Talk:Georgina, Ontario

Cook vs Cook's
I agree that there is some disagreement about the exact form of the name but the correct link for the wikipedia article is Cook's Bay. I think that article name is also correct and I will discuss that there. Talk:Cook's Bay Double Blue  (Talk) 16:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Township merger info
Does anyone have an accurate date of the merger between Georgina and North Gwillimbury, and essentially a brief history of the area. The info I just added conflicts with info in the Keswick, Ontario article. I have no idea which one is correct. Mind matrix  00:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Living there since 1970, I can confirm the info from The Canadian Encyclopedia 1971 merger, 1986 Township became a Town.
 * Double Blue (Talk) 11:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, and for updating the article. Mind  matrix  14:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Girl's name
Isn't this the kind of page that should mention the rather popular girl's name Georgina in a note at the top? 88.111.123.177 21:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No. I recognise that Georgina redirects here but this page is Georgina, Ontario which is clearly a town.  Double Blue  (Talk) 15:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Postal Code
The summary lists only Georgina: L0E and Keswick: L4P... Udora: L0C is missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.74.206.93 (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
I have requested feedback at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic_names) as to whether there is any reason that this article should not be moved to Georgina. Georgina has long been a redirect here, and I see no reason for the disambiguation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am moving the conversation, which has moved into a full on move proposal, here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary disambig?
Hi. Anyone hanging out here? The redirect page Georgina was recently redirected to Georgia, which doesn't even include the word. I've restored the original direction, but while doing this, I realized that Georgina, Ontario seems to be alone in its field. Is there any reason that Georgina, Ontario should not be moved to Georgina? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Without a shadow of a doubt. There are plenty of non-redirect links from Special:PrefixIndex/Georgina.-- O'DELAQUATIQUE  (talk)   (contributions)   (e-mail)   17:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Presuming that "without a shadow of a doubt" means that you perceive a reason against the move, I'm not sure how that would bar moving the only article that seems to be on an entity named "Georgina" to the primary spot. There are plenty of non-redirect links from Special:PrefixIndex/Dallas, too, but the city in Texas as parked at Dallas, with a disambiguation page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't speak to the merits of the move suggestion, except to point out to MooNriddengirl that the applicable guideline is at WP:CANSTYLE.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you! I'll go read it over. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

←Rather than move may discussion there, since I've already linked this from the article, I'll summarize what I've found here: "Towns (unless the town's population is akin to that of a city), villages, neighbourhoods and other smaller settlements must have unique place names to qualify for a page move." This one seems to have a unique place name; while there are many women named Georgina, there's no other article that I've seen called "Georgina" and no other place. In addition, it certainly seems to have a population akin to that a city if City is correct, as its population of 42,346 is far beyond the range given there of 5,000-10,000. It also says, "In most cases, an article is a candidate for such a page move if "City" already exists on Wikipedia as a redirect to "City, Province"." It did, from June 2004 until June 2005, when it was made into a 2-article disambig with a now-deleted pornstar article: Georgina Lempin. After that article was deleted, it was restored to a redirect, until today. Unless a disambiguation page is to be created for persons named Georgina and placed there, which would also include a listing for the place, there seems to be no reason not to move the article and plenty of reason to. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Typically, discussions over the implementation of WP:CANSTYLE for a particular article are done on the article's talk page, so as to involve those editors who have an interest in that article, with a note over at WP:CANBOARD.  See Talk:Barrie for a relatively recent example.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose I have done it backwards, then. As I said, I have already left a link at the article's talk page pointing here; I did so before the first response. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Move proposal

