Talk:Communauté métropolitaine de Québec

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: No consensus for move. Ucucha 14:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Communauté métropolitaine de Québec → Quebec Metropolitan Community —

Discussion moved from User talk:Anthony Appleyard

See also: Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board § Recap

• I am not sure why you would have moved this article. It is not readily apparent that there is a recognized English usage, as per WP:CANSTYLE. Certainly, I suspect that this would be an issue of some dispute.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• I obeyed this request in Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial requests Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC) :-

Fair enough. Unfortunately, as you can see my comments below, it wasn't really uncontroversial. And although I agree with the move of Orleans, Ontario, it probably was a bit of a stretch to suggest that move was uncontroversial (given the discussion on that article's talk page, and the ongoing debate at WP:CANTALK over the place of French on Canada-related articles.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Communauté métropolitaine de Québec should be moved to Quebec Metropolitan Community. — Requesting move over redirect. The unaccented form is more common in English, which according to WP:CANSTYLE/WP:PLACE, takes precedence over the official spelling. If an english version exists it should be used. Sorry I am not familiar with the move request process/form. Po' buster (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Po'Buster, that's a mispresentation of the guidelines. WP:PLACE states that a "widely accepted" English name be used, not a potentially WP:OR translation. Moreover, WP:CANSTYLE very clearly recognizes that we only translate the French names were there is a "clear usage consensus" in English, and that where English usage is "is ambiguous and not clear-cut" we stick with the official name (there are many Canada-related articles where the article title is in French, either because we use the French name in English (Parti Québécois is the classic example), or there is no clear English version in common usage). You need to demonstrate that "Quebec Metropolitan Community" is a widely accepted and used term. Given the discussion at WP:CANSTYLE, you shouldn't be assuming that this type of move is uncontroversial or telling others that is the case. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• This move is 100% not disputable. Communauté métropolitaine de Québec is not used in the english language. There is an english version present which should be used. (Quebec Metropolitan Community). You must understand user:Skeezix1000 is constantly trying to convert english articles/names to french. I have explained that this is english wikipedia, and if there is a common english term it needs to be used. Communauté métropolitaine de Québec needs to be demonstrated that it's widely accepted and used term just as much as the english term. No english person would ever use the term Communauté métropolitaine de Québec. Unfortunately Skeezix1000 has somewhat of a "french agenda", and does not have the best interests of wikipedia in mind. The article needs to be moved back. Po' buster (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Po'Buster, you need to provide some proof that this isn't just your own translation of the article subject - use google hits, references in mainstream media, etc. etc. We're not inventing the wheel here. As for your other allegations, please stop making silly accusations.Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering the translation was here before I even knew this article existed, it would be kind of hard to be my "own translation of the article subject". Po' buster (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Then it's the translation of whoever inserted it in the article in the first place. Either way, you need to show that the translation is not WP:OR. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's not good enough to simply assert that English speakers "obviously" prefer an English name over a French one; as there are many cases where they quite obviously don't, the onus is on you to provide reliable sources which demonstrate that the "Quebec Metropolitan Community" form is actually seen far more often than the "Communauté métropolitaine de Québec" form in actual English usage. I'm not opposed to this move if such sources can actually be shown, but I'm not sure that you really understand the actual naming rule on Wikipedia, which is that we use the form of a name that actually predominates in real usage as demonstrated in English language sources. It's not our job to invent names for things. Bearcat (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Continued discussion

• Comment I only know of the Montreal Metropolitan Community as actually having an English version of its name... unlike Quebec City. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Survey

• Rename to Greater Quebec City Area, by analogy to Greater Montreal Area or Greater Toronto Area, and expand the scope of the article to match (such as overviewing the old CUQ, the RCMs of the region, the former Quebec County, merging the Urban agglomeration of Quebec into the article) 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, as per Bearcat's comments above. Nobody has shown any evidence that either "Quebec Metropolitan Community" or "Greater Quebec City Area" are the commonly used or accepted terms in English. We shouldn't be moving the article to what could be a WP:OR translation. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Although "Quebec Metropolitan Community" is the official English language term, Greater Quebec City Area does not seem to be used in an official capacity, I don't really see that it is the commonly used term. something lame from CBW 19:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment, as I said, expand the scope of the article... which would not be an official capacity name, since it would cover several related and overlapping concepts. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Then that would be [Wikipedia:No original research|original research]]. something lame from CBW 06:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
      • No it wouldn't, since it would cover several subjects, not an original concept. The name "Greater QC" has been used to refer to the area. These entities exist in the area. It's a covering name. It's also how the Montreal article is built (several entities are covered under one article, each with a SECTION for its own). 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think, given your response, you might misunderstand WP:OR - if that's not the case, you should explain your first sentence a bit more. As for your suggestion about the use of "Greater QC", that's all fine and good, but as explained several times now on this page, you need to do more that just assert that to be true (i.e. original research), you need to show that it is the most commonly used name in English. In other words, back up your claims. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Comment, the link to the powerpoint presentation is not evidence of an official name. However, it is the first source provided suggesting that there may a commonly-used English translation. Not sufficient in and of itself, mind you, but more more than anyone else has located.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Is that the link I gave? Curious if it is because I see that as a pdf and not Powerpoint. Although it's a Quebec Government publication I also noted that it's not an indication that the term is commonly used though. something lame from CBW 18:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry for the confusion, I wasn't speaking to the file type. It's the type of content which made it seem as though it was used as a powerpoint presentation (bullet points, diagrammes, etc.) - it was just the way I used to describe the document, rather than an assessment of its value or importance. So it doesn't really matter. All I was saying was that it's not evidence of an official name - we'd need to look to the statute or regulation (or a source citing the statute or regulation) for that (I doubt there is an official name in English). However, the fact that it's a government publication makes it a helpful source for someone who tries to put together a common usage case. But I agree with you that it isn't by itself sufficient to establish common usage. It's just one example of use. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.