Talk:Parti rouge

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . 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. 

NO CONSENSUS to move page, per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Parti rouge → Red Party (Canada) — English whenever possible, and here English is possible. --Checco 09:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC) – discussion added by Sig Pig  |SEND - OVER  23:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add  # Support   or   # Oppose   on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~ .  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

 * 1) Support as I said above. --Checco 20:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

 * 1) Oppose it is not disambiguated with its current title. And in English in Canada it is known as the parti rouge. 70.51.8.30 05:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2)  Oppose This move would violate Wikipedia naming policies as explained at User talk:Checco and WP:NC. I have never, ever seen the phrase "Rad Party" used in Canadian politics. This move would make absolutely no sense. Ground Zero | t 20:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. The rule on Wikipedia isn't actually "English whenever possible" — it's technically possible to translate both Bloc Québécois and Parti Québécois, too, but that would result in absurd titles that nobody on the planet actually uses. The rule is actually that we use whichever name, be it English or French, is more documentably in use for the topic in English-language sources. This is a case where the topic is always referred to as "Parti rouge" in both English and French, so the title has to stay at Parti rouge. Bearcat 03:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Here I am not even certain the most official party name is Parti rouge. Another name was Parti démocratique. I would need to do a little bit of research to find out what the party members called it. --Mathieugp 06:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose always called Parti rouge in English sources. Kevlar67 03:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments:


 * The Bloc Québécois and Parti Québécois are modern parties that are known exclusively by their French names in English. 70.51.8.30 05:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Fair use rationale for Image:Can-pol w.jpg
Image:Can-pol w.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Lack of references or sources
This article was created on May 5, 2004 without references or sources. It has been tagged since November of 2006, but still no one has provied the required references or sources. Given that Verifiability "is one of Wikipedia's core content policies," I think that after three years, it is reasonable that if it is not rectified by June 30, 2008, then the article should br deleted as per the Deletion policy. Jonathan Logan (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * All right, I'll had sources, but they will all be in French. -- Mathieugp (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And a few years later, I've added some sources in English too! This must be a hot topic, because a few books relating to pre-Confederation politics have been published over the last year. Must be a Canada 150 thing. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)