Talk:Niagara Peninsula
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Cpfan776 in topic Pruning the "Cities" section
It's not the escarpment that modifies the climate, it's the lakes. Get away from the lakes and the escarpment does nothing for the climate -- no grapes in Georgetown!
Also, there are fruit trees in the Annapolis valley in Nova Scotia, and grapes in Prince Edward county (again, the area is surrounded by Lake Ontario).
Rename?
editHamilton was recently added as one of the Cities in this article. I'm good with that; I think Hamilton fits better in Niagara than it does in the GTA. However, technically, Hamilton isn't part of Niagara Region, so I'm wondering if it would make sense to rename this article to something else. From a geographical standpoint Niagara Peninsula would include Hamilton, although the expression isn't always used to include Hamilton, so it's not a perfect suggestion. Any better suggestions? Thanks, (WT-en) JYolkowski 23:14, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
- Looks like no-one had any better ideas. So, any objections to me moving the page? If not, I think I'll move the page next week. If anyone does object, please let me know beforehand since it would involve a fair amount of work changing IsIn tags and the like, so I don't want to move the page and then have to undo it. Cheers, (WT-en) JYolkowski 17:54, 2 December 2008 (EST)
- WAIT-what about Golden Horsehoe or Niagara Escarptment? Those would fit! (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 17:57, 2 December 2008 (EST).
- Golden Horseshoe is the parent region for this region, so that won't work. The Niagara Escarpment idea is an interesting one. The escarpment is the most significant geographical feature of the City of Hamilton and Niagara Region and I do like the idea of naming the article after the escarpment. The only problem is to find an article title that includes Hamilton and Niagara and not the rest of "Escarpment Country" (when I Googled that phrase, the first few hits were for places like Milton, Caledon, etc. so it may require some thought to come up with a title that fits). (WT-en) JYolkowski 18:21, 2 December 2008 (EST)
- i dont see the problem with escarpment...lol...watchin too much eweather network-they mention it lots. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 18:29, 2 December 2008 (EST)
- Still trying to come up with a good escarpment-related title; if I think of something I'll post it here. Another idea that I had was Hamilton-Niagara; that might work. Doing some digging, I also thought of Lincolnshire, which is a perfect fit geographically, but I don't think the term's been used for 100 years so it would be a poor choice for a travel guide. (WT-en) JYolkowski 18:25, 3 December 2008 (EST)
- i dont see the problem with escarpment...lol...watchin too much eweather network-they mention it lots. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 18:29, 2 December 2008 (EST)
- Golden Horseshoe is the parent region for this region, so that won't work. The Niagara Escarpment idea is an interesting one. The escarpment is the most significant geographical feature of the City of Hamilton and Niagara Region and I do like the idea of naming the article after the escarpment. The only problem is to find an article title that includes Hamilton and Niagara and not the rest of "Escarpment Country" (when I Googled that phrase, the first few hits were for places like Milton, Caledon, etc. so it may require some thought to come up with a title that fits). (WT-en) JYolkowski 18:21, 2 December 2008 (EST)
- WAIT-what about Golden Horsehoe or Niagara Escarptment? Those would fit! (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 17:57, 2 December 2008 (EST).
- What's wrong with just Niagara Escarpment I still don't see any problems. Includes Hamilton, etc. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 18:32, 3 December 2008 (EST).
- The Niagara Escarpment area would also include Milton, Halton Hills, Caledon, the Bruce Peninsula, etc. (WT-en) JYolkowski 20:01, 4 December 2008 (EST)
Again-but, this is WT, you can modify things. It does not have the be the official one. We can make sure it doesnt include the GTA! I didnt think parts of it would. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 20:04, 4 December 2008 (EST).
- True, but the traveller comes first, and we don't want to confuse them. (WT-en) JYolkowski 15:39, 7 December 2008 (EST)
That is what I mean by that. Otherwise Vatican city would be its own place and UBC would be a seperate area. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 16:15, 7 December 2008 (EST).
