Jump to content

Talk:Mount Royal, Quebec

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Schools in TMR and Model City Concept

[edit]

Would be nice to see some detail on schools in TMR, e.g. schools by language and religion - Catholic and Protestant Schools, elementary and High Schools. Also, under History, the aspect of the "Model City" concept and the focusing of the two main boulevards into an area of shops and services should be mentioned, imo. That part of TMR has been considered for National Historical Site status. Tony (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I covered much of this material for a family project. I'll dig it up and add the material, but the school portion only covered the histories of the early Protestant schools (Carlyle and Mount Royal High School). Meters (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Tmr shield.gif

[edit]

Image:Tmr shield.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Tmr01.gif

[edit]

Image:Tmr01.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong title: Should be "The Town of Mount Royal"

[edit]

The official name of the town is "Town of Mount Royal" and in common parlance, when referring to it, it is "The Town of Mount Royal". For example "he is from Westmount and she is from The Town of Mount Royal".

See: http://www.town.mount-royal.qc.ca/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanneryvillage (talk • contribs) 01:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
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 not moved. See WP:ON and naming of places such as Rhode Island. --BDD (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Mount Royal, Quebec → Town of Mount Royal, Quebec – The official name of the town is "Town of Mount Royal" and in common parlance, when referring to it, it is "The Town of Mount Royal". For example "he is from Westmount and she is from The Town of Mount Royal". Tanneryvillage (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – No city or town in Category:Cities and towns in Quebec has "city of" or "town of" preceding its name. What would make Mount Royal unique in this regard? The need to disambiguate it from the mountain? Would a WP:hatnote make it more clear:
Not to be confused with Mount Royal.
This article is about the Town of Mount Royal, Quebec. For the mountainhill, see Mount Royal.
oops, hill, not mountain
Town of Mount Royal, Quebec (Town of Mount Royal) could be created as a redirect to Mount Royal, Quebec in case anyone types that in the search box or links that way – Wbm1058 (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Officially, In Québec, a town or city is called "X" (toponym), and the "municipal corporate body instituted to govern" a city or town is called "City of X" or "Town of X". In this case the "official" name is "Mont-Royal" as anything containing an English name is outlawed. What matters is not what is official, but what is "documented" as being used.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 15:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -

1) With regards to "No city or town in Category:Cities and towns in Quebec has "city of" or "town of" preceding its name. What would make Mount Royal unique in this regard?" - No other city or town in that category is officially and commonly referred to as 'The Town of'. If one does a google search for "Town of Mount Royal, Que." there are 70,800,000 results. If one does a google search for "Mount Royal, Que." there are 831,000 results - a factor of almost 10 to 1. There is no need to disambiguate it from the mountain if the article title is changed to "Town of Mount Royal, Quebec.

I grew up and lived there for at least 35 years. Please note that in the following links the town is ALWAYS referred to as the Town of Mount Royal;

Map of TMR: http://www.town.mount-royal.qc.ca/fileadmin/pdf/carte_imprimable_VMR.pdf |

http://www.flickr.com/photos/74248832@N08/ |

http://www.town.mount-royal.qc.ca/index.php?id=28 |

http://www.groupecopley.com/en/interactive-map |

http://www.beth-elmtl.org/contact.html |

http://www.mountroyalunited.ca/ |

A Boy Scout uniform, circa 1968. Notice the town name: http://postimage.org/image/6phdx29j7/

2) With regards to "Officially, In Québec, a town or city is called" etc.. Wikipedia is not subject to the restrictive language laws of the Province of Quebec. The official French name for the Town is 'Ville de Mont-Royal'.

The Town of Mount Royal is abbreviated as TMR in English, and in French as VMR. Go here: http://www.town.mount-royal.qc.ca/index.php?id=75&L=yvclnmfvfaxg and you will notice the French abbreviation below the title "100 years of history"

Please also see these google search results for the English language daily newspaper of record for Montreal:

http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22Town+of+Mount+Royal%22+site+montrealgazette.com - 271,000 results.

http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22Mount+Royal%22+site+montrealgazette.com - 71,100 results