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was NO CONSENSUS to move page at this time, per discussion below. There is clearly enough dispute over what the primary topic is to say that the town is not clearly the primary topic. The name is more primary, whatever the state of that article. This seems to be a case for the primary article being a dab page. I would also mention that, in discussions here, it is FALSE that editors are required to argue from policy only, and not introduce external reasons. Policy here is determined by the decisions we make, and not vice versa. Arguing from first principles is better than arguing from policy. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Summarizing my points above, Georgina, Ontario seems to be unnecessarily disambiguated per Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Style guide as well, it seems, as per Naming conventions. The article at Georgina was created as a redirect to Georgina, Ontario and, subsequent the deletion of the sole other page that was lifted there when it was a short "disambiguation", it has again been the only target. Georgina, Ontario seems to be the only article that should reasonably be named "Georgina" on Wikipedia and given its population of 42,000+ meets both requirements for a town article to be moved. The page Georgina was redirected briefly to Georgia today, but there is nothing at the Georgia page (which is a disambig) labeled "Georgina". If we presume it was meant to redirect to Georgia (name), the only reference there is a link to Georgina. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you saying to just swap Georgina and Georgina, Ontario? CANSTYLE would probably support that and so would I. However, there is also Georgina Island just offshore - a big First Nation reserve and various other geographic Georgina's. Maybe a seealso on the new Georgina to a dab page would be useful, but then again, maybe better to wait until someone actually wants one of those. Franamax (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I support a move from Georgina, Ontario to Georgina per CANSTYLE as it appears to be uniquely named. Everything else, that I've noticed, might have Georgina in the name but is not simply Georgina. Georgina Island, would never be called simply Georgina and should be linked from Georgina, Ontario, anyway. Double Blue  (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not convinced a move is in order as there appear to be quite a few "Georgina" - titled pages on Wikipedia. I've restored and populated the disambiguation page for now while this discussion is under way. (There are more entries to come, but I have to do some real-world stuff right now.) --Ckatz chat spy  01:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Skeezix has now apparently reverted Ckatz. Before this gets too nuts, lets think a moment. Georgina, Ontario has a prior claim as the only thing simply titled "Georgina", in that this the way to which most towns are commonly referred. People and rivers generally have a qualifier in their referral ("Georgina Johnson", "Georgina Brook") whereas towns often do not ("Toronto", "Vancouver").
 * I propose that we create Georgina (disambiguation), in fact I have done just that and will continue to populate it. We can keep discussing here if/where exactly Georgina should redirect to, but let's not revert other people's constructive work in the meantime.
 * (PS I would favour making Georgina about the town, with a seealso to the dab page, as noted above.) Franamax (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support move of Georgina, Ontario to Georgina. It is the only WP article that can unequivocally and uniquely be named Georgina. All others simply include Georgina as part of a longer proper noun, and those entries should rightfully appear in Georgina (disambiguation), as has been mentioned by others. Mind  matrix  02:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose move, as there is overwhelming evidence that the town is not the most popular use of the name. (To be perfectly honest, I hadn't heard of the town until this came up, and I think most people outside of Ontario would in all likelihood use "Georgina, Ontario" instead of just "Georgina" in order to avoid confusion.) Toronto and Vancouver are not comparable examples for this purpose, given their size and more widespread recognition. Looking at numbers, in terms of Google search "top hits" Google Canada leans toward the town on its first page of results for "Georgina". However, Google US produces a more mixed assortment and Google UK instead highlights actresses and rivers in its first page of listings. Wikipedia page views show that in January 2009 (as an example) there were 722 page views for Georgina, Ontario, compared to 1013 views for Georgina Hale, 2321 views for Georgina Rizk, 2863 views for Georgina Beyer, 3455 views for Georgina Cates, 6245 views for Georgina Chapman and 8900 views for Georgina Sparks. I haven't checked every "Georgina" article, but I would say that the page views listed above clearly indicate that readers looking for "Georgina"-related articles are not by default aiming for the town's page. As such, Georgina should be a disambiguation page. --Ckatz chat spy  06:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there's a bit of a problem there. I've gone through the first several hundred wikisearch hits for "Georgina" and populated Georgina (disambiguation) with all the non-people articles I could find. That was perhaps one hand of fingers-worth. As to people, well there appear to be at least 100 articles beginning "Georgina...". I'll leave it up to you to populate all those names if you wish. I'm not sure how productive such a vast list would be.
 * Beyond names of people, we're left with an Australian dry basin and non-existent river; a few entities associated with the town of Georgina (it used to be the Township of Georgina, but wthatever); and Georgina itself. Nothing else on-wiki comes even close to the claim that "Georgina" is ambiguous. Which people searching for the Georgina Sparks article will simply type in Georgina? Names are generally researched with a binary referent (except probably Gandhi, and certainly Cher).
