Jump to content

Talk:Calgary-Fish Creek

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Calgary—Fish Creek)

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 move to hyphenated names. 117Avenue (talk) 08:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– A user named 117Avenue has taken it upon himself to move articles to a longer dashed name violating Wikipedia:Article Names and violating the This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus. part of MOS:Dash

These articles have literally been existing for years. They use the proper name that is mandated by the Government of Alberta and the dash differentiates between legal name of some ridings that have longer dash in the proper name like Calgary—Nose Hill, example there is also Calgary-Nose Hill which is a completely different article. Some ridings have both dashes in there proper names like Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. This shouldn't be monkeyed with and they should be all be moved back to the way they're supposed to be.

This was discussed here in the relevant Electoral Districts in Canada project a long time ago Wikipedia:WikiProject_Electoral_districts_in_Canada#Em-dash_use and the general feeling is that things ought best to be left alone and they have been left alone until now for about 8 years. Þadius (talk) 06:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, and support the move of the rest to the proper em dash usage. You are ignoring the rest of MOS:DASH, I think it is quite clear that we don't use hyphens in article titles. A hundred or so articles isn't an "occasional exception", this is a large series of articles, that need to follow the MOS. I don't think this has been "left alone" for the past 8 years, all the federal ridings have been moved since then. This move will also align these article with the federal style. Arguing that Calgary—Nose Hill and Calgary-Nose Hill are completely different, perpetuates the "fact" that hyphens are acceptable. As stated on -, the hyphen is only a keyboard button, and not intended to be used in proper grammar. I don't see you having a case against MOS:DASH. Also, why weren't you this vocal when I first brought it up? 117Avenue (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The em-dash is a federal standard, not a provincial one; a district represented in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta is properly and correctly named Calgary-Nose Hill, regardless of the fact that the overlapping district in the Canadian House of Commons is named Calgary—Nose Hill, because the hyphen is the form that Elections Alberta actually uses to name the provincial district. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So we should be using en dashes then. 117Avenue (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This has come up before. What typography is used by the most typo-geeky sources, in this case the printers who published the enabling legislation? That is the proper "spelling", regardless of the opinions of a small group of WP editors at one MOS sub-page. Government printers actually do pay attention to thia sort of thing. Franamax (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like it or not, em-dashes are part of the proper names of some Canadian federal electoral districts. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are proper offical names and the use " — " is appropriate in toponymy to put two entities' names together, since one of the two may already have one or several " - " in its name. That's the rule used by Elections Canada to name its ridings, often created by the merging of two old ridings. I don't see why we would use a different name on Wikipedia; that wouldn't make sense at all. Amqui (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about a federal district named by Elections Canada; it's about a provincial district named by Elections Alberta. The proper official names of provincial electoral districts in Alberta don't have em-dashes in them. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref ? Amqui (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first one in the article? Franamax (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The em-dash is a federal standard, which applies because of the unique circumstances of federal district naming (i.e. the fact that there's a need to use both short and long dashes in electoral district names for distinct purposes.) However, that convention doesn't necessarily carry over to provincial electoral districts, which are properly named however the province in question chooses to name them, regardless of the federal convention. The available evidence is that Elections Alberta uses hyphens, not em-dashes, to name electoral districts represented in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, and accordingly the provincial districts are correctly named with hyphens and should not be moved to fit a naming convention that doesn't apply to them. Support move back to the hyphenated title per nom. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Bearcat. I know the federal ridings use emdashes, but I'm not aware of the Alberta provincial ridings adopting the same format. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – even if certain government publications have a weird style, the WP style would be to use an en dash. If we're not going to do that, then it hardly matters which of two strangely wrong-looking punctuations we pick. Dicklyon (talk) 06:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are proper names with authoritative naming authorities. We shouldn't be imposing our own ortographic conventions, or correcting the relevant authoritative sources. (which means I support moving to the dashes used in government sources) --Enric Naval (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The titles should use the en dash, not hyphens or em dashes. I don't see how this is any different than other parts of the MOS like MOS:ALLCAPS, where Wikipedia's style is used regardless of the source style. — Bility (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to hyphenated titles, per Bearcat. This whole request is backwards, the moves away from the correct version should all have been reversed per BRD. The enabling legislation clearly does not use an em-dash, and appears to use a hyphen. This is the official and only definition of the names. As far as a mere stylistic choice, this related discussion shows that the choice is made very seriously (read at 22:58 3 Feb 2011 and the "Style comments" collapse box contents) - this is not some "weird" style, it is standard-setting convention. Maybe we should ask the QP Office in Alberta what "weird" style they use and how they feel about Wikipedia correcting their little errors? Franamax (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Every character is chosen seriously? Then tell me, is it Leduc Beaumont or Leduc-Beaumont, Dunvegan-Central-Peace-Notley or Dunvegan-Central Peace-Notley? Need I remind you that a hyphen is a key on a keyboard, it is easy to type without thinking about it. Also, I am no longer advocating the em dash, but the en dash. 117Avenue (talk) 06:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What did I just say? Maybe we should ask the Queen's Printer. What does the official source say? Since you've now resorted to that stale argument about how people using hyphens are just lazy (or presumably stupid) as opposed to the amateur editors at WP:MOS who are all-knowing, can I point out that you are comparing HTML index pages to PDFs? Who do you think would be more careless, the people making the website or the people making the actual documents? Please be serious about this rather than digging deep to cling to your failed premise. Franamax (talk) 06:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That index page also has "BATTLE_RIVER-WAINWRIGHT" ;-) Support as per Bearcat. Modal Jig (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And hang on a second here 117Avenue, if you're now saying that your bold moves were a mistake, then the answer is simple: revert your own edits back to the original names, close this RM and open a new one if you want to use an en-dash. That's called collaborative editing. Franamax (talk) 06:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't proper procedure to move pages during a move discussion, and it would be impolite to ask everyone to log their comments again in a separate discussion. I would hope that a move discussion can come up with a new naming convention, regardless of what the original move request was. 117Avenue (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd just like to post this link to the text of the official bill of the Electoral Divisions Act 2010 from the Legislative Assembly of Alberta which was the most recent passed by the Assembly. The names on the bill in pages 3 and 4 clearly have hyphens in the name.--Þadius (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hyphens in the "official" list, well if we can all agree that the official name from the source trumps our own guideline, then I'll have to learn to live with it (after learning to live with MOS:DASH). We now have a naming convention decision to point to, for the future users who question the names, as I feel there has been enough discussion, and points from the opposition. 117Avenue (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you had cared about our own MOS:DASH guidelines, you would have used en dashes. The hyphen is certainly preferable to the em dash, given that it at least has some basis and is less garish – though it does suggest a creek full of Calgary fish – yum! Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why MOS:DASH wouldn't already take note of "creatures" (in this case, the Government of Alberta is the sole creator) where the name appears first in a professionally typeset and eminently reliable source (the defining legislation). There are many many places where the dash guidelines can be useful, but when they contradict the actual official name, I don't see why the guideline should be the one insisting on its own correctness. Franamax (talk) 06:55, 22 February 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 added archive links to one external link on Calgary-Fish Creek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Calgary-Fish Creek. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Calgary-Fish_Creek&oldid=1200535050"