Talk:Newfoundland and Labrador–Quebec border

A and B and C
Anon on 16 December 2021 observed in the Edit Summary: ''"The boundary between A and B and C" is how this will be read by people who don't know that "Newfoundland and Labrador" is just one province. And that probably means most non-Canadians.'' Valid point; I know the name of the province but the sentence does seem to be describing the boundary between three places. (It would be clearer to write Newfoundland/Labrador - but that's not the name of the province.) Anon added "the province of" in two places to clarify.

Now has experimented with italicizing the province names. (As this sentence is part of the initial definition, it works out to bold italic.) The use of bold italic for province names seems bizarre to me, a typography that will be used almost nowhere else and justified only by preventing possible ambiguity - which, in my opinion, the addition "the province of" already solved. Spike-from-NH (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh, that was just an idea. Perhaps the Manual of Style contains advice about such situations. From my side, feel free to replace it by anything you prefer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Cheers, I will go back to Anon's version and revert the bold italic. Spike-from-NH (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Potential Quebec Bias
I'm concerned about the current lead image of this article, which favors the Quebec interpretation of the border, which is only supported by Quebec. The Newfoundland interpretation is supported by Newfoundland & Labrador, the nation of Canada, every other Canadian province and territory, and likely other entities. Why should the lead image show a pro-Quebec version, with the 'disputed' area shaded in the same color as Quebec? Especially when the consensus sides with Labrador? It should either be the same color as Labrador, or a third neutral color. This just seems like common sense.

99.192.110.136 (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The former lead image privileged Quebec's position and has been moved down to "Position of Quebec." The new lead image is more neutral. (QC blue, NL red, disputed area slashed red and blue.) Cavernousknoll (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Maps (Lac Fleur-de-May, disputed)
, I now see what you are getting at with the Lac Fleur-de-May. That said, there are certain things I don't feel comfortable with.
 * 1) Nowhere have I seen the estimate of the area of the lands in dispute - only that of the whole of Labrador. I assume you are proficient in GIS and calculated it using your GIS tool, but I don't think it fits within WP:CALC's definition of routine calculations. In any case, that looks like original research to me, that's why I deleted the area estimates, even if they are important. If there is an easy tool that would do that - great, then I'd say IAR.


 * 1) As for the maps themselves, it appears that the govt of Quebec was slovenly enough not to notice that the two lakes (including Fleur-de-May) is also what Quebec claims as its own even as Canada and the Newfies use the generally accepted border of Labrador and according to this border this belongs to NL. Or maybe the 1927 ruling can be interpreted both ways? There are no answers as to this question. All I can say is that Quebec does not expressly mark this area as one that was granted to NL by the Privy Council ruling.

I think you should write to Quebec officials and ask about this discrepancy. For now, we can't really say much about it because the sources aren't really there. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The area figure of just under 31,000 km2 came from a calculation in JOSM of this OSM relation. And in both of those disjoint areas, streams flow toward the Gulf of St. Lawrence or the Strait of Belle Isle west of Blanc-Sablon, which is the basis for Quebec's claim to them.  And indeed, Lac Fleur-de-May is in Quebec's toponymic database. --  Denelson83  22:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)