Talk:Francization of Brussels

message: This is a translation of the Dutch wiki site, with references and all.  Will be a work in progress, but the Dutch version is very nicely written.  Any help is requested--Daveblack (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This is a translation

message: Seriously, I think far more important than bickering over comparatively small details like this is actually getting the article translated. The talk page is now more than twice as long as the article itself, which is, quite frankly, absurd. Could those who speak Dutch please direct their efforts instead towards further translation? Thanks, Oreo Priest 13:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Come on guys 

message: What language was spoken in the region before 10th century? Was it a Germanic, Celtic or Romance language? Why did the region change language then? Aaker (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The city only exists since the 10th century. At least from the 5th century on in this area (only) Old Dutch (Frankish) was spoken, thus Germanic. Celtic was of course spoken basically everywhere in Europe before the colonisation by the Romans and the invasions of Germanic peoples, but that's not really relevant here, since it's such a long time ago. --Hooiwind (talk) 10:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before 10th century? 

message: As I have been instrumental in putting the results of the linguistic censuses on Wikipedia (Dutch and French version), I invite everybody able to read and understand Dutch to read the article "Talentelling" on the Dutch Wikipedia, where you will find at least some proven facts about the questionnable results of the census of 1930 and the attitude of the French speaking administration in Brussels with regard to the 1920 census. Boerkevitz (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the results of the linguistic census 

message: * "History of language usage in Brussels" not nearly pithy or clear enough, in addition to not being the scope of the article.
* "The transition of Brussels from Dutch speaking to French speaking" This has the right spirit, but is a monster of a title, something shorter would be better.
* The decline of Dutch or Rise of French - I think this is closer in that it's concise and clear, but neither seems quite perfect to me. "Rise of the French language in Brussels" perhaps? Or "Decline of Dutch and Rise of French in Brussels"?
* "Frenchification of Brussels" per above, would be also quite clear, but sounds to me a bit informal/non-academic.
:I think we should keep brainstorming. Also, I might IP vote/comment, because I'm going on Wikibreak now. -Oreo Priest talk 13:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Another: "Replacement of Dutch by French in Brussels". --Gronky (talk) 11:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a more vague "Language transition in Brussels" or "Linguistic transformation of Brussels"? Having said that, Frenchification is starting to appeal to me more and more because it's so clear. -Oreo Priest talk 12:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "Frenchification" is better than "Francisation" (even if I'm not 100% sure).  Further, since I'm not sure it's accurate to say that the language spoken 200 years ago was exactly "Dutch", I'm liking more and more the idea of mentioning "frenchification" and not mentioning "Dutch" in the title. So I don't think it's a perfect title (but maybe there is no perfect title), but I agree that "Frenchification of Brussels" would be an improvement.  If this change is made, we should remain open to future suggestions. --Gronky (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'll move it tomorrow if there are no objections, but we should still be open to a better title. -Oreo Priest talk 12:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. (a bit late to mention, but I figured it was obvious). -Oreo Priest talk 07:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was indeed. Just FYI: I had no objections whatsoever to the move but was unable to let you know since I had blocked myself.--Hooiwind (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Title suggestions

message: Hi, if anyone can help, I just translated a section and added to the end, but by doing so, the references and infoboxes were erased!!  Does anyone have a solution for this?  I commented out the section, so the text is still there in the source code.  
thanks - --Daveblack (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it. Turns out the problem was one of the refs was <ref name=x> instead of . Pretty frustrating stuff. -Oreo Priest talk 14:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Added section, but it erased the references!! Help...

