Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Grammar question

There is a series of articles on past and present Canadian electoral districts. Where a district no longer exists because of redistribution, which is correct:

"Don Valley North was a former electoral district", or
"Don Valley North is a former electoral district"?

I believe that the past nature of the district is captured in "former", and that adding the past tense to the sentence is either redundant, or "undoes" the past nature. Another editor suggests that using the present tense makes it inconsistent with the following sentence that describes where the district "was located" (i.e., it uses the simple past tense). Assistance would be appreciated. Ground Zero 14:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd lean towards "is a former district"; regardless of a following sentence changing to past tense, saying something "was a former district" sounds illogical and seems to imply that somehow it's now a district again. If tense inconsistencies cannot be worked around, why not just say "was a district" without any former at all? -- Ferkelparade π 14:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should just be 'was a district'. No need for 'former'. Proto t c 15:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded. "Former" is a negator masquerading as an adjective and clarity is instantanly improved by losing it. Now, any reason you're calling it an "electoral district" instead of "riding"? Sharkford 15:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm quite fond of riding as a distinctly Canadian usage of the word, but it is colloquial -- Canadian elections agencies do not generally use it. They use "electoral district" or similar bureaucratically bland terms. Also, I didn't create the articles in the first place. Other more industrious editors did so. Thanks for your comments. Ground Zero 18:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can either say it "was a district" or "is a former district". Saying it "was a former district" is a double negative in English and strictly means that it is no longer a former district, and is now an active district. --Fastfission 20:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "is a former district" is also wrong by usage, though grammatically correct. should use "was a district" - anon
All three options are gramatically correct, but not necessarily factually correct. Let's say we're talking about the late Walter Payton. If it's 1992, you can say, "Payton is a former Chicago Bear." Today, if you're talking about his career, you would say, "Payton was a Chicago Bear." But if it's today, and we're talking about 1992, you could say, "In 1992, I met a man who was a former Chicago Bear. His name was Walter Payton, and he later died." Mwalcoff 02:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]