 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
editOnaping Falls was made up of 3 towns. Levack, Onaping and Dowling; all found along highway 144 north of Sudbury, ON. It was originally a lumber town, but a correction needs to be made because there were never gold mines, but rather nickel/ore mines which still exist and are running today.
- A town is an incorporated entity. The town of Onaping Falls was made up of three communities, not three towns, because Onaping Falls itself was the only incorporated entity. Dowling, Onaping and Levack were (and still are) communities, not towns. Bearcat 00:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Move?
edit- 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
- Onaping Falls, Ontario → Onaping Falls — Only Onaping Falls article. RandySavageFTW (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Not uncontroversial: current naming appears to meet WP:MOS standards.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- WP:MOS for Canadian places, as expanded upon at WP:CANSTYLE, is "undisambiguated unless evidence of actual ambiguity (not theoretical) can actually be provided". Hence, not controversial, and unless actual evidence of an actual other topic for this name can be provided, support move. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Seems uncontroversial to me. There's no other Onaping Falls article, and unlike the US, Canadian cities don't have a naming convention that forces the province name. Jafeluv (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: is the waterfall notable enough to merit its own article? Mindmatrix 16:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Any article on it would be a permanent stub, so there's not really very much reason why it would ever need to be any more than a short subsection within this one. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support per WP:CANSTYLE, Bearcat's rationale makes sense to me regarding the actual falls.--kelapstick (talk) 20:20, 22 May 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.