Talk:Saint-Laurent (electoral district)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Saint-Laurent—Cartierville)
Jump to: navigation, search

Requested move 12 August 2015[edit]

The following is a closed 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 moved, as proposed. --BDD (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Saint-Laurent—CartiervilleSaint-Laurent (electoral district) – Election writ has been dropped, riding has a new name. FUNgus guy (talk) 04:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose it would have to be Saint-Laurent (federal electoral district) because the proposed title fails WP:PRECISE there being a Saint-Laurent (provincial electoral district); the general consensus of Wikipedia, on not having ambiguous disambiguation overrides whatever WP:LOCALCONSENSUS has defacto evolved by not discussing why we should be using ambiguous disambiguation. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: this was moved (to the proposed title), while the RM was ongoing. I've restored the status quo and would ask that people wait for an uninvolved closer to make a decision. Jenks24 (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment: Moving these articles back to their old names is quite obnoxious, considering we are now well into the 2015 election campaign, and these ridings are no longer known by their old names. Also, I support moving the article immediately. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
      • It's a bit rich for you to call me obnoxious when I've cleaned up at least half a dozen of your moves in the last two days, moving talk pages which you forgot, closing the actual RM discussions, and in two cases having to undelete significant chunks of merged history to avoid attribution problems. In each case I checked the talk page and where no one had opposed I tidied up and closed the discussion, but in two(?) cases an editor had made a good faith objection so I moved the article back. It's not fair for you to use the admin bit to override the concerns of 67.70.32.190 – he or she has made a reasonable case and deserves a fair hearing from an impartial closer. Jenks24 (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Considering how we disambiguate federal electoral district titles is standard policy, I did not consider the case made by the anon user to be reasonable in the least. He or she is also being obnoxious, holding things up as we ready the new riding articles for the election. However, I would like apologize for me inconveniencing you on these page moves. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
          • Thanks. My tone in my previous comment was probably needlessly antagonistic, so I apologise for that. This RM will reach the backlog by tomorrow so should hopefully be closed soon. I'll add, for the benefit of the closer, that I have no particular objection to the proposed move. Jenks24 (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
            • No need to apologize, your antagonism was warranted considering the language I used. ;-) -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, after some further consideration. While I think the IP makes a decent point, in that "partial primary topics" are generally undesirable – if we have decided something is ambiguous enough to require parentheses then what's in the parens should normally be completely unambiguous. However, it's clear that the proposed title is the standard practice for Canadian electoral districts and I don't think a single out of the way talk page is the right place to challenge it. It is a discussion worth having, probably with an RfC at somewhere like WP:CANTALK, but in the meantime it makes most sense to follow the standard practice. Jenks24 (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.