Talk:Boundary Waters
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
|
 |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, which aims to improve all articles related to Minnesota. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Mid | This article is on a subject of Mid-importance within Minnesota articles. | |
|
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
[edit] Possible name change to "Quetico-Superior"
I raise as a topic of discussion changing the name of this article to "Quetico-Superior". Rather than having an immediate poll, I suggest we discuss it here first. Here are some reasons in favor of such a name change:
- Boundary Waters leads to confusion with Boundary Waters Canoe Area.
- Boundary Waters may have more currency south of the border than north. Quetico-Superior may be better known in Ontario and Canada, and is also well known in the US.
- The term Quetico-Superior has been used for years in names of groups, government actions, and Searle's book. There are some 15,000 Google links to it.
This article, renamed Quetico-Superior, could be an overview of the common attributes, history, and protection status of both sides of the border, with links to the specific articles on each constituent park or region. Given the long history of international cooperation in this area, a neutral and well-recognized title would be appropriate. Kablammo 20:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- I do agree that the name Quetico-Superior is not insignificant, and should at least be a redirect and be explained within this article. However, I don't see either title in question as being more neutral than the other. Regarding your points:
- There are many examples of management areas named after more general regions (Death Valley National Park named after Death Valley, for example)
- It may be true that more Canadians call this region Quetico-Superior rather than the Boundary Waters, but more Americans live within a day's drive than Canadians.
- There are 15,200 Google links for Quetico-Superior, 157,000 for "boundary waters" Ontario, and 393,000 for "boundary waters" Minnesota
- In the English Wikipedia there are currently 4 references to Quetico-Superior, 63 references to "boundary waters" Ontario, and 2,540 references to "boundary waters" Minnesota
- --BlueCanoe 05:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- It is not surprising that a search of "Boundary Waters" yields so many hits. When referring to Northern Minnesota, the term is typically used as shorthand for the BWCA, which is shown in many of the results returned by a search. (And some of those hits are for other boundary waters; for example the term is in fishing regulations for the Mississippi, St. Croix, Big Stone Lake, etc.) The problem is that the common use of the term as a synonym for the BWCA makes it confusing to have one article on the wilderness area itself and another here. If used in a more generic sense (but still limited to northern Minnesota) it is too limiting, as it effectively excludes much of the area within the parks which is not actually on the border. No one would refer to Quetico, Cirrus, Marj, Nym, etc. lakes as part of the boundary waters.) Therefore I prefer Quetico-Superior as it includes the entire parks and protected forest areas in the region, which share common history, geology, and ecology. Kablammo 16:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- The term "Boundary waters" includes the whole of the border between MN and Ontario, the term "Quetico-Superior" does not. Is lake of the woods considered part of the boundary waters? If so then "Quetico-Superior" will not work for the title of this article. -Ravedave 16:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is not surprising that a search of "Boundary Waters" yields so many hits. When referring to Northern Minnesota, the term is typically used as shorthand for the BWCA, which is shown in many of the results returned by a search. (And some of those hits are for other boundary waters; for example the term is in fishing regulations for the Mississippi, St. Croix, Big Stone Lake, etc.) The problem is that the common use of the term as a synonym for the BWCA makes it confusing to have one article on the wilderness area itself and another here. If used in a more generic sense (but still limited to northern Minnesota) it is too limiting, as it effectively excludes much of the area within the parks which is not actually on the border. No one would refer to Quetico, Cirrus, Marj, Nym, etc. lakes as part of the boundary waters.) Therefore I prefer Quetico-Superior as it includes the entire parks and protected forest areas in the region, which share common history, geology, and ecology. Kablammo 16:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Categories: WikiProject Geography of Canada articles | Unassessed Geography of Canada articles | Unknown-importance Geography of Canada articles | WikiProject Ontario articles | Unassessed Ontario articles | Unknown-importance Ontario articles | Unassessed Canada-related articles | Unknown-importance Canada-related articles | Start-Class Minnesota articles | Mid-importance Minnesota articles
