let me understand your changes in Music. You might remove the complete disposition from the article and refer to the ref, or you leave it in the article completely, organ experts understand that without translation. The present hybrid is not useful. Btw, all this is more or less history, because the organ will undergo major changes during restoration of the cathedral starting 2011. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was temporary hiding the disposition, because it was in Dutch. And as this is the English Wikipedia...

I'd say: feel free to translate. Gr, Le Fou (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't hide it completely, that was exactly why I asked. I did now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry, my bad. Le Fou (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thx

I was hoping for something like this, but didn't want to risk a 3RR. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

College of Europe

Hi, you removed the failed verification tag from College of Europe, on the sentence that says: "European Commissioner for Education Ján Figeľ described the college as "one of the most emblematic centres of European studies in the European Union"., with a reference of [2]. That link redirects to a holding page, and doesn't mention the college. Am I missing something? Thanks, Invitrovanitas (talk) 09:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I removed it accidentally. Le Fou (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK, thanks for the revert. Invitrovanitas (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Le Fou. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Le Fou. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Le Fou. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Zie je niet dat beide mappen hetzelfde zijn? De infobox van Antwerpen is trouwens slordig en onoverzichtelijk met al die mappen. Kijk naar Bv de pagina van Londen met één duidelijke map. Ik probeer de pagina overzichtelijker te maken. DescheemaekerK (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just stop making a mess and deleting correct and valuable data and information. Both maps are not the same. One map is an interactive one, with more detailed information when you click it. Le Fou (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are two interactive maps, both from wikimedia. Maybe they are hidden on your page. DescheemaekerK (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This infobox is just a mess with 4 maps, just one clear map like the London page example is much more clearly. DescheemaekerK (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a 2nd Wikimedia map and I don't see 4 maps. There are only 2 maps visible (1 with the location of Antwerp in Belgium and 1 interactive map) and a 3rd map (with the location within the Antwerp province) is hidden and could be made visible after clicking "show". Le Fou (talk) 12:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first Wikimedia map is also hidden just underneath the flag and coat of arms. DescheemaekerK (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I just checked with another browser on a mobile device, and there the maps are not hidden and there are 2 Wikimedia maps. Very strange. In this case, the second one could be deleted indeed, so there are 3 maps left in total.

I'll check other WP articles for the same flaw. We might have double maps there as well... Le Fou (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t u think a map like the London WP page is much more clearly? DescheemaekerK (talk) 12:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brussel WP page is using the same style of map. DescheemaekerK (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's more clear than the maps that are shown now. Apparently, in some/most mobile browsers, all the maps are shown anyway (so no hidden ones that could be shown after clicking). Then again, now we have a map with the location of the city in question within Belgium, a map with the city in question within its province (with its municipal limits), and an interactive (clickable) map with the municipal limits and more cartographic details. So that seems quite clear to me and provides al the geographic details needed in an infobox. Le Fou (talk) 12:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Port of Zeebrugge move

Hi. Was there any discussion about your recent move of Port of Zeebrugge? Given the number of discussions and moves on the talk page, it is obviously not an uncontroversial move. Fob.schools (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Fob.schools (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit

Why did you revert my edit on Belgium? Karamellpudding1999 (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's ridiculous to state that Antwerp is the largest city in Belgium. It's the most populated municipality, but the largest city in Belgium is Brussels, by far. Le Fou (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]