message: I can't understand why it was changed. Actually I think francisation is better than frenchification since there's an article about the phenomenon with that name. Aaker (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And in the first line, it says Frenchification is another word for it. The consensus was that Frenchification would be the clearest to everyone. -Oreo Priest talk 02:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

text: It's possible that the francisation article should be renamed. --Gronky (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Frenchification is clear and self-explanitory.--Buster7 (talk) 06:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The title (Again) 

message: Having been previously lambasted by one or more of the editors involved with this article, let me be clear. The intention of my edits is to improve the article. Period.--Buster7 (talk) 06:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, we'll assume good faith. -Oreo Priest talk 13:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: vriendlijkte' groeten...thank you...--Buster7 (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Alle hulp is welkom! (all help is welcome) --Hooiwind (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: January/09 Edits

message: Anyone know what "région à part entière" means?  I don't speak French. --Daveblack (talk) 11:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ...region in its own...maybe,region on its own...where is it used?--Buster7 (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that it means something like "a region in its own right" or "a full-fledged region in its own right" or "a distinct region with full region status". I think the second one flows best, but I'll leave it to Hooiwind to decide, as he probably knows best. -Oreo Priest talk 15:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In Belgium it is a well-known term —also used in Dutch when referring to Brussels— which indeed expresses the (controversial) "independence" of Brussels relative to the other regions (Flanders and Wallonia). I used it in the Dutch article simply because it is often used in the Belgian media. (I added an explanation though: "met volwaardige gewestbevoegdheden" ; "with full-fledged regional competencies") Here we could simply stick to "they demanded that the Brussels Capital-Region have equal regional status as the other two Regions" or something. Do as you like. --Hooiwind (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I think the word is jurisdiction. I think when you said the federal government is responsible for jurisdiction, you meant to say justice. -Oreo Priest talk 17:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed! I hate that word. I always mess it up. Same with juridicial, juridical, judicial... you name it :d --Hooiwind (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: région à part entière

message: I didn't quite understand what this meant in the context of the sentence it was in: (à l'exception du Ministre-Président et des secrétaires d'État). Help? -Oreo Priest talk 04:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As a compensation for the creation of the Brussels Region, the Flemings were granted "parity" in the Brussels government (meaning that there be an equal number of Dutch- and French-speaking ministers, 4 in total). However, this parity excludes the minister-president (= head of government, in practice always French-speaking) and the "state secretaries" (sort of "extra ministers", of which two are French-speaking and one is Dutch-speaking). So of all 8 members of government, 5 are French-speaking and 3 are Flemish. Mentioning that parity should thus go along with that remark.--Hooiwind (talk) 09:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to explain that; make sure what I put makes sense. -Oreo Priest talk 18:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Minister President

message: Can you explain this? In het arrondissement Halle-Vilvoorde, dat naast de zes faciliteitengemeenten ook nog 29 andere Vlaamse gemeenten omvat, gebruikte in 2006 ongeveer 31 percent van de gezinnen het Frans als communicatietaal met Kind en Gezin.[86] For one, I'm not sure what Kind en Gezin means, and what the French put doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Also, I looked at the source and I can't see how you got 31%. From what I understand 41% not-NL minus 25% not FR or NL is 16% FR. Am I missing something? -Oreo Priest talk 01:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Kind & Gezin (Child & Family) is a Flemish governmental agency with responsibility for young children and families, in particular in the fields of preventive care, child care services, family support, diversity and children's rights. I'm sorry about the source, it doesn't state the figure and the percentage can't even be correct. I remember it was the first figure I included in the article (about two years ago), but luckily I became more careful over the years (making sure what is stated, appears in the source as well). Just looked it up again: a 2007 report of the Flemish government on the "Rand" (page 73) shows that in Halle-Vilvoorde, 25% of families with children communicated with Kind en Gezin in French. Here, however, they published a correction saying that the numbers relate to the language spoken at home, between mother and child (and not necessarily with Kind en Gezin). We should thus rephrase: "According to Kind en Gezin, in 2007 25% of the families with children living in the Halle-Vilvoorde area spoke French at home, a figure that rises to 57,2% in the municipalities with language facilities". --Hooiwind (talk) 12:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This report in English (pages 45-46) shows that the percentage of French-speaking families in the whole of Flanders is 4.3% (maybe useful as a comparison). --Hooiwind (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to put the 25% figure and update the ref. Can you take care of FR and NL? -Oreo Priest talk 01:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: French speakers in Halle-Vilvoorde

