Talk:Conservative Party of Quebec (historical)

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Canada: Quebec / Politics Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Quebec.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada.

Template:WikiProject Political Parties

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

– 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]