Talk:Conservative Party of Quebec (historical)

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

• 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)