message: I'm trying to think how to translate this. Any ideas? Peeters Policy? Peeters directive? Peeters circulaire? -Oreo Priest talk 02:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Peeters directive approaches best I guess. I doubt whether English-speakers would know the word circulaire (or "omzendbrief" ~ "aroundsendletter")... --Hooiwind (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: omzendbrief-Peeters / circulaire Peeters

message: The last section of French Dissatisfaction is somewhat of a mess, since I don't completely understand what "loketten" are.  Could an expert please take a look at this and smooth it out?
thanks --Daveblack (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You know when you go to a government building/train station/whatever, and there's a bunch of agents in their booths who take the customers as they come? Like the DMV? Anyways, those booths with the agent in them are loketten. I'm not sure how to best say that in English. I put "counters", but do check to see if that makes sense, and if there's a better translation. -Oreo Priest talk 15:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Loket indeed means something like counter (although counter would rather mean toonbank ("show desk"), comptoir). interglot.com gives office window. The French translation is guichet, I think in German it's Schalter, if that may be of any help. I'm surprised there is no exact translation in English. What about box office? --Hooiwind (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The box office is just for movie theatres and plays. I'm quite familiar with the word guichet, but it's hard to do in English. To us, counter means much more than just the comptoir in a store with the cash register. The word wicket is sometimes used, but very uncommon and probably wouldn't be understood. What's everyone else think? -Oreo Priest talk 17:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, box office is more for in cinemas, just a guess. I know wicked ;-) You English speakers know best of course. --Hooiwind (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just some thoughts...."counter" implies that it is something that you stand at, in front of, a chest high individualized space for transacting "business". "Service desk" might also be a possibility. BTW...my understanding of loketten is that they exist in "facilities", governmental and the like. So...the service counter at the grocery store is not a loketten. More thinking needed...:-)--Buster7 (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

text: A booth is usually something you walk into, like a photo booth.  "counter" seems most apt to me. Gronky (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Loketten'' 

message: So I think I'll start helping to translate this too. Given that I don't speak Dutch, I'm working from the French version, which is now a featured article as well. At any rate, if you guys could keep your eyes open for any issues; be they broken telephone from the double translation, poor translation, bias from the French version or whatever, that'd be great. Also, I might leave some words in Canadian English by accident; I do think, however, that since Daveblack started this in AmEng, that's the way it should stay. -Oreo Priest talk 18:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, good job everybody. Let's get this over with! --Hooiwind (talk) 10:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'll translate too 

message: The computer does not like my references for numbers 75 and 76 found in the "Foreign Immigration" section.  I am admittedly no good at references.  Anyone care to help out?  Thanks --Daveblack (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. For future reference, you just have to change the parameters to the English version, and replace "voetnoot web" with "cite web". The English parameters can be found at Template:Cite web. It seems intimidating at first, but it's really not so bad. -Oreo Priest talk 15:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, where possible, we should try to follow the Dutch article's naming of references, (ie <ref name = dutchname> ) just for consistency. -Oreo Priest talk 15:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If possible, try to use the French references, they are more numerous and up-to-date. I should redo the Dutch referencing. --Hooiwind (talk) 10:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: This is a cordial disagreement about whether the article is too long, and if so, by how much, and how it should be shortened. If subarticles are to be created, what would be the best way to do that? -Oreo Priest talk 17:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree: this article is too long.  I also needed something like 5 hours to write the review above.  However, since the topic is per se complicated and controversial, I don't believe the answer is cutting through but using summary style and adding sub articles when required.  We really need a thorough discussion of the reasons why Brussels became bilingual/multilingual.  I suggest creating Frenchification of Brussels before 1830 or Language censuses in Brussels.Vb (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with this. Readers will want to read about the subject as a whole, rather than mid way through being diverted to another article. I can see it being a nuisance already. If we trim effectively then there is no need to separate. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put. I think the keyword here is trim effectively. The topic is complex, but much of what we have in here is not really necessary, and readability must be foremost. I'm not sure how we could fork the content in a non-weird way either. -Oreo Priest talk 14:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it will not be possible to boil it down so that we achieve a bearable length.  However I think it is clear to everybody that the Frenchification of Brussels really started to be effective from 1830 on.  So I think the reader should only have a summary of the history section and could be referred to a correponding subarticle for the details.  This might be done very easily: cut the history section as it is and paste it into Languages in Brussels before 1830.  For me this article would be almost perfect and could get very fastly featured!  Moreover I don't like the title history because the Belgian Revolution is also history.  In fact most of the article is just history. Vb (talk) 07:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this article is too long. I agree with Vb that this article can be cut up in two parts: one speaking about the period BEFORE Belgian independence, one thereafter. The first laid the fundaments for the second, but did not lead to a massive switch to French (yet).--Hooiwind (talk) 08:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand you guys think it's important to keep all the details because the subject is so important. We could even add relevant details until this ballooned to 50 or 100 pages without going off topic. But boiling it down to a bearable length is exactly what an encyclopedia article (as opposed to a thesis or a book) is supposed to do. It may well be that we should create more detailed (i.e. keep the current level of detail) subarticles for those who really want to plunge into intricate depth (and for whatever reason aren't reading the Dutch or French versions). I staunchly oppose splitting this article into parts; for one, we'd be kidding ourselves if we thought that it isn't one united subject, and for two, any break would just be artificial with the sole purpose of reducing the length. We could maybe copy the bottom half of the article to something like "Linguistic conflict in Brussels (or Belgium) since 1830", but it seems unnecessary to me. I really think that this article need to keep its current scope but be made a reasonable length. That's our job. -Oreo Priest talk 15:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also occurred to me that the solutions to many of the other concerns with the article hinge around whether we decide to shorten the article or not. Given that all three of us are very close to the article and subject, I think it might be nice to have some outside voices about what they think a reasonable length might be. What do you guys think? -Oreo Priest talk 04:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