 * There really is no other use for the simple "georgina" search term other than to reference the primary article - the Georgina in Ontario and its associated features, a hockey team and the island/reserve. I think a dab reference from the primary usage is indicated here. If complaints arise later, we can always revisit. Franamax (talk) 07:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Look at the other Canadian towns that are name-only - none of them claim what is a common name for an individual. No disrespect intended to the town, but it is just not that notable to warrant sole claim to the Georgina page. --Ckatz chat spy  07:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've considered that point, but I haven't exhaustively searched them. Nevertheless, you haven't yet established how a naive user typing only "Georgina" into the search-box would be expecting anything other than the town. And you haven't established why they would be surprised or unduly inconvenienced by the results of such a vague search, especially when the first thing they see is the dab link to explain what they should really be looking for. Franamax (talk) 07:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd counter that by saying that I would expect many readers would not even be aware of the town. As I mentioned earlier, I could not recall ever hearing of it, and I suspect I am not alone in this in Canada. When you extend this to our international readership, the odds of the primary search target (for what is a common female name) being a small town in Ontario must by all logic diminish significantly. Keep in mind that it is not "naive" to use a partial search term for a variety of reasons. One may not know the surname, one may not be certain if the spelling is accurate, or one may not wish to artificially limit the search parameters (especially with Wikipedia's internal search, which has until recently been problematic.) If you don't wish to consider the given name issue, the other uses (Georgina Ice, Georgina River, [{Georgina Basin]] and so on) are not so far behind the town as to establish "primary use". --Ckatz chat spy  10:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * By "naive", I always mean "unknowing" and not in any derogatory sense - I mean the user first approaching the wiki for information, however:
 * Any user searching for "georgina" is intending either a full or partial search. They already know that when they start typing. And in either case, the search box has an expandable sub-window now which indicates the further available choices - there's no mystery as to whether more choices are available (it's different than six months ago).
 * So what then are the partial searches? If the user is just looking for general "georgina"'s, they won't be unduly inconvenienced by the extra click to get to the dab page. If the user is looking for a person named "Georgina X", surely they'll have already typed the "X" in their search? If all they know about the doctor/writer/actress/judge is that the first name is Georgina - again, no great inconvenience to click once more. If the user is looking for a specific not-person item, they have only a few choices: two dry geofeatures in Australia; three subsidiary features of Georgina; or Georgina itself - a notable town. (Not a famous town mind you, but the environmental problems alone make it notable)
 * Until and unless the Aussies complain, and recognizing that it is also a female name, I think that anyone typing in just plain "georgina" and hitting enter is looking for the town. Franamax (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've stated before, the only articles that warrant the title Georgina are those whose name is simply that, not those which include it in a compound noun. The town is the only article in WP which satisfies this criterion. No person will ever satisfy this criterion, unless they are known mononymously by that name - and I can find no evidence of any such individual. To direct readers to articles about people named Georgina, we would place a hatnote linking to the appropriate disambiguation page. We've done this for thousands of articles, why should this one be any different? This move satisfies the criteria listed at WP:CANSTYLE and WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, and is supported by an internet search whose first fifty results are immediately related to the town, except for one linking to the Georgina Island website. (Further, and quite coincidentally to this discussion, that search includes a disambig listing of people with first name Georgina at the end of the first page of results - Google's version of a hatnote.) Mind  matrix  19:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, an internet search for Georgina yields approximately 16 million hits, whereas one excluding hits related to Ontario or Georgina Island yields just 2.2 million. While not definitive, it is illustrative. Mind  matrix  19:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ckatz, I still haven't researched settlements, and maybe it's a lame example, but Alberta has the province as primary destination, and it is also a woman's name (Alberta Hunter and at least 2400 people in California ). Admittedly, that is a province, not a town - however, that's what I've got for a precedent so far. :) Franamax (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose and turn "Georgina" into the disambiguation page. There are too many possible meanings for it and I don't see this town as the primary one. To the previous user, it's already been stated that you results are only using Google Canada. The main Google site and Google UK get far different results (which argue against your idea).  TJ   Spyke   20:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't argue against my point that the town is the only article on WP which can be simply and unequivocally titled Georgina. All others are compound nouns, which may be listed on a dab page linked from the town's article using a hatnote. These articles already have a unique title at which they may be found. Mind  matrix  20:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I've re-arranged the dab page and created another one. We now have Georgina (name) (analogous to Georgia (name)) and Georgina (disambiguation) (analogous to Georgia). These can be updated, moved or whatever in accordance with the consensus that forms here. Mind  matrix  21:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What, I ask, is simply called Georgina besides the town? Double Blue  (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support move of Georgina, Ontario to Georgina. I'm sympathetic to the argument that the town of Georgina is not sufficiently well-known to be a primary topic (I've never heard of it, for example), however, Georgina is the name of the town in Ontario, and it is not the name of any other topic for which exists a WP article.  