Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Belgium/Brussels naming conventions

Reboot

I suggest we revive the discussion about the naming conventions proposed on this page. Please share your thoughts with other users, so we can finally bring the edit warring to an end. --Roofbird (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If I may summarise:

• if English equivalent exists, use English; translations in infobox and first line are French-Dutch
• if not, use most frequent name in English usage, in title and throughout the page; but then other language goes first in the infobox and the first line.

 Agree I think this could keep peace. --Roofbird (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree to prefer English naming when it is common. Otherwise, take into account that the large majority of the population of Brussels speaks French (between 86 and 94% according to the latest local elections results, and the public acts (such as mariages and births)), and prefer the French name. Mro (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree, if there is a common English name then that should be used, if not then the most common usage of the two languages. This is in accordance with WP:PLACE and from that I'd also like to clarify that this is a motion against using both names (as WP:PLACE) and invented English and that this is a clarification of WP:PLACE rather than replacing it. Furthermore, the first in the infobox etc. should, as elsewhere on Wikipedia, be the language which comes earliest in the alphabet, so in all Belgian articles that would be Dutch, French then German.- _J.Logan`^t: 18:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid we have to drop the alphabetical order rule (although I think it is best): can you imagine how French-speakers would react if Brussel was put before Bruxelles in the Brussels article? An alternation (depending on which language is used in the title, de facto always French) is then a better (that is, universally applicable) solution, no? --Roofbird (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so happy about the part "if English equivalent exists". Take Saint Gaugericus Island, I wonder if this obviously translated name is used in normal life, ever. Flagey Square, possibly the same. Let's skip that whole line, and replace it with "use the name that is most commonly used in English". The order of the names in the first line is not so important to me, I understand the argument that it's unexpected to see a different name than the one of the title as the first one. Markussep ^Talk 21:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI, this page was actually designed to be the target of Template:Brusselsname, where appropriate:

I am, along with User:Hooiwind, who is on wikibreak, the author of this page. Part of the issue is that if we favour the "version most used in English", everything will always be in French and Dutch will get completely trampled. I like the idea of putting the Dutch first, then using French thereafter, because that is a reminder that Brussels is officially bilingual, but still preserves a reasonable solution. Having said that, I wouldn't mind a slight shift towards French from awkward double names.

Also, I created Saint Gaugericus Island, and that monstrosity is my fault. I have italicized easily on the guideline; judgement should be used in cases like this. I would think that in cases like this we should go to the next step, which is to favour French.

Another thing is that having both languages for things mentioned inline slows down the text. I wouldn't mind that just being English if possible, then French if not.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that I don't think any Flemings have really commented here yet, aside from my discussions with Hooiwind to get this into its current form (let me know if I'm wrong). It's not really a consensus if no Flemings agree. Thoughts? Oreo Priest ^talk 23:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In december 2006 there was this proclamation of key people from Brussels.

We exist! 100 Citizens of Brussels from all Walks of Life and Origins

and among them several Flemings who are considering French as the "lingua franca" of Brussels. All the Flemings of Brussels don't share this opinion but it shows that a large majority of the inhabitants of Brussels are French-speaking. I am not a Francophone of Brussels, I am a Walloon. But I think that French should have a kind of priority and that is not (in my view), in contradiction with the officially bilingual regim of this Region. See also Commentaires sur l'Appel bruxellois (de Bruxellois flamands et francophones... José Fontaine (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC

In practice, that will be the case as English adopts the French name for most places and things. What about the alternation in the first line and infobox (depending on which language is used in the title, when not English)? Does everybody agree? And when English is used in the title, do we go alphabetically or for the order French-Dutch? FYI: I am Flemish (but obviously I can't speak for all of us).--Roofbird (talk) 09:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think one Fleming out of four participants is enough to make sure any conclusions we reach are representative and fair, so that base is covered. Oreo Priest ^talk 15:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Specific sections

Given that we are in broad agreement about this, I'm going to break the discussion down into sections for clarity. Please comment on what you think of each step. Oreo Priest ^talk 15:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

English name/easily anglicized

• Example: Halle Gate

This section seems good to me. I think the keyword here is easily. (English-)French-Dutch in the title and infobox I think is most appropriate. Oreo Priest ^talk 15:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

 Agree --Roofbird (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's be very careful with anglicized names, and not invent names that aren't used in real life. "Leopold Park", well maybe, but "Halle Gate" no, and definitely not "Law Street" or "Brussels-Chapel train station". Bottomline: let's only use that kind of translated names if they're commonly used in reliable published sources. Markussep ^Talk 16:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree about Law Street, but strongly defend Brussels-North, Brussels-South, Brussels-Central, Brussels Town Hall (or better Town Hall of Brussels), Luxembourg station (instead of Gare du Lux); and even Flagey Square (because translation is so obvious). Question is where I draw the line; have to think about that for a sec. :-) --Roofbird (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's because we'd also translate city gates, squares, stations etc in Greece, Russia, China... where the indigenous language is unintelligble for us. --Roofbird (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think, aside from a few specific cases, we're in agreement that this works. I'm closing this section. Oreo Priest ^talk 19:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No English name

• Example: Mont des Arts

* Example: Ixelles, Sint-Jans-Molenbeek There is a separate consensus for the names of communes. See Talk:Brussels-Capital Region/NamingArchive3. Oreo Priest ^talk 16:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this should be strengthened to read If the subject has no English name or cannot be reasonably anglicized. That way we avoid monstrosities like Saint Gaugericus Island. Oreo Priest ^talk 15:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

 Agree But I don't think Saint Gaugericus Island is a monstrosity; it makes it clear after which saint it was named. As a bad translation example, I would use "Mount of Arts", "Artsberg", "Artsburg", "Mountain of Arts" or "Arts Mountain" for Mont des Arts or Kunstberg. --Roofbird (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, we disagree there, because I think it's awful. Try looking for it in Google Books, you won't find it. "Arts Mountain" is nice too, or "Koekel Mountain Basilica" ;-) Markussep ^Talk 16:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I simply love nor hate it. J'adore Coockle Mountain Basilica though. ;-) --Roofbird (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add that if one name is overwhelmingly used in English, even if easily anglicizable, then that name should be used, eg. Place Flagey. Having said that, I'm not sure that's necessarily a good idea. Flagey Place would probably be just fine, and more neutral. Oreo Priest ^talk 15:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Difficult question. On the one hand, we need some consistency (so either all squares should be "X square" - better than "place"), on the other hand, we should follow common usage, and on the third hand (ahum) we should keep neutrality. I think "Flagey square" would be best. That means  Agree --Roofbird (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but "square" is also used in French (:-)) and that doesn't mean "Place"... but for instance public garden... In the Flemish Brussels dialect, (in the sense, regional language), the name of the streets were (are), named in French. I think it very kind this respect for the local names from our English-speaking firends. And they are right... José Fontaine (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand this: "in the first line, as well as in the infobox, follow the sequence Dutch-French". I think the logical reasoning of any editor (without nationalist agenda) would be : "in the first line, as well as in the infobox, follow the sequence French-Dutch". Because, in Brussels, the order is always French-Dutch. French is the first language and Dutch the second one. I think this has been so since French is the city administrative language, i.e. long before it became the majority language. Brussels is bilingual but its first language is French. Of course the first language of Belgium is Dutch but this is not a reason for letting Dutch names precede the French ones. If it were so one should start the Liege article with Luik! (BTW I am a Walloon!) Vb (talk) 08:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The sequence Dutch-French only holds when the article has a French title and French is used inline. So far, the proposed sequence in general is French-Dutch, just as you desire. --Roofbird (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Won't that actually be the case for most articles, since generally the French names are more commonly used in English (see Talk:Brussels-Capital Region/NamingArchive3 for a detailed search w.r.t. the municipalities of the Brussels capital region). Markussep ^Talk 09:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. That's why I think that alternation is so important to be able to "sell our deal" to the Flemings (if our aim is to avoid future disputes). --Roofbird (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This consensus is only for Brussels, not for Wallonia nor Flanders. In Flanders the Dutch name is the first and in Wallonia the French one. José Fontaine (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That is self-evident. Another difference is that for Brussels both names should be bolded, whereas for the other regions only one (when the title is not anglicized). --Roofbird (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well we have to think about the editor who is not aware of this compromise. If I see an article with a name and that the first bold name of this article is another one e.g. in another language, I simply think there is a edit-war going on and I don't trust this article. I don't spend my time reading further and for sure not the link to the naming convention in Brussels. Vb 11:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.245.120 (talk)

