Talk:Kapuskasing

Good to see this page about my home town. I have long had an interest in the history of Kapuskasing. I have written a number of universuty level papers on Kapuskasing related topics and have done considerable reseach. I would be happy to chat with anyone who has an interst in this topic. My email is [email protected] Bobenns 06:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Town gets in the news due to cold weather automotive testing. GM facility: http://www.gmcanada.com/inm/gmcanada/english/about/FeaturedStories/Story037.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ny10021 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 25 July 2007

Page move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The decision was to move the page to Kapuskasing

---

I propose that this article be moved to Kapuskasing, which is currently a redirect here, per WP:CANSTYLE naming conventions. There is no evidence of any other notable use for the name. Bearcat (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support. an internet search yields 1.5 million hits for the term, which reduces to 514,000 when excluding the term "Ontario" (and yet, many of the hits are still related to the town). Meets criteria for WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. Mindmatrix 14:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support per CANSTYLE, lack of need for dab, and primary use of term per Mindmatrix's research. DoubleBlue (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support per above. NRCan's GNSS shows Kapuskasing Lake, Kapuskasing Pass, Kapuskasing River, all of which would be less significant and secondary usage to the community. There is also no Kapuskasing in the US Census Bureau Gazetteer or UK Ordnance Survey. Dl2000 (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Demographics comment

An IP editor added this comment to the Demographics section today, "of course 68% + 36% is > 100%, so there must be a typo somewhere...." Whoever added that has a point. PKT(alk) 11:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)