This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montreal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Montreal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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 against split
If split, the title of both articles should be in English, not French. This is the English Wikipedia. -- Beland 22:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Against: Most articles on large cities have one article on the Metropolitan area of a city. I think Greater Montreal is the term most often used when discussing the Greater Montreal region. Even in the CMM literature, the area governed by the CMM is referred to as Greater Montreal; the CMM refers to the governing body, not the area. --Soulscanner 04:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Against. As said above, Metropolitan areas all tend to be on one page. I also agree that the heading should be in English, as this is an English wiki. However, mention has to be made of the name en français, as that is how it is most commonly used there. --RobNS 19:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Typically an article on the metropolitan community would talk about politics and government, while one on the CMA would talk about statistics and so on. Rather different subjects. I can't really imagine a detailed discussion of the powers of the metropolitan community, its relations with constituent municipalities, etc., going on in an article called, vaguely, "Greater Montreal Area". Joeldl (talk) 11:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. First, I agree with the comments that metropolitan areas tend to be on one page -- see National Capital Region (Canada) for example, which covers both the officially designated NCR and the Ottawa-Gatineau CMA. This article consists today mostly of lists -- it could stand to be improved, and there is more than enough opportunity to discuss both stats and politics/government. Second, in respect of the "title of both articles should be in English, not French - this is the English Wikipedia" argument, I strongly disagree. In the English Wikipedia, we do not automatically use the English version of a name for the title -- we use the name most commonly used in English, regardless of the language. The article itself asserts that English term "Montreal Metropolitan Community" is rarely used, so the "Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal" is the preferred title if there is an actual article split. Please see Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Style guide#French names for more details. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that if the Montreal Metropolitan Community were just a territory, perhaps the two notions would be close enough to be on the same page. But it is also a political body. For example, New York City Council has an article separate from New York City, despite the fact that the territory of the council is exactly the city. If the objection is that there currently isn't enough information on the CMM to deserve a separate page, I might be persuaded to agree with that. But if more information on the politics and government of the CMM is introduced (such as appointment procedures, powers, institutional history, etc.), wouldn't you agree that in future that should be treated in its own article, like New York City Council? There's just something wrong about discussing a body created by government legislation (the Act respecting the Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal) in an article called Greater Montreal Area.Joeldl (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. We are far from that now, however. But any discussion here is without prejudice to anyone who wanted to significantly expand the article and then propose a split. BTW, it's not that I don't think there is much to say about the CMM -- it's just that I don't think there is much to say about the CMA. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose split. A paragraph about the difference between the two notions would suffice. A demographics section could use data from the CMA, while everything else would refer to CMM. --Qyd (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment The political designation deserves its own article to describe the governance functions which CMM undertakes. These are notable and distinct from the demographics, economy, etc. of the metropolitan area. Franamax (talk) 06:04, 5 February 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.
This article should be expanded, the Toronto equivalent article Greater Toronto Area can give suggestions on how to make this one better. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 11:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
"Greater Montreal" now has a logo that cost $1/2 million. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
It is already part of the article, however when I looked at the newspaper this morning, it appears that a lot of people are displeased with either hte logo or its price tag. Someone even suggested that, if you turn it upside down, it could be sold to the city of Winnipeg. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
why is there a picture of snow ? wouldnt it be more meaningful to put maybe a famous landmark? or the city skyline? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Greater Montreal 2008 logo.png Nominated for speedy Deletion
An image used in this article, File:Greater Montreal 2008 logo.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011
What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.