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
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
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.MontrealWikipedia:WikiProject MontrealTemplate:WikiProject MontrealMontreal articles
Andrew, I think it's a bad idea to try and combine so many electoral districts into one article. It completely overlooks the fact that they were distinct entities, often with different geographic representation. I think combination/redirection should only be used in the case of simple name changes where the district has existed only once or in some easy to follow manner. Currently, it ignores the relationship of this "district" with others such as:
DEUX-MONTAGNES (Quebec)(1976 - 1977)
LABELLE (Quebec)(1892 - 1987)
TERREBONNE (Quebec)(1867 - 1996)
LAVAL--TWO MOUNTAINS (Quebec)(1914 - 1949)
GATINEAU (Quebec)(1947 - 1987)
LAURENTIDES--LABELLE (Quebec)(2003 - )
RIVIĂRE-DU-NORD (Quebec)(2003 - )
It cant be helped, there are official name changes at least once to all those names- that justify it. Not all of them were name changes, but they are all linked by name changes. To show you what I mean: Argenteuil was officially renamed ArgenteuilâPapineau in 1980 which was officially changed to ArgenteuilâPapineauâMirabel in 1999. While it was abolished in 2003, the new riding of ArgenteuilâMirabel was renamed ArgenteuilâPapineauâMirabel in 2004, which is a reversion to an old name, which is officially connected to the original Argenteuil riding based on names. --
Earl Andrew -
talk03:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)reply
Sure it can be helped, they just require separate articles. Right now it is arbitrary - why for instance shouldn't
ArgenteuilâDeux-Montagnes redirect to
Deux-Montagnes instead of to here? When there are multiple creations is EXACTLY when combining articles should be avoided. By only having articles by unique names instead of individual creations, we already have far less resolution than the
Library of Parliament database. I don't know why we would choose to make it even more confusing and less precise by employing redirects, except in the case of direct name changes uncomplicated by multiple creations.
Fawcett514:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)reply
All I'm saying is that with the way it is set up now, there are valid alternate ways of analyzing such a lineage â why would the alternative way of looking at some of these districts as part of a "DEUX-MONTAGNES" lineage not be equally valid? e.g.: