Talk:Parti national populaire

Canada: Quebec / Politics Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Quebec.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada.

Politics: Political parties Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled[edit]

Do we know that the PNP was créditiste? While it is reasonable to assuem that Roy held the créditiste beliefs he demonstrated before and after the PNP, what about Choquette? He was a former Liberal minister. Kevintoronto 10:42, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

According to Fabien Roy's autobiography, and according to this website : http://www.quebecpolitique.com/partis/pnp.html , the answer to the first question is yes. As for Choquette, I don't know. My impression, from what I've read, is that the social credit monetary theory was not particularly emphasized in the party's 1976 campaign. — ABCXYZ (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I scanned the Gazette for the 1976 election, and found only references to liberalism, and nothing on social credit. Ground Zero | t 21:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

While editors may be anxious to move this article to an English language form of the name, please note that it is incorrect to do so:

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions says

Use the most easily recognized name: Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.... Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.

Use common names of persons and things: Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things; use the naming conflict guideline when there is a conflict. Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications.

Use English words: Convention: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article, unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form. The choice between anglicized and native spellings should follow English usage (e.g., Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard and Göttingen, but Nuremberg, delicatessen, and Florence). Often this will be the local version, as with Madrid. Sometimes the usual English version will differ somewhat from the local form as in Franz Josef Strauss; and rarely, as with Mount Everest, it will be completely different.

WP:CANSTYLE is even more specific than WP:NC on this point. Unless there is a widely used and recognized English-language version of the name, use the official French-language version.

Thank you. Ground Zero | t 05:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]