Talk:Canadian Energy Regulator
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Merger proposal
[edit]I propose to merge National Energy Board into Canadian Energy Regulator. I think that the content in the National Energy Board article can easily be explained in the context of the renamed Canadian Energy Regulator, and the Canadian Energy Regulator article is of a reasonable size that the merging of National Energy Board will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Note that I previously proposed moving Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency into Impact Assessment Agency (Canada), which passed without objection, but that my move proposal for National Energy Board to Canadian Energy Regulator was shunted by a single objection and closed too soon.
I think that it makes sense to have only one article page, chiefly because Canadian Energy Regulator is not a new regulatory agency; it was just a legislative renaming of National Energy Board. Thanks. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Added Comment from Nominator and Original Move Proponent: Note that Canadian Energy Regulator would be the destination page. ---Doug Mehus (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- It is a new energy regulator. The old NEB was too powerful, and that's why the CER has less power. The IAA has the balance of NEB power. Look in the legislation, it's all there in black and white. This discussion is kind of like when Czekoslovakia split up into Czech Republic and Slovakia. Other person wants to remain trapped in the past. Magnovvig (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Magnovvig, No, it's not about that. It's about why keep two stub- or start-class articles when one better article would do? Also, ultimately, it is the same regulator, but one which was dramatically overhauled by legislation. Do I think it was a good move? Probably. Overdue? Most likely. But I just don't think we need to keep stub- or start-class organization articles when one will do. I am totally fine if you want to remove unnecessary verbiage from National Energy Board as part of the merge. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Magnovvig, Also, we need to consider users' needs here, too, whereby they may be searching for the national energy regulator and come across two articles (neither of which is even middling-level of quality). They will be confused and keeping two articles adds to their confusion. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Magnovvig, One idea: Clean up National Energy Board article and merge it into a new Historical origins section of Canadian Energy Regulator. That way, the lede and current items will be prominently featured above the fold. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- I strongly suggest that this article remains as a separate article. The NEB has great historical importance to the Canadian energy industry. Its organization, administration, mandate, approach, and composition differ considerably from the Canadian Energy Regulator. For historians interested in Canadian economy and energy policies, etc, it is of great use to have two articles. This one can be improved over time as new research analyzing its role and impact, emerge.Oceanflynn (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)