Portal:Montreal/Discussions/Form of former city-current borough names

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Just a quick summary of this rather long discussion. Montréalais has proposed that boroughs which used to be separate cities be in the form Lachine or if disambiguation is necessary in the form Anjou (Montreal) (this is the form used by other boroughs). Larineso and I (Farquard) agree. Earl Andrew is opposed because he asserts that these boroughs are "communities" based on the fact that they appear on maps, and should therefore be in the form Lachine, Quebec like municipalities and unincorporated settlements. Montréalais, Larineso and I maintain that these boroughs are not communities in any way that other neighbourhoods are not. Maclean25, Zhatt and Luigizanasi have also commented.


I am creating this voting area per the request of Farquard on AMA Requests for Assistance. I will monitor this page periodically to try to make sure that this is being implemented in a fashion which is fair and understandable. For more information please see the AMA FAQ.

This is for a vote on the compromise proposed by Montréalais, as summarized by Farquard:

Boroughs or neighbourhoods that are not spatially isolated from the rest of the built-up area -- whether or not they used to be independent municipalities -- would not receive a provincial suffix. (They would receive (Montreal) or (Quebec City) only as needed for disamb.)" (for the full post see under #Another proposal)


If you support the proposal, please vote by clicking on edit next to "Support", and add a new line with the text "# ~~~~". This will add your username and the time you signed automatically. Please add comments that might help others following your vote. You may vote in the same fashion under the "Oppose" header or add non-committal comments under the "Comment" header. - Jord 01:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


  1. Farquard 02:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Montrealais 22:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


  1. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. --20px Spinboy 02:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. -- 18:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


First attempt at a survey[edit]

This is a survey to determine if there is consensus on Montréalais' compromise proposal. The proposal is thus:

"The following areas receive a name followed by the province:

#independent municipalities;

#boroughs or other settlements, in the territory of a larger municipality, that are spatially isolated from other settlements.

Boroughs or neighbourhoods that are not spatially isolated from the rest of the built-up area -- whether or not they used to be independent municipalities -- would not receive a provincial suffix. (They would receive (Montreal) or (Quebec City) only as needed for disamb.)" (for the full post see under #Another proposal)

#Support - Farquard 19:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

  1. Comment - This "survey" is not set up properly... but anyways, I am going to make some article moves later today, and I think they will work out for the best, as both sides will win. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not all about "spatial separation". It's about the sense of community. It's too early to have these communities moved to something outrageous. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • As I've said many times, Snowdon, Saint-Henri and the Mile End have at least as much of a sense of community as Saint-Laurent or Pierrefonds. Anyway, I'll wait and see what you do today, and if I'm not happy with it, I'll go find someone else to set up a proper survey. Farquard 20:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Since Earl Andrew's edits are nothing more than an implementation of his proposed "comprimise" that everyone here has already opposed, I have made a request for outside help in setting up a survey. Farquard 20:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
      • What's wrong with what I did? Everybody wins. Stop being such a stick in the mud. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Now there are two articles on a community of 23,000!! One that says where it's located and who the mayor is; and one that talks about its main streets, landmarks and history. Am I the only one who finds this ridiculous? Farquard 02:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

  • One article is about the community, Farquard. The other is on the borough that administers it. There is a difference. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean that we should have articles on every local government in Canada in addition ot articles on the communities they administer (eg. Cobourg, Ontario and Cobourg (town))? Farquard 00:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps just the major ones. I.e. Ottawa and City of Ottawa. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

And Outremont is somehow a "major" community? - Farquard 00:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Outremont is not a municipality though. It is covered by a borough. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Right. It's a borough, not even a municipality. AFAIK, boroughs have much LESS power then any municipality in Canada. Coburg, for example, has a town council of seven, whereas Outremont has a borough council of three. What logical reason is there to have an articles on the governments of boroughs, but not on the governments of cities and towns? - Farquard 02:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


I'm curious about the form of names for Montreal boroughs that used to be their own cities: to wit, Anjou, Kirkland, Lachine, LaSalle, Montreal North, Mount Royal, Outremont, Pointe-Claire, Saint-Laurent, Saint Leonard, Verdun, and Westmount.

At present, they are all of the form Anjou, Quebec, which I find cumbersome (can't use the pipe trick) and misleading (suggests they're municipalities when they're not).

I would advocate the following:

1) Move all of these boroughs that are not going to demerge (Anjou, Lachine, LaSalle, Montreal North, Outremont, Saint-Laurent, Saint Leonard, Verdun), to the form Anjou (Montreal). This mimics the one existing case of disambiguation (Ville-Marie (Montreal)), and solves the problems above.

2) Leave the boroughs that are going to demerge where they are; the problem will resolve itself in just under five months. - Montréalais 02:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I concur wholly--Larineso 15:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree; although "(Montreal)" would be pointless for Montreal North and Outremont. - Farquard 01:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
And Lachine, etc. So yes, only using the disamb when needed. OK, we seem to have consensus. - Montréalais 04:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Whoa whoa whoa! I disagree! Former municipalities should have the province listed afterwards. That is the standard for Canadian place names. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, obviously I don't think that standard works very well, for the reasons I've named. (Is the standard written somewhere?) These aren't municipalities anymore. They're boroughs, and should be treated as such. It's not like there won't be redirects. - Montréalais 06:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
The former constituent municipalities of all amalgamated municipalities in Ontario have Ontario preceding them. Eg. Scarborough, Ontario, Rayside-Balfour, Ontario, Stoney Creek, Ontario, Nepean, Ontario, etc..., what's more people still refer to these places, for example when writing letters. I am sure people still do this in Quebec too. Just because they amalgamated doesnt mean these communities are no longer in Quebec. Now, not all boroughs should have "Quebec" after them, just the ones that are former municipalities. -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
"Just because they amalgamated doesnt mean these communities are no longer in Quebec." This is true but vacuous; it being the case, we might as well put Quebec after all the other boroughs as well, as they are also in Quebec. Besides, how far back do we go? Saint-Michel, Pointe-aux-Trembles, Maisonneuve, etc., all used to be municipalities, a number of decades ago; do we put Quebec after those too, or only after the ones that were still municipalities when Wikipedia started?
Since there's no defined standard -- only what we've typically done up until this point -- consider this a proposal to do things in a more sensible fashion. ", Quebec" should be the form for municipalities, not boroughs. No reason we can't have redirects, but otherwise it just sounds weird, and it makes my life difficult. - Montréalais 16:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Places such as Saint-Michel, etc... are now pretty much neighbourhoods, although we should go on a case by case basis. I feel Toronto, for example is an excellent example of what standards should be used. Sometimes we have to go to the old map, and if LaSalle is a dot on the map, than it should be LaSalle, Quebec. Some boroughs are just two communities put together, separated by an m-dash. Well, these aren't communities like LaSalle, or Verdun, and are only created for administrative reasons. However, LaSalle is still very much a community. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
What does that have to do with anything? We're not talking about communities, we're talking about municipalities. We can't base our article titles on sentiment. - Montréalais 18:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes we can. It's entirely based on communities. Restoule, Ontario is not a municipality, yet it does not exist as Restoule. The same goes for LaSalle, Quebec. It's a community, just like Restoule is, except it just has a lot more people. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
But Restoule isn't part of a scheme of articles that deserve some consistency and ease of use. The borough articles are. - Montréalais 21:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I would argue that LaSalle is more than just a borough, as it is a community as well. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
And I would argue its communityhood or lack of same is simply not relevant. It's a borough of the city of Montreal, and our article discusses it in this context. It should be treated like the other boroughs of the city of Montreal. - Montréalais 23:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
It's not irrelevant. Most people are going to use ",Quebec" after these places, because they would think that Wikipedia is consistent. Your moves defies consistency. Just because they are boroughs doesnt make them more important that other communities in Canada. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
If you want to get into it, it defies consistency that certain coherent communities get the ", Quebec" and others don't merely because they haven't been independent municipalities lately. (Pointe-Saint-Charles, Quebec? Mile End, Quebec?)
To the contrary, this policy is consistent in that it treats all boroughs of Montreal (or at least, all those that will still be boroughs of Montreal come 2006) consistently. The articles on Montreal boroughs are a suite of articles. They come in a pack. They should have the same system throughout.
As for the poor readers who will be terribly confused by LaSalle's article title being followed by (Montreal) rather than ", Quebec" (which would imply that they 1) know that it's a coherent community but 2) don't know it's part of Montreal)... well, that's what we have redirects for. - Montréalais 01:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
This just doesnt make any sense to me, why you would have LaSalle (Montreal) instead of LaSalle, Quebec. If we are going by wikipedia naming conventions, LaSalle, Quebec is used more often than LaSalle (Montreal). -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
The principle is as follows:
1) Montreal boroughs are titled just [[borough name]]. e.g. Le Sud-Ouest, Ahuntsic-Cartierville, Outremont, Montreal North, Lachine.
2) When we need disambiguation, we add (Montreal). e.g. Ville-Marie (Montreal), LaSalle (Montreal). It's not because people frequently write "LaSalle (Montreal)"; it's because we're calling it "LaSalle", just like all the other boroughs, and using the "(Montreal)" to disambiguate it.
3) Boroughs that voted to demerge are left as is (e.g. Kirkland, Quebec) because they'll be back there come January anyway.
- Montréalais 03:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Let me put it this way, place names dont change just because they are a borough or not. Was once LaSalle, Quebec is always LaSalle, Quebec. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
But the name of the place isn't "LaSalle, Quebec", any more than the name of the street is "Bay Street, Toronto", or the name of the province is "New Brunswick, Canada". The name of the place is "LaSalle". - Montréalais 05:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course LaSalle is a "community", as is any neighbourhood. Should we also have "Westboro, Ontario" or "Parkdale, Ontario"? I can see using the "Community, Province" format for places that are actually distinct settlements like Restoule, Bobcaygeon or Capreol. But it's redictulous to use it based solely on the fact that the community had a distinct municipal government four years ago. - Farquard 04:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