text: *I see what you mean. Keep in mind that the information preserving guideline is for building an article, and says to keep anything that belongs in the final article, which is pretty much what we're discussing here. I like the idea of splintering the history to shorten the section here. Given consensus, I think I could cut down the length of the article significantly without compromising the quality of the article. See my edits to the Dissatisfaction of French speakers section here and here for example. I'd also like to hear a few more voices before we do anything major. Oreo Priest talk 23:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree with the edits you did.  I also think those details do not belong here.  I however disagree with cutting this piece:<quote>The FDF was one of the proponents of the expansion of the Brussels metropolitan area to become a "région à part entière" with complete regional rights like those in Flanders and Wallonia. En bref : Les grandes orientations du parti, FDF  The Flemish parties advocated a system in which Brussels would be administered either by both the Flemish and Walloon communities, or by the federal state itself. This controversy continued until the creation of the Brussels Capital-Region in 1989, which guaranteed language rights for Dutch-speakers. </quote> I think this FDF's POV need to be mentioned because this mirrors a basic concern of the Francophones.  However I suggest moving this to the section Creation of the Brussels-Capital Region. This is directly related to the sentence "hampered by the visions" (which I still think should be rewritten). 195.14.205.230 (talk) 07:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment on length of article 

message: Perhaps rather than frenchification or francisation, gallicisation could be used? It's attractive, neutral and has a long history in the English language 41.241.31.22 (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallicisation 