Well, the people causing the problems are registered users who do this repeatedly. We'll slap the template above on the talk page and we can quickly revert and point out that the previous changes were in violation of consensus. This won't stop edits, but it will stop edit wars. Oreo Priest ^talk 13:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have thought a while about this and I think this compromise is not reasonable. The first reason is its practability: there is no clear distinction between existing English names, names which can be easily anglicized and names which have no direct English translation. Usually the English name is the French name or the English translation is very close to the French one. Moreover the people writing in English about Brussels are not authoritative or simply not native English speakers. Look at the webpage [1]. From there it seems the word Monts des Arts is a wording used in English. The question is which English? Who wrote this page? A Fleming? A Francophone? A native English speaker? Nobody knows? Depending on how you answer this question you'll have a different editorial line for this article. For this reason and the other historical and cultural reasons I listed above as well as to avoid the feeling of a dispute between editors to the lay reader, I support a clear rule:

1. For any article about Brussels English (if any) - French - Dutch all in bold fonts in the lead and infobox.
2. The first of it (English or French) in the title and at any other place in the article.
3. Notation like Boulevard Anspaachlaan should be banned. Vb 08:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My understanding was that "find out which name is used more often in English" is a seemingly language neutral way to say "use the French". We should probably stop kidding ourselves and replace that with "use the French name."

And again, if we don't put the Dutch name first in the first line, what concession, if any, are we making to the Flemish? A blanket "always prefer French all the time" policy doesn't seem fair, and the switching of the first line is symbolic. Oreo Priest ^talk 13:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The concession is simply that the Dutch name appears in the first line of the lead in bold fonts. Moreover I think we should add a comment on the naming convention page explaining that while Dutch is the historical language of Brussels it is not anymore and that for editorial reasons (clearness, unambiguousness, etc.) we have opted for this editorial line. BTW Kunstberg appears much more often on Google than Mont des Arts! However I still believe Mont des Arts should be the only title as explained above. Vb 07:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I never thought I would read something like that written by you, Vb. It is absolutely no concession to the Flemish that the Dutch name be bolded in the first line. That is just because it is an official name as well. Rather on the contrary, I think Dutch is making all concessions here. I do not support anything decided here without the Dutch-French rule. Otherwise there is just nothing in it for Dutch, the other official language, remember... --Hooiwind (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. But also in French. What do you think about this "French" [2]. It is possible to say in French "Il se targue de bien parler le français" but a City dont' "targue" itself" to have an altitude. All these sentences on this part of the web-site are in ridiculous French and I feel myself ridiculous... I begg your pardon but I am sincerely angry, not against Flemings or I don't Know which people but against this ridiculous "improper and hurtful" situation. José Fontaine (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC) And what is more: this text is deeply inexact!!! José Fontaine (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

First line and infobox

Common practice is to bold only one name in the first line, and give alternatives in brackets and in italics. In this case, we can give the alternative name more emphasis by bolding both. However, I think the first name should be the same as the title, because that's what readers expect (and probably that's why Westermarck's swaps were reverted so quickly). We could use the reversed order in the infobox. Markussep ^Talk 16:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It is already common practice for articles on Brussels to bold both official names (when no English equivalent exists), we should definitely keep that (as you say). I really like the alternation, it draws the attention to the fact that both names are correct and serves as a good compromise (without annoying the reader, since the title follows a few words later). If it weren't for that, there is really no compensation at all for a French-all-over policy and we can expect disgruntled Dutch-speakers to come up sooner rather than later accusing us of an unfair preference for French (and they would be right). The alternation is symbolic, but at least we have something at hand to defend a French title (and the use of French inline) and keep people from opening this discussion again. --Roofbird (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with Roofbird, and I think he puts it quite nicely. Oreo Priest ^talk 16:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