LaSalle is more than just a neighbourhood. Just like Scarborough is more than a neighbourhood, or even Willowdale, Ontario - which hasn't been a municipality in at least 30 years. -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Earl Andrew, please STOP using Ontario and Toronto as "examples". The Montreal borough articles have nothing at all to do with either of these places. Just because they are in the same country does not mean they need to follow the same guidelines.

The guidlines should be arranged by collection of articles. The boroughs of Montreal and their articles form a collection, or, as Montrealais so eloquently put it, a suite of articles. From the French suite (a series). The articles follow (as in the French suivre, from which we get suite) one another. They must all follow the same guidelines. Not the same ones as Toronto, the same ones as each other.

The former municipailities are now part of the city of Montreal. Even before the Merger, many people would write "Montreal" as their city instead of "Saint Leonard" or "LaSalle", etc...

For example, the address

6021 Jean Talon E
Saint Leonard, QC
H1S 1M2

would also commonly have been written as:

6021 Jean Talon E
Montreal, QC
H1S 1M2

If there's one thing you learn living in Quebec, it is that mail gets delivered, no matter what you write. I address mail to "Three Rivers", not "Trois Rivieres", but I digress. I ask you, would anyone in Scarborough write "Toronto" as their city for mailing? I think not. I think, therefore, that the situation is very different.

Firstly, remember that Montreal is an Island. When someone speaks of "Montreal", they are already commonly referring to all the communities on that island. This is not the case for Toronto, because there is no natural deliniation for such an anomaly, such as the water surrounding Montreal.

In addition, I refer you to WP:UE, Wikipedia's Article Naming Policy. It states that common usage is preferred over all other forms.

In common usage, one only says the borough name (LaSalle). The borough's "name" is LaSalle, Saint Leonard, etc... For the sake of clarity, we are forced to go beyond common usage. In order to remain as close as possible to the intentions of WP:UE, let us consider this:

When someone says "Saint Leonard", do they mean "Saint Leonard" in relation to the province of Quebec, or in relation to the city of Montreal? I would say that, the vast majority of the time, when we refer to these places, we refer to them in relation to Montreal, thus Saint Leonard (Montreal). -Larineso 22:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: I think that this should be incorporated into the Street Names Project Page, which we can expand to a Manual of Style for all Montreal-Related Articles.-- Larineso 22:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Montreal is in Canada, and therefore its communities should follow the same guidlines as the rest of the country. You haven't separated yet! It's not about the boroughs. Perhaps for clairty, there should be articles on the boroughs and articles on the actual communities, but all communities in Canada should be followed by their province name (except for the major ones). I dont mind boroughs being an exception, just as long as it doesnt effect the standards of the communities of Montreal Island. LaSalle is a community in Quebec, just like Scarborough in Ontario. I'm sorry for using Ontario example, but we have a similar amalgamation problem here. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

You haven't separated yet!
What are you kidding me? Let me first set the record straight. I am a native anglophone Montrealer of Italian descent. I am a federalist. I believe that, if anyone should separate, it should be Montreal, that way we wouldn't have to have you lame white-bread Ontarians telling us how to write our addresses.
Have you ever been to Montreal? What gives you the authority to override the descisions of this community? So far, everyone has agreed but you. Everyone who has agreed has some knowledge of Montreal.
If you did, you would know (as I stated above) that people living in those communities on the Island of Montreal generally use either the name of their "municipality" or just "Montreal". So, instead of saying I live in Ahunsic, I might just write "Montreal" on that envelope. Deal with it.
When these places were independant municipalities, they were still commonly considered part of Montreal. Now, they are legally, administratively, and colloquially part of the City of Montreal.
We are not asking you for permission to deviate from "standards". Common usage is what it is. If you want people to view each borough of Montreal as an independent city, then you have to convince the general public to change the way they think. Wikipedia does not exist to tell people what to think. It exists to show people how things are. And this is how things are: Saint Leonard is now just a pretty little administrative division of Montreal. Westmount is an independant city on the Island of Montreal. Westmount is not in the city of Montreal. Saint Leonard is. Thus, Westmount, Quebec, but Saint Leonard (Montreal).--Larineso 04:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, Westmount is in the city of Montreal... for the next four-and-a-half months. - Montréalais 04:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, no personal attacks, Larineso. To answer your question, I have been to Montreal, in fact I have family there. I may be the only one opposed to this, but that is because this is a rather secluded area of the wiki, and I was lucky to stumble upon it myself. I've only discussed this with User:Spinboy, and he suggested I take it to arbitration, however I hope it doesn't come to that. I would like to see some input from the Canadian Wiki Community however. I dont think this is a Montreal deal with me, an Ontarian budding it, but a deal of POV towards Montreal as opposed to the rest of the country, including Quebec. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
In case you didn't realize, implying I am a Separatist was a personal attack. But, I am not here to attack you and I'm sure you meant no harm, let's forget about it.
I don't understand this (please just need some clarity):
"... and he suggested I take it to arbitration"
What exactly do you want to take to arbitration?
"I dont think this is a Montreal deal with me, an Ontarian budding it, but a deal of POV towards Montreal as opposed to the rest of the country, including Quebec."
I don't really understand.. could you rephrase that?
Thanks, Larineso 14:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
The arbitration idea wasn't mine, and I don't think this really qualifies. My issue with POV is that Montreal is give special status buy you guys because you are from there. My outside ideas of consistency within the communities of Canada (including Quebec) are not accepted, especially because I am not from Montreal. Well, that just gives me an outsiders opinion, and that is important for something to become NPOV. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Earl Andrew, I don't understand how you can possibly differenciate between a "neighbourhood" and a "community" without getting into serious POV problems. LaSalle, Saint-Michel and Saint-Henri are all communities within an urban municipality; ie they are all neighbourhoods. The only difference is that one was annexed 4 years ago, one 36 years ago and one 110 years ago. (Actually there are a lot of differences, but none that make one a community and another a neighbourhood.) The same goes for East York, Willowdale and Parkdale. They are all neighbourhoods, and should all be treated as such. Of course this only applies to entirely urban municipalities, such as Montreal and Toronto. Municipalities which are partly rural, such as Ottawa, Halifax or Greater Sudbury, have communities which are distinct settlements, and should be treated as such. - Farquard 18:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

