Talk:Walloon Region (federal region)

Difference Wallonia and Walloon Region

So I see that after not accepting the agreement we have reach on WikiFR, Stéphane Dohet is now exporting his little war on WikiEN. This is becoming really pathetic! I start thinking that you missed your goal when you have put José Fontaine under discussion. I am convinced that most of the trouble came in fact from Mr. Dohet. I hope his friends will manage to convince him that he better stops this and fairly applies the existing agreement. --Lebob-BE 15:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ

Why does the Walloon Region not constitute a nation? The mythologies, flag, language, the way people there identify themselves -- these are clear characteristics of a nation. 75.181.132.234 22:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be renamed

The name of this page Walloon Region (federal region) should be renamed in Walloon Region. CharlesWoeste (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I din't understand your proposal. Walloon Region is not simply a Region (as for instance the Borinage), only a geographical region if you will), but a federal Region (that is right) which means a political (and not simply administrativ) reality, even a sovereignity (in the framework of the Belgian federation and even Confederation). Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium is not a confederation, wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The Walloon Region is the only federal region with its name, I don't see why this should have (federal region). CharlesWoeste (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brussels is also a federal Region. And Belgium has some aspects of a Confederation. It should be possible that, before removing what does exist, you speak with people who were writing theses pages. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When something is not following the rules of wikipedia, we don't need to speak too much. What you are doing is against the rules of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, many politicians have called for a rename of Walloon Region, and it was never done. What you think of it, and it seems you're a famous regionalist lobbyist, is not relevant. CharlesWoeste (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this page and of Wallonia is the result of consensus at Talk:Wallonia. In short, it was decided that the page Wallonia should be a complete overview of Wallonia, including the Walloon Region, and that this page should be subordinate, and only be for the specifics of the Walloon Region as a federal region (like date of creation, relation to other regions, and administrative stuff). That's why Walloon Region is a redirect to Wallonia. Oreo Priest ^talk 19:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this consensus and who was involved in it? CharlesWoeste (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This title is clearly against WP:TITLE. Consensus or not. CharlesWoeste (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rules
"Using names and terms most commonly used in reliable sources, and so most likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article." OK
"Easy to find – Using names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles)." OK
"Precise – Using names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously." OK
"Concise – Using names and terms that are brief and to the point. (Even when disambiguation is necessary, keep that part brief.)" OK and dsambiguation is absolutely not necessary. Wallonia has only one meaning. This article of disambiguation is an OR and worse than an OR. That doesn't exist. Are other meanings of Wallonia as for instance Wallonia in the winter, Wallonia in the spring, Wallonia for the Walloon movement etc.? Are these "different" meanings really different meanings or words designating different individuals? No, of course. If we accept that, we would have one billion meanings for the same topics. It is absolutely not the same as for instance between "mercury" and "Mercury").
Consistent – Using names and terms that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles. OK. (And that is also OK as not as to have absurd discussions).
An other rule of Wikipedia is also to avoid the arguments "ad hominem". Is it possible to follow this rule, Charles Woeste? Even with me? Is it also possible to avoid absurd discussions as in other places. Endless discussions without any encyclopedic interest...The goal of this article is to give informations about Wallonia and in French the word "Wallonie" (and Wallonia in English) is continuously used in order to name the topic of this page... José Fontaine (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wallonia has not only one meaning, french-speaking wikipedia is much more clearer and has even a featured article about it fr:Histoire du terme Wallon. Walloon Region has only one meaning, the federal entity : Mockel, Rousseau, Renard never used that expression! I don't see why Walloon Region should have its page Walloon Region (federal region). If this page is "primary topic" (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) for the name Walloon Region, it should not have parentheses CharlesWoeste (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rules: are perfectly respected. Read specially the beginning and these words: There are no absolute rules for determining primary topics; decisions are made by discussion between editors... The most important words are perhaps "There are no absolute rules"... José Fontaine (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC) See [1] There is almost only the word Wallonia and I think Google is not dominated by the Walloon Movement. José Fontaine (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"National" day

I have made a few changes, as an outsider and a native English-speaker, that I hope are clarifications. But I have not addressed the apparent conflict between saying that the "national" day is 27 September and the decree of 23 July 2008, which states: "Article 1er. La fête de la Région wallonne est célébrée chaque année le troisième dimanche du mois de septembre. (The Walloon Regional Holiday shall take place each year on the third Sunday in September)." Obviously, the third Sunday will not always be the 27th, the French Community Holiday. How is this resolved in practice? Wikiain (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walloon Region (federal region) and Wallonia (again)

Both articles are on same subject. There is no difference between the Walloon Region and Wallonia like there is not difference between Belgium and the Kingdom of Belgium. Both articles should be merged together.--Wester (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. While the article "Wallonia" may describe the region both as an institutional Region and as a cultural area, the current article "Walloon Region (federal region)" does not add any value, it just provides information that is mostly already present on "Wallonia". It is a much shorter article and it is linked from only few other pages; most pages link to Wallonia directly even when the federal region is meant. In short, I see no value in keeping this (duplicate) article. Thanks for bringing this up, I have wanted to make this a redirect before but then I would've needed to start a discussion first :) SPQRobin (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion should be at Talk:Wallonia. I've moved your comment SPQRobin. Oreo Priest ^talk 15:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]