Talk:Terrebonne—Blainville

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Canada: Quebec / Montreal / Electoral districts Low‑importance

	Canada portal 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Quebec.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Montreal (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada.

Requested move 9 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. As well as disagreement about whether "federal" should be used in the dab, there also seems to be a consensus that below that because the new riding is so different to the old one we would actually be better off creating a new article than moving this one. I'll let whoever does the actual work of creating the new article decide whether or not to include "federal" in the dab, rather than mandating it here. Jenks24 (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terrebonne—Blainville → Terrebonne (electoral district) – Electoral writ has been dropped, new name of Terrebonne now in effect. FUNgus guy (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose multiple electoral districts by this name, such as Terrebonne (provincial electoral district) ; this request fails WP:PRECISE as it is not precise enough to identify the topic. Terrebonne (federal electoral district) would be possible. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- So alternate move to Terrebonne (federal electoral district) ; the proposed title is ambiguous, so should point to Terrebonne (disambiguation) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 08:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Precedent has it that the federal electoral district just uses "electoral district" as the dab (see every Ontario riding) while provincial electoral district use the (provincial electoral district) dab. -- Earl Andrew - talk 11:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- - - Query do you support the original proposal or the alternative proposal? Since you tiered your response below my alternate proposal, instead of on its own, it appears that you support the alternative proposal? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - That "electoral district" means "federal electoral district" is a fundamental failure of WP:PRECISE and is wrong by the policies of Wikipedia. All those need to be fixed. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's not what we're debating here though. Might as well go with precedent for the time being, and debate moving all the rest of the articles on the project page? -- Earl Andrew - talk 12:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you'd like to propose a comprehensive change to our naming conventions for electoral districts, you can do so by raising a comprehensive argument at WP:CANTALK. But that would apply to hundreds of comparable cases across Canada, and is not an issue that's unique to Terrebonne alone — so we can't just create a special rule just for Terrebonne while leaving all of those other identical situations untouched, and this discussion cannot create a blanket consensus that's binding on all of the others either. Oppose, but for the reason specified by Earl Andrew below rather than this reason. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        CANTALK would be a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS for using am ambiguous disambiguator; but the disambiguation matter is a global issue. Per our existing globally accepted consensus policy, WP:AT, under WP:PRECISION, we should not use ambiguous names for things that are not primary topics. Clearly there are two ridings with the same name, one provincial and one federal, neither of them is the primary topic, so neither of them should use ambiguous disambiguation. If we need to discuss this, it should be at the WP:VP Village Pump, or WP:DAB Disambiguation policy, since I don't think it follows WP:RF, and not everyone reading these articles are Canadian politicos, as disambiguation should make it clear what topic the article covers to all users, not just Canadian political junkies. But following existing global policies should not be an issue to be restricted. "electoral district" is not a solely Canadian disambiguator, and Canada is not the only country with federal and provincial ones. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        A federal district does have "primary" priority over a provincial one: it's a higher level of government of interest to a larger number of people. And the fact that "electoral district" is not a uniquely Canadian term is irrelevant to this matter — it would only matter if another country also had an electoral district called "Terrebonne". Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to Terrebonne (electoral district). 75.155.190.200 (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Earl Andrew below, Terrebonne has an over 50% discontinunity with the former Terrebonne—Blainville. It should be given a new article of its own, not a move of this one. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Alternate proposal

After looking at the boundaries, I'm not sure why we are treating Terrebonne-Blainville and Terrebonne as the same district. The parliamentary site says that "Terrebonne" changed names in 1997, alluding to the fact that it changed names to "Terrebone-Blainville", but not actually specifying this. I believe this to be in error, as the riding did not include Blainville at the time. Blainville was added in the 1996 redistribution (used in the 1997 election, after the supposed name change). The 2013 redistribution saw Blainville removed, and in fact the new Terrebonne riding only shares about 50% of the territory with the old riding of Terrebonne-Blainville. So, I would propose that this page only cover Terrebonne-Blainville from 1997 to 2011 and Terrebonne (electoral district) (or if you insist "Terrebonne (federal electoral district)) cover the district from 1867 to 1997 and from 2015 onwards. -- Earl Andrew - talk 12:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, you're right: a significant change in the electoral district's boundary should normally always result in a new article, rather than a move of an existing article about a related but not identical former electoral district. The only time a name change should ever result in a move rather than a new article is if the name change was not accompanied by a boundary change (e.g. "Broadview—Greenwood" → Toronto—Danforth), or if the boundary adjustments were extremely minor (e.g. the shifting of a couple of city blocks) and thus the old and new names still substantively refer to more or less the same thing. In this case, moving this article is not what's called for — a 50% territory change is far too much to consider "Terrebonne—Blainville" and "Terrebonne" to be the same district. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you in principle that a new article might be the better option for a riding that differs that much. Saint John Harbour in 1995 is another obvious example of needing a new page. If the riding is only losing/gaining one block, no need for a new page. But how many shifting neighbourhoods and communities is enough to warrant a new page? I haven't really seen much consistency across the ridings' pages. FUNgus guy (talk) 04:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that example, since the riding has the same name. The shifting neighbourhoods policy is for ridings with new names. I personally keep riding articles together if they are at least 90% the same. -- Earl Andrew - talk 12:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The new page Terrebonne (electoral district) has been created. If there is any further discussion about adding "federal" to the dab, then please discuss it on that talk page. FUNgus guy (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]