Talk:List of municipalities of the Walloon Region

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was to move the article.

[edit] Requested move (2)

The current title of this article is "List of municipalities in Wallonia" further to a POV pushing by Stephane.dohet, while the name should be List of communes of the Walloon Region. The confusion between Wallonia and Walloon Region is one of the "hobbies" of Stephane (see Talk:Wallonia#Territory of Wallonia to see what I mean), so when he renames the article into List of municipalities in Wallonia with the comment "neutral name", the latter is really a joke.

This title does not respect any convention, see:

• in english
  • List of municipalities of the Brussels-Capital Region
  • List of municipalities of the Flemish Region
• Interwiki of this article
  • Lijst van gemeenten in het Waals Gewest (Gewest = Region in dutch)
  • Liste des communes de la Région wallonne

In general, the concept of "Region" is used, because "Wallonia" and "Walloon Region" are not the same (much like Flanders is not Flemish Region), which is obvious because people have created the Wallonia article to describe concepts who somewhat differ from the Region. This is a mere fact that Stephane does not accept, but I am tired to see that after being banned from WP:fr he has found a new area where he can push his walloon POV.

As the discussions with him are very tiresome and rarely go anywhere, I made a formal WP:RM, which will hopefully bring some new people into the discussion. Bradipus (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Bradipus forget to show us sources that would prooves Wallonia is a different concept from the Walloon Region. The fact is the Walloon Region page was created by User:David_Descamps by splitting the Wallonia page (based upon his own POV that his hometown, Tournai, wouldn't be Walloon but Flemish). And since then a lot of Wallonia links were to be renamed as Walloon Region ones, creating confusion for the reader.

It seems to me that WP request we have to use the most common name for naming an article. In this case, the most common name is Wallonia, as the official website of the Region www.wallonie.be (sic) invites us to Discover Wallonia, or an independent public service center show us Public authorities in Wallonia, or see the Environmental Portal of Wallonia, or the Highways of Wallonia...

If we go in the apropriate category we'll see : List of parish municipalities in Quebec, not "province of Quebec", List of municipalities of Switzerland, not "Swiss conferation" and so on... Why would Wallonia be the only political entity in the world forbidden to use its usual name

Bradipus presented us two wikipedias following his POV (well, they were influenced by David Descamps in French and created afer David Descamps' move in Dutch, at the beginning they were speaking of Wallonia, and presented no problem), but here are two others, in Italian and in Walloon which use the most common name. Stephane.dohet (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not have to prove anything, you should prove you POV, which is Wallonia = Walloon Region, is correct. Frankly, I do not give a damn about this specific issue, but the facts are simple:

1. the Walloon Region exists since 1963, and its boundaries are the result of a lot of compromises,
2. Wallonia is a centuries old concept, with no strict legal definition (according to your friend josé the concept can be found in the 12th century), that does not match perfectly with the Walloon Region,
3. Wallonia is also used to designate the Walloon Region in the vernacular language.

Number 3 does not mean that each time somebody speaks of Wallonia, that person is speaking about the Region. Proof of this evidence is in the fact that people have created a Wallonia page, much like it has been created on the franch Wikipédia, where it contains interesting information that can be read together with the Walloon Region article.

The mere fact that somebody creates a page on Wallonia and puts in that article information that is not in the page of the Walloon Region is the final proof that the two concepts are not the same.

It is exactly the same thing as Flanders and Flemish Region or Brussels and Brussels-Capital Region.

In any case, the only thing I need to say here is that the name you gave to the article dos not follow the way similar belgian related article are made, so the article must be renamed. Bradipus (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind that the page Wallonia was first created as a page speaking of the Region, and that's the way it is on a lot of wikipedias but this one and French one. The splitting of Wallonia in two pages forces readers to surf from one page to another to retrieve information which are on a single page for other political entities. Stephane.dohet (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

