Talk:Devil's Lake (North Dakota)/Name and disambiguation debate

Building consensus

Resolved

I've taken some time to cool off from the controversy and would like to move towards resolution on the subject.

DreamGuy, I appreciate your efforts to cover the many lakes and places bearing the same name in the world. You have added several places to the listing, and they may turn out to be excellent articles once someone begins them.

At this point though, only the city and lake in North Dakota have articles, and one of them deserves to have Devil's Lake redirect there until another article surpasses them. As is the case with many articles, a link to the disambiguation page should be placed right at the top to ensure that people find exactly what they were looking for.

I look forward to your response. --Alexwcovington (talk) 07:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, so you claim that one of the articles deserves to be at Devil's Lake instead of there being a disambiguation page there. Why? You didn;t give any reason, you just seem to assume that's true. When there are multiple items with the same name, there should be a disambiguation page there unless the one that is there is the most well known one. That is not the case with what you are proposing. Regardless of whether the other Devil's Lakes have articles or not, *your* Devil's Lake does not deserve the main space. Why are you so insistent that it go there? Like someone finding the page and then clicking on the one they want is such a horrible chore? Honestly, based upon notability (Google hits on the Wisconsin one far, far outnumber the North Dakota one) I could make a strong case for the Wisconsin one belong at the main article, but a disambig page is the best solution. Why do you have such a problem with that concept? You labeled this section "building consensus", but what you actually appear to want is to do it your way, the way you wanted it from the start, ignore everyone else and all the other Devil('s) Lakes, and try to pretend that that's consensus. I'm sorry, but that's not the way things work. I can just as easily make the main space for the Wisconsin one and link to the disambig at the top. We have a compromise, please try to accept it. DreamGuy 20:39, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, DreamGuy. I would now like the input of the other contributors to this article before moving on in the dispute resolution process. --Alexwcovington (talk) 05:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can't recall what I edited about this article (probably categories, I do that a lot), and I haven't done any googling or other research. However, simply based off of the material in the existing articles and the names of the not-yet-existing ones, I'd say that putting the disambiguation page at Devil's Lake is probably best. Not much links to any of these articles (except Devils Lake, North Dakota which gets plenty of links due to a template), so none seems significantly more prominent than the others within Wikipedia. Bryan 06:18, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason why one Devil's Lake should have priority over the others. None of these are well-known places. Keep Devil's Lake a disambiguation page. Nonenmac 14:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It looks like we now have consensus on this point. DreamGuy 15:04, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Please do not close debate before all the editors have had a chance to post their comment. I am being patient on this one. --Alexwcovington (talk) 17:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please give up this quixotic quest. This is an obvious and ordinary situation like thousands of others that have been resolved by disambiguation pages. Rmhermen 22:32, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

There are also thousands of other situations which have a disambiguation page and still have unidentified links go to one of the articles, rather than the disambiguation page. Gene Nygaard 23:46, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With 5 of the 8 contributors to the article now having chimed in (an acceptable quorum), I can see this round of the debate is over. Quixotic, though? We'll just have to see who is tilting at windmills.

I move to archive the discussion up to this point and free the talk page for discussion of the article itself. --Alexwcovington (talk) 06:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems the deciscion is to have it at Devil's lake (North Dakota) with a disambiguation page. So I have placed resolved tags at all relevant discussions. As for the comment about 5 of 8 editors, consensus does not mean a majority vote. However, I agree with Alex Covington here that this discussion and all relevant discussions should be archived.--Ipatrol (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Disambig page or something badly needed

Resolved

This page is in serious need of a disambig page or something like that. The article name here is being used for a lake in North dakota when there are lots of other uses for the name. Google "Devil's Lake" and you'll find that the majority of links are to a lake and state park of the same name in Wisconsin, but that there are also other places with the same name too. (Oregon, possible Michigan (golf club names that, presumably after a real lake.) I would think that this article should be at Devil's Lake (North Dakota) but then that's similar to the town article name. Before I start moving things around I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions on a naming structure to use. DreamGuy 06:30, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

The disambiguation page was a proper course of action. But don't go around saying one lake is more significant than the other, you're liable to insult people. The Devils Lake in North Dakota is by far the most sizeable and politically notable of all of these lakes and was not improperly occuping the "Devils Lake" article. And this place in Wisconsin you talk about, I've never heard of. Hits on Google are hardly indicative of geographical significance, and they seem to be split 50/50 with North Dakota besides. --Alexwcovington (talk) 14:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, upon further reasearch, this place in Wisconsin is a pond outside of Baraboo. It has a state park centred around it, sure, but Devils Lake (the one in North Dakota) has a few of those, a Native American reservation, and a city or three. Plus all the political controversy over flooding and drainage. I've moved the disambiguation page and redirected "Devils Lake" back here. --Alexwcovington (talk) 14:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You were talking about not saying things to insult people and you call Devils Lake in Wisconsin a POND? You've got to be kidding me. It's a hugely popular state park in the largest tourist area of the state with a full lake. Don't be insulting. I'm moving things back to make things more fair, which is disambig as default. I personally think the Wisconsin one deserves the main page based upon notability, but making the main page a disambig is a compromise. DreamGuy 15:10, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Apostrophe

Resolved

After seeing it written as "Devils Lake" on state websites (and on most other sites), I added this spelling. Brendan OShea 08:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

This is normal for geographic names: The U.S. Board on Geographic Names has since its inception in 1890 discouraged the use of the possessive form, which includes the apostrophe and the s. The possessive form using an s is allowed, but the apostrophe is almost always removed. [1] Of course, locals and non-professionals often continue to use the possessive anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 16:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if it counts, but I've actually been in Devils Lake. I grew up in the town--3rd generation. The lake's name does not have an apostrophe in it. I'm surprised there's any controversy about this at all.

I am holding the Bicentennial History (of the town) in my lap, but my mother edited it, so I suppose that's suspect. I did go to http://geonames.usgs.gov/ , the USGS Geographic Names Information System, and queried on "Devils Lake and North Dakota" and got a listing of the lake and the town. A query for Devil's Lake produced no results.

This is my first Wikipedia note, so I'm not sure what, if anything to do next. Jgreenleaf 03:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)