Talk:Timiskaming

Excessive material
This is a disambiguation page and not an article page. Per Disambiguation, and in more detail Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. All of the excess material is contrary to these guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I've asked for other opinions at WikiProject Disambiguation. -- Whpq (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)