Talk:Bamfield

Page move

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 no consensus. Defaults to no move. JPG-GR (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Is Bamfield a unique enough place name that this can be safely moved to an undisambiguated title? I suspect not (I'd be very surprised if there wasn't another village called Bamfield somewhere in the UK or Australia), but I'm asking since this page was moved to the plain title. I've temporarily moved it back, pending discussion (which is required by the Canadian naming convention in cases which aren't absolutely clear cut), but have no objection to returning it to the title Bamfield if it can be shown to be a unique name. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support page move. Seems fine to me. GreenJoe 18:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• My Google search turned up no other Bamfield. But personally, I still prefer retaining the name with the province, since the settlement is hardly a household name. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Because things are not household names does not mean that there needs to be disambiguators in the article name. David Christopherson is not a household name but we need not put (Canadian politician) in the article title until there is another David Christopherson to disambiguate him from. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Sadly, there are editors who would suggest that Ottawa and Montreal are hardly household names. I suspect that's why the naming convention does not rely solely on fame as a criterion for these discussions. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• I don't see a big problem with moving it to Bamfield as there does not appear to be any serious ambiguity. It is a surname but, if such an article is ever seen to be made, it could be dealt with then and likely dabbed (surname) and hat noted. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I could find no other place name use of the word. This settlement appears to be the overwhelmingly primary use of the name. I doubt that there is another village somewhere in the UK or Australia with the same name, given that this community's name is based on a mispelling of the surname of the area's first government agent (rather than the more traditional practice of naming it after a settlement in the UK). Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think you can be so certain a Bamfield /person won't crop up; see this. Bamfield BC may be the result of a misspelling but these other people's surnames aren't....Skookum1 (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not worried about a surname, for the same reason that Vancouver isn't DABbed due to George Vancouver, nor is Paris DABbed due to Paris Hilton (that last one is a bit tongue-in-cheek - :) ). As Bearcat rightly alluded in his comment above, we are usually cautious in assuming a Canadian place name is unique, due to the common practice at the time of naming new Canadian settlements after places in Europe, even sometimes obscure places in Europe. That is unlikely to be a concern here, because the community was (mis)named after a local government official. I wasn't saying that there are no other uses of the Bamfield name -- which is why I did a google search and concluded that this settlement appears to easily be the primary use of the name (with all due apologies to Agnes and Thomas Bamfield in Devon, England). Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support page move. A google search for Bamfield doesn't show any other relevant places named Bamfield. Even if an advanced google search is performed, that removes BC and British Columbia hits, there still is nothing relevant that appears. Bamfield Lodge and Bamfield House on Bamfield Road in Victoria, Australia contribute to the hits, but there isn't much chance that there will be a WP article on those. DigitalC (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment and, I suppose, Oppose. There are numerous other unique placenames in BC - Alert Bay, Shalalth, Seton Portage and countless others; nearly all redirect to comma-format article names; not an official standard but an evolved one; in Wiki guidelines it's only cities with a unique name that don't need the comma format; it helps in a page title to name the location of a given place - in no msall part precisely because they are so obscure. Like a postal address. Bamfield, but OK, Bamfield where. Easier to have that in a page title than "making" someone read the text to find out (even if it's stated in the opening line, which of course it should be). The quasi-standard evolved because of placenames like Nimpo Lake as a lake vs Nimpo Lake, British Columbia as the community. Not the case with Bamfield, but "once we start this" then Ucluelet and Tofino and virtually hundreds of other articles the same "unique name" issue applies; I don't think it's worth the work, and the fussiness vs function in being clear about where somewhere, indeed unique and obscure, actually is.Skookum1 (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • When randomly choosing an article, you are likely to come across an obscure topic but, one hopes, that the lead will give some context to help in understanding the subject. I see no reason for place names to be different. The quasi-standard you speak of has evolved, I believe, and undisambiguated place names are fine and good. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) and WP:CANSTYLE. Disambiguators are not meant to be précis of the article, just a way to have more than one article for non-unique names. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, Skookum1, that the wiki standard for settlements is not as you have described it, except perhaps for American place names. If you look worldwide, the majority of articles on settlements, even small ones, use dismabiguation only where necessary. And, yes, there remain a number of Canadian places that still have unnecessary disambiguation, but the fact remains that a naming convention has evolved since those articles were created, and those article titles will be revisited in time. And DoubleBlue hits the nail on the head when he reminds us that disambiguators are not meant to be précis of the article - they are merely intended to distinguish between articles. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Re-comment/oppose. Turns out there WP:CSG which covers it, in its Neighbourhoods/Communities section, although the language of the section uses only "neighbourhoods" but the context is equal - any postal address is [[Neighbourhood, Province]] (as also any neighbourhood spanning two districts instead of [[Neighbourhood (City)]] or [[Neighbourhood, Cityj]], whichever it's supposed to be now. [[Community, Province]] and/or [[Locality, British Columbia]] would have been mor explicit for contexts outside places taht could be called neighbourhoods, but the sectino's title makes it clear taht's implied. BTW I originally created [[Shalalth]] and noticed at soime piont it redirected to [[Shalalth, British Columbia]]; now I know why, as WP:CSG was applied by someone out there. Again, I see no reason why Bamfield's "unique" name is any different from hundreds of other unique town/community/locality names in BC and Canada that have unique names but still use comma-province format.Skookum1 (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Aside PS aih't it strange, Bearcat, that I'd be saying this now after my history re the Kamloops name thing? :-) Skookum1 (talk) 07:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• All that is prefaced by "For neighbourhoods which do not qualify for undisambiguated titles". DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Skookum1, but you appear to have completely misinterpreted the neighbourhoods section of WP:CSG - you missed the beginning part that states that neighbourhoods are subject to the same disambiguation rules as any other settlement or city, and WP:CSG discusses whether a neighbourhood should be DAB'ed by the municipality or the province only in instances where disambiguation is necessary. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose My intuition, for whatever that may be worth, when I look for a page such as this one, being a small town, is to include the province in the name if I type it in the address bar. Vancouver is just that because nearly everyone would assume Vancouver is Vancouver BC (Vancouver WA notwithstanding) but for Bamfield, like Plunkett(a unique name as well I think) I would expect to have to know the state or province, in Canada at least. Redirects could also deal with it. For a small place, the title of the article (see what printable version looks like for example), the province should be part of the name of the article. I would leave it as it is. --KenWalker | Talk 21:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dismabiguation is not intended to provide background information on the article subject -- its sole purpose is to distinguish the article from other articles with the same name where a conflict may arise. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose mostly per KW's point above on the printable version. Bamfield seems unique as a geographic name but is also an anglo surname, the distinction in the article name seems helpful. Bamfield doesn't quite fall into the distinctive name part of CSG, as opposed to, say, Ucluelet or Kamloops. Franamax (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The naming convention only requires that it be a unique place name. In any event, the point of disambiguation is to resolve conflicts between article titles. A surname, let alone what appears to be (from a Google search) a very uncommon one, does not necessitate disambiguation. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it were Skeezixburg, that'st pretty unique; but Bamfield is obvioulys someone's name or it wouldn't have been applied to the map here; and there's a story why, and likely a story behind the Mr. Bamfield in question, and experience has taught me that just because you can't google somethign easiliy doesn't mean there's not something farther in there. Bamfield is hardly the most unique of BC placenames, given its Anglo-Saxon-ness vs some that are much more obscure; myself I think the "only disambiguate if not unique" is over-applied and also poorly-thought-out as a guideiine to start with. I repeat - it's inevitable that the Mr. Bamfield this spot is named after will have an article. The place wouldn't have been named for him if he weren't notable in some way. Whosever he was.Skookum1 (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You should really re-read the whole discussion. Bamfield is not named for anyone. It's a mispelling. But even if it was, there would be no conflict, unless someone by the name of Bamfield went by one name only, like Cher. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Worth noting that Ucluelet, British Columbia is that way despite you'd think it was an ancient native name for the location; no, it's the name of the people there, their village has a diffeernt name; it doesn't get the comma-British Columbia format because it predates, or is "outside of", British Columbia in native cultural terms; this is by no means consistent, admittedly, partly because postal addresses or other qualifying info like shipping landings or IR names validate the comma-format usage; in ancient-village cases the names have come int ob eing eitehr standalone - Eslahan, Sta7mes - or in thte form Tanu (Haida village); some that, again were also shipping/postal locations like Cumehewa, Briitsh Columbia and New Clew, British Columbia because distinctions have to be made in the one case with Cumshewa, and in the other with "Old Kloo", i.e. Tanu (not quite the same place and New Clew is the current legal/map name. Like Ucluelet, other indigenous placenames like Tasu, British Columbia involve non-native history and were both postal addresses and steamboat landings, and/or remain in the provincial gazette. What I'm getting at is we even do t his for indigenous placenames, whatever their application, for places that are just like Bamfield or other Anglo-Saxon-named communities.Skookum1 (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support page move. This appears to be a unique name, and satisfies WP:CANSTYLE and WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. The existence of people with this surname is not sufficient to prevent such a move, since their full names may appear on a disambiguation page which is itself linked from this article. Mindmatrix 15:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I fail to see how a community of 231 people can say it is the primary use. This is a name of British origin and dates into the 1800s, if not earlier. Peter Bamfield, Veronica Bamfield, Katharine B. Bamfield, Daniel Bamfield Hickie, J.A.N. Bamfield among others who are authors, we have a dentist, a jacket (The Bamfield), Bamfield 's Beer and Ale, a book title (Beatrice Bamfield: Legend Of The Ol' Higue). While most or all of these do not have articles, they may in fact be notable and then Bamfield will be needed as a dab page. The naming convention does no mandate the moving of articles. It allows it when unique. While this is possibly a unique place name, it is clearly not unique in the broader universe. If you read Wikipedia:Disambiguation it clearly states that 'When an article title could refer to several things, a disambiguation page is needed.' Clearly they seems to be the case here. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • But none of the ones you cite seems to be named "Bamfield" they only have "Bamfield" as part of the name. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
    • But I don't see that as a requirement on Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Again the issue is primary use. I could likely make a strong case that Bamfield Water Aerodrome or Bamfield Marine Sciences Centre are more likely the primary use. In any case, clearly the name is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

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.

I caught a Halibut as big as the dining room table, that's quite unique 24.36.113.50 (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Western terminus?

This article claims "the Bamfield cable station was constructed as the western terminus of a worldwide undersea telegraph cable" ... shouldn't that be "eastern"? The cable headed west to Australia/NZ. 208.65.64.18 (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived 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: moved. Xoloz (talk) 02:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Bamfield, British Columbia → Bamfield – The previous move discussion above is from 2008 when the no-comma-province standard for unique placenames was yet established, or was under development. Bamfield is a redirect to this title, which under Canadian standards as they are now should have no comma-province designation. --Relisted. ^walk victor falk ^talk 01:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Skookum1 (talk) 05:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support Superfluous disambiguation per wp:ncdab ^walk victor falk ^talk 02:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support per User:Born2cycle/UNDAB. --B2C 19:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. This is a clear case of applying the article title policy and CANSTYLE naming conventions. —seav (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

---

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.