Jump to content

Talk:List of protected areas of Quebec

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Official names

[edit]

The names of the parks and wildlife reserves are taken from the Société des établissements de plein air du Québec (SEPAQ), the corporation responsible for their management. As we can see on the English version of their Website, the official names remain the same in English or French:

-- Mathieugp 19:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Designation as national parks

[edit]

The term "National" in some of the parks names is confusing. Official "National Parks" are the one administered by Parks Canada, under the authority of the National Parks Act (Canada). The SEPAQ designation as "national" probably refers to the World Conservation Union category II. A clarification in the lead paragraph would be necessary. National parks of Quebec sounds as if QC is a standalone country (it isn't yet), maybe National parks" in Quebec would sound better. My 2¢ --Qyd 02:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That info got removed again. It really should be there, because otherwise it is quite confusing why they are called "national" parks. Qutezuce 08:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of "national" and "Canadian" by the Federal Government of Canada, instead of "federal", could also be seen as confusing since (1) the Canadian federation has a distinctly binational (or multinational) character and (2) all things "Canadian" are not federal. But here is not the time or place for such discussions. Since there exists a separate "List of Canadian national parks", the three "national parks of Canada" in the the list of "Quebec national parks" could be removed. But their inclusion in this list nevertheless seems to provide added value for anyone (misguided or otherwise) looking for the federal national parks in Quebec. The explication is concise and avoids controversy. The reasons behind the various uses of "national" and "nation" by the governments of Canada and Quebec and, of course, by many First Nations, need not be broached here. --Joseph B 02:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the suggestion by Qyd: Both Canadian (federal) and Quebec legislation make use of "national park"; the Quebec law makes no reference to IUCN categories. --Joseph B 02:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats all well and good, but it's probably not confusing to most people that the Canadian federal government refers to things it administers as "national" or "Canadian". Whereas it probably is confusing to many people that a province of Canada refers to things it administers as national. Isn't there a way that we can clear up confusion without stepping on anyones toes? I thought that the longer version before Joseph B's edits did that, but I'm no expert on the subject. Qutezuce 07:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that JosephB's edits to make it concise, made it far too concise. In order for international readers to understand it (WP is global!), an explanation is necessary here. Since the original explanation is factually correct (therefore NPOV) and on the basis of the stated support above, I will therefore restore the original intro once again. --P199 12:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A slighly longer introduction inserted, should respond to P199 worries. A discussion of why the governments of Canada and Quebec both use the word "national", and which was first to use such a label, is not relevant here (and subjective). On other pages describing the various "national" institutions and properties of these governments, no comments are included. In any case, such labels are not all that important. Gatineau Park and the Saguenay - St. Lawrence Marine Park are not labeled "national". --Joseph B 17:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intro disputed by JosephB:
"This is the list of federal and provincial parks and reserves in Quebec, Canada. FACT: Note that both federally and provincially administered parks in Quebec are labelled "parc national" (National Park) . FACT: Quebec is the only province to call its provincial parks "national parks," stemming from a political decision to apply the term to the Quebec "nation", as distinguished from the rest of the country in culture, language, and law. (FACT: The provincial assembly is called the "National Assembly," for example.) FACT: This leads to confusion as to which Quebec parks are provincial, and which are national (federal). FACT: The federal government, in response, decided to add the words "of Canada" to the official names of its properties. Outside of official publications, however, the term is never used."
This intro is factual as indicated and is therefore not subjective. This additional info is very much a worthwhile and necessary explanation. --P199 17:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps this list should be limited to national parks managed by the Government of Quebec, since there is already a list of national parks managed by the Government of Canada. As to what constitutes a FACT: What was the nature of the political decisions of the governments of Quebec and Canada? Each has chosen the word "national", each made a choice. Please cite sources. See Nation. But, in any case, the answer is not appropriate on this page (it's just a list!). --Joseph B 11:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can play all the semantic games you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the majority of people associate "national" with a country and not subdivisions of a country. Qutezuce 23:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few facts that are difficult to go around: 1) The natural parks created and administered by Quebec, a province of Canada since 1867, were and still are officially named Parcs nationaux du Québec. 2) The correct way to translate this to English is National parks of Quebec or Quebec national parks. 3) The fact that Quebec considers itself a nation with Canada (another nation) is officially denied, laughed at and scorned by the federal government of Canada since Pearson was replaced by Trudeau. 4) Wikipedia, which has an official policy of neutral point of view will not take side on this matter. 5) It will respect its own Wikipedia:Naming conventions and not fabricate new rules. -- Mathieugp 19:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most people who speak English probably associate "national" with a "nation". It is well-known I believe that not all nations have the luxury of having their own fully independent state. Nobody would argue that Scotland is a nation, yet Scotland is a "subdivision" of the United Kingdom. The same goes for Quebec with regards to federal Canada. People who associate "national" with "independent country" alone are free to learn that the world is not that simple by reading more Wikipedia articles whenever they please. -- Mathieugp 19:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most people associate "national" with "nation" goes without saying, obviously I was saying that most people associate "nation" (or "national") with "country". Don't use the argument that "people who don't know 'x' are ignorant and should learn" and then not explain 'x' to these people. Then you are just as guilty for these people's ignorance as they are. If you think people should known something, then explain it to them in the relevant places. Qutezuce 06:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused by the "national" designation as, (at the time when I read the article), there was no explanation whatsoever of the terms used. The note in the introductory paragraph does the job, it makes things clear. Quote: Note that both federally and provincially administered parks in Quebec are labelled "parc national" (national park). Federal national parks are distinguished by the addition of "of Canada" in their official name. I'm satisfied with this addition. The dispute regarding how Quebec chooses to use the term has no place here, my only complaint was about the clarity of the article. --Qyd 22:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly, my only goal is the clarity of the article, but it seems to have tinged some deeper rooted feelings.
Actually they are not labelled "parc national" for distinction, but because of the Commission de toponymie forbid the traduction of generic of the name of the place (river, park, street, etc.) for governement publication (with exception of the border bilingual name like Ottawa River).Usage on wikipedia seem to favor the traduction of the generic. The Park Act labelled the park simply as "National park". --Fralambert 17:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accents

[edit]

What is the standard for the accented text in Wikipedia (English)? On this page, I have seen place names written with the accents ("Sept-Îles", "Gaspésie"), where other place names are not accented ("Pointe-au-Pere", "Perce"). I'll correct the city names at least and add the missing accents. Hugo Dufort 01:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec Regional Parks

[edit]

There is also a network of regional parks in Quebec; they usually combine outdoor activities with natural settings. They are usually managed by the MRC (equivalent of a county). Maybe it would be nice to create a new topic on the subject (although I don't have time right now). I'll give you just a few links.
Chutes Monte-à-Peine: http://www.parcdeschutes.com/
Hautes-Gorges de la rivière Malbaie: http://www.quebecweb.com/tourisme/charlevoix/parcs/htegorgang.html
Mont Grand-Fonds: http://www.montgrandfonds.com/
Lac Taurau: http://www.lanaudiere.ca/fr/index.jsp?numPage=373&numFiche=545
Forêt Ouareau: http://www.lanaudiere.ca/fr/index.jsp?numPage=373&numFiche=544
Sept-Chutes: http://www.lanaudiere.ca/fr/index.jsp?numPage=373&numFiche=410
Chutes Dorwin: http://www.lanaudiere.ca/fr/index.jsp?numPage=364&numFiche=276
Chutes à Bull: http://www.lanaudiere.ca/fr/index.jsp?numPage=364&numFiche=275
There are dozens of other regional parks that could be covered in that topic.

Move?

[edit]
I don't have problem for rename to List of parks in Quebec since the list have also the Ecological Reverve and the Biodiversity Reserve of Quebec. --Fralambert (talk)
  • Oppose and the other naming doesn't make sense either, this list doesn't contain municipal parks, only provincial and federal, so should be distinguished from a list that might contain municipal parks. The List of British Columbia Provincial Parks article isn't named as suggested either. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suggest this list be split into List of nature reserves and parc nationals de Quebec and List of Canadian national parks and nature reserves in Quebec, since both BC and Ontario (List of Ontario provincial parks) maintain provincial parks list, and this would clarify the matter of what is covered. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of nature reserves and parcs nationaux de Quebec (with correct French plural)? List of nature reserves and national parks in Quebec (avoiding mixture of languages)? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as nominator - Creating separate articles is fine, but there needs to be an overarching article dealing with all the parks in the province, including the municipal, provincial, and federal. This article already touches on both provincial and federal. There are really two options: 1) this article could be split into federal and provincial, and another two articles could be created (one municipal and one summarizing all three) or 2) the municipal parks could be added to this list and this could become the general list. Every other province and territory has a general listing of the parks in their region; Quebec should have an analogous list. Neelix (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support - I would support this provided the intention to make the content of the article fit what it says on the tin; ie covering all kinds of parks. If that isn't the intention, then the new title would be misleading, and I would oppose that. - Starbois (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the proposer's rationale suggests there are no locations or similar entities in Quebec that might reasonably be described as "parks" that are not "regulated by either the country or the province" and thus might not reasonably be described as "national". This is an extraordinary claim and as such requires some good evidence, which is not as yet forthcoming. --Rogerb67 (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - My rationale does not suggest that at all; quite the opposite. As I stated before, there are municipal parks as well as the provincial and federal, and whether they each have their own lists is irrelevant to the fact that there should be one general list to encompass them all. Neelix (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry I misunderstood your argument; I have no opinion on what should be included in this list and so withdraw my vote. I would note however that the word "park" can cover many types of open spaces, not necessarily all municipal, provincial or federal. You will need to ensure you specify the list contents properly, if not in the title, in the lead. --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think it is a mistake to list all federal, provincial, and municipal parks in a province together in one list, regarless of what you call it. For one thing the size would be attrocious. Secondly theses are discreet categories, which is why we already have List of National Parks of Canada. I admit geography is an important relation between parks, but it is better expressed with categories (or maps!) than with lists. Cateories like:Category:Parks in Provinceland which contains Category:National Parks (of Canada?) in Provinceland, Category:Provincial Parks of Provinceland, etc. Delete this and all other like it. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Categories list articles; not real world subjects. For example, there is no way to list a park in Category:Parks in Provinceland if that park has not yet had an article written for it. By contrast, one of the advantages of list articles is that they (should) list all subjects deserving of an article, and thus highlight (in red) those needing an article written. Categories are useful but they do different things to list articles and cannot replace them. -- Starbois (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment- I'm prepared to accept that logic, but it doesn't address my point about federal ("national"), provinical (in Quebec "national"), and municipal parks being distinct entities, does it? I think a better move would be to List of National Parks of Quebec (notice "of" not "in") which would only include provincial parks, not federal parks--Kevlar (talk • contribs) 19:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Kevlar that listing parks labelled "national" by the federal govt of Canada with other ones also labelled "national" but by the provincial govt of Quebec is probably not a good idea. And I only mean that listing them all in one article would not be good, because an article on the "Protected areas in Province X" is a subject like any other. So long as it does not duplicate the whole list of federal, provincial and municipal "protected areas". Regarding the Quebec case, in the French-language Wikipedia, they listed the four types of "protected areas" administered by the province each in their own article, with an intro stating what kind of a "protected area" it is:
fr:Parcs nationaux du Québec → National Parks of Quebec
fr:Réserves fauniques du Québec → Wildlife reserves of Quebec
fr:Réserves de biodiversité du Québec → Biodiversity reserves of Quebec
fr:Réserves écologiques du Québec → Ecological reserves of Quebec
I propose we use those names for the lists, then if people find it useful we could also create a "Protected areas in Quebec" by translating the already existing and (fairly complete) "fr:Aire protégée du Québec". -- Mathieugp (talk) 03:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It is important to note users have managed to create a list of parks for all other provinces and territories in Canada. Even if the page called "List of parks in Quebec" is a disambiguation page or set index listing the lists of parks in the province, it should exist in some capacity under that title. Neelix (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean. There is already some sort of a pattern. People will expect such an article to exist if other articles exist under the same name pattern for other provinces. However, I find the Protected areas in Canada to be the better template and the better name and I would suggest Protected areas in X as a better name pattern for provinces too, since park is more ambiguous than Protected area is. And as far as I can tell, most of the current List of parks in province X are concerned specifically with protected areas. What do you think? (We can always redirect all the List of parks in x to Protected areas in x. I'll help you out if you agree with this.) -- Mathieugp (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a great idea to me. "Protected area" does seem to be a more appropriate descriptor. My only concern is the nature of the pages; at the moment, they are all lists, not articles, and lists require titles which begin with the words "list of". Would you find "List of protected areas in province x" to be an appropriate naming pattern? Neelix (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the current contents of "Protected areas in Canada", I agree that "List of protected areas in Canada" might be a more appropriate name. That being said, if we look at the corresponding French-language articles:
fr:Aire protégée du Québec
fr:Aire protégée du Canada
we can see that it is possible to write up (or I guess translate) articles that provide more than just a "list of lists". Rather, we can provide a summary of all the types of protected areas in region X, with a little bit of statistics and nice pictures. :-). -- Mathieugp (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. List articles are supposed to include summaries and explanations in paragraph form anyway. If those explanations become large enough, we can have articles for each of the provinces and territories along with corresponding lists on separate pages. Neelix (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. -- Mathieugp (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator note The above discussion is somewhat confusing, and seems to have drifted away from a simple move request to a more radical restructuring of the parks articles. Is the move necessary now, or should it wait until the articles have been restructured? If the move is necessary, where should it be moved to?--Aervanath (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The actual articles don't require significant restructuring, just development and expansion (like any other articles). I think we have agreed that this is the general list article for Quebec, therefore this article should be moved to List of protected areas in Quebec. Neelix (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I second this motion. ;-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_protected_areas_of_Quebec&oldid=1203679730"