Talk:Tuktoyaktuk

message: The original content of this page was plagiarized from 
newsfilter.co.uk encyclopedia.
It needs to be rewritten.  --  Geo Swan 19:56, 2004 December 31
*That site is a Wikipedia mirror, if I'm not mistaken.  --W.marsh 21:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Earlier discussion

message: I'm not a very good writer and so I'd like to suggest, if someone is up to it, to link this article to the dispute over the north pole issue.  Canada is going to have a road going to Tuktoyaktuk soon to occupy more of the north and gain greater access to the North.
See article http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=c2a85b60-b069-4e0e-bb30-4c7817aec9c5
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.53.103.225 (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Road to Tuk" 

message: Any information (including pics) about Wärtsilä Larus PUC 22 (reg. CH-AHL) hovercraft which was based in in Tuktoyaktuk, N.W.T., Canada in the late 1980`s?
This ACV was sold from Finland to Canada in mid 80´s.
What is the fate of this finnish-made ACV?
What happened to the operating company Arctic Hovertrans Ltd.?
http://www.esrfunds.org/documents/ESRF_095.pdf
(see pgs. 78-79)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.216.201 (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Hovercraft in Tuktoyaktuk

message: This article has been renamed from Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories to Tuktoyaktuk as the result of a move request.
 - move in line with naming conventions, in particular the Canadian naming guide, as unique name. Keith D (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support. Follow style guide. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Any additional comments:
*W.marsh, no one is going to type "Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories" into the search box. Searches will be for "Tuktoyaktuk". Considering there's only one Tuktoyaktuk, I see no reason to disambiguate it. --Kmsiever (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be inclined to agree.  "Helpful information" is to be found in the article, not the title.  As for the comment "how many people outside the area really know where Tuktoyaktuk is right off the bat?", the naming convention makes clear that if a place name is unique, international fame or primary use of the name is irrelevant.  To be fair, however, W.marsh does appear to acknowledge that his issue is really with the style guide/naming convention, rather than this move, when he states: "But since that's what the style guide says, there's no compelling reason to ignore it in this specific case." Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This is irrelevant... if you type "Tuktoyaktuk" into the search box, you come directly to this page anyway. That's why we have redirects. --W.marsh 23:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are missing the point Kmsiever is making. Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That people search for "Tuktoyaktuk"? Titling this page Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories doesn't affect them at all, so his point doesn't make sense. --W.marsh 23:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He's saying that disambiguating the title doesn't assist anyone in finding the article.  Not that readers would have to type NWT.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So it's the same for people trying to find the article. But it's much better for people viewing the article's pagename. Tuktoyaktuk makes sense only to people who know what "Tuktoyaktuk" is, Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories makes sense to anyone who knows what the NWT is, which is vastly more people. --W.marsh 23:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First, you're making assumptions about the vast majority of people.  Canadians are often familiar with the place because of the beer commercials (yet haven't a clue if it's in Yukon, NWT or Nunavut), and I suspect most people outside Canada have no clue what or where NWT is.  Anyways, all of it is just speculation.  But, in any event, prominence or fame is irrelevant in this instance, as per the naming convention.  You're also attributing too much to the title -- disambiguation is not to provide basic information (otherwise, the article would be called Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories, pop. 870 - 69° 26′ 34″ N, 133° 1′ 52″ W), but to distinguish between article subjects with the same or similar names.  Information about the subject is to be found in the article itself.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the same reason we include state names in US city articles... it just makes sense. It's practical. Including coordinates isn't, very few people could do much with them, while even dumb Americans generally know the provinces and territories, and presumably all Canadians do. As impressively knowledgeable as all Canadians are I'm sure that even they don't know every town and city in every province and territory off the top of their head... including the province is just useful. I oppose what the MOS says here... it's just not very good. --W.marsh 00:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The U.S. and Canadian naming conventions are very different (and the US convention has been subject to torturous, and endless, debate whether state names are required).  Your view that it is practical and makes sense has been rejected in the consensus related to Canadian articles.  You are obviously free to raise that issue over at the naming convention, however.  (BTW, I wasn't suggesting coordinates should be added to the title, just that the title is not the place for background information). Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support. Follow style guide. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
*W.marsh, no one is going to type "Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories" into the search box. Searches will be for "Tuktoyaktuk". Considering there's only one Tuktoyaktuk, I see no reason to disambiguate it. --Kmsiever (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be inclined to agree.  "Helpful information" is to be found in the article, not the title.  As for the comment "how many people outside the area really know where Tuktoyaktuk is right off the bat?", the naming convention makes clear that if a place name is unique, international fame or primary use of the name is irrelevant.  To be fair, however, W.marsh does appear to acknowledge that his issue is really with the style guide/naming convention, rather than this move, when he states: "But since that's what the style guide says, there's no compelling reason to ignore it in this specific case." Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This is irrelevant... if you type "Tuktoyaktuk" into the search box, you come directly to this page anyway. That's why we have redirects. --W.marsh 23:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are missing the point Kmsiever is making. Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That people search for "Tuktoyaktuk"? Titling this page Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories doesn't affect them at all, so his point doesn't make sense. --W.marsh 23:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He's saying that disambiguating the title doesn't assist anyone in finding the article.  Not that readers would have to type NWT.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So it's the same for people trying to find the article. But it's much better for people viewing the article's pagename. Tuktoyaktuk makes sense only to people who know what "Tuktoyaktuk" is, Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories makes sense to anyone who knows what the NWT is, which is vastly more people. --W.marsh 23:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First, you're making assumptions about the vast majority of people.  Canadians are often familiar with the place because of the beer commercials (yet haven't a clue if it's in Yukon, NWT or Nunavut), and I suspect most people outside Canada have no clue what or where NWT is.  Anyways, all of it is just speculation.  But, in any event, prominence or fame is irrelevant in this instance, as per the naming convention.  You're also attributing too much to the title -- disambiguation is not to provide basic information (otherwise, the article would be called Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories, pop. 870 - 69° 26′ 34″ N, 133° 1′ 52″ W), but to distinguish between article subjects with the same or similar names.  Information about the subject is to be found in the article itself.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the same reason we include state names in US city articles... it just makes sense. It's practical. Including coordinates isn't, very few people could do much with them, while even dumb Americans generally know the provinces and territories, and presumably all Canadians do. As impressively knowledgeable as all Canadians are I'm sure that even they don't know every town and city in every province and territory off the top of their head... including the province is just useful. I oppose what the MOS says here... it's just not very good. --W.marsh 00:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The U.S. and Canadian naming conventions are very different (and the US convention has been subject to torturous, and endless, debate whether state names are required).  Your view that it is practical and makes sense has been rejected in the consensus related to Canadian articles.  You are obviously free to raise that issue over at the naming convention, however.  (BTW, I wasn't suggesting coordinates should be added to the title, just that the title is not the place for background information). Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: This article should be expanded to cover the harbour, apparently the only one till you reach deep into Alaska, the Island that forms the shelter for the harbour, and the history of the harbour, both as an Arctic port, and as the jumping off point for petrochemical exploration of the area, plus its cold war history. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 10:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tuktoyaktuk Harbour & Tuktoyaktuk Island