Talk:Devils Lake (North Dakota)

Disambig page or something badly needed

This page is in serious need of a disambig page or something like that. The article name here is being used for a lake in North dakota when there are lots of other uses for the name. Google "Devil's Lake" and you'll find that the majority of links are to a lake and state park of the same name in Wisconsin, but that there are also other places with the same name too. (Oregon, possible Michigan (golf club names that, presumably after a real lake.) I would think that this article should be at Devil's Lake (North Dakota) but then that's similar to the town article name. Before I start moving things around I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions on a naming structure to use. DreamGuy 06:30, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

The disambiguation page was a proper course of action. But don't go around saying one lake is more significant than the other, you're liable to insult people. The Devils Lake in North Dakota is by far the most sizeable and politically notable of all of these lakes and was not improperly occuping the "Devils Lake" article. And this place in Wisconsin you talk about, I've never heard of. Hits on Google are hardly indicative of geographical significance, and they seem to be split 50/50 with North Dakota besides. --Alexwcovington (talk) 14:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, upon further reasearch, this place in Wisconsin is a pond outside of Baraboo. It has a state park centred around it, sure, but Devils Lake (the one in North Dakota) has a few of those, a Native American reservation, and a city or three. Plus all the political controversy over flooding and drainage. I've moved the disambiguation page and redirected "Devils Lake" back here. --Alexwcovington (talk) 14:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You were talking about not saying things to insult people and you call Devils Lake in Wisconsin a POND? You've got to be kidding me. It's a hugely popular state park in the largest tourist area of the state with a full lake. Don;t be insulting. I'm moving things back to make things more fair, which is disambig as default. I personally think the Wisconsin one deserves the main page based upon notability, but making the main page a disambig is a compromise. DreamGuy 15:10, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Wrong name

It is the wrong name in any case; it should be Devil's Lake.

The missing apostrophe in the name of the associated city is the result of a U.S. Post Office push early in the 20th century to eliminate apostrophes from all post office names. The same consideration does not apply to the name of the lake.

I don't have time to fix it now, but will later if nobody beats me to it. Gene Nygaard 15:58, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, DreamGuy, now you're being totally irrational. I was willing to sidestep the controversy by moving the North Dakota lake article to Devil's Lake, but you've come right back and forced us to deal with it again. What's more, you have now messed things up so completely we will need an admin to move the pages back. I hope you are proud of yourself and that 1x.5 mile "lake" of yours. --Alexwcovington (talk) 17:48, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing irrational with my changes. Your attitude is completely out of line here. "Devil's Lake" is the actual name of the lake and state park in Wisconsin. With the apostrophe in it, it is clearly far and ahead the leader in notability, as you can see with a Google search. No contest. Spelled incorrectly without the apostrophe, it still beats the city in Google notability by a fair amount. Your attempts to put the North Dakota one in the primary article space is simply inexcusible, and if you had any sense of trying to work together for consensus you would have accepted the disambig page as the main article space. The fact that you didn't and insisted upon continuously trying to make it the main article, with and without the apostrophe, shows that you have no intention at all of trying to work together. And I don't get this sneering at a lake and putting it in apostrophes like it doesn't count somehow. That's just plain irrational. That lake is a prime tourist spot and far more well known than your lake or city. So you have a larger body of water, so what? Washington DC is nowhere near the size of Washington state, but when people talk about "Washington" they are almost always referring to the more notable/important/famous one and not the one that happens to fill up more space. The same is true here. DreamGuy 20:11, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

This isn't a lake so remote it doesn't affect anyone. Just because North Dakota doesn't provide as many links to pages on the body of water does not diminish its importance. There are THREE cities (not one, and that's just along the lake). It hosts three state parks, not just one like the Wisconsin lake. There's a a federal game preserve, a Native American reservation. It has its own USGS/EPA defined drainage basin. Steamboat traffic dating back almost 200 years. Thousands of people depend on this lake for irrigation and drinking water, are threatened by its droughts and floods, fighting over outlets and potential downstream contamination. This lake is in the middle of struggles between the North Dakota, Minnesota, Manitoba, US and Canadian governments. And it's NOT trivial.

The Devil's Lake in Wisconsin is miniscule in comparison. Just one mile by half a mile acording to the Wisconsin DNR map on the park site. It is completely encompassed by the single state park. And it's outside of Baraboo, more notable for the Circus World Museum.

And fishing? People rave about the fishing on Devil's Lake in North Dakota as well. I've seen TV shows on location at the lake in winter and summer. Maybe the Wisconsin lake is a loosely kept secret on the Internet, but there have been volumes made on the North Dakota lake.

So, in the face of all this evidence suggesting that the North Dakota indeed has more significance than its Google hits reveal, why are you promoting a direct disambig page over the established article? A link to the disambig page, or if the number is small, direct links to other similar items, at the top of a main article is SOP in situations like this. Insisting that the Wisconsin lake article merits making a disambig page the main page for the subject is like saying because Jacksonville, North Carolina exists there should be a disambig at Jacksonville, Florida. Or worse, you suggest that the North Carolina city is more significant because of its proximity to Camp Lejeune, when the Florida city hosts a naval base and an air station.

Finally, the point you seem to be missing in all this is that the article on the Wisconsin lake doesn't even exist. We are having this discussion on what used to be, and still is for all practical purposes, the main page for the subject "Devil's Lake". Either you are too busy arguing with me or it doesn't actually hold your interest enough to create. So basically, you are insisting that the Devil's Lake in North Dakota is on a par with nothing at all, and claiming you're acting in the interests of NPOV. Where is the rational thought process behind that? We can link to the Devil's Lake in Wisconsin right at the top of the main article. No muss, no fuss. --Alexwcovington (talk) 06:09, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)