Talk:North Dundas, Ontario

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There is no consensus on whether a township with a population of roughly 10,000 is large enough to be classed as a city per

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose some basic research showed that there is evidence that North Dundas was a place. https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/1530994 etc etc The Acts of the Parliament of Tasmania - Volume 24, Part 1 1917 "Vicinity of North Dundas" In ictu oculi (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Those are passing mentions at best and not really evidence that it was a defined place at all. Regardless, there's still no article on the topic to warrant a disambiguation page. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles, Canadian towns should have the province in their title unless they are unique. I had previously found Acts of the Parliament of Tasmania - 1897 which seems to refer North Dundas as a distinct place - it authorized building a railway from "the Town of Zeehan to North Dundas and Mount Read". There is this which lists it as a "locality" and this is a 1903 stock certificate for the Cornwall Tin Mining Company in North Dundas. The tin field of North Dundas is listed as a 1909 book. Finally, this book says that North Dundas is 7-8 miles from Zeehan on the North Dundas Road. This place certainly existing for a time during a mineral boom. There is no requirement that the other places have an article to require the province be included in the name, or to be listed on a dab page. Granted, the coverage of North Dundas in the tram article is minor and it would certainly be better to expand it. MB 02:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That MOS page also says "or are unquestionably the most significant place". An existing place is certainly a primary topic over a possible former place that has no article. A hatnote to the tram more than suffices per

  WP:GNG with these, if there were to actually be an article on this supposed place. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  You are misreading the naming conventions for Canada place. "or are unquestionably the most significant place" applies to cities. Small subdivisions (towns, villages, etc.) contain the province unless unique - no other place by that name anywhere in the world. MB 06:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  North Dundas in Ontario is the same level of government as a city. It is also currently unique, and a couple of gazetteers from the 1910s don't prove otherwise. Here's also a c. 1910 map by the Tasmania Survey Office, showing there was only "Dundas", not North Dundas, South Dundas, East Dundas nor West Dundas. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. At 11,000 residents, and two dozen notable bluelinked residents, North Dundas is not exactly a small place, and can be considered "unique" for most intents and purposes. The supposed namesake is too far-fetched to be considered "existing", has no article, and can be gracefully covered by a hatnote.
  No such user (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisting comment: for clearer consensus. – robertsky (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose.
  WP:CANPLACE's position is that smaller settlements must have a unique placename in order to be at the undisambiguated title. Per the comments above, "North Dundas" is not a unique placename, so the current North Dundas, Ontario is best. 162 etc. (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. Whatever the outcome of this discussion (most likely "no consensus"), North Dundas should be redirected here per
  No such user (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Oppose this idea - if

  WP:USPLACE-style convention of redirecting to the longer title doesn't apply here. 162 etc. (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  That's the whole purpose to this move request. We don't keep disambiguation pages when there are only two topics (and arguably, there is only one topic here since the other does not have an article and is questionable in its existence). - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We absolutely do keep disambiguation pages when there are two topics. The guideline is at

  WP:NOPRIMARY. 162 etc. (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  But you cannot have it both ways: by keeping that dab page, you are effectively claiming that the

  No such user (talk) 08:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  P.S. I've just found out that we also have

  No such user (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  One could argue that

  South Dundas, Ontario, and North Glengarry and South Glengarry retargeted to Glengarry (disambiguation), but that's beyond the scope of this discussion. 162 etc. (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  One could also argue that

  No such user (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  You aren't the only one. I feel that most of the opposes have been

  WP:CANPLACE - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• This should also be taken into consideration. North Dundas, Ontario receives two to three times as many views as the disambiguation page (North Dundas) and North East Dundas Tramway combined. This is a clear cut case of
  WP:PRIMARY if one were to ignore the massive amount of policy that supports this move. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisting comment: Primary topic argument appeared. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Precision is good. Ambiguity bad. Dicklyon (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree. Let's move

  No such user (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Funny, but in this case a move to

  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, don't you think? Dicklyon (talk) 06:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  When only one has an article, only one has verified existence, only one exists today, and only one has ever had people living in it, there is no application of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, because the only topic is clearly the primary one. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support
  North Dundas if the move is approved. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]