Talk:Alberta Rockies

Regions

I do not think there is any value to splitting this page into sub-regions. There is no problem with having locations that are also physically within park articles but at the same region level. Also Kananaskis Country really does not need to be split into multiple city articles. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Having colour polygons on the map is a good idea but, again, there are not enough individual articles to have sub-regions here. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The map will need to be changed to reflect the absence of subregions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions? Assume main thing is that an outer boundary of the Alberta Rockies region is needed, as the parks only cover part of the region. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

A couple of comments here:

• The region, as it's currently defined, includes more than just the two national parks and Kananaskis Country. It also includes mountains and foothills north and east of the two national parks, including the towns of Grand Cache, Hinton and Canmore. Any subregion structure would need to address this or the boundary of the Alberta Rockies region itself would need to change, so there are no gaps (a Wikivoyage policy). I'm not convinced right now that adding subregions or changing the Alberta Rockies boundary makes our travel guide better.
• I don't understand why we're replacing a valid static map that captures the region boundary and shows the parks, cities and other destinations, with a dynamic map that doesn't capture all of those elements. I've restored the static map while this discussion takes place. -Shaundd (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@Traveler100: @Ikan Kekek: @Shaundd: I don't disagree that there needs to be equal coverage for all areas, but this can be achieved by some creative renaming of existing guides. The other "subregions" of the Alberta Rockies would be:

• the Wilmore Wilderness and Grande Cache region (= Grande Cache, just convert it into a region from a town).
• the Hinton Region (=Hinton + Brule, Entrance, Cadomin, and Robb). Obed is logically the boundary between the Rockies and the Foothills regions (as presently conceived) in my opinion, since it's midway between Hinton and Edson and it's also the summit of the Yellowhead Highway before it enters the Athabasca Valley.
• David Thompson Country (already exists but could be expanded slightly south to include the Highway 734 corridor, OR that could be it's own subregion)
• (no name in mind as yet, maybe Eastern Slopes?) = Highway 734 from North Ram River in the north to Burnt Timber Rec. Area in the south. Or essentially all of the Wikipedia:Rocky Moutain Forest Reserve north of Highway 1 excluding David Thompson Country. The problem with this region (if it is one[?]) is that it is essentially a "park" not a "region" as WV uses those words, because it contains ZERO TOWNS. It has places to sleep, certainly, in the form of camping, but no food or other services.
• the Bow Valley (= Canmore + Harvie Heights, Dead Man's Flats, Exshaw, Kananaskis, Morely, Ghost Lake, and Waiparous as far north as Highway 579 as far south as the K-country boundary, as far east as (almost to) Higway 22 (22 itself is within Calgary Region).

ALTERNATIVELY, just move Grande Cache, Hinton and Canmore to the newly created Foothills sub-region of Central Alberta. This would also work just as well.

Let's have further discussion on this while I'm sitting at work with nothing to do because of COVID. Thoughts? Kevlar67 (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kevlar67, my quick thoughts are below.

• I don't think Alberta Rockies needs subregions. There aren't many destinations to begin with. It doesn't mean we can't alter the existing guides though where it makes sense
• I'm not familiar with Grande Cache, although reading about it once it seemed it was a base for tours/visits to the Wilmore Wilderness and other nearby remote areas. Perhaps it would make sense to cover both the Wilmore Wilderness and the town in the same article then. That doesn't make it a region though. It's a city guide that covers a large area.
• The existing Hinton article can already do what you're proposing. It includes Brule and at one time, it also included the Cadomin Caves (the listing disappeared, I'm not sure why). We typically wouldn't call the article "Hinton Region" though unless that's how it's most commonly referred to.
• If the Rocky Mountain Forest Reserve meets the requirements to be an article, then we can create it. I don't quite get where it is so I can't say much else.
• I don't see the need for a Bow Valley subregion. There are Canmore and Kananaskis Country articles already that should cover most of the places you listed. If Morely/Ghost Lake/Waiparous have sufficient attractions/accommodation between them, then it seems like a good candidate for a rural area article. We'd just need to decide if it goes in the Rockies or Calgary Region. Dead Man Flats seems to be mostly just some extra hotel options, so I'd suggest including it with Canmore.
• I don't agree with taking Canmore out of the Rockies and putting it in the Foothills. In travel terms, it's pretty much always linked with Banff, right? And it doesn't have anything to do with Sundre, Edson, etc.
• I'm not keen on moving Hinton or Grande Cache to Central Alberta (there's nothing central about Grande Cache!). That said, I wonder if grouping Grande Cache, Hinton, Edson and North Central Alberta into one top-level region (i.e., a region in its own right, not a a subregion of Central Alberta) would make sense.

