Wikipedia

Talk:Atikokan

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified

I edited and wikified much of the article, and organised it. Please correct any errors. Thanks. Vidioman 03:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Date Discrepancy In 1940, Tom sold 109 claims located west of Steep Rock to Midwest Iron Mining Corporation, and in March 1945 with 60 claims in his name, created Rawn Iron Mines Ltd. On July 23, 1940, Rawn went out prospecting near Sapawe, and never returned. Parties searched for weeks, but his remains were never found.

Quite. Vidioman 02:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Rename page

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
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 move. Mindmatrix 15:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

This page should be renamed per the criteria at WP:CANSTYLE. It appears to be the primary use of the term Atikokan, and an internet search for the term, excluding the term "Ontario" to find occurrences not related to this township, yields numerous hits, of which the first 100 are almost all related to the township. Mindmatrix 13:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

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.

Atikokan is the Canoeing Capital of Canada

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What do you mean 'known locally'? It is not just 'known locally'; Atikokan actually is the Canoeing Capital of Canada. Just because some Southern Ontario town gerrymanders Canadian history (for the umpteenth time), to cunningly make it look to the world as if only Southern Ontario is the 'real' Canada, does not make their claim correct. Atikokan is, and has been for a long time, the unquestionable Canoe Capital of Canada.

Good Heavens, don't we have some prominent Canadian woman who is supposed to be on the senior Wiki review board who can check into these things and verify the truth? (Wait, as I recall ......... she is from Southern Ontario herself !! ..... oh no .....all is lost ..... !!)

--Atikokan (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

It isn't like there was some proclamation from The Queen that this is so, it's just a way to promote tourism. If you asked someone in BC what the canoeing capital of Canada was they probably wouldn't have a clue. vıdıoman 01:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

References

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

This article needs references and additional material is being added without refs. This needs to change in order to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. Please add refs when you add new material. As always, Happy editing.Daffydavid (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

The edits in the last 6 months were by me, you, and one person who was reverted. And mine I think consisted mostly of minor dialbacks of questionable unsourced material, plus additions in two areas:
  • Addition of a scaled back sourced summary of that planned mine / processing facility.
  • Addition of the overall tribe (Ojibwa/Chippewa) to the native inhabitants statement. I was in a bit of a quandary there. The pre-edit statement was unsourced with what looks like an unheard-of name, but I didn't remove it. There are an immense amount of sources that say that that overall area was Ojibwa/Chippewa. And I don't ever expect to personally find a source that says that "The current site of the town of Atikokan was previously inhabited by ....."
I really have no strong opinions here, just trying to help a little to make it a good and wikipedian article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
JessicaColvin your edits rely on primary sources for references. While I have no doubt about your sincerity in trying to improve this article RSreliable sources need to be used. Normally the reference you just added (the form is incorrect but fixable) would be RS but since it is self-published by the town of Atikokan it fails as a RS. I will add this note to your page and leave your edits for the time being and remain hopeful that a better ref can be found. As always, Happy editing.Daffydavid (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
The refs by JessicaColvin still need to be changed as they are not RS. To compound matters some material added contradicts other material. If a RS source is not added I will remove the material. Happy Editing. Daffydavid (talk) 07:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
The primary/secondary categorization of a source is in the context of material. IMHO coverage of historical events written by the town government would be a secondary source for most of the material. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Although I would phrase and approach it differently than Daffydavid, (mostly I'd rather get it fixed than deleted) the material being added by JessicaColvin does have some issues. Some of it sounds like personal commentary or unenclyclopedic, and it's hard for others to fix when the references are not on line. We also need full info on the references. (Author, publisher, year etc.) North8000 (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
I have removed some material from the recreation section as I was at a loss on how to bring it in line with Wikipedia standards without completely rewriting it. The use of weasel words and subjective opinion was overwhelming. Please add material in a NPOV and add references. Happy Editing. Daffydavid (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
The reference problem here is worse than I thought, areas that appear properly referenced are only partly referenced and in many cases the "reference" is a Wikipedia link. I will try to work my way thru when I get time but I don't see it happening soon. Happy Editing. Daffydavid (talk) 07:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Time Zone

