Talk:Cowlitz people

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chipewyan people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Yupik peoples which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

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: not moved. The evidence presented by In ictu oculi demonstrates that the people are not the primary topic. The nominator is also reminded that WP:UNDAB is an essay, not a policy or a guideline. An essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors, and may usefully be cited as a place to read a particular line of reasoning, but should not be cited as if it represents a community consensus. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

---

• Cowlitz people → Cowlitz
• Cowlitz → Cowlitz (disambiguation)

– target is dab page created as "Cowlitz (disambiguation) by 67.75.225.201 on Sep 4 2003, then moved by Commander Keane on Jan 12 2006. Despite the river, the people are the PRIMARYTOPIC. Skookum1 (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - again sorry to have to say this, because if the people could be primary it has some justice about it, but just on a practical level moving a Foo to a Foo (disambiguation) needs a very clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and this fails the "Cowlitz is" test. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Because of that I posted RMs about this in WP:Washington so we could get some people in that state to aver to what is the PRIMARYTOPIC. I know the Cowlitz River is better-known as "the Cowlitz" but per WP:UNDAB, "FOO whatever" names are not the same as "FOO".Skookum1 (talk) 09:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I have done the same with WP:OREGON and WP:CALIFORNIA and WP:CANADA/BC and have tried to file parallel RMs on any disambiguation pages that are involved. I think it's important that people actually from these places have their say, instead of a WP:CABAL wiki-linguists dominating opposition to all these moves by citing the guideline they wrote to please themselves without reference to other guidelines, including WP:CRITERIA and WP:ETHNICGROUP and WP:UNDAB, and who have a bad habit of being rude (CIVIL as well as NPA) towards anyone who criticizes their actions and pet guideline; one of course was engaged in WP:BAITing me during last year's RMs as a tactic to resist the changes which consensus has since ruled in "my" favour. (yes, I know UNDAB's only an essay but it's ancillary to CRITERIA and WP:TITLE). In this case please note that Cowlitz (disambiguation) was moved to Cowlitz without any discussion whatsoever.Skookum1 (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Skookum1, I am not part of that cabal, if such a cabal exists. I have supported you in the past in some moves related to e.g. Kwami's undiscussed moves, but WP:TITLE is a policy and WP:DAB is a guideline, wheras you are citing WP:UNDAB an essay recently heavily redacted by one editor. This essay reflects the main recent contributor's view, as essays are allowed to, but doesn't change the actual policy WP:TITLE (see WP:CRITERIA 1-5) for titles, and guideline WP:DAB. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

the "Conciseness" and "Precision" components of WP:CRITERIA that were not observed by the author of NCLANG, and are part of the basis of WP:UNDAB, which makes one hell of a lot of sense to me. As for the cabal, I know you are not a part of it, partly because you're not condescending and peremptory as they too often are; their track record with these moves is all over the histories of these RMs, and they very pointedly ignored the "old consensus" about using stand-alone names and/or native names (in Canada mostly only) and it is with great regret that I/we never took the time to codify those into a guideline; but WP:ETHNICGROUP has summarized much of it, and that guideline/policy should have been considered by those operating in the NCLANG bubble. One difference in Canada, unlike this case, is that native groups have re-jigged their names in modern times expressly to differentiate themselves from cities/towns/regions that borrowed/adapted their names, and this has been adopted widely into modern Canadian English since the '80s and especially since the '90s. In the case of the US, the native name forms are largely unused, one exception being the Yakama, another being the Palus, another the Spokan, though I must note in passing that the Lummi people and Nooksack people articles were originally in their native forms by dint of the same "old era" discussions....damn I miss User:Phaedriel, who helped craft that consensus, which was partly come up with to encourage indigenous editors to contribute instead of driving them away by imposing archaic/academic terms as if their own preferences did not matter; User:OldManRivers of course was another part of that consensus, as was User:Murderbike (who is Nooksack).Skookum1 (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose until the issue is addressed properly. These should be discussed at a centralized location.

There was a discussion once on whether the ethnicity should have precedence for the name, and it was decided it shouldn't. That could be revisited. But it really should be one discussion on the principle, not thousands of separate discussions at every ethnicity in the world over whether it should be at "X", "Xs", or "X people". — kwami (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• "These should be discussed at a centralized location." LOL that's funny I already tried that and got criticized for mis-procedure. Your pet guideline was never discussed at a central location nor even brought up with other affected/conflicting guidelines nor any relevant wikiprojects. And as for "There was a discussion once on whether the ethnicity should have precedence for the name, and it was decided it shouldn't" that's fine to say about a discussion that you presided over on an isolated guideline talkpage that you didn't invite anyone but your friends into..... WP:ETHNICGROUPS is clear on the variability of "X", "Xs", or "X people" and says nothing being people mandatorily added as you rewrote your guideline to promote/enact. It says quite the opposite; the CRITERIA page also says that prior consensus should be respected, and those who crafted it an attempt to contact them towards building a new consensus done; and calls for consistency within related topics which "we" long ago had devised the use of "FOO" and often "PREFERRED ENDONYM" (for Canada especially, where such terms are common English now and your pet terms are obsolete and in disuse and often of clearly racist origin e.g. Slavey people). The crafters of the ethnicities and tribes naming convention (which your guideline violates) clearly respected our collective decisions/consensus from long ago re both standalone names without "people/tribe/nation/peoples" unless absolutely necessary and also re the use of endonyms where available; but when I brought it up in the RMs of last year you insulted and baited me and still lost. Now you want a centralized discussion when you made no such effort yourself and were in fact dismissive about any such effort. Pfft. NCLANG fans like to pretend WP:OWNership on this issue, especially yourself as its author but that's a crock. The way to "address this issue properly" is to examine all of these, but bulk of them needless directs from then-long-standing titles moved by yourself, one by one as I was instructed/advised re the bulk RMs; as case-by-case decisions are needed. You want a centralized discussion, but never held one yourself.Skookum1 (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

No, no-one would criticize you for discussing this rationally. But this multitude of move requests is disruptive. They should all be closed without prejudice. — kwami (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. An identified people should be the primary topic of a term absent something remarkable standing in the way. bd2412 T 02:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support as per the policy Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names and the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes). There is no need to redo any guideline as it already supports the un-disabiguated title. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. There needs to be a demonstrated primary topic. There are too many articles on the dab page for the guideline on dropping people from the title to apply here. If that is the issue, then move to Cowlitz (people as the best option. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:20, 10 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.