These places are more than just neighbourhoods though- they are large enough to be considered independent communities. That's why Willowdale, Ontario is not at Willowdale, it is why East York, Ontario is not at East York. That's why LaSalle should be at LaSalle, Quebec. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
How is LaSalle an independent community and Saint-Henri not? This is what we mean by PoV problems.
Besides, as has been patiently explained to you, we are discussing a suite of articles. There are exactly 27 boroughs in Montreal, each of which has its own article, and we're trying to do it as a group, just like we did an article on each of Montreal's 65 metro stations, all in the same format. "Borough of Montreal" is a far better defined category than "non-municipality community that Earl Andrew thinks is sufficiently coherent and sufficiently recently annexed to deserve the word Quebec after its name whereas others don't for reasons that escape everyone else." - Montréalais 20:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Earl Andrew, here's what it boils down to. So far, Montrealais' proposal is the only one put on the table which offers consistency and coherence. He has laid out a simple, elegant format:

All 27 areas which are considered "boroughs" of what is officially called la Ville de Montréal, also The City of Montreal, are to be followed by "(Montreal)". All those communities, municipalities, and other various socio-administrative divisions which are not part of the incorporated city mentioned above, but are still within that city's Metropolitan Area, are to be followed by ", Quebec", thus denoting their independant status.
Larineso, my proposal was just to have borough names at [[name]], followed by (Montreal) if disambiguation is necessary. - Montréalais 03:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

You have only criticized his proposal, but not made any to replace it. Your criteria rely on Perception, they are subjective. What is a 'community'? Why is one area a community while another is not? Why are the various neighborhoods of Montreal, each with their own distinct flavours and community, not followed by ", Quebec"?. Why is it not "The Plateau, Quebec", "Gay Village, Quebec", or "Ville Marie, Quebec"? "Chinatown, Quebec"? Each of these areas is considered in relation to Montreal.

Scarborough is not considered in relation to Toronto, but more commonly as an independant city.

You have said that, because many residents feel that they live in a community outside of "Montreal proper", those communities should be considered as being "in Quebec". However, as I have said, even before the municipalities were merged, it was common to write on addresses and tell people in speech "Montreal" rather than "Saint Leonard" or "LaSalle".

When I met someone from Scarborough last week, he introduced himself as "from Scarborough". I introduced myself as "from Montreal". I live in Saint Leonard. I would have introduced myself as "from Montreal" even before the mergers.

The idea that the communities in Montreal are separate, like the communities in Toronto are, is unfounded. The municipalities in which people considered themselves "separate" from Montreal had referendums deciding to leave the amalgamation. Every city in which polls showed there was enough public interest held a referendum. We can take the decision of the majority of citizens in these places to stay unified with Montreal as their acceptance that they are truly part of Montreal. If the public felt different enough from Montreal to warrant a ", Quebec" after their borough name, then they were allowed to leave, as Westmount was.

I doubt that someone from Westmount would introduce themselves as being from Montreal. A person from LaSalle most likely would.

Since your criteria for deciding what is a "community" and what isn't hinges on the opinions of the citizens, and the citizens in the boroughs we are discussing decided to become part of Montreal, then we can reasonably say that, overall, these citizens identify more with "Montreal" than their individual borough. Those populations to whom the borough was more important, such as Westmount, remain independent.--Larineso 20:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, sure it is subjective to call LaSalle a community while Saint-Henri is a neighbourhood. But, if I were to look at a detailed map of southwestern Quebec, I will find a dot for LaSalle or at least the word "LaSalle" and I will find nothing of the sort for Saint-Henri. This shows that what most people find is reasonable. I can understand you wanting consistency for Montreal's boroughs, but I am concerned about consistency with the rest of Canada. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, we could be consistent by treating all neighbourhoods as neighbourhoods. It's really just as subjective to call Willowdale a community and Parkdale a neighbourhood as it is to call LaSalle a community and Saint-Henri a neighbourhood. Contrary to what Larineso says, I find that most people from the former Metro Toronto would say they live in Toronto, rather than East York or Etobicoke. (Although Scarborough may be different.) - Farquard 22:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Depends who the talk to. If a Scarboroughite is talking to someone from LA then he will say he lives in Toronto. Speak with someone in Mississauga, and he will say he lives in Scarborough. The difference between a community and a neighbourhood is what is determined by the map makers. A map will say LaSalle or Willowdale but it will not say Parkdale or Saint-Henri. I have the maps to prove it. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Maps generally show municipalities and settlements. Map makers may lag behind a few years after municipal reorganizations, but sooner or latter LaSalle will be dropped off the map, since it is now just another neighbourhood of Montreal. Take a look at the Official Road Map of Ontario. It doesn't list Willowdale or Scarborough (not even on the Toronto Enlargement), but it does list distinct settlement like Dundas and Malton. - Farquard 00:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Earl Andrew, I see where you are coming from. You want all articles about Canadian municipalities to be consistent. However, I want all th articles about Montreal boroughs to be consistent. A borough is an administrative division. A community isn't. That's why we have an article called Le Plateau-Mont-Royal, about the borough, and The Plateau, about the "community". Maybe such a compromise can be reached.