Pruning the "Cities" section
editWikivoyage:Avoid long lists says that we try to keep the "Cities" section of region articles to 7±2 entries, for an allowable maximum of 9 total. I'm familiar enough with the Niagara Peninsula to know that there aren't 13 cities there that absolutely need to be linked to in that section (especially with four of them being redlinked), so let's do some pruning. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, it is a bottom-tier region, so the maximum of nine does not apply; if there are more than 9 articles, we have to go ahead and list them all. But as it so happens, there are exactly 9 city articles under this region, so I just removed the red links to leave those 9. Texugo (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Whoops, I reverted without checking for a discussion. Sorry. I don't see a problem with redlinks in a bottom-level region article. Powers (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know about this area, but I very often remove red links from bottom-level regions whose blue links already exceed nine, unless there is a clear reason to think we really need articles for them. Very often such red links in already-long lists just represent a bunch of small villages that are probably better redirected or have nothing to cover, and while the 7+-2 rule doesn't apply in the sense that we are bound to list all existing destination articles in their lowest region, I think we are still bound to minimize long lists to the extent possible, which I believe to mean that we shouldn't extend lists beyond 9 by adding questionable and useless red links unless there is a really good reason to. Texugo (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- I've never heard of Fonthill or Wainfleet, but Thorold and Pelham are significant communities with traveler amenities. (Doing some research, it appears Fonthill is a bedroom community within the town of Pelham, while Wainfleet is a rural town on Lake Erie.) Powers (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Pelham as a "significant communit[y] with traveler amenities" is a stretch, I think. My list would be: Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake, St. Catharines, Fort Erie, Welland, Port Colborne, maybe Grimsby for purely geographic purposes. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- On second look, it appears we treat Hamilton as part of the Niagara Peninsula, which is only partially accurate in a strict geographic sense and completely inaccurate from a travellers' perspective. On top of restructuring Niagara Peninsula#Cities, what also should happen is that Golden Horseshoe's subdistricting scheme should be redone: there should be a Greater Toronto Area extending as far west as Burlington, a Niagara Peninsula that's coterminous with the Niagara Regional Municipality, and a third district centered on Hamilton and suburbs, including Waterdown (Hamilton-Wentworth is a possible name, though it's been out of official use since 2001). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Powers and AndreCarrotflower, either of you — while you're at it, and if you're knowledgeable about it, neighboring Southwestern Ontario is an even bigger mess. It has been done by counties so far - 9 of them have already been created, many of them basically empty, and at least 5 more would have to be created to be able to properly continue with this breakdown scheme for proper placement of the remaining 8 city articles which are still direct children of Southwestern Ontario. If you know of some way to break the Southwestern Ontario area into a more manageable handful of regions instead of 14+ county articles, it would be much appreciated. There are only 42 destinations to be covered, so it seems to me like 3-5 regions would be ideal. Texugo (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- On second look, it appears we treat Hamilton as part of the Niagara Peninsula, which is only partially accurate in a strict geographic sense and completely inaccurate from a travellers' perspective. On top of restructuring Niagara Peninsula#Cities, what also should happen is that Golden Horseshoe's subdistricting scheme should be redone: there should be a Greater Toronto Area extending as far west as Burlington, a Niagara Peninsula that's coterminous with the Niagara Regional Municipality, and a third district centered on Hamilton and suburbs, including Waterdown (Hamilton-Wentworth is a possible name, though it's been out of official use since 2001). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Pelham as a "significant communit[y] with traveler amenities" is a stretch, I think. My list would be: Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake, St. Catharines, Fort Erie, Welland, Port Colborne, maybe Grimsby for purely geographic purposes. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- I've never heard of Fonthill or Wainfleet, but Thorold and Pelham are significant communities with traveler amenities. (Doing some research, it appears Fonthill is a bedroom community within the town of Pelham, while Wainfleet is a rural town on Lake Erie.) Powers (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know about this area, but I very often remove red links from bottom-level regions whose blue links already exceed nine, unless there is a clear reason to think we really need articles for them. Very often such red links in already-long lists just represent a bunch of small villages that are probably better redirected or have nothing to cover, and while the 7+-2 rule doesn't apply in the sense that we are bound to list all existing destination articles in their lowest region, I think we are still bound to minimize long lists to the extent possible, which I believe to mean that we shouldn't extend lists beyond 9 by adding questionable and useless red links unless there is a really good reason to. Texugo (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Whoops, I reverted without checking for a discussion. Sorry. I don't see a problem with redlinks in a bottom-level region article. Powers (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hamilton is in an awkward position as some (mostly transit planners) are trying to pull it into the "Greater Toronto-Hamilton Area (GTHA)" on the basis that "GO Transit" commuter trains run from Hamilton to Oshawa. It is its own city (and is long-distance to TO), but it just might be economically closer to Toronto than Niagara because Toronto has (unfortunately) sprawled so far out of control. If Hamilton gets its own region, Burlington is closer to Hamilton than to Toronto (much like Whitby is closer to Oshawa than to Toronto). K7L (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- K7L - Re: Burlington, that's exactly what I was going to say. Case in point: the Royal Botanical Gardens, which is widely cited as one of Hamilton's premier tourist destinations despite the fact that it's technically located in Burlington. That opens up a whole other can of worms, though, and one that's probably better answered by someone with more knowledge of Southern Ontario than myself, namely where to draw the boundary between Greater Toronto Area and any proposed Hamilton-centric region. What about Oakville, which at the end of the day is not much different than Burlington? It seems that the decision would be very much an arbitrary one and, if locals get involved, potentially the subject of endless circling debate. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Pelham has at least one motel and several restaurants, along with a few activities and attractions. Seems like more than enough for an article. Powers (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- A motel, a few restaurants, and a few attractions mean Pelham could carry its own article if someone decided to create one for it; whether it belongs in Niagara Peninsula#Cities is another matter entirely. There's no policy that says every single town in a region (bottom-level or otherwise) has to be put in the Cities section, and the fact remains that long, undifferentiated lists look ugly regardless of whether loopholes in policy allow for them in certain cases. That Pelham is currently a redlink is the icing on the cake. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Every destination article must be linked from the level directly above. That's bedrock policy. "Every city or other destination article should be listed in at least one region article, as it should be possible to navigate through the hierarchy to each and every destination article on the site." That's not a loophole. Powers (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Fine, but Pelham is not a destination article. It's a redlink. And Niagara Peninsula#Cities is still a big, ugly, Yellow Pagey list. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Chances are Fonthill could be removed, eventually making it a redirect to Pelham. Wainfleet, I don't know about. If we remove it, it leaves an entire geographical section of the peninsula without a place in the hierarchy. If I may, if 13 is too big, and 9 presumably isn't, is 10 too big? 11? 12? Powers (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Fine, but Pelham is not a destination article. It's a redlink. And Niagara Peninsula#Cities is still a big, ugly, Yellow Pagey list. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Every destination article must be linked from the level directly above. That's bedrock policy. "Every city or other destination article should be listed in at least one region article, as it should be possible to navigate through the hierarchy to each and every destination article on the site." That's not a loophole. Powers (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- A motel, a few restaurants, and a few attractions mean Pelham could carry its own article if someone decided to create one for it; whether it belongs in Niagara Peninsula#Cities is another matter entirely. There's no policy that says every single town in a region (bottom-level or otherwise) has to be put in the Cities section, and the fact remains that long, undifferentiated lists look ugly regardless of whether loopholes in policy allow for them in certain cases. That Pelham is currently a redlink is the icing on the cake. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Pelham has at least one motel and several restaurants, along with a few activities and attractions. Seems like more than enough for an article. Powers (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- K7L - Re: Burlington, that's exactly what I was going to say. Case in point: the Royal Botanical Gardens, which is widely cited as one of Hamilton's premier tourist destinations despite the fact that it's technically located in Burlington. That opens up a whole other can of worms, though, and one that's probably better answered by someone with more knowledge of Southern Ontario than myself, namely where to draw the boundary between Greater Toronto Area and any proposed Hamilton-centric region. What about Oakville, which at the end of the day is not much different than Burlington? It seems that the decision would be very much an arbitrary one and, if locals get involved, potentially the subject of endless circling debate. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Rather than removing redlinked cities like Fonthill and Pelham from the cities list, should they be listed as part of Welland ie "Welland (includes Fonthill and Pelham)", and "St. Catharines (includes Thorold)". That way people looking for these places might be able to find info about them. Cpfan776 (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)