Talk:Mont-Tremblant National Park

national park or provincial park?

Which is it? It looks like it is managed by a provincial agency, but it is called a national park. Does the province or the national government administer it? Mang (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It is the provicial agency, but the parks in Quebec are labeled national park since 2001, so we use this term. Before 2001, it was named Mont-Tremblant Recreation Park. --Fralambert (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 12 December 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 00:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

---

Mont-Tremblant National Park → Mont Tremblant Park – In English, it's more common for this park not to contain the word "national". In English, Mont Tremblant Park produces 1,230 Google book hits[1] whereas Mont Tremblant National Park receives only 59 hits. In google scholar, Mont Tremblant Park receives 123 hits[2] and Mont Tremblant National park 6 hits[3]. There is a clear different in the name used in English and that used in French. Labattblueboy (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Alternate propose Mont-Tremblant provincial park or Mont-Tremblant (provincial park) instead -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Mont Tremblant provincial park" isn't quite as popular, with 758 Google book hits[4] and 15 Google Scholar hits[5].--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Perhaps that would be because it's officially a national park, no?Skookum1 (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. MOSTCOMMON does not inherently trump WP:CONSISTENCY re other titles in the same category, and similarly does not inherently trump the official name. CGNDB has only Mont-Tremblant National Park. Skookum1 (talk) 04:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • comment Yellowstone or Yellowstone Park are MORECOMMON than Yellowstone National Park; Yosemite is MOSTCOMMON when referring to Yosemite National Park; so much so that the standalone terms are redirects to the official name. NB if the same principle were fully applied here Mont-Tremblant would redirect to the park article. Point is that wikipedia standard is "FOO National Park" and that's not just in Canada.Skookum1 (talk) 05:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. By consistency with other quebec's national park. Note: Miguasha is labelled "national park" in the world heritage site. --Fralambert (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Which is why you don't see a request related to Miguasha. Its common name is clearly Miguasha National Park. That is not the case for Mont Tremblant .--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    • They are in the same park network. --Fralambert (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment. Not that being higher up on WP:TITLE means they count more than COMMONNAME, WP:CONSISTENCY, WP:PRECISION and WP:CONCISENESS are just as much policy as COMMONNAME is; or rather to the short intro to "use commonly recognizable names"; but that section is not limited to or defined by "prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural. This is often referred to using the Wikipedia short cut term: "COMMONNAME""
    • "COMMONNAME" also says:
      • "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.
      • "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.
        • "The most common has problems", one of them being its ambiguity, the other being lacking consistency with other national park titles in Quebec, and in Canada. Being an official name is not a problem i.e. with the "National" in the title
      • "Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used.
        • The proposed title would be ambiguous, and should be avoided even "though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources, per WP:PRECISION and WP:CONCISENESS. Italics added on that passage to highlight "official...names are often used for article titles. And rightly so, when all others of the same category and type use the official titles.
      • "Precision" and "Conciseness" say, respectively:
        • "The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
        • "Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
      • Mont-Tremblant Park's "status" per googlesearches as 'no longer than necessary...to distinguish it from other subjects, and may be argued to be sufficiently precise. But then so would be Banff Park or Yosemite Park or Gwaii Haanas Park (or Gwaii Haanas, as the Haida would say it) or even Kluane instead of Kluane National Park etc....Ayuittuq, Gros Morne etc. So why only Mont-Tremblant Park? Why should not-necessary narrowness in applying COMMONNAME trump CONSISTENCY?
    • There is no good cause for overturning this long-stable title which is in line with policy and conforms to established series of titles for national parks anywhere. Googlesearches to make an exception in this case serve no constructive purpose, nor does this RM; the title is in line with policy, has been stable and matches other national park titles, and unless there is consensus (and there is not) to change it or that it should be changed (again, there isn't), a full reading of the policy cited to advance it shows that googlesearches alone are not how it should be adjudged. Piecemeal name-changing against consistency and other principles of TITLE and as if COMMONNAME were defined only one way, or applied only from one raw-data direction, are not improving the encyclopedia. Nor, for that matter, this article.Skookum1 (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Except of course the fact that the current title has approximately 5% the hits of the proposed title.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
        • So, you would disrupt a global-wide standard "FOO National Park" title series based on statistics rather than practical function and WP:CONSISTENCY, and wave away with one hand clutching a percentage all the other factors than googlesearches as if that's all COMMONNAME says. It says one hell of a lot more, and there are non-numerical factors at play. Are you going to nominate "Kluane/Kluane Park" or "Yosemite/Yosemite Park" next? Riding Mountain? Wood Buffalo? Garibaldi Provincial Park is yes commonly known as Garibaldi Park. But what useful end is there in changing such titles? Based on statistics alone you would move titles to "FOO Park" and ignore their complete and official titles, even though that is OBVIOUSLY a wiki-wide standard, as is "FOO National Park" (or "FOO Provincial Park" or "FOO State Park"). Not everything in this world should be decided by raw numbers alone. There's this one guideline WP:COMMONSENSE which seems to have escaped your attention.Skookum1 (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. According to the Commission de toponymie the name is "Parc national du Mont-Tremblant". --Cornellier (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2014 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mont-Tremblant National Park. 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/20111014034322/http://gis.wwfus.org/wildfinder/ to http://gis.wwfus.org/wildfinder/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)