Talk:Brussels-Capital Region/NamingArchive2


 * See also earlier & later requested moves & discussions about titles for the municipalities of the Brussels-Capital Region:
 * /NamingArchive1: Requested move
 * /NamingArchive3: Names survey

— SomeHuman 1 Feb2007 22:27 (UTC)

Names of the 19 communities (again)
How is it possible that Bozen-Bolzano has a double name but the communities in Brussels don't? The dutch name should be also mentioned.--81.240.86.154 19:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite simple actually :
 * Brussels is not in South Tyrol
 * Berchem-Sainte-Agathe-Sint-Agatha-Berchem just doesn't work
 * having the title in one language and then both language on the initial line suffices, people are smart.
 * redirects work.
 * Maybe we should just have plain English translations. Oooh, bigger question mark indeed. --moyogo 20:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Currently:
 * Anderlecht: nl* + fr
 * Auderghem: fr (old nl spelling) vs. Oudergem nl
 * Sint-Agatha-Berchem: nl vs. Berchem-Sainte-Agathe fr
 * City of Brussels: en*
 * Ixelles-Elsene: nl-fr ??? inconsistent with others but follows Bozen-Bolzano
 * Etterbeek: nl* + fr
 * Evere: nl* + fr
 * Forest: fr vs. Vorst nl
 * Ganshoren: nl* + fr
 * Jette: nl + fr*
 * Koekelberg: nl* + fr
 * Molenbeek-Saint-Jean: fr vs. Sint-Jans-Molenbeek
 * Saint-Gilles: fr vs. Sint-Gillis nl
 * Saint-Josse-ten-Noode: fr vs. Sint-Joost-ten-Node nl
 * Schaarbeek: nl vs. Schaerbeek fr (old nl spelling)
 * Woluwe-Saint-Lambert: fr vs. Sint-Lambrechts-Woluwe nl
 * Woluwe-Saint-Pierre - Sint-Pieters-Woluwe: nl - fr ??? inconsistent with Ixelles-Elsene, space around hyphen
 * Uccle: fr vs. Ukkel nl
 * Watermael-Boitsfort: fr vs. Watermaal-Bosvoord nl (absent! from the article)

That gives us 1 name in plain English, 6 naturally bilingual names (5 from Dutch, 1 probably from French), 8 exclusive French names, 2 exclusive Dutch names. The question is what should be done with the 10 exclusive monolingual article titles? Many things could be done : --moyogo 21:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) use both languages for the article title
 * 2) * with a slash to separate them, as Crainhem/Kraainem metro station - even if / has a special meaning
 * 3) * with " - " as in Woluwe-Saint-Pierre - Sint-Pieters-Woluwe - inconsistant with Bozen-Bolzano
 * 4) * with "-" as in Ixelles-Elsene, and Bozen-Bolzano - problematic with already hyphenated names
 * 5) use a plain English translation, like City of Brussels. - very weird and unusual for most names, and still subject to argument
 * 6) * use the reformed Dutch spelling when the name is from Dutch origins
 * 7) use what seems to be mostly used - hard to define or find, some people might be infuriated by this however.

