Talk:Boundary Waters

Canada: Ontario / Geography Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada.

Minnesota High‑importance

	Minnesota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Possible name change to "Quetico-Superior"[edit]

I raise as a topic of discussion changing the name of this article to "Quetico-Superior". Rather than having an immediate poll, I suggest we discuss it here first. Here are some reasons in favor of such a name change:

Boundary Waters leads to confusion with Boundary Waters Canoe Area.
Boundary Waters may have more currency south of the border than north. Quetico-Superior may be better known in Ontario and Canada, and is also well known in the US.
The term Quetico-Superior has been used for years in names of groups, government actions, and Searle's book. There are some 15,000 Google links to it.

This article, renamed Quetico-Superior, could be an overview of the common attributes, history, and protection status of both sides of the border, with links to the specific articles on each constituent park or region. Given the long history of international cooperation in this area, a neutral and well-recognized title would be appropriate. Kablammo 20:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that the name Quetico-Superior is not insignificant, and should at least be a redirect and be explained within this article. However, I don't see either title in question as being more neutral than the other. Regarding your points:

There are many examples of management areas named after more general regions (Death Valley National Park named after Death Valley, for example)
It may be true that more Canadians call this region Quetico-Superior rather than the Boundary Waters, but more Americans live within a day's drive than Canadians.
There are 15,200 Google links for Quetico-Superior, 157,000 for "boundary waters" Ontario, and 393,000 for "boundary waters" Minnesota
In the English Wikipedia there are currently 4 references to Quetico-Superior, 63 references to "boundary waters" Ontario, and 2,540 references to "boundary waters" Minnesota

--BlueCanoe 05:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not surprising that a search of "Boundary Waters" yields so many hits. When referring to Northern Minnesota, the term is typically used as shorthand for the BWCA, which is shown in many of the results returned by a search. (And some of those hits are for other boundary waters; for example the term is in fishing regulations for the Mississippi, St. Croix, Big Stone Lake, etc.) The problem is that the common use of the term as a synonym for the BWCA makes it confusing to have one article on the wilderness area itself and another here. If used in a more generic sense (but still limited to northern Minnesota) it is too limiting, as it effectively excludes much of the area within the parks which is not actually on the border. No one would refer to Quetico, Cirrus, Marj, Nym, etc. lakes as part of the boundary waters.) Therefore I prefer Quetico-Superior as it includes the entire parks and protected forest areas in the region, which share common history, geology, and ecology. Kablammo 16:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Boundary waters" includes the whole of the border between MN and Ontario, the term "Quetico-Superior" does not. Is lake of the woods considered part of the boundary waters? If so then "Quetico-Superior" will not work for the title of this article. -Ravedave 16:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no

Merge/Rename[edit]

Further to the above discussion, I propose we merge this to the BWCA article or rename it as Quetico-Superior. There is no indication of wp:notability for the term outside of it's meaning as the BWCA. All of the sources given are to the term as meaning the BWCA. Not to deny that it can be used as a descriptive term for areas covered by other articles, But that does not make it a subject for a wp article. The article is 7 years old and has not one source which refers to the Boundary Boundary waters as something other than the BWCA, and is basically a stub, probably because all of the work has gone into specific designated areas.

I actually wish that there were a name and an article for the entire area. They are historically integrated, and very similar and integrated in a wide range of areas. I think that the term Quetico-Superior has the most usage of terms for something larger than Quetico or the BWCA. North8000 (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article should be merged with Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, but renaming it "Quetico-Superior" would be acceptable given this discussion. This article I think should have a regional focus, including protected areas, towns, major roads, industry, etc, on both sides of the U.S.-Canada border. The first sentence as it stands now defines this entire region as "wilderness", which is misleading since only parts of it really are (and they have their own separate articles). -- BlueCanoe (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan. Any thoughts from others? North8000 (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]