That makes it the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, by definition.  A "this article is about the town in Ontario; for other uses see..." hat note to Georgina (disambiguation) at the top of Georgina should take care of the rest.  --Born2cycle (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment FYI, I have posted requests for input at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy, as they have a lot of experience with how to deal with these issues. (I still feel that this page is not a clear-cut case of being the "only" topic, as it involves a popular given name which ties to many articles that are considerably more popular than the one about the town.) While this is a minor issue, it may set a precedent due to the fact that the vast majority of the other Canadian cities that have moved to name-only pages are either so large that they are clearly the primary topic, or else have a very distinct name. I don't think the intention of the Canadian place name style guide was to encourage a move of every page that could be moved, only those that are clearly distinct. --Ckatz chat spy  04:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How can you say it's not the only topic when it's the only topic named Georgina? I don't follow your argument whatsoever. Do you claim that because many people have the first name "Georgina" that Georgina, Ontario, is not the primary topic of the Georgina article? Those people go by full names and no one should expect to go directly to their chosen person by simply going to Georgina any more than going to Paris. They should get a clue and hit search or at least find a hatnote. Double Blue  (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say that the primary topic of "Georgina" should be the given name "Georgina", from which the town received its name. The number of hits for the town is far, far less than those for individuals using that name, and the number of page views for the article is also far less than for those about people with the name. See also the number of articles using "Georgina". --Ckatz chat spy  05:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Is your argument, then, that Georgina should be the newly created Georgina (name) page or a new disambiguation page? Double Blue  (talk) 06:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you don't think adding up the number of articles that contain a word is a suitable way to decide on primary topics, by the way. Double Blue  (talk) 06:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Of [all the article that begin with "Georgina" only Georgina, Ontario, is named strictly "Georgina". [[User:DoubleBlue| Double Blue ]] (talk) 06:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Georgina is a fairly common given name. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 05:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As are Dallas (name) and Paris (disambiguation). So far as I can see, the current set-up with those is satisfactory. For three years, give or take a few months, Georgina has redirected exclusively to Georgina, Ontario, until a now blocked sock decided to redirect it to a page that did not use the term. It's great that there's a disambiguation, but guidelines seem to support moving this article to the primary name, until entities solely named Georgina start to proliferate. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- I think the main article on the town should remain at "Georgina, Ontario". I had lived in Ontario for 30 years, and had never heard of Georgina until I got a job there.  Something the article doesn't really make clear is that although it is administratively a single municipality, it remains several small towns in all but name, with each having their own little downtowns.  They are about a five - ten minute drive from each other.  I don't know how locals style themselves now.  But when I worked there locals would not say, "I am from Georgina", or even "I am from Georgina, Ontario".  They would say "I am from Keswick", or Jackson's Point.  Geo Swan (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't really speak much to that one, never having been to Ontario. In fact, I would probably never have encountered this article if I were not monitoring said now-blocked sock (my response to comment just before yours). But I note that there seems to be at least some sense of community in the names of such entities as the Georgina Ice Junior C Hockey, Georgina-Brock Garden Club, Georgina Girls Hockey Association and etc. Even if there are strong subdivision identities, though, like the New York City's boroughs, I don't understand why that would bar the placement of the article under its primary name. Do you feel that the unnecessary disambiguation will help searchers find it, or do you think it is insignificant enough that it shouldn't be placed so prominently under its actual title? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Torontonians may refer to themselves as being from The Beaches or The Annex; people from Markham may refer to themselves as being from Unionville. This is no different, and doesn't invalidate the requested move. It's just an artefact of small communities merging to become a larger municipality - it happens everywhere. And yes, the town tends to operate more like a township - a series of dispersed communities with a common administrative council. That should have no bearing on this discussion. Mind  matrix  16:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought those interested in weighing in here might have their opinion influenced if they realized that Georgina, Ontario, is not a real city. It remains a very rural township, with a dozen small, isolated towns, villages and hamlets, scattered within it.