Cheers, -Shaundd (talk) 06:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Shaundd: I'm not convinced that these sub-regions are a good idea either, but it seems like there was a concern that there was unequal coverage of the areas outside of the national parks and K-country, and this is why the dynamic map was taken away, to prevent a dispute. Or did I misread that? Kevlar67 (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kevlar67, I don't recall what happened exactly, but standard policy is pages generally only need one map (although this is only intermittently followed). In this particular case, I believe the dynamic map was showing the two national parks and a shape for Kananaskis Country (colour-coded like regions I think) but not the outline of the region itself. Basically, the dynamic map made it look like there were three subregions to the Alberta Rockies, which doesn't match the text on the page or how the region is structured, so I think that's confusing for readers and removed the dynamic map. In this region's case, there is a good static map that shows the relevant destinations. Hope this helps clarify. -Shaundd (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Breadcrumbing Banff & Jasper

Discussion about Breadcrumbing Banff & Jasper copied over from Talk:Alberta

Since regions are being discussed, I also was wondering about making Banff National Park and Jasper National Park as regions, with Banff, Jasper, Lake Louise and the Columbia Icefield listed under the appropriate park (even if its just bread-crumbed). It violates the rule of 3, but the parks are the same size as regions and the towns are fully within the respective parks. Thoughts? --MuzikMachine (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

About Using Jasper and Banff as "regions", I would actually support this if one isue was cleared up: we also need to capture the nearby areas outside the parks as part of the hierarchy as well, so either including Hinton as part of "Jasper Park region" even though it technically isn't in the park proper, and Canmore with Banff or K-Country, etc. OR create a new "region" or, more likely, regions, that contain the leftovers. For example Grande Cache and area, Municipal District of Bighorn No. 8 and Willmore Wilderness Park Kevlar67 (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kevlar67: I want to have the change really simple and not create too many extra regions; for example, the end game is have the Banff town site article to have "North America > Canada > Prairies > Alberta > Alberta Rockies > Banff National Park" as it's filing, preferably without having to do anything with the "leftover" articles outside National Parks. In reality, Municipal District of Bighorn No. 8 around Canmore and Willmore Wilderness Park near Grande Cache have nothing in common other than both being in the mountains. Call Banff & Jasper National Parks "Big Cities"?? :) --MuzikMachine (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

For Alberta Rockies, perhaps we should pioneer a "huge park" article? :-) More seriously, the status quo is Wikivoyage's guidelines. I'm not opposed to breadcrumbing Banff and Jasper to their National Parks (it's where they are administratively and I don't think it would confuse readers), but it's not consistent with WV rules about breadcrumbs. If there's agreement it's the exception that proves the rule, we can do it that way, but we should probably have that discussion in it's own thread so it's easily referenced in case someone asks "why is it different" in the future. -Shaundd (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

We already have at least one park as a region with cities breadcrumbed to it: Adirondacks. So please go ahead and make a couple of national parks region articles if you like. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I say go ahead and breadcrum Banff, Lake Louise, and Jasper to their national parks, I think it makes sense. Most parks in the wider world don't have towns inside them that draw more visitors per year than the population of the whole province they are in, but Banff does, so it might be the exception worth making. Kevlar67 (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)