Talk:Laurentians

Hi,

Just to let you know that the text used is from the Official Tourisme Laurentides Website (www.laurentides.com). Tourisme Laurentides gave us the mandate to fill different wiki with a specific text to introduce the Laurentians region.

We are allowed to use this text. If you have any question, just let me know :

laurentides@laurentides.com

+ is there any way to link to an external page in this article?

Name change
To me (from Ottawa), Laurentides is French and we should use the common English name, the Laurentians. Any objections to a move? (WT-en) Pashley 08:33, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Laval?
How did Laval end up in the Laurentides? It's an island in the St. Lawrence and a Montréal suburb, so may be a better fit there? K7L (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation
In English, is it pronounced "Lauren-tides" or the French way - "Lora(n)-teed" or thereabouts? This should be mentioned in the article.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In English, it's pronounced Lo-ren-shuns, unless you're talking about the beer, then it's Lor-en-tides, as in "I picked up a two-four of Laurentides for  the May Two-Four long weekend, eh?" Any Anglo-Quebecers out there are welcome to correct me. I've never heard Lor-en-tides used to refer to the region in English. Ground Zero (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I notice that Pashley proposed some time ago to change the article's name along those lines. Ordinarily that's how I'd propose solving this, but the problem with that idea is the Quebec government uses "Laurentides" in its official tourist literature in English as well as French, so it's up for debate whether "Laurentians" really is the proper English name for the region. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow. That was ten years ago. I've just redirected "Laurentians" here. I'm not that fussed about it. I don't know what the policy says on common name vs. official name. Actually I do, but Quebec is very much a distinct society, so there may be an argument for not applying the general policy. Ground Zero (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I must be losing my mind or something. I was in Mont-Tremblant just four or five days ago, and I typed that whole bit about "the Quebec government uses 'Laurentides' in its official tourist literature in English as well as French" while the "Official Laurentians Tourist Guide" from "Tourism Laurentians" that I got from the hotel was sitting next to me on my desk. Given that, I'm going to do a complete 180 and say we have a pretty airtight case for moving this article to Laurentians. Any objections, ThunderingTyphoons!, Ground Zero, or Pashley? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * None at all. Allez-y.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Vas-y. Comme amis, nous pouvouns nous tutoyons. Ground Zero (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Certainly no objection here. Pashley (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Removing points of interest
why have you removed these three points of interest from the article? Your edit summary said "all three of these are already listings in their respective city article".

Region article template/See says: "This is for an overview of the types of attractions as well as the principal attractions in the region. Don't give full details about each attraction; you should have that in the article for the city where the attraction is. "

The information you removed on the park, house and gardens, and cosmodome informed readers of what to see in the region, and did not include detailed address, phone, hours and price information. The point of having a See section in a region article is to give the reader a general idea of why they might want to go there before they dive into the city articles. Deleting the whole section leaves the reader wondering what there is to see in the region. I agree that the details about the Buddhist temple should be moved to a city article. Ground Zero (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The "See" section of region articles should obviously have content; however, as the infobox that Ikan Kekek added indicates, it should not include listings, which are what I removed from that section. Furthermore, none of those listings were for the Laurentians' most prominent attractions, so simply converting the information in them to paragraphs of prose wouldn't have been sufficient. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there a policy that sights can't be in a template and must be in prose? I haven't been able to find that policy. If it is a policy, I don't think that removing content because it is not correctly formatted builds the project, or is best for travellers. My practice is to keep the content and fix the formatting. Content should always come first.
 * The infobox added by Ikan Kekek says that detailed listings should not be in the article, and these were not detailed listings.
 * I selected those sights from the city articles on the region. I think it is better to have some sights than none. If you disagree with my selection, you are free to propose alternatives. Blanking the section does not improve the article. It makes it worse.
 * I ask for your help in making this a useful article for travellers. I don't think that removing content does that. Ground Zero (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's not let persnickety semantic issues about the specific wording of policy distract us from the intent of that policy, which I think is pretty self-evident: what would be the logic of forbidding detailed listings, yet permitting far less detailed and thus far less useful listings? The fact that the goal is to deter the listing format, rather than detailed information, seems obvious enough to me that policy shouldn't have to spell it out in black and white. At any rate, see Eastern Shore (Maryland), Northern Territory, and Chicago - all Guide or better-level articles - for what we've always interpreted policy to prescribe for the "See" sections of regions or districtified Huge Cities: descriptions in general terms of the types of attractions to be found there, perhaps name-checking a few of the biggest ones but always doing so inline within a block of prose, rather than as listings. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's not read into the policy what it doesn't say, and let's not use formatting as a justification for blanking out content. It's not being "persnickety" to ask for policy over one editor's personal preferences. It is self-evident that having three sights listed without detailed listing information, as the policy actually says, in templates is more useful to travellers than having nothing.
 * What do you think are better sights to list than these? Please answer this question so that we can work together to improve the article. Ground Zero (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * With regard to your comment "The fact that the goal is to deter the listing format, rather than detailed information...." That is clearly your opinion, to which you are entitled. I have a different opinion. I ask that you respect that others have different opinions from you by not trying to assert your position as "fact". It isn't. Ground Zero (talk) 03:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Pardon me for entering this discussion, but this should be simple. If these are duplicate listings, those listings should be merged into one in the most appropriate article. If these are not duplicate listings, why delete them? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 00:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In a region level article, according to Region article template, the See section "... is for an overview of the types of attractions as well as the principal attractions in the region." So we're talking about mentioning the principal attractions of the region. The detailed information about those attractions goes in the city-level articles. This isn't about duplicate listings. Ground Zero (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Listing format is not used; otherwise, these are listings. I guess we have to debate this suddenly at Wikivoyage talk:Region article template? If so, the existing Wikivoyage talk:Region article template thread is pretty relevant. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I read through Wikivoyage talk:Region article template to see if there was discussion about not using templates, and I couldn't find anything. But this is not a big deal for me. I can put the information into prose. The problem I have is that content has been removed just because someone doesn't like the format. I think formatting is important (better user experience --> more readers), but it is never more important than content. Blanking a section because of formatting does not put the traveller first. Ground Zero (talk) 11:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You keep framing this as a case of me removing the content because I personally don't like listings in region articles, when in reality it has little to do with my personal preference (of which I don't even have any). Ground Zero, Wikivoyage existed for twelve years before you made your first edit here and in all that time, no one has ever interpreted this policy in any other way than "the fact that the goal is to deter the listing format, rather than detailed information". Do you really think that's just a coincidence? Far be it from me to assume bad faith, but it frankly sounds to me more like your personal preference is for the listing format and you've simply found a loophole in the wording of policy on which to base an argument. For my part, when the letter of policy conflicts with the spirit of policy, I think the latter supersedes the former. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I see; we're moving listings out of here because they belong in city articles. On the whole, that seems reasonable. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 13:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Andre completely, and I've been here longer by far than he. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

