Talk:Namur Gate

Article name
This article has been moved to "Namur Gate" under the pretext of WP:English, a guideline which states that The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (emphasis added). Overwhelmingly, the name used in reliable English sources is "Porte de Namur", sometimes "Porte de Namur/Naamsepoort". See e.g. (emphasis added): as also Bradt Guide, Rough Guide, Time Out Brussels, etc. etc. To judge from Google Books, "Namur Gate" is found much more rarely, and primarily in sources from the first half of the 19th century. Could somebody please restore the article to the appropriate name in accordance with the guideline cited? MHAN2016 (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Frank Eckardt, ‎John Eade, The Ethnically Diverse City (2011), p. 318: "In the heart of Ixelles (and Matongé) lies the Chaussée d'Ixelles, which stretches from the Porte de Namur down to the Place Fernand Coq."
 * Paul F. State, Historical Dictionary of Brussels (2015), p. 387: "The sections and their locations around the second town wall included the following: Section des Sables Porte de Namur to porte de Hal"
 * DK Eyewitness Travel Guide: Brussels, Bruges, Ghent & Antwerp (2013), p. 83: "However, the north end of the avenue retains a chic atmosphere; by the Porte de Namur, fans of designer labels can indulge themselves in Gucci and Versace"


 * HyperGaruda, who moved the article, may want to comment on that. If the two of you (and any other interested editors) can agree on the most appropriate name, you can simply move the article back. If you cannot agree, WP:RM gives a process for a formal discussion of the most appropriate title. At a glance I'd say one needs to be careful what those English-language sources refer to: Is it the Ixelles district or the building demolished in the 18th century? The most common English names for those two may differ. Huon (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If the appropriate thing to do is to consult other interested editors, it would have been nice to see some evidence of this before the initial move. That said, I look forward to any reasonable argument for sticking to an English name that seems to have gone out of fashion in 1835. MHAN2016 (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that Brussels-related articles have their own naming conventions. For the sake of language neutrality and consistency with pages like Halle Gate and the names used in Fortifications of Brussels, an English translation is preferable if there is one. There is still a considerable amount of (even modern) sources which use "Namur Gate", so at least we are not talking WP:OR. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Like the initially cited WP:English, the now-cited WikiProject Belgium/Brussels naming conventions says that "The naming should follow the most common usage in English". There is a sprinkling of modern sources that use of "Namur Gate", but they are a fraction of those that use "Porte de Namur" or "Porte de Namur/Naamsepoort". MHAN2016 (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Said quote is followed directly by "In addition to neutrality, readability is important." Both points are things to "take in to account", but the part that actually says how to act, starts at "If the subject has an English name or can easily be anglicized to facilitate reading and keep language neutrality:..." - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

At a quick glance, many of the mentions for "Porte de Namur" seem to discuss the district, not the building. Adding "gate" to the Google Books search in hopes of only finding those sources that discuss the town gate significantly reduced the number of hits. Thus I tend to agree with HyperGaruda that "Namur Gate" is an appropriate title for this article. Huon (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)