Talk:Timiskaming

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: Ontario / Quebec / History / Geography Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Quebec.
	This article is supported by WikiProject History of Canada.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada.

Indigenous peoples of North America

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America 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.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Geography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

Linguistics

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

English Language

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Language, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the English language 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.English LanguageWikipedia:WikiProject English LanguageTemplate:WikiProject English LanguageEnglish Language articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Excessive material[edit]

This is a disambiguation page and not an article page. Per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation pages, and in more detail Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. All of the excess material is contrary to these guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in the edit summary, there is no explicit rule against it. None of the info hampers search or is distracting. Moreover, WP:MOSDAB is a guideline, not a right-or-wrong/black-or-white law. "Use common sense in applying it". -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 20:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many ways to skin a cat, and dumping article content into a navigation page is not one of those ways. I suggest that the history of the name is more appropriately dealt with in one of the articles, and that article can be referenced as a "see also" link. There is no good reason to go against the guidelines, especially to the degree that has happened at this page. -- Whpq (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Like you said: "many ways to skin a cat". It is purely an opinion issue. IMO, the info is best served here. Otherwise it will be added to every article listed on this page, even if it has a "see also" link. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 21:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've asked for other opinions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation. -- Whpq (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the disambiguation tag. With the lede, this is an article (or article stub) about the Algonquin word. If a dab is still needed, it should be placed at Timiskaming (disambiguation) and linked from a hatnote here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the long list of Timiskaming articles attest to, this page probably should still remain a disambiguation page. The question is where to house the material about the name. After some looking around, I suggest that it be placed in an article callled "Name of Timiskaming" similar to Name of Toronto. This provides for a single article that explains the name which can be linked from the other Timiskaming articles as needed, and leaves a useful disambiguation page in place. -- Whpq (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would work too (as long as the Name of Toronto naming example is a good one) -- the stubby article info should remain separate from whatever navigational tools (disambiguation page) is needed for the readers. Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Name of Toronto article identifies the derivation, but is mostly about how the city got the name Toronto. Perhaps not the best article to pick out as an analogous. But I think in principal, providing it as a home for material related to the name is still a good idea. -- Whpq (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but all this is lame. There is absolutely no need for all of this. It is just creating an issue where there wasn't one before. What's the point? The information is already logically presented. IMO, leave good enough alone, this will make it all so much more jumbled and broken up over stub articles. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The point of all this is that disambiguation pages are not articles, and I disagree with your reasoning for including all of this material at the disambiguation page. Why do you feel it is wrong to include article content in articles versus navigation pages? -- Whpq (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mostly because the info is best suited and most logically presented where it is. There are other disambig pages that provide some content or background info, proving that such a blend works. Like stated above, splitting it out will make it much more jumbled and only creates fragmented stub articles. That said, if it is sooooo objectionable, I'm not closed-minded on it but need to see something more convincing. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 22:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK, P199. I'm sorry, but without others' consensus with you, trying to circumvent the guidelines based on your personal preferences is lame. The information (logically presented or otherwise) belongs in articles. Navigational assistance goes in dab pages. Trying to combine the two (article and non-article) is the source of the issue. So it's not that you need to see something more convincing, it's that you would need to provide something more convincing to build consensus to break with whatever guidelines you find sooooo objectionable. Preferable with less of the snark, but either way. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]