message: I find the current article confusing because it doesn't make clear what kind of bilingualism is involved in the language shift, whether the linguistic competence of individuals or the use of different languages in the community by speakers who may in fact be substantially (or increasingly) monolingual.
For example, the statement in the introduction "from a Dutch-speaking city to one that is bilingual or even multilingual," doesn't fit my understanding of the changing language situation. My impression was that in the late 19th century, most Brussels residents were native-speakers of Dutch but were educated exclusively in French. So it seems that at that time individual bilingualism was very high, and there was de facto community bilingualism even if Dutch was excluded from certain domains like government and education (and thus the form of Dutch would be mostly spoken Brabantian, rather than standard Dutch with a standard written form). Since then, it seems there has been a language-shift among majority of residents (many with Flemish-speaking grandparents) so that many are now native speakers of French, also educated in French, and many (most?) never learn Dutch as a second language. The Dutch-to-Francophone segment of the Brussels population is culturally integrated with other Francophone segments such as migrants from Wallonia, immigrant communities who almost all are or become Francophone, and EU employees and their families. As a result, Brussels is now 85% Francophone, and most of the Francophones do not speak or read Dutch. 
So the trend in individual bilingualism seems to be the opposite of what was stated. From widespread individual bilingualism (mostly native-speakers of Dutch who were literate in French if they are literate at all), to more limited bilingualism (especially among the 85% of Brussels residents who are Francophones; if they have a second language it is likely to be English, not many are fluent or literate in Dutch). In terms of community bilingualism, Brussels was bilingual before but Dutch was marginalized in important domains like government and education. Brussels has some kind of community bilingualism today, but perhaps it is more polarized, with the Dutch-speaking 15% minority sending their kids to Dutch-speaking schools where they learn to be individual multilinguals (at least French and English as second languages), while the Francophone majority send their kids to Francophone schools (where their may become individual bilinguals, but I suspect English is learned more than Dutch). 
If my understanding is correct, a better characterization of the language shift whould be something like: "from a bilingual community where the majority of residents were native-speakers of Dutch, with widespread individual bilingualism (and literacy) in French; to a very different and more polarized bilingual community today, where a much smaller percentage are individual bilinguals. The members of the Francophone majority (85% of residents, of a diverse ethnolinguistic heritage, not majority Walloon) are less likely to have individual bilingualism in French and Dutch today, compared to to the prevalent individual bilingualism in Dutch and French during the late 19th century (when the majority of residents were native-speakers of Dutch). In Brussels today, it is only among native-speakers of Dutch (15% of the population) where Dutch-French bilingualism is widespread."
That is too long to squeeze into the introductory paragraph, I would appreciate assistance or suggestions where the clarifications might go, if they are correct. I would also like to ask for assistance in identifying references to support the clarification of the language situation. - 
Fbkintanar (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need clarification of individual bilingualism vs. community bilingualism 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:European Parliament Distance modified.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: I see that the page was recently moved to Francisation of Brussels. Great! However, I disagree with the change from the original spellings to UK/Irish. I spent quite a lot of time translating the original page and it has a very consistent history of using American spelling. Besides, this has already been discussed at topic number 6 on this talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Francisation_of_Brussels#WP:ENGVAR   Oreopriest writes:
"Under WP:ENGVAR, European articles do not have to be in UK English. You'll notice it says EU Institutions and not all European related articles, for which the general rule applies."
#This page is not about the current status of Brussels as center for European government. 
#It has to do with the history of the city itself, long before the EU even existed. It doesn't matter what language the EU chooses to write in. 
#English is not an official language of Brussels or Belgium
#The page isn't part of any EU-Institution Wikiproject.
  
