Talk:Brussels/Woluwe

Brusselization
I saw you removed the reference to Brusselization from the article, although it is in my opinion correctly used in this context (retrieved from Cauchiehuis). I'm not defending the art nouveau architecture style here, which you're free to like or dislike, but it seems relevant to the traveler to keep references to Brusselization (also mentioned in the Brussels article and in the infobox on Joseph Poelart and Victor Horta in Brussels/Pentagon) for consistency throughout the articles. Whether or not Brusselization should be mentioned at all is up for debate and I wouldn't be opposed to removing it from all articles if it is deemed of no interest to the traveler. However, the unilateral removal of the term without commenting on the reason why you removed it, feels like you're censoring the article in defense of past government policies. I therefore would like to remind of the fact that Wikivoyage is an independent travel guide unaffiliated with any government, and consequently does not need to endorse urban planning policies. ArticCynda (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * While I dislike your turn into the conspiracy theory realm that you simply seem to be unable to live without, I think this once you might actually be on to something. Brusselization seems worth mentioning. It might even do to add an infobox to the main article. Certainly there is a way to address this without extolling or condemning any one as in Erlangen to give one example. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I already mentioned Brusselization in the infobox on Brussels most famous architects in the Brussels/Pentagon article. The location of that infobox (or whether or not we wish to keep its current content) is up for debate, however I think it no longer fits into the See section of the main article since it has been reformatted and rewritten in a more compact layout. Regardless, the concept of Brusselization is important to enable the traveler to understand how the (often ugly) combinations came to be, and censoring it from the Brussels articles feels unjustified. ArticCynda (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Again with the word "censoring". I do not think anybody here has as sinister an agenda as you seem to ascribe them. Certainly it isn't about "censoring". But lets wait for User:SelfieCity to weigh in; I do not know the specific edit or context. It is quite conceivable you had some mention in there of supposed Jews being behind it all as you are wont to do (and then never address even when repeatedly asked) Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If I remember rightly, I removed that part of it because there was something about "Jews" in it as well &mdash; it wasn't just about the word "Brusselization". I'll check that again, though. Selfie City (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it originally said: "The building was almost demolished by Jews who wanted to build an apartment complex at the location in 1971 — an example of Brusselization — but saved last minute and classified as a monument in 1975." It's not about the word Brusselization, but about immediately blaming Jews for something where race/religion doesn't matter and it probably wasn't demolished by Jews anyway. Selfie City (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. It is immediately apparent that mentioning Brusselization here has a place. The weird mention of Jews does not. Of course ArticCynda is free to give sources that a) it was actually "Jews" and b) that matters in any way. But he never does. Let's hope he never gets his hands on Frankfurt am Main or that one dreadful dreadful play... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have looked up the importance of "Brusselization". And yes, if it really was demolished by Jews (with evidence to support) and this was important in some way, it would be totally different. But, like all of ArticCynda's edits about antisemitism, etc. &mdash; they're almost like the work of some vandals: they add things that can't be proven and have no significance or relevance to the rest of the article. If such action is continued and the contributor refuses to explain his/her actions, that's definitely like the work of a vandal. And we block vandals immediately. Selfie City (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Ibaman (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I find it insulting that you call my contributions "vandalism". ArticCynda (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you consider it insulting to call your comments about Jews "antisemitic"? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? Now you're insulted, ArticCynda? Look who's talking! The person who talked about the "defeat of the Jews" and added other inaccurate information about Jews into Wikivoyage and has refused to cooperate in this issue is now insulted because someone is calling their actions what they really are. By the way, I'm not writing this out of anger, but instead because it's so funny &mdash; actually, that someone who has caused all these problems on the website, is now insulted. But yes, that's enough. Selfie City (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We Wikivoyagers are all insulted by your lack of self-criticism, ArticCynda. Enough, I say. Ibaman (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Woluwe is Where?
At the top of this article it states, "Woluwe is the western residential district of Brussels, the capital of Belgium." But there are at least two other links that redirect here: Brussels/East and Brussels/Southeast. Which leads to a couple of questions.

1. Should the "/East" and "/Southeast" redirects be removed? 2. Are these terms really used for this portion of the city or did someone just randomly create a series of directional articles for Belgium (leftover pre Wikivoyage)? 3. The map of Woluwe shown on Wikivoyage shows that this portion of the city is towards the east, but is this accurate? 4. Does the introduction to this article need to be rewritten?

I would never have noticed this expect that in the process of trying to clear up Category:Banner missing from Wikidata the links to Brussels/East and Brussels/Southeast won't resolve in Wikidata. Thanks for your help! Zcarstvnz (talk) 11:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The map clearly shows it being in the East. I fear some sort of malfeasance may have been at play. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have changed it.Probably a mix up between translating Flemish as French (Oosten not Ouest). --Traveler100 (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My Google Maps search shows that Woluwe is in the east. OpenStreetMap brought back the same result, so I think Woluwe is in the east, not the west. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 15:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Woluwe is Where?
I started a discussion on the Talk page of the Woluwe, section of Brussels, Belgium article, but only one person commented. This article states this portion of the city is in the western part of the city, but the map shows it in the eastern part. There are also several redirects to this article, that may or might not be obsolete. I'm not familiar enough with Woluwe to make any changes to the article, so any help in resolving the questions that I posted on the Woluwe Discussion Page would be appreciated. Zcarstvnz (talk) 10:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)