So what? Wallonia is one of the names that is used to talk about the Walloon Region, so it is quite natural that less developped wikis treat the two concepts under the same name. But the french and dutch wikipedia, the 2 main languages of Belgium, have quite naturally developped distinct articles, and the english WP, as the most developped Wiki, is doing the same. Going from one article, for historical matters, to another for political matters, is not a drama: that is the way a wiki works. Do you prefer we merge the whole stuff under Belgium? That would make things so easier ^_^ Bradipus (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The mere fact that there are so many discussions at the moment about what "Wallonia" is and how it relates to the Walloon Region, the political entity, in my view proves that this is a contentious matter. For that reason, it would be best to use the most neutral name, namely "Walloon Region". In this instance, "Walloon Region" is also the most accurate name, as it is still the official name of the region and has a legally-defined territory. So I support moving this to List of municipalities of the Walloon Region.--Ganchelkas (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This page has without doubt institutionnal matter, Walloon Region is indeed the most acurate and NPOV name… So I also support moving this to List of municipalities of the Walloon Region. David Descamps (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Municipalities are institutional and administrative bodies. As such there is no other place to put them than in "Walloon Region", since the Region is the institutional body that controls them and from which they depend. --Lebob-BE (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

But the most widely known short form is Wallonia, which is as neutral as the official one. If we are to move to the official name, whe will have to do this for every country in the world, not just the Belgian regions. Or, said in another way, if the short form is prefer for all countries in the world, and for federal States, this should be the same for Belgian regions. Stephane.dohet (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, but the Wallon Region is not a country. Besides, this is not a question of refering to the official name, but of refering to the only actual name. One of the meanings of Wallonia is a short and easy (but not official) way to designate the Walloon Region, a creation of the late sixties, but Wallonia does have other meanings. The fact that Brussels is very often used to talk about the Brussels-Capital Region does not mean they are the same. Same thing for Wallonia of Flanders. This is not the case, for France, for instance, that means only the "République Française", and for most countries, where there is not a polysemic issue. Bradipus (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I just don't speak about countries but regions as well. Maybe Wallonia has different meanings, but you should know the most important one means Walloon Region. If you can find other meanings (like a town in Kentucky), provide some sources, and if they are important enough we could create articles like Wallonia, Kentucky. Having different meanings is no reason to not use the most widely known as a name for an article. Still waiting for a source which says Wallonia is not the Walloon Region. Stephane.dohet (talk) 10:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hum, I think you are a bit in a dream world Stephane, as you are sayiing Wallonia and Walloon Region are exactly the same thing, while we know that the word Wallonia is centuries old and that the Walloon Region is some 40 years old.

So you should provide some sources who say clearly that Walloon Region is refering to exactly the same thing as each past occurrence of the word Wallonia (good luck, as Wallonia can be found, according to José, in the 12th century). Bradipus (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have published lot of sources which use Wallonia as a short name for the Walloon Region. You have still not provided the smallest source for you POV that Wallonia and Walloon Region are two different things. I don't care if you know what Wallonia is, I care about sources that would proove it. Stephane.dohet (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Stephane, you have received a lot of sources, here and on WP:fr. PLease read again the messages from Lebob or the Descamps for instance, such as (I quote what can be found on fr:Discuter:Wallonie):

«La Wallonie est un concept issu du dix-neuvième siècle et dont le nom fut donné par une revue symboliste littéraire (Albert Mockel, fondateur de La Wallonie en 1886).» (Wallonia is a concept originated in the 19th century whose name was given by a litterature publication) Patrick Roegiers, La Belgique: le roman d’un pays Gallimard, Paris, 2005. David Descamps (d) 4 janvier 2008 à 16:19 (CET)

«The concept of 'Wallonia' developed only during the last half of nineteenth century as a reaction to growing Flemish nationalisme. The historically local and independent orientation of Belgium's francophone provinces and their inhabitants's strong cultural orientation towards France prevented the development of a concept of Wallonia as a separate national entity until recent times.» Stephen Barbour, Cathie Carmichael, Language and Nationalism in Europe, p. 147-148.