The publication of EU documents (which are published in many languages) does not constitute a "strong tie to a particular English-speaking nation" WP:TIES. This is a far-fetched reason for choosing a spelling. However, the articles DOES have a long history of using American spellings, so it in fact fall under WP:RETAIN.
Should I request another move? Kind regards, --Daveblack (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds sensible to me per WP:RETAIN. Also, the Oxford spelling -ize is acceptable in British English. I'll go ahead and move it.--Cúchullain t/c 14:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your consideration.--Daveblack (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As the person who probably did the second-greatest amount of work translating this, I'd like to point out that Daveblack is in fact the primary author of the English version of this article. (And for those who weren't following, the whole thing is based off Hooiwind's Dutch article.) I support using the US spelling. Oreo Priest talk 12:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Francization of Brussels. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070613095905/http://www.law.ugent.be/decaan/geschiedenis/1-hoofdstuk-3.html to http://www.law.ugent.be/decaan/geschiedenis/1-hoofdstuk-3.html#_ednref390
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Francization of Brussels. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090724134853/http://www.hetvolk.be:80/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleID=3G1CM3TA to http://www.hetvolk.be/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleID=3G1CM3TA
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110511192846/http://www.fundp.ac.be/eco/cahiers/filepdf/c243.pdf to http://www.fundp.ac.be/eco/cahiers/filepdf/c243.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110615064659/http://www.vlaanderen.be/servlet/Satellite?c=MIN_Publicatie&cid=1174962675596&p=1142511947281&pagename=minister_frank_vandenbroucke%2FMIN_Publicatie%2FPublicatie_met_relatiesMIN&subtype=Nota to http://www.vlaanderen.be/servlet/Satellite?c=MIN_Publicatie&cid=1174962675596&p=1142511947281&pagename=minister_frank_vandenbroucke%2FMIN_Publicatie%2FPublicatie_met_relatiesMIN&subtype=Nota
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Francization of Brussels. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070608172452/http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/europe/belgiqueacc.htm to http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/europe/belgiqueacc.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090114194334/http://www.brusselsstudies.be/PDF/NL_51_BruS13NL.pdf to http://www.brusselsstudies.be/PDF/NL_51_BruS13NL.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 17 external links on Francization of Brussels. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130812232812/http://concise.britannica.com/dday/print?articleId=106096&fullArticle=true&tocId=9680 to http://concise.britannica.com/dday/print?articleId=106096&fullArticle=true&tocId=9680
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081218230114/http://www.paulderidder.be/print/taalgebruik.pdf to http://www.paulderidder.be/print/taalgebruik.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080630061502/http://www.ned.univie.ac.at/publicaties/taalgeschiedenis/nl/brussel.htm to http://www.ned.univie.ac.at/publicaties/taalgeschiedenis/nl/brussel.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724182958/http://www.dutch.ac.uk/studypacks/dutch_language/brussels/broeksele.html to http://www.dutch.ac.uk/studypacks/dutch_language/brussels/broeksele.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090723184131/http://www.bop.vgc.be/didmat/ogenblikken/achtergrond/stadsgeografie.html to http://www.bop.vgc.be/didmat/ogenblikken/achtergrond/stadsgeografie.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://neon.niederlandistik.fu-berlin.de/langvar/statusdutch/index_html/nl
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080418060732/http://www.ned.univie.ac.at/non/landeskunde/be/h12/vlaamse.htm to http://www.ned.univie.ac.at/non/landeskunde/be/h12/vlaamse.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121120114344/http://www.vgc.be/Onderwijs/Onderwijsbeleid+van+de+VGC/Over+het+Brussels+Nederlandstalig+onderwijs/geschiedenis.htm to http://www.vgc.be/Onderwijs/Onderwijsbeleid+van+de+VGC/Over+het+Brussels+Nederlandstalig+onderwijs/geschiedenis.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050103191851/http://home.lvb.net/rechtstoestand7 to http://home.lvb.net/rechtstoestand7
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090310003827/http://www.carrefour.be/histoire.htm to http://www.carrefour.be/histoire.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080327055341/http://www.knack.be/nieuws/belgie/de-belgische-troebelen/site72-section24-article9689.html to http://www.knack.be/nieuws/belgie/de-belgische-troebelen/site72-section24-article9689.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090723233947/http://www.dutch.ac.uk/studypacks/dutch_language/brussels/wereldcentrum.html to http://www.dutch.ac.uk/studypacks/dutch_language/brussels/wereldcentrum.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011200403/http://www.voxlatina.com/vox_dsp2.php3?art=1757 to http://www.voxlatina.com/vox_dsp2.php3?art=1757
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512173042/http://www.imperatif-francais.org/bienvenu/articles/2004/les-institutions-europeennes.html to http://www.imperatif-francais.org/bienvenu/articles/2004/les-institutions-europeennes.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090502152857/http://www.rbc.irisnet.be/crisp/fr/b3.htm to http://www.rbc.irisnet.be/crisp/fr/b3.htm
*Added  tag to http://jsp.vlaamsparlement.be/docs/stukken/1995-1996/g402-6.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706133238/http://www.cifop.be/doc/ceblf/Reforme_des_Institutions_Belges_260108-030208.pdf to http://www.cifop.be/doc/ceblf/Reforme_des_Institutions_Belges_260108-030208.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511182137/http://www.secessie.nu/pdf/5-1.pdf to http://www.secessie.nu/pdf/5-1.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified