Talk:Mount Royal (disambiguation)

Is Mount Royal, Montreal a dominant meaning?

 * 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 kept at stable name. There doesn't seem to be a consensus present, so I would've reverted back to the original status quo anyway, but it appears that User:Bearcat has already done that. Aervanath (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This discussion was moved here from Requested moves. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Mount Royal -> Mount Royal (disambiguation) & Mount Royal, Montreal -> Mount Royal &mdash; there was a cut and paste move done this month on this, and then a histmerge because of it. It appears to be a circumvention of process, and should be reverted pending a proper move proposal. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: all the incoming links to Mount Royal are for the Mount Royal, Montreal... Mount Royal Montreal doesn't really have any incoming links. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That depends on whether the Mount Royal at Montreal is a dominant meaning. Page Mount Royal lists 20 things called Mount Royal or similar. Incoming links are not the only way this page will be accessed; also people will type in "Mount Royal" when looking for an information page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In any case, it should be reverted, because it's an out of process move. It's a circumvention of this process here, at WP:RM. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Continued discussion:


 * Mount Royal, Montreal is definitely the wrong place for the article in any case. 1/3 of the entries on the dab page deal with a Mount Royal in Montreal. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 06:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mount Royal, Montreal is an appropriate title for that article. That incoming links refer mostly to the Montreal article is a problem, and should be fixed, as is routinely done to bypass disambiguation pages. --Qyd (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is that? Only part of it lies in the current City of Montreal. One of the summits lies in the City of Westmount. A former burrough of Montreal was "Mount Royal". A current city "Mount Royal" lies in the Montreal Administrative Region (subprovincial administrative zone). 1/3 of the Mount Royal dab page lies on the Island of Montreal. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mount Royal, Montreal is contained within the Island of Montreal. Having a dab term in the title helps when subjective "primary meaning" disputes such as this one arise. --Qyd (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But so do the other things... they also lie on the Island of Montreal... 76.66.198.171 (talk) 06:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mount Royal, Quebec was properly called Mount Royal, Montreal when the town was merged into the city from 2001-2006, before being demerged again. so the name Mount Royal, Montreal is truly not unambiguous. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Island of Montreal != City of Montreal. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The mere existence of other topics with the same name is not the standard for determining the need to disambiguate a title; the presence or absence of a primary meaning among similarly named topics is the standard. A discussion proposing such a move would certainly be acceptable in this case — although, for the record, I'd oppose it since there's very little question that at least among the topics that could actually be located at the plain title "Mount Royal" (the mountain range and the college, for example, could not), the one in Montreal pretty clearly wins out over a town of 700 people and a town so minor that it doesn't even have an article yet — but an arbitrary move is quite clearly not. Move both articles back to their original titles and then follow proper process if you still feel a change is warranted. And for the record, I'd note that in addition to discussing a move like this first, proper process for disambiguating page moves also includes actually changing all the inbound links to the updated link title at the time of the page move — you do not move a page but then leave its old links pointing to the dab page instead. Bearcat (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Bearcat (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've moved the disambiguation page back to Mount Royal (disambiguation), and will ask an admin to move the article in question back to Mount Royal. There was obviously no consensus for the first cut and past move, and there should be a discussion before the DAB page and article are switched. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've retagetted the resultant rediect to Mount Royal, Montreal, since all the incoming links refer to that article. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My preference is for Mount Royal to be the disambig page, as there are many Mount Royals and similar in the world. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 8 of the entries are named after the hill in question. 1 is the hill in question. The hill in question is located in the middle of a large metropolitan population (second largest in Canada) with a large English speaking population. So the hill in question frequently appears in the news, in English. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 11:27, 18 January 2009 (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.