 * Torontonians may refer to themselves according to what named community they are from. One Torontonian speaking to another is much more likely to refer to a nearby intersection, just like anywhere else.
 * Note Georgina's area -- 287 km^2. That is about 3.5 x the land area of Manhattan.  Note the density -- 147 people per km^2.  The named communities in Toronto are adjacent to one another.  I presume the same is true for Tribeca, Soho, the Battery -- which is wildly untrue for the scattered communities in Georgina.
 * Note, the articles on the originally autonomous towns Keswick, Sutton, Pefferlaw, and Udora are all better written than the article on Georgina, Ontario. Geo Swan (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Georgina, Ontario, is not a real city - no, but it's a real town, as stated in the article. It is provincially incorporated, per the Ontario Municipal Act. The size of a municipality has no bearing on the title which its WP article receives. (NOTE: there are thousands of UK, French, Italian, etc. locales whose WP articles are simply the name of that locale, undisambiguated, including hamlets; see, for example, Category:Hamlets in the United Kingdom, or articles in the subcats of Category:Cities, towns and villages in France such as Armissan, or in Category:Villages in Poland, such as Cieciory)
 * Georgina's area, population, pop. density etc. are immaterial to this discussion.
 * My example about Torontonians referring to themselves as being from the Beaches etc. was a direct comparison to your statement that people from Georgina say "I am from Keswick" instead of Georgina. You haven't countered this claim at all. The fact that Toronto's communities are immediately adjacent, whereas Georgina's are not, is immaterial to this discussion.
 * articles on the originally autonomous towns...are all better written than the article on Georgina: so what? Why should that affect the title of this article? Mind  matrix  18:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me tell you about my first visit to Georgina. My girlfriend, who was a bit older than I was, divorced, with two teenage kids, had just graduated from University, and taken a job, two hours away, in Georgina.  She was staying in a motel there, Monday to Friday.  She told me a summer job had just opened up there.  I made arrangements to drive to Keswick for a job interview.  I thanked her.  And she suggested, following the interview, I drive to the motel, and visit her.  She gave me directions to the motel.  They seemed pretty easy to follow.  What she didn't tell me was Keswick was only two blocks wide, from west to east.  She told me to turn left onto highway 48, and keep my eyes peeled for her motel.  She didn't tell me I would have to drive TEN MILES down highway 48 to her motel.  She didn't tell me that when I turned left on highway 48 it would look like I was leaving town, there would be no houses, no street lamps.  Her directions didn't mention any landmarks or turn-offs on highway 48, because there weren't any.  I tried following her directions to the letter, and each time I found myself heading down this highway to nowhere.  I tried assuming her directions were wrong, and tried various variations of them.  I must have driven over each of the streets in Keswick at least twice.  This was before everyone had a cell phone, I had spent 45 minutes looking for her motel, it was late, I was tired, and I went home.  She never understood why I stood her up.  And she never invited me to visit her again.  So trust me, when I tell you that these are not adjacent neighbourhoods, and Georgina is not a real city.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Personal anecdotes about getting lost in the town are not relevant to this discussion. Mind  matrix  18:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Ckatz's comments sum up my opinion.  Royal broil  02:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Despite the fact that Ckatz has yet to present a single WP article, apart from this one, which is named (exactly) as Georgina. (NOTE: Ontario is not part of the name of the town). Mind  matrix  18:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Georgina" should be the disambiguation page, or the surname page; this is not a significant and well-known enough city to warrant the stand-alone personal name being a straight-direct to it; comparing Paris and Dallas is not a good comparison at all; both are better-known cities, and also not very common personal names, not even as "ordinary" as Georgina, though I'll grant Georgina is somewhat rare. Unlike Paris and Dallas, this is primarily a personal name. Paris, son of Priam or Troy, and Paris Hilton, are not sufficient as comparisons; and most people named Dallas are named, sort of, for the city......thanks heavens people don't name their kids "Toronto" or "Ottawa"...although I have heard of people named "Pembroke" and "Kingston".....Skookum1 (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MoS and common sense. This is another case where a naming convention is being used to try and make a change that is clearly not in the best interest of the encyclopedia.  It's about time to address the problems that naming conventions, or their interpretations, are causing and rewrite them! Vegaswikian (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't follow you there. Just saying "common sense" does not make your argument. There is only one article about something called "Georgina" so, to me, it seems common sense that that article be located there.  Double Blue  (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because we could do something, doesn't mean we should do it. In this case, the fact that "Georgina" is a common name and that there are dozens of articles related to it clearly demonstrates a greater benefit to making Georgina a disambiguation page, rather than having it be claimed by a little-read article. As is noted with all guidelines, interpretation should reflect common sense. --Ckatz chat spy  05:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate that you have a different perspective, Vegaswikian, I do not particularly appreciate your suggestion that my proposal lacks common sense and "is clearly not in the best interest of the encyclopedia". I disagree that it lacks common sense to suggest moving a disambiguated title to a base title that has pointed to it solely for many years and take issue with your implication that I am "try"ing to use naming conventions for some reason in a way "clearly" detrimental to the development of Wikipedia. You may think my proposal lacks merit, but it is outside of both policy and guideline to imply that I lack sense or am up to something. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That it's pointed to this article for years, when perhaps - not perhaps, but actually - should have pointed at Georgina (name) all this time is not really the discussion, or perhaps is the point of the discussion. The most common usage in English-as-she-is-spoke (outside Ontario, anyway), is for "Georgina" to be a personal name.  That this redirect stood unchallenged for many is not justification for it continue to do so.  BTW is anyone from WikiProject Anthroponomyny involved here? (did I spell that right?)Skookum1 (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, I did spell it right; and further to Vegaswikian's comment that it's time to give the naming conventins/guideilnes an overhaul, I couldn't agree more, but I'll leave a list of examples for the discussions where they belong.....Skookum1 (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that "Georgina (name)" did not exist at the time I raised this question, however, does have some bearing. :) It may well be appropriate for there to be disambiguation for Georgina, and the base may be a good location for that. I have little involvement in geographic articles or naming conventions and have not argued strongly for one outcome or the other for that reason. But I agree that it's not the point of the discussion; it wasn't the point of the comment. The point of the comment is that there is a civil way to disagree and there is an uncivil way to disagree. Disagreement that questions the sense and motivations of the proposer rather falls on the side of the latter. One way to deal with the inefficient situation of "Georgina" pointing solely to "Georgina, Ontario" is to move Georgina, Ontario. Another may be to create a disambiguation. IMO, they are both valid suggestions and neither strikes me as particularly unsavory. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Skookum1, I created Georgina (name) last week, and Georgina (disambiguation) was created the day before that. Mind  matrix  15:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: let's analyse the options:
 * status quo (redirect Georgina to Georgina, Ontario. This is obviated by the next option in this list.
 * Georgina, Ontario -> Georgina, because this is the only article on Wikipedia which may take that exact title. Some object to this for various reasons (some listed under the other options). Note that the size, layout, population or history of the town are not material to a discussion about the article's title.
 * Georgina (disambiguation) -> Georgina, because there are other things which include the name Georgina. This situation is covered in Disambiguation, which states that Only add links to articles that could use essentially the same title as the disambiguated term. Disambiguation pages are not search indices. So, this option is not applicable, per current policy.
 * Georgina (name) -> Georgina, because the name is more common than that of the town. This is a worthwhile argument, but it fails in two respects.
 * The page about the name is not an article, it is a disambiguation page. The dab page fails the same partial title matches criterion as the above dab page.
