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
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 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 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 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
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 • TALK20:51, 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 • TALK21:22, 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 • TALK19:06, 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 • TALK22:56, 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]
