Template talk:Administrative divisions of Quebec

Gigantic

This infobox is gigantic. Is there no way to trim it down? Bryan 05:43, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This infobox is more than gigantic, and it would be possible, only perhaps more work than is worth, to split it by region. --Valmi 04:46, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

All right, I just created 17 new templates, and will try applying them to cities and MRCs right away.

These templates now deprecated by {{Administrative divisions of Quebec region|region_name}}:

*[[Template:Abitibi-Témiscamingue]] - done
*[[Template:Bas-Saint-Laurent]] - done
*[[Template:Capitale-Nationale]] - done
*[[Template:Centre-du-Québec]] - done
*[[Template:Chaudière-Appalaches]] - done
*[[Template:Côte-Nord]] - done
*[[Template:Estrie]]
*[[Template:Gaspésie-Îles-de-la-Madeleine]]
*[[Template:Lanaudière]]
*[[Template:Laurentides]]
*[[Template:Laval region]]
*[[Template:Mauricie]] - done
*[[Template:Montérégie]] - done
*[[Template:Montréal region]]
*[[Template:Nord-du-Québec]]
*[[Template:Outaouais]]
*[[Template:Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean]]

--Valmi 05:48, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's much better than the idea I was considering: 4-point font. :) Bryan 05:57, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In the same line of thought, I was also considering deleting it altogether. I'm still not sure which would have been the better option. ;-) --Valmi 06:03, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

redesign

See Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion#Harmonizing_province_templates. Circeus 18:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with regional templates

Qyd has proposed merging the content of regional templates such as Template:Estrie into the present template as optional portions of this template. Although I think this is by no means disastrous, I still think it would be best to leave the regional templates separate. Here are a few reasons:

The main reason: readers looking at an article on some small town somewhere may not think to open a template called "Subdivisions of Quebec" in order to find other small towns within the same region.
It is best to keep the size of this template down, especially since in future other subdivisions may be included, such as regional county municipalities, of which there are many.
A one-size-fits-all approach complicates adaptation of the regional portions to peculiarities of the regions. For example, Template:Nord-du-Québec has a line with Aboriginal administrations. Template:Urban agglomeration of Montreal could eventually contain a line with all the boroughs of Montreal, and perhaps other links connected in some way or another with local government in Montreal, some of which may not even be subdivisions, but which we would want in the same place as the boroughs, municipalities, etc.
People will be less likely to want to modify the regional portions if they are part of a gigantic template with complex syntax.
The regional templates document criteria for inclusion of municipalities. These criteria differ by region. While it is possible in theory to include them in the "Subdivisions of Quebec" template, the documentation for it is already massive and it would be further complicated by doing this individually for different regions.

Generally speaking, I think doing away with the regional templates takes away a certain degree of flexibility to modify them in future in ways that perhaps wouldn't make sense for anything that is a portion of the present template. Joeldl (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the "inclusionist" form, the template has the following advantages:

Effectively combines 17 templates, eliminating the need of having multiple templates at the bottom of articles
The optional switch system allows for a number of combinations, preventing the template to be too overblown, while displaying all relevant links (and only the relevant links).

Accessibility is indeed lower, as the template becomes more intricate, however, being a template, and not in article space, WP:ACCESS is not an issue. The documentation should not be included in the navbox, instead it should show up in the relevant articles (Navboxes should serve for article navigation only). --Qyd (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment requested at WT:CANADA, WP:CANBOARD and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quebec. --Qyd (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I find Qyd's position more compelling. And, frankly, anything that reduces template clutter is a blessed thing. Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By "inclusion criteria" for municipalities, I meant criteria for inclusion in the lists, since it's not feasible to include every municipality in a region. About access, I think the fact that editors are human too can be taken into account. What would Qyd's view be about a template similar to Template:Toronto for a region? Generally, one might expect that at first such a template would have only a handful of items in addition to subdivisions of the region. Should that all be put in the Subdivisions of Quebec template? Should it eventually be split off, once it got big enough? Joeldl (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that happening. Regions are not that distinct when it comes to history, culture, amenities (as opposed to a particular large city such as Toronto). However, a template of that type should not be combined with this navbox, which shouldn't go beyond subdivisions and communities. Sure, if you think there is enough material (History of Nord-du-Québec, Culture of Nord-du-Québec, etc), those items could be grouped in the regional navbox Template:Nord-du-Québec if they are to be re-purposed.--Qyd (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think regions like Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean are as distinct as Toronto, but as a practical matter there are fewer English-speaking Wikipedians with knowledge of them, especially the ones other than Montreal. Where do you think items like Cree Regional Authority should go? It makes sense to me that people wanting to navigate to Chisasibi, Quebec might also want that in the same place. Joeldl (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should there be "enough" material? Currently, it's very easy to just add a line to one of the regional templates, perhaps for one or two items. One might even at first have a line called "other topics," adding for example James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement to Template:Nord-du-Québec or Asbestos Strike to Template:Estrie. A good example of this kind of template is {{Quebec City}}. It would make particularly good sense to have those items relating to government in the region in the same place as the subdivisions. Joeldl (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural regions of Quebec -

Montreal
Quebec City
Lac St. Jean
Gaspesie
North Shore
Eastern Townships
Ottawa Valley
Laurentians
New Quebec (northern Quebec)
Magdelan Islands
St. Lawrence Valley

70.51.8.110 (talk) 07:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good; as long as those topics are region specific, I suppose it's a good idea to group them in the regional navbox. The links should be concise, however ("Regional county municipalities and equivalent territories(*)" is is a bit too long of a link title, it clutters the navbox, "Counties" would do for the purpose, as the meaning is detailed in the article linked). Cheers. --Qyd (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed to "counties" because it seems inaccurate to me. I've never seen any sources refer to them that way. If being concise is important, then "RCMs and TEs" is perfectly acceptable, or "RCMs and equivalent". The French Wikipedia uses "MRC et territoires équivalents (*)". See fr:Modèle Palette Estrie. It's true that non-Quebecers might not understand "RCM" but I feel accuracy is more important. Can you find sources referring to them as "counties"?Joeldl (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's defined as "county-like political and geographic unit" in Regional county municipality. Regional municipality is also defined as "a county level municipal government". If the territories are considered equivalent to RCM's, can't we just call them that, instead of being overly verbose? To me it seems that it just loads the template, but than, again, I don't live in Quebec, and might miss some of the finer nuances. --Qyd (talk) 03:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's meant by "county-like". In any case, I haven't ever seen them referred to as counties. There used to be things called counties in Quebec, and I'm not certain to what extent RCMs are like those. Regardless, I think what matters is usage. Do you believe they are sometimes referred to this way? Joeldl (talk) 08:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The MRCs are a supra-municpal organization level, while the administrative regions are a sub-provincial organization level. In the US, these are generally the same, and are counties, unless a metro region is bigger than a county. The MRCs are smaller than regions. The old counties, townships, and parishes of Quebec are similar to MRCs in level (above town, village, city)... But Metro Montreal is larger than two regions contained within it, and contains parts of other MRCs... So if MRCs are Counties, then regions are Duchies, of Quebec. 70.55.88.176 (talk) 07:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]