DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Requested move 23 November 2016

[edit]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. -- Tavix (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinawa → Pinawa, ManitobaPinawa, Manitoba – I had previously submitted this page to be moved to "Pinawa" from "Pinawa, Manitoba" as an uncontroversial technical move. It appears there is now an objection. FUNgus guy (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: WP:MOSCAN#Places indicates that settlements in Canada do not need to be disambiguated with their province/territory if the title is completely unique. FUNgus guy (talk) 05:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, excessive disambiguation. We shouldn't be copying the mess that is USPLACE into other countries. Timrollpickering 12:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Few readers or editors know where the hamlet of "Pinawa" (pop. 1,444) is unless "Manitoba" is attached to its name. Removing the province from the name is contrary to WP:CRITERIA. Wikipedia should offer its readers clarity, not confusion, because "Pinawa" could be a place or a rock band or a food, while "Pinawa, Manitoba" is unmistakably a lesser-known settlement in a Canadian province. Is there some advantage to the readers of Wikipedia to removing the province from this settlement's name? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Needless disambiguation. Why ambiguate something just because it could hypothetically be something else? Nothing "Pinawa" could possibly be anything other than the hamlet. Maybe if it was a US city but thankfully Canada isn't under USPLACE. Nohomersryan (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't exist for its editors, it exists for its readers. That's why I asked "is there some advantage to the readers of Wikipedia to removing the province from this settlement's name?" Magnolia677 (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An article title that's concise and consistent, among others. I can't think of any reason why it should be disambiguated; readers are not that dumb. This is the primary topic for "Pinawa" simply because it's the only topic for "Pinawa". A topic being obscure is not a call for disambiguation. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You could learn a thing or two from Hookers Hot Springs. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A reader would only arrive at this page if a) they searched for Pinawa, or b) clicked on a link on another page where it would be known it's a settlement. Even if they did Random article, it's very clear that this is a settlement in the first sentence ("Pinawa is a small Canadian community..."), not to mention the pinpoint map showing where it is. FUNgus guy (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

highly educated

[edit]

Pinawa was, at its height, the most highly educated community in Canada. Consequently, it is difficult to believe that the only notable people associated with the town are a writer and a martial artist. Perhaps these two are unique in having been born in Pinawa. However, there must be several notable scientists, administrators, technicians, and skilled trades workers who lived in the town.

Humpster (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Humphrey Tribble: The usual criteria for inclusion in a settlement's "notable people" section is being born there, or living there for a significant period of time. Nothing in the article states this was the "most highly educated community in Canada", or that those living here weren't just temporary employees. Also, two other communities, Lac du Bonnet and Brookfield, were located closer to Whiteshell Laboratories than to Pinawa, so maybe the workers lived there. I would suggest doing more research before tagging the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Robin Black "grew up in Pinawa", suggesting that he wasn't born there; he left after high school. Andrew Davidson was indeed born in Pinawa but has lived elsewhere most of his life. So they might not qualify as notable residents by your criteria. Yet, it shouldn't be necessary to cite the length of time each person lived in Pinawa unless there is some reason to question the strength of their association with the town. An adult who worked in the town for 10 years would have a stronger association with it than a child.
You are correct magnolia677 (talk · contribs) that personnel also lived in Lac du Bonnet (though perhaps you were guessing). So it is reasonable for you to ask a question about this. You must not know that as early as 1963, a newspaper reporter joked that Pinawa would probably have “Manitoba’s highest concentration of brains.”
Pinawa existed because residents of Lac du Bonnet feared their rural town would change for worse if hundreds of highly educated people moved there. Some staff, mostly trades, also lived in Seven Sisters Falls and Beausejour. Other employees lived as far away as Winnipeg. Nevertheless most scientists, engineers, and administrators lived in Pinawa.
All were permanent employees of AECL. Whiteshell Laboratories was in full operation from 1965 to 1998 (criticality to announced closure). A span of more than 30 years isn't temporary.
You would know all this if you were familiar with the subject of the article. In that case, please contribute positively instead of through drive-by detagging. If you aren't familiar with it, then do some research before you criticize.
The purpose of a tag is to attract attention to areas in which an article might be improved. It should stay in place as long as there is active discussion on the subject or a likelihood that an article could be improved by future editors. Removing it before consensus has been reached is obstructive.
I chose the tag carefully because I know more information can be found. It might take years before some scientist receives a major award. Then an editor looks up his origin, and that scientist is added to the list of notable residents. That is how an encyclopedia is built.
My edit was made in good faith. I will restore the tag.

Humpster (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]