So do I. The Flemings really aren't asking much here. --Hooiwind (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

What I am concerned about, no, almost shocked at, is that Wikipedia is being used to air local political squabbles. An encyclopedia should not be used as a soapbox, it is not there to be "neutral", it is there to relay facts. It is a fact that in the anglophone (and others) domain one language name has an overwhelming dominance over the other, and, like it or not, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) deals with this very logically. It just looks ridiculous to have the article name as A and then start the article with B. I would have no problem that the article asserts clearly that the original name is B and that A is a corruption/modification of B. But the name used in by most English speakers and authors is the one that should be used and the format of the whole document should respect the Wikipedia styles. All respect but any Flemming has a potential WP:COI and should not get involved; (I have seen no francophone here to balance the argument, not surprisingly, they just don't bother to learn other languages like the Flemings do :-). Please keep the politics out of it and keep the articles clear and consistent. (You know when you've lived in Belgium too long when you no longer smirk when someone mention Kunts-Wet :-) --217.8.244.85 (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Things mentioned inline

I would prefer choosing just one name, corresponding to the way we name articles. So Halle Gate, and rue Neuve instead of rue Neuve/Nieuwstraat. Having two slows down the text and makes it harder to read. If there's a lot of opposition to this, however, I could live with the double names where appropriate. Oreo Priest ^talk 15:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

 Agree for Halle Gate, do not agree for rue Neuve/Nieuwstraat. We should use both (but please no "New Street"). I don't think it slows down the text so much, double streetnames are just one of those things that belong to Brussels. Convenient is also that many names are bilingual and used on maps and signs ("Boulevard Anspachlaan", "Rue Beekstraat" etc). --Roofbird (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I also prefer using just one name inline. But, if for instance both names are commonly used in English, let's allow both to be mentioned at the first occurrence only, and a single name in the rest of the text. In that case, don't separate them with a slash, but put one in brackets: rue Neuve (Nieuwstraat). Please let's not use things like "Boulevard Anspachlaan". Markussep ^Talk 16:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Things like Boulevard Anspachlaan are very common though... I'd think of it as the ideal solution. --Roofbird (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and that is also the reality of Brussels: these two languages always together, it is strange, but is also an interesting thing. For me it is not ridiculous and I think that the Flemings agree with that. But it is only the reality of Brussels, absolutely not the one of Wallonia and Flanders... José Fontaine (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Anspach is too easy an example. Stuff like Boulevard Général Jacques / Generaal Jacqueslaan takes up half a line. Oreo Priest ^talk 17:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should use just one name where a link exists? Like Avenue Louise, but not rue Neuve. Then we could either do the hybrid, slash (/) or brackets solution. I don't think it's that important to standardize here what kind of double we use, that can be left to the editor's discretion. Oreo Priest ^talk 17:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

1. The name of the article (English or French) should be used in the title and at any other place in the article.
2. Notation like Boulevard Anspaachlaan should be banned. Vb 08:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why we should by principle stick to French. Totally not agree. Boulevard Anspachlaan is to be preferred. --Hooiwind (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Compromise proposal:

As a workable compromise, I propose:

1. Use the double name (no standardized format) the first time the thing is mentioned unless there is a linkable article (in which case use the title) or an extremely obvious English name.
2. Use the French name thereafter.

Eg: There is a expensive store at the intersection of Rue de la Concorde/Eendrachtstraat and Avenue Louise. Rue de la Concorde has lots of fancy shops.

Eg: It is near Leopold Park. (Even if we didn't have an article on it).

 Agree Oreo Priest ^talk 19:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. But please let us stick to the more neutral "most used in English" instead of saying "use the French". In practice, this gives the same result, but it is not politically correct to use French per se. --Hooiwind (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Hooiwinds modification is OK with me, maybe we can add "when use is indecisive, use French". Markussep ^Talk 14:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetical or majority-minority

For clarity, let me put this in another section: When an English title is used, should the order be French-Dutch or alphabetical (and historical, to those who care) Dutch-French? --Roofbird (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think French-Dutch clearly makes more sense here. All of WP:PLACE doesn't really apply here, because it specifies that with multiple local names, a specific consensus should be reached, which is what this page is. Oreo Priest ^talk 16:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I take it, especially from the other discussion, that French-Dutch is to be preferred. This section is closed. Oreo Priest ^talk 19:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Existing consensus

