This is a great start to this page. I find Nunavut absolutely fascinating and it's on my fantasy list of future destinations.
So there's three regions listed here for five "cities". Nunavut covers a (very) large area, but there are very few destinations to speak of. At this point, I don't think we need to have subregions. Any objections if the subregion pages (Baffin Island, etc.) are redirected to Nunavut and the Regions section deleted from this page? -Shaundd (talk) 06:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- The logistics of visiting and exploring Baffin Island are quite different to most of the other parts of Nunavut. You can get to Iqaluit and some of the other towns on Baffin Island by commercial plane, getting around and finding places to eat and sleep is obviously a lot easier than most of the rest of the territory. You can get to a few of the other towns by commercial plane, but exploring the really remote parts is incredibly more difficult.
- I admittedly have no experience at Wikivoyage, so I'm not sure how things are normally organised here. Is it normal to leave sections blank (like at Ellesmere Island) in the hope that someone will expand them, or does the content get merged to a broader topic until it's big enough to split off again? Because I could write a whole page of travel info on Ellesmere. And the same for Baffin Island. So I could see dividing it up being helpful in the future, but – for what we've got there now – I don't see why it shouldn't be merged until I (or somebody else) expands it further. Osiris (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- That's really cool if you can add some info to these destinations. Canada's north is badly neglected. As for how we do things, articles that we think meet our criteria to be an article are usually left blank in the hope that someone will expand them. In this case, Baffin Island and Ellesmere Island are being listed as regions, so they're meant to group a larger number of destinations into a more manageable overview. Since we only have four city/town/village articles right now (and very stubby ones at that), the question was raised about whether we need three regions to hold four settlements. I'm not sure if this makes any sense, at this point -- I hope I haven't confused you!
- All that said, I think any content for these places is good at this point. If you have knowledge, please plunge forward and add some content. I can hold off getting rid of Baffin Island and Ellesmere Island. The vagaries of the Wikivoyage geographical hierarchy can be sorted out later. -Shaundd (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ah! Thanks for the link. I think I understand the structure now. So... towns and national parks would have their own articles anyway, and these region articles would group and summarise those places togather. What about destinations outside those areas (mountains/glaciers, historic sites, wildlife sanctuaries)? Can region articles describe those places, even if they don't get their own articles? If so, I'll endeavour to expand those two region articles; but if not, then maybe scrapping them is okay. I'll have to figure it out as I work on it. Osiris (talk) 08:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, please include entries on mountains, glaciers, historic sites, wildlife sanctuaries and any other places of interest in the most appropriate article, which might be that of a relatively nearby city (town, village, etc.) or a regional article. What's most important is to get the content up. It can always be moved as most appropriate, and that can be discussed later, if there's any reason to do so. It's exciting that you have so much content to add, and I look forward to reading it! Have a look at Wikivoyage:Listings for information on format and such. In particular, Wikivoyage:Attraction listings and Wikivoyage:Activity listings are likely to be relevant. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm now working on a proper regions map, and will try to clear up the issues raised above in the process. I'm pretty confident I can come up with a basic structure that will help us proceed. --Peter Talk 03:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- And here it is. This shows the census divisions (the Baffin, Kivalliq, and Kitikmeot regions) with one modification—I split off the Queen Elizabeth Islands from Baffin Region into their own article. The black dots (for now unlabeled) are populated places, many of which probably won't need their own pages.
- The one really awkward artifact from the census divisions is the Baffin Region's inclusion of every last island in Hudson Bay and even James Bay! (That means a lot of little tiny islands just offshore of Quebec are actually in Nunavut.) It seems weird to include them in a Baffin region, so maybe we could create an East Hudson Bay Islands article to cover all of them, from Mansel Island all the way down to Charlton Island?