I just think we need to refer to the actual boroughs as part of Montreal, since that's what they are.--Larineso 01:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I would like a compromise too. I suggested an article about the borough (administrative stuff) and an article about the community (history, people, etc.). The borough article would be the same as now, while the community article would go at Name, Quebec. What do you think? -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
But there's no need for that when the borough is coterminous with the community. We've got the article The Plateau because Le Plateau-Mont-Royal includes several areas besides the Plateau (such as the McGill Ghetto and Mile End). But LaSalle the borough and LaSalle the community are coterminous. The cultural entity can be dealt with adequately in the article on the borough. There's no reason why we shouldn't deal with the government and the culture of the borough in the same place.
As for this:
The borough article would be the same as now, while the community article would go at Name, Quebec.
Are you seriously proposing that we would, in fact, have the articles at Gay Village, Quebec, or Pointe-Saint-Charles, Quebec, or Mile End, Quebec? That would seem to be the logical conclusion. - Montréalais 03:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Of course not, those are just neighbourhoods. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)\
Right back to the beginning -- how do we make that determination? How is Sainte-Geneviève a community and the Plateau not one? - Montréalais 04:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
It all depends on whether the community is a neighbourhood or something that is more than just a neighbourhood. What I use to decide, is I look at a map, as I have stated hundreds of times already. Not a detailed map of Montreal that names the neighbourhoods, but one at about 1:250,000. Saint-Genevieve appears on my map, and I can't find "the Plateau" anywhere. Obviously, since I have not yet mentioned anything about either community, you obviously know there is a difference as well, as you correctly predicted what I would say. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Indeed: because Sainte-Geneviève was a municipality 4 years ago and the Plateau was not. In other respects the Plateau is much more significant in culture and zeitgeist, as a major, coherent, widely known, and very culturally and architecturally distinctive urban area that has produced many of Canada's most important cultural workers; as opposed to a postage stamp in the darkest West Island with a cégep and not much room for anything else. Any distinction you'd care to draw in Sainte-Geneviève's favour reposes entirely on its legal status as of four years ago, which, of course, no longer exists.
That's the whole point. Now that these municipalities no longer exist, there is nothing distinguishing them from other Montreal neighbourhoods of similar size, legal status, or cultural importance. There is no presently extant reason whatsoever to draw a distinction in titling between those boroughs that have been municipalities recently, those boroughs composed of places that have been municipalities recently, and those boroughs that are former parts of the city of Montreal. They should be treated the same.
And unless you want to say "all coherent communities in Montreal should be syntaxed , Quebec" -- in which case you end up with The Plateau, Quebec -- or "all boroughs should be syntaxed , Quebec" -- in which case you end up with Villeray—Saint-Michel—Parc-Extension, Quebec -- there is no cause to subtitle any part of the City of Montreal with , Quebec apart from POV, tautology, anachronism, or some combination thereof. - Montréalais 06:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I think time will tell whether Saint-Genevieve turns into just a neighbourhood like the Plateau, however it is too soon to dictate that. My 2005 map shows its name, but no borders. In fact it names most (but not all) of the communities in Laval that have been annexed 35 years ago. Yet, it still does not show The Plateau. What I am getting at is, (former) municipal status is not the sole indicator of whether a place should be considered a community or not, but it is a very good one. Le Plateau has always been a neighbourhood, not a suburban unincorporated community, nor an urban formerly incorporated community. It is just a neighbourhood. -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
But what possible criteria could you be using to determine that? And please don't say your map -- the question then simply changes to what possible criteria they could be using. All I can presume is they're going by the former municipalities. Which are former municipalities. A former status is ipso facto irrelevant to naming these articles. - Montréalais 08:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. It's less straight forward than just being former municipalities, as I have already stated. -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. It is so unstraightforward, in fact, that it capsizes into POV. By contrast, adopting a single system for all Montreal boroughs is far more straightforward, q.e.d. - Montréalais 08:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I see your need for consistency among the boroughs, and I've already come up with a compromise. That doesn't take away from the obvious fact that places like LaSalle and Sainte-Genevieve are more just neighbourhoods. -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's highly non-obvious, since you refuse to define what you mean by "more [than] just neighbourhoods" that doesn't apply to a bunch of other districts too. - Montréalais 09:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Le Plateau is a neighbourhood though! Everyone knows that. Sainte-Genevevieve, has for historicial reason is not just a neighbourhood. These reasons may or may not be the fact it was a municipality, but the fact is there was once a time it was separated from the rest of Montreal by farms and whatnot, making it a distinct community. It hasn't been completely swallowed up yet. Le Plateau has always been just a neighbourhood. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The Plateau may have never been a distinct settlement, but pleanty of Montreal neighbourhoods were. The Mile End and Saint-Henri were both once separate towns separated from Montreal by "farms and whatnot". Now they're just neighbourhoods. So is Sainte-Genevieve; it was completely swallowed up long before 2002. Take a look, can you see were Sainte-Genevieve ends and Pierrefonds begins? - Farquard 18:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

It was never swallowed up by Montreal though, and Pierrefonds is not big enough to take away Stainte-Genevieve's status. It takes time for these things to happen, and in maybe 50 years, I am sure Sainte-Genevieve will just be a neighbourhood. It is still too soon, in my opinion to take away its distinct community status. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
And yet you continue to fail to explain just in what exactly consists its distinct community status, at present, that the Plateau and similar areas don't also share. You really need to be providing some reasons that use the present tense. - Montréalais 19:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
The Plateau does not have the historical basis of any sort- whether it was a rural community or a municipality and has always been a neighbourhood. Sainte-Genevieve, which always has the possibility of becoming just a neighbourhood in the distrant future, still has the historical separation present that distinguishes it from the rest of Montreal. This has already been set by a presedent for other Canadian cities. Take Toronto for example:

Or Ottawa:

Not all of these places were even municipalities, however they are all distinct communities, and are shown on maps as such.

However, there it could be argued that there is a fuzzy line, and that a place like Sainte-Genevieve should just be consisdered a neighbourhood. However, this is not what this is about. Places like LaSalle are not *just* neighbourhoods. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

In what way? Please use the present tense. You keep appealing to past status that is not relevant to what we should be doing now. Really, this shouldn't be difficult. And the case of Toronto is irrelevant to what we ought to be doing in Montreal. As I understand it, none of the places you cited are boroughs (or analagously) of Toronto. - Montréalais

Opps, edit conflict. Anyways here's what I was going to say:

The difference between Ottawa and Montreal is that the merged City of Ottawa includes many settlements that are distinct from Ottawa itself. Take a look at satellite photos of Barrhaven, Blackburn Hamlet, Blossom Park and Orleans. Now compare that to Sainte Genevieve, LaSalle, Outremont or Saint Leonard. Notice that the four Ottawa communities are surrounded by green space; you know, separated from the rest of Ottawa by farms and whatnot. Montreal however is entirely urbanized. There is no part of the city that is surrounded by green space. (Well, except at the western tip of the island, but they're going to demerge anyway.) Toronto is also entirely urbanized, and I would be very surprised to find any of the places you listed mentioned on a 1:250,000 map. The Ontario government doesn't have them on its official road map. If we're going to rely on maps, then they should all be moved. Let me repeat; there is no NPOV standard by which the Mile End or Saint Henri would be considered "just neighbourhoods" but LaSalle or Outremont would be considered "more than a neighbourhood". Therefore, there is no reason why one should be suffix with ", Quebec" while another should not. - Farquard 22:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC) 22:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
All the places I listed in Toronto are shown on my 1:250,000 map, in the same script as Sainte-Genevieve in Quebec. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
And all the boroughs I mention are shown in the same typeface in the Montreal borough map. Whoopty do. Will you please come up with a reason that has something to do with 1) the real world 2) as it presently exists, rather than a cartographer's impression of municipal status circa 2001, or nebulous handwringing about how one of two similar communities is a real community and the other one isn't? Or else could you drop it and let us get on with our lives? - Montréalais 00:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I have provided a solution to get this resolved, but if you won't compromise, I will continue to stand my ground. As I have stated, my map is not from 2001, but 2005. The municipal borders shown are from 2005. That's all I can say, as I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to get at. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to spell it out: You asserted that certain communities in the city of Montreal need to retain , Quebec, and not others. We asked you what your criteria were for making this determination. So far you have offered a total of two:

1) the fact that certain communities are "distinct communities" and others are mere "neighbourhoods," for which assertion you have provided no justification or criteria whatsoever, apart from the "farms and whatnot" bit, or a Justice Potteresque assertion that you know them when you see them, which you give no indication of even having done;

2) the fact that certain communities are marked with dots on a map you happen to have; we are therefore asked to accept this mapmaker's authority as the arbiter on article titling, which we are unwilling to do, since there seems to be no evidence as to what her criteria are.

