This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montreal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Montreal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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 126.96.36.199 – 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)
Comment: Have we reached a decision yet? I'd like to move this page now. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:30, 31 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.