I don't think the Bozen-Bolzano solution is something to be happy about, see the discussion there Talk:Bozen-Bolzano. I'd prefer the name in the language of the majority of the population, but I don't know the numbers for the municipalities, and couldn't find it on the Belgian statistics website. Markussep 13:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Is the prescribed approach on English Wikipedia to use names commonly used by English speakers to refer to places, and then resort to local names (and the associated interlingual squabbles) only if no term is clearly preferred by English speakers? If so, as someone who lived in Brussels, and went to an English-language school in Boitsfort, I can give you the following set of data points: In English none of us referred to Bosvoorde, Sint Pieters Woluwe, Elsene, Vorst, or Sint Genesius-Rode. I don't know if you can base a generalization on that, that all the Brussels communes are known to English speakers by their French names. I admit that while I pronounced Auderghem as in French, others pronounced it as in Dutch, except with a hard English/French /g/, so I can't make a clear case that my schoolmates were saying "Auderghem" instead of "Oudergem". On the other hand, in English writing (as in the Brussels Bulletin), I don't recall the Dutch names being used (even for Rhode-Saint Genèse, outside of the agglomeration is at is). And it wouldn't be possible to say whether my colleagues were saying Uccle or Ukkel, Schaarbeek or Schaerbeek, or (outside of Brussels) Tervuren or Tervueren. Food for thought. --Largo Plazo 23:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Almost a year passed since my request to change the article names to bilingual ones and still nothing happened, as is made clear bij Moyogo. Indeed, apart from Brussels City, only 12 out of 18 municipalities in the Brussels Region have different names in Dutch and French. The other 6 have a universal name, as their names are not translated into French. I must correct Moyogo here: none of the names in the Brussels Region are originally French, for the simple reason that the city of Brussels was - and the surrounding municipalities (villages in those days) were even more - unilingual Dutch untill the end of the 18th century. That's why most of the French-speaking people in Brussels have a Dutch surname (there are also descendants of 'migrants' from Wallonia, who as a result have a French surname). Nevertheless, while Brussels being officially bilingual, French is nowadays the majority language in Brussels city and all 18 municipalities. On the other hand, in Belgium as a whole, the majority of the people is Dutch-speaking and many of them work in Brussels. That makes the choice for either the Dutch or the French names very difficult. Therefore I still think that bilingual article names are the only logical solution for the discussion. Diemietrie 18:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There was a survey about the names for places in South Tyrol some months ago, and as a result of that single names were chosen. For most places that was the name in the language of the local majority (German for most places, some Italian (a.o. Bolzano), some Ladin), for some there was common usage in English. See Talk:Communes of South Tyrol for details. If the same rationale were to be followed here, I guess most of the disputed municipalities would get the French name for article title. Which I think is fine, as long as there are redirects from the Dutch names, and the Dutch names are mentioned in the text (first line). Markussep 20:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The difference between South Tyrol and Brussels is, I think, that in South Tyrol German is also the original language. Place names are originally German and most of them were only in 1916 translated into Italian by Ettore Tolomei. In Brussels, the Dutch names are the original ones. Some of them are translated into French during the centuries (Bruxelles, Ixelles, Forest, Boitsfort, Uccle (from old Dutch spelling Uccel)), some of them use in 'French' just the old Dutch spelling of before 1948 (Auderghem, Schaerbeek, Watermael, -Noode and the former villages Laeken and Haeren within Brussels city - in the Netherlands some of these old spellings are still used!), the rest have only the names of saints translated into French and 6 municipalities along with the former village of Neder-Over-Heembeek within Brussels city have only a Dutch name.
 * Using the name of the majority language is one solution, using the original language is another. For example, following a survey, Wikipedia NL has chosen the latter for South Tyrol, resulting in German article names for all places except for the Ladin municipalities and villages. A third option is a mixed solution, using French article names for the real French translations (Ixelles, Forest, Boitsfort, Uccle) and Dutch for the rest. A fourth option, eventually combined with the third, is to skip or short the names of saints from the article names, resulting in just "Molenbeek", "Berchem (Brussels)", "S-J-ten-Node", "Woluwe (S-L)" and "Woluwe (S-P)". In accordance with the latter two, the Flemish neighbour village of Sint-Stevens-Woluwe can be shortened as "Woluwe (S-S)".
 * However, because of the exceptional case of Brussels as a region with a French-speaking majority (that is: compared to Dutch. Taking into account the languages of ethnic minorities and 'European Brusselers' (workers of EU and NATO institutions), French is not a majority language anymore. A survey of the Free University of Brussels some years ago resulted in French being the main language of only 40% of the population, Dutch 10%, with 10% being bilingual Dutch-French, 10% bilingual French-other or Dutch-other language and as many as 30% speaking neither French nor Dutch!), but historically and surrounded by Dutch-speaking territory, with only half of the place names translated, I still advocate to use bilingual article names. Diemietrie 13:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also because the names in both languages are officially equivalent. I suggest using e.g. "Woluwe-Saint-Pierre - Sint-Pieters-Woluwe" (with blancs around the language-separating dash), for all Brussels' municipalities first in French and second in Dutch (of course redirects exist in reverse order, as well as for each separate language). I suggest the same order for content of the articles, e.g. "Rouge-Cloître - Rood Klooster (Red Cloister)" though giving some slack for e.g. "the Abbey of Rouge-Cloître or Rood Klooster (Red Cloister)": Though some sites can be translated into English, and this may have been done in brochures or on web sites for tourists, such names would often not be recognized by locals or found on maps.
 * Though there can easily be 5 times as many French-speaking than Dutch-speaking inhabitants, the city does get a very sizeable number of commuters of which at least half are Dutch-speaking; with the origin being Dutch and the capital region being surrounded by a mainly Dutch-speaking region; Brussels being the Flemish capital [which I have to regret for it used to be my city Mechelen before], as well as the one of Belgium with 60% of Dutch-speakers; while there simply are no English names and speakers of English may refer to the municipalities by the name they first hear it, which can be in either language; it then seems the only fair and practical solution. Even if it were possible, it is not quite serious to try and find out which percentages of languages are spoken in each municipality: Brussels is as much the capital of speakers of Dutch and the municipalities of the capital region rely on them, not as much for choosing a mayor, but for economical prosperity. The English Wikipedia does not suddenly change the language of a streetname if its latest instream of inhabitants prove to be speaking Berber or Turkish - in fact such may very well be the majority's native language for a few of the municipalities at hand: we keep the official name; in the 19 Brussels' municipalities, that is bilingual. Phantasy shortnames like "Woluwe (S-P)" are out of the question because it would give no indication whatsoever as how to pronounce it and one would better not ask the way as such or try to find it on a map. The doubled long names may seem peculiar, but it is typical for the area and draws the unaware's attention to this otherwise lightly forgotten but important characteristic; it saves us from giving a more lengthy explication of the bilingual nature in the lead of each article, as it will be obvious. — SomeHuman 18 Dec2006 18:39 (UTC)

I think we should name the articles in a way the average English speaker would most easily recognize, that is the least confusing way. IMO showing both the French and the Dutch name in the title is confusing. Quoting myself from Talk:Communes of South Tyrol: "it suggests (especially when the names are quite different like Olang-Valdaora) that they are two different places combined, rather than one place (like Castrop-Rauxel or Minneapolis-St. Paul)". For "Olang-Valdoara" you can read "Elsene-Ixelles", I think few people who are not familiar with this town would guess that it's the same place in two languages. Remember that nobody calls it "Elsene-Ixelles" (or vice versa) in normal conversation.

In response to some of the proposals and statements of Diemietrie and SomeHuman: Maybe we should start a proper survey about this. Markussep 21:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * IMO, it's not really important what was the original language. Istanbul was Greek some time ago. I know the situation is different here, but French was already being spoken in the Brussels region several centuries ago.
 * Let's not skip parts of names, that's even more confusing.
 * I hope "Rouge-Cloître - Rood Klooster (Red Cloister)" is not a serious suggestion, that's about as horrible as Sëlva-Wolkenstein in Gröden-Selva di Val Gardena.
 * I sincerely doubt there are Berber, Arab, Turkish or Lingala names for any of the Brussels municipalities (except of course Brussels itself: tr:Brüksel).
 * I don't think "Elsene-Ixelles" as a title makes it obvious that those are names in two different languages. We have to give both names and an explanation in the articles.
 * Several centuries ago, Brussels was by far and large Dutch speaking, e.g. in the 1790s someone wrote a letter complaining that nearly 10 (ten) percent of the people in Brussels spoke French. And the municipalities never lost their Dutch names but only got a French alternative added. Of 19 municipalities, only for "Ixelles - Elsene" the names are not obviously related and thus only in that article, it would be wise to explictly state such. For all others, there can be no confusion. I will not continue to allow francophone bias presenting the French names of these municipalities as if these should be English. The argument that the native speech of the majority of the inhabitants should be the guideline, would indeed need ascertaining how some of the municipalities are pronounced by their possibly Berber majority; which would be ridiculous. Therefore and for the sake of NPOV, each of the officially bilingual municipalities of which the names in Dutch are used by 60% of the country's population, need to have both names in the title. 'Rouge-Cloître' is merely a French translation of the old abbey's name 'Rood Klooster', but is now too often used for it not to be mentioned as well; the part of the sentence 'Abbey of...' in my former comment, is a quote from an article wich actually is quite readable. — SomeHuman 18 Dec2006 22:47 (UTC)

I didn't claim that several centuries ago French was the majority language in/around Brussels, that's probably a development of the 19th century, or middle 20th century as the Dutch wikipedia article states. As you wrote yourself, French was spoken by a significant minority in 1790 already, and probably also long before that (nobility/elite?). Note that I never said that the Dutch names should not be used at all, that would be ridiculous. You should also consider that to people who do not speak French and/or Dutch it's not obvious that Forest and Vorst are the same, or Bosvoorde and Boitsfort, or even Saint-Pierre and Sint-Pieter. And about that famous klooster, I'm OK with having three languages in the article itself, but not in the title! Markussep 18:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In response to Markussep, I want to join SomeHuman saying that the bilingual names wouldn't be confusing except for Ixelles-Elsene. (There won't be any seperate articles about Bosvoorde or Saint Pierre). As most names have already one or more '-' in them, I suggest to leave space before and after the '-', resulting in "Ixelles - Elsene". In the first line of each article will be made clear that the first name is in French and the second in Dutch. But while both names are in the article name, one can clearly see that both names are equal and none of them is to be favoured in English.
 * I must correct you Markus, these bilingual names are indeed common in Brussels, just to avoid any linguistic problems. Forms like "Boulevard Anspachlaan" (Boulevard Anspach in French, Anspachlaan in Dutch), "Place De Brouckèreplein" (Place De Brouckère, De Brouckèreplein) or "16, Rue de la Loi - Wetstraat 16" are very often used. Place names are very often shortened, especially in spoken language and by migrants, as e.g. "Molenbeek" or "SJTN".
 * About the history of the region: French was not a popular language in Brussels untill the 19th century. Of course there was some elite which spoke French (5-10%), but that was the case in most cities of Europe in those days. Around 1800, French was much more important in cities like Berlin or Maastricht than in Brussels. But unlike the other cities, where the French-speaking elite gradually adapted the local language, French became the only official language in Brussels in 1830. This resulted in more and more people switching from their Dutch dialect to French. The turning point from a Dutch to a French majority must be somewhere between 1900 and 1940. But all this only concerns Brussels city. In the surrounding villages, the present municipalities of the Brussels region, developments began much later and went faster. Ganshoren, Evere and Sint-Agatha-Berchem were attached to the bilingual region of Brussels only in 1954, as the last language census of 1947 (which was heavily criticized because of fraud and anti-Flemish actions) resulted in a small French majority here. On nl:Talentelling you can see the results of the language census (talentelling in Dutch) for most of the other Brussels municipalities in 1866 and 1920. Categories are "Dutch only", "Dutch and French" (in a country where French is the only official or most important language, you can imagine that most of these people are of Dutch-speaking descent), "French only", "French and German", "German only", "German and Dutch", "Dutch, French and German". In 1866, only Elsene/Ixelles, Sint-Gillis/Saint-Gilles and Sint-Joost-ten-Node/Saint-Josse-ten-Noode had a French-speaking minority as large as or larger than Brussels itself. Especially in the table for the province of Brabant - that is: Brussels and surrounding regions - you can very well see the gradual 'frenchification' of the area.
 * Concluding, I think that a survey about the subject is a good idea. Diemietrie 20:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The only point I wanted to make was that the use of French in Brussels didn't start yesterday. About street signs, addresses etc., I think those bilingual "solutions" like Boulevard Anspachlaan are merely meant to save space. I saw a nice example of that in Edingen: a sign to the park ("parc" in French, "park" in Dutch), like this: Obviously, Dutch and French wikipedia don't use double names. See for instance fr:Boulevard Anspach and nl:Elsene. But well, let's have that survey. Markussep 20:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * When I say bilingual names are common, I did mean they're used that way by private people, enterprises, public authorities, etc. You're right that these bilingual solutions are used on street signs. I think that many people copy that. Diemietrie 21:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If you really think some Francophones have an agenda by using the French names for Brussels' municipalities, this question will go nowhere. I don't care if we decide to go with what 60 % of the Belgian population uses or what 80 % of Brussels population uses, but either none is POV or both are. --moyogo 02:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Either one is POV, both is neutral – and the only solution respecting the Constitution of Belgium. Obviously, the Dutch Wikipedia uses the Dutch names and the French Wikipedia uses the French names. English is neither and thus represents both equally. Pushing for "one language, that's easier" and then "French of course" is the francophile Belgicist POV and will not be tolerated, no matter what excuses you come up with. — SomeHuman 21 Dec2006 16:37 (UTC)