Since criterion 1 is POV and insufficiently defined - we cannot tell exactly which communities by your definition ought to have Quebec after them - and criterion 2 is irrelevant and tautological, the others here have been forced to reject your position. - Montréalais 03:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I have not mentioned any dots of course, many of these places have their dots removed because they have been amalgamated, but the names still remain. To think that there is no difference between a place like Le Plateau and Sainte-Genevieve is perposterous. I have stated on numerous occaisons the differences, and it seems to me repeating them will just result in you boiling it down to something that sounds foolish, and entirely different from what I am getting at. I suggest, since you are unwilling to compromise, we get other users who are Canadian, but not living in Montreal or are from Montreal to comment, as it may seem to take away from the Pro-Montreal POV that thickens this discussion. If other Canadian users agree with you, then I will see to it that you get your way. But, I am just trying to plug consistency among all Canadian articles on communities, and you seem to have a problem with that. You have failed to even comment on any of my examples of how the system I follow is already in practice. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

"To think that there is no difference between a place like Le Plateau and Sainte-Genevieve is perposterous." Quite so: as I stated some time ago, the Plateau is a far more culturally significant, coherent, and well-known community. I thought this was your criterion, but apparently it is not, which leaves me at a loss.

You have stated no actual qualities that Sainte-Geneviève has and the Plateau does not have, at the present time, that renders the former suitable to have Quebec after it and the latter not. You have stated the distinction you are drawing in a number of ways. You make reference to a community vs. a mere neighbourhood (what is the criterion?); you refer to communities being "large enough to be considered independent communities" (but Sainte-Geneviève is much smaller than the Plateau); there is a dot on this map of yours for the one but not the other (which simply transfers the question to the mapmaker's criteria); a community is separated by "farmland or whatnot" (which is not the case for either Sainte-Geneviève or the Plateau, or any other area but Senneville).

I'm sorry if you believe this makes you sound foolish, but I really cannot find any other criteria you list. You say that Sainte-Geneviève must be followed by "Quebec" because it is a community; but none of your attempts to define "community" are satisfactory. I can only assume that this is due to unfamiliarity with the city. There is no shame in this, but it does strike me as arrogant to come in and inform everybody as to the nature of the urban, political, and social geography of a city in which you do not reside.

I also confess I do not see what reason you could have for thinking that people from outside Montreal are better placed to decide how articles on Montreal should be arranged.

As for your argument on consistency, I am not in a position to compare our situation to the communities you mention. We are discussing 27 very well-defined, specific, named, bounded, and established sub-units of a city. It behooves us to have all those units working in the same way. I do not know the political or geographical status of the communities you mention, therefore I am not in a position to say whether or not they are comparable to Montreal boroughs. I don't even know if Toronto has boroughs, or any analogous sub-municipal structure. However, Montreal boroughs are comparable to one another, and should be treated the same way as one another. - Montréalais 03:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hull, Quebec moved to Hull (Gatineau)!???? You guys have crossed the line, I'm calling the cops! -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I think this is very stupid, it should be Hull, Quebec not Hull (Gatineau). --20px Spinboy 04:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Montreal is one thing, but Hull and Aylmer which have been moved, are in my backyard, and I can say these recent moves are idiotic at best (no offence). -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Could we stay on topic here, and/or create a new page for that discussion, please? We are discussing Montreal here, not Gatineau. - Montréalais 04:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

It's obviously the same deal. Listen, the towns are still on the 2005 map. I can actually reference the map. You may not like all of my other explanations, but you cannot argue with what the map says. If you want to have a separate article for LaSalle (the borough) for the government of LaSalle or whatever, I think that would be a great idea. Such things are notable, check out the City of Ottawa article. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Why exactly is your map more authoritative than the Official Government of Ontario Road Map? - Farquard 04:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

It goes into more detail. I can remember looking at that darn "Official Government" map when I was younger for "Don Mills, Ontario" and could not find it. It is hopeless. Don Mills of course was never a municipality, but it was used as the address for Global TV -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Maclean25, Zhatt and Luigizanasi comment[edit]

As a late-comer, and someone who didn't read the entire conversation, and someone who has been to Montreal twice (you suck at driving), I agree with Earl Andrew. I believe place names should be attached to the next level of authority. LaSalle, Montreal North, Mount Royal, etc. do not exist because Montreal says so. They exist because Quebec says so. Quebec is the province and the province controls local governments. recognize. Quebec has a constitutional right to exist, Montreal does not. The fact that the borough is in Montreal is addressed in the article so the name should be left to conform with all the other place names in Canada. maclean25 05:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

"LaSalle, Montreal North, Mount Royal, etc. do not exist because Montreal says so. They exist because Quebec says so."
This is a fairly peculiar definition of "next level of authority." AFAIK, Montreal's boroughs do not interact directly with the provincial level of government the same way that the city of Montreal does. They're creatures with their own level of government subordinate to that of the city of Montreal, not on a par with it; borough mayors are in general city councillors.
I'm also not sure which level of government has authority over creating boroughs (I'm not sure it's the province), but let that go.
Be that as it may, would this mean, then, that we would have article titles such as Le Sud-Ouest, Quebec or Villeray—Saint-Michel—Parc-Extension, Quebec?
As a side issue, how would we name Ville-Marie (Montreal), being as how there's a municipality known as Ville-Marie, Quebec? - Montréalais 05:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't want to get too involved so I'll just say that I'd personally only use "(Montreal)" or ", Quebec" if disambiguation is needed. If disambiguation is needed I would go with the ", Quebec" format unless there was another well known municipality in the Provence. Then I would go with the "(Montreal)" format. I might even go far as to use "(Montreal), Quebec", but that's a bit redundant. Just bring it down to the lowest common denominator. I like to have conformity in "suits" too, but it's more important to rid of ambiguity.
Zhatt 05:22, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
The original measure was to use only the borough's name (Villeray–Saint-Michel–Parc-Extension or Lachine), if necessary disambiguating with (Montreal) (Ville-Marie (Montreal) or LaSalle (Montreal)). - Montréalais 05:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Zhatt, that works in theory, but for consistency reasons we should always have provincial indicators after a community name. Of couse, it is uneccesary for the major cities. I suggest we move the borough articles that have the same names as communities to something like LaSalle (borough) and have that article talk about the administration of the borough, while we get LaSalle, Quebec as an article on the history and geography of the community. I think this is a good compromise, and I hope the Montrealers will accept, as it is the only compromise I can agree with right now. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Are you planning on responding to the long post I made before the Gatineau stuff? It gives several reasons why the boundaries of "community" are way too fuzzy to make this practical. And there is no reason to have more than one article on a given borough. - Montréalais 16:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

As someone who was born and grew up in Montreal, maybe I shouldn't be putting my two cents' worth (or is it gasoline on the fire?), but here goes:

Other merged muncipalities/boroughs in Quebec also need to be treated consistently: See e.g.Saguenay, Quebec, where the component boroughs are still Chicoutimi, Quebec, Jonquière, Quebec, Laterrière, Quebec (needs a translation & major cleanup), etc. I am not too hung up about being consistent with Ontario or Nova Scotia municipal reorganizations, as each was done differently.
I would propose using XXXX borough, Quebec (no parantheses) so that people know more or less where they are. The basic logic is that (1) people should immediately realize that we are no longer talking about a municipality, and (2) that it follows the same scheme as the rest of communties in wikipedia. Former municipalities that are not coterminous with a borough could have articles on their own if warranted. So if someone wants to write an article on Ville Saint-Michel, let them go for it.
Of course, create redirects for every possible permutation and combination.

