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
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.
Oppose. "British Columbia" is there to dab the city, not the hall. The germane issue here is not whether there are other "Victoria City Halls" or not — because there are other Victorias, the level of disambiguation has to stay at the same place as the city's main article regardless of whether this article has any of its own separate disambiguation conflicts or not. This is the same reason why we keep categories at the "Victoria, British Columbia" level regardless of whether any individual category conflicts with another category name or not — the related categories cannot flip back and forth between "Victoria, British Columbia" in some instances and undabbed "Victoria" in others, but must be consistent so that all of the categories name it the same way so that a user who isn't already familiar with all of the nodes in Victoria BC's category tree can accurately predict any given category's actual location. That's the same principle that has to pertain here: if the city has to be disambiguated (which it does), then that fact controls the level of disambiguation that is or isn't required here too. That said, I'm not convinced that this is the right form of the title — it should be "Victoria, British Columbia City Hall", "Victoria (British Columbia) City Hall" or "Victoria City Hall (British Columbia)", but in this case the comma-British-Columbia is in the wrong spot since it's the city, not the hall, that the comma-British-Columbia is there to disambiguate.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose. as Bearcat says "British Columbia" is there to dab the city, not the hall. For example, "Victoria City Hall" Address: 105 W Juan Linn St, Victoria, TX 77901 isn't in BC
In ictu oculi (
talk)
16:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Support per
WP:PRECISE. There is no other article currently on WP that could take the title, so nothing to disambiguate on WP. If some other article needing the title is written in the future, the question should be revisited at that time.
Station1 (
talk)
17:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Some of them should probably be moved, but not all of them need to be. Our main articles about Charlottetown, Edmonton, Fredericton and Vancouver, for example, are not disambiguated as "City, Province" — all four of those are either unique names or
primary topic for their names, so they're all at just "City", and therefore just "City" is the correct level of disambiguation for their categories and their city halls too. For the others, yes, there's a stronger basis for moving the city halls to dabbed titles: but Charlottetown, Edmonton, Fredericton and Vancouver are already at their correct titles.
Bearcat (
talk)
22:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Support. No need for the disambiguator. Even if there was another article by this name, this is by far the most prominent city named Victoria. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
15:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Oh, yeah! No need! Who would ? If
there was another hall, the article is missing. Anyway, I found
mystery city hall with a province reference, that could be the British Columbia hall (no mention of British Columbia or Canada in the news, is it a symptom ?), and so there could be some suggested additions to the article. And besides, victoria is a word in portuguese (and spanish) language. In 1939 the some what less of half million population capital of the
Espírito Santo state name was Victoria. So, historically there was another significant Victoria. Suggest at least a hatnote. --
Robertiki (
talk)
01:08, 16 February 2017 (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.