«Il est vrai que, du Mouvement des Provinces wallonnes créé en 1952, jusqu'au Groupe des Vingt-huit réuni à l'automne 1969, au sein duquel allait se dégager l'accord sur la création de la Région wallonne, la thèse de la réforme de l'Etat basée sur les provinces allait rendre la vie difficile aux partisans de la création d'une entité de droit public sur base du concept de Wallonie.» (truly, from the Wallon Provinces movement to the Group of the 28 who met in 1969, within whom the agreement on the creation of the Walloon Region would be reached, the concept of a State reform based on provinces would make the situation difficult for the ones in favour of the creation of an entity based on the concept of Wallonia) Jean-Pol Demacq (ex-Chairman of Institut Jules Destrée) here.

'Very clear distinction between the 2 concepts, Very clear also that this difference does create, still now, political tensions that you are desperately trying to resolve by denying its existence. You have no source.

Interesting historical sources. Good to put in a History of Wallonia article. But irrelevant in the present discussion. I didn't ask you to bring this kind of sources. I ask if you can bring sources which says, in 2008, that there is a territory called Wallonia whose borders would be different from the ones of the Walloon Region (as a sentence in the intro says that Wallonia would be a part of the territory governed by the Walloon Region, there shall be a citation to proove it, otherwise this will be deleted). I know English is not your mother tongue, but the words we use are easy to understand.

Maybe you could simply tell us you have no sources for this sentence, and we shall remove it from the Wallonia article ? Stephane.dohet (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere, and I am putting an end to it, you just keep on pushing your POV. You have brought no argument whatsoever against the renaming of the article.

I repeat the initial statement which is still correct and forms the basis for the renaming:

list of municimalities should be put in reference with the administrative territory they depend of, such as in List of municipalities of the Brussels-Capital Region or List of municipalities of the Flemish Region.

Interwikis of this article on the wikis in the 2 main languages of Belgium (french and dutch) are to article who refer to the Region: Lijst van gemeenten in het Waals Gewest (Gewest = Region in dutch) and Liste des communes de la Région wallonne.

Your arguments have been:

• an attempt to rename List of municipalities of the Flemish Region into List of municipalities in Flanders.
• flawed arguments that Wallonia and Walloon Region are exactly the same.

You sole argument to support the latter has been to show sources using Wallonia to designate the Walloon Region. So basically a non-argument, as nobody ever denied that one of the meanings of Wallonia is Wallon Region, the same way Flanders, amongst other slightly different concepts, can be used to designate the Flemish Region or the Flemish community. While you could not bring any source that says clearly Wallonia can only mean Walloon Region, sources were brought to you showing that the differences between Wallonia and Walloon Region were, from the birth of the Region, an issue. As a matter of fact, it is still an issue, and this is exactly why you are so desperate to have your POV accepted.

So based on the current naming convention re administrative bodies controlling municipalities, and in the absence of any valid argument againts it (nobody popped up saying you had valid arguments, on the contrary), I will make sure this article be renamed speedily. Bradipus (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you have a consensus to act like that. Stephane.dohet (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The consensus can live without you. In any case, from what I already experienced with you, once you are grasping to your POV, you will never accept anything else. An article cannot be blocked because one user is clinching to its POV. In any case, what reason do you have for not accepting the renaming, which is based on the current naming convention re administrative bodies controlling municipalities? You have none. Bradipus (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy where majority rules. If a contributor is opposed to the POVs of other contributors, this should be taken in count. I am opposed to the requested move principally because it would use a name that is not the most widely known, and used in English. I know it's the official name of the Region, but William Jefferson Clinton is the official name of Bill Clinton, anyway the article is named after the most known. It should be the same with Wallonia, don't you think ?

Another interesting source is the Union of Cities and Municipalities of Wallonia, which is the official body where all the Walloon municipalities (even those located in the German language area) are members.Stephane.dohet (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Stephane, this is an encyclopedia, not a directory. The name of Union of Cities and Municipalities of Wallonia is not a source. It is just a name of an organisation. The fact that they used Wallonia as one of the possible names used to designate the Walloon Region means nothing because we know that Wallonia is also used to designate the Walloon Region, but we know that it is not the only meaning of Wallonia. Proof: Wallonie on Encarta fr:, completely distinct from Walloon Region.

Just "an organisation" ? The official union of municipalities not a source ? What would be a valid source if not this one ?

An organisation such as this "union" can decide to use "Wallonia" because it is not confronted with the ambiguity issue. On WP, we have to deal with this ambiguity issue. People reading this article should be clearly referred to the Walloon Region, which is the relevant political body and geographical reference for municipalities.

A body which call itself "Wallonia", remember. It seems you are searching any excuse to avoid this term.

Your reference to Clinton is pointless, and if two point of view are opposed, there should be a discussion, but at some point, a choice must be made. My point of view, shared abviously by others, can be reduced to the fact that we should just follow the naming convention used in List of municipalities of the Brussels-Capital Region and List of municipalities of the Flemish Region for instance. You have no argument against that, so even if WP is not a democracy, at some point one of the POV must be chosen and in this case, it should be the one that matches with the naming convention. Bradipus (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but I thought the naming convention used on Wikipedia was : "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Following this, Wallonia comes undoubtly in front of Walloon Region. And about disambiguation, I doubt Wallonia could be confounded with a 1917 German plan, or a Walloon Movement concept. ;-) Stephane.dohet (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Very good idea to invoke the naming convention. The sentence you quote begins with the word "Generally", which clearly means that there might be exceptions to this "general" principle. Bottom line, the fact that the word "Wallonia" is ambiguous as it might have several meanings while "Walloon Region" has a clearly definition is a excellent reason to make an exception to the general rule in the case at hand. --Lebob-BE (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No need to make an exception, applying a much more important naming convention will suffice: the one that asks to avoid ambiguity, see Be precise when necessary. As Wallonia is not the same thing as Walloon Region, the existing name is ambiguous.

But even without this, the fact is that we should just follow the naming convention used in List of municipalities of the Brussels-Capital Region and List of municipalities of the Flemish Region, which is to use the name of the administrative entity that is above the municipalities, the Region in all the cases. Bradipus (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's quote completely the naming convention : "Please, do not write or put an article on a page with an ambiguously named title as though that title had no other meanings. If all possible words have multiple meanings, go with the rule of thumb of naming guidelines and use the more popular term." In this case, the more popular term for the Walloon Region is undoubtly "Wallonia", as the Region and the body rallying the municipalities call themselves (top sources). Stephane.dohet (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wallonia can refer to something else than the Walloon Region, so depending on the environment, the use of "Wallonia" can be very ambiguous. As this union is only active in the Walloon Region, the ambiguity risk is not important, and in any case, they are no writing an encyclopedia, so they do not give a damn about a possible ambiguity.

But we are writing an encyclopedia. And we have to be careful about an ambigüity risk. And this risk exists, especially because not all readers of the article will understand the ambiguity between Wallonia and Walloon Region. Bradipus (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break

(outdenting) Stephane.dohet, you quoted: "If all possible words have multiple meanings, go with the rule of thumb and use the more popular term." Is it the case in this situation that all possible words have multiple meanings? I gather from the discussion that the "Wallonia" can refer to more than one entity, but is that also true for the name "Walloon Region"?

If I'm reading the conversation correctly, the naming question comes down to a tension between WP:NC(P) and WP:COMMONNAME. Wallonia is arguably the more popular way to refer to the region, but it is possibly ambiguous with an historical Wallonia, which was not the same as today's Walloon Region. Would the participants here agree that those are the main relevant sections of policy? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is a historical Wallonia which was not the same as the Walloon Region, we could tell the same about any country in the world, that's no valid argument. In 2008, Wallonia is the name used by the Walloon Region itself to distinguish the territory of Wallonia from the political body governing it (in daily speech, Walloon Region refers primarily to this body and the civil servants working for it, rather than to the territory, so we can say there are at least two meanings for the WR). Using the name Wallonia in the case of municipalities is not ambigous, as there is no other territory in the world called Wallonia which could be confused with her.

I agree that those are the main relevant sections of policy as you said. Stephane.dohet (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

GTBacchus: looks like a fair description of the issue.

When Stephane says that Walloon Region has two meanings, territory and governement, he tries to decrease the impact of the fact that Wallonia does have at least 2 meanings. In fact, Walloon Region does not have two meanings: using Walloon Region to designate the political entity is a mere simple example of metonymy: when we say "France did this" or "the Walloon Region decided that", we mean "[the political body competent on the relevant subject for] France decided that".