- Luigizanasi 18:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I could see this. The only problems I could see are that:

  1. L'Île-Bizard—Sainte-Geneviève—Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue is quite long enough without making it L'Île-Bizard—Sainte-Geneviève—Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue borough, Quebec;
  2. saying "borough, Quebec" makes it sound like these are boroughs of Quebec City, or some type of independent municipality called a "borough" (in the same sense that certain other regions have "borough" as a type of municipality). - Montréalais 20:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
1. On the length issue, it's not much worse (or better) than:
Cape St. George-Petit Jardin-Grand Jardin-De Grau-Marches Point-Loretto, Newfoundland
See [1]. At some point, we will have articles on all of these.
2. Using the "XXX, State/Province" form is the usual Wikipedia convention for place names in federal states, so I don't think that it would bring confusion, no more than say Redmond, Washington confuses people into thinking it's a borough of Washington, D.C.. On the other hand, it's true that people might think that, at first glance, it is a certain type of independent municipality. However, using the word borough for subdivisions of New York City does not seem to cause people to assume that it is a problem e.g. Bronx, Manhattan. Or for London for that matter. Anyway, the different uses of borough are well explained in the borough article. Of course, I might have shot myself in the foot there, as the New York borough articles do not have "borough" in the title. On the other hand, the London boroughs are in the style of e.g. London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, which is another option for Montreal and the other Quebec "mega"-cities.
I don't have particular hang-ups on this issue, although I have to admit that Hull (Gatineau) sounds weird to me too, or for that matter referring to Saguenay as a city rather than a river or region. Very few people outside Quebec would think of Gatineau or Saguenay as major cities. I am just suggesting a compromise and would be happy with anything as long as someone researching a relevant issue could find the information, which is what Wikipedia is ultimately about.
Luigizanasi 23:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's remember that New York boroughs and Montreal boroughs are different in that the boroughs of New York are like counties, which cannot be said about Montreal's boroughs. :) -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think length is really a problem. At any rate the three longest borough names (L'Île-Bizard—Sainte-Geneviève—Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue; Côte-Saint-Luc—Hampstead—Montréal-Ouest; Rivière-des-Prairies—Pointe-aux-Trembles—Montréal-Est) will be gone in five mounths anyway. However I agree with Montréalais that writing ", Quebec" makes it sound as though we're talking about municipalities called boroughs like they have in England and Pennsylvania, whereas boroughs that are part of cities are either eg London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham or simply Manhattan. I wouldn't object to LaSalle Borough or Montreal Borough of LaSalle, although I don't see any perticular reason why either would be preferable to LaSalle (Montreal). - Farquard 02:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. London's boroughs are styled "London Borough of ...". New York City's boroughs are usually just called Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, The Bronks, and Staten Island. Toronto has no boroughs. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

So, thus far we have shown that every major city has it's own way of naming boroughs. Should we use NYC as an example? No, because its boroughs are major urban settlements in and of themselves.

Should we use London as an example? No, because London's naming is affected by British historical considerations, etc... (London, of course, being vastly older than MTL, NYC, or TO).

Should we use Toronto as an example? No, because it has no boroughs (again, correct me if I'm wrong).

By the way, "borough", in Montreal (and throughout Quebec) means an administrative division within a city. Montreal is a city. It's 27 boroughs are not municipalities. The Quebec government does not recognize them as independant cities/municipalities.

It is very clear in Montreal's organization: boroughs are divisions of the city. The boroughs are not cities in and of themselves. I am just stating this because the idea/definition of 'borough' varies.

The article about the city of Gatineau makes no mention of "boroughs", nor does the city's website. However, the Quebec City article discusses that city's boroughs (it is organized much like Montreal).

Quebec City's boroughs are mostly just the name of the borough, not followed by ",Quebec". Those in need of disambiguation or which were already part of the city are followed by "(Quebec City)".

Each province has handled its municipal mergers differently. Gatineau is organized differently for many reasons, from its residents' unwillingness to merge (allowing them to keep their old municipality name assuages this) to the city's special status as a de facto part of Canada's capital.

Also, the city of Gatineau is a minor one internationally, while Quebec City is well-known. As for those who say the people who share my views are biased towards Montreal, I have two things to say. Firstly, every major city is entitled to leeway to have it's articles more representative of the actual local reality. Secondly, The current treating of Montreal (and an attempt to move all its boroughs to "(Montreal)") is continuous with the treatment of Quebec City articles. Note that, since the differences in mergers are provincial (Gatineau is an exception), and not national, that a provincial standard should be used, not a national one.

For all these reasons, I believe we should follow the example of Quebec City. It is in Quebec (someone else already said that Municipal reorganization varied between Provinces), and is closest in stature to Montreal. Please let me know what you think.--Larineso 03:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by the Quebec City boroughs? Their pages were all moved recently to be just like the Montreal boroughs.

My feeling is this: Montreal is part of Canada, and therefore its communities, whether boroughs or not should use the same name standards as the rest of the country. Places like LaSalle, for example should be at LaSalle, Quebec because it is a community in Quebec. It also happens to be a borough. Ok fine. I have suggested for the borough related discussion, that a new page be created for discussion on the borough itself like the article City of Ottawa discusses just the administrative section on Ottawa, and the main article Ottawa discusses the history, and cultural significance of the city. Boroughs, are kind of like electoral districts in this sense, as they only exist for administrative regions. We do have articles on electoral districts as well. And the naming of some boroughs is not unlike some district names what with the em dashes and all. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Another proposal[edit]

Okay. Here. I have another proposal.

A lot of this has turned on a difficulty with defining a "separate settlement." I've noticed in a lot of cases (not involving boroughs), a "populated place" will be defined independently of the larger municipality in whose territory it's located, because it's an isolated cluster of settlement that isn't connected by urban fabric.

In some cities in Quebec (such as Gatineau or Saguenay), the boroughs are actually settlements that are distinct spatially -- they are indeed divided (as Earl put it) by farms and whatnot. In other cities (such as Montreal or Quebec City), most of the boroughs are not spatially separate settlements -- they are part of a continuous urban fabric such that you do not pass out of a built-up area and into another one on your way from borough to borough within the city.

Perhaps we could agree on a standard. The following areas receive a name followed by the province:

  1. independent municipalities;
  2. boroughs or other settlements, in the territory of a larger municipality, that are spatially isolated from other settlements.

