Talk:Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel

bad idea to combine

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 - ) RIVIÈRE-DU-NORD (Quebec)(2003 - )

Cheers, Fawcett5 03:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

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 Argenteuil—Papineau in 1980 which was officially changed to Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel in 1999. While it was abolished in 2003, the new riding of Argenteuil—Mirabel was renamed Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel in 2004, which is a reversion to an old name, which is officially connected to the original Argenteuil riding based on names. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Sure it can be helped, they just require separate articles. Right now it is arbitrary - why for instance shouldn't Argenteuil—Deux-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. Fawcett5 14:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• • See my previous argument. There were offficial name changes to all the names that redirect here at some point in time. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's follow along here:

• Argenteuil (1867-1947) abolished
• Argenteuil--Deux-Montanges (1947-1966) abolished
• Argenteuil (1966-1970) changed names to
• Argenteuil--Deux-Montagnes (1970-1976) abolished
• Argenteuil (1976-1980) changed names to
• Argenteuil--Papineau (1981-1999) changed names to
• Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel (1999-2003) abolished
• Argenteuil--Mirbael (2003-2004) changed names to
• Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel (2004-present)

All I'm saying is that with the way it is set up now, there are valid alternate ways of analyzing such a lineage — 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.:

• LAVAL--TWO MOUNTAINS (Quebec)(1914 - 1949)
• ARGENTEUIL--DEUX-MONTAGNES, Quebec (1947 - 1966)
• ARGENTEUIL, Quebec (1966 - 1970)
• ARGENTEUIL--DEUX-MONTAGNES (Quebec)(1970 - 1976)
• DEUX-MONTAGNES (Quebec)(1976 - 1977)
• BLAINVILLE--DEUX-MONTAGNES (Quebec)(1977 - 1996)
• etc.

Therefore, it makes sense to have individual articles with the appropriate links. Fawcett5 23:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)