Talk:Northern Canada

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move, let's be bold on this; I think the arguments for the move are good and valid. —Nightstallion (?) 08:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move to Northern Canada

Canadian Arctic → Northern Canada – The proposed article name is consistent with other Canadian regional article names in Wp, is somewhat more accurate yet inclusive, and is the more prevalent term online. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support as proponent. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Canadian Arctic is probably clearer to a non-Canadian; two articles may be reasonable. Septentrionalis 17:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support so we've got 66%. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 08:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

In a strict sense, Canadian Arctic can refer to the portion of Canada north of the Arctic Circle; Northern Canada is more inclusive, not merely political, and consistent with other similar titles in Wp. The proposed title is also used throughout the Atlas of Canada and in the Canadian Oxford World Atlas. Moreover, there are more than 900 000 online hits for the proposed title, as opposed to some 700 000 for the current one.
As for other terms, the North is a frequently reckoned term analogous to the proposed title, as is the Far North to describe territory north of the Arctic Circle (the Canadian Arctic proper), but the definite article in the title might be problematic and rather ambiguous. Canadian North is another term, but is not used as frequently online as the others in a Canadian context. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As a northern Canadian, I am ambivalent about the move as I think there are problems with the article. It doesn't seem to have a focus; it wanders from the Arctic, which can be defined in a number of ways, to the territories, where the Yukon and the Northwest Territories are not really in the arctic. It excludes the central and widely-used concept of Nordicity and Wikipedia doesn't have an article on geographer Louis-Edmond Hamelin who invented the concept. The north is not just the territories, but encompasses most of Canada: see [1] for a map. Some parts of Quebec, Labrador and Manitoba are undoubtedly more "northern" than Whitehorse or Yellowknife. Both Canadian Arctic, referring to the region above the tree line or the Arctic circle or a certain isotherm, and Northern Canada probably deserve their separate articles, but I am not sure. Luigizanasi 16:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I will await the article on Hamelin with interest. Counting the Gaspé Peninsula as northern, however, seems excessive. Septentrionalis 17:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. Admittedly, the current article is unfocused – perhaps because of the ambiguity in definitions (are any actually sourced?) – and inadequately treats Canadian territory that is properly in the north but not of the Arctic (q.v.: Western Canada). In fact, the current title promotes confusion and hence the proposed move. I'd also be interested in treatments regarding Nordicity/Hamelin et al., l. While I'm not against two articles, I believe these topics can be dealt with in a refocused, single article currently.

And even though I'm from Hogtown, I somewhat disagree about the prevalence of the current title compared to the proposed one (e.g., online): the current one isn't noted in either Editing Canadian English or the Oxford Guide to Canadian English Usage and the proposed one prevails online and in the government Atlas of Canada. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to Septentrionalis, how about parts of Minnesota being in the Near North? Hamelin's basic idea is that there is no absolute point where we can say the "North" starts, but that there is a continuum of increasing nordicity. Gotta go do some research and fix the nordicity article, which doesn't even mention Hamelin. Luigizanasi 07:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.