Tanneryvillage (talk) 01:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

? confused – usually one supports "per nominator", not oppose the nominator. Please clarify – Wbm1058 (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. I don't like this propose "Town of" rename. It should stay as "Mount Royal, Quebec" title of the article and categories. Steam5 (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unnecessary and inconsistent with Wikipedia practice. A hatnote more than suffices to distinguish it from the mountain. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The issue of what is the primary topic for Mount Royal should be considered. See the prior discussion at Talk:Mount Royal (disambiguation), Is Mount Royal, Montreal a dominant meaning?, to which I add the question, what is the primary topic for Mount Royal, Montreal? Currently it is the "mountain," not the town. Is that right? If so, I wonder why the primary topic for Mount Royal in Montreal is a mountain, while the primary topic for Mount Royal in Quebec is the town. I think the primary topic (if there is one) should be consistently one or the other, whether it is in the city or the province. There may be another mountain named 'Mount Royal' in another Canadian province. So, if the current title doesn't adequately disambiguate, then the question becomes what is the best way to disambiguate it? The nominator supports natural disambiguation Town of Mount Royal, Quebec, alternatively we could use parenthetical DAB: Mount Royal, Quebec (town). I realize that technically the town is not in the city, but it is part of the Montreal metropolitan area, so in that sense it is part of the city. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - We should try and aim for consistency in articles relating to cities. While I confirm that Mount Royal (the town) is usually referred to as the "Town of Mount Royal" in English, it would be inconsistent with other Canadian city articles to name the article in that manner. Also for the record, the primary usage for "Mount Royal" is the mountain/park in the city of Montreal (the mountain from which Montreal got its name, and probably the city's most notable feature/attraction), therefore the suburban town of Mount Royal should remain as "Mount Royal, Quebec". I would have no problem, however, with the Town of Mount Royal being referred to as such in the article.--MTLskyline (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It took some searching, but I found an example supporting the status quo. The primary topic for Mount Hood is the highest mountain in Oregon. There is another mountain Mount Hood (California), which is parenthetically dabbed in the title, and an unincorporated community Mount Hood, Oregon which perhaps is not dabbed in the title, but relies on a hat note for full disambiguation. Though maybe there is a convention that any name followed by a comma and location (, city/town/state/province/country) is always a human settlement and not a geographical feature? and geographical features are always parenthetically dabbed? What if Montreal was named Mount Royal? Then surely the city would be primary topic and then the mountain would be Mount Royal (hill) or Mount Royal (Quebec mountain), not using a comma. I'm leaning towards keeping the status quo. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am surprised that the people opposed to this change seem not to be reading my arguments. The official and common name for the town is "Town of Mount Royal". I know, I was born there and grew up there. Any native English speaking Montrealer will agree with me. Although it is admirable that you strive for a consistant naming convention and are concerned with ambiguity, there are precedents on Wikipedia:

New York City, New York; Quebec City, Quebec; City of San Marino, San Marino; Arizona City, Arizona; Arkansas City, Arkansas; California City, California; Colorado City, Colorado; Delaware City, Delaware; Florida City, Florida; Idaho City, Idaho; Illinois City, Illinois; Iowa City, Iowa; Jersey City, New Jersey; Kansas City, Kansas; Maryland City, Maryland; Minnesota City, Minnesota; Missouri City, Missouri; Nebraska City, Nebraska; Nevada City, Nevada; Ohio City, Ohio; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Oregon City, Oregon; Texas City, Texas; Panama City, Panama; Guatemala City,Guatemala; Mexico City, Mexico; Kuwait City, Kuwait ; Mexico City, Mexico ; Panama City, Panama ; City of San Marino, San Marino.

Do the people opposed to this motion suggest that the Wikipedia entry for "New York City" be changed to "New York, New York", or "Kansas City, Kansas" be changed to "Kansas, Kansas" or "Mexico City, Mexico" be changed to "Mexico, Mexico"? In all the above examples, "City" is part of the name just like "Town of" is part of the name for the Town of Mount Royal.