Bottomline is that Wallonia and Walloon Region may be used to designate the same thing, as far as territory is concerned, but Wallonia can mean something else, a territoty that is designated as Wallonia or land of the walloons since centuries and who does not include the German-speaking Community of Belgium for example. Other areas may be discussed, such as Tournai, but that is the most obvious one, see the site of the community where I cannot find a refrence to them being in Wallonia. See the website of Sankt Vith: "The German-speeking Community of Belgium, let's call it "East-Belgium", is not only linguistically, culturally and historically different from the Flemish north and the Walloon south, it's also different geographically". One cannot say more clearly that although within the Walloon Region, these people are not, strictly speaking, in Wallonia.

Will someday the meaning "Wallonia = Walloon Region" absorb the other meaning of Wallonia? Maybe, and it is in any case something that is strongly desired by the politicians of the Walloon Region who are trying hard to achieve that. Their use of walloon and wallonia is not innocent, but a lot of people who are in the Walloon Region make it clear that it does not make them walloon, and does not transform their territory into wallonia. It is that ambigüity we need to avoid, and also WP should not be used to serve the political agenda of regional politicians. Bradipus (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that this move request is related to the merge request at Wallonia and Walloon Region. At the present time, both articles appear to cover the same topic - if there is an argument being made that Wallonia is something distinct from the Walloon Region, it would be helpful for the Wallonia article to make that clear. -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, the Wallonia article says clearly that "Wallonia is a part of the territory governed by the Walloon Region, one of the three autonomous Regions of federal Belgium. In a more precise sense, the word means the French-speaking part of the Walloon Region". So it certainly does not cover the same topic, as it says that Wallonia is a part of the Region. As far as I know, the definition is roughly correct: at least, the reference to French-speaking makes it clear that the German-speaking community is not part of Wallonia (traditional meaning), although it is part of the Walloon Region;

This is also explained at length in the talk page of Wallonia.

Of course, Wallonia would need to be better edited, but it does not change the fact that it does describe something distinct from the Walloon Region. I consider that I have myself an insufficient knowledge of the history of Belgium and Wallonia to be able to contribute adequately to the article, as I do not know much more than the obvious explained hereabove. Bradipus (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it identifies itself as something distinct from the Walloon region, but then the article goes on to cover precisely the Walloon Region - no more, no less. In particular, the article says that "Wallonia" comprises 16 844 km² (just like the Walloon Region) and consists of the same five subdivisions as the Walloon region. So are they the same, or aren't they?

The article does nothing more to distinguish the two topics than employing one two-word phrase ("part of") in the first paragraph, with a {{fact}} tag hanging off it. Besides those two words, the article is simply a fork of Walloon region. There's no discernable difference in scope, nor in historical context, nor in any way that I can detect. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

GTBacchus, I do not want to look impolite, but I do not think you read what I wrote hereabove or what is explained in the article talk page. I know this article is poorly written and make reference to the geography of the Region, I said hereabove that it needed to be edited, remember?

But the fact that the article is poorly written does not mean that it does not have a subject. And that subject is in any case, very clearly, a territory that does not comprise the German-speaking region, thus is distinct from the Region. I gave lots of sources to demonstrate that, if you plan to tell me the two are the same, I think you will have to go to the talk page of Wallonia and source your statement. Bradipus (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Bradipus, I'm not trying to tell you that the two regions are the same. I have no opinion on that subject. I'm saying that the two currently existing articles aren't written as if they're about two different subjects. They are currently written as two articles on the same subject.

I think it would be helpful in resolving this naming dipute if that merge dispute were settled. That merge dispute doesn't seem likely to settle on keeping two separate articles as long as the contents of both articles deal with the same subject. I'm happy enough to move this conversation to a different appropriate talk page if that will help.

As far as this naming dispute, I can't see a clear consensus or rationale on either side. I see a conflict in which reasonable people may disagree. As a step towards resolution, I think it would be useful to somehow clarify just what else "Wallonia" refers to, when it doesn't simply refer to the Walloon Region of present-day Belgium.

