Talk:Wallonia (disambiguation)

Walloon

Senate Official webpage : [1] on 25 December 2007. Seems they cleaned last week. David Descamps (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a Canadian site knows Wallonia better than Walloon sites (lot of misunderstandings on that page), but at least there is what you searched on that page. But I am curious what are THEIR sources for such a use of the Wallonia term. Stephane.dohet (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I can simply put the website http://www.cfwb.be if you prefer : Wallonia-Brussel Community = French-speaking language area + bilingual language area. David Descamps (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wallonia doesn't need a disambiguation

Alle the words in this page are meaning the same topic. It is not as Mercury and mercury for instance (or Meuse, the river and Meuse the French department). I agree with an other user, Rawle who was saying (see below) that an English speaker is not able to understand the reasons of this page. I add: no more than a French speaking user as me and even a Walloon (as me too). Wallonia means only the same topic. José Fontaine (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Move

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 proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

As counselled in WP:D, I propose to move that page to Wallonie and the present page Wallonia to Wallonia (romance land). Speculoos (talk) 07:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose this move. There are no such things as several Wallonia's. There is no need for a disambiguation page, as Wallonia and Walloon Region are the same thing : they have the same territory, Walloon Region is just the constitutional name, as French Republic is for France. These articles should be merged into one Wallonia as usual names are used in WP and as the google-test provides TEN times more articles about Wallonia than WR. Stephane.dohet (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia is not an example in itself. Then, the ambiguation of the term is recognized. It is just an official demand to be in order with WP:D. Speculoos (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Which ambiguation ? Do you think the guy who types "Wallonia" in the search box is looking for something else than the "Romance land" (what a pitiful name choice) ? The only ambiguation could be this "Wallonia, Kentucky" which has no article, BTW. There is no need for a move, the main name should be kept for the main article. Stephane.dohet (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You're a troll who has been blocked on fr.wiki and es.wiki for POV-pushing, in order to erase this disambiguation. So, if you have no correct objections… in particular against WP:D conventions… Speculoos (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Who are you to libel someone who doesn't think like you a "troll" ? Play the ball not the player. Stephane.dohet (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose the move. All the Wallonias are describing much the same area, and I think a case could be made for reorganising the Wallonia article to discuss these differences in one article. Wallonia (disambiguation) is not really in the correct form for a disambiguation page. Most of the entries on the bullet list are not links to separete articles at all. I would say, create one Wallonia article discussing the part of Belgium and the subtle differences in nomenclature. The only thing that needs to be on Wallonia (disambiguation) is Wallonia, Kentucky, and that doesn't even have an article at the moment! JRawle (Talk) 10:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

All the Europes page describe also the same area, all the Germanies pages also, merge also England with Kingdom of England (it has "much the same area"). Each article on Wikipedia should have its own subject, not be a mess. If you can put in the same page (except a disambiguation page) an administrative region with another, with also a mythic territory on the two first, with also a territorial division used dialectology, … etc just because it has much the same area. That's against the rules and the logic of an encyclopedia. Speculoos (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there's a case for some separate articles. However, I oppose the move of the present Wallonia (disambiguation) to Wallonia as Wallonia is the primary topic. Walloon Region already has an article at a different name that isn't ambiguous. The "French-speaking" definition does not have its own article. The 1917 region does not have an article. So there's little left to disambiguate. It's ridiculous to compare it to England or Germany. Each case should be considered on its own merits. JRawle (Talk) 12:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the most common meaning for Wallonia is the Walloon Region, not the romance region described at the page Wallonia. that romance land has no clear borders. For example, Voeren is (questionably) often claimed by the Walloon militants. Same goes with the german-speaking communes, the actual minister-president of german-speaking community (its territory is in Walloon region) said once «we are walloon citizens (citizens of Walloon region) but not walloons (inhabitants of the irredentist Wallonia)». Speculoos (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's preferable to avoid parentheses in page titles if possible. Therefore Walloon Region and Wallonia are sensible, distinct titles. The Walloon Region article would be better if it had a hatnote pointing straight to the Wallonia article as an alternative, rather than to a pretty pointless disambiguation page.

