Talk:Amqui

Routebox

Route 195 is too insignificant to warrant inclusion on the routebox. Customarily, cities listed on routeboxes should either be active wikilinks or redlinks that could conceivably be plausible article topics one day. Saint-Vianney, Saint-Léon-le-Grand, and Saint-Zénon-du-Lac-Humqui would fail the wiaa test (and, if I'm reading Amqui#Neighbouring villages correctly, are to be covered in this article anyway). That leaves only Matane and Amqui itself - not enough destinations for routebox navigation to be of any real use.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Matane would definitely qualify for an article. I put it back in the {{routebox}} as it's a good-size town (pop 15000) on the waterfront on the beaten path from Rimouski to the Gaspé Peninsula and therefore a plausible seashore destination; fr: has a {{usablecity}} article about 37Kb long so its complete absence from en: is odd. If a route joins even two points worth visiting, it's of use. K7L (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but my point is Matane is the only other city on 195 that would qualify for an article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The same could be said of Ottawa and Prescott (Ontario) on w:Ontario Highway 416 (as we have no Kemptville article), yet it qualifies. K7L (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Kemptville is a redirect to Merrickville. That's an entirely different animal from listing destinations on routeboxes that are neither bluelinks nor redlinks, which AFAIK is not done in any other article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Merrickville isn't on the 416. It's on 43 (which might not even still be an official provincial highway), is a tiny place and only is listed as it's a picturesque village on the Rideau Canal which makes a good day trip from Ottawa-Gatineau. The road to the Ogdensburg bridge is 16, not 416 (which ends at the 401) so that's no better than Matane where the onward points (Baie-Comeau-Godbout-Sept-Îles) are also all across the St. Lawrence - but by ferry as it's too far to bridge. K7L (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The point of routebox navigation is to inform those who may be travelling travelling along a particular route between two particular cities about what there is to do and see in towns located in between. The fact that Merrickville is not located directly on 416 is irrelevant, because the act of redirecting Kemptville to Merrickville implies that one can find information about Kemptville attractions in the Merrickville article - thus the routebox will still have served its purpose.

In the case of this article, the only towns between Matane and Amqui on 195 are Saint-Vianney, Saint-Léon-le-Grand, and Saint-Zénon-du-Lac-Humqui. Even if we were to create redirects for them, they would simply lead back to Amqui, which would render their presence on the routebox pointless. As I said, that leaves Matane and Amqui, and what use is a routebox with only two cities on it?

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Its use is to provide direction between the two cities. Utica#Go next, for example, lists , and . goes to points already on I-90, goes to one other listed destination (Chester, which is only worth listing because of Adirondack Park) and has nothing worth an article other than Utica-Rome (unless someone thinks we should have a page about Volney). Nonetheless, someone who goes to Rome and finds we've listed nowhere to sleep might need to get them back to the main road, I-90 in Utica. The road from some place which just qualifies for an article back to some point on the beaten path, even if it only has those two cities, is valid for a {{routebox}} listing in each of those two points. K7L (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I agree with K7L on this point, but I also get AndreCarrotflower's point about redirected village names. Is there a workable compromise? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate listings?

Some of the hotels have bars or restaurants, which are listed separately. The historic train station is still in active service, so seems to be in both "see" and "get in". I've already combined listings for a church (both "see" as a landmark and "cope" as religious services), not sure if more of these need to be de-duplicated? K7L (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you should use your own judgment. If it makes sense to combine the listings, do so, but if there's enough to say that it makes sense to have different listings, go for it. Often in articles for small towns, especially if more than one aspect of a place is notable, it may make sense to list the hotel and saloon in two different sections, for example. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I finished the de-doublelisting while leaving the information and adding See Drink section or See Sleep section. Amqui (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)