First, there is no basis for deleting content because it is badly formatted. The "nutshell" summary of Plunge_forward says: "Don't worry about being perfect or making mistakes. If something needs to be done, do it. Jump in and make useful edits to articles." We would not advise that if we were planning to revert contributions that have formatting errors. So I will restore this information. If you want to add other sights to the list, please do so. The section would benefit from more information. Blanking the section makes the article less useful for travellers.

Second, after I've told you "But this is not a big deal for me. I can put the information into prose", claiming that "it frankly sounds to me more like your personal preference is for the listing format" is antagonistic. I have demonstrated a commitment to Wikivoyage through article creation, upgrading articles from outline to usable (including this article), initiating new policies, combatting vandals, nominating at least one new administrator, and cleaning up formatting, touting, and poorly-written articles. Claiming that my position is the opposite of what I have stated it to be is absolutely accusing me of bad faith. That is a jerk move.

Third, the policy does not say that listing templates are prohibited. I get that two long-standing editors have interpreted the policy to mean that, so let's change it to clearly reflect your interpretation and not trip up other editors. I've worked my way through the Atlantic Canada region articles and part of Quebec, upgrading 20 region articles from outline to usable by adding content, some of it in templates, but never including detailed listing information. Now I find out that the interpretation is different. I don't want to see all of my work building these articles undone because I have broken an unwritten formatting rule. Let's make the policy clear by explicitly prohibiting the use of templates. I will support that change.

Finally, the claim that no one has ever interpreted this policy in any other way than "the fact that the goal is to deter the listing format, rather than detailed information" is fatuous. The policy uses the term "detailed listing information" and does not use the term "listing format". Most of our region articles are outlines because very few editors take on the job of bringing them up to the usable level. So the issue has not come up very much. For example, of the five region articles you created within Gaspé Peninsula five years ago, only one of them is usable now. The rest are pretty much just lists of destinations with a map and a picture of a lighthouse.

Again, throwing your weight around as a long-standing editor really does send a message to newer editors. I've been contributing for 3½ years now. If you are aiming to make newer editors feel unwelcome, continue to throw around longevity as an excuse for interpreting an unclear policy. Ground Zero (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * You're a newer editor than we are, but I think and certainly hope you've been here long enough not to be at risk of leaving in a huff because we're telling you how a policy has been understood since the beginning. Telling you that doesn't devalue any of the extremely valuable work you do. I would find it very tiresome to have to debate a form of words to add a black and white discouragement of using listing templates in region articles, though since it's come up, I guess we'll have to IMO waste time on it... Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Likewise, I would also hate to see you leave in a huff because a newer editor who has been contributing in good faith genuinely misunderstood a policy that two other editors believe should be interpreted to mean something. I have proposed wording here to avoid this confusion in the future. If there are no objections to it, then I can add it to the policy, and avoid the time wasted on discussions like the one above. I would rather spend my time improving region articles like this one. Ground Zero (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)