Talk:Saint-Michel, Montreal

Metro
The metro stations Fabre, Iberville and St. Michel are not in the St. Michel District of Montreal. They are in François-Perreault. While it's true the St. Michel Metro used to be part of the St. Michel district, François-Perreault was created and it now holds the 3 metros. For reference: http://www.navurb.com/nu_inter/index.html

Response
Well it all depends of what definition you give to the term "district". If it's for the electoral district, then you're right, the stations are no longer in the Saint-Michel electoral district.

However, if we are referring to the neighbourhood or former city of Saint-Michel (which I believe this is what this article is about), then those metros stations are still part of it since I have yet to hear a neighbourhood in Montreal by the name of François-Perreault. While I'm not 100% sure that Fabre and D'Iberville metros stations are in the territory of the former city of Saint-Michel, I know St-Michel station is. For this time, I have reverted your edit but if you find informations about Fabre and D'Iberville not being part of the former city of Saint-Michel, feel free to remove them from the article. There is a possibility that those 2 stations are in the Villeray neighbourhood, not Saint-Michel.

Response
If you go to the website and overlay the metro layer and the district layer you will see the 3 metro stations are in François-Perreault and not Saint-Michel


 * Yes, but the article is about the neighbourhood (or former city) of Saint-Michel, not the Saint-Michel electoral district. François-Perreault is an electoral district, not a neighbourhood. The metros stations may no longer be part of the St-Michel electoral district but they are still part of the St-Michel neighbourhood (or at least St-Michel station is). I'll soon go to the library to check an old map to see if Fabre and Iberville stations are in the territory of the former city of Saint-Michel. Farine, August 10th 2007

Need Reference
"The 1990s saw Saint-Michel's reputation tarnished by its severe street gang problems and the negative propaganda surrounding the whole situation. In consequence, Saint-Michel was long viewed as one of Montreal's most dangerous inner city neighborhoods. Although these problems persist to this day, the phenomenon seems better controlled."

This needs clarification from sensationalism and some references please. Mars2mogwai (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed page move
As per WP:CANSTYLE, this article should be moved to Saint-Michel, Montreal. In accordance with the guideline, however, the move is first being raised on the talk page. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge article
I think the page Saint-Michel-de-Laval should be merged into this article since Saint-Michel de Laval corresponds exactly to what is today the St-Michel neighborhood. All the infos and categories on Saint-Michel-de-Laval can simply be added on this page. The Saint-Michel-de-Laval page does not offer anything that cannot be included in this article.

Keep in mind that, except for the Old Montreal section, all neighbourhoods in Montreal were once idependent cities at one timeline or another. Having seperate articles for the former city of St-Michel-de-Laval and the Saint-Michel neighborhood is like having seperate articles for the Verdun borough and the former city of Verdun. It's pretty much pointless.

Farine (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2008


 * I think I agree, if we're talking about a situation where the borders of the borough and former city are exactly the same, i.e. not a situation like Roxboro, Quebec and Pierrefonds-Roxboro. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're bringing a good point about the border issue. I made a comparaison between a 1952 map of St-Michel-de-Laval and a 1997 map of the neighborhood St-Michel. Although many of the streets name changed from 1952 to 1997, the boundaries are 100% identical in the two maps. It is possible there might have been an evolution in the boundaries from the city's 1914 inception to 1952. But nevertheless, the  boundaries in 1952 and 1997 are identical, meaning that when St-Michel was annexed in 1968,  it logically had the same boundaries as in 1997. Proving that there is no notability for St-Michel-de-Laval to get it's own article. Farine (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2008
 * It doesn't really matter if the boundaries are not precisely the same. Municipal boundaries do commonly evolve over the decades, given annexations and adjustments.  However, as long as the articles generally cover the same place, merging them is fine (the article can refer to any boundary adjustments).  Shawn's example is a good one -- because that's a different situation entirely, where Roxboro and Pierrefonds-Roxboro are completely different entities covering different areas.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support merge. I recently merged Saint-Laurent (borough) into Saint-Laurent, Quebec, two almost identical articles on the same place - there was no need for two articles, regardless of the transition from city to borough.  The same logic would apply here. Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a note that the title of the merged article should be consistent with WP:CANSTYLE. Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)