As fas as disambiguation is concerned, "Mount Royal (disambiguation)" should show "Town of Mount Royal, Quebec, suburb of Montreal, Quebec" Tanneryvillage (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reply – hmmm, yes – Town of Claremont, in Category:Local Government Areas of Western Australia, which is full of "Shire of...", "City of..." and "Town of..." titles, Town of Ithaca, in a similar Category:Former Local Government Areas of Queensland—is this convention limited to Australia? Then we have, in Canada, Town of Fort Erie Transit System, located in Town of Fort Erie (the official and common name, or not?), uh, Fort Erie, Ontario (the fort is dabbed as Olde Fort Erie). Do we need to change the naming conventions for Canada to be similar to those of Australia, or can we allow an exception? We do have a Town of Pines, Indiana, which is the only "Town of..." in Category:Towns in Indiana, however, per Talk:Town of Pines, Indiana, this may only be because no one there has yet figured out how to request a move to Pines, Indiana – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In response to the nominator's incorrect assertion that "the people opposed to this change seem not to be reading my arguments", I would say that they have been read. Reading your arguments does not mean people are required to agree. We do not defer to official names on Wikipedia, and the current name is consistent with the applicable naming conventions. The existing name of the town (and the mountain, for that matter) are fine. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Follows correctly WP:CANSTYLE as is. Have read all comments, including the redundant nominator's assertions, and do not find merit in renaming this article. We are not concerned about naming conventions in USA/Australia/Indiana etc... but naming conventions in Canada, which as of right now, Quebec is still part of. BTW: The official name of the city is "Ville de Mont Royal" as per the legislation that re-created the city out of "Ville de Montréal". --MrBoire (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to note that Mount Royal is not unique in this regard; every single city or town in North America is legally "City of X", "Town of X", "Ville de X", etc. — but we don't name the articles that way, because it's just not necessary in most cases. Our naming convention is and has always been to use a place's short form name (which is just the name itself without the "Class Noun of" precursor) — but each and every place's name still legally has the "Class Noun of" part, and Mount Royal is not some sort of special case.

The Australian situation is different — in that context, "City of X" or "Town of X" articles are about Local government areas of Australia. Those are not cities or towns in the way we understand them here; for example, the city of Sydney has 38 separate "city/town/shire of X" localities within it, which means that they're more like the boroughs of New York City or the arrondissements of Montreal than they are actual cities or towns. In every single Australian case, in fact, the geographic level that actually corresponds to a city in the North American sense of the word is titled just "Name", not "City of Name" — while the titles that have "City of" in them are borough-type divisions within the city. And in the same way, the article City of London is not about the same thing as the article London is; the latter article corresponds to what is normally understood as the whole city of London, while the "City of London" article is a single, relatively small borough within that larger entity. And the list of "X City" articles that the nominator provided above are also a misleading comparison; most of those are titled the way they are because "X City" is the place's normal short form name. "New York City" is equivalent to "Montreal" or "Toronto", not to "City of Montreal" or "City of Toronto", and thus is a false analogy to the proposed move here.

At any rate, Wikipedia is not bound by a requirement to title things with their official names in all cases; we're bound by a requirement to title things with the simplest possible name that doesn't result in a naming conflict with other topics. In this situation, that name is correctly Mount Royal, Quebec — the only valid reason to add any further complexity to the title than that would be if there were another topic that could also compete for the title "Mount Royal, Quebec", which there isn't. Opppose nomination. Bearcat (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - 我不在乎 means "I don't care". I think that we should ignore User:UnQuébécois because he is obviously a trouble maker. The "no official name in English" is a canard. You people, however well meaning, must understand English-speaking-Montreal-Quebec-Canadian-English terminology. If you are from Alberta or Ontario and have never lived in Montreal then please defer to a native English speaking Montrealer. Furthermore; the French language article needs to be moved from "Mont-Royal, Que." to Ville de Mont-Royal, Que". I must thank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wbm1058 for his suggestion that we allow an exception to the bureaucratic style guides of whatever categories this article is a part of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanneryvillage (talk • contribs) 02:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of you are edit warring and it must stop. I suggest that all heads cool while letting the move discussion close out, and then enter into a discussion on how to proceed from there.

