Talk:Conservative Party of Quebec (historical)

Untitled

The following discussion is an archived 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 no consensus for move due to lack of participation. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Parti conservateur du Québec → Conservative Party of Quebec — English whenever possible, and here English is possible. --Checco 09:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC) –discussion added by SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 23:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support as I said above. --Checco 20:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The rule on Wikipedia isn't actually "English whenever possible" — it's technically possible to translate both Bloc Québécois and Parti Québécois, too, but that would result in absurd titles that nobody on the planet actually uses. The rule is actually that we use whichever name, be it English or French, is more documentably in use for the topic in English-language sources. In some cases that is a translated name, but in others an original, untranslated French name is used — and Wikipedia's rule is to be consistent with actual usage.

So, that clarified, I ask because I genuinely don't know: how is this party more normally referred to in English-language history books? Move if the English name is more typical, don't move if the French name is. Bearcat 03:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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

In English Canada, the names of Quebec parties are never translated, hence PQ, BQ and ADQ. But when they are national parties, e.g., the Conservative, the Liberal or the New Democratic parties, the English names are used. I have no idea why this is.

Incidentally, I do not think that the ADQ is a successor to the UN, because it is more populist than establishment. It is much more similar to the Creditistes. --The Four Deuces 14:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

disambiguation style (why 1939, and should we even be that precise in any case?)

Do we have a citation for 1939 (rather than, say, 1936?). Actually, do we have a citation for 1850?

I'm a bit uncomfortable with disambiguation for political parties by specifying exact years, which may be hard to research or sometimes even hard to define. Eg, was the Union Nationale formed when it became an electoral alliance or when it became a true political party. And the exact year of death for parties that linger long after they have become moribund can be tricky, especially if the party splinters into factions each claiming to be the true successor. It would be preferable perhaps to specify only a decade, or a vaguer nomenclature like "(historical)". -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've followed the example of the Conservative Party of Canada (historical) and renamed the article. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested 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 to make the moves as requested Mike Cline (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Conservative Party of Quebec (historical) → Conservative Party of Quebec (1867–1936)
• Conservative Party of Quebec (modern) → Conservative Party of Quebec (2009)
• Conservative Party of Quebec leadership elections → Conservative Party of Quebec (1867–1936) leadership elections

– For the same reason Conservative Party of Canada (historical) was moved to Conservative Party of Canada (1867–1942), historical and modern are inaccurate descriptors, and the years should be used. 117Avenue (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Previously the name was Conservative Party of Quebec (1850–1939) - the problem is that we are dodgy about the dates. 1939 was the wrong end date - the party was actually dissolved in 1936 but we are also unclear about the party's founding. Was it "around 1850" when the Parti bleu was formed, as the article states, or do we date the creation of the party from Confederation in 1867? Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. For the reasons mentioned in my comment in the previous section of this talk page, I would rather keep the "historical" and "modern" disambiguation nomenclature. Precise years of birth and death can be hard to research or even define for political parties. A descriptive term seems more apt. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment -- It seems we cannot be certain of the exact dates, even for dissolution: is it 1936, 1939, or 1942? I see no objection to using "historical" and "modern" as disambiguators. However, if the current party does not have 2009 in its name, it might be better to allow it to be the primary subject, with a hatnote dablink for the older party. As I am in England, I decline to vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

  Clarification: The historical party was a party of government (though not after 1897). The new party, despite the historical association of its name, is currently a very minor party in terms of visibility or popular support and frankly seems quite unlikely to go anywhere, since the "right-of-centre" ecological niche, so to speak, is now firmly occupied by the Coalition Avenir Québec. Arguably, it should not be the primary subject. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

  One issue I have is that the terms "historical" and "modern" are relative. Who's to say how long ago something has to be, to be considered historical? 2009 is in the past, and is apart of history. If the current party gets deregistered, what would the article be titled? If we are talking about the provincial party, than the historical one could not have existed until there was a province, so I don't think there is any argument about 1867. The article mentions 1936 several times without reference, and Union nationale (Quebec), Quebec general election, 1935, and Quebec general election, 1936, are all also unreferenced, so I see why the years want to be avoided. It is also unfortunate that the party spanned two centuries, so that it can't be titled something like Conservative Party of Quebec (19th century) (I'm guessing there is opposition to Conservative Party of Quebec (2nd millennium)). For the lack of a better term, I guess I have no option to support "historical", but surely there must be something better than "modern". 117Avenue (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

  Here's a source for the Union Nationale's transformation from an alliance of two parties to a full-fledged merger occurring in 1936[1] so I think the end date is fairly clear. What is obscure is the origin date. If Conservative Party of Quebec (historical) isn't acceptable I'd prefer Conservative Party of Quebec (pre-1936) to other alternatives. Perhaps Conservative Party of Quebec (post-2009) would work with the current party. I don't like Conservative Party of Quebec (2009) since that suggests a party that only existed in 2009. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

  The French Wikipedia article says that three candidates in the 1939 Quebec election ran as Conservatives, but there is no citation. The DGEQ website is no help, they show no data prior to the 1973 election.[2] This is why an exact year is tricky. For all intents and purposes the party ended in 1935 or 1936, but how long did any diehards linger? We'd probably have to do original research to resolve that. This is why it's very much preferable to sidestep that issue. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

  When the federal Progressive Conservatives merged into the modern Conservative party in 2003, a small remnant remained, but it was forced by Elections Canada to rename itself to the Progressive Canadian Party, and therefore we can specify a precise year for the demise of the federal PC party -- but was that the case in 1930s Quebec? Government was much smaller in those days, and it doesn't seem that there was any independent agency in charge of regulating Quebec elections until the 1960s or 1970s.[3] So I suspect that the three 1939 candidates, if they existed at all, were in a situation very much like the Progressive Canadian party, only there was no regulatory agency back then to compel them to change their name. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

  Perhaps Conservative Party of Quebec (2009—present)? 117Avenue (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

  I suppose I could live with precise years for the modern version, because its year of demise would be determined by if and when the DGEQ deregisters it. But how about Conservative Party of Quebec (founded in 2009) instead? That way we don't have to go back and change anything if it dies later (for those unfamiliar with Quebec politics, this is very much a minor party, likely to do as poorly as the Progressive Conservative Party of Quebec of the 1980s). For the old party, I very strongly prefer "(historical)", for the reasons already given. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2012 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conservative Party of Quebec (historical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091217055751/http://www.assnat.qc.ca/fra/patrimoine/ to http://www.assnat.qc.ca/fra/patrimoine/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conservative Party of Quebec (historical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120115041405/http://conservateurquebec.ca/ to http://www.conservateurquebec.ca/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)