 * If it were an article, there would be a stronger case for such a move. However, an article about the name isn't likely, since all information about the diminutive Georgina, and its cognates, should be logically located at Georgia. (Analogous to Alex versus Alexander.) So, this will remain a dab page, and it should not take the simple, undisambiguated title per the previous point.
 * If you disagree with current policy, then discuss it at the relevant policy pages, not here. Discussion on this page should reflect current policy, not personal opinion. If you disagree with my analysis, please explain why based on current policy. Mind  matrix  15:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, neither Georgina (disambiguation) nor Georgina (name), in their current state, warrant existence in WP per the partial title matches criterion of WP:DAB (but I'm not arguing for their removal, only making a note of it). Mind  matrix  15:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not quite accurate. 1) Georgina (name) (whatever it's current state) is not a disambiguation page and WP:DAB doesn't apply to it. 2) At least some of the entries at Georgina (disambiguation) do arguably qualify for disambiguation under Only add links to articles that could use essentially the same title as the disambiguated term. Both islands and rivers may be informally referred to in context by the name alone. These are routinely included on disambiguation pages. On WP:MOSDAB, some common exceptions are given, including an island as an example. older ≠ wiser 16:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Georgina (name) is absolutely a disambiguation page. It consists merely of links to people who happen to have the name Georgina. I would support a move to delete it as a rather useless dab page and a if changed to a list, a indiscriminate one. Georgina Island is not Georgina (island) and is adjacent geographically and there should be natural links from each to the other. Double Blue  (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Name pages are NOT disambiguation pages. Unlike disambiguation pages, name pages are articles and are subject to guidelines of the Anthroponymy project. Whatever the current state of Georgina (name), it is most definitely NOT a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 18:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that name pages are not dab pages but that is exactly what Georgina (name) is. Is it your contention, then, that a name page can be made for "Georgina"? Double Blue  (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by that is exactly what Georgina (name) is? It is not a disambiguation page. It may be a very poor quality given name page, but that is not entirely relevant to the question of whether it is a disambiguation page. Of [course] it is possible for it to be a better quality given name page. older ≠ wiser 19:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. It is a list of links to articles that have the common property of beginning with "Georgina". It is certainly not an article. As a list, it's indiscriminate. I am pursuing this here because if you can demonstrate a possibility of another article that could be entitled Georgina, then I would entertain the idea of Georgina being a disambiguation page, otherwise, there is no point and it should contain the only article that has the topic of "Georgina" and the probability of being linked to, the town. Double Blue  (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether or not Georgina (name) in its current state is deletable or not is besides the point AFAIC. It is not a disambiguation page. Period. Many name articles are little more than a short blurb regarding the derivation/etymology of the name and a list of articles for people with that name. Such content may disturb some editors to the point of wanting to delete it. That wouldn't be my choice, but it's really besides the point here. The criteria for disambiguation is whether topics with similar names could reasonably be confused. And with regards to primary topic, the burden of proof is on the topic claiming to be the most common use of a term. Is Georgina, Ontario significantly much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer? Is it significantly more searched for and read than other meanings? And a final bit of guidance in determining Is there a primary topic: If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)". older ≠ wiser 20:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no other article on a topic called Georgina; clearly primary topic. Double Blue  (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Apart from the name, which despite the poor quality of the current article is arguably the primary topic, the island, the river, and even perhaps the basin can all be reasonably referred to as simply Georgina. A disambiguation page is appropriate. older ≠ wiser 21:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Ckatz and Skookum1. The name is arguably the primary usage (and name pages, whatever the current state of Georgina (name), are indeed articles and not disambiguation pages. However, the case for any primary usage is weak and therefore the disambiguation page should be at the base title. older ≠ wiser 17:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Georgina, Ontario. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080111132051/http://www.town.georgina.on.ca:80/history-townsites.aspx to http://www.town.georgina.on.ca/history-townsites.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051218171041/http://www.festivalofstories.ca:80/ to http://www.festivalofstories.ca

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Roche's Point
There seems to be conflict with the origin story of Roche's Point. The page for Keswick attributes the name to a different man, unless it's two different places... 173.32.183.174 (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)