    Also, until deferring "to a native English speaking Montrealer" makes its way into WP:CANSTYLE, naming standards of Quebec articles are the same as those that apply to Alberta, Ontario and the remaining provinces and territories in Canada. Hwy43 (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Obviously your Google translate doesn't know everything, 我不在乎 is Chinese for I don't mind, as in I don't mind talking about things, I don't mind. However well meaning, your constant "I know better than you cause I live here" attitude is very alarming. What happens on the French Wikipedia is up to French Wikipedians, not you. And what happens on French Wikipedia is not necessarily what needs to happen here. Each project is it's own, and each language has grammar and spelling rules that are followed. I myself have no preference to changing or not the name of the article. I simply brought some information to the discussion. Regardless if the article gets renamed, or not, the article needs to have correct information. We can take Dorval for an example, as it was a "Cité" before the merger into Montréal, and people still call it that in everyday language, but when it was "de-merged" it becama a "ville". TMR underwent the same process, it was created as "Town of Mount Royal" in 1914 (ish), was merged into Montréal, and then was allowed to reform as a "Ville". It's only legal name is "Ville de Mont-Royal". It's municipal type (a legal designation) is "Ville" which in Québec English of today is "City", not town. The closest designation to town is township, which is legally "Canton" in French.
    Removing factual, and sourced information, while stating it is vandalism is not a solution. Do not assume that I have no ties, or knowledge of Quebec English, because I chose a French language pseudonym, or that I reside in another part of the world at the moment, that is no better than the "On est au Québec icitte, parle français" attitude of the uneducated separatists.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 03:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am an anglophone Montrealer, if that's worth anything. I believe both of you have valid points. Tanneryvillage is right that Mount Royal is referred to as the Town of Mount Royal by Quebec anglophones to distinguish it from the mountain (as it is referred to as Ville de Mont-Royal by francophones). UnQuébécois is right that the town has only one official name which is Ville de Mont-Royal.
According to this article there is no legal distinction between a city or town in Quebec. Mount Royal refers to itself as a town on its own official website. I would say that is enough to justify usage of this term over "city". The policy on French names is to go by the most common English usage, which is undeniably town.
However, I would also like to add that renaming the article on Mount Royal, Quebec to "Town of Mount Royal" is without precedent. The addition of "Town of" in local usage is just a way of disambiguating it from the mountain (which people refer to as simply "Mount Royal"). I vote to keep the article titled as is (Mount Royal, Quebec), and to refer to the topic as a "town" in the article.--MTLskyline (talk) 04:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tanneryvillage obviously needs to be made aware of civility.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 04:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to wait until cooler heads prevailed to make a suggestion, but I think it is appropriate to do so now given MTLSkyline's comments above. I also see the same valid points and echo MTLSkyline's comments.

What is happening here is that the municipality has chosen to translate its French official legal name to "Town of Mount Royal" to brand itself in English as a town rather than a city. Therefore, I suggest that both facts be introduced in the lead, something along the lines of:

"Mount Royal is a ville (town) located on the northwest side of Mount Royal, north of Downtown Montreal, on the Island of Montreal in southwestern Quebec, Canada. ... Its official legal name is Ville de Mont-Royal.insert ref here The municipality translates this to Town of Mount Royal.insert ref here ... "

After that, refer to Mount Royal as a town throughout the prose of the article. Hwy43 (talk) 05:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • With the names of cities, towns, villages and other settlements, as well as administrative divisions, the tag is normally preceded by a comma, as in Hel, Poland, and Polk County, Tennessee. Any specific national convention takes precedence though.
  • With natural features, the tag normally appears in parentheses, as in Eagle River (Colorado). Specific pre-existing national conventions may take precedence though.
So while the current name needs no further disambiguation, I'm delighted to see the hat note go up on the article for additional clarity.
And, somewhat analogous to WP:NCCORP, which says that whenever possible, common usage is preferred for the article title, but regardless of the article title, the first sentence of the article should include the full legal name of the company—I'm also happy to see "The Town of Mount Royal (abbreviated TMR)..." is now the lead, with Town of Mount Royal in boldface. I would like to see it stay that way. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When I saw that two editors had been blocked, I looked a little deeper at the article and research governement documents to see what the situation really was. It appears to me that the provincial government here does not include the words "Ville" or "Town" in the name of the municipality. Therefore it would be inappropriate to call the article "Town of Mount Royal". Is Mount Royal a "town" or a "city" - the same reference tells me that Quebec law does not differentiate between the two - traditionally France did not differentiate, but England does. Historically, in England a city had a bishop, a town did not, but a town had a charter. The documents that I have seen suggest to me that Quebec, given its French heritage, chose to use the word "ville" to avoid describing a locality as a "town" or as a "city", but Mount Royal has chosen to describe itself as as a "town". I have therefore replaced the word "City" in the infobox with "Ville (Town)". Martinvl (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In further looking at your source, and doing some digging it appears that according to the Québec government there is no place in the province that is a "City". All "Villes" according to this are "Towns", so that makes Montréal legally in English "Town of Montréal", etc... So it would look like we have to go and update all Quebec municipalities to reflect their legal statuses.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 02:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply – But the link you gave does seem to make a distinction:
Symbols for the Legal Status of Municipalities
C City
V Town
Though "Update: January 22, 2003", so it potentially could be outdated? It seems a bit silly not to call Montreal a city in the English language. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And of course, Quebec City (Québec (ville)), or Ville de Québec—at minimum there are two cities in the province. Beyond that, English-language Wikipedia may need to make a subjective call on the cut-off between "cities" and "towns", if the French don't make the distinction, based on which term predominates in reliable English-language sources. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the "link" does make a distinction, between C - city and V- town, if you look at the list provided by Martinvl you will see that there are no municipalities with a status "C" (Cité in french). It seems silly to call any "Ville", a Town, as the generally accepted English terminology is City.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 18:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
per fr:Cité, as translated by Chrome, one does get the sense that somewhere in history, the word fell out of favor: In France, the term "city" is contrasted with "city" in its symptomatology and often negative connotations in common parlance. However, the city can also be a title held by the largest cities, as is the case in the provinces Canadian from New Brunswick and the Alberta and formerly in Quebec. This title can be linked to power and greater responsibility, as in the case of New Brunswick. The United Kingdom, the City is a designation of cities dense, dynamic and prestigious history as Manchester or London. According to its context of use, the term does not necessarily lost its ancient prestige. But, if you ask Sinatra, Chicago is My Kind of Town ;) Wbm1058 (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mount Royal, Quebec. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mount Royal, Quebec. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's Town of Mount Royal/TMR, not "Mount Royal"