Even if it were to be decided that the primary "Wallonia" article should refer to the Walloon Region, it should be done as a redirect. In any case, the disambiguation page (if needed at all) should stay at Wallonia (disambiguation). JRawle (Talk) 15:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not what the policy of disambiguation is saying Speculoos (talk) 06:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The policy is quite clear. The first preference when naming a page is:

1. When there is another term (such as Pocket billiards instead of Pool) or more complete name that is equally clear (such as Delta rocket instead of Delta), that should be used.

Only when there isn't a suitable alternate name should you use parenthesis. And with all due respect, "romance land" isn't a particularly natural term to use for native English speakers. There are almost no hits for Wallonia being a "romance land" on Google. It should surely have a capital "R" anyway. Looking at them again, I still think the present Wallonia and Walloon Region could be merged. Neither is too long; a single article can disscuss the variations in meaning. JRawle (Talk) 11:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rawle, the two articles should be merged again as they have the same topic. I repeat "Walloon Region" is a longer form, "Wallonia" the shorter. That's the way it works on a daily basis : Discover Wallonia on the Walloon Region Portal (note the URL), Public authorities in Wallonia with an interesting point of view on the relationship between Wallonia and the German-speaking community : "In Wallonia, two Communities exercise their competencies : the French Community (in the French-linguistic region) and the German-speaking Community (in the German-speaking Region)." Stephane.dohet (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

JRawle doesn't seem to say that they have the same topic and the policy he gave say that if there is any name clearer than the word used in disambiguation page exists, it should be used. That convention doesn't say anything about parentheses when there is no clearer name, at contrary : the example given in that convention, with the term Mercury, the disambiguation page is the one without parentheses Mercury. Speculoos (talk) 10:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That's because editors couldn't agree on whether the planet, god or element was the primary topic. Please consider each case on its merits, according to policy. There isn't one correct answer that applies to everything. Mercury (planet), Mercury (mythology) and Mercury (element) are three distinct topics. All your variations on Wallonia could be disscussed in a single article. JRawle (Talk) 12:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the one who creates ambigous situations about Wallonia is you Speculoos. If Wallonia means something else than the territory of the Walloon Region, it is a marginal point of view. Sure you can find a source that says in the nineteenth century Wallonia was a Romance land (note Eupen and Malmedy were Prussian at that time), but 99,9% of sources today will descrive Wallonia as a Region of federal Belgium, and not some Walloon Movement concept (it was so one century ago, but this concept is now reality). That said, I have no problem with the variations of meanings discussed on the article page.

If we are to follow conventions, like Wikipedia:Naming conventions,

- "Article naming should reflect what English speakers easily recognize" (Wallonia 1,260,000 google-hits ; Walloon Region 126,000 google-hits),

- "Titles should be brief without being ambiguous." (Wallonia is briefer and as I pointed above not ambigous),

- "Titles should make linking to the article simple." (being brief Wallonia is simpler than "Walloon Region" : capitalized R or not, two o or one, what about wallonian ?) Stephane.dohet (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I am bored of seeing that Stéphane dohet is now continuing on Wikipedia (en) a battle that he has already lost on Wikiepdia (fr) where, by the way, he has been definitely banned. Since there is no clear boundaries for the territory of Wallonia and not even a clear and unique definition of what Wallonia actually is it is not possible to just state that Wallonia = Walloon Region and to merge everything in one single article. In the absence of a clear and commonly shared acceptation for the meaning of the word Wallonia, there is IMHO no other option left that making the necessarily distinctions between, the Walloon Region on the hand, which emdobies more than Wallonia in so far its territory exceeds what is usually known as Wallonia, and also materialises the will of many Walloons to get more automous political power within the boundaries of the Belgian State and, on the other hand, the other meanings of the word "Wallonia" on the other side. Since it is very easy to define what the Walloon Region exactly is while this is exercise is almost impossible for Wallonia, I think there must be two (at least) distinc articles. And in case there would be an agreement to have one single Article, one should then merge a vague concept, i.e. Wallonia into a very well defined one (i.e. Walloon Region). Althoug not the best solution, this would be the less bad one of all possibles wrong solutions. --Lebob-BE (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