 * "will not be tolerated" by whom? We're giving information, not telling people what language to use. And I thought the South Tyrol discussions were difficult... Markussep 17:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * SomeHuman, sure. It has to be the francophile Belgicist POV. What else could it be? Let's go for the long redundant names, road sign style. It doesn't matter anyway, facts are facts, if those names don't have any official or clear usage in English let's go for the long bilingual forms. As long as things are clearly stated, i.e. which dash means what, etc. btw, which languages should come first in the bilingual form ? I'd hate to be the one saying any language should come first, I'd be *phile Belgicist POVing. --moyogo 17:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A long time ago I had suggested French - Dutch in the title and Dutch - French on the intro line (which shows to the reader that the double language indication does not form a fixed name by itself). But within the articles, there will also be bilingual indications for sites not havig an established English name . It would be overzealously "objective" to continuously switch from 'French - Dutch' to 'Dutch - French' and back, which for speakers of English would be bewildering unless one would put "(Dutch)" and "(French)" with each site name. Simply putting these indicators on the also French - Dutch intro line suffices and allows systematically using that order in bilingual names of sites further on without again mentioning which is which language. That's what I suggested on this page earlier this week. In general, the Flemish are not offended by such logical avantage causing a mere stylistic prevalence, but take it badly when people are told what language to use as when their language systematically 'happens' to become omitted or only mentioned (as with only-French title and bilingual intro line) as an afterthought, suggesting to quicky forget the Dutch. — SomeHuman 21 Dec2006 23:42 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, this is more an issue of being politically correct, about not offending parties for using only the other party's forms of names, rather than NPOV. Dutch or French speakers should take no offence really, none is meant, this seems to me like it's a deeper issue than just names from one language being used in English. If bilingual article titles and explicit introductions make you happy, that's perfect. I don't think we should go as far as "fixing" every occurence of a name everytime as if it were an infraction ; what is used is used. --moyogo 00:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * One should fix this because it is very confusing if one municipality would have a French name only, another only a Dutch name, a third both names in Dutch - French and within the article the reverse, a fourth... I hope your suggestion not to fix is not inspired by the systematically unilingual French titles that exist now: these were fixed without consensus while many municipalities used to have bilingually named articles. These should be reinstated. Having some bilingual and some unilingual names would erroneously indicate that the unilingual ones have another status or even belong to a unilingual region. — SomeHuman 22 Dec2006 04:48 (UTC)
 * Note: What I have in mind, can be inspected in the article Auderghem (only the title should still be changed again to 'Auderghem - Oudergem'). Notice in the text that italics are used for French - Dutch names and the English translation follows in normal characters between, but for an established English name, the English name in normal characters is followed with the corresponding (French - Dutch) names. I think the combination of constant order French - Dutch and always (except for bold names that correspond to the title) in italics, makes this quite readable while maintaining comprehensiveness. Notice that for the in English named Chapel of Saint Anne, there is no French or Dutch name given (as this could be too ostentative: [Chapelle] Saint-Anne - Sint-Anna[kapel]); also that the historical names (in former Dutch spelling which corresponds twice with present-day French and once with current Dutch) of three former villages are used in proper context; thus this will probably be the most complex of the 18 articles other than City of Brussels. — SomeHuman 22 Dec2006 05:52-06:06 (UTC)
 * Those changes have been waiting to be made for a while. It's time the people who think the current situation is wrong change it instead of blaming others for doing POV. --moyogo 08:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * SomeHuman and I obviously disagree on what's readable. I think it's OK to mention alternative names in the articles, also for places like Rood Klooster (BTW a better translation would be Red Monastery, "cloister" is used for "kloostergang"), but only once. Still I urge to make it clearer that it's not one name, but the same name in two languages. And I don't think both names belong in article titles. If it were up to me a line like "Auderghem - Oudergem is adjacent to the municipalities of Etterbeek, Ixelles - Elsene, Woluwe-Saint-Pierre - Sint-Pieters-Woluwe, and Watermael-Boitsfort - Watermaal-Bosvoorde.", as it's in the Auderghem article now, would change into "Auderghem is adjacent to the municipalities of Etterbeek, Ixelles (Elsene), Woluwe-Saint-Pierre (Sint-Pieters-Woluwe), and Watermael-Boitsfort (Watermaal-Bosvoorde)." For this exercise I assumed that the French name is the most used name, which may not be true for all of them. The name "Oudergem" would be obsolete in this line because it's already mentioned in the first line of this article. This is more or less how it's done in South Tyrol articles now. Markussep 10:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I propose the solution consequently chosen on the German Wikipedia, with both names mentioned in the title but divided by '/' rather than '-'. See e.g. de:Berchem-Sainte-Agathe/Sint-Agatha-Berchem. This clears every doubt about whether it is a municipality/object/street/etc. consisting of two parts (what you might think with a '-', although most names have similarities in French and Dutch) or a bilingual name. As for German, English has no 'own' translations for these municipalities/objects/streets/etc. and therefore a neutral solution should be found. In my opinion, the only neutral solution possible is to mention both names. To use only French or only Dutch would falsely suggest either of the names is preferred in English or has a higher status. As far as I know, a lot of foreigners already think Brussels is French-speaking with only some minority rights for the 'Flemish-speaking' (some even think this is the situation nationwide!), instead of a fully bilingual region with both language groups having equal rights. It would be wrong to contribute to this bias by joining those who - consciously or unconsciously - only use the French names. There are no insuperable objections against bilingual article titles, particularly not with the possibility to use '/' instead of '-', so I hope we can all agree on this. Diemietrie 11:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support of Diemietry's suggestion to use "/" without blanks instead of " - "; further following my proposal as explained. — SomeHuman 23 Dec2006 00:59 (UTC)
 * '/' makes more sense than '-' as long as it doesn't end up making subarticles. Btw, the maps in the metro are either using French/Dutch, or alternating French/Dutch and Dutch/French. --moyogo 01:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * They're always alternating (if you can find all signs), but may I ask to apply "/" and further following my proposal as explained on 21 Dec2006 23:42 & 22 Dec2006 04:48, thus to avoid confusion without alternating the order. Note: "Ixelles / Elsene" exists as redirect page and I seemed to be able to create "Ixelles/Elsene" though I did not save it, thus it is not creating a subpage. — SomeHuman 23 Dec2006 01:24-01:28 (UTC)


