Talk:North Rustico-New Glasgow

Hi MuzikMachine, I saw you've been moving and splitting and merging the pages around Cavendish, North Rustico and Brackley Beach. Splitting Cavendish out makes sense but I have a couple of thoughts about the Rustico Harbour article:

• "Rustico Harbour" isn't a common name. It's my bad because I was the one who initially created the "Cavendish and Rustico Harbour" guide (it was a rush job, I'll spare you the history details), but looking at it now, both Google and OSM don't even call it Rustico Harbour -- it treats it as two separate bodies of water, North Rustico Harbour and Rustico Bay. Also, when I Googled "Rustico Harbour", the leading results were all North Rustico.
• I'm not sure it makes sense to have Brackley Beach and North Rustico in the same guide. North Rustico and New Glasgow are common tourist areas and easily accessed from Anne of Green Gables / Cavendish and its section of PEI National Park. Brackley Beach, on the other hand, is quieter and more about the Brackley Beach/Stanhope section of PEI National Park, which is separate from the Cavendish section and all the Anne of Green Gables stuff.

What are your thoughts on restoring the Brackley Beach article (it could cover Stanhope as well, which currently has no coverage) and renaming "Rustico Harbour" to just "North Rustico" (which is the main town and has plenty of name recognition) or "North Rustico and New Glasgow"? -Shaundd (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Shaundd, thanks for reaching out, I like your ideas about the articles:

• I checked Natural Resources Canada official place names database while doing the split and debated calling it "Rustico Bay" since there is no Rustico Harbour, I agree that most of the article could be under North Rustico.
• Brackley Beach-Stanhope would be good, I'm guess Stanhope is probably too small to have it's own article?
• I'm wondering about the status of New Glasgow. It seems too small to have it's own article, but I'm wondering whether it's better combined with Cavendish (Prince Edward Island) or a North Rustico?

Cheers! -- MuzikMachine (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi MuzikMachine, yeah, New Glasgow is a tough one to figure out. From my recollection when visiting PEI, New Glasgow has a fair bit of name recognition because of the lobster suppers but that seems to be the principal draw and a lot of the nearby accommodation looks like it's in Rusticoville or North Rustico. For now, I think we should include it with North Rustico and either (1) call the article "North Rustico and New Glasgow" and mix the listings together, or (2) call the article "North Rustico" and put the New Glasgow listings in a Nearby section, like it's done at Yarmouth (Nova Scotia)#Nearby, until we figure out what to do with it. I have a slight preference for option 2, but I think either one works.

Re Stanhope, there's a golf course there and some accommodation, but I'm not sure there's much else. Municipally, it's part of something called the North Shore Municipality, along with Pleasant Grove and Grand Tracadie. Like Brackley Beach, Stanhope is linked with the Stanhope section of Prince Edward Island National Park. Maybe all four villages could be covered in one article (I don't know if there's much tourism stuff in Pleasant Grove or Grand Tracadie)?

Another thing I've thought about is whether we're putting the traveller first with the way Prince Edward Island National Park is handled. To the traveller, the Cavendish section of the park and the town of Cavendish (Prince Edward Island) are closely linked, and I'm not sure it makes sense to split listings across two articles (right now, some listings are covered in both articles and some listings aren't). I've been wondering if it would make more sense to have all the listings in the relevant town articles (Cavendish and Stanhope/Brakley Beach), and treat the PEI NP article like an extra-hierarchal region with prose descriptions in the See/Do/etc pointing to Cavendish (Prince Edward Island) and Brackley Beach/Stanhope when we have that article. Any thoughts on this? (I'm not sure I expressed that clearly) -Shaundd (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Shaundd: I like the idea of splitting off the small tourist village from the national park, it's common place with other articles such as Pacific Rim National Park Reserve / Ucluelet / Tofino or Yoho National Park / Field. I think it would be beneficial to add a "Nearby Settlements" section to Prince Edward Island National Park, similar to the "Towns & Villages" section of Banff National Park, as it would show additional traveller information about some towns bordering the park. That area has a lot of independent cottage rentals (i.e. clusters of 10-15 and or less) as opposed to large hotels, so if they were all listed it could get cluttered on the page and the majority are located outside the park. The Tourism PEI website doesn't show a lot for Pleasant Grove or Grand Tracadie, so that could easily go into a "Nearby" section or just listed under the applicable heading (Eat, Sleep, Do, etc.). Here's my proposal for that general area:

• Prince Edward Island National Park
• Cavendish (Prince Edward Island)
• North Rustico and New Glasgow - then the banner photo can be kept :)
• Brackley Beach and Stanhope

Just a formatting question, when a page combines two neighbouring towns, is it better to use a dash (A-B) or "and" (A and B)? I've seen examples both. Thanks! -- MuzikMachine (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi MuzikMachine, I'm not sure there is a definite answer on A-B vs A and B. Years ago, A-B was expected because it was shorter, however I see people creating pages with "A and B" now and it seems to be accepted. I prefer "A and B" in most cases, it looks more natural to me.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on splitting small tourist villages from the national park. For both the examples you raised (plus how we handle Cavendish/PEI NP), I think the way it's currently done places more emphasis on the admin boundaries at the expense of how a traveller would usually approach those destinations. In the case of Field/Yoho and Cavendish/PEI NP, it also produces duplicate listings. Anyway, I don't want to belabour the point, I think it's more important to get content into the articles. It's great that you're doing the research to get more PEI articles. It's been on my radar for years, but I've never had the time (or made it a high enough priority) to get into it. -Shaundd (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Shaundd: This area was never really on my radar until I had opportunity to visit last summer - highly recommended. I'm thinking I might go with the dash because the articles cover other rural villages, so it indicates the general area. As an aside for PEI National Park, I noticed the boundaries are missing on OSM, so I'm going to see if I can import a shapefile so it could be used for theses article(s) as well.

Cheers! -- MuzikMachine (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)