But Wallonia is as well defined as Walloon Region is, because they have the same territory [2] [3]. Saying Wallonia has a lesser territory than Walloon Region is not the truth, it is a German-speaking POV that you are pushing. That could be written somewhere, but should not take precedence. Stephane.dohet (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Under the Belgian Constitution a territory can only belong to a Region or a language area. I observe that in Belgium there is a Walloon region, a French language area, a German language area, but no walloon language area. The Walloon region includes both the French language and the German language areas. But this is not the case for Wallonia, a concept that is nowhere to be found in the Belgian Constitution and laws. And for anyone who has a little knowledge of what Wallonia means, it is very obvious that it doesn't include Eupen and Sankt Vith. One could even disregard areas like Gaume or the Arelerland as being part of Wallonia. And by the way, I am not pushing a German speaking POV, I am pushing a Walloon-speaking POV. Wallonia is where Wallloon is spoken. And nowhere else. Full stop. --Lebob-BE (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, if your idea is to claim Wallonia means "where Walloon is spoken", you better stop talking and read some books. There are a lot of things you fail to understand. First of all, the Belgian constitution is not an encyclopedia. If something is not in the Belgian constitution, that doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist ! Then you are using an anachronism, the Walloon language was named so AFTER the name Wallonie (in French) was created. Finally borders change with time. It is not set in stone. Borders of Wallonia changed in 1925 when Eupen-Malmedy was annexated by Belgium. It changed again when Voeren was lost to Flanders. Can you get it that since 1970 Wallonia means the Walloon Region ? That's the name used by the Walloon Region herself, and even more officially since August 1st with the creation of the Civil Service of Wallonia. Eupen and Sankt Vith are clearly parts of all official maps named "Wallonia". All that are no POV... that are facts. Stephane.dohet (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should learn the difference between borders and boundaries. In 1920 the Belgian borders changed, not the Walloon ones. Belgium increased in size and population by the inclusion of the Est Cantons. Wallonia had not legal existence at that time so its border could not be affected by the Treaty of Versailles, since Wallonia was not a state and is still not. Furthermore the Walloon Region was not created and culd even less be affected by this Treaty. And the same treaty did not affect the boundaries of Wallonia (being at that time indeed the limits of territory in which Walloon was spoken), since the canton of Malmedy was part of Wallonia well before the Treaty of Versailles. I have already read some books, but obviously not the same as you read.

Furthermore I perfectly know guys like you consider the Belgian constitution as a scrap of paper, but it still governs Belgium. As such, it contents are worth being mentionned in an encyclopedia. If I were in your shoes, I would carefully avoid to speak about what an encyclopedia is since you poor knowledge of that topic has led you to be banished from wikipedia (fr).

And no, I do not afree that since 1970 Wallonia means Walloon Region. This is only one of the possible meanings of this word, and it is far from being the post common one.--Lebob-BE (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

@ JRawle : As I explained, Wallonia and Walloon Region are different topics. And Wikipedia's first principle doesn't authorize any article with two main subjects (according epistemology, dialectic and logic), even the subjects have the same name and quite the same territory, as England. You find the idea stupid, let's consider the same way your idea of merging all the Wallonia subjects. Now, you said that with the exemple Mercury users couldn't agree what was the primary topic. If this discussion doesn't show the same situation (especially since Stephane Dohet who has been banned in fr. and es.wikipedias is trying here in en. to POV-push), I don't know what will do. Speculoos (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself: I'm not saying the different meanings of Wallonia don't refer to different boundaries, only that I feel a single article could do a better job of explaining the differences between them to English-speaking readers. The Wallonia article itself could briefly introduce the other meanings of the term, with Main article: links pointing to the separate pages. The old version of Wallonia (disambiguation) wasn't a true disambiguation page, but was the beginnings of an article doing just this (the current version is much more a true disambiguation page). I don't think an English language Wikipedia user who enters "Wallonia" should be faced with the disambiguation page, which might not mean much to someone unfamiliar with the topic. It's much better if they see an introductory article about Wallonia and the the intricacies surrounding the name. JRawle (Talk) 16:31, 25 August 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.