Looks good as is. Oreo Priest ^talk 15:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

 Agree ;-) --Roofbird (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we should invite more people to join this discussion, at least WP:BELGIUM. Markussep ^Talk 16:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who watches that page will also be watching this one, as it is a subpage. But go ahead if you want. Oreo Priest ^talk 16:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No, if you watch a page you don't see changes in subpages in your watchlist, I just tested it. Anyway, I announced it on the WP:BELGIUM talk page. Markussep ^Talk 17:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Almost there, final discussion/poll

So it seems that aside from the order in the first line and infobox when there is no English name, and on how many (one or two) names to use for other things inline (see above) we're pretty much in agreement on everything here. I propose a poll to see which option has more support. Oreo Priest ^talk 19:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Order in first line and infobox when there is no English version

French-Dutch

1. Support as symbolic of bilingualism. It is same reason. I am certainly a Walloon, thus in favour of French but, on the orher hand, I think it is right and fair even toward Flemings. It is important to say that the Governement of Brussels have more French-speaking ministers than Flemish ministers. And it is also important to say that some Flemish people accept this priority of French and that they are loyal Flemings. I was (above), angry against a very bad (terrible bad) French on an important Brussels institutution web-site, but that was against that institution, not against the Flemings I respect very deeply. It is also a very interesting discussion. For me both Walloon and Flemings are right in the conflict and this is often the case in many conflicts. I consider that we (Flemings, Walloons and peopel of Brussels), are able to make a country, in spite of this long, long conflict. It is my very deep opinion. Salut et Fraternité! José Fontaine (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me you put your vote in the wrong column though ;-) --Hooiwind (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It is possible that i don't understand but for me there is a priority of French. If Wiki prefers a priority of Dutch, that doesn't matter, the reality is that Brussels is a French-speaking City. But on the other hand,in respect for the Flemings, we must respect its bilingualism. But in that bilingualism French is the "lingua franca"... José Fontaine (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Support but not overly bothered either way. French first I suppose as in nearly all cases that will be the term in English and hence the article name (can anyone name a case where the Dutch name for something is used more than French in English? In fact, it is rare even for an English translation. I don't think we have to put Dutch first to respect bilingualism, they are both there and unless there is a rational reason, the other in which them come is purely a technical matter. "Respecting bilingualism" seems more giving the Flemings compensation for being force to accept reality which may be popular in politics but has no place here.- _J.Logan`^t: 08:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
2. Support per JLogan. Markussep ^Talk 14:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
3. Support I have been sufficiently convinced by JLogan to change my opinion. Oreo Priest ^talk 23:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
4. Support Vb (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Let's remember that this is an English Wikipeida and the most common English usage should be used. Full reference and facts about the Flemish name should be given after. --83.170.84.254 (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Dutch-French

1. Support as symbolic of bilingualism. Oreo Priest ^talk 19:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
2. Support for the same reason.--Hooiwind (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
3. Support How do you expect readers would realise Brussels is bilingual if everything here is French?--Westermarck (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, we should not prefer one language over another it must follow majority English usage where feasible, e.g. one way for Uccle and the other for Leuven. --217.8.244.85 (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly an interesting opinion. But on the other hand we are here in front of an exceptionnal Belgian difficulty. Leuven (the City), it is OK. Uccle also. But the university in Leuven or Louvain, no. Because there is a Katholieke Universiteit te Leuven and a Université catholique de Louvain (but which is not in Leuven), and the French translation of the Dutch is impossible as well as the Dutch translation of the French because that it is not the same (I think it is possible to say that so in English), the same object, the same individual. Simply to insist on the fact there is here a lot of difficulties... With respect for en-Wikipedia and its efforts in order to find a solution. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You're example has no problem. Even to the English Leuven is Leuven and Louvain is Louvain (l-n) so no confusion (except possibly for the tourists). VUB/ULB would be more complicated, but we just use their real names. --83.170.84.254 (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In conclusion

It now seems we agree on all major points, and I think we now actually have a consensus. I assume there will be no objections to giving preference to Dutch if there are any cases in which the Dutch is used more in English. Oreo Priest ^talk 00:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It is the best solution... José Fontaine (talk) 01:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree in principle but I think this order (Dutch-French) should be proved by serious references other than Google search. For instance, Kunstberg appears much more often than Monts des Arts when googling around. I think however neutral Englih speakers will prefer Monts des Arts. If a user wants to change Monts des Arts into Kunstberg, he needs to add a footnote with professional English references using the name Kunstberg and show that this naming is common in English. Vb (talk) 11:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it has something to do with the Google search you use. (I'm not using google.be). I searched both and there were 4 times as many hits for Mont des Arts, and the top several hits for Kunstberg were just copies or language-neutral versions of some of the Mont des Arts hits. Having said that, I'm not sure what you mean by "professional" English references, but scholarly English language sources about Brussels are generally quite rare, and I think that's too high a standard. But yes, I agree that a blind Google search is not appropriate. Oreo Priest ^talk 13:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Triestig

Deze pagina had de intentie een compromis te vormen. Het enige wat ik zie als ik deze discussie doorlees is het streven het Nederlands helemaal te elimineren. Vrijwel alle officiële bronnen plaatsen het Nederlands en het Frans op een gelijk schavot (zie bv. [3]). Hier wordt gedaan alsof Brussel een eentalig Franse stad is, voor de bewoners klopt dit ten dele (hoewel er alles bij mekaar toch nog 200.000 Vlamingen in Brussel wonen, dat is bijna meer dan Gent!), maar waar hier steeds aan voorbijgegaan wordt is het gegeven dat zowat de helft van de Vlamingen in Brussel werkt. Bovendien is Brussel van oorsprong Nederlandstalig (vrijwel alle Franse straatnamen zijn dus niets meer dan vertalingen van de originele Nederlandse) en is Brussel de hoofdstad van een land dat voor de meerderheid Nederlandstalig is. Op de koop toe is Brussel ook nog eens de hoofdstad van Vlaanderen!

Overdag kan je in bepaalde buurten zoals de Noordwijk zelfs meer Nederlands horen dan Frans. Sommigen zoals Oreo Priest lijken nog meer olie op het vuurt te willen gooien door alle artikelen die nu toevallig eens geen Franse naam te geven alsof te wijzigen in dat Frans. Brussel is zoals gezegd een tweetalige stad, het lijkt mij niet meer dan logisch als dit zich laat merken in de paginatitels op de Engelse wikipedia. Het is duidelijk dat de Engelse gebruikers hier geen voeling hebben met de Belgische situatie. Ik vind het niet kunnen dat een paar Engelmanen hier Watermael-Boitsfort/Watermaal-Bosvoorde zomaar de Nederlandse namen verwijderen.--78.21.164.30 (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please use English on English wikipedia. I don't agree with what you wrote: the Dutch name is always mentioned in the first line of an article, whether it's the same as the article title or not. It's English wikipedia policy to describe actual English usage, therefore we use what English readers would expect. Official naming is of secondary importance. Dutch names are also used in English, I know, but generally the French names are (much) more widely known and used. If there are specific points of the guideline you're uncomfortable about, please bring it up here. BTW half of all Flemings working in Brussels? No way! Markussep ^Talk 07:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

On this point the author of Triestig is almost right : p40% of the working people in Brussels (and perhaps more) are coming from Flanders and about 20% from Wallonia. But people from Wallonia or from Flanders in this case don't live in Brussels. We call them in French "navetteurs" (they live oustide of Brusssels in Flanders or Wallonia but they work in Brussels during the day). On the other hand, I think the inhabitants of Brussels don't appreciate their City is the capital of Flanders. For people of Brussels, it seems clear they are not Flemings nor Walloo, even if the majority og the inhabitants of Bruxelles is a french-speaking majority (until now). There is also a project of the Minister-President of Wallonia (Demotte) and of the Minister-President of Brussels (Picqué), to build a Wallonia-Brussels Federation. It is not linked to the subject we spoke about here but it is an important fact.Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 10:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not what he/she wrote, "...zowat de helft van de Vlamingen in Brussel werkt" = "nearly half of the Flemings works in Brussels". Even if he/she meant that almost half of the working population of Flanders (2.7 million according to Statistics Belgium, so almost half is 1.3 million) works in Brussels, I still don't believe that. Markussep ^Talk 12:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Waarschijnlijk, heb ik dat te vlug gelezen of hij/ze heeft dat te vlug geschreven. But 40/50% of the people employed in Brussels who are Flemings, that is right. Thank you for your lesson of Dutch,. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Folks, when someone starts a discussion in another language than English, there is a Template:Uw-english to use, rather than continuing in a mixture of English and that other language. Tomas e (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Influence of Wikipedia on naming convention in English

As we all know, Wikipedia is one of the most consulted sources of information in the world. I want to express my worry that the current naming agreement almost automatically favors French naming, and thus in fact promotes the French naming in English in cases where there's no English usage yet... Also, I do not understand why it is so problematic to have both the French and Dutch names in the article names - it's not pretty but still easily readable and it IS a fair balance seen the Flemish minority in the city, the long Flemish history of the city, the official bilingual status and the growing internationalization and immigration, which lowers the share of both Dutch and French among native speakers. On top, in Brussels, you can see the dual names everywhere, not only on each and every street sign, but also in company addresses, business cards, etc. ... including e.g., business card of English-speaking employees or employees from Anglo-saxon companies.Sijo Ripa (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If you do not understand the problem, nor why we reached the solution we did, you probably didn't read the discussion that went into it. Obviously the solution isn't perfect, but nothing really could be. Oreo Priest ^talk 21:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There's truly no need to make assumptions about me, Oreo Priest. I understand the discussion, but not the starting point of it: that the double naming is in all circumstances problematic or controversial. (I am only talking about article names, not about names in text. I agree that double naming in text could be cumbersome.) I agree that not one solution will ever be perfect, but there could be a better one, especially as the current solution clearly favors French naming even when there's no English usage yet, indeed causing the French name to be adopted online, which is in fact unnecessary. The double naming is rife in Brussels, removing the need to favor any naming when there's no English use yet. I propose to use the double naming in all situations where there's no clear English usage. If there's a clear usage of English, this can and should be the article name. So yes, this means reopening the discussion. There's luckily no Wikipolicy saying that conventions are not open for civil rediscussion and improvement. Don't worry: I am not going to adapt any article as long as the current convention stands. Sijo Ripa (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, I was not as polite as I should have been. For one, there is an explicit policy that articles must have only one name: [4]. Double names are a mess for a number of reasons. I also don't really see what advantage would be gained by adding a double title while keeping the rest of the text the same. Is it purely symbolic? For the record, most of those who contributed to the discussion live or have lived in or near Brussels, so we are well aware of the current practice.

Second, you mention promoting "the French naming in English in cases where there's no English usage yet". There's no such case. There is a sizable English speaking and expat community in Brussels, to say nothing of travel guides and other media referring to Brussels. And their current, real-life practice is to exclusively use the French names (I cannot think of any exception, unless the author is a native Dutch speaker). For better or for worse, and whether it's based on the local demographics or on the fact that French is a much more widely known language among English speakers than Dutch is, this is the reality. So we really are just using the name used most often in English. Oreo Priest ^talk 23:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Bilingual names of the stations

For some unknown reason, Maelbeek/Maalbeek station and Arts-Loi/Kunst-Wet station are the only ones of the Brussels metro where the Dutch names ("Maalbeek" and "Kunst-Wet")are written before the French ones ("Maelbeek" and "Arts-Loi"). As a reminder, Maelbeek metro station is now (unfortunately!) famous because of Brussels terrorist attacks, and Arts-Loi is the most frequented station of the network: those two stations are therefore the most "famous" stations of the Brussels metro network.

Surprisingly, the changes in the names happened a few days ago, both made by one user. The same user edited the 2016 Brussels bombings article to make sure only the Dutch name "Maalbeek" appears in the article.

Is there any discussion somewhere about the name convention for the Brussels metro station names? As for all the other station the "French name/Dutch name" convention is used, shouldn't we standardize it that way? MisterQ (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)