Talk:Manicouagan

Name, place in Quebec, need for article
First, this doesn't need parentheses. Second, it is not included among the regions in the Quebec article and seems to be part of the North Shore region, which has no "Regions" section at all. So should this be a rural area article? Apparently not, since it contains cities with Wikivoyage articles. Why is this article needed at all? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge with North Shore, as all of the new content should have been added there. North Shore has more than 9 cities, but not many more than that, and it should be a "bottom level region" (in the language of wv:7+2); total population of North Shore: 92,518 (2016). There's no need to split North Shore into the so-called "Manicouagan travel region" (no mention of "Manicuagan region" in general) and the "Duplessis travel region" (same). I also support removing all mention of the aforementioned unnecessarily constructed subregions. Twsabin (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Veillg1, your input? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as an extraregion. Contrary to the regional county municipality articles, this one does have some content in it, and if it is a commonly used name, then it should be kept. Manicouagan is a disambiguation page though, but I'm really not sure whether we need an article for both the tourist region and the regional county municipality. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 21:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't meet the definition of an extraregion as something "parallel to the accepted hierarchy" -- this is an implicit proposal to deepen the accepted hierarchy with an additional level by subdiving North Coast into two subregions. The proposal should not be accepted because North Coast should be the bottom level region for this area. Twsabin (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * [Edit conflict:] That seems sensible; just as long as it doesn't mess up the breadcrumb navigation. As long as it's an extraregion, it doesn't really imply anything. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * North Shore is a usable article but it's on the short side. It could be much longer. If the content of Manicouagan (tourist region) would be a good addition to North Shore, then we would do a disservice to the North Shore article by not improving it by moving said content there. Were the move to result in a lot of duplication, there'd be no point in keeping the partial duplicate article. Twsabin (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This could be turned into a brief summary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It could but if a reader is to stumble upon this article (after it had been turned into a brief summary) how would they know that there is actually more in-depth content about everything that's in the "Manucouagan region" in the effectively (in real world terms) higher-level North Shore article. Twsabin (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Should we tell them somewhere: "Okay, you're here... but actually, you know, go and read the North Shore article for real information". It isn't intuitive; it's more intuitive that most detailed content should be under this title, if it already exists Twsabin (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand the problem, because it would usually be the reverse - that an article about a smaller area would have the details and the article about the larger area it's part of would have the summary. So yeah, maybe a merge and redirect would be best. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * With the hindsight that this discussion allows, here are some observations, according to what is published on the Côte-Nord region of Quebec.
 * The French project currently focuses on the tourist content of the Duplessis and Manicouagan tourist sub-regions; and little on the article "Côte-Nord". Only two RCMs (Minganie and Le Golfe-du-Saint-Laurent) have an article; therefore 4 RCM have no articles.
 * The English project instead displays content in the Côte-Nord article, and the Manicouagan and Duplessis sub-regions; as well as on the RCM Caniapiscau, Minganie and Le Golfe-du-Saint-Laurent. So 3 RCM have no articles.
 * A few observations:
 * content on remote regions (Minganie, Le Golfe-du-Saint-Laurent and Caniapiscau) are handled better by the RCMs, because of their specific characteristics of remoteness;
 * The RCM La Haute-Côte-Nord, Manicouagan and Sept-Rivières have more common characteristics in terms of recreational tourism, because of road access and less distance from major urban centres.
 * Possible options as editorial policy:
 * A. Focus on RCMs (regional county municipality); this would involve decreasing the contents of the subregions (or perhaps erasing them).
 * B. Emphasize the content of articles from the two sub-regions and that of the North Shore; this would imply that the RCMs would have little content (or would be erased).
 * Notes:
 * Four levels of information is confusing for readers and editors. The extra level seems to me to be the two tourist sub-regions (Manicouagan and Duplessis).
 * It would be desirable for the French and English versions to be harmonized.