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The info box and the article contradict each other - one says they observe Eastern time, the other says Central time. To be perfectly honest I really don't remember which one they observe although central time seems correct. Happy Editing Daffydavid (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Corrected and added a ref. Daffydavid (talk) 07:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Substantial unenclyclopedic additions

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Jessicacolvin, could you make an effort to make your additions more encyclopedic? New material is good and appreciated, and may come with some imperfections which I'd be happy to help on a little, but if it's a mile off people are going to just delete it instead of fixing it up. For example your recent group of additions reads like an activities brochure or a promotional brochure rather than encyclopedic material. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm all for adding material but as North8000 (talk) has pointed out when it is overwhelming in the amount of editing needed to bring it in line with Wikipedia standards sometimes the only reasonable option is deletion. The refs on this page already need significant work, adding further unrefed material is frustrating. Happy Editing, Daffydavid. Daffydavid (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Jessicacovin, your additions are both good and problematic. If you continue to ignore the talk page you will force people to start deleting more of your material. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

A History of Atikokan

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

This book is unavailable anywhere except possibly an institutional library in Georgia. The lack of an ISBN number is also disturbing. Without addition of additional refs the added material is basically unrefed. If additional refs are not added this material will have to be removed. Happy Editing. Daffydavid (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

One example is per my edit summary when I removed some material where that was listed as a source: "This is rife with errors, conflicts with the major authoritative fur trade and fur trade company sources. I can't imagine that even the listed source said these things".
Another example: "Timber was first noticed in the area as early as 1886......The first attempt at harvesting timber in the area was in the 1870s" Hard time imagining a source writing something with those two obvious problems.
But I think that removal of material should be via challenge of material that relies on it. North8000 (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. The more I try to research the material the more likely it is that this book (which doesn't meet WP:Verify) is neither accurate nor a RS. Happy Editing. Daffydavid (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
I see further problems. The quote attributed to H.C. Smith contradicts what it is intended to back-up. Daffydavid (talk) 07:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
I found 2 more history sources that look credible. I put them in as external links. North8000 (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
I ran across the Atikokan town website before and unfortunately it also has some contradictory information. I will look deeper to see if I can find a source that is truly reliable. Happy Editing. Daffydavid (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Conflicting figures StatsCan

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed after I updated the refs that StatsCan has two different figures for the population. This seems odd, I will look into it another day as the pages appear to convey the same info other than the 2 figures. If you can explain the difference I'd love to hear it. Happy Editing. Daffydavid (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

One of the figures is for population centre, and refers only to the built-up part of the town, excluding anyone who lives in the rural parts of the township. vıdıoman 21:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Logging

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The: "Timber was first noticed in the area as early as 1886......The first attempt at harvesting timber in the area was in the 1870s" is self-conflicting and needs to be fixed. Does anybody know what actually first happened in 1886 and the 1870's?

It looks like logging (and sawmills) first started only as an adjunct to mining. Then later Red & White pine harvested for lumber. Then later (as pulp mills got closer) pulp wood logging. North8000 (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

"References" tag

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article has improved in this area, has a normal amount of references. On the minus side, an elusive book or booklet has been sued extensively and some of the stuff that cited it doesn't sound quite right. And there are also a few unsourced statements that dont' seem quite right. For example, the "fur trade era" sounds like a shaky and possibly wrong summay of the development of the fur trade in a 3-4 province 1 state area, wit not mention of Atikokan's involvement, probably because it didn't exist during the described period. I'm planning on taking out a few of the shakier statements and removing the top level tag. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Atikokan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Atikokan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Atikokan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atikokan&oldid=1199153611"