Boroughs or neighbourhoods that are not spatially isolated from the rest of the built-up area -- whether or not they used to be independent municipalities -- would not receive a provincial suffix. (They would receive (Montreal) or (Quebec City) only as needed for disamb.) This would essentially be Montreal and Quebec City.

Consistency would be maintained: we don't use provincial suffixes for places that are parts of cities, and we do use provincial suffixes for places that are isolated settlements that happen to be part of larger municipalities. (I would note too that a lot of the communities in northern Quebec are part of municipalities that cover gigantic swaths of territory, and I don't think anyone is opposed to those settlements retaining the provincial suffix.)

We might argue over marginal cases I haven't thought of, but it's far easier to say whether or not a community is spatially isolated than whether or not it's a real community in some other sense. It's a criterion anyone can apply.

The upshot: We get Lachine and LaSalle (Montreal) alongside Ahuntsic-Cartierville, with Limoilou and La Cité (Quebec City) into the bargain, because those are non-independent sections of continuous urban areas. You get Hull, Quebec, Jonquière, Quebec (as well as Shipshaw, Quebec and so forth), because those are spatially isolated populated places.

Naturally, when the various towns become independent municipalities again, they will [still] be at Senneville, Quebec and so forth; articles on no longer extant boroughs, such as Beaconsfield—Baie-d'Urfé, could stay where they are. Just as naturally, we will have redirects à go-go.

Does that sound acceptable? - Montréalais 13:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

To me, it does. However, not entirely. I think the main point to consider here is What is a borough?
A borough, in reference to Quebec City and Montreal, is not in any way independant. It is a part of the city itself. All of the areas which are considered "boroughs" are entirely part of Montreal. They are in no way independant or autonomous.
This situation cannot be compared to any other city except for Quebec City.
Why must Quebec City and Montreal use the standards set by other places? These standards do not accommodate boroughs, which are nothing more than divisions of a city.
Let me say that in other words: The city of Montreal currently comprises a large part of the Island of Montreal. Some parts of the current city were independant in the past. They are not any longer. The city today reaches from East to West (with some holes). All of this territory is the City of Montreal and nothing more.
The City of Montreal happens to be further subdivided into "boroughs". These are nothing more than lines arbitrarily drawn over the city. Yhey in no way reflect "communities" or municipalities. They are nothing more than glorified electoral districts.
The current boroughs are in no way representative of the former municipalities that joined Montreal. Some happen to be co-terminous with these former municipalities (which, please note no longer exist), however many of the boroughs are either a collection of former municipalities or "communities", or they were never sepaprate from Montreal.
To call Lasalle a "community" is ridiculous. Why is it a community? Are you insinuating that the people of Lasalle somehow know each other? Do they share common interests? I doubt that many residents of Lasalle have their lives determined by their "community".
What I mean is, a community is self-contained. All of the areas in Montreal are linked. You don't live your whole life in one borough like you would live your whole life in Saint Foy (or even Westmount for that matter). Saint Leonard isn't a cute little small town on the coast of Maine. It is a collection of 1960s housing devellopments with a border drawn around them in a roughly square shape. Hardly a "community".
A community is an area with a shared heritage, micro-culture, etc.. basically, a micro-chosm of society. The Plateau is very much a community. It has spawned many of Canada's greatest writers, artists, and culturalists. It is a centre for counter-culture and bohemian lifestyle. It has an atmosphere all its own.
Driving into Saint Leonard from Montreal, just about the only difference is the colour of the Street Signs.
So, why should Saint Leonard be considered a community when the Plateau is "nothing more than a neighborhood"? On the contrary, Lasalle is nothing more than a neighborhood. The Plateau is a city unto itself.
Should Ahunsic be a community? Saint Michel? Are these "nothing more than neighborhoods"? You say we all recognize "communities" when we see them, but this is untrue. We are disagreeing right now. I see The Plateau as a true community, and Lasalle, Saint Leonard, and other boroughs as nothing more than neighborhoods. You see exactly the reverse.
However, your view is wrong for a simple reason. The citizens of the former municipalities voted to join Montreal. This obviously means that they feel part of Montreal. In municipalities where the feel of a true "community" existed, the referendums led to separation. Can you imagine calling Westmount nothing more than a neighborhood? No. And I am not. Quite soon, all those boroughs whose citizens felt different enough from Montreal will have separated. This is why we want to leave these as ", Quebec". The remainder have voted to stay in Montreal. They have voted to be in Montreal. Not to be almost in Montreal. Thus, these areas should be defined as "(Montreal)".
Let me also say that I find your tone quite patronizing. You say we are biased because we live in Montreal. I say, rather, that we are the best people to consult because we live in the boroughs in question! I live in Saint Leonard, and I can tell you that anyone who thinks we are somehow a "community" is sorely mistaken.
Furthermore, you are quite biased yourselves. You claim that since we are natives, we obviously can't have a say. You also continually mention separatism and claim that we are trying to be difficult or different from the rest of Canada. You felt a need to remind us that Montreal is in Canada. You are quite correct. Montreal is in Canada just as Lasalle is in Montreal. And by the way, I know quite well what country I'm in, but thank you for clarifying.
It seems that just because we have a different (better) way of doing something, you think we (as Quebecers) are being "difficult". This is typical and expected. However, don't be so hypocritical as to say we are being unfair!
Maybe you should get off your high horse and realize that you are no more well-equiped to decide or more neutral than we, and perhaps you could try to talk to me like an adult, not like a whiny four year old. Thank you. —Larineso 16:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