 * For my part, I am very open to discussion. Veillg1 (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for addressing this. Some replies: (1) It's not important for different language versions to be anything close to identical. It's natural, for example, that there are more articles about neighborhoods in Rome in Italian-Language Wikivoyage. (2) Content on remote regions could be covered separately as bottom-level rural area articles, but this tourist region includes cities that already have their own articles. (3) I doubt that any content on places that don't merit their own articles per What is an article couldn't be covered in the article for the North Coast. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Twsabin Nope, extraregions can be any region-like article that doesn't fit into our hierarchy. Perhaps see Ningaloo Coast which is in a similar boat to this. It's entirely within Gascoyne, just like how this is a part of Quebec's North Shore but yet we've never had a problem with that extraregion. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 07:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This fits in the hierarchy, that's the deal. It's one part in an attempt to extend the hierarchy by subdividing North Shore. This adds an additional level by going from Canada > North Shore (it being the bottom-level region)—to—Canada > North Shore > Manicouagan and Duplessis. Those two propounded travel regions, which are used on the French Wikivoyage (1, 2), cover 100% of North Shore's area. After this article has been created, we can now only expect the creation of the "Duplessis (tourist region)" article (probably by the same editor, who holds a view that the English and French projects should be harmonized). Let's see how the Manicouagan travel region is inherently not an extra-region, based on your example: Ningaloo Coast is a part of Gascoyne, but the rest of Gascoyne is simply Gascoyne, it's not a discrete thing (apart from, logically, "not-Ningaloo Coast"...); that makes Ningaloo Coast "parallel to the accepted hierarchy". Also, Ningaloo Coast is a common term (wp article; unlike "Manicouagan travel/tourist region" which doesn't have any references external to Wikivoyage) that is defined by geography and is a World Heritage Site. The Manicouagan travel region is not a historic or geographic region or even an administrative unit, or anything commonly seen as a disrete entity, outside the context of how Wikivoyage constructs it's travel (sub)regions. There is the Manicouagan RCM (administrative unit), but the therewith constructed "Manicouagan travel region" comprises many other areas, not just the RCM—it's a travel region that borrows the RCM's name. What we should discuss here is not whether this article should be an extra-region, but whether we agree with Veillg1 that North Shore should be subdivided into two subregions. I think that it shouldn't. Per policy, on the English Wikivoyage "we only add a level of regions when there is too much content in the existing breakdown." There isn't too much content (not nearly so) in the North Shore article. But if there is consensus that North Shore should be divided into further regions, I think that's okay. The thing that makes the least sense for me is making this article into an extra-region article. Twsabin (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. This is a map of Côte Nord, which is way larger than just the RCMs of Manicouagan and Duplessis. What seems to have happened is someone messed up the OSM relation (probably another victim of the disappearing/incorrect mapshapes issue), which is why it appears as such. Whilst I don't always exactly agree with Veillg1 in harmonizing the English and French Wikivoyages, I'm all for harmonizing the region boundaries with fr – after all, the French Wikivoyage's Duplessis article is a star article. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 12:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that the tourist regions of the Côte-Nord region are:
 * "Manicouagan" including the RCMs of La Haute-Côte-Nord (capital Les Escoumins), Manicouagan (Baie-Comeau);
 * "Duplessis" including the RCMs of Caniapiscau (capital Fermont), Sept-Rivières (Sept-Îles), Minganie (Havre-Saint-Pierre), Le Golfe-du-Saint-Laurent (Blanc-Sablon) formerly designated "Basse-Côte-Nord (Lower North Shore)".
 * "Duplessis" is not an RCM.
 * Regarding the harmonization of content between French and English projects, there is a difference between an "obligation" and a "wish". The term harmonization does not mean "identical" (however, the basic data must be identical). Veillg1 (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The information in both language versions should not conflict, but it wouldn't be surprising for Francophones to have some different interests from Anglophones, such as perhaps in regard to certain details of Quebec history. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)