Talk:Victoriaville

Canada: Quebec / Communities Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Quebec.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian communities.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Monarchy in Quebec#Communities|Monarchy in Quebec]] The anchor (#Communities) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was moved. Jafeluv (talk) 08:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victoriaville, Quebec → Victoriaville — This article title will be move from Victoriaville to match Canadian city related titles. For example Montreal, Quebec City, Longueuil, Trois-Rivières, Sherbrooke, Drummondville, and Gatineau have it main article titles without including the province name. There is no other cities in the world for it's Victoriaville name. And this is one of the largest cities in Quebec. — Steam5 (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support - Per nominator. Steam5 (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Seems quite reasonable.--Ducio1234 (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per convention for Canadian place names. older ≠ wiser 00:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Correct name of the article according to WP:CANSTYLE ("Cities which either have unique names or are unquestionably the most significant place sharing their name can have undisambiguated titles.") Jafeluv (talk) 06:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No problems here. ƒingers^on_Roids 23:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I double-checked with a quick Google and couldn't find any other claimants to the name, the only candidate seemed to be Victoriaville Funeral Supplies but on checking they're in Victoriaville, Quebec, too. Andrewa (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There doesn't seem to be any other notable Victoriaville anywhere else in the world. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Another rushed nonsense move. The name is ambiguous. It means city of Victoria. This page is listed at Victoria (geographical disambiguation). --Qyd (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I made the move too early, but this really seems uncontroversial to me. Yes, the name of the city means "City of Victoria". That doesn't mean that the term Victoriaville is ambiguous (only that Victoria is ambiguous, this being one of the possible meanings). Furthermore, even if it was ambiguous the move would be reasonable since this is clearly the primary meaning of the word Victoriaville. Also, the naming conventions for Canada-related articles encourage undisambiguated titles for cities "which either have unique names or are unquestionably the most significant place sharing their name". Would you have preferred to have the page at Victoriaville, Quebec, with Victoriaville redirecting to it? Or perhaps have Victoriaville redirect to Victoria (geographical disambiguation)? Jafeluv (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have had the article at Victoriaville, Quebec, with Victoriaville redirecting to it. And I believe the naming conventions and other guidelines should not trump common sense. The fact that the city calls itself Ville de Victoriaville looks like laughing matter, but I guess it's just trying to legitimize the way Quebec chose to incorporate its municipalities. --Qyd (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It obviously wasn't common sense to the editors who supported the move, and Ville de Victoriaville is no different fromt the City of Belleville or the City of Jacksonville. There's no other community called Victoriaville, so I don't understand your concerns.--Ducio1234 (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No different indeed, they're all pleonasms. It's as ludicrous as the town of Dawson City, except the excuse is lamer. My concern comes from the fact that ville is a common noun, while Victoria is a highly ambiguous name. Put together two common terms, and you end up with an excuse to apply the guidelines, but that doesn't make it right. --Qyd (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's no more a pleonasm than "City of" Pittsburgh, Charleston, Indianapolis, Brattleboro or Sudbury. If -ville, -burgh, -polis, -bury or -ton is functioning as a suffix within the name of the thing, then it loses its ability to function as a class noun denoting the type of thing, and hence is not redundant with the inclusion of the class noun "City" in the extended name. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qyd, kindly stop making up your own tendentious special rules for opposing page moves, and start respecting and applying the naming conventions as written. Firstly, we do not leave terms disambiguated because individual components of the name are potentially ambiguous; we base the decision on the actual, not theoretical, ambiguity or non-ambiguity of the name as a whole and only the name as a whole. As has been pointed out to you before, your version of things would require "Toronto Maple Leafs (hockey team)" rather than Toronto Maple Leafs, because while the name itself is unique, each individual part of it — "Toronto", "Maple" and "Leaf" — has other meanings besides the hockey team. That simply isn't the standard we use, and it isn't the standard we should use. And second, an undisambiguated term is never to be a redirect to a disambiguated one: an undisambiguated title must always be either a disambiguation page or an actual article. So if there's nothing to disambiguate Victoriaville from, then its article goes at Victoriaville. Period. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chill down cat. I know your opinions, and I know you know mine. Every now and then I feel the need to make my concerns heard, regardless of the guidelines you drafted, which I found flawed, as you well know. Cheers now. --Qyd (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The naming convention was drafted by a wide consensus of users, not by me personally. How many times am I going to have to point that out to you? The only thing I did was to write up an actual summary, for reference purposes, of what the established consensus already was. I did not invent a convention; I merely codified the convention that was already in use.

And for the record, the point where you seem to have the most fundamental disagreement (Disambiguation pages are not meant to serve as search indices for all Wikipedia articles which have a word in their titles — they are meant only to steer people to the correct choice among articles which could potentially have the same title.) was not something we invented ourselves to make your life difficult — it's straight out of basic, binding, disambiguation policy, which you're obliged to follow not because we said so on WP:CANSTYLE, but because WP:DAB says so. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using Victoriaville, Quebec with a redirect from Victoriaville is the same as using Toronto Maple Leafs with a redirect from Maple Leafs. I'm saying that Victoriaville is an ambiguous term because there are lots of settlements called Victoria (many named for the same person). You can either acknowledge this rationale, or go about making the same point. Particular spellings do not make a term unique, if you're willing to look at the meaning of names, and past the sum of letters it's composed of. And, for the record, I'm not "obliged" or "bound" by nothing. WP:IAR, if you want to wave around guidelines. --Qyd (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, using Victoriaville, Quebec with a redirect from Victoriaville would only be the same as using Toronto Maple Leafs with a redirect from Maple Leafs if "Maple Leafs" without the word Toronto in it were the standard and most technically correct name of the thing in actual usage. Which it isn't — the city name is included in a sports team's title not for disambiguation purposes, but because the city name is an inseparable part of the proper name of the team. What it is the same thing as is using "Toronto Maple Leafs (hockey team)" with a redirect from "Toronto Maple Leafs", because it's adding an unnecessary layer of complexity to a topic that's already at its simplest possible unique and proper title. The only role of a disambiguation page is to be a placeholder among articles that could potentially be located at the exact title "Victoriaville", not to be a comprehensive list of every article on Wikipedia that happens to have a word in a longer title — the fact that the name "Victoriaville" has smaller words in it is irrelevant to the decision, because the article could not actually be located at any of those shorter titles. The only relevant consideration is whether any other article could be at the exact title "Victoriaville", and as it happens, no other article can.

You're free to propose a change to the disambiguation policy for discussion and debate anytime you so desire, but WP:IAR is not simply license to just do anything one wants without a good reason — if you were, for example, to arbitrarily move the article back to a disambiguated title based on your interpretation of the utility of disambiguation, any user would be perfectly free to arbitrarily move it back to the plain title again, and any admin who got involved in the dispute would be obliged to side with the user who had consensus and policy on their side. Which is why if you disagree with the rule as it stands, it would be far more productive for you to actually go to WP:DAB and propose a change to the basic disambiguation policy, instead of simply tilting at windmills every time somebody implements a page move that is completely consistent with the existing policy but goes against your own views about something that you think should be, but isn't, part of the current policy. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Bearcat. Also, common sense would lead me to believe that people who were looking for a city named "Victoriaville" would type "Victoriaville" into the searchbox, not "Victoria", because that is not the name of the city. For example, I don't think anyone would ever use the search term "Louis" to find the city "Louisville". ƒingers^on_Roids 00:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]