- While thinking about that, I'll add the national parks to the map, and try to figure out which hamlets should have their own articles, and which should be covered more briefly in a larger region article (probably most of them). --Peter Talk 05:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- The map looks very nice. I find the whole Baffin Region odd though, with a little piece of the mainland and half of Victoria Isle (btw - Victoria Isle is on there twice). Unless there are other cultural or travel reasons, I think it would make more sense to have all the mainland split between the two other mainland regions and leave Baffin Island as it's own region. -Shaundd (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I really must apologise for not getting around to this. I said I was going to work on it, and I haven't even started. I don't know what to do about the subregions. The more I try and work out the best method, the more inclined I am to go back on what I said before and scrap the idea of dividing it up at all. The census regions have little correlation with how one would travel (although you could say that about the territorial borders too: you'd never access James Bay from Nunavut). But if we start shifting things around then we're inventing new regions with old names. But if you do keep the subregions, the one aspect where the census regions do make sense is in transport. The two points on the mainland that are in the Baffin region are accessed from Iqaluit rather than Rankin Inlet (except if you're going by charter of course). So although it looks odd, it does make a bit of sense in that regard. Therefore if you still want subregions, then my recommendation would be to stick with how you've done it for now.
I've collected all of the information that I have, and I'm going to finally get started during this week. But I'm going to start from the bottom of the hierarchy, with parks and settlements. That will help me work out whether the subregions are worth keeping. Does that sound okay? Having never contributed here before, I'm a little unsure of the layout but I guess I can use the more complete Canadian regions and the article templates to guide me... British Columbia looks good. Osiris (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Some maps of the scheduled flight routes for an idea of what I was talking about-- Canadian North, First Air/Sakku First. Osiris (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, those flight maps really show why these groupings make sense. The settlements are all pretty much perfectly grouped by census region according to transport realities—even the weird "chunks" of Victoria and Somerset Islands make sense when you realize you would access them after flying to Resolute Bay.
- Regarding the necessity of the regions, I think they'll be useful since not all information will belong in a settlement or park page. You would know much better than I would, but I wonder if we couldn't just have one Queen Elizabeth Islands article, with no sub-destination articles. If we're expecting a maximum of say 150,000 bytes of text in one page, couldn't we include all we have to say about the various notable islands and settlements of that region? --Peter Talk 01:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- That could work fine. It wouldn't have held many sub-articles anyway, and apart from Ellesmere there are only a few places I can think of that would be worth covering. Plus there's basically only the one base, so the "eat", "drink" and "sleep" sections will be blank without Resolute. So, you're suggesting that be incorporated under the Baffin Region? One last thing: that's Prince of Wales Island next to Somerset, the label will need to be changed. Osiris (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- We could put Queen Elizabeth Islands under Baffin Region, but I figure we could keep it at the top to save readers a click/load—even though we don't plan sub-destinations for it. It looks nice to have another color on the map too ;) I'll be sure to have the double naming corrected in the next map draft. --Peter Talk 18:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- The map is "finished" now. The two main changes to the regions structure that I made were to create a separate region (to be covered in one page, I think) for East Hudson Bay Islands, and to move the chunks of Prince of Wales and Somerset Islands that are in the Baffin census region to Queen Elizabeth Islands. The latter change is a little weird, since they are not actually part of the Queen Elizabeth Islands, but it looks pretty clear that those areas are visited via Resolute, which is.
- So we still have the question of what the whole structure will look like. I envision a structure to start that only breaks down the Baffin Region, using a single page to cover everything within each of these other large geographic regions:
- This might not be the best approach, though—if places like Rankin Inlet, Cambridge Bay, Ukkusiksalik National Park, etc., could fill out nice travel articles, then we might need to break these regions into more pages. --Peter Talk 04:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Great! The map looks excellent. I'm not sure whether the "East Hudson Bay Islands" article is going to be worth having (a lot of them are wildlife reserves and I'm pretty sure access is restricted in some cases), but we can work that out later. I'm starting on Iqaluit today. Osiris (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
This discussion seems to have fizzled out a few years ago, but the map above is quite useful. Is there any reason not to include it, even though we are not using regions for our guide yet? Ground Zero (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)