[edit]

In common English as spoken by native Montrealers, it's "Town of Mount Royal" or "TMR". Never "Mount Royal", which would refer to the Mountain or the avenue. Just see the following recent examples from local English-language media:

-https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/two-recounts-sought-in-tight-t-m-r-council-races
-https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/judge-denies-recount-requests-in-t-m-r-election
-https://montrealgazette.com/sponsored/life-sponsored/how-sun-youth-helped-charles-balangero-overcome-his-challenges-to-live-an-independent-life
-https://www.thesuburban.com/news/city_news/malouf-to-put-breaks-on-royalmount-condo-plan/article_ded81143-5aa4-5817-8aa4-7d154e426f1d.html
-https://www.thesuburban.com/news/city_news/tmr-union-deal/article_9b4508cc-0a25-5ba9-bda5-1c95eab9428e.html
-https://www.thesuburban.com/news/city_news/malouf-announces-candidates-in-tmr/article_afd70cdd-29a8-5ba8-8c08-2dbcde4154c2.html
-https://www.thesuburban.com/news/city_news/tmr-touts-local-commerce/article_dc30eb9e-eecf-558f-914b-bd0bf847179e.html
-https://www.thesuburban.com/news/city_news/tmr-bridge-closed-for-demolition/article_6725ecff-4b2b-53c7-a352-531b73257123.html
-https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/new-town-of-mount-royal-mayor-says-he-plans-to-block-royalmount-development-1.5686579
-https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=2332546
-https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/man-in-hospital-after-shooting-in-tmr-1.5603409
-https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/montreal-s-on-island-suburbs-here-s-the-list-of-winners-1.5656966
-https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/two-young-women-voted-mayors-of-longueuil-sherbrooke-quebec-city-race-ends-in-upset-1.5656158

In short, you will never see the municipality referred to as just "Mount Royal". It is always "Town of Mount Royal" (used as a proper noun, not "in the town of Mount Royal" but "in Town of Mount Royal") or "T.M.R.". Even on its own website the town is always referred to as "Town of Mount Royal" as a proper noun, not "the town of Mount Royal" or "Mount Royal". This is the usual English name, as used by the native English-speaking population. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect common and local English usage where it exists.--142.82.4.97 (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this, since some of these articles are referring to a municipal election in which the subject is clearly the municipality and not the mountain, one cannot argue that locals say "Town of Mount Royal" solely to distinguish from the mountain. Although that might be how the name came about, "Town of Mount Royal" or "TMR" is the usual name of the municipality, even when no disambiguation is needed.--142.82.4.97 (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mount_Royal,_Quebec&oldid=1209217472"