 * I'm starting a survey, see below. Markussep 10:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a bit late for that, Marcussep. The other contributors have been waiting long enough for restarting this lengthy discusion all over again; I modified the survey (which is not the purpose of the 'Requested moves' project page) into a proper "requested move" as all contributors, with possibly you excepted, to the discussion appear to have come to a workable final proposal, and your demand to leave the 'survey' abnormally long in the pipeline may seem to be an attempt to stall indefinetely.
 * I'm infuriated by this "survey modification" of yours! Where do you get the nerve to obstruct this survey, and inviting others than this very small group of editors to contribute to this apparently controversial issue? BTW, I'm not so sure moyogo is on your "side", as you claim. Obviously, I'm reverting your edits to WP:RM. Markussep 12:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Your invitation is long overdue and came only when your point of view was apparently not the final outcome of the discussion, as I am sure you had well understood from moyogo's last comment: "'/' makes more sense than '-' as long as it doesn't end up making subarticles." It was time for the proper proposal to move, not to start over the lengthy discussion by a survey that will not entice reading the arguments that have been discussed and is thus bound to come out at the "simple solution" without voters having become aware of all reasons for not oversimplifying. That is what I put on the 'Requested move' page while I let your 'survey' visible for everyone, in fact the strike-through gray put attention to it so that people would be aware of your survey as well as to the proper proposal for which that page is intended. What you did is unforgivable: you utterly destroyed my proper proposal so as to have people coming to your survey without having the least opportunity to be even aware of the proposal being another option; and you did so with the edit comment that you were reverting vandalism, which it was clearly not: such is a content dispute and cannot be considered WP:Vandalism, whereas incorrectly calling "vandalism" is a direct violation of WP:NPA. — SomeHuman 24 Dec2006 03:33 (UTC)
 * If there was a vote, my vote would go for the bilingual solution but also for an English monolingual solution, either way I don't car much anymore. The bilingual solution makes sense if we don't have a consensus on English names. --moyogo 13:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested moves for its municipalities
See above lengthy but necessary discussion;
 * Support from 3 main contributors to discussion appears already to be found: Diemietrie, moyogo and SomeHuman.
 * Oppose from 1 main contributor to discussion appears to be the preference of Markussep


 * Hey! It's not up to the four of us to decide this! What's wrong with inviting others to contribute to this discussion? Markussep 12:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not up to you to obstruct proper Wikipedia procedure: discussion on talk page till a consensus appears, then proper proposal towards the majority's consensus. We do not decide, we propose. But you destroyed the valid proposal on the proper page in order to get the whole road cleared for your one-man survey show. — SomeHuman 24 Dec2006 03:40 (UTC)
 * You (plural) started a discussion involving the move of e.g. Schaarbeek on this talk page without making a note of it on the talk page of Schaarbeek. No wonder that there wasn't much input into the discussion. Starting a wider survey was the correct thing to do before deciding on such a clearly contentious and potentially inflammatory decision. Fram 13:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely not at that moment and against consensus but for one person, thus the decision to launch a proper clear-cut proposal for a move would not have been contentious. If such would have resulted in a move, that could not be more inflammatory than earlier unilateral moves for some municipalities towards what exists now. This talk page is far more visible than those of the municipalities in this region and mentioning it for each of those might have caused scattered discussions even if a link would have been provided, e.g. by someone wanting to keep or change just one particular municipality's name. — SomeHuman 4 Jan2007 00:37 (UTC)