While I'm glad to see you try and compomise, it doesn't fix the actual original problem. It's not just "farms and whatnot" that separate a community from another. There is also history and culture. Of course, when a signigant time as passed, a community will sort of disappear and become a neighbourhood. While the boroughs of Montreal are connected by urban sprawl, shall we say- they are separated by their independent histories and make-up. Being a (former) municipilaty certainly defines this, but as I said it is not exclusive. It's kind of like Toronto. Remember all those communities I listed with a provincial suffix used? They have not been municipalities in years, but they still share a sense of community. However someplaces like City View, and New Edinburgh in Ottawa for example were only municipalities for a short period of time, and no one would say they were too distinct from the rest of the city, and are therefore neighbourhoods. But Vanier, Ontario and Rockcliffe Park, Ontario are connected urbanly, but certainly have different histories and signifigance, and should still have a provincial suffix. Perhaps in 50 years they will lose this, and most people will just think of Vanier as a neighbourhood. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Earl, I'm getting slightly impatient. We are not talking about Ottawa. We are talking about Montreal. Why do you presume to describe the inmost sentiments of the residents of LaSalle and suchlike, when you are not familiar with them? Why do you assume it must be completely analogous to living in Toronto or Ottawa or wherever?
I currently reside in the Sud-Ouest and I'm contemplating moving to Verdun. In no way do I, or anyone else picturing a similar move, think of it as "leaving Montreal" or "moving to a new community" or anything of the sort. It's just moving to another district of the city. Nor would I, or anyone, have thought this even before 2002.
People often have an attachment to their community but the same could be said for the residents of any of Montreal's communities such as the Plateau, Saint-Henri (to which many are especially fiercely devoted), etc.
I would really appreciate it if you would give any basis for your statements whatsoever. I get the feeling you are not paying any attention to the questions of those who are trying to clarify your beliefs and their origins, and discounting all of the evidence they are bringing to the table. - Montréalais 20:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Let me put it this way; I don't know enough about the Ottawa area to say weather Vanier or Aylmer is any more of a community than New Edinburgh or Pointe-Gatineau. If you say they are than I believe you. But I've lived in the Montreal area my entire life. More specifically I lived in Saint-Laurent for over eight years and coming up on four now in Snowdon. I would not hestitate to say that Snowdon has more of a disinct culture than Saint-Laurent. POV? Of course, but it would be equally POV (and downwright inaccurate) to say that Saint-Laurent is a community and Snowdon is not. As for your map, may I ask how exactly you think they decide which communities to list? Do they perform a detailed sociallogical study, or maybe a comprehensive statistical analysis, and decide that Saint-Laurent meets certain objective criteria for a community whereas Snowdon does not? Or do they say "Hey, Saint-Laurent was a city five years ago, maybe people will be looking for it on map"? - Farquard 21:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, and maybe they will be looking for it on Wikipedia? I understand where you Montrealers are coming from, but I do happen to know a lot about Montreal, and Quebec. You dont have to live there to understand the city. What I do have, is an unbiased opinion on the city, just because I don't live there. Obviously, civic pride has something to do with how you refuse to accept the parameters set by other Canadian cities. I think maps are a very good way to determine what places are communities, and what places are just neighbourhoods. I mean, they are sourcable information. If you cant take my word for it, just look at a map. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
That statement is ridiculous! If someone is looking for Ville Saint Laurent on Wikipedia, they will find it and be REDIRECTED to Saint-Laurent (Montreal). If your main concern is people not finding what they are looking for, then worry not. Redirects exist to get people to what they are looking for.
What concerns me is the fact that I wrote an extensive comment stating many reasons why the boroughs of Montreal should be followed by "(Montreal)", and you completely ignored it. You, on the other hand, have given no logical, rational, clear, and objective criteria whatsoever for deciding what should be followed by ", Quebec". How is it helpful to this discussion to just completely ignore the other contributors? Is this, too, some Canada-wide "standard" behaviour that only the petty "Montrealers" are not following?
Your contention that "civic" pride is standing in the way of an objective decision is utter nonsense! If anything, your national pride is standing in the way of you recognizing that Montreal's boroughs are a different type of subdivision from other subdivisions in Canadian cities. Instead of accommodating this distinction, you ignore it. You have only contested the logical process by which this commnunity (popular word right now) came to this concensus, without offering any sort of logical criteria yourself! If you cannot offer some other way to do things besides you yourself haphazardly deciding what is a "community" and what is a "mere meighborhood", then I'm afraid we will have to ignore your objections. They are only standing in the way of concensus but not offering any solution.
As we have all stated, the idea of "communities" on the Island of Montreal is almost non-existent. The best indicator we have of which areas consider themselves "communities" is that they are the ones who voted to remove themselves from the amalgamation. I would not consider moving from Saint Leonard to Saint Laurent (effectively from one end of the city to the other) as anything more than moving some furniture and dealing with different traffic in a different direction every morning. I would definitely not think of it as changing "communities".
You continually restate the same argument, and we continually disprove it. Are you trying to be like the U.S. in the softwood lumber dispute? Because that's how you are acting. If you continue to hold up a decision without offering any solution or compromise, then I will take this to dispute resolution myself. —Larineso 22:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
What I do have, is an unbiased opinion on the city, just because I don't live there.

Not living here doesn't make your opinion unbiased. It makes it uninformed. You have systematically ignored all our attempts to actually inform you as to what the situation is in the real world. After a certain time, if you persist in such behaviour, other Wikipedians are likely to decide that allotting consideration to your objections is teaching the proverbial pig to sing.

If you cant take my word for it, just look at a map.

This is the umpteenth time you have repeated this, and you have failed to deal with the logical problem with this: by what process did the mapmaker arrive at the decisions she made?

Incidentally, as soon as you made the objection, I did, indeed, look at a map. It featured a dot for every municipality on the island of Montreal, tempore 2001. So I repeat what Farquard said: either the mapmaker did some kind of intensive study that determined that, contrary to the experience of everybody who lives here, all and only the municipalities that were merged in 2001 are really "communities" according to some nebulous set of criteria according to which the likes of Sainte-Geneviève is an burgeoning regional centre and the Plateau is a one-horse quartier — or else she simply put down all the municipalities extant in 2001, and the map expresses no opinion on "communityhood" whatever. I know where I'd lay my money. - Montréalais 04:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I take offense to the statements made that I am uninformed of Montreal. I am very informed of the city, you have no right to say otherwise, just because I dont live there. I also take offense to the statement that I am not trying to compromise. I was the first one to come up with a compromise, and I think it is a very good one. In fact, I plan on implementing in the near future. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Really? Will you be so kind as to share some information on the nature of your no doubt vast acquaintance therewith? I ask only because the Montreal with which you supposedly have experience bears no relationship to that inhabited by any of the native or long-term Montrealers who have participated in this discussion, and you have so far otherwise failed to list the foundations of your various opinions about communityhood vs. neighbourhood, apart from your map. An answer to this question would be a pleasant change of pace.
I'm not surprised to learn that you think the "compromise" you came up with is good. The rest of us do not. And you will not arrogate to yourself the authority to do any such thing. - Montréalais 06:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
WHAT COMPROMISE?! A compromise means that it, at least in part, pleases everyone or most of the people involved. Your idea is to become some god-like figure meeting-out decisions on what is and what isn't a "community"! At least if we were privy to the logical, rational, and clearly-defined criteria you use, we could make an informed argument. Or perhaps there is no rationale to your "compromise"? This is a mockery. It is a waste of my time, and the time of everyone involved. It's ridiculous to think that I have to sit here and argue with you because you refuse to give any rational qualities of a "community"! You ignore everything anyone else says and just repeat the same thing every time. You think you're going to be "implementing" your little power-trip unilaterally any time soon, think again. —Larineso 17:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
You guys have failed to come up with a compromise. The one that I have provided should make everyone happy, but you guys have to be fickle. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I did compromise, which you acknowledged, offering a simple, easily verifiable, factual, and universally applicable criterion that will yield a sensible result, when I suggested going by spatial separation (under the heading Another proposal).
You, however, were not interested in compromise, and continued to hammer your nebulous and undefined criteria. I cannot accept an unverifiable and POV basis for naming, nor article names that are based on an understanding of Montreal that is simply false. I'm sorry; if you were right, I would agree with you. - Montréalais 18:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I've posted this on Wikipedia:Requests for comment (under History and geography) and placed a brief summery at the top. Hopefully we can get some outside opions on this instead of just talking in circles. - Farquard 04:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Montrealais, your compromise was not a compromise, because it didn't benefit my side of the argument at all. It was the status quo. My compromise should benefit both your side, and mine. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
It did benefit your side of the argument, since you said that it would be foolish to use names such as Hull (Gatineau) instead of Hull, Quebec, and similarly. I agree and therefore I altered my proposal to say that communities that are spatially separate would retain the provincial suffix.
In the matter of Montreal boroughs, our positions are entirely contrary to one another's. The only way to "compromise" in the way that you request would therefore be to abandon my position altogether. - Montréalais 05:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, no outside comments in a week and a half. I guess the next step is to hold a survey and see if that gets us anywhere. - Farquard 19:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Test