I would be inclined to settle this naming dispute according to the title of our article on the Walloon Region. However, at the present time, it is simply unclear which of the two titles, Wallonia or Walloon Region, is the one that consensus favors as the name we should use for the region. I would recommend an RfC on the issue, which would ideally include both this request and the requested merge between Walloon Region and Wallonia. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(afterthought) - I wonder whether some kind of indirect solution may work... what if Wallonia were to rediect to Walloon Region, with a {{redirect}} template at the top of Walloon Region sending readers interested in some historical Wallonia to Wallonia (disambiguation), which already exists anyway? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was the solution used until December 27th 2006... but it was the other way round : Walloon Region redirected to Wallonia (this latter was written first). I am all for this solution, as long as the WR page redirects to the Wallonia page for these reasons :

- this worked perfectly from 2002 to the end of 2006, the creation of the WR page only created troubles (like on the French WP)

- the google test is clear : Wallonia 425,000 hits ; Walloon Region 24,200 hits

- Wallonia is a name used by the Region itself (http://www.wallonie.be)

- the name Wallonia is older than the Walloon Region one

- all other meanings of Wallonia are marginal, the template leading to Wallonia (disambiguation) should send interested readers to the appropriate page

Afterwards, we should but on the page very clearly that German-speakers don't feel Walloons, and consider their community to be "out of Wallonia". No problem with that. Stephane.dohet (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Bradipus, what do you think of Stephane's suggestion here? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did not create Wallonia, so I will drop a line on WP:fr to the guys who are the most prominent defenders of it (or should be, wathever...), but as far as I am concerned, that kind of solution may be satisfactory for the Wallonia and Walloon Region articles provided that in general, the use of the official and unambiguous name of Walloon Region be used in articles, such as this one, who are referring to the administrative concept (same thing for categories). Bradipus (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, just making sure I'm clear on what we're saying... you're ok with an article on the Walloon Region being called "Wallonia", if that's what we decide, but then you'd still want this region to be titled List of municipalities of the Walloon Region? Is that correct? Would you agree that our decision here would be tied to our decision regarding the possible merge of those articles? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Good thing you want to clarify things. What I understood was that the agreement would be that Wallonia would be a redirect to Walloon Region, with, in Walloon Region, a link to a disimbiguation page linking for instance to "Wallonia (historical)" or something to that effect if somebody finally decides to do that article properly. And of course, as a redirect is not a merge, I understand that agreement as acknowledging the existence of Wallonia as a distinct concept but taking into account the current status of the situation. Part of the agreement, as far as I am concerned, is thus the acknowledgement that the administrative body's correct name is Walloon Region (after all, there would be no disambiguation page without an ambiguity) and that that name sould be used by preference in the cases I indicated before. Bradipus (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this agreement you're describing - among whom was this made?

By way of context, I should explain where I'm heading with these questions. This is clearly a contentious case, and I can't decide it one way or the other - I'm an admin who closes lots of move requests, but I don't have any kind of authority to declare what consensus is or is not here. My suggestion is that we open a content RfC on the question, and let more eyes view the problem.

What do people think of that idea? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hu? It's the solution you proposed, or I missed something. About the RfC: well, I used WP:RM instead of renaming as I wished (like Stephane did) specifically because I wanted to have the opinion of users other than the usual ones on these rarely visited articles. I explained this here, where I also considered an RfC, an idea that I support.

On the other hand, did you consider that among the 7 persons who posted on this page, there is you, then there is Stephane, and then there are the 5 others who are all in favour of the move. Bradipus (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am okay for an RfC, interested in other people's opinions, especially from non-Walloons who could tell us how they solved this kind of problem in their home country. Stephane.dohet (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Bradipus, I try not to close these things based on numbers, so the intent of my questions was to understand the issues involved in this dispute, which may very well serve as a helpful precedent in some future dispute. I find the issues kind of complicated, speaking as someone who came to the page knowing nothing about language regions in Belgium nor administrative divisions of Belgium, much less the boundary discrepancies between the two. Allegations of POV disputes spilling over from fr: add to the confusion, and it doesn't help that my reading knowledge of French is weak. Finally, there's a related dispute involving at least two other pages, from which I'm having a hard time separating this one.

When I proposed the solution that you refer to, I was guessing in the dark, and it wasn't clear to me that anybody in particular agreed to what I said. Anyway, a solution to the merge dispute would imply a solution to this one, as it wouldn't make sense to call our article on the region one thing, and then call it something else when listing municipalities in it. At the current time, we've got two articles which are de facto about the Walloon region, and it's not clear which one this article should agree with, hence this naming dispute.

Actually, as I look further into it, I note that we have another article on the French Community of Belgium, which the Wallonia article bizarrely never mention (outside of the template). Look at the articles on the various provinces within the region: Walloon Brabant, Namur, Luxembourg and Hainaut are all identified as provinces of "Wallonia", while Liège, where the German-speakers live, is identified as part of the "Walloon region". Two sentences later, the Walloon provinces neighboring Liège are identified as being located in "Wallonia". Is "Wallonia" used both to refer to the Walloon Region itself, and to distinguish the French-speaking part of it from the German-speaking part? That's confusing.

I apologize if I'm being dense about this. On Wallonia (disambiguation), we claim that the Wallonia article is about a "geographic term of a part of Belgium based on an identity concept". If I'm understanding that, it basically means that "Wallonia" can mean "the home of Walloons", with their own ethnic and cultural identity and their own way of speaking French. Have we got such an article, say at Walloon people, or Walloon culture? No, the topic appears to be covered in a section of Walloon language. Is that what the article at Wallonia should be about?

If I'm understanding all the issues correctly, it appears we'd want to either (a) Make Wallonia into a proper article about Walloon society, with its various political manifestations through the years, add a hatnote pointing to Walloon Region for those wanting that article, and then fixing a lot of links (b) Make Wallonia into our article about the Walloon region, because that's what people tend to call it (unless they wish to emphasize the distinction between German-speaking Belgium and the rest of the region), redirect Walloon Region to Wallonia, and point to Wallonia (disambiguation), where people can find a link to Wallonia (Walloon culture) or something; (c) same as (b), but the disambiguation page simply points to Walloon language regarding the cultural meaning of "Wallonia".

If we choose (a), then we would certainly want to move this page; if we choose (b) or (c), then we'd either want to leave the page where it is, or if we move it, we'd want to explain why its title doesn't match our main article on the region. I'm making a small edit to the article lead, which might be a step towards a consistent treatment of these articles. If it's a bad edit, please revert me and explain why. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support move to List of municipalities of the Walloon Region per Ganchelkas and David Descamps, Communities, regions and language areas of Belgium and [1]. feydey (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support move to List of municipalities of the Walloon Region for the same arguments as Bradipus, Davide Descamps and Ganchelkas. Furthermore if one wants to keep the current title of this article, we need to remove some municiplaities of the list, i.e. Eupen, Kelmis, Moresnet, Raeren, Sankt-Vith, Büllingen, Bütgenbach, Amel and Burg-Reuland as these have never been Walloon. And they have never been part of Wallonia, which is a concept for which one is unable to find a territory with clear boundaries. Initially Wallonia means at best the area where Walloon was spoken (which includes also small parts of France and Luxembourg, but excludes many parts of Belgium (and of the territory of the Walloon Region). Afterwards, Wallonia has also (by extension) designated the part of Belgum where French is spoken (but Brussels). Should Belgium be split in the future (after all this cannot been totally excluded taking into accoutn what happened since June 2007), maybe the cocnept of Wallonia will change again as it could become a real country with a territory that will perhaps fit with the current territory of the Wallon Region. But this is not sure at all because I reallay doubt that the German Speaking Community is ready to associate itself with the Walloon Region in a State called Wallonia. I rather see them ask to become part of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (at least in the district of Sankt-vit where people speak a German dialiect that is basically the same as the one that in spoken in Luxembourg. Bottom line, in Belgium municipalities are an administative and legal concept. If one wishes to make a list of municipalities, one need to refer to the adminsitrative and legal authority from which they depend, i.e. the Walloon Region in the case at hand. And if someone absolutely wants to ahve a lsit of municipalities of Wallonia, then let it be provided he first defines the territory of wallonia and secondly excludes in any case the German speking municipalities from this list. --Lebob-BE (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.