Talk:Saguenay, Quebec

message: Ville de Saguenay is the official name of the town. Currently the media is calling the city simply Saguenay, with possibly the exception of SRC's regional radio station which if I'm not mistaken calls it "ville de saguenay" as a result of complaints received from listeners. -132... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.212.244.67 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 28 February 2003  (UTC)
:And they should complain. "À Saguenay" just sounds wrong. If it were up to me (and a number of people in the name of good sense), the city should still be called Chicoutimi.--132.206.150.33 21:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old discussion

message: At present, the plain title Saguenay is a disambiguation page. However, I would like to initiate a discussion about this. While the dab page is at least more solid and defensible than the one at Trois-Rivières, a case can be made that the city should be at the plain title since everything else on the dab page is already linked to within the city's article anyway. 
So I'm soliciting input here: should this article remain at Saguenay, Quebec, or should it be moved to Saguenay? [Update: For the record, I personally have no opinion either way — but in light of the current cleanup project on Canadian city names, I do feel that this is a case which we need to review and discuss to establish what our actual consensus is.] Bearcat 03:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep it as it is. Long before being an amalgamated city (something recent, and the name is controversial still to a point, as of all the mergers in 2002, it's the only place where the name of the most populous city prior to merger was not adopted for the new city), Saguenay referred to a region, a fjord, a river (the latter including the former),  and a mythical kingdom (and a boulevard...). So for those historical reasons and to keep with naming convention of Canadian cities, I say we stick to Saguenay, Quebec for the town and Saguenay as a disambig.--Boffob 04:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Boffob - I don't see any clear evidence that the city is the primary meaning of the word. john k 05:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the move.  None of the related articles (the river, the region, etc.) would be at the Saguenay title, and any local controversy over the municipal name is irrelevant to the issue of the title of the article.  Skeezix1000 11:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why wouldn't they be at Saguenay, if not for wiki naming conventions? It's the only reason why the articles aren't titled Saguenay (region), Saguenay (river), Saguenay (fjord), Saguenay (city). Consider the Saguenay Flood: which Saguenay (region, city, river, fjord) do you think they refer to?--Boffob 14:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Surely the mythical kingdom or the region could be at Saguenay... This seems a clear instance of an ambiguous name. john k 15:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me quote the naming convention with regards to this : "Places which either have unique names or are unquestionably the most significant place sharing their name, such as Quebec City or Toronto, can have undisambiguated titles." The name Saguenay is definitely not unique. And the city is far from being unquestionably the most significant place bearing that name. While Quebec City in English has the "City" part to differenciate it from Quebec the province, Saguenay, the city, has no such extra part to differentiate it from the region, the river or the fjord. As the city is only 5 years old, while the region has been settled for 179 years (not counting Natives who've been there for at least a couple of millenia), I really don't think a move would be within the naming conventions.--Boffob 00:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cities take precedence over regions as a de facto convention. Every time. And the convention you quoted refers to cites only (that's the way we wrote it). It is a unique name for a city, and as I've said cities take precedence over regions. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 23:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: New York would disagree with your "de facto" convention... I guess you're thinking of regions that are named after the main city in them. the But the naming convention clearly states "places", a more general concept than "cities". A region, a state, a country, etc, are all places. Here the region predates the city by centuries, and the city was named after the region, not the other way around. Every expression with Saguenay in it refers to either the region or the river/fjord, never the city. I'm not entirely sure why the English expression for the city isn't Saguenay City because officially, its French name is "Ville de Saguenay".--Boffob 18:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ville de" is part of the official name of every ville in Quebec, from Montreal right down to Rimouski. Similarly, "city of" or "town of" is part of the official name of every city or town in English Canada, but it's never part of the short form name. The sole exception is Quebec City, which is so called in English not because of the word ville in its French name, but so as to distinguish it from the province. Bearcat 21:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, and New York is a state, not a region, so it doesn't disprove Royalguard's statement. Cities that have the same name as the state or province they're located in don't get name precedence over the state or province, although it should be noted that NYC's article is at New York City, not New York, New York. Bearcat 21:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And as Bearcat said, the only conflict between City and Province in Canada is Quebec and Quebec City (which is actually also called Quebec but is more known in english as Quebec City). -Royalguard11(T·R!) 16:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still have no proof positive of this "de facto" convention or that the use of the word "place" in the naming convention only means "city". What proof do you have that people looking for a Saguenay article are overwhelmingly looking for the city and not the region?--Boffob 22:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page title

message: Before adding links to the (often revisionist) "historical moments" mini docudramas, the user adding them should consider their pertinence to the subject of the article. In this particular case, the "Saguenay" fire of 1870 has nothing to do with the city of Saguenay (city established in 2002). The fire started in Saint-Félicien, Quebec in the Lac Saint-Jean and almost reached Chicoutimi-Nord (about 150 km away), where a cross was erected, thus spared most, practically all, the territory now considered part of the city of Saguenay. Once again, someone is confusing the region (really the "extended" one, so to speak, English media often uses Saguenay to refer to anything within the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region) with the city.--Boffob (talk) 06:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Les minutes du patrimoine 

message: Looking at the population listings for Saguenay I can't help but think there must be a mistake as the "city population" - 143 000 - is listed as being much *lower* than the "urban population" of 103 000.  How can the urban area possibly have a lower population than the city itself which is, of course, a part of the overall urban area.  Are those two numbers mixed up?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielzulauf (talk • contribs) 20:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake with population figures? 

message: Seems to me the page is missing the essential pronunciation guide in the first sentence which I expect to see with any city entry on wikipedia. This was the first place I checked to find a pronunciation, believe it or not, and was dismayed to not find it. I don't feel in place to edit the page myself but my suggestion is someone should add that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.116.220 (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation. ˈsa-gə-ˌnā 

message: The Mayor is now Julie Dufour
ThePro (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mayor