Talk:Montreal Eaton Centre

Merge discussion
Done and done.

An article on Les Terrasses, the previous incarnation of this mall, was recently created. The Les Terrasses terrace should be merged with the history section of this article, as the Les Terrasses is short and unsourced, unlikely to ever be meaningfully expanded, and whatever information does exist is notable mainly to extent that it is relevant to the history of the Eaton Centre. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding the discussion being directed here, there are two comments in support of the merge on the Les Terrasses talk page. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And no one appears to object to a merge. Most of the info is already in this article.Stormbay (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for article move (back to original name: "Montreal Eaton Centre")

 * 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: page moved. While there was consensus, the centre's web page kind of sealed the decision. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Centre Eaton → Montreal Eaton Centre — Apple2gs (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed all other articles on Eaton Centres throughout Canada are titled "(city name) Eaton Centre" (i.e. Toronto Eaton Centre, Calgary Eaton Centre, Edmonton City Centre, etc). Montreal is the only one without the city name in the title, as if to imply it is the main or very original Eaton Centre. It's neither as far as I'm aware.

For the sake of consistency, it should be moved from "Centre Eaton" -> "Montreal Eaton Centre". Someone want to take care of that? --Apple2gs (talk) 06:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * We don't name articles for consistency's sake, but rather to reflect the most commonly used name in English. In other words, article names should reflect real world usage, not Wikipedia usage. Mind you, sometimes article names will also be chosen to avoid confusion with other articles (often through disambiguation, but not always).  In this case, it's called Centre Eaton because it's the only mall that goes by that name.  The others are (or were) Eaton Centres.  Your proposed move might make sense, but you need to show that the proposed name is the one most commonly used.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree "Centre Eaton" is a unique name (even if only that the words are reversed because of the use of French grammar), so I've no objection to changing that. Still, the city name is part of the official title. For that reason I'd at least propose: "Montreal Centre Eaton". It still carries the unique French naming, but now identifies it as the Montreal mall. Otherwise, "Centre Eaton" could be referring to any one of the malls in Canada, just using French. Another idea is "Centre Eaton (Montreal)", much like we have: "Olympic Stadium (Montreal)". --Apple2gs (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The use of Montreal in brackets is disambiguation, and we only disambiguate where two articles qualify for the same name (such as with the Olympic Stadium article). That isn't the case here.  Again, the issue is real world common usage, not official titles or whatnot.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the Tourisme Montréal official website refers to it as "The Montreal Eaton Centre".
 * Please see refer to this link to see that fact: http://www.tourisme-montreal.org/What-To-Do/Shopping/the-montreal-eaton-centre


 * Furthermore, I can cite countless national and international newspaper articles that refer to it as "The Montreal Eaton Centre" (see Google's newspaper archive collection) from when it was first constructed, right up to present time. Therefore, in following Wikipedia's common name guideline, the title of the article should indeed be under the English name (which actually appears to be the official name in any case).---Apple2gs (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue is not whether you can find examples of a use, but rather that you can show that one name is clearly the recognized name in English. Please see WP:CANSTYLE.  I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying that you're not making a particularly compelling case, that's all.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't examples of English-language newspapers and magazines referring to the mall as "The Montreal Eaton Centre" show just that? I can't find any examples where it's referred to as "Centre Eaton" except in French-language media.


 * Also of interest, The Tourisme Montreal site doesn't simply translate all names to English. As an example, here is the Montreal Biodome link on the same site:
 * http://www.tourisme-montreal.org/What-To-Do/Attractions#&&/wEXAwUIT2JqZWN0SWQFBTE1ODYzBQZTb3J0QnkFBE5hbWUFCFZpZXdUeXBlBQEz
 * Note how they refer to it as "Biodôme de Montréal" and yet the mall is "The Montreal Eaton Centre" as opposed to Centre Eaton. Though beyond that, I think without a doubt "The Montreal Eaton Centre" is the recognized English name. Is there something more specific we need to be looking for? Apple2gs (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said above, it is insufficient to point to a few examples. They don't prove much of anything by themselves.  I could probably find examples on the internet where the name of the mall is rendered in Polish, but we shouldn't rename the article Centrum handlowe Eaton because of some random sites I found on Google. You should look at other examples of successful moves similar to this one to see what kinds of evidence was brought forward.  Also, please look at the CANSTYLE naming convention that I referred you to above.   Under CANSTYLE, where usage in English is ambiguous, we defer to the official French name, so you need to show that Montreal Eaton Centre is the well established and recognized name in English.  Showing the well established usage requires you to do more than just refer to one tourism website and make vague references to "countless" news sites.  For example, what does the actual mall call itself in English ?  That would be a pretty good indication of the most common usage.  I suspect it's Montreal Eaton Centre, but I have no idea because you are so focused on what you found on that one tourism website.  Second, Google counts are not determinative, but are a really helpful indication of usage.  I jsut did the search for you.  Notwithstanding your claim above, Google gives almost 9000 hits for "Centre Eaton" + Montreal on English-language websites.  In contrast, "Montreal Eaton Centre" only gets about 5800 hits.  However, "Eaton Centre" + Montreal gets about 48,000 hits, so it would appear that variations of the "Eaton Centre" name are more common in English than "Centre Eaton".  Whether that means the article should be at Montreal Eaton Centre or Eaton Centre (Montreal), I do not know.  I note that under Wikipedia traffic statistics, 763 people visited this article in December 2010, of whom 222 came to the article by way of the "Montreal Eaton Centre" (in this case, I am not sure what the traffic stats tell us, but this is typically the kind of data that people will sometimes look at).  Media usage is also very informative, but tell us the actual hits from Google news searches/archives.  The gist of all this is that you have to look a little more comprehensively than the Tourisme Montreal website.  I don't doubt, given the work I have just done, that you have a very good case for moving the article, but I think you need to make a stronger case.  I would also list this discussion over at WP:CANBOARD to get more input.  If all goes well, you should have this moved shortly!  Best of luck. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The entity's own website does not support this; if anything the English version would be "Centre Eaton Montreal". The article is currently named adequately as "Centre Eaton".   PK  T (alk)  03:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Except for the main logo, the mall's English website seems to refer exclusively to the "Montreal Eaton Centre". --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * By this logic the Montreal Biodome article should be named "Biodome de Montreal", and Olympic Stadium (Montreal) "Stade Olympique". but they're not. Centre Eaton is merely the French name, not the commonly used and recognized English name. The real litmus test: how it is referred to by the mainstream English media within Quebec, Canada and the world internationally? Apple2gs (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's one consideration, not a litmus test. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. This isn't a case where it's an exclusively French name. In such a case no one would be debating accuracy or common naming. Good examples, two fast food restaurants in Quebec: Lafleur and La Belle Province. No one, English or French, has or ever will refer to them as "The Flower" or "The Beautiful Province" fast food restaurants chains, and I'd be debating accuracy if anyone ever tried to title those articles under their literal English translation. The franchises are registered by those names only. In the case of the Eaton Centre, both the English and French names are registered and valid, being used interchangeably. Which one is used is dependent on the language you speak...French speakers refer to it as "Centre Eaton de Montreal", English speakers (here in Quebec and the rest of the world) refer to it as "The Montreal Eaton Centre", and we're talking even on paper legally. This isn't a popular nickname, it's an OFFICIAL name. Well, bottomline, we now have the mall's official website referring to it as "Montreal Eaton Centre". The common name used by English speakers is "Montreal Eaton Centre". And last, but not least, Wikipedia is an English-language based encyclopedia. I'm strongly for moving it.--Apple2gs (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure where you are getting the notion that "Montreal Eaton Centre" is the official name. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For arguements sake here is the link to ivanhoe cambridge english site : http://www.ivanhoecambridge.com/en-CA/Properties%20links/index.aspx and the malls own site http://www.centreeatondemontreal.com/en/  both call it "centre eaton" although, i have always reffered to it as the eaton center, doesnt mean its the name. I still call the carrefour industrielle alliance simpsons. Soyonsexpositifs (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As stated above, the text on the mall's own website overwhelmingly refers to it as the Montreal Eaton Centre.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. I agree with Apple2gs. We don't need a long elaboration on what the official name is, WP goes by WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 20:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the more I think about this, the more ridiculous it is debating this move. Not only does this fall clearly and squarely under the common name guideline rules of Wikipedia, but "Montreal Eaton Centre" is the official name of the shopping mall. This is not a translation, it's the actual name. I've made several requests for assistance to have this page moved to the redirect page but its gone seemingly ignored. For that reason I've moved it myself to the slightly misspelled "Montreal Eaton Center" title for the time being (far less obscure than the title it was under previously). I would still like some assistance moving the article so we have the correct spelling. I just figure this makes it less controversial now, not that it ever should have been--Apple2gs (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No, we do not move articles to incorrect/mispelled names "for the time being". That is not the way we do things.  If you want assistance, ask for assistance.  Post a note over at WP:CANTALK asking an admin to come take a look at this discussion and to move the article properly.  Second, please take a look at WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.  Three editors have expressed an opinion here (you, P199 and PKT), one of whom is opposed to the move.  It is not appropriate to be suggesting that the need for a debate is "ridiculous", when quite obviously the views expressed here are not unanimous.  Finally, and I have said this before, but I am not sure where you get the idea that "Montreal Eaton Centre" is the "official" name.  There are several strong arguments in favour of the move, you don't need to make unsubstantiated assertions.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope I don't come across as sounding disrespectful (please don't take it that way) but the only editor who is opposed to the move is you. The same editor who originally moved "Montreal Eaton Centre" --> "Centre Eaton" in the first place. That makes you a bit biased, wouldn't you say?

* 19:50, 15 December 2005 Skeezix1000 (talk | contribs) (37 bytes) (moved Montreal Eaton Centre to Centre Eaton (Montreal): Correct name)


 * You mentioned "Centre Eaton" is the correct name, thus implying the article titled by its original name of "Montreal Eaton Centre" is as invalid a name as "Montreal Eaton Center". Where did you get that idea it was incorrect? You also made the move without any discussion or consulting of other editors, a bit of a faux pas. :) I'm merely trying to revert an incorrect move you did, albeit several years after the fact. I don't deny that my temporary move could be considered poor judgment, but I did it out of frustration and a way to draw attention to this. It worked. There's been complete inaction for several months, and my requests for move assistance seemingly ignored. This isn't about moving an article to a new title, it's about reverting a move that should not have been done in the first place.--Apple2gs (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but are you really going there? You have flailed about this entire discussion, focused on the wrong issues, and when you did eventually understand what the applicable naming guidelines were, you never bothered offering any evidence whatsover that the article subject meets the threshold for moving (instead just making unsupported assertions about "official" names and the like).  So, instead, you are actually going to attack the one person who has actually tried to do some of your homework for you.  You may also want to consider how COMMONNAME was being applied to institutions with French names back in 2005 before you make more accusations.  And perhaps read WP:AGF and WP:BOLD while you are at it. The reason that there has been so much "inaction" on this is because you don't have clear consensus!  We don't rush to move articles because one editor really, really wants it.  You have one other editor that agrees with you, one who disagrees, and another (Soyonsexpositifs) who offered evidence contrary to the move, but didn't express a personal opinion.  This is hardly an endorsement of the proposed move.  If you had listed this at WP:RM, this discussion would have been closed long ago as having no consensus.  I suggested that you raise the issue over at WP:CANTALK because I thought you might get more comments, and you might actually find a sympathetic admin who offer advice or even review the substance of the comments and determine if consensus had been reached.  It turns out that didn't work, and I think that's partially because the above discussion way too unfocused and unconvincing.   My advice to you at this point, if you want to pursue this, is to start fresh with a new discussion on this page.  List it at WP:RM at the beginning (proposals at WP:RM are assessed according to timelines, so it won't drag on the way this one did).  Keep the nomination to a few simple points (maybe even in list form). Explain how COMMONNAME and CANSTYLE are addressed.  Avoid references to other articles, except in generalities - the issue here is about the name of this subject.  You need to be succinct and show that the naming guidelines are met.  If you would you would like to draft something on your sandbox, I would be happy to review it if you would like.  Sometimes starting anew with a more focused approach is the key to success.  Good luck.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's move it already!!! Even you Skeezix stated on 20 January 2011 that "the text on the mall's own website overwhelmingly refers to it as the Montreal Eaton Centre". That is plenty of support for a move. A greater consensus won't be reached because other editors are just not engaged. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * My point exactly. There is no controversy here. This isn't about renaming the article, it's about RESTORING it to its original name (how muddled and off point I was originally is completely irrelevant; we're looking at the facts here and now). You may as well rename the article on Montreal to "Le Ville de Montreal" and say it cannot be moved back without proper consensus--this article should no more be labeled what it is than that example. And no one is interested in debating this, nor ever will, as this article is a stub for a relatively small and insignificant mall.
 * Skeezix1000, I do respect what you say above (and thank you for many of the links and pointers, and your acting in such an amicable manner), but to spend that amount of time and energy on something that is so obviously in error (as I said, there is no controversy here) and is unlikely to gather support due of lack of interest...it just makes no sense--Apple2gs (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Guys, it's not about controversy or correctness or restoration or anything like that. Wikipedia operates by consensus (since you can't avail yourself of WP:BOLD here for various reasons).  You have two in favour, one opposed (PKT), and one who provided evidence contrary to the move but didn't really express an opinion either way (Soyonsexpositifs).  Hardly a ringing endorsement (mind you, a closing admin may feel differently).  Sometimes lack of interest = lack of consensus.  It doesn't matter how correct you think you are, but rather that you have convinced enough other people.  I don't blame anyone from being scared off by the meandering and lengthy discussion above. My own view would have been to started fresh with a succinct rationale (new heading, etc.), relisted it, alerted all relevant Wikiprojects, and hopefully gotten more views within the requisite 7 days (heck, you would have consensus under a new listing if only the two of you bothered to speak to the issue).  This current exercise is just bogged down.  If that is the way you